Raising Caliber limit for deer.

Cass

From the Deer Alliance page(same crowd that tried to bring in mandatory hcap).

They have submitted a proposal to the IDMF and the Minister to raise the minimum legal caliber to .24 inches and 100gr. Meaning even a 243 with a 95gr bullet won't cut it.

I've been a critic of people going for the lowest possible legal caliber for years, but this is a step to far. It will not only eliminate those calibers that are "on the edge" in legal terms, but will force people to either use an inappropriately suited round to the their rifle or change up for a larger caliber as the heaviest round available for 243 is not on the "border" of being legal if this proposal is adopted.

As a side note i see the list of calibers they have includes the 223. If they think Swifts and 22-250 are too low why have they got and talk about 223s when they don't come close to making the grade. Also for international shooters, think Americans as some can use a 223 for deer hunting.

meathstevie

Cass, you're absolutely spot on. Since the demise of the giant Irish deer a few thousand years ago there isn't a deer left on this island that can't be quickly dispatched with what's deer legal now.

Even a .223, although not deer legal, is quite capable of dropping a red deer on the spot with correct shot placement. I for one don't see any necessity for higher legal minima for deer hunting calibers.

aaakev

Who the **** are these muppets and why are they talking for us?? Who gave them a voice??

My shiny new .243 with 90gr soft points are now not appropriate for deer? **** right off....

Grizzly 45

Playing a bit of Devil's advocate here.
This is again EU legislation on more animal welfare than firearms legislation, and on that point of animal welfare they do have a valid point of using "enough gun"

Now, I'll be the first to admit my own bias in this.I have NEVER approved of this idea in Ireland of "necking" or headshots or all the other weird and wonderful target areas we had to adapt to get the best use of our glorified .22s, due to a bad political situation and worse legislation.If you can't get a centre mass shot and put a round into the heart either wait, get in closer, or forget about it.And yes, there are lads out there who are excellent with their rifles and doubtless, all of them can shoot a 10 cent piece at 200 yards no bother with their .22 whatever.:).

The other benefit is long term[maybe] in the fact it will make it harder to bring in calibre bans, as in the future it can be claimed that XYZ calibres are common deer hunting calibres here....
But the question is now, is it ethical to do so when we do have at bare minimum .243s that will drop anything here in Ireland of our deer species and rare[maybe] feral pig?
A
lso, yes the .223 is legal in the EU and the UK for deer.ROE and MUNTJAC that is.Which is a deer species suitable to the calibre, [which by right is a glorified varmint calibre, that the US adopted for some reason to a military version in 5.56],
Yes folks do hunt deer with them in the US, but they have the following advantages to us
[1] Easy availability of reloading ammo to hotter .223s and heavier bullets.Technically said Black Hills ammo does make a round that would make a .223 deer legal here if you don't mind paying some stupid money like maybe20 euros a round, and even if it was available in the EU.

2]Size comparison wise their deer species are around the size of our Fallow, give or take and they are hunted in a lot closer than we would do.IE they hunt a lot in forest clearing from stands, along the east and west coast states. The long-range shooting is midwest and prairie where the 223 is a coyote and groundhog buster.

What I do not like about this is, as usual, no one is asked their opinion by our self-appointed organisation before going off and making "recommendations" on our behalf and benefit.

How many deer of all species have been dropped here in Ireland in the last decade with .243 and 80-grain loads with any problem?

And the attitude of "Shure anyone could slap a grand or two for a new deer rifle no bother." Smacks of the vested intrested gun dealers wing of the sports colation putting in their oar,and forgetting maybe they could end up on a pile of .22/250s and .243s that everyone will want to dump?Nor is it a given that you will be automatically be granted an upgrade to a different calibre by our ever helpful and understanding liscensing procedures. Seriously this is why we NEED an organisation that is a counterweight to this bunch.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Playing a bit of Devil's advocate here.
This is again EU legislation on more animal welfare than firearms legislation, and on that point of animal welfare they do have a valid point of using "enough gun"

Problem is they either have not checked their numbers or simply didn't bother and just picked 243 with 100 gr. Here is why i say that.

But the question is now, is it ethical to do so when we do have at bare minimum .243s that will drop anything here in Ireland of our deer species and rare[maybe] feral pig?

The numbers they give of 100gr bullet in .240 minimum caliber with 2,100 ft/lb of energy means that almost no 243 round can make that cut. I've tried over seven different types of ammo, all 100gr, through a ballistic calculator (granted not an exact science but will do for now) and not one of them makes the 2,100ft/lb of energy. I then tried everything else from 58gr v-max to 77gr, 80gr, 95gr, etc and none of them come close to the 2,100ft/lb mark.

A lot of those are bullets that can only be bought for reloading, and the majority of the rest are not available here, only in the states. This means that even a 243 rifle with 100 gr bullet won't be legal. This means only rifles of 6.5 or higher will be legal. (i'm avoiding the wildcat calibers between 6mm and 6.5 for obvious reasons).

Easy availability of reloading ammo to hotter .223s and heavier bullets.Technically said Black Hills ammo does make a round that would make a .223 deer legal here............

Reloaded or Black hills ammo, it doesn't matter. A 223 Remington cannot EVER be deer legal. The highest ft/lb energy from reloaded ammo is in the 1,400ft/lb mark some 300ft/lb less than the current limit. We discussed this before.

The only way to make a 223 deer legal is to use a 223 WSM which is reload only and hence moot.

How many deer of all species have been dropped here in Ireland in the last decade with .243 and 80-grain loads with any problem?

Which according to the submission would now not make the cut and be illegal.

You mentioned above about making it harder to bring in possible caliber bans.

The other benefit is long term[maybe] in the fact it will make it harder to bring in calibre bans, as in the future it can be claimed that XYZ calibres are common deer hunting calibres here....

Maybe i'm reading that wrong because this actually makes it easier.

As it stands there is no legislative reason to be refused a 22-250, 220 Swift, 243, 6.5, .270, .308, etc, etc. if you are not a deer stalker or member of a range. It's a self imposed limit. By self imposed i mean people have been refused these calibers fro not being a deer hunter or range member, but there is no law to say this and we accept it. It has now become a de facto reason for refusal when if someone actually brought it to court they would most likely win their case.

There is a legal requirement to show good reason for a given caliber but it's not limited to deer shooting or target shooting. We have shot ourselves in the foot for allowing this de facto ban go unchallenged.

Grizzly 45

Reloaded or Black hills ammo, it doesn't matter. A 223 Remington cannot EVER be deer legal. The highest ft/lb energy from reloaded ammo is in the 1,400ft/lb mark some 300ft/lb less than the current limit. We discussed this before.

Not saying it is right, or should be done obviously, but that it is possible.As our legislation doesn't say at what distance this round should be holding these velocities either,we have to assume muzzle velocity, and they fit in there under current Irish legislation.

Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 60 gr. SP at 3150 fps E
Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 60 gr. V-Max at 3150 fps E
Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 62 gr. Heavy FMJ at 2950 fps E
Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 68 gr. HPBT Match at 2850 fps E
Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 69 gr. HPBT MatchKing at 3000 fps E
Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 73 gr. Heavy Match Hollow at 2750 fps D
Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 75 gr. HPBT Match at 2750 fps D
Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 77 gr. HPBT Match at 2750 fps D
http://bushnell.com/getmedia/3ced5343-1836-4478-9709-99ef4825a54b/black_hills_ballistic_data.pdf

Maybe I'm reading that wrong because this actually makes it easier.

As it stands there is no legislative reason to be refused a 22-250, 220 Swift, 243, 6.5, .270, .308, etc, etc. if you are not a deerstalker or member of a range. It's a self-imposed limit. By self-imposed I mean people have been refused these calibres for not being a deer hunter or range member, but there is no law to say this and we accept it. It has now become a de facto reason for refusal when if someone actually brought it to court they would most likely win their case.

There is a legal requirement to show good reason for a given calibre but it's not limited to deer shooting or target shooting. We have shot ourselves in the foot for allowing this de facto ban go unchallenged.

Very correct on the lower calibres,but the point I was trying to make is that if the lower cals are banned for deer hunting under "animal welfare" laws,it would make it harder to ban big cals as they are required for humane dispatch.It was one of the quoted reasons back in the whenever [the 00s I think] for a justification to allow the higher cals to return.

The most stupid bit of this is this proposed.243 ban with the current ammo selection.That is the point I think should be focused on.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It was one of the quoted reasons back in the whenever [the 00s I think] for a justification to allow the higher cals to return.

Mid to late '90s if I remember right, and then only up to .270 winchester.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Not saying it is right, or should be done obviously, but that it is possible.

No, it's not.

As our legislation doesn't say at what distance this round should be holding these velocities either

Yes it does, quite clearly actually. At the muzzle.

SI239/1977 wrote:

Centre-fire rifles of not less than ·22 calibre with a muzzle energy of not less than 1,700 foot pounds.

,we have to assume muzzle velocity,

Don't have to assume anything

and they fit in there under current Irish legislation.

As above they don't. The list you put out only gives bullet weight and velocity. not muzzle energy so i'll do it for you. These numbers are from a Ballistic calculator using preset BlackHills data which is exactly what the list you gave (and the site) says it is:

Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 60 gr. SP at 3150 fps E

1,321 ft/lb

Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 60 gr. V-Max at 3150 fps E

1,322ft/lb

Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 62 gr. Heavy FMJ at 2950 fps E

1,197ft/lb

Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 68 gr. HPBT Match at 2850 fps E

1,226ft/lb

Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 69 gr. HPBT MatchKing at 3000 fps E

1,359ft/lb

Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 73 gr. Heavy Match Hollow at 2750 fps D

1,279ft/lb

Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 75 gr. HPBT Match at 2750 fps D

1,259ft/lb

Black Hills Ammunition .224 dia., 223 Remington, 77 gr. HPBT Match at 2750 fps D

1,293ft/lb

Very correct on the lower calibres,but the point I was trying to make is that if the lower cals are banned for deer hunting under "animal welfare" laws,it would make it harder to ban big cals as they are required for humane dispatch..

Banning larger cals was never an issue and the 1993 case to bring back bigger cals was against the 1972 TCO and illegality of it and the licensing practices after it expired.

The most stupid bit of this is this proposed.243 ban with the current ammo selection.That is the point I think should be focused on.

We should be more focused on the fact that this group, and yet another within the shooting community, have once again taken it upon themselves to speak up for everyone.

Like the so called coalition the deer alliance are making submissions that may very well end shooting as we know it and if it were for legitimate reasons i'd find it hard to argue (like making a larger caliber necessary) but it's not going to do that. The new limits they list effectively ban 243s meaning it's now 6.5 or above.

Instead of having to explain and fight why these proposals are bad, we should be confronting the groups that think its okay to submit them.

The new RFD secure storage SI came about by this very type of actions of a vested few.

cookimonster

Have they got their 'units' mixed up - feet per second versus foot pounds, if you look here at the BASC site there are some similar figures just with different values.

https://basc.org.uk/cop/deer-stalking/

gunny123

Is there no end to the assaults on our sports recently ? It seems that the people supposed to be fighting our corner with the PTB, are doing more harm than good.

Is there anyone using a .22-250 or 5.6x57 for deer anymore anyway ? The .22 only restriction was lifted many years ago now, and i remember at the time there was a rush of lads looking to finally graduate to a "real" deer calibre like the .243 and .270. In the old Tallaght rod and gun, the owner had a huge crate full of .22-250's that were taken as trade in's on larger rifles, they were being shipped to the UK for resale.

Anyone i knew was dying to get their hands on a .243 or above.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

Have they got their 'units' mixed up - feet per second versus foot pounds, if you look here at the BASC site there are some similar figures just with different values.

https://basc.org.uk/cop/deer-stalking/

None of which state a 2,100ft/lb minimum limit because they know its not possible even with a 243.

Once again this group has made a recommendation/submission without fact checking or thinking about the consequences of their proposal.

solarwinds

From reading it it seems to give the impression that they dont want anyone to be breaking the law and they are only looking out for you and have your best interests at heart.
Here we go again we now have a solution to a problem that doesnt exist.
As said previously, once larger calibres became available the majority of hunters ditched their .22-250. I imagine you could count on one hand the people you know left using them for stalking. I know of one man using one and its for foxes only.
This is just another ego stroking exercise by some little Napoleons and their little band of yes men who have managed to come up with an answer to a question no one has asked.
This type of sh*te would make you want to take a grinder to your guns before some shooting organisation tells the AGS I shouldnt have them.
I mean you have one organisation trying to compensate farmers because of the devastation caused by wild marauding deer and on the other hand you have a deer organisation trying to limit your choice of calibre with which to hunt them with.
I know lets all get a .5 and that will be the only gun we ever need for targets, deer and gralloching. No need for 5 or 6 different rifles any more.

gunny123

solarwinds wrote: »

As said previously, once larger calibres became available the majority of hunters ditched their .22-250. I imagine you could count on one hand the people you know left using them for stalking. I know of one man using one and its for foxes only.

I was talking to a dealer recently and he was telling me super's won't licence .22-250's for fox control anymore, .223 or less. They are a betwixt and between rifle now, sadly.

cookimonster

Just going over some old paper work and just came across this:

As an answer for one of the HCAP questions ref minimum 'recommended' Deer legal calibre.

Answer: .240 with 100 grain bullet and 1900 foot-pounds of energy at muzzle.

So by their own lititure there is no consistency.

gunny123

Yes but recommended by whom ? Ask 50 shooters and you will be recommended everything from .220 swift to .45-70 and everything in between.

Walter Mittys Brother

"..............No firearms are prohibited as such, merely “restricted” and subject to special application procedures and considerations............"

OK so I'll play along (I reckon he's wrong & that there is actually a "prohibited" category?) ...................... Chief Super I'd like a GPMG for target shooting. It's only "restricted" so as my good reason is I will be doing machine gun comps at the local range, that's cleared for 7.62mm ammo, and no other rifle will do as it's a machine gun comp :P

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

OK so I'll play along (I reckon he's wrong & that there is actually a "prohibited" category?)

There is, but it's not as straight forward as i first thought.

I was always under the impression prohibited meant "not gonna happen" or simply put "not possible". Seems this may not be the case. Prohibited in the act does not mean banned. IOW because it's prohibited doesn't means it can never be licensed. The firearms act actually says as much when it says that under special circumstances a license for a prohibited "weapon" may be issued y the Minister.

The act defines prohibited as anything that expels noxious gas, liquid, thing and ammunition for the same.

You mentioned asking for a GPMG. Have a read of section 5 of SI 21/2008. Grenades, bombs, missiles (whether capable or not capable of being used with a firearm) including explosive military missiles and launchers are all classed as restricted and NOT prohibited.

Now i didn't bother checking the other 17 Acts to see for any amendment to the status of this, but legally speaking you can apply for a license for them.

Walter Mittys Brother

Now all I need is a range to run the comps at .................. And to source a GPMG ........

Sparks

GPMGs, being fully auto, would be class A firearms under 91/EEC/477 and you'd basically need a minister's permission and they're not - under the EU guidelines - supposed to give it out.

Prohibited does appear - after one of the Minister's latest parlimentary questions (see here) to be a class rather than a directive, but I'd wager it would map to the EU class A as well if anyone got asked...

Grizzly 45

From Min Flanagan's answer and this is actually a very dangerous precedent for AGS to state, because it flies in the face of all western police force doctrines..

The protection of life and property is a function of the Garda Síochána and civilians are only entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves and their property.
That means if your house is broken into and/or you are assaulted, you can literally sue AGS and the Irish Govt for not providing protection of your life and property,and having to defend yourself. As they have taken upon themselves now in that statement to be the sole defenders of such.

Be like now saying you cant fight a fire because the fire brigade are the only people qualified to put out fires.

Sparks

I understood that to date from the founding of the force and was put there deliberately so you wouldn't go shoot your neighbour because you and he were on opposite sides in the civil war. Which, at the time, was not really a bad thing.

Grizzly 45

Depends on how bad your neighbours were I guess.:)
But in this day and age it is a ridiculously dangerous statement for LE and a govt to be espousing.

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

From Min Flanagan's answer and this is actually a very dangerous precedent for AGS to state, because it flies in the face of all western police force doctrines..

The protection of life and property is a function of the Garda Síochána and civilians are only entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves and their property.
That means if your house is broken into and/or you are assaulted, you can literally sue AGS and the Irish Govt for not providing protection of your life and property,and having to defend yourself. As they have taken upon themselves now in that statement to be the sole defenders of such.

Be like now saying you cant fight a fire because the fire brigade are the only people qualified to put out fires.

When you see what happened with that oap in london a few weeks back stabbing the yobbo who died up the road. Using the ultimate force to defend yourself brings other troubles. He and his wife are basically in hiding for the rest of their lives.
The same thing happened with padraig nally, yes you have protected yourself, now spend the rest of your looking over your shoulder.

Grizzly 45

Yes, indeed, Nally should now have 24/7/365 police protection, as after all the state claims and has the monopoly of force in society, therefore it is negligent in its duty to protect property and life if it claims that sole right.

However, it cannot really enforce this as you an individual have a "God given" right to life and bodily integrity, and protection and preservation thereof and we are supposedly ALL equal in this right under manmade and "God-given "law.

IOW what makes a VIP with armed bodyguards who espouses gun controls, life more valuable than an oap having to defend himself with a screwdriver?
So it has to be one or the other.You are entitled to defend your life, no holds barred, or the organs of the State claiming a monopoly of force going by that above statement, will do it for you, anytime or place?

A police force primary task is upholding the law and preserving the peace, not acting as a public security force guarding life and property.Going by that statement.

aaakev

This has been tested recently too in the Irish courts. A man from the travelling community in Finglas came home to find a junkey in his mobile home, grabbed the nearest thing to hand which happened to be half a garden shears. Junkey died, man who killed him walked away deemed to have defended himself in his home. A good decision by the courts imo.

Back to the original post though, can anyone tell me who this group is mad up of? And what are they trying to achieve?

Cass

Folks we're wading, slowly, into RTKBA territory so we'll stick a fork in that aspect of the discussion.

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yes, indeed, Nally should now have 24/7/365 police protection, as after all the state claims and has the monopoly of force in society, therefore it is negligent in its duty to protect property and life if it claims that sole right.

However, it cannot really enforce this as you an individual have a "God given" right to life and bodily integrity, and protection and preservation thereof and we are supposedly ALL equal in this right under manmade and "God-given "law.

IOW what makes a VIP with armed bodyguards who espouses gun controls, life more valuable than an oap having to defend himself with a screwdriver?
So it has to be one or the other.You are entitled to defend your life, no holds barred, or the organs of the State claiming a monopoly of force going by that above statement, will do it for you, anytime or place?

A police force primary task is upholding the law and preserving the peace, not acting as a public security force guarding life and property.Going by that statement.

Grizzly, in my opinion the State's monopoly on use of force is qualified in the sense that only the State has the authority to use physical force as a means of coercion and to enforce compliance with the law. In addition to that there has to be legal authority for the exercise of such powers.

The State can forcibly take your freedom away upon conviction for an offence, the established police service and other law enforcement agencies can use reasonable physical force in the course of their duties, the fire service can forcibly enter your property to deal with a fire and so on... .

Self defence and defending others from unlawful violence and intervening in criminal activity by means of reasonable force is a different cup of tea. There's very black on white legislation that clearly states there is a defence in law for the use of reasonable and proportionate force by any person in certain circumstances.

It's that type of legislation for example that makes it possible for bouncers to separate idiots fighting in a pub and restraining them until Gardai arrive to take control. Same thing applies when for example a shop keeper throws out someone who they believed was shoplifting.

Anyway, I'm kind of puzzled how we ended up from a .22-250 being good enough to hunt deer or not to this point....

Grizzly 45

That's what I love about this board.A topic can go from an original title,go 180 degrees and come back to the original point within a few posts.:)

I won't reply to your interesting post as it would go well into self-defence law and theory, and whether the States definition of "reasonable" force is an adequate defence for a citizen defending themselves.[it isnt], and whether the state has a moral right of denying you adequate tools to protect yourself.

[Just as an aside, this is all part of the German firearms training saftey course you must study before you even get into a gun club,or are trained for armed security:eek::)Imagine that lot being taught over here.]

Cass

There are two reasons for the MOD NOTE.

The topic of RTKBA is prohibited. As it's not legal to own a firearm for such a reason in Ireland and discussion of of it can lead to some pretty outlandish statements from some it's best it's not discussed. We try to allow the discussion of it in some aspects as in how it pertains to Americans in America but once that turns to Ireland we have to stop it. For the forums and it's members sake.

Secondly The original topic of this thread, i believe, is too important to be lost with a thread deviation to another topic. We are once again facing into proposals by a private group to limit and impose even more conditions on our sport than our own Government see fit to apply. The same group that tried to privatize deer stalking.

aaakev

No one has answered my question, who are these people? Do we know??

gunny123

aaakev wrote: »

No one has answered my question, who are these people? Do we know??

I would like to know too, but is it a case of the people who know don't want to say in case it lands them in trouble ?

Its like everyone knows the faces behind the carry on with the sports coalition, but their names have not been made public here, apart from Paul Walsh's.