.223 / 5.56x45 for Deer?

[Aguila Blanca]

More states allow it than not. Some states just require it to be a centerfire cartridge, so .177 calbiers and smaller could be used. .223/5.56 with the right bullet makes a decent deer rifle.

I'm adding to my post because, hunting reasons should never be why we have AR-15 and .223/5.56 for deer hunting. It should be for what the 2A states in the BOR, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Any argument for the firearm ownership needs to be soley based in the 2A, hunting use and its application in that is secondary and has no buisness in the discussion.

I think you are missing the point.

As I stated in my opening post:

I am researching a possible book in response to the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting. Can anyone tell me what states do and what states do not allow the .223 / 5.56x45 cartridge for hunting deer?

I'm not arguing what's appropriate for hunting. The gun grabbers are trying to ban AR-15s from private ownership on the basis that the .223 / 5.56x45 round is a "high-powered" military round suitable only for war. I want to use (as one of my counter-arguments) the fact that several states forbid the use of .223 / 5.56x45 for hunting deer, and the reason they do so is that it's not powerful enough to ensure clean kills.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARGUMENT I don't care if that's a correct assessment , and I don't care if the Constitution allows states to limit hunting calibers. I want to use existing state regulations to support an argument in our favor ... but to avoid being caught making up or mis-citing statistics, I need to know which states still prohibit the use of .223 centerfire for hunting deer. The 2008 list I found is now 14 years out of date, but I haven't found a comprehensive summary that's any more recent.

I was hoping the hunters among us might be able to update my list.

The states on the 2008 list are:

• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Illinois
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• New Jersey
• Ohio
• Rhode Island
• Virginia
• Washington
• Wyoming

In addition, Nebraska has (or had, in 2008) a requirement that the energy at 100 yards has to be not less than 900 ft-lbs. Depending on the load used, .223 / 5.56x45 may or may not make that. The M193 I carried in Vietnam generates 995 ft-lbs at 100 yards. I don't know if any commercial hunting rounds are wimpier than that.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I checked the current regulations for each of the states on the 2008 list. I had to remove Connecticut, Kansas, and Minnesota. Wyoming also allows ,223, BUT ... their regulation allows centerfire, 22 caliber or greater (except .22 Hornet), 60-grain minimum bullet weight, COAL 2" or greater. This means the M193 ammunition is not legal, because the bullet is 55 grains, but M855 is legal because the bullet is 62 grains.

So, bottom line is that centerfire rifles using .223 / 5.56x45 ammunition are still not legal in 10 states.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So if the round is too small or too lacking in power to be humane for hunting deer -- how is the same round a deadly, high-powered weapon of war when used against people?

I want to use existing state regulations to support an argument in our favor ... but to avoid being caught making up or mis-citing statistics, I need to know which states still prohibit the use of .223 centerfire for hunting deer.

Just to be clear, few states mention anything about power or energy in their regs. Also, the regs generally do not comment on matters such as why they are in place. They have X standards, but without justifications such as humaneness. To a point, Delaware is really weird in their standards. They won't allow centerfire rifle cartridges of any kind. So, rifle power, caliber size, or humaneness aren't issues being considered, apparently. They don't tell you why they have the standards they have and that is the problem with nearly all of the state regulations. "Why" is critical to your argument. If you don't want to mis-cite stats, then I am sure you don't want to mis-infer reasons. Finding the actual reasons for the regulations is going to be very tough.



Hunting and warfare aren't really the same and so can't be compared readily in terms of logic and ammunition use. In hunting, you get to use expanding ammunition and your goal (for game animals) is the recovery of the body and the easiest way to do that, usually, is to have it run a minimal distance after being shot or zero distance after being shot. In warfare, the goal isn't so much the killing of the enemy, but rendering them combat ineffective with killing being an excellent way to do that, but certainly not the only way to do that. In hunting, we don't want the animals to suffer. In warfare, you don't care if the enemy suffers or not.

Your 55 gr bullet you used in Vietnam was ball ammo and ball ammo of is often illegal for hunting game in most states, but the expanding bullets used for hunting are disallowed by the Hague Convention.

The caliber (out of an AR15) is certainly seen as a weapon of war. "High Powered" is problematic because it is not well defined and Yes the .223 is allowed in High Power matches which does not help your argument. Can you justify that .223 was allowed into High Power matches for reasons other than the caliber being high power? Is that documented somewhere? The name is endorsed by the NRA, which is sort of a huge hurdle.

In addition, Nebraska has (or had, in 2008) a requirement that the energy at 100 yards has to be not less than 900 ft-lbs. Depending on the load used, .223 / 5.56x45 may or may not make that. The M193 I carried in Vietnam generates 995 ft-lbs at 100 yards. I don't know if any commercial hunting rounds are wimpier than that.

All of Hornady's 55 gr. and up .223 hunting ammo would meet that requirement, no problem.
https://press.hornady.com/assets/pcthumbs/tmp/1410994454-2017-Standard-Ballistics-Chart.pdf

The same for Federal's offerings, even with some lighter bullets.
https://www.sportsmansguide.com/ballisticscharts/rifle/.223 remington

 

[taylorce1]

I didn't miss the point, I don't think hunting cartridge suitability should be brought up in a response to mass shootings. You need to know why the states chose not to allow them in the first place, before you use them in your argument. I don't know when CO established that the .22 centerfire was inadequate for big game, but it has been that way since I took hunters education nearly 40 years ago.

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

.

This means the M193 ammunition is not legal, because the bullet is 55 grains, but M855 is legal because the bullet is 62 grains.

Neither ammunition types legal for big game hunting in any state I know of. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I'll go out on a limb and say the majority of states require an expanding bullets. Your ammunition choices listed are both FMJ thus technically non-expanding.

 

[riverratt]

Any center fire is legal here in Ky. I personally know a guy (friend of the family) that successfully uses a .22 hornet every year. Wile I'd say his round choice is unethical, to my knowledge, he strictly limits his shots to inside 50 yards and has never lost a deer. CNS shots only.

On a side note AR platform firearms are wildly popular here for predator hunting.

 

[44 AMP]

There ARE reasons for each state's regulations, but you won't find the reasons listed in the regulations. To find out the reasons you'll have to talk to the state's Fish & game people who create the regs.

Also keep in mind that the caliber requirements are not based solely on cartridge performance, but also on what is seen, or expected to be seen by the majority of people using them to hunt.

Not on what a skilled expert can humanely do but on what the general populace is likely to do with them.

"Karamojo" Bell killed a LOT of elephants, many with light caliber rifles, some as small as 6.5mm. However, Bell was an excellent shot, knew elephant anatomy well, AND hunted elephants at a time (and place) when they were not spooked by man's mere presence, and getting close enough for surgically accurate shot placement was possible.

I'm sure others tried to do what he did, but there are no records of them, I think they tried and failed, and Africa "recycled" them....

Today, (and for a long time now) places that still allow elephant hunting have minimum caliber restrictions, some will allow .37s most require a .40 or larger. This is done to protect the game (and also the hunters), and based not on what an expert can do, but on what the average hunter will do, and how successful they will be.

I'm pretty sure what the OP is looking for is not to make any argument about how the .223 is adequate for deer or about AR's at all, what he's looking for is current state regs as a counter for the "ban them" arguments claiming its too powerful for civilian use, and also how the round and the AR rifles are not ONLY "weapons of war" that they have other uses as well, not trying to make any case about Constitutional rights, only to show how the other side's arguments are flawed, incorrect, intentionally misleading, and in some cases, outright lies.

that sound about right, AB??

 

[Scorch]

The definition of “high-power” is the distinction used in NRA matches, all there is are high-power (center fire) and rimfire rifles. Trying to make the argument that 223/5.56 is “high powered” and therefore too deadly is a basic misinterpretation of the definition, much like saying that lye or caustic soda aren’t dangerous because they are basic.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm pretty sure what the OP is looking for is not to make any argument about how the .223 is adequate for deer or about AR's at all, what he's looking for is current state regs as a counter for the "ban them" arguments claiming its too powerful for civilian use, and also how the round and the AR rifles are not ONLY "weapons of war" that they have other uses as well, not trying to make any case about Constitutional rights, only to show how the other side's arguments are flawed, incorrect, intentionally misleading, and in some cases, outright lies.

that sound about right, AB??

That pretty well sums it up.

 

[jrothWA]

Michigan allows the .22 centerfire on deer,

But the limited to the northern lower Peninsula, essentially from a line from Muskegon on the west cost of the lower peninsula to the lower extremity of the Saginaw Bay. North of that general line is open to all center-fire rifles.

South is restricted to shotguns with buckshot or slugs, ML rifle, specific cartridges for handguns and rifles [minimum caliber of .35 and maximum case length, with straight walls]

Best commercial ammo is the Winchester .223REm with 64gr powerpoint.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

There ARE reasons for each state's regulations, but you won't find the reasons listed in the regulations. To find out the reasons you'll have to talk to the state's Fish & game people who create the regs.

The ones who createD the regs? Many of those regs have been around for many decades and so the actual reasons for why the particular regs were created likely won't be known, not unless they have a file cabinet somewhere in the office that documents the reasons for each regulation. No doubt you can call a DNR office and ask for a reason and I also would be willing to bet that if you call again and talk to another person that the reason is different.

I'm pretty sure what the OP is looking for is not to make any argument about how the .223 is adequate for deer or about AR's at all, what he's looking for is current state regs as a counter for the "ban them" arguments claiming its too powerful for civilian use, and also how the round and the AR rifles are not ONLY "weapons of war" that they have other uses as well, not trying to make any case about Constitutional rights, only to show how the other side's arguments are flawed, incorrect, intentionally misleading, and in some cases, outright lies.

Oh, I understand fully and the goal is a good one. It is just going to be hard to come up with solid facts (versus opinions or perspectives) for subjects that even pro gun people have trouble coming to a consensus about.

 

[44 AMP]

Many of those regs have been around for many decades and so the actual reasons for why the particular regs were created likely won't be known, not unless they have a file cabinet somewhere in the office that documents the reasons for each regulation.

I think you are overlooking something often referred to as "institutional knowledge". As each new generation of game officers arrives, they get taught the things are "in the book", and they get taught the things that aren't as well, Of course there are exceptions but that's generally the way it works with every long term organization.

Another point is that there are often minor (and sometimes not so minor) chages to the regs, and those people determining what should be changed and IF it should be changed will be familar with the reasons the existing regs are what they are, at a minimum, so they can determine if those conditions still exist, and apply that to their decisions.

Sure, not everyone in the office might know a detailed history, but its a near certainty someone there does, or knows how to find out.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Oh, I understand fully and the goal is a good one. It is just going to be hard to come up with solid facts (versus opinions or perspectives) for subjects that even pro gun people have trouble coming to a consensus about.

But I don't need a consensus. I don't even need a reason. My target audience is the fence-sitters who know nothing (or next to nothing) about firearms. All I need is the basic fact: ten states do not allow the use of the .223 / 5.56x45 cartridge for hunting deer.

Then I move on to comparing the muzzle energy of the .223 to the muzzle energy of a real high-powered hunting round, such as the 460 Weatherby Magnum ...

You want high-powered? We'll show you high-powered.

 

[thallub]

In Oklahoma the .223 is legal for the taking of deer and elk.

 

[Ricklin]

Oregon law .24

Oregon has Roosevelt's Elk, a .223? No freakin way, Coastal elk here can be well over one half ton.

