Minimum caliber for big game change in Saskatchewan

KodiakHntr said:
This post exactly sums up why this is operator error. If you are using a "commonly available load" and the bullet exploded on a rib, the OPERATOR did not choose an appropriate bullet for the task at hand. If you are choosing a varmint bullet meant to expand on a ground squirrel, instead of a properly constructed bullet meant to hold together and penetrate to the vitals on a deer, then that is operator error. That isn't the fault of the bullet or the cartridge, that is entirely on you. I have shot several deer with proper deer bullets sent from .224" caliber rifles, and have hit several ribs. Not one of those bullets have come unhinged because they were chosen for the specific task at hand.

Were I to only have a varmint bullet available and for some reason needed to kill a larger ungulate, then shot placement would be chosen based on the bullet at hand. I wouldn't expect a 36 grain Varmint Grenade to penetrate a quartering away rib shot on a road injured moose at 3800fps impact velocity, but I would place it in the ear if that was what was required.
Click to expand...

Please feel free to show me the commonly available .223 Rem ammo from say 25 years ago that I could have used that would have held up to a deer when I shot it. I guess when I read 55 grain SP, I should have been able to see the invisible "For Varmint use only" on it? I used a calibre with off the shelf ammo that simply stated .223 Rem 55gr SP on it. Last I checked SP ammo is the normal standby for most hunters.
 
KodiakHntr said:
This post exactly sums up why this is operator error. If you are using a "commonly available load" and the bullet exploded on a rib, the OPERATOR did not choose an appropriate bullet for the task at hand. If you are choosing a varmint bullet meant to expand on a ground squirrel, instead of a properly constructed bullet meant to hold together and penetrate to the vitals on a deer, then that is operator error. That isn't the fault of the bullet or the cartridge, that is entirely on you. I have shot several deer with proper deer bullets sent from .224" caliber rifles, and have hit several ribs. Not one of those bullets have come unhinged because they were chosen for the specific task at hand.

Were I to only have a varmint bullet available and for some reason needed to kill a larger ungulate, then shot placement would be chosen based on the bullet at hand. I wouldn't expect a 36 grain Varmint Grenade to penetrate a quartering away rib shot on a road injured moose at 3800fps impact velocity, but I would place it in the ear if that was what was required.
Click to expand...

Dbl Tap.
 
Glock4ever said:
Please feel free to show me the commonly available .223 Rem ammo from say 25 years ago that I could have used that would have held up to a deer when I shot it. I guess when I read 55 grain SP, I should have been able to see the invisible "For Varmint use only" on it? I used a calibre with off the shelf ammo that simply stated .223 Rem 55gr SP on it. Last I checked SP ammo is the normal standby for most hunters.
Click to expand...

Soooooo you are using 2 deer shot 25 years ago with a bullet you don't know the manufacturer of to base your opinion on today's deer bullets? 25 years ago bullet technology is nowhere near what it is now, and it wasn't uncommon for 30 cal or 284 cal bullets to splash on a rib or shoulder blade.... Just sayin'.
 
Many years ago I loaded up some 45 gr. SP Hornadys for my 22-250 to shoot gophers. After about the first 10 rounds I came to the conclusion the bullets were coming apart before reaching any gophers further than 25 yards from the muzzle.
So yeah....bullet choice does matter.
 
KodiakHntr said:
Soooooo you are using 2 deer shot 25 years ago with a bullet you don't know the manufacturer of to base your opinion on today's deer bullets? 25 years ago bullet technology is nowhere near what it is now, and it wasn't uncommon for 30 cal or 284 cal bullets to splash on a rib or shoulder blade.... Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Soooooooo... I said that I hunted with this a long time ago and that I switched because of the results (AT THAT TIME). I also stated that I don't use .223 anymore because I now hunt in areas that it isn't legal. I also stated that I don't care what calibre a person uses as long as it is legal. 30 cal splashing on ribs and shoulder blades? Splashing really? Do you just make stuff up? Here are some facts as you seem to want to read my posts in some bizarre sort of way:

1.) .223 is not my RECOMMENDED calibre. I never said it couldn't kill EVER or that it was a "bad" calibre. I just stated that I found that it didn't kill as fast as I would like to see. I said I would RECOMMEND a larger calibre if the shooter was comfortable with it. The recommendation was based on the FACT that .223 Rem doesn't have a lot of big game loads and does not have a lot of bullet mass.

