-
January 6th, 2020, 03:24 PM
#41
Has too much time on their hands
While this would be great for hunters and I am 100% behind it, realistically I don't see this taking off. We have a hard enough time getting politicians on-board with Sunday gun hunting. It wasn't that long ago around here that the City of Hamilton re did it's discharge bylaw. In the original draft of the bylaw, the area out near Stoney Creek was deemed a non weapon discharge area despite it being a bow discharge area for years under the previous bylaw (even comparing the new bylaw to the old one, Hamilton hunters lost a lot of space to discharge firearms due to the addition of terminology) because the average politician does not understand firearms or the responsibilities we firearm owners and operators have under the law.
Asking politicians to give us the ability to discharge centre-fire rifles should be a reasonable ask when you look at the numbers of the calibers involved but when the politicians realize that it would be high powered rifles involved, I think the logic would get thrown out the window and the rallying cry of the soccar moms (Won't someone please think of the children!) would be sounding off.
-
January 6th, 2020 03:24 PM
# ADS
-
January 6th, 2020, 03:57 PM
#42

Originally Posted by
Cayuga Kid
The .275 caliber restriction was originally implemented so that military hardball ammo was not used in populated areas. After WW2 there was a plethora of surplus military ammo in 30 cal IE: 303 British, 30-06 Springfield etc.
That was my understanding too - it wasn't intended to be a caliber restriction but rather the prohibition of the use of FMJ. Not sure why the original wasn't worded as such but apparently someone thought prohibiting the .30 cals and larger would be an easier way to do it. Also - the larger bore straight wall calibers weren't much in use at the time. Maybe a few old guys using .44-40's or .38-55's.
-
January 6th, 2020, 06:01 PM
#43

Originally Posted by
werner.reiche
That was my understanding too - it wasn't intended to be a caliber restriction but rather the prohibition of the use of FMJ. Not sure why the original wasn't worded as such but apparently someone thought prohibiting the .30 cals and larger would be an easier way to do it. Also - the larger bore straight wall calibers weren't much in use at the time. Maybe a few old guys using .44-40's or .38-55's.
There you have it, a straight forward answer!
Because of the influx of 30.cal military FMJ ammo that became available, along with the 7mm mauser ammo after the war.
-
January 6th, 2020, 10:04 PM
#44

Originally Posted by
jaycee
There you have it, a straight forward answer!
Because of the influx of 30.cal military FMJ ammo that became available, along with the 7mm mauser ammo after the war.
How is it straight forward?
You know how many people told me it was illegal to hunt deer with anything smaller than a .243, "was my understanding" is not evidence.
The thing is, the rule is stupid, has always been stupid, even if it was to stop the use of FMJ ammo it was only for small game hunting and was useless after the 223 came to popularity.
-
January 7th, 2020, 10:57 AM
#45

Originally Posted by
MikePal
You're right, but like some states do , their restrictions on their Traditional Weapons hunt keep it under control. Same can be done to clarify cartridge size and bullet weight etc...
Some guys in Indiana are using WSSM cases necked to .358 to get around the cal and length restrictions.
-
January 16th, 2020, 12:12 PM
#46
note: There is a pretty good article on the straight walls called 'Straight Shooters ' by Brad Fitzpatrick in the Jan/Feb issue of the OOD mag (page 48). Good historical perspective.
Last edited by MikePal; January 16th, 2020 at 02:00 PM.
-
January 16th, 2020, 12:59 PM
#47

Originally Posted by
MikePal
note: There is a pretty good article on the straight case called 'Straight Shooters ' by Brad Fitzpatrick in the Jan/Feb issue of the OOD mag (page 48). Good historical perspective.
I read it, hate how they went along with pushing the 350 Legend, even though the comparisons do not line up with reality.
-
January 16th, 2020, 01:24 PM
#48

Originally Posted by
Fox
I read it, hate how they went along with pushing the 350 Legend, even though the comparisons do not line up with reality.
Are others, not allowed to have/state an opinion,? why is it that yours are the only opinions that are relavent ???
-
January 16th, 2020, 02:30 PM
#49

Originally Posted by
jaycee
Are others, not allowed to have/state an opinion,? why is it that yours are the only opinions that are relavent ???
At what point did he say his opinion was the only valid one?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
January 16th, 2020, 07:00 PM
#50

Originally Posted by
Rob Stewart
At what point did he say his opinion was the only valid one?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Has nothing to do with validity!
Relevant = def. : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion