Change the 24 caliber min in washington(added poll please vote)

[JDHasty]

Well, its in the big string of quotes in your reply.  Whatever.  How bout dem seahawks?  Im drunk leave me alone 

He was referring to me. 

[jay.sharkbait]

Well, its in the big string of quotes in your reply.  Whatever.  How bout dem seahawks?  Im drunk leave me alone 

He was referring to me.

LOL

[JDHasty]

I could have ordered an upper and put together a 6.5 or 6.8 deer rifle for the kid's AR.  Or I could put a barrel on the Contender frame.  Mox nix.  I scored a NOS tapered 7-30 barrel and went that way.  Their AR with sliding stock would have worked just as well.  Both needed me to  make brass.  If I hated AR 15s why would I put one together so that the kids would have a really great rifle that is all theirs?  It just doesn't make sense. 

I mean, my God I want my kids to have fun by being successful shooting out at 200 yards like daddy does and break the balloons they are shooting at and how better to get a kid behind a rifle that the stock can fit them as they grow than by making that an AR?  If my name were JD Rockefeller it may be different, but my name is JD Hasty and I am not made of money.

These guys want to set up a field of straw men and then run around like a pyromaniac in a field of straw men burning them down.

What my objection is solely predicated upon is that today there are hordes of AR 15 owners that only have this restriction standing between them being legal big game hunters and them directing volley fire at big game animals.  And, from what I have seen, at the range, not my home range that restricts you to one shot/second, is that when they fire and miss, and fire and miss, that it is not long before all hell breaks loose and they manage to hit the target a couple times and they are all but turning back flips because they were successful. 

The big game animals I hunt don't owe me a thing, they have provided me with more entertainment than I could ever repay, just by virtue of being available to test my skill against their survival instinct.  One of the things I owe them in return is to do what I can to see that they are taken humanely.

[JDHasty]

I am an engineer, engineering is all about quantifying risk to human life and property.  I suspect a lot of my taking data and my observations re: risk assessment into consideration comes from my background in engineering.

I personally know, and am related to, people who hunt deer with a 22 magnum.  They brain shoot deer every year in Montana.  I will also go on record as saying that more deer are likely shot with 223 in Montana than any other cartridge and dropped in their tracks.  Not out of an AR, out of a Ruger Mini 14.  Ranchers just love 'em.  They are deadly with them too, but they rarely shoot over 75 yards.

In Montana anyone can show up and hunt big game with anything they have, usually on snow in "open country." 

I am a black tail hunter and I want them dead real close to where I fired a shot, in the rain, through the most God forsaken brush imaginable, if they go ten yards.   I want DRT, but if not I want blood by the gallon to follow and when I have had to follow (it has rarely been my FU) I need a major exit wound.  Period, end of story.  Even a 12 ga slug into the ribs that exits a ham is problematic.  I just cannot see a double lung with a 60 grain partition that exits twice diameter giving me what I need to even go twenty yards. 

In Montana it is usually possible to recover game that has sustained any type of debilitating wound.  That is just not the case in western WA.  We need DRT or we have to have big blood.  Even if it is only fifty yards.  Elk hunting on the west side is the same way and anybody who is being candid will agree.     

[Oh Mah]

I suppose they could make it a 65 grain minimum. Or 60 grain, I think that's the way it is in Wyoming.

(b) For the taking of antelope, deer, mountain lion, or gray wolf where designated as a trophy game
animal, a hunter shall use:
(i) Any center-fire firearm of at least .22 caliber (excluding .22 Hornet) and having a bullet
weight of at least sixty (60) grains and firing a cartridge of at least two (2) inches in overall length, or any other cartridge of at least .35 caliber and at least one and one-half (1.5) inches in overall length, and using an expanding point bullet;

So by that wording would a hard cast bullet from day a .44 magnum be legal??

center fire at least .22 =yes
             60 grain or more bullet=yes
             .35 cal. or more and at least 1.5 in. long =yes
              if your mold for hard cast will cast expanding tips then=yes
               

[Curly]

I don't think all engineers would agree that a 223 should not be used for deer in WA.

Engineering is about using safety factors in your equations and evaluation, and admittedly there isn't much in the way of "safety factor" when using a minimal cartridge like a 223, but I would be willing to trust hunters to make that judgement call for themselves on choosing an appropriate deer cartridge.

[JDHasty]

I don't think all engineers would agree that a 223 should not be used for deer in WA.

Engineering is about using safety factors in your equations and evaluation, and admittedly there isn't much in the way of "safety factor" when using a minimal cartridge like a 223, but I would be willing to trust hunters to make that judgement call for themselves on choosing an appropriate deer cartridge.

Engineering is about risk.  The fly in the ointment is:  what is acceptable risk. 

Different people have different standards.  Mine is derived from this:  The big game animals I hunt don't owe me a thing, they have provided me with more entertainment than I could ever repay, just by virtue of being available to test my skill against their survival instinct.  One of the things I owe them in return is to do what I can to see that they are taken humanely.

A humane kill in my estimation is one in which a one shot kill is far more likely more likely than not and recovery of the animal is almost certain.  YMMV. 

I have argued the probability of one shot kill elsewhere, wherein the validity of volley fire as an acceptable substitute was debated and found to be an acceptable alternative.  I don't agree, and my thoughts on the subject are not open to interpretation. 

You may think that the big game animals owe you more than I think they owe me, and that is your prerogative. 

We all voted on the people who put the decision makers in place who will make the ultimate determination on what we owe the game we pursue regarding what is an acceptable risk. 

That is what this is all about. 

Different people have different standards of what is acceptable in terms of risk and I have expressed mine and let it be known what I think the likely outcome from this decision will be if the restriction is changed. 

[mountainman]

I don't think all engineers would agree that a 223 should not be used for deer in WA.

Engineering is about using safety factors in your equations and evaluation, and admittedly there isn't much in the way of "safety factor" when using a minimal cartridge like a 223, but I would be willing to trust hunters to make that judgement call for themselves on choosing an appropriate deer cartridge.

Engineering is about risk.  The fly in the ointment is:  what is acceptable risk. 

Different people have different standards.  Mine is derived from this:  The big game animals I hunt don't owe me a thing, they have provided me with more entertainment than I could ever repay, just by virtue of being available to test my skill against their survival instinct.  One of the things I owe them in return is to do what I can to see that they are taken humanely.

A humane kill in my estimation is one in which a one shot kill is far more likely more likely than not and recovery of the animal is almost certain.  YMMV. 

I have argued the probability of one shot kill elsewhere, wherein the validity of volley fire as an acceptable substitute was debated and found to be an acceptable alternative.  I don't agree, and my thoughts on the subject are not open to interpretation. 

You may think that the big game animals owe you more than I think they owe me, and that is your prerogative. 

We all voted on the people who put the decision makers in place who will make the ultimate determination on what we owe the game we pursue regarding what is an acceptable risk. 

That is what this is all about. 

Different people have different standards of what is acceptable in terms of risk and I have expressed mine and let it be known what I think the likely outcome from this decision will be if the restriction is changed. 

👆👍

[JimmyHoffa]

I keep hearing Wyoming, Alaska and Montana.  Are hunters in those states a little different?  Is hunting a little different? 
My main concern is that something would happen that would force WDFW to whittle away part of the season.  Guess the best way to find out is allow .224 cal provisionally for a year or two and analyze the data.  If no big drop in the herd due to lost and wounded animals, let the little guns stay.

[Bango skank]

I keep hearing Wyoming, Alaska and Montana.  Are hunters in those states a little different?  Is hunting a little different? 
My main concern is that something would happen that would force WDFW to whittle away part of the season.  Guess the best way to find out is allow .224 cal provisionally for a year or two and analyze the data.  If no big drop in the herd due to lost and wounded animals, let the little guns stay.

Wdfw doesnt have a clue about our game populatulions in the ne corner so how are they supposed to know when theres a big drop?  Hell them saying they dont have a population estimate for our elk makes me wonder how they know how many wolves the area can support

[JimmyHoffa]

I figure for every guy that brings out a dialed in .22-250 with game bullets you'll have a guy out there with a tacticool zombie firearm system with some Wolf fmj .223 or something.  Just my guess.  Just trying to figure out if it would adversely impact the herds in any significant way.
I think WDFW does a population survey once a decade or so, then use harvest reports for the annual guess.

[bobcat]

If the law was like Wyoming's, with a 60 grain minimum bullet weight, wouldn't that eliminate all of the possible bullets that some people might use that aren't suitable for deer?

[Bob33]

If the law was like Wyoming's, with a 60 grain minimum bullet weight, wouldn't that eliminate all of the possible bullets that some people might use that aren't suitable for deer?

How can that be enforced? Enforcement officers would need bullet pullers and scales.

I think more regulations complication isn't a good thing.

[bobcat]

If the law was like Wyoming's, with a 60 grain minimum bullet weight, wouldn't that eliminate all of the possible bullets that some people might use that aren't suitable for deer?

How can that be enforced? Enforcement officers would need bullet pullers and scales.

I think more regulations complication isn't a good thing.

I guess it really would be difficult to enforce for sure. But out of all the other states I may hunt in the near future (Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Idaho) my 223 WSSM is legal for deer. So somehow those states have decided to let people have the freedom to make their own decision as to what will work for them. So I guess I wonder why we are so different here in that we aren't trusted to know what an appropriate bullet is for the game we are hunting. Also I do feel that most people would go with a 60 grain minimum bullet if that was the law.

[jay.sharkbait]

6x45 is made from .223 brass. Can we expect Fish and Game officers to carry a micrometer for enforcement?