Post by: JJB11B on December 29, 2016, 11:21:37 AM
I absolutely believe that the Govt. should shut the heck up and quit tightening our noose and further restricting an already ridiculously regulated sport.
Post by: D-Rock425 on December 29, 2016, 11:47:27 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 29, 2016, 11:48:31 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 29, 2016, 11:49:23 AM
Post by: JJB11B on December 29, 2016, 11:51:17 AM
Post by: h20hunter on December 29, 2016, 11:57:06 AM
Post by: Henrydog on December 29, 2016, 12:01:23 PM
Post by: elkboy on December 29, 2016, 12:02:51 PM
Flintlocks and spears only.
Aww, c'mon, Piano, what about carving your own bow from a yew limb with your pocket knife the night before the opener, and cutting some wild rose shoots for arrows?
Seriously, though, is this really that controversial within the hunting community? I'm not a waterfowler, but we already have the magazine limitation for that. And for deer/elk, how many people are really skilled enough with follow-up shots to really have a major advantage conferred by the semiauto rifle? (That is an honest question, I promise.) I guess as someone who mostly hunts archery and muzzleloader, I don't think about this a whole lot, but I have no issue with semiauto rifles for modern firearm season.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 29, 2016, 12:03:05 PM
I voted for number three, clear winner. Im a perfect example. Clearly ive thrown money away on a gun that is not only scary, but has the ability to fire repeated barrages of rounds. Im the problem, sorry.:chuckle:
Post by: JJB11B on December 29, 2016, 12:06:37 PM
Semi- Autos are legal...I don't get itif you read through the .22 for deer thread you'll get it
Post by: Rainier10 on December 29, 2016, 12:08:31 PM
Semi- Autos are legal...I don't get itWe are discussing limiting hunter options. It's not just a fad, it's the American way. Welcome to the new world order. :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 29, 2016, 12:10:38 PM
Flintlocks and spears only.
Aww, c'mon, Piano, what about carving your own bow from a yew limb with your pocket knife the night before the opener, and cutting some wild rose shoots for arrows?
Seriously, though, is this really that controversial within the hunting community? I'm not a waterfowler, but we already have the magazine limitation for that. And for deer/elk, how many people are really skilled enough with follow-up shots to really have a major advantage conferred by the semiauto rifle? (That is an honest question, I promise.) I guess as someone who mostly hunts archery and muzzleloader, I don't think about this a whole lot, but I have no issue with semiauto rifles for modern firearm season.
This thread is an offshoot from the .22 caliber for deer thread, which went way off course. For 99.9% of the hunting community, things are fine they way they are. For bored (or liberal) people, let's please solve a problem which doesn't exist. :tup:
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 29, 2016, 12:11:02 PM
Post by: D-Rock425 on December 29, 2016, 12:26:20 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on December 29, 2016, 12:28:10 PM
AR's don't belong in the deer wood period I don't care what caliber it is.
Post by: JJB11B on December 29, 2016, 12:28:48 PM
AR's don't belong in the deer wood period I don't care what caliber it is.but they have collapsible stocks for short guys
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 29, 2016, 12:31:32 PM
And light recoil for the soft, sensitive types.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 29, 2016, 12:33:05 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 29, 2016, 12:33:19 PM
Post by: JJB11B on December 29, 2016, 12:34:12 PM
Oh yeah, don't forget...you can look like an "operator" with no risks of actually having to prove yourself if the stuff hits!!whats a operator?
Post by: Timberstalker on December 29, 2016, 12:35:09 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on December 29, 2016, 12:38:30 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 29, 2016, 12:39:18 PM
Oh yeah, don't forget...you can look like an "operator" with no risks of actually having to prove yourself if the stuff hits!!whats a operator?
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on December 29, 2016, 12:41:29 PM
Oh yeah, don't forget...you can look like an "operator" with no risks of actually having to prove yourself if the stuff hits!!whats a operator?
This is an operator.
Post by: Bob33 on December 29, 2016, 12:44:02 PM
This is why an organized effort to change the legal minimum caliber for deer is not a good idea, in my opinion. It brings to light all sorts of opposition to not only the proposed change, but the status quo.Flintlocks and spears only.
Aww, c'mon, Piano, what about carving your own bow from a yew limb with your pocket knife the night before the opener, and cutting some wild rose shoots for arrows?
Seriously, though, is this really that controversial within the hunting community? I'm not a waterfowler, but we already have the magazine limitation for that. And for deer/elk, how many people are really skilled enough with follow-up shots to really have a major advantage conferred by the semiauto rifle? (That is an honest question, I promise.) I guess as someone who mostly hunts archery and muzzleloader, I don't think about this a whole lot, but I have no issue with semiauto rifles for modern firearm season.
This thread is an offshoot from the .22 caliber for deer thread, which went way off course. For 99.9% of the hunting community, things are fine they way they are. For bored (or liberal) people, let's please solve a problem which doesn't exist. :tup:
Post by: JJB11B on December 29, 2016, 12:44:41 PM
Post by: konradcountry on December 30, 2016, 09:56:19 AM
I'm not a waterfowler, but we already have the magazine limitation for that. And for deer/elk, how many people are really skilled enough with follow-up shots to really have a major advantage conferred by the semiauto rifle? (That is an honest question, I promise.)
It's super easy if you have an AR and your goal is to get 1/10 bullets anywhere on a deer sized target.
But yes I would ban semi-autos from general because I don't consider them to be sporting and they inevitably lead to spray and pray. I would however exclude shotguns and classic rifles.
Someone suggested a round limit as a compromise. I could agree to that.
Post by: konradcountry on December 30, 2016, 10:14:34 AM
This thread is an offshoot from the .22 caliber for deer thread, which went way off course. For 99.9% of the hunting community, things are fine they way they are. For bored (or liberal) people, let's please solve a problem which doesn't exist. :tup:
The .22 cal poll is currently at 60/40. But somehow you ignored that and decided that 99.9% has the same opinion as you and anyone who disagrees must be bored or a liberal.
Anyone who disagrees with pianoman = commie vegan liberal who for some reason is hanging out on a hunting website and talking about gun caliber rules.
Right.
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 10:19:52 AM
Post by: grundy53 on December 30, 2016, 10:31:33 AM
I find them to be unsporting myself, but am not necessarily opposed to their legality. Anybody hunting south of I-10 here in Arizona is wise to be ready to encounter armed drug traffickers. I also had a pastor with a shoulder injury and the reduced recoil from the semi-auto action made shooting more comfortable. My church pastor.. hunting.. with a sport utility rifle. #'Merica #Arizona 8)How are they unsporting? They shoot the same as any other rifle.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 30, 2016, 10:43:05 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 30, 2016, 10:44:24 AM
They are no more unsporting than range finders, high-end glass, trail cams, bait, electronic calls, GPS, google, maps, . . . , the horseless carriage, . . . , smokeless powder, self-contained cartridges, rifling, . . . , sturdy boots . . . .Butbare they more unsporting than lighted nicks on arrows? :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on December 30, 2016, 10:45:22 AM
I'm not a waterfowler, but we already have the magazine limitation for that. And for deer/elk, how many people are really skilled enough with follow-up shots to really have a major advantage conferred by the semiauto rifle? (That is an honest question, I promise.)But