Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Red Stag


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
101 replies to this topic

#61 Flynn

Flynn

    Subscribed Member

  • Donator
  • 1,359 posts
  • Location:Lincs

Posted 14 August 2009 - 01:05 pm

My Imput to this thread was because i was a long time follower of Stag Hounds on Exmoor, no finer specimens could be found.......... the Hunting Atc changed all of that and this WE knew would be the Out come
Indiscrimate shooting, rather then selective
there were always Trophy Hunters But by and large this wonderfull Example of Red Deer could not be found ANY WHERE else in the UK
I have a right to an opinion just like any other person .......
and as its been mentioned, there was no need to kill the Young en

#62 HUnter_zero

HUnter_zero

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Location:Wales

Posted 14 August 2009 - 03:35 pm

Exmoor, no finer specimens could be found.......... by and large this wonderfull Example of Red Deer could not be found ANY WHERE else in the UK



Well said that man!!! Best deer in the UK with no doubt at all!! Also something we should nurture and be very proud of, we need to look after them and promote good deer management to preserve the Exmoor deer.

John

#63 3jackwhite3

3jackwhite3

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 193 posts
  • Location:Caldicot

Posted 15 August 2009 - 12:08 pm

well as people keep saying in this thread that that deer was doing no damage so why was it shot and if it needed shooting then shoot it next year, but when you go to shoot it the year later it has already done damage so taking it out now has stopped the damage it was going to cause i see no problem in doing so.

#64 Mr_Logic

Mr_Logic

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,917 posts
  • Location:Northants

Posted 16 August 2009 - 10:02 pm

The whole vermin thing - semantics I'm afraid. I've seen definitions of the word vermin that basically equate to 'pest'. Certainly, in many cases a roe deer is no different than a rabbit. They both eat grass and crops and by their existence cause damage to human settlement, be that gardens, or fences or whatever.

The word vermin isn't defined in statute, so you can't include or exclude it. If the term were defined, it would for once and all settle the debate about whether you can shoot fox with a vermin ticket. But let's stay on topic.

Now, around the country there are many people who will disagree with the shooting of this young deer. Doesn't really matter, because the locality is the South East, and that brings with it a rather different outlook. Down here, you are frequently talking about large gardens, not field after field of crop. To say a young deer causes no damage is not necessarily the case. They do eat herbs and grass, you know. To turn round to clients here and say "Nope, sorry, too young" may be to lose the shoot. Landowners could not care two hoots about the laws and sentimentality, they want these animals shot, end of. We must obviously comply with the law, so we do. Sentimentality can be put on hold, so it is.

As has been mentioned, this is NOT about managing a deer herd for paying customers, or ensuring healthy deer for the herd. It's about stopping the little blighters from eating someone's flower bed. You may disagree with it, but that doesn't make it wrong. It is simply another side to the management of animals, and it MUST be done.

Now, 243 and red deer.... Hmmm... well ... Probably you'd want a bigger rifle if you were shooting a lot of them, accepted wisdom is that it's better. Not having reds around here, I can but go on that. However, if the 243 is the only available tool, what's the problem?

With the correct bullet choice and bullet placement, then I seriously doubt you will find a red that will argue. Now, I have seen Deker shoot, so trust me, he's not going to be missing the vitals of a red-sized animal at 200 yards.

#65 HUnter_zero

HUnter_zero

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Location:Wales

Posted 17 August 2009 - 08:09 pm

1) The word vermin isn't defined in statute,
2) if the 243 is the only available tool, what's the problem?

3) With the correct bullet choice and bullet placement, then I seriously doubt you will find a red that will argue.
4) Now, I have seen Deker shoot, so trust me, he's not going to be missing the vitals of a red-sized animal at 200 yards.



Just a couple of additional points,

1) There are plenty of 'acts' that separate vermin from deer. i) ( Forestry act) the expression “vermin” includes any wild animals (other than rabbits, hares or deer) / ii) ( crofters act ) Hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish, wild birds, or vermin. The word “game” for the purposes of this subsection means deer, hares, rabbits / iii) (firearms act) the lawful shooting of deer; (ii) the shooting of vermin or, in the course of carrying on activities in connection with the management of any estate / iiii). I could go on and on but you will not find any lawful acts that define deer as vermin.

2) The .243" is red legal but inadequate for the job in hand (IMHO) and having shot many reds with both .243" and .308" I can assure you that the .308" is one hell of a lot better than a .243" on reds.

3) Because it's not all about bullet type and bullet placement, shear shock factor also helps with the kill.

4) I have never met a anyone who can guarantee that they will never miss, other than bu11sh1ters that is.

John

#66 MR TEA POT

MR TEA POT

    The Uncle Fester Lookalike

  • Donator
  • 3,483 posts

Posted 17 August 2009 - 08:29 pm

The deer is dead and probable been ate by now.So let it drop,FFS i am sure at some time or other we have all done something we regret nobody,AND I MEAN NOBODY is perfect.
Ok it was a youngster but as decker said he was doing pest control.As been mentioned no body say's anything about killing baby rabbits,foxes ETC.
It seems to me the deer and hare are the fecking holy grail of the animal world according to some on here.

#67 Mr_Logic

Mr_Logic

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,917 posts
  • Location:Northants

Posted 17 August 2009 - 09:30 pm

1) The word vermin isn't defined in statute,
2) if the 243 is the only available tool, what's the problem?

3) With the correct bullet choice and bullet placement, then I seriously doubt you will find a red that will argue.
4) Now, I have seen Deker shoot, so trust me, he's not going to be missing the vitals of a red-sized animal at 200 yards.



Just a couple of additional points,

1) There are plenty of 'acts' that separate vermin from deer. i) ( Forestry act) the expression “vermin” includes any wild animals (other than rabbits, hares or deer) / ii) ( crofters act ) Hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish, wild birds, or vermin. The word “game” for the purposes of this subsection means deer, hares, rabbits / iii) (firearms act) the lawful shooting of deer; (ii) the shooting of vermin or, in the course of carrying on activities in connection with the management of any estate / iiii). I could go on and on but you will not find any lawful acts that define deer as vermin.

2) The .243" is red legal but inadequate for the job in hand (IMHO) and having shot many reds with both .243" and .308" I can assure you that the .308" is one hell of a lot better than a .243" on reds.

3) Because it's not all about bullet type and bullet placement, shear shock factor also helps with the kill.

4) I have never met a anyone who can guarantee that they will never miss, other than bu11sh1ters that is.

John

1. Did I ever say you would? My point is that vermin is distinctly context-specific. Deer can be considered vermin depending on the situation, just as a farmed rabbit wouldn't be.

2. I'm not doubting that a 308 is better, but my point remains that if I am out with a 243 with the right bullet and the red presents himself, I shall shoot him. Furthermore, I expect him to be dead by the time he hits the floor. 308 definitely does give you more room for error and it definitely does hit harder, but I have faith in the 243 to do the job. Plenty of people use them every year for reds.

3. Shock factor? Well if you use the right 243 you get a lot of that - try a 6mm vermin bullet on a roe - I'd be surprised if there is an exit wound.

4. Of course nobody will guarantee they won't miss, but one of the nice things with the 243 is the flat trajectory and better wind bucking characteristics of the bullet. All of which makes it more likely you will place the bullet correctly.

Ultimately, I've sold my 308 because I shoot roe and potentially fallow round here. If I get to go to Scotland I'd use the 243 and a 100 grain bullet. If I lived in an area with reds, I'd use 308 too.

#68 HUnter_zero

HUnter_zero

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Location:Wales

Posted 17 August 2009 - 09:36 pm

1. Did I ever say you would?
2. I'm not doubting that a 308 is better,
3. - try a 6mm vermin bullet on a roe -
4. Of course nobody will guarantee they won't miss,


1) Happy you concur.
2) Happy you concur
3) That would be illegal
4) Happy you concur

John

#69 arveyboy

arveyboy

    Mega Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Location:Northamptonshire

Posted 17 August 2009 - 10:01 pm

1. Did I ever say you would?
2. I'm not doubting that a 308 is better,
3. - try a 6mm vermin bullet on a roe -
4. Of course nobody will guarantee they won't miss,


1) Happy you concur.
2) Happy you concur
3) That would be illegal
4) Happy you concur

John


no it wouldn't.

#70 HUnter_zero

HUnter_zero

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Location:Wales

Posted 18 August 2009 - 06:19 am

3) That would be illegal
John


no it wouldn't.



I'm presuming that you don't stalk deer and as such are just waffling. Vermin type bullets or bullets marketed as such are sold on the bases that the bullet expanding capabilities are "explosive", for example the TNT. These bullets have a very light weight copper jacket and very soft lead core. Unlike that of a bullet designed for large game or deer. The use of such bullets is not just illegal as the bullets expand in a very unpredictable manner but also inhumane as the bullets can lead to a cratering wound. A wound that I have personally witnessed. A few years back a chap was shot in the chest with a V-Max and survived (it was in the shooting press), you really need to ask yourself why. Enough is enough and I can not be bothered bantering or wasting my time.

John

#71 Mr_Logic

Mr_Logic

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,917 posts
  • Location:Northants

Posted 18 August 2009 - 07:03 am

In Scotland it would be illegal on deer larger than roe, but in England it's legal, full stop.

Neither is it inhumane on a roe deer. I've shot several with ballistic tip or similar. They go down like a sack of shit and their insides look like a bomb went off. So very good shocking power. I tend to stick with head or neck shots with that type of bullet as there IS a risk of a surface wound.

My point was not to start an argument about this but to point out that you can get a 6mm bullet to deliver awesome shock power.

#72 CharlieT

CharlieT

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Location:Exmoor

Posted 18 August 2009 - 05:54 pm

I think Mr Logic made a typo when he stated "vermin bullet".
I guess from his latest post where he mentions "ballistic tip" that what he was originally referring to was hunting ballistic tips and not varmint ballistic tips which we all know are both illegal and unsuitable.

#73 HUnter_zero

HUnter_zero

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Location:Wales

Posted 18 August 2009 - 08:04 pm

To be honest when so called stalkers state " their insides look like a bomb went off " I'd add no further comment and waste no more time on the matter :wallbash: :thumbdown: .

John

#74 Guest_Fireball_*

Guest_Fireball_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 August 2009 - 09:25 pm

In Scotland it would be illegal on deer larger than roe, but in England it's legal, full stop.

Neither is it inhumane on a roe deer. I've shot several with ballistic tip or similar. They go down like a sack of shit and their insides look like a bomb went off. So very good shocking power. I tend to stick with head or neck shots with that type of bullet as there IS a risk of a surface wound.

My point was not to start an argument about this but to point out that you can get a 6mm bullet to deliver awesome shock power.



Logically as well as responsibly you tend to eliminate as much risk as possible when shooting Deer so therefore any round which is unsuitable don't get put in the pouch pal..
Especially if there`s a tendency to and i`ll use your words (risk of a surface wound).
Why the feck would you want to make the inside of a deer look like a bombs gone off in it??
I`ll tell you one thing Logic if you turned up at the game dealers i use with a Deer like that they`d feck you right off.
Now don't you think all this bollox or to be put to bed??

#75 Mr_Logic

Mr_Logic

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,917 posts
  • Location:Northants

Posted 18 August 2009 - 10:32 pm

I shall address each of the last 3 posts because I'm getting sick of this.

Point #1. English law - Roe & larger require a 240 or greater (i.e. practical minimum of 243 or more) with 1700 ft/lbs of muzzle energy and a soft or hollow point bullet. Ballistic tips of ALL types are included, no expanding bullets are illegal for deer.

As to suitability, there are two angles here. Hunter zero, not sure what your problem is, there are different schools of thought here. Let's be clear about one thing - these deer do not find their way to the game dealer. I eat them in conjunction with friends and people I know who ask nicely.

Most are shot because they're a pest, NOT for sport. Consequently, if they die PDQ, I really couldn't care less how smashed up they are. That said, I avoid heart/lung shots with ballistic tip since I tried one. In terms of humane killing, it was extremely humane - the deer was absolutely dead as a doornail instantly, tbh it was far more lethal than more common deer bullets produce.

In addition, since it's pest control mostly, that means I am mostly out for fox or possibly rabbits. That means the rifle's set up for foxes, with currently a 70 grain Nosler. Should I end up taking a deer, then I will use a head or a neck shot, and it will work very well indeed. I avoid the heart lung angle because (a) it will be messy and (B) there is a chance that the bullet won't penetrate. No such problems with the neck shot. Most deer shots are well under 200 yards, off a bipod so that technique works well for me. The resulting deer has basically no carcass damage, and is utterly humanely killed. Now, where's the issue...?

One final point - this lot applies to roe deer. They're very small and little penetration is required for head/neck shots. Would I aim this combination at anything bigger? Nope. Wouldn't trust it to do the job. But it does for roe, and that's what I've got to shoot, + the occasional muntjac.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users