Post by: hunter399 on November 30, 2016, 03:13:29 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on November 30, 2016, 03:16:48 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 30, 2016, 03:20:56 PM
Go to this link, look at "2017-2018 Hunting Regulations" at the top of the list.
Post by: Special T on November 30, 2016, 03:24:33 PM
Post by: Special T on November 30, 2016, 03:27:03 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 30, 2016, 03:31:30 PM
Be advised that attempting to get a regulation of that significance changed has a very low probability of success. It often takes years for a minor change (like allowing the use of lighted nocks) to be accepted and implemented.
You will improve the chances of change if you enlist the support of a major constituency group.
Post by: hunter399 on November 30, 2016, 04:29:31 PM
Post by: hunter399 on November 30, 2016, 04:31:43 PM
Post by: Special T on November 30, 2016, 04:56:04 PM
Post by: brush hunter on November 30, 2016, 05:04:53 PM
Post by: Branden on November 30, 2016, 05:25:54 PM
Post by: JJB11B on November 30, 2016, 05:28:59 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on November 30, 2016, 05:36:40 PM
Another thing to consider is how would you word? Just saying soft point would rule out some very effective bullets. My example would be Barnes. You would be proposing to change a WAC. How it is written can have unintentional results.
Post by: hunter399 on November 30, 2016, 05:39:44 PM
Post by: hunter399 on November 30, 2016, 05:42:35 PM
Instead of thinking about yourself consider the big picture. Can a .223 kill a deer or bear? Yes. However it takes more skill. Something most hunters do not have. There is the possibility of more wounding.softpoints would be for 223 only,cause too many people would try to hunt with fmj.And a game warden has to tell the difference between bullets.are Barnes plastic tip
Another thing to consider is how would you word? Just saying soft point would rule out some very effective bullets. My example would be Barnes. You would be proposing to change a WAC. How it is written can have unintentional results.
Post by: bobcat on November 30, 2016, 05:45:05 PM
I have a 223 WSSM that would be perfect for my kids to hunt deer with. I've used it in Wyoming on both deer and antelope. A 65 grain bullet at 3,400 feet per second works very well.
Post by: MtnMuley on November 30, 2016, 05:47:09 PM
Post by: JJB11B on November 30, 2016, 05:47:10 PM
I don't fully understand why you can't shoot coyotes in till deer season is over.U can shoot coyotes with any caliber.Bear might not be that great,they are kinda tough,and run a little farther.because my deer tags are either Archery or Muzzle Loader. Which means I cannot carry a legal deer caliber rifle to coyote hunt during deer season. Its in the rule book
Post by: MtnMuley on November 30, 2016, 05:51:23 PM
They wouldn't need to specify what type of bullets would be legal. They don't now, why would that be necessary if the law was changed from 243 to 223 being the minimum legal caliber? I'd be fine with that change, but only for deer. It's a great caliber for kids, whether it's a 223 Remington, 22/250, 240 Weatherby, or 223 WSSM.
I have a 223 WSSM that would be perfect for my kids to hunt deer with. I've used it in Wyoming on both deer and antelope. A 165 grain bullet at 3,400 feet per second works very well.
I would support the use of a .224 firing a 165 at 3,400 fps any day. Problem is, we both know there would be no regulation on grain bullet and fps/ft lbs-sec. Can you imagine a "legal" hunter firing 55 fmj during a modern season? LOL
Post by: bobcat on November 30, 2016, 05:53:20 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 30, 2016, 05:56:21 PM
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;
Post by: hunter399 on November 30, 2016, 06:00:36 PM
I didn't know bow and muzzy hunters carry that caliber with them a lot .I thought with bow u can only carry firearm for personal protection.not sure on muzzy rulesI don't fully understand why you can't shoot coyotes in till deer season is over.U can shoot coyotes with any caliber.Bear might not be that great,they are kinda tough,and run a little farther.because my deer tags are either Archery or Muzzle Loader. Which means I cannot carry a legal deer caliber rifle to coyote hunt during deer season. Its in the rule book
Post by: Bill W on November 30, 2016, 06:04:55 PM
I guess I'm happy with the rule as it stands.
Post by: hunter399 on November 30, 2016, 06:05:20 PM
I wish our regs where that,expanding bullet sounds a lot better than softpointsI 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;
Post by: hunter399 on November 30, 2016, 06:10:15 PM
Why don't we give every dog in the parade a ribbon? Geez why change the rule just because you want to shoot a .223. Sell that gun, buy a .243 and be legal.I already have two 243 ,i guess I just like the smaller caliber,what I want is 223 case necked up to take a 243 bullet,but they haven't came out with it that I know it,then u have best of both worlds ,i don't think I'm the only one that would use 223 ,if u like it the way it is I respect , and I will follow the regs.
I guess I'm happy with the rule as it stands.
Post by: MtnMuley on November 30, 2016, 06:16:56 PM
Not questioning negatively, but why would you want to see a .223 case necked up to a .243? What is that advantage that already isn't available?Why don't we give every dog in the parade a ribbon? Geez why change the rule just because you want to shoot a .223. Sell that gun, buy a .243 and be legal.I already have two 243 ,i guess I just like the smaller caliber,what I want is 223 case necked up to take a 243 bullet,but they haven't came out with it that I know it,then u have best of both worlds
I guess I'm happy with the rule as it stands.
Post by: JJB11B on November 30, 2016, 06:27:06 PM
25x45 sharps it came out this year I thinkWhy don't we give every dog in the parade a ribbon? Geez why change the rule just because you want to shoot a .223. Sell that gun, buy a .243 and be legal.I already have two 243 ,i guess I just like the smaller caliber,what I want is 223 case necked up to take a 243 bullet,but they haven't came out with it that I know it,then u have best of both worlds ,i don't think I'm the only one that would use 223 ,if u like it the way it is I respect , and I will follow the regs.
I guess I'm happy with the rule as it stands.
Post by: hunter399 on November 30, 2016, 06:47:02 PM
Post by: Bill W on November 30, 2016, 08:33:10 PM
Why don't we give every dog in the parade a ribbon? Geez why change the rule just because you want to shoot a .223. Sell that gun, buy a .243 and be legal.I already have two 243 ,i guess I just like the smaller caliber,what I want is 223 case necked up to take a 243 bullet,but they haven't came out with it that I know it,then u have best of both worlds ,i don't think I'm the only one that would use 223 ,if u like it the way it is I respect , and I will follow the regs.
I guess I'm happy with the rule as it stands.
It's a 6x45mm and while it's not a factory cartridge, has been a wildcat for years.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on November 30, 2016, 08:59:52 PM
If anybody eles feels the same way as I do, email Scott bird,at Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov .Tell him we want 223 with softpoints for deer and bear and your reasons.I'm sure it won't do anything.But what the heck.My reasons we're ,youth,all the states around us allow it,it defends our country,and we allow handgun with a lot less velocity.I already sent mine.
If you are really serious about trying to make a change, it will take a lot more effort than you might think, but if you are willing, by all means give it a shot.
In your list of reasons above, it would help if you expanded your reasoning for each point you cited.
Take time and write to the other game agencies from the states that allow it and see if you can get any positive or negative feedback from them on its use, like numbers of hunters using it, sucess rates, etc. Maybe you won't get any responses, but if you do and they are favorible, they should be added into your justification for your position.
Notice I also said write letters, a letter is pretty rare in this day of emails and instant messaging, so that will get some attention because you took the time and effort to write and mail it.
Collect and present some accurate data from the ammo manufactures of pistol hunting calibers, like bullet weights, velocity, energy at various distances, etc and do the same with .223 ammo with apprioate style bullets. Give then hard data that supports your position that can easily be verified.
With all the negative press and percieved fears of the AR platform, you are going to want to tread lightly on that subject, for instance, one way may be to cite ballistices from say Remington on their ammo from a 22" or 24" barreled Model 700 or other similar bolt action brand rifle(s).
Avoid mention at all of AR's or even semi-automatics. Last thing you want is somebody picturing Rambo with a 90 round drum in his "Assault Rifle" out in the woods spraying and praying rounds at Bambi!!!
As you can see, not everyone is going to be in agreement, but if you can provide clear, unemotional facts and figures, supported by good research and cite credible sources, you may be successful.
Good luck, hope this helps.
Just an after thought incase some take exception with my comments about avoiding mention of AR's...remember that you are trying to sell the cartridge, not the delivery system!
Post by: hunter399 on December 01, 2016, 09:44:02 PM
Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov
And tell him what calibers you would like to hunt with and why , and thank you huntwashington for all the support.
Post by: huntingfool7 on December 01, 2016, 09:50:38 PM
http://www.predatormastersforums.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3004798#Post3004798
Post by: jackelope on December 01, 2016, 09:52:31 PM
They wouldn't need to specify what type of bullets would be legal. They don't now, why would that be necessary if the law was changed from 243 to 223 being the minimum legal caliber? I'd be fine with that change, but only for deer. It's a great caliber for kids, whether it's a 223 Remington, 22/250, 224 Weatherby, or 223 WSSM.
I have a 223 WSSM that would be perfect for my kids to hunt deer with. I've used it in Wyoming on both deer and antelope. A 65 grain bullet at 3,400 feet per second works very well.
A 165 grain .223 bullet?
Post by: jackelope on December 01, 2016, 09:54:41 PM
Post by: Firedogg on December 01, 2016, 09:59:50 PM
Why don't we give every dog in the parade a ribbon? Geez why change the rule just because you want to shoot a .223. Sell that gun, buy a .243 and be legal.I already have two 243 ,i guess I just like the smaller caliber,what I want is 223 case necked up to take a 243 bullet,but they haven't came out with it that I know it,then u have best of both worlds ,i don't think I'm the only one that would use 223 ,if u like it the way it is I respect , and I will follow the regs.
I guess I'm happy with the rule as it stands.
It's a 6x45mm and while it's not a factory cartridge, has been a wildcat for years.
.243 wssm
Post by: Dan-o on December 01, 2016, 10:14:15 PM
Lots of currently legal deer cartridges can be shot from an AR15 platform rifle. I disagree with the need for any change to the current law. It's just asking for more wounded and not recovered animals.
This. exactly this.
Post by: lewy on December 01, 2016, 10:17:19 PM
Post by: jdb on December 01, 2016, 10:18:11 PM
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??
Post by: jdb on December 01, 2016, 10:18:48 PM
i concurLots of currently legal deer cartridges can be shot from an AR15 platform rifle. I disagree with the need for any change to the current law. It's just asking for more wounded and not recovered animals.
This. exactly this.
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on December 01, 2016, 10:20:47 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 01, 2016, 10:27:40 PM
They wouldn't need to specify what type of bullets would be legal. They don't now, why would that be necessary if the law was changed from 243 to 223 being the minimum legal caliber? I'd be fine with that change, but only for deer. It's a great caliber for kids, whether it's a 223 Remington, 22/250, 224 Weatherby, or 223 WSSM.
I have a 223 WSSM that would be perfect for my kids to hunt deer with. I've used it in Wyoming on both deer and antelope. A 65 grain bullet at 3,400 feet per second works very well.
A 165 grain .223 bullet?
No, a 65 grain bullet. Kills deer and antelope just fine.
Post by: Dan-o on December 01, 2016, 10:28:59 PM
I'm down, shot placement trumps headstamps everytime....
So, do you have any minimum caliber? Any minimum muzzle energy?
I'm sure you could kill a deer with a .17 HMR, but that doesn't make it a good idea to try.
I'm not trying to be really argumentative, but a 243 just seems like a reasonable minimum to me (I know other guys who think a 243 is too small, so the question could go the other way as well.)
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on December 01, 2016, 10:41:14 PM
I'm down, shot placement trumps headstamps everytime....
So, do you have any minimum caliber? Any minimum muzzle energy?
I'm sure you could kill a deer with a .17 HMR, but that doesn't make it a good idea to try.
I'm not trying to be really argumentative, but a 243 just seems like a reasonable minimum to me (I know other guys who think a 243 is too small, so the question could go the other way as well.)
The 24's are giant killers.... I'd be happy with '224 minimum caliber, but that's me... btw,"knock down" power don't mean squat....
Post by: hunter399 on December 01, 2016, 10:48:28 PM
I'm down, shot placement trumps headstamps everytime....:yeah: most good hunter know when to shot and not too,but in other hand I can take my 9mm handgun with 4in. barrel and try to kill a deer but 223 is a no go doesn't seem right
Post by: carpsniperg2 on December 01, 2016, 10:53:47 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 01, 2016, 11:10:37 PM
Just did a search and came up with this list, it's not up to date so some states might not be correct. I updated Wyoming and Kansas.
Alabama- centerfire rifle or pistol using mushrooming ammo
Alaska- http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.firearms
Alberta- .23 and up centerfire
Arizona- centerfire
Arkansas- http://www.agfc.com/hunting/pages/huntingregulationsdeer.aspx#Legal Hunting Equipment
California- centerfire rifles, centerfire handguns with min. 4" barrel
Colorado- .24 and up, 70grn or larger bullet/ minimum of 1000ft/lbs at 100 yards
Connecticut- .243 and up if legal in your area
Delaware- shotgun/muzzle loader
Florida- centerfire
Georgia- .22 and up centerfire
Hawaii- Any rifle with at least 1200 ft/lbs of ME. This would start at around .223 I think
Idaho- Centerfire (cannot weigh more than 16 lbs?)
Illinois- Shotgun/ML/Pistol only
Indiana- http://www.eregulations.com/indiana/hunting/deer-regulations/
Iowa- .24 or larger centerfire only for antlerless season in part of the state.
Kansas- http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Hunting/Hunting-Regulations/Deer/Legal-Equipment
Louisiana- .22 and up centerfire
Maine- .22 magnum rimfire and up!
Manitoba- Centerfire, but it says .23 and below not recommended. Does not say illegal though.
Maryland- ME of at least 1200 ft/lbs
Mass- Shotgun/ML
Michigan- centerfire in certain areas
Minnesota- .220 and up centerfire
Mississippi- No restrictions that I could find
Missouri- centerfire
Montana- No restrictions
Nebraska- Rifles with 900 ft/lbs or more at 100 yards
Nevada- .22 centerfire and up
New Hampshire- centerfire
New Jersey- shotgun or muzzleloader
New Mexico- centerfire
New York- centerfire
North Carolina- No restrictions
North Dakota- .22-.49 centerfire
Nova Scotia- .23 and up
Ohio- Shotgun/ML
Oklahoma- centerfire with 55 grn or heavier bullet
Ontario- centerfire
Oregon- .22 centerfire and up
Pennsylvania- centerfire
Quebec- 6mm/.243 and up
Rhode Island- shotgun/ML
Saskatchewan- .24 and up
South Carolina- centerfire
South Dakota- rifles with 1,000 ft/lbs or more ME
Tennessee- centerfire
Texas- centerfire
Utah- centerfire
vermont- No restriction
Virginia- .23 centerfire and up
Washington- .24 centerfire and up
West Virginia- .25 rimfire and up and all centerfire
Wisconsin- .22 centerfire and up
Wyoming- 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
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 01, 2016, 11:16:29 PM
I'm down, shot placement trumps headstamps everytime....the bullet style/weight might factor in a some point. Shot placement can only get so precise in hunting conditions/set ups. I doubt everyone will be taking head/neck shots with the .224 bullets. But body shots with a 45 grain 22-250 hollowpoint probably won't get much penetration, and a 55 gr .223 Rem FMJ might not shed enough energy.
Post by: PolarBear on December 01, 2016, 11:18:48 PM
I can kill a deer with a pellet gun also but it doesn't make it a good choice.:yeah:
Post by: bobcat on December 01, 2016, 11:23:56 PM
Post by: dan11011 on December 02, 2016, 01:40:27 AM
A few hunters wanting to change a law that likely will result in more animals being wounded just so they can use their AR that they love to shoot just doesn't seem logical. You need to think about the most inexperienced shooter hunting for the first time and using a .223 caliber rifle on a deer. Or someone taking a shot at a deer 300 yards away while its not completely still. .223 just aren't an effective deer killer at range but people would still try.
Post by: SCRUBS on December 02, 2016, 05:45:11 AM
I'm down, shot placement trumps headstamps everytime....
:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 02, 2016, 06:27:59 AM
Post by: birdshooter1189 on December 02, 2016, 06:32:38 AM
For those who want a 6mm-223 caliber so that they can shoot hunting legal (.243) bullets with .223 recoil here is your solution:
Buy a 6mm barrel blank from green mountain barrels for about $110-150.
Buy a 6x45 chamber reamer from midway for $130.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/563253/ptg-solid-pilot-chamber-finish-reamer-6x45mm-6mm-223-remington
Buy a set of 6x45 reloading dies from midway for about $50
http://www.midwayusa.com/6x45mm-6mm-223-remington/br?cid=8302
Find a local gunsmith with a lathe to re-barrel your .223 rem into 6x45.
Form 6x45 casings from once fired .223 rem casings.
You can now shoot deer with Hornady 58 Gr V-max bullets(I don't recommend this) from what is virtually a .223 rem cartridge and it will feel like shooting a .223 rem.
I haven't done this yet myself but would like to someday as a coyote/prairie dog caliber.
Post by: Lefthook on December 02, 2016, 06:43:39 AM
Post by: Bango skank on December 02, 2016, 06:51:36 AM
Post by: BNAElkhntr on December 02, 2016, 07:13:47 AM
Keep it we have too many knuckle heads out there that cant shoot period and if we change it to where shot placement is more critical then we will have even more wounded animalsAMEN!
Post by: lamrith on December 02, 2016, 08:03:22 AM
There are loads of available cartridges that are big game legal and fit AR platform. Two extremely popular and soft shooting ones would be 300blk and 6.5Grendel, both are perfect for kids and extremely effective on deer sized game. 300Blk is only a barrel change. Grendel takes barrel, bolt and mag change, does not get much simpler.
Post by: Lefthook on December 02, 2016, 08:07:40 AM
If a .243 is too much power and hurts your widdle shoulder then open up your purse, take your lipstick money and buy a bow so you can hunt deer without the awful punishing recoil of a .24 caliber rifle. Really there will be a lot more animals die badly if people are out with .223
Funny. He probably couldn't draw a bow of legal draw weight.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 08:15:09 AM
You cannot legislate ethics, principles, or morality. Never have and never will. I wouldn't hesitate for a single second to put my daughter behind a .223 pushing a 60gr nosler partition, because she would be shooting from a stable rest, and only taking shots within her effective range, at angles that would ensure a lethal kill. :hello:
Post by: Lefthook on December 02, 2016, 08:23:50 AM
I could care less either way but lots of arguments against have more to do with ethics than anything else. Fact of the matter is the .223 has killed a lot of game, so the argument that it's not effective is mute. The same folks who would take bad shots with a .223 are the same ones who would push past their skill set with any chambering most likely.
You cannot legislate ethics, principles, or morality. Never have and never will. I wouldn't hesitate for a single second to put my daughter behind a .223 pushing a 60gr nosler partition, because she would be shooting from a stable rest, and only taking shots within her effective range, at angles that would ensure a lethal kill. :hello:
That same crappy shot with a .300 Win Mag will most likely lead up to a following shot to dispatch the animal. Bad shots will happen regardless of caliber, a bigger caliber will give you a better chance to finish the job which I think is more ethical and appropriate.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 08:29:22 AM
Post by: Bango skank on December 02, 2016, 08:33:18 AM
Possibly. Lots of game lost to large bore too. Not everyone can handle a 300 win. My kids are VERY small for their age. Trying to find a rifle with a LOP they can shoot is very challenging. .243 is still too much for them. So should they not be allowed to hunt because they aren't as big as other kids their age?
If theyre not big enough to handle a legal rifle then ya, maybe they shouldnt be allowed to hunt yet. :dunno:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 08:35:12 AM
didn't say age I said size. If we are gonna discriminate against kids for being small than I say that's pretty terrible thought process.Possibly. Lots of game lost to large bore too. Not everyone can handle a 300 win. My kids are VERY small for their age. Trying to find a rifle with a LOP they can shoot is very challenging. .243 is still too much for them. So should they not be allowed to hunt because they aren't as big as other kids their age?
If theyre not big enough to handle a legal rifle then ya, maybe they shouldnt be allowed to hunt yet. :dunno:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 08:36:35 AM
All I know is I have a 223 WSSM and I do not own a 243. I'd like to let my kids use the 223 for deer, because there's virtually no recoil, and a 65 grain bullet at 3,400 feet per second will probably kill just as well as a 243 Winchester. In Wyoming it's legal, and other states as well.figured I'd post this again. Apparently deer in other states aren't as tough as washingtons :dunno:
Just did a search and came up with this list, it's not up to date so some states might not be correct. I updated Wyoming and Kansas.
Alabama- centerfire rifle or pistol using mushrooming ammo
Alaska- http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.firearms
Alberta- .23 and up centerfire
Arizona- centerfire
Arkansas- http://www.agfc.com/hunting/pages/huntingregulationsdeer.aspx#Legal Hunting Equipment
California- centerfire rifles, centerfire handguns with min. 4" barrel
Colorado- .24 and up, 70grn or larger bullet/ minimum of 1000ft/lbs at 100 yards
Connecticut- .243 and up if legal in your area
Delaware- shotgun/muzzle loader
Florida- centerfire
Georgia- .22 and up centerfire
Hawaii- Any rifle with at least 1200 ft/lbs of ME. This would start at around .223 I think
Idaho- Centerfire (cannot weigh more than 16 lbs?)
Illinois- Shotgun/ML/Pistol only
Indiana- http://www.eregulations.com/indiana/hunting/deer-regulations/
Iowa- .24 or larger centerfire only for antlerless season in part of the state.
Kansas- http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Hunting/Hunting-Regulations/Deer/Legal-Equipment
Louisiana- .22 and up centerfire
Maine- .22 magnum rimfire and up!
Manitoba- Centerfire, but it says .23 and below not recommended. Does not say illegal though.
Maryland- ME of at least 1200 ft/lbs
Mass- Shotgun/ML
Michigan- centerfire in certain areas
Minnesota- .220 and up centerfire
Mississippi- No restrictions that I could find
Missouri- centerfire
Montana- No restrictions
Nebraska- Rifles with 900 ft/lbs or more at 100 yards
Nevada- .22 centerfire and up
New Hampshire- centerfire
New Jersey- shotgun or muzzleloader
New Mexico- centerfire
New York- centerfire
North Carolina- No restrictions
North Dakota- .22-.49 centerfire
Nova Scotia- .23 and up
Ohio- Shotgun/ML
Oklahoma- centerfire with 55 grn or heavier bullet
Ontario- centerfire
Oregon- .22 centerfire and up
Pennsylvania- centerfire
Quebec- 6mm/.243 and up
Rhode Island- shotgun/ML
Saskatchewan- .24 and up
South Carolina- centerfire
South Dakota- rifles with 1,000 ft/lbs or more ME
Tennessee- centerfire
Texas- centerfire
Utah- centerfire
vermont- No restriction
Virginia- .23 centerfire and up
Washington- .24 centerfire and up
West Virginia- .25 rimfire and up and all centerfire
Wisconsin- .22 centerfire and up
Wyoming- 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
Post by: Bango skank on December 02, 2016, 08:39:17 AM
didn't say age I said size. If we are gonna discriminate against kids for being small than I say that's pretty terrible thought process.Possibly. Lots of game lost to large bore too. Not everyone can handle a 300 win. My kids are VERY small for their age. Trying to find a rifle with a LOP they can shoot is very challenging. .243 is still too much for them. So should they not be allowed to hunt because they aren't as big as other kids their age?
