Ammo from 1960s compared to today.

[Breacher]

Would it be fair to say that modern ammunition ( and perhaps rifles ) are more accurate and effective now than when drafting the calibre requirement in the Deer Act back in the 1960's ?

Also, the advances in propellant and projectiles ( and perhaps new calibre / cartridges ) mean modern ammo is more lethal now ?

It occurs to me that the legislation has not changed in a very long time despite the advances !

[brown dog]

3 minutes ago, Breacher said:

modern ammunition ( and perhaps rifles ) are more accurate and effective now than when 

But people aren't

[Breacher]

16 minutes ago, brown dog said:

But people aren't

Harsh. But true :-)

[lapua]

Do you think that the people who set the laws actually shot many deer themselves or even consulted competant deer killers?

[brown dog]

Lapua, yes I do.  They've not set the bar for the competent, they've set the bar for the lowest common denominator, and considered animal welfare as best they could.

I don't think I've been to a single BDS range day where there hasn't been at least one individual unable to group to 4" or pass the rest of the test.   In my experience, (and I am generalising!) such people seem to feel their performance is an embarassing failure of manhood in public, rather than an indicator of a need for training and practice in order to improve their performance -  and will be heard muttering in a stage whisper  'l'm fine on animals, I just don't do well on ranges'.    

 

 

[Popsbengo]

Hi Brown Dog, what is the BDS test? Is that 100yds shot prone from a bipod or bag? 

[brown dog]

11 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

Hi Brown Dog, what is the BDS test? Is that 100yds shot prone from a bipod or bag? 

"100 metres      3 shots to be placed into a 4″ circle from prone or simulated high seat.

100 metres      2 shots into the killing zone on a deer silhouette from prone or a simulated high seat.

70 metres        2 shots into the killing zone on a deer silhouette from sitting or kneeling.

40 metres        2 shots into the killing zone on a deer silhouette from standing.  

In each of the positions ordinary stalking aids may be used, but they must be what you would use and carry in the field."

[lapua]

1 hour ago, brown dog said:

Lapua, yes I do.  They've not set the bar for the competent, they've set the bar for the lowest common denominator, and considered animal welfare as best they could.

I don't think I've been to a single BDS range day where there hasn't been at least one individual unable to group to 4" or pass the rest of the test.   In my experience, (and I am generalising!) such people seem to feel their performance is an embarassing failure of manhood in public, rather than an indicator of a need for training and practice in order to improve their performance -  and will be heard muttering in a stage whisper  'l'm fine on animals, I just don't do well on ranges'.    

 

 

I didnt realise the deer act included passing the dsc1 shooting test, i though it related to the seasons and calibres to be used and other legal matters.

 

my question really related to the fact that the english deer act has excluded .22 cf’s for roe (and fallow) which would work really well if used sensibly. Urban myth has this that it was written to exclude these “commoners” calibres to prevent them from shooting deer and let the wealthier have more deer shooting. 

[Ronin]

Any changes or request for changes may draw the question if it’s fine for a 22 cf why do you need larger ....

 

Suggest leave alone 

[mikeroz]

Couldn't agree with Brown dog more. Do at least 2 BDS range days a year for the past 25 years and I find it quite amusing how many people fail the 4 inch zeroing target on the first detail. My last range day at the beginning of December,  only myself and one other passed the 1st detail first time out of about 6 of us!! 

Strangely these are the same guys that insist that we shouldn't be culling animals over 100 metres. My 243 is zeroed for 200m and I can mentally adjust for the ballistic trajectory between 40m and 100m on the test to get some of the tightest groups on the day.

[maximus otter]

1 hour ago, lapua said:

1. I didnt realise the deer act included passing the dsc1 shooting test...

 

2. my question really related to the fact that the english deer act has excluded .22 cf’s for roe (and fallow) which would work really well if used sensibly. Urban myth has this that it was written to exclude these “commoners” calibres... 

 

1. lt’s difficult to understand your question. l think you’re asking whether a pass at DSC.1 is a legal requirement in order to shoot deer. The answer is “No”.

2. How were .22 centrefires “commoners’ calibres” in 1963, when the Deer Act became law? .303 from a sporterised SMLE I can see as a poor man’s tool, but not a .22 CF in a recently-introduced (1950s) calibre.

maximus otter

 

[brown dog]

23 minutes ago, maximus otter said:

How were .22 centrefires “commoners’ calibres” in 1963, when the Deer Act became law? .303 from a sporterised SMLE I can see as a poor man’s tool, but not a .22 CF in a recently-introduced (1950s) calibre

Yup. 100% (Gave me a morning chortle though! "308?  Toff!" )

[Ronin]

How many times have we heard “I don’t have to practice, I always kill what I aim at” comment by “the experienced stalker” who turns up to watch at local shoots 

Yet can’t manage to group sub 4” on paper,,,,,

 

An annual shooting test may focus the mind of people who don’t want to or any be bothered to maintain a skill set 

 

Most a fac / woodland trust stalking requires an annual test 

May be an idea if there was a mandatory annual hunters test as is the place in European countries ,,,,

 

 

[lapua]

Off piste people!

op’s question is about calibre requirement.

[brown dog]

I think everyone thus far has agreed that 'people' are the weakest link in the chain, and that the current legislation is about right.

You also added an educational piece on the legislative effect of how the 1960s parliamentary process took account of the -hitherto unknown- realpolitik of working-class calibres vs toff calibres when passing the Deer Act. I think this was new information to all, and something that most'll still be working to assimilate. 

 

 

[MJR]

4 hours ago, lapua said:

my question really related to the fact that the english deer act has excluded .22 cf’s for roe (and fallow) which would work really well if used sensibly.

Think you answered your own question there Gary. 

I've shot on range days with people who claim to shoot long range fox and vermin yet strangely struggle to hold 1 moa on paper. How does that work ethically then??? Sensibly?

[lapua]

19 minutes ago, MJR said:

Think you answered your own question there Gary. 

I've shot on range days with people who claim to shoot long range fox and vermin yet strangely struggle to hold 1 moa on paper. How does that work ethically then??? Sensibly?

Are bigger bullets more ethical? If more than 1moa is unethical, why set the bar at 4moa??

i for one would support mandatory competancy assessments. I would also like to use .22 cf on roe in certain circumstances. An example being a piece of ground i shoot in wiltshire. Its 70 acres of rough farmland and a 7 acre walled garden(holes in the walls). Its right on the edge of a village, gardens back onto the ground and children play on it. I have to be very careful not to be seen shooting the deer because of the owners social standing. i shoot about 40 a year there, about 20 - 30 muntjac, 10 roe on average for this small hotsot. The owner wants everything shot on sight, which i do within the law. I have to use a “deer” calibre because of the roe, but i would love to use a .22cf (well moderated .223) because it is quieter. Are you suggesting i cant be ethical with a .223 on roe at normal stalking distances? I obviously wouldnt wade into a herd of downland fallow with a .22, my 6xc and 105 amax is the tool for that!

[lapua]

Another thing in favour for .22cf’s

ive just got back from the game dealer, been advised that vet is now insisting any body damage goes in the bin, hence the price difference. Used to be £2.40/kg, now £2.00, going to be even less next year. Chest shooting will soon be thing of the past, crack out the 22-250’s!

 

[Kalahari]

Anybody who supports mandatory testing should look at the safety and other statistics for countries that have such things. They are often a lot more dangerous/worse than the UK. This is before we advocate allowing the police more powers to interfere in our sport.

David.

[MJR]

Gary, sounds like you've gone full circle on the 'social standing' argument? What times of day are you stalking? 

You seem to be approaching this in regard to the income you receive verse calibre? Are you suggesting better accuracy with .22cf as opposed to any other calibre? If you are looking for less damage maybe using something other than Amax might be the answer......

We seem to be back at your initial idea of 'used sensibly'...

[lapua]

1 minute ago, MJR said:

Gary, sounds like you've gone full circle on the 'social standing' argument? What times of day are you stalking? 

You seem to be approaching this in regard to the income you receive verse calibre? Are you suggesting better accuracy with .22cf as opposed to any other calibre? If you are looking for less damage maybe using something other than Amax might be the answer......

We seem to be back at your initial idea of 'used sensibly'...

I stalk that ground first/last light. 

Its not less damage, its NO damage the vets are after, which means head shots only in the future if you want your game taken at full price. A good 22-250 would be very good at this, ask any keeper.

i’m not bothered by income from deer, as you can see i take whatever shots are on and best at the time, cant believe the dealer stiffed me for the 8kg little felka though, he was very cleanly shot. Interestingly enough, the fallow were “cleanly” shot with a 6.5x55, not my first choice for headshooting but they were at a sensible distance.

[brown dog]

No useable meat is destroyed on a side-on heart shot.

Your invoice says 'shoulder shot', which is entirely different.

Mars bars have got smaller. There are less jaffa cakes in a tube. Bog rolls have bigger cardboard tubes..... a game dealer is claiming  chest shot is shoulder shot.:  Find a new game dealer.

 

 

[brown dog]

1 hour ago, lapua said:

Are bigger bullets more ethical?

Well, when you're legislating for the lowest common denominator - idiots who can't shoot accurately, but are happy to brass up a sentient mammal with unpredictable, probably suboptimal, bullet placement- then undoubtedly, from an animal welfare perspective: Yes.

Put simply, bigger bullets have more 'kill'.

[lapua]

5 minutes ago, brown dog said:

Well, when you're legislating for the lowest common denominator - idiots who can't shoot accurately, but are happy to brass up a sentient mammal with unpredictable, probably suboptimal, bullet placement- then undoubtedly, from an animal welfare perspective: Yes.

Put simply, bigger bullets have more 'kill'.

But you could argue that lighter, faster, more destructive bullets lessen the chance of incorrect range estimation and are actually better for those types to use, especially if they are already used to the flatter shooting calibres. What is it they say about the man with one gun 😃

[lapua]

14 minutes ago, brown dog said:

No useable meat is destroyed on a side-on heart shot.

Your invoice says 'shoulder shot', which is entirely different.

Mars bars have got smaller. There are less jaffa cakes in a tube. Bog rolls have bigger cardboard tubes..... a game dealer is claiming  chest shot is shoulder shot.:  Find a new game dealer.

 

 

Deer were chest shot, just what the computer system invoice says. Heart shots often snap ribs at saddle, saddle ruined. Dealer will deduct 1/3, if vet see’s it it goes in the bin. With a fast bullet theres always bruising even if shoulder isnt hit.  I think youve probably been away from it for a while, different times now. Harder times, they just wont take badly shot, gralloched and stored deer any more, people need to up their game. 

i’ve got other dealers, this one pays most for headshot deer hence why i used him today. If those fallow had been body shot i would have gone elsewhere. Simple really, shoot what you can or need to in the best way possible, look at what youve got and take it to who is going to pay the most. I coukd get £2.20 elsewhere for everything, but £3 and what i thought was £2.40 was a better option today. If i have the same all body shot they will now go to the £2.20 man.

anyway, goodnight!xx