Handgun Hunting (positive posts only. NO #####ing!)

Gatehouse said:
Johnn

Got your email!

I wasn't surprsed to see that the guy took a cape buffalo wiht one handgun shot, but it surprised me to see that he also took and elephant wiht 2!!:runaway:
Click to expand...
Yes, it was quite a test for the .500. An Elephant is not something I'd want to tackle with it. Cape Buffalo, m a y b e. I did get an e-mail from a guy in Alaska who said he used the same 440gr GC cast bullet, but at a slightly slower velocity, on two Moose. One was quartering away at a sharp angle, about 50 yds and on the other occasion it was facing him at roughly 85 yds. His bottem line was they both went down with one shot and the penetration was virtually end to end. If my Alaska Moose trip materializes, that is part of the reason why I'm thinking of using either the Hornady 350gr XTP/MAG or the Sierra 350gr JHP. To make an effort to expend as much energy as possible within the animal. I think if the bullet has the capability to pass right through the animal you're wasting energy and killing power especially if the penetration is end for end. It is one of the cast bullets I use and although it shoots well in both light or heavy loads, I think there are better choices for Moose or Deer sized game.
As a word of caution, one of the targets with test loads I sent you is a load I came up with using the Speer 325gr HP after I had it modified, and before I consulted Speer. The modification was the addition of a cannelure for crimping. Although as/the target I sent you, the load I used was fairly accurate, when I contacted Speer, they strongly suggested keeping the velocity to a maximum of 1500 f/sec. The reason, bullet was designed for the 50 AE and those velocities, not the 1750 f/sec I was using. In hindsight, I should've contacted them first.
 
tootall said:
--I believe there is an all party outdoors/wildlife/hunting/etc group in Ottawa, made up of MP's from all parties. Does anyone know more about this? Can we touch base with them?
Click to expand...


I don't particularly feel like reading all 101 posts so...has anyone mentioned this group? These are the people we should be dealing with, and not only for HGH
 
joe-nwt said:
Well your local CO would be a good place to start. Go chat with them on the issue. Ask if they would support it if the federal regs were changed. Gather some intel for us to work with. We need to start somewhere.
Click to expand...
I don't think the CO office would really come into it. If I owned a .44Mag and the CFO issued me an ATT for Area 16, Dates XX-XX, I believe I'd be good to go. The CO may want to ensure the pistol had 1500lbs of energy, and is of a suitable calibre, but there is no prohibition in the NL regs.

Would the .44Mag do it?

Firearms, Ammunition
It is unlawful:
bullet.jpg
To hunt big game with any .22 calibre rifle or any rifle using ammunition with a bullet weight of less than 100 grains or a muzzle energy less than 1,500 foot pounds. NOTE: For this regulation .22 caliber includes .218, .219, .220, .222, .22/250, .223, .224 and .225 calibre rifles.
bullet.jpg
to hunt big game with a rifle slug with any shotgun smaller than 20 gauge.
bullet.jpg
to hunt big game with or carry in any area frequented by wildlife, full metal cased non-expanding bullets commonly known as service ammunition.
to hunt big game with a firearm using any ammunition other than a single bullet or ball.
​
Bows and Arrows
It is unlawful:
bullet.jpg
To hunt big game with a long bow and arrow unless the bow has at least twenty kilograms pull at full draw.
bullet.jpg
To hunt big game with a compound bow and arrow unless the bow has at least twenty kilograms pull at peak draw.
bullet.jpg
To hunt big game unless the hunting arrows are tipped with a metal hunting head with two or more sharpened cutting edges.

From a tourism perspective it makes sense, it would bring in a whole other group of American big game hunters. It would be great for the guides if they could get the licenses worked out.

Big black bears and moose in mixed country would make for a challenging handgun hunt. I believe demand would be huge.
 
Where is it?
I didn't see any mention in posts
Click to expand...

ooops - sorry, other thread. They're all starting to blur :)

Gary mauser is on the new board, gary mauser is also on the board of the bcwf, the same one which just passed the 'handgun resolution', and the purpose of the wilderness outdoor committee is to look at promoting and preserving our outdoor (read hunting) activities in Canada, and expanding upon them.

