Magazine Capacity and Hunting


PDA






50caliber123
November 13, 2007, 06:15 PM
In Michigan, the DNR manual says we can carry no more than 6 rounds in a semi-automatic centerfire rifle or shotgun. I believe in hunting ethically, one shot kill is prefferred to anything else, but why is the number 6 (or 5, or 3) the decided upon "sporting" capacity? I'm not advocating 30rd magazines here, but would like to know how these restrictions, specifically the number of rounds (here, its 6) are agreed on. Personally, I have some rifles that have 10rd fixed or detachable magazines, such as SKS and Enfield rifles. I would like to be able to have full magazines for these rifles without having to artificially limit the capacity of the magazine or have to buy an aftermarket replacement. I don't ever carry afield less than 10rds and never more than 20. I'm sure others who use M1 Garands would like to use the 8rd en-bloc clips as well instead of the clumsy-looking 5rd ones. So why and how do these restrictions 3, 5,6 rds exist? Thoughts on whether we should push to change them anyone? I just feel if someone was going to cause trouble or be unsporting and blast away, they would either not follow the magazine capacity restriction or reload anyways.

If you enjoyed reading about "Magazine Capacity and Hunting" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ClickClickD'oh
November 13, 2007, 06:22 PM
Sorry, come on down to Tx. I hunt piggies with a twenty round magazine. The only magazine limit here is one migratory game birds, because they fall under federal legislation.

Crunker1337
November 13, 2007, 06:31 PM
I don't think hunting pigs falls under the federal 10 rd magazine limit for hunting game animals since all year is pig season as they are considered non-native varmint/pest animals.

Jorg Nysgerrig
November 13, 2007, 06:33 PM
I don't think hunting pigs falls under the federal 10 rd magazine limit for hunting game animals since all year is pig season as they are considered non-native varmint/pest animals.

Can you cite this federal 10 round magazine limit?

ClickClickD'oh
November 13, 2007, 06:35 PM
Is there a federal 10 round limit? Texas law specifically says that there is no magazine limit on any game animal other than migratory birds.

Magazine Capacity (number of shells/cartridges allowed): There are no restrictions on the number of shells or cartridges a legal firearm may hold when hunting game animals or game birds (except migratory game birds, see Legal Shotgun).
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/annual/hunt/means/

I've never seen a federal restriction on anything other than migratory game birds.

akodo
November 13, 2007, 06:45 PM
hunting is not a fundimental right, just like driving your car on the highway.

Just like there is no magic that happens to a teen on his 16th birthday, there is no magic about the number 6. They want the number to be 'medium low' but 'medium low' isn't specific enough, so they picked 6.

Frog48
November 13, 2007, 07:50 PM
the federal 10 rd magazine limit for hunting game animals

I dont believe any such limit exists...

Crunker1337
November 13, 2007, 07:58 PM
I've heard tell of such law in other locations but come to think of it I don't know the exact law. I will search for it though, so plan on hearing back from me soon.

Hmm looks like there is no federal law so far... maybe it was misquoted from the AWB? Hunting weapons, 10 rounds magazine limit sounds familiar...

sb350hp
November 13, 2007, 08:01 PM
I am of the opinion that in reality you should need no more than 5 in any hunting rifle on any hunting outing. However you should carry at least 5 to 10extra rounds on your person during that hunt. However saying that, I do not know where the number comes from. Handguns 6 would make sense at most hunting handguns are revolvers, Shotguns, why 3??? that is a good question. Long guns I am ok with limiting the rounds (my opinion) so you don't have rambo cutting loose on a game animal from the hip doing the spray and pray routine w/ other hunters out in the field.

I am not sorry to say that I am w/ Jim Zumbo on the fact that I do not consider SKS, AK's and the like "hunting" rifles per say but yet I do not feel that they cannot be used effectively for hunting.

Prince Yamato
November 13, 2007, 08:02 PM
probably because 5/6 rounds is what a Mauser can hold?

yesit'sloaded
November 13, 2007, 08:06 PM
I am not sorry to say that I am w/ Jim Zumbo on the fact that I do not consider SKS, AK's and the like "hunting" rifles per say but yet I do not feel that they cannot be used effectively for hunting. If I may ask, would you please explain what makes a rifle a hunting rifle?

TexasRifleman
November 13, 2007, 08:08 PM
I am not sorry to say that I am w/ Jim Zumbo on the fact that I do not consider SKS, AK's and the like "hunting" rifles per say but yet I do not feel that they cannot be used effectively for hunting.

I can't believe after all that has gone on that you still think like that.

You can't possibly have any rationale for it at all.

What in the world is the difference between hunting with an SKS, an AK, and a Browning Safari BAR? I would really love to hear that explanation. I don't think you can give one that makes sense, but I'd like to see the attempt.

http://www.tjgeneralstore.com/sks_ac27.jpg

http://www.ak-47.net/images/vepr308carbine.gif

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/images/031001m.jpg


OK, please explain. This oughta be REALLY good......or are you really going to tell me that my Safari isn't a hunting rifle?

DoubleTapDrew
November 13, 2007, 08:13 PM
It's probably just an arbitrary number like the 10 round limit they had during klinton's reign of terror. Most "traditional" hunting rifles (think Rem. 700) hold 4-5 in the internal mag.
My grandpa would look like he was going into combat with his semi auto 30-06 throwing extra mags into every conceivable place on his person :) He was an excellent shot though so I guess he just liked being overprepared.

sb350hp
November 13, 2007, 08:14 PM
Not looking for a fight, it is just my opinion. To define a "hunting" rifle would be futile. As a 22 rimfire is as much a hunting rifle as a 458.

Again, my opinion. If you cannot hit your target in max 4 shots, get in the truck and go home and practice. So you don't need a large cap rifle.

TexasRifleman
November 13, 2007, 08:20 PM
If you cannot hit your target in max 4 shots, get in the truck and go home and practice. So you don't need a large cap rifle.

