FAC conditions and the law

[Chapuis]

Sir we will therefore agree to disagree then.

Either a bullet is regarded as being of the expanding variety or it is regarded as being non expanding. I totally disagree with your view that the A-Max has both a hollow point and a soft point and obviously the NRA and BASC took the same view when in consultation with H.O. and ACPO it was agreed that the A-Max bullet should be accepted as being non expanding. Yes these bullets may have a small hole at the nose infilled with a polymer tip but the intention of their design was as match bullets much the same as a Sierra Matchking bullet which also has a hole in the nose but without the insert.

The same Sierra Matchking which is also perfectly legal for use on deer.

Whether or not the bullet is classified as Section 5 or not makes absolutely no difference to its legality for use on deer.

Whether the bullet is designed to expand makes no difference to its legality for use on deer.

It is there in black and white, it is not a matter for disagreement; it is a fact that a bullet with a hollow and/or soft nose is legal for use on deer.

The terms are not defined, so it must be taken literally. The Matchking has a hollow point, and thus is legal. Daft, yes, but legal nevertheless.

I agree that the two Acts are not harmonious and thus are confusing, but the Deer Act is the only one which applies to the shooting of Deer. The Firearms Acts do not directly apply.

Like I said previously we will have to agree to disagree. I just hope that you are never in the position of having to defend your opinion in court because I think your thinking is flawed and I believe that the courts will be of a similar view. I do however wonder why you would want to use match bullets anyway when much better and better suited bullets are available.

[Mr_Logic]

My point was strictly legality. SMK is legal, but as I said above, you'd be daft to use it.