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

[atmat]

View attachment 762381

Oh that’s just TaperPin.

 

[TaperPin]

View attachment 762381

“First- 55gr FMJ in a moose is absolutely destroying sufficient tissue to kill reliably and quickly“.

Lol. It’s so ridiculous I couldn’t make it up.

 

[TaperPin]

Quite honestly, my first memory of discussing big game calibers was sitting in junior high lunch room and my buddy saying his Dad’s 264 kills elk better than my 270. Other kids talked nonsense about stupid calibers so we ignored them. My buddy was right - he still kills elk with that 264 every year. Not much has changed at the lunch room. Carry on.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Does this apply to the natives? I ask because I have seen several of them shooting ARs from a moving boat at moose on the shore. If that is what they are trying to stop, I get it….

 

[Thegman]

Does this apply to the natives? I ask because I have seen several of them shooting ARs from a moving boat at moose on the shore. If that is what they are trying to stop, I get it….

I'm guessing that's really the jist of it. Not a cartridge problem per-se, but a methods problem. The proposal will do nothing to address what it's probably trying to address.

 

[idahodave]

Let me start by saying my go-to rifle for everything I hunt in the lower 48 is a 6mm Creedmoor. I love everything about it...including how it's killed everything I've shot at with it sans drama.

Having said that, the people MOST bother by this proposed change will be natives and the very small group of people (relatively speaking) that have tied their identity to shooting with small calibers.

If shooting a 6.5 (and up) prevents you from having a successful trip in Alaska, I'd respectfully suggest there are bigger issues in play.

Just one guy's opinion(s).

Dave

 

[Spoonbill]

I'm guessing that's really the jist of it. Not a cartridge problem per-se, but a methods problem. The proposal will do nothing to address what it's probably trying to address.

So why don’t they prosecute the people doing the drive bys on moose from a boat?

I’m not familiar with Alaska and how it works with subsistence hunters, what is and is not allowed etc, but from an outsider’s perspective it seems the solution would be to enforce wanton waste laws (or whatever law applies) rather than pick an arbitrary minimum bullet diameter.

 

[Thegman]

Let me start by saying my go-to rifle for everything I hunt in the lower 48 is a 6mm Creedmoor. I love everything about it...including how it's killed everything I've shot at with it sans drama.

Having said that, the people MOST bother by this proposed change will be natives and the very small group of people (relatively speaking) that have tied their identity to shooting with small calibers.

If shooting a 6.5 (and up) prevents you from having a successful trip in Alaska, I'd respectfully suggest there are bigger issues in play.

Just one guy's opinion(s).

Dave

Before using the 223 for the last year, the only cartridges I've ever used for big game have been 30 caliber cartridges. Nothing to do with "identity", it has to do with arbitrary laws that don't actually address an issue. Much like most if not all gun control laws that are proposed.

Under this proposal you'd have to hang up your 6CM, for absolutely no reason.

 

[Thegman]

So why don’t they prosecute the people doing the drive bys on moose from a boat?

I’m not familiar with Alaska and how it works with subsistence hunters, what is and is not allowed etc, but from an outsider’s perspective it seems the solution would be to enforce wanton waste laws (or whatever law applies) rather than pick an arbitrary minimum bullet diameter.

Many of these areas are so big and so remote they are almost without law enforcement. There might be a few wildlife troopers covering thousands of remote, roadless square miles.

 

[The Guide]

So why don’t they prosecute the people doing the drive bys on moose from a boat?

I’m not familiar with Alaska and how it works with subsistence hunters, what is and is not allowed etc, but from an outsider’s perspective it seems the solution would be to enforce wanton waste laws (or whatever law applies) rather than pick an arbitrary minimum bullet diameter.

Pure area vs population. Alaska has the same area as Texas, California, Montana, and Minnesota combined. Not enough manpower and most of the natives won't talk to outsiders about law violations.

Jay

 

[Thegman]

Here's an alternative proposal that might actually address the issue the original proposal (I think) attempts to address:

"In GMU Units X,Y, Z (the remote bush units where this -might- happen more frequently), only single shot, break action centerfire rifles may used for big game hunting"

I'm not actually suggesting that, but that would force quality of shots over quantity of shots, which seems to be the actual issue. Certainly wouldn't have many people taking questionable shots in that situation (if that is common, IDK).

It also bothers me about lumping an entire group into a certain behavior. I'm guessing that the large majority of hunters in these areas do a good job, with 223 ARs or whatever they choose to use. I suspect this is the few tarnishing the reputation of the many.

 

[BLJ]

Pure area vs population. Alaska has the same area as Texas, California, Montana, and Minnesota combined. Not enough manpower and most of the natives won't talk to outsiders about law violations.

Jay

This would be my assumption as well (based on zero actual knowledge).

There a lot of places that a 22LR is illegal to use on deer and the people who continue to use a 22LR don’t care.

 

[Stocky]

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.

Wouldn't banning semis for hunting make more sense? If spray and pray is the issue. The amount of clients I guided for moose and mountain goat in particular that made bad shots due to shooting rifles that they thought they needed but couldn't handle. I saw more goats shot in the guts than anywhere else with the 30 and 338 magnums. Did they die? Sure usually after 2 or 3 more follow up by both myself and the hunter. Most guys that showed up with a basic 308, 270, 7mm08, or creedmoor made better shots. Obviously every once in awhile we would get someone genuinely capable to exceptional ranges with a large chambering but I can think of 2 of maybe 30 clients.

Should they ban shooting too big a chambering also as the people with these rifles seem to think they can shoot at longer ranges because "they have 1500ftlbs at 1000yards" but make bad shots on moose at 200.

I don't think making it 6mm only is the end of the world but if your going to employ regulations they better atleast solve the issue and I just don't see this being the case. Why .25 calibre if it's just to target ARs as 7.62x39, 6.5 Grendel, etc all still remain legal and are arguably worse terminally than a 223.

Also to clarify I'm not saying banning semis just that if that's the intent why target sub .25 calibre chamberings generically.

 

[Marbles]

Phil Shoemaker, a master brown bear guide, recommends 357 mag for a defensive handgun on brown bear, and criticizes taking "hand cannons." In no world is a 357 magnum more effective than a 223 with an appropriate bullet holding enough velocity to upset.

You can search his posts on the Fire, he goes by the handle 458win.

Anyway, the idea that a 357 is enough when the bear is actively trying to eat you, but a 223 is not enough when you are hunting it doesn't add up.

 

[JackButler]

Makes sense, given that a broadhead is at least 5x the diameter of a 223.

I looked really hard but I didn't see anything about arrows......

Randy

 

[Mike D Texas]

Because even the small calibers do much more damage than an arrow. Yes the mechanics are different, but ultimately sufficient cutting of vital organs is what both of them do to result in death.

So if arrows are legal/ethical, pretty much all bullets should be as well.

I would bet, a .223 with 77 TMK would be more effective, but illegal under the proposed rule, compared to a .25 mono metal or copper bullet at medium to low velocity, which would be legal, but would result in a pencil size hole in an animal, similar to a field point tipped arrow.

I’ve lost more animals to poor shots with rifles than I have with bows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[omicron1792]

I’ve lost more animals to poor shots with rifles than I have with bows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Not sure that would hold up over a large data pool.

 

[Mike D Texas]

I don’t feel like it’s much of an argument. Assuming that you’re using the best options for both bullet and arrow, a 223, 22-250, 243, and 22 Creed are all far more devastating on tissue using standard expanding ammunition than a bow is using a broadhead.

A broadhead is going to be similar to a well expanding pistol round. Both affecting tissue with direct cutting and contact. They are about equal when placed appropriately.

The biggest thing that even makes this vaguely an argument are people taking poor, long shots, with a rifle caliber that might be a little marginal to begin with. Placement is off, and you see a bad outcome. If a rifle hunter with a smaller caliber never shot beyond standard bow distances, you wouldn’t hear stories of animals wounded. The other factor that complicates this is that bow hunters are usually the more experienced and patient of hunters. It’s already a biased group due to that with regard to talent and experience, which often leads to better placed shots due to more patience and better stalking.

But if you told someone in a life or death situation that they had one chance to make a kill on an animal at 50 yards and offered them a 223 with 62gr Barnes TTSX going 2900 fps or a compound bow with an Iron Will broadhead (or whatever your flavor is), what are you picking?

This seems pretty damn devastating to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus. What’s the info on the pictures in post #85? Animal, bullet, impact velocity, entry/exit? Thanks.

Bull moose, 77gr TMK, 2,500’ish, both entry’s and exits are shown.

 

[yeti12]

Every time I read threads like this I just can't believe that people think monos kill better, arrows do more damage, match bullets blow up on shoulders, other rumors etc.... it's wild to discuss/argue week in and week out.

Pick any animal, shoot a heavy for caliber polymer tipped match bullet or a berger type variant with enough impact velocity and see what happens. Purposely aim for the shoulder if you want, it will make the damage caused much worse. A buddy of mine just shot an aggressive highland bull with a 223 and a tmk cause he was on the fence about them. Absolutely devastating, Like it is with every other animal 1800lbs and under.