nosler balistic tips

[Chapuis]

I see where you are coming from but have to disagree with you. Either a bullet is regarded as being "expanding" or it is not. A-Max bullets have been officially deemed as being non expanding. Contrary to what you say A-Max are not regarded as being either soft nosed or hollow-nosed which as you quite rightly point out is the requirement in England and Wales under the relevant Deer Acts. Also as you suggest the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland is far clearer as the relevant acts in those areas suggest that the bullets must be designed to deform in a predictable manner.

Legally the "hollow-nose" that you refer to on an A-Max bullet is no different to the hollow nose on a Sierra Matchking bullet though the construction of both bullets is quite different.

I agree with you that A-Max bullets are good bullets but should you succeed in overturning the decision that has been taken at high level and after great efforts by the shooting organisations you will deny the use of these bullets to the target shooting community. After all there are many other bullets that are available and that are purposely designed to expand and thus better suited to deer stalking.

[Mr_Logic]

Chapuis, I don't think you quite grasp the situation. There is nothing to argue about here.

Please provide evidence for everything you've said. The classification of a bullet as section 5 or not, has nothing whatsoever to do with its legality for use on deer in England and Wales under the Deer Act.

You say "A-max are not regarded as being either soft or hollow-nosed". Provide evidence to back this up. In a court of law, to convict someone of contravening the Deer Act, you have to prove that the A-max doesn't have a hollow tip. This will be rather tricky because they DO have one. Same with HPBT.

No decision has been taken at any level regarding the legality of the A-max for use on deer. The discussion and subsequent agreement/recommendation which took place was whether the A-max qualifies as a Section 5 bullet, because its construction is so close to the V-max.

The crux of the argument was that A-max is NOT section 5, because it is not DESIGNED to expand. Key word - DESIGNED. Its intended purpose is target shooting and therefore any expansion capability is purely secondary to the primary purpose which is accuracy.

When considering a bullet's legal classification, the key is its DESIGNED PURPOSE. When considering the legality on deer in Scotland and NI, it's the designed purpose too.

However, in England and Wales, to establish legality, you must first ascertain CONSTRUCTION. This is not design, but how the bullet is physically made. The only bullet which is actually illegal under that is the FMJ. All other modern bullets are legal, assuming correct weight, calibre and energy.

Do I agree with this law? No I don't. It should be harmonised across England, Scotland, Wales, NI and then brought into line with the particularly rubbish bullet classification system.

however, as the law currently stands, to shoot a deer in England and Wales, you must use a bullet of soft- or hollow-nosed construction. Design is irrelevant, and on that basis the A-max, with both soft and hollow point, qualifies.

[Chapuis]

Mr_Logic we agree on so much in particular - "Do I agree with this law? No I don't. It should be harmonised across England, Scotland, Wales, NI and then brought into line with the particularly rubbish bullet classification system."

Yet I can’t agree with you regarding the construction of the A-Max bullet or your contention that it is acceptable to use what is a match bullet for deer stalking. This argument has been done to death on various websites over the last two years and I don’t see any benefit in raking it up again and again. I think that a satisfactory solution was adopted by the Home Office and the ACPO fairly recently. A solution that is both correct and fair to all shooters. I therefore suggest that it is better to leave sleeping dogs lie.

[Mr_Logic]

Not quite. I'd like you to quantify this please:

"I think that a satisfactory solution was adopted by the Home Office and the ACPO fairly recently"

The only thing I've seen is that they agreed that a bullet had to be designed to expand in order to be classified as Section 5.

I've not seen any mention anywhere of any ACPO / Home office discussion of whether plastic tipped bullets count as deer legal. Remember, with the construction of the bullet, the intended purpose doesn't matter.

I know most of this has been done on other websites - I've been involved with the discussions. Each time this happens - I provide evidence in the form of the wording of the Deer Act and the construction of the bullet in question. Each time the other side fails to provide evidence to contradict mine, but still says they're right.

I would really like someone to provide some evidence, or admit they're wrong - this board is a bit more grown up than others so hopefully we can do so without any personal insults, which have always been the case on other boards.

[Chapuis]

Now this may sound like a cop out to you but ultimately the courts would be the adjudicators on this not us – so let’s no go there. Like I said previously it’s better to let sleeping dogs lie. I actually have my own strong views on this subject which really aren’t that far from your own. Irrespective of your own use of A-Max bullets I would simply suggest that it may be wiser not to promote the use of such bullets on an open forum especially when alternatives specifically designed for the task are available and especially when the repercussions could affect others.

[Scotsgun]

Guys, it's not worth arguing about.

The fact is that when i originally started using A-MAXs, Hornady actively advertised them is ideal for deer in the states - 'medium sized game animals.' I still have the US magazine advert avertising them as such. They also admitted that the construction of the ST and the A-Max is exactly the same, the only difference being the shape and actual materials percentages.

Now when offered over here Hornady were ignorant of our stupid and draconian laws, nor are they particularly concerned as the market is negligable in comparison to the States and other countries (i got that bit from the horse's mouth). So, you are perfectly correct in that they are not an 'approved' hunting bullet in the UK and that Hornady market them elsewhere as suitable for target shooting and medium sized game. I myself have shot whitetail and mule deer in that states with them without any problem.......i may also have shot many more deer, alot closer to home without any problems.

A-Max bullets are readily available and can be sent through the post, so long may it continue !

[Chapuis]

Spot on Scotsgun, like you say it's not worth arguing about especially as basically we are in agreement.

I am also in total agreement with your final sentence particularly the convenience of them being able to be posted.