40-year-AZ-hunter

Did you ever get a response to your email to Rep. Weiers? I've been watching for you to post it but have not seen it. I ask because I sent emails to the contact listed for AzSFW with questions that they have not answered. The silence from those pushing the bill has been deafening. Thanks.

Nick, I have emailed Ms Gilstrap (AzSFW's contact person) and asked "If I am not a member of a sponsoring organization, a business partner, or a $1000 donor, how do I get to be a Board member of AzSFW?" IF.... I get a reply I will be sure to post it. If they cant even update their website more than every couple years it's just one small example of the multitude of reasons that I and others on this forum seem to distrust the organization with something as important as the tags that are the subject of HB 2072. By the way, how were Board elections carried out?

Nick, With all due respect, it is not "bunk" but taken directly from their web page. Go to their site and click the tab "about AZSFW" and "membership" http://arizonasportsmenforwildlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=134&Itemid=78 It lists 4 types of membership - General, Business, Organization, and "Sportsmen Circle Member". Only the last 3 are listed as eligible to serve on the Board and those memberships start at $1000. You were probably on the Board as a representative of YRGC which I suspect paid the $1000. The "regular joes" that you served with were all members of organizations that ponied up the money. Please go check their website before you decide something is "bunk".

Seriously, after all the vitriolic name calling and finger pointing, why would Rep. Weiers want to discuss this issue with folks on this forum? I mean really, is there any chance he could change your mind? Unless you're just hoping to conduct a public flogging, the opportunity for civil discourse is long gone. The majority of individuals posting to this thread are not supportive. Continuing to rehash conspiracy theories and nasty accusations is not going to solve anything one way or another. I hope Amanda will lock this thread off as I don't see anything positive to be accomplished. Once future meetings are held with Rep. Weiers, AZSFWC and others, then Amanda could start a new thread to provide updates and where we could (hopefully) discuss this issue with a greater level of respect for one another. Gee, by all means let's hide this topic as best we can before those behind it provide any real answers. That would fit right in with the way the whole issue was started by those behind the scenes.

To Bonuspointjohn, You have conveniently ignored (or tried to cover up) the main reason for the emergency clause. The emergency clause causes a bill to go into effect immediatly upon signature by the govenment. It is NOT subject to referendum. Claiming (as you have throughout this discussion) that is is merely so the expo can proceed is BS as you said in post #76 and others. It would preclude any group that disageed with the law from challenging it at the ballot box. From the State's 2011/2012 bill drafting manual "A measure that is enacted by the legislature is not operative for a period of ninety days after the adjournment of the session (unless it is enacted under special circumstances that allow it to be effective immediately). During this ninety-day period five percent of the qualified electors may file a petition with the secretary of state to have the measure referred to the people for approval or rejection. The number of qualified electors required is calculated by determining the total number of votes cast for all candidates for governor at the general election preceding the filing of the referendum. The measure is approved by a majority of those voting. Note: The following enactments are not subject to referendum by the people because they become effective immediately on the governor's signature: 23 1. An emergency measure that is passed by a "supermajority" vote of the legislature." http://www.azleg.gov/alisPDFs/council/2011-2012%20Bill%20Drafting%20Manual.pdf I'm also still waiting to hear from you the answer to the questions posed in post #139. Since the email sent to the "contact" link at AzSFW ( suzanne@capitolconsultingaz.com ) does not seem to be very forthcoming. Who votes the Board in? I see from their site that you have to donate $1000/year to even be eligible to be a Board member "For an individual who wants to make a special commitment to the AZSFW Mission and who may be eligible to serve on the Board of Directors. Annual Fee $ 1,000 Three Years $2,500" So much for representation by the average hunter! We are all still waiting to hear if we will be welcome to discuss this bill at the meeting next Tuesday. By the way Amanda, Rep. Weiers is well enough to attend that meeting is he not? It's funny he can't find the strength to type a few sentences to reply to the hunters on your forum.

Bonusptjohn, perhaps as a member of the AzSFW Board you can help. I emailed the contact link on their site (Ms. Gilstrap's email) and asked how many individual paying members of AzSFW there are. I have not received a reply. I know the group cites a large figure for membership, but I believe most of those are people who belong only because they belong to one of the sponsoring organizations, not because they chose to. In fact, many may not agree with AzSFW positions. So, can you tell me how many individuals chose to pay the dues to belong? Another other question relates to the control of the organization. Again, I looked on the site for a link to the organizations bylaws and did not find anything. Can you help? I'm particularly interesting in knowing how the Board is selected. Is it done by a vote of the membership (relates to the first question)? I also did not see any accounting of the funds generated and spent by the organization. Is that available for reveiw? Will individual hunters be invited to the meeting to discuss this bill? There are over 100,000 big game hunters in AZ and the vast majority do not belong to any of the sponsoring organizations, much less pay to be individual members of AzSFW (see first question). They would all be affected by this bill. Thanks.

Nick, Sorry if anyone was misled about your involvment. The list of Directors was taken from the AzSFW website today. Looks like they cant even keep their own stuff up to date. How the heck should we trust them with a proposal like this is beyond me. Glad to hear you dont favor this stuff and thanks for the clarification.

"The money will not be going into the general fund. The revenue will be paid directly to the AZSFWC and therefore no state agency can touch the money." Not very reassuring..... AzSFW in charge.

The bill is schedule for a hearing in the House Commerce committee on THIS Wed. Jan 9. Tell me that this is not being rammed thru? http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/agendas/01110202107%2Edoc%2Ehtm Interestingly, Weiers is the Chair of that committee. Guess what will happen? This is before the Commission meets on the 10th. WTF.

"Of course we are talking about 0.2 of 1 percent of the tags, the change in drawing odds is so small that it cannot be calculated. " This is very misleading. Look above at the description of the tags to be sold. It includes many of the best tags in the state. While it may be only 0.2% of the TOTAL tags, it is a MUCH higher percentage of the most sought after tags. It should also be noted that the person who wrote this is a member of the unelected Board of Az Sportsmen for Wildlife. Funny he did not mention that in his signature line. Here are the members of that unelected Board, ARIZONA SPORTSMEN FOR WILDLIFE CHAIRMAN: Alan Hamberlin BOARD MEMBERS Chris Denham Brian Dolan Randy Gaskill Hays Gilstrap Floyd Green Todd Hulm Nick Heatwole Mark Nuessle Art Pearce Trent Swanson (Note added at 9:30 PM on 1/9/11 - Nick Heatwole has clarified later in this thread that he has not been on the AzSFW Board for over a year! http://arizonasportsmenforwildlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81&Itemid=67 It appears that this list taken from their website today is not maintained. How the heck can we trust them with all these valuable tags when they don't even seem to know who is on their Board? Also of note is that this bill is never mentioned on their website including under their list of "Political Action" or "Current Issues". I wonder why they are not so proud of it????) I've looked at their website and can not find a copy of the bylaws for the organization. That would be interesting to see. Some of us were very suspicious of Az Sportsmen for Wildlife when the group was formed by a few VERY well to do fellows. It is still run by an elite group that includes some VERY well to do fellows who are not elected. Everyone should read this bill VERY carefully, then contact your State representative and senator as soon as possible. Dont wait either. Notice that the bill has an emergency clause "This act is an emergency measure that is necessary to preserve the public peace, health or safety and is operative immediately as provided by law." I dont get what the hurry is except to get it done before the majority of hunters hear about it. We surely dont need more raffles for hunt permits. The drawing is essentially a very fair raffle. Let's keep it that way.

Great gesture Frank!

How long have you owned the shotgun?

Congratulations. I'm thrilled to see one go for that much money. I hope mine are in that range if I decide I need to sell.

I have a pre-64 Winchester model 70 Westerner .264 magnum that I've owned for 35 years and rarely shot. Recently, I got to thinking that I should see if I could equip it for shooting 400-500 yards. Trouble is, I have not found a load that seems to work well in it. Most of the loads I've tried have been with components I've had on the shelf for many years. Sierra and Hornady 120-140 gr spitzer bullets, IMR 4350 and 4831 powder. Most of the loads I've tried have grouped in the 2-3 moa range. The best shooting load is Remington 140gr Core-Lokt factory loads at just over 1 moa. I know bullets and powders have been improved over the years and am thinking that I need to try some "modern" bullets. Do any of you have suggestions for a brand/type that is particularly accurate, especially in 6.5mm? At this point, I'm not really interested in the likely performance on game, but rather in working up an accurate load. I'll worry about whether it's a bullet suitable for game later. The rifle would be used for both deer species in AZ and antelope (if I ever get that lucky). If you happen to shoot a .264 mag and have a specific load that has worked well for you and would share the info, that would be wonderful too. Thanks for any suggestions. Bruce

A round and a flat file work great.

"We don't have any "semi-primitive" areas in Arizona " I just read this thread altho I was aware of this ruling some time ago. Just for all of your information, the forests in Arizona have LOTS of areas designated as "semi-primitive". It is one of the classifications the FS uses in what they call the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). These areas are prevelent in all of the Arizona national forests. The semi-primitive classification is further subdivided into motorized and non-motorized. If this ruling was to go national, MUCH of the forest service land in Arizona would be affected. Just Google "ROS" and "semi-primitive" and the name of your favorite forest. You will find lots of references. You can also ask the forest for a map of the ROS classifications for the forest.