If theyre not big enough to handle a legal rifle then ya, maybe they shouldnt be allowed to hunt yet. :dunno:
I didnt say anything about age either. Its not about discrimination, when youre big enough to shoot a deer rifle you can hunt deer with a rifle. Thats how it is. Some kids might be bug enough at 7, some at 12. Were all different and life isnt fair and equal for everybody.
Post by: Bango skank on December 02, 2016, 08:41:05 AM
All I know is I have a 223 WSSM and I do not own a 243. I'd like to let my kids use the 223 for deer, because there's virtually no recoil, and a 65 grain bullet at 3,400 feet per second will probably kill just as well as a 243 Winchester. In Wyoming it's legal, and other states as well.figured I'd post this again. Apparently deer in other states aren't as tough as washingtons :dunno:
Just did a search and came up with this list, it's not up to date so some states might not be correct. I updated Wyoming and Kansas.
Alabama- centerfire rifle or pistol using mushrooming ammo
Alaska- http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.firearms
Alberta- .23 and up centerfire
Arizona- centerfire
Arkansas- http://www.agfc.com/hunting/pages/huntingregulationsdeer.aspx#Legal Hunting Equipment
California- centerfire rifles, centerfire handguns with min. 4" barrel
Colorado- .24 and up, 70grn or larger bullet/ minimum of 1000ft/lbs at 100 yards
Connecticut- .243 and up if legal in your area
Delaware- shotgun/muzzle loader
Florida- centerfire
Georgia- .22 and up centerfire
Hawaii- Any rifle with at least 1200 ft/lbs of ME. This would start at around .223 I think
Idaho- Centerfire (cannot weigh more than 16 lbs?)
Illinois- Shotgun/ML/Pistol only
Indiana- http://www.eregulations.com/indiana/hunting/deer-regulations/
Iowa- .24 or larger centerfire only for antlerless season in part of the state.
Kansas- http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Hunting/Hunting-Regulations/Deer/Legal-Equipment
Louisiana- .22 and up centerfire
Maine- .22 magnum rimfire and up!
Manitoba- Centerfire, but it says .23 and below not recommended. Does not say illegal though.
Maryland- ME of at least 1200 ft/lbs
Mass- Shotgun/ML
Michigan- centerfire in certain areas
Minnesota- .220 and up centerfire
Mississippi- No restrictions that I could find
Missouri- centerfire
Montana- No restrictions
Nebraska- Rifles with 900 ft/lbs or more at 100 yards
Nevada- .22 centerfire and up
New Hampshire- centerfire
New Jersey- shotgun or muzzleloader
New Mexico- centerfire
New York- centerfire
North Carolina- No restrictions
North Dakota- .22-.49 centerfire
Nova Scotia- .23 and up
Ohio- Shotgun/ML
Oklahoma- centerfire with 55 grn or heavier bullet
Ontario- centerfire
Oregon- .22 centerfire and up
Pennsylvania- centerfire
Quebec- 6mm/.243 and up
Rhode Island- shotgun/ML
Saskatchewan- .24 and up
South Carolina- centerfire
South Dakota- rifles with 1,000 ft/lbs or more ME
Tennessee- centerfire
Texas- centerfire
Utah- centerfire
vermont- No restriction
Virginia- .23 centerfire and up
Washington- .24 centerfire and up
West Virginia- .25 rimfire and up and all centerfire
Wisconsin- .22 centerfire and up
Wyoming- 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
Yeah well our deer arent tougher than vermonts, so lets allow 22lr :rolleyes:
Post by: boneaddict on December 02, 2016, 08:46:53 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 02, 2016, 08:52:36 AM
Yeah not much. A few would use their AR15s for brush hunting blacktail and whitetail and a few kids would get to shoot .22-250s at does in fields. Not the end of the world.
People would use their judgment, the same way most don't use a 6mm ppc for moose and grizzly.
Post by: Bob33 on December 02, 2016, 08:59:31 AM
There are plenty of options for hunters who can't handle the recoil of a .243: small game, upland birds, waterfowl, archery gear including crossbows.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on December 02, 2016, 09:02:26 AM
Possibly. Lots of game lost to large bore too. Not everyone can handle a 300 win. My kids are VERY small for their age. Trying to find a rifle with a LOP they can shoot is very challenging. .243 is still too much for them. So should they not be allowed to hunt because they aren't as big as other kids their age?
If a Ruger compact .243 is too big of a rifle for them to handle safely then they aren't old enough yet to hunt big game. Same for bow - if they can't shoot a legal weight bow efficiently they arent ready to bow hunt. Not descrimination just safety and ethics.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 09:07:38 AM
Not age, size. I'd put my daughter's gun handling skills up against most on this very forum. Just because she is small doesn't make her unsafe.Possibly. Lots of game lost to large bore too. Not everyone can handle a 300 win. My kids are VERY small for their age. Trying to find a rifle with a LOP they can shoot is very challenging. .243 is still too much for them. So should they not be allowed to hunt because they aren't as big as other kids their age?
If a Ruger compact .243 is too big of a rifle for them to handle safely then they aren't old enough yet to hunt. Same for bow - if they can't shoot a legal weight bow efficiently they arent ready to bow hunt. Not descrimination just safety and ethics.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 09:09:12 AM
if they opened it up to .22 center fire for deer do you know what would happen???!!! :yike:pretty much this
Yeah not much. A few would use their AR15s for brush hunting blacktail and whitetail and a few kids would get to shoot .22-250s at does in fields. Not the end of the world.
People would use their judgment, the same way most don't use a 6mm ppc for moose and grizzly.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 09:09:56 AM
I don't see a compelling reason for change. I'm not aware of any scientific data that concludes with a high degree of confidence that larger calibers, on average, kill more quickly than smaller calibers but it seems logical to me that a larger wound channel would kill more quickly than a smaller one. If accuracy is all that matters, hunters would use a .223 on Cape Buffalo.we don't all hunt small game.
There are plenty of options for hunters who can't handle the recoil of a .243: small game, upland birds, waterfowl, archery gear including crossbows.
Post by: yakimarcher on December 02, 2016, 09:12:13 AM
if they opened it up to .22 center fire for deer do you know what would happen???!!! :yike:
Yeah not much. A few would use their AR15s for brush hunting blacktail and whitetail and a few kids would get to shoot .22-250s at does in fields. Not the end of the world.
People would use their judgment, the same way most don't use a 6mm ppc for moose and grizzly.
Agreed!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 02, 2016, 09:14:24 AM
25 caliber handgun with a 4 inch barrel is legal but a 22-250 with a 60 grain bullet at 3,600 feet per second is not. Think about that for a minute.Yeah, legal for moose, elk, bear. Most .25 cal (.25 ACPs) I've ever messed with would require you to be within about ten yards to hit the animal anyways. :yike:
A 5.7x28 is basically another .22 cal handgun and I wouldn't doubt that it would be able to put down deer and maybe black bear out to say 75 yds than would most other handguns that fall in the legal category.
Post by: Bango skank on December 02, 2016, 09:14:54 AM
if they opened it up to .22 center fire for deer do you know what would happen???!!! :yike:
Yeah not much. A few would use their AR15s for brush hunting blacktail and whitetail and a few kids would get to shoot .22-250s at does in fields. Not the end of the world.
People would use their judgment, the same way most don't use a 6mm ppc for moose and grizzly.
You know why we have game laws? Cause" people would use their judgement" doesnt work. You seem to have a much higher opinion of people than i do i guess.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 02, 2016, 09:17:13 AM
Post by: Bill W on December 02, 2016, 09:22:35 AM
Why do we want to give a ribbon to every dog in the parade? Dogs don't have feelings and don't care if they get ribbons. .243 caliber should be the minimum for responsible deer hunting. Key word "responsible".
Back when the 17's came out a guy shot a polar bear with a .17. He had to hit the bear in the ear hole to kill it. Based on that shouldn't 17's be legalized for bears?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 09:24:51 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 02, 2016, 09:26:16 AM
Shoot, we have .17 and 20 calibers now. Why not legalize those. Also I read a while ago where someone was playing with a .14 caliber wildcat, legalize those too.How is a 223 with a 60 grain partition at 3000 fps any less responsible than a 243 with a 55 grain ballistic tip?
Why do we want to give a ribbon to every dog in the parade? Dogs don't have feelings and don't care if they get ribbons. .243 caliber should be the minimum for responsible deer hunting. Key word "responsible".
Back when the 17's came out a guy shot a polar bear with a .17. He had to hit the bear in the ear hole to kill it. Based on that shouldn't 17's be legalized for bears?
Post by: bobcat on December 02, 2016, 09:28:53 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20161202%2F777ba75bd7f4b7e5d4f0034f0730da60.jpg&hash=e7b941a073d6ce3b3d1ec744ddcf95df9779f75d)
But a 223 caliber rifle can't even be used for deer? It seems to me a change in the law might be a good thing.
I agree in general the 243 is a good minimum. But for me the deal is I already own a really nice Browning A bolt in 223 WSSM. It's light and compact and would be the perfect rifle for my daughters to hunt with for their first deer. I'd probably not let them shoot further than about 150 yards anyway.
It kills deer and antelope in Wyoming just fine so I see no reason why it wouldn't kill the just as dead in this state.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 02, 2016, 09:29:05 AM
Well we aren't talking about .17's. We are talking about calibers that are already legal in many states and are very effective at taking game.
Post by: Bill W on December 02, 2016, 09:29:41 AM
Shoot, we have .17 and 20 calibers now. Why not legalize those. Also I read a while ago where someone was playing with a .14 caliber wildcat, legalize those too.How is a 223 with a 60 grain partition at 3000 fps any less responsible than a 243 with a 55 grain ballistic tip?
Why do we want to give a ribbon to every dog in the parade? Dogs don't have feelings and don't care if they get ribbons. .243 caliber should be the minimum for responsible deer hunting. Key word "responsible".
Back when the 17's came out a guy shot a polar bear with a .17. He had to hit the bear in the ear hole to kill it. Based on that shouldn't 17's be legalized for bears?
Well, the rule used to require an 85 grain or heavier bullet. Do you want wardens to carry a small scale in the field to verify everyone's bullets.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 02, 2016, 09:31:33 AM
they do that for archery...Shoot, we have .17 and 20 calibers now. Why not legalize those. Also I read a while ago where someone was playing with a .14 caliber wildcat, legalize those too.How is a 223 with a 60 grain partition at 3000 fps any less responsible than a 243 with a 55 grain ballistic tip?
Why do we want to give a ribbon to every dog in the parade? Dogs don't have feelings and don't care if they get ribbons. .243 caliber should be the minimum for responsible deer hunting. Key word "responsible".
Back when the 17's came out a guy shot a polar bear with a .17. He had to hit the bear in the ear hole to kill it. Based on that shouldn't 17's be legalized for bears?
Well, the rule used to require an 85 grain or heavier bullet. Do you want wardens to carry a small scale in the field to verify everyone's bullets.
Your response didnt answer my question...
Post by: Bill W on December 02, 2016, 09:34:57 AM
A .22 isn't going to give a blood trail worth a tinkers' damn and isn't fit for deer hunting. Not everyone is an exceptional shot for placing bullets, nor are they a good, or above average shooter. Let's not waste deer. Some people can't or won't learn how to trail animals.
Post by: Bill W on December 02, 2016, 09:36:03 AM
they do that for archery...Shoot, we have .17 and 20 calibers now. Why not legalize those. Also I read a while ago where someone was playing with a .14 caliber wildcat, legalize those too.
Why do we want to give a ribbon to every dog in the parade? Dogs don't have feelings and don't care if they get ribbons. .243 caliber should be the minimum for responsible deer hunting. Key word "responsible".
Back when the 17's came out a guy shot a polar bear with a .17. He had to hit the bear in the ear hole to kill it. Based on that shouldn't 17's be legalized for bears?
That's because I'm not going to. You know yourself that a 55 grain .243 bullet would only explode on the ribs. If you don't know that you are just trying to make people answer your questions or stir the pot.
How is a 223 with a 60 grain partition at 3000 fps any less responsible than a 243 with a 55 grain ballistic tip?
Well, the rule used to require an 85 grain or heavier bullet. Do you want wardens to carry a small scale in the field to verify everyone's bullets.
Your response didnt answer my question...
Post by: Curly on December 02, 2016, 09:37:32 AM
Post by: Bango skank on December 02, 2016, 09:38:43 AM
Can anyone explain to me the difference in killing ability of a .22 55 grain bullet versus a .24 55 grain bullet?
You know damn good and well that the size of the bullet itself isnt the only thing that comes into play. Do i need to explain the difference in killing ability between a 180 grain bullet in my .357, and a 180 grain bullet in my .300 win mag? No? Yes?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 02, 2016, 09:42:57 AM
60 grain partition at 3000 from a 223 or 55 grain ballistic tip from a 243... tell me which one you would prefer for hunting deer.Can anyone explain to me the difference in killing ability of a .22 55 grain bullet versus a .24 55 grain bullet?
You know damn good and well that the size of the bullet itself isnt the only thing that comes into play. Do i need to explain the difference in killing ability between a 180 grain bullet in my .357, and a 180 grain bullet in my .300 win mag? No? Yes?
I'm guessing it is going to be he illegal one. Same choice I would make.
Now I'm not saying that a 223 is better for deer hunting than a 243 but to say it isn't capable is bull...
I do realize there are bad deer bullet choices in the 223... but the same can be said for 243 and 308 etc also.
Post by: JDHasty on December 02, 2016, 09:46:38 AM
Lots of currently legal deer cartridges can be shot from an AR15 platform rifle. I disagree with the need for any change to the current law. It's just asking for more wounded and not recovered animals.
I am on the same page.
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 02, 2016, 09:47:29 AM
Shoot, we have .17 and 20 calibers now. Why not legalize those. Also I read a while ago where someone was playing with a .14 caliber wildcat, legalize those too.
Why do we want to give a ribbon to every dog in the parade? Dogs don't have feelings and don't care if they get ribbons. .243 caliber should be the minimum for responsible deer hunting. Key word "responsible".
Back when the 17's came out a guy shot a polar bear with a .17. He had to hit the bear in the ear hole to kill it. Based on that shouldn't 17's be legalized for bears?
Quit making stupid arguments and then assigning them to your opposition.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on December 02, 2016, 09:48:58 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 02, 2016, 09:52:28 AM
If they did legalize the .224 cal centerfire rifles for deer, I wouldn't be able to shoot coyotes with my.22-250 or my AR until deer season closed again. that rule is stupid....Exactly
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 02, 2016, 09:53:21 AM
This may be the most valid argument for leaving it alone that's been posted.If they did legalize the .224 cal centerfire rifles for deer, I wouldn't be able to shoot coyotes with my.22-250 or my AR until deer season closed again. that rule is stupid....Exactly
Post by: Bill W on December 02, 2016, 09:53:45 AM
Shoot, we have .17 and 20 calibers now. Why not legalize those. Also I read a while ago where someone was playing with a .14 caliber wildcat, legalize those too.
Why do we want to give a ribbon to every dog in the parade? Dogs don't have feelings and don't care if they get ribbons. .243 caliber should be the minimum for responsible deer hunting. Key word "responsible".
Back when the 17's came out a guy shot a polar bear with a .17. He had to hit the bear in the ear hole to kill it. Based on that shouldn't 17's be legalized for bears?
Quit making stupid arguments and then assigning them to your opposition.
Maybe you missed the point I was trying to make that some things are just plain stupid.
Post by: Bob33 on December 02, 2016, 09:54:52 AM
More nanny state bs from one of the biggest nanny states in the union. People should be able to choose what will work for them. Take a look at that list of requirements in other states....why is WA so special that hunters here can't figure out an appropriate rifle for deer hunting?How many of those states have minimum hunting ages (that Washington doesn't)?
Post by: Bango skank on December 02, 2016, 09:57:16 AM
Shoot, we have .17 and 20 calibers now. Why not legalize those. Also I read a while ago where someone was playing with a .14 caliber wildcat, legalize those too.
Why do we want to give a ribbon to every dog in the parade? Dogs don't have feelings and don't care if they get ribbons. .243 caliber should be the minimum for responsible deer hunting. Key word "responsible".
Back when the 17's came out a guy shot a polar bear with a .17. He had to hit the bear in the ear hole to kill it. Based on that shouldn't 17's be legalized for bears?
Quit making stupid arguments and then assigning them to your opposition.
How stupid is this one? I met a guy in western alaska who told me about killing a grizz with his .223, had to empty his magazine and reload, shot it something like 20 times. He was laughing like it was funny as hell. I asked him about the caliber legality and his response was basically, hey its legal so nothing wrong with what i did. Thats what you get when you let people use their own judgement.
Post by: andersonjk4 on December 02, 2016, 09:59:00 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 02, 2016, 10:00:04 AM
Post by: Curly on December 02, 2016, 10:01:55 AM
That is a good point. I can't understand the minimum age requirement either. A large amount of those states do have minimum age requirements......I may have been too quick to throw out that nanny state comment.More nanny state bs from one of the biggest nanny states in the union. People should be able to choose what will work for them. Take a look at that list of requirements in other states....why is WA so special that hunters here can't figure out an appropriate rifle for deer hunting?How many of those states have minimum hunting ages (that Washington doesn't)?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 02, 2016, 10:05:09 AM
More nanny state bs from one of the biggest nanny states in the union. People should be able to choose what will work for them. Take a look at that list of requirements in other states....why is WA so special that hunters here can't figure out an appropriate rifle for deer hunting?One thing I haven't seen mentioned is many of the other states also have generous bag limits (or no limit) and long seasons for deer. Would more deer/elk/bear be lost if shot with smaller projectiles? I think it is a safe assumption that a deer hit in the same place with a .223 can hold out longer than from the .30-06 and even longer from the .338, etc. Does Washington even have the herd size (maybe E WA whitetails do) to not be noticeably impacted if more deer were lost? :dunno: And force WDFW to change something season related. If the herds were overflowing, I think it would be harder to argue against since there's still a lot of deer out there for everyone else. Hope this example isn't too irrelevant...I know a few guys that gave up westside rifle elk for the greener pasture of eastside archery elk. There were four guys in the camp and they each wounded, lost or couldn't salvage three spikes/cows each (as the story was told to me). Given the harvest percentages for elk in this state, it would seem like something like their experience affects all the other hunters a lot more than if it were say Colorado or Montana.
Maybe just allow the small calibers for Youth Tags, Antlerless or Second deer?
Post by: JDHasty on December 02, 2016, 10:05:21 AM
In Montana it is 12That is a good point. I can't understand the minimum age requirement either. A large amount of those states do have minimum age requirements......I may have been too quick to throw out that nanny state comment.More nanny state bs from one of the biggest nanny states in the union. People should be able to choose what will work for them. Take a look at that list of requirements in other states....why is WA so special that hunters here can't figure out an appropriate rifle for deer hunting?How many of those states have minimum hunting ages (that Washington doesn't)?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 10:05:56 AM
One more thing to chew on for the small bullet crowd. I've shot about 40 deer in my hunting career and noted that not every one falls over dead in their tracks. A fair number require tracking. One needs a good blood trail or a lot of familiarity with tracks and being able to recognize precisely which track they should be following.I've taken north of 70 and been right next to shooters on over 200+ big game kills. I've taken youth hunter for deer and turkey for going on 10 years as well and the tracking is not up to the kid, that's my responsibility not the kid. With that said, my youth hunters were always put in a position where shots were inside their effective range, and in a solid shooting position. Oh and out of 9 deer, 6 were taken with a reduced recoil load out of a .243 using a 58gr vmax which is identical in performance to a .223. One shot kills. Completely legal load but same thing in a .223 isnt :dunno:
A .22 isn't going to give a blood trail worth a tinkers' damn and isn't fit for deer hunting. Not everyone is an exceptional shot for placing bullets, nor are they a good, or above average shooter. Let's not waste deer. Some people can't or won't learn how to trail animals.
Post by: Bob33 on December 02, 2016, 10:07:34 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 10:09:55 AM
side note on this, they changed it last year and added a mentored youth program. They can now hunt at 10. Not sure the process, but my hunting partner did it last year.In Montana it is 12That is a good point. I can't understand the minimum age requirement either. A large amount of those states do have minimum age requirements......I may have been too quick to throw out that nanny state comment.More nanny state bs from one of the biggest nanny states in the union. People should be able to choose what will work for them. Take a look at that list of requirements in other states....why is WA so special that hunters here can't figure out an appropriate rifle for deer hunting?How many of those states have minimum hunting ages (that Washington doesn't)?
Post by: Bob33 on December 02, 2016, 10:14:09 AM
.243 is still too much for them. So should they not be allowed to hunt because they aren't as big as other kids their age?
Oh and out of 9 deer, 6 were taken with a reduced recoil load out of a .243 using a 58gr vmax which is identical in performance to a .223.
Post by: bobcat on December 02, 2016, 10:16:28 AM
Post by: Curly on December 02, 2016, 10:16:34 AM
No comments on the suitability of the Glock 9mm that I posted earlier for deer, elk, and bear? I wonder how many people are choosing to hunt with their Glock just because it's legal?They probably should change the law so that a pistol like that isn't legal. Sounds like there would be much more support for that change than allowing a rifle (that is perfectly capable) from becoming legal....
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 10:18:20 AM
:dunno:I'm purely arguing the stupidity of the law bob. They are same same but one is illegal because of an arbitrary number..243 is still too much for them. So should they not be allowed to hunt because they aren't as big as other kids their age?Oh and out of 9 deer, 6 were taken with a reduced recoil load out of a .243 using a 58gr vmax which is identical in performance to a .223.
My daughter for the record does not fit my .243.
Post by: rtspring on December 02, 2016, 10:18:56 AM
Many deer, and other big game have been killed with a .22 rifle. The numbers are probably shocking.
Just like archery, muzzy, and rifle hunting using a caliber under .243 would greatly depend on " Shot Placement". Aka the Face! It can and has been done by many grandfathers, their brothers, sisters and such starting way way back.
I would use a .22 for (DEER) if it were legal every single day of the week and I could kill them just as dead as any guy does with his 338 magnum. Only diffrence would be distance of shots, but don't we have to get close with muzzy and archery too?
Spare me the ethics complaints! I've seen plenty of wrong doings with every weapon out there.
Post by: Skillet on December 02, 2016, 10:24:59 AM
Post by: Low Brush on December 02, 2016, 10:29:00 AM
Post by: JDHasty on December 02, 2016, 10:30:02 AM
The law, enacted earlier this year by the state Legislature, allows youth 10-17 years of age to obtain a certification to purchase some Montana hunting licenses before completing a hunter education course. Apprentice hunters, however, are required to be accompanied by an adult mentor.
The $5 Apprentice Certification will be available beginning Monday, Aug. 10 only at FWP offices.
The new rule approved Thursday defines certain mentor responsibilities and establishes the process for designating and identifying a mentor.
Under the law, apprentice-hunter certification is for two license years only. After two years, the apprentice hunter must complete a hunter safety and education course. Also, to participate in the program, an apprentice hunter must:
be between the ages of 10-17 years old;
obtain a $5 certification from an FWP office; certification forms are available online;
have all appropriate licenses in their possession at all times while in the field.
For a prospective mentor to participate, he or she must be:
21 years old or older;
related to the apprentice by blood, adoption, or marriage; or be the apprentice's legal guardian, or appointed by the apprentice's legal guardian;
have completed hunter education–if born after Jan. 1, 1985;
have a current Montana hunting license;
agree to supervise and remain within sight of and direct voice contact with the apprentice hunter at all times while in the field;
only accompany one apprentice at a time;
confirm that the apprentice is psychologically and physically prepared to hunt.
Mentors are also required to complete and sign a form, along with the apprentice, and if applicable, the apprentice's parent or legal guardian. Mentor forms are free and are also available via FWP's website.
An apprentice hunter is not eligible to obtain a special bow and arrow license without first completing a bowhunter education course; a resident hound training license for chasing mountain lion; a bighorn sheep license; an elk license if under 15 years of age. Nor can an apprentice hunter participate in any of Montana's limited-quota hunting license or permit drawings.
Violation of the terms by an apprentice hunter or mentor could result in the loss of hunting privileges for up to one full license season.
The $5 Apprentice Certification will be available beginning Monday, Aug. 10 only at FWP offices.
For more information visit FWP's website at fwp.mt.gov, then click "Apprentice Hunter Program".
Post by: kentrek on December 02, 2016, 10:31:55 AM
Just because you own an existing rifle you want to use doesn't make for a valid argument...
Instead of caliber specific let's use a minimum energy rule....and once we establish that can we then apply that to shot distance limitations ?? Just seems like it would be simpler to leave it as is :dunno:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 10:35:12 AM
Montana's Fish & Wildlife Commission approved a new rule this week that clears the way for the state's "apprentice hunter" law to take effect.yep there she is :tup:
The law, enacted earlier this year by the state Legislature, allows youth 10-17 years of age to obtain a certification to purchase some Montana hunting licenses before completing a hunter education course. Apprentice hunters, however, are required to be accompanied by an adult mentor.
The $5 Apprentice Certification will be available beginning Monday, Aug. 10 only at FWP offices.
The new rule approved Thursday defines certain mentor responsibilities and establishes the process for designating and identifying a mentor.
Under the law, apprentice-hunter certification is for two license years only. After two years, the apprentice hunter must complete a hunter safety and education course. Also, to participate in the program, an apprentice hunter must:
be between the ages of 10-17 years old;
obtain a $5 certification from an FWP office; certification forms are available online;
have all appropriate licenses in their possession at all times while in the field.
For a prospective mentor to participate, he or she must be:
21 years old or older;
related to the apprentice by blood, adoption, or marriage; or be the apprentice's legal guardian, or appointed by the apprentice's legal guardian;
have completed hunter education–if born after Jan. 1, 1985;
have a current Montana hunting license;
agree to supervise and remain within sight of and direct voice contact with the apprentice hunter at all times while in the field;
only accompany one apprentice at a time;
confirm that the apprentice is psychologically and physically prepared to hunt.
Mentors are also required to complete and sign a form, along with the apprentice, and if applicable, the apprentice's parent or legal guardian. Mentor forms are free and are also available via FWP's website.
An apprentice hunter is not eligible to obtain a special bow and arrow license without first completing a bowhunter education course; a resident hound training license for chasing mountain lion; a bighorn sheep license; an elk license if under 15 years of age. Nor can an apprentice hunter participate in any of Montana's limited-quota hunting license or permit drawings.
Violation of the terms by an apprentice hunter or mentor could result in the loss of hunting privileges for up to one full license season.
The $5 Apprentice Certification will be available beginning Monday, Aug. 10 only at FWP offices.
For more information visit FWP's website at fwp.mt.gov, then click "Apprentice Hunter Program".
Post by: M_ray on December 02, 2016, 10:36:01 AM
For the youth argument I get it and if you shoot little things at closer ranges then shot placement argument works for you too. But if its large game and tough and I'll take energy and knockdown power any day before I watch a big buck walk away at 600yds :twocents:
Post by: Low Brush on December 02, 2016, 10:38:25 AM
Post by: JDHasty on December 02, 2016, 10:45:30 AM
Montana's Fish & Wildlife Commission approved a new rule this week that clears the way for the state's "apprentice hunter" law to take effect.yep there she is :tup:
The law, enacted earlier this year by the state Legislature, allows youth 10-17 years of age to obtain a certification to purchase some Montana hunting licenses before completing a hunter education course. Apprentice hunters, however, are required to be accompanied by an adult mentor.
The $5 Apprentice Certification will be available beginning Monday, Aug. 10 only at FWP offices.
The new rule approved Thursday defines certain mentor responsibilities and establishes the process for designating and identifying a mentor.
Under the law, apprentice-hunter certification is for two license years only. After two years, the apprentice hunter must complete a hunter safety and education course. Also, to participate in the program, an apprentice hunter must:
be between the ages of 10-17 years old;
obtain a $5 certification from an FWP office; certification forms are available online;
have all appropriate licenses in their possession at all times while in the field.
For a prospective mentor to participate, he or she must be:
21 years old or older;
related to the apprentice by blood, adoption, or marriage; or be the apprentice's legal guardian, or appointed by the apprentice's legal guardian;
have completed hunter education–if born after Jan. 1, 1985;
have a current Montana hunting license;
agree to supervise and remain within sight of and direct voice contact with the apprentice hunter at all times while in the field;
only accompany one apprentice at a time;
confirm that the apprentice is psychologically and physically prepared to hunt.
Mentors are also required to complete and sign a form, along with the apprentice, and if applicable, the apprentice's parent or legal guardian. Mentor forms are free and are also available via FWP's website.
An apprentice hunter is not eligible to obtain a special bow and arrow license without first completing a bowhunter education course; a resident hound training license for chasing mountain lion; a bighorn sheep license; an elk license if under 15 years of age. Nor can an apprentice hunter participate in any of Montana's limited-quota hunting license or permit drawings.
Violation of the terms by an apprentice hunter or mentor could result in the loss of hunting privileges for up to one full license season.
The $5 Apprentice Certification will be available beginning Monday, Aug. 10 only at FWP offices.
For more information visit FWP's website at fwp.mt.gov, then click "Apprentice Hunter Program".
It is pretty much a chip shot to take a decent whitetail off my cousin's ranch in Augusta if you don't get impatient. I was hoping to set Bridget up behind a couple bales w/her 7x30 Waters Contender and Harris bipod... but that will have to wait until 2019 at the earliest.
Post by: Lefthook on December 02, 2016, 10:58:56 AM
Youth should be able to shoot a gun they are comfortable with. The argument of more game will be wounded is nonsense in my opinion. A bad shot with a .243 caliber and a.223 caliber will have the same result!
Raise the caliber if youth are losing deer and don't let them hunt until they can handle a larger caliber.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 02, 2016, 11:08:33 AM
New minimum caliber requirement... 375 hh or larger and only bullets weighing 300 grains can be used. :chuckle:Youth should be able to shoot a gun they are comfortable with. The argument of more game will be wounded is nonsense in my opinion. A bad shot with a .243 caliber and a.223 caliber will have the same result!
Raise the caliber if youth are losing deer and don't let them hunt until they can handle a larger caliber.
Post by: 2MANY on December 02, 2016, 11:11:48 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 02, 2016, 11:15:19 AM
How about we stop shooting little deer and the WDFW starts planting hatchery deer.Only deer with tails removed at the deer hatchery are legal game!
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 11:22:37 AM
just another example of why 2MANY is in my top 5 most favorite huntwa poster! :chuckle:How about we stop shooting little deer and the WDFW starts planting hatchery deer.Only deer with tails removed at the deer hatchery are legal game!
Post by: Bob33 on December 02, 2016, 11:25:51 AM
Gearing up for opening day:New minimum caliber requirement... 375 hh or larger and only bullets weighing 300 grains can be used. :chuckle:Youth should be able to shoot a gun they are comfortable with. The argument of more game will be wounded is nonsense in my opinion. A bad shot with a .243 caliber and a.223 caliber will have the same result!
Raise the caliber if youth are losing deer and don't let them hunt until they can handle a larger caliber.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 11:28:57 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 11:29:50 AM
Post by: Special T on December 02, 2016, 11:51:31 AM
One more thing to chew on for the small bullet crowd. I've shot about 40 deer in my hunting career and noted that not every one falls over dead in their tracks. A fair number require tracking. One needs a good blood trail or a lot of familiarity with tracks and being able to recognize precisely which track they should be following.You don't have to have a blood trail to track an animal. The best outdoorsman are the ones that can track and read sign. Seems to be part of the skill set people overlook.
A .22 isn't going to give a blood trail worth a tinkers' damn and isn't fit for deer hunting. Not everyone is an exceptional shot for placing bullets, nor are they a good, or above average shooter. Let's not waste deer. Some people can't or won't learn how to trail animals.
Post by: Bob33 on December 02, 2016, 11:58:39 AM
Can you even build potato guns anymore or are they considered WMD's. I know the ones we built were the opposite of safe :chuckle:No kidding. Some of them have ruthless power.
Post by: Lefthook on December 02, 2016, 11:59:34 AM
This is a legal firearm for deer, bear, and elk:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20161202%2F777ba75bd7f4b7e5d4f0034f0730da60.jpg&hash=e7b941a073d6ce3b3d1ec744ddcf95df9779f75d)
But a 223 caliber rifle can't even be used for deer? It seems to me a change in the law might be a good thing.
I agree in general the 243 is a good minimum. But for me the deal is I already own a really nice Browning A bolt in 223 WSSM. It's light and compact and would be the perfect rifle for my daughters to hunt with for their first deer. I'd probably not let them shoot further than about 150 yards anyway.
It kills deer and antelope in Wyoming just fine so I see no reason why it wouldn't kill the just as dead in this state.
Quite a bit of this conversation has to do with youth hunting. If a parent is going to allow a child to hunt with that Glock I can see some serious changes in the law coming up.
Post by: Gringo31 on December 02, 2016, 12:18:20 PM
I have a 12 year old that has harvested 4 deer. They were shot with either a .243 or a 308 in AR-10. I have hunted in WI where I took my trusty AR in 223. I probably shot 6-8 deer with it and was using my coyote rounds 55 grain. Our hunting party had normal calibers as well as a 220 swift. We didn't lose any deer we hit but we did study bullet performance and damage done. All said and done, I don't recommend the combo I was using on deer. If you hit the bone of the shoulder, it fragged out and didn't have much penetration. Those required a quick follow up :tup:
I say leave it the same :twocents:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 12:35:50 PM
Good discussion, by vote is to leave it the same.I would counter that with poor bullet selection. Undoubtedly a 60gr Nosler partition would have much better penetration.
I have a 12 year old that has harvested 4 deer. They were shot with either a .243 or a 308 in AR-10. I have hunted in WI where I took my trusty AR in 223. I probably shot 6-8 deer with it and was using my coyote rounds 55 grain. Our hunting party had normal calibers as well as a 220 swift. We didn't lose any deer we hit but we did study bullet performance and damage done. All said and done, I don't recommend the combo I was using on deer. If you hit the bone of the shoulder, it fragged out and didn't have much penetration. Those required a quick follow up :tup:
I say leave it the same :twocents:
Post by: JDHasty on December 02, 2016, 12:47:32 PM
Good discussion, by vote is to leave it the same.
I have a 12 year old that has harvested 4 deer. They were shot with either a .243 or a 308 in AR-10. I have hunted in WI where I took my trusty AR in 223. I probably shot 6-8 deer with it and was using my coyote rounds 55 grain. Our hunting party had normal calibers as well as a 220 swift. We didn't lose any deer we hit but we did study bullet performance and damage done. All said and done, I don't recommend the combo I was using on deer. If you hit the bone of the shoulder, it fragged out and didn't have much penetration. Those required a quick follow up :tup:
I say leave it the same :twocents:
As a kid in Montana, I have seen a LOT of deer shot w/everything from 22 LR to 220 Swift and what you are saying is so true. The rimfire shooters were mostly brain shooters. The 22-250 was and is extremely popular for deer and speed goat. It looks like the law is still the same.
Firearms
General Season
• There is no rifle or handgun caliber
limitation for the taking of big game
animals.
• Muzzleloaders, shotguns, archery
equipment, and crossbows are legal
Post by: hunter399 on December 02, 2016, 12:48:02 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 02, 2016, 12:57:46 PM
I think part of the resistance to change is resistance to change, and that's not always a bad thing. It is challenging to keep track or regulations changes, and the more they occur the more confusion it can create. A good example is what is a legal bull elk? The definition's changed several times in my life, and it seems that once I figure it out the definition changes again. The regulations pamphlet is already too long and complicated.
I hunt with a friend who still thinks there is a minimum energy requirement for handguns (which went away many years ago.)
Unless there is a compelling reason, or a really strong argument for change, I tend to favor leaving things alone.
Post by: elkboy on December 02, 2016, 01:06:02 PM
Post by: Angry Perch on December 02, 2016, 01:25:29 PM
Can you even build potato guns anymore or are they considered WMD's. I know the ones we built were the opposite of safe :chuckle:
I haven't looked real close, but you appear to still have most of your fingers, so it was perfectly safe!
Post by: Bill W on December 02, 2016, 01:31:25 PM
Well maybe I won't push so hard for it,but it was worth a try.I do think youth would benefit.I do have other calibers in a ar15 , and looking into more .I do think that most handguns they do allow are worst than a 223,If the military has used it for close to fifty years to kill people and it won't kill a deer in washington ,something is wrong.my self I would use it for a truck gun ,brush gun,places where I know my shot is under 150 yrds.Then use my 270 for hikeing,backpacking,mule deer,places I know I might shoot a little farther.But I do respect everbodys opinion, and a fun read of what everbody thinks,thanks for everybody's reply and input,and support.
The reason the military used this caliber is it was a "wounder" and that also took out the soldiers that took the wounded man back to the aid station.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 02, 2016, 01:41:23 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 02, 2016, 01:50:49 PM
:chuckle: yep all 10 accounted for :hello:Can you even build potato guns anymore or are they considered WMD's. I know the ones we built were the opposite of safe :chuckle:
I haven't looked real close, but you appear to still have most of your fingers, so it was perfectly safe!
Post by: hunter399 on December 02, 2016, 02:06:07 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 02, 2016, 02:08:13 PM
One thing I don't understand is why can we use 22 centerfire on cougar,does nobody care if it kills it,or do they just die a lot better than deer or what,i never shot one so just don't know.
Most were shot out of trees and bleed out and then fell out of the tree.
Post by: Lefthook on December 02, 2016, 02:46:30 PM
One thing I don't understand is why can we use 22 centerfire on cougar,does nobody care if it kills it,or do they just die a lot better than deer or what,i never shot one so just don't know.
There isn't going to be the potential of a thousand pot shots around the state for cougar.
Post by: Low Brush on December 02, 2016, 03:18:14 PM
One thing I don't understand is why can we use 22 centerfire on cougar,does nobody care if it kills it,or do they just die a lot better than deer or what,i never shot one so just don't know.
There isn't going to be the potential of a thousand pot shots around the state for cougar.
[/quote
Has nothing to do with pot shots. It has to do with it being a sufficient caliber to kill a cougar as it will 90% of North American big game.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 02, 2016, 03:41:11 PM
One thing I don't understand is why can we use 22 centerfire on cougar,does nobody care if it kills it,or do they just die a lot better than deer or what,i never shot one so just don't know.
There isn't going to be the potential of a thousand pot shots around the state for cougar.
"Pot shots" aren't caliber specific.
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 02, 2016, 03:48:53 PM
One thing I don't understand is why can we use 22 centerfire on cougar,does nobody care if it kills it,or do they just die a lot better than deer or what,i never shot one so just don't know.
There isn't going to be the potential of a thousand pot shots around the state for cougar.
"Pot shots" aren't caliber specific.
I think the idea behind that comment was that since people are going to potshot anyway, make them use a larger caliber.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 02, 2016, 03:52:18 PM
One thing I don't understand is why can we use 22 centerfire on cougar,does nobody care if it kills it,or do they just die a lot better than deer or what,i never shot one so just don't know.
There isn't going to be the potential of a thousand pot shots around the state for cougar.
"Pot shots" aren't caliber specific.
I think the idea behind that comment was that since people are going to potshot anyway, make them use a larger caliber.
Not going to make much difference.
A bad shot is a bad shot.
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 02, 2016, 03:54:51 PM
Post by: dscubame on December 02, 2016, 04:50:06 PM
Post by: jdb on December 02, 2016, 05:02:23 PM
by definition I believe a "pot shot" is a head shot on a small game animal damaging no meat and leaving it all for the pot in which it will be cookedOne thing I don't understand is why can we use 22 centerfire on cougar,does nobody care if it kills it,or do they just die a lot better than deer or what,i never shot one so just don't know.
There isn't going to be the potential of a thousand pot shots around the state for cougar.
Post by: jdb on December 02, 2016, 05:25:24 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 02, 2016, 05:31:20 PM
To answer bobcats question I think that the minimum hand gun requirements are ludicrous! And should be completely rethoughtAn issue with that is if there is an animal that needs a finishing shot. Would rather just pop off a 9mm in a dying animal than blast it close range with say a .300 RUM. (I've kind of though a handgun or knife should be legal to finish off with the other weapons too, though.)
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 02, 2016, 07:07:01 PM
I just think the .243 does not even put them down as quick as I prefer.I've personally had more bang flop kills with my 243 than any of my other guns. :twocents:
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 02, 2016, 07:12:58 PM
I just think the .243 does not even put them down as quick as I prefer.I've personally had more bang flop kills with my 243 than any of my other guns. :twocents:
It might be the shooter?
Post by: dscubame on December 02, 2016, 07:16:19 PM
I just think the .243 does not even put them down as quick as I prefer.I've personally had more bang flop kills with my 243 than any of my other guns. :twocents:
What bullet? Barnes and Hornady 95 grain have not bang flopped a one. I am at dozens of deer, and the last 4 years with a .243 are my last unless there is a compelling thought to reconsider. I simply don't believe the bang flop comment, for so many reasons first being hydrostatic shock. Unless your head or spine shooting I have destroyed heart, destroyed lungs and they still go a hundred yards. Simple fact from much experience
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 02, 2016, 07:25:33 PM
95 ballistic tips and 90 accubonds and recently 95 bergersI just think the .243 does not even put them down as quick as I prefer.I've personally had more bang flop kills with my 243 than any of my other guns. :twocents:
What bullet? Barnes and Hornady 95 grain have not bang flopped a one. I am at dozens of deer, and the last 4 years with a .243 are my last unless there is a compelling thought to reconsider. I simply don't believe the bang flop comment, for so many reasons first being hydrostatic shock. Unless your head or spine shooting I have destroyed heart, destroyed lungs and they still go a hundred yards. Simple fact from much experience
Believe me or not doesn't really matter to me. Take out shoulders and they go down in a hurry
Post by: dscubame on December 02, 2016, 07:27:49 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 02, 2016, 07:32:55 PM
I don't know if I am anything special when it comes to marksmanship... :chuckle: but I sure try, and burn a good amount of powder each year!I just think the .243 does not even put them down as quick as I prefer.I've personally had more bang flop kills with my 243 than any of my other guns. :twocents:
It might be the shooter?
Post by: Curly on December 03, 2016, 08:54:03 AM
Post by: Bofire on December 03, 2016, 11:10:15 AM
Carl
Post by: Smoke on December 03, 2016, 11:20:33 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 03, 2016, 11:51:47 AM
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/hunting/ammo-test-223-rem-vs-3030-whitetails
https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2011/5/20/the-myth-the-223-is-too-light-for-deer/
http://www.kansas.com/sports/outdoors/michael-pearce/article6094005.html
Post by: boneaddict on December 03, 2016, 12:00:26 PM
Post by: Lefthook on December 03, 2016, 12:56:26 PM
Back to basics....why can't we use a spear in Washington? Other states you can
I think a special frying pan permit should be available. A beautiful buck with super thick bases, giant girth and wide spread 6x6 taken by frying pan would be a serious trophy. Full shoulder mount with the spent frying pan on a plaque under the mount would be hard to beat.
Post by: Branden on December 03, 2016, 01:12:45 PM
A marginal shot with a .223 is going to have less chance of recovery then a marginal shot with a .243 and so on. Nobody plans on making a marginal shot but it happens all the time.
My grandpa used to talk about using a .22 in the old days and filling half the freezers in town every year. It still doesn't mean we should use a .22 just because it will work in the right hands.
I would think there are a lot more things to worry about/spend resources on in this state then to try and get the minimum caliber changed.
Regards, Branden
Post by: elkaholic123 on December 03, 2016, 01:19:13 PM
Certain arguments in this thread about a kid being to small to use a .243 so we should legalize a .223 is ridiculous. Since my boy can't pull the minimum required draw weight we should lower that also right? And the fact that you can throw a muzzle break on a .243 and then it's even less recoil then a .223 makes using a .223 because of kick moot.:yeah:
A marginal shot with a .223 is going to have less chance of recovery then a marginal shot with a .243 and so on. Nobody plans on making a marginal shot but it happens all the time.
My grandpa used to talk about using a .22 in the old days and filling half the freezers in town every year. It still doesn't mean we should use a .22 just because it will work in the right hands.
I would think there are a lot more things to worry about/spend resources on in this state then to try and get the minimum caliber changed.
Regards, Branden
Post by: bobcat on December 03, 2016, 01:22:07 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 03, 2016, 02:08:15 PM
It's not just for kids. I'd like to use my 223 for deer in this state. I've used it in Wyoming. Why shouldn't I be able to use it here too? I most likely would never use it during general season but might want to use it if I had a doe permit. Which is what I used it for in Wyoming- doe antelope and deer.Rimfires are legal in North Carolina. Why shouldn't we able to use them here too?
Post by: Bango skank on December 03, 2016, 02:43:28 PM
I've used it in Wyoming. Why shouldn't I be able to use it here too?
Because if you could use it here, then so could a ton of morons with bad judgement, thats why.
Besides, what is allowed in other states has nothing to do with whats allowed here. Other states allow rimfire why not us? Other states alliw scoped xbows during arch, why not us? Other states allow hiund hunting, why not us? And on and on and on. Just because other states regs say its okay is no argument, if we all should have the same laws then youre talking about 1 federal f&g. And wed probably end up more like CA than ID. Do you really think we should allow people to hunt deer with packs of hounds just because other states do?
Post by: bobcat on December 03, 2016, 03:21:40 PM
22 rim fire is not even close.
Post by: boneaddict on December 03, 2016, 03:30:05 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 03, 2016, 03:32:46 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 03, 2016, 03:33:30 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 03, 2016, 03:34:29 PM
Post by: boneaddict on December 03, 2016, 03:36:21 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 03, 2016, 03:37:10 PM
I threw that up for you to help your case.
Post by: boneaddict on December 03, 2016, 03:42:38 PM
Why do I need a reason? If it works why not use it?Because it might not work for some people for some situations. It's easier to enforce a regulation across the board versus this for moose, this for elk, this for deer. This for open country, this for brush, deal with overlapping seasons etc. they picked a rational caliber that could effectively be used by most user groups for most purposes.
Post by: Branden on December 03, 2016, 03:51:48 PM
The kid argument is a joke. There is a solid argument that says more animals will be lost the smaller you go in caliber. Solid argument there will be less humane kills. Zero valid reason to change the law except 'I want to use my...'
Regards, Branden
Post by: Bango skank on December 03, 2016, 03:59:07 PM
I still haven't seen a valid reason why a 223 caliber rifle shouldn't be allowed for hunting deer.
22 rim fire is not even close.
For every guy who understands the weapons limitations, proper bullet selection, acceptable range etc, theres a thousand knuckleheads who dont. Thats why. Too many idiots will wound deer or kill them poorly. Its unnecessary. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and i think the 6mm line is perfectly reasonable. If thats too much for you to handle then take up knitting or something.
Post by: bobcat on December 03, 2016, 04:13:33 PM
Post by: Branden on December 03, 2016, 04:50:58 PM
Difference between archery and rifle is that archery automatically limits your range. An arrow also bleeds an animal out and a bullet usually kills from shock. So not the same thing at all. You aren't allowed to use a practice tip on an arrow. Even though it's a bigger diameter then a .223 and will go right through a deer or elk.
If I was a parent and didn't have a legal rifle my kids could handle I would buy a gun they could shoot. If I didn't have the money I would sell/trade/get another job one of my rifles so my kids would have one to use.
Again why would we want to waste time/resources on changing a law that is not going to kill animals more humanely, and possibly have more wounded animals running around?
Regards, Branden
Post by: j_h_nimrod on December 03, 2016, 04:59:51 PM
House Enrolled Act 1231 that was passed earlier this year by the Indiana General Assembly (state legislators) allows some additional rifle cartridges to be used on private land during the deer firearms season.
A summary is as follows:
The rifle must have a barrel length of at least 16 inches
The rifle cartridges must have a cartridge case length of least 1.16 inches
The rifle cartridge must fire a bullet with a diameter that is
.243 inches (or 6 mm); or
.308 inches (or 7.62 mm)
No cartridges with a bullet diameter between .243 and .308 are legal (such as the .270 Winchester) These are the only 2 bullet diameters that are legal under this law.
A hunter may not possess more than 10 such cartridges while in the field
These new rifle cartridges may only be used on private land
Full metal jacketed bullets are illegal
These new rifle cartridges may be used during the youth deer season, deer firearms season, special antlerless firearm season (where open), and deer reduction season (in deer reduction zones where local ordinances allow the use of a firearm)
All the cartridges that were legal in recent years are still legal on public and private land and meet the following requirements: cartridges that fire a bullet of .357-inch diameter or larger; have a minimum case length of 1.16 inches; and have a maximum case length of 1.8 inches. No full metal-jacketed bullets are allowed.
Additional cartridges that are legal under HEA 1231 include, but are not limited to, the following:
6mm-06
6mm BR Remington
6mm PPC
6mm Remington
.240 Weatherby
.243 Winchester
.243 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.30 Carbine
.30 Herrett
.30 Remington AR
.30-06 Springfield
.30-30 Winchester
.30-40 Krag
.300 AAC Blackout (.300 Whisper)
.300 H&H Magnum
.300 Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum
.300 Savage
.300 Weatherby Magnum
.300 Winchester Magnum
.300 Winchester Short Magnum
.300 Remington Ultra Magnum
.307 Winchester
.308 Marlin
.308 Winchester
7.62x39mm
7.62x54mmR
There are other cartridges that meet the law’s specifications, and there are others that do not. A partial list of cartridges that are not allowed under HEA 1231 includes the .25-06 Remington, .270 Winchester, .303 British, .32 Winchester SL, 38-55 Winchester,.40 S&W, .444 Marlin, and .45-70 Government.
I think we have it pretty good...
Post by: hunter399 on December 03, 2016, 05:06:08 PM
Post by: hunter399 on December 03, 2016, 05:22:46 PM
Post by: Bill W on December 03, 2016, 05:44:35 PM
Post by: Cougartail on December 03, 2016, 05:49:34 PM
In Alaska you can use any "center fire" round to hunt Brown Bears.
They rely on the hunters judgement in picking calibers.
I guess that's why people move there, to get away from people with control issues.
Post by: Bango skank on December 03, 2016, 05:53:18 PM
After reading this thread I understand fully how we get so many stupid regulations.
In Alaska you can use any "center fire" round to hunt Brown Bears.
They rely on the hunters judgement in picking calibers.
I guess that's why people move there, to get away from people with control issues.
Somewhere in this thread i posted about the knucklehead i met in alaska that told his "hilarious" story about putting 20+ rounds of .223 into a grizz to kill it. Thats what you get when you trust hunters judgement. That same brand of crap would increase here.
Post by: hunter399 on December 03, 2016, 06:03:35 PM
Post by: Cougartail on December 03, 2016, 06:05:11 PM
A moron will always be a moron but unlike many down here he killed the bear, right?
So, should we ban all AR-15s because of a few morons shooting up a place? That is what you and the liberal left advocate to control human behavior.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 03, 2016, 06:10:16 PM
After reading this thread I understand fully how we get so many stupid regulations.
In Alaska you can use any "center fire" round to hunt Brown Bears.
They rely on the hunters judgement in picking calibers.
I guess that's why people move there, to get away from people with control issues.
I think this is reasonable.
That said hunting a large Brown Bear with a .22 Hornet would be frowned upon. But I'd love to watch.
Post by: dreamunelk on December 03, 2016, 06:12:03 PM
If you think it's horrible not to use a .223 for deer, get a load of Indiana's firearms regulations.
House Enrolled Act 1231 that was passed earlier this year by the Indiana General Assembly (state legislators) allows some additional rifle cartridges to be used on private land during the deer firearms season.
A summary is as follows:
The rifle must have a barrel length of at least 16 inches
The rifle cartridges must have a cartridge case length of least 1.16 inches
The rifle cartridge must fire a bullet with a diameter that is
.243 inches (or 6 mm); or
.308 inches (or 7.62 mm)
No cartridges with a bullet diameter between .243 and .308 are legal (such as the .270 Winchester) These are the only 2 bullet diameters that are legal under this law.
A hunter may not possess more than 10 such cartridges while in the field
These new rifle cartridges may only be used on private land
Full metal jacketed bullets are illegal
These new rifle cartridges may be used during the youth deer season, deer firearms season, special antlerless firearm season (where open), and deer reduction season (in deer reduction zones where local ordinances allow the use of a firearm)
All the cartridges that were legal in recent years are still legal on public and private land and meet the following requirements: cartridges that fire a bullet of .357-inch diameter or larger; have a minimum case length of 1.16 inches; and have a maximum case length of 1.8 inches. No full metal-jacketed bullets are allowed.
Additional cartridges that are legal under HEA 1231 include, but are not limited to, the following:
6mm-06
6mm BR Remington
6mm PPC
6mm Remington
.240 Weatherby
.243 Winchester
.243 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.30 Carbine
.30 Herrett
.30 Remington AR
.30-06 Springfield
.30-30 Winchester
.30-40 Krag
.300 AAC Blackout (.300 Whisper)
.300 H&H Magnum
.300 Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum
.300 Savage
.300 Weatherby Magnum
.300 Winchester Magnum
.300 Winchester Short Magnum
.300 Remington Ultra Magnum
.307 Winchester
.308 Marlin
.308 Winchester
7.62x39mm
7.62x54mmR
There are other cartridges that meet the law’s specifications, and there are others that do not. A partial list of cartridges that are not allowed under HEA 1231 includes the .25-06 Remington, .270 Winchester, .303 British, .32 Winchester SL, 38-55 Winchester,.40 S&W, .444 Marlin, and .45-70 Government.
I think we have it pretty good...
Considering the only large game they have is white tails and pigs that is interesting they would not allow .22 cal.
Post by: dreamunelk on December 03, 2016, 06:12:51 PM
After reading this thread I understand fully how we get so many stupid regulations.
In Alaska you can use any "center fire" round to hunt Brown Bears.
They rely on the hunters judgement in picking calibers.
I guess that's why people move there, to get away from people with control issues.
I think this is reasonable.
That said hunting a large Brown Bear with a .22 Hornet would be frowned upon. But I'd love to watch.
From a safe distance!
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 03, 2016, 06:17:33 PM
If you think it's horrible not to use a .223 for deer, get a load of Indiana's firearms regulations.
House Enrolled Act 1231 that was passed earlier this year by the Indiana General Assembly (state legislators) allows some additional rifle cartridges to be used on private land during the deer firearms season.
A summary is as follows:
The rifle must have a barrel length of at least 16 inches
The rifle cartridges must have a cartridge case length of least 1.16 inches
The rifle cartridge must fire a bullet with a diameter that is
.243 inches (or 6 mm); or
.308 inches (or 7.62 mm)
No cartridges with a bullet diameter between .243 and .308 are legal (such as the .270 Winchester) These are the only 2 bullet diameters that are legal under this law.
A hunter may not possess more than 10 such cartridges while in the field
These new rifle cartridges may only be used on private land
Full metal jacketed bullets are illegal
These new rifle cartridges may be used during the youth deer season, deer firearms season, special antlerless firearm season (where open), and deer reduction season (in deer reduction zones where local ordinances allow the use of a firearm)
All the cartridges that were legal in recent years are still legal on public and private land and meet the following requirements: cartridges that fire a bullet of .357-inch diameter or larger; have a minimum case length of 1.16 inches; and have a maximum case length of 1.8 inches. No full metal-jacketed bullets are allowed.
Additional cartridges that are legal under HEA 1231 include, but are not limited to, the following:
6mm-06
6mm BR Remington
6mm PPC
6mm Remington
.240 Weatherby
.243 Winchester
.243 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.30 Carbine
.30 Herrett
.30 Remington AR
.30-06 Springfield
.30-30 Winchester
.30-40 Krag
.300 AAC Blackout (.300 Whisper)
.300 H&H Magnum
.300 Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum
.300 Savage
.300 Weatherby Magnum
.300 Winchester Magnum
.300 Winchester Short Magnum
.300 Remington Ultra Magnum
.307 Winchester
.308 Marlin
.308 Winchester
7.62x39mm
7.62x54mmR
There are other cartridges that meet the law’s specifications, and there are others that do not. A partial list of cartridges that are not allowed under HEA 1231 includes the .25-06 Remington, .270 Winchester, .303 British, .32 Winchester SL, 38-55 Winchester,.40 S&W, .444 Marlin, and .45-70 Government.
I think we have it pretty good...
Considering the only large game they have is white tails and pigs that is interesting they would not allow .22 cal.
I'm I reading this right that .270, 444, and 45-70 aren't kosher?
Post by: buckfvr on December 03, 2016, 06:52:14 PM
Post by: Bango skank on December 03, 2016, 07:00:57 PM
Based on what Ive witnessed over the 45+ years Ive been hunting as an adult, I can honestly say I believe 3/4 of the hunters out there are common morons. Now let them use .223 and Im sure the number of morons will surpass 3/4. And that goes for 3/4s of the guys who hunt 121 whether they're from here or elsewhere.......if they're not littering and stealing, they're trespassing, driving around locked gates, all of the above........yep, common morons. :twocents:
:yeah: tell these guys .223 is legal and theyll all be roading around dumping 30rd mags at running animals from 300 yards. Guaranteed
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 03, 2016, 07:04:13 PM
Based on what Ive witnessed over the 45+ years Ive been hunting as an adult, I can honestly say I believe 3/4 of the hunters out there are common morons. Now let them use .223 and Im sure the number of morons will surpass 3/4. And that goes for 3/4s of the guys who hunt 121 whether they're from here or elsewhere.......if they're not littering and stealing, they're trespassing, driving around locked gates, all of the above........yep, common morons. :twocents:
:yeah: tell these guys .223 is legal and theyll all be roading around dumping 30rd mags at running animals from 300 yards. Guaranteed
Spare me.
Post by: hunter399 on December 03, 2016, 07:15:15 PM
you can still hunt with ar15 this year,i didn't see anybody dumping mag .Based on what Ive witnessed over the 45+ years Ive been hunting as an adult, I can honestly say I believe 3/4 of the hunters out there are common morons. Now let them use .223 and Im sure the number of morons will surpass 3/4. And that goes for 3/4s of the guys who hunt 121 whether they're from here or elsewhere.......if they're not littering and stealing, they're trespassing, driving around locked gates, all of the above........yep, common morons. :twocents:
:yeah: tell these guys .223 is legal and theyll all be roading around dumping 30rd mags at running animals from 300 yards. Guaranteed
That's little funny cause i hunt in 121 , just another moron ,I thought if there was anyplace I would see support for hunting rights it would of been huntwashington,i don't see a lot comments about the YouTube I posted,nobody has nothing to say when they see that caliber in action.That's one of dozens of YouTube I coulnd post ,mostly youth,and that is the future of hunting
Post by: JDHasty on December 03, 2016, 07:43:14 PM
you can still hunt with ar15 this year,i didn't see anybody dumping mag .Based on what Ive witnessed over the 45+ years Ive been hunting as an adult, I can honestly say I believe 3/4 of the hunters out there are common morons. Now let them use .223 and Im sure the number of morons will surpass 3/4. And that goes for 3/4s of the guys who hunt 121 whether they're from here or elsewhere.......if they're not littering and stealing, they're trespassing, driving around locked gates, all of the above........yep, common morons. :twocents:
:yeah: tell these guys .223 is legal and theyll all be roading around dumping 30rd mags at running animals from 300 yards. Guaranteed
That's little funny cause i hunt in 121 , just another moron ,I thought if there was anyplace I would see support for hunting rights it would of been huntwashington,i don't see a lot comments about the YouTube I posted,nobody has nothing to say when they see that caliber in action.That's one of dozens of YouTube I coulnd post ,mostly youth,and that is the future of hunting
We have had admissions of such posted right here on Hunting-Washington. Here is a sample:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,188644.75.html
Wouldn't want the "Ethical" club (that would be JDHasty, who had long since retired for the evening) to show up with their poster child.
My opinion is. Two is one, one is none. A AR would be perfectly suited for shooting a Elk into the ground. This "One shot, one kill" is stupid movie crap! Even the hot rod, evil *censored*s that lurk in the dark currently so we can enjoy our freedom know better to pull the trigger more than once. I don't care if I pop a Elk 5 times as fast as I can pull the trigger or work the bolt.
Some clowns refer to it as "Dumping Mags" those usually have never had a reason to dump a mag. So don't understand the mag dump thing isn't hunting related and very seldom used in its other text.
5 rounds from a AR is faster than some shmuck can say U-N E-T-H-I-C-A-L!
Deads,dead. I can care less if he has one hole or five through the ribs, who cares. It hits the BBQ just the same.
Sure Bang-Flops are cool! With on a moving running shot in the thick timber, I like to stick it to them.
*****************************
And the guy who posted this was not alone. He had plenty of like minded supporters. Once they sobered up they deleted the posts, but that was hours after I had already archived them for posterity.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 03, 2016, 07:44:49 PM
you can still hunt with ar15 this year,i didn't see anybody dumping mag .Based on what Ive witnessed over the 45+ years Ive been hunting as an adult, I can honestly say I believe 3/4 of the hunters out there are common morons. Now let them use .223 and Im sure the number of morons will surpass 3/4. And that goes for 3/4s of the guys who hunt 121 whether they're from here or elsewhere.......if they're not littering and stealing, they're trespassing, driving around locked gates, all of the above........yep, common morons. :twocents:
:yeah: tell these guys .223 is legal and theyll all be roading around dumping 30rd mags at running animals from 300 yards. Guaranteed
That's little funny cause i hunt in 121 , just another moron ,I thought if there was anyplace I would see support for hunting rights it would of been huntwashington,i don't see a lot comments about the YouTube I posted,nobody has nothing to say when they see that caliber in action.That's one of dozens of YouTube I coulnd post ,mostly youth,and that is the future of hunting
I agree 100%
I am very pro AR15 and think it's a fantastic platform for youth and disabled hunters.
Huntwa has a few handwringing fart dust negative Nancy's who hate modern sporting rifles. They like to portray anyone who hunts with an AR style rifle in a negative light and would sell out another hunters 2nd amendment rights at the drop of the hat.
Post by: Dan-o on December 03, 2016, 08:27:24 PM
you can still hunt with ar15 this year,i didn't see anybody dumping mag .Based on what Ive witnessed over the 45+ years Ive been hunting as an adult, I can honestly say I believe 3/4 of the hunters out there are common morons. Now let them use .223 and Im sure the number of morons will surpass 3/4. And that goes for 3/4s of the guys who hunt 121 whether they're from here or elsewhere.......if they're not littering and stealing, they're trespassing, driving around locked gates, all of the above........yep, common morons. :twocents:
:yeah: tell these guys .223 is legal and theyll all be roading around dumping 30rd mags at running animals from 300 yards. Guaranteed
That's little funny cause i hunt in 121 , just another moron ,I thought if there was anyplace I would see support for hunting rights it would of been huntwashington,i don't see a lot comments about the YouTube I posted,nobody has nothing to say when they see that caliber in action.That's one of dozens of YouTube I coulnd post ,mostly youth,and that is the future of hunting
I agree 100%
I am very pro AR15 and think it's a fantastic platform for youth and disabled hunters.
Huntwa has a few handwringing fart dust negative Nancy's who hate modern sporting rifles. They like to portray anyone who hunts with an AR style rifle in a negative light and would sell out another hunters 2nd amendment rights at the drop of the hat.
I love ARs. my sons and I all have them, and they are a blast. But I wouldn't vote to make 223 legal for big game. Just my personal view that 243 is a good minimum.
But I can certainly appreciate the opposite view. I won't even thnk any less of any of you. Just an honest difference of opinion.
Good night and happy hunting.
Post by: yorketransport on December 03, 2016, 08:29:21 PM
We have had admissions of such posted right here on Hunting-Washington. Here is a sample:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,188644.75.html
Wouldn't want the "Ethical" club (that would be JDHasty, who had long since retired for the evening) to show up with their poster child.
My opinion is. Two is one, one is none. A AR would be perfectly suited for shooting a Elk into the ground. This "One shot, one kill" is stupid movie crap! Even the hot rod, evil *censored*s that lurk in the dark currently so we can enjoy our freedom know better to pull the trigger more than once. I don't care if I pop a Elk 5 times as fast as I can pull the trigger or work the bolt.
Some clowns refer to it as "Dumping Mags" those usually have never had a reason to dump a mag. So don't understand the mag dump thing isn't hunting related and very seldom used in its other text.
5 rounds from a AR is faster than some shmuck can say U-N E-T-H-I-C-A-L!
Deads,dead. I can care less if he has one hole or five through the ribs, who cares. It hits the BBQ just the same.
Sure Bang-Flops are cool! With on a moving running shot in the thick timber, I like to stick it to them.
*****************************
And the guy who posted this was not alone. He had plenty of like minded supporters. Once they sobered up they deleted the posts, but that was hours after I had already archived them for posterity.
That's a little out of context. If I'm not mistaken, most PHs advise to shoot until the animal is on the ground and I tend to agree with that mentality regardless of weapon or cartridge. The discussion here isn't about a platform though, just bore diameter. I'm not a big fan of a centerfire 22 for big game but I'd never say that it won't work. There are better options in every platform than a 22 cal. If you're an AR guy, there are plenty of options over 24 caliber. If you're a bolt gun lover and need a low recoil round there are still great options like the 6.5 Grendel available in reasonably priced factory guns with excellent factory ammo available.
Is a 223 capable? Sure. Is it ideal? Usually not. But don't judge a chambering based on the weapon and don't judge the weapon based on the chambering. There are bad shots made with every type of equipment and equipment restrictions will never change that.
Post by: JDHasty on December 03, 2016, 09:07:54 PM
Shoot, we have .17 and 20 calibers now. Why not legalize those. Also I read a while ago where someone was playing with a .14 caliber wildcat, legalize those too.
Why do we want to give a ribbon to every dog in the parade? Dogs don't have feelings and don't care if they get ribbons. .243 caliber should be the minimum for responsible deer hunting. Key word "responsible".
Back when the 17's came out a guy shot a polar bear with a .17. He had to hit the bear in the ear hole to kill it. Based on that shouldn't 17's be legalized for bears?
I actually have acquaintance with one of the guys who were involved in that "adventure." Paul Marquert of A&M Rifle Co out of Prescott AZ was involved with Vern O'Brein out of Las Vegas in the experimentation that was going on. Paul Marquert was active in bench rest, he used to market the Marquert Neck Turning Tool and I talked to him once about my H&R Ultra Wildcat 17. It was his opinion that things spun out of control with people trying to prove who could take the largest game with the least weapon instead of using "something appropriate to the job at hand."
To read about the adventures one gets the notion that they always had someone backing them up, but that claim was a bit exaggerated and the impression I got is he was not real pleased about people thinking that the 17 always or usually killed like lightning. It had a high failure rate, if dropping an animal with one shot is the standard success is to be measured by.
I use my Ultra Wildcat to shoot chucks & predators and in that it has been a smashing success. I am on my third factory barrel (Douglas Ultra Rifled) and only have one spare left.
I don't know how the conversation got directed toward shooting big game with a 17, I have never been interested. I think it may have went that way because that is what all of the hooplah and most of the horse crap published focused on and he may have brought that up as a cautionary note because of my enthusiasm about how well it would punch a coyote's ticket.
This is one of the guys who was intimately familiar with the use of a 17 on big game and I came away with the inclination that he was not a fan.
Post by: JDHasty on December 03, 2016, 09:57:07 PM
We have had admissions of such posted right here on Hunting-Washington. Here is a sample:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,188644.75.html
Wouldn't want the "Ethical" club (that would be JDHasty, who had long since retired for the evening) to show up with their poster child.
My opinion is. Two is one, one is none. A AR would be perfectly suited for shooting a Elk into the ground. This "One shot, one kill" is stupid movie crap! Even the hot rod, evil *censored*s that lurk in the dark currently so we can enjoy our freedom know better to pull the trigger more than once. I don't care if I pop a Elk 5 times as fast as I can pull the trigger or work the bolt.
Some clowns refer to it as "Dumping Mags" those usually have never had a reason to dump a mag. So don't understand the mag dump thing isn't hunting related and very seldom used in its other text.
5 rounds from a AR is faster than some shmuck can say U-N E-T-H-I-C-A-L!
Deads,dead. I can care less if he has one hole or five through the ribs, who cares. It hits the BBQ just the same.
Sure Bang-Flops are cool! With on a moving running shot in the thick timber, I like to stick it to them.
*****************************
And the guy who posted this was not alone. He had plenty of like minded supporters. Once they sobered up they deleted the posts, but that was hours after I had already archived them for posterity.
That's a little out of context. If I'm not mistaken, most PHs advise to shoot until the animal is on the ground and I tend to agree with that mentality regardless of weapon or cartridge. The discussion here isn't about a platform though, just bore diameter. I'm not a big fan of a centerfire 22 for big game but I'd never say that it won't work. There are better options in every platform than a 22 cal. If you're an AR guy, there are plenty of options over 24 caliber. If you're a bolt gun lover and need a low recoil round there are still great options like the 6.5 Grendel available in reasonably priced factory guns with excellent factory ammo available.
Is a 223 capable? Sure. Is it ideal? Usually not. But don't judge a chambering based on the weapon and don't judge the weapon based on the chambering. There are bad shots made with every type of equipment and equipment restrictions will never change that.
To put it into context the discussion began on a thread in which someone was looking for advice re: Using an AR 15 based platform for big game hunting by a novice hunter and photos of an elk killed at 411 yards and a deer killed way out past that range was posted therein. Suggesting to me that the person posting was advocating for the position: that if a person chose such and such cartridge that this was a logical expectation.
I started a separate thread in which the discussion was about the ethics of advocating shooting at elk at such range was ethical and there were participants claiming that one shot kills were to be expected, under field conditions - in the wind etc.
The opposing side claimed skepticism prior to retiring for the evening, but the conversation continued long into the night. As that conversation developed it got rather animated and without anyone there to provide a voice of opposition to directing a barrage of projectiles in the direction of a big game animal, individuals involved in that conversation were free to discuss doing so unimpeded.
The topic of Volley fire came up in this thread without any assistance on my part and I just provided documentation that it is not unreasonable to be concerned about that dynamic rearing it's ugly head.
I am not going to point any fingers at anyone who has not self reported, but I am also not going to let this concern be discounted as fantasy. And to be quite honest, I am concerned about this becoming epidemic if the only thing standing between every yahoo with an AR 15 is the cost of a hunting license.
Today that is not an option because the cost of admission leaves every Tom, Dick and Harry who walked into Walmart or Dicks and left with an AR 15 not able to purchase a big game transport tag and "go hunting" standing on the sidelines.
I'm all about expanding opportunities, but anyone who has any knowledge of me has also some familiarity with my opposition to those who show up to shoot rock chucks on a smaller property, with neighbors, with a 10/22 and then they start "dumping magazines," to use the phrase that seems to convey what I object to.
That is also perfectly legal, and a guy can hunt chucks with a 10/22 and do so in a manner that does not endanger any future access on that property, but for whatever reason, they seem incapable of not losing their damn mind and emptying every round in their magazine at a chuck, even though they were counseled that it simply will not be tolerated.
It will not be tolerated by neighbors who have no concern what so ever about a single shot, taken every minute or so, or a follow up shot taken a second later. But once it starts to sound like the Grand Finale at a Fourth of July fireworks show next door, they are concerned - and rightfully so. And so should anyone who gives a tinkers damn about the rockchuck they are shooting at. If I shoot at a chuck, I want him dead. I don't want him walking around with a leg shattered or a "lucky" bullet in the gut that leaves him to suffer for two weeks.
If I did not see this proposed change opening the flood gates to the same dynamic taking place during deer season, I would have no objection. But even those who claim that I have nothing to worry about in that regard have validated my concern that:
"Two is one, one is none. A AR would be perfectly suited for shooting a Elk into the ground. This "One shot, one kill" is stupid movie crap! Even the hot rod, evil *censored*s that lurk in the dark currently so we can enjoy our freedom know better to pull the trigger more than once. I don't care if I pop a Elk 5 times as fast as I can pull the trigger or work the bolt."
will become even more accepted as legitimate.
Post by: Bango skank on December 03, 2016, 10:00:58 PM
Shoot, we have .17 and 20 calibers now. Why not legalize those. Also I read a while ago where someone was playing with a .14 caliber wildcat, legalize those too.
Why do we want to give a ribbon to every dog in the parade? Dogs don't have feelings and don't care if they get ribbons. .243 caliber should be the minimum for responsible deer hunting. Key word "responsible".
Back when the 17's came out a guy shot a polar bear with a .17. He had to hit the bear in the ear hole to kill it. Based on that shouldn't 17's be legalized for bears?
I actually have acquaintance with one of the guys who were involved in that "adventure." Paul Marquert of A&M Rifle Co out of Prescott AZ was involved with Vern O'Brein out of Las Vegas in the experimentation that was going on. Paul Marquert was active in bench rest, he used to market the Marquert Neck Turning Tool and I talked to him once about my H&R Ultra Wildcat 17. It was his opinion that things spun out of control with people trying to prove who could take the largest game with the least weapon instead of using "something appropriate to the job at hand."
To read about the adventures one gets the notion that they always had someone backing them up, but that claim was a bit exaggerated and the impression I got is he was not real pleased about people thinking that the 17 always or usually killed like lightning. It had a high failure rate, if dropping an animal with one shot is the standard success is to be measured by.
I use my Ultra Wildcat to shoot chucks & predators and in that it has been a smashing success. I am on my third factory barrel (Douglas Ultra Rifled) and only have one spare left.
I don't know how the conversation got directed toward shooting big game with a 17, I have never been interested. I think it may have went that way because that is what all of the hooplah and most of the horse crap published focused on and he may have brought that up as a cautionary note because of my enthusiasm about how well it would punch a coyote's ticket.
This is one of the guys who was intimately familiar with the use of a 17 on big game and I came away with the inclination that he was not a fan.
No .17 on big game? But blah blah blah shot placement, blah blah blah good judgement, blah blah blah my grandpa, blah blah blah other states
Post by: Bango skank on December 03, 2016, 10:08:32 PM
you can still hunt with ar15 this year,i didn't see anybody dumping mag .Based on what Ive witnessed over the 45+ years Ive been hunting as an adult, I can honestly say I believe 3/4 of the hunters out there are common morons. Now let them use .223 and Im sure the number of morons will surpass 3/4. And that goes for 3/4s of the guys who hunt 121 whether they're from here or elsewhere.......if they're not littering and stealing, they're trespassing, driving around locked gates, all of the above........yep, common morons. :twocents:
:yeah: tell these guys .223 is legal and theyll all be roading around dumping 30rd mags at running animals from 300 yards. Guaranteed
That's little funny cause i hunt in 121 , just another moron ,I thought if there was anyplace I would see support for hunting rights it would of been huntwashington,i don't see a lot comments about the YouTube I posted,nobody has nothing to say when they see that caliber in action.That's one of dozens of YouTube I coulnd post ,mostly youth,and that is the future of hunting
I agree 100%
I am very pro AR15 and think it's a fantastic platform for youth and disabled hunters.
Huntwa has a few handwringing fart dust negative Nancy's who hate modern sporting rifles. They like to portray anyone who hunts with an AR style rifle in a negative light and would sell out another hunters 2nd amendment rights at the drop of the hat.
I have an ar too. Im not done with it, but when i am its going to be a dedicated night time coyote gun. But i dont see any benefit to hunting big game with one other than being able to "spray and pray." But im not just against .223 because i know a ton of idiots would fling lead at deer elk and bear with ars. I just flat out dont think its a reasonable deer caliber for most people, and dont even want bolt action .223 legal. Can it kill a deer? Sure, but its a very marginal caliber for that purpose. Better to step it up a notch. I dont think requiring somebody to use a 6mm to hunt big game is asking too much.
Post by: Bango skank on December 03, 2016, 10:11:50 PM
you can still hunt with ar15 this year,i didn't see anybody dumping mag .Based on what Ive witnessed over the 45+ years Ive been hunting as an adult, I can honestly say I believe 3/4 of the hunters out there are common morons. Now let them use .223 and Im sure the number of morons will surpass 3/4. And that goes for 3/4s of the guys who hunt 121 whether they're from here or elsewhere.......if they're not littering and stealing, they're trespassing, driving around locked gates, all of the above........yep, common morons. :twocents:
:yeah: tell these guys .223 is legal and theyll all be roading around dumping 30rd mags at running animals from 300 yards. Guaranteed
That's little funny cause i hunt in 121 , just another moron ,I thought if there was anyplace I would see support for hunting rights it would of been huntwashington,i don't see a lot comments about the YouTube I posted,nobody has nothing to say when they see that caliber in action.That's one of dozens of YouTube I coulnd post ,mostly youth,and that is the future of hunting
I agree 100%
I am very pro AR15 and think it's a fantastic platform for youth and disabled hunters.
Huntwa has a few handwringing fart dust negative Nancy's who hate modern sporting rifles. They like to portray anyone who hunts with an AR style rifle in a negative light and would sell out another hunters 2nd amendment rights at the drop of the hat.
I have an ar too. Im not done with it, but when i am its going to be a dedicated night time coyote gun. But i dont see any benefit to hunting big game with one other than being able to "spray and pray." But im not just against .223 because i know a ton of idiots would fling lead at deer elk and bear with ars. I just flat out dont think its a reasonable deer caliber for most people, and dont even want bolt action .223 legal. Can it kill a deer? Sure, but its a very marginal caliber for that purpose. Better to step it up a notch. I dont think requiring somebody to use a 6mm to hunt big game is asking too much. And as far as selling out 2a rights, i never said people shouldnt own, carry, or even hunt with a .223, ar or not. I just dont think we should be able to hunt big game with them. Varmints yes. Deer no.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 03, 2016, 10:15:55 PM
you can still hunt with ar15 this year,i didn't see anybody dumping mag .Based on what Ive witnessed over the 45+ years Ive been hunting as an adult, I can honestly say I believe 3/4 of the hunters out there are common morons. Now let them use .223 and Im sure the number of morons will surpass 3/4. And that goes for 3/4s of the guys who hunt 121 whether they're from here or elsewhere.......if they're not littering and stealing, they're trespassing, driving around locked gates, all of the above........yep, common morons. :twocents:
:yeah: tell these guys .223 is legal and theyll all be roading around dumping 30rd mags at running animals from 300 yards. Guaranteed
That's little funny cause i hunt in 121 , just another moron ,I thought if there was anyplace I would see support for hunting rights it would of been huntwashington,i don't see a lot comments about the YouTube I posted,nobody has nothing to say when they see that caliber in action.That's one of dozens of YouTube I coulnd post ,mostly youth,and that is the future of hunting
I agree 100%
I am very pro AR15 and think it's a fantastic platform for youth and disabled hunters.
Huntwa has a few handwringing fart dust negative Nancy's who hate modern sporting rifles. They like to portray anyone who hunts with an AR style rifle in a negative light and would sell out another hunters 2nd amendment rights at the drop of the hat.
I have an ar too. Im not done with it, but when i am its going to be a dedicated night time coyote gun. But i dont see any benefit to hunting big game with one other than being able to "spray and pray." But im not just against .223 because i know a ton of idiots would fling lead at deer elk and bear with ars. I just flat out dont think its a reasonable deer caliber for most people, and dont even want bolt action .223 legal. Can it kill a deer? Sure, but its a very marginal caliber for that purpose. Better to step it up a notch. I dont think requiring somebody to use a 6mm to hunt big game is asking too much. And as far as selling out 2a rights, i never said people shouldnt own, carry, or even hunt with a .223, ar or not. I just dont think we should be able to hunt big game with them. Varmints yes. Deer no.
What makes you think I was referring to you? :chuckle:
Post by: Bango skank on December 03, 2016, 10:20:22 PM
Just wanted to be clear. Its not ars im against, its stupid people. And unfortunately, from what ive seen, most people are stupid. And a large percentage of hunters see deer season as "screw the laws, screw ethics, act like a wild animal and do crap we would never do outside of deer season" season.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 03, 2016, 10:29:35 PM
Maybe the fact that you posted that right after i badmouthed *censored*bags with ars :dunno:
Just wanted to be clear. Its not ars im against, its stupid people. And unfortunately, from what ive seen, most people are stupid. And a large percentage of hunters see deer season as "screw the laws, screw ethics, act like a wild animal and do crap we would never do outside of deer season" season.
I haven't seen anything like what you are talking about.
Post by: Bango skank on December 03, 2016, 10:33:27 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 03, 2016, 10:38:41 PM
you can still hunt with ar15 this year,i didn't see anybody dumping mag .Based on what Ive witnessed over the 45+ years Ive been hunting as an adult, I can honestly say I believe 3/4 of the hunters out there are common morons. Now let them use .223 and Im sure the number of morons will surpass 3/4. And that goes for 3/4s of the guys who hunt 121 whether they're from here or elsewhere.......if they're not littering and stealing, they're trespassing, driving around locked gates, all of the above........yep, common morons. :twocents:
:yeah: tell these guys .223 is legal and theyll all be roading around dumping 30rd mags at running animals from 300 yards. Guaranteed
That's little funny cause i hunt in 121 , just another moron ,I thought if there was anyplace I would see support for hunting rights it would of been huntwashington,i don't see a lot comments about the YouTube I posted,nobody has nothing to say when they see that caliber in action.That's one of dozens of YouTube I coulnd post ,mostly youth,and that is the future of hunting
I agree 100%
I am very pro AR15 and think it's a fantastic platform for youth and disabled hunters.
Huntwa has a few handwringing fart dust negative Nancy's who hate modern sporting rifles. They like to portray anyone who hunts with an AR style rifle in a negative light and would sell out another hunters 2nd amendment rights at the drop of the hat.
I have an ar too. Im not done with it, but when i am its going to be a dedicated night time coyote gun. But i dont see any benefit to hunting big game with one other than being able to "spray and pray." But im not just against .223 because i know a ton of idiots would fling lead at deer elk and bear with ars. I just flat out dont think its a reasonable deer caliber for most people, and dont even want bolt action .223 legal. Can it kill a deer? Sure, but its a very marginal caliber for that purpose. Better to step it up a notch. I dont think requiring somebody to use a 6mm to hunt big game is asking too much. And as far as selling out 2a rights, i never said people shouldnt own, carry, or even hunt with a .223, ar or not. I just dont think we should be able to hunt big game with them. Varmints yes. Deer no.
I am right there with you on this one. We have ARs laying around, one of them is a flat top with a M4 barrel and sliding stock I put together out of my "bag of tricks" for the kids, because it will fit them. But when Bridget passed Hunter Ed, I took apart my Contender and put a 7-30 Waters barrel on it with a kids stock. If 223 was legal, there is no doubt in my mind that I would have still ponied up the cash for a barrel, dies, bullets and done the same.
To paint me as an AR 15 hater is nonsense. OMG, how that is nonsense. I have said I will never leave Tacoma again to go chuck shooting with anyone who has either a 10/22 or an AR 15, and for good reason. I don't know why, but they lose their damn mind. But my little Remington R15 is becoming, pretty much, all I take predator hunting and I could GAS if my partner has an AR 15 as well if I know them well. But I cringe when someone who is just getting into predator calling has an AR because I don't want volley fire directed at a running dog that ends up sending a magazine full all over hell's half acre. They get to leave the truck with three rounds PERIOD, if they are with me. And in those cases, I use my old Remington 788 in 22-250 just to reinforce the point that I don't want them sending a round downrange that is not a kill shot.
My little R15 is GTG. And I like being able to get really solid and then not have to work the bolt on a second customer. Even if I was promised that only singles would show, it is such a tinker toy that it is preferable. It is that accurate.
Post by: JDHasty on December 03, 2016, 10:40:19 PM
Well, its in the big string of quotes in your reply. Whatever. How bout dem seahawks? Im drunk leave me alone :chuckle:
He was referring to me.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 03, 2016, 10:47:14 PM
Well, its in the big string of quotes in your reply. Whatever. How bout dem seahawks? Im drunk leave me alone :chuckle:
He was referring to me.
LOL
Post by: JDHasty on December 03, 2016, 11:06:52 PM
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.
Post by: JDHasty on December 03, 2016, 11:33:48 PM
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.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 03, 2016, 11:38:12 PM
center fire at least .22 =yesI 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??
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
Post by: Curly on December 03, 2016, 11:48:15 PM
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.
Post by: JDHasty on December 04, 2016, 12:24:22 AM
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.
Post by: mountainman on December 04, 2016, 09:08:55 AM
👆👍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.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 04, 2016, 09:37:44 AM
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.
Post by: Bango skank on December 04, 2016, 09:41:55 AM
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
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 04, 2016, 09:53:22 AM
I think WDFW does a population survey once a decade or so, then use harvest reports for the annual guess.
Post by: bobcat on December 04, 2016, 10:21:35 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 04, 2016, 10:25:18 AM
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.
Post by: bobcat on December 04, 2016, 10:45:16 AM
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.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 04, 2016, 11:00:17 AM
Post by: Mtnwalker on December 04, 2016, 11:02:26 AM
Post by: Smoke on December 04, 2016, 11:08:37 AM
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.
yes they are different.... they dont have Seattle and Olympia...
Post by: Bob33 on December 04, 2016, 11:58:25 AM
1/15th the population, twice as many deer as Washington, twice as many elk as Washington, a million pronghorns, wide open spaces, minimum hunting age, and jackelopes.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.
yes they are different.... they dont have Seattle and Olympia...
Not that any of that necessarily matters.
Post by: boneaddict on December 04, 2016, 12:26:19 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv47%2Fboneaddict%2Fbucks2%2Fdava.jpg&hash=43e94c857204617d5c9c4b7b54d95bfeb00f170a)
Post by: bobcat on December 04, 2016, 12:30:54 PM
Recoil pads are for sissies right?
Post by: dreamunelk on December 04, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 04, 2016, 12:35:49 PM
Post by: boneaddict on December 04, 2016, 12:55:16 PM
My first rifle when I was a kid was a 264 Win. Mag. with a plastic butt plate shooting 140 grain bullets. :tup:I went into it with the thought process, if it's not touching then it shouldn't kick as bad right? Lol
Recoil pads are for sissies right?
Post by: Branden on December 04, 2016, 01:03:00 PM
6x45 is made from .223 brass. Can we expect Fish and Game officers to carry a micrometer for enforcement?
I would hope whatever gun you are using has the caliber engraved on the barrel?
As for first gun was a .50 cal kids muzzy with a brass butt plate. 100 grains of powder with a 385 grain buffalo bullet. Killed my first doe with it at nine years old.
Regards, Branden
Post by: Bill W on December 04, 2016, 01:04:43 PM
If your arms werent long enough to shoot one of those, you were probably too small to be able to hunt.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv47%2Fboneaddict%2Fbucks2%2Fdava.jpg&hash=43e94c857204617d5c9c4b7b54d95bfeb00f170a)
Here's what I think the main issue should be with youth hunters, not getting a lighter recoiling gun for them.
Post by: mountainman on December 04, 2016, 01:29:42 PM
A bunch of entitled brats around here in Washington. In my day, if you wanted to cut your teeth hunting you picked up a 30/30 Winchester with a steel butt plate. You anchored that baby well into your shoulder or you paid the price. If your arms werent long enough to shoot one of those, you were probably too small to be able to hunt.true dat👆!!
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv47%2Fboneaddict%2Fbucks2%2Fdava.jpg&hash=43e94c857204617d5c9c4b7b54d95bfeb00f170a)
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 04, 2016, 01:41:05 PM
I see future generations using evil scary rifles more and more.
Eventually the fart dust mentality will be just a memory.
Post by: mountainman on December 04, 2016, 02:17:56 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on December 05, 2016, 11:46:35 AM
I'd allow 223 to be legal for deer with a trade....
Shots over 600 yards are illegal for any caliber and we go back to 5 round max capacity. :tup:
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 05, 2016, 12:02:36 PM
I'll stir this up a bit....
I'd allow 223 to be legal for deer with a trade....
Shots over 600 yards are illegal for any caliber and we go back to 5 round max capacity. :tup:
Make 600 a grand and I'll give you the 5 round capacity :)
Post by: Bob33 on December 05, 2016, 12:06:09 PM
During the General Season: There is no rifle or handgun caliber limitation for the taking of big game animals.
Post by: JLS on December 05, 2016, 12:40:27 PM
Post by: rasbo on December 05, 2016, 12:53:16 PM
roger that,x2Lots of currently legal deer cartridges can be shot from an AR15 platform rifle. I disagree with the need for any change to the current law. It's just asking for more wounded and not recovered animals.
This. exactly this.
Post by: Gringo31 on December 05, 2016, 01:21:18 PM
Quote
Anyone that thinks they can legislate away stupidity and lack of common sense likely suffers from the same.
This has merit!
But....we have speed limits, rules against driving drunk, bag limits (vs. just don't take too much if there isn't that much game around that year) etc....
:twocents:
Post by: Lefthook on December 05, 2016, 01:28:13 PM
6x45 is made from .223 brass. Can we expect Fish and Game officers to carry a micrometer for enforcement?
I would hope whatever gun you are using has the caliber engraved on the barrel?
As for first gun was a .50 cal kids muzzy with a brass butt plate. 100 grains of powder with a 385 grain buffalo bullet. Killed my first doe with it at nine years old.
Regards, Branden
:yeah:
My first hunting seasons consisted of a good old full size Thompson Center .54 cal muzzloader kit rifle. Brass butt plate and after lugging that beast around for about 3/4's of my first hunting season I finally harvested a doe.
I hunted a total of three seasons with that rifle. As kids will do, after three seasons of muzzloader hunting, I became very interested in modern rifles. My fourth season of deer hunting I couldn't resist a modern rifle, I found myself lugging around a Remington 700 BDL in 7mm Remington Magnum. I dropped a little forked horn with my 7 mag. I hit him high in the left front shoulder, instant face plant.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 05, 2016, 01:39:44 PM
6x45 is made from .223 brass. Can we expect Fish and Game officers to carry a micrometer for enforcement?
I would hope whatever gun you are using has the caliber engraved on the barrel?
Most of the wildcats I own do not.
Post by: rasbo on December 05, 2016, 01:42:16 PM
Post by: Squidward on December 05, 2016, 01:49:27 PM
Post by: Lefthook on December 05, 2016, 02:01:07 PM
Is it me or are we living in a world where we just have to make things easier..Every year it just seems so,bows that shoot 100 yrds,muzzys 200yrds,rifles 1200 yrd shots.Now folks want to shoot pellets at the game..As a kid I was small, I remember not being able to go on rides until I was "THIS" tall..There was a good reason for that..There is a good reason for the caliber law..
:yeah:
Yes!
Post by: Cougartail on December 05, 2016, 02:07:33 PM
During the General Season: There is no rifle or handgun caliber limitation for the taking of big game animals.
That can only work in a state filled with ignorant hillbillies. With all the intellectual giants living in Washington they need to plan for all that might go wrong if you give freedom to the commoners of the State. Pretty funny to watch when an "intellectual" is considered a "Commoner" by another "Intellectual".
Post by: JLS on December 05, 2016, 02:08:15 PM
QuoteAnyone that thinks they can legislate away stupidity and lack of common sense likely suffers from the same.
This has merit!
But....we have speed limits, rules against driving drunk, bag limits (vs. just don't take too much if there isn't that much game around that year) etc....
:twocents:
Certainly. Speeding and DUI laws are for safety reasons that directly affect all of us. Bag limits are for conservation purposes. Minimum caliber laws are for what? Public safety? Nope. Conservation? Nope. Social issues?
I can kill deer and elk all day long with a .22 centerfire, yet I've watched people cripple elk with .30 caliber supermagnums over and over. It's a stupid and archaic law that makes no sense and makes it harder than it has to be. You can legally hunt with a 9mm pistol, but you can't with a 22-250. Explain that.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 05, 2016, 02:14:43 PM
As for speed limits, I'd guess that most (95%+) would drive a reasonable speed. Montana used to not have speed limits, the safest time on the roads in Montana.
Post by: Bob33 on December 05, 2016, 02:22:18 PM
You can legally hunt with a 9mm pistol, but you can't with a 22-250. Explain that.My understanding is that hunters wanted the ability to dispatch a wounded animal with a handgun. Shooting a crippled deer in the head with a 9mm at two feet would certainly be sufficient to kill it.
Post by: Buckewe on December 05, 2016, 02:31:34 PM
You can legally hunt with a 9mm pistol, but you can't with a 22-250. Explain that.My understanding is that hunters wanted the ability to dispatch a wounded animal with a handgun. Shooting a crippled deer in the head with a 9mm at two feet would certainly be sufficient to kill it.
I beg to differ on that. This year I saw 2 deer that needed to be finished with a handgun, both standing over the deer shot to the back of the head twice with a 40 cal and they both didn't die. A knife in that situation is a better option.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 05, 2016, 02:33:51 PM
You can legally hunt with a 9mm pistol, but you can't with a 22-250. Explain that.My understanding is that hunters wanted the ability to dispatch a wounded animal with a handgun. Shooting a crippled deer in the head with a 9mm at two feet would certainly be sufficient to kill it.
I beg to differ on that. This year I saw 2 deer that needed to be finished with a handgun, both standing over the deer shot to the back of the head twice with a 40 cal and they both didn't die. A knife in that situation is a better option.
Well you were using 10mm short. :chuckle:
Post by: Gunsmoke on December 05, 2016, 02:53:36 PM
If you shoot a deer in the head from 2 ft away using a 40 cal and it doesn't die, you missedYou can legally hunt with a 9mm pistol, but you can't with a 22-250. Explain that.My understanding is that hunters wanted the ability to dispatch a wounded animal with a handgun. Shooting a crippled deer in the head with a 9mm at two feet would certainly be sufficient to kill it.
I beg to differ on that. This year I saw 2 deer that needed to be finished with a handgun, both standing over the deer shot to the back of the head twice with a 40 cal and they both didn't die. A knife in that situation is a better option.
Well you were using 10mm short. :chuckle:
Post by: Branden on December 05, 2016, 03:02:54 PM
6x45 is made from .223 brass. Can we expect Fish and Game officers to carry a micrometer for enforcement?
I would hope whatever gun you are using has the caliber engraved on the barrel?
Most of the wildcats I own do not.
That's really smart. Get a wildcat and you are the only person that knows what caliber it is. Must be super secret? Seriously though it seems dangerous to not have the caliber engraved.
The wildcats I own are engraved. But they aren't secret calibers or anything :)
Regards, Branden
Post by: dscubame on December 05, 2016, 03:12:09 PM
6x45 is made from .223 brass. Can we expect Fish and Game officers to carry a micrometer for enforcement?
I would hope whatever gun you are using has the caliber engraved on the barrel?
Most of the wildcats I own do not.
That's really smart. Get a wildcat and you are the only person that knows what caliber it is. Must be super secret? Seriously though it seems dangerous to not have the caliber engraved.
The wildcats I own are engraved. But they aren't secret calibers or anything :)
Regards, Branden
The caliber does not indicate bullet weight.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 05, 2016, 03:19:10 PM
That sharkbait.... he lives dangerously and on the edge with his unmarked rifle barrels! :chuckle: I'm surprised I can find the right ammo for my ar when the side of the gun it says it's a multi caliber. :tung:6x45 is made from .223 brass. Can we expect Fish and Game officers to carry a micrometer for enforcement?
I would hope whatever gun you are using has the caliber engraved on the barrel?
Most of the wildcats I own do not.
That's really smart. Get a wildcat and you are the only person that knows what caliber it is. Must be super secret? Seriously though it seems dangerous to not have the caliber engraved.
The wildcats I own are engraved. But they aren't secret calibers or anything :)
Regards, Branden
Post by: JDHasty on December 05, 2016, 03:24:54 PM
That sharkbait.... he lives dangerously and on the edge with his unmarked rifle barrels! :chuckle: I'm surprised I can find the right ammo for my ar when the side of the gun it says it's a multi caliber. :tung:6x45 is made from .223 brass. Can we expect Fish and Game officers to carry a micrometer for enforcement?
I would hope whatever gun you are using has the caliber engraved on the barrel?
Most of the wildcats I own do not.
That's really smart. Get a wildcat and you are the only person that knows what caliber it is. Must be super secret? Seriously though it seems dangerous to not have the caliber engraved.
The wildcats I own are engraved. But they aren't secret calibers or anything :)
Regards, Branden
Just ask for a box of Multi caliber and you are GTG. Kind of like the guy I used to work with who had a pre-64 30-06, but it also shot 270 Win & 308, just not as accurate.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 05, 2016, 04:08:04 PM
That sharkbait.... he lives dangerously and on the edge with his unmarked rifle barrels! :chuckle: I'm surprised I can find the right ammo for my ar when the side of the gun it says it's a multi caliber. :tung:6x45 is made from .223 brass. Can we expect Fish and Game officers to carry a micrometer for enforcement?
I would hope whatever gun you are using has the caliber engraved on the barrel?
Most of the wildcats I own do not.
That's really smart. Get a wildcat and you are the only person that knows what caliber it is. Must be super secret? Seriously though it seems dangerous to not have the caliber engraved.
The wildcats I own are engraved. But they aren't secret calibers or anything :)
Regards, Branden
No secrets here. I just never thought it was all that important. Next one I'll stamp, but I'm warning you I'm terrible when it comes to hand stamping stuff.
My days of living dangerously are long gone. Now I just try not to fall down when people are watching.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 05, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
:chuckle:That sharkbait.... he lives dangerously and on the edge with his unmarked rifle barrels! :chuckle: I'm surprised I can find the right ammo for my ar when the side of the gun it says it's a multi caliber. :tung:6x45 is made from .223 brass. Can we expect Fish and Game officers to carry a micrometer for enforcement?
I would hope whatever gun you are using has the caliber engraved on the barrel?
Most of the wildcats I own do not.
That's really smart. Get a wildcat and you are the only person that knows what caliber it is. Must be super secret? Seriously though it seems dangerous to not have the caliber engraved.
The wildcats I own are engraved. But they aren't secret calibers or anything :)
Regards, Branden
Just ask for a box of Multi caliber and you are GTG. Kind of like the guy I used to work with who had a pre-64 30-06, but it also shot 270 Win & 308, just not as accurate.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 05, 2016, 04:55:04 PM
its not the fall that's funny... it's the scramble to get up and look around to see who saw you!That sharkbait.... he lives dangerously and on the edge with his unmarked rifle barrels! :chuckle: I'm surprised I can find the right ammo for my ar when the side of the gun it says it's a multi caliber. :tung:6x45 is made from .223 brass. Can we expect Fish and Game officers to carry a micrometer for enforcement?
I would hope whatever gun you are using has the caliber engraved on the barrel?
Most of the wildcats I own do not.
That's really smart. Get a wildcat and you are the only person that knows what caliber it is. Must be super secret? Seriously though it seems dangerous to not have the caliber engraved.
The wildcats I own are engraved. But they aren't secret calibers or anything :)
Regards, Branden
No secrets here. I just never thought it was all that important. Next one I'll stamp, but I'm warning you I'm terrible when it comes to hand stamping stuff.
My days of living dangerously are long gone. Now I just try not to fall down when people are watching.
Post by: SCRUBS on December 05, 2016, 05:01:07 PM
During the General Season: There is no rifle or handgun caliber limitation for the taking of big game animals.
That can only work in a state filled with ignorant hillbillies. With all the intellectual giants living in Washington they need to plan for all that might go wrong if you give freedom to the commoners of the State. Pretty funny to watch when an "intellectual" is considered a "Commoner" by another "Intellectual".
:chuckle:
Post by: grundy53 on December 05, 2016, 06:05:46 PM
Anyone that thinks they can legislate away stupidity and lack of common sense likely suffers from the same.Well said
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on December 05, 2016, 06:36:16 PM
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
Post by: Bob33 on December 05, 2016, 07:04:30 PM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:I see. Two-thirds of the hunters surveyed on here don't want the change, but it's WDFW's fault.
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.
Post by: Bango skank on December 05, 2016, 07:07:38 PM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
Oh, so we need lower recoil to bring in more woman, youth etc. Hunters.
But didnt you just say this in another thread?
I also 1+ the 243 ,that's all my wife shoots,and because of the low recoil she is really good shot with it , maybe better than me
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 05, 2016, 07:08:47 PM
Post by: hunter399 on December 05, 2016, 07:12:06 PM
yes I did say that in another tread,i do follow the laws,even if I don't like them,not all people can say that.I'm not gonna tell another person to buy a 223 for deer when it is not legal,Ya my my wife does use a 243, but would use 223 also if it was legal.If u must no I have also used 243 for deer,but does that make me a bad person cause I want to use223 but can't.Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
Oh, so we need lower recoil to bring in more woman, youth etc. Hunters.
But didnt you just say this in another thread?
I also 1+ the 243 ,that's all my wife shoots,and because of the low recoil she is really good shot with it , maybe better than me
Post by: bigtex on December 05, 2016, 07:12:23 PM
I guess we will keep living the California laws.California doesn't have minimum calibers for rifles or handguns. They have a .40 caliber minimum for muzzleloaders. They're only requirement is that guns must use a "softnose or expanding projectile" which is a "bullet designed to increase from its original diameter, commonly referred to as “mushrooming”, and retain a significant part of its original weight upon impact with, or when passing through the tissues of an animal"
Post by: Bango skank on December 05, 2016, 07:15:32 PM
yes I did say that in another tread,i do follow the laws,even if I don't like them,not all people can say that.Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
Oh, so we need lower recoil to bring in more woman, youth etc. Hunters.
But didnt you just say this in another thread?
I also 1+ the 243 ,that's all my wife shoots,and because of the low recoil she is really good shot with it , maybe better than me
But you were saying how .243 has really low recoil, and your wife shoots it great because of that. Then in another thread you keep advocating for .223, cause women and kids can shoot it due to low recoil. *censored*
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 05, 2016, 07:16:36 PM
Aren't they also eliminating lead bullets for copper/non-toxic?I guess we will keep living the California laws.California doesn't have minimum calibers for rifles or handguns. They have a .40 caliber minimum for muzzleloaders. They're only requirement is that guns must use a "softnose or expanding projectile" which is a "bullet designed to increase from its original diameter, commonly referred to as “mushrooming”, and retain a significant part of its original weight upon impact with, or when passing through the tissues of an animal"
I just want to hunt grouse with a sling shot. :yike:You and me both!
Post by: bigtex on December 05, 2016, 07:18:50 PM
Yup they're slowly phasing in a no-lead law for all hunting.Aren't they also eliminating lead bullets for copper/non-toxic?I guess we will keep living the California laws.California doesn't have minimum calibers for rifles or handguns. They have a .40 caliber minimum for muzzleloaders. They're only requirement is that guns must use a "softnose or expanding projectile" which is a "bullet designed to increase from its original diameter, commonly referred to as “mushrooming”, and retain a significant part of its original weight upon impact with, or when passing through the tissues of an animal"
Post by: hunter399 on December 05, 2016, 07:22:59 PM
What would caliber would u tell a woman to use with current lawsyes I did say that in another tread,i do follow the laws,even if I don't like them,not all people can say that.Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
Oh, so we need lower recoil to bring in more woman, youth etc. Hunters.
But didnt you just say this in another thread?
I also 1+ the 243 ,that's all my wife shoots,and because of the low recoil she is really good shot with it , maybe better than me
But you were saying how .243 has really low recoil, and your wife shoots it great because of that. Then in another thread you keep advocating for .223, cause women and kids can shoot it due to low recoil. *censored*
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 05, 2016, 07:23:58 PM
Yup they're slowly phasing in a no-lead law for all hunting.Aren't they also eliminating lead bullets for copper/non-toxic?I guess we will keep living the California laws.California doesn't have minimum calibers for rifles or handguns. They have a .40 caliber minimum for muzzleloaders. They're only requirement is that guns must use a "softnose or expanding projectile" which is a "bullet designed to increase from its original diameter, commonly referred to as “mushrooming”, and retain a significant part of its original weight upon impact with, or when passing through the tissues of an animal"
That would suck.
Post by: Bob33 on December 05, 2016, 07:26:22 PM
§250.1.Prohibition on the Use of Lead Projectiles and Ammunition Using Lead Projectiles for the Take of Wildlife.Yup they're slowly phasing in a no-lead law for all hunting.Aren't they also eliminating lead bullets for copper/non-toxic?I guess we will keep living the California laws.California doesn't have minimum calibers for rifles or handguns. They have a .40 caliber minimum for muzzleloaders. They're only requirement is that guns must use a "softnose or expanding projectile" which is a "bullet designed to increase from its original diameter, commonly referred to as “mushrooming”, and retain a significant part of its original weight upon impact with, or when passing through the tissues of an animal"
That would suck.
(a) Purpose. This regulation phases in the requirements of Fish and Game Code Section 3004.5, which prohibits the use of any lead projectiles or ammunition containing lead projectiles when taking any wildlife with a firearm on or after July 1, 2019.
Post by: Bango skank on December 05, 2016, 07:37:07 PM
What would caliber would u tell a woman to use with current lawsyes I did say that in another tread,i do follow the laws,even if I don't like them,not all people can say that.Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
Oh, so we need lower recoil to bring in more woman, youth etc. Hunters.
But didnt you just say this in another thread?
I also 1+ the 243 ,that's all my wife shoots,and because of the low recoil she is really good shot with it , maybe better than me
But you were saying how .243 has really low recoil, and your wife shoots it great because of that. Then in another thread you keep advocating for .223, cause women and kids can shoot it due to low recoil. *censored*
Probably .243, the same caliber that you said your wife shoots great, due to the low recoil
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 05, 2016, 07:42:43 PM
§250.1.Prohibition on the Use of Lead Projectiles and Ammunition Using Lead Projectiles for the Take of Wildlife.Yup they're slowly phasing in a no-lead law for all hunting.Aren't they also eliminating lead bullets for copper/non-toxic?I guess we will keep living the California laws.California doesn't have minimum calibers for rifles or handguns. They have a .40 caliber minimum for muzzleloaders. They're only requirement is that guns must use a "softnose or expanding projectile" which is a "bullet designed to increase from its original diameter, commonly referred to as “mushrooming”, and retain a significant part of its original weight upon impact with, or when passing through the tissues of an animal"
That would suck.
(a) Purpose. This regulation phases in the requirements of Fish and Game Code Section 3004.5, which prohibits the use of any lead projectiles or ammunition containing lead projectiles when taking any wildlife with a firearm on or after July 1, 2019.
That's going to impact the AR hunting calibers.
Some of them aren't going to like long light bullets.
Post by: hunter399 on December 05, 2016, 07:44:48 PM
Just cause my wife can does not mean every wife can.What would caliber would u tell a woman to use with current lawsyes I did say that in another tread,i do follow the laws,even if I don't like them,not all people can say that.Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
Oh, so we need lower recoil to bring in more woman, youth etc. Hunters.
But didnt you just say this in another thread?
I also 1+ the 243 ,that's all my wife shoots,and because of the low recoil she is really good shot with it , maybe better than me
But you were saying how .243 has really low recoil, and your wife shoots it great because of that. Then in another thread you keep advocating for .223, cause women and kids can shoot it due to low recoil. *censored*
Probably .243, the same caliber that you said your wife shoots great, due to the low recoil
Post by: Oh Mah on December 05, 2016, 08:27:19 PM
Post by: Lefthook on December 05, 2016, 08:47:09 PM
Please don't flame me on this but i heard years ago that the reason these restrictions even came into play was because of the poachers.Didn't make sense when i heard it then and don't make any sense now.Anyone got stats on what the weapon of choice is for poachers?
I heard many, many years ago (25+) that some poachers were caught on dirt bikes with AR's poaching in the Capitol Forest. Not sure that makes it a poachers go to gun but I guess if you don't want to spend any time trying to get in position for a good shot the "spray and pray" idea might seem appealing.
Post by: Bill W on December 05, 2016, 08:52:23 PM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
The type of people it would bring you probably wouldn't want out in the woods. I wonder about the wisdom of the people that are angling for it. It's dumb and ill advised. It would lead to a lot of wounded and/or unrecovered animals. So why would a reasonable and knowledgable hunter want that?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 05, 2016, 09:03:20 PM
Please don't flame me on this but i heard years ago that the reason these restrictions even came into play was because of the poachers.Didn't make sense when i heard it then and don't make any sense now.Anyone got stats on what the weapon of choice is for poachers?
I would think it would be .22 rimfire.
Post by: yorketransport on December 05, 2016, 10:15:10 PM
Please don't flame me on this but i heard years ago that the reason these restrictions even came into play was because of the poachers.Didn't make sense when i heard it then and don't make any sense now.Anyone got stats on what the weapon of choice is for poachers?
I would think it would be .22 rimfire.
I assumed that it would be the 33 Poachers Pet.
Post by: Bob33 on December 05, 2016, 10:21:00 PM
That would be my guess. Cheap, low noise and lethal at close range.Please don't flame me on this but i heard years ago that the reason these restrictions even came into play was because of the poachers.Didn't make sense when i heard it then and don't make any sense now.Anyone got stats on what the weapon of choice is for poachers?
I would think it would be .22 rimfire.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 05, 2016, 10:28:54 PM
Post by: hunter399 on December 05, 2016, 10:38:30 PM
I guess there must be a lot of wounded/unrecovered animals in idaho,Montana,oregon,i just seem to hear a lot hunters in those states ever talking about itYa you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
The type of people it would bring you probably wouldn't want out in the woods. I wonder about the wisdom of the people that are angling for it. It's dumb and ill advised. It would lead to a lot of wounded and/or unrecovered animals. So why would a reasonable and knowledgable hunter want that?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 06, 2016, 08:42:03 AM
Now to really get me griping, the dang turkey restrictions. In other states I could use a rifle (including .22 LR) for turkey. .223s are great turkey guns, but WDFW doesn't allow them. You can shoot a bird at 200 yds with them easily. The big benefits being you don't have to deal with shotgun recoil.
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2016, 08:47:16 AM
Post by: JLS on December 06, 2016, 08:51:20 AM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
The type of people it would bring you probably wouldn't want out in the woods. I wonder about the wisdom of the people that are angling for it. It's dumb and ill advised. It would lead to a lot of wounded and/or unrecovered animals. So why would a reasonable and knowledgable hunter want that?
These are completely unfounded statements. I guess I'm dumb and ill advised. Reasonable and knowledgeable means being willing to open your mind to things outside of your norm. Anyone that thinks a .22 centerfire is incapable of killing big game animals cleanly and humanely is obviously not willing to open their mind.
Post by: JLS on December 06, 2016, 08:52:01 AM
yes .22 rim fire,when i was told this many years ago i was also told the reasoning was if .22 was allowed poachers could shoot deer and nothing of the bullet could be used to determine what weapon was used to shoot it.no way to trace a .22 rim fire bullet (after) it entered a deer.
Urban legend at its finest.
Post by: dscubame on December 06, 2016, 09:17:00 AM
A bunch of entitled brats around here in Washington. In my day, if you wanted to cut your teeth hunting you picked up a 30/30 Winchester with a steel butt plate. You anchored that baby well into your shoulder or you paid the price. If your arms werent long enough to shoot one of those, you were probably too small to be able to hunt.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv47%2Fboneaddict%2Fbucks2%2Fdava.jpg&hash=43e94c857204617d5c9c4b7b54d95bfeb00f170a)
No kidding. All this complaining sounds like a school yard full of children that were just told the trip to the waterpark has been cancelled.
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2016, 09:22:59 AM
And copper jacketed bullets legal for muzzleloader hunting. And now they're legal.
If there's no good reason for something to be illegal, then people have a right to complain. That's how these things eventually get changed.
The 223 wasn't legal for big game in Wyoming a few years ago. Now it is. These dumb laws CAN be changed.
Post by: dscubame on December 06, 2016, 10:09:13 AM
It's no different than the "complaining" that occurred when people wanted lighted nocks legal for archery. And now they're legal.
And copper jacketed bullets legal for muzzleloader hunting. And now they're legal.
If there's no good reason for something to be illegal, then people have a right to complain. That's how these things eventually get changed.
The 223 wasn't legal for big game in Wyoming a few years ago. Now it is. These dumb laws CAN be changed.
I tell my kids too if everyone is jumping off that 100 foot bridge it does not make it right for you to follow them.
Saying that complaining and whining is an affective way to induce change is ludicrous.
Post by: Bill W on December 06, 2016, 10:13:53 AM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
The type of people it would bring you probably wouldn't want out in the woods. I wonder about the wisdom of the people that are angling for it. It's dumb and ill advised. It would lead to a lot of wounded and/or unrecovered animals. So why would a reasonable and knowledgable hunter want that?
These are completely unfounded statements. I guess I'm dumb and ill advised. Reasonable and knowledgeable means being willing to open your mind to things outside of your norm. Anyone that thinks a .22 centerfire is incapable of killing big game animals cleanly and humanely is obviously not willing to open their mind.
If'n you want to be a bonehead..... then be a bonehead. Buck the trend and do things the hard way. You may learn things on the way to "enlightenment".
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2016, 10:18:58 AM
It's no different than the "complaining" that occurred when people wanted lighted nocks legal for archery. And now they're legal.
And copper jacketed bullets legal for muzzleloader hunting. And now they're legal.
If there's no good reason for something to be illegal, then people have a right to complain. That's how these things eventually get changed.
The 223 wasn't legal for big game in Wyoming a few years ago. Now it is. These dumb laws CAN be changed.
I tell my kids too if everyone is jumping off that 100 foot bridge it does not make it right for you to follow them.
Saying that complaining and whining is an affective way to induce change is ludicrous.
Well first, I don't see any of this as "complaining." It's a discussion.
How would you go about getting dumb laws changed? Would you not discuss the issue with your peers?
Post by: dscubame on December 06, 2016, 10:20:00 AM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
The type of people it would bring you probably wouldn't want out in the woods. I wonder about the wisdom of the people that are angling for it. It's dumb and ill advised. It would lead to a lot of wounded and/or unrecovered animals. So why would a reasonable and knowledgable hunter want that?
These are completely unfounded statements. I guess I'm dumb and ill advised. Reasonable and knowledgeable means being willing to open your mind to things outside of your norm. Anyone that thinks a .22 centerfire is incapable of killing big game animals cleanly and humanely is obviously not willing to open their mind.
If'n you want to be a bonehead..... then be a bonehead. Buck the trend and do things the hard way. You may learn things on the way to "enlightenment".
The pole indicates I am in the majority here and I do not engage in internet tough guy conversations. I would bet if you were sitting across from me face to face you would not chime in like you did. Bob33 and I have history, I do not know you from around these parts. Move on...
Post by: Lefthook on December 06, 2016, 10:20:41 AM
Maybe this thread has strayed way off it's origins and a new "22 rimfire is poachers favorite" thread should be fired up.
Post by: dscubame on December 06, 2016, 10:21:02 AM
It's no different than the "complaining" that occurred when people wanted lighted nocks legal for archery. And now they're legal.
And copper jacketed bullets legal for muzzleloader hunting. And now they're legal.
If there's no good reason for something to be illegal, then people have a right to complain. That's how these things eventually get changed.
The 223 wasn't legal for big game in Wyoming a few years ago. Now it is. These dumb laws CAN be changed.
I tell my kids too if everyone is jumping off that 100 foot bridge it does not make it right for you to follow them.
Saying that complaining and whining is an affective way to induce change is ludicrous.
Well first, I don't see any of this as "complaining." It's a discussion.
How would you go about getting dumb laws changed? Wound you not discuss the issue with your peers?
I would for sure Bobcat, simply pointing out all the complaining. So now are we going to argue about complaining?
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
It's no different than the "complaining" that occurred when people wanted lighted nocks legal for archery. And now they're legal.
And copper jacketed bullets legal for muzzleloader hunting. And now they're legal.
If there's no good reason for something to be illegal, then people have a right to complain. That's how these things eventually get changed.
The 223 wasn't legal for big game in Wyoming a few years ago. Now it is. These dumb laws CAN be changed.
I tell my kids too if everyone is jumping off that 100 foot bridge it does not make it right for you to follow them.
Saying that complaining and whining is an affective way to induce change is ludicrous.
Well first, I don't see any of this as "complaining." It's a discussion.
How would you go about getting dumb laws changed? Wound you not discuss the issue with your peers?
I would for sure Bobcat, simply pointing out all the complaining. So now are we going to argue about complaining?
Again, I would argue that we're not arguing. :chuckle: We are discussing.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 06, 2016, 10:31:47 AM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
The type of people it would bring you probably wouldn't want out in the woods. I wonder about the wisdom of the people that are angling for it. It's dumb and ill advised. It would lead to a lot of wounded and/or unrecovered animals. So why would a reasonable and knowledgable hunter want that?
These are completely unfounded statements. I guess I'm dumb and ill advised. Reasonable and knowledgeable means being willing to open your mind to things outside of your norm. Anyone that thinks a .22 centerfire is incapable of killing big game animals cleanly and humanely is obviously not willing to open their mind.
If'n you want to be a bonehead..... then be a bonehead. Buck the trend and do things the hard way. You may learn things on the way to "enlightenment".
The pole indicates I am in the majority here and I do not engage in internet tough guy conversations. I would bet if you were sitting across from me face to face you would not chime in like you did. Bob33 and I have history, I do not know you from around these parts. Move on...
Isn't this classic internet tough guy?
Post by: JLS on December 06, 2016, 10:40:13 AM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
The type of people it would bring you probably wouldn't want out in the woods. I wonder about the wisdom of the people that are angling for it. It's dumb and ill advised. It would lead to a lot of wounded and/or unrecovered animals. So why would a reasonable and knowledgable hunter want that?
These are completely unfounded statements. I guess I'm dumb and ill advised. Reasonable and knowledgeable means being willing to open your mind to things outside of your norm. Anyone that thinks a .22 centerfire is incapable of killing big game animals cleanly and humanely is obviously not willing to open their mind.
If'n you want to be a bonehead..... then be a bonehead. Buck the trend and do things the hard way. You may learn things on the way to "enlightenment".
I know quite a few "boneheads" who are quite accomplished hunters who have killed a pile of animals with substandard center fire cartridges. I have learned some things, one of which an open mind is a valuable tool.
Post by: Bill W on December 06, 2016, 10:40:44 AM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
The type of people it would bring you probably wouldn't want out in the woods. I wonder about the wisdom of the people that are angling for it. It's dumb and ill advised. It would lead to a lot of wounded and/or unrecovered animals. So why would a reasonable and knowledgable hunter want that?
These are completely unfounded statements. I guess I'm dumb and ill advised. Reasonable and knowledgeable means being willing to open your mind to things outside of your norm. Anyone that thinks a .22 centerfire is incapable of killing big game animals cleanly and humanely is obviously not willing to open their mind.
If'n you want to be a bonehead..... then be a bonehead. Buck the trend and do things the hard way. You may learn things on the way to "enlightenment".
The pole indicates I am in the majority here and I do not engage in internet tough guy conversations. I would bet if you were sitting across from me face to face you would not chime in like you did. Bob33 and I have history, I do not know you from around these parts. Move on...
Isn't this classic internet tough guy?
Thing that gets me is he's sticking up for someone who wasn't even picked on. I guess the whole lot was home schooled.
Post by: JLS on December 06, 2016, 10:41:38 AM
I guess the whole lot was home schooled.
Wow, more open mindedness.
Post by: Bill W on December 06, 2016, 10:50:46 AM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
The type of people it would bring you probably wouldn't want out in the woods. I wonder about the wisdom of the people that are angling for it. It's dumb and ill advised. It would lead to a lot of wounded and/or unrecovered animals. So why would a reasonable and knowledgable hunter want that?
These are completely unfounded statements. I guess I'm dumb and ill advised. Reasonable and knowledgeable means being willing to open your mind to things outside of your norm. Anyone that thinks a .22 centerfire is incapable of killing big game animals cleanly and humanely is obviously not willing to open their mind.
If'n you want to be a bonehead..... then be a bonehead. Buck the trend and do things the hard way. You may learn things on the way to "enlightenment".
The pole indicates I am in the majority here and I do not engage in internet tough guy conversations. I would bet if you were sitting across from me face to face you would not chime in like you did. Bob33 and I have history, I do not know you from around these parts. Move on...
One more post I want to address before I move on. Don't go making out I'm smarter than I am. My wife would attest to the fact that yes I would say the same to you face to face. It's also on the path to "enlightenment'.
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 06, 2016, 11:34:10 AM
Don't go making out I'm smarter than I am.
I believe you are safe from that happening.
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2016, 11:36:58 AM
LolDon't go making out I'm smarter than I am.
I believe you are safe from that happening.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2016, 12:01:33 PM
Post by: dscubame on December 06, 2016, 12:04:19 PM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
The type of people it would bring you probably wouldn't want out in the woods. I wonder about the wisdom of the people that are angling for it. It's dumb and ill advised. It would lead to a lot of wounded and/or unrecovered animals. So why would a reasonable and knowledgable hunter want that?
These are completely unfounded statements. I guess I'm dumb and ill advised. Reasonable and knowledgeable means being willing to open your mind to things outside of your norm. Anyone that thinks a .22 centerfire is incapable of killing big game animals cleanly and humanely is obviously not willing to open their mind.
If'n you want to be a bonehead..... then be a bonehead. Buck the trend and do things the hard way. You may learn things on the way to "enlightenment".
The pole indicates I am in the majority here and I do not engage in internet tough guy conversations. I would bet if you were sitting across from me face to face you would not chime in like you did. Bob33 and I have history, I do not know you from around these parts. Move on...
One more post I want to address before I move on. Don't go making out I'm smarter than I am. My wife would attest to the fact that yes I would say the same to you face to face. It's also on the path to "enlightenment'.
I could have been nicer and less argumentative. My bad and I would buy you a beer if I could to mend the fence.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2016, 12:30:49 PM
Ya you can't fix stupid :chuckle:
Wdfw always says how there under funded,but things like this rule can bring in more hunters,in state , and out of state.young ,old,woman,ect.I really don't think where much different than the other states around us.I guess we will keep living the California laws.
The type of people it would bring you probably wouldn't want out in the woods. I wonder about the wisdom of the people that are angling for it. It's dumb and ill advised. It would lead to a lot of wounded and/or unrecovered animals. So why would a reasonable and knowledgable hunter want that?
These are completely unfounded statements. I guess I'm dumb and ill advised. Reasonable and knowledgeable means being willing to open your mind to things outside of your norm. Anyone that thinks a .22 centerfire is incapable of killing big game animals cleanly and humanely is obviously not willing to open their mind.
If'n you want to be a bonehead..... then be a bonehead. Buck the trend and do things the hard way. You may learn things on the way to "enlightenment".
The pole indicates I am in the majority here and I do not engage in internet tough guy conversations. I would bet if you were sitting across from me face to face you would not chime in like you did. Bob33 and I have history, I do not know you from around these parts. Move on...
One more post I want to address before I move on. Don't go making out I'm smarter than I am. My wife would attest to the fact that yes I would say the same to you face to face. It's also on the path to "enlightenment'.
Is there any indication or data from the other states which allow lower calibers on various game that these lower calibers account for more lost game? If so, why would those states continue to allow it? Is there any data that changing the restrictions would attract "The type of people ... you probably wouldn't want out in the woods"? And, what type of people would this be? Smaller people who would benefit from being able to use a smaller caliber? Female, older, and/or disabled people? That a majority of people have voted against the restrictions on an unofficial and unscientific HuntWA poll means nothing. Without data and opinion from game departments who currently allow smaller caliber use, your assumptions are completely unfounded.
Post by: boneaddict on December 06, 2016, 01:02:17 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 06, 2016, 01:05:02 PM
Everything being equal, it’s a generally accepted premise that larger bullets with more energy kill more quickly than smaller bullets with less energy. Of course, a well-placed smaller bullet will kill more effectively than a poorly placed larger bullet. “Everything being equal.”
The FBI studies effectiveness of handgun calibers. Do they conclude that smaller, lighter projectiles kill as well as larger, heavier projectiles?
Most, but not all states have minimum standards for firearms and/or archery equipment used for hunting. It’s only an assumption, but I suspect it is because of ethical concerns that insufficient equipment could result in more wounded game.
Switching to archery - can a 20 pound bow kill deer? Of course it can. Should all draw weight considerations be stricken as well?
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2016, 01:10:45 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 06, 2016, 01:26:27 PM
I wonder if there's any data that would prove a 223 caliber rifle will kill just as well as a 9mm Glock?Are you in favor of removing all caliber and draw weight restrictions for big game hunting?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 06, 2016, 01:31:38 PM
I wonder if there's any data that would prove a 223 caliber rifle will kill just as well as a 9mm Glock?Are you in favor of removing all caliber and draw weight restrictions for big game hunting?
I am.
I think the responsibility should be on the individual.
Post by: Bob33 on December 06, 2016, 01:34:03 PM
I don't completely agree but think that's a more defensible position to take rather than changing the minimum from .24 to .22.I wonder if there's any data that would prove a 223 caliber rifle will kill just as well as a 9mm Glock?Are you in favor of removing all caliber and draw weight restrictions for big game hunting?
I am.
I think the responsibility should be on the individual.
Post by: JLS on December 06, 2016, 01:34:43 PM
I’ve never seen statistically valid data that compares the effectiveness of .22 caliber centerfire rifles to larger calibers on big game. Perhaps it exists.
Everything being equal, it’s a generally accepted premise that larger bullets with more energy kill more quickly than smaller bullets with less energy. Of course, a well-placed smaller bullet will kill more effectively than a poorly placed larger bullet. “Everything being equal.”
The FBI studies effectiveness of handgun calibers. Do they conclude that smaller, lighter projectiles kill as well as larger, heavier projectiles?
Most, but not all states have minimum standards for firearms and/or archery equipment used for hunting. It’s only an assumption, but I suspect it is because of ethical concerns that insufficient equipment could result in more wounded game.
Switching to archery - can a 20 pound bow kill deer? Of course it can. Should all draw weight considerations be stricken as well?
Good questions Bob.
The FBI now recognizes 9mm as an effective self defense round for law enforcement agencies. Weighing in all factors such as cost, recoil management, accuracy, etc., the cost/benefit of the 9mm makes it a legitimate choice.
Yes, bigger and faster bullets typically kill things better given that they are accurately placed. However, smaller calibers are often easier to shoot accurately. Double edged sword, and I would hazard a guess that a good many elk have been crippled with magnum cartridges.
Is a 40 pound compound bow more effective than a 40 pound longbow? What is the efficiency of a 30 pound compound bow relative to a 40 pound longbow?
I fully understand that minimum requirements are a necessary evil, and not always a bad thing. All that said, I think Washington's are not well thought out and could be improved.
The guy that shouldn't be out in the woods is a burden to ethical hunters regardless of what caliber of weapon he is carrying. Apparently it's an issue too if he's home schooled.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 06, 2016, 01:40:39 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2016, 01:44:01 PM
I wonder if there's any data that would prove a 223 caliber rifle will kill just as well as a 9mm Glock?Are you in favor of removing all caliber and draw weight restrictions for big game hunting?
No, the archery rules seem reasonable. But I do think it's ridiculous that a 9mm handgun can be used to hunt big game, but a 22-250 cannot.
If I didn't have my 223 WSSM I'd most likely be arguing along with many of you to keep the .243 minimum. It's just always been that way and seems to make sense since that's what we've always known. But you start reading up on other people's experiences with 22 caliber centerfires who hunt with them in other states, and you have to start thinking maybe the 223 is a good deer rifle. At least I did. And I used it in Wyoming not because it was all I had, but more for the extra challenge, just like some people want to hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader. It's also pretty darn nice when you shoot an animal and you can see the reaction when the bullet hits, because there's no recoil.
Again, a 22-250 is a great 200 yard deer cartridge. How far can you kill a deer with a 9mm Glock? It's legal, but the 22-250 is not.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 06, 2016, 01:47:52 PM
What would counteract the poor decision making as left to individuals? A more rigorous hunter ed program? Make it more like the European system? Then you could ditch a lot of the stuff in the regs.
Poor decision making will always be there.
Post by: boneaddict on December 06, 2016, 01:51:52 PM
This guy takes the cake for killing a deer with the most primitive weapon that I’ve ever seen someone use: a rock.
As you can see, while extremely difficult, it is clearly possible to hunt a big game animal with nothing more than a rock."
Google it. It's on video
Post by: Bob33 on December 06, 2016, 01:52:03 PM
If the argument is that we already have inadequate standards for handguns and therefore should lower the standards for rifles to make them equally inadequate, I don’t believe it will convince many to make a change.I wonder if there's any data that would prove a 223 caliber rifle will kill just as well as a 9mm Glock?Are you in favor of removing all caliber and draw weight restrictions for big game hunting?
No, the archery rules seem reasonable. But I do think it's ridiculous that a 9mm handgun can be used to hunt big game, but a 22-250 cannot.
Again, a 22-250 is a great 200 yard deer cartridge. How far can you kill a deer with a 9mm Glock? It's legal, but the 22-250 is not.
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 06, 2016, 01:56:38 PM
Post by: boneaddict on December 06, 2016, 01:58:34 PM
Setting the bar
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2016, 02:03:51 PM
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11630772/What_223_bullet_for_deer#Post11630772
Yes I think it's dumb that a .25 or 9mm handgun is legal to hunt deer, elk, and bear. But that's not why we should change the minimum rifle caliber from .243 to .223.
The only reason we need is that 223 will work and work well. I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that. If a person owns a 223 caliber rifle and wants to use it to shoot a deer instead of using his 338 Ultra Mag, he should be able to.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 06, 2016, 02:06:31 PM
Are you saying that a 22-250 is equally inadequate to the 9mm pistol as a killing cartridge?Their abilities to kill are probably not too far apart, the difference is more the method--.22-250 is more about energy from high velocity and 9mm would be more penetration from momentum. I recall a thread earlier in the year where a fisherman with a 9mm in Alaska killed a huge brown bear trying to attack. The yuge difference between the two is more about getting the bullet into the right place. A .22-250 can shoot a dime at 200 yds rather consistently even from a novice shooter, I don't know too many people that could hit a dime at ten yards with a 9mm pistol routinely. :dunno:
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 06, 2016, 02:10:17 PM
I think what he might be saying is just because the 9mm is a regulation (stupid one) that maybe we shouldn't lower the standard of another
Setting the bar
I can agree with that as a general argument but not with that example given. I guess I don't see it being that crazy that the regs authorize CERTAIN 22 centerfires by name.
Post by: boneaddict on December 06, 2016, 02:19:56 PM
Post by: Curly on December 06, 2016, 02:21:47 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2016, 03:03:25 PM
Not picking on you here John, but just curious how this type of data would be collected.
Not feeling picked on, Doug. :tup: Mortality counts. An unusual number of reports of "poached" animals. Bios' surveys/observations. I'm not sure what information they collect. But, my larger point is that a blanket statement saying it's a mistake to lower the caliber for some big game has no basis in fact. Neither does the statement that this will attract the kind of people we don't want in hunting. That's ridiculous. If someone can show me statistically that taking down a deer with a .225/5.56 comes with a higher lost animal rate or is somehow an irresponsible or unethical firearm choice, I would consider the evidence. I don't think it does. :dunno:
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 06, 2016, 03:14:56 PM
Are you saying that a 22-250 is equally inadequate to the 9mm pistol as a killing cartridge?Their abilities to kill are probably not too far apart, the difference is more the method--.22-250 is more about energy from high velocity and 9mm would be more penetration from momentum. I recall a thread earlier in the year where a fisherman with a 9mm in Alaska killed a huge brown bear trying to attack. The yuge difference between the two is more about getting the bullet into the right place. A .22-250 can shoot a dime at 200 yds rather consistently even from a novice shooter, I don't know too many people that could hit a dime at ten yards with a 9mm pistol routinely. :dunno:
If I had to take one in the chest from a 9mm at 30 feet or a .22-250 at 600 feet, I'd take the 9mm everytime
Post by: Oh Mah on December 06, 2016, 04:25:24 PM
I disagree with your well thought out statement here :yeah: .I will wait for some LEO to chime in and see what they have to say about the caliber restriction reasoning.I am sure that when it was thought out the reason i gave was one of their CONS on the subject.As to the lost, Injured game i doubt.yes .22 rim fire,when i was told this many years ago i was also told the reasoning was if .22 was allowed poachers could shoot deer and nothing of the bullet could be used to determine what weapon was used to shoot it.no way to trace a .22 rim fire bullet (after) it entered a deer.
Urban legend at its finest.
Post by: hunter399 on December 06, 2016, 04:35:42 PM
Post by: hunter399 on December 06, 2016, 04:53:53 PM
I think a lot a people would change there mind ,if they seen these calibers in action,with the right bullet.Deer go down pretty fast,as long as I take your time and look for the animal after the shot ,you'll find itAre you saying that a 22-250 is equally inadequate to the 9mm pistol as a killing cartridge?Their abilities to kill are probably not too far apart, the difference is more the method--.22-250 is more about energy from high velocity and 9mm would be more penetration from momentum. I recall a thread earlier in the year where a fisherman with a 9mm in Alaska killed a huge brown bear trying to attack. The yuge difference between the two is more about getting the bullet into the right place. A .22-250 can shoot a dime at 200 yds rather consistently even from a novice shooter, I don't know too many people that could hit a dime at ten yards with a 9mm pistol routinely. :dunno:
The .22-250 overall would be a more lethal round then a 9mm. Just the ability to make many more accurate shots at many different ranges compared to the 9 makes it more lethal. I want to change my vote on the poll now that I know a 9mm is legal for bear and dear. I have a couple 9mm handguns and a .22-250 rifle and if I had to choose between them to hunt with it would be the .22-250.
If I had to take one in the chest from a 9mm at 30 feet or a .22-250 at 600 feet, I'd take the 9mm everytime
Post by: Eric M on December 06, 2016, 05:46:17 PM
There's no reason a 22-250 couldn't be used to kill deer. I think the only problem would be what's available on the shelf for a 22-250 might end up coming apart on you. So you turn to handloading and use a heavier bullet then you have to worry about your barrel twist because they might not stabilize. Having said that I think the rule is silly that I can go kill a lion with a 22 centerfire but not a deer.I think a lot a people would change there mind ,if they seen these calibers in action,with the right bullet.Deer go down pretty fast,as long as I take your time and look for the animal after the shot ,you'll find itAre you saying that a 22-250 is equally inadequate to the 9mm pistol as a killing cartridge?Their abilities to kill are probably not too far apart, the difference is more the method--.22-250 is more about energy from high velocity and 9mm would be more penetration from momentum. I recall a thread earlier in the year where a fisherman with a 9mm in Alaska killed a huge brown bear trying to attack. The yuge difference between the two is more about getting the bullet into the right place. A .22-250 can shoot a dime at 200 yds rather consistently even from a novice shooter, I don't know too many people that could hit a dime at ten yards with a 9mm pistol routinely. :dunno:
The .22-250 overall would be a more lethal round then a 9mm. Just the ability to make many more accurate shots at many different ranges compared to the 9 makes it more lethal. I want to change my vote on the poll now that I know a 9mm is legal for bear and dear. I have a couple 9mm handguns and a .22-250 rifle and if I had to choose between them to hunt with it would be the .22-250.
If I had to take one in the chest from a 9mm at 30 feet or a .22-250 at 600 feet, I'd take the 9mm everytime
Post by: huntingfool7 on December 07, 2016, 08:01:18 PM
I may be mistaken but I think JLS is in law enforcement. :)I disagree with your well thought out statement here :yeah: .I will wait for some LEO to chime in and see what they have to say about the caliber restriction reasoning.I am sure that when it was thought out the reason i gave was one of their CONS on the subject.As to the lost, Injured game i doubt.yes .22 rim fire,when i was told this many years ago i was also told the reasoning was if .22 was allowed poachers could shoot deer and nothing of the bullet could be used to determine what weapon was used to shoot it.no way to trace a .22 rim fire bullet (after) it entered a deer.
Urban legend at its finest.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 07, 2016, 08:20:48 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 07, 2016, 09:03:57 PM
Post by: timberfaller on December 07, 2016, 09:46:58 PM
My dad's hunting buddy, before any "restrictions" were ever thought of, deer hunted with a 222 Rem. Never missed and it only took one shot. My brother in law during his stench with WGD during the mule deer study did the same, 222 Rem, one shot one harvest for study!!
Bullet placement and Practice Practice Practice!!
Post by: fish vacuum on December 07, 2016, 09:54:40 PM
Especially when you can legally hunt deer, bear, and elk with a 9mm Glock! :chuckle:
I thought the handgun rules were written the way they are to allow for handguns shooting rifle calibers. If they made the minimum handgun caliber .40 (for example) then that would rule out most of the TC Contenders.
Post by: Bob33 on December 07, 2016, 09:57:11 PM
I'm pretty sure the reason 22 rimfires aren't allowed is it's considered to be not powerful enough to consistently kill quickly and humanely. Pretty simple. Now why the 22-250 is not legal, I have no clue. Especially when you can legally hunt deer, bear, and elk with a 9mm Glock! :chuckle:Changing the minimum to .22 centerfire legalizes every .22, not just the 22-250. It includes very weak cartridges such as the 22 WCF which has maybe 250 ft lbs of energy.
If people can be trusted to use good judgment, 22 rimfires can be very effective as well.
Post by: huntnnw on December 07, 2016, 10:20:44 PM
Shooting a bear with a .223 doesn't seem like a good thing. I'm sure it would kill it, but I bet a lot more would get shot and not recovered then would get recovered.
people don't seem to realize the ribcage of a bear versus a deer is much weaker. Shoulder bones are equivalent of a deer of the same size. It don't matter if you make a poor shot with a .300 or a .223 kiss a bear goodbye. You have to double lung or heart a bear other than head shooting or spine shots which are low percentage
Post by: bobcat on December 07, 2016, 10:22:57 PM
I'm pretty sure the reason 22 rimfires aren't allowed is it's considered to be not powerful enough to consistently kill quickly and humanely. Pretty simple. Now why the 22-250 is not legal, I have no clue. Especially when you can legally hunt deer, bear, and elk with a 9mm Glock! :chuckle:Changing the minimum to .22 centerfire legalizes every .22, not just the 22-250. It includes very weak cartridges such as the 22 WCF which has maybe 250 ft lbs of energy.
If people can be trusted to use good judgment, 22 rimfires can be very effective as well.
That was just an example. The 22-250 isn't even questionable, in my mind, and my 22 WSSM is the pretty much the same. A rule could be written in such a way that would make the standard 223 Remington illegal but the 22-250 and 223 WSSM legal. It wouldn't necessarily have to be just a 22 centerfire minimum.
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 08, 2016, 06:44:54 AM
Shooting a bear with a .223 doesn't seem like a good thing. I'm sure it would kill it, but I bet a lot more would get shot and not recovered then would get recovered.
people don't seem to realize the ribcage of a bear versus a deer is much weaker. Shoulder bones are equivalent of a deer of the same size. It don't matter if you make a poor shot with a .300 or a .223 kiss a bear goodbye. You have to double lung or heart a bear other than head shooting or spine shots which are low percentage
Yeah people tend to think that black bears have thick hides but they don't. Like you said, bears need to be double lunged or heart shot to be consistently recovered.
Post by: JDHasty on December 08, 2016, 08:13:15 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 08, 2016, 08:17:42 AM
The poll has been right at 2:1 against changing the restriction since very early on. It doesn't appear that anyone is changing opinions based on arguments made here.
But the poll doesn't allow people to change their vote. One person even commented that after reading the arguments for changing it, he wanted to change his vote, but was unable to.
I think Wyoming had the same type of arguments against allowing the 223 caliber when they changed their law a few years ago.
Post by: Lefthook on December 08, 2016, 09:01:21 AM
The poll has been right at 2:1 against changing the restriction since very early on. It doesn't appear that anyone is changing opinions based on arguments made here.
But the poll doesn't allow people to change their vote. One person even commented that after reading the arguments for changing it, he wanted to change his vote, but was unable to.
I think Wyoming had the same type of arguments against allowing the 223 caliber when they changed their law a few years ago.
After the 9mm handgun legal comment and an old, first hand memory of my cousin dropping an elk in Montana with a .22-250 I would like to change my poll answer to allow .22 centerfire.
The elk was hit at the base of the skull with a .22-250 and dropped, not one step, no kicking and fighting, just plain dead. This was a shot taken by a guy that spent huge amounts of time popping groundhogs all day long. It was a very high percentage shot for him, ethical and legal kill in Montana.
Post by: Bill W on December 08, 2016, 09:10:58 AM
The poll has been right at 2:1 against changing the restriction since very early on. It doesn't appear that anyone is changing opinions based on arguments made here.
But the poll doesn't allow people to change their vote. One person even commented that after reading the arguments for changing it, he wanted to change his vote, but was unable to.
I think Wyoming had the same type of arguments against allowing the 223 caliber when they changed their law a few years ago.
I believe the person who commented on reading the arguments that he wanted to vote again. He wanted to vote another no. The subtlety of the post was lost on the OP.
Post by: bobcat on December 08, 2016, 09:21:21 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20161208%2F89e6acd694ccbf47264e79240bcfa3d2.jpg&hash=7c0a04259233d4bb6778be696f8db4e58e14b35b)
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 08, 2016, 09:29:17 AM
The 9mm legality makes sense if it allows someone to dispatch game with a handgun. But then why don't they simply allow use of knives or handguns as a legal means of dispatching game?One issue with the dispatch argument is the barrel length requirement. I think a snub nosed .357 mag or .44 special would dispatch an animal at two yards just fine, much better than a .25 acp with a 4 inch barrel.
Post by: Bob33 on December 08, 2016, 09:33:49 AM
Who gets to decide which .22 calibers are "good enough"? What is the standard? If a 22-250 is good enough, why isn't a 222 Remington, or a 218 Bee, or a 22 Hornet, or all the wildcats that have more energy than a 22-250? What happens when a new .22 caliber centerfire is introduced with even more energy?I'm pretty sure the reason 22 rimfires aren't allowed is it's considered to be not powerful enough to consistently kill quickly and humanely. Pretty simple. Now why the 22-250 is not legal, I have no clue. Especially when you can legally hunt deer, bear, and elk with a 9mm Glock! :chuckle:Changing the minimum to .22 centerfire legalizes every .22, not just the 22-250. It includes very weak cartridges such as the 22 WCF which has maybe 250 ft lbs of energy.
If people can be trusted to use good judgment, 22 rimfires can be very effective as well.
That was just an example. The 22-250 isn't even questionable, in my mind, and my 22 WSSM is the pretty much the same. A rule could be written in such a way that would make the standard 223 Remington illegal but the 22-250 and 223 WSSM legal. It wouldn't necessarily have to be just a 22 centerfire minimum.
There will be more debates about why a caliber is in or out than the College Football Playoffs.
Post by: Lefthook on December 08, 2016, 09:34:34 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 08, 2016, 09:40:20 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 08, 2016, 09:41:50 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 08, 2016, 09:42:05 AM
That's funny, makes the WDFW sound like amateurs.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on December 08, 2016, 09:42:31 AM
Since the rule says 6mm rifle and doesn't reference the actual bullet. Would an accelerator sabot be legal? :stirthepot:
It looks that way
Post by: bobcat on December 08, 2016, 09:47:58 AM
Who gets to decide which .22 calibers are "good enough"? What is the standard? If a 22-250 is good enough, why isn't a 222 Remington, or a 218 Bee, or a 22 Hornet, or all the wildcats that have more energy than a 22-250? What happens when a new .22 caliber centerfire is introduced with even more energy?I'm pretty sure the reason 22 rimfires aren't allowed is it's considered to be not powerful enough to consistently kill quickly and humanely. Pretty simple. Now why the 22-250 is not legal, I have no clue. Especially when you can legally hunt deer, bear, and elk with a 9mm Glock! :chuckle:Changing the minimum to .22 centerfire legalizes every .22, not just the 22-250. It includes very weak cartridges such as the 22 WCF which has maybe 250 ft lbs of energy.
If people can be trusted to use good judgment, 22 rimfires can be very effective as well.
That was just an example. The 22-250 isn't even questionable, in my mind, and my 22 WSSM is the pretty much the same. A rule could be written in such a way that would make the standard 223 Remington illegal but the 22-250 and 223 WSSM legal. It wouldn't necessarily have to be just a 22 centerfire minimum.
There will be more debates about why a caliber is in or out than the College Football Playoffs.
Do like Wyoming and have a minimum bullet weight, or pick a random amount of energy required at the muzzle, or simply name the specific cartridges that are legal. Writing a rule to allow some 223 caliber cartridges to be used doesn't seem like rocket science.
Post by: hunter399 on December 08, 2016, 10:13:53 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 08, 2016, 11:31:16 AM
I would like to see 223 22-250 just added as exception just like cougar,keep the 24 caliber rule with the this exception of these two calibers which are good deer calibers in other states.And just make a ban on fmj,for all calibers to prevent wounded deer run offs."...just like cougar" means all .22 centerfire calibers are legal.
I'm not aware of any state that has specific caliber restrictions or allowances within a caliber measurement such as .22 or .24.
Post by: Curly on December 08, 2016, 11:35:00 AM
I would like to see 223 22-250 just added as exception just like cougar,keep the 24 caliber rule with the this exception of these two calibers which are good deer calibers in other states.And just make a ban on fmj,for all calibers to prevent wounded deer run offs."...just like cougar" means all .22 centerfire calibers are legal.
I'm not aware of any state that has specific caliber restrictions or allowances within a caliber measurement such as .22 or .24.
You posted the WY rules on post #20, page 1 of this thread. They exclude .22 hornet in their requirements.
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;
Post by: Bob33 on December 08, 2016, 11:37:31 AM
You're right. You can use a 22 WCF in Wyoming to hunt deer.I would like to see 223 22-250 just added as exception just like cougar,keep the 24 caliber rule with the this exception of these two calibers which are good deer calibers in other states.And just make a ban on fmj,for all calibers to prevent wounded deer run offs."...just like cougar" means all .22 centerfire calibers are legal.
I'm not aware of any state that has specific caliber restrictions or allowances within a caliber measurement such as .22 or .24.
You posted the WY rules on post #20, page 1 of this thread. They exclude .22 hornet in their requirements.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;
Post by: Curly on December 08, 2016, 12:06:24 PM
I'm just pointing out that they could exclude certain cartridges if they wish. Even the 60 gr bullet criteria probably prohibits most .222 rem rifles from being able to be used since most probably won't be able to stabilize that large of a bullet.
Post by: bowbuild on December 10, 2016, 04:27:05 PM
I don't fully understand why you can't shoot coyotes in till deer season is over.U can shoot coyotes with any caliber.Bear might not be that great,they are kinda tough,and run a little farther.because my deer tags are either Archery or Muzzle Loader. Which means I cannot carry a legal deer caliber rifle to coyote hunt during deer season. Its in the rule book
Wrong...you can't be in the field. This was covered in another thread. In your vehicle is legal.
Post by: bajeep93 on December 10, 2016, 04:42:43 PM
I would like to see 223 22-250 just added as exception just like cougar,keep the 24 caliber rule with the this exception of these two calibers which are good deer calibers in other states.And just make a ban on fmj,for all calibers to prevent wounded deer run offs.Then everyone would want to argue that 220 swift should have been added.
This whole thing makes me think of this
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20161211%2F62ee3a82b1fd87c57af6e7099445aa79.jpg&hash=b5213ed0db2f5b80217ca1cf3d07e05ff18988d9)
(My s10 can do anything your f350 can)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on December 11, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on December 11, 2016, 01:40:26 PM
The 277 Wolverine
Post by: JJB11B on December 20, 2016, 07:17:48 PM
Post by: 2labs on December 20, 2016, 07:28:42 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 20, 2016, 07:32:42 PM
I would feel more comfy shooting a deer with my .204, 223 is kind of a dog! Sorry, where does it end? Leave it at 6mmWith good bullets and shot placement, my 17 HMR is deadly and has more energy than the 25 ACP.
Post by: konradcountry on January 01, 2017, 05:56:40 PM
I would feel more comfy shooting a deer with my .204, 223 is kind of a dog! Sorry, where does it end? Leave it at 6mm
Yea I can't believe anyone would want to change the rule.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to go practice elk hunting with my 4" 380 auto.
Post by: jackelope on January 02, 2017, 11:09:32 AM
Given the fact that this is more about having the freedom to do so rather than it being a good idea sort of trumps data, but I did pull 3 different ballistic charts. Lets use 200 yards for the sake of discussion. Is ~750 foot pounds of energy at 200 yards sufficient?
Post by: jackelope on January 02, 2017, 11:12:55 AM
Post by: jackelope on January 02, 2017, 11:15:23 AM
Post by: Stein on January 02, 2017, 11:21:45 AM
Who gets to decide which .22 calibers are "good enough"? What is the standard? If a 22-250 is good enough, why isn't a 222 Remington, or a 218 Bee, or a 22 Hornet, or all the wildcats that have more energy than a 22-250? What happens when a new .22 caliber centerfire is introduced with even more energy?I'm pretty sure the reason 22 rimfires aren't allowed is it's considered to be not powerful enough to consistently kill quickly and humanely. Pretty simple. Now why the 22-250 is not legal, I have no clue. Especially when you can legally hunt deer, bear, and elk with a 9mm Glock! :chuckle:Changing the minimum to .22 centerfire legalizes every .22, not just the 22-250. It includes very weak cartridges such as the 22 WCF which has maybe 250 ft lbs of energy.
If people can be trusted to use good judgment, 22 rimfires can be very effective as well.
That was just an example. The 22-250 isn't even questionable, in my mind, and my 22 WSSM is the pretty much the same. A rule could be written in such a way that would make the standard 223 Remington illegal but the 22-250 and 223 WSSM legal. It wouldn't necessarily have to be just a 22 centerfire minimum.
There will be more debates about why a caliber is in or out than the College Football Playoffs.
Do like Wyoming and have a minimum bullet weight, or pick a random amount of energy required at the muzzle, or simply name the specific cartridges that are legal. Writing a rule to allow some 223 caliber cartridges to be used doesn't seem like rocket science.
How can you verify bullet weight or muzzle velocity in the field? A game warden would have to confiscate your rifle and ammo and send it to a lab for testing.
The question I have is what do we have to gain by changing the rule? It seems to all boil down to 95% of the people wanting to hunt with a .223 AR and 5% wanting some random cartridge they have in the safe.
The way I see it is you either have a logical, enforceable limit or you don't. Keep it or completely throw it out. If you allow small caliber rounds with <1,000 ft lbs at 100 yards there really is no logical reason to not allow everything.
Post by: JJB11B on January 02, 2017, 11:22:28 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 02, 2017, 01:33:59 PM
Post by: JDHasty on January 02, 2017, 03:02:40 PM
I bet if you had an Amax type bullet in the 69gr coming out of a .22-250 or .220 you would have a great deer gun within 300 yds. depending on twist rate
How much do you want to bet? I will take that bet and raise the stakes that couldn't be able to keep 10/10 shots on a paper plate at 300 out of north of 95% of the 22-250 & 220 rifles out there.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 02, 2017, 03:07:05 PM
Post by: JJB11B on January 02, 2017, 03:27:04 PM
my rifle, me shootingI bet if you had an Amax type bullet in the 69gr coming out of a .22-250 or .220 you would have a great deer gun within 300 yds. depending on twist rate
How much do you want to bet? I will take that bet and raise the stakes that couldn't be able to keep 10/10 shots on a paper plate at 300 out of north of 95% of the 22-250 & 220 rifles out there.
Post by: jackelope on January 02, 2017, 03:29:25 PM
my rifle, me shootingI bet if you had an Amax type bullet in the 69gr coming out of a .22-250 or .220 you would have a great deer gun within 300 yds. depending on twist rate
How much do you want to bet? I will take that bet and raise the stakes that couldn't be able to keep 10/10 shots on a paper plate at 300 out of north of 95% of the 22-250 & 220 rifles out there.
Ya, I agree. I'm pretty sure my .22-250 would be 10/10
Post by: yorketransport on January 02, 2017, 03:46:29 PM
I bet if you had an Amax type bullet in the 69gr coming out of a .22-250 or .220 you would have a great deer gun within 300 yds. depending on twist rate
How much do you want to bet? I will take that bet and raise the stakes that couldn't be able to keep 10/10 shots on a paper plate at 300 out of north of 95% of the 22-250 & 220 rifles out there.
I represent a third part who chooses to remain anonymous, but accepts your bet. The prize will be a consecion to the other party's point of view.
Terms of the bet are as follows:
- Weapon will be an SPR
- Ammo will be Mk262
- Target size is 10"
- Range 300 yards
- Optics will be shooter's choice
The third party has acutually suggested that the target be a 3mph mover, but I feel like that's just being boastful. He may do it anyways though. :chuckle:
Post by: jackelope on January 02, 2017, 03:49:03 PM
I bet if you had an Amax type bullet in the 69gr coming out of a .22-250 or .220 you would have a great deer gun within 300 yds. depending on twist rate
How much do you want to bet? I will take that bet and raise the stakes that couldn't be able to keep 10/10 shots on a paper plate at 300 out of north of 95% of the 22-250 & 220 rifles out there.
I represent a third part who chooses to remain anonymous, but accepts your bet. The prize will be a consecion to the other party's point of view.
Terms of the bet are as follows:
- Weapon will be an SPR
- Ammo will be Mk262
- Target size is 10"
- Range 300 yards
- Optics will be shooter's choice
The third party has acutually suggested that the target be a 3mph mover, but I feel like that's just being boastful. He may do it anyways though. :chuckle:
I would like to remain anonymous as well, and would like my mover to go only 1.5mph in a northwesterly direction. I only have a single shot and don't believe in sprayin' and prayin'.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 02, 2017, 04:04:23 PM
:mgun:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on January 02, 2017, 06:18:04 PM
Post by: JJB11B on January 02, 2017, 06:26:09 PM
I bet I could hit a paperplate 10/10 with factory ammo out of a .22-250.I bet if you had an Amax type bullet in the 69gr coming out of a .22-250 or .220 you would have a great deer gun within 300 yds. depending on twist rate
How much do you want to bet? I will take that bet and raise the stakes that couldn't be able to keep 10/10 shots on a paper plate at 300 out of north of 95% of the 22-250 & 220 rifles out there.
Post by: JJB11B on January 02, 2017, 06:26:38 PM
I shoot heavys in my 22-250 even though the internet tells me they won't stabilize. Not only would I hit ten out of ten, but it would be a small group. :tup:the interntetz lies! and so do the keyboard commando's
Post by: Karl Blanchard on January 02, 2017, 06:43:37 PM
Post by: yorketransport on January 02, 2017, 08:28:45 PM
unless im mistaken, the implication he was getting at is that most, if not all factory .22-250's have a 12 twist and are meant for the smaller pills going really fast. The theory is a heavy bullet spun too slow won't stabilize, therefore not be accurate. I shoot bullets that "won't stabilize" in several rifles and they do infact shoot very well. the big bergers in my 22-250 is just one example.
With enough velocity, you can make any bullet stabilize! :tup:
New thread started for the 300 yard 22 center fire competition!
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,206914.0.html
Post by: Karl Blanchard on January 02, 2017, 08:46:24 PM
:chuckle:unless im mistaken, the implication he was getting at is that most, if not all factory .22-250's have a 12 twist and are meant for the smaller pills going really fast. The theory is a heavy bullet spun too slow won't stabilize, therefore not be accurate. I shoot bullets that "won't stabilize" in several rifles and they do infact shoot very well. the big bergers in my 22-250 is just one example.
With enough velocity, you can make any bullet stabilize! :tup:
New thread started for the 300 yard 22 center fire competition!
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,206914.0.html
Post by: Jolten on January 02, 2017, 08:50:45 PM
I bet if you had an Amax type bullet in the 69gr coming out of a .22-250 or .220 you would have a great deer gun within 300 yds. depending on twist rate
How much do you want to bet? I will take that bet and raise the stakes that couldn't be able to keep 10/10 shots on a paper plate at 300 out of north of 95% of the 22-250 & 220 rifles out there.
I represent a third part who chooses to remain anonymous, but accepts your bet. The prize will be a consecion to the other party's point of view.
Terms of the bet are as follows:
- Weapon will be an SPR
- Ammo will be Mk262
- Target size is 10"
- Range 300 yards
- Optics will be shooter's choice
The third party has acutually suggested that the target be a 3mph mover, but I feel like that's just being boastful. He may do it anyways though. :chuckle:
That sounds like a notorious fellow with an AR fetish.
Post by: JJB11B on January 02, 2017, 08:51:33 PM
we should get biggerhammer in on thisI bet if you had an Amax type bullet in the 69gr coming out of a .22-250 or .220 you would have a great deer gun within 300 yds. depending on twist rate
How much do you want to bet? I will take that bet and raise the stakes that couldn't be able to keep 10/10 shots on a paper plate at 300 out of north of 95% of the 22-250 & 220 rifles out there.
I represent a third part who chooses to remain anonymous, but accepts your bet. The prize will be a consecion to the other party's point of view.
Terms of the bet are as follows:
- Weapon will be an SPR
- Ammo will be Mk262
- Target size is 10"
- Range 300 yards
- Optics will be shooter's choice
The third party has acutually suggested that the target be a 3mph mover, but I feel like that's just being boastful. He may do it anyways though. :chuckle:
That sounds like a notorious fellow with an AR fetish.
Post by: JDHasty on January 02, 2017, 08:57:47 PM
When you look at the print on the target with a loop you can see that the bullet is tipping.
Post by: JJB11B on January 02, 2017, 10:27:22 PM
Post by: JJB11B on January 02, 2017, 10:29:19 PM
I was at the range and a couple guys showed up with a 700 BDL Varmint in 22-250 and had loaded up a bunch of 75 Gr A-max. The few that arrived on target were sideways. They had them loaded all the way up to where the bolt was sticking and things never got better for them. A lot of early 220s have a 1:16 barrel on them and would not do as well as a 1:14 22-250. These bullets were not tipping, they were flying end over end and I doubt a six grain lighter bullet would do much better. I have seen enough 1:14 22-250s that will shoot a 55 V-max, but about as many 1:14 barrels don't.i killed coyotes with my old 1:14" BDL .22-250 with 55grain noslers out to 420 yards
When you look at the print on the target with a loop you can see that the bullet is tipping.