James@Scarborough 0 Posted March 15, 2008 Report Share Posted March 15, 2008 Totally agree, but there are at least 4 things he can't hunt legally with it! Can you name them? Quote Link to post
Deker 3,478 Posted March 15, 2008 Report Share Posted March 15, 2008 (edited) Totally agree, but there are at least 4 things he can't hunt legally with it! Can you name them? Roe, Sika, Fallow and Red (Stork lists as England)...in addition you would have a hell of a job getting it approved for Boar! Edited March 15, 2008 by Deker Quote Link to post
James@Scarborough 0 Posted March 15, 2008 Report Share Posted March 15, 2008 I'm suprised you don't think it would be approved for boar. I would think it would do the job without any difficulty. I don't know the rules on boar though as we have none here (wish we did). Quote Link to post
Deker 3,478 Posted March 15, 2008 Report Share Posted March 15, 2008 (edited) I'm suprised you don't think it would be approved for boar. I would think it would do the job without any difficulty. I don't know the rules on boar though as we have none here (wish we did). I would have no doubt it would do the job perfectly well on the 4 Deer listed (despite what the law says) but to be honest I would prefer something with a bit more grunt if faced with an angry Boar! You have a chance with .243 for Boar but the suggestion is .308 minimum, so 22-250 is a long shot! Edited March 15, 2008 by Deker Quote Link to post
FJager 0 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Cheers lads, I thought that may have been the case. 22/250 is a great Boar stopper, too many people these days want the big bangers and they just are not needed, I am talking here about the big .300 magnum,s and up. Quote Link to post
James@Scarborough 0 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Cheers lads, I thought that may have been the case.22/250 is a great Boar stopper, too many people these days want the big bangers and they just are not needed, I am talking here about the big .300 magnum,s and up. My mate's just done his DSC1, and he said that in Scotland some of the estates want a minimum of .270, and some want a minimum of 30-06 for reds . This seems a little over-the-top to me . Quote Link to post
FJager 0 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Yes mate Australia is the same, I think they are trying to cover all skill levels, ie a novice chasing reds with a .222 is probably not the best, plus the people making the rules generally don't have a clue and find it hard to accept advice from a sporting man. Quote Link to post
Deker 3,478 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Cheers lads, I thought that may have been the case.22/250 is a great Boar stopper, too many people these days want the big bangers and they just are not needed, I am talking here about the big .300 magnum,s and up. My mate's just done his DSC1, and he said that in Scotland some of the estates want a minimum of .270, and some want a minimum of 30-06 for reds . This seems a little over-the-top to me . Does seem a little strange (especially when they are fine for Roe with the .22 centrefires) but that has been the case for years! Scotland Roe....22 cf Reds.....243 (but often suggested 270+) England (Oh yes, and that place up the road.... errrr... I know.... Wales ) Roe....243 Reds....243 Quote Link to post
James@Scarborough 0 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 BASC tried to get .22CF approved for roe last year, but were unsuccessful :wacko: Quote Link to post
Deker 3,478 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 BASC tried to get .22CF approved for roe last year, but were unsuccessful :wacko: They were approved under the new Act which came in last year until the Final Reading, then some dipstick decided to ask the RSPCA who responded by saying "they had no evidence to suggest it was humane", why the f**k didn't they look at Scotland...so Roe got removed at the last minute! Quote Link to post
James@Scarborough 0 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 BASC tried to get .22CF approved for roe last year, but were unsuccessful :wacko: They were approved under the new Act which came in last year until the Final Reading, then some dipstick decided to ask the RSPCA who responded by saying "they had no evidence to suggest it was humane", why the f**k didn't they look at Scotland...so Roe got removed at the last minute! What happened to "Inocent until proven guilty"? What they should've said was "We have no evidence to suggest that it is not humane.". Then it wouldn't have been an issue. Who invited that bunch along to the meeting anyway? Quote Link to post
dickyboy 1 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 270 is looking likely to be the minimum for , you've got to remember its not just about whether its able to kill the animal but about putting a big enough hole through the animal to leave a blood trail if it doesn't go down straight away....roe should be 22cf, a 20stone red deer takes some stopping and is a big animal to put a hole through a 22calibre bullet could not have the weight to go through 2 shoulder blades of a boar or red or even fallow, which would lead to animals going off to die and not be trackable!!! Quote Link to post
Deker 3,478 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 BASC tried to get .22CF approved for roe last year, but were unsuccessful :wacko: They were approved under the new Act which came in last year until the Final Reading, then some dipstick decided to ask the RSPCA who responded by saying "they had no evidence to suggest it was humane", why the f**k didn't they look at Scotland...so Roe got removed at the last minute! What happened to "Inocent until proven guilty"? What they should've said was "We have no evidence to suggest that it is not humane.". Then it wouldn't have been an issue. Who invited that bunch along to the meeting anyway? Totally agree, and exactly; what the f**k does the RSPCA know about it? How much experience has the RSPCA had at shooting Roe with .22CF and how many ballistics experts do they have? Unfortunately we are stuck with it now, and I don't expect it is likely to change in my lifetime! But this is an old chestnut now, just about everyone in the shooting community knows fully well that a minimum of .22cf, 1000ft lb, 50g expanding does a very efficient job or Roe! Quote Link to post
SNAP SHOT 194 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 270 is looking likely to be the minimum for , you've got to remember its not just about whether its able to kill the animal but about putting a big enough hole through the animal to leave a blood trail if it doesn't go down straight away....roe should be 22cf, a 20stone red deer takes some stopping and is a big animal to put a hole through a 22calibre bullet could not have the weight to go through 2 shoulder blades of a boar or red or even fallow, which would lead to animals going off to die and not be trackable!!! This is were bullet selection come's into play dickyboy, But if the bullet placement is right then the animal will most certainly bleed, and leave a good trail. There's alot of hype in ireland about the bigger cals. for deer, 6.5 x 55 is now very popular, along with .308, but if you can get within 200 yards of a red with the .243 and are capable of good bullet placement then .243 will more than do the job. i've seen the professional stalker take reds at well in excess of 200 yards with a .243. So thats good enough for me. :thumbs: Quote Link to post
stork 1 Posted March 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 This is just for fox and will have munty put on it soon but i willn then get a .243 for bigger deer. Quote Link to post
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.