When is a Rifle a Shotgun?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Wierd how .410 has killed deer in other places but it just can't kill them here in Alberta....

LC

[Mikezilk]

Must be the oil sands... Only explanation... Made them impervious to it...

Or they are a level 45 wizard... either way I am worried

[Hat in the Cat]

Interesting topic. By definition a rifle has rifling and a gun does not however those definitions were not what the government chose to use.

This would be an interesting year to exploit a grey zone until the loop is tightened up. While we will all have opinions on this one I think the OP has come to a great realization that there really isn't a clear definition outside of the calibre. Without a legally spelt out definition of the two I would say you would have a good case for heading out with that 45-70 or .44 Rossi. Of course a good case is still a case and that means time away from what you love.

Once again, well done on sparking conversation to the OP.

[slopeshunter]

Here's a link to a short video of a guy who's using 28ga shotgun shells to reload for a .577 Snider.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwONlTs7tWs

I find it interesting that here's a Snider 'rifle' which has a rifled barrel and is shooting a shotgun shell loaded with blackpowder and a ball tapped in on top.

Now compare this to the Savage 'shotgun' which has a rifled barrel and is shooting a shotgun shell loaded with a sabot.

Interesting

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by slopeshunter

Here's a link to a short video of a guy who's using 28ga shotgun shells to reload for a .577 Snider.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwONlTs7tWs

I find it interesting that here's a Snider 'rifle' which has a rifled barrel and is shooting a shotgun shell loaded with blackpowder and a ball tapped in on top.

Now compare this to the Savage 'shotgun' which has a rifled barrel and is shooting a shotgun shell loaded with a sabot.

Interesting

The snider actually uses 24gauge cases that fire form to it better than some snider built cases.

One cannot cpompare the energy of te Sniider - or the accuracy for that matter, to the Savage and it's superior ammo and action.
Add a scope on top and it's right out of the ball park!
cat

[Pinhead]

Actually I would argue that the modern rifled slug gun has/or is close to catching up to the modern muzzleloader. A bolt action rifled 20 ga can do a 250 yard kill just as fast as my "modern" inline T/C Encore 50 cal. They use almost the same size slugs - 250-300 grains at close to the same speed 1800-2000 fps.

Although the range of these modern guns has been stretched, both still have the trajectory of a dropped rock much past 300 yards, which I think is the main thing. It is at least in the Strathcona county area. Nobody wants a modern rifle round flying a mile after a miss - way to many houses.

Dan

ps We need to embrace each other's hunting method - as long as it is legal - instead of squabbling with each other when it could lead to less opportunity than we have now.

[Hat in the Cat]

[QUOTE=Pinhead;1671044]
Although the range of these modern guns has been stretched, both still have the trajectory of a dropped rock much past 300 yards, which I think is the main thing. It is at least in the Strathcona county area. Nobody wants a modern rifle round flying a mile after a miss - way to many houses.

Dan

Interesting point. You could almost tie it in to the argument for high powered magnums and the asumption that you should shoot a canon at a deer in case you aren't that good a shot it will make up for poor shot placement. I always thought if you aren't that good a shot you shouldn't be shooting something that will fly for ever after you miss.

I have nothing against the high powered rifles but if I owned a house with kids close to some happy hunting grounds I might be leary of them that's for sure.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Hat in the Cat

Interesting topic. By definition a rifle has rifling and a gun does not however those definitions were not what the government chose to use.

This would be an interesting year to exploit a grey zone until the loop is tightened up. While we will all have opinions on this one I think the OP has come to a great realization that there really isn't a clear definition outside of the calibre. Without a legally spelt out definition of the two I would say you would have a good case for heading out with that 45-70 or .44 Rossi. Of course a good case is still a case and that means time away from what you love.

Once again, well done on sparking conversation to the OP.

Without a legal definition of these three supposed types of firearms(shotgun, rifle, muzzleloader), hunters may already be at risk of being charged with using an illegal weapon during shotgun/muzzleloader seasons.

If there is no legal description provided in the Alberta or Canadian legislation of what a "shotgun" is, then courts tend to fall back on common public perception and dictionary terms. A hunter using a rifled barrel "shotgun" could be charged and convicted with using a "Rifle", as defined in US legislation.

Would ESRD re-define a "shotgun" to be a smoothbore to close the use of rifled barrels? If yes, Would there now be reason to also require muzzloaders to also be a smoothbore for the use in a shotgun/muzzloader season?

Will ESRD have to find another way to define these types of firearms for the use in special seasons? Velocity, energy? Maximum terminal range of projectile? It has already been shown here that material composition of the cartridge is not a viable direction to define these firearms.

What will the hunting community and manufacturers think of these potential definitions?



If it turns out to be correct;
"In Alberta, A "Rifle" is a "Shotgun" when the caliber is between .411 and .775 "
I wonder if the government would get the can opener out or just keep the lid on it.

[walking buffalo]

Did F&W open the Can?


In conjunction with the ABA Spear/Atlatl ban, http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...ighlight=spear

F&W has tabled a proposal to "Limit types of legal weapons allowed during an open season". This proposal is being discussed with a broad view, using "technology" and hunting "equipment" as key terms.


The use of Real-time cameras, drones, baiting ungulates during a closed season, spears, rocks, long and short range hunting tools are all open for review and possible re-define legality.

Originally Posted by Mikezilk

I was just gonna make that point... I have a Rossi .44 Rem Mag I just bought on here.. max velocity I see is 1600 fps muzzle. My .410 shoty slugs have a muzzle velocity of 1625.

I have actually written an email to SRD requesting Legal Definitions from them on this

Did you receive a response to your email?



I asked a couple of firearm lawyers about the provincial/federal legal definition of "shotgun" and "rifle", and received duplicate answers. Neither could provide a legal definition, and both said if money wasn't an issue this would make an interesting case....

[calgarychef]

I was contemplating this very question yesterday when we were elk hunting with shotguns. If a feller uses a double barrelled shotgun that just happens to be .470 caliber and loaded with brass 470 nitro express loads.... Is it a shotgun?

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

I was contemplating this very question yesterday when we were elk hunting with shotguns. If a feller uses a double barrelled shotgun that just happens to be .470 caliber and loaded with brass 470 nitro express loads.... Is it a shotgun?

Or a .577 Snider that actually uses a 24 gauge brass or even a 24 gauge plastic hull and it loaded with a single bullet that has a BC less than most modern shotgun slugs?

Don't forget, that shotshells were available for it as well!!
By the letter of the law, it's a shotgun because it takes a shotgun shell!
Now, most people know me as one that does not like to look for loopholes or push the envelope when it comes to firearms and hunting laws, but I don't think this is actually a loophole, is it??
Cat

[Lefty-Canuck]

Sometimes I think these questions should not be asked....all it does is turn on light bulbs on above the heads of those who want to further limit us in our hunting opportunities....

LC

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Sometimes I think these questions should not be asked....all it does is turn on light bulbs on above the heads of those who want to further limit us in our hunting opportunities....

LC

You may be right, but the fact remains that the Snider is likely closer to a shotgun than the Savage bolt action thingy with a scope on it!!
I would not hesitate to shoot birdshot out of my Snider , I used to think no, but what the heck?
Cat

[Xiph0id]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Nope.... from the Wildlife Regulations.

Items prohibited for hunting all wildlife

"7- A shotgun of a gauge greater than 10 gauge."



I did make a mistake earlier. A legal "shotgun" for hunting big-game must be greater than .410 gauge....




This is where the available legislation seems to define a "shotgun" in Alberta for the purpose of hunting big-game

"In Alberta, A "Rifle" is a "Shotgun" when the caliber is between .411 and .775 "


I wonder what Fritze is going to have for lunch when giving his opinion to this question.

I have a marlin 1895 shotgun?

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Without a legal definition of these three supposed types of firearms(shotgun, rifle, muzzleloader), hunters may already be at risk of being charged with using an illegal weapon during shotgun/muzzleloader seasons.

What will the hunting community and manufacturers think of these potential definitions?

If it turns out to be correct;
"In Alberta, A "Rifle" is a "Shotgun" when the caliber is between .411 and .775 "
I wonder if the government would get the can opener out or just keep the lid on it.

I wonder if this gun would be legal in Alberta at all.


It shoots a .95 caliber 2,400 grain bullet at 2,100 fps using 240 grains of powder, which generates 25,400 f/lbs of muzzle energy and 277 f/lbs of recoil energy.

Good for short range. Definitely knock over what ever it is shot at and probably would knock the shooter over too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwr2_d-lYGU

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Did F&W open the Can?


In conjunction with the ABA Spear/Atlatl ban, http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...ighlight=spear

F&W has tabled a proposal to "Limit types of legal weapons allowed during an open season". This proposal is being discussed with a broad view, using "technology" and hunting "equipment" as key terms.


The use of Real-time cameras, drones, baiting ungulates during a closed season, spears, rocks, long and short range hunting tools are all open for review and possible re-define legality.








Did you receive a response to your email?



I asked a couple of firearm lawyers about the provincial/federal legal definition of "shotgun" and "rifle", and received duplicate answers. Neither could provide a legal definition, and both said if money wasn't an issue this would make an interesting case....

The common sense answer would be, look at the barrel wall thickness, one operates at a higher pressure.

[32-40win]

This one is another question, like Cat's Snider, original ball & shot guns used brass cases as I understand it;

http://bigfivehq.com/galleries/s&b.htm

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Xiph0id

I have a marlin 1895 shotgun?

That would seem to depend on the caliber?

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

I wonder if this gun would be legal in Alberta at all.


It shoots a .95 caliber 2,400 grain bullet at 2,100 fps using 240 grains of powder, which generates 25,400 f/lbs of muzzle energy and 277 f/lbs of recoil energy.

Good for short range. Definitely knock over what ever it is shot at and probably would knock the shooter over too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwr2_d-lYGU

Without a clear definition of shotgun vs. rifle, this wouldn't be legal for hunting Wildlife in Alberta as it is greater than 10 guage (.775).

Otherwise, what a nice mountain gun that would be....

Originally Posted by pikergolf

The common sense answer would be, look at the barrel wall thickness, one operates at a higher pressure.

Common sense says we should define firearms types by barrel wall thickness?

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Sometimes I think these questions should not be asked....all it does is turn on light bulbs on above the heads of those who want to further limit us in our hunting opportunities....

LC

The Red Queen's spell is working.


The can was opened in part due to a certain hunting group's resolution to ban spears/atlats, so in a sense your concern is founded....


Regardless, here we are, and this can go both ways. There is an opportunity to Increase the number and types of legal firearms allowed into "shotgun/muzzloader" only hunting seasons.

[Salavee]

Confusing for sure. but would'nt it make sense that if a single or multi- barrelled firearm is intended to simultaneously launch multi projectiles it is a Shotgun and launching a single projectile makes it a Rifle, whether that single projectile or barrel is rifled or not ?


During "special seasons" in conjested areas, a firearm that is generally referred to as a "shotgun" may be used with a single projectile, or multi projectiles due to it's lower MV and anemic trajectories for safety reasons, providing the multi projectiles each have a diameter that meets minimum diameter requirements for use on big game. Not sure . Interesting thread .. ! Kinda reminds me of the Crossbow thing. lol

[dmcbride]

I always thought it was what is stamped on the cartridge or the barrel. The measurement for shot guns is measured by (gauge) 10, 12, 20 gauge. I also heard you can fire a 410 shell out of a 45-70. I would assume if you actually used a 410 shell it would be considered a shot gun. I could be wrong.

[abbgdr]

I shot 410 out of my 444,, cycled them just fine,, didn't know it fit in the 45-70 as well

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by abbgdr

I shot 410 out of my 444,, cycled them just fine,, didn't know it fit in the 45-70 as well

I am probably mistakin on the 45-70. 444 sounds correct.

[ACKLEY ABE]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Another hunting regulation question. Cut me some slack.


Can a Centerfire Rifle be legally considered a "Shotgun" for the purpose of hunting big-game in Alberta?

No

[Okotokian]

Seems to me that the only difference between most "centerfires" and a "shotgun" shooting a sabot is effective range, but that's true when considering the 30-30 vs the .300WM too. No real reason to distinguish between rifles, shotguns, and black powder rifles except that they have constiuencies that want and lobby for their own seasons. So the government sets up different games, like casinos have different table games. Then technology muddies these artificial bondaries even more.

Rule should simply state that if you use an explosive propellant device, here's how big the projectile must be to deliver a reasonably lethal blow to big game. We don't care what the tube looks like that you fire it out of.

[Pudelpointer]

Good time for a re-hash of this subject.

How 'bout this:

Muscle powered weapons including: rocks, sticks/clubs, spears, atlatls, knives, arrows/darts, primitive bows, compound bows.

Primitive weapons: all of the above plus crossbows, musket cap or no.11 cap ignited muzzleloaders, and smoothbore cartridge firearms (no rifling in barrels or chokes).

Modern Firearms: everything else, as long as firing is achieved through physical action of the shooter directly on the firearm ( i.e. no remote firing computer controlled weapons)


GO!

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Good time for a re-hash of this subject.

How 'bout this:

Muscle powered weapons including: rocks, sticks/clubs, spears, atlatls, knives, arrows/darts, primitive bows, compound bows.

Primitive weapons: all of the above plus crossbows, musket cap or no.11 cap ignited muzzleloaders, and smoothbore cartridge firearms (no rifling in barrels or chokes).

Modern Firearms: everything else, as long as firing is achieved through physical action of the shooter directly on the firearm ( i.e. no remote firing computer controlled weapons)


GO!

What is the purpose for these distinctions? I guarantee you that in the hands of an average weekend hunter, a compound bow is more lethal at 15 yards than a .30-06 is at 800 yards. There are so many other variables (shot selection, range, skill, bullet selection, etc.) not covered by regulations that impact lethality or difficulty that making these few arbitrary regulations is almost meaningless.

I would also dispute that compound bows are strictly muscle-powered in the same sense as the other wearpons. Cams are a mechanical draw assist that allow the bow to deliver more power than the shooter could probably draw and hold on their own, are they not?

[Pudelpointer]

The express reason for having different seasons comes down to providing maximum opportunity (# of days in the field) with minimal impact to target species populations while achieving harvest targets.

The number of days is directly related to the average success rate of those using the specific type of weapon, which, for the most part, is directly related to the effective range and amount of movement required to "launch" a projectile. The less effective a weapon is (shorter effective range, more motion required to use) the more opportunity you can provide the users of said weapons with minimal impacts on the resource.

For example:

Hand held or hand propelled weapons (knives, clubs, atlatls, spears) have a VERY short effective range and require significant movement to use; they have a correspondingly low success rate. So low in fact that you could have a 12 month season for any and all species in Alberta, for any and all classes of animals (Antlerred, antlerless, trophy, non-trophy, etc.) and have virtually zero impact on both the target species population and the availability of tags/opportunity for other weapons users.

The three classes I suggest are just that, suggestions. Move compounds into "primitive weapons" or crossbows into "Muscle Powered weapons", I don't really care. The point is, the classification of a weapon should be based on its success rate. Weapons with lower success rated should be allowed increased opportunity IMO.

If you disagree, that's okay. Welcome to the free world.

[Pudelpointer]

Further to that thought Oko, my desire in life is to spend as many days in the field as I can. I choose to spend those days hunting, instead of scouting, sightseeing or taking photos (though I do lots of that as well).

I see anything that reduces the number of days Albertan's can spend hunting as a reduction in opportunity for all Albertans.

[u_cant_rope_the_wind]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

If you disagree, that's okay. Welcome to the free world.

where does it say in that amandment thingy, that trudeau got the queen to
sign and give her blessings on.
that we as canadians are free???????

[bergman]

We have two primary distinctions here, and separate reasoning behind each.

1. Success rates: for preservation of the species, said above. If a method is too successful, the season is limited to prevent overharvest and population decline. Ie. general season, as everyone here knows well.

2. Safety: Overshooting, as said above, is a concern in highly populated or highly visited areas - like Strathcona, and als (isuspect) forms the reasoning behind the Canmore Bow Zone (too many hikers for high powered rifles shooting too far).

So, FWIW, here is my run down, keeping in mind a sure kill is desired, which rules out blunt force objects as a hunting method...

NO rocks, sticks or clubs.

Cutting weapons: spears, atlatls, knives, arrows/darts, primitive bows, compound bows must all have a minimum blade size (suggest to hold to same standard as arrows - 1 1/8 inch cutting surface I think?) Safe to go in any season.

Crossbows are mainly limited now because of ease of harvest compared to traditional bows, and so go in the general season. (I think -correct me if I am wrong.)

Seasons and regions should be determined according to both Safety and Success rates.

Ie. for Strathcona, where deer are over abundant and overshooting is a concern, all forms of hunting with a short-range effectiveness. Base it on what you are worried about - people overshooting - instead of "type" or weapon. So perhaps on ballistics (ft/lbs at whatever-yds, bullet drop) instead of weapon-type. If they ever develop a high powered muzzle loader that shoots out to 1600 yards (and they will!) things are going to need to be redefined.

BUT, for most folks ballistics and bullet drop are too complicated, so we end up with generalizations about seasons that 'mostly' fall into the desired safety and success rate spectrum's.

Good enough, is after all, good enough.

Going to open another can here, but while I am thinking... if they are really concerned about overpopulation in some areas, I would approve of some areas like Strathcona, and maybe more (heck, maybe everywhere) open to baiting for ungulates as well. Works for Saskatchewan, and they don't seem to run out of deer... and it would solve some of the concerns about overshooting, when you could be more sure of what is behind your shooting area.

A lot of grey out there, and for me personally a shotgun is whatever is marketed and sold as a shotgun. Not worth the legal hassle in a system that puts the burden of proof on the defense instead of on the plaintiff. Guilty until proven innocent .