Bullets for shooting deer - A brief guide to relevant legislation

[gbal]

Ronin makes some good points-indeed mosy posts on this do,and tackb seems to be caught-unintentionally-by two pieces of legislation/range rules about bullet use.

 

tack b-I sympathise,but see no perfect solution.Ronins suggested one-note zero changes/clicks is probably pragmatic-especially if you can choose two bullets that have close POIs.Other wise,it might be 'good reason' for another rifle-but that is considerable expencse (not that 'economy' cuts any ice with licensing,or increasing number of rifles.....).

 

Back in the day,bullets for game (and vermin) were soft nose,designed to expand in the classic 'mushroom',so delivering greager shock,and slowing penetration,to near zero,and inflicting a more serious woundchannel. Some hollow pointd bullets-a clear visible hole in the meplet exrending into the bullet core with essentially the same design outcomes were soon available,and at the time of the Deer Act,covered most/all of the bullets likely to be used-hence the 'soft point or hollow point' prescription.

 

Somwehat later target shooters discovered thwe advantages of a smaller meplet holloow point,not specifically designed to expand progressively,but for aerodynamic stability,and maybe improved BC reasons.There were holow point "Match' bullets,and this dsign was enhanced for BC by adding a 'ballistic tip'.These bullets were not designed for,nor intended for,game -including vermin.

The advantages/fashion/whatever for 'plastic ballistic' tips was not lost on vermint bellet designers,and so varmint bullets appeared in this format,and then larger game bullets-the varmint ballistic tips were usually designed for rather violent fragmentation (rether than 'expansion',perhaps) on small varmints,like praairie dogs,but not so limited,with some for coyotes and similar.

Remember most of these are USA developments,though Norma et al in Europe often had similar/used US bullets.

The other ballistic tips were designed for controlled expansion in various bigger game (deer especially).

 

OK-the Deer Act of course was exclusivelyconcerned with effective,humane deer shooting.The Firearms Act(s) included vermin,and 'any other legal quarry',in the latest terminology.

So there are criteria that are not precisely coincident innthe two Acts,and there are time differnces,which includes manufactureand design changes.

"Soft Point" remains widely an 'expanding design';but hollow point is variable now;and ballistic tip is...well ,both-even when it has a 'hollow point'-and all the tips are inserted into some kind of hole in the meplet,so are probably'hollow point'-but not all are explicitly designed to 'expand' .Even if a designed hunting design is also of 'target grade' performance,it can't be so used on many ranges,and even if a 'target' bullet is an effective hunting bullet,it seems to fall into a "legal catch 22" as it were.

 

And that is about where it stands-new designs are probably more likely than new legislation.

 

Sorry it's complicated ,but it just is,due both to 'rules' AND manufacturing,and maybe I've missed something.

We might have a good deer bullet in the Hornady ELDX (as distinct again from ELD Match,itself close to the Amax- can't be sure yet.....but it is designed to perform on (US) deer.

 

gbal

[snc_2010]

 

Bullets with plastic tips - A max for one are perhaps soft nosed yes, but again, they are not deignated by the manufacturer to be used on large game - deer.

 

The Deer Act 1991 says the bullets have to be soft nosed. It doesn't say they have to be designated by the manufacturer to be used on large game - deer. You see what I'm driving at?

[tackb]

 

 

 

Re zero or remember your scope settings - its what everyone else does

 

my scope is a zerostop and the 'hunting bullet is below my zero ? or vice versa either way it's not ideal is it?

 

so tell me , why can I buy as many amax as I like but the sst has to count towards my allowance when they are essentially the same bullet ?

 

my issue is the law is flawed and frankly ridiculous and we shouldn't even have to have this discussion if the law was practical.

 

I've edited my last line because it doesn't help.

[tackb]

 

 

 

Re zero or remember your scope settings - its what everyone else does

 

my scope is a zerostop and the 'hunting bullet is below my zero ? or vice versa either way it's not ideal is it?

 

so tell me , why can I buy as many amax as I like but the sst has to count towards my allowance when they are essentially the same bullet ?

 

my issue is the law is flawed and frankly ridiculous and we shouldn't even have to have this discussion if the law was practical.

 

also for others info , the amax used to be listed as suitable for thin skinned game

 

Ronin makes some good points-indeed mosy posts on this do,and tackb seems to be caught-unintentionally-by two pieces of legislation/range rules about bullet use.

 

tack b-I sympathise,but see no perfect solution.Ronins suggested one-note zero changes/clicks is probably pragmatic-especially if you can choose two bullets that have close POIs.Other wise,it might be 'good reason' for another rifle-but that is considerable expencse (not that 'economy' cuts any ice with licensing,or increasing number of rifles.....).

 

Back in the day,bullets for game (and vermin) were soft nose,designed to expand in the classic 'mushroom',so delivering greager shock,and slowing penetration,to near zero,and inflicting a more serious woundchannel. Some hollow pointd bullets-a clear visible hole in the meplet exrending into the bullet core with essentially the same design outcomes were soon available,and at the time of the Deer Act,covered most/all of the bullets likely to be used-hence the 'soft point or hollow point' prescription.

 

Somwehat later target shooters discovered thwe advantages of a smaller meplet holloow point,not specifically designed to expand progressively,but for aerodynamic stability,and maybe improved BC reasons.There were holow point "Match' bullets,and this dsign was enhanced for BC by adding a 'ballistic tip'.These bullets were not designed for,nor intended for,game -including vermin.

The advantages/fashion/whatever for 'plastic ballistic' tips was not lost on vermint bellet designers,and so varmint bullets appeared in this format,and then larger game bullets-the varmint ballistic tips were usually designed for rather violent fragmentation (rether than 'expansion',perhaps) on small varmints,like praairie dogs,but not so limited,with some for coyotes and similar.

Remember most of these are USA developments,though Norma et al in Europe often had similar/used US bullets.

The other ballistic tips were designed for controlled expansion in various bigger game (deer especially).

 

OK-the Deer Act of course was exclusivelyconcerned with effective,humane deer shooting.The Firearms Act(s) included vermin,and 'any other legal quarry',in the latest terminology.

So there are criteria that are not precisely coincident innthe two Acts,and there are time differnces,which includes manufactureand design changes.

"Soft Point" remains widely an 'expanding design';but hollow point is variable now;and ballistic tip is...well ,both-even when it has a 'hollow point'-and all the tips are inserted into some kind of hole in the meplet,so are probably'hollow point'-but not all are explicitly designed to 'expand' .Even if a designed hunting design is also of 'target grade' performance,it can't be so used on many ranges,and even if a 'target' bullet is an effective hunting bullet,it seems to fall into a "legal catch 22" as it were.

 

And that is about where it stands-new designs are probably more likely than new legislation.

 

Sorry it's complicated ,but it just is,due both to 'rules' AND manufacturing,and maybe I've missed something.

We might have a good deer bullet in the Hornady ELDX (as distinct again from ELD Match,itself close to the Amax- can't be sure yet.....but it is designed to perform on (US) deer.

 

gbal

 

I can , repeal the stupid restriction

[MJR]

The law is the law and often seen as unsuitable for purpose, why for example are we limited to 70mph on motorways when vehicle technology has improved especially braking since the introduction of that law. But still the law is the law. It's not nearly as complex as some suggest and the obvious answer is simple yet seemingly intelligent people seem incapable of seeing it, use hunting bullets for hunting and target bullets for target.

The argument of having to re zero to use two differnt rounds seems incomprehensible to me? Really, call yourself a rifleman yet not capable of using two differnt rounds through the same rifle. Really? Can't use a zero stop scope and record the two poi for use at a later date. Really?

[Ronin]

Various Laws are currently under review - such as the Hunting Act to make things simpler.

