New Sask Regulations, .223 owners may be happy
- Thread starter Kelly Timoffee
- Start date
Yes i have read a bit about Mr Keith...a great shootist with a pistol...however not every one shoots like he did and with the average shooter doing what he did will happen on a seldom bases.
and Thank You
This is how I feel. You were fully capable of using an insufficient cartridge in the past and under the new rules it is still possible. I have absolutely no issue with the new rules. You could have used a 300 blackout legally in the past and shot at elk at 300 yards if you felt like it. Likewise now you can use a 204 ruger. These predictions of wounded animals running around everywhere are unfounded. Hunters who were idiots before will continue to be idiots. You cant fix stupid.
If you understood the physics at work, you would know that archery gear has "killing potential" far beyond that of a .223... or a .30/06 for that matter... it just has to be applied properly... but all else being equal(ish), there is nothing on the continent (or any continent) that cannot be taken cleanly with a razor sharp broadhead tipped arrow, propelled by a hunting bow... the same cannot be said of the .223.
fingers284
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Alberta Cowboy Ranges
I'm happy with this development.
Doubt I will get out deer hunting this year, but if it works out I, have no doubt that my .223 varmint rifle will do the job.
Will buy a box of premium ammo, (all I have now is varmint bullets), check zero and be ready if the occasion permits.
When I can routinely hit gophers at 300 yards, the vitals of a whitetail should be no problem. The majority of deer that I have taken were well under 100 yards, the longest shot being 175; with no plan to go beyond that I am confident of an ethical kill.
If people are really concerned about wounding animals, then a marksmanship test (such as Finland requires) would be more effective in that realm.
Doubt I will get out deer hunting this year, but if it works out I, have no doubt that my .223 varmint rifle will do the job.
Will buy a box of premium ammo, (all I have now is varmint bullets), check zero and be ready if the occasion permits.
When I can routinely hit gophers at 300 yards, the vitals of a whitetail should be no problem. The majority of deer that I have taken were well under 100 yards, the longest shot being 175; with no plan to go beyond that I am confident of an ethical kill.
If people are really concerned about wounding animals, then a marksmanship test (such as Finland requires) would be more effective in that realm.
billbmcleod
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Back very close to Bruce County
Personally I think a .223 is light for deer but they do make a 60gr Partition for it. Yet I would shoot a moose with a 7mm-08???
I know someone who takes a unrestricted 30 Carbine deer hunting along with a 38-55 Win. He hopes to get a standing 50 yd neck shot with the Carbine. It was his grandfather/fathers deer gun a long time ago and he just wants to get a deer with it.
Just my thoughts.
I know someone who takes a unrestricted 30 Carbine deer hunting along with a 38-55 Win. He hopes to get a standing 50 yd neck shot with the Carbine. It was his grandfather/fathers deer gun a long time ago and he just wants to get a deer with it.
Just my thoughts.
BrotherRockeye
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rural Saskatchewan
^^^this
kinda why I asked the questions I posted earlier in the thread.
The additions don't concern me it's the banned cals that set a precedent for more later.
My buddy bought a lever .45 Colt last year for deer hunting from a stand, he was p1ssed when I told him he can't use it this year.
The big problem now isn't whether I take the 300 or the 7RM moose hunting tomorrow...but do I take my .223 instead?
Really? You are from Manitoba where the .223 has been legal for years and now you are disappointed Sask is the same as Manitoba?
Actually there was a sizeable group that did approach the government and asked about the changes to the Sask hunting regulations and asked for a re-evaluation of the caliber restrictions. There were actually quite a few folks who did query the government to "complain" about the way it was and they asked for .224 to be legal. Not saying that it was broke previously, but this is by far better than people shooting deer with a .25-20, which was previously legal under the old reg's.
Not to my knowledge - as I don't think it was a formal group. It was a "group" of hunters that requested that the ministry consider a change in this area. I don't think it was an organized attempt by a group of people, it was just a "group" in the sense that it wasn't just one or two people asking. It was quite a number of people and they have been asking this of the ministry of the environment or SERM or whatevertheheck Sask is calling it these days to consider the change. They finally considered it and changed the reg's.
Only been bowhunting a couple years, so I will defer to my better here Hoyt. I do have a good grasp of physics, and understand that you are shooting a much heaver projectile at lower velocity - but have difficulty believing that, at identical ranges, a bow does as much damage as a .223 (or a .30-06). If you have anything to add or can refer to some literature making the comparison, please send me a pm - always up for learning something new.
The point was not to slag bowhunting or make an apples to apples comparison. The problem with talking about efficacy and hunting ethics is that caliber and/or method of take is only one aspect of the conversation. The particulars of the shot and the person taking it are (at least I would argue) more important than the caliber being shot. An ethical bowhunting shot for you, may be an unethical shot for me to take due to experience and gear choices. I know for sure that I will take a shot with my compound that I would never take with my recurve (as I am much more accurate with my compound - still enjoy a simple stick though).
As for rifles, I would make the same argument - caliber choice is only a very small part of an ethical shot. I am by no means trying to claim a definitive methodology here - I am wrong frequently enough to know it. That being said - if you asked me to make an ethical kill shot on a deer with a .223 - I could do it. I couldn't do it at the same range as a better shooter with a 300 win mag - but I could do it. I hunt fairly varied land (everything from sandhills and sage to open fields and shelter belts) - there are situations where a smaller projectile that carries less energy is worth considering (proximity to residences and other hunters, distance of the shot, etc.), and areas where it would simply not be the right tool for the job at all. If the question is 'Can an ethical shot be taken with a .223?' - the answer is yes. That doesn't mean that it will be ethical in every situation for every shooter - just that the cartridge is capable of a clean kill in ideal circumstances.
To simply say we should ban a caliber because someone somewhere will do something unethical and wound an animal is a flawed perspective. Do we want the regs to be based on what someone might do - or on what the cartridge or method of take is capable of in the right situation?
BrotherRockeye
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rural Saskatchewan
It doesn't do as much damage at any range.
Broadheads kill in a different manner than bullets.
Well, nobody will convince me that a 22-250 will ever be good for taking a moose. A whitetail deer, sure. Same as 45colt can be great for a deer... but probably not a moose. I just wish that the government would allow for common sense more so than being a nanny.
Isn't this what they're doing? Allowing for common sense? Most people would agree that 22-250 is not a good moose caliber. It's legal to use in BC though, the only restrictions are it must be centerfire, and I can't say I've seen many people packing 223s to moose camp...
My only issue is how Sask banned all those perfectly capable cartridges like 30 carbine, 357/41mag, and 45 colt...
Last edited:
You're preaching to the choir here my friend... I agree with what you're saying.
