Minimum caliber for BC big game

[Jetboat]

Do you think BC should impose a mandatory minimum caliber for hunting big game in our province? I can't believe all the guys I've spoken with that own a .223 or .22-250 and think it's perfect for moose, elk and deer. IMHO the minimum for big game (other than wolf) should be .243/6mm. What's your thoughts on this?

[scuba]

i think a .223/22-250 is ok for deer but definately to small for anything bigger. i also know guys that swear by those calibers for moose and elk?:confused: who knows maybe they know something we don't???

[3kills]

what do the eskimos use for polar bears and everything else that they hunt???.223's and 22-2250 is what i have been told...personally i think every one needs a magnum for deer and everything else ;) lol....

[ruger#1]

Shot-placement is King. Adequate penetration is queen. Everything else is angels dancing on the heads of pins.

[Pete]

ANY firearm can be deadly in the hands of a skilled marksman but how many go out and actually practice those skills on a regular basis?
Pete

[Gateholio]

I think that we have enough rules to govern us, and we should let the hunter choose for himself...

As it is we have a cartridge restriction for bison, which is not a well thought out rule.

[Nalidixic]

I agree with gatehouse but I do have a question to go along with this thread. How come canadian geese and other migratory birds can't be taken with a centerfire or rimfire? If all the geese are sitting in the middle of a field why not just pick one off for dinner? Am I missing something? Maybe someone could explain that for me please :P

Mike

[Will]

If all the geese are sitting in the middle of a field why not just pick one off for dinner? Am I missing something? Maybe someone could explain that for me please :P
They have been known on occasion to take flight...;)

Oh ya a Min Cal rule is Stupid...........once again it assumes that Cartridge/bore size will make up for $hitty marksmanship.

[mapguy]

head shot while in flight now that might be a challenge
but in the middle of a field just plain good practice
body shots don't count

[Barracuda]

the way they are set up now with big game centerfire and small game rimfire is not a bad set of rules. the buffalo requirement does not make the most sence to me but many fire arms fullfill that requirment and the odds of getting a draw really makes it a moot point for myself .The one other thing is a 12 bore shotgun with slugs should be allowed for moose like it is back east

[peterrum3]

I agree with Gatehouse and you cannot legislate common sense and very difficult to require testing for proficiency. As long as the person using the smaller calibre round is proficient with it who are we to say that they shouldn't. Ruger is also right and shot placement is king. I know some poachers who have knocked moose down with a .22 LR. I don't know them personally but I saw the results of their action. It was their placement that worked.

[Gateholio]

I never understood the shotgun thing either..A .22 Hornet is legal, but a 12 guage wiht Brenneke slugs isn't?:tongue:

[Seeadler]

I think it is best to leave well enough alone. The restrictions that are in place already are pretty absurd. IE, no traditional 45-70 for bison.

[dougan]

i have a 22-250 and have and would again take a 150 to 200 yard head or neck shot on a deer this rifle is my sweetheart and it will drop a deer as well as any rifle in my safe. its cheep to reload so i can practice lots.

[Marc]

The reason behind this was because when they first introduced this rule the ducks and geese had taken a shit kicking from the market hunters. Their numbers were at an all time low. It would be too easy to sneak on the edge of a field and pluck a bird with a center fire rifle or 22. But try and do the same with a shotgun, it's amazing how good their eyes are. The Migratory Bird Permit is a Federal License so they figured they’d keep the same restriction for the whole country.


The rules never changed and I for one am glad they haven't. I've had my duck blind and decoy spread sprayed with bird shot on occasion and have had 22 caliber ricochet off the water around me by some idiot who figured he'd get an easy meal. Concealment is a big part of duck hunting with trying to make your decoy spread and presentation to look as real as possible. I figure if 22 and centre fires were allowed for migratory game birds we’d have a lot more hunting accidents.



