Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 56

Thread: Straight Sided Rifle Cartridge Season

  1. #41
    Has too much time on their hands

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #42
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cayuga Kid View Post
    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.

  4. #43
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by werner.reiche View Post
    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.

  5. #44
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jaycee View Post
    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.

  6. #45
    Apprentice

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikePal View Post
    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.

  7. #46
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.

  8. #47
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikePal View Post
    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.

  9. #48
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    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 ???

  10. #49
    Loyal Member

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jaycee View Post
    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
    Rob

    CSSA/CFFR/OFAH

  11. #50
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Stewart View Post
    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

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •