My feeling is, shoot with whatever you shoot best with, no matter what it looks like. If it's grandpa's ole single shot, fine. If it's a carbon fiber/titanium/super space age epoxy battle rifle, use that. Use whatever you can to make an ethical one shot kill.
Hunting Rifles Vs. Military Rifles...
- Thread starter SteyrAUG
- Start date
- Status
ClickClickD'oh
Member
I don't hunt pigs for sport. I hunt them to eradicate the population. It's never going to happen, but the alternative isn't viable either. In times past I used a "sporting" Tikka T3. Great rifle. In the winter when I could reliably draw to corn lines I'd bag my limit ever time. That is, drop three then watch the rest of the group disapear into the cedars again. Now I use a semi-automatic magazine fed rifle, and I don't stop at three. Sporting? Nope. But then again, all hunting isn't for sport.
My deer hunting rifle is a Russian WWII infantry rifle. After lugging a scoped M44 around this weeked I want something lighter. My next deer hunting rifle will be a AR-15 in 6.8. The distinction between a hunting rifle and a military rifle is merely a result of a linguistic battle against civilian gun ownership.
Blackfork
Member
Military rifles on deer.
ARs seem a little light for deer, but wonderful for smaller game.
I've shot deer with Garand, M1 Carbine, 1903A3, P17, Swiss K31, Swede M38, Jap T44, Argentine 1909 in the last couple of seasons. Today I was sitting out with a K98. Got a Krag in the on-deck circle. Military rifles are fine on deer.
ARs seem a little light for deer, but wonderful for smaller game.
I've shot deer with Garand, M1 Carbine, 1903A3, P17, Swiss K31, Swede M38, Jap T44, Argentine 1909 in the last couple of seasons. Today I was sitting out with a K98. Got a Krag in the on-deck circle. Military rifles are fine on deer.
Matt87 correctly points out
Shakespeare's Hotspur has an encounter with a Gentleman who appears on the battlefield of Holmedon (1402) and declares, in effect, that these new-fangled guns have just ruined War as a proper activity for Gentlemen, else "he would himself have been a soldier."
Hotspur:
"... But I remember, when the fight was done,
When I was dry with rage and extreme toil,
Breathless and faint, leaning upon my sword,
Came there a certain lord, neat, and trimly
dress'd,
Fresh as a bridegroom; and his chin, new reap'd,
Show'd like a stubble-land at harvest-home:
He was perfumed like a milliner, ...
... he made me mad
To see him shine so brisk and smell so sweet
And talk so like a waiting-gentlewoman
Of guns, and drums, and wounds,—God save the
mark!—
...And that it was great pity, so it was,
This villanous saltpetre should be digg'd
Out of the bowels of the harmless earth,
Which many a good tall fellow had destroy'd
So cowardly; and but for these vile guns,
He would himself have been a soldier.
(I Henry IV, Act I Scene iii)
Of course, he's talking about war, not hunting, but I suspect he's the Ur-Fudd.)
Shakespeare's Hotspur has an encounter with a Gentleman who appears on the battlefield of Holmedon (1402) and declares, in effect, that these new-fangled guns have just ruined War as a proper activity for Gentlemen, else "he would himself have been a soldier."
Hotspur:
"... But I remember, when the fight was done,
When I was dry with rage and extreme toil,
Breathless and faint, leaning upon my sword,
Came there a certain lord, neat, and trimly
dress'd,
Fresh as a bridegroom; and his chin, new reap'd,
Show'd like a stubble-land at harvest-home:
He was perfumed like a milliner, ...
... he made me mad
To see him shine so brisk and smell so sweet
And talk so like a waiting-gentlewoman
Of guns, and drums, and wounds,—God save the
mark!—
...And that it was great pity, so it was,
This villanous saltpetre should be digg'd
Out of the bowels of the harmless earth,
Which many a good tall fellow had destroy'd
So cowardly; and but for these vile guns,
He would himself have been a soldier.
(I Henry IV, Act I Scene iii)
Of course, he's talking about war, not hunting, but I suspect he's the Ur-Fudd.)
kentucky_smith
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,686
I'm hunting this year with a DPMS AP4 .308 just because. 
ReadyontheRight
Member
Divide and conquer. The hunter who never shoots otherwise is an easy, big first target to cut out of the herd.
The Slippery Slope of the Anti-"Assault Weapon" Hunter:
The bottom line is, the antis win if we compromise.
The Slippery Slope of the Anti-"Assault Weapon" Hunter:
The bottom line is, the antis win if we compromise.
Good post ROTR!
Here in PA, hunting deer with a semi is a no no.
However, there is no limit on magazine capacity.
The Remington 760 is a very common deer gun in these parts.
You can get off followup shots very quickly with a pump action rifle.
You can buy 10 round magazines for the 760.
Did I mention that there are no magazine capacity limits in PA?
You see where I'm going with this.
I've seen deer run across a field to what sounds like a scene from Saving Private Ryan.
Call me a fudd if you want, but to me, that isn't hunting and it feeds the stereotype and makes us look bad.
AAMOF, yes, sort of.
