Centrefire rifle caliber limitations southern Ontario?

[Chucker243]

Just found this discussion. The .270/Ontario thing has bewildered me as well. I did some digging. Here's what I found:

decription 7X57 Mauser; source Wikipedia.
The 7x57mm cartridge, also known as the 7 mm Mauser, 7x57mm Mauser, 7 mm Spanish Mauser in the USA and
.275 Rigby in the United Kingdom, was developed by Paul Mauser of the Mauser company in 1892
Many sporting rifles in this calibre were made by British riflemakers, among whom John Rigby was prominent; and,
catering for the British preference for calibres to be designated in inches, Rigby called this chambering the .275 Rigby,
after the measurement of a 7 mm rifle's bore across the lands.

Key words of note: British, preference, across the lands.
Most of us know the history of Canada and realize this British influence of laws, etc...

I only suggest, that this is where the .275 thing originated. The core intent has probably been lost and now the .277 bullet is of questionable use depending the interpretation of the regulation by whoever. I'm not sure what leg you'd have left to stand on in an Ontario court of law if a person presented this info.

I did a quick look into other similar discussions and did not see this info mentioned.

 

[Randy B]

as an interesting side note to the thread I have a copy of the fall 1984 spring 1985
Ontario regulations and Under the firearms section it says a rifle of GREATER caliber than .275 OR 7MM is prohibited (seems we were indeed Metric back then)
The 7mm stuff has since been dropped from the regs

 

[Randy B]

problem being that caliber refers to a dimension of either across the lands or across the grooves depending on what system you choose to use! Generally the USA use groove measurements while land measurements are used elseware (whatever elseware means??)
It can also refer to the bullet diameter (groove measurement/diameter) or bore diameter (land measurement again)
Confused already??????

 

[7mmlefty]

With all due respect for all the info given here, Ive always thought rifle in any caliber can be used for anything north of hwy #9.

270 or smaller rule applies south of hwy #9.

 

[blasted_saber]

With all due respect for all the info given here, Ive always thought rifle in any caliber can be used for anything north of hwy #9.

270 or smaller rule applies south of hwy #9.

No. Read the laws posted. Says nothing about highway 9.

 

[wheelin_ca]

york region extends north of 9 and is in the regs...

Simcoe county, whitch starts north of 9, doesnt have this restriction, but you must know where it is, and not another municipality.

 

[RyanBambach]

With all due respect for all the info given here, Ive always thought rifle in any caliber can be used for anything north of hwy #9.

270 or smaller rule applies south of hwy #9.

In my area (Arthur) you have to go above HWY89 before you get into the .270 and larger. Bruce and Grey counties are open to anything. Im not sure on Huron county though...

 

[CompBoy]

I miss MB regs man.

 

[DMS1]

Where I live in Amherstburg which is the bottom of zone 94b, the town bylaw in regard to hunting has been written to allow .243 or smaller.

 

[beretta boy]

...I only suggest, that this is where the .275 thing originated. The core intent has probably been lost...

There is no question that the .270 is legal when otherwise within the regulation. Notwithstanding the bullet diameter of .277" ( or "groove" diameter) the "bore" ( or "land" diameter ) or caliber, is .270".

I suggest this regulation was intended to prevent the use of the cheap and
relatively abundant war-surplus .303 Enfield's that hit the market in the 50's, together with the inexpensive companion full metal jacket surplus ammo, for use on small game ( primarily on "groundhogs" or woodchucks) as many were want to do back in the day.

 

[9Guns]

generally 270 cal is max where restrictions are in place. Lots of countys don`t have restrictions. Reg specific you have to check for your area. Doesn`t make a lot of sense these days that you can use your .270 Weatherby Mag to shoot coyotes but not your 30.30 Winchester. I think the original reason for the restriction was to keep the military firearms out of the farm country hayfeilds and woodlots, not so much of an issue for present days but we are still left with the LAWS

223 anyone

 

[Bigbubba]

Here is my 2 cents
I live in Owen Sound (which is SW Ont) and we all use 308, 7mm, 30-30, 30-96 etc for deer. There is no limit on the calibre.

As for the 270 rule for very end of SW Ont, I spoke with an elderly gent (probably 85 yers old) at a gun club down there and he said the reason the 270 rule was brought in was because after the war, 303 ammo was dirt cheap and everyone had a 303 and the silly buggars ran around shooting everything in sight.....stop signs, hydro poles, you name it they shot it....so to curb the damage a bit the 270 rule came in (not because of the ballistics) just because 270 ammo was a lot more $$$ than the cheap milsurp 303 ammo

I cant verify this as true, just telling you what he told me.

 

[beretta boy]

...cheap milsurp 303 ammo...I cant verify this as true, just telling you what he told me.

Me neither, but the reference I got was from a retired old-schooler within MNR who was in both enforcement & policy at QP.

 

[gps]

^^^Thanks for explaining that. I have hunted moose in northern Ontario all of my adult life and just started bow hunting deer in southern Ontario. I still find the regs very confusing. Just when you think you have it fiqured out, there always seems to be exceptions depending on where you hunt.

I'm in the same boat. Hunted in NW Ontario for years and years, moved to Southern Ontario, and was blown away by how much more complicated things are.

 

[Paulusmaximus2]

it sucks

 

[Gunslinger]

Is there any way to get the regulation changed. I don't see how they could justify the .270 regulation on any grounds so why have it?

 

[Claybuster]

Is there any way to get the regulation changed. I don't see how they could justify the .270 regulation on any grounds so why have it?

Sure but do you really want to open it up? Do you seriously think the result would be better than what we have now? I don't.

 

[Gunslinger]

Same could be said for fighting any stupid gun laws. If there's enough interest and people willing to put pressure on them why not. It's an old out of date law that should be changed.

 

[Claybuster]

Same could be said for fighting any stupid gun laws. If there's enough interest and people willing to put pressure on them why not. It's an old out of date law that should be changed.

It is an old, out of date law but opening it raises too much risk of something worse being imposed on hunters in the named areas. Any change in that regulation would require public input via the EBR process. Because it affects specific municipalities and regions it would require consultation with each of them on any regulatory changes.

How do you think that's going to go in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, trying to convince mostly urban councils to let hunters use "bigger" guns in their jurisidictions?

 

[Win/64]

I think that originally the law was put into play was to keep Full Metal Jacket Military ammo out of the bush.