What Deer Calibre For First Deer Rifle.

[Yokel Matt 918]

It's all about arse covering and box ticking now. The disparity between legislation and reality is becoming more ridiculous by the minute.

 

As for boar and bear get yourself a nice large continental caliber with obscenely expensive ammunition the size of marker pens. When in Rome...

[Hydropotesinermis 724]

The effects of gravity are the same whether you have a ballistic house brick or a pee shooter.

 

If a large calibre/high energy round ricochets it's generally more dangerous than a small calibre/low energy round. The risk of ricochet though is a different matter.

 

The Home Office are just playing a numbers game. The less people with high power firearms the less chance of accidents. There's nothing logical or fair about it. As far as I'm concerned if someone is considered safe with a rimmy then they are safe with a CF. f**k all the pre-req's and just introduce a simple safe handling certificate and let everybody that has been vetted and passed the safe handling course have whatever they want.

Yes. Gravity is a constant force. I should have worded that differently. A larger projectile will carry more energy but also have a greater surface area available to resistance from the air. This is minimal by comparison to the effective loss of energy by disturbing the matter that the bullet has come into contact with.

 

I know what I am trying to say but I cant get it into words...

 

Anyway its not important. I agree with you 100%.

 

I wish it were possible to see the effect of impact of every bullet on the ground, my feeling is that the vast majority (certainly not all)of bullets, even non expanding ammunition will fragment on contact with the ground, losing mass and considerable energy. Of course I couldn't prove this and would or could never rely on it. There Is a video on youtube of bullets of all compositions impacting a steel plate in slow motion, it's pretty interesting, if I can find it I will post a link.

[lee-kinsman 34]

Depends what deer your shooting. For me 30-06 is far to expensive, 308 has a trajectory like a rainbow and is too slow, 270 is quality but I don't shoot reds so don't need one.

My choice is .243, cheap enough, hard hitting and a good range of ammo to use as a foxing and stalking rifle.

[Deker 3,478]

 

A key point with a .22LR compared to a centre fire for ricochets is that the vast majority of field ammunition used in the UK is subsonic. This means the round is slower than any centrefire and does not have the speed and power push it into a hard target, so it bounces.

 

Something like a .30-06 if it hits a rock is travelling at such a velocity that it uses the vast majority of its energy to smash that rock into pieces and if it can't, it disintegrates. Ricochets do happen, but they're a lot less frequent.

 

If everyone thought of whether a shot is safe for a .22LR then that level of care would suffice any centre fire. I am far more wary of my LR than my centrefires before I take a shot.

This is totally true.

 

Having spent many thousand rimfire and many thousand centrefire rounds I know which one I would be worried about most often when it came to ricochet.

 

It is correct that bullet composition will play a part, but so does the theory of relativity. Kinetic energy lost to the ground by digging in or breaking or moving large debris is massive, as is the resistance from gravity and air of the larger projectile versus the smaller. It doesn't necessarily follow that after striking the ground a larger or heavier projectile will travel further than a smaller one.

 

As for the police regulations, they don't allow you to have a .50BMG because they don't want you to have a .50BMG, I wouldn't think any decision made by the police regarding firearms law has and sound basis in science.

 

It's all theory and semantics. A safe shot is a safe shot. A dangerous shot is a dangerous shot. It doesn't matter what you are shooting backstop is of the utmost importance.

 

 

There is no such thing, there is only a shot where all reasonable care/precautions have been taken.

 

A safe shot is a safe shot until something goes wrong!

 

There are of course plenty of dangerous shots, and a .22lr is no more dangerous than any other calibre IF you take all reasonable care/precautions. That care will potentially be marginally different for different calibres and types of ammo.

 

Those that say if it's safe for a .22lr it's safe for a .5 (or the likes) are talking bull!

 

...and a backstop is FA use if you get a ricochet/fragments at 90 degrees

Edited April 23, 2015 by Deker

[danw 1,748]

No such a good back stop

[Deker 3,478]

No such a good back stop

 

Just think how dangerous that would have been if he was using a .22lr with subs....

[SportingShooter 0]

If the bullet, be it from a .22 or a .50BMG, was three inches to the left there's a good chance he'd be dead,

 

Hit the right place with any lump of lead it's going to be fatal.

[hutchey 147]

Well that was impressive.

[waggy1 1]

Used 7x57 for over 30 years now, I have other deer legal calibers but adore the good old 7x57

[Born Hunter 17,763]

Used 7x57 for over 30 years now, I have other deer legal calibers but adore the good old 7x57

 

W.D.M Bell shot 800 Elephant with his!

 

Do you see many Elephant in Warwickshire?

[Tremo 138]

 

No such a good back stop

 

Just think how dangerous that would have been if he was using a .22lr with subs....

 

 

I can't stop watching this vid. Wow ......... what a lucky guy! If you didn't see it for yourself you would never beilieve it.

[Alsone 789]

The effects of gravity are the same whether you have a ballistic house brick or a pee shooter.

 

If a large calibre/high energy round ricochets it's generally more dangerous than a small calibre/low energy round. The risk of ricochet though is a different matter.

 

The Home Office are just playing a numbers game. The less people with high power firearms the less chance of accidents. There's nothing logical or fair about it. As far as I'm concerned if someone is considered safe with a rimmy then they are safe with a CF. f**k all the pre-req's and just introduce a simple safe handling certificate and let everybody that has been vetted and passed the safe handling course have whatever they want.

 

 

Not strictly true. Gravity is a constant, but a heavier round with more drag will drop quicker.

 

However, the a heavier round is also probably in many instances a fired from a more powerful cartridge and thus whilst it has more drag and so sheds energy faster, it also carriers more velocity and energy to start with and so takes longer to shed that energy and so flies further. That's why a .223 travels further than a .22 LR despite gravity being a constant.

 

I do agree with many of the comments above and Dekers a couple above that a safe shot is a safe shot, with the one caveat that there's no such thing as absolute safety and make no mistake, anything that richochets, will travel a distance that's an equation of it's velocity, energy, weight and drag.

 

I equally agree that in many instances the police are being pedantic with land checks for calibre. After all there are very few to no reported accidents from Scotland where land is not approved. Safety comes primarily from the shooter not the calibre but equally there should always be an awareness that if a richocet does arise, a more powerful calibre has the potential to travel further.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Alsone

[danw 1,748]

This should be interesting alsone given born hunter is a physicist I would be shocked if he needed lessons in ballistics from you

[Deker 3,478]

This should be interesting alsone given born hunter is a physicist I would be shocked if he needed lessons in ballistics from you

 

 

...and misquoted me!

[Alsone 789]

This should be interesting alsone given born hunter is a physicist I would be shocked if he needed lessons in ballistics from you

 

Definately not then. But equally, I don't think I've said anything that contradicts the laws of physics. If an object in motion carries more energy than a similar object in motion with less energy, then it takes longer to slow down unless the forces of friction are so great as to negate the difference. I'm sure BH can correct me with the correct equation for all of this, but I believe the basic premice is true. If something is travelling faster and has more energy it takes longer to slow down.

 

 

 

This should be interesting alsone given born hunter is a physicist I would be shocked if he needed lessons in ballistics from you

 

 

...and misquoted me!

 

 

Not sure I in any way misquoted you Deker. You Said "There is no such thing, there is only a shot where all reasonable care/precautions have been taken. A safe shot is a safe shot until something goes wrong" and I said

 

"I agree with........Dekers a couple above that a safe shot is a safe shot, with the one caveat that there's no such thing as absolute safety". Not seeing any misquote there.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Alsone