Hunting guns and miltary guns.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Picher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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..?
 
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....
 
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.
 
Kliegl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
The lines do blur a lot, rather large grey areas do exist. For example...

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Kliegl said:
Last time I checked, the .243 WAS a child's round.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
JustinJ said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
.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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
miltary for hunting
Replies
22
Views
3K
Laphroaig
Laphroaig
S
  • Locked
Bulk ammo in rifle
Replies
14
Views
738
dmazur
D
H
  • Locked
Best Military/Hunting Rifle?
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Maddogkiller
M
huntersdog
What would be your picks of only 3 rifles to own for everything, hunting and self defense?
2 3
Replies
70
Views
2K
gotboostvr
gotboostvr
D
  • Locked
caliber for hunting large deers
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
grimjaw
G
Back
Top