straitshooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Upwind of Ottawa
Hunting with FMJ's in Ontario and Quebec
- Thread starter Steyr101
- Start date
straitshooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Upwind of Ottawa
Grant Gilmore, The Ages of American Law (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), pp. 110-111.
Interestingly, solids were one of the most desired small bore bullets used in Africa for a long time. Little cartridges likt the .256 Mannlicher were used with these to reliably take game up to and including elephant. The difference between then and now? We do not know what it's like to be a rifleman, not like the men who really knew what it was like to shoot. A FMJ out of your .30-06 would do the job perfectly if in the capable hands of a good marksman. Unfortunatly in this modern age of super high power scopes and ultra accurate rifles that are superiour in every way to the rifles of yesterday, we do not have people compitent enough to use them, even though they can drop a running buck at 500 yards in a cross wind. That's why we have such a wonderful selection of proper expanding bullets. They are more forgiving of our 'proud shooting heritage'
hmmm i don't particularly agree with your overall message...expanding bulelts are more effective at killing..they transfer energy more effectively and create a larger wound channel...you can't deny that and that's the point of using them, not because we are all slobs who can't hit the broadside of a barn..i am with you that maybe the rifleman of old were a different breed and more capable than the average hunter today but times change and you use the best technology you have at hand.
In everyone's searching, this would not seem to be the case. If you can point me to where this is written it would be much appreciated.
I just called the MNR info centre at 1-800-6671940. And talked to Chris.
He says," It's unfortunate, but we(They) have no restrictions for ball ammo, for any game". Big or small.
He also said they discourage the use of ball ammo for lack of kinetic energy transfer, meaning the bullet goes in and the bullet leaves the animal with small bullet holes, unless it hits bone and you get internal fragmentation to do the hemorrhaging, in place of the expanding bullet.
I stand corrected.
He says," It's unfortunate, but we(They) have no restrictions for ball ammo, for any game". Big or small.
He also said they discourage the use of ball ammo for lack of kinetic energy transfer, meaning the bullet goes in and the bullet leaves the animal with small bullet holes, unless it hits bone and you get internal fragmentation to do the hemorrhaging, in place of the expanding bullet.
I stand corrected.
First, you didn't simply ask about legislation - you said, amongst other things, that you wanted to see a ban throughout Canada if there wasn't already. Check your past posts.
Furthermore, you might have not directly asked for public opinion - but you most certainly invoked it with your own comments. Furthermore, by definition a "forum" is a place for discussion. A quick review of your comments that lead to the expression of public opinion, if you don't mind:
and more particularly:
So, your uninformed buddy is looking for some justification to lobby for more hunting/gun laws, you come here asking for information to assist him in doing that... and you think you aren't going to get opinions on that?
And you yourself want to see the law changed in ANY province where it isn't banned already?
But you didn't ask for opinions, huh?
As an aside, I'm not particularly surprised that somebody from Bantario would be looking for yet another politically incorrect thing to add to their "banned" list over there.
and this:
So you refer to those who disagree with your view on this topic as "naive and ignorant" - and then complain you're facing a lynch mob by those who don't agree with you when you make comments like the above. All while saying you want to see the laws changed to fit your opinons of course, and are asking for help for your buddy to enact another ban.
Question: when you refer to people who don't share your view on any topic as "naive and ignorant"... just how would you normally expect them to respond to that? Tugging at their forelock while falling to their knees in abject apology? Really: when asking for help in enacting more bans and prohibitions, and after calling people naive and ignorant who don't agree with your need for another ban, what the hell did you expect for a response? Hugs and kisses?
And finally, there's this:
The fact that a law exists does not mean it is based on any form of reality. I find it fascinating that you somehow "know" that FMJ takes "days, weeks, and often months later" to kill game - particularly when it is fairly obvious that you have no direct personal experience and also apparently don't know anyone with direct personal experience. Thinking of all the coyote hunters - as just one example - who have been hunting coyotes for sport and to sell the hides for decades, using FMJ bullets, why the hell would we be shooting coyotes with FMJ's if we lost them and the hide because they were always running off to die "days, weeks, and often months later"???
So, when you post stuff as though it were established fact that real world personal experience shows to be one of those "everybody knows" fairy tales, you are inevitably going to get an opinion back - especially when your comment was in itself an expression of opinion.
I'm not talking about people in Africa choosing solids for shooting dangerous game. I'm talking about them using solids for EVERYTHING. I have no doubt that is changing to some extent - due to marketing if nothing else. Hey, if something is supposed to be better, if I have the scratch to pay for it I want some of that too. I'll also point out that Finn Aagaard - a guy who shot one or two critters in both North America and Africa - made the same observations on the use of solids on thin skinned game as well as the dangerous stuff.
And if a couple of 5.56 NATO ball rounds can put a 500+ pound feral pig down in a hurry, I don't see any reason to dispute the experiences of my Rhodesian friend or Finn Aagaard. Come to think of it, when I'm hunting with cast bullets in my grandfather's old 1895 Winchester in 30 US, those cast bullets - essentially non-expanding bullets - don't seem to have had a problem parking the few whitetails and elk I have shot with them either.
Given that, perhaps you can understand why I cast a squinty eye in the general direction of you and your ban-buddy when you make these kinds of claims about non-expanding bullets and the intent to get them banned. Particularly when any ban on "non expanding bullets" will easily move to include those of us who hunt with centerfire rifles and cast bullets.
Well, I am one of "the military guys", and have about twenty years now, although I just recently came back to the fold by invitation. And you have trotted out yet another inventive urban myth of the uninformed: "everybody knows" that military ammunition is supposed to wound, not kill. BS again.
If you - or anybody else - can point to any government ordnance development program that was intended to produce ammunition that had diminished lethality in exchange for higher wounding potential, please, please be kind enough to refer me to it. Everything I have ever seen has been intended to increase lethality, not diminish it.
Furthermore, if it was all about wounding, just who forgot to tell snipers and designated marksmen to wound the enemy rather than kill them because of the increased strategic value of just wounding rather than killing?
The myth doesn't even stand up to the most basic examination of logic. Yes, if you wound them they do need care - but common sense says you want an experienced soldier six feet under, not back on the front lines killing your guys six weeks later. How long does it take to breed and grow a man to be old enough to soldier? And the expense and time of training that man to become a soldier? One hell of a lot longer than the time and expense to recuperate one and send him back to the lines, perhaps?
It gets better. Yeah, if you wound him, his buddies have to care for him - IF, OF COURSE, we haven't overrun their lines during the fighting. So now we have all these very-much-alive wounded enemy guys laying around. Well, we don't get to shoot them out of hand. So guess who gets to transport the guy to the rear, provide him with medical care, guard him while recuperating, etc? Well, we do! How about that! Now who has the logistical burden?
It makes a great story to repeat on internet bulletin boards, but in 20 years in the infantry, including working in Leadership Coy at the battle schools, I have NEVER seen anything in CF doctrine or weapons development that was about developing ammunition that was less lethal in hopes of just wounding instead of killing enemy combatants. Nor about teaching individual soldiers or small unit commanders to try and wound enemy soldiers rather than kill them. Come to think of it, I have also seen nothing like that from what I saw the Brits and Americans using while cross training with them, either.
People need to run these old wive's tales through the BS filters once in a while. But again, if you can show me a CF military pam or ordnance development program that stressed and preferred wounding enemy combatants rather than killing them, please do give me a reference to it.
No... you just want it BANNED. One more gun law...
Ah yes, the doctrine of "you don't need that". I know people who believe you have no need for a firearm because bows are just fine and far more sporting and ethical and a real hunter can get his game with a bow. Others believe you have no need for that thinly disguised sniper rifle you call a scoped hunting rifle. And so on, and so on.... there's always people who want laws based on what they think you do and don't "need"...
Wrong Way
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The single most thought out, reasoned, intelligent, well presented and valid argument I have ever seen on CGN, well done.
Well...the exact opposite of everything I posted above.
Not at all... as I stated, I agree and see the validity with most of his points. We just keep saying the same things over and over and over. There will always be two arguments to using FMJ on big game. I for one, don't think it's ethial. There are other that do. Life goes on.
It isn't ethical in my opinion either but there are many things that aren't ethical but legal and vice versa. Here are two examples:
For example in Ontario there are no calibre restrictions for big game hunting. The only requirement is that it be a centrefire. It is therefore legal to hunt moose with a .25-20, .22 CCM or even a 2.7mm Kolibri if someone had a rifle made in that calibre. That's legal but not ethical.
In certain areas of the province I can hunt rabbit with a .270 Weatherby because if falls under the .275 calibre restriction. Using a .310 Cadet however is not legal even though it would be entirely ethical.
I don't think FMJ use is a big issue and don't think the laws should be changed to ban them.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Reading through this thread, it clearly comes to mind, that there are those that have 'been there done that.'
And there are those, that are expressing thier own opinion, on popular myth/rumour, and emotion only.
And there are those, that are expressing thier own opinion, on popular myth/rumour, and emotion only.
Last edited:
I don't seem to be getting something here??, Now it's ethics? Apart from the requests for Ontario MNR information (Call them please next time) it was the opposing argument of why we need yet another law to forbid what isn't a problem?
If Ethics bother you then teach hunting ethics like the many hunting instructors, hunters, and hunt camps do.
We don't need another reg or law in the province or country..............
If Ethics bother you then teach hunting ethics like the many hunting instructors, hunters, and hunt camps do.
We don't need another reg or law in the province or country..............
