Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information


Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Calibres and their uses?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Tackleberrywho wrote: »
    You must never have been in Carna when folk were firing .303 FMJ and hitting the the butts with FMJ, Helmets had to be worn by all in the Butts
    What's that got to do with anything? In butts, you're exposed to backspalsh, ricochet, flying debris etc.


  • Options
    #33
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    Rabbits shot with .22 sub hollowpoints will be passed clean through; rabbits shot with small centrefires will be passed clean through. Deer shot with deer rifles will be passed clean through. I don't really care what anyone wants to use to shoot their game as long as they're doing it safely. The bullet is more than likley not going to be stopped by the game (indeed, there's a voice in my head saying that if it is, you probably should have used more gun in certain cases) so the backstop is all important. If you're on flat land, get elevated by climbing ditches until the angle is steep enough to be safe or build a high seat. As long as the shot is safe, the rifle used is relatively unimportant.
    I think the word 'may' should be substituted for 'will'.

    Hunting ammo is designed to fragment as it penetrates. The likelihood of it 'passing straight through' in it's original configuration is not part of its design. It's not impossible mind, but eminently more possible if it's used on the wrong quarry.


  • Options
    #34
    jwshooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,612 ✭✭✭jwshooter


    i have my 243/270 for culling ,vermin destructing , ie , goats,foxes etc .


  • Options
    #35
    tomcat220t
    Registered Users Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭tomcat220t


    Weather a gun licence covers a person to use a given caliber on varmint or not is no excusce ,imo.Nor saying that a round is best suited to the land its been used on rather than the animal it was designed for .Varmint rounds for varmint and game round for game.Both can and do be used in either rolls but is a bad practice ,imo:(.


  • Options
    #36
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    jwshooter wrote: »
    i have my 243/270 for culling ,vermin destructing , ie , goats,foxes etc .
    Bunnies don't seem to appear on that list jw, was that a deliberate omission? ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    rrpc wrote: »
    I think the word 'may' should be substituted for 'will'.

    Hunting ammo is designed to fragment as it penetrates. The likelihood of it 'passing straight through' in it's original configuration is not part of its design. It's not impossible mind, but eminently more possible if it's used on the wrong quarry.

    It was deliberate, actually, in that because it's a possibility, it's going to happen sooner or later. And in larger calibres it's generally designed to expand, rather than fragment, and to hold together and pass through, indeed, to create a decent exit wound for the purposes of blood trailing if necessary, and simply to accelerate blood loss, if not.


  • Options
    #38
    Tackleberrywho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,590 ✭✭✭Tackleberrywho


    rrpc wrote: »
    So you're confirming that you got a license for a .308 for shooting rabbits? Well done! A certain Mr. O'Leary had to go to the High Court to get one for shooting Red Deer. :rolleyes:

    No, I said I included it in conversaton.

    I don't know any o'Learys so your point s lost on me.

    My point is hunters perspective and target shooters perspective is different.
    A target shooter shoots at constant ranges and flat ground. A hunter shoots at variable ranges and altitudes up or down hill etc. A targte shooter has different skills and equipment accordingly.

    These Hunting skills can not be honed on a range but are required in the field.
    So a small amount of practice on bunnies in my experience yields a full freezer for the winter.

    I am lucky that I live in almost perfect hunting area. others i know have to travel miles for shooting. I walk out my back door and I am in the field.
    My own field where the bunnies are shot, and a fox sand pit where the sand was worth millions once as it was so soft, bunnies love it too


  • Options
    #39
    bunny shooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    Rabbits shot with .22 sub hollowpoints will be passed clean through;........

    Not if you hit 'em in the head or shoulder :p I've had very few subsonic HP's pass through except if I F**K UP and it goes into the body, which doesn't happen very often :cool:


  • Options
    #40
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Tackleberrywho wrote: »
    I don't know any o'Learys so your point s lost on me.
    O'Leary was refused a licence for a .308 even though he had licences for other centerfire rifles, because his super thought it was a "military calibre". The judgement was one of the most important for us in recent years because it said that if the applicant was suitable to hold one firearm, then he couldn't be reasonably said to not be suitable for a similar one on the basis of a personal dislike for a specific calibre by the Super.

    Point being, you were fortunate not to encounter a degree of difficulty licencing your firearm for the purpose stated both because of the specific calibre and because of the specific quarry.


  • Options
    #41
    bunny shooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    Tackleberrywho wrote: »
    No, I said I included it in conversaton.....

