collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas  (Read 1647 times)

Offline CP

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Posts: 5024
  • Location: Everett
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2020, 05:07:32 PM »
I’d like to see this change.   I put together a 450 Bushmaster pistol for firearm restricted hunting.  Seems pretty stupid that a rifle in the same caliber is illegal.

But if they made this change I’d have get another upper.

Unless something changed, that wouldn’t be legal based on my conversations with WDFW. The “revolver type handgun” wording would rule out an AR pistol. I was told (probably 10 years ago) that not even a single shot pistol like a TC Contender was legal in a FRA. I went round and round about my 44 Mag contender not being allowed, but my 45-70 revolver was.

No, your Contender isn't legal, and it still wouldn't be legal under the changes proposed above.  But my 450 BM is a "semiautomatic handgun of .40 (10 mm) caliber or larger" and therefore legal.  I think they made that change last year.


Offline yorketransport

  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 3232
  • Location: Yelm
  • I'm sorry, it's my fault I'll try harder next time
    • https://www.facebook.com/scapegoatenterprises/
    • Scapegoat Enterprises
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2020, 05:35:07 PM »
Here is the current WAC.

(d) Modern firearm tag holders may hunt during established modern firearm seasons with bows and arrows; crossbows; muzzleloaders; revolver-type handguns; semiautomatic handguns of .40 (10 mm) caliber or larger; or shotguns, so long as the equipment and ammunition complies with department rules.

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-413-180


Unless something changed, that wouldn’t be legal based on my conversations with WDFW. The “revolver type handgun” wording would rule out an AR pistol. I was told (probably 10 years ago) that not even a single shot pistol like a TC Contender was legal in a FRA. I went round and round about my 44 Mag contender not being allowed, but my 45-70 revolver was.

No, your Contender isn't legal, and it still wouldn't be legal under the changes proposed above.  But my 450 BM is a "semiautomatic handgun of .40 (10 mm) caliber or larger" and therefore legal.  I think they made that change last year.
[/quote]

Well, look at that! Good to see some movement in that department.
Scapegoat Enterprises Custom Shirts and Decals

Offline konradcountry

  • Non-Hunting & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2016
  • Posts: 684
  • Location: SouthWest
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2020, 11:46:51 AM »
The big difference with the Eastern states is that the restricted areas in Wa are small and mostly privately owned by non-hunters. In fact a lot of the islands have transplants that are anti-hunter.

The existing pistol regs don't make sense and they haven't changed them. Technically you can hunt elk in our state with a 38 special.

A lot of people have asked that 223 be allowed for deer and that has been ignored.

I would just build an AR pistol. They are quite controllable and you can keep them loaded in your vehicle.

Offline Chad McMullen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2020
  • Posts: 18
  • Location: Kitsap County - north end
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2020, 12:19:21 PM »
Let's get back on topic here, gentlemen -- "pistol-cartridge" and "straight-wall cartridge" rifles in FRAs...not bottleneck .223 pistols, or the unsuitability of .38 special, or why .223/5.56 might be appropriate, or the "impossibility" of WDFW amending the current FRA firearm list because they haven't adopted some previous suggestion in the past.

Clearly they sometimes DO modify the rules when there's a sufficient argument and they hear enough voices in favor...maybe

Offline CP

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Posts: 5024
  • Location: Everett
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2020, 01:21:06 PM »
Okay, back on topic.  I suggest some changes to your proposed change:


rifles firearms chambered for straight-wall cartridges discussed below; or shotguns, so long as the equipment and ammunition complies with department rules. Allowable straight-wall cartridges fired from rifles firearms shall have a minimum diameter of 0.35 inches. Legal cartridges must have a minimum case length of 1.25 inches and a maximum case length 2.25 inches. .38 special, .44 special, and similar cartridges of reduced energy are not legal for use on big game.

Offline Chad McMullen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2020
  • Posts: 18
  • Location: Kitsap County - north end
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2020, 01:44:34 PM »
rifles firearms chambered for straight-wall cartridges discussed below; or shotguns, so long as the equipment and ammunition complies with department rules. Allowable straight-wall cartridges fired from rifles firearms shall have a minimum diameter of 0.35 inches. Legal cartridges must have a minimum case length of 1.25 inches and a maximum case length 2.25 inches. .38 special, .44 special, and similar cartridges of reduced energy are not legal for use on big game.

  Hey - this makes some sense.  No arguing with the game officer whether a "carbine" counts as a "rifle", and it fixes a pointless exclusion: revolvers are allowed, and semi-auto (10mm+) pistols are allowed - but as the law is written now it excludes single-shot pistols.

Offline mikeybuck

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 116
  • Location: sw wa
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2020, 01:56:06 PM »
I'm all for it. I've sent emails before. Would love to use my Ruger 44 carbine.

That that said, I have no issues with my shotgun. But my wife can't handle the recoil of the shotgun with slugs. Kinda sucks cause she would like to hunt in the back yard. She has no issues shooting one of the 44 or 357 carbines.

Offline Chad McMullen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2020
  • Posts: 18
  • Location: Kitsap County - north end
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2020, 02:20:54 PM »
I'm all for it. I've sent emails before. Would love to use my Ruger 44 carbine.

The next three-year cycle for significant rule changes starts later this year, when WDFW cracks open the treasure chest of accumulated "significant rule change" suggestions of the past three years. Adoption of a pistol-caliber/straight-wall caliber rifle/carbine rule change to FRAs could potentially hit the books for the 2021 season…but I know better than to hold my breath.

The WDFW person I spoke with (also about two weeks ago) was generally receptive but also said an important thing they take into consideration is public support, and hearing from many voices favoring any particular rule change. This played a substantial role in WDFW incorporating 209 primers and other modifications to muzzleloading equipment rules, and also the adoption of crossbows. The WDFW guy said that the muzzies and the archers are good at banding together, speaking with common goals, and getting their ideas to be heard -- but for whatever reason, the modern firearm hunters tend to be less organized...

...But my wife can't handle the recoil of the shotgun with slugs. Kinda sucks cause she would like to hunt in the back yard. She has no issues shooting one of the 44 or 357 carbines.

I'm with you there -- I can handle a mule kick to the shoulder just fine - I am 6'4" and 240lbs - but that should NOT have to be the standard, or be a barrier to entry for the harvest of big game by smaller-framed hunters.  And for what it's worth, the target practice involved with becoming proficient with a .357 mag or .44 mag (etc.) is both less intimidating, much cheaper, and far more FUN than it is with a shotgun and slugs.  Doesn't WDFW have an interest in growing the ranks of the hunting public?  Well there's an idea...

Offline luvmystang67

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 1720
  • Location: Snohomish
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2020, 02:39:19 PM »
I was thinking of picking up one of these bad boys for exactly this purpose:

https://www.academy.com/shop/pdp/henry-mares-leg-44-remington-magnum-lever-action-pistol

Part of me wishes they'd just start a running list of calibers that meet criteria for firearm restriction instead of being so vague.  With the growth in firearm restricted areas why can't they just say the following list of rounds are admissible in a firearm restricted area:

.44 Mag
.41 Mag
.357 Mag
.30-30 (maybe)
.45-70 (maybe)
etc.

These rules are in place for safety and to limit how far a projectile will fly, you cant tell me a 12 gauge sabot slug is any better/worse than a .44 mag rifle, its just he rifle should be more accurate.  They should love this compromise.  Plus it'd be FUN!  Imagine us all out there with our lever action rifles.  I  really hate shotguns for deer.  I always use my muzzy instead.

Offline Chad McMullen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2020
  • Posts: 18
  • Location: Kitsap County - north end
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2020, 03:00:44 PM »
I was thinking of picking up one of these bad boys for exactly this purpose:

https://www.academy.com/shop/pdp/henry-mares-leg-44-remington-magnum-lever-action-pistol

Part of me wishes they'd just start a running list of calibers that meet criteria for firearm restriction instead of being so vague.  With the growth in firearm restricted areas why can't they just say the following list of rounds are admissible in a firearm restricted area:

.44 Mag
.41 Mag
.357 Mag
.30-30 (maybe)
.45-70 (maybe)
etc.

These rules are in place for safety and to limit how far a projectile will fly, you cant tell me a 12 gauge sabot slug is any better/worse than a .44 mag rifle, its just he rifle should be more accurate.  They should love this compromise.  Plus it'd be FUN!  Imagine us all out there with our lever action rifles.  I  really hate shotguns for deer.  I always use my muzzy instead.

I worked out the trajectories for 12g and 20g sabot slugs and the common lever-action revolver rounds - .357 mag, .44 mag, .45 Colt, and .454 Casull -- for all practical purposes, the flight paths for all of those are identical when they're zeroed to 100 yards.  When fired from the level at a height of 36 inches, they all hit the dirt inside of 275 yards.  .45-70 will go perhaps 25 yards farther.  Some of the newer bear cartridges, plus bottlenecks like .30-30 may go considerable further.

There is some advantage to a rule change naming specific allowed cartridges -- but then inevitably some worthy-but-obscure cartridge will be left off the list, and outrage ensues...it's also a lot for the enforcement officer to have to keep track of. By specifying min-max casing dimensions you give the EO an easy go/no-go criteria, and something that can be measured directly, and in the field.

Offline luvmystang67

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 1720
  • Location: Snohomish
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2020, 03:21:20 PM »
I missed your actual proposal.  I like it.

I was also thinking that lever guns (as they currently exist) have practical limits on the power they can accept and the types of cartridges they can use.  You could ALMOST specify that lever action guns are acceptable and it would nearly cover you.

I do like your wording though and think that it would work, as long as you don't exclude those folks who have made guns for the .50 beowulf / .45 bushmaster / .458 socom.




Offline Chad McMullen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2020
  • Posts: 18
  • Location: Kitsap County - north end
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2020, 03:34:36 PM »
There is little doubt that hunting deer with a cowboy lever-gun is a damn sexy option! Serious style points.  I will be fighting off hordes of attractive women left and right -- I will need to redouble my camouflaging efforts...

Offline Bango skank

  • Non-Hunting & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2014
  • Posts: 4920
  • Location: colville
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2020, 04:15:03 PM »
There is little doubt that hunting deer with a cowboy lever-gun is a damn sexy option! Serious style points.  I will be fighting off hordes of attractive women left and right -- I will need to redouble my camouflaging efforts...

Ive made a decent number of lever kills.  Dont seem to have that problem.  I guess i must have good camo.  :dunno:

Offline konradcountry

  • Non-Hunting & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2016
  • Posts: 684
  • Location: SouthWest
Re: Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas
« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2020, 09:15:40 AM »
Let's get back on topic here, gentlemen -- "pistol-cartridge" and "straight-wall cartridge" rifles in FRAs...not bottleneck .223 pistols, or the unsuitability of .38 special, or why .223/5.56 might be appropriate, or the "impossibility" of WDFW amending the current FRA firearm list because they haven't adopted some previous suggestion in the past.

Clearly they sometimes DO modify the rules when there's a sufficient argument and they hear enough voices in favor...maybe

I wasn't suggesting that you build a 223 pistol. I was pointing out that there was a lot of support for allowing 223 but they haven't changed that rule.

What I did suggest is building an AR pistol in a hunt legal caliber. It will outrange a 44 or 357 carbine easily.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Weyehauser Pe Ell south (walk-in) by birdstew
[Today at 08:28:24 PM]


sunrise and sun set pics bring them on by Skillet
[Today at 08:27:20 PM]


bow sight by Rubenation1981
[Today at 08:26:56 PM]


Anyone running multi pin with a slider? by Rubenation1981
[Today at 08:18:08 PM]


Archery Shop KITSAP Peninsula by Rubenation1981
[Today at 08:13:09 PM]


Best way to figure out draw length by Rubenation1981
[Today at 08:08:42 PM]


What's your go to hunting arrow? by Rubenation1981
[Today at 08:07:39 PM]


Quality elk tag numbers by dvolmer
[Today at 07:53:18 PM]


Tag Drawing Results by Jolten
[Today at 07:47:37 PM]


Nightforce SHV 5-20x56 by coop2424
[Today at 07:36:28 PM]


Shrimp? by Skillet
[Today at 07:24:13 PM]


49 bears?! by StuckoYota99
[Today at 07:13:08 PM]


Double baby stroller by Jpmiller
[Today at 06:49:32 PM]


Share your 'Post-Ban' fish catches here! by Mfowl
[Today at 06:38:38 PM]


Lead for sale by bracer40
[Today at 06:33:45 PM]


Bunnies galore by Encore 280
[Today at 06:33:23 PM]


Colt buntline 22lr by black hog
[Today at 06:29:12 PM]


Price drop: Christensen Mesa Long Range Rifle by jstone
[Today at 05:52:25 PM]


Library has Discover passes for check out. Whitman County. by Buckhunter24
[Today at 05:40:56 PM]


Give back by nwwanderer
[Today at 05:30:36 PM]