What ISN'T known at this time is how much 'pull' this committee will have, and that won't be known for a little while. But it's an in and it's a good one. Gary has been quiet on his stance on handgun hunting, but theres' little doubt he'd support handguns for protection in the woods (Can't really advocate it's use in the cities to protect people and be against it in the woods.) And of course gary b is there too - so there's a direct link to the gov't.

The issue would be convincing them it would be something that the average hunter would approve of and that they'd win brownie points for allowing it to be decided by the provinces. (the cpc, not the committee.)
 
I don't think the CO office would really come into it.
Click to expand...

I think he's thinking of it the other way around tho. If we go to any gov't agency looking for the rules to be altered with reagard to issuing att's or allowing handgun hunting (in those provinces where it's expressly prohib'd) then realistically one of the first groups they'll consult is the law enforcement people, and that includes co's. If CO's say "i don't see a problem from our point of view", then that's a step forward. IF the CO's say 'we have grave concerns about allowing handguns into the woods on a large scale', then we have a problem.

Because we'll only likely get one 'pass' at this, it might be very valuable to get the co's at least on board early on.
 
It doesn't get that far if the CFO isn't able to by legislation to issue the ATT. Where does it sit federally. It's higher than the provinces, so let's leave that be for the moment.
 
Where does it sit federally.
Click to expand...

It's not even a blip right at the moment. There isn't sense i don't think that it would 'win friends and influence people' to spend what little time and resources they have trying to force change thru the liberal-appointed beurocracy that actually controls it.

It's not like a whole lotta hunters are demanding it. Look at the challenges we've had getting the 12.x stuff changed, and that should have been a no-brainer. This stuff does take work, and they have to know there's political capital in it to justify the effort this close to a probable election.
 
That is very true, that anything we ask for will be considered from a political point of view.
But the point of this debate is to get ideas flowing, and get plans in place in order to sway the people and agencies that ultimately make the decisions.
 
That is very true, that anything we ask for will be considered from a political point of view.
But the point of this debate is to get ideas flowing, and get plans in place in order to sway the people and agencies that ultimately make the decisions.
Click to expand...

Well - when it comes to the 'agencies', it depends a bit on which agency you approach first, and when.

For gary mauser, the underlying theme of his work would be 'self defense'. So - amusingly enough the best choice approaching him and the wilderness committee might be "how can you possibly say you support ccw in CITIES when you cannot even support the far more obvious and politically less perilous idea of defense in the woods? Why would you leave hunters and guides who we KNOW are at serious risk unprotected, yet appeal for 'common sense' for people in the cities to defend themselves? Allow handgun att's for ALL people who go into the woods, not just those who's work demands it.

Once you have that - the 'block' to the province is gone. Hey - we've already got handguns for defense, why exactly are you not letting us use the guns for hunting again? The fight becomes easier.

However - if you're approaching someone like Gary Breitrkruz or one of the other ministers in the gov't, the approach might well be different. "Current federal restrictions remove the right of the province to determine hunting rules and regulations - i thought the conservatives were AGAINST interfering in the provinces? Why not let the provinces chose what's best for them, and allow att's for hunting for those who decide it's something that's appropriate?" Another avenue is the 'Handgun hunting allows for expanded hunting opportunities into areas and situations where a rifle is less practical. You are supposed to be helping create MORE opportunity, yet the federal gov't denies us even the right to discuss it with the province by their current policy."

You see what i mean. Approaching the provinces directly would require yet another tact.

So - what we lack right at the moment is good 'intel' as to the best place to put our energy. That was something i was looking into, but did not determine yet. Federally is the obvious general answer, but where? At the moment the best choice SEEMS to be the wilderness committee - but we must determine first if they have any actual power in REAL terms, and if not where we'd have to focus our pressure to make things happen.

Once we know our target, we can pick the best 'load' for hunting it if you know what i mean :)
 
so im curious. If your hunting in a province that does not specifically disallow the use of handguns for hunting and you have a wilderness carry permit lets say for trapping, could you then take an animal legally with your handgun??
 
so im curious. If your hunting in a province that does not specifically disallow the use of handguns for hunting and you have a wilderness carry permit lets say for trapping, could you then take an animal legally with your handgun??
Click to expand...

No, generally the att's don't even allow for 'target practice' as i understand it. You can't discharge the gun unless it is necessary for defense.
 
I was under the impression that trappers can use thier handgun to dispatch snare caught animals that were still alive, but perhaps I am mistaken.

They certianly used to be able to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom