Victorian Deer Cartridge requirements

[bladeracer]

These are the listed requirements.
In Victoria these are legal requirements, NSW has adopted the same but as recommendations only.
Still worth complying with just to be one less thing they can try to get you for if they want to.

Note that the law requires just two things, a minimum bullet diameter or caliber (not cartridge), and a minimum bullet weight. No reference to cartridge case volume, velocity, or energy, not even a requirement regarding bullet designs. It does not even require that the projectile must be a bullet, it can be anything that you can get to fit down the bore. It does not specify the specific .243Win or .270Win cartridges as the minimum requirements, merely that whatever cartridge you choose must fire a "projectile" of .243" or .270" (not .277") diameter.

My preferred deer cartridge is the 7mm-08 (due to its huge versatility while still complying with this regulation, I can use bullets from 78gn to 175gn in it).
But I have a large variety of different rifles and chamberings I'd like to take out.
Obviously anything that complies with those two requirements will be legally acceptable...or will it?

I have a .38 Special rifle for example, the bullet being .357" is FAR larger diameter than .270", and a 200gn jacketed soft-nose bullet at 1000fps should drop a big sambar just fine, right?

I also have a pair of 6.5mm rifles in which I fire .270" bullets due to their over-size bores (nominal .264" and .267" bores), so they're sambar-legal also, right?

.224" centrefire rifles are now shooting significantly heavier bullets than they could twenty-years ago. Even the little .223Rem with an 80gn bullet delivers 1000ft-lb of energy at 200m nowadays. Hornady factory .243 80gn GMX makes 1000ft-lb out to 275m - not a huge difference to a fallow buck


This ludicrous attempt at placing legal restrictions on hunters in the guise of ensuring we hunt ethically has been in place for years now. It needs to be fixed as it is abstract and unenforceable (is anybody aware of any successful prosecutions over this). It needs to use actual data collected from actual hunting and testing, and make the requirements about the same aspects we use to make our decisions about taking an ethical shot - energy and penetration at the distance we are shooting, and bullet effectiveness, not random abstracts of weight and diameter.

All other states simply rely on hunter education to ensure we take our game ethically, and I rarely read of actual hunters being prosecuted for doing otherwise - I'm not talking about poachers or criminals, since they ignore all the other legal and ethical laws already.

Why haven't the various hunting organisations made any effort to offer a proper template to GMA to replace this mess?

So, let's see some discussion of how such a template should look

[No1_49er]

Bureaucratic f^kwits.
The Scandinavian folk must wonder at our humane dispatch requirements.
Odd that they still use the venerable 6.5 Swede to shoot moose. Somewhat bigger than any game you'll find in Vic.
And what's this about "no bead sights" on a smooth-bore?
Where do they find the cretins who write this s**t to impose on us?

[bladeracer]

Bureaucratic f^kwits.
The Scandinavian folk must wonder at our humane dispatch requirements.
Odd that they still use the venerable 6.5 Swede to shoot moose. Somewhat bigger than any game you'll find in Vic.
And what's this about "no bead sights" on a smooth-bore?
Where do they find the cretins who write this s**t to impose on us?

Yes, that's why I find it incredible that it has been allowed to stand for so long that even NSW has now adopted it as their recommendation.

Do we assume that rifled shotguns are legal despite being entirely ignored?

[Oldbloke]

Yep, a wank.

They simply removed the 2 inch rule, I was told to accommodate the Winchester short magnum. But most are about 2 inch I notice so now I'm confused.

I reckon just use the old rules myself.

Don't know about prosecutions.

[Blr243]

It would be nice to see legislation insisting on a level of muzzle energy , and outlawing Fmj

[bladeracer]

It would be nice to see legislation insisting on a level of muzzle energy , and outlawing Fmj

Better to have a minimum energy at a specified distance, a fat blunt bullet can have terrific energy at the muzzle, but it drops off rapidly with distance.

FMJ doesn't need to be outlawed, shooters just need to be aware of its limitations. The same results occur with expanding bullets when they drop below their design threshold, should they be outlawed also?

My own opinion is that the entire regulation needs to be dumped and simply go back to what we always had, hunter education, because it works, this regulation doesn't.

[Ziege]

fmj more than have their place... some pelts are taken from larger animals where a bigger than 22cal is needed and FMJ offer for a clean shot without blowing the animal to kingdom come... no one should be advocating for the banning of any firearm or ammunition type they literally all have their uses.

[marksman]

common sence and trust is needed
the people who are making the rules treat you as if you are not experienced, dont know where to shoot the deer or would not do the job properly
the NZ deer cullers used a 222 for red deer only using a meat saver shot with the right projectile and heaps of experience,
l would not condone someone who does not have a lot of shooting/hunting experience to do this, just being able to hit the side of a barn is not good enough
l do not 100% agree with this bloke on everything but do agree with what he has written in this write up of his that the GMA would do well taking into account
https://www.norma-ammunition.com/en-gb/ ... me-killing

some deer are pretty hard to plant, l would be very careful of a shot with a FMJ bullet or even a very stout bullet being used only making the shot if l could be certain that the shot would be good, my recommendation for them would be a brain or neck shot
what l think anyway

[Blr243]

Fmj to me is military ammo designed to wound soldiers effectively taking out three men because it takes two of his mates to carry him out of there. ...bullets punching straight thru deliver most of their energy to the big ironbark tree standing behind the deer instead of the deer

[Ziege]

Fmj to me is military ammo designed to wound soldiers effectively taking out three men because it takes two of his mates to carry him out of there. ...bullets punching straight thru deliver most of their energy to the big ironbark tree standing behind the deer instead of the deer

no the hornady FMJ's that I punch through foxes heads are most certainly not "Military Rounds" and f*** that noise anyway, this "Military" idea just leaves the door open for rampant banning of things, a good old lead slug non jacketed 45-70 round is technically a "Military round" should we ban that as well? FMJ's are perfectly civilian.

[bladeracer]

Fmj to me is military ammo designed to wound soldiers effectively taking out three men because it takes two of his mates to carry him out of there. ...bullets punching straight thru deliver most of their energy to the big ironbark tree standing behind the deer instead of the deer

A non-expanding bullet is equally able to kill cleanly if it is placed correctly. A hunter taking "boiler room" shots with such bullets needs to be outlawed , not the bullet. He is absolutely no more an ethical hunter than if he were gut-shooting with explosive bullets.

Military FMJ bullets have been modified for many decades for hunting by filing the tips off, drilling them, or simply seating the bullet backwards. The bullet design is not the problem, the person using it incorrectly is the problem.

[bladeracer]

Fmj to me is military ammo designed to wound soldiers effectively taking out three men because it takes two of his mates to carry him out of there. ...bullets punching straight thru deliver most of their energy to the big ironbark tree standing behind the deer instead of the deer

Military ball is not "designed to wound", millions of people killed during WW2 can attest to their killing effectiveness, when placed in the right part of the target. Soldiers aim to kill the enemy, not wound them. A wounded man can be useful as a tactic to allow the killing of more of the enemy, either while they're distracted by him, or while they change their focus to recovering him rather than killing you, but the goal is always to kill the enemy - that is what you carry all that FMJ ammo around for.

With technology, bullets became actively designed to make bigger and deadlier holes in people than ball had traditionally made. Most militaries didn't bother pursuing these advances as FMJ ball ammo killed the enemy perfectly effectively already, it was cheaper, they had plenty of it, and the vast majority of losses in combat were not made with smallarms anyway.

Modern FMJ military bullets are designed to kill, not to wound.

[mchughcb]

Bureaucratic f^kwits.
The Scandinavian folk must wonder at our humane dispatch requirements.
Odd that they still use the venerable 6.5 Swede to shoot moose. Somewhat bigger than any game you'll find in Vic.
And what's this about "no bead sights" on a smooth-bore?
Where do they find the cretins who write this s**t to impose on us?

