Legalizing the 32-20 black powder cartridge

Win 38-55

Win 38-55

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
42   0   0
For those who live in southern Ontario, the black powder cartridges (original black powder cartridges) that are legal for ground hog hunting seem to be pretty limited. The .25-20 is the only one I am aware of. I would like to see at least one more black powder cartridge permitted for small game, the 32-20. I'm thinking of writing to the MNR to see if the law can be changed to permit the .32-20 as a black powder, small game cartridge.

Any ideas as to how I should present this to the powers that be?
 
I would suggest basing your arguments on muzzle velocity and or energy and on maximum range. I should really go back one step; what are the current criteria for a legal ground hog cartridge; are they based on projectiles that will humanely kill a hog plus one that is of limited range either because of velocity (25-29) or because of fragmentation (high vel .22 cf)?

cheers mooncoon
 
25/20 wcf, 25/20 ss, 25/21 Stevens,25/25 Stevens, .22 WCF,22/15 Stevens,.....I don't believe lobbying for the 32/20 will be succesful, as everyone would be lobbying for their favourite round and would have their own reasons which may make sense(at least to them).
 
Boy...am I out of the loop or what? I have never heard of B/P cartridges being "legal" or illegal for groundhog hunting. I thought that any cartridge was legal for hunting these varmits. Special laws for Southern Ontario? Eastern Ontario Dave.
 
As Andy stated, you must use a bullet diameter less than .280. It doesn't really make sense from a safety point of view. You can use big game rifles such as the 270, the 6.5 Remington Magnum or the 264 Winchester Magnum for Groundhogs in populated areas, but you can't use the little .32-20.

As Ben mentioned, odds of success are not great, but that is why I'm getting advice before presenting my case. I'm thinking of proposing an addendum to the existing law that states "... or cartridges that have a published rifle muzzle energy less than ###." I need to put some thought into the maximum muzzle energy. The word 'or' would leave all the cartridges qualifying under the existing law untouched. The addendum would allow vintage 'varmint' or 'small game' cartridges that are excluded at present.
 
Last edited:
The real issue is what is the logic behind the caliber restriction. Once you have established the imagined reason for the restriction, you can begin to address it.

cheers mooncoon
 
Win 38-55 said:
.....I'm thinking of proposing an addendum to the existing law that states "... or cartridges that have a published rifle muzzle energy less than ###." I need to put some thought into the maximum muzzle energy. The word 'or' would leave all the cartridges qualifying under the existing law untouched. The addendum would allow vintage 'varmint' or 'small game' cartridges that are excluded at present.
Click to expand...

Not a hope IMHO.

What is "Published Muzzle Energy"? If you establish that it is what manufacturers publish for factory ammo, then what do you do about obsolete ammo, or handloads, or Black Powder cartridges using smokeless, or obscure guns for which the data isn't available, or......

If you abandonned the idea for a discrete list of cartridges, and just went for a maximum ME #, no-one is going to set up a change that would require that each cartridge be chronied and the bullet weighed on a case-by-case basis to determine ME, for there would be no basis for the MNR to intervene in the first place. Unenforceable - it's not like they could say "that cartridge looks like it's too powerful".

Not quite the same as simply measuring the bore.
 
Last edited:
This badly written regulation was an intent to preclude military surplus rifles and ammunition from being used for plinking at woodchucks, etc. The MNR is aware of the problems with the regulation, but has indicated that it is not prepared to reopen the issue.
 
I'm talking about black powder small game cartridges. We don't even need to worry about a muzzle energy, etc. The old, black powder small game cartridges simply do not exit the muzzle at usually more than 1,300 fps.

Personally, with the increase in black powder cartridge shooters, I'd like to see some changes.
 
Think about what Tiriaq wrote; my guess is that the law is intended to encourage the use of small fast fragmenting bullets which kill humanely and which do not go bouncing along for some distance. With that in mind, the negative is that you risk having low velocity bullets banned because they don't fragment. Your only hope is to argue that the current law permits military hard point (assuming diameter is the only rule) such as the 6.5 mm Swedish ammo or .223 hard point. You still run the risk of banning non fragmenting bullets which will include most or all black powder rounds.
To return to my original postings; you first need a statement from Ontario Fish and Wildlife, stating the rationale behind the current law. Until you have a written statement about that, you don't know for sure what to argue for or against.

cheers mooncoon
 
A statement, if such exists, would be helpful. I can't see the fragmentation rational being taken seriously. First, far too many modern cartridges are permitted that don't fragment easily at 300 yards (like the 264 Win Mag). Second, a lot of ground hog shooting, using modern fast cartridges, is done at shallow angles, some using a bipod or rest. An accidental discharge at 10 degrees above horizontal is going to go for a very long way. Also, I hear fellows bragging about chucks they've nailed at 400 yards. At 400 yards, a 22-250 is only chugging along at 1,832 fps (Winchester 55 grain factory load). Whether it will fragment when it has slowed down that much I don't know ... maybe the rotational speed is still fast enough to do it .... Third, muzzle loaders and shotgun slugs don't fragment and we don't seem to have heavy pieces of lead bouncing all over the countryside during deer season.

The old, slow bullets out of black powder cartridges don't bounce as far as a 270 that skips off of a hard clay alfalfa field in August. On our farm in Manitoba, where the next farm was more than 5 miles away, I skipped slow heavy bullets off the ground to see how far they went (we had a 2,000 acre farm where the fields were very large and the terrain was very flat). I could keep track of the bounces by the puffs of dirt and, after the first touch down, I never saw a bullet bounce more than 4 times. The last bounce was always less than 300 yards from the first bounce. My 303 British, on the other hand went so far after the first bounce that I never saw the second one, just heard the whine as it headed for the next hayfield. (I always made sure that the direction I shot in had no farms within 5 miles, and I was a teenager in the early 70's on the prairie. I don't do this anymore.)

Anyway, that certainly is not going to persuade any committee, but I hope they make their decisions based hard data if they are concerned about bouncing, not to mention probabilities. The fragmentation criteria would also rule out the .22 rimfire.

I don't think current law permits full metal jacketed bullets for hunting. I only shoot cast bullets out of ancient guns, so I haven't checked it for sure, but I know they were forbidden in Manitoba in the 70's.

I don't want to start the Spanish Inquisition here, I would just like to be able to use the .32-20 loaded with black powder for ground hogs at 50 yards. You'all have raised a number of points worth pondering.
 
Common sense has nothing to do with this; it is government. But think about what Tiriaq said; I am guessing that the rule came in shortly after WW2 when there were lots of .303's around and lots of cheap military hardpoint for them. If that is the rationale then remember that military guns and cheap ammo change but their characteristics remains the same; ie hardpoint. If you are successful it will be on utilizing that fact BUT you may also be creating a new can of worms.
You should work on the basis that the people who make the rules have minimal knowledge of guns and ammo and often major misconceptions. They are also going to want a simple statement type law. Perhaps your best hope is to say that the rationale of the original law is not longer valid; eliminate the caliber restriction and at most say that the cartridge cannot contradict deer hunting regs as in shotgun vs rifle areas.

cheers mooncoon
 
In the mid 90's I was working for the Ontario government and raised this issue with a gun-friendly bureaucrat in the MNR (since retired). By coincidence I used the .32-20 as the example and compared it to the .270 Weatherby Magnum saying it was stupid that the smaller round wasn't permitted.

He agreed the regulation was stupid but felt any attempt to reopen the regulation and change it using muzzle velocity or energy would mean that other cartridges now in use might be ruled illegal. His view was given the nature of the senior mandarins in the MNR and the expected response from municipalities and anti-gunners during a public consultation we'd end up with something much worse than we have now.
 
I'll have to put careful thought into this. I certainly do not want to open a can of worms and wreck things for those who are using modern, high-speed cartridges for varmints. I took a look at the small game regs and noticed that they also permit flintlocks and precussion cap rifles/smoothbores. That seems to have been added at some point. I'll have to stew on this a while. The last thing I, or any of us, would want is to wind up with something much worse than what we have now, as Claybuster warns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom