Close
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66
  1. #21
    QUITTER Irving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    46,527
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Like spqrzilla said, the regulation does not target any specific caliber, only creates a minimum threshold of .24 caliber and up.

  2. #22
    Paintball Shooter
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Ward below Brainard Lake
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Gman, you are correct. The deer aren't that big but there are also hogs that go to 300lbs. I don't mind being restricted if there is proof to back it up but I haven't heard any proof that a .223/5.56 is incapable of being a valid hunting round. If you are hunting with a pistol or bow you have to get up close and personal with the game animal. By the same token if I were hunting with a .223 I would be obliged to get closer than I would with a .30-06 or a 7mm mag or a .338 Lapua.

  3. #23
    Possesses Antidote for "Cool" Gman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puyallup, WA
    Posts
    17,848

    Default

    .223 has historically been a varmint round. Can it kill something bigger? Absolutely. Does it have more energy than an arrow from a bow? Yes.

    Might as well be having an argument about why bow hunting is allowed.
    Liberals never met a slippery slope they didn't grease.
    -Me

    I wish technology solved people issues. It seems to just reveal them.
    -Also Me


  4. #24
    Splays for the Bidet CS1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Augustine, FL
    Posts
    6,260

    Default

    Bows kill by the arrow cutting. The only energy they need is to get into the vitals. Hence the minimum poundage and cutting diameter restrictions.
    Feedback

    It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. - The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921, GK Chesterton

  5. #25
    Looking Elsewhere
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Peoples Republic (Boulder)
    Posts
    3,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spqrzilla View Post
    Its not about AR15s. Good lord. The regulation really dates back to when there there were no decent bullets in .224 diameter. The regulation excludes .222 Remington, .220 Swift, .22-250 and many more. Even at .24 caliber, there are bullet weight minimums.
    This^^

    OP, The regulation was likely written well before ARs even existed as well as there is nothing stopping anyone from using an AR in a caliber that is larger than .23. If you think it should be changed why don't you just call CPW and ask them what the procedure would be to get it changed? The regularly review all hunting issues and make adjustments when needed.

    As for boars, they are categorized as a varmint or non game animal, the state apparently doesn't care so much about how they are taken as long as they are taken.
    Last edited by def90; 12-19-2019 at 19:24.

  6. #26
    Machine Gunner whitewalrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,869

    Default

    I?m sure the regs came about as not everyone is an ethical Hunter. Plenty of people would not and do not pass on shots they shouldn?t take.

    The regulations seemed to have change recently. I always thought it was rated at the muzzle in the past, now it seems that a 300blk from a rifle barely qualifies, and most loads don?t.

  7. #27
    Looking Elsewhere
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Peoples Republic (Boulder)
    Posts
    3,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whitewalrus View Post
    I?m sure the regs came about as not everyone is an ethical Hunter. Plenty of people would not and do not pass on shots they shouldn?t take.

    The regulations seemed to have change recently. I always thought it was rated at the muzzle in the past, now it seems that a 300blk from a rifle barely qualifies, and most loads don?t.
    From the big game guide in regards to centerfire rifles:

    “ Must use expanding bullets that weigh a minimum of 70 grains for deer,
    pronghorn and bear, 85 grains for elk and moose, and have an impact
    energy (at 100 yards) of 1,000 ft.-pounds as rated by manufacturer.”

  8. #28
    At least my tag is unmolested
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    CANON CITY, CO
    Posts
    3,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whitewalrus View Post
    The regulations seemed to have change recently. I always thought it was rated at the muzzle in the past, now it seems that a 300blk from a rifle barely qualifies, and most loads don?t.
    From the regulations: (located https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Ru...tions/Ch02.pdf )

    1. Rifles using center-fire cartridges of .24 caliber or larger, having expanding bullets of at least seventy (70) grains in weight, except for elk and moose where the minimum bullet weight is eighty-five (85) grains, and with a rated impact energy one hundred (100) yards from the muzzle of at least one thousand (1000) foot pounds as determined by the manufacturer's rating, and except for mountain lion where any center-fire rifle using bullets of at least 45 grains and producing at least 400 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle may be used. Provided further that any semiautomatic rifle used shall not hold more than six (6) rounds in the magazine and chamber combined. A fully automatic rifle is prohibited.
    6. Handguns, provided they have a minimum barrel length of four (4) inches and comply with the following criteria:
    5
    a. Except for mountain lion, use a .24 caliber or larger diameter expanding bullet with a rated impact energy of at least 550 ft. pounds at 50 yards as determined by the manufacturer.
    b. For mountain lion only, use a centerfire handgun using bullets of at least 45 grains and producing at least 400 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, as determined by the manufacturer.
    Those regulations are pretty old. At least a couple of decades.
    Sayonara

  9. #29
    Carries A Danged Big Stick buffalobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Hoyt
    Posts
    15,820

    Default

    Some of those regs have been around 40+ yrs.
    If you're unarmed, you are a victim


    Feedback

  10. #30
    Possesses Antidote for "Cool" Gman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puyallup, WA
    Posts
    17,848

    Default

    I don't know. If you had to come up with general rules that didn't turn into some kind of multi-page eye chart, they're not too difficult to meet. They don't seem unrealistic and there's likely data behind the velocity, caliber, and bullet weight guidelines.
    Liberals never met a slippery slope they didn't grease.
    -Me

    I wish technology solved people issues. It seems to just reveal them.
    -Also Me


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •