NickRigby wrote:I'm having trouble finding Vic Govt ballistics guidance on their minimum caliber for Sambar deer. I know it's common sense, and you just use enough gun. Usually mines a .308 or 9.3x62. However, the only guidance I can find on the regulation of "enough gun" is "minimum bore of .270", minimum projectile weight 130 gr", again, I know it's common sense, but if that's it, you could use a 30/30 quite legally, which I wouldn't recommend on larger deer. In fact, a 38 Special could pass that test. Is there no "and generates a minimum of xxxx ft lbs at xxx meters" ? Is there a web page or pamphlet I've missed ?
NickRigby wrote:I'm having trouble finding Vic Govt ballistics guidance on their minimum caliber for Sambar deer. I know it's common sense, and you just use enough gun. Usually mines a .308 or 9.3x62. However, the only guidance I can find on the regulation of "enough gun" is "minimum bore of .270", minimum projectile weight 130 gr", again, I know it's common sense, but if that's it, you could use a 30/30 quite legally, which I wouldn't recommend on larger deer. In fact, a 38 Special could pass that test. Is there no "and generates a minimum of xxxx ft lbs at xxx meters" ? Is there a web page or pamphlet I've missed ?
stihl88 wrote:NickRigby wrote:I'm having trouble finding Vic Govt ballistics guidance on their minimum caliber for Sambar deer. I know it's common sense, and you just use enough gun. Usually mines a .308 or 9.3x62. However, the only guidance I can find on the regulation of "enough gun" is "minimum bore of .270", minimum projectile weight 130 gr", again, I know it's common sense, but if that's it, you could use a 30/30 quite legally, which I wouldn't recommend on larger deer. In fact, a 38 Special could pass that test. Is there no "and generates a minimum of xxxx ft lbs at xxx meters" ? Is there a web page or pamphlet I've missed ?
We see this come up quite often, it is somewhat baffling when we look at some of the variables/outliers that haven't been considered in their decree.
Some consider 1000ft/lbs is plenty enough for effective kills others say approx 3x body weight of the deer.
A 140gr 30-30Win at 200yds has approx 1150ft/lb energy vs 175gr subsnoic load barely has 300ft/lbs of energy at the same distance yet both are legal to use on Sambar in Vic.
Would be great to see a guideline or standard created to establish a more humane approach, ideally it would cover ammo type and it's effective shot distance on target dependent on projectile weight and it's velocity at set distances, shot placement if a given.
NickRigby wrote:I'm having trouble finding Vic Govt ballistics guidance on their minimum caliber for Sambar deer. I know it's common sense, and you just use enough gun. Usually mines a .308 or 9.3x62. However, the only guidance I can find on the regulation of "enough gun" is "minimum bore of .270", minimum projectile weight 130 gr", again, I know it's common sense, but if that's it, you could use a 30/30 quite legally, which I wouldn't recommend on larger deer. In fact, a 38 Special could pass that test. Is there no "and generates a minimum of xxxx ft lbs at xxx meters" ? Is there a web page or pamphlet I've missed ?
bladeracer wrote:We already have animal welfare laws that require us to kill animals as humanely as we possibly can.
Energy is not a great metric either as bullet design determines how much of that potential energy is dumped into the flesh and organs of the animal. If the bullet passes through then that energy is expended into whatever the bullet hits next, the tree or the hill side.
NickRigby wrote:I'm having trouble finding Vic Govt ballistics guidance on their minimum caliber for Sambar deer. I know it's common sense, and you just use enough gun. Usually mines a .308 or 9.3x62. However, the only guidance I can find on the regulation of "enough gun" is "minimum bore of .270", minimum projectile weight 130 gr", again, I know it's common sense, but if that's it, you could use a 30/30 quite legally, which I wouldn't recommend on larger deer. In fact, a 38 Special could pass that test. Is there no "and generates a minimum of xxxx ft lbs at xxx meters" ? Is there a web page or pamphlet I've missed ?
No1Mk3 wrote:Anyone thinking the 30/30 isn't very good for Sambar has never hunted with one. In my younger days I took several Sambar with mine, and also took a few Wapiti with it. The number of Reds is in double figures. As for energy levels, bollocks. As for energy levels, not anywhere near as important as many think. A well constructed bullet suitable for the purpose and "properly" placed will kill anything, just ask europeans who hunt Elk with the 6.5x55 or those like Pondoro Taylor, Karamojo Bell and even Selous himself who all used 6.5 Mannlicher on elephant admittedly they also used big bore guns but mostly settled on 7mm.
stihl88 wrote:These laws are devoid of the anomolies mentioned and offer a general guide only and if we apply their minimum caliber table literally including these anomolies they are effectively permitting inhumane shooting standards.
An effective guideline would almost certainly cover projectile design and it's effect on target i.e FMJ vs Hollowpoint.
stihl88 wrote:OP is using 308 already but is seeking further guidance on effective "xxxx ft lbs at xxx meters" which there is none as far as i'm aware.
Careful calling us all Yanks... Them fighting words!
No1Mk3 wrote:Anyone thinking the 30/30 isn't very good for Sambar has never hunted with one. In my younger days I took several Sambar with mine, and also took a few Wapiti with it. The number of Reds is in double figures. As for energy levels, bollocks. As for energy levels, not anywhere near as important as many think. A well constructed bullet suitable for the purpose and "properly" placed will kill anything, just ask europeans who hunt Elk with the 6.5x55 or those like Pondoro Taylor, Karamojo Bell and even Selous himself who all used 6.5 Mannlicher on elephant admittedly they also used big bore guns but mostly settled on 7mm.
Tomotron wrote:This is why muzzle energy at x metres/yards is a superior metric to calibre regarding ballistics, ethical shooting and legal requirements. Maybe something like a minimum of 1500 ft-lbf at 100 yards with 80 grain bullets for small deer and 2000 ft-lbf at 100 yards with 130 grain bullets for large deer. For instance, higher grain 6.5 Creed would meet these large deer requirements.
https://ammo.com/ballistics/6.5-creedmoor-ballistics
bigrich wrote:even on pigs 6.5 bore does not have the energy dump that a 308 or 30-06 do . i've loaded various 6.5's and meh, i'm over them . i want stuff that just works and has a bit more leeway with shot placement on running game . i've heard all the stories about 6.5's and 7's on elephant , those guys must've been very patient to wait for that perfect shot. just use enough gun and don't over analyse things in my opinion . my earlier advice to the OP to continue with his 308 or preferably his 9.3 still stands
bladeracer wrote:stihl88 wrote:These laws are devoid of the anomolies mentioned and offer a general guide only and if we apply their minimum caliber table literally including these anomolies they are effectively permitting inhumane shooting standards.
An effective guideline would almost certainly cover projectile design and it's effect on target i.e FMJ vs Hollowpoint.
We already have an effective guideline, the Animal Welfare Act.
Use whatever cartridge you are confident will drop the target animal with the minimum of pain and ensure the quickest, most humane kill.
bladeracer wrote:stihl88 wrote:OP is using 308 already but is seeking further guidance on effective "xxxx ft lbs at xxx meters" which there is none as far as i'm aware.
Careful calling us all Yanks... Them fighting words!
The yanks also prefer to deliberately wound the animal so when it runs it leaves a blood trail to follow, after you've waited for the animal to stop somewhere, and hopefully die.
stihl88 wrote:NSW have the following CoP which starts to cover velocity and energy, for Sambar it starts at a minimum of;
- Calibre: .308
- Bullet Weight: 150gr
- Muzzle Energy: 2649 ft-lbs
stihl88 wrote:You mean the the POCTA Act? It doesn't mention an iota of the word firearm or anything related to it.
It's objective is to provide for procedures conducted on animals, devices used on animals, implements and methods of capture of animals, transport of animals, restraint of animals and other related matters; and doesn't clear up the anomolies or questions posed by the OP.
Yes, the simple answer is shoot them with whatever the table allows for and you will be legally clear, your consience might not be.
The NSW chart, on the other hand, takes a more practical, common sense approach, going further to eliminate these inconsistencies.
bladeracer wrote:stihl88 wrote:You mean the the POCTA Act? It doesn't mention an iota of the word firearm or anything related to it.
It's objective is to provide for procedures conducted on animals, devices used on animals, implements and methods of capture of animals, transport of animals, restraint of animals and other related matters; and doesn't clear up the anomolies or questions posed by the OP.
Yes, the simple answer is shoot them with whatever the table allows for and you will be legally clear, your consience might not be.
The NSW chart, on the other hand, takes a more practical, common sense approach, going further to eliminate these inconsistencies.
It doesn't need to mention firearm or any other device. If a firearm is not the most humane way to kill the animal then don't use one, it is then use the right one.
The NEW chart as far as I was aware is not a Code of Practice or legislation, it was just a recommendation last time I looked at it.
bladeracer wrote:stihl88 wrote:You mean the the POCTA Act? It doesn't mention an iota of the word firearm or anything related to it.
It's objective is to provide for procedures conducted on animals, devices used on animals, implements and methods of capture of animals, transport of animals, restraint of animals and other related matters; and doesn't clear up the anomolies or questions posed by the OP.
Yes, the simple answer is shoot them with whatever the table allows for and you will be legally clear, your consience might not be.
The NSW chart, on the other hand, takes a more practical, common sense approach, going further to eliminate these inconsistencies.
It doesn't need to mention firearm or any other device. If a firearm is not the most humane way to kill the animal then don't use one, it is then use the right one.
The NEW chart as far as I was aware is not a Code of Practice or legislation, it was just a recommendation last time I looked at it.
Oldbloke wrote:The Victorian one is regulated. The set of tables/chart is only how the GMA present it so it's easy to understand.
stihl88 wrote:bladeracer wrote:stihl88 wrote:You mean the the POCTA Act? It doesn't mention an iota of the word firearm or anything related to it.
It's objective is to provide for procedures conducted on animals, devices used on animals, implements and methods of capture of animals, transport of animals, restraint of animals and other related matters; and doesn't clear up the anomolies or questions posed by the OP.
Yes, the simple answer is shoot them with whatever the table allows for and you will be legally clear, your consience might not be.
The NSW chart, on the other hand, takes a more practical, common sense approach, going further to eliminate these inconsistencies.
It doesn't need to mention firearm or any other device. If a firearm is not the most humane way to kill the animal then don't use one, it is then use the right one.
The NEW chart as far as I was aware is not a Code of Practice or legislation, it was just a recommendation last time I looked at it.
It is a CoP "NSW Code of Practice and Standard Operating Procedures for the Effective and Humane Management of Feral Deer"