Shooting into water?

[bladeracer]

Was chatting with somebody the other day about deer shooting.
He mentioned that trying to hunt them along a creek (referencing a specific situation) isn't going to be viable due to it being illegal to shoot into water.
I corrected this and he amended it to shooting _lead_ bullets into water, which again I'm not aware of any laws about. For instance, when the government does helicopter culls are they prohibited from targeting animals near waterways due to the risk of a bullet entering the water?

I suspect he's confusing duck hunting with general shooting, as we're not allowed to use lead shot in duck hunting wetlands, with some exceptions, like muzzleloading guns. As far as I'm aware there are no laws regarding using conventional bullets in these areas. I can't recall seeing any law in Australia requiring monolithic non-lead bullets in any situation...yet.

As neither he or I shoot ducks can somebody clarify this for me?
I'm still stuck on my phone and trying to research anything via a phone screen just makes me want to go out shooting...now that's an idea!

[animalpest]

Aerial culling really hasn't bothered to address the lead in water issue as the amount involved is just too small to be an issue.

[bladeracer]

Aerial culling really hasn't bothered to address the lead in water issue as the amount involved is just too small to be an issue.

Yes I think that's the view with bullets everywhere, it's only an issue with birdshot.

[No1Mk3]

G'day bladeracer,
No problem here in Vic, as you said it only applies to duck hunting on public land (friends still use lead on the rice farms, whatever they have at the time) and your friend has just extrapolated duck shooting to all shooting near waterways. Just give it time though, I have heard the scumgreen call for lead bans in all bullets both hunting and target, Cheers.

[Die Judicii]

Aerial culling really hasn't bothered to address the lead in water issue as the amount involved is just too small to be an issue.

Yes I think that's the view with bullets everywhere, it's only an issue with birdshot.

I cannot quote any particular such ruling, but as I recall,,,, you are correct, they only brought it about regarding water fowl in wetlands.
Which I presume why some shotties are now made with barrels suited to steel shot.

[Die Judicii]

G'day bladeracer,
No problem here in Vic, as you said it only applies to duck hunting on public land (friends still use lead on the rice farms, whatever they have at the time) and your friend has just extrapolated duck shooting to all shooting near waterways. Just give it time though, I have heard the scumgreen call for lead bans in all bullets both hunting and target, Cheers.

If the scum green get their way,,,,,,, it'll be time to refer to the movie,,,,, and start using "ice bullets"

[Baronvonrort]

. For instance, when the government does helicopter culls are they prohibited from targeting animals near waterways due to the risk of a bullet entering the water?

The FAAST manual for aerial culling says no shots at animals in water. They leave bodies where they fall so maybe they don't want decaying animals left in creeks or rivers.

It also mentions no shots at hard surfaces.

Firearm safety course mentions danger of richocet with hard surfaces and water this could be another reason with aerial culling not allowing it where it's mentioned in firearm safety section.

[Oldbloke]

G'day bladeracer,
No problem here in Vic, as you said it only applies to duck hunting on public land (friends still use lead on the rice farms, whatever they have at the time) and your friend has just extrapolated duck shooting to all shooting near waterways. Just give it time though, I have heard the scumgreen call for lead bans in all bullets both hunting and target, Cheers.

[duncan61]

I may be wrong but I always thought jacketed bullets at high speed disintergrate when they hit water which is why movies are wrong showing bullets hitting soldiers under water.I do not plan on testing this theory in person.Slower moving lead slugs out of shotguns/rifles may carry on in to the water column.I am sure it is ricochet at flat angles that is an issue.Shooting down a valley should not be a problem just because there is a puddle behind it.In all my shooting career I have yet had to shoot up at a water source

[bladeracer]

I may be wrong but I always thought jacketed bullets at high speed disintergrate when they hit water which is why movies are wrong showing bullets hitting soldiers under water.I do not plan on testing this theory in person.Slower moving lead slugs out of shotguns/rifles may carry on in to the water column.I am sure it is ricochet at flat angles that is an issue.Shooting down a valley should not be a problem just because there is a puddle behind it.In all my shooting career I have yet had to shoot up at a water source

At very close range they can disintrrgrate, but generally just slow down really, really quickly. If you are under 600mm of water there's not much that's going hurt you in the way of bullets.

Very flat angles can result in very deformed or fragmented bullets bouncing along on the water, but they dump velocity very quickly. I would love to have access to a large pond of still water so I could actually measure the angle at which bullets stop bouncing off the water, but it's very slight. I have seen a video years ago where a guy tried to do it with .22LR and I think .223. He was bouncing the bullets off the water and they were impacting the far side of the pond. Very interesting, but far from scientific. We have pondage here for the power stations, basically lakes of still water, but I doubt I'd be able get permission to shoot in there. Moving water tends not have a predictably flat surface.

Basically, water is no more of a ricochet risk than the ground, less so as it is self-levelling, whereas the ground can be any shape and hardness.

[animalpest]

Yes indeed shooting animals in water is going to potentially polute the water so is frowned upon and should be avoided.

When aerial shooting the steep angle wouldn't really be conducive to ricochet.

I only taught and personally conducted aerial shooting in WA and shooting into water was just not an issue.

[Die Judicii]

At very close range they can disintrrgrate, but generally just slow down really, really quickly. If you are under 600mm of water there's not much that's going hurt you in the way of bullets.

Very flat angles can result in very deformed or fragmented bullets bouncing along on the water, but they dump velocity very quickly. I would love to have access to a large pond of still water so I could actually measure the angle at which bullets stop bouncing off the water, but it's very slight. I have seen a video years ago where a guy tried to do it with .22LR and I think .223. He was bouncing the bullets off the water and they were impacting the far side of the pond. Very interesting, but far from scientific. We have pondage here for the power stations, basically lakes of still water, but I doubt I'd be able get permission to shoot in there. Moving water tends not have a predictably flat surface.

Basically, water is no more of a ricochet risk than the ground, less so as it is self-levelling, whereas the ground can be any shape and hardness.

This reminded me,,,,,,,,,,,
There is a sinkhole very close to Mt Gambier in Sth Aust that is (or was,, I'm not up to date now) that was owned/controlled by a government weapons research mob.
The water is crystal clear and very deep (can't remember the exact depth)
They had a water tight cylinder vertically immersed, with observation ports spaced all the way to the bottom.

The bottom of the sinkhole itself was thoroughly cleaned of even the tiniest fragment of anything other than sand.
They used it for testing all manner of projectiles and other stuff.
And after each firing or test, a diver would go down and retrieve whatever was used.
They had camera equipment and all other sorts of goodies all the way down to the bottom of the cylinder to record each test.

I know of this place because in the course of my then employment I was sent there to do some welding repairs.
We were told to NEVER drop anything in the water, not even a welding stub,,,,,, and if you did accidentally,,, had to report it immediately,,,,,,,,
And then the diver would go down and retrieve it.

I'm guessing it is still all locked up,,,, but whether they still actively use it or not I have no idea.

[bladeracer]

That's very cool!
I've heard about about a place that sounds like that, but never followed it up. I was only really interested in MacNamara Park, possibly the best motorcycle race track in Oz, wheelies everywhere They used some of my on-board videos of the circuit on their web page for a few years

At very close range they can disintrrgrate, but generally just slow down really, really quickly. If you are under 600mm of water there's not much that's going hurt you in the way of bullets.

Very flat angles can result in very deformed or fragmented bullets bouncing along on the water, but they dump velocity very quickly. I would love to have access to a large pond of still water so I could actually measure the angle at which bullets stop bouncing off the water, but it's very slight. I have seen a video years ago where a guy tried to do it with .22LR and I think .223. He was bouncing the bullets off the water and they were impacting the far side of the pond. Very interesting, but far from scientific. We have pondage here for the power stations, basically lakes of still water, but I doubt I'd be able get permission to shoot in there. Moving water tends not have a predictably flat surface.

Basically, water is no more of a ricochet risk than the ground, less so as it is self-levelling, whereas the ground can be any shape and hardness.

This reminded me,,,,,,,,,,,
There is a sinkhole very close to Mt Gambier in Sth Aust that is (or was,, I'm not up to date now) that was owned/controlled by a government weapons research mob.
The water is crystal clear and very deep (can't remember the exact depth)
They had a water tight cylinder vertically immersed, with observation ports spaced all the way to the bottom.

