Discussion in 'Hunting' started by TheFlynn01, Sep 24, 2022.
I'm not suggesting breaking the law, but I am genuinely curious. How would a warden possibly be able to determine the energy level of a cartridge someone was using? Is that something that's actually ever checked, and if so, how?
They probably have a list of calibers not allowed and actual ballistics wont matter.
Read Craig C and Brewer12345's posts just above mine a little ways. The CO regs say this, "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." My question is, how would a warden go about determining that? They could look it up online if they had service, I suppose, but what if they didn't or what if the person was using reloads?
In general, states don’t have “allowed caliber lists,” especially which have minimum energy or minimum cartridge length and caliber requirements. Resource officers might have a “cheat sheet” or might simply ask for ammo SKU info to check KE, but the math is pretty straight forward - a 240 clearing 1375fps tops 1000ft.lbs. And clearing 1375fps in a rifle with a 240 is pretty simple in 44mag.
Do you have any defensible data to back this claim? I’ve heard this said several times over the years, but I find it hard to believe that the dominating significant plurality of deer in the modern era of deer hunting have been illegally harvested.
In my 21 years of hunting in Colorado I’ve never seen anyone carrying a .44 mag rifle in the field. So I’m guessing there aren’t many tickets getting handed out. I really can’t imagine anyone would care if a .44 Mag rifle was your choice but you’d have to adjust your hunting style to your rifle to make it work for you.
I have wondered the same. I guess I am not real interested in finding out the hard way, so I have a stash of leverevolution just in case I want to hunt with a 44 rifle because the manufacturer says it makes the cut. As I said previously, I rarely see wardens and when I do it is almost always at waterfowl hunting spots where access is limited and everyone goes in and out of the same parking lot. In a million acres of national forest? Been checked for a small game license once in a decade.
Fwiw, I consider 44 mag out of a rifle to be plenty for deer within reasonable range. The energy requirements Colorado has on the books are very conservative and a bit silly imo.
They don't have a list of "allowed calibers". Very few (none that I'm aware of) states have such a thing.
That salesman either has no clue what he's talking about, or was just doing what salesmen do, try to sell stuff. I'm curious if they had a 30-30 on the shelf. I bet if they did they probably wouldn't be deriding it as insufficient.
The 30-30 has worked for years and will continue to work for years. I wouldn't recommend someone go out and buy one today because we have much better options nowadays at better price points, but if you've already got it use it with confidence.
Big time. 100yds is a long shot where I hunt and most shots are well under that. In Colorado, totally different ballgame. Before COVID happened, I was going to book an elk hunt, either in Colorado or New Mexico. I would 'like' to take one with a flintlock but the .338 is definitely going to be the backup plan.
Now fast forward to modern times. .30-30 and .44 rifles still do kill deer. They do it quite efficiently under 100 yards, and in the case of the .30-30 can be pushed a bit farther. When you add a scope and a competent marksman, rounds such as the .308 and others can reach out significantly farther and still make ethical kills. They may be hitting as hard or harder at 300 yards as the .30-30 is at 100. The latest rage is high BC bullet/cartridges such as the 6.5 creedmore. They push a relatively heavy and skinny bullet at a decent velocity. The aerodynamics of such a slug carry energy more efficiently over distance, so they hit harder at distance. I don't want to get into that debate here, but basically your .30-30 is handicapped further at distance due to the blunt bullets that must be used for tubular magazines.
Bottom line: If you wish to go out and kill a deer at relatively short range, your favorite Win 94 will absolutely do the job. A .308 will do it with a little more margin for error...it brings a bit more kinetic energy to the table, and retains energy better at distance due to the "pointy" bullets used.
Given those three choices, I’d go .44 if all shots would be <100 yards; .30-30 if some shots might be up to 200 yards; and .308 if shots beyond 150 yards were likely.
If you are. The 30-30 is fine.
My grandfather grew up in Maine. He killed moose with his 30-30. After he retired from the Army. He moved to The Springs. After his first year of hunting Colorado he bought a 270.
You should have grown up in a slug only state... 30-30 would have tripled if not quadrupled my effective range...
I hunted the swamps in the UP of Michigan. I used buckshot and slugs. Then I started using an SKS.
Where I’ve been hunting elk lately it’s very open desert country. 400+ yard shot opportunities are pretty common. I said “opportunity” because nobody is forcing you to take that shot. But it can be darn near impossible to get any closer in many circumstances in that unit.
In the last three years our elk in that unit were killed at;
547 initial and finishing shot at 623 yards
200 ish yards.
All were with a .308 Win except the 488 shot was with a .300 Dakota Mag.
A great place to be. My land, 125 is long.
It works very well,.....if you can do your part
Separate names with a comma.