Got 'em Phil. Thanks so much! Bruce

You're likely already in that range with Remington factory fodder. What dies are you using and have they loaded accurate ammo for another gun? FL sizing just enough to headspace on the shoulder instead of the belt, or bumping them all the way back every time? I believe they are RCBS dies (cant remember for sure as I have a number of die sets and am not home to double check) and I have not had another 264 to load for. Interesting question tho since the factory ammo groups better than the handloads I've tried to date. I normally try to set my sizing die (for anything I'm loading) back just enough so it only neck sizes. I guess I should say that altho I've reloaded for 45 years, I've never had a rifle that I had to fret over being too precise in order to get reasonable groups. I do however weigh each charge. Heck, I'm not expecting 1/2 moa. I've just been frustrated that this rifle is so fussy. Part of the reason I broke it out after many years is that I was thinking I wanted to buy a .257 Weatherby but could not afford it. Then I got to thinking that my old .264 should do anything a .257 Weatherby will do so why not just try to set it up for longer range shooting. Again, longer range to me is 400-500. Normally, I dont use my favorite rifle (a pre-64 featherweight .270) at over 250 yards. It shoots about MOA with just about anything I feed it. Thanks again. Bruce

Have you looked at the throat with a bore scope or just with the naked eye? Unless you look through a bore scope, even a cooked barrel looks sharp and clean to the naked eye. Sorry! M Just with the naked eye. I have a .243 that has visable throat erosion (again with the naked eye) and it shoots quite well. I'd be very surprised if it is "shot out". Also, as I said in the original post, it will shot just about 1 moa (at 100 yards) with Remington factory ammo. I guess if nothing else I can just shoot factory ammo, but that just does not sit right with me. If I cant get it to group better with some modern components, then I'll shoot the factory stuff. I'm not trying to shoot near as far as some guys do. Consistently in 6" at 400-500 yards will be just ducky with me. I guess another alternative would be to take it to a gunsmith with a bore scope and have them tell me what it looks like to them. Thanks again guys for all the suggestions! Bruce

I'd love to have them Phil. I'll send you a PM. Thanks, Bruce

Hey Matt, Thanks for the info! I've got a couple questions if you dont mind. I've reloaded for 40+ years but never tried for nats-butt groups, therefore, I've always worried more about the bullet and powder to use than the particular brand of cases or primers. Do you have any thoughts on how much difference it really makes to use Federal 215s versus other primers like Remington or CCI? The same question for cases, ie SuperX versus Remington? I have cleaned the gun well with Sweets and Hoppes. The bore looks perfect to me. The lands are sharp right to the front of the chamber. Another question (sorry, but as I mentioned, all my stuff and experience is with decades old components) regards "moly coated" that you mentioned. How do I know whether a particular brand of bullet is so coated? Thanks again!!!! Bruce

Thanks Jeffro. I have found over the years that older rifles (and this rifle was made 50 years ago) seem to be more sensitive to load development and are probably not as inherently accurate as new rifles. Old rifles had wood stocks which as you point out are more problematic bedding. The triggers (factory) were not as crisp and the advancement in making barrels all tend to argue against the older factory rifles. Since this rifle is worth more in original condition, I dont want to modify it. If I cant fing a load I'm satisfied with, I'll just put it back in the safe. I will be very happy with a load that will consistently shoot 1 MOA. I'm hoping that the stock rifle is capable of that since it will shoot Remington factory loads at just a little worse than 1 MOA. I've also got a pre-64 featherweight .264 that I bought 20 years ago. I only shot it one session and IT shot 3-4 moa. The pre-64 .264s never caught on and I think one reason was the inherent inaccuracy of the loads available back then. I'm hoping that with some better bullets I can improve it enough to feel comfortable taking it hunting. I'm hoping that the improvements that have been made in components, especially bullets, will let me achieve my goal. I have to believe modern bullets are more consistent than 35 year vintage Sierras and Hornadys. Someone told me that 6.5mm bullets were kind of a second class stepchild back in the day. heck, part of the problem is probably that I'm not as steady as I was 35 years ago either! Thanks for the names of some brands to look at. A 140 gr would be great.

Just saw your story Nick. Congratulations!! Great ram! Bruce

"If you buy them new they will cost you $1100.00" Does Leica even make the BAs any more? I thought they replaced them with the BNs about 8 years ago and then replaced the BNs with the Ultravids a few years ago.

Sold. Thanks. .