Here in PA, hunting deer with a semi is a no no.
However, there is no limit on magazine capacity.
The Remington 760 is a very common deer gun in these parts.
You can get off followup shots very quickly with a pump action rifle.
You can buy 10 round magazines for the 760.
Did I mention that there are no magazine capacity limits in PA?
You see where I'm going with this.
I've seen deer run across a field to what sounds like a scene from Saving Private Ryan.
Call me a fudd if you want, but to me, that isn't hunting and it feeds the stereotype and makes us look bad.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
Something to consider, almost all hunting rifles (or comparable designs) began as military style firearms.
It's just a silly argument. Anyone who opposes military firearms, for any reason is anti-gun in my opinion.
I mean, by the reasoning used by the original poster's example, shouldn't we only be hunting with bow and arrows for it to be more sporting? Or to take it further, just using rocks and sticks would make it VERY sporting.
Gimme a break...
It's just a silly argument. Anyone who opposes military firearms, for any reason is anti-gun in my opinion.
I mean, by the reasoning used by the original poster's example, shouldn't we only be hunting with bow and arrows for it to be more sporting? Or to take it further, just using rocks and sticks would make it VERY sporting.
Gimme a break...
I'm thinking it's about time to change my screen name. I started using it about 10 years ago on various gun boards because I'm kind of a goofball and I like to hunt rabbits, but I don't think it conveys the right meaning anymore.
One interesting thing I've noticed however is how many hunters that scorn military style guns, (usually they scorn the old milsurps too), glom on to ultramodern compound bows and inline muzzle loaders. Now, I've got nothing against compound bows or scoped, electronically fired muzzle loaders, (I find them interesting and I own a compound bow myself), but I find it pretty damn bizarre that military style rifles would be considered unsporting, yet weapons that go way beyond what anyone ever would have imagined when primitive weapons seasons were set up are considered A OK by the same people.
One interesting thing I've noticed however is how many hunters that scorn military style guns, (usually they scorn the old milsurps too), glom on to ultramodern compound bows and inline muzzle loaders. Now, I've got nothing against compound bows or scoped, electronically fired muzzle loaders, (I find them interesting and I own a compound bow myself), but I find it pretty damn bizarre that military style rifles would be considered unsporting, yet weapons that go way beyond what anyone ever would have imagined when primitive weapons seasons were set up are considered A OK by the same people.
Flfiremedic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 447
Maybe I'm confused here, but for the first several hundred years that the USA was in existance, hunters used the same rifles for home defense, military, and hunting didn't they?
Flfiremedic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 447
Brown Bess, Pennsylvania Long Rifles, Henry Rifles, Springfields....
biggameballs
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 380
Reguardless of how you feel about this debate hunting is not about how "cool" your gun is or how it performs. Any real hunter knows this. To me hunting is about planting food plots, scouting starting in april. enjoying the great out doors, passing on a young 8 point buck that has the potential to be a true monster in a few years, having good times with friends. Most importantly the feeling when all your hard work pays off and you harvest your animal with a clean humain kill.
SpeedAKL
Member
I've found hunters to be a pretty conservative lot....hunting has lots of appeal to tradition in this country, and many people struggle to accept it when new tech is introduced into the field. Personally, I have no problem hunting with an AR, M1A, FAL, etc. so long as you follow the normal safety rules and can handle the weapon well enough to get a clean, humane kill. It's stupid that my state only allows 3-round mags. Agreed that you shouldn't "spray and pray", but hunters can be abusive or inhumane with bolt-action or lever-action guns as well. IMO hunters who rail on "military" weapons are sellouts to gun-grabbers.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
just a nitpick: the modern BAR has nothing in common with the the M1918 BAR.
The modern gun is a rotating bolt, gas operated semi auto. The classic Automatic Rifle has much more in common with the M240 than the BAR, with a toggling linkage providing the lockup.
The modern gun is a rotating bolt, gas operated semi auto. The classic Automatic Rifle has much more in common with the M240 than the BAR, with a toggling linkage providing the lockup.
Ad hominem aside, we're pro-gun, they're anti-gun. It is that simple.
I take a more enlightened view on hunting, since the dawn of time it has been about filling the freezer and more specifically these days badly needed white-tail population reduction. The ends justify the means, and the whole concept of sport gets in the way. I knew a "hunter" in Michigan who liked to hone his tracking skills, he would shoot for a non-fatal shot to wound, track them for a while and then finish them off with his 40 caliber handgun at close range. Im sure some of you sensitive types would cry foul, but it was his freezer and his deer tag.
Not how I'd do it, as it would be a waste of time.. but the deer got eaten in the end just the same.
-T
MCgunner
Member
Hunt with what you want. I prefer my Remington M7 to anything out there. It's light, powerful, and handy sized and shoots 1 MOA. It's also rugged, in stainless with a polymer stock. Some folks go so far as to snub anything without a checkered walnut stock. Everyone has their own idea of what they like. I don't drive Fords, but they haven't gone out of business on account of ME.
Cannonball888
Member
Miwitary wifles and assault wifles, oh my!
- Status