I agree with gatehouse but I do have a question to go along with this thread. How come canadian geese and other migratory birds can't be taken with a centerfire or rimfire? If all the geese are sitting in the middle of a field why not just pick one off for dinner? Am I missing something? Maybe someone could explain that for me please :P

Mike

[moose hunter]

Off topic a bit but is it legal to shoot yotes with rimfire it isnt in the regs?

[Phreddy]

Do you think BC should impose a mandatory minimum caliber for hunting big game in our province? I can't believe all the guys I've spoken with that own a .223 or .22-250 and think it's perfect for moose, elk and deer. IMHO the minimum for big game (other than wolf) should be .243/6mm. What's your thoughts on this?
I couldn't agree more Jetboat, but I would take it one step further and set .270 as minimum for anything bigger than deer. Too many injured critters due to lack of knock down power happening in the bush today by folks who have no idea what they are doing. They pass their CORE exam and figure that they know everthing that they need to know. Unfortunately, they also tend to forget that common sense is a major factor in hunting and as a result, give the rest of us a bad name as well.

[Will]

I think it is best to leave well enough alone. The restrictions that are in place already are pretty absurd. IE, no traditional 45-70 for bison.
Actually with most modern 45-70 loads even some "Factory" loads make the 2000 ftlbs at a 100 requirement and certainly beat the 175 grain min too:wink:

Although I agree very silly one cannot use an original loaded BlackPowder Sharps in 45-70...seemed to work well enough a hundred years ago :???:


Off topic a bit but is it legal to shoot yotes with rimfire it isnt in the regs?
Yes you may use Rimfires Legally on Yotes.....
Page 16......under Other Small Game :wink:

[browningboy]

minimum cal should be a 300 win mag!:cool:

[bcfarmer]

I couldn't agree more Jetboat, but I would take it one step further and set .270 as minimum for anything bigger than deer. Too many injured critters due to lack of knock down power happening in the bush today by folks who have no idea what they are doing. They pass their CORE exam and figure that they know everthing that they need to know. Unfortunately, they also tend to forget that common sense is a major factor in hunting and as a result, give the rest of us a bad name as well.


a question...how is going to a .270 minimum going to compensate for someone's lack of common sense? as has already been stated...practice and shot placement not caliber should be the criteria. my .02

bcf

[Ciskman]

a question...how is going to a .270 minimum going to compensate for someone's lack of common sense? as has already been stated...practice and shot placement not caliber should be the criteria. my .02

bcf

Agreed...shot placement is the most important. Lack of common sense is buying larger calibers to make up for inaccuracy.

[Gateholio]

I'd much rather follow up a moose shot behind the shoudler wiht a 223 and a TSX bullet, than the same moose, shot in the guts or ass wiht a 300 Magnum.

[Jetboat]

I have no doubt that an experienced rifleman with an accurate rifle, taking closer range, broadside shots with a solid rest at stationary animals can cleanly harvest moose & elk with a .223 Rem using heavy for caliber premium bullets. Perhaps I worded my original question wrong. Lets try this..."Do you support shooting at bull moose & elk across agricultural fields at ranges exceeding 250 yards with a .223/.22-250 class cartridges utilizing 45gr-55gr SP projectiles by the one-box-of-shells-a-year guys?"

[Ciskman]

Well my answer is no, but my reasoning is the same. A "one box a year guy" or anybody for that matter should not be shooting out of his/her comfort range no matter what the caliber.

[ruger#1]

I do not,There isnt enough foot pounds of energy to kill the animal.

[Gateholio]

I have no doubt that an experienced rifleman with an accurate rifle, taking closer range, broadside shots with a solid rest at stationary animals can cleanly harvest moose & elk with a .223 Rem using heavy for caliber premium bullets. Perhaps I worded my original question wrong. Lets try this..."Do you support shooting at bull moose & elk across agricultural fields at ranges exceeding 250 yards with a .223/.22-250 class cartridges utilizing 45gr-55gr SP projectiles by the one-box-of-shells-a-year guys?"

No, but that is impossible to legislate against this small segment of hunters, without penalizing everyone else.

[Rob]

A Guy I work with, shot an Elk with a .243, he teaches the C.O.R.E. And has for a lot of years, He'll be the first one to tell you that shot placement is the most important key, not calibre. Rob

[ruger#1]

Penetration is the second most important thing, and at 250 yrds with a 223 or a 22-250 you do not have enough killing power. like a 243.

[Rob]

I think one of the biggest Griz was taken with a 22lr, by an old native lady picking berries, many years ago with one shot. I dont think her main objective at the time was shot placement,but nontheless it worked for her at the time.(Not saying we should all try this:eek:).Rob

[ruger#1]

What distance was the bear shot at. 10 20 30 40 50 yrds.

[alremkin]

In theory, I'm in favor of having minimum calibers for game. Practically speaking it would be too difficult to administer; we already have too many regs. Hopefully common sense will prevail; however, it seems that if common sense was an animal, it would be an endangered species, lol. So in retrospect it's probably better just to talk about the subject rather than pass more restricting laws.

I usually find myself hunting elk and moose in grizzly country so I don't feel comfortable with anything less than my 338 Win Mag. It shoots well, but is not a range gun. I sighted it in last week, and it needed it. 4 shots caused a small bruise on my shoulder, so I was lucky that was all it took to sight-in. I have several lighter rifles for shooting including my favorite target rifle my 222 Rem and also two heavier rifles which I've yet to sight-in partially because of the beating I'll take to sight-in. Then of course on top of the caliber argument is the use of new higher quality bullets which I'll leave for other discussions.:idea:

[Rob]

Hey Ruger #1, I googled it-1953 Alberta native women @ Slave Lake single shot .22, no mention on distance. I cant cut or paste:(, google it and you,ll find it pretty quick.Rob

[Rock Doctor]

I agree with those that say "leave well enough alone".
I wouldn't hesitate to take a Moose or Elk with my Swift or my .222 under the right conditions, but I also wouldn't go looking for them with those calibers.

[CanAm500]

I think that we have enough rules to govern us, and we should let the hunter choose for himself...

As it is we have a cartridge restriction for bison, which is not a well thought out rule.


x. I totally agree with gatehouse!

[RiverOtter]

what do the eskimos use for polar bears and everything else that they hunt???.223's and 22-2250 is what i have been told...personally i think every one needs a magnum for deer and everything else ;) lol....

In all fairness, where is a wounded animal going to hide in a land without trees. If a hunter takes the time to match his shot placement to his caliber limitations, I don't see a problem. Bow hunters do it all the time.

RO

[ruger#1]

Dont worry rob i pasted that post up here before ,I think her name was Belle

[browningboy]

I firmly believe it should be a 650 nitro express!! Enough of the pea shooters!:lol:;)

[Phreddy]

While I agree that shot placement is very important, I get kind of tired of seeing the "weekend warriors" who have just passed their CORE and PAL, and done little or no target shooting then going out into the great outdoors with a pea shooter, firing at a critter, assuming he/she missed, and leaving the animal to die a long painful death. When I hit it, I want it to go down......now.
By telling folks all you need is a .222 or some likewise small arm for moose and elk is just ensuring that some of these characters create lots of cripples. Like goose hunting with a .410 I don't care how accurate some folks think they are, they are just being ignorant by using less power than required for a good, clean, quick kill.

[Gateholio]

By telling folks all you need is a .222 or some likewise small arm for moose and elk is just ensuring that some of these characters create lots of cripples. Like goose hunting with a .410 I don't care how accurate some folks think they are, they are just being ignorant by using less power than required for a good, clean, quick kill.

Nobody is saying that!!:shock:

What we are saying is that we dont need any more rules.

I suggest to new hunters that they get a 308 or 7-08..Sometign easy to handle, but wiht excellent killing power. The 223 is an experts gun, no more, no less...

[Phreddy]

Nobody is saying that!!:shock:

What we are saying is that we dont need any more rules.

I suggest to new hunters that they get a 308 or 7-08..Sometign easy to handle, but wiht excellent killing power. The 223 is an experts gun, no more, no less...

I heartily agree, but keep in mind that there are a lot of inexperienced hunters on this forum who are looking for advice on how to become effective hunters, and many of the comments posted so far are telling them to go out into the bush, inadequately armed, because a small bore is all they need.

While I don't like rules anymore than the next person, I have to think about how my comments are going to be interpreted by these folks. I believe it's my responsibilty to do what I can to help the new guy become a good, responsible hunter, who in turn will pass it on to others.
Not trying to sh-t disturb. Just trying to put things in perspective.

[Barracuda]

Most any newby hunter isnt normally gonna go for the light for game calibers. In fact i think that the problem for most of them is that they get too much gun for themselves after listening to armchair sportmen and overzealus gunshop guros trying to flog the latest and greatest super duper magnum round. .
There are so many publications and charts on suitable rounds for game that a new to the sport person would have a hard time not knowing what a normally accepted caliber for game would be.

I see any need to add any extra rules in regards to caliber or cartridges for game species as most of it is common sence (besides, dont they also teach suitable cartridges for game when you do the core?)

Just my two bits

[Gateholio]

Phreddy, I understand what youa re saying, but I believe in telling the truth. Truth is, a 223 wihta good bullet, in the hands of an expert, will kill deer cleanly.

It's not a moose cartridge, although it has been done. A far, far better option for big game hunting in BC is to look at a bigger cartridge, such as the 7-08 and 308, far more sensible starting points.:D

[rollingrock]

I think the price of hunting ammo is one of the factors that makes some people unwilling to practice more at the range. How much is a box of 20 rounds for .338 or .300 WSM or even 7-08? Even the bullets for reloading for these calibres are very expensive. People have paid too much attention to the grouping of their guns instead of their own shooting skills.

Instead of regulating the calibres for hunting, I'd rather see some caps on the power of scopes. Scopes make people lazier. :lol:Fair chase with high power scope? Gimme a break!

[Gateholio]

[quote=rollingrock;181340]I think the price of hunting ammo is one of the factors that makes some people unwilling to practice more at the range. How much is a box of 20 rounds for .338 or .300 WSM or even 7-08? Even the bullets for reloading for these calibres are very expensive. People have paid too much attention to the grouping of their guns instead of their own shooting skills.

I don't understand this mentality. Ammo is cheap compared tot he cost of a hunting trip.


Instead of regulating the calibres for hunting, I'd rather see some caps on the power of scopes. Scopes make people lazier. :lol:Fair chase with high power scope? Gimme a break

:roll::roll:

[MichelD]

There' no doubt the smaller calibres can do the job within their limitations.

My father used to regularly take blacktail deer on northern Vancouver Island with a 22 Hornet, but he still hunted marshy semi-alpine meadows and ambushed deer at 20 to 60 yards and aimed only for the neck.

I'm not recommending this, just reporting it. And yes I know of one wounded one we never recovered.

Another buddy up there killed a black bear with a 222, shooting it in the neck.

Do I recommend the 222 as a black bear cartridge? No.
But like the lady with the 22 killing a grizzly or the Inuit using 223 or 243 on polar bears. Shot placement counts.

I've dropped blackies with a 243 and had 'em run hit with a 300.

[rollingrock]

[quote]

I don't understand this mentality. Ammo is cheap compared tot he cost of a hunting trip.



:roll::roll:

I think it's understandable. If a box of 20 rounds costs you 50 bucks plus tax, are you willing to shoot two or three boxes of them down the range just for practicing?

[browningboy]

I think it comes down to their ability of shooting and how they react to something getting away wounded, it seems quite simple really, a poor shot from either is $hit, but the larger caliber will always do more damage.
Now the smaller calibers are fine but shot placement is a key, where there's a little more room for error (I guess you can say) for something quite abit larger, its just the way it is, not everyone will agree but its just black and white to me.;)
Ie- The bigger the bullet, the bigger the hole, more blood loss etc......
Well thats my theory.:wink:

[Gateholio]

Considering I probably spend upwards of a thousand dollars per year in ammunition components, $150 is no big deal for me. :smile:

Considerign one hunting trip far exceeds $150, i'd say that anyone that doesn't spend some time practicing is gambling far more than $100-$150 in practice ammo..

There are lower cost ammo options avialable for most cartridges, and if cost is a concern, I'd suggest a 308, so that you can buy *really* low cost ammo

[rollingrock]

Considering I probably spend upwards of a thousand dollars per year in ammunition components, $150 is no big deal for me. :smile:

There are lower cost ammo options avialable for most cartridges, and if cost is a concern, I'd suggest a 308, so that you can buy *really* low cost ammo.

That's actually my point. :smile:

When picking a gun one should also look into the cost of the ammo for that calibre and different options for that cal. Actually not everyone can afford for over a thousand bucks on ammo each year. But shooting skill is a key factor of success of hunting, so the cost of practicing is definitely something to bear in mind.

I've spent total 6 hours at my range to test and practice my new Mosin M44 and put 200 rounds through the barrel. All of them were handloaded. Now it's ready to go for the critters. Each round cost me about 50 cents I think. But if I've bought a 338 shooting with premium bullets, for the cost of 200 rounds for 338 I could have bought a brand new scoped and sighted Stevens 200. How much does a hunting trip cost me? Gas, 100 dollars. If the trip is successful it might cost me some money on butchering depending on what I harvest. Or even some money for taxidermy, but that's another matter.

[alremkin]

Hm, well I don't think we should only think about the cost of ammo; there's also the ethics of being practiced enough with your rifle to hit what you're shooting at. To do this some form of begining competive shooting is good, so that one can build their skill level so that for many years afterward just sighting in the rifle will be enough. For new shooters 100 rounds/year may not be enough considering that after sighting one should put in considerable practice from the positions one will use while hunting. Foremost being standing, but some practice should be put into sitting, kneeling and prone. Prone especially if you've got a bi-pod. Shooting from the bench will tell you how well the gun shoots once you can hold it steady. How well YOU shoot is determined from real life huntings positions standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone. It takes time to build shooting skill. My suggestion for those who don't handload is to buy 10 boxes of quality hunting ammo sight your rifle in with that. Then look for the off season sales at gun shops and mail order places and stock-up on cheap ammo for your standing practice and/or buy a .22 for practice.:roll:

[Phreddy]

[quote=alremkin;181377]after sighting one should put in considerable practice from the positions one will use while hunting. Foremost being standing, but some practice should be put into sitting, kneeling and prone. Prone especially if you've got a bi-pod. Shooting from the bench will tell you how well the gun shoots once you can hold it steady. How well YOU shoot is determined from real life huntings positions standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone. It takes time to build shooting skill. My suggestion for those who don't handload is to buy 10 boxes of quality hunting ammo sight your rifle in with that. Then look for the off season sales at gun shops and mail order places and stock-up on cheap ammo for your standing practice and/or buy a .22 for practice./quote]

I agree wholeheartedly Remkin. I use the bench to sight in while building up my loads, then once I've got the grouping I want I zero it in on the position on the target I want the group to be in.
Reloading my own has really opened up a new window of interest for me, and as mentioned earlier, it sure cuts the cost of ammo down. This all takes care of "how the gun shoots".
The 22 provides good opportunity to continually practice shooting from all positions, under all conditions, with enonomy in mind. Faithful application of this inexpensive plinking takes care of "how I shoot".

[4pointer]

Back in Laos, my father used his M1 carbine and 12 gauge to kill Banteng, which is like cape buffalo. The M16(.223) was used a lot for hunting and had easily taken bear and elk. We never had hunting rifles in country but there was plenty of military weapons. All shooting mil spec ammo. With full metal jacket and armor piercing rounds, even the small M1 carbine (.30 carbine) was able to penetrate and pass through banteng with ease. As much have said, I totally agree on shot placement.

[browningboy]

The thing about shot placement is yes it works, at a range for most, once in the field with varying elements etc.. its not the same bar none, there are some that can do it but I know that not all are marksmen ( not trying to offend etc.) and that little bit off causes more of an opportunity of an injured animal getting away, not to push anyone off their pedistal, most time are quick decisions shots etc. so the precise shots aren't available.
So quit being such wussies and carry a large bore magnum!:shock:;)

[4pointer]

Being a small person, I'm very confident with my marksmanship and confidence with my SCIROCCO BONDED in my 7mm Rem. Mag. No need to punish myself with the large calibres. I've shot 338 win mag. 300 Win. mag, 300 Weatherby, 7mm Ultra Mag, 7mm WSM and I still find my 7mm Rem. Mag produces more recoil. No need for a large calibre that you cannot handle or shoot straight. Just shoot what is adequate for the game you're hunting to get a clean kill and you are comfortable with shooting ACCURATELY.

[browningboy]

Being a small person, I'm very confident with my marksmanship and confidence with my SCIROCCO BONDED in my 7mm Rem. Mag. No need to punish myself with the large calibres. I've shot 338 win mag. 300 Win. mag, 300 Weatherby, 7mm Ultra Mag, 7mm WSM and I still find my 7mm Rem. Mag produces more recoil. No need for a large calibre that you cannot handle or shoot straight. Just shoot what is adequate for the game you're hunting to get a clean kill and you are comfortable with shooting ACCURATELY.

I agree 100%, shoot for the game and your ability, enough said, now very good hi five!:razz:

[Amphibious]

I think the price of hunting ammo is one of the factors that makes some people unwilling to practice more at the range. How much is a box of 20 rounds for .338 or .300 WSM or even 7-08? Even the bullets for reloading for these calibres are very expensive. People have paid too much attention to the grouping of their guns instead of their own shooting skills.

Instead of regulating the calibres for hunting, I'd rather see some caps on the power of scopes. Scopes make people lazier. :lol:Fair chase with high power scope? Gimme a break!

wow. do you actually belive this stuff? holy shit :eek:

[rollingrock]

wow. do you actually belive this stuff? holy shit :eek:

About what? The long big table in bartell's house?:roll:

[Walksalot]

I suspect, within reason, ability would supersede caliber. Common sense must prevail also as the smaller the caliber the more limitations it has in respect to longer shots and the position of the animal.
I give a rodents rectum what caliber you shoot as long as you can lay the animal on the ground in a quick and humane manner.

[brian]

Being a new shooter I can say that I cannot shoot as well with larger caliber rifles. So for me, a big old magnum would make a world of difference to my accuracy. That would only get multiplied under adverse conditions. Then you also have the greater potential to develop a nasty flinch by the added recoil and big boom of the big calibers. I'm far better off shooting something that I can handle and something I can practice with allot. So for the record I haul out a 22LR and a 270 win. to the range and get as much practice as I can manage.

[BCLongshot]

We have enough bloody rules

[Phreddy]

Being a new shooter I can say that I cannot shoot as well with larger caliber rifles. So for me, a big old magnum would make a world of difference to my accuracy. That would only get multiplied under adverse conditions. Then you also have the greater potential to develop a nasty flinch by the added recoil and big boom of the big calibers. I'm far better off shooting something that I can handle and something I can practice with allot. So for the record I haul out a 22LR and a 270 win. to the range and get as much practice as I can manage.
A .270 is plenty of bang for just about anything you might want to hunt in BC, although I don't think I'd want to hunt griz with one. Some do and probably do alright......we don't hear from the ones who don't do alright.:wink::eek: I'd feel a little more secure with something with a little more bang.