Ethics

[hipster]

Well I would like to think I have sound ethics when it comes to hunting big game or small game for that matter. Here where I live legal rifles for big game include any centerfire. There is no restriction on caliber or bullet weight. I feel this is dead wrong. So I could grab the swift and go try to fill my Moose tag and be fully legal. I could do the same for Deer or Bears as well. I feel this is plain wrong and should be changed. I think we are currently the only Province here in Canada that does not have a minimum caliber or minimum caliber minimum weight restriction.

I could load up some Barnes x or some 60 grain partitions and I would still have a varmint rifle that might just suffice for Wolf inside 200 yards. If the deer here were small like in some parts of the Southern US it might be a nice option for 100 pound or less Deer. For Moose or Bear never no way. I have made a few 300 yard plus shots on hogs this year and I consider that pretty good for me. Thing about that is, if I miss the head I either hit the body with one of those v max grenades ( red mist and a kill) or I fully miss. If I missed on a neck shot ( no bone hit) I have a wounded deer and an animal that would suffer greatly and may never be found. Most mature bucks here go 200 pounds plus and there are a few 300 and over. Black bears average 250 and can hit over 400, Moose well you know how big they get.


In a perfect world we would have a .25 cal minimum for big game with a bullet weight minimum of 115 grains. Here is the kicker in the hunting course taught here, DNR has guide lines for recomended minimum foot pounds of energy for each big game animal hunted. For Deer you should have 1000 at bullet impact. Moose 2000 and Black bear I can't remember ( I think it is the same as for moose)

I got into a bit of a debate with one of the instructors when he was making recomendations to a couple of new hunters ( both Female). These young Lady's asked what they should get for a first rifle. Well good old Bob (his real name) says nuthin under 7mm mag if you are going to hunt all three. He said and I quote "a 30-06 with a 180 would do in a pinch but a 338 mag would be perfect". Well both of these women were very slim and slender and had no experience with center fires of any kind. Now old Bob stands about 6'3" and goes about 250 or so. This is where I piped up and pissed old Bob off. I asked him how long he had been hunting and he replied over 30 years. I asked what his first big rifle was he said it was a 6.5x55. Then I asked how much recoil that rifle had and he said very mild.

Was it a good killer I asked? and he replied it was an excellent killer and had taken many Deer Moose and Bears before he gave it to his son. He was getting a bit red but I could not let up now that I had him. I said here is a question for you Bob if I need 2000 foot pounds to take a Moose and I fire a basket ball at a moose with enough speed to reach 2000 foot pounds and I hit that moose in the heart lung area that moose should drop right? Well Bob says no because it would not penetrate. Oh so I need to be able to put a bullet deep into a Moose to make it effictive, he replys yes. So Bob I asked why then is my 220 swift legal for moose here even though it would not penetrate into the lungs of a moose? This is what I had for a reply Well what's legal is not what is recomended so it is the choice of the indivudal. This is where I became peeved with the system.

This has been bothering me for a while now and I am going to start to make inquirys on how to go about getting it changed. First stop will be hunter associations here in the Province and hopfully with some support from them and thier members this can get done.

Any thoughts or feed back from the members here would be a great help.

Sorry for the ****ty spelling but beer = poor spelling (day off tommrow) Whoo Hooo.

[John in AR]

...In a perfect world we would have a .25 cal minimum for big game with a bullet weight minimum of 115 grains. Here is the kicker in the hunting course taught here, DNR has guide lines for recomended minimum foot pounds of energy for each big game animal hunted. For Deer you should have 1000 at bullet impact. Moose 2000 and Black bear I can't remember ( I think it is the same as for moose)

...So Bob I asked why then is my 220 swift legal for moose here even though it would not penetrate into the lungs of a moose? This is what I had for a reply Well what's legal is not what is recomended so it is the choice of the indivudal.

I agree that there are minimum points below which a caliber is illogical to use, given a particular game animal; and people do indeed do stupid things. The problem to me is summed up in the underlined sentence above. No matter what the rules end up being, what's "legal" isn't necessarily what's smart, and remember, you're going to have non-gun-people, and probably even complete non-hunters involved in making those regulations. That's unavoidable with a government committee.

My standard line is that a non-shooter making gun laws is like an Amish person making traffic laws. One of two things is going to happen.

Either they'll be morally opposed to cars altogether and do whatever they can to restrict them; this animosity is the worst case.

Or they'll accept that others want to drive, and will honestly try to be fair. But since they're non-drivers, they're not qualified to write those laws, so incompetence is the best case.

That's the choices when we have bureaucratic government intervention in personal choices. You end up fighting either animosity or incompetence, or both.

I'm just stiff-necked enough to not want someone telling me what caliber I can hunt with. As an adult, I'm capable of making those decisions; certainly more capable than a chair-polishing politician who only touches a gun for a campaign photo-op.

The one time I hunted our small whitetail with a 1911 (with +P CorBon ammo), I got ripped by a couple older guys about 'endangering' the deer because I didn't have 'enough power'. I (graciously) pointed out that my 'little pistol' had more power than the rifle one of them was using; a .32-20 saddle carbine. He's been using that levergun for literally decades, and using it very successfully, so there's no question that it's adequate; but it would almost certainly be made illegal if our state came out with "modern" minimum-power mandates.

I do know what you mean, people hunt with inappropriate and inadequate gear, and game is injured and lost because of it. But if I have the right to mandate a certain minimum (arbitrary) measurement when it comes to guns, then I have to accept that they have an equal right to mandate their arbitrary dictates on me in other areas.

First example that comes to mind is seat belt laws. I've worn mine basically forever, wore it before they were mandated by law; and I think it's stupid to not wear one. But I still believe seat belt laws are morally wrong, just as it would be wrong to criminalize eating junk food or smoking cigarettes.

[hipster]

I agree that there are minimum points below which a caliber is illogical to use, given a particular game animal; and people do indeed do stupid things. The problem to me is summed up in the underlined sentence above. No matter what the rules end up being, what's "legal" isn't necessarily what's smart, and remember, you're going to have non-gun-people, and probably even complete non-hunters involved in making those regulations. That's unavoidable with a government committee.

My standard line is that a non-shooter making gun laws is like an Amish person making traffic laws. One of two things is going to happen.

Either they'll be morally opposed to cars altogether and do whatever they can to restrict them; this animosity is the worst case.

Or they'll accept that others want to drive, and will honestly try to be fair. But since they're non-drivers, they're not qualified to write those laws, so incompetence is the best case.

That's the choices when we have bureaucratic government intervention in personal choices. You end up fighting either animosity or incompetence, or both.

I'm just stiff-necked enough to not want someone telling me what caliber I can hunt with. As an adult, I'm capable of making those decisions; certainly more capable than a chair-polishing politician who only touches a gun for a campaign photo-op.

The one time I hunted our small whitetail with a 1911 (with +P CorBon ammo), I got ripped by a couple older guys about 'endangering' the deer because I didn't have 'enough power'. I (graciously) pointed out that my 'little pistol' had more power than the rifle one of them was using; a .32-20 saddle carbine. He's been using that levergun for literally decades, and using it very successfully, so there's no question that it's adequate; but it would almost certainly be made illegal if our state came out with "modern" minimum-power mandates.

I do know what you mean, people hunt with inappropriate and inadequate gear, and game is injured and lost because of it. But if I have the right to mandate a certain minimum (arbitrary) measurement when it comes to guns, then I have to accept that they have an equal right to mandate their arbitrary dictates on me in other areas.

First example that comes to mind is seat belt laws. I've worn mine basically forever, wore it before they were mandated by law; and I think it's stupid to not wear one. But I still believe seat belt laws are morally wrong, just as it would be wrong to criminalize eating junk food or smoking cigarettes.


John this is an excellent reply and it cools my some what hot head a bit. Honestly I never gave one ounce of thought to who makes the fish and game laws here. I do now see the situation in a whole different light.

