6mm and .223/5.56 ILLEGAL for big game in Alaska!

[pugwylde]

Seems like it would be a novel concept to have regulations written that considered bullet construction instead of barrel diameter. Pages of proof that a 77TMK is devastating to big animals, and more than a few tests to show lower recoil generally makes for better shooting. Further, no one is running out thinking FMJ ammo is great for hunting, regardless of how big a pencil hole it's going to make. Maybe that's where you draw the line, instead of something (mostly) arbitrary like barrel diameter.

 

[5811]

The first proposal is not targeting 223, it's targeting a certain type of hunter. The type that wants to use their AR to hunt and just shoot a lot without respect for the animal.

The majority of the write up is going after the hunter and the rifle type, not the cartridge. They can't outright say it because trying to ban ARs would rule out 300, 308, 6.5, 350l, 450, 458, etc.

 

[Heath Hansen]

Damn, why didn't you tell me that earlier?! I wouldn't have had to waste those two 77TMKs...
View attachment 762160

View attachment 762161

Didn’t say they wouldn’t work. Said they shouldn’t be used. There are always variables and different options. Did you have a reason for choosing that caliber? Do you not own anything bigger?

 

[BradArnett]

Sorry, by definition you are wrong. Trauma is by definition damaged tissue from energy transfer or failure of energy transfer (drowning). Broadheads are designed to maximize trauma for the given projectile.

Cutting is trauma. Crushing is trauma. Both cause death through shock, not all shock is hemorrhagic. But, medically speaking arrows and bullets both cause penetrating trauma and the expected pathologies are the same.


Shock by definition is a drop in blood pressure. Lay people often confuse it with other things, but given you choice of technical wording, I feel like pointing out how you are using the term shock is as scientific as a diagnosis of consumption.

The idea that all death from penetrating trauma is caused by exsanguination is faulty. Hemorrhagic shock is the tank runs dry but the system still works
Obstructive shock (tension pneumothorax/hemothorax, cardiac tamponade)-nothing can get into the pump
Asphyxiation (transection of the trachea)-pump runs out of fuel
Destruction of essential cardiac structures-direct pump failure
Transection of the aorta-outflow of the pump breaks

All these result in shock and death that is not primarily driven by exsanguination. None of those follow the expected pattern of hemorrhagic shock, none of them will be fixed only by replacing volume and stopping further volume loss.

Now, this is all technical, I don't really expect people to get it correct, so unless you have worked in trauma, none of this should be taken as a negative on you.

To put this slightly differently, only talking about hemorrhagic shock is like saying all engines fail because fuel stops combusting. Most people can believe that forever and so long as they use a mechanic will not have an issue, but a mechanic had better know more than that.

Pretty good explanation and anology. I've seen a fair amount of people shot and stabbed come through my er and I'll take getting stabbed over being shot for 1000 Alex.

 

[gbflyer]

Most proposals not presented by ADFG AC’s are generally dismissed. Second one might get taken seriously.

 

[gbflyer]

Also, I have seen several proposals limiting equipment made over the years, and opponents in many cases can claim that it would cause financial hardship. In this case village residents would have to buy another rifle if theirs didn’t comply. For many that would be a strain.

 

[SDHNTR]

Debate aside, only a few people are getting this right, obviously those with AK experience. This isn't even about regulating the caliber so much as it is regulating the people who typically hunt with such weapons.

Very few sport hunters hunt with a .223, and even fewer with an AR. The majority of those that do in Alaska don't view hunting for sport at all. It's subsistence alone, and they will kill the protein they need by any means necessary, ethics be damned. This is an attempt to bring some semblance of ethics into populations that think nothing of them when looking to put food on the table. It's an attempt to legislate "spray and pray" tactics.

So what do you .223 proponents (and believe me I am one, in the right circumstances) want? You want a law that says you can hunt the biggest of big game with a .223 only if you use a 77gr SMK? But a 55 gr TSX is a no go? Get real. You can't be that granular, so you lean on the pragmatic. Just shoot something bigger. BFD. I see pragmatism in the proposal, especially when you consider what's "written" between the lines.

And I'm still taking the bow. It's obvious who the bowhunters are on this thread. I've simply seen well placed arrows kill more quickly and humanely than well placed small caliber bullets on large animals. Many times.

 

[atmat]

Debate aside,

Wise to bow out of the debate you’re wrong in.

This is an attempt to bring some semblance of ethics into populations that think nothing of them when looking to put food on the table. It's an attempt to legislate "spray and pray" tactics.

That's not pragmatic at all. What stops someone from spray-and-pray with a 6mm AR?

So what do you .223 proponents (and believe me I am one, in the right circumstances) want? You want a law that says you can hunt the biggest of big game with a .223 only if you use a 77gr SMK? But a 55 gr TSX is a no go? Get real.

Do what other states do, and specify you have to use an expanding or fragmenting bullet. Super easy.

And I'm still taking the bow. It's obvious who the bowhunters are on this thread. I've simply seen well placed arrows kill more quickly and humanely than well placed small caliber bullets on large animals. Many times.

How many big game animals have you seen killed with a fragmenting .223 vs a bow and what was the average time to incapacitation? If you don’t have data you’re speaking to anecdote.

If bows were more lethal you’d see armies using them instead of rifles.

 

[SDHNTR]

Wise to bow out of the debate you’re wrong in.


That's not pragmatic at all. What stops someone from spray-and-pray with a 6mm AR?


Do what other states do, and specify you have to use an expanding or fragmenting bullet. Super easy.



How many big game animals have you seen killed with a fragmenting .223 vs a bow and what was the average time to incapacitation? If you don’t have data you’re speaking to anecdote.

If bows were more lethal you’d see armies using them instead of rifles.

I’m not wrong, it’s a matter of personal preference.

Nothing about a 6mm AR is pragmatic. They are a boutique weapon, manufactured and sold on a limited, mostly custom, basis. Again, your ignorance of Alaskan demographics is showing. Do you really think native Alaskans use custom guns?

Ok so all fragmenting bullets are OK now. You take your .223 and a VMAX on that brown bear hunt.

I’ve hunted and killed enough with both (way over triple digits with a bow) to know I’m absolutely not taking a fragmenting .223 brown bear hunting. Yet I wouldn’t hesitate to do it with a bow.

 

[wind gypsy]

Also, I have seen several proposals limiting equipment made over the years, and opponents in many cases can claim that it would cause financial hardship. In this case village residents would have to buy another rifle if theirs didn’t comply. For many that would be a strain.

Exactly. Id have a hard time seeing them basically tell a bunch of subsistence hunters to "just shoot something bigger. BFD" as someone has in this thread.

 

[atmat]

Enough to know I’m absolutely not taking a fragmenting .223 brown bear hunting. Yet I wouldn’t hesitate to do it with a bow.

Just gonna leave your own words here for you:

Lame, uninformed and irrelevant statement.

End of story.

 

[180ls1]

The first proposal is not targeting 223, it's targeting a certain type of hunter. The type that wants to use their AR to hunt and just shoot a lot without respect for the animal.

The majority of the write up is going after the hunter and the rifle type, not the cartridge. They can't outright say it because trying to ban ARs would rule out 300, 308, 6.5, 350l, 450, 458, etc.

Bingo!

Some ranchers have the same policy.

 

[SDHNTR]

Just gonna leave your own words here for you:

Ok, you call up an Alaskan brown bear (or moose for that matter) guide and tell them you want to use a bow. They will say, “ OK great! Send in your deposit”.

Now tell them you want to use a .223 AR with “fragmenting” bullets. IF they actually stay on the phone long enough to say anything at all, they will tell you NFW!

 

[Kurts86]

If you are involved in state level wildlife politics at all you know there are usually plenty of stupid proposals, bill, etc that get announced each year and most never go anywhere. This is where a nuanced understanding of the players involved and their clout and where they are in the process really matters. Generally it’s not worth even burning any calories or political capital on these things in their infancy but instead waiting to pile on once they make their first significant move forward. Otherwise you burn up a lot of political capital on stuff that’s DOA. I don’t know the details of AK wildlife politics but I wouldn’t go beyond the monitor phase of something like this if I was strongly for or against it until it got assigned for discussion in a committee or similar.

