Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

New Land with Fallow


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#16 HUnter_zero

HUnter_zero

    Extreme Hunter

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

Posted 06 April 2012 - 05:54 pm

I think he's saying that with the larger calibres, there is a greater margin of error.

We all have had the odd shot that didn't go where we want it to, even the experienced ones... So if your shot is off by an inch with a .308 there's a much better chance of the deer dropping instantly as opposed to the same shot with for example a .243 http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...


What was of interest to me was his comment " a .243 with a well placed 100 grn bullet will drop Fallow no problem ", there seems to be an Internet myth that the .243" is a good all round option for a deer rifle, it's not.
A well placed shot with any calibre will kill a deer and if it didn't kill then deer by definition it would be a poorly placed shot.
I was also interested to find out how he would compare the .243" to the .308 which in the main is a superior deer calibre, yet we all seem to love the .243" for certain job (myself included).
There isn't a greater margin for error with either calibre, either you hit the kill zone or you don't which will result in a wounding.
The main advantage of the .308 is the extra kinetic energy it can transfer to bone and the greater wound channel it will produce for like to like deformity with bullet varieties. For example a 100 grain .243 with a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps will produce 1727 ft/lb energy at 100 yards, this is a massive amount of energy. In comparison the .308 will produce 2369.9 ft/lb (2900 fps MV). If we extend our ranges to say 200 yards, the .243" will produce 1481.3 ft/lb and the .308 will produce 1986.2 ft/lb and it's here that you can start to see the benefits of the .308, which produces more energy at 200 yards than the .243" at 100 yards. Either will kill, experts seem to agree that just 4 ft/lb energy is sufficient to destroy a vital organ.
The most important factor is of course hydraulic shock, the .308 in general will produce a great wound channel and thus hydraulic shock. This shock can completely disrupt vital organs in the body cavity. Another benefit of the .308 is jacket thickness, in my experience .308 jackets are slightly thicker than .243, which helps when hitting bone.
Bottom line is that in my opinion both calibres will kill deer, the .308 slightly better and when you are stalking fallow the extra effect of the .308 produces more consistent results in dropping the beasts.

John

#17 PlasticJock

PlasticJock

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,682 posts
  • Location:East Lothian

Posted 06 April 2012 - 06:29 pm


I think he's saying that with the larger calibres, there is a greater margin of error.

We all have had the odd shot that didn't go where we want it to, even the experienced ones... So if your shot is off by an inch with a .308 there's a much better chance of the deer dropping instantly as opposed to the same shot with for example a .243 http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...


What was of interest to me was his comment " a .243 with a well placed 100 grn bullet will drop Fallow no problem ", there seems to be an Internet myth that the .243" is a good all round option for a deer rifle, it's not.
A well placed shot with any calibre will kill a deer and if it didn't kill then deer by definition it would be a poorly placed shot.
I was also interested to find out how he would compare the .243" to the .308 which in the main is a superior deer calibre, yet we all seem to love the .243" for certain job (myself included).
There isn't a greater margin for error with either calibre, either you hit the kill zone or you don't which will result in a wounding.
The main advantage of the .308 is the extra kinetic energy it can transfer to bone and the greater wound channel it will produce for like to like deformity with bullet varieties. For example a 100 grain .243 with a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps will produce 1727 ft/lb energy at 100 yards, this is a massive amount of energy. In comparison the .308 will produce 2369.9 ft/lb (2900 fps MV). If we extend our ranges to say 200 yards, the .243" will produce 1481.3 ft/lb and the .308 will produce 1986.2 ft/lb and it's here that you can start to see the benefits of the .308, which produces more energy at 200 yards than the .243" at 100 yards. Either will kill, experts seem to agree that just 4 ft/lb energy is sufficient to destroy a vital organ.
The most important factor is of course hydraulic shock, the .308 in general will produce a great wound channel and thus hydraulic shock. This shock can completely disrupt vital organs in the body cavity. Another benefit of the .308 is jacket thickness, in my experience .308 jackets are slightly thicker than .243, which helps when hitting bone.
Bottom line is that in my opinion both calibres will kill deer, the .308 slightly better and when you are stalking fallow the extra effect of the .308 produces more consistent results in dropping the beasts.

John

Agreed. But I think you mean Hydrostatic shock :D :thumbs:

Yes I think extending the range whilst maintaining energy is the main advantage. Personally I like the .338, but I see not much chance I'll get it granted unless I reload :no:

#18 matt_hooks

matt_hooks

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,303 posts
  • Location:Hungerford (West Berks)

Posted 06 April 2012 - 07:16 pm

Following on from your original post hunter, I think we should clarify what the Polices roll is in firearms licencing, and more specifically what it definitely is not.

The police are tasked with deciding whether you can be allowed to safely have firearms. That is it. Nothing less and nothing more. It is certainly not their job to decide whether you are competent to gralloch a deer safely so that it can enter the food chain.

Whilst I agree that there is FAR more to taking deer for food than pulling the trigger, the police have no interest in it other than that your actions adhere to the provisions of the relevant legislation. They are there to enforce the law, not to make it up as they go along.

If you have land where there are deer, and you have permission to shoot those deer, then you have demonstrated good reason to possess a deer calibre rifle. If you already hold an FAC, which you have undergone all the usual background checks to obtain, you are considered safe to possess a firearm, so you have good reason, and you are considered a safe person. What you want to shoot is totally immaterial. They should issue with those things being in place.

I agree that it is a good idea to obtain training of some sort, to allow you to safely process the deer, but the police have no interest in that, and should not be seeking to control it in the multitude of ways that they do.
  • foxdropper likes this

#19 PlasticJock

PlasticJock

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,682 posts
  • Location:East Lothian

Posted 06 April 2012 - 07:24 pm

Following on from your original post hunter, I think we should clarify what the Polices roll is in firearms licencing, and more specifically what it definitely is not.

The police are tasked with deciding whether you can be allowed to safely have firearms. That is it. Nothing less and nothing more. It is certainly not their job to decide whether you are competent to gralloch a deer safely so that it can enter the food chain.

Whilst I agree that there is FAR more to taking deer for food than pulling the trigger, the police have no interest in it other than that your actions adhere to the provisions of the relevant legislation. They are there to enforce the law, not to make it up as they go along.

If you have land where there are deer, and you have permission to shoot those deer, then you have demonstrated good reason to possess a deer calibre rifle. If you already hold an FAC, which you have undergone all the usual background checks to obtain, you are considered safe to possess a firearm, so you have good reason, and you are considered a safe person. What you want to shoot is totally immaterial. They should issue with those things being in place.

I agree that it is a good idea to obtain training of some sort, to allow you to safely process the deer, but the police have no interest in that, and should not be seeking to control it in the multitude of ways that they do.


Very good post Matt, I'd like to add something as well...

I'm currently teaching a guy how to shoot. He's an ex copper, and was granted a .22 and .243, with any legal quarry including deer, on his OPEN ticket. he had no idea about safety (although he is safe), hasn't done a DSC, and had no experience.

Good news for me for 2 reasons - Firstly, if I am refused (They have no reason to), any calibres etc, or try and apply a mentoring condition, I'll be going straight to court with him giving evidence.

Secondly, it proves the DSC should not be considered even quasi-legal... The police shouldn't concern themselves with such things. How many FEO's are DSC qualified?!

#20 HUnter_zero

HUnter_zero

    Extreme Hunter

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

Posted 06 April 2012 - 09:18 pm

I agree that it is a good idea to obtain training of some sort, to allow you to safely process the deer, but the police have no interest in that, and should not be seeking to control it in the multitude of ways that they do.


On the face of it I totally agree but the fact remains that deer stalking brings a whole new bag of hassle and problems. Training is the only way that some people are going to achieve an acceptable level of skill. Gone are the days when stalkers would teach stalkers. As such in many ways I fully support the Polices standing on the matter, and it is obvious we can not self regulate.
I can remember a local RFD (shop owner) shooting Fallow does in June, as a defence he said " I thought they were Sika ".

John

#21 HUnter_zero

HUnter_zero

    Extreme Hunter

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

Posted 06 April 2012 - 09:20 pm

Agreed. But I think you mean Hydrostatic shock http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub... http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/pub...


Bloody auto-spell checker :whistling:

John

#22 matt_hooks

matt_hooks

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,303 posts
  • Location:Hungerford (West Berks)

Posted 06 April 2012 - 09:44 pm

The police are not experts on deer and how to control them. If we are to accept regulation or compulsory training then it should be enacted in law, not made up on the spur of the moment by a firearms liaison officer or licencing manager, who has no real understanding of the issues!

If there is to be extra legislation, then it needs to be properly formulated, with reference to experts in the field (excuse the pun).

So no, I don't support the police implementing arbitrary, unfair, oft changing and unpredictable rules of their own concoction in areas over which they properly have no jurisdiction.
  • foxdropper likes this

#23 scarecrow243

scarecrow243

    Mega Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Location:wormit in fife

Posted 06 April 2012 - 10:38 pm

getting instruction from someone in the field is better than sitting at a desk with the odd day out, i learnt most of my shooting self taught for many years then from people i mett , my fullbore rifle shooting started in the ta before i got an fac, i know its hard for people to get help in all our shooting sports but i do think its the best way. mechanics taught in college are not as good as guys who learn from the self taught mechanic

#24 charlie caller

charlie caller

    Triple Two Fan

  • Donator
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 07 April 2012 - 12:05 am

Ah, Hz, you seem to be asking the same question over and over again,IE what is a bad shot and what is a good one, might I suggest that if you need me to explain that to you perhaps stalking really is not for you, a trip to the golf shop may be in order, at no time have I extolled the virtues of a .243 over a .308, I have merely said that a .243 will do the job, and whilst carrying on your rather blinkered and pedantic diatribe, you seem to have not only ignored most everything else I have said on the subject,but detracted from the original point of the discussion,to offer advice and support to a fellow sportsman wishing to enter another branch of the sport, I think we have covered the subject in depth now, all I can say is I wish the OP the best of luck with his stalking,anyway off to put in a variation for that .30-378 weatherby. :bye:

#25 HUnter_zero

HUnter_zero

    Extreme Hunter

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

Posted 07 April 2012 - 06:36 am

Ah, Hz, you seem to be asking the same question over and over again,


Simply asking you to expand on a generalisation that you have read else where on the Internet and decided to post with the vain hope of impressing people in to thinking you knew what the hell you were talking about, your inability to explain your own waffling seems to prove that. The .243 is a capable deer calibre, many deer are shot each year using the .243, it isn't however the best and in my view not the worst either but when some one prattles on about "well placed shots" it sparks my interest. Now go away good chap, if I wanted to argue I wouldn't have booked any leave.

John

Edited by HUnter_zero, 07 April 2012 - 07:08 am.


#26 HUnter_zero

HUnter_zero

    Extreme Hunter

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

Posted 07 April 2012 - 06:37 am

getting instruction from someone in the field is better than sitting at a desk with the odd day out, i learnt most of my shooting self taught for many years then from people i mett , my fullbore rifle shooting started in the ta before i got an fac, i know its hard for people to get help in all our shooting sports but i do think its the best way. mechanics taught in college are not as good as guys who learn from the self taught mechanic


Bang on the nail!! :thumbs:

John

#27 foxdropper

foxdropper

    Extreme Hunter

  • Donator
  • 8,636 posts
  • Location:Wiltshire or there abouts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 07:02 am

Whatever calibre is chosen its important to get totally used to this new rifle before taking it out on quarry .The argument for and against any calibre is irrelevant when its your first rifle and no comparison to make .The .243 has served me well allowing me to take all six but then again i dont know anything different .In the scheme of things what does it matter if a beast runs on a bit ,its clinically dead anyway if shot properly.The follow up is as much part of the experience as is the stalking in, to me .Too many enthusiasts of a particular calibre trying to impose their enthusiasm on others .Having owned a fox calibre mate ,you will know the safety aspect as there really is no difference between where a .22 centrefire will end up compared to the larger calibres and if the land is passed for a .223 then .243 should not be a problem .Whilst not wishing to sound blas'e about the training ,i do feel there is much to be learnt from your own trial and error as to what works and what is not really necessary .The gralloch is straight forward ,the aim being to remove all interier organs in a hygenic manner .There are those out there that extol the virtues of a particuler method but there are several as im sure you will find out .

#28 HUnter_zero

HUnter_zero

    Extreme Hunter

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

Posted 07 April 2012 - 07:02 am

The police are not experts on deer and how to control them. If we are to accept regulation or compulsory training then it should be enacted in law, not made up on the spur of the moment by a firearms liaison officer or licencing manager, who has no real understanding of the issues!

If there is to be extra legislation, then it needs to be properly formulated, with reference to experts in the field (excuse the pun).

So no, I don't support the police implementing arbitrary, unfair, oft changing and unpredictable rules of their own concoction in areas over which they properly have no jurisdiction.


You are of course 100% correct in what you say, with regards to the semantics of the situation. Heck, most of the police are not even experts in firearms, let alone the complexities of hunting certain species. The same can be said for most of the Home office and the Government.
It is for this reason they seek advice from known and respected experts, typically the likes of Mr Prior, BASC and some other well know chappies. Most of these chappies are either elitist in their views or such as the BASC have a vested interest in training. The police like any other governing or licensing body will then pick what they can work with and go for it, no hidden agenda! The reason? Because they are not experts, they never profess to be and never will be, but have to deal with the like of you and I, and do their best to keep our respect.

Personally I have to say that unless a person can demonstrate a knowledge of deer and can prove that they have sufficient knowledge to humanely shoot, extract and process the deer, then they should be expected to participate in formal training.
It's that simple.

John

#29 charlie caller

charlie caller

    Triple Two Fan

  • Donator
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 07 April 2012 - 03:14 pm

Whatever calibre is chosen its important to get totally used to this new rifle before taking it out on quarry .The argument for and against any calibre is irrelevant when its your first rifle and no comparison to make .The .243 has served me well allowing me to take all six but then again i dont know anything different .In the scheme of things what does it matter if a beast runs on a bit ,its clinically dead anyway if shot properly.The follow up is as much part of the experience as is the stalking in, to me .Too many enthusiasts of a particular calibre trying to impose their enthusiasm on others .Having owned a fox calibre mate ,you will know the safety aspect as there really is no difference between where a .22 centrefire will end up compared to the larger calibres and if the land is passed for a .223 then .243 should not be a problem .Whilst not wishing to sound blas'e about the training ,i do feel there is much to be learnt from your own trial and error as to what works and what is not really necessary .The gralloch is straight forward ,the aim being to remove all interier organs in a hygenic manner .There are those out there that extol the virtues of a particuler method but there are several as im sure you will find out .

Very well put indeed,a breath of fresh air :thumbs: :thumbs:

#30 apollo

apollo

    Mega Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts
  • Location:south wales

Posted 07 April 2012 - 04:27 pm

why should you be trained to shoot one group of animals with a firearm but not others, ive done level 1 and 2 but had my licence granted for deer two years before i took level 1 but had shot foxes rabbits squirrels and such for years, what i dont understand is if we have respect for our quarry why do people and firearms departments keep on with the you should train to shoot deer, i understand they are for humen consumption but that apart why is shooting a bigger animal with a big calibre any different from shooting a smaller one with a small calibre.
And im sure all the bloke was saying was you have more scope for error with a bigger heavier calibre they can both kill and both injure but you need to be more precise with a smaller one otherwise whats the point of different calibres for fox, deer, boar


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users