bradders Posted May 21, 2013 Report Share Posted May 21, 2013 Ummm, I thought you weren't supposed to post pics like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosshair Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 Ummm, I thought you weren't supposed to post pics like this?Oh, I thought it was only stuff you wouldn't want to take to Boots to be developed. If anyone has got a prob I'll take them down. I've seen 'worse' fox pics on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradders Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 http://ukvarminting.com/forums/topic/11944-pictures/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosshair Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 http://ukvarminting.com/forums/topic/11944-pictures/I know, I've read it and those rabbits are definitely not shot-mangled which was the relevant point I was making by posting them.If nobody is interested then I'll delete them. Definitely not trying to cause controversy!!! Oh, I see they've already gone. Shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosshair Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 Seeing as all my text got deleted as well, in brief, I shot some rabbits with the milsurp ammo and was pleased with the distinct lack of damage (compared to Vmax etc) and clean kills. Apparently, pictures of a dead vixen clearly nursing cubs is acceptable but a rabbit with very little blood showing is not. If anyone is interested in my findings then feel free to pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jungle_re Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 Fabulous read some of those post and worthy of putting in a sticky somewhere I'd say. Cheers Laurie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotch_egg Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 Just to clarify why the post was removed. The use of non expanding bullets is prohibited on live quary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosshair Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Just to clarify why the post was removed. The use of non expanding bullets is prohibited on live quary. Simply not true. From BASC website: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wsm Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Why on earth would you wish to experiment with FMJ on a fox when there are multiple other more humane choices of bullet that manufacturers have spent millions developing and are readily available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotch_egg Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Simply not true. From BASC website: Clearly expanding bullets are a legal requirement for deer. From that we should give the same respect to all live quary. As Wsm has said. Expanding bullets have been developed for use on quary. We as hunters have a responsibility not to cause any unnecessary suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosshair Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Because I've had more runners from fox caused by lack of penetration than otherwise- as discussed earlier in the thread. It would also be beneficial to have better penetration when shooting in long rape stubble or across thick silage grass, again as mentioned earlier in the thread. I certainly don't want to compromise myself either legally or ethically but there did seem to be an interest as to the results these bullets would actually achieve- hence my reporting my results here so that people can judge for themselves. For what it's worth, I did shoot a fox last night with them but if people want to know what happened, please feel free to pm me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Clearly expanding bullets are a legal requirement for deer. From that we should give the same respect to all live quary. As Wsm has said. Expanding bullets have been developed for use on quary. We as hunters have a responsibility not to cause any unnecessary suffering. I think the point (sorry) about the more humane use of expanding bullets is clearly made,and widely accepted,even if few were designed for UK rabbits.In my experience they work well on rabbits,and even a shoulder shot does not damage much meat,and is very effective. Deer of course have protection during breeding times.Perhaps other species might deserve similar consideration,with respect to unneccessary suffering.I note that Crosshair's point about suckling vixens has not ben taken up so far,even if the contention of gory pictures being censured is not the point in this case. All the photos in the world about expansion of bullets in gelatin etc,however iinteresting,are simply a diversion from considering the ethics here-we know how to kill live quarry,we don't seem anything like so prepared to discuss whether we should do so.Maybe it's just not so easy an issue. OK another latte,and watch the end of another repeat of "All creatures great and small". Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosshair Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Clearly expanding bullets are a legal requirement for deer. From that we should give the same respect to all live quary. As Wsm has said. Expanding bullets have been developed for use on quary. We as hunters have a responsibility not to cause any unnecessary suffering. Which is a bit different than "the use of non expanding bullets is prohibited on live quarry". My living depends on the humane killing of foxes- this is not just a hobby to me. I can think of at least 15 occasions where a bullet with better penetration would have resulted in a more humane kill than the resultant shallow mess on the surface. Most were quickly followed up but believe me, there's far more respect in choosing the right round for the right circumstances than blowing up a crow or a rabbit at 840yards with a .260 Amax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Because I've had more runners from fox caused by lack of penetration than otherwise- as discussed earlier in the thread. It would also be beneficial to have better penetration when shooting in long rape stubble or across thick silage grass, again as mentioned earlier in the thread. I certainly don't want to compromise myself either legally or ethically but there did seem to be an interest as to the results these bullets would actually achieve- hence my reporting my results here so that people can judge for themselves. For what it's worth, I did shoot a fox last night with them but if people want to know what happened, please feel free to pm me. There are many expanding bullets,researched and designed to expand at different rates etc for different quarry-it is pretty hard to credit that none are effective,given the number of reports of success on this forum,and rather more likely that non expanding bullets give unreliable results.A small(one) sample tells us almost nothing,but hopefully that won't be expanded,so to speak! Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Which is a bit different than "the use of non expanding bullets is prohibited on live quarry". My living depends on the humane killing of foxes- this is not just a hobby to me. I can think of at least 15 occasions where a bullet with better penetration would have resulted in a more humane kill than the resultant shallow mess on the surface. Most were quickly followed up but believe me, there's far more respect in choosing the right round for the right circumstances than blowing up a crow or a rabbit at 840yards with a .260 Amax. The question though is:is a non expanding bullet the right round? The alternate conclusion that the wrong expanding bullet was used is just as viable ,and perhaps more likely. There is quite a lot of field experience on this,and I'm sure we will get it soon. I would not use eg a varmint grenade hollow point on any deer species,but the appropriate expanding bullet for the species is in no way suspect because the varmint grenade is totally unsuitable for deer. Maybe if we had the unsatisfactory expanding bullet named,we would get the experiences of other shooters with it,and be better able to decide ,on an individual bullet basis... Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wsm Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Because I've had more runners from fox caused by lack of penetration than otherwise- as discussed earlier in the thread. It would also be beneficial to have better penetration when shooting in long rape stubble or across thick silage grass, again as mentioned earlier in the thread. I certainly don't want to compromise myself either legally or ethically but there did seem to be an interest as to the results these bullets would actually achieve- hence my reporting my results here so that people can judge for themselves. For what it's worth, I did shoot a fox last night with them but if people want to know what happened, please feel free to pm me. Are you saying that with all the expanding bullets available that you can't find a suitable one with satisfactory results that you are now considering using a fmj bullet that was designed for passing through soft tissue without expansion which is an accident waiting to happen on anything larger than rabbit size quarry As regards the vixen picture a good majority of the replies mentioned mopping up the dependants which is obviously the humane thing to do and I hope would be the first priority for anyone shooting vixens at this time of year.This is a world apart from using bullets that are not designed nor suitable for quarry shooting ie responsible vs irresponsible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosshair Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 The worst results were with 55g Federal Powershok in .223- so not even a ballistic tip. At anything other than perfect broadside position, it was always touch and go. A shot though the front shoulders should be the ideal placement for a fox- these would often not penetrate any further than the near side shoulder, leaving a now angry three legged fox running off at speed. These bullets were provided by the estate at the time, so I stuck with them. I took to taking my spaniel with me to follow them up. I'm sure with 100% shot placement, they'd do the job every time but when you've got a wood full of poults and a farm full of tall crops, you have to take whats offered sometimes. I think there's going to be very few occasions where a fmj offers the best choice but it remains to be seen whether that's frequent enough to warrant having a few handy. The one I shot last night with them was quite an interesting test case as it was no more than 80yards away facing me. Going for a head shot, I was a fraction low and hit his lower jaw but the bullet carried on into the neck and spine and never exited. Would a b/t have got past the lower jaw? Not sure and will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Are you saying that with all the expanding bullets available that you can't find a suitable one with satisfactory results that you are now considering using a fmj bullet that was designed for passing through soft tissue without expansion which is an accident waiting to happen on anything larger than rabbit size quarry As regards the vixen picture a good majority of the replies mentioned mopping up the dependants which is obviously the humane thing to do and I hope would be the first priority for anyone shooting vixens at this time of year.This is a world apart from using bullets that are not designed nor suitable for quarry shooting ie responsible vs irresponsible WSM,clearly we agree on the bullet issue.How are these dependent cubs to be 'mopped up'-they are not spilled milk.It is an ethical mess,and should be fixed asap,but is it,and can it always be-their location cannot always be known,and they may not emerge.Even the 'responsible' might fail.Talking the talk has to be 'operationalised'. Some truths may just be unpalatable,but don't just go away with some words,however well intentioned,unfortunately. Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 The worst results were with 55g Federal Powershok in .223- so not even a ballistic tip. At anything other than perfect broadside position, it was always touch and go. A shot though the front shoulders should be the ideal placement for a fox- these would often not penetrate any further than the near side shoulder, leaving a now angry three legged fox running off at speed. These bullets were provided by the estate at the time, so I stuck with them. I took to taking my spaniel with me to follow them up. I'm sure with 100% shot placement, they'd do the job every time but when you've got a wood full of poults and a farm full of tall crops, you have to take whats offered sometimes. I think there's going to be very few occasions where a fmj offers the best choice but it remains to be seen whether that's frequent enough to warrant having a few handy. The one I shot last night with them was quite an interesting test case as it was no more than 80yards away facing me. Going for a head shot, I was a fraction low and hit his lower jaw but the bullet carried on into the neck and spine and never exited. Would a b/t have got past the lower jaw? Not sure and will never know. OK -just 90 other US commercial offerings to try,and then there are the european ones.... Somewhat extenuating circumstances in this case noted,possible bullet misplacement though ,is a rather poor reason to go with a particular bullet,or 'on the facing' of it,a head shot? FMJ s in the pocket,seems like the best place for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 The worst results were with 55g Federal Powershok in .223- so not even a ballistic tip. At anything other than perfect broadside position, it was always touch and go. A shot though the front shoulders should be the ideal placement for a fox- these would often not penetrate any further than the near side shoulder, leaving a now angry three legged fox running off at speed. These bullets were provided by the estate at the time, so I stuck with them. I took to taking my spaniel with me to follow them up. I'm sure with 100% shot placement, they'd do the job every time but when you've got a wood full of poults and a farm full of tall crops, you have to take whats offered sometimes. I think there's going to be very few occasions where a fmj offers the best choice but it remains to be seen whether that's frequent enough to warrant having a few handy. The one I shot last night with them was quite an interesting test case as it was no more than 80yards away facing me. Going for a head shot, I was a fraction low and hit his lower jaw but the bullet carried on into the neck and spine and never exited. Would a b/t have got past the lower jaw? Not sure and will never know. OK -just 90 other US commercial offerings to try,and then there are the european ones.... Somewhat extenuating circumstances in this case noted,possible bullet misplacement though ,is a rather poor reason to go with a particular bullet,or 'on the facing' of it,a head shot,but I wasn't there,and think head shots are generally inappropriate anyhow,for just the possibility given. FMJ s in the pocket,seems like the best place for them. Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wsm Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 OK -just 90 other US commercial offerings to try,and then there are the european ones.... Somewhat extenuating circumstances in this case noted,possible bullet misplacement though ,is a rather poor reason to go with a particular bullet,or 'on the facing' of it,a head shot? FMJ s in the pocket,seems like the best place for them. Absolutely spot on There must have been countless tests carried out in the field over the decades over what projectile is suitable and the overwhelming consensus is that fmj's are not suitable for sporting quarry and are best left for the military And the next one to start an amax v vmax thread gets banned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricky5042 Posted May 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Lol that was going to be my question has anyone tried A-max on live quarry? and if so was it efective enough for a clean kill? Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wsm Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Lol that was going to be my question has anyone tried A-max on live quarry? and if so was it efective enough for a clean kill? Rick We certainly aren't going down that route again and the best advice I can give you is to do a search when you've got several spare hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotch_egg Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Which is a bit different than "the use of non expanding bullets is prohibited on live quarry". My living depends on the humane killing of foxes- this is not just a hobby to me. I can think of at least 15 occasions where a bullet with better penetration would have resulted in a more humane kill than the resultant shallow mess on the surface. Most were quickly followed up but believe me, there's far more respect in choosing the right round for the right circumstances than blowing up a crow or a rabbit at 840yards with a .260 Amax. I accept my statement was taken from the deer act and does not apply to all quarry. Always choose a bullets suitable for the situation. For the circumstances you quote a heavier bullet and different construction designed for deeper penetration and expansion rather than fragmentation would be better suited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosshair Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Well glad we've all reached a fairly happy place now- I quite enjoy it here and didn't want to risk getting banned I certainly agree that different commercially available bullets can yield better results in most circumstances. I do prefer to make up my own mind though and 100 free rounds (friend no longer has a .223) were worth fiddling about with. I was surprised with just how clean the rabbit kills were and they were very dead. The fox last night never complained either. If they're no worse with good shot placement and much better with bad placement then that's not too bad is it? The safety aspect is only thing to bare in mind I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.0972b4e2bdf0b5a4109eb96f2b1b62ad.jpg)
(200x135).jpg.0fd0a94f065c6cb243fdff1b40e0819a.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.