Roo farmer wrote:Obviously the 223 is widely regarded as the standard for roo shooting, and that's what I'm using now. The roos I'm stuck with at the moment are pretty wild and it's difficult to get close to them. Head shots are the only option to comply with the regulations.
So for a bit more reach, is it worth going for a 22-250? Does the extra noise scare the roos more anyway? How much shorter would the expected barrel life be?
Pros -
A bit more range and slightly flatter trajectory.
Cons -
Louder
Slightly more powder
Shorter barrel life
Is it worth it?
Anyone else been through the same process?
Anything else to consider?
I have a 243 but it costs too much per shot for roos. We're talking thousands of shots per year.
xDom wrote:I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?
SCJ429 wrote:What about a 22 or 6mmBR, they are lots of fun to shoot and very accurate.
Or the mighty 204 Ruger. Flat, fast and devistating.
bigfellascott wrote:SCJ429 wrote:What about a 22 or 6mmBR, they are lots of fun to shoot and very accurate.
Or the mighty 204 Ruger. Flat, fast and devistating.
Nah not the best choice for roos (doable but a little marginal I find at times) I actually find the 222 a better killer of roos than the 204 I guess the 50gn v 40gn makes a bit more difference more so than velocity in this case.
xDom wrote:I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?
xDom wrote:I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?
xDom wrote:I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?
flutch wrote:xDom wrote:I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?
not really, makes perfect sense, 100% more ethical than body shots, doesn't ruin meat or allow lead fragments to enter meat, lights out, usually under spotlight anyways so see eyes lit up, aim small miss small, I would argue its stupid to not shoot them in the head, very stupid.
bladeracer wrote:flutch wrote:xDom wrote:I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?
not really, makes perfect sense, 100% more ethical than body shots, doesn't ruin meat or allow lead fragments to enter meat, lights out, usually under spotlight anyways so see eyes lit up, aim small miss small, I would argue its stupid to not shoot them in the head, very stupid.
So why do we need a code for 'roos but nothing else?
flutch wrote:Well because it is an industry, it is something that requires permits as they are native fauna and as such it is like most other industries or issues dealing with native non invasive pests (as far as general public are concerned needless destruction) and native flora and fauna you cant simply just remove them from the ecosystem, but if they are going to do so it must be done effectively and ethically. The same rules apply to slaughter houses... they aren't allowed to euthanize stock using a Gut Shot on the kill floor much the same as roo shooters have to abide by strict hygiene and food standards. I would have thought that to be fairly self explanatory. but there you have it.
bladeracer wrote:flutch wrote:Well because it is an industry, it is something that requires permits as they are native fauna and as such it is like most other industries or issues dealing with native non invasive pests (as far as general public are concerned needless destruction) and native flora and fauna you cant simply just remove them from the ecosystem, but if they are going to do so it must be done effectively and ethically. The same rules apply to slaughter houses... they aren't allowed to euthanize stock using a Gut Shot on the kill floor much the same as roo shooters have to abide by strict hygiene and food standards. I would have thought that to be fairly self explanatory. but there you have it.
Animal Welfare laws already require hunters, and anybody else euthanizing* animals, native or pests, to do so humanely and ethically, without having specific codes.
flutch wrote:not all of those are an industry practice however, its an industry. it is related to food products, lead is a toxin, its pretty simple
flutch wrote:honestly dont understand the problem with it... and lol, monolithic rounds for roo shooting, thats going a bit extreme, also not much hydro-static shock from those. unless youre a terrible shot or own some chinese made potato gun I cant see the issue with having to shoot them in the head. and no they wont accept roos that are body shot, headshots only.
bladeracer wrote:flutch wrote:honestly dont understand the problem with it... and lol, monolithic rounds for roo shooting, thats going a bit extreme, also not much hydro-static shock from those. unless youre a terrible shot or own some chinese made potato gun I cant see the issue with having to shoot them in the head. and no they wont accept roos that are body shot, headshots only.
Have you never tried monolithic bullets, like Barnes or LeHigh, they expand just fine.
There is no issue with head-shooting anything, it just shouldn't be written in law.
bladeracer wrote:flutch wrote:not all of those are an industry practice however, its an industry. it is related to food products, lead is a toxin, its pretty simple
Does the code not allow 'roos to be used for meat if they're not shot in the head? I wasn't aware that the problem was lead contamination. Why don't they just specify no lead bullets to be used, and leave all the rules about targeting up to the shooter?
The Code was written for only one purpose, to appease Green scum.
Stix wrote:bladeracer wrote:flutch wrote:not all of those are an industry practice however, its an industry. it is related to food products, lead is a toxin, its pretty simple
Does the code not allow 'roos to be used for meat if they're not shot in the head? I wasn't aware that the problem was lead contamination. Why don't they just specify no lead bullets to be used, and leave all the rules about targeting up to the shooter?
The Code was written for only one purpose, to appease Green scum.
You sound like you're against the ideal humane destruction regs just because of green uneducated doo-gooders Blade...
I see it as a sensible point...blowing the shoulder off a roo at 180 yds with a 308 & bragging 'i got the sucker' while claiming a 300yd shot is not good shooting or hunting, by any stretch.
(Im not suggesting you do this, but many do im sure).
I heard of a guy recently who tried for his roo accreditation...couldnt for the life of him get 5 shots in 3" @ 100 & was failed after a couple of hours trying.
He tried again & failed & wasnt happy...he apparently cited that it shouldnt matter anyway as most of his shots would have hit the body where he normally aims anyway...
Im for the regs from an humane destruction of animal point of view & keeping clowns like described above away from us who strive to do the right thing.
I think a roos head is a big target, especially from a rest, so head shooting shouldnt be a problem, regardless of what green scum influence there is in the regs.
bladeracer wrote:Stix wrote:bladeracer wrote:flutch wrote:not all of those are an industry practice however, its an industry. it is related to food products, lead is a toxin, its pretty simple
Does the code not allow 'roos to be used for meat if they're not shot in the head? I wasn't aware that the problem was lead contamination. Why don't they just specify no lead bullets to be used, and leave all the rules about targeting up to the shooter?
The Code was written for only one purpose, to appease Green scum.
You sound like you're against the ideal humane destruction regs just because of green uneducated doo-gooders Blade...
I see it as a sensible point...blowing the shoulder off a roo at 180 yds with a 308 & bragging 'i got the sucker' while claiming a 300yd shot is not good shooting or hunting, by any stretch.
(Im not suggesting you do this, but many do im sure).
I heard of a guy recently who tried for his roo accreditation...couldnt for the life of him get 5 shots in 3" @ 100 & was failed after a couple of hours trying.
He tried again & failed & wasnt happy...he apparently cited that it shouldnt matter anyway as most of his shots would have hit the body where he normally aims anyway...
Im for the regs from an humane destruction of animal point of view & keeping clowns like described above away from us who strive to do the right thing.
I think a roos head is a big target, especially from a rest, so head shooting shouldnt be a problem, regardless of what green scum influence there is in the regs.
I'm not against humane destruction at all, I just see no reason to require a Code of practice for a single species of animal, when all other species are left to the sensibilities of the shooter.
And if the industry will not accept non-head shot animals, why bother writing the law? The industry would self-regulate as the shooters wouldn't be making money unless they head shoot.
As I said, the Animal Welfare Act already requires humane and ethical destruction of all animals, even cane toads. If we are going to have this code of practice, why not apply it to all animal destruction equally?