 

[9.3koolaid]

Exactly. Id have a hard time seeing them basically tell all the subsistence hunters to "just shoot something bigger. BFD" as someone has in this thread.

Yep, it'll never happen.

And speaking of "custom firearms" in the bush. Last time I was in Ambler, 6.5 grendel was one of 4 calibers on the shelf.

 

[IAm_Not_Lost]

Ok, you call up an Alaskan brown bear (or moose for that matter) guide and tell them you want to use a bow. They will say, “ OK great! Send in your deposit”.

Now tell them you want to use a .223 AR with “fragmenting” bullets. IF they actually stay on the phone long enough to say anything at all, they will tell you NFW!

First, yes, the use of the term “fragmenting” probably isn’t a wise choice by the previous poster. That aside…

The guide is going to say that simply because the interpretation is that you’re a novice if you call and ask that.

If a well known hunter, Warren, Rinella, etc called up and said, “Hey, I’m doing a piece on the effectiveness of smaller calibers, I want to use a 100% weight retention hollow point 223, in the same proximity and setup we would a bow”, the guide would go, “yeah sure”.

Again, I’m not sitting here saying that the majority of hunters should use marginal calibers. What I’m saying is that the difference here is the caliber of hunter.

Hunters have been told that it’s “ethical” to hunt with a bow, heck even a blow gun, or a spear. And they know they need to be RIGHT THERE, 15, 20, maybe 40 yards away from their target, and that shot needs to be PERFECT. You know why? Because that super ethical bow has little room for error. You know it, I know it. Bows can be effective not because arrows are somehow magically better than a 6mm rifle caliber, but because the bow hunter is FAR more diligent.

If rifle hunters used that same diligence and expertise while hunting, and kept distances close when using a marginal rifle caliber, there would be no argument here.

 

[The Guide]

I’m not wrong, it’s a matter of personal preference.

Nothing about a 6mm AR is pragmatic. They are a boutique weapon, manufactured and sold on a limited, mostly custom, basis. Again, your ignorance of Alaskan demographics is showing. Do you really think native Alaskans use custom guns?

Ok so all fragmenting bullets are OK now. You take your .223 and a VMAX on that brown bear hunt.

I’ve hunted and killed enough with both (way over triple digits with a bow) to know I’m absolutely not taking a fragmenting .223 brown bear hunting. Yet I wouldn’t hesitate to do it with a bow.

So they switch to a similar platform that shoots a 308 caliber bullet (AK-47 with 7.62x39) but don't change their bullet choices (still using cheap bulk range or surplus ammo with fmj bullets) it will suddenly become better since the hole is 0.084" bigger?

Want to change things for the better? Provide education and make sure there is availability of quality and effective ammunition in the villages. Program could include a voucher for 1 box of ammo for those who apply for the subsistence permit when they take a class that teaches proper shot placement, distance estimation, stalking techniques, and tracking techniques for after the shot.

Education is always better than regulation.

Jay

 

[Weldor]

Can see why the general populace outside of Ak would believe this, just watch life below zero. The shooters on there are amazing. (humor)

 

[SDHNTR]

So they switch to a similar platform that shoots a 308 caliber bullet (AK-47 with 7.62x39) but don't change their bullet choices (still using cheap bulk range or surplus ammo with fmj bullets) it will suddenly become better since the hole is 0.084" bigger?

Want to change things for the better? Provide education and make sure there is availability of quality and effective ammunition in the villages. Program could include a voucher for 1 box of ammo for those who apply for the subsistence permit when they take a class that teaches proper shot placement, distance estimation, stalking techniques, and tracking techniques for after the shot.

Education is always better than regulation.

Jay

I certainly agree with your last statement. And partially agree with your first. But a bad hole with a .308 is marginally better than a bad hole with a .223, assuming the same bullet. Splitting hairs, neither one is good. But anything that makes these sort of “hunting” tactics harder on those that engage in them is a step in the right direction.

 

[Jason Snyder]

No one does, I’m just saying a copper bullet, once below a certain velocity, will make a wound channel like one. And under the proposed AK rule, that would be legal.

Any bullet under the minimal terminal impact velocity will act like a field point. Not just copper.