The NSC is supporting a fight in WA over the use of .300 Win mags (.308 Winchester Magnums) against an officer who believes he knows more about pest eradication than those who do the work.

In fact he has made some startling statements that we are confident will expose WAPol’s lack of knowledge about firearms.

Adrian is a pest controller. He has a .270 rifle which he uses up to 200m and .338 that he uses for his work at longer distances, but has applied to the WA Police to use 300 Win mag with his Remington 700 for shoots out in the middle range to 500m. 

The problem is WA Police believes that his .338 is suitable for distances less than 500m. 

As Adrian argues, the 338 is not suitable for close range, and in any case is considerably more expensive at $18 a round, to shoot than the 300 calibre at $3 a round. 

However, the WA Police do not see it this way.

Up against a confident expert

Adrian’s case is being fought on the police side by an officer who believes he knows what he is saying. 

He has told Adrian that he knows what he is talking about, because he (the officer) is or was a military trained marksman.  He also told Adrian that he doesn’t need a .338 because a .270 is deadly at 1,000m and is used in Afghanistan…

Less funny is the belief that a regulator charged with firearm safety would somehow think it is safe or prudent to use a large calibre at close range.

NSC brings in its legal team

Adrian’s case is at its early stages, however the NSC has brought in its barrister to advise Adrian and offer support.

Adrian has done his homework, including obtaining a statement on the use of the 300 Win Mag from Victorian armoury expert, Len Steele.

Len is someone well known in Victorian circles, having given evidence in Victorian and Tasmanian courts on firearm matters since 1983 and 2017 respectively.

On Monday 8 March, the parties were required to attend a mediation session, where a resolution with WAPol seemed unlikely. 

They didn’t disappoint.  There was no resolution, but this may turn out to be a good thing, because we are about to find out exactly what WAPol knows about ballistics. So far it would appear that the officer in charge of this case has no idea about long distance shooting.  

It is our understanding that among the problems is that the officer thought there were places against which you could ‘rest’ a rifle when taking a shot when you are in the scrub, and an apparent lack of appreciation about what happens when a barrel gets hot.  This is consistent with the idea that a .270 is deadly up to 1,000m, which we understand was repeated at the session.

That’s why we’re excited about this case.  We’ll keep an eye on it and continue to help Adrian as much as possible. 

Had enough of bad gun laws?

If you live in WA, then don’t put up with stuff like this. The NSC has published voting advice for shooters for this week’s state election. If you live in WA and aren’t sure who to vote for, then check out our voting guide by clicking here

13 thoughts on “NSC supports 300 Win Mag case – against the ‘military trained marksman’

  1. TAH says:

    “a .270 is deadly at 1,000m and is used in Afghanistan” ???
    ************************
    The trajectory drop of a 130-grain .270 projectile at 1,000 metres range is about
    300 INCHES (i.e 7.6 METRES).

    Also, the kinetic energy of a 130-grain .270 projectile at 1,000 metres range is about ONLY 600 ft-lbs
    (A commonly accepted threshold for the MINIMUM amount of kinetic energy needed to kill a deer, is 1,000 ft-lbs).

  2. Chris says:

    Finally a shooting organisation that are playing the totalitarian police at their own game . Makes me happy to be a NSC member.

  3. BRETT WILSON says:

    A marksman ” skill at arms badge” is a lower qualification than a qualified sniper who does a specific course in long range shooting and ballistic theory etc, unlike a solder who qualifies as a marksman. So even with his Army qualification as a marksman, he is in the middle of standards so to speak, not on the higher end where he might have been sniping insurgents from long distance in Afghanistan from various firing positions, ranges and weather conditions. You can still qualify as a marksman in the Army and be in the rear with the gear so to speak, which does not make you the go to expert on ballistics and skill at arms. You could blow his i.e. expert witness claim apart in the court room with this info. https://www.reddit.com/…/can_anyone_shed_some_light_on…/

    • Ken R says:

      Soldiers do NOT qualify as a marksman/woman, there a serious legal connotation attached to that issue. Soldiers are skilled at being able to fire at the center of the seen mass. Snipers are further well trained.
      I served in the ADF for eighteen years.

  4. Peter A says:

    Don’t call any Vic. Sambar stalkers, been using 338 for last 35yrs, rarely longer range that 100metres. Having said that, what BS from WA Pol. to argue about 300WM (have owned one) Versus a 338WM, both very handy for knock down and longer range shots.
    Pinpricking rubbish from WAPol !

  5. Greg Edwards says:

    Lets face it you could kill somethings at 1000m with a 22 if you could hit it accurately, would it be humane more than likely not.
    I do have to question what the relevance of Afghanistan has to do with a firearm application in WA for feral control, for this reference alone this officer should be removed from firearms branch. We are law abiding owners/users not interested in shooting people!
    I have both a 270 and 338wm new application in for 300prc lets see what happens with WAPOL on that, I too may be needing some assistance.

  6. David M says:

    Excuse me,

    a. but why is anyone using a .270 when a .308 is more practical?

    b. Is there a mad attempt at justifying more firearms by pretending specific calibres are only useful at narrow range brackets?

    You are facing a group of criminals, guilty of the original crime of Sabotage, carrying the death penalty, getting away with it by any means and any lie.

    Exposing ‘b.’ will suit the sociopaths in the coalition when the time is right for them. They may have played you with the idea – after all, they are taught in school to be sociopaths. The attitude of the school staff came out during the Royal Commission into Instutionalised Child Abuse: if you don’t like the fact your child was molested at school, there are plenty of others on the waiting list.

    Why are you fighting a former soldier when he is right?

    And Tah, “A commonly accepted threshold for the MINIMUM amount of kinetic energy needed to kill a deer, is 1,000 ft-lbs”. Stop listening to americans and your head will clear.

    I don’t understand why anyone is using a .338. If you want to be fussy about the visible impact of a round on an animal, use a .308 with a higher twist rate. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a 139gn BT.

  7. Ben says:

    The officer was never in the army or Afganistan and is a lier. Simple fact is the .270 win is no used by the Australian militairy.

  8. Jonathan Laird says:

    Typical unprofessional, ill informed tripe from WAPol. As a veteran I take exception to this obvious BS.
    Thank you so much NSC for taking these tin pot dictators on. As a former Sandgroper who recently returned home after a career interstate, I can confirm that they have been trafficking this partisan nonsense for decades.

  9. john matthews says:

    To the best of my knowledge rhe .270 was not used in Afghanistan and indeed not part of the Australian armoury, .308 is probably what he is waffling on about which proves he has no knowledge of firearms or calibres. Saying he is a trained marksman could mean he went to a range with an instructor. I suggest you ask to see his service history so he can prove his credibility

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *