Hi all, I just got back from the gun shop and they were talking about some proposed legislation to ban all 50 caliber centerfires for hunting.
If the F&G is considering this, I think we should send lots of letters, emails, phone calls... to voice our opinions.

Here is a link to the info.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/about/commission/jan_07/7.pdf
Maximum Caliber Restriction: Currently, Idaho does not impose a maximum caliber restriction for firearms used to hunt big game. Some hunters are concerned about the “fair chase†aspects of long-range cartridges and have requested a rule change to prohibit the use of 50 caliber or larger centerfire cartridges.
2. Should Idaho restrict the use of 50 caliber or larger centerfire cartridges for hunting big game in Idaho?
 No  No Opinion  Yes

It looks like the meeting is going on this week. I don't know if there is enough time to print the survey and send it in.

Here's their address:
Idaho Fish and Game Commission
Annual Meeting - January 10-12, 2007
Fish and Game Headquarters
600 South Walnut, Boise, ID

Other info:
Individuals with disabilities may request meeting accommodations by contacting the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Director's office at (208) 334-5159 or through the Idaho Relay Service at 1-800-377-2529 (TDD).

e-mail: idfginfo@idfg.idaho.gov

Link to online contact us: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/inc/contact.cfm

I don't have a problem with .50 cal rifles, but I do have a problem with guys setting up on bench rests off logging roads. I would support any law (law, not ban) that would encourage "hunters" to move off the road and hunt.

Their wording would make a Sharps in 50-90 or 500 S&W 4" revolver illegal to hunt with.
If they don't want people useing the 50 BMG, then just limit the 50 BMG.

Woul this apply also to a 50-110 Winchester 1886? Hardly a long ranger.

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:
Woul this apply also to a 50-110 Winchester 1886? Hardly a long ranger.

Yes it would be illegal to hunt with.

E-mail sent, in opposition to a caliber limitation.

The bad part of the concept of banning long range hunting/shooting is where does it stop? As many of you know, there are plenty of factory rifles offered in cartridges that are ballistically capable of extreme performance/distance with the right bullet.

50 cals were banned for big game hunting in Idaho some years ago, after complaints about folks sniping elk at very long ranges with 50 BMG sniper rifles. I was not even aware that the ban had ever been reversed.

If I were running things (drum roll), I would ban long range shooting at big game regardless of cartridge/caliber. Say, 300 yards max (and Joe Sixpack has no business shooting at 300 yards, let alone 700 yards). Of course, such a ban would be next to impossible to enforce, but at least it would address the ethics issue without being excessively complicated or restrictive.

How much does an average 50BMG chambered rifle weigh?

This may be redundant because in Idaho (2006 Big Game Seasons; p.12) it is unlawful to pursue or kill big game animals:

"With any firearm that, in combination with a scope, sling and/or any attachments, weighs more than 16 pounds."

Have these things gotten lighter since that restriction was enacted to deter their use for hunting?

I guess if you want to shoot big game with a rifle chambered in 50 BMG that weighs less than 16 pounds---- go for it!

IV

I don't recall 50 cals being restricted. I believe the 16 lb weight limit was put in there to restrict 50 BMG rifles without actually saying no 50 BMG's.
Just looking at an external ballistic comparison, the 30-378 Wby shoots about as flat as the 50 BMG out to 1000 yds.

quote:

Originally posted by Lar45:
I don't recall 50 cals being restricted. I believe the 16 lb weight limit was put in there to restrict 50 BMG rifles without actually saying no 50 BMG's.

Exactly my point, this seems like a stupid argument, for all intents and purposes 50 BMG's are already illegal for hunting in Idaho--perhaps they are considering removing the 16 pound limit and changing to " no .50 cal"

Anyway, however they word it, hunting with most (if not all) 50BMG firearms is already banned.

Our state government at work re-inventing the wheel I suppose.....pretty efficient.

IV

Gentlemen,

My mother used to warn me "Becareful what you wish for..."

Before you know it, the ban on hunting with a .50 calibre rifle would not only ensnare those 'military' .50BMG rifles but also .500 Jeffrey, .505 Gibbs, .500 3", 3.25" Cordite etc. Then there are all those black powder equivalent big bore buffalo hunting era type rifles.

Having wedged the door open, those who oppose the general population having access to firearms would continue to whittle down the list of 'allowable' rifles - that is permitted to own, never mind hunt with.

If you lived in Alaska, Montana etc, you would be "granted permission" for something like a .300 Mag or a .338 Mag but no 9.3mm, .375, .404, .416, .458 because they are not "appropriate" for shooting North American game animals. In the eyes of the
'authorities' anyway.

If the pen pushers knew the capabilities of long range rounds like .338 Lapua Mag, .408 Cheytac (spelling?), the various .300 Weatherbys, they would have the proverbial kittens.

While I am allowed a .375H&H rifle, I am not allowed to have any expanding heads for it, only fmj. I wanted the rifle for wild boar shooting. Go figure.

Lar45..thanks! I just hope my inputs arent to late for tonights meeting....some very interesting proposals...

How serious a problem is this?....if at all?

does one in a thousand hunters use anything over .458?

Don't these folks have something of importance to do?

LAR45

Thanks for the heads up. I emailed the Fish & Game and have notified all of my hunting buddies to do the same. The proposal is total BS. I like to hunt with a 45 cal Sharps rifle for deer, but my buddies use 50 cal Sharps and Spencer rifles.

Mike Chamberlain

Caliber restrictions are idiotic -- dang near hunting rifle could be used to lob a bullet 1K yards -- if idiots are willing to try it, at least they're using a caliber that still has enough energy at that range to be lethal.

Caliber restrictions, etc, are always bad news, and just represent anti's attacking guns in a way they think they can get away with.

I thought that stuff only happened in Kalifornia?!?!?!?!? I know it doesn't affect many shooters/hunters but it is the liberal camel's nose under your shooting tent isn't it. Myabe writing F&G & your congressman will help. It doesn't here but then it's tough reasoning w/ a liberal, they just don't take facts well.

During the Clinton administration when there was almost daily subtle and not-so-subtle drum beating by the media for more forms of gun control there was consideration to ban "sniper rifles". Well, the late Peter Jennings pointed out that "sniper rifles" could of course include any rifle with a scope firing a flat shooting round. Afterall, civilians didn't really need rifles like that and it amounted to an unfair advantage to hunters. The road to tyranny is paved with good intentions.

Why not just ban a case with more than 125 grains of power. All the rifles would be covered in the Barnes manuel except the 500 BMG. No one object's to minimun caliber size or draw pull so why would they object to a maximum of 125 grains of power. The sport is called hunting not sniping.

I sent Fish and Game my e-mail as well. I just wish I could have found out sooner, so to tell many other hunters. I dont ever forsee me using a .50 BMG to deer hunt, but I would be awfully mad if I had an older/vintage .50-somthing caliber to hunt with. There was also some archery issue that would be nice to change. If I can get the results of the meeting, I will let you all know...

I fired off one as well. I wish I'd have heard of it a week ago! Caliber restrictions are nearly pointless. IV pointed out the weight limit which is as enforceable as any caliber restriction would be, and actually is better as it too would limit the caliber change to avoid the law. (CheyTac)

I don't think there is a need for these guns as a hunting tool. But who should draw a line between need & want? It shouldn't take a benchrest to set up your rifle if you're hunting. I also don't want to see them made illegal to own for recreational purposes. How many crimes are actually committed each year in the whole nation by .50 BMG owners?

Crime rates and shootings are so bad in Washington DC that statisically you're more likley to be killed on the streets of D.C. than in Bagdad. We should be encouraging the politians to address real problems. Nate

The meeting ends today. So the reports/results should be out soon...

Pard,

There are a few sporting cartridges over 50 cal that hold more than 125 gr of powder (500 Jeffery, 500 AHR, 505 Gibbs, 577NE, 585 Nyati, 600 NE, etc, etc). Idaho is just following Washington states example.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
How serious a problem is this?....if at all?

does one in a thousand hunters use anything over .458?

That's what I'm thinking. How many people actually shoot stuff with a 50 cal? Sounds to me like a backdoor way to start the restriction on a lot of other things.

It is my understanding that this is not some sort of "anti-hunting" conspiracy-- I would not classify ANY of the folks I know at IDFG as "Anti". It seems this is more of addressing an issue which is brought up occasionally at public comment forums where IDFG is REQUIRED by law to address any public comments. It also appears (based on transcripts and written comment data logs available from IDFG if you so desire) that the few folks who are concerned with using 50BMG are hunters themselves. At these comment meetings, IDFG is not allowed to respond to concerns-- they are merely there to collect data and probably had no way of formally explaining that the 16 pound law in effect currently prohibits the use of 50 BMG rifles for killing big game.

Should be interesting see what the response will be from IDFG although I would guess they simply state that they considered public comment on the idea and that current regulations satisfy the concerns brought forth through the public comments and no action is required. But who knows??

IV

Well, given their questionaire asked if I thought 50 caliber rifles should be allowed for hunting, I thought the following response was a bit odd...

We aren't proposing a ban on 50 caliber rifles. The commission is
meeting today about changes to equipment rules and we should have the
list of changes next week. We will put out news releases about it at
that time.

idfginfo

-----Original Message-----
From: If anyone wants a copy of my original message, and the email from Idaho parks, send me a PM
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:49 PM
To: IDFGINFO
Subject: 50 caliber ban

This message was sent from the IDFG website.

It makes no sense. If someone wishes to be unethical
and shoot an animal at an extreme range, he can do so w. almost any
modern hunting round, while many 50 caliber rifles -- such as 50-110s,
or 505 gibbs are exceptionally difficult to use beyond a couple hundred
yards. Many people download their safari caliber rifles, and use them
as for North American hunting in order to increase their familiarity
with their African gun. In an era with a collapsing population of
hunters, do we really need to start pointing fingers at one another?

I think we should ban anyone from making any more bans on any aspect of the shooting or hunting world. Give the politicians an inch and they´ll want a mile. If anyone wants to place any more restrictions on the hunting and shooting communities, they need to give up one already in place. Let´s say that when the Kalifornia government banned .50 cals, we made them allow short shotguns or full auto weapons as a trade off.

Maybe we should allow governements only ....hmmm... let´s say only 2 gun rules and regulations. No more. Add one more new rule, and they have to drop off one old one.

Heck, why even let them have 2 rules, why any?

Or even better than that, what we should do is to limit the governments ability to regulate and control all aspects of firearms ownership and use altogether.

I say let´s get together and petition the government for an ammendment to the constitution limiting governments power so that they have none when it comes to firearms use and regulation. Who thinks that would be a good idea?

What do you think, an ammendment to the constitution is in order?

For you guys saying "who cares" -- in 2005 I took a guided bear hunt to Idaho and carried, you guessed it a nice Marlin cowboy rebarrelled to .50 alaskan. I liked the idea of an old time styled rifle in an old time type caliber on a classic western hunt. I can tell the idaho govenor, if they outlaw the 50-- I hunt elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:
For you guys saying "who cares" -- in 2005 I took a guided bear hunt to Idaho and carried, you guessed it a nice Marlin cowboy rebarrelled to .50 alaskan. I liked the idea of an old time styled rifle in an old time type caliber on a classic western hunt. I can tell the idaho govenor, if they outlaw the 50-- I hunt elsewhere.

Perfect example of why the weight restriction (16lbs) should be left intact....the true intention of the proposal is to eliminate .50 BMG shooting at big game (which it more or less already is) I think somebody at IDFG invoved in the public comment process was(is) unaware of the current weight restriction when they put this to the commission.

Fascinating.

IV

As expected, IDFG announced they have no plans to limit .50 calibers.... what a shocker eh?

They did, however, change muzzleloading rules quite substantially. In-lines are now out. (but can be used in any weapons or short range seasons--just not muzzleloader seasons.

And finally, for our wolf loving friends who have nay said the hunt-- they plan on having hunting rules and proposal in place for commisiion meeting in May and final draft ready next fall. Obviously lawsuits will ensue-- but who knows....

IV

IV,
You beat me to it.
Here is a link to the report.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=3662

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
Perfect example of why the weight restriction (16lbs) should be left intact....the true intention of the proposal is to eliminate .50 BMG shooting at big game (which it more or less already is) I think somebody at IDFG invoved in the public comment process was(is) unaware of the current weight restriction when they put this to the commission.

Fascinating.

IV

I disagree that the focus is on the .50 BMG soley. It is by far the most well known, but Ithink the focus was to eliminate the "Long Range Hunting" that involes these huge rifles that are basically long range bench guns being set up on a bench overlooking canyons and clear cuts. Thus the 16# restriction does help, due to the weight of the .50 BMG, CheyTac, ect. If you are dedicated to this type of "hunting" then the .300 RUM, .30-378, 7mm STW, ect. could still be employed.

The number of people who are capable of successfully taking game at long range is incredibly small. Most don't shoot enough to make good shots at close range! Just my opinion. Nate