The bottom of the sinkhole itself was thoroughly cleaned of even the tiniest fragment of anything other than sand.
They used it for testing all manner of projectiles and other stuff.
And after each firing or test, a diver would go down and retrieve whatever was used.
They had camera equipment and all other sorts of goodies all the way down to the bottom of the cylinder to record each test.

I know of this place because in the course of my then employment I was sent there to do some welding repairs.
We were told to NEVER drop anything in the water, not even a welding stub,,,,,, and if you did accidentally,,, had to report it immediately,,,,,,,,
And then the diver would go down and retrieve it.

I'm guessing it is still all locked up,,,, but whether they still actively use it or not I have no idea.

[duncan61]

I feel I can share this as the perp is dead.My best buddy shared with me years ago that somewhere in Queensland in 1978 they were hunting in a place and they came across a lake or billabong and there were these large Barramundi swimming around near the surface.He tried shooting them with his .243 and they just swum off.He switched out to his Stirling semi auto .22LR and bagged out.The Stirling has gone but I transfered his .243 BRNO and savage hornet before he passed and now his son has them.I have no reason to doubt that an 80gn soft nose .243 doing 2800fps would vaporise at a few metres from water but a .224 40gn doing 1050fps would go in a fair way.enough to kill surface swimming fish in semi auto.I do not condone doing this activity in 2021

[bladeracer]

I feel I can share this as the perp is dead.My best buddy shared with me years ago that somewhere in Queensland in 1978 they were hunting in a place and they came across a lake or billabong and there were these large Barramundi swimming around near the surface.He tried shooting them with his .243 and they just swum off.He switched out to his Stirling semi auto .22LR and bagged out.The Stirling has gone but I transfered his .243 BRNO and savage hornet before he passed and now his son has them.I have no reason to doubt that an 80gn soft nose .243 doing 2800fps would vaporise at a few metres from water but a .224 40gn doing 1050fps would go in a fair way.enough to kill surface swimming fish in semi auto.I do not condone doing this activity in 2021

Rose's dad used his .22 for fishing for decades. He did shoot the fish though. He put the muzzle in the water and when a fish came close, pulled the trigger, stunning the fish...and eventually removing any accuracy from the barrel

I had a pair of those Stirling model 20's when I was a kid.

[duncan61]

Some how my buddy made begged borrowed or stole a 50 round drum mag for the stirling.It took foreverer to load but you could do a whole box pretty quick.He had a crate of this low velocity stuff it was just subsonic and cheap as but we went through it.Imagine putting the barrel of my Remington Sendero 7mm Rem Mag in water and letting a 175 gn pill go.One way of dying.We are going to get some flack for daring to mention fishing with rifles but as I was in Perth in 1978 and its just a story I would have to say.What mud crab?

[Die Judicii]

.We are going to get some flack for daring to mention fishing with rifles but as I was in Perth in 1978 and its just a story I would have to say.What mud crab?

Arghhhhh Ha Ha
Yes,,,,,, King Billy rules

On the same note,,, back in the late sixties,, I used to get bait fish by wading out waist deep (ocean) and just standing still.
Then the schools of bait fish would swarm around you.
Firing a .303 down into the swarm always managed to get at least 5 or 6 stunned baits.

5 or 6 stunned bait fish usually resulted in at least 1 Mulloway or 1 Old Man Snapper.



PS: in light of modern day OH+S,,,,, and new rules,,,,,,, not Recommended.

[duncan61]

We have to add the disclaimers in todays woke society.I have been called out on this forum for my stories however I tend to detune rather than exaggerate.I am aware its a public forum and police do monitor it 24/7.Glad you got the mudcrab reference

[Die Judicii]

Honest Occifer,,,,,,,,,,, I always bring my pet mud crab downsh here every morningk so he can have a schwim.

[Die Judicii]

Tap on the shoulder,,,,,,,,,,,
Ohhhh Occifer, you gave me such a fright,,, I thought it was the bloke that owned this here crab trap.

Ahhhhh,,, those were the days of real humor.

[disco stu]

I recall watching a show about crimes they had trouble solving years ago. A lady was driving along a road next to the ocean in the US, then all of a sudden swerved off and was found dead, with a bullet in the brain that entered from the upper neck.

Police couldn't find anything showing she was targeted, no evidence, nothing except the bullet in the brain. I think it was a .30 from memory, so they figured it traveled a fair distance seeing it didn't exit the head.