I wrote it with 2 other guys. So guess I'm a cretin according to you.

I could try and explain why its actually more relaxed than it was before but it won't make sny difference.

What contribution did you have to the game regulations?

[Ziege]

If I see another deer when I am down south of here, I am going to shoot it with my 22lr just to spite victoria lol.

[mchughcb]

Bureaucratic f^kwits.
The Scandinavian folk must wonder at our humane dispatch requirements.
Odd that they still use the venerable 6.5 Swede to shoot moose. Somewhat bigger than any game you'll find in Vic.
And what's this about "no bead sights" on a smooth-bore?
Where do they find the cretins who write this s**t to impose on us?

Ive hunted moose and shot my first bull moose in Sweden. There are very good reasons why swedes use 6.5x55 as a minimum for moose but that is not necessarily applicable for Sambar and when you have hunted both you will understand why without someone on the internet telling you why.

[mchughcb]

If I see another deer when I am down south of here, I am going to shoot it with my 22lr just to spite victoria lol.

HMR is better with 20gr TNT.

[bladeracer]

I wrote it with 2 other guys. So guess I'm a cretin according to you.

I could try and explain why its actually more relaxed than it was before but it won't make sny difference.

What contribution did you have to the game regulations?

Three of you got together and came up with this mess?
Why? Were you asked to by an organisation?

I would not say it's relaxed as much as abstract and pointless. It restricts us from using some very capable cartridges (22/250, .224 Weatherby Mag, .223WSSM, etc, and .243 Weatherby Mag, .257 Roberts, .25-06, and a plethora of very potent 6.5mm cartridges), while allowing us to use some even weaker cartridges (25-20, .38 Special, 9mm Para, etc).

Didn't the previous requirement at least mention case length? Was it law back then or just recommendation?

I'd appreciate your responses to the points I made originally, if you don't mind.
As an original author you may have some additional credibility in having this effort fixed.

[Oldbloke]

Don't have it here. But prior to this for sambar it was from memory:
Minimum 270 cal
Minimum bullet weight 130gr
Minimum case length 2".

So, 30-30 was ok (A sensible minimum) and so was 270 win with a 130gr.
IMO nothing wrong with it as it was.

This type of stuff does need to be easy to understand an clear cut. The current system does allow a lot of under powered cartridges. To me current system makes little sense.

[mchughcb]

Bureaucratic f^kwits.
The Scandinavian folk must wonder at our humane dispatch requirements.
Odd that they still use the venerable 6.5 Swede to shoot moose. Somewhat bigger than any game you'll find in Vic.
And what's this about "no bead sights" on a smooth-bore?
Where do they find the cretins who write this s**t to impose on us?

Yes, that's why I find it incredible that it has been allowed to stand for so long that even NSW has now adopted it as their recommendation.

Do we assume that rifled shotguns are legal despite being entirely ignored?

How many years hunting deer before 2002 and 2012 did you do which were the 10 year sunsets on the game regulations?

[mchughcb]

I wrote it with 2 other guys. So guess I'm a cretin according to you.

I could try and explain why its actually more relaxed than it was before but it won't make sny difference.

What contribution did you have to the game regulations?

Three of you got together and came up with this mess?
Why? Were you asked to by an organisation?

I would not say it's relaxed as much as abstract and pointless. It restricts us from using some very capable cartridges (22/250, .224 Weatherby Mag, .223WSSM, etc, and .243 Weatherby Mag, .257 Roberts, .25-06, and a plethora of very potent 6.5mm cartridges), while allowing us to use some even weaker cartridges (25-20, .38 Special, 9mm Para, etc).

Didn't the previous requirement at least mention case length? Was it law back then or just recommendation?

I'd appreciate your responses to the points I made originally, if you don't mind.
As an original author you may have some additional credibility in having this effort fixed.

