I don't think those regs have kept anyone from harvesting tasty animals. At least I have not felt hindered in my 40 yrs of big game hunting here.
Printable View
I don't think those regs have kept anyone from harvesting tasty animals. At least I have not felt hindered in my 40 yrs of big game hunting here.
Post deleted, Wrong thread.....
Yeah I thought that in the past it was rated at the muzzle, I could be wrong though.Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
I guess the .223 caliber 72 grain SP doesn't have the same velocity and ability to harvest game ethically in Colorado as it does in other states where the .223 is permitted. (Maybe it is the altitude that slows it down because there are other states that permit it and don't seem to have a problem.) But seriously, I wasn't picking on Colorado. I was just wondering if there was factual data to justify the prohibition of anything less than .243 because I wanted to see what facts were used to make the decision.
At altitude the air is less dense, so the projectile will have a faster velocity at a given distance than at sea level where the air will be denser.Quote:
Originally Posted by marineimaging
It would be a minor difference, but still measurable.
[beatdeadhorse] It's time for this horse to be dead.
Suffice it to say, many, many deer are poached every year by guys with .22 rifles, as in .22LR. Not that I feel that it is an adequate round for deer under ANY circumstances (short of SHTF survival), but true nonetheless. The .223 with 69 grain bullets comes up with just short of 1400 ft-lb energy, the 6mm Rem is in at 2100 with a 95 grain bullet, so about 2/3 the energy. No reason the .223 would not be effective for deer with proper shot placement.
Oy I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by 20X11
I was thinking, with the right shot placement, I could use my break-action .177-pellet gun to harvest an elk..... or maybe even a grizzly...[Sarcasm2]
"Just shoot its eye out, kid."