After months of trying to figure out what happened they ended up just door knocking asking if anyone owned a .30" rifle that was shot on the day in question, and eventually found the guy.

Turned out the guy bought a new rifle. Was going out shark fishing so decided to take it out with him. Took a test shot and was a long way out in a large bay so thought everything was safe. The bullet ended up ricocheting off the water multiple times I believe, entered the open window of the car and hit the lady in the head at just the right angle and location that it went into the brain. If I recall correctly, if it had hit the skull it wouldn't have enough energy to penetrate, if window was closed it would have been fine. It was basically a one in a million/billion type situation.

The guy was shocked and horrified, was certain it was safe as he was so far out etc etc. I believe he wasn't charged with anything as he took all precautions, wasn't careless, plus even the police believed that the bullet wouldn't ricochet off the water so far.

Goes to show that these things happen

[bladeracer]

I recall watching a show about crimes they had trouble solving years ago. A lady was driving along a road next to the ocean in the US, then all of a sudden swerved off and was found dead, with a bullet in the brain that entered from the upper neck.

Police couldn't find anything showing she was targeted, no evidence, nothing except the bullet in the brain. I think it was a .30 from memory, so they figured it traveled a fair distance seeing it didn't exit the head.

After months of trying to figure out what happened they ended up just door knocking asking if anyone owned a .30" rifle that was shot on the day in question, and eventually found the guy.

Turned out the guy bought a new rifle. Was going out shark fishing so decided to take it out with him. Took a test shot and was a long way out in a large bay so thought everything was safe. The bullet ended up ricocheting off the water multiple times I believe, entered the open window of the car and hit the lady in the head at just the right angle and location that it went into the brain. If I recall correctly, if it had hit the skull it wouldn't have enough energy to penetrate, if window was closed it would have been fine. It was basically a one in a million/billion type situation.

The guy was shocked and horrified, was certain it was safe as he was so far out etc etc. I believe he wasn't charged with anything as he took all precautions, wasn't careless, plus even the police believed that the bullet wouldn't ricochet off the water so far.

Goes to show that these things happen

Not finding anything via Google, any idea of the distance?

[disco stu]

It was a long time ago that I watched it, probably 15-20yrs so my memory is fuzzy. I thought it was a few km or more, but really can't take that with any amount of certainty at all.

I'll see if I can find details myself as I'm intrigued

[disco stu]

I did find this, but they're fuzzy also. Might lead to better info

https://www.thehulltruth.com/boating-fo ... nfire.html

[animalpest]

Yeah, I quote that one at firearms courses. It was a .303 that came with the boat that he bought. He owned a service station and a copper randomly asked the guy if I recall correctly.

[bladeracer]

I did find this, but they're fuzzy also. Might lead to better info

https://www.thehulltruth.com/boating-fo ... nfire.html

Thanks for that, just ordered Chief Peter Helman's book in which he wrote about it.

[disco stu]

Wow-you're going all in BR!

[bladeracer]

Wow-you're going all in BR!

It sounds like a very interesting incident, one that is worth having a record of I think as there can't be many such happenings (well documented instances of people killed by bullets ricocheting off water (excluding amphibious landings of course). And the book is about several Police investigations so it should be interesting in itself

If I remember, when it arrives I'll post the entire story here for future reference.

[duncan61]

I lived in Yarloop and we had a visitor over in a little bubble car and we were standing outside chatting and next minute her back window blew up.I could see the entry hole and exit hole and I tracked it to the road surface and found a graze mark in the middle of the road.Some young guys were shooting at crows in the trees with a 22/250 about 8-10K away.Hows that for lucky missed all of us.The police visited them but they were not charged.Country towns are very forgiving

[bladeracer]

I lived in Yarloop and we had a visitor over in a little bubble car and we were standing outside chatting and next minute her back window blew up.I could see the entry hole and exit hole and I tracked it to the road surface and found a graze mark in the middle of the road.Some young guys were shooting at crows in the trees with a 22/250 about 8-10K away.Hows that for lucky missed all of us.The police visited them but they were not charged.Country towns are very forgiving

Rifle bullets don't travel 8-10km.
.22/250 due to the light short bullets with high drag _might_ manage 3000m if fired into the sky.