    So I'll ask again ...................
    bunny shooter wrote: »
    ..........So if someone gets a .243/.308/6.5x55 to shoot deer & to use it on an authorised range and they are shooting bunnies with it and the Gardai are called where would/might they stand legally with regard to their licence?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Tackleberrywho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,590 ✭✭✭Tackleberrywho


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    It was deliberate, actually, in that because it's a possibility, it's going to happen sooner or later. And in larger calibres it's generally designed to expand, rather than fragment, and to hold together and pass through, indeed, to create a decent exit wound for the purposes of blood trailing if necessary, and simply to accelerate blood loss, if not.

    i agree, and especially as when the .308 was invented BT'd rounds were not invented.

    Some will not use Ballistic tipped on game some love using them
    I did a poll recently and BT were the clear winner.

    JW mentioned a good point, which means all rifles are out.
    If it is flat land.
    A lot of the midlands is flat land outwash plains if you remember it from your geography.


    So what is the appropriate calibre to shoot deer on these lands as deer reside there?


  • Options
    #43
    Tackleberrywho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,590 ✭✭✭Tackleberrywho


    Sparks wrote: »
    O'Leary was refused a licence for a .308 even though he had licences for other centerfire rifles, because his super thought it was a "military calibre". The judgement was one of the most important for us in recent years because it said that if the applicant was suitable to hold one firearm, then he couldn't be reasonably said to not be suitable for a similar one on the basis of a personal dislike for a specific calibre by the Super.

    Point being, you were fortunate not to encounter a degree of difficulty licencing your firearm for the purpose stated both because of the specific calibre and because of the specific quarry.

    He did ask me why did I not use a 6.5 or a .270.
    I explained my reasons in a clear logical way.
    And he said ok.

    I'm sorry if others had issues. I was unaware of names affected.


  • Options
    #44
    bunny shooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    Tackleberrywho wrote: »
    He did ask me why did I not use a 6.5 or a .270.
    I explained my reasons in a clear logical way.
    And he said ok..........

    O'Leary was the "test" case that opened the way for you and others to get a .308 if I remember rightly.

    Would you like to share the reasons you gave to your Super with us?


  • Options
    #45
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    It was deliberate, actually, in that because it's a possibility, it's going to happen sooner or later. And in larger calibres it's generally designed to expand, rather than fragment, and to hold together and pass through, indeed, to create a decent exit wound for the purposes of blood trailing if necessary, and simply to accelerate blood loss, if not.
    In which case 'may' is the appropriate word. 'Will' implies it always happens which is not the case. Expanding ammo is more inclined to fragment when it hits bone which is what it 'may' do in larger quarry.

    Of course if you're talking about bunnies and larger calibres then 'will' is indeed the correct word. ;)


  • Options
    #46
    Tackleberrywho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,590 ✭✭✭Tackleberrywho


    bunny shooter wrote: »
    O'Leary was the "test" case that opened the way for you and others to get a .308 if I remember rightly.

    Would you like to share the reasons you gave to your Super with us?

    That I had a 6.5mm but the rifle that nest suited my needs was not chambered in that calibre.
    He asked how long had I had a 6.5 and when i said since 2000 he moved on to next question.

    No mad explains of BC Newtons, Joules, etc
    I said most rifles made in America came in imperial sizes
    and Most rifles chambered in Europe came in Metric sizes and i have all american rifles as I like there style


  • Options
    #47
    jwshooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,612 ✭✭✭jwshooter


    rrpc wrote: »
    Bunnies don't seem to appear on that list jw, was that a deliberate omission? ;)


    think vermin covers bunnys


  • Options
    #48
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Tackleberrywho wrote: »
    No, I said I included it in conversaton.
    So you didn't get a license for a .308 to shoot rabbits. I wish you'd make up your mind here because you've said quite clearly earlier:
    Tackleberrywho wrote:
    I did, in my Interview biggrin.gif

    You also say you have a 223, he might have made the assumption you'd use that on the bunnies rather than the 308.


  • Options
    #49
    jwshooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,612 ✭✭✭jwshooter


    bunny shooter wrote: »
    Not if you hit 'em in the head or shoulder :p I've had very few subsonic HP's pass through except if I F**K UP and it goes into the body, which doesn't happen very often :cool:

    you managed to contradict your self in such a small amount of words


  • Options
    #50
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    jwshooter wrote: »
    think vermin covers bunnys
    Except you specified goats and foxes, why so coy?


  • Options
    #51
    jwshooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,612 ✭✭✭jwshooter


    rrpc wrote: »
    Except you specified goats and foxes, why so coy?

    etc .........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    jwshooter wrote: »
    etc .........
    Coy...:p

    Let's cut to the chase jw, do you use your 270 or 243 to shoot bunnies? Y/N


  • Options
    #53
    jwshooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,612 ✭✭✭jwshooter


    rrpc wrote: »
    Coy...:p

    Let's cut to the chase jw, do you use your 270 or 243 to shoot bunnies? Y/N

    sure do and other vermin .


  • Options
    #54
    bunny shooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    jwshooter wrote: »
    you managed to contradict your self in such a small amount of words

    Extrapolated more than contradicted :p


  • Options
    #55
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bunny shooter wrote: »
    O'Leary was the "test" case that opened the way for you and others to get a .308 if I remember rightly.
    You remember wrongly. The result of O'Leary was that the applicant was to be evaluated, not the firearm. That's since been overturned by the recent supreme court case losses.

    BTW, on the point of target shooting with a hunting rifle, technically, yes, you're in breach of your licence conditions and the Super could, in theory, take away your licence for it, but it's relatively unlikely. Doing things the other way round would be poaching, and the Super's reaction would be far less theoretical in nature.


  • Options
    #56
    bunny shooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    Sparks wrote: »
    You remember wrongly.

    :eek: :o won't ask ya to prove it :p
    Sparks wrote: »
    The result of O'Leary was that the applicant was to be evaluated, not the firearm. That's since been overturned by the recent supreme court case losses.

    In hindsight, was it Nicholas Flood's case that paved the way for rifles above .270?
    Sparks wrote: »
    BTW, on the point of target shooting with a hunting rifle, technically, yes, you're in breach of your licence conditions and the Super could, in theory, take away your licence for it, but it's relatively unlikely. Doing things the other way round would be poaching, and the Super's reaction would be far less theoretical in nature.

    IMHO we may see a lot more theoritical things being enforced in relation to firearms in the future :eek::(


  • Options
    #57
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    bunny shooter wrote: »
    Should people be using "big" calibres for shooting rabbits, crows and other "small" vermin species?

    What are people opinions on using say a 243/6.5x55/.308 on rabbits?

    In my area lads use at most a .22lr/.22 WMR/.17 HMR to shoot rabbits. Fox shooters are using .220 Swift/.22.250/.22 Hornet/.17 REM/.223 & .204 Ruger/222 REM.

    Lads who have .243 and above are only shooting deer with them. Not many target shooters in my area as the nearest ranges are all approx 1.5-2 hours away.

    I use my Swift for foxes, never bunnies.

    Opinions please ..........................

    Until there is a list on my license saying what I can and can't shoot and with what calibre I'll shoot as I see fit - within current law.

    I wouldn't have a problem using .308 or whatever on a rabbit, provided there was a suitable backstop behind the animal. Shot plenty with my .223. Dead is dead.


  • Options
    #58
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bunny shooter wrote: »
    :eek: :o won't ask ya to prove it :p
    I just happened to know there were .308s around before O'Leary because they were being used! O'Leary was a very important case, but it was important for a different reason than the specific calibre involved...
    In hindsight, was it Nicholas Flood's case that paved the way for rifles above .270?
    Nope, because that case never went to court, it was settled out of court resulting in no legal precedent being set. I remember that one because a certain someone threatened to sue the NTSA for libel for reporting the court case outcome on their website (despite the fact that reporting a court case outcome is protected speech in Ireland - you cannot legally sue for libel over it).
    IMHO we may see a lot more theoritical things being enforced in relation to firearms in the future :eek::(
    Probably, the way things are going. When there is such a wide range of powers afforded to the PTB by the law, and some folks are antagonising them (and I don't mean the people who are going to court with legitimate cases over legitimate grievances -- and frankly, those people aren't causing any problems with the PTB either), so we're going to see a backlash eventually, unless something changes.


  • Options
    #59
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    johngalway wrote: »
    I wouldn't have a problem using .308 or whatever on a rabbit, provided there was a suitable backstop behind the animal.
    I'd hate to try to cook it afterwards though, wouldn't the hydrostatic shock just pulverise the meat to mush?


  • Options
    #60
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Sparks wrote: »
    I'd hate to try to cook it afterwards though, wouldn't the hydrostatic shock just pulverise the meat to mush grey crow bait?

    Works for me :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    jwshooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,612 ✭✭✭jwshooter


    i got reported years back for shooting foxes with a 243 , the hill farmer that was with me was telling some other farmers of me killing 6 foxes in a hour with him and the word got out , this was shortly after the after the law change back in the 90s.

    a farmer that hunted with hounds was vext to say the least so he reported me .
    a inspector rang me to ,basically chaw the nuts off me .i had it out with him ,i asked him was my 243 licence not worded the same as my .22 licence or shotguns for that matter .

    he said i only have it for deer ,where on my firearm licence does it say that i asked ,he and no answer .

    wording " The firearm may be used by the holder only for killing animals or birds other than protected wild animals or protected wild birds with in the meaning of the wildlife act 1976 abd 2000 "


Advertisement