22 Creedmore legal use issues!

[Article 4]

It is a bit like like arguing with my 7 year old you’re right haha.

I’ll bet you that “small versus big caliber” threads make up less than 3% of total threads posted in the last 7 days.

There is no argument. i kill with what i shoot. you kill with what you shoot.

everything else is just opinion

The difference is, I’m good with what you do. Never said you were wrong. Only said it’s not for me and how i would vote.

You guys are as prejudice and some blue folks. If my or anyelse’s thoughts don’t align with yours you must cancel. kill, and completely discount. You must attack. degrade and insult to ensure yours is the only correct way to think.

Ok. you are 100% correct. Hope you feel better now

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

By all means, keep on trying to convince guys of your stance. You may convert them with enough effort. Reminds me of the Mormons going door to door. No matter how many times you tell them you are not interested, they come back again next month.

If you notice, and actually read. I’ve never once told anyone to do anything. I’ve simply shared my experiences with evidence.

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything other than to go try things for themselves and report back.

 

[HuntHarder]

If you notice, and actually read. I’ve never once told anyone to do anything. I’ve simply shared my experiences with evidence.

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything other than to go try things for themselves and report back.

Even tho Article 4 has CLEARLY (maybe over 500 times) stated he is not a believer? I mean, at what point do you feel like you are wasting your breath?

You and I had a Great back and forth a few months ago. I get your side, but may not agree with it. I have yet to engage you since regarding the topic. I kill shit, you kill shit, that is how hunting is supposed to work. To each their own, rock on with your small caliber.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Even tho Article 4 has CLEARLY (maybe over 500 times) stated he is not a believer? I mean, at what point do you feel like you are wasting your breath?

You and I had a Great back and forth a few months ago. I get your side, but may not agree with it. I have yet to engage you since regarding the topic. I kill shit, you kill shit, that is how hunting is supposed to work. To each their own, rock on with your small caliber.

When someone states opinions with little to no experience and makes strong claims with zero evidence, those are the posts I like to question.

It takes seconds to reply on my phone it’s not wasted anything.

I appreciate folks killing with any diameter bullet, but to make strong general comments that one “works better” than the other when you haven’t experienced “the other” is just nonsense.

Back and forths are what forums are all about. I love seeing kills with any diameter bullet here. What I don’t love is moronic general claims that make no sense.

 

[ElPollo]

How did you measure energy in the field? Did you take people's firearm, shoot it through a chronograph, then take their ammo and pull a bullet and weigh it?
I'd argue energy is a completely impossible metric to have a regulation around. It's a more difficult regulation then velocity.

No, most do it by establishing a minimum caliber. Some do both caliber and energy. Nebraska allows 22 centerfires for deer and pronghorn, but establishes a minimum energy threshold to exclude cartridges like 22 Hornet and 221 Fireball.

 

[HuntHarder]

No, most do it by establishing a minimum caliber. Some do both caliber and energy. Nebraska allows 22 centerfires for deer and pronghorn, but establishes a minimum energy threshold to exclude cartridges like 22 Hornet and 221 Fireball.

Interesting. I feel like the caliber is the easy button and fool proof for the average hunter. I know if I asked my dad or uncles about how much energy their guns had, they would have no clue.

 

[Article 4]

When someone states opinions with little to no experience and makes strong claims with zero evidence, those are the posts I like to question.

It takes seconds to reply on my phone it’s not wasted anything.

I appreciate folks killing with any diameter bullet, but to make strong general comments that one “works better” than the other when you haven’t experienced “the other” is just nonsense.

Back and forths are what forums are all about. I love seeing kills with any diameter bullet here. What I don’t love is moronic general claims that make no sense.

If you have, please point it out. I have no recollection of you ever actually asking me if I had killed anything with a small caliber.

The way i read your assertions is you are assuming I haven’t based on my preference for bigger is better.

I have killed many big game animals with 6mm but none with anything smaller - on purpose. I won’t do it - especially on larger game. Period dot.

You wanna shoot an elk with an 80 grain bullet, go for it. It’s just not my thing.

 

[z987k]

No, most do it by establishing a minimum caliber. Some do both caliber and energy. Nebraska allows 22 centerfires for deer and pronghorn, but establishes a minimum energy threshold to exclude cartridges like 22 Hornet and 221 Fireball.

I could probably load a 3006 to lower than 22 hornet energy. Idk why you would, but the point remains that without bullet weight and velocity of the cartridges you have no idea what the energy is and that would be the easiest ticket ever to beat in court. Since the state would show up with no evidence to the crime whatsoever. Since the headstamp on a piece of brass means nothing. And if someone is writing tickets with no actual evidence of the crime, well.... they shouldn't be writing those tickets.
Practically unenforceable.

 

[ElPollo]

I could probably load a 3006 to lower than 22 hornet energy. Idk why you would, but the point remains that without bullet weight and velocity of the cartridges you have no idea what the energy is and that would be the easiest ticket ever to beat in court. Since the state would show up with no evidence to the crime whatsoever. Since the headstamp on a piece of brass means nothing. And if someone is writing tickets with no actual evidence of the crime, well.... they shouldn't be writing those tickets.
Practically unenforceable.

Don’t overthink this. I was just tying to explain the how and why of this sort of regulation. The agencies want to manage the resource and keep the public from complaining too much. Wardens need something clear to enforce for 99% of cases. That’s it. If your goal is to violate a law in a wierd, undectable way for no other reason, I’m sure you could come up with a way to do that. But why?

 

[HandgunHTR]

Even tho Article 4 has CLEARLY (maybe over 500 times) stated he is not a believer? I mean, at what point do you feel like you are wasting your breath?

You and I had a Great back and forth a few months ago. I get your side, but may not agree with it. I have yet to engage you since regarding the topic. I kill shit, you kill shit, that is how hunting is supposed to work. To each their own, rock on with your small caliber.

I will use a variation of a well known quote to explain why some of us feel the need to step in and respond to some of these posts.

"All it takes for stupid people to spread stupidity is for knowledgeable people to do nothing."

When people jump into these threads and tout their tribal knowledge or make statements of fact with little to no evidence of said fact, it is the responsibility of those who have taken the time and effort to collect actual data to refute those statements. The continued assertion of those individuals that they are being "attacked" says a lot about their position.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I have killed many big game animals with 6mm but none with anything smaller - on purpose. I won’t do it - especially on larger game. Period dot.

And yet you continue to assert that it shouldn't be done and to do so is 1) unethical, and 2) should be regulated by the various states so that it is illegal.

All that is being asked is what proof do you have to justify your position? By your own admission; none. Therefore how can it be taken seriously?

 

[Article 4]

And yet you continue to assert that it shouldn't be done and to do so is 1) unethical, and 2) should be regulated by the various states so that it is illegal.

All that is being asked is what proof do you have to justify your position? By your own admission; none. Therefore how can it be taken seriously?

I have never ever used the term unethical. Check yourself and don’t lie.

I do think it should be regulated. my prerogative to think so.

you act as if i owe you something. nope. nothing.

 

[Wrench]

At risk of getting chastised again, go hunting. Go fishing. Work out. Do gear maintenance. Reload ammo…

Who cares what anyone shoots or thinks they should shoot?

100% I'm lucky enough to have my own gunsmith shop at home and build some really fun stuff. I also love to hunt elk with a longbow or recurve. I also like to shoot mule deer with side locks.....and sometimes I want to hunt with a pistol if I'm not sniping with an edge or 223ai.....or 45-70 sharps.

I could care less what people think. The motto at our house is "Beef free since 1993" and I keep that alive by being versatile, accurate and well adapted to animal behavior and location.

 

[eric1115]

If you have, please point it out. I have no recollection of you ever actually asking me if I had killed anything with a small caliber.

The way i read your assertions is you are assuming I haven’t based on my preference for bigger is better.

I have killed many big game animals with 6mm but none with anything smaller - on purpose. I won’t do it - especially on larger game. Period dot.

You wanna shoot an elk with an 80 grain bullet, go for it. It’s just not my thing.

Why won't you do it, period-dot? Sounds like an ethics/moral stance from the way you word it. Help me understand why such a strong stance on something you have never tried?

I have never ever used the term unethical. Check yourself and don’t lie.

I do think it should be regulated. my prerogative to think so.

you act as if i owe you something. nope. nothing.

"Owe" might be strong, but I do think it's not unreasonable to want you to argue in good faith.

 

[Reburn]

I have never ever used the term unethical. Check yourself and don’t lie.

I do think it should be regulated. my prerogative to think so.

you act as if i owe you something. nope. nothing.

Point the finger
Reject the blame
Dig deep in a heart that breaks
No spine to be found
Pick me up
(Pick me up from the ground)

 

[Article 4]

Why won't you do it, period-dot? Sounds like an ethics/moral stance from the way you word it. Help me understand why such a strong stance on something you have never tried?



"Owe" might be strong, but I do think it's not unreasonable to want you to argue in good faith.

you are wrong again!!

i have killed a lot of thing with small calibers. i CHOOSE not to hunt larger with smaller. Seems your ethics are more in question than mine. Mine are mine and i am steadfast in them.

Ok. here is one article i recently read. peruse this

The Simple Physics That Makes Some Bullets Deadlier Than Others

How higher speed, greater mass, and more surface area increase the damage that rounds can do to human bodies.

www.thetrace.org

 

[eric1115]

you are wrong again!!

i have killed a lot of thing with small calibers. i CHOOSE not to hunt larger with smaller. Seems your ethics are more in question than mine. Mine are mine and i am steadfast in them.

Ok. here is one article i recently read. peruse this

The Simple Physics That Makes Some Bullets Deadlier Than Others

How higher speed, greater mass, and more surface area increase the damage that rounds can do to human bodies.

www.thetrace.org

You said, and I quote, "I have killed many big game animals with 6mm but none with anything smaller - on purpose. I won’t do it - especially on larger game. Period dot."

How am I supposed to read that as anything other than that you have never tried heavy match bullets like the 77TMK for big game?

What have I said that leads you to believe I act unethically?

How would you describe or summarize your unchanging or steadfast ethics?

 

[Article 4]

Why won't you do it, period-dot? Sounds like an ethics/moral stance from the way you word it. Help me understand why such a strong stance on something you have never tried?



"Owe" might be strong, but I do think it's not unreasonable to want you to argue in good faith.

I ask you this, I have yet to read outside of this forum where there is significant evidence showing that smaller bullets have more ballistic and terminal advantage than larger moving at the same rate, made of the same construction.
I am not talking about "this one time in band camp" stuff...I am talking about where there's significant ballistic advantage

If so, send away!

 

[eric1115]

I ask you this, I have yet to read outside of this forum where there is significant evidence showing that smaller bullets have more ballistic and terminal advantage than larger moving at the same rate, made of the same construction.
I am not talking about "this one time in band camp" stuff...I am talking about where there's significant ballistic advantage

If so, send away!

That in no way answers any of the three straightforward questions I asked you. Can you answer them?

Edit: did you actually read the article you linked, and if yes, do you believe it effectively supports your position?

 

[Article 4]

You said, and I quote, "I have killed many big game animals with 6mm but none with anything smaller - on purpose. I won’t do it - especially on larger game. Period dot."

How am I supposed to read that as anything other than that you have never tried heavy match bullets like the 77TMK for big game?

What have I said that leads you to believe I act unethically?

How would you describe or summarize your unchanging or steadfast ethics?

Again, since you have a hard time comprehending it - I WILL NOT shoot a 77 grain bullet at a large animal like an elk. EVER - I never said a 77 grain bullet wont kill, what I have said and stand behind is that a 210 grain bullet of the same construction and similar velocity is ballistically superior and has better terminal force than a 77.

I would describe my unchanging ethics in the statement above.