This is an Alarming trend. No, not hunting with too small a caliber,...Politicians legislating things they have no business legislating. This Talbot idiot probably made a good arguement FOR the Anti's in his failed attempt to impose his hunting rule. Way to go buddy.

Mr Talbot is one of those lovely people so common these days who spends entirely too much time worrying about how others go about their business. I live in NC and was part of a very large hunt club last season. Not many people take advantage of the law allowing the more diminutive cartridges. In fact only one deer was killed on our club with a "non-traditional" deer caliber. The son of a member took a nice 8-point with a .223 loaded with Partitions it took about ten steps before falling over. As with any "deer gun" pass through of lungs and heart will stop them.

Ruark said it best-"Use enough gun." Ruark was also a fan of the newly introduced .243 Winchester, and both he and Harry Selby used that caliber to take African game, mostly antelope. Every hunter should be able to make
his own decision on what is enough gun without more government interference than is currently in place. Granting that one places his shot accurately, almost any center-fire rifle will kill a whitetail deer. If not, that is when the ethical hunter begins to track, and if unsuccessful, re-figure his caliber choice.
I personally like .30 caliber, because I don't like to track, but have had to upon occasion. I have also seen "bang-flop" with both the .223 and .22-250. One of our guides swears by a .204 Ruger. .222 Remington is a very effective round in the hands of a good shot.
I suggest to Mr. Talbot that if he wants to set caliber minimums, he start with his hunting club. If he wants to introduce ethics reform, he should start with his legislative body.

A brief interjection to all the madness here.
When Robert Ruark wrote the immortal phrase,"Use enough gun," hunters, nimrods, beginners, tyros, and, yes, even card carrying ID10Ts had a few ethics, and a smidgen of common sense. Of course, he was writing about hunting dangerous game that could turn around and either eat or stomp a mud-hole in the hunter. So..., lets break it down to the absolute basics.
How many people would go hunting with a sub-standard round/caliber if:
A. They depended on that whitetail deer for a food source?
B. Whitetail deer were known to turn around and stomp a mud-hole into a hunter who tracked them down after a poorly placed shot?
It still all boils down to ethics, folks, and if you ain't got 'um, no legislative body is going to give um to you. Use what you shoot well, and take only those shots you know you can make.

Every time I hear of government being used to impose responsibility I get worried. Rarely is a government solution helpful, and in this case I think the effort would be better spent on educating hunters to be more responsible.

The fact of the matter is that a .223 on a small deer at 30 yards may be responsible than a 180gr. .30-06 on an elk at 500 yards in a cross wind. There are any number of variables that go into the decision as to whether a particular shot on a specific animal is responsible or not and trying to legislate that decision based on caliber alone oversimplifies a much more complex decision.

If people are concerned with people taking irresponsible shots they should deal with the decision making process; assuming that increasing the caliber and/or bullet weight will solve the problem is the wrong approach, it will never overcome a bad or irresponsible shot.

One more though, increasing caliber requirements could actually cause a bigger problem in that it will in effect increase hunting fees for a number of hunters as the rifles they have been using will now be considered “illegal”. As such, many hunters will simply decide not to hunt due to the cost of a new rifle and that is going to result in lower hunting fees and less money for departments of wildlife and reduced ability to manage natural resources in the states that pass these minimum caliber restrictions.

Talbot must not be the brightest bulb in the Canon Bag!

I’ve seen critters shot with howitzers and run off as never been hit.

Too big of a cartridge for many and couldn’t hit “MOP” at 50 yards!

A friend of shot a Mule Deer with a 7mm Rem Mag and hit it 3 times and when it hit the next county line to turned to me and yelled CLAY I”M OUT OF AMMO DROP IT! And I did so at 700 yards with one shot bang flop with my 22-250 with a 55 grain Hornady soft point.

I knew a fella in my squadron wounded a very nice caribou bull ran off the side of Taylor Mountain Alaska and dropped three cows with one shot. YA”BUDDY! WHE GOT A WINNER HER!! I told him that 375 H&H was too much gun for him and the max range “MOP” was at 100 yards and that was off the bench!

Too big of a cartridge or too small, it cuts both way!

ken.mcloud said it best!

“So, I think that the superior killing power of larger rounds is largely in our heads.(likely testosterone induced) A flat-shooting round that you can accurately place will produce as many if not more "bang-flop" kills as a heavy caliber round.”

I don’t give a rip what you have!
If you can’t hit “MOP”!
Take up crocheting!

#4 buckshot is what size and velocity?

HERE”S YOUR SIGN!

I hunted with a guy for two years that deer hunted with a .22 Hornet single shot. It was the only rifle he had when he retired from the Navy. In Alabama the regs just state that the cartridge must be cenetrfire and have expanding bullets. all his kills were neck shots at 15 yards or broadside double lungers at 50 or less. BUT when his son bought him a Savage 116 in 7 mm mag for Christmas the old H&R never went deer hunting again. He didn't let lack of a big gun keep him out of the woods but he didn't use a popgun when he didn't have to.

Yes my bullet is big enough, as Clay woul say bang flop every time. I think if a person wants to take a child hunting let them shoot a 243 or 257 Roberts doesnt kick any more than a 223, 22.250 or 220 Swift.

I hate to see animals wounded or maimed, but I also hate to see the Government in every little decision. Honestly I think it's more common for people to have too much gun, which is better than too little.
There should be minimum requirements, but any governing body ought to get input from wildlife and natural resource officials periodically to determine those.

I thought this was something that had to do with common sense... or perhaps ethics... some people are just not going to have any of both.

Well if people used high quality bullets like partition, barnes-x and bonded on bigger game and only shot from bowhunting ranges then we would have more clean kills, but the problem is people dont, they shoot at ranges where a 3006 would be questionable and with softpoint bullets with such a thin jacket in small calibres that they cannot possibly penetrate far anough to ensure a clean kill every time.. A general weightlimit like 110 grains will ensure that u use a calibre with less winddeflection and good enough penetration to down a species of animals potentially as big as a horse..
Anything else makes the hunter seem questionable at best, and i wouldnt go hunting with someone willing to take those shots with anything smaller than 25 calibre..
DOes this have to be legislated?? honestly yes, but not as a calibre restriction but the hunters moral responsibility to make quick clean kills if for nothing else than the general publics wiev of hunters as moral humans, not madmen with itchy triggerfingers..

Worlds most dangerous animal????????

1

smart

sheep

:P

centerfire cartridges even

As I see it, the problem with allowing hunting with 22 cal centerfire is many fathers I've talked to want their child to use the 223 for less recoil. In my view, only the experienced hunter should use the small caliber. Gonna take better shot placement and steadier nerves when a shot presents itself. A child doesn't possess these skills yet.

Would anyone seriously argue that a bow is somehow more lethal than a .223? I submit that if you shoot a deer with any of the .22 caliber centerfires, in the same place and at the same range as you must with a bow to ensure a clean kill, and you have a dead deer. Shoot a deer poorly or at excessive range with either, and you have a mess. An arrow will certainly deflect on a shoulder bone, and there are plenty who would support banning all bowhunting as cruel. I am not one of those people, but this issue has come up in several state legislatures.

ingebrigtsen

What do you think of using #4 buckshot?

LOL

This will never be settled here! Let your ethics, or lack thereof, be your guide. I think each state's game commission should set the rules based on public and agency input and comment.

This light caliber stuff is beginning to sound like flyfishermen going after the biggest fish with the lightest possible gear. Except the fish usually swims off if he breaks off. Deer run off to suffer and die slowly. As already said, you won't go hunting anything bigger than coyotes with us with a .223.......

Like Clay said: zzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzz

I have to agree with Vtbluegrass, this guy is one of those people who get offended by something and because they don't feel it's "politically correct" they go off on a crusade to make everyone elses lives miserable. Bravo to the legislature to tell this guy where to go. Unfortunately, there's a couple hunderd more like him that catch wind of something like this and make it their life's mission. We've got too much crime, murders, assaults, terrorism acts, and other nasty things going on in society to worry about someone killing a deer or anything else with a well placed 22 calibur bullet. I agree that larger caliburs can sometimes create a quicker death, but I've also assisted other hunters who followed lots of 5 and 10 mile blood trails from a poorly placed shot from a centerfire rifle or slug gun, only to find the deer still alive and on 3 legs. Now which is better for the deer? A well placed one kill shot with anything, or a poor shot which causes the animal to live in pain until the second shot can be administered? I get the idea that this is what Talbot wanted, but he definately went around it the wrong way.

By taking this issue to court, he flipped the issue to polititions rather than DNR folk. Really, really BAD idea!

What you wanna bet Talbot is taking this to court because he got his arse kicked out of the hunting club?

Determining minimum caliber has to be done only be a panel of experienced hunters. To leave any decision like this to the boneheads that occupy our states legislatures is pure folly and will haunt us forever. Ethical hunters will get their game each and every time regardless of the caliber of the rifle used. Every deer that is shot with a 22-250 will drop in it's tracks if there is a concerned and careful hunter pulling the trigger. If you give the same rifle to a fool you will get horrible results.

You want caliber? How about muzzle energy? Try a 12 lb. bowling ball. 30 mph. This is about knockdown power, right? Look at the difference between a 30-30 loaded with 150 grain soft points and a .223 loaded with 75 grain hollow points. At every point past 100 yards the .223 delivers more energy. And I can get inside 2 inches at 200 yards with my .223. Never gonna happen with a 30-30. And I can practice all day long for the price of one box of your 7 mm mags or your .338 lapuas. Get over your macho big gun ideas and realize that shot placement is what really matters and the more you practice the better your shot placement. Or start bowling for deer.

This is a sticky situation to be sure, but at lest Mr. Talbot had the stones to step up and address an issue he felt was ethically wrong. You can say what you want about government regulating our moral code, and you'd probably be right. But in this case our civic system worked the way it was suppossed to and an unpopular motion was denied.

Personally, I agree with Mr. Talbot. There are so many effective rounds out there that get the job done, no one needs to be hunting with a .22 caliber centerfire. Most Marines I've spoken to who know what a 5.56 NATO does against the enemy agree that it's lacking. The ones who support it are generally those who believe what they read online and are told by sea lawyers.

All that said, I would rather see legislation against head shots than caliber restrictions. I've personnaly witnessed the effects of a botched head shot. It's not a mess a I ever want to see again. The kill zone on any animal's head is to small to ethically make in the field. Ever. If you want to prove your shooting prowess in the field, set out a can of RC Cola and have at it. It's cheap with a slim silhouette and makes a satisfying mist when struck.

And for the saving meat agrument for head shots, I call shennanigans. Nothing in nature goes to waste. If you have to trim some of the rib meat away from a center mass shot, the crows will thank you.

I like were ingebrigtsen is going with caliber restrictions. However it should be mandated by the state's game commission and not any other legislative branch. By doing so you have actual scientists and fellow hunters directly involved with the state's hunting calling the shots and not some slime ball politician who doesn't know anything about firearms or hunting.

I would contend that most of your oddball cartridges like 30 carbine would not be viable based solely on the fact that the majority of such guns are semi-auto and would be restricted in most states. Additionally, your average 30 carbine owner will understand the capabilities and limitations of the weapon and either not hunt with it, or observe range limitations.

It's the joe-average hunter who is the issue here, not the gun nut who understands the spectrum of his gun and cartridge's capabilities.

And comparing arrows and jacketed bullets is apples to oranges. All the variables, ballistics, method of tissue damage, they're all different.

Finally, #4 buck shot is what .20 caliber? Maybe .22? Doesn't matter because each pull of the trigger releases in excess of 30 pellets. Even a 10% impact rate into the vitals leaves you with 3 times the number of holes as a .223 rifle. Obviously the .223 delivers more kinetic energy, but within the shotgun's effective range it's a moot point. Three times the damage is three times the damage.

Let’s see here, it’s ok to use #4 buck shot to spray and pray but 223 is out?

MOON BAT ALERT!

Missouri has "centerfire-only" restrictions, which is ok I guess. Don't think shooting deer w/ a .22lr is very bright or humane personally. I know that if you're a 'great shot' you can kill anything w/ anything, yeah yeah, whatever. Personally, I think a .243 is the minimum for deer, but, to each his own. I wouldn't hunt w/idiot's shooting deer w/.22's, period.