The 2012 RIS was put out around 2010 for public comment. Anybody could submit anything. There was about 450 submissions from individuals and hunting organizations and non hunting organizations such as the Coalition against duck shooting. I read every single one of them, I attended several meetings with combined organizations such as the ADA, FGA, VHH, SSAA, Muzzle loaders etc. to discuss things such as exclusion zones for duck hunters with protestors so they could be prosecuted.

In private capacity I also arranged appoints to see Simon Toop and Zach Powell to given a white paper on why certain things should be included such as additional dog categories such as companion dogs including JRT.

What did you actually do before I have to defend any hunting regulation that you have an issue about, that was gazetted by the government?

[bladeracer]

Bureaucratic f^kwits.
The Scandinavian folk must wonder at our humane dispatch requirements.
Odd that they still use the venerable 6.5 Swede to shoot moose. Somewhat bigger than any game you'll find in Vic.
And what's this about "no bead sights" on a smooth-bore?
Where do they find the cretins who write this s**t to impose on us?

Yes, that's why I find it incredible that it has been allowed to stand for so long that even NSW has now adopted it as their recommendation.

Do we assume that rifled shotguns are legal despite being entirely ignored?

How many years hunting deer before 2002 and 2012 did you do which were the 10 year sunsets on the game regulations?

None, why? Is there some relevance to myself that explains why this regulation has been allowed to remain so long?

[bladeracer]

The 2012 RIS was put out around 2010 for public comment. Anybody could submit anything. There was about 450 submissions from individuals and hunting organizations and non hunting organizations such as the Coalition against duck shooting. I read every single one of them, I attended several meetings with combined organizations such as the ADA, FGA, VHH, SSAA, Muzzle loaders etc. to discuss things such as exclusion zones for duck hunters with protestors so they could be prosecuted.

In private capacity I also arranged appoints to see Simon Toop and Zach Powell to given a white paper on why certain things should be included such as additional dog categories such as companion dogs including JRT.

What did you actually do before I have to defend any hunting regulation that you have an issue about, that was gazetted by the government?

Why should I be required to have done anything to ask you to explain how you came up with this?
And what does "gazetted by the government mean", that it must therefore be infallible?

I am not the only person to take issue with this, and frankly I'm astonished that you, as a very regular hunter yourself, can't see the pointlessness of it. You feel that allowing an inexperienced hunter to go after Sambar with his .38-40 Winchester Model 92 is what we should be doing?

Did energy, velocity, bullet design, or simply "educating hunters about terminal ballistics" ever get proposed as worth mentioning in such regulations?

[animalpest]

Me thinks you need sensible minimums for shooting animals. This covers the newbies with little or no experience.

Sure, you can kill deer with head (or neck) shots with .222 etc, but the below average shooter (ie 50% of hunters) may not be that good.

I agree that minimum energy levels should be included and while 80gr bullets in a .223 are superior to 55gr you need to write it for the mugs.

[bladeracer]

No argument from me there, but these regs only offer minimum requirements of bullet diameter and weight, which have very little to do with the terminal effect on the animal. Even doubling both requirements (say a .486" diameter of 160gn) does not necessarily make an effective shot if fired at low velocity. A quick Google seems to say that .45ACP is marginal even on small deer in the US.

Me thinks you need sensible minimums for shooting animals. This covers the newbies with little or no experience.

Sure, you can kill deer with head (or neck) shots with .222 etc, but the below average shooter (ie 50% of hunters) may not be that good.

I agree that minimum energy levels should be included and while 80gr bullets in a .223 are superior to 55gr you need to write it for the mugs.

[mchughcb]

None, why? Is there some relevance to myself that explains why this regulation has been allowed to remain so long?

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt so rather than complain about what somebody else did when you did nothing, in less than 2 years the current regulations are up for renewal. Make sure you have your list of things that you'd like changed. Take the time to work yourself up to the executive level in any hunting organization where you have some influence, spend countless hours listening to the people who drafted the previous 20 years, take unpaid leave off work and arrange to see the policy makers, senior bureaucrats and politicians about what you would like changed. Be prepared for a barrage of criticism from anti hunters as your name goes public and hunters so motivated signing their name takes a lot of effort.

