7.7x58 Arisaka legal for deer hunting on private land this fall?

[Broom_jm]

I have a sporterized Type 99 rifle in 7.7x58 that I used to shoot my 2nd deer, about 30 years ago. Since the 7.62x54R is legal, I'm thinking the 7.7x58 (both shoot .312" bullets) should also be legal?

I'd love to hunt with it this fall, for nostalgia's sake, if nothing else.

 

[Clay]

I think the rifle calibers that are legal are specific cartridges spelled out by the DNR. If it's not on the list, then it's not currently legal.

 

[avboiler11]

I think the rifle calibers that are legal are specific cartridges spelled out by the DNR. If it's not on the list, then it's not currently legal.

That is not accurate.

The rifle must have a barrel length of at least 16 inches. The cartridge must have a case length of at least 1.16 inches. The cartridge must fire a bullet with a diameter that is .243 inches (same as 6mm) or .308 inches (same as 7.62 mm). Bullets with a diameter smaller than .243 inches (same as 6mm), larger than .308 inches (same as 7.62mm), or in between .243 and .308 are not legal. A hunter may not possess more than 10 cartridges for each of these rifles while hunting deer. Full metal jacketed bullets are illegal. The new rifle options can be used only on private land.

Based on this language from the 2016 Hunting Guide, any 6mm or (western) 30 caliber chambering is legal. The 7.7x58, however, is not a 7.62mm and uses a bullet larger than .308", therefore I would conclude not a legal chambering.

 

[rob63]

Never mind.

 

[BogWalker]

Could load up some with .308 diameter bullets and see how it does. May deliver usable groups, may not. At only .004 under diameter it may still perform well.

 

[Broom_jm]

That is not accurate.



Based on this language from the 2016 Hunting Guide, any 6mm or (western) 30 caliber chambering is legal. The 7.7x58, however, is not a 7.62mm and uses a bullet larger than .308", therefore I would conclude not a legal chambering.

You could be right, AVB.

The 7.62x54R shoots the exact same diameter bullet as the 7.7x58, but the language specifically includes the "7.62" designation. I'm willing to risk it, given that the bullet diameter and performance is virtually identical. If I was to be cited for using a cartridge not listed, I'm confident a lawyer would argue that the cartridge I used adhered to the spirit of the law. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but like I said, it's a risk I'm willing to take.

I would use a 303 British for the exact same reasons.

How absurd would it be that a 30 Carbine is legal, a 7.62x39 is legal (also with a .312" bullet) and the 7.62x54R is legal, but a 7.7x58 is not? The first two are marginally effective and the latter two are basically identical. Only a politician could make up gun laws like this!

 

[AmmoManAaron]

How absurd would it be that a 30 Carbine is legal, a 7.62x39 is legal (also with a .312" bullet) and the 7.62x54R is legal, but a 7.7x58 is not? The first two are marginally effective and the latter two are basically identical. Only a politician could make up gun laws like this!

This is as much the DNR's fault as the legislature. DNR is using as wide an interpretation as possible as an "FU" to the legislature. They are hoping to cause a debacle and much nashing of teeth over this so that the legislature stays out of things like this which the DNR considers solely their realm. The legislature was listening to their constituency and trying to move things forward, but didn't do the best job with the language. My prediction is that this is such an esoteric issue that nothing much will happen and when the trial period is up, we will get better legislation/regulation that makes more sense from the technical side of things.

 

[RMC]

Some States simply list the diameter of the projectile, the muzzle energy requirement, center fire cartridges only, and stipulate that non-expanding projectiles are not allowed. Come to think of it, even pistols have the same type of requirements too. That makes a lot more sense to me than what Indiana is doing. Even archery has similar requirements with draw pull weight and broadhead width. I never heard of the case lenght as a restriction until I moved here. That was the deciding factor of why I didn't buy a 10mm. The 10mm is too short to be effective on deer??? Seriously? Are the people making these decisions appointed or elected?

 

[Tactically Fat]

Sounds to me like you have a rifle chambered in 7.62x58 and not 7.7x58...

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Some States simply list the diameter of the projectile, the muzzle energy requirement, center fire cartridges only, and stipulate that non-expanding projectiles are not allowed. Come to think of it, even pistols have the same type of requirements too. That makes a lot more sense to me than what Indiana is doing. Even archery has similar requirements with draw pull weight and broadhead width. I never heard of the case lenght as a restriction until I moved here. That was the deciding factor of why I didn't buy a 10mm. The 10mm is too short to be effective on deer??? Seriously? Are the people making these decisions appointed or elected?

I agree that is theoretically the better way to do it, state the minimum projectile diameter and minimum muzzle energy (ME). Only minor problem is the ME for some loads could be borderline - some factory .30 carbine loads (like from Underwood) might make it, while Win. and Rem. soft points might not, same with a variety handgun rounds...and the situation gets worse if you try to figure in hot handloads or wildcat calibers - how do you easily PROVE your ammo makes it and is legal? What about the difference in ME between .357 Mag 110gr HP and 158gr HP? The 158gr HP would be the better killer, but the 110gr HP has higher ME. I think easy verification is where the case length requirement comes from. Language in addition to the case length requirement along the lines of "or generates a minimum of XX muzzle energy." The word "or" not "and" being very important. My bottom line is everything will have some grey area and it is NOT a simple matter for people (like legislators and DNR bureaucrats) to make a law that makes sense and encompasses everything that would be reasonably appropriate to use for deer hunting AND also prohibits calibers that are obviously not appropriate. Honestly, I don't have a problem with someone using 7.7 Jap or .30 carbine or 10mm. The .357 Magnum and .410 slug have been legal and used for quite a long time without significant issue and those two are comparable to .30 carbine soft points in field effectiveness (and there has to be a hunting market for the .30 carbine since Hornady created the FTX .30 carbine bullet and factory ammo and I doubt it was solely for self defense given the type of firearms available in this caliber). Anyway, anyone using just about any of the more borderline choices is going to know the limitations of their choice because none of those options are common and you would likely be going out of your way to use one - the big exception being .410 slugs since the guns for it are both common and cheap...and likely to be wielded by a young hunter with less experience.

Sounds to me like you have a rifle chambered in 7.62x58 and not 7.7x58...

If anyone asks about the headstamp saying 7.7 Jap, you just tell them it is a 7.62x58 wildcat and offer to let them measure the bullet diameter with a micrometer.

 

[Tactically Fat]

If anyone asks about the headstamp saying 7.7 Jap, you just tell them it is a 7.62x58 wildcat and offer to let them measure the bullet diameter with a micrometer.

That's essentially what I was getting at.

 

[avboiler11]

I'd think a case headstamp would matter less than the chambering marked on the weapon.

I think the law is as goofy as the next person, but IMO the way it is written is crystal-clear and it is going to be important for people to 'color inside the lines' during the 5 year trial period in order to prove to DNR that yes, we dumb hunters can be fully trusted with bottleneck Magnumloudenboomers in the deer woods and there's no need for the mishmash of stupid that came down from Indy.

Just one guy's opinion; I'm sure there are plenty of "big picture" COs out there but also sure there are just as many if not more "letter of the law" types.

Caveat emptor and all that.

 

[mkgr22]

Form and trim .30-06 cases for your Arisaka, and the headstamp will make the question moot.

 

[RMC]

Yep, break the law and pray you don't get checked or that the LEO has no clue what the most popular cartridge looks like. It would be a good idea to grind off any caliber identification from your barrel too.

 

[Broom_jm]

This is a bring-back rifle...there's no cartridge markings visible on the barrel and the chrysanthemum has been ground off. I'd be astonished if the CO knew what a 7.7x58 cartridge was, but my defense in court (should it come to that) is the state/DNR deemed the 7.62x54R a 30 caliber, and since it shoots .312" bullets, that should make the 7.7x58 legal as well.

I could take it to a 'smith, have the barrel set back and then rechambered to safely use reformed 30-'06 brass...that would probably eliminate any possible concerns.

The absurdity of being able to use a 30-378 Weatherby, but not a full-length 35 Remington, is something my friends in other states almost cannot believe. I'm reasonably certain you could fireform 30-'06 brass in a 280AI chamber and you'd never get questioned about it...because the case head stamp was good. Makes me shake my head in confusion.

 

[two70]

This is a bring-back rifle...there's no cartridge markings visible on the barrel and the chrysanthemum has been ground off. I'd be astonished if the CO knew what a 7.7x58 cartridge was, but my defense in court (should it come to that) is the state/DNR deemed the 7.62x54R a 30 caliber, and since it shoots .312" bullets, that should make the 7.7x58 legal as well.

I could take it to a 'smith, have the barrel set back and then rechambered to safely use reformed 30-'06 brass...that would probably eliminate any possible concerns.

The absurdity of being able to use a 30-378 Weatherby, but not a full-length 35 Remington, is something my friends in other states almost cannot believe. I'm reasonably certain you could fireform 30-'06 brass in a 280AI chamber and you'd never get questioned about it...because the case head stamp was good. Makes me shake my head in confusion.

You would likely win the case in court if it ever got that far, especially if you were using .308 bullets but the question is whether it is worth the potential hassle. Instead of speculating or simply taking the risk, why not consult with your local COs?

I've posted this several times before but IMO, the DNR eliminated a huge potential headache by specifically stating that 7.62x39 and 7.62x54R were legal since many such guns actually use .308 barrels. Imagine trying to ticket a hunter using .310 + diameter bullets in a gun chambered in one of these two calibers but not the guy using .308 diameter bullets.

 

[bulletbaron]

Go to The Reloading Authority - Your Source for Shooting Supplies - Graf & Sons, they have 7.7 Jap 150 grain PSP ammunition

 

[Broom_jm]

You would likely win the case in court if it ever got that far, especially if you were using .308 bullets but the question is whether it is worth the potential hassle. Instead of speculating or simply taking the risk, why not consult with your local COs?

I've posted this several times before but IMO, the DNR eliminated a huge potential headache by specifically stating that 7.62x39 and 7.62x54R were legal since many such guns actually use .308 barrels. Imagine trying to ticket a hunter using .310 + diameter bullets in a gun chambered in one of these two calibers but not the guy using .308 diameter bullets.

Yeah, I doubt it would ever be an issue. Where I'm hunting, it's not likely a CO is ever going to check me, but if he did I'd have to be doing something else wrong for the use of this rifle to be a concern.

Go to The Reloading Authority - Your Source for Shooting Supplies - Graf & Sons, they have 7.7 Jap 150 grain PSP ammunition

I've got about 30 rounds of factory ammo left, which will give me 60 pieces of brass to reload...that'll last me a while.

 

[ScouT6a]

I agree that is theoretically the better way to do it, state the minimum projectile diameter and minimum muzzle energy (ME). Only minor problem is the ME for some loads could be borderline - some factory .30 carbine loads (like from Underwood) might make it, while Win. and Rem. soft points might not, same with a variety handgun rounds...and the situation gets worse if you try to figure in hot handloads or wildcat calibers - how do you easily PROVE your ammo makes it and is legal? What about the difference in ME between .357 Mag 110gr HP and 158gr HP? The 158gr HP would be the better killer, but the 110gr HP has higher ME. I think easy verification is where the case length requirement comes from. Language in addition to the case length requirement along the lines of "or generates a minimum of XX muzzle energy." The word "or" not "and" being very important. My bottom line is everything will have some grey area and it is NOT a simple matter for people (like legislators and DNR bureaucrats) to make a law that makes sense and encompasses everything that would be reasonably appropriate to use for deer hunting AND also prohibits calibers that are obviously not appropriate. Honestly, I don't have a problem with someone using 7.7 Jap or .30 carbine or 10mm. The .357 Magnum and .410 slug have been legal and used for quite a long time without significant issue and those two are comparable to .30 carbine soft points in field effectiveness (and there has to be a hunting market for the .30 carbine since Hornady created the FTX .30 carbine bullet and factory ammo and I doubt it was solely for self defense given the type of firearms available in this caliber). Anyway, anyone using just about any of the more borderline choices is going to know the limitations of their choice because none of those options are common and you would likely be going
If anyone asks about the headstamp saying 7.7 Jap, you just tell them it is a 7.62x58 wildcat and offer to let them measure the bullet diameter with a micrometer.

I am sure all Conservation Officers will have a micrometer in their pocket to check all the rounds they come across.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

I am sure all Conservation Officers will have a micrometer in their pocket to check all the rounds they come across.

Having one with you would help keep you out of trouble if someone insists on walking the line.