 

I agree the Deer Act would bve better suited to the following regarding bullet choice;

 

 

"Soft nosed or soft pointed AND designed to expand on impact"

 

That would clean up any ambiguity

[tackb]

The law is the law and often seen as unsuitable for purpose, why for example are we limited to 70mph on motorways when vehicle technology has improved especially braking since the introduction of that law. But still the law is the law. It's not nearly as complex as some suggest and the obvious answer is simple yet seemingly intelligent people seem incapable of seeing it, use hunting bullets for hunting and target bullets for target.

The argument of having to re zero to use two differnt rounds seems incomprehensible to me? Really, call yourself a rifleman yet not capable of using two differnt rounds through the same rifle. Really? Can't use a zero stop scope and record the two poi for use at a later date. Really?

Just because you find it incomprehensible doesn't mean it is.

[hunter686]

I use the same scope on two separate rifles. I have the same problem with the zero stop but i know my .204 is set to 40.25 moa from lock ou. So when I change it over i top out the turret and count back 40.25. Takes maby 5 seconds?

[Tom D]

This issue will hopefully be laid to rest with some new legislation, until then we'll just have to make our own interpretations on the law.

One observation that I have is that the Berger VLD hunting and VLD match bullets are identical. I have a box of both and there's no difference.

Personally I would use amax on deer, they definitely do expand, not sure about other match bullets though.

[banus02]

tom d,good afternoon,as to berger vld hunting and match bullets being the same ,I was informed by berger awhile ago that the lead in the hunting bullet is softer so the bullet will mushroom and expand. the target bullet is harder lead alloy and does not mushroom /expand as much the jackets are all the same thickness.not saying they wont work but this is from the makers

[gbal]

Banus' comments-via Berger-are very relevant.

It isn't generally possible to discern a bullets internal structure,let alone the properties of the lead (alloy) from exterior measurements,or visual presentation.

"Designed to expand" is a UK legislation term,not per se a US one,though of course US hunting bullets are indeed designed to expand on appropriate (US) game. I doubt that US manufacturers see the UK as a separate market ("we sell more in Bismark-wherever that is-than in England" (B is a small town in Nebraska...but it makes the point!)

I understand from eg Nathan Foster's analysis that Berger VLD (hunting??) bullets have themselves been modified-with the earlier perhaps the preferred design...for Foster,anyhow.

LIkewise Hornady's new hunting bullet is not VERY different from the legacy A Max,to casual inspection.

 

How bullets perform is another matter,though design matters.

 

It's an interesting exercise to propose wording for new legislation (for almost any firearm issue) so that it is free of interpretation etc issues.A few such attempts tends to make clear some of the difficulties,though changes in technology etc often confoundeven workable contemporary suggestions....but no reason not to try,and tidy up etc.

As several differnt posts imply,there is no real impediment to shooting,though some 'inconvenience'-especially when a compromise use (hunting and target) of one rig'ammo is desired.

'Desire' though is not sufficient good reason,just as 'need' is not neccessary either,for the rifle.

'Ammo' will be weighted to the humane dispatch of the quarry....where appropriate,but can't be just a subjective choice.

 

Complex maybe,but not deliberately bloody minded,or silly-just as Einstein summarised God's laws of the universe. :-)

 

g

[Tom D]

At the time I bought my Bergers the bullets were identical, I think the design has changed due to problems with bullet blow up in fast twist magnums, they are now a heavier construction and don't expand as well as they used to. I think in the old days they would make the hunting ones in the morning and the match ones in the afternoon from the same materials on the same machine...

[hunter686]

At the time I bought my Bergers the bullets were identical, I think the design has changed due to problems with bullet blow up in fast twist magnums, they are now a heavier construction and don't expand as well as they used to. I think in the old days they would make the hunting ones in the morning and the match ones in the afternoon from the same materials on the same machine...

In terms of the Berger VLD and hunting VLD they are exaclty the same. The only difference is the hunting had a slightly thinner jacket to allow for expansion