So Weatherby Vanguards are not hunting rifles either? Mine holds 5+1.

You really have no idea what you are even saying do you.....

cobrian45
November 13, 2007, 08:28 PM
Just to jump in the mix, I think magazine restrictions are rather silly. I've guided big game for years and someone with a BAR can do just as much unethical damage as someone with an AK in the amount of time you usually have after the first shot. I've also seen people take silly shots with bolt actions. Unfortunately, lawmakers can't enforce a law that says "don't be stupid and just blast at the poor animal until the gun goes click" so they have to attack the tools used. I've taken six axis deer in one sitting with a Rem 700 bolt action that holds 3+1 so it doesn't ultimately come down to how fast you can pull the trigger. It usually is patience and experience that come into play in scoping the next shot after the first round goes bang. I cringed when my hunters would talk about "pushing" deer and firing semi-autos at running animals.

sb350hp
November 13, 2007, 08:30 PM
So Weatherby Vanguards are not hunting rifles either? Mine holds 5+1.

If you have ever emptied the chamber and the mag w/o hitting your target go home and practice.

Me, Model 700 30-06. 4 down 1 up. 30+ deer 4 elk, never needed more than 3 including the finish off shot at point blank. Never stated how many rds your gun holds or should hold

yesit'sloaded
November 13, 2007, 08:35 PM
f you have ever emptied the chamber and the mag w/o hitting your target go home and practice. So now if I have a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds I automatically blaze away until my rifle is empty. Never stated how many rds your gun holds or should hold Oh really? am of the opinion that in reality you should need no more than 5 in any hunting rifle on any hunting outing.
Long guns I am ok with limiting the rounds (my opinion) so you don't have rambo cutting loose on a game animal from the hip doing the spray and pray routine w/ other hunters out in the field.

yesit'sloaded
November 13, 2007, 08:36 PM
I normally don't jump on people or their ideas, but in this case I am going to jump on the idea because that is the logic that bred the AWB. If you are curious, I use a 5rd mag in my sks while hunting deer and leave the 30 at home. When going after pigs, I am as high cap as I can get.

One Man
November 13, 2007, 08:50 PM
The Fed Migratory Bird law says no more than 3 in the gun, no fed law on rifles/pistols as far as hunting goes, that's up to the state. Win model 94 in most guns holds 7+1. In Oregon it's against the law technically to fill it up all the way, but I'd never enforce it, and I don't know any Officer in the state who would. Any gun is a hunting gun if you hunt with it. I have hunted pigs with a spear and with a semi-auto shotgun, both worked. As for looking down on someone elses choice, I guess I could look down on all who hunt with any modern rifle since I once used the spear, but what would be the point. If I dont' like something someone I personally am hunting with is using, I just don't go again with them, or I talk to them about it. But when I meet you in the woods, whatever you're carrying is fine with me. it's about Freedom to choose. the most basic right of all is the right to be left alone. My fellow Oregonian is an old style kinda guy, he likes what he likes. I wont' fault him for it, but I dang sure will argue if he tries to limit MY choices.

MDHunter
November 13, 2007, 08:54 PM
50Cal, here's the deal -

The 3 shell limit for shotguns is a federal restriction in effect when hunting migratory gamebirds like ducks/geese/etc.

The 5 round limit for your deer rifle is something imposed by Michigan, different states have different limitations on magazine capacity ans some states do not have a limitation.

sb350hp - Just because you can jit your target with your Rem700 is not a reason to side with Zumbo on the Ar/SKS issue. In case you didn't know, he quickly retracted his original opinion based on pressure from hunters, shooters, and sponsors. If you're that good a shot, why not leave the magazine empty and use the 700 as a single shot?

Michael

sb350hp
November 13, 2007, 08:55 PM
My fellow Oregonian is an old style kinda guy, he likes what he likes. I wont' fault him for it, but I dang sure will argue if he tries to limit MY choices.

Exactally. Thank you One Man. Trust me I would never try to limit the amount you gun holds. As my first post states in response to the orignal in regards to limits, I suggested my opinion of the capacity really needed. In no way was it intended to defend limits.

Common sense should determine that!

Regolith
November 13, 2007, 09:24 PM
I believe that the biggest issue here is the ETHICS of hunting.

As a hunter, it is your ethical duty to try and dispatch the animal in the most humane way possible, which usually involves a single shot causing immediate death. Spraying a hail of bullets down range does not mesh with this ethical view. Hence the resistance of people that many of you call "fudds" to using "assault rifles" as hunting arms.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people using "assault rifles" as hunting implements, so long as you adhere to this ethical principle. An AK-47 with a 5 round mag is just as appropriate a hunting weapon as a BAR or a Weatherby Vanguard.

This is also a completely different issue than what you should be allowed to own under the 2nd Amendment. There are plenty of restrictions involved with hunting that I find acceptable that I wouldn't find acceptable if applied to owning a firearm in general, and this includes magazine restrictions for big game/non-pest hunting. As others have said, hunting isn't a right, owning a firearm is.

yesit'sloaded
November 13, 2007, 09:26 PM
Once again you guys seem fixated on the mag capacity as if it automatically makes people use every shot in it on game. It is the hunter, not the tool.

Regolith
November 13, 2007, 09:30 PM
Once again you guys seem fixated on the mag capacity as if it automatically makes people use every shot in it on game. It is the hunter, not the tool.

Quite frankly, I don't know a single person who doesn't utilize a full size magazine to its fullest. And having the extra ammunition on hand makes one less likely to concentrate on accuracy, as they know that they have a hell of a lot more in the mag should the first shot miss. This contributes to people making unethical shots. Hence the reason many states have banned high caps for use with game hunting.

Hook686
November 13, 2007, 09:44 PM
This is a correct, or proper hunting rifle:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/dmchinnock/Canon%20S50/longrifle.jpg


simply because it was the hunting rifle the founding fathers were using when they wrote the constitution, and include the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States.

TexasRifleman
November 13, 2007, 09:45 PM
Quite frankly, I don't know a single person who doesn't utilize a full size magazine to its fullest.

So you hunt exclusively with a single shot then? Because if you use a Rem 700 we can all assume you take 4 shots at game?

simply because it was the hunting rifle the founding fathers were using when they wrote the constitution, and include the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States.

Uhh, the founding fathers didn't have hunting in mind when they wrote the Second.

One Man
November 13, 2007, 09:48 PM
I don't think that having a lot of rounds makes you use them "to the fullest." By that logic, the only "ethical" hunter is one who enters the fields/woods/whatever with only one shell. I have hunted with a fully automatic M-16 and 120 rounds with me, 30 per magazine. I shot ONE time, killed what was for dinner and called it good. (and before everyone has a fit, it was LEGAL for me to hunt where I was with what I did.)

Regolith
November 13, 2007, 09:50 PM
So you hunt exclusively with a single shot then? Because if you use a Rem 700 we can all assume you take 4 shots at game?

No, but I don't tend to gravitate towards high cap mags for my hunting rifles either.

5-10 rounds is reasonable, and strikes a balance of having enough rounds for quick follow up shots without going overboard.

Notice, though, that I never said that all states should restrict the mag capacity for hunting, only that it is acceptable should they chose to.

yesit'sloaded
November 13, 2007, 09:50 PM
Quite frankly, I don't know a single person who doesn't utilize a full size magazine to its fullest. And having the extra ammunition on hand makes one less likely to concentrate on accuracy, as they know that they have a hell of a lot more in the mag should the first shot miss. This contributes to people making unethical shots. Hence the reason many states have banned high caps for use with game hunting. Then I guess you don't know me. I use a 5 rd mag, but I never have used more than one out of it. A follow up shot on game is very difficult no matter what you are shooting. Once again it comes down to hunter ethics and not tools. along your logic cars shouldn't have the capability to go faster than 80 miles an hour because that is all you should ever need to use.

TexasRifleman
November 13, 2007, 09:57 PM
No, but I don't tend to gravitate towards high cap mags either.

5-10 rounds is reasonable

You talk about ethical hunting. What in the world is the difference between taking 10 shots at a single game animal vs 20 shots. Hint, there isn't any difference. Both cases would be far from ethical hunting. Magazine capacity has nothing to do with it. You yourself said everyone you know takes full advantage of magazine capacity, including yourself. Then you deny doing it.

So the truth is you and several other posters have some arbitrary idea in your head of what a "proper" hunting rifle is supposed to be and anyone using something outside that personal ideal if yours is an unethical hunter.

At least just come out and say what you mean rather than dance around it with goofy things like magazine capacity.

Regolith
November 13, 2007, 10:01 PM
So the truth is you and several other posters have some arbitrary idea in your head of what a "proper" hunting rifle is supposed to be and anyone using something outside that personal ideal if yours is an unethical hunter.

Not really. Like I said, I don't give two hoots what kind of gun you use, so long as you do it ethically. The problem with high cap mags is that they tend to be used unethically. HENCE, since hunting is not a RIGHT, I can understand why some states would limit magazine capacity. And since firearms with a removable magazine make complying is quite easy, I don't see such a limit as a burden, particularly since 5 or so shots are all you should need.

HOWEVER, if you use them ethically, more power to you.

Hook686
November 13, 2007, 10:06 PM
Uhh, the founding fathers didn't have hunting in mind when they wrote the Second.


They most certainly did .... perhaps it was hunting British Troops, but is not hunting hunting ?

TexasRifleman
November 13, 2007, 10:08 PM
The problem with high cap mags is that they tend to be used unethically.

Where exactly does this happen? I live in Texas where we have no mag capacity limits for hunting and I have never ever heard of this problem.

Again, this appears to be an emotional response rather than one based on any real issue.

perhaps it was hunting British Troops, but is not hunting hunting ?

OK, true there. Hunting redcoats or UN Blue Helmets, hunting is hunting. I stand corrected :evil:

Millwright
November 13, 2007, 10:09 PM
Really, there are reasons for magazine limits. Some, perhaps most, of those involving shotguns are linked to federal laws regarding waterfowl. Most mfg's decided 5 rounds was a good compromise between capacity/handling/appearance, plus reliability with the shells of the time. No doubt federal waterfowl managers concurred or went along with what was on the gun rack. The feds were charged with maintaining enough hunting to satisfy hunters, yet maintaining/increasing waterfowl populations. Mag capacity was one of the tools.....

Regards CF rifles a lot of states passed mag capacity laws long ago. I've got a .32/40 Marlin with a full rifle barrel, yet a carbine length magazine tube to accomdate game laws. I've come to suspect it was to prohibit the use of pistol cartridge rifles as hunting arms; perhaps to reduce the lost game kills. >MW

Bartkowski
November 13, 2007, 10:12 PM
They most certainly did .... perhaps it was hunting British Troops, but is not hunting hunting ?

No they didn't. It was more for the people to be able to defend themselves from government, and to have the government fear its people so that they do whats best for the country not for them individually.

Regolith
November 13, 2007, 10:14 PM
Where exactly does this happen? I live in Texas where we have no mag capacity limits for hunting and I have never ever heard of this problem.

Again, this appears to be an emotional response rather than one based on any real issue.

I have personally seen it happen. Then again, I ran with a bunch of morons when I was younger. Perhaps you've chosen to keep better company than I did back then.

The thing is: Can you think of a single situation in big game hunting where you would need all 20 of those shots? I can't. I can see situations where multiple shots could be required, but by the time the fifth or sixth has been fired (provided the shooter was taking aimed shots rather than letting loose), its likely that the animal will no longer be in the same zip code. Hence, large mags are not necessary.