Thus the .24 requirement in Oregon. Trust me, you want more than that. I guess I'm the only one that finds this funny. According to Oregon law, should your Roosevelt's cross over Hwy. 97 which splits the state E-W he somehow becomes a rocky mountain elk.

Oregon does have two distinct Elk. State fish and game took the easy way.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Thus the .24 requirement in Oregon.

Oregon is not on any list I have found for states that don't allow .223 for hunting deer. Can you provide a link to the .24 regulation?

[Edit] Never mind. I found the regs, and you are mistaken.

https://www.eregulations.com/oregon/hunting/legal-hunting-weapons-for-game-mammals

Centerfire Firearm (Rifles, Handguns and Shotguns)

It is unlawful to hunt game mammals with:

.22 caliber rimfire (except for western gray squirrel).
Fully automatic firearms.
Semiautomatic rifles with a magazine capacity greater than five cartridges (except for western gray squirrel).
Tracer or full-metal jacket bullets.
Infrared, night vision, laser or any other sight that projects a beam to the target, including scopes with electronic rangefinders and scopes that receive information from any electronic device.

In other words -- any centerfire cartridge is legal. This section of the regs is for "Game Mammals," which includes deer ... and elk.

However, farther down there is a table that establishes .24 as the minimum caliber for elk -- but this discussion is about deer, not elk.

 

[Ricklin]

Thanks for that, sorry to contribute to the thread drift.

 

[44 AMP]

(admitted thread drift, but I'll keep it short)

Don't they allow hunting bunnies with a .22LR in Oregon??

we now return to the previously scheduled programing...

.223, with the right bullet, and the right shot placement for that bullet will cleanly, and humanely take deer. More states now allow its use than did when the round was "new".

Each state writes their own regs for hunting and some states have recognized that changes in bullet & barrel technology have expanded the ability of the .223, and now allow it, others have not yet done so, and may not, ever. (or may do so with the next revision of their regulations). Time will tell.

 

[stinkeypete]

Humans are a lot less hardy than deer.

If you used a .223 for a wisconsin sized deer, any real hunter would spit.
Same with 9mm. It's simply not respecting the animal.

Now, shoot a groundhog or a person, different story.

My proposal is that it's the high capacity removable magazine that should be regulated. Easy to say, hard to rule beat. If the magazine holds more than 10, it's an NFA item.

Keep your guns, register your magazines. But more likely, replace them with shorties.

Then halt the production of rifles with removable magazines. Eliminate the "shockwave" oversight, and call "AR Pistols with arm braces" what they are- short barrel rifles. Those firearms can be retrofitted to proper shotguns and rifles.

Since most of us follow the NFA, we already accept gun control.

After the gangland era shootouts, the NFA in 1939, the last time we had a civilian mass murder with a machine gun was the dude in Nevada with the bump stock. Bump stocks are now an NFA item.

Other than that, when was the last civilian machine gun mass murder?

You'd have to say that regulating machine guns worked.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

But I don't need a consensus. I don't even need a reason. My target audience is the fence-sitters who know nothing (or next to nothing) about firearms. All I need is the basic fact: ten states do not allow the use of the .223 / 5.56x45 cartridge for hunting deer.

Okay, so you are writing an interpretive opinion piece for a limited audience. Got it. However will the reasons why states don't allow .223 be facts? Will you mention that some of the states that don't allow .223 also don't even allow "real high powered rifles" (your words) for deer hunting as well?
https://www.imbmonsterbucks.com/ha/75-hunting-shotgun-only-states.html
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...hotgun-only-states-during-deer-season.337960/

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Okay, so you are writing an interpretive opinion piece for a limited audience. Got it. However will the reasons why states don't allow .223 be facts? Will you mention that some of the states that don't allow .223 also don't even allow "real high powered rifles" (your words) for deer hunting as well?

Nope.

Why should I mention that?