223 vs 22-250 for roos

Bolt action rifles, lever action, pump action, self loading rifles and other miscellaneous longarms.

223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by Roo farmer » 27 Jun 2019, 7:06 pm

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.
Roo farmer
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 107
South Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by bladeracer » 27 Jun 2019, 7:22 pm

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.


Aren't you restricted to under 200m anyway though?
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by bigpete » 27 Jun 2019, 7:35 pm

Yep. At 200m neither is going to be that much different....
bigpete
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3577
South Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by flutch » 27 Jun 2019, 8:00 pm

why on earth would anyone worry about anything other than 223 for roos? roos are dopey as and 223 is more than enough gun for the job, cheap, reliable, accurate... 22-250 a heap of noise for not much really, want faster better going 243 rather than 22-250 or in failing that a .257 roberts or 25-06 or something. i personally load my 270 with 110gn projies for some decent oomf
Guns:
Rossi S/S 410
Lanber U/O 12 gauge
Adler B220PG 12 gauge
Ruger 22lr
Remington 270 win
Howa 223
Weatherby 300 Winmag

Bows:
G5 Quest Drive
G5 Prime Defy
flutch
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 447
Western Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by Gun-nut » 27 Jun 2019, 8:00 pm

.223 seems the more cost effective option if you're shooting thousands of rounds a year. And whilst not one of your considerations, ammo for .223 would be much easier to come by in small rural gun shops if your supply runs low on a hunt. Others have also stated that the max. legal range in which you can shoot roos is 200m anyway, making the extra range of the 22-250 redundant.
Gun-nut
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 428
Victoria

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by SCJ429 » 27 Jun 2019, 8:24 pm

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.
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3208
New South Wales

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by marksman » 27 Jun 2019, 9:45 pm

the 22-250 is absolutely superior to the 223 at on average 600fps better but as you know for a cost
I do know a roo shooter who uses a 22-250 and would not use anything else :thumbsup:
“If you do not read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed”. Mark Twain
User avatar
marksman
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3660
Victoria

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by Stix » 27 Jun 2019, 9:50 pm

You say the roos you have are pretty wild & so hard to get close to...my experience tells me the wilder they are, the easier it is to walk up & offer them a beer...lol...in other words, its only the over traumatised & regularly shot at ones that are hard to get close to..

Anyway, 22-250 will obviously hit harder...but as Blade & Pete have said above (& maybe others as its taken me couple hrs to get this out), headshots within 200m between a 223 & 22-250 should only make the difference of a slight hold over/under amount with a one hole gun if you are serious about placing the bullet to disrupt a specifically selected neurological pathway....which is ultimately redundant using a ballistic tip anyway....

Noise...what noise--if they are so far out, unless you're shooting them in a concrete tunnel, the noise diff out there between 223/250 is negligable...if they turn into low flying hoppy rockets from a 250 at 200 (or further), they will probably already be light sensative & launching through boundaries at any pop a 222/3 makes.

Ive been using a 204 lately...shooting very mild loaded 40gr Vmax with a slow powder, & they work very well.
Although my load is using 28grns of powder, im sure you'd easily get that velocity from a 223 with a faster end powder.

All the roos i hit within 130 are pretty well brain minced pebble rattles with popped eyes, but getting beyond 150 out to 200 the damage not obvious & is all internal mashed spud with thick claret free flowing from ear canals &/or eyes.

The way i see it is you'd only need the extra velocity from a 22-250 if you are either regularly shooting well beyond 200m, regularly shooting in windy conditions, or are not proficient enough with a rifle to be knocking roos over..

If your looking to buy a cartridge other than 223 for roos, try the 204...

And you should buy a 22-250 anyway...cos they rock...!!!

Well that was a short post eh... :) lol
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3675
South Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by flutch » 27 Jun 2019, 10:52 pm

if he is pro shooting he needs 22cal or higher, at least that was the rule when we were doing it
Guns:
Rossi S/S 410
Lanber U/O 12 gauge
Adler B220PG 12 gauge
Ruger 22lr
Remington 270 win
Howa 223
Weatherby 300 Winmag

Bows:
G5 Quest Drive
G5 Prime Defy
flutch
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 447
Western Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by xDom » 28 Jun 2019, 4:45 am

I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?
xDom
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 247
Victoria

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by bladeracer » 28 Jun 2019, 8:08 am

xDom wrote:I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?


The entire Code is stupid.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by bigfellascott » 28 Jun 2019, 8:24 am

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. :unknown:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by bigfellascott » 28 Jun 2019, 8:56 am

I love the 55gn Sierra Super Roos out of the 22-250, very effective roo stopper combo I've found, a little extra legs never hurts for the longer range shots on em, barrel life will be shorter of course, some say 2000 per barrel for a 250, I know one roo shooter who uses a 22-250 Howa and was up around 5000 apparently (mild loads 3500fps range from memory),

As for noise, I don't worry about it at all, all firearms are noisy! I actually love the BOOOOM from the 250 it feels like ya using a real rifle :lol:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by Stix » 28 Jun 2019, 9:13 am

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. :unknown:


Sorry bigfella...forgive me, but i csnt help but ask...How do you get a "marginally dead roo" at times...? :unknown:
:lol:
Seriously...thats fukn funny man...!! :lol: :lol:
:drinks:
If they're not dead, you're not hitting them in the right spot. :thumbsup:

The 40gr out of 204 is an emphatic kill out to 200--given shot placement...

However, with a small bullet out that far, i only shoot if im comfortable with the wind, & i wait for them to turn side on or look away so i can be sure of putting the bullet into the box... :thumbsup:
(The wait for them to turn is frustrating at times :lol: , but i rather that than have to follow up).

Im not sure what the energy & wind drift difference is from a 22 cal 50 or 55gr, to a 20 cal 40gr out at 200 with standard velocities...but it'd be interesting to know.

Anyone able to put that up...? :unknown:
:drinks:

Flutch is correct--Roo Farmer will need a 22 cal if its pro harvesting... :thumbsup:
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3675
South Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by marksman » 28 Jun 2019, 11:08 am

xDom wrote:I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?


its for an instant kill, I believe it is an idea bought in to satisfy the animal libbers
if done correctly it is an instantaneous kill :thumbsup:
“If you do not read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed”. Mark Twain
User avatar
marksman
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3660
Victoria

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by tophet1 » 28 Jun 2019, 11:46 am

When i lived out west the local roo shooter and box licensee used a 22-250 with 55grain bulk SPs over a mild load of 30 grains 2206. (That surprised me) but got 6,000 rounds per barrel. He was out 3-4 nights a week.
tophet1
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 44
Queensland

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by Stix » 28 Jun 2019, 12:20 pm

[quote="bigfellascott"]I love the 55gn Sierra Super Roos out of the 22-250, very effective roo stopper combo I've found, a little extra legs never hurts for the longer range shots on em, barrel life will be shorter of course, some say 2000 per barrel for a 250, I know one roo shooter who uses a 22-250 Howa and was up around 5000 apparently (mild loads 3500fps range from memory),

As for noise, I don't worry about it at all, all firearms are noisy! I actually love the BOOOOM from the 250 it feels like ya using a real rifle :lol:[/quote]

Yep...i agree... :thumbsup:

-----

5000 rounds...ive heard so many stories about round counts through a barrel...
Anywhere from 2000 to 6000 out of 250's from mild loads & careful shooting (not pumping more than a few in a row at the most).

Can the steel a barrel is made from & good cleaning/throat polishing regime be so different so as to cause a 4000 round difference...?
Or does the difference lie more in the truth of the story...?... :unknown:
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3675
South Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by on_one_wheel » 28 Jun 2019, 12:47 pm

xDom wrote:I know this is slightly off topic.. As a general discussion, do you think the head shot rule is a bit stupid?


Watch the scene from the original Wake In Fright movie and you'll get an understanding why the headshot rule is on place.
That very scene would've helped shape the code of practice.

Personally I bought a .223 for roos.
I was using a .243 on them previously.
Cheaper, nicer to shoot, more rounds between cleaning, not as loud, faster and easier to cycle
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3562
South Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by flutch » 28 Jun 2019, 12:55 pm

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.
Guns:
Rossi S/S 410
Lanber U/O 12 gauge
Adler B220PG 12 gauge
Ruger 22lr
Remington 270 win
Howa 223
Weatherby 300 Winmag

Bows:
G5 Quest Drive
G5 Prime Defy
flutch
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 447
Western Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by bladeracer » 28 Jun 2019, 1:03 pm

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?
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by flutch » 28 Jun 2019, 1:11 pm

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?



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.
Guns:
Rossi S/S 410
Lanber U/O 12 gauge
Adler B220PG 12 gauge
Ruger 22lr
Remington 270 win
Howa 223
Weatherby 300 Winmag

Bows:
G5 Quest Drive
G5 Prime Defy
flutch
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 447
Western Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by bladeracer » 28 Jun 2019, 1:14 pm

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 euthanising animals, native or pests, to do so humanely and ethically, without having specific codes.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by flutch » 28 Jun 2019, 1:33 pm

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.



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
Guns:
Rossi S/S 410
Lanber U/O 12 gauge
Adler B220PG 12 gauge
Ruger 22lr
Remington 270 win
Howa 223
Weatherby 300 Winmag

Bows:
G5 Quest Drive
G5 Prime Defy
flutch
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 447
Western Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by bladeracer » 28 Jun 2019, 1:37 pm

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.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by flutch » 28 Jun 2019, 1:44 pm

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.
Guns:
Rossi S/S 410
Lanber U/O 12 gauge
Adler B220PG 12 gauge
Ruger 22lr
Remington 270 win
Howa 223
Weatherby 300 Winmag

Bows:
G5 Quest Drive
G5 Prime Defy
flutch
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 447
Western Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by bladeracer » 28 Jun 2019, 2:00 pm

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.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by flutch » 28 Jun 2019, 2:07 pm

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.



LOL there is no conspiracy, its a pretty normal law for pretty understandable reasons, I support it, I personally think anyone not head shooting them is a dumb fk myself. but then I don't really see a need to shoot them in 90+% of cases aside from Meat and body shooting anything you want the meat off is kinda dumb, for more reasons than just the lead. Clearly you aren't looking for a career in the kangaroo industry, so that's cool, it doesn't affect you, why get so bothered with it?
as for the monolithic rounds, again overkill for professional roo shooters, why would they subject themselves to more expense when business is about reducing overheads??
Guns:
Rossi S/S 410
Lanber U/O 12 gauge
Adler B220PG 12 gauge
Ruger 22lr
Remington 270 win
Howa 223
Weatherby 300 Winmag

Bows:
G5 Quest Drive
G5 Prime Defy
flutch
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 447
Western Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by Stix » 28 Jun 2019, 2:31 pm

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... :unknown:

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... :roll:

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.
:drinks:
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3675
South Australia

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by bladeracer » 28 Jun 2019, 2:52 pm

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... :unknown:

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... :roll:

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.
:drinks:


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?
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: 223 vs 22-250 for roos

Post by Stix » 28 Jun 2019, 3:35 pm

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... :unknown:

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... :roll:

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.
:drinks:


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?


I gather the regs are there as you say, to appease the greenies...although, like parliment (lol ok bad example--lets say-building rules regulators :thumbsup: ), its a good thing to have all sides represented in regulation. (For example in the case of building regs, having plumbing equally represented as water proofing, carpentry & roofing etc).
In the case of this arguement, ive given an example of how this regulation has helped all but a few roos...
But...i slso see your point of why not have it accross the board...?
Purely & utterly because of the popularity of todays political correctness i guess... :unknown:

The thing is, the regs arent policed anyway...people, yes even some endorsed as 'contract shooters' openly flaunt body shooting roos, among other animals, & nothing is done--because society cannot afford to police its own over regulation.

Your point is valid, to a point...but acceptance of self defeating over regulation & hippocracy in dumb civilians is widely accepted everywhere...
I can sit on someones leather couch, or sheepskin seat covers, but wait till they come in my house & see a beautiful fox skin draped over the back of my recliner, & then learn that i killed it myself with one of the many guns in one of my 2 safes...

Solar panels saving the earth...in reality we pay people to pump (an unfounded figure here) 10 or more times carbon into the atmosphere at once by putting solar on their roof, than they otherwise would if they didnt put solar on there roof.

Off track a bit, but just trying to give examples...
Roo regs arent anywhere near the worst of our over regulation...
:drinks:
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3675
South Australia

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Centerfire rifles