The only time when hunting with high capacity magazines make sense is for varmint eradication, because they allow you to engage multiple targets without the need to reload. In big game hunting, the emphasis is on making precisely aimed shots at single animals, hence the need for large capacity mags isn't there.

yesit'sloaded
November 13, 2007, 10:17 PM
My cousin shot a 350 pound boar 10 times and it died at his feet.

Regolith
November 13, 2007, 10:20 PM
My cousin shot a 350 pound boar 10 times and it died at his feet. Boars are usually considered pest animals, and I don't know of any states that limit magazine capacity when dealing with pest animals.

Check out big game hunting in Africa. The traditional weapon for that area is a large bore double rifle. Rather than using multiple rounds to bring down their prey, they use larger bullets and precisely aimed shots. Much more effective, and doesn't ruin as much meat.

yesit'sloaded
November 13, 2007, 10:23 PM
When hunting deer it is wise to assume they are not the only wildlife in the woods. It comes in handy to have a little more firepower on hand. I suppose you would freak but I have a friend who hunts with an m14. He ended up killing three pigs with it instead of a deer. Mean and nasty critters.

TexasRifleman
November 13, 2007, 10:23 PM
Can you think of a single situation in big game hunting where you would need all 20 of those shots? I can't.

Needing the shots is not the conversation here, of course no one should need that many. But that's not the topic, the topic is the ethics of hunting with a rifle CAPABLE of holding many rounds.

It is most certainly legal and ethical for me to hunt deer here in Texas with a 100 round Beta Mag on an AR15. Just because the rifle is capable of putting 100 rounds out doesn't mean that a hunter will use them.

If that is the argument then, again, where is "too much"? 10 rounds is too much, 5 rounds is probably too much. So we are to a place where we agree that a hunter should take one shot at a game animal and take care to do that always. Maybe a second shot in cases where things just didn't go right.

Whether or not the rifle HOLDS more than that 1 round is meaningless.

It's the guy holding it, not the gun. It's funny that this argument is being made by pro-shooting folks on this board because it's exactly the same argument made every day by the anti's; that somehow guns are bad on their own, and they incite people to behave at their worst so we need the government to regulate the tool and that will limit people's behavior.

I disagree with that statement on all levels. Guns are tools, tools can be used properly or abused, but it's not the tools fault.

yesit'sloaded
November 13, 2007, 10:25 PM
+1 Texas

Charles S
November 13, 2007, 10:26 PM
hunting is not a fundimental right, just like driving your car on the highway.

I certainly strongly disagree. I firmly believe that there are certain inalienable rights, we have been hunting long before arms were invented. Just because we have progressed does not change that fact nor change that heritage.

I firmly believe that hunting, like gardening is a basic right and falls within the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness clause. These fundamental rights are not bestowed upon us but are enumerated within the constitution.

I strongly feel one can hunt with any weapon they can ethically kill game with.

Crunker1337
November 13, 2007, 10:27 PM
I too don't want a mall ninja or Rambo unleashing a barrage of bullets when "hunting", but I don't think making a law about hunting with magazine limits is the best response.
The best idea would be to persecute people who spray and pray while hunting under the grounds of destruction of public property, or endangerment of public safety (be aware of your target and what is behind it).

I don't think magazine capacity is the real concern, it's more like the way the gun itself is used.

Regolith
November 13, 2007, 10:27 PM
I suppose you would freak but I have a friend who hunts with an m14. He ended up killing three pigs with it instead of a deer. Mean and nasty critters.

Have you been ignoring where I said I don't care what TYPE of rifle you use? An M14 can accept a 5 round mag just as easily as it can a 20.

You also seem to have missed the part where I stated that I don't think all states should ban high capacity magazines, only that I can see the justification for it if they do.

Finally, a .308 shouldn't fail to dispatch a pig, no matter its size, with one or two shots, if your placement is good.

ClickClickD'oh
November 13, 2007, 10:32 PM
Boars are usually considered pest animals, and I don't know of any states that limit magazine capacity when dealing with pest animals. So suddenly the hunter becomes more or less ethical based solely on what a state government classifies an animal as? Even though they likely use the same weapon with the same magazine capacity for both game and non-game animals?

An interesting proposition. Completely false, but interesting.

One Man
November 13, 2007, 10:35 PM
Check out big game hunting in Africa. The traditional weapon for that area is a large bore double rifle. Rather than using multiple rounds to bring down their prey, they use larger bullets and precisely aimed shots. Much more effective, and doesn't ruin as much meat.
The reason they use(d) double rifles has much more to do with the reliability of having a two complete actions in one stock. The cartridge double rifle was a follow on to the muzzleloading double, which was the only way to get a practical second shot of adequate power in the pre-cartridge era. As for being the traditional weapon for that area, the most common weapon in the area's I've seen is the SPEAR. When a dangerous animal is being taken, quite often EVERYONE goes along, and they take several spears, EACH.

ClickClickD'oh
November 13, 2007, 10:38 PM
Finally, a .308 shouldn't fail to dispatch a pig, no matter its size, with one or two shots, if your placement is good.Haven't hunted many pigs have you?

I put a .45-70 broadside through a 500lb pig once. Blew clean through both lungs. The pig asperated a blood trail that looked like a dirty mop for 1/4 mile. The shot was taken from twenty feet, so you can imagine I'm quite happy he ran instead of charged. When we found him, it looked like Godzilla had punched out his flank.

Then again, I've dropped pigs without even a squeak before.

aguyindallas
November 13, 2007, 10:40 PM
I went out this past weekend with my AR-15 chambered in 6.8SPC. I took 1 fully loaded mag. Why...hell, I was hoping to come up on a whole bunch of hogs. I figured if I came on a deer worth shooting I would, but my main objective was to help control the hog population.

With that said....I came home with every round I left the house with.

Its not the gun, or the capacity of it, its the operator. Its not my, or anybody elses right to determine what exactly a "hunting rifle" is. If I take my SKS hunting, its a hunting rifle (to me). If I take my Savage .270 hunting, its a hunting rifle (to me) etc....

If I take my Glock 20 hunting, its my hunting pistol (to me).

My point is, it is each ones own perception on what a "hunting" rifle really is. If you let the .gov figure it out for you (like they already try to do), you are just allowing yet another right to be slowly erroded away from us. Just because you dont see it as a hunting rifle (and therefore dont care), doesnt mean there isnt a hunter out there using that gun, that would be very upset if the .gov took away his right to use that gun for hunting purposes.

Regolith
November 13, 2007, 10:40 PM
So suddenly the hunter becomes more or less ethical based solely on what a state government classifies an animal as? Even though they likely use the same weapon with the same magazine capacity for both game and non-game animals?

An interesting proposition. Completely false, but interesting.

You took that out of context. Since I am not saying that all states should have a mag capacity, only that it is an acceptable restriction in certain cases if the states decide to implement it, I was arguing that trying to apply it to hunting boars was a non issue, since no states that I know of restrict mag capacity when hunting boars, as its considered a pest animal. THEN, I followed that up to state that it is possible to take ANY game animal with a single shot if you try. So no, I did NOT state that it was ethical to spray and pray just because they were pests.

Fumbler
November 13, 2007, 10:43 PM
Everyone settle down...

I've been told they limit capacity so some stupid person doesn't go out and decide to shoot an entire herd of deer (or flock of migratory birds like the did back in the day).
Simple as that.

Do I agree with it? No, but that's their reason, logical or not.

If they want to limit the number of shotshells or rifle catridges then that's fine.
I always pack a sidearm for those "just in case" situations anyway (whether it be two legged or four legged critters that are after me).

jungleroy
November 13, 2007, 10:45 PM
Where I live I am limited by what my hunting rifles will hold, just because it was built into them, 30.06 holds 4 rounds, and my 300Win only holds 3 rounds. I do hunt Nutria with my AK clone, but their not a game animal. I think a rifle is whatever you use it for, only a tool, and hopefully multipurpose tool at that.
I do carry extra rounds, but I have never needed them. I have also ran into really weird fellows out in the field so I always take along a hand cannon. ;)

Andrewsky
November 13, 2007, 10:46 PM
I use a 20 rounder with my M1A. This is legal where I hunt (MN and ND). I carry copies of the emails I received from those governments that say there is no restriction on the magazine.

I use a 20 rounder for several reasons.

1) I'm an American and everyone has better things to worry about than how many rounds I have in my hunting rifle when I'm miles from civilization.

2) I sometimes like to hold onto the gun with my hand on the magazine.

3) I don't like to have to load magazines in the field.

4) If I run into a Hmong or other dangerous type who wants to kill me, I will be better off.

So far I've never fired more than 2 rounds in one incident. I don't have a 20 rounder to spray and pray.

GLOOB
November 13, 2007, 10:48 PM
Missing the point? Isn't the real reason for the limit to prevent a militia running around in the woods armed with high cap assualt rifles under the pretense of hunting?

ClickClickD'oh
November 13, 2007, 10:49 PM
Everyone settle down...

I've been told they limit capacity so some stupid person doesn't go out and decide to shoot an entire herd of deer (or flock of migratory birds like the did back in the day).
Simple as that.This is of course based on the same flawed reasoning that leads to limiting legal ownership of firearms because of criminal activity. Passing laws against owning guns won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And passing laws limiting magazine size won't keep an unethical hunter from violating his bag limit.

arthurcw
November 13, 2007, 11:45 PM
May a non-hunter make a comment? I was never taught to hunt by my father. A great shame. It’s something I would love to learn and will someday when money and ability (I suck with long guns ATM) allow. That said…

It seems to me extra magazine capacity makes sense for no other reason than the great outdoors is not a danger free zone. In the middle of “no where” is not the place to find out that you’ve just horked off a group of moonshiners, drug growers, coyotes (the smuggling kind), drug runners, illegals, or gun runners and you’ve only got 5 rounds on board and a few more rounds in your coat. Ok... Maybe I’ve seen “Deliverance” one too many time.

I know! I know! It’s far fetched. Really far fetched. But I carry a concealed weapon and the chances I will ever have to use it are thankfully very remote.

I think that having 10 - 20 – 30 rounds on tap and one or two more mags in your coat is not a bad investment when you are on your own or in a small group. But that’s just my opinion. I may feel quite different schlepping them around for a couple of days. I know that in the middle of August I feel very different about my CCW than I do in the middle of January.

In all honesty (and much more seriousness), I don’t see how the round count of your gun makes you any more or less likely to behave badly in the wild than it will in civilization. If you are a moron then you will be a moron with 5+1 just as you will be with 30. It doesn’t matter if you are on a deer hunt or in a mall. Neutering a weapon does not take the “stupid” out of its owner.

I think the round count debate is simply another way one group of people can say that they are, “doing it the right way,” and can feel superior to all those who don’t. There is no justification needed (where legally permitted) for hunting with at single shot, 2 shot, 5 shot, or 30 shot gun other than, “I wanted to.” Anything else is elitism no matter which side is arguing it.

I have hunted pigs with a spear

One Man, remind me NEVER to get into a Klingon P**ker Swinging contest with you! :p

Tommygunn
November 14, 2007, 12:05 AM
Everyone settle down...

I've been told they limit capacity so some stupid person doesn't go out and decide to shoot an entire herd of deer (or flock of migratory birds like the did back in the day).
Simple as that.

This is of course based on the same flawed reasoning that leads to limiting legal ownership of firearms because of criminal activity. Passing laws against owning guns won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And passing laws limiting magazine size won't keep an unethical hunter from violating his bag limit.

The 3 round limit with regards to migratory birds stems from the beginning of the twentieth century. Semi auto shotguns like the Browning Auto-5 were just becoming popular, and there was a popular method of hunting called "skybusting" that simply involved pointing the gun at a bunch of birds and shooting as fast as possible, hoping to fill the air with shot and taking out as many birds as possible. This was deemed "unsportsmanlike" and hence the capacity ban.
I have no doubt other similar bans were passed for like reasons.

Fumbler
November 14, 2007, 12:36 AM
This is of course based on the same flawed reasoning that leads to limiting legal ownership of firearms because of criminal activity. Passing laws against owning guns won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And passing laws limiting magazine size won't keep an unethical hunter from violating his bag limit.

Right, hence the:
that's their reason, logical or not

Gunnerpalace
November 14, 2007, 01:44 AM
(Warning Sarcasm) Sounds like a good law while we are at it might as well write off all 10+ round Mags completely you don't need that many to protect yourself(End Sarcasm).

And that is how hi-caps get banned right there, If I could I would carry a 30 rounder only need one to take game but a lot of insurance is better than a little......They never did confirm mountain lions were here or not, remember all these hunters who got attacked by lions,bears,ect most had bolt actions 1 shot and then the animal is there, is one case an older gentleman was mauled by a Kodiak 1 shot wounded it, he ended up killing it with his knife and crawling for help, he lived but I would rather put 12 or so in the agressing animal and stop it than go toe to toe.

Just because wolf packs have not killed anyone doesnt mean the wont try.

JKimball
November 14, 2007, 02:12 AM
+1 Fumbler

I'm thinking the DNR is more concerned with wildlife management than they are with "sportsmanlike" hunting. They limit magazine capacities for the same reason they regulate season dates, shooting hours, and a myriad of other aspects of hunting.

I suppose they limit magazine capacity to 6 because that covers most hunter's rifles. More capacity= more advantage = more wildlife killed. I know the waterfowling 3 round limit has saved a lot of duck's lives just from my own experience.

And passing laws limiting magazine size won't keep an unethical hunter from violating his bag limit.

That's true, but it makes it possible for wardens to bust a poacher who may be planning that before he commits the act.

garymc
November 14, 2007, 02:48 AM
We're required to wear orange during deer season in Missouri. This is not because of the smart, ethical, reasonable, experienced people who hunt. It's because of the others. As much as we like to decry government regulation based on the lowest common denominator, fatal shootings declined immediately after the implementation of the regulation. Sometimes they help. Likewise, we have hunter safety education required for people born after a certain date. There was an individual who previously hunted on the same property I did who had an episode that would serve as an example. He shot a deer and broke the front leg, low. So he gets out of his stand and goes running after the deer with one windmill leg, working the lever action on his gun and firing round after round, bleeding from a semicircle cut above his eye where the scope hit his forehead. It was hilarious except for all the wild shots being fired in an area where there were other hunters and the thought of what happened to the deer. I wish he had a single shot rifle loaded with blanks. I got a better deal than that. He doesn't hunt with us anymore. It only takes a few idiots spraying lead to get everybody restricted.
We had some goose hunting areas where you were only allowed to bring 10 shells to the goose pit. The idea was to reduce crippling from people shooting at geese out of range. Otherwise I'm sure there would be people shooting up a couple of boxes of shells for one or two geese (bagged) and maybe a dozen crippled. It also ruined the hunting for other hunters when the geese would be shot at out of range and scared into the stratosphere.

jeepmor
November 14, 2007, 06:05 AM
Accepting magazine capacity bans from the .govs for hunting ethics really doesn't bother me much. I've seen too many morons go into spray and pray mode to quibble with limits during game hunting. However, in regards to the .gov telling me that I have to abide by a limited magazine capacity while every damn .gov JBT can carry a beta mag on his weapon, well, I have a problem with that. If they can have a beta mag on their firearm, well, by golly, so can I. The .gov is going to be the end of our firearms if they have their druthers and we all know that. Does that mean they'll give up theirs? Think about that. Historically, what have governments who created AWBs, magazine restricitons, firearms restrictions and registration done to their people. They've murdered them,

peyton
November 14, 2007, 06:39 AM
I have enjoyed this dialogue, and have confronted these questions with the US Military who only lets you hunt with 5 rounds in a rifle on military installations. I tried to explain my M1 Garand held 8 with the clip and 5 would not not work right. The hunt control manager smiled and wished me good luck. I brought back a nice buck plus 7 bullets left. He since retired and now my hunting area is shotgun only, no limit on how many shells in the tube. I do agree that you have to be prepared for life's surprises. My nephew who does hog eradication for the county, took his mini 14 and proceed to cull the herd. He did real good, until hogzilla ran his butt up a small tree and then proceeded to take three hours to die. The sheriff pays a bounty for the carcasses and my nephew got extra for the big hog. My nephew told me " Uncle Jay, sometimes 5 bullets is not enough to get the job done".

frenchbushmaster
November 14, 2007, 07:29 AM
Interesting.

I'm not a hunter but sometime when I was younger I follow a friend of my father for hunting.

Just for fun, because you have not very strict limit for mag in USA.

In France where I live.
It's 2 shoots for shootgun rifle.
If you have a semi-automatique it's 2 (in mag)+1 (in chamber).
So maximum is 3 shoot for a shoot gun.
Riot gun are forbidden.:cuss:

For a carbine I dont remenber, but I believe it's 10 shoots maximum.

Have a nice day :)

Clipper
November 14, 2007, 09:12 AM
Quite frankly, I don't know a single person who doesn't utilize a full size magazine to its fullest. And having the extra ammunition on hand makes one less likely to concentrate on accuracy, as they know that they have a hell of a lot more in the mag should the first shot miss. This contributes to people making unethical shots. Hence the reason many states have banned high caps for use with game hunting.

Then you should get a better class of aquaintances...I often load fewer than the the max, even in 5-round mags, and I never dink around with the 'one in the chamber' routine. That's for SD pistols. If I need more than 1 or 2 rounds, I shouldn't be shooting. My ol' grandpa used to load 2 rounds into his M-71 Winchester, saying the darn rounds were too heavy to fully load the magazine of what was already a fairly heavy rifle, when he'd never even required the second round, let alone the whole magfull...

1911 guy
November 14, 2007, 09:54 AM
Capacity limits were put in place because of unethical behavior. They remain in place because we're better at quibbling amongst ourselves than policing ourselves.

Just a few years ago, Ohio went to a 3 round limit in slug guns for deer (shotgun or muzzleloader only here in the Buckeye State) because of folks just shooting the place up. Now those same folks do the same, but do it three rounds at a time. The rest of us carry on as before. If we were better at keeping the stupid and dangerous among us in check, the limit would have never happened.

the naked prophet
November 14, 2007, 12:47 PM
I personally know some people who have been surrounded by a pack of coyotes here in Missouri. Both of them had semiauto .30-06 rifles of some sort, and shot several of the coyotes as they moved in closer before the rest ran off. They said the coyotes surrounded them and closed in to within 20 feet or so before they started shooting. I believe they were 5 round mags, and both guys (both incidents were last year, and both in Mark Twain national forest) were quite shaken up as they were out of ammo, and would have had to drop the mag, reload the mag, reinsert the mag, and work the charging handle before they could shoot any more coyotes.

That's why I believe magazine capacity should not be restricted for hunting. Or at least a sidearm with no restrictions.

pete f
November 14, 2007, 02:38 PM
Actually the reasoning behind the 6 round limit for Semi's in Michigan is based on a 5 round mag plus one in the chamber.

The number six was based on what the vast majority of "sporting" semi's would hold, and was felt to limit the capacity without imposing unnecessarily on the hunter.

When High cap mags first started to show up on milsurps, there was a brief spat of Moron hunters carting around 20 and 30 round magazines and just hosing down the woods in a spray and pray manner as soon as brown was seen. I witnessed this with a guy who dumped a full 30 round mag out of a AK at two small does running across a river ford, which was followed by the words, "dammit I missed"

Now I am no Zumbo and I have my own EBR's Which I use for HD and prairie dog hunting, but I find that most of the guys who have Semi's for big game hunting seem to often fire a lot more than guys who have a lever or a bolt. JMHO

Andrewsky, I have a M1A and although it is not my hunting rifle, I would hate to carry it with a 20 rounder stuck in it for hunting. If you're worried about running into bad things in the woods, then stick the 20 rounder in your pocket, as you will really like how much easier it is to carry a M1A around with just the five rounder in the hole.

RE the idea that double rifles were the "traditional" arm for africa. Only until PP Mauser got the bolt action to work right, then the Double died off pretty fast. The 9.3x57 in a 98 mauser pretty much killed the sales of double rifles, except to the rich folk.

Pretty much the same way that the 93 winchester pump pretty much killed off the american double.

My favorite Deer Rifle is a 5 down one up model 99 savage, its light, easy to carry and what ever I aim at dies fast. I can not fathom needing more than that for Deer. If tyranny comes and I need to fight people that fight back, then my collection of 30 round La belle mags will come in handy.

DoubleTapDrew
November 14, 2007, 08:06 PM
Call me a fudd but I think 5000 rounds of .308 is enough for a deer, not that the gov should be regulating it :evil::neener::p
Unloading Sequence (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5012077814967567850&q=dillon+minigun+unload&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

davhina
November 14, 2007, 08:09 PM
Call me a fudd but I think 5000 rounds of .308 is enough for a deer
Sure, but what do you do on day 2?:D

Grizzly Adams
November 15, 2007, 02:11 PM
davhina, you call back back to supply for more ammo!

sb350hp
November 15, 2007, 02:35 PM
If every gun owner was responsible, moral, and humane would it not be concievable that there would indeed be no limits on mag cap, type and style of weapons we hunt with and own?

After all it seem that gun laws and restriction always get passed because some idiot misused the weapon! Oure fellow "irresponsible" hunters and gun owner are the reason we face restrictions. How many closed gates and no tresspassing signs do you come across hunting becuase of illegal dumping and vandalism??

A single shot or a gatling gun are equal.. The operator is the issue.

ArfinGreebly
November 15, 2007, 02:56 PM
I keep seeing this remark, that "hunting is not a right," because it's not enumerated.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I understand, now, why the founders were so reluctant to write the Bill Of Rights at all.

Reminds me of raising kids. "Billy, don't walk in the mud puddles." Billy comes in covered with mud. :eek: "Billy . . ." :mad: "But Dad there was no puddle, Bobby and I were playing in the empty lot!" (And the "empty lot" is, of course, one big mud pit.)

You spend the next few minutes trying to formulate a way of saying "don't do stuff that results in your being covered in mud," but then you have to define "covered" and "mud" and . . . you find that your kid is really a lawyer who's not been to law school yet.

So, you write a Bill Of Rights that plainly states a few of the rights that may never be abridged, and the people whose goal is the control of others do exactly what the founders feared: they go, "well, you didn't SAY hunting was a right."

That's right, we didn't. It was too obvious. We never enumerated breathing, eating, drinkng, or procreating either. It never occurred to us that Americans would ever get to the point where their whole take on liberty was what we normally expect from a six-year-old child: "but you didn't SAY I couldn't."

*Sigh*

Here, let's try this: Where in the constitution is hunting specifically limited?

Nowhere? Then . . . and I could be wrong here . . . that would mean it's one of those ". . . certain rights . . . retained by the people."

Or is it just me?

DoubleTapDrew
November 15, 2007, 03:02 PM
After all it seem that gun laws and restriction always get passed because some idiot misused the weapon!

Typical dumbing down of society. Instead of removing said idiot, they have to regulate everything to account for the lowest common denominator so they don't hurt the idiot's feelings.

Hokkmike
November 15, 2007, 03:19 PM
In Pennsylvania you may not use ANY semi-auto for big game hunting. Most bolt action rifles have a capacity of 5. Just my opinion, and I don't mean to sound harsh, but any good hunter shouldn't need more than 2 shots unless the game is big and dangerous.

psyopspec
November 15, 2007, 06:42 PM
The game isn't big and dangerous in my area, but the occasional meth lab staffers can be. I won't tell you what's unreasonable for your hunting, and you do me the same so long as we're both harvesting game ethically. Capiche?

Prince Yamato
November 18, 2007, 01:07 AM
Can you think of a single situation in big game hunting where you would need all 20 of those shots? I can't.

Yes. If I'm hunting a Zebra and a pack of lions come upon me, I'll use every damn round in my RPK mag to dispatch the lions.

I firmly believe that hunting, like gardening is a basic right and falls within the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness clause. These fundamental rights are not bestowed upon us but are enumerated within the constitution.

Hunting is no more a right than soccer is. Gardening isn't a right either. If you live in an apartment, you have no right to garden outside your apartment. Nor do you have a right to hunt in a city. You can however, move to the country or suburbs and hunt or garden there, space and safety permitting.

Officers'Wife
November 18, 2007, 01:21 AM
Hi sb350hp

A single shot or a gatling gun are equal.. The operator is the issue.

I love that line, request permission to steal it.

Selena

50caliber123
November 18, 2007, 01:27 PM
I just got back from deer season. I mean I've been home about 15 minutes. I started this thread the day I left last week. I was expecting a handful of responses. Very interesting how long this thread has become. I still have to read through everyone's responses

K3
November 18, 2007, 02:07 PM
I borrowed an M1A with 20 round mag for a day of deer hunting a few years back. I filled the mag, because well, the damn thing holds 20. I had several opportunities but passed up on shooting because the shot just didn't feel right. At no time did I think 'I have 20 rounds, I'll get this deer one way or the other'. So, am I unethical for carrying that rifle with 20 rounds in it? Some would say that I am. Fortunately, the State of Texas has no issue with it.

CNYCacher
November 18, 2007, 02:12 PM
And having the extra ammunition on hand makes one less likely to concentrate on accuracy, as they know that they have a hell of a lot more in the mag should the first shot miss.

THR standards are prevent me from responding to this drivel.

benEzra
November 18, 2007, 08:07 PM
The game isn't big and dangerous in my area, but the occasional meth lab staffers can be.
That might be a concern in a lot of rural areas, actually.

The Annoyed Man
November 18, 2007, 11:51 PM
I'm a newbie hunter. My rifle, a Rem. 700 in .308, holds 4 rounds in the magazine plus one in the chamber (if I absolutely have to have 5 rounds loaded). I don't feel like I need more than that at any one time, and if I do, I can always carry a box of extra cartridges in my backpack and reload. It's not like the deer are shooting back. Personally, I don't care how many rounds someone else is carrying in their magazine, although I suppose they ought to follow whatever the laws say; but I am a bit surprised that it is an issue for some people when it is hunting we are talking about - not home defense or a zombie invasion.

However, like I said, I am a newbie to hunting, and if someone can explain to me why high magazine capacity is so important in hunting, I would like to know and I'm all ears. Again, I'm not against it at all. I just don't actually have an opinion one way or the other on it, particularly since all the rifles in my household are all bolt actions with 4 round magazine capacities. It's just not something I've ever had to devote any thought to in a hunting application.

The Annoyed Man
November 19, 2007, 12:19 AM
I've just gone back are read all of the posts. I confess I hadn't done that yet before answering above. I can see that one might have a need for additional capacity, in case of running into unsavory characters or hogs or some such, that can be served by the carrying of a side arm. I had already been warned by the friend who is taking me hunting with him to bring a pistol for that purpose. So I had already planned on that - a .40 S&W with two 12 round magazines. Does that qualify?

yesit'sloaded
November 19, 2007, 12:26 AM
If it works for you,thats fine. Some of us would just prefer to not take two guns and have more rounds at hand for one. Because all handguns suck and all.

poor_richard
November 19, 2007, 03:12 AM
Just finished reading the thread so far.

First, for those of you who think that hunting isn’t a right, please see post #73. It is spot on. Also, Read Your Constitution. To suggest that hunting isn’t a right is just plain ridiculous, same with driving a car, flying, or whatever. Just because it isn't specifically listed in the BOR doesn't mean it isn't a right. Furthermore, being a right doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, but there are certain rights that are (supposed to be) protected by the USC. I’d explain it more, but if you didn’t get it when you read ArfinGreebly’s post, then you probably just don’t want to get it. It’s not a difficult concept.

Second, there have been some good points brought up for why one would need more than a few rounds while hunting. Like the OP I also live in Michigan, and take issue with the magazine limit. As he stated there are some guns that are very well suited for hunting but for the fact that they don’t meet that requirement. Some people in this thread appear to fail to realize that this is a CAPACITY LIMIT, not a round limit. It has nothing to do with the number of rounds. Personally, I don’t like to hunt with more than four rounds (most times three) due to the weight. However, I would like to be able to use my Siaga .308 as it would make a great deer gun in MI. Problem is that the mag holds eight. Now I have to figure out how to jury rig my mag so it won’t violate the limit. All this just because of a few control freaks out there who feel they have to punish the many for the actions of the few by restricting an inanimate object. Sad that it sounds like I’m talking about anti-gunners/2nd Amt types. Then again maybe that sound is close to the mark. I haven’t heard any of the full capacity magazine advocates call for, support, or make excuses for the idea or practice of “spray and pray”. Suggesting that that is why people want them is assumption at best. Fact is, unethical hunters are going to be unethical hunters regardless of how many rounds are in their rifle. I really am starting to join the camp that believe that these type of forums have been infiltrated by anti's posing as pro RKBA supporters.

Lastly, if anyone has any good suggestions of how to limit my mag capacity, I’d love to hear it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Magazine Capacity and Hunting" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!