Deer license minimum bullet weight

Half-cocked · 11-07-2014 2:15pm #1

Just a word of warning to anyone still using .22/250 for deer, NPWS has bumped the minimum bullet weight back up to 60gr again this year. 55gr was accepted for the last two years but not this year. Had my application returned because I had put down 55gr. Sent back amended to 60gr and all is OK now. Got a couple of boxes of Hornady 60gr to stay legal.

Cass · 11-07-2014 3:59pm

The law states the minimum for any deer legal rifle is:

.22 centrefire caliber
55gr bullet
1,700 ft/lb at the muzzle.

The 22-250 in 55gr only achieves 1650 (or so) ft/lb at the muzzle so does not meet all three criteria, and more importantly the 1,700 minimum limit. Of course anything less than 55gr, regardless of the ft/lb at the muzzle, is illegal as it's below 55gr. So the next step must be the 60gr.

Of course if you have a 55gr round that can achieve the 1,700 ft/lb needed then it cannot be refused. However you need to be able to prove/show this.

Half-cocked · 14-07-2014 12:13pm

All of the above is quite right, but NPWS just don't seem to be able to make their minds up. 55gr was allowed on the application in 2012/13. Not in 2011 and not again this year. And in reality, even with 60gr I bet most .22/250's don't meet the requirements.

Cass · 14-07-2014 12:58pm

It depends from brand to brand.

From the few i've checked no 55gr seems to meet the criteria of 1,700 ft/lb, and some fo the 60gr just make it.

everypenny · 14-07-2014 2:22pm

Is there a .223 round out there that would give you the required ft llbs for deer?

Cass · 14-07-2014 2:30pm

No.

I worked it out before. The .223 would have to be doing in excess of 6,000fps to attain the required ft/lb energy to make it legal. A heavier bullet would not work as the dimensions of the case prohibit exceeding a certain value in either speed or energy. IOW the case can only hold so much propellant.

At present the 55gr to 75 gr is achieving a max of 1,200 ft/lb at the muzzle. There is a .223 wssm that on paper shows it can possibly reach the required amount, but that's a caliber that is simply not feasible here.

everypenny · 14-07-2014 2:32pm

So why not make the required minimum caliber higher?

Cass · 14-07-2014 2:34pm

It would require a legislative change.

The NPWS can only enforce the law, much like An Gardaí. They cannot write it or change it. To change it requires a Ministerial SI or if it's the Act itself the full process of Bill, Seanad, Dail, etc.

everypenny · 14-07-2014 2:35pm

Well good luck with that if they can't even get photos on licenses!

Cass · 14-07-2014 3:00pm

Correct and Right.

Ghost. · 14-07-2014 7:16pm

Cass wrote: »

No.

I worked it out before. The .223 would have to be doing in excess of 6,000fps to attain the required ft/lb energy to make it legal. A heavier bullet would not work as the dimensions of the case prohibit exceeding a certain value in either speed or energy. IOW the case can only hold so much propellant.

At present the 55gr to 75 gr is achieving a max of 1,200 ft/lb at the muzzle.

I worked it out on an online ballistics calculator and I reckon a 55g 223 bullet at 1740fps would have just over the 1700 ft/lbs. I know most factory 55g ammo only give a max of about 1200ft/lbs and 3300fps.
But I came across this buffalo bore ammo and they have 77g .223 ammo giving 1643ft/lb of energy.
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=169
Thats very close to being deer legal here. I dont know much about reloading but would it not be possible to squeeze that extra 57ft/lbs out of it if you were reloading?
I know the theres no off the shelf ammo that does it and the .223 in general doesnt meet the criteria but if you were reloading would it not be possible?

Dian Cecht · 14-07-2014 7:31pm

From previous threads here and info from Cass you cannot reload here for hunting only F Class so snookered already

Cass · 14-07-2014 8:04pm

Ghost. wrote: »

I worked it out on an online ballistics calculator and I reckon a 55g 223 bullet at 1740fps would have just over the 1700 ft/lbs. I know most factory 55g ammo only give a max of about 1200ft/lbs and 3300fps.

Do you want to try that again or at least your your own post again. You say that the BC you used said a 55gr doing 1740fps would produce 1,700 ft/lb yet in the same line you say a brand from 'Merica produces 1,643 when doing 3,300 fps.

Most factory ammo does between 3,000 up to 3,600 fps and NONE of them can produce 1,700 ft/lb.

But I came across this buffalo bore ammo and they have 77g .223 ammo giving 1643ft/lb of energy.
Thats very close to being deer legal here. I dont know much about reloading but would it not be possible to squeeze that extra 57ft/lbs out of it if you were reloading?

Four things:

No reloading so it's out
What propellant are they using (fast burning, high pressure, etc)
Is there room for more propellant to get that extra out of it.
Why would you want to try and make a .223 be deer legal? IOW what is the thing with making the smallest possible caliber deer legal.

I know the theres no off the shelf ammo that does it and the .223 in general doesnt meet the criteria but if you were reloading would it not be possible?

As above. Not an option. Plus it depends on the bullet. The heavy it is the slower the speed, but usually the higher the energy. So a 55gr doing 3,600fps would not have the same energy as a 75 doing 3,000 fps. So the trick becomes getting a suitable bullet, doing the necessary speed to produce it. The trick being can you make this happen with the fixed value that is the amount of propellant in the case.

Ghost. · 14-07-2014 8:50pm

Cass wrote: »

Do you want to try that again or at least your your own post again. You say that the BC you used said a 55gr doing 1740fps would produce 1,700 ft/lb yet in the same line you say a brand from 'Merica produces 1,643 when doing 3,300 fps.

Most factory ammo does between 3,000 up to 3,600 fps and NONE of them can produce 1,700 ft/lb.

Nope I think my post reads fine, there is a line under that quote you must have missed. I said the load from 'Merica was 77g not 55g. I just copied their figures. But the answer I got out of the BC could be wrong though, Im not really up on ballistics and that jazz.

I know NONE of the factory ammo can produce 1700 ft/lbs, but as I said I found ONE that comes very close. Although I had never heard of them before.

When you worked it out that a .223 would need to be doing in excess of 6000fps what grain bullet were you using? Or was that a misprint because thats what got me wondering how far off it a .223 is.

Cass wrote: »

Four things:
No reloading so it's out

What propellant are they using (fast burning, high pressure, etc)

Is there room for more propellant to get that extra out of it.

Why would you want to try and make a .223 be deer legal? IOW what is the thing with making the smallest possible caliber deer legal.

I havent got a clue of any of the powders or components they are using. I just quoted their figures on the website. I just was curious if it could be done or if anyone who has a good knowledge of reloading thought it could. As I said I dont know much about reloading. From previous posts on the subject I was given the impression it was an impossibility for a .223 to reach them figures of 1700ft/lbs at the muzzle.

I dont want to make an 223 deer legal or go into why anyone would want to. Ive no thing with with making the smallest possible caliber deer legal, and Im not going down that road.
I know the 223 cant be licenced for deer because I confirmed it with the NPWS years ago. Im just interested if the .223 has the ability to reach the figures quoted above.

Cass wrote: »

As above. Not an option. Plus it depends on the bullet. The heavy it is the slower the speed, but usually the higher the energy. So a 55gr doing 3,600fps would not have the same energy as a 75 doing 3,000 fps. So the trick becomes getting a suitable bullet, doing the necessary speed to produce it. The trick being can you make this happen with the fixed value that is the amount of propellant in the case.

I understand that. I just seen that brand of ammo was very close to making it. So do you think it could be done IF someone was reloading?

And yes I know reloading is out. I probably should have made that clear when I posted. Thats why I asked if its possible, not if it was feasible.

Cass · 14-07-2014 9:10pm

Ghost. wrote: »

Nope I think my post reads fine, there is a line under that quote you must have missed.

Nope. Didn't miss it. Perhaps we're getting our wires crossed with the way the post was structured. I seen the line that said most 55gr at 3,300 can only reach 1,200 ft/lb, but you said you ran the numbers through a ballistic calculator and at 1,740fps a .223 can produce the 1,700 ft/lb.

Ghost. wrote: »

I worked it out on an online ballistics calculator and I reckon a 55g 223 bullet at 1740fps would have just over the 1700 ft/lbs. I know most factory 55g ammo only give a max of about 1200ft/lbs and 3300fps.

This is the bit that has me confused. If a 55gr at 3,300 cannot, and that ammo you linked to, at 77gr doing 3,100, cannot then why would a BC say a 55gr doing 1,740 be able to produce 1,700 ft/lb

When you worked it out that a .223 would need to be doing in excess of 6000fps what grain bullet were you using? Or was that a misprint because thats what got me wondering how far off it a .223 is.

Some time ago this topic came up and Grizzly saw a round, like yourself, from 'Merica that stated a .223 of 40 - 55gr could produce 1,900 ft/lb. So when i checked it out i worked out for that specific bullet to make that energy it would have to be doing over 6,000 fps which is simply not possible.

From previous posts on the subject I was given the impression it was an impossibility for a .223 to reach them figures of 1700ft/lbs at the muzzle.

As i said above, and on the other thread i touched on, there is a variant of the .223 in WSSM that can attain it, but as reloading is not allowed then it's a moot point as factory ammo would bee nigh on impossible to get here.

I know the 223 cant be licenced for deer because I confirmed it with the NPWS years ago. Im just interested if the .223 has the ability to reach the figures quoted above.

The NPWS, last year, made the mistake of issuing a lad with a license and confirming via letter than a .223 was deer legal. When their mistake was pointed out to them it was quickly revoked.

So do you think it could be done IF someone was reloading?

Possibly.

I've never tried it as i don't reload for .223, but some lads on the F-Class team have experimented with a 90 VLD, in .223 for FTR. While not a hunting round it might be able to make the cut, but i've no idea what those figures are.

Ghost. · 14-07-2014 9:49pm

All these numbers Ahhh the magic 1700 is in my head... Ya, I see the mistake now, typing error. That should have been 3740 fps to get just over 1700 ft/lbs with a 55g. My bad, sorry for confusing things.

The other crowd with the 77g bullets I just read their numbers on their site, it could be pure bluff like the one that needs the mad speeds you calculated for. I dunno.

As for the elusive .223 licence for deer, they are like the big black panther or wild boar that is spotted in the woods every couple of years and a friend of a friend saw it. I was told it was got with a 64g or 65g bullet.That was why I phoned the NPWS just to get what exactly the story was with them. A definite no no. Was told 22-250 but they recommend 243 or bigger.

rowa · 14-07-2014 9:51pm

Or you could forget all that bc, muzzle velocity, and bullet weight crap and buy a cheap second hand .243 :rolleyes:

Cass · 14-07-2014 11:32pm

We'll all buy cheap, second hand .243's, and just stick a closed sign on the front page.

Seriously! Somemmight find it boring, others find it interesting, and the rest might just like to know/read it. It's a discussion forum so we're discussing.

rowa · 14-07-2014 11:50pm

Well select the correct tool for the job then. They are live animals being shot after all and deserve a bit of consideration. All the talk of bullet weight is fine but what are bullets loaded into the .22-250 designed for ? Pound to a penny they are designed for vermin and are totally unsuitable for deer. The 5.6x57 is a different kettle of fish though and is a .22 designed with heavily constructed bullets for specific use on deer.

everypenny · 15-07-2014 12:01am

To calculate the kinetic energy of a bullet, multiply the weight of the bullet in grains times the velocity in ft. per second squared and divide this number by 450400. The number that you get is the energy of that bullet at that velocity in ft. pounds.

So if you wanted 1700 ft llbs from a 75 gr bullet you'd need a MV of 3,195 feet per second.
[(1,700x450400) =765,680,000]
765,680,000 / 75 = 10,209,066.667
sq root of 10,209,066.667 = 3,195.

:cool:

Sika98k · 15-07-2014 2:14am

Cass wrote: »

It would require a legislative change.

The NPWS can only enforce the law, much like An Gardaí. They cannot write it or change it. To change it requires a Ministerial SI or if it's the Act itself the full process of Bill, Seanad, Dail, etc.

So if the law states that the minimum bullet weight is 55grain how do the NPWS then decide that we should have to use a 60grain bullet ?

Half-cocked · 15-07-2014 10:45am

Sika98k wrote: »

So if the law states that the minimum bullet weight is 55grain how do the NPWS then decide that we should have to use a 60grain bullet ?

Well, they decided it this year. Last 2 years it was 55gr, year before it was 60gr and 55gr was alright before that. Only issue I have is that my .22-250 will drive tacks at 100yds with 55gr ammo and can't shoot a 3" group with 60gr. So if I am restricted to 60gr ammo I won't be taking a shot at a deer outside 20-30yds. Makes for interesting stalking!!!

Cass · 15-07-2014 12:44pm

rowa wrote: »

Well select the correct tool for the job then.

No one is suggesting using a .223. It's a DISCUSSION forum. Another poster, and yes there are more than you on this forum, asked a hypothetical question about a .223, and now we're discussing it.

Getting all pissy because you're not interested is not the way to go, nor is being ignorant, uncivil, or telling people to "cut out the crap". If you're not interested then don't read the thread, and definitely don't spoil it for others.

Sika98k wrote: »

So if the law states that the minimum bullet weight is 55grain how do the NPWS then decide that we should have to use a 60grain bullet ?

Because it's Minimum, and by requesting a higher gran bullet that will meet the legal requirements they are not changing the law.

If someone comes in with a 55gr round, but they calculate or know it won't make the energy needed they can grant it on a higher grainage bullet rather than refuse it outright.

Much like the security levels for owning a gun. The law states that for a shotgun all you need it to disassemble it and put a trigger lock on it. However as it's the minimum standard the Super can impose much higher restrictions as s/he sees fit.

If it were 55 gr ONLY then it would eliminate most other caliber rifles that are more than up to the job with different bullets/rounds.

everypenny · 15-07-2014 2:52pm

Ive never come accross the .22-250. How is the round more capable than a 223 when technically its smaller than s 223.

Are there 22-250 rounds out there that will give you the 1700 ft llbs?

Cass · 15-07-2014 3:13pm

everypenny wrote: »

Ive never come accross the .22-250. How is the round more capable than a 223 when technically its smaller than s 223.

You're thinking of bullet size when in this scenario it's down to case size or chambering.

The 22-250 uses large cases like the .243, 270, .308. It's also longer than the .223 so it can hold more propellant and as such fire a .22 centrefire round at greater speeds, hence greater energy, than a 223.

Are there 22-250 rounds out there that will give you the 1700 ft llbs?

Yup.

60gr stuff just scraps by with an average of 1,740 ft/lb at the muzzle.

If the NPWS wanted things changed then instead of restricting it to a higher caliber like naming it as .243 or up then better option, imo, is to change the minimum ft/lb from the muzzle to 100 yards. So use whatever you want but it must be able to produce 1,700 ft/lb at 100 yards. This would have the same effect as saying "243 or up", but leave it open to other smaller .22 centrefire calibers with different ammo.

So the 22-250 might scrap by with 1,740 at the muzzle but at 100 yards it could be down to 1,650 or 1,600. If the deer is a couple of hundred yards away then it may only have the impact energy of a .223 at the muzzle by the time it strikes the deer.

The argument has been given that shot placement is more important than caliber, and it's right. No point having a .300wm if ya keep shooting them in the arse. IOW relying on the size of the round to do the work. However i firmly believe that certain calibers are only suited to certain shooting. So .223 for me is a varmint caliber and as i said above, and not being a dick, but i've seen it over the years where lads are trying to get the lowest possible caliber to make legal weight instead of going for the more suited caliber even if it means a change of gun.

Remember that a .308 will do everything a .223 and .308 can do, but a .223 cannot do what a .308 does. (replace those with any calibers that suit your taste, but you get the idea).

Jonty · 15-07-2014 4:02pm

everypenny wrote: »

Ive never come accross the .22-250. How is the round more capable than a 223 when technically its smaller than s 223.

Are there 22-250 rounds out there that will give you the 1700 ft llbs?

They are both the same diameter, .224

Zxthinger · 21-07-2014 8:26pm

The 220 swift makes the grade with 55grain factroy ammo!
Norma oryx.

And the lighter soft point Norma knocks out 1800ft-lbs with a 50 grain round!! Lol. Got to love the swift! The 55 will get me over the regulation min with 1740ftlbs from a quoted 24" test barrel and I'm knocking them out of a 26" so I prob have extra 50 fps easy!

Let's just leave the law the way it is! I bought a gun and ammo to suit my persuits and now people want it changed!
If it ever was moved to a 243 with a higher energy of 1900ftlbs then we me complaining about 80 grain bullets not making the grade and the fact that animals have a right to be treated correctly and only 90 grain round should be used! Blah Blah bbbbbb
Let face we have a system now that has some thought behind it and it's working, before this deer were being shot with 22wmr and 22lr!! We have evolved.
Both 22-250 and swift are great deer calibers but have limits as do all guns and all situations. Limits might not be set in terms of every time but they are there in terms of distance and accuracy etc etc.
55grain bonded oryx bullets punch through and retain weight but poor SD and low BC limit them to around 175yards.

juice1304 · 21-07-2014 9:53pm

Zxthinger wrote: »

The 220 swift makes the grade with 55grain factroy ammo!
Norma oryx.

And the lighter soft point Norma knocks out 1800ft-lbs with a 50 grain round!! Lol. Got to love the swift! The 55 will get me over the regulation min with 1740ftlbs from a quoted 24" test barrel and I'm knocking them out of a 26" so I prob have extra 50 fps easy!

Let's just leave the law the way it is! I bought a gun and ammo to suit my persuits and now people want it changed!
If it ever was moved to a 243 with a higher energy of 1900ftlbs then we me complaining about 80 grain bullets not making the grade and the fact that animals have a right to be treated correctly and only 90 grain round should be used! Blah Blah bbbbbb
Let face we have a system now that has some thought behind it and it's working, before this deer were being shot with 22wmr and 22lr!! We have evolved.
Both 22-250 and swift are great deer calibers but have limits as do all guns and all situations. Limits might not be set in terms of every time but they are there in terms of distance and accuracy etc etc.
55grain bonded oryx bullets punch through and retain weight but poor SD and low BC limit them to around 175yards.

We all know why that is the minimum and it has nothing to do with it being a well thought out caliber for deer it was to keep people from owning high power rifles and nothing else. there are not many places in europe where this caliber would be legal for deer. and i think it should be a minimum of .243

Zxthinger · 21-07-2014 10:53pm

juice1304 wrote: »

We all know why that is the minimum and it has nothing to do with it being a well thought out caliber for deer it was to keep people from owning high power rifles and nothing else. there are not many places in europe where this caliber would be legal for deer. and i think it should be a minimum of .243

There might be weight to you conspiracy but it still doesn't detract from the fact that the swift is a spectacular killer of game and it can punch high above it own weight,, it's been recorded as one of the most effective killers ever by some of the most respected shooters and cartridge designers ever.

Sparks · 21-07-2014 11:44pm

Zxthinger wrote: »

Let's just leave the law the way it is! I bought a gun and ammo to suit my persuits and now people want it changed!

The law's not being changed though.

before this deer were being shot with 22wmr and 22lr!!

Legally? How far back are you going there?

juice1304 wrote: »

We all know why that is the minimum and it has nothing to do with it being a well thought out caliber for deer it was to keep people from owning high power rifles and nothing else.

Eh, not according to the various deer societies it's not. It's the minimum because after 1995 when you could get up to .270 winchester (and after '04 when you could get much more), they figured people would migrate upwards in calibre themselves and didn't need the push, but if they tried to push, they'd just be being <expletive>'s for no good reason.

(That's according to them themselves last time I asked some of them about it)

Zxthinger · 22-07-2014 12:03am

Back in the early 70's.
Min caliber only came our way '77.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Deer license minimum bullet weight

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County