And go for it. You have just under 2 years, plenty of time.

[mchughcb]

No argument from me there, but these regs only offer minimum requirements of bullet diameter and weight, which have very little to do with the terminal effect on the animal. Even doubling both requirements (say a .486" diameter of 160gn) does not necessarily make an effective shot if fired at low velocity. A quick Google seems to say that .45ACP is marginal even on small deer in the US.

Me thinks you need sensible minimums for shooting animals. This covers the newbies with little or no experience.

Sure, you can kill deer with head (or neck) shots with .222 etc, but the below average shooter (ie 50% of hunters) may not be that good.

I agree that minimum energy levels should be included and while 80gr bullets in a .223 are superior to 55gr you need to write it for the mugs.

Seriously dude, rather than whinging anonymously on a forum, pick up the phone, call Simon Toop and ask him this. See how far you actually get with a government bureaucrat and report back here what answer you got and what impact you will have on the 2022 Game Regulations.

[bladeracer]

Seriously dude, rather than whinging anonymously on a forum, pick up the phone, call Simon Toop and ask him this. See how far you actually get with a government bureaucrat and report back here what answer you got and what impact you will have on the 2022 Game Regulations.

Do you have a number for Simon Toop?

[mchughcb]

Yeah I do. I have his mobile and I am not giving to an internet nobody. You call his department tomorrow and they will take your call.

[bladeracer]

None, why? Is there some relevance to myself that explains why this regulation has been allowed to remain so long?

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt so rather than complain about what somebody else did when you did nothing, in less than 2 years the current regulations are up for renewal. Make sure you have your list of things that you'd like changed. Take the time to work yourself up to the executive level in any hunting organization where you have some influence, spend countless hours listening to the people who drafted the previous 20 years, take unpaid leave off work and arrange to see the policy makers, senior bureaucrats and politicians about what you would like changed. Be prepared for a barrage of criticism from anti hunters as your name goes public and hunters so motivated signing their name takes a lot of effort.

And go for it. You have just under 2 years, plenty of time.

Doing nothing does not equate to refusing to do anything...I wasn't even living in Victoria at the time

Now that I am living here, I'm seeing a stupid regulation that needs addressing, and I'm trying to address it. The Code of Conduct for Kangaroo's is equally stupid, but I'm not involved with shooting 'roos. (I hope that's not one of yours as well!)

I asked for members here to put their ideas forward on how a regulation like this should be put together, mainly because I can't see any way of doing so that would be effective. The only effective way such a regulation could possibly work would be to make it law that you "can only shoot deer with factory Hornady .308 Winchester 180gn Superperformance ammunition from a 22" barrel to a maximum range of 420m"...or something equally ridiculous. And that is what your team should have explained in your submission.

The closest workable regulation that works already exists, the Animal Welfare Act requires hunters to hunt ethically, while trusting us to make intelligent choices of how we go about that. This regulation adds nothing to that at all, it actually detracts from it.

I already deal with anti hunters, as I expect we all have to.

If you want to offer anything towards this discussion on how we can fix this then please do so, simply joining in out of pique because some of us don't regard your "baby" as having the same value that you do doesn't help anybody. Everything you have contributed to this discussion is about how the rest of us did nothing while you did something, while ignoring the questions about why some of us don't consider that the "something" that you "did" has any value.

Please - read my original post, think about what I'm saying, and make some helpful suggestions if you have any. You have been inside the process, you may have real input that can make the process easier.

[bladeracer]

Yeah I do. I have his mobile and I am not giving to an internet nobody. You call his department tomorrow and they will take your call.

That's fine but can you at least tell me what his "department" is so I can Google his office number myself?

Tried Facebook just now, nothing.
Who is he if he has even less internet presence than a nobody like me?