Hunting guns and miltary guns.


PDA






Kliegl
June 12, 2011, 02:56 PM
Had a thought in another thread.

There's the "hunting gun" paradigm, and then there's the "military gun" one. While both trace their roots to the same weapons back 100 years ago, now they are somewhat separate. A modern military rifle has a large mag, a smaller cartridge, and other accessories than the hunting rifle.

Collapsible stock, box mag, shoots .223, lasers, red dot scopes, accessory rails, coated black; that's a military gun. Blued, integral mag, shoots 30-06 or better, scope, wood stocks, bolt action, that's a hunting gun.

However, I noticed something. The hunters, typically labeled Fudds, don't try anything 'tacticool' with their weapons because they don't want to do so. Sometimes a non-hunter who is more apt to target shoot and want a gun for home defense, will buy a hunting gun, restock it, put rails on, paint it black, and go "ghetto-tactical" with it, and generally receive much derision from the "tactical" crowd.

But, lots of times, the self-defense/range plinker will take his SKS or AK, or AR or something and desire to go hunting with it, where he will consider his military carbine shooting a much lighter round than actual hunting rifles to be equal or superior to those rifles, and that opinion then is accepted by many.

In other words, a hunting gun isn't durable enough to withstand military work, yet a military gun seems just dandy to kill stuff just as dead as a magnum rifle, and I don't understand why people think this way.

Perhaps it's ignorance. I've hunted my entire life, and I prefer weapons that don't make me chase the game all over hell's half acre to collect it. Even if you're the world's best tracker (I ain't), you still have to haul it back to the road. I've spent more time looking for others' game than mine, partially because I'm a fairly decent shot who only shoots what I can hit, but also because I shoot with some serious loads.

I consider .243 a kid's load to shoot deer, and .308 winchester the effective minimum. I prefer 30-06 myself. For turkey hunting, although I've used 2 and 3/4 shells, I really like the extra reach a 3.5" magnum gives (it takes you from 30 some yards to 50). That being said, going hunting, I'll grab my Rem 700 in 30-06, or my Mossberg 3.5" mag 12 gauge, and leave my AR and Benelli M4 at home. However, for self defense, I'd reverse that, or make yet a different selection.

Sorry to ramble, but the conflicting philosophies make me wonder. What do you all think?

If you enjoyed reading about "Hunting guns and miltary guns." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
lizardking7750
June 12, 2011, 03:03 PM
I have to agree, I mean the hunter doesn't add all the extras because they aren't needed for what he does. The military has them, Acogs, rails, etc because it adds to their effectiveness. I personally love my AK74, but would never hunt with it because it is a military rifle, not for taking game.

22-rimfire
June 12, 2011, 03:22 PM
The differences are becoming blurred between the so called military guns (semi-auto EBR's) and what most consider sporting rifles more often used for hunting. For myself, I'd never choose a AR or AK as first choice for ... say deer hunting, but with the right bullet choice, they can be effective. There are AR's availalbe in 308 now. The M1 Garand is a 30-06 and the M14 clones are 308. Most military style rifles are fairly heavy. But choosing one for deer hunting is a personal choice assuming they are legal for use in the state you live in.

I see great utility varmint hunting with AR's in 223/5.56. I could also see the utility of choosing a EBR for feral hog hunting where it is not really for sport but extermination or population control. But I would not damn a hunter for choosing one for sport. Their use is where multiple quick shots are the order of the day and potentially on multiple animals.

My personal minimum caliber for deer hunting is 243/6mm. Some use 223's with success especially where the deer are smaller. But I still prefer to see a hunter choose something with a bit more oomph for deer hunting.

RickMD
June 12, 2011, 03:52 PM
Where I presently live it's a moot point. No semi-auto's rifles or pistols for any hunting and that's just fine with me. I personally think any 22 caliber centerfire is too light for hunting deer or black bear even though I've used one when nothing better was available. I got my fill of AR type rifles in 1971 when I was forced to use one. I've had no inclination or desire to play soldier since then.

Sam1911
June 12, 2011, 04:18 PM
There's the "hunting gun" paradigm, and then there's the "military gun" one. I think there was a strong difference back a few decades ago, but it has fallen apart in the last 10 years in the age of better and more widespread education and understanding.

While both trace their roots to the same weapons back 100 years ago, now they are somewhat separate.Well, maybe. Bolt-action military rifles weren't really common as hunting guns (here in the US) 100 years ago. Eventually their widespread availability as surplus and their familiarity to a lot of shooters made them become very popular with the hunting public. Kind of like ARs and other semi-autos now.

A modern military rifle has a large mag, a smaller cartridge, and other accessories than the hunting rifle. Kind of depends what hunting rifle, and what military rifle we're talking about. Lines are pretty blurry these days, with all the .30 caliber AR versions available today for hunting larger game, and .204, .223, and other variants being extremely popular for varmints.

Collapsible stock, box mag, shoots .223, lasers, red dot scopes, accessory rails, coated black; that's a military gun. Blued, integral mag, shoots 30-06 or better, scope, wood stocks, bolt action, that's a hunting gun. Those are some common descriptions. But not universal anymore.

However, I noticed something. The hunters, typically labeled Fudds, don't try anything 'tacticool' with their weapons because they don't want to do so. The perjorative "Fudd" usually means something a LOT stronger than that. There has to be an element of a derisive attitue from the traditionalist, coupled with a disregard for the 2nd Amendment rights of other kinds of shooters to really earn that "Fudd" title. We still try to avoid it here.

Sometimes a non-hunter who is more apt to target shoot and want a gun for home defense, will buy a hunting gun, restock it, put rails on, paint it black, and go "ghetto-tactical" with it, and generally receive much derision from the "tactical" crowd.Considering the number of high-precision, truly tactical bolt-guns available these days, I don't see many guys butchering a wood stocked M70 to make a bubba-tac rifle. I guess it happens. Quality speaks loudly, though. Put something together that is useful and artfully done and the derision will be pretty quiet. Cobble together some hack-job and there will be a bit of jeering.

But, lots of times, the self-defense/range plinker will take his SKS or AK, or AR or something and desire to go hunting with it, where he will consider his military carbine shooting a much lighter round than actual hunting rifles to be equal or superior to those rifles, and that opinion then is accepted by many. "Lots of times?" If he takes an SKS or AK into the woods to hunt deer at close range, he's VERY appropriately armed. The 7.62x39 cartridge is roughly the equivalent of a mildly loaded .30-30 Win, and no one's "undergunned" for deer with that. I've shot SKSs and AKs that would shoot better than 2" at 100 yds. I've shot Win '94s that wouldn't.

So, what's an "actual" hunting round? Are .30-30s not legit for hunting? While a .223 is pretty marginal for deer (though it will work and is legal in some states), there are several good hunting cartridges between that and a 7.62x39. Bambi isn't bullet-proof.

In other words, a hunting gun isn't durable enough to withstand military workWHAT? You do understand that some of the most popular hunting guns were derived directly from main battle rifles of the 1st and 2nd World Wars, right?

yet a military gun seems just dandy to kill stuff just as dead as a magnum rifle, and I don't understand why people think this way. I think you're assuming people think things they don't really think. No one I've ever met has told me they think a 7.62x39 will perform like a 7mm Rem Mag or .300 Win Mag or any other magnum rifle round. But you really can only kill a deer SO dead. If you hit what you're aiming at with sufficient energy to penetrate it and cause a decent wound channel, it really doesn't matter how much MORE powerful your cartridge was.

Outside of 200 yds, sure, use a .270, .30-'06, .300 Win Mag, etc. Inside of 150 or so? An SKS will do the job beautifully.

Perhaps it's ignorance.Uh, yeah.

I've hunted my entire life, and I prefer weapons that don't make me chase the game all over hell's half acre to collect it. Even if you're the world's best tracker (I ain't), you still have to haul it back to the road. I've spent more time looking for others' game than mine, partially because I'm a fairly decent shot who only shoots what I can hit, but also because I shoot with some serious loads. That's grand, but says a lot more about your friends' marksmanship and/or wisdom than about their guns.

If you're a lously, unethical shot with a 7.62x39, then buying yerself a .800 Remlinchester Ultra Mega Magnum will make you a lousy, unethical shot ... with a bad flinch.

I consider .243 a kid's load to shoot deer, and .308 winchester the effective minimum.Wow. Er, more power to you, I guess. But .308 as a minimum? Are we still talking about white-tails? A light-skinned herbivore that averages out at less than the weight of a full-grown man?

Kind of like saying it takes 400 hp to drive yourself to work.

Sorry to ramble, but the conflicting philosophies make me wonder. What do you all think? That you're blaming guns for the mistakes of hunters.

Special_K
June 12, 2011, 04:23 PM
<deleted>

Use the correct gun for the job. A .223 with the proper bullet and charge behind it will kill bambi. Maybe not at 200 yards but I would feel fine with any range before that.

rcmodel
June 12, 2011, 04:30 PM
I think if they used more 1873 Trapdoor Springfield 45-70's in video games, everyone would be shooting them now instead of AR-15's!

rc

RickMD
June 12, 2011, 04:43 PM
I think if they used more 1873 Trapdoor Springfield 45-70's in video games, everyone would be shooting them now instead of AR-15's!

You just put a smile on my face, RC.

MistWolf
June 12, 2011, 04:56 PM
Much of the confusion comes from forgetting our roots. What did our great-grandads hunt with? The bolt action rifle they fought World War I with, a military rifle.

Details, such as finish, magazine capacity, sights etc are just that- Details. None of them make a bullet any more or less deadly for man or beast. Caliber does not separate a hunting arm from a fighting arm. Caliber choice is based on what is needed to get the job done. Do not forget for one moment that there was a time not too long ago, that a hunting rifle was also a fighting rifle. Indeed, the primary job of the rifle was fighting first.

Do not become confused about magazine capacity. Lever action rifles held far more than the "traditional" 4 rounds of the modern bolt action. Not only did this make the lever action an effective hunting arm, but a superior fighting arm.

Calling traditionalists "Fudds" could not be further from the truth. The thinking that rifles need to have a "sporting purpose" and that "no one has use for 'military' features" is not traditionalist thinking. In fact, the source of such thinking is recent and comes from those who would rob us of our liberties. Traditionalists have not forgotten our roots and why we own firearms and the role they play in defending our nation, our families and our homes

Friendly, Don't Fire!
June 12, 2011, 05:00 PM
I have no problem carrying my AR-15 into the woods with a couple of five-round magazines - the size of 10-rounders so they can easily be ejected.

I have total confidence in the Barnes TSX Solid Copper 62g HP bullets I am using to take black bear and deer out to less than 200 yards.

I would carry ten-round, 20-round or even 30-round, however it is illegal to have those (greater than 6 rounds plus one in the chamber) even on your person while black bear and deer hunting. No, I cannot say "I store my spare rounds in this 30-round magazine. Well, I COULD, however I would be fined and have to forfeit my license.

benEzra
June 12, 2011, 05:12 PM
If you're talking about Title 1 non-automatic rifles, including semiautos, "hunting gun" vs. "military gun" is a false dichotomy. There is no such distinction. Practically all "hunting guns" look like the "military guns" of a few decades prior. That has been the case since militaries first fielded blackpowder muzzleloaders.

Bolt-actions were the "military guns" of 70-100 years ago. Lever-actions and falling-blocks were the "hunting guns" of 100 years ago.

Here's a purely military gun (Mauser) that went on to become a favorite of traditionalist hunters, both in military form and in civilianized derivatives (e.g., Winchester Model 70):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-216-0417-19%2C_Russland%2C_Soldaten_in_Stellung.jpg

Some of those military-style bolt-actions continued to serve as front-line military weapons for decades after WW2, such as the Winchester Model 70 in Vietnam...


http://www.lcompanyranger.com/usweapons/sniperrifletmacsmall.jpg

and some still do to the present day:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/M24_SWS.jpg


Going a little further back, here's a "military gun" from 150 years ago:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Patent_drawing_Henry_Rifle.jpg


And further still, here's a "military gun" from 200+ years ago:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Brown_Bess.png/800px-Brown_Bess.png


As far as modern guns go, here is an exclusively civilian gun that has never been issued by any military on this planet (Rock River Arms 16" midlength semiauto carbine):

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1188452912/med_gallery_260_23_3167.jpg

...and here is a military gun that has never (to my knowledge) been manufactured for the civilian market, the M1 Garand (much beloved by traditionalists):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/M1_Garand_competition.JPEG/800px-M1_Garand_competition.JPEG

Again, it's a false dichotomy, IMO.

Sam1911
June 12, 2011, 05:28 PM
...and here is a military gun that has never (to my knowledge) been manufactured for the civilian market, the M1 Garand (much beloved by traditionalists):
Springfield Armory (the modern corporation) has made them as recently as 2002 or so, but not currently.

benEzra
June 12, 2011, 05:34 PM
Springfield Armory (the modern corporation) has made them as recently as 2002 or so, but not currently.
Ah, I didn't realize that. I was only familiar with the M1A civilianized M14's.

Cosmoline
June 12, 2011, 05:45 PM
The interplay of hunting and military arms is much, much older than just 100 years. It's a back-and-forth that dates to the earliest days of gun powder. Rifles, for example, were not military weapons at all for most of their early history. They were for aristocrats to hunt with. The armies of Europe rejected them repeatedly as too slow to load and too expensive. Plus they mounted no bayonet. Eventually of course the military forces adopted the civilian rifle and made it into the military rifle-musket. Then they also adopted civilian repeating arms and made those military weapons. The civilian market in turn adopted the military innovation of smokeless powder, even quicker than some military forces. The civilian market adopted military bolt actions, and the military later adopted them back from the hunters for use as sniper rifles. The military of course adopted the new civilian made ultra-high velocity target and varmint rounds as the inspiration for the 5.56 NATO.

So I don't think it's as simple as one group following the other. Each category feeds off of the other in a back-and-forth exchange. These days there are a LOT more people shooting AR based hunting rifles out there in the field, and that will probably continue. I have no doubt that innovations in new designs and cartridges from civilian use will continue to spur military changes, and visa versa.

The laws are a big impediment to this interplay. On the civilian side hunting laws restrict the use of many military-style accessories such as lights and night vision. On the military side, archaic edicts restrict the use of 100 years of bullet design innovations developed for the civilian market.

Sky
June 12, 2011, 05:48 PM
I do Hunt feral pigs at night especially in the cooler months of fall and winter. I typically take 2 30 round mags, something to drink and maybe a snack, along with a night scoped AR-15. The scope and my eyes are only good for about 125 yards. I have shot the 223 Remington match HPBT 4,86G/75GR and several other rounds at pigs. No tracking (unless you call 10 yards tracking) and no unnecessary cruelty to the animals. I have actually come to appreciate their intelligence and am sorry they have become such a nuisance around here. Used to have a Belgian action 30.06 that was a super rifle with great knock down and accuracy. Sold it and have never looked back. The AR with the right ammo and a little common sense and shooting ability will get the job done. The little old lady(if I remember right) in Alaska that kills moose when they get in her summer garden with her AR seems a bit under gunned to me but hey it works for her(moose are not little fellows!).

It's been said so many times...Know your target (vitals) and shot placement with good ammo is what matters. I have seen cattle and horses killed with a .22lr when I was growing up...shot placement...22lr best round... not hardly but that was all they had at the time; again it worked. Funny how things change. What worked before is totally obsolete when something bigger and better comes out. There are still people hunting with Bow and Arrow and are quite successful. Will the 223 do the same thing a 30.06 will do, nope, will it do enough, yep, with a little common sense and knowledge.

BrocLuno
June 12, 2011, 06:36 PM
Depends on the hunt. I am not taking a 7.62x39 to my cousins place in Wyo to shoot antelope :( I'm not taking an M1A squirrel hunting. I'm not likely to tote a 5 round mag AR deer hunting (Calif limit on mag in some areas). What are you hunting?

Sky
June 12, 2011, 06:55 PM
Yes don't take a .50 cal to a dove hunt if you expect to eat a dove!

aka108
June 12, 2011, 07:06 PM
I enjoy shooting sporting arms as well as military arms both old and new. What I don't like is to see some guy come to the range that has a AR with rails all around it and every conceivable contraption hung on it, dressed in cammys, topped off with a beret and wearing black combat boots and tipping the scales at 300+ pounds. I wonder what sort of statement this person is making.

okiewita40
June 12, 2011, 08:03 PM
Personally I can care less what anyone else carries to the woods and the range. As long as they are being legal, safe and ethical. Since where I hunt deer I would be lucky if a shot was more than 30 yards I will continue to take my sks and shoot deer with it. Would I be more of a hunter if I used a 30-30. I don't think so. I was taught to use what you had on hand and make it work.

If you have more and better tools good for you. Please don't look down on what others choose. As the entire military/sporting class of weapons just give the anti gun crowd something to pick on us with. Just enjoy the shooting sports in the way that you see fit.

ripp
June 12, 2011, 08:11 PM
millions of deer have fallen to loads a lot less effective than the 223 (using a proper softpoint, like the Nosler Partition) To include the 44-40 lever action, 45 Caliber muzzleloaders, .30 carbines, 357 pistols, you know. Many deer weigh less than 100 lbs, so a 30-06 is seriously overdoing it, unless you are shooting the north end of a southbound deer, which only a jerk would do.

JerryM
June 12, 2011, 08:54 PM
If you consider the .243 a kids gun and that you might have to chase a deer after shooting, then I must conclude you have never used one. Or you cannot shoot well enough to hit the lung area.

I have owned one since shortly after it was introduced, and my first serious rifle was a M70 pre 64 FWT in .243. I have not personally killed 20 or 30 deer with it, and probably closer to a dozen. However, also using other rifles like the .300 Wby, 7MM Rem Mag, and .270 I have had as many in the tracks one shot kills with the .243 as with the others.

I had good friend who probably killed 50 or so deer with the .243, and never had any reason to change.

Les Bowman, gun writer and hunting guide in the 60s until ?, once wrote that he saw more one shot kills on deer with the .243 and 6mm Rem than nearly any other rifle. The reason was that the hunters shot them better due to lack of recoil and that the bullets were designed for deer size game.

Regards,
Jerry

Kliegl
June 12, 2011, 09:13 PM
Good thread, so far. Interesting to see diverse views. Some people could be a leeeetle less judgmental, but it's all good for the moment.

To respond to the last three, Okie, I don't judge people's choices, rather I posted some commonly held attitudes. Ripp, a 100 lb deer is little here, so an ought six is not overkill, and Jerry, not only do I own a .243, but I'm a good shot with it.

Picher
June 12, 2011, 10:25 PM
I've had my fun with military guns over the years, but find them lacking in the hunting fields and woods, not particularly because of caliber, but in sighting systems.

The ideal deer rifle in the US is a high-powered bolt-action, pump, lever-action, or semi-auto in a more powerful cartridge that has adequate energy and velocity to kill a deer with one shot out to 300 yards. Beyond that, the modern hunting rifle will be scoped with a 3-9x scope that will see brown animals against a dark background in dim light. The higher power is helpful to spot antlers, when necessary to be worn on the quarry, either by law or desire of the hunter. Also, scopes make it possible to spot branches between the deer and hunter in the same dim forest light.

It's nice to have a few rounds in the hunting gun, just in case a tree is hit, etc., but after the first shot, chances of a killing shot diminish exponentially. I've killed as many deer as I've wanted in the past 40 years, but very few weren't downed by the first shot. Sure some shots missed, but second shots are extremely difficult because animals don't usually stick around when you shoot at them.

Contrast that to combat or range situations when there are either inanimate targets or people at close range seeking to do YOU harm. Spray and pray is the order of the day under close combat conditions. Over-penetration is a concern...perhaps not the primary, but high round capacity is comforting, whether needed or not.

Make mine hunting or target guns. It may be a bit easier to talk my way out of conviction if I need to kill someone in self-defense with a bolt or other sporting gun than if I use a full-blown "assault rifle" with laser, attached flashlight, etc. I hope I never need to do so, however.

DammitBoy
June 12, 2011, 10:45 PM
Good thread, so far. Interesting to see diverse views. Some people could be a leeeetle less judgmental...

Maybe it has to do with the judgemental tone of your original post? Fudd's, ignorance, child's round?

Hunting rifle's are the last decades military rifles. Hunt with what you want to hunt with and stop labeling other people's choices.

Eb1
June 12, 2011, 11:03 PM
They are all military rifles. As hunters we make the largest army in the world.

helotaxi
June 12, 2011, 11:45 PM
Make mine hunting or target guns. It may be a bit easier to talk my way out of conviction if I need to kill someone in self-defense with a bolt or other sporting gun than if I use a full-blown "assault rifle" with laser, attached flashlight, etc. I hope I never need to do so, however.

A good shoot is a good shoot. "I used the flashlight to positively identify my target as an intruder, not a member of my family. The laser was used to help me make sure that I did not miss the intruder and put others in danger. Considering my state of fear for my life and that of my family I consider it a worthwhile addition to the tool I use to defend my home."

Easy, peasy.

The idea of a "sporting gun" is a lie fabricated by those trying to take all guns. First they take away those "evil non-sporting guns" because "no one needs those." From there it is a series of simple steps to completely erode the remainder of our gun rights.

Besides, I refuse to let a politician with an agenda and no idea what a "sporting purpose" is define what is and is not "sporting." For instance, hunting is not "sport" it is hunting in my eyes. Trap and skeet, high-power, 3-gun, team tactical, IDPA and so forth are sport. Most of the "non-sporting firearms" that the gun-grabbers target, fit perfectly into those well established sports.

A hunting gun is any gun that will get the job done. I don't own a gun that isn't suitable for hunting something from my ARs to my "tactical" bolt gun to my standard wood-stocked bolt gun to my handguns and lever actions. Even my pellet gun is suitable for hunting small game.

The idea that a .243 isn't adequate for any deer is laughable. More than adequate energy and fantastic energy retention. High sectional density from big game bullets in the caliber means good penetration. Low recoil means easy and comfortable marksmanship practice resulting in a higher chance of making a good shot. Add being a good hunter to the equation and the high probability shots are the only ones that will be taken. For a hunter and a shooter, the .243 is a fantastic caliber for deer: whitetail, mulie or any of the others; and I know plenty of people that choose it for elk as well. Keep in mind that more people and deer are killed with a .22LR every year than all other calibers.

Sky
June 12, 2011, 11:50 PM
I really do believe some of the weapons we use are based on our geographical area and length of normal shots. If I were in Elk country where I expected my closest shot would be 300 to 500 yards then I would be singing the praises of the 30.06 or something else. But for my needs and my hunting purposes the little 223 works just fine.

Captain James T. Kirk went to Alaska and killed a Polar Bear with a bow after Star Trek was cancelled. OK so I was going to go Tiger hunting with a bow once and my back up was a young man with a 22lr. I met a Tiger one night and decided how could anyone want to kill such an animal unless you were fixin (about) to be eaten ( which I am sure I would have been hurt so bad I would have asked to be eaten).

I still wonder how a man would fair with the 223 if he were charged by a Grizzly and barring any malfunction was able to place rounds on the beast as it charged? 20 out of 30 rounds I would think would keep you out of his digestive track; doubt it would take that many .One or two between the eyes and game over.....Hard to do with something coming at you pissed at 40 miles and hour.....I do not know just wondering...Also the Tiger thing of my youth...I was bold with "Right and God" on my side; I was bullet and Tiger proof, able to push a button and make trees and villages disappear. Also I was naive and stupid! Lucky I lived long enough to get some gray which must have rewired my brain a little for the better..?

Kliegl
June 12, 2011, 11:50 PM
I haven't labeled anyone's choices. Rather, I put up an interesting psychological tendency that it's not ok to tacticalize, if that's a word, a hunting gun, but it is ok to hunt with a tactical gun, and that I sought others' opinions.

I didn't know saying Fudd was akin to farting in church here. My bad, dude, my bad. In fact, some of the replies here remind me of church. "And way on down in the Amen pew sat Sister Bertha Better-Than-You....." or words to that effect.

Last time I checked, the .243 WAS a child's round. Now, you can get all upset about that if you want, personally, I think it does a great job as one. All the deer I killed from age ten to about sixteen I killed with a .243.

As for ignorance, I know to use a powerful round when I can, as part of my responsibilities as a hunter. I know that sometimes, you don't make a perfect shot, and a more powerful round can mean the difference between the animal dying quickly, or miles away, days later. People like to think they only make awesome shots, but, it's not true, and, after a while, you realize that, if you're going to use a centerfire, you might as well use one that can dispatch the animal as soon as possible.

But, hey, way to pick on 3 words I wrote instead of the point....

Sky
June 13, 2011, 12:03 AM
One thing about the gun community everyone certainly has heart felt opinions; some are backed by experience and some are backed by what they have been told or read.

What ever works for us and our purposes must be good or we would change; hopefully.

helotaxi
June 13, 2011, 12:15 AM
Last time I checked, the .243 WAS a child's round. Now, you can get all upset about that if you want, personally, I think it does a great job as one. All the deer I killed from age ten to about sixteen I killed with a .243.

So let me get this straight...a .243 was completely adequate when you were younger, but as you got older (and hopefully more experienced and patient as well as a more practiced marksman) it suddenly became inadequate. I would say something about "inadequate" but I'll pass.

Kliegl
June 13, 2011, 12:35 AM
Where did I say it was inadequate? What I did say is that there are superior rounds to it. I shot many deer with a .243, and some dropped, and others ran, some a long way. As I stepped up to a bigger cartridge, more deer dropped where they were, less ran, and I could make further shots.

This is NOT a hard concept to understand.

Dr.Rob
June 13, 2011, 01:04 AM
When I was 13 or so I asked my dad why I couldn't buy a .30-30 with a 'finish like an M-16' instead of glossy shiny blue. (I didn't know it was called 'parkerizing'.) Dad didn't have an answer but agreed it was a good idea.

Honestly I like shiny bluing on firearms but my 'all around' hunting rifle is dull stainless. I use a 1907 sling on my hunting rifles.

I've never had a need for full length handguard on a bolt action rifle (never planned on doing any bayonet fighting) but they are attractive on some rifles.

Military and civilian use cross back and forth time and again. Technological advances push both markets, as does necessity.

caribou
June 13, 2011, 02:07 AM
I use an "As Issued" Finn M-39 on all my hunts where highpower is needed, a Romainian Trainer M-69 .22lr and a plain ol' Mossburg 12 gauge, a Hungarian PR-9 for my travles, so 3 outta 4 are Military issue.

They are all very reliable and very accurate, so I dont fix what aint broke.
Im in the Arctic, and if it works here,year round, land, Ice and seas, I will keep it.

Besides, in military configuration , they are well balanced, carry well and being the thick, long stock is a stable platform,and adds to my smoothness and stedyness, especcially when swinging slow on a moving target, so I lug the extra 3/4 lb with joy.

451 Detonics
June 13, 2011, 06:04 AM
The lines do blur a lot, rather large grey areas do exist. For example...

Mauser 98, 20 round magazine, thumbhole stock. Military? Hunter?

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z271/reloader1959/rifles/projectm2-1.jpg

As for durable, my Remington 700 in 22 CHeetah has taken over 1500 coyotes and uncounted whistle-pigs, p-dogs, and other varmints. It has never needed a repair. In fact I would say most traditional hunting rifles are more durable than modern military rifles.

scythefwd
June 13, 2011, 07:31 AM
451 - that a boyds stock in peppercorn?

okiewita40
June 13, 2011, 10:46 AM
I guess after growing up hunting, then Military service and now being in law enforcement for the last 11 yrs I just don't see why anyone that hunts whitetails needs a magnum in any flavor. If you choose to use one that is your choice. You know your abilities and I know mine. So you can use what you want. And I will use what I want.

I don't need or want the recoil that comes from bigger guns when I don't need to use them. Since a long shot where I hunt is about 30 yards because of terrain and brush I feel that my sks is more than enough gun for the situation. Now if I were to head out west for say an elk hunt then a bigger gun with longer range would be in order. It is all about selecting the tool that you think is right for the job at hand. No need for a sledgehammer when a claw hammer with the job.

I would bet that your new so called hunting gun is more than likely a bolt action that has a basis that started in a military rifle to begin with.

Tirod
June 13, 2011, 11:44 AM
We're confusing two separate issues.

1) The ethical use of a firearm is to propel a bullet at sufficient speed and grain weight to humanely kill it in the shortest period of time - ostensibly preventing it being lost to us. As opposed to the predators in it's environment that would eventually feast on it otherwise.

2) What KIND of gun is directly related to the force of the propulsion charge needed to move the bullet at the intended target - and how frequently.

Determining either means answering "What range, what target?" In our history of battle and hunting, what has come to be understood is that the maximum ranges of either are actually very similar, entirely due to the limitations of being human. We can't make out things all that well, so common distances we can shoot are limited, and adding vegetation and terrain shortens it more.

Point being, staking out ground that only a certain type of rifle and caliber are, as a minimum, the ethical limit to what can be used is entirely an opinion - not fact at all. I would no more criticize an antelope hunter for using .338 in a 12X scoped bolt action than I would someone hunting Texas hogs at night with a suppressed .300 Whisper and night vision scope, with a 50 round magazine.

Each figured out What Range, What Target adequately, IMHO. It's the guys who would use the opposite gun for the job I consider questionable, not the existence of it. THAT'S politics - something all you Chevy 3/4 ton gas guzzling daily drivers should think about, especially since a 35mpg mandate is coming.

In the face of "needing" a 4800 pound, 11 mpg commuter truck without a scratch in the bed, I see the conversation about "hunting vs military" as hypocrisy. It's really all about ego and what manjewelry we pick to express the oversized sense of who we are.

You certainly can shoot intermediate caliber hi cap guns hunting, and you certainly can get around in a small 4WD station wagon to work - passing all the trucks left abandoned in the snow like I did last February. We got 19", and the Cherokee did just fine.

My 6.8SPC will do just fine deer and hog hunting, too, there's a ton of qualified users doing exactly that in the Midwest. I quit buying into the smug assertions of self justifying bolt gunners just trying to use a Remington 700 in .30-06 when I "lost" it to someone equipped with an SKS in 7.62x39. An overpowered bolt gun can certainly be less accurate because of it's recoil and difficulty seeing a target at 60 yards, turned down to 3x as it was, Obviously, Joe Fudd with the ironsignted SKS had no problem with a longer shot, and certainly deserved to recover the animal I had tracked for 45 minutes.

Just an anecdote of one, I'm certainly convinced I'll never go back to large caliber bolt guns as having any "guarantee" of success. That's entirely unjustified in my experience, as they definitely have specific disadvantages when actual What Range, What Target considerations are accurately assessed.

Not when viewed through testosterone tinted lenses.

DammitBoy
June 13, 2011, 01:25 PM
Last time I checked, the .243 WAS a child's round.

I've looked through all my reloading manuals - none of them label the .243 as a "child's round" - would you care to source your claim? :rolleyes: Where did you "check" for that info?

Here in the South, the .243 is more than adequate for the ranges we shoot deer. Unless you're hunting over a huge pasture, most of your shots will be inside 100 yards.

JustinJ
June 13, 2011, 03:05 PM
I haven't heard the arguement that hunting guns aren't durable enough but nobody, except a sniper, would carry a bolt action gun to war by choice.

I realize some do but i think most AR platform hunters will be using something bigger than a .223. People like their like hunting and like shooting their military style guns so why not combine the too if there is a reasonable expectation of a clean kill. I personally oppose hunting with a .223 but think the other two common military rounds, 7.62 x39 and x51, are sufficient at their respective ranges.

TexasPatriot.308
June 13, 2011, 03:22 PM
I usually carry my M1A in my truck (iron sights) for hogs when checking cattle, I love to see what I can do to a pack of feral pigs at 200 yards. going this evening, 100 degrees, find me a shady spot, a few cold beers and enjoy the cows and the view and when the hogs come out about 8....drop me a few.

Double Naught Spy
June 13, 2011, 03:59 PM
Sorry to ramble, but the conflicting philosophies make me wonder. What do you all think?

I hunt using what works for me. I don't really care what people think of it or call it so long as it works.

DammitBoy
June 13, 2011, 07:45 PM
I
I realize some do but i think most AR platform hunters will be using something bigger than a .223.

I personally oppose hunting with a .223

When I decided to hunt wild boar in Alabama with my ruger mini-14, all the good ol boys told me I was crazy and that I'd just make those pigs angry. Evidently, somebody forgot to tell all the hogs I dropped in their tracks with one shot of 77 grain nosler goodness.

JustinJ
June 13, 2011, 07:51 PM
"When I decided to hunt wild boar in Alabama with my ruger mini-14, all the good ol boys told me I was crazy and that I'd just make those pigs angry. Evidently, somebody forgot to tell all the hogs I dropped in their tracks with one shot of 77 grain nosler goodness."

Anecdotal stories do not change the fact that if a shot does not land where intended there is a much lower chance of a humane kill than with other calibers.

Speedgoat
June 13, 2011, 07:52 PM
Well I'm in the process of setting up a brand new Ruger Mini 6.8 SPC for my dream antelope hunting rifle, Once the last parts get in I'll take some pictures and up load them to here. Will have a illuminated scope with a red dot scope on top of that. Tactical stuff that I am hoping will work good for hunting!

Vaarok
June 13, 2011, 08:20 PM
In defense of taking the milsurp or EBR afield, generally it's because someone has practiced and learned their chosen rifle to the point that they, as controversial as this may sound to some, want to see what it does to meat instead of paper.

And consequently, I feel more reassured that they will endeavor to place hits effectively than someone who simply seeks a hunting tool they use for nothing but hunting and may not practice with extensively or regularly, especially if the cartridge is expensive.

Further, I have to go a big +1 to why bother with recoil when I don't need it. Even if it's a military stock adding inertia to dampen the same cartridge as a remchester, I never had carry weight bother me especially. Then again, I stalk deer with a Gew98.

helotaxi
June 13, 2011, 08:26 PM
Anecdotal stories do not change the fact that if a shot does not land where intended there is a much lower chance of a humane kill regardless of caliber.

I fixed your post.

Grey Morel
June 13, 2011, 10:03 PM
I'm a young traditionalist. I like steel and wood, and I detest rifles which are piled with Gew-gaws.

Even so, I hunt Coyotes with my AR15 sometimes. The difference is that my AR weighs 6.5lbs and only has ONE thing bolted to it - a red dot optic. No "backup sights", no bayonet, no lazer, no magnifier, no flashlight, no spare mag holder, no VFG, ect.

My AR is a light weight and fast handling carbine that is also very handy in the field - precisely BECAUSE I don't put a lot of crap on it. It is a great hunting rifle within its cartridge limitations. It will be even better once I get one of those wood stock sets that Rock River is selling now :p.

In two weeks, I'm going on my first hog hunt. I'll be taking my Enfield No.4 MKII - the cartridge packs plenty of punch, the ghost ring sight will be an asset for fast acquisition in cover, it's not all that long (even compared to 'hunting' rifles), and its COVERED in that beautiful English hardwood. :D

Kliegl
June 13, 2011, 11:16 PM
I've looked through all my reloading manuals - none of them label the .243 as a "child's round" - would you care to source your claim? Where did you "check" for that info?

30 years of hunting. I know it's not fashionable to actually admit to doing something, as opposed to looking it up on the internet, but there you have it.

caribou
June 14, 2011, 12:14 AM
.243 is a childs round, mans round, womans round and all 7 of my kids have used it to great effect.

I use my M-39's 7.62X54r because its wicked accurate, the ammo is plentyfull (I heve several cases) and thats all that matters.........and makes great holes in animals, just like my .243w Rem 700 ADL with 100 grain coreloks. I took off the stocks cheek peice, comb and thinned the forestock , filed the sights down fine and made it 2 MOA @150yards Deadly accurate and all Die before it. The flat trajectory made up for range guestemations on the blank , featureless arctic snow white tundra and ice.
Many BrownBear, too many Caribou, a few Moose, Muskox, lotsa BlackBears, countless Wolves
If I hadnt hit a deadhead log in the river and flipped the boat aside,the Rifle in the drink, I'd most likely still have that ADL .243w.

I promote the M-39 for its accuracy and reliabilty, but its terminal effects are the same as the .243w...a hole through the righ place still kills animals. The placement of the hole is more important than what makes the hole, be it bullet, arrow or knife. Placement is everything and only accurate rifles are intertesting.

.243w is a VERY popular round for year round Alaskan Subsistance hunters, from Polar Bear to Red Fox.

DammitBoy
June 14, 2011, 02:45 AM
30 years of hunting. I know it's not fashionable to actually admit to doing something, as opposed to looking it up on the internet, but there you have it.

I've got 40 years of hunting that says the .243 isn't a child's round.

okiewita40
June 14, 2011, 10:45 AM
I am thinking that some guys/gals think that shooting anything less than .30 cal magnum just makes you a sissy. Go ahead and shoot your ubermagnum big bore. I'll stick with what I am comfortable with. I didn't know there were any centerfire firearms that were made in a kids caliber. I guess I'll have to ask for the childrens caliber's the next time I am at the sporting goods store.

Tirod
June 14, 2011, 11:46 AM
The tool has to fit the user - I would no more recommend folding a 6'7" frame into a Smartcar than suggest the Kimber Youth to be perfectly stocked for their use.

It's also should be obvious a car with appropriate interior space has little to do with what size engine or how many pounds it weighs - just like what size caliber and action has anything to do with Length of pull or cheek weld. You don't need a 3/4 ton club cab with 7.3 diesel to get to work any more than you "need" a 8mm Mauser to shoot deer. It's done, but others do it with 5.56, too.

In MO, the reg's allow ANY centerfire rifle cartridge. How you use a .204 Ruger would be the tipping point of whether it's enough to get the job done - not a blanket statement it can't be.

Anecdotal stories do not change the fact that if a shot does not land where intended there is a much lower chance of a humane kill than with other calibers. And in my anecdote, the gun with 40% less power, shot at twice the distance, was entirely sufficient to do the job. Since many hunters report those conditions actually are the norm, just like in combat - 150 pound targets at less than 300m - why shoot something that's bigger, heavier, harder to rapidly operate, has more recoil, and imposes negative reactions by the shooter when they use it?

There is a specific reason the .30-30 has been America's #1 hunting load for over one hundred years, and ranked in the top ten all that time. It's a relatively intermediate cartridge with maximum 200m effective pointblank range, which seems to have suited a huge demographic of hunters from it's introduction until now. That specific caliber and it's use in leveractions is notably absent from this discussion, and frankly, puts the lie to the assumption only a large bolt action is sufficient to do the job. If anything, the bolt action has been a minority player for a long time, especially stacked against the additional semi autos - sold since the 1920s, pumps, and other firearms, like shotguns.

Goes to my point, asserting the bolt gun in a .30 battle caliber as the minimum necessary is, at best, an elitist assumption. Having used HK91's, levers, and bolt guns like 98K Mausers and a Rem 700, there are plenty of alternatives that can suit specific hunting conditions. Suggesting they aren't adequate only plays to the politics of prohibition - which is already bad enough. Ask shotgun only hunters what they think about that.

JustinJ
June 14, 2011, 11:48 AM
"Anecdotal stories do not change the fact that if a shot does not land where intended there is a much lower chance of a humane kill regardless of caliber.

I fixed your post."

No, you didn't. The more damage a round does to tissue the higher probablity of humane kill. There is a smaller window of where you can shoot and make a clean kill with a .223 than other calibers. Its that simple.

Sam1911
June 14, 2011, 12:08 PM
The more damage a round does to tissue the higher probability of humane kill. There is a smaller window of where you can shoot and make a clean kill with a .223 than other calibers. Its that simple. Not really "that" simple.

A bad shot is a bad shot -- you might wound and lose an animal, or have to track one for hours.

A good shot is a good shot -- a .223, or a .300 Wthby Mag, will kill a deer, dead-right-there.

A "marginal" shot is where the questions lie. Thinking that a shot that strays into the guts or hits a leg, etc., is better if it's a 30-'06 than if it had been a .223 is probably not a wise sort of thing to count on. Is there some level of an advantage? Sure. Is it worth adding to your calculations? Probably not. How will you use that extra "fudge factor?" Will you take a marginal shot with an '06 that you wouldn't take with a .223? Then you should be shooting the .223! ;)

Shooting a large cartridge really can't fix your mistakes.

JustinJ
June 14, 2011, 12:29 PM
I would not advocate any "fudge factor" regardless of caliber but things don't always go as planned. The key word to my comments is "probability". There are certainly hitsthat would quickly kill with a .308 or other round that would not with a .223 and it is for these that i say err on the side of caution.

sig220mw
June 14, 2011, 01:08 PM
Hey RC you just gave me a good laugh too. My 2 sons are vidiots and if not for shooting with me, the games would be their only source for firearm types.

I have military guns and sporting guns and I use them all for hunting. The big difference or I guess I should say what I notice the most is the difference in weight and length. The sporters are easier to carry and much easier to get into a small tree stand for instance.

As for caliber, the smallest I use is a 22-250 (head and neck shots only) and the biggest so far is the 323 (8mm).

Double Naught Spy
June 14, 2011, 04:21 PM
"Anecdotal stories do not change the fact that if a shot does not land where intended there is a much lower chance of a humane kill regardless of caliber.

I fixed your post."

No, you didn't. The more damage a round does to tissue the higher probablity of humane kill. There is a smaller window of where you can shoot and make a clean kill with a .223 than other calibers. Its that simple.

Actually, he did fix your post and now you are arguing a new point. Off target is off target regardless of caliber. You can miss the heart by a 1/2" with a .223 or with a .45-70. Either way you have missed by a 1/2".

Now you are saying that because the .45-70 is so much bigger, it is more likely to hit the target, in this case, the heart. If it hits the heart, then the bullet went where intended, did it not, hence not a miss or not "land where intended."

However as Sam1911 pointed out, a larger caliber won't necessarily solve your problems. I have to admit, never in my life have I heard an instructor say, "That guy can't shoot very accurately. Give him a larger caliber."

JustinJ
June 14, 2011, 04:38 PM
"Actually, he did fix your post and now you are arguing a new point. Off target is off target regardless of caliber. You can miss the heart by a 1/2" with a .223 or with a .45-70. Either way you have missed by a 1/2"."

I really don't know how to say this any clearer. My points are exactly the same in both posts. Since a direct hit to the heart is NOT the only way to kill something the more damage a bullet does (call it a larger "wound channel" if you like) there is a higher PROBABILITY that other vital tissues will be damaged so a faster death is more likely. This is the exact same reason expanding hollow bullets are preffered. If the shot misses the heart but hits an artery death will be quick and clean. The PROBABILITY of severing said artery is higher when more tissue damage occurs.

DammitBoy
June 14, 2011, 04:43 PM
What is this "missing" you people speak of? :D

helotaxi
June 14, 2011, 10:04 PM
A large caliber shot poorly, which is more likely since recoil will make practice unpleasant and possibly lead to a flinch as well, is less likely to hit anything vital. Instead you end up with either a complete miss or a maiming wound that may cause the animal a lingering death and resulting in an animal that you never recover. I don't ever hear about guys losing animals with smaller calibers or even having to track them much. I wonder why...

You want to talk about probability, OK. The probability of making a shot through the vitals that kills an animal quickly is higher with a gun that is shot a lot and shot well. Relying on a larger caliber and more powerful cartridge to make up for lack of marksmanship/patience/hunting ability is irresponsible. The probability of taking a high percentage shot when you know that you have make the shot count is also higher. Having an overly powerful cartridge encourages reckless hunting because one might be able to get away with it. But it's still a game of probabilities. The more one comes to rely on having a massively powerful cartridge letting them "get away with one," the higher the probability that they will take questionable shots. A person who hunts might need a big gun, a hunter does not; there is a difference in the two. From a practical standpoint the only reason to go with a bigger cartridge is to increase the effective range on larger game.

If you don't think you can get the job done reliably with a .243, maybe you should resign yourself to carrying only a .375 RUM. Of course a bad shot with that is still a bad shot and you'll have ringing ears and a sore shoulder as a reminder.

Kliegl
June 14, 2011, 10:35 PM
There are some people that hunt and think, well, I'll only take a perfect shot, and all my shots that I take will be perfect shots, so I only need a .223, or a .243 to do the job. Then, there are people who hunt that think, well, maybe I won't make a perfect shot, or, sometimes the rest won't be the best, or, sometimes the sun/wind/rain will interfere, or sometimes the giant buck will be over 300 yards away, or some other factor will make a less than perfect shot probable.

Now, for all those of you that only make perfect shots, this won't apply, but, for the rest of us, a couple examples make the following clear.

Example 1: A buck is facing a very muddy swamp, maybe 25 yards away. You are pretty close, say 100 yards. A less than perfect shot will make him run, straight for the swamp. I don't know about the rest of you all, but I would prefer to bring him down BEFORE he gets 100 yards deep in the mud, so I'll take the bigger round.

Example 2: It's a windy day. There's a buck 200 yards off. Even a perfect shot will be affected by the wind. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer a heavier round less likely to be blown significantly off course so I don't have to apply as much Kentucky Windage.

Example 3: It is near dark, and the Boone and Crockett Record Beating buck steps out from behind a bush 400 yards away. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer a gun that has enough killing power and doesn't need to be aimed a foot high to do the job.

Example 4: A buck is standing 100 yards away, in the hill country of Texas, with a whole lot of rocks and hills. A less than perfect shot will make him run immediately out of your field of vision. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer the entry and exit wound to be as big as they can be, so I can have the most amount of blood to track by.

So, there are some arguments for bigger rounds for hunting. What are the arguments for the smaller rounds? I mean, like real arguments, not "it's all I need." I only take a few rounds with me, so it can't be ammo weight. Likewise, my deer rifle doesn't weigh much more than my Colt AR, so it's not that either.

helotaxi
June 14, 2011, 11:58 PM
Example 1: A buck is facing a very muddy swamp, maybe 25 yards away. You are pretty close, say 100 yards. A less than perfect shot will make him run, straight for the swamp. I don't know about the rest of you all, but I would prefer to bring him down BEFORE he gets 100 yards deep in the mud, so I'll take the bigger round.

If you've practiced with a rifle, that shot should be a no brainer. If it has to be a "perfect shot" caliber and cartridge are essentially irrelevant. Any adequate cartridge will drop said buck like a bolt of lightning and he won't take a step.

Example 2: It's a windy day. There's a buck 200 yards off. Even a perfect shot will be affected by the wind. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer a heavier round less likely to be blown significantly off course so I don't have to apply as much Kentucky Windage.

The difference in wind drift (10 mph wind) between a .243 100gn and a .30-06 168gn is 0.1" in the .30-06 favor. Swap that for a .308 and the .243 has a 0.4" advantage. Weight in and of itself has no bearing on wind drift.

Example 3: It is near dark, and the Boone and Crockett Record Beating buck steps out from behind a bush 400 yards away. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer a gun that has enough killing power and doesn't need to be aimed a foot high to do the job.

If I were hunting where a 400yd shot was a real possibility, then a cartridge capable of carrying sufficient energy and ensuring reliable bullet upset at that range would be in order. That cartridge doesn't have to be a big boomer though. A .264 Win Mag shoots almost identically to a .300 Win Mag with only slightly more than half the recoil. Both require more than 1 foot of holdover at 400yds. 18.2" for the 300 and 20" for the .264.

Example 4: A buck is standing 100 yards away, in the hill country of Texas, with a whole lot of rocks and hills. A less than perfect shot will make him run immediately out of your field of vision. I don't know about you all, but I would prefer the entry and exit wound to be as big as they can be, so I can have the most amount of blood to track by.

Choosing a caliber based on making a big wound so you could track a wounded animal easier is akin to choosing a car based on how easy it is to tow when it breaks down.

What are the arguments for the smaller rounds?

Other than ease of shooting and a greater chance of making a good shot because of a combination of practice and lack of apprehension about recoil?

DammitBoy
June 15, 2011, 12:47 AM
What's so hard about waiting for the perfect shot? If you don't have the shot, don't make it.

caribou
June 15, 2011, 01:17 AM
"What's so hard about waiting for the perfect shot? If you don't have the shot, don't make it."

Dammitboy, yer right..........~LOL!!~

Kliegl
June 15, 2011, 02:26 AM
Sometimes, you don't GET the perfect shot, and that's the whole point.

Sam1911
June 15, 2011, 08:48 AM
Sometimes, you don't GET the perfect shot, and that's the whole point.
If you don't get the shot you trust, why would you shoot? Someone said...
Will you take a marginal shot with an '06 that you wouldn't take with a .223? Then you should be shooting the .223! ;)


(This is going to sound very judgmental, and I REALLY mean no offense or condemnation: )

Counting on a heavier cartridge to make up for deliberately poor shot placement doesn't seem to be ethical hunting practice.

...

It seems to me that good shots with smaller cartridges are a whole lot more effective than some folks will believe -- and that bad shots with a .30-'06 are a whole lot less effective than many hunters think they are. Just my opinion, though.

I understand that a larger bullet going faster will damage a bit more tissues and/or structures, thus providing some narrow margin of error. But when that margin of error translates into an imaginary inflated vitals zone in the minds of big cartridge fans, we're making an error.

fragout
June 15, 2011, 09:22 AM
If Sam 1911 is correct, then why worry about expanding tip bullets?

Instead of comparing 223 to 308 or 30-06....... simply compare FMJ to an expanding tip load in same caliber.

If a specific load of FMJ shoots better through a given rifle vs expanding tip ammo, then would this not be the better route for hunting ?

It seems that the lawmakers(most states) consider a larger wound channel to be of enough importance to outlaw FMJ for hunting. I believe that OTM (open tip match) bullets fall under this same rule.


In a direct comparison........ 223 hunting ammunition vs 308 FMJ.........
Which bullet leaves the bigger hole, provided that both exit?........ Or ...which creates the bigger wound channel?

If this does not matter, then please explain?

BTW..... Interesting topic.

here is my hunting rifle btw.....
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r178/fragout2000/Pic%20set%202010/SANY1262.jpg

11B

JustinJ
June 15, 2011, 09:37 AM
"I don't ever hear about guys losing animals with smaller calibers or even having to track them much. I wonder why..."

Probably because most people don't like to brag about poor marksmanship or decision making.

"If you don't get the shot you trust, why would you shoot?"

I completely agree except no matter how much one trusts their shot a miss is possible. Counting on a caliber for poor marksmanship is not what i am advocating. But given that deer and other game are not static targets, no matter how perfect one thinks their shot is, unplanned for events happen. For example, a deer can get spooked and start moving as your sqeezing the trigger. A scope could fail and loose it's zero. And in said events a .308 is much more likely to ensure a clean kill. And if you one can't shoot a caliber larger than .223 without flinching, learn how to shoot proplerly before you go hunting. And lets not forget that many people over estimate their shooting abilities. I'm sure thats nobody here though.

This arguement reminds me of people who say caliber and capacity are irrelevent for LE or SD because of "proper shot placement". As if every encounter will entail the bad guy standing still, never shooting at them, with a bulls eye over his heart.

Tirod
June 15, 2011, 10:21 AM
Why is it assumed the larger caliber automatically has a larger wound channel?

That is a dangerous and false assumption.

Taking the point that a close miss with a large caliber would likely create enough damage to still put the animal down completely ignores the construction of bullets and the dynamic impact of what they do.

It still goes back to application - not only the caliber and platform, but much more importantly, what bullet. And choosing the CORRECT bullet is far more important than the overall diameter. More so, smaller diameter bullets tend to keep their velocity further - extending the range of delivered, lethal threshold power. That's considered a good thing up to the point where human inability overcomes accuracy.

And, taking the relevant point that the perfect shot becomes in the few split seconds of flight, a slight miss, and a wounded animal, which gun do you prefer? A manual bolt action that 1) forces you to lose the sight picture jacking another round in the chamber, 2) requires you to get another sight picture AFTER you find the quarry in them, again, 3) have the time to do that without watching it slink off in the woodlands to suffer?

Or, would a self loading firearm that simply cycled and kept the sight picture and cheek weld constant for the next shot - without delay - be better?

If it's possible to wound one - and it certainly is with a bolt gun - then why is the bolt gun with it's deliberately obtuse manual loading better? I see it as LESS humane in the circumstance, because it creates delay and a less accurate followup shot. Which the military proved by extensive study over the last one hundred years. It's definitely a major advertising feature of civilian self loading actions since their introduction in the 1920's.

"When one shot won't do, why be stuck with one?" as a large and enraged grizzly bears down suddenly on the surprised explorer.

Since it's entirely possible to wound any animal with a misplaced shot - why then support the one gun that's the least capable of a quick and humane followup shot? I go back to my anecdote of one - the bolt .30-06 failed (very much my bad shot,) the SKS put the animal down.

Who was the better equipped hunter who properly dispatched the animal and prevented it suffering further?

It was asked why you don't hear about semi auto shooters losing game. Maybe it's because they don't.

Sam1911
June 15, 2011, 10:22 AM
no matter how perfect one thinks their shot is, unplanned for events happen.Oh, absolutely! And that's why I said larger calibers may allow more margin of error. But capitalizing on that to expand the conditions under which you will take a shot would seem unwise. Maybe no one is advocating that, but what is written and what is intended (and what is understood by the reader) aren't always exactly the same.

Sam1911
June 15, 2011, 10:24 AM
If Sam 1911 is correct, then why worry about expanding tip bullets?

Instead of comparing 223 to 308 or 30-06....... simply compare FMJ to an expanding tip load in same caliber.
That seems to be taking a whole different tack. A laser-beam hole .308" diameter through-and-through doesn't accomplish a whole lot more than a laser-beam hole .224" in diameter. Expanding bullets make a LOT more difference than caliber choice.

DammitBoy
June 15, 2011, 11:02 AM
Sometimes, you don't GET the perfect shot, and that's the whole point.

Then don't take the shot. That's the point.

JustinJ
June 15, 2011, 11:08 AM
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Kliegl
Sometimes, you don't GET the perfect shot, and that's the whole point.

Then don't take the shot. That's the point."

That arguement has already been soundly defeated. Again, things don't always go according to plan.

Bullet selection is absolutely important and i sort of assumed that we were talking about expanding bulllets regardless of caliber as i can't imagine one would hunt with anything else.

Sam1911
June 15, 2011, 12:29 PM
I certainly wasn't advocating that and I believe I was the one that got this thing going. I never said anything of the sort. I would never do that.For my part, I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to this:

Sometimes, you don't GET the perfect shot, and that's the whole point.

A statement which was ambiguously phrased -- which I why I added my caveat that perhaps the implication that one could lean on the big-bore factor to solve the problems of poor shot presentation was not what had been intended.

Some readers just add things in to make their argument look better and other people see what those readers said and they follow along as if someone actually did advocate something as wrong as justifying taking bad shots because they have a bigger caliber rifle.That's casting pretty strong aspersions which really are circular. You're adding as much to several members' arguments as you are accusing them of doing.

English is a very precise language. Whoo boy. No, no it isn't. English is highly nuanced, and the same statement can be said -- or read -- to indicate many things, purposefully intended or not. Don't make the same mistakes you're accusing others of.

Sam1911
June 15, 2011, 12:39 PM
Again, things don't always go according to plan.


Absolutely. Now the question becomes, does the actual, physical, increase in the safety margin afforded by, for example, a .308 over a .243 justify choosing one over the other for hunting common medium game animals?

Seems like a mighty personal choice as I don't know of any way to actually measure how great that difference is. I would think in terms of a hypothetical "expanded" vital zone wherein a stray shot is still effective in .308 but ineffective in .243. How much larger could that effective kill zone be? An inch overall? Or is it 3" in either direction? More?

Is there any (other) empirical way to measure this? Or do the vagaries of hunting reality make cartridge choice a moot point within certain bounds?

JustinJ
June 15, 2011, 01:03 PM
"Is there any (other) empirical way to measure this?"

There is but i would consider it to be unethical. Obviously there is no clear line of what caliber is acceptable but to me a .223 is clearly not for deer sized game and there are state legislatures that have agreed. I suppose the only other method would be to survey hunters who use each cartridge but data gathered this way would be highly suspect. Either way i would consider cartridge selection to be anything but a moot point both in caliber and type.

I don't hunt with a .223 but personally i am suspiscious that even animals shot in the "kill zone" from distance may occasionally escape wounded to die at a later time. I have no way to verify this but i can imagine ways it could happen based on the round's ballistics.

Sam1911
June 15, 2011, 01:19 PM
There is but i would consider it to be unethical.
I would have a hard time using live animals to shoot, especially badly, just to measure how bad is bad. But such tests have been conducted.

Obviously there is no clear line of what caliber is acceptable but to me a .223 is clearly not for deer sized game and there are state legislatures that have agreed.Certainly, some have. And yet, some hunters kill deer, with great success and unassailable ethicality, with small calibers and have for generations.

That is a big problem with legislating hunting ethics. (Or any other ethics, probably?) Some hunters know and understand their quarry and their tools and only take ethical shots for which they have a reasonable and realistic belief of a successful kill -- if that's with a .22LR. Some hunters are unethical, wasteful, and dangerous with any gun at all, even though they're playing by the rules that claim, or attempt, to prevent ... whatever they're trying to prevent.

So another question would be, does putting a bigger gun in every shooters' hand make the average shot taken more ethical? (Obviously some say yes, some say no.)

I suppose the only other method would be to survey hunters who use each cartridge but data gathered this way would be highly suspect.Yes. Unless, of course, you wanted the entire test heavily skewed to .30-30 Win!

Either way i would consider cartridge selection to be anything but a moot point both in caliber and type."Moot point" is probably not the right way to say that. But moot, within certain boundaries, might be true. One of the posters suggested that he could be much more certain of his shots with a .308 than with a .243. On deer-sized game, holding the ranges to some reasonable distance (either cartridge will reach out a long way... .243 might have the edge, at greater range), I'm not ready to claim there's a significant gain from one to the other.

JustinJ
June 15, 2011, 01:41 PM
"I would have a hard time using live animals to shoot, especially badly, just to measure how bad is bad. But such tests have been conducted."

Yes, unfortunatley they have and i find them disgusting. I was raised to respect life and believe that one doesn't kill something unless they intend to it, or it's trying to eat them.

"Some hunters are unethical, wasteful, and dangerous with any gun at all, even though they're playing by the rules that claim, or attempt, to prevent ... whatever they're trying to prevent."

Unfortunately that is also true. While i don't generally like the legislation of ethics in this situation the hunted animal suffers instead of those behaving in an unethical way. Hunting is alread full of all kinds of laws based around ethics and sustainability so i have not problem with one regulating the type and caliber of bullet used.

"So another question would be, does putting a bigger gun in every shooters' hand make the average shot taken more ethical? (Obviously some say yes, some say no.)"

If the only thing changing in the equation is the caliber i would say yes.

I'm not very familiar with the .243 so i personally can't comment on that round.

jleyring
June 15, 2011, 01:44 PM
I use my AR for Coyote and it works great. I guess i feel my hunting rifles(bolt actions) dont need to be all tactical. I wont need a laser or flashlight because i wont be able to hunt at night anyways. I have thought about the same question, what makes it military and what makes it hunting. A hunting rifle is just a sniper rifle if you think about it. One shot one kill.

csa77
June 15, 2011, 02:43 PM
If all you hunt is whitetail 243 is perfect, a 308 or 30-06 is overkill for them imo. all of my family hunts whitetail in Florida,south Carolina and Texas. all of us use the 243 for whitetail....except for my father who uses his hog gun 30-06 on whitetail.
I can tell you I have often seen wounds from the .243 surpass the '06 many times.I assume its cause the 30-06 just zips though them where as the 243 actually imparts its energy.

223 and a 243 arnt even remotely similar

fragout
June 15, 2011, 05:05 PM
If shot placement is everything, then a "laser beam" hole using FMJ should not matter?

Anyone know exactly which of the following loads would create a bigger wound channel?

168 gr OTM (308), or 62gr soft point (223)........?

Lets even keep the bbls the same length here for both rifles.


11B

caribou
June 15, 2011, 09:50 PM
If you have placed the shot correctly, the "Lazer beam" bullet of .22 or .30 will put a simular or largere sized hole through the heart or brain, is quite sufficent for an immediate kill.
FMJ's will not "lazer beam" bones, they tend to smash them, and one in the spineal collon or shoulders will bust them quite broken.
Most FMJ's tumble when they are subject to passing through meat at 2660FPS and I find that two holes are better than one.

I use Czeck 7.62X54r FMJ's, both leagal and practical here, as FMJ's are "Alaskan Solids" and with the excellent accuracy and terminal effects put them in theplaces they need to go and they do the job wickedly.
I hunt for a living here in the Arctic, all year round, and the debate over FMJ's being worse than soft point is well laughed at round here, where Hunting IS the main occupation of men......we are all only interested in accurate rifles,accurate ammo, no matter the caliber, and as well, I use the appropriate calibers, when possible .22L, .30 anything, 12 gauge, on the animals I hunt, though I will use the Mosin on Bunnys and the 12 gauge on a Bear, if I have to......it often boils down to what yo have in hand when **** is happening.

Alot depends on your laws and what the guy selling you the ammo/gun/whatever views as "The truth" and how they are gonna sell it to you........Its always bewst to observe before buying into something.

BrocLuno
June 17, 2011, 08:04 PM
Wow, I missed some stuff here. Sometimes we don't shoot for "meat", sometimes we shoot for self or property defense like coons raiding the hen house at night and the motion lights just went on, or the "the dam deer are in the vegetable garden again" - so you go out an eradicate them.

Dead is dead - if it takes a few minutes longer, that's what happens. It ain't all about rests and sight pictures and one click behind the shoulder. Bad shot to slow the getaway and follow-up to kill is often the way of the farm. They are still not coming back to munch on grandmas lettuce or chickens. Lots of quartering away shots have been taken on fleeing animals.

Some of these critters you can't stop and keep in range with a 22. They will bound off over the fence with a chicken in their jaws and all will be lost. Maybe they'll die and maybe they won't. If they don't they will just be more wary and crafty about getting into the yard next time and they will still be back.

If you spray them with a scatter gun, you kill you own flock or destroy all the veggies. You have to hit them with enough to knock them down and then hit them again, and sometimes again. Then come morning, get the tractor out and bury the mess.

Yeah, I'd love to do one shot one kill - but it don't always work that way. Sometimes you disable and then kill. I got no argument with 243, I just don't have one. I shot a 556 in the Army and I know what it'll do - it is lethal, on men. I just prefer a bit heavier and slower for crafty animals. 30-30 gets a lot of use around the farm, always has.

Only time we ever went after a mountain lion, had just stolen a new foal, we grabbed the 06 and the 444 Marlin. We never caught up with it, but if we had, we did not want a mad big cat coming at us. Again, disable and then kill if you have to. I would never go up against a mad cat with a 223 or a 30-30. I want to impart more energy than that right now. I want expanding bullet with weight.

Just my $.02 - but some of these arguments can get a bit esoteric?

sixgunner455
June 17, 2011, 08:57 PM
Wow, Jeff. Erm, English.

It's just a language, no better nor worse than any other. It was not the reason for the industrial revolution, friend. It is the language used by two of the most successful countries in recent history - England and the USA. It is the success of the countries, and their projection of their culture and language around the world, that has made English the Lingua Franca of the modern world.

Did you miss that? Lingua Franca. See, the common use language in the western world used to be French. Before that, it used to be Arabic. Before that, it was Latin.

Look at China and the rest of the Far East, though - most of the languages and writing is based on, or heavily influenced by, Chinese. They're pretty heavily industrialized, last I heard.

Point is, success of the country or culture is what has bred the common use of the familiar language.

No language is more precise or less, really. It all depends on use and application.

fragout
June 18, 2011, 08:17 AM
My experience is similar to yours Caribou , and I haven't had any issues with hunting hogs using 7.62x51mm FMJ or OTM for that matter. Legal for hog hunting where I hunt. As you mentioned already, it all comes down to the local laws where one is hunting at, along with what folks in a given area are trying to sell.
FWIW...... I'm career Infantry, so my job has related to wound effects from various types of calibers ...(5.56/7.62x39,51,54/9mm are the common calibers where I am currently deployed, but not the only ones).
I have seen kids fire weapons chambered in a few of the above mentioned cartridges, but have not generally heard any of them referred to as a "kid specific" cartridge.

As this relates to hunting...... The "laser beam hole" using 7.62x51mm FMJ is a myth for the most part, and especially if the bullet hits bone... based on what I have seen firsthand concerning dozens of FMJ shot hogs. It generally seems to smash through bone on the way through, and that's about the best way I can describe it. 7.62x51mm FMJ will usually leave an exit wound from my experience.
FWIW...... 168gr OTM produces similar results on hogs, and I have used this to dump them at ranges out to 400 yds with an 18inbbl M14S.






11B

Sam1911
June 18, 2011, 09:19 AM
[Hey, let's consider the language debate closed. While I find it very interesting, personally, it isn't on-topic for THR, or this thread, and I apologize for my part in continuing it. At any rate, let's focus on the question at hand.]

fragout
June 18, 2011, 09:32 AM
Here are a few guns I have taken hogs with.....
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r178/fragout2000/Pic%20set%202010/SANY1247.jpg

The M14S at top is my primary hunting rifle for deer, hogs, etc.....

I use a Ruger 10-22 for hunting small game.


11B

Tirod
June 18, 2011, 10:56 AM
This is very much a debate that a bolt action rifle in a .30 battle rifle type caliber is inherently superior to a self loading intermediate caliber rifle. Which is actually a class warfare discussion, my ethics and choice of weapon are better than yours. And it can be demonstrated to be complete BS.

This is something that came up years ago, in the marketing of bolt actions, as a method of undercutting the arguments that bolt guns ought to be a lot cheaper, considering the simple construction and uncomplicated machining. Their dynamic operation isn't even a major engineering problem, no gas cycles to time or heat resistant materials to bother with.

Always picture the bolt gun user with expensive accoutrements in an ethically pure, untainted situation, and all is right with the world. Don't forget, offer a major caliber, to boot. How uncomplicated.

This elitist notion of gun use wasn't something much shared by our forebears, IIRC many of them chose to use technically superior guns whenever the opportunity arose. It was largely the impact of declining game populations that created a sense that large volumes of fire weren't going to happen anymore, sell the single shot guns and great white hunter lifestyle.

Which isn't what a hog hunter in Texas would find helpful dispatching a herd in his fields, trampling down hundreds of dollars in crops every hour.

There's the crux - bolt gunner A declares himself righteously equipped to ethically dispatch his trophy buck in fair chase on one hand, and self loader AR shooter B categorically states no less than a 20 round magazine will do thinning a pest damaging crops.

The very obvious point is that properly used, the AR will do just fine on deer, too, but in the target rich environment of pest control, the bolt gunner is outclassed by the working mans friend. That inversion is what rankles so many bolt gunners so much.

Hence, all the justification in one shot, one kill, when experience tells us that isn't the most likely shot hunting. Very often - even with an ostensibly good shot - the game isn't anchored at all, just the same as in combat. Soldiers shot more than once with major caliber weapons don't go down, and fight on, to actually win.

Since there can be no predictable result of bullet impact - regardless of the thousands of dollars spent in live animal research done every year - what hunters should be doing is providing the best gun for the worst situation. THAT's ethical, not hampering themselves with a deliberately obtuse firearm that has less capability to provide followup shots for when they will absolutely be needed.

It's not something the Great White Hunter wants to consider, sipping brandy after supper with his cohorts while smoking cigars in the library. The concept he might simply screw up is anathema to his ego. Bad luck, old chap.

The disgust they exhibit toward selfloading firearms is a defense of socio-economic status - and their arguments are phrased to support inherent moral superiority. The simple fact is that bolt guns were proven completely insufficient by the constant challenges of actual mortal combat - something else they shy away from in this age of the volunteer Army.

No, I'm not wrong - steering this conversation into the brambles of English grammar is exactly the example to point out, an exercise in "My use is more upperclass than yours therefore I am superior to you." What usually goes along with that is a reticence to acknowledge the game that got away, because they were cranking an modern adaption of a curio and relic, rather than squeezing the trigger on game in their sights. People who consider themselves better than others don't admit to mistakes unless the Twitter photo is put out there for all to see.

All just a contest to see who measures up using a different yard stick. Nothing smaller could possibly be considered. :evil:

Art Eatman
June 18, 2011, 11:44 AM
Leaving laws out of the deal, one thing that has made a seriously large change if what's a good hunting cartridge for hogs and deer is that of R&D in bullet technology.

When I started in with The Firing Line in 1998, there were really very few .223 bullets suitable for deer. That's no longer the case. To some extent, the same held for the 7.62x39.

As far as comparing such cartridges as .243 and .30-'06, I've killed a couple-dozen bucks with each of them. The difference was that with the .243 I was much pickier about the shot. I refused the shot if it had to be made at an angle through the body. With the '06, I didn't worry, since experience had shown me that there would definitely be adequate penetration.

After seventy years of shooting rifles, I'm more comfortable with conventional bolt actions. Nothing wrong with my Garand, but my 700Ti is much lighter. :) Odds are that I'll use my AR for night-time varmint hunting, once the night-vision scope is on it. Daytime? Whatever floats my boat at any given moment.

Absent bayonet work and butt-stroking, I don't see where comparative ruggedness between military and civvie rifles is relevant to anything at all. :D

BrocLuno
June 18, 2011, 10:10 PM
So this discussion has drifted down from Guns to Ammo? I get the sense we are talking about Mil Ball ammo vs commercial or reloaded with commercial bullets?

Kliegl
June 18, 2011, 11:52 PM
Thanks for posting that Art. I got a lot of disrespect for saying something like that, let's hope people treat an admin better.

I'll make a few salient points. I own a FNH FNAR, and an SA M1A, amongst other guns.
Both are .308/7.62x51. The M1A fieldstrips down to 8 parts. The FNAR fieldstrips down to about 26, courtesy of the BAR semiauto action. (BAR like hunting rifle, not WWII support weapon.) The stock on the M1A is one piece, the charging handle is heavier, the mags are made of thicker material, and the sling mounts are military.

Stuff like that is why I said a lot of hunting rifles, with sporterized stocks, precision, light, optics, and lighter duty parts would not take military use.

Tirod, I'm afraid I don't agree with your philosophizing. As I, a "great white hunter" with a bolt action 30 cal, sat surrounded by hogs instead of the preferred deer, I did not drown in my snobbery or feel righteous in the limitations of my bolt action modern relic. Rather, I simply waited till three lined themselves up, blasted a round through all three, then dropped two more as they ran off. Nothing like having 5 dead things for a total of three shots fired.

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