2.) I would rather see somebody go out and hunt and use a marginal calibre than not at all. I realize that women, children and disabled people have the same right to hunt as me so if they need to use a .223, 243 or a light calibre to get her done than I support that as we need more hunters in the sport.

I never considered my kills a "failure" of the .223 Rem EVER. I just stated that I could HANDLE more gun so I got more gun to KILL the deer faster.

So get your chip off your shoulder and find somebody else to argue with.
 
I got a reply letter today:
huSNPo
https://ibb.co/huSNPo

My reply was
Thank you for your reply. A couple of considerations I'd like to put forward for further review... and this is important!



The current wording of the act as revised says:



17(1) No person shall hunt big game with a centrefire rifle that uses:

(a) a cartridge that has an empty cartridge case length of less than 32 millimetres; or

(b) any of the following cartridges:

(i) a cartridge of .17 calibre or less;

(ii) the .22 Hornet;

(iii) the .22 K-Hornet;

(iv) the .218 Bee;

(v) the .25-20 Winchester;

(vi) the .30 Carbine;

(vii) the .32-20 Winchester;

(viii) the .357 Magnum;

(ix) the .41 Remington Magnum;

(x) the .44-40 Winchester;

(xi) the .45 Colt



Now, this is significant, because it reads No person shall hunt big game with a centrefire rifle that uses...

The new wording of this act effectively made it legal to use rimfire cartitdges with a length of less than 32 mm because they are not center fire. That makes it legal to shoot a moose with a 22 long rifle rimefire... and that is way too ineffective and cruel to an animal... but the wording is very poor, so that's what it is.



The other consideration that I am asking, is in the letter you attached, it states that the determination was made based upon the rule of 1,000 pound feet of energy... which some factory 45 colt does not produce... and some does. I personally handload, and do get significantly more energy than that from my 45 colt loads. I hope to see an ammendment or exception for such circumstances.



The 45 colt and 44-40 that were prohibited by this recent revision have been used to hunt deer for the last 100 years or so. And continue to be legal choices in most other jurisdictions. I would like to see this reconsidered by just asking nicely. Pretty please! It would be much easier to just ask for the reconsideration as opposed to having to start lobbying with groups and make it into news wouldn't it? I mean, I pointed out the other flaw that made a 22 rimfire legal, throw me a bone here! Even make it so that it can't be used for Moose or Elk... but the 45 colt and the 44-40 are still very capable of humanely and effectivley harvesting White Tail Deer, Mule Deer, and Antelope (and elk & moose when handloaded... but I don't hunt those, so I'm not trying for those)



Thanks a bunch for your considerations,
 
saskgunowner101 said:
Are you speaking specifically to the 45 Colt and 44/40 being disallowed, or just in a general terms of any cartridge meeting the 1000 ft lb energy mentioned in the letter?
Click to expand...

I don't have first hand knowledge of calibers across the board... so I am speaking up for what I specifically know about... but I do encourage everyone to step up and speak for what they know if it's another stupid government gun rule that's based on nothingness.
 
Holy crap... it may not be perfect, but we were allowed a lot more options here and all I see is complaining. I know a little of the hard work that went into getting this, including that the minister took a risk and put himself out there to get these approved while SERM probably disagreed. I can’t believe you want to shoot yourselves in the foot and piss off the people that put theme selves out there for you guys.... so they won’t do it again. Why not show some thanks and appreciate a win, no matter how small you consider it, and appreciate that you could simply lose it again if SERM gets their way....
 
When I inquired at SERM about the changes I was told that they were going to assess it after a year. Of course that would require someone to actually admit wounding and losing something, and the chances of that are pretty slim. Everyone is perfect when there are no witnesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom