roe deer and the 204

[Vermincinerator]

Hi all,

The thread asks if 20 cal is legal on Roe deer in Scotland, not whether it should used on deer or not, that is another matter.

Although the Scottish deer commission does not list a minimum calibre for Roe deer it does specify a minimum of 50grn bullet.

 

I do believe that 204 ruger is the only available factory loaded 20 cal. and as such, like Baldie said it would be "ballisticly" illegal for Roe deer simply because it does not meet the minimum bullet weight, althought it does meet the required energy levels.

As far as i know the heaviest bullet available from the factory is a 42grn softpoint.

Yes it can be handloaded with 50grn bullets, but there are no factory ammunition ballistics for 50grn bullets, this would be a bit of a grey area as far as legislation is concerned.

 

Just as a matter of interest would drive in a 6" nail with a pin hammer, i dont think so you would reach for a 20oz claw.

This same criteria should apply to all animal species, correct calibre for the job.

 

Ian.

[Guest rogern]

Just as a matter of interest would drive in a 6" nail with a pin hammer, i dont think so you would reach for a 20oz claw.

This same criteria should apply to all animal species, correct calibre for the job.

 

Ian.

 

Spot on, IMO I dont believe in the 'too much gun' theory, dead is dead, but 'too little gun' is not theory, its fact.

[col48]

Hi all,

The thread asks if 20 cal is legal on Roe deer in Scotland, not whether it should used on deer or not, that is another matter.

Although the Scottish deer commission does not list a minimum calibre for Roe deer it does specify a minimum of 50grn bullet.

 

I do believe that 204 ruger is the only available factory loaded 20 cal. and as such, like Baldie said it would be "ballisticly" illegal for Roe deer simply because it does not meet the minimum bullet weight, althought it does meet the required energy levels.

As far as i know the heaviest bullet available from the factory is a 42grn softpoint.

Yes it can be handloaded with 50grn bullets, but there are no factory ammunition ballistics for 50grn bullets, this would be a bit of a grey area as far as legislation is concerned.

 

Just as a matter of interest would drive in a 6" nail with a pin hammer, i dont think so you would reach for a 20oz claw.

This same criteria should apply to all animal species, correct calibre for the job.

 

Ian.

 

hi

i know berger do a 50g bullet for this caliber, but this is classified as a match bullet. so is there any other makes on the market.????

if not then this bullet would not be aloud.so it still would not be deer legal

 

ATB

Colin

[Redfox]

The min calibre for Roe in Scotland is 222 read the list in this link everything below that is illegal,

http://www.dcs.gov.uk/BestPractice/FirearmsBallistics.aspx

If not on bullet weight, the velocity would make it so to meet the minimum energy and bullet type requirements.

There is always some arsehole who wants to argue he can shoot red deer with a 22 rf or something equally stupid.

Any shooter worth a damn has respect for the quarry he is shooting and wants a quick , humane kill. To do that you have to use an appropriate calibre and ammunition to do the job, what you can do and what you should do are often very different. It really isnt worth the space for discussion, on this sort of crap, we talk about much more interesting things usually.

Redfox

[nuttyspaniel]

Redfox I think that the list of calibres is only a general view there are calibres and bullet weights omited from the list but if you read the law above there is no mention of min calibre! But as I have said before and like others inc yourself it just would be correct shooting Roe with the 204 if there was a deer legal bullet in production for the rifle.

[Bambi-basher]

Firstly let me state that I don’t really recommend .22 cf for Roe deer to anybody, I have used my .223 in the past and have not doubt about any of the 22 ability to inflict fatal wounds, but I found a far better bang flop ratio with my 243.

 

Coming to the 204 if it were to be used on small deer and assuming it is indeed legal, then it could be argued that with the same 50gn bullet weight it would be a better choice than a .222. Same bullet weight but the 20 would have a higher muzzle velocity and better sectional density so giving better penetration over the 222. This assumes that proper game bullets are developed for the calibre.

 

After all the 6.5X55 users keep telling us there calibre is so good in part because of the superior sectional density of it bullets.

 

If you support the use of 22 on deer then I can not see any logical argument against the 20.

 

B-b

[nuttyspaniel]

Coming to the 204 if it were to be used on small deer and assuming it is indeed legal, then it could be argued that with the same 50gn bullet weight it would be a better choice than a .222. Same bullet weight but the 20 would have a higher muzzle velocity and better sectional density so giving better penetration over the 222. This assumes that proper game bullets are developed for the calibre.

 

I suppose if you thought that way that is a very good argument for the 204! But as you say and Im with you then the 22cals although legal would be my second choice and is my 2nd choice to my 243!! And its even devastating with bunnies!!!!!

[Beer Hunter]

First of all hello to you all. This is my first post on this site after having been recommended by 'pnse'.

I must say that it doesn’t look a fad forum at all. Lots of lively discussions on all topics without many of the usual nutcases who tend to gravitate toward airgunbbs.

 

As a quick introduction, I am a shooter in my mid 30’s who has been shooting since the age of 10. I believe that my 25 years of shooting has taught me a lot. I’ve made mistakes, but have tried to learn from each and every one.

 

Today, I shoot all forms of the sport. I conduct vermin control, clay, game and roe deer stalking on my own land and take part in most forms of “live” shooting on others by invite. I’ve been lucky enough to shoot on 4 continents.

 

I’m afraid though, my first post will have to be a defence of a discussion held on the BBS and brought over here by the very same 'pnse'.

i've just had a heated discussion over on the airgun bbs site with some guy who thinks it would be legal to shoot roe deer in Scotland with a 20 cal rifle,it all started from a link i posted to this site that he just dismissed as inferior to the bbs the fool .I just spoke to my local authority and they sead they would not grant a 20 cal for deer, anybody have any more info on this as i would hate for him to be right

I never said this site was in any way inferior. My exact comments were:

It looks OK, but there are only 216 members in total. There is usually more than that on here simultaneously and a far greater breadth and depth of knowledge.

I believe that still holds true. Although I’ll concede that the members on here actually seem to actually do a bit of shooting rather then many of the “keyboard warriors” who litter the BBS.

What I was doing was defending the BBS when a relatively new member (pnse) advertised another forum. This is simply not good forum etiquette. I’m sure I would be slated if I advised members on here to use airgunbbs - and rightly so.

 

I would,nt shoot owt bigger than fox with the .204 after looking at the limited selection of bullets avalible.

There are now a good selection of 50 grain + heads including the readily available Berger 50 grain match varmint which is a designed for “thin skinned game” and therefore perfectly suitable for “thin skinned game” like Roe.

 

on the met web site it states a min. bore diameter of .222met site

The met site does state “Roe deer rifles must be at least .222 inches in calibre”. However this is the met’s INTERPRITATION of the law – not the law itself. I’ll clarify that point later on.

 

Sub .22 calibre,s are NOT legal, full stop.

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Please see my response above and the bit at the end.

 

Regardless i wouldnt shoot "high speed varmint" bullets at Roe with a .20 cal

Neither would I – only bullets designed to rapidly expand, but in a controlled manner.

oh yeh and .22 air was more powerfull than .177 hhaaaaa I never knew they were different ft lbs

one guy said that allthough they are the same foot pounds, cause the .22 was bigger they impact harder hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaa where do these people work for **** sake, bet there on more money than the likes of you and me sensible folk

 

sure I can live with the fact that the bigger pellet would cause more area to be affected by the impact and so softer animals like rats it would would be better but you gotta look at the fact that if some one kicked a football at me at 12ft lbs its hardly going to hurt is it but if someone flicked a pin at me at 3ft lbs its gonna cause damage

That topic has been discussed many times and leads to the “ballistically challenged” leaving confused.

While both calibres leave the muzzle at (sub) 12 lb.ft. the .22 has a much higher BC and therefore has a significant power advantage downrange. At 40 yards you are looking at a 1lb.ft advantage to the .22. It also makes a bigger hole and therefore damages more tissue. So it is the better hunting choice if you can place the pellet accurately. For most folk, it is this judging the distance that is the difficult bit and therefore they are better sticking with .177

However, the .22 guys can keep their own with practice. E.g. I won the Tayside Airgun Club “open competition” today by 2 points – this was with a standard S410K in .22 against guys with much more exotic .177 hardware.

As with any rifle shooting, it is the guy behind the trigger that makes the difference and pellet / bullet placement is critical.

 

It "might be just legal" and I use this in the most cautious manner, but the man is a fool - too small a bullet, too frangible, just asking for a skin blow up and RSPCA all over him.

Idiot

 

Thats the guy on the airgun forum not you PNSE

While I agree that a sub 50 grain bullet or one which is designed to “explode” upon impact would be foolish to use, there are now much “harder” .204 bullets out there which are ideal.

 

continued.....

[Beer Hunter]

Back to the topic.....why are people like the bbs team, allowed firearms? they shouldn,t have pea shooters, never mind be able to shoot at deer I stated the that sub .22 calibres arent legal, because they cant be made ballistically so, even the hornet. Yes i know thousands of roe have been killed with the hornet, perfectly humanely, but not legally, and a .204 could not be a worse cartridge for such a shot. It makes me wonder sometimes whether compulsory training wouldn,t be a bad idea for deer shooting, and i,m certainly not one for legislation, or anything compulsory, but maybe it would stop the cretins of this world, ever loosing an unsuitable round off, at a living creature.

You have several points which I agree with. The .22 Hornet can be made just legal with the right bullet / powder combination and VERY long barrels, but it would be a bit daft.

The .204 is a different creature – I will expand on this later.

 

I do believe that 204 ruger is the only available factory loaded 20 cal. and as such, like Baldie said it would be "ballisticly" illegal for Roe deer simply because it does not meet the minimum bullet weight, althought it does meet the required energy levels.

As far as i know the heaviest bullet available from the factory is a 42grn softpoint.

Yes it can be handloaded with 50grn bullets, but there are no factory ammunition ballistics for 50grn bullets, this would be a bit of a grey area as far as legislation is concerned.

As mentioned, there are suitable bullets available. While they may not be factory loaded rounds available, it is quite clear in law what the requirements are and home loaded ammo which is legal, is, … well, legal.

 

The min calibre for Roe in Scotland is 222 read the list in this link everything below that is illegal,

http://www.dcs.gov.uk/BestPractice/FirearmsBallistics.aspx

If not on bullet weight, the velocity would make it so to meet the minimum energy and bullet type requirements.

There is always some arsehole who wants to argue he can shoot red deer with a 22 rf or something equally stupid.

Any shooter worth a damn has respect for the quarry he is shooting and wants a quick , humane kill. To do that you have to use an appropriate calibre and ammunition to do the job, what you can do and what you should do are often very different. It really isnt worth the space for discussion, on this sort of crap, we talk about much more interesting things usually.

Redfox

I could not agree with your comments on respect for quarry more. When shooting live quarry, there is nothing higher in my mind than compassion for the animal to be killed. Each and every time I strive for the cleanest kill possible and choose the most appropriate tool available.

 

 

 

Now lets clarify the law on the use of calibres for shooting Scottish deer. The only pertinent legislation is section 21 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. This states :

a) For the shooting of deer of any species, a

bullet of an expanding type designed to

deform in a predictable manner of not less

than 100 grains (6.48 grams) with a muzzle

velocity of not less than 2,450 feet per

second (746.76 metres per second) and a

muzzle energy of not less than 1,750 foot

pounds (2,373 joules) must be used.

 

For the shooting of roe deer only, a bullet

of an expanding type designed to deform

in a predictable manner of not less than 50

grains (3.24 grams) with a muzzle velocity

of not less than 2,450 feet per second

(746.76 metres per second) and a muzzle

energy of not less than 1,000 foot pounds

(1,356 joules) may be used.

This is quite clear – there is no minimum calibre required for Roe. Only a minimum bullet weight, minimum velocity requirement and minimum energy requirement. These the .204 can meet quite easily.

As an example, lets roughly compare 3 calibres with 50 grain heads – the .204 Ruger, .222 and .22-250:

Calibre		MV	ME	200yd V	200yd E
.222		3100	1067	2310		592
.22-250		3600	1439	2722		822
.204 Ruger	3500	1360	2816		880

As you can see, we should be questioning why the lesser of the .22 calibre’s are legal, not why the .204 is!

 

Gents, the situation regarding the .204 Ruger and Scottish Roe is clear. It meets all the minimum requirements (by some margin) and suitable bullets are available to use.

 

Please bear in mind that Roe are not large animals. The best Roe stalker I know uses a .223 with 50 grain Vmax heads. He never looses deer although the round he chooses was primarily designed for long range rabbit and crow.

 

I should also say that I don’t use a .204 for Roe (yet) and have a .243 for the purpose.

However, I’m planning to have a .204 built with a tight twist for this very purpose.

 

All the best,

Kev.

[Guest northernchris]

Beerhunter

 

Welcome to the forum,but the thread is going down hill pretty quick as it did on BBS.As far as i am concerned i have NO interest in shooting Roe with very small calibre rifles i,e .204(my own preferance) and also no interest in trying to put people down when they have got their facts slightly wrong.Look Kev think you need to get out more judgeing by the amount of quotes in your reply

 

As regards BBS there is alot of keyboard warriors and anoraks on there,on here the level of conversations are "normally" pretty dam good. LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY.

 

Chris

 

PS Is there many PRO stalkers up over the border using .204....................................... ENOUGH SAID

[Bambi-basher]

Hi Kev

 

Welcome to the site, now just because you can use a 204 on roe deer what good reason is there to pick it over your 243?

 

I have shot many deer with my 223 but I always got more runners, even with proper shot placement than with my 243, no problem to me as I have always had my deer dog to hand so no chance of loosing a deer. F**K me if my dogs had not been able to find a deer on a 15 min’ hot trail that dog would have no place in any stalkers kennel.

 

So why go to the lowest common denominator just because the law allows?

 

B-b

[nuttyspaniel]

Beer Hunter 1stly welcome to the site. And secondly that is a good constructive reply to the thread I hope all your post are as constructive as that 1 was.

[col48]

hi Beer Hunter aka Kev

hello and welcome.

 

now for give me but i don't know a lot about the 204, only what i have read on hear,

what bullets are available for this that would make it deer legal.

i know berger do a 50g one but this is now marketed as a match bullet,so this would make it no good.

what others are available.???

 

all so chaps there is a difference between what is legal and what is ethical.

would i go stalking with a 204 no,

 

is it legal to stalk with, if there is a none match bullet that expands in a controlled manner yes.

 

all so is there not a difference between varmint bullets and ones that are used to shoot deer,IE are not hunting bullets designed to expand in a controlled manner,and retain xxx amount of the original weight of the bullet.

and the varmint type bullets virtually disintegrate on impact.

so i would say the bullet would have to be a bullet that was designed to expand in a controlled manner,

IE not a varmint bullet.

 

 

ATB

Colin

just my 2 cents

[Bambi-basher]

As far as I can tell Col48 the only bullet available in 20cal that has been designed for use with animals bigger than varmints is the 45gn Hornady soft points, introduced for the US market for shooting coyotes but obviously not legal for shooting Roe deer with.

 

B-b

[Beer Hunter]

As well as the Berger's, Don Unmussig Bullets, “No Name Bullets” and Schroeder Bullets all produce 50 grain or higher bullets.

 

There will be more as up to 55 grain, the .204 is simply much more efficient than the .22’s.

 

Kev.

[17 Rem]

I will not be drawn too deeply into this particular p*ssing match, but when my 20-250 is completed, I'll pass on an opinion to those who may be interested.

[craigyboy]

dont know much about shooting deer but know a bit about .204 and the performance of the bullets on foxes, I have discovered that the most efficient bullet for expanding on foxes is actually the 32g v-max, in all cases the bullets showed minimal entry wounds, no surface splash I could barely find them and except on one fox which was shot at only thirty yards there was no exit wound, the internals of the foxes were pure water the hydrostatic shock (think thats the right term) had just turned them too water inside, that to me is a very efficient bullet. Now turn to the 39g blitzking now you would think the heavier bullet would be even better but I found the opposite, exits everytime still made no mess no surface splash you would think they were shot with a .22lr but didnt do half the damage on the inside that the 32g v-max was doing. Still killed em stone dead though. I am currently started using 35g bergers bullets as I have been told these are very good at expanding well and not exiting. I havent had a foxes move an inch, rabbits havent known what hit them and crows have been flying off in all directions. Now does that mean its suitable for deer? I dont know but i know one thing I wouldnt use it for deer! If I had a cabinet with a .204, .243, .308 etc in it I would probably nearly always take the biggest I had no matter what type of deer I was shooting, theres no harm in having too much gun, its when you barely have enough that the that which promotes growth and vigour hits the fan, I wouldnt want to be hoking about for a wounded deer into the dark why not take something that you are certain is going to level them, I am sure the .204 would be fine if you get bullet placement very close to perfect but what happens if youre a bit off or the deer moves? With foxes its ok there much smaller and ther vitals are all closer together than a deer's would be + there a brave bit lighter. I think by the time a .204 bullet made its was through a deers skin it would have lost quite a bit of its puch and maybe not do so much damage to the surrounding organs, and you could have a blood trail on youre hands. I love my .204 but if I had my choice even for foxing I would be after a 22-250 but I am restricted to .223 and under for fox and .243 and up for deer, and between the .223 and .204 id much rather have the .204. Like I said I dont know much about shooting deer but as far as the .204 goes I have a good idea of what its capable of with real time everyday use on live targets, steel plates very big pieces of douglass fir pine timber, I may actually do a penetration test of all the bullets I currently have and slip the piece of timber through the saw so we can have a look at what those .20 cal pills are doing when they penetrate. (I have only been shooting them for run up til now but this would give me something to do over my holidays). If you think this pissing match over the .204 for deer is bad you want to have seen the one on the rugerhunting website, some kid posted pics of deer he and his dad had shot with .204 I am not sure what type deer they were but probably the size of a red stag, the froum erupted with abuse at this guy, it was quite scary how worked up they got, a fair few people were banned and nobody really posted for a few days it was sort of like going out on a saturday night and making a real tube of yourself, everybody was too embarrased to pose for a while. To sum up my meaningless opinion if I was allowed to shoot deer with my .204 I wouldnt this is coming from a guy who owns one, I dont think I would want to shoot roe with a .223 either maybe a 22-250 though, but if I had my choice a 7mm STW would fit the bill maybe a bit big for roe

[col48]

As well as the Berger's, Don Unmussig Bullets, "No Name Bullets" and Schroeder Bullets all produce 50 grain or higher bullets.

 

There will be more as up to 55 grain, the .204 is simply much more efficient than the .22's.

 

Kev.

 

 

hi Kev

 

OK there will be more bullets, but will they be hunting bullets as apposed to varmint bullets, as i understand it the bullet has to expand in a controlled manner, not like a varmint bullet. in my opinion they are 2 different types of bullets, for 2 completely different purposes

 

ATB

Colin

[Beer Hunter]

hi Kev

 

OK there will be more bullets, but will they be hunting bullets as apposed to varmint bullets, as i understand it the bullet has to expand in a controlled manner, not like a varmint bullet. in my opinion they are 2 different types of bullets, for 2 completely different purposes

 

ATB

Colin

That is my hope Colin.

 

Perhaps I should clarify how I want to go about this. I'm not just going to stick a tight twist barrel on a .204 and then start blasting away at Roe! Once the re-barrel work is done I will conduct various tests of penetration and expansion against wood, telephone books, ballistic gel, etc at all hunting ranges. After all, the available bullets may not be suitable yet.

 

With the correct bullet construction there is real potential. If you think about the dimensions of a 50 grain .22 head compared to a 50 grain .204 then the .204 is obviously longer. Compared to the .22, this leads to the potential for it to mushroom further down the bullet shaft before breaking apart and therefore creating a larger calibre wound channel.

 

One thing is quite clear; the .204 has the potential to be a better Roe rifle than the smaller .22's - more downrange power, less drop, less wind and potentially better wound characteristics... reality may be different, but unless someone tries we will never know.

 

Kev.

[6ppc]

Beer Hunter welcome to the forum. First of all let me just say that i have no problem you mentioning the airgun bbs board or any other for that matter, all of the forums are there for us to enjoy and i am not childish enough to want to deny people from finding a new site and enjoying it.Most members of all boards tend to visit a few sites and there is nothing wrong with that,if you look in the links section either on the forum or the main links section on the homepage you will notice nearly all of the links are to other forums.I am unable to comment on the activities of the airgun bbs board as my application for membership a few months ago was refused for some reason.

As to the 20 cal you will definatley need a rather heavy jacket to stop surface 'splash' if shooting animals sush as roe if you hit a shoulder or something due to the high retained down range velocities that the rifle is capable of.I know some people in the usa have tried making a tougher jackes by using 22cal jackets but they still experience problems if the velocity is too high,in my opinion for what it is worth the 20 cals were designed as high speed varminters and should be left at that,this is where they excel.What is the point of trying to find a bullet that is capable of all that is mentioned above when there are so many more suitable cals available.The only time i would think it would be worth looking into is if that was the only rifle you owned.

[ejg223]

So if 20 cal is better than 22cal for roe,

we should think of using 17cal for fallow and sika.

makes sense

 

edi

[325WSM]

No Sika round me but for the fallow I wouldnt use anything else.

[Ronin]

When and if a solid copper bullet becomes available manufactured along the lines of the Barnes or Moeler monometals and IF it meets the ballistic requirements then it may be just suitiable for small deer.

 

I for one will never use such a small calibre on deer, and the ballistic argument (it drops less than some 22 centerfires) just doesn't wash heavier bullets lose less momentum and will therfore be ballistically superior carry greater energy down range etc.

 

 

Its ok if the bullet gives 1001 ft lbs at the muzzle and you are shooting a 50grain bullet. But the 204 loses too much

ME and velocity down range to make me even want to consider it. Great for rabbit and fox though.

[325WSM]

Make your own - you only have to ring Gillie Howe at Modern & Antique to get the kit to do it yourself.

[Bambi-basher]

No Sika round me but for the fallow I wouldnt use anything else.

 

Yeh you wouldn't have to worry about shot placement, anywhere in the eye would work just fine.

 

B-b