.223 / 5.56x45 for Deer?

[44 AMP]

There ARE reasons for each state's regulations, but you won't find the reasons listed in the regulations. To find out the reasons you'll have to talk to the state's Fish & game people who create the regs.

Also keep in mind that the caliber requirements are not based solely on cartridge performance, but also on what is seen, or expected to be seen by the majority of people using them to hunt.

Not on what a skilled expert can humanely do but on what the general populace is likely to do with them.

"Karamojo" Bell killed a LOT of elephants, many with light caliber rifles, some as small as 6.5mm. However, Bell was an excellent shot, knew elephant anatomy well, AND hunted elephants at a time (and place) when they were not spooked by man's mere presence, and getting close enough for surgically accurate shot placement was possible.

I'm sure others tried to do what he did, but there are no records of them, I think they tried and failed, and Africa "recycled" them....

Today, (and for a long time now) places that still allow elephant hunting have minimum caliber restrictions, some will allow .37s most require a .40 or larger. This is done to protect the game (and also the hunters), and based not on what an expert can do, but on what the average hunter will do, and how successful they will be.

I'm pretty sure what the OP is looking for is not to make any argument about how the .223 is adequate for deer or about AR's at all, what he's looking for is current state regs as a counter for the "ban them" arguments claiming its too powerful for civilian use, and also how the round and the AR rifles are not ONLY "weapons of war" that they have other uses as well, not trying to make any case about Constitutional rights, only to show how the other side's arguments are flawed, incorrect, intentionally misleading, and in some cases, outright lies.

that sound about right, AB??

[Scorch]

The definition of “high-power” is the distinction used in NRA matches, all there is are high-power (center fire) and rimfire rifles. Trying to make the argument that 223/5.56 is “high powered” and therefore too deadly is a basic misinterpretation of the definition, much like saying that lye or caustic soda aren’t dangerous because they are basic.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I'm pretty sure what the OP is looking for is not to make any argument about how the .223 is adequate for deer or about AR's at all, what he's looking for is current state regs as a counter for the "ban them" arguments claiming its too powerful for civilian use, and also how the round and the AR rifles are not ONLY "weapons of war" that they have other uses as well, not trying to make any case about Constitutional rights, only to show how the other side's arguments are flawed, incorrect, intentionally misleading, and in some cases, outright lies.

that sound about right, AB??

That pretty well sums it up.

[jrothWA]

But the limited to the northern lower Peninsula, essentially from a line from Muskegon on the west cost of the lower peninsula to the lower extremity of the Saginaw Bay. North of that general line is open to all center-fire rifles.

South is restricted to shotguns with buckshot or slugs, ML rifle, specific cartridges for handguns and rifles [minimum caliber of .35 and maximum case length, with straight walls]

Best commercial ammo is the Winchester .223REm with 64gr powerpoint.

[Double Naught Spy]

There ARE reasons for each state's regulations, but you won't find the reasons listed in the regulations. To find out the reasons you'll have to talk to the state's Fish & game people who create the regs.

The ones who createD the regs? Many of those regs have been around for many decades and so the actual reasons for why the particular regs were created likely won't be known, not unless they have a file cabinet somewhere in the office that documents the reasons for each regulation. No doubt you can call a DNR office and ask for a reason and I also would be willing to bet that if you call again and talk to another person that the reason is different.

I'm pretty sure what the OP is looking for is not to make any argument about how the .223 is adequate for deer or about AR's at all, what he's looking for is current state regs as a counter for the "ban them" arguments claiming its too powerful for civilian use, and also how the round and the AR rifles are not ONLY "weapons of war" that they have other uses as well, not trying to make any case about Constitutional rights, only to show how the other side's arguments are flawed, incorrect, intentionally misleading, and in some cases, outright lies.

Oh, I understand fully and the goal is a good one. It is just going to be hard to come up with solid facts (versus opinions or perspectives) for subjects that even pro gun people have trouble coming to a consensus about.

[44 AMP]

Many of those regs have been around for many decades and so the actual reasons for why the particular regs were created likely won't be known, not unless they have a file cabinet somewhere in the office that documents the reasons for each regulation.

I think you are overlooking something often referred to as "institutional knowledge". As each new generation of game officers arrives, they get taught the things are "in the book", and they get taught the things that aren't as well, Of course there are exceptions but that's generally the way it works with every long term organization.

Another point is that there are often minor (and sometimes not so minor) chages to the regs, and those people determining what should be changed and IF it should be changed will be familar with the reasons the existing regs are what they are, at a minimum, so they can determine if those conditions still exist, and apply that to their decisions.

Sure, not everyone in the office might know a detailed history, but its a near certainty someone there does, or knows how to find out.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Oh, I understand fully and the goal is a good one. It is just going to be hard to come up with solid facts (versus opinions or perspectives) for subjects that even pro gun people have trouble coming to a consensus about.

But I don't need a consensus. I don't even need a reason. My target audience is the fence-sitters who know nothing (or next to nothing) about firearms. All I need is the basic fact: ten states do not allow the use of the .223 / 5.56x45 cartridge for hunting deer.

Then I move on to comparing the muzzle energy of the .223 to the muzzle energy of a real high-powered hunting round, such as the 460 Weatherby Magnum ...

You want high-powered? We'll show you high-powered.

[thallub]

In Oklahoma the .223 is legal for the taking of deer and elk.

[Ricklin]

Oregon has Roosevelt's Elk, a .223? No freakin way, Coastal elk here can be well over one half ton.

Thus the .24 requirement in Oregon. Trust me, you want more than that. I guess I'm the only one that finds this funny. According to Oregon law, should your Roosevelt's cross over Hwy. 97 which splits the state E-W he somehow becomes a rocky mountain elk.

Oregon does have two distinct Elk. State fish and game took the easy way.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Ricklin

Thus the .24 requirement in Oregon.

Oregon is not on any list I have found for states that don't allow .223 for hunting deer. Can you provide a link to the .24 regulation?

[Edit] Never mind. I found the regs, and you are mistaken.

https://www.eregulations.com/oregon/...r-game-mammals

Centerfire Firearm (Rifles, Handguns and Shotguns)

It is unlawful to hunt game mammals with:

.22 caliber rimfire (except for western gray squirrel).
Fully automatic firearms.
Semiautomatic rifles with a magazine capacity greater than five cartridges (except for western gray squirrel).
Tracer or full-metal jacket bullets.
Infrared, night vision, laser or any other sight that projects a beam to the target, including scopes with electronic rangefinders and scopes that receive information from any electronic device.

In other words -- any centerfire cartridge is legal. This section of the regs is for "Game Mammals," which includes deer ... and elk.

However, farther down there is a table that establishes .24 as the minimum caliber for elk -- but this discussion is about deer, not elk.

[Ricklin]

Thanks for that, sorry to contribute to the thread drift.

[44 AMP]

(admitted thread drift, but I'll keep it short)

Don't they allow hunting bunnies with a .22LR in Oregon??

we now return to the previously scheduled programing...

.223, with the right bullet, and the right shot placement for that bullet will cleanly, and humanely take deer. More states now allow its use than did when the round was "new".

Each state writes their own regs for hunting and some states have recognized that changes in bullet & barrel technology have expanded the ability of the .223, and now allow it, others have not yet done so, and may not, ever. (or may do so with the next revision of their regulations). Time will tell.

[stinkeypete]

Humans are a lot less hardy than deer.

If you used a .223 for a wisconsin sized deer, any real hunter would spit.
Same with 9mm. It's simply not respecting the animal.

Now, shoot a groundhog or a person, different story.

My proposal is that it's the high capacity removable magazine that should be regulated. Easy to say, hard to rule beat. If the magazine holds more than 10, it's an NFA item.

Keep your guns, register your magazines. But more likely, replace them with shorties.

Then halt the production of rifles with removable magazines. Eliminate the "shockwave" oversight, and call "AR Pistols with arm braces" what they are- short barrel rifles. Those firearms can be retrofitted to proper shotguns and rifles.

Since most of us follow the NFA, we already accept gun control.

After the gangland era shootouts, the NFA in 1939, the last time we had a civilian mass murder with a machine gun was the dude in Nevada with the bump stock. Bump stocks are now an NFA item.

Other than that, when was the last civilian machine gun mass murder?

You'd have to say that regulating machine guns worked.

[Double Naught Spy]

But I don't need a consensus. I don't even need a reason. My target audience is the fence-sitters who know nothing (or next to nothing) about firearms. All I need is the basic fact: ten states do not allow the use of the .223 / 5.56x45 cartridge for hunting deer.

Okay, so you are writing an interpretive opinion piece for a limited audience. Got it. However will the reasons why states don't allow .223 be facts? Will you mention that some of the states that don't allow .223 also don't even allow "real high powered rifles" (your words) for deer hunting as well?
https://www.imbmonsterbucks.com/ha/7...ly-states.html
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...season.337960/

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Okay, so you are writing an interpretive opinion piece for a limited audience. Got it. However will the reasons why states don't allow .223 be facts? Will you mention that some of the states that don't allow .223 also don't even allow "real high powered rifles" (your words) for deer hunting as well?

Nope.

Why should I mention that?

[44 AMP]

No writer is under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For good or ill, that's the way it is.

Come to think of it, in court, nether the judge, nor the Prosecutor, nor the defense attorney are under that oath, either.

Only people giving sworn testimony.....

I've always wondered about that......

[Aguila Blanca]

I have no intention of lying. My point -- my whole point and my only point, at least on this branch of my discussion -- is that the .223 / 5.56x45 (and the 7.62x39) is NOT a "high-powered" cartridge. Mentioning that 10 states don't allow it for hunting deer is the truth, and I don't need to explain why.

From there I'll segue into "full-power" rifle rounds like .308, .30-06, and 8mm Mauser ... and then I'll bring in the real high-powered rounds, such as .416 Barrett, 700 Nitro Express, and 460 Weatherby Magnum.

I've got the answer I needed, folks, so rather than see this thread devolve from a very specific question into a general discussion about the second Amendment, I think I'll wave my magic moderator wand and close it.