[andy]

Actually, with the right bullet, the 220 swift could do the job on moose just fine. they are rather dumb critters, with HUGE lungs, normally taken at very short range in thick cover. The Swift probably has the ability to drive the 62 gr ball bullet well over 3500 fps at such ranges, and the penetration would easily be to the heart on a side shot at the ribs. At such close ranges, and with the dramatic destruction of the lung likely with such a load, the critter aint going far, and it aint like it can crawl down a rabbit hole or is likely to tumble off a 2000 ft cliff, eh?

[andy]

I detest jerkoffs who insist that novices use magnums. If they need to use 223-243 type rds for a while, let them shoot the smaller critters for a while. O-Connor's wife took all kinds of critters with her little 7x57, even her 257 Roberts. She took an elephant with a single shot of 3006, too, using solids and a careful shot at the ear hole.

[Aslan]

I detest jerkoffs who insist that novices use magnums. If they need to use 223-243 type rds for a while, let them shoot the smaller critters for a while. O-Connor's wife took all kinds of critters with her little 7x57, even her 257 Roberts. She took an elephant with a single shot of 3006, too, using solids and a careful shot at the ear hole.

Agree 100%

Worse thing you can do to a novice is give them a magnum. They need to develop proper technique before they decide whether or not they want to own/use a magnum.

the 7x57, 243, 6.55 x 55, .270, 280, etc are probably sufficient for 90% of North American game and aren't hard kickers. (Yes, there's a whole crap load of other cartridges in that performance range, this was just a small sample)

You don't want to get people developing a flinch or being afraid of the gun they are using.

Having said that, though, one of my favorite hunting rifles is my .338 mag.

:devil:

[John in AR]

Worse thing you can do to a novice is give them a magnum. They need to develop proper technique before they decide whether or not they want to own/use a magnum.


+1

If you want to make a non-shooter out of someone, that's a good way to do it.

On a recent three-day outing we took a bunch of teenagers out on, we had all kinds of long guns there. Multiple each AK’s, AR’s, and .30Carbines, bolt-action .22’s, semi-auto .22’s, quite a few to choose from.

I fully expected the favorite to be the AR’s, due to having both a suppressor and a .22 kit that could be used in any combination on either AR. Turned out, the favorite rifle of all was my little .357 magnum lever action, loaded with my .38 special reloads. With the .38 loads, there’s basically no recoil or blast at all. Teenagers and adults alike just loved the thing, and some of them didn’t believe me when I told them that those light loads had more power from the carbine than the magnums did from the 4” Smith I’d brought along. There were plenty of kids that got tired of the .357 revolver real quick, but I had to almost pry the carbine away from them. Because it was more comfortable to shoot, it was easier and more fun to shoot.

[Wylycoyte]

.38 loads out of a .357 lever are sweeeeeeeeeeeet! I wish they allowed the use of .38 loads to take small game in my state. I'd happily lug a little .357 lever around to use on both deer and small game.

[hipster]

Actually, with the right bullet, the 220 swift could do the job on moose just fine. they are rather dumb critters, with HUGE lungs, normally taken at very short range in thick cover. The Swift probably has the ability to drive the 62 gr ball bullet well over 3500 fps at such ranges, and the penetration would easily be to the heart on a side shot at the ribs. At such close ranges, and with the dramatic destruction of the lung likely with such a load, the critter aint going far, and it aint like it can crawl down a rabbit hole or is likely to tumble off a 2000 ft cliff, eh?




Nope not even close if you are talking lung/heart area shots. If a 30-06 won't punch through a Full grown Bull Moose with a quality bullet in the 180-200 grain class at 200 yards and further, a specialised varmint rifle does not stand a chance. I have extracted 3 175 grain Nosler Partitions fired by 7mm rem mag into a good sized bull shot at 300 yards across a bog. All three bullets were within a 10" area through the engine room all three bullets were found under the hide on the off side. Moose have huge lungs and a pin prick from a .22 caliber bullet that has become unstable and is traveling end over end is unsignifigant to an animal of this size. The above Moose was shot by my moose hunting partner in 1995 in Northern Western Canada.

You get varied results on Moose that have been shot Some will run after a lethal hit and some will stand and either take other hits or bleed out while standing. To think that a little bullet like that would penetrate deeply into an animal that can be anywhere from 4-6 feet in chest cavity thickness is kind of humorus to say the least. I tried to educate you about moose about a year ago, as I see now to no avail. I have shot one Moose at close range in woods out of 7 that I was fortunate enough to take. The rest were taken at ranges of 100 to 200 yards or so in the great wide open, either boggy area's edges of re-growing clear cuts or cut lines.

A mere mortal man such as myself does not trifle with moose ( cow or bull) bring enough gun put those bullets where they need to go and the rest will attend to it's self. Any critter that can flip over a mid sized suv while in the rut needs a big deep punching bullet or you could be in deep do do.

Aslan may just have the very best and most usable caliber ever created for moose the .338 win mag. Sure the recoil and muzzle blast are a few orders of magnatude over the swift but he sure does seem to do pretty good with it.

I would tell you about the nose and ears of a moose and their habits so on and so forth but you seem to have it all figured out. I on the other hand am looking at my Moose tag right now ( calf) and can't wait to get to the woods when the season opens.

Oh I almost forgot, if I do not care about my barrel life I should be able to push a 60-62 grain bullet 3800 plus and on the side of INSANITY with super hot loads pushing the wall close to 4000.

Come on up bring your 10" 223 I will buy your non resident calf tag and take you out. Just prepare yourself to cover 5 miles or more per day on foot over uneven rough terrain. I guess being a good host I would have to gut it for you quarter it for you and make the two trips on the quad to get the animal out of the woods and into cold storage to prevent spoiling. Then again if you came in the late season when it is 20-30 below zero with snow on the ground spoilage is not an issue nor are black bears as they are denned up.

There ya go EH

[Garand]

Frankly these days I find myself more and more disgusted with the average hunter that I meet. They are increasingly lazy people! They need a Quad or a snowmobile to hump an animal out and a large number choose a magnum caliber that has excess power to make up for piss poor or complete lack of marksmanship. Pie plate MOA doesn't count for much to me. But I have to remember that I shoot competitively and I'm on the range 20-30 times more each year then they are. I know the capability of the firearms I own. I know my capability with the firearms that I own. Hunting with a magnum caliber for the average hunter these days just means that he/she is just to lazy to practice regularly. Then there are those hunters that you see with magnums on the range getting ready for the next hunting season in March & April. Too bad they are in a minority.

[Magnum88C]

Nope not even close if you are talking lung/heart area shots. If a 30-06 won't punch through a Full grown Bull Moose with a quality bullet in the 180-200 grain class at 200 yards and further, a specialised varmint rifle does not stand a chance.

Dang, man, don't you get it?
EVERY cartridge over .22 caliber is too big, and too uncontrollable!

OK back in the real world.
I keep hearing on one end that the .338 Win Mag is the best all-'round caliber. On the other end I hear that you should not put magnums in the hands of novices.

What do you all think about a compromise in the .338-'06?
Granted it's a bit of a wildcat, but to make the .338 Win Mag as versatile as it is one must handload to get the lower end. So, if one specified handloading, or that say, there's commercially available .338-'06 in a good spread of bullet types, perhaps this could take the gold for the do-it-all North American medium/large game round?

[brass hammer]

good reading. i've hunted/killed desert mule-deer with 22-250 in a 70 grain s.p. would i hunt/kill moose with it?,,,,only from a hot-air balloon while wearing my amored UNDERWARE. :beer:

[Aslan]

Dang, man, don't you get it?
EVERY cartridge over .22 caliber is too big, and too uncontrollable!

OK back in the real world.
I keep hearing on one end that the .338 Win Mag is the best all-'round caliber. On the other end I hear that you should not put magnums in the hands of novices.

What do you all think about a compromise in the .338-'06?
Granted it's a bit of a wildcat, but to make the .338 Win Mag as versatile as it is one must handload to get the lower end. So, if one specified handloading, or that say, there's commercially available .338-'06 in a good spread of bullet types, perhaps this could take the gold for the do-it-all North American medium/large game round?

One of my friends, Larry has a .338-06. I'm going with him on his elk hunt. (I don't have an elk tag, so I'm hunting coyotes) It can be loaded to factory .338 mag specs and it can be down loaded quite a bit. It is a very versatile round.

At one point, I was toying with the idea of taking a 358 and necking it down to .338. (or taking a .308 and necking it up to .338) I think a .338-08 would make a slick bear gun. Short action, good bullet with good sectional density. Should out perform the .358, shoot relatively flat and have plenty of punch. But, then I decided that since I already have the .338, there's plenty of other guns I'd like to get first....

:devil:

[Ankeny]

Then there are those hunters that you see with magnums on the range getting ready for the next hunting season in March & April. Too bad they are in a minority.

I started "getting ready" for this hunting season with the doping of new loads, working up drop charts, etc., at the end of hunting season last year. You are right, we are a dying breed.

[agreed]

and if being charged, god help you if all you have is a silly bolt actoin. If a 3006 wont get thru the rib cage, you used a VERY poor bullet for the job. If you aimed at the shoulder, that's just your stupidity. If you can't take moose with a 223 autorifle, you are just an incompetent pussy, that's all. Angier's wife had no trouble doing so with a Savage bolt action. You just don't know jack about moose, that's all. They are stupid, like heavy cover, are easily approached to short range. The 223 softpoint will EXPLODE their skulls, just like it does with deer or cattle. When a sealed container, full of liquid matter, is impacted by a 2500+ fps expanding bullet, the hydraulic forces unleashed are PLENTY more than enough to shatter skull bones.

See, pussies, the difference is that YOU stupidly 'think" that the MAN MADE issues are the SAME thing as PHYSICAL problems. They are not. Seasons, not using bait, not using a light at night, not taking the young, females, etc, are MAN MADE issues.

[Hard Ball]

I see GunKid is back using another name, but still posting the same old nonsense.

[Aslan]

See, pussies, the difference is that YOU stupidly 'think" that the MAN MADE issues are the SAME thing as PHYSICAL problems. They are not. Seasons, not using bait, not using a light at night, not taking the young, females, etc, are MAN MADE issues.

Just like those man made issues that cost you the right to own a firearm. If you choose to be stupid, then you have chosen to deal with the consequences.

I can walk into any gun store I want and buy any quality firearm I want. I can go shoot at a public range. I can carry concealed, and openly without worrying about being arrested or spending the rest of my life in jail.

I guess your brilliant choices, might explain why you are so angry at everyone around you.

I'm not so handicapped and poor in field craft that I have to ignore fair chase, and the law in order to hunt. Must suck to be so poor a hunter that the only way to harvest an animal is to bait or use a light at night. Especially since we're not talking sustenance hunting.

When it's for real, and not a hunt, that night light screams "target". An where are you going to get this bait? How many pounds of it will you be carrying?

sigh.

Don't you have your own website? The one where you claimed you didn't need us, because it was going to make this place a ghost town? The fact that you're here tends to indicate that you need us a lot more than we need you.

I told you what to do to make your site active - stop moderating those that disagree with you.

:devil:

[Chili Willi]

Bait is not an alltogether bad thing. HMMM! What could we bait with a wheelborrow , a "canned" .22, and a CAR? We could even throw in an old cobbled up star and a piece of tin! Hunting big game is, and should be, an ethical proposition. You don't want the game to suffer needlessly, so you use enough gun for a humane kill. In my neck pf the woods, a .223 is legal for whitetails. Do I use one? NO! WHY? Because I don't want to shoot an animal and not be able to find it because of little or no blood trail. Head shots? I killed a nce buck many years ago that had been shot in the head. Both upper and lower jaws destroyed, but still able to run. While dressing it, up walked a young man that was trailing it.When I asked about his shot placement, he told me his dad had TOLD him to shoot for the head. When he realized that the deer would of died a painful, lingering death, and saw what damage he had done, he vowed to never again shoot at the head. I gave him the deer.

[Aslan]

That's a good lesson you taught that young hunter.

Ethics are important. They define who we are. Ethics and character can be best described as what we do when no body is looking. (I wish I could take credit for that saying, but it is oh so true.)

Ethics are the foundation for honor. A person without ethics is by definition a person devoid of honor. An unethical man cannot be an honorable man.

While I bet we have done things in our lives we are not proud of, most of us on this site appear to be honorable people with good ethics. There is, one glaring exception, but it's never too late.

:devil:

[Magnum88C]

You just don't know jack about moose, that's all. They are stupid, like heavy cover, are easily approached to short range.
So they're like dope pusher felons?

[Coyote]

So they're like dope pusher felons?
I HUNT ZE MOST DANGEROUS GAME OF ALL. :dgrin:

You haven't been moose hunting Melvin. So much is obvious. I remember that clip of a lion hunter being charged and knocked over... what was it that he had already shot the thing with? A .375? A .416? You were still bitching about braining it with .223 softpoints.

[brass hammer]

So they're like dope pusher felons?

THAT IS FUNNY![in it's self]

the persona[sp?,,,i.e. mental-makeup] of the ol' boy mister[160]
is that HE DEMANDS the RESPECT!!![much like any rational person, would respect a 'HARDENED COMMANDO ARMED WITH A ROCKET-PROPELLED-GRENADE LAUNCHER],,,HA!,, it is to LAUGH OUT LOUD!

as the ol'boy mister[160] WARRENTS the DUE RESPECT given that of a BASTARD [10] YEAR-OLD ARMED WITH A RATTY/WEAK,,,,,
,,,,BOTTLE-ROCKET!!! :wavey:

[noonanda]

Melvin/andy/agreed whatevernameyourgoingbythisweek, try doing this with you little .223 with a can and or your ".22 unit"

http://clashradio.com/DVD/sullivan-video/

now this guy knows how to hunt, he is either really f'in ballsy or totally insane, but He makes sure to drop em.

[brass hammer]

excellent, BROTHER! as that 'vid' CANNED their BEASTELY-ASS'S

my friend, that was [1] COOL ****IN' LINK!

[you've a friend in 'T' town,,, come on down]

dominance of the terrain,,,is VITAL! :dgrin:

[come HELL/HIGH-WATER!,,,,,MAN/BEAST!]

[hipster]

and if being charged, god help you if all you have is a silly bolt actoin. If a 3006 wont get thru the rib cage, you used a VERY poor bullet for the job.( not what I said would not punch all the way through at 200 yards plus) If you aimed at the shoulder, that's just your stupidity. If you can't take moose with a 223 autorifle, you are just an incompetent pussy,( for certian we know you can not) that's all. Angier's wife had no trouble doing so with a Savage bolt action.( you say silly both action and then you state some one else had no trouble with one) You just don't know jack about moose, that's all.( That made me laugh and spill my coffee on my desk) They are stupid, like heavy cover, are easily approached to short range.( Wrong Wrong and Wrong) In a nut shell(LOL) moose have poor eyesite probably the best hearing of any of our hoved game in North America and a nose that rivals the Whitetailed Deer) The 223 softpoint will EXPLODE their skulls, just like it does with deer or cattle.( you have to be able to hit it in the head or miss enough times to get a lucky hit mr guru) When a sealed container, full of liquid matter, is impacted by a 2500+ fps expanding bullet, the hydraulic forces unleashed are PLENTY more than enough to shatter skull bones.

See, pussies, the difference is that YOU stupidly 'think" that the MAN MADE issues are the SAME thing as PHYSICAL problems. They are not. Seasons, not using bait, not using a light at night, not taking the young, females, etc, are MAN MADE issues. ( How is life on the moon any way I hear there is a 400 degree diference between night and daytime tempratures)

[Aslan]

All I can say, is some people are lucky it doesn't hurt to be stupid.

Stupid should be painful.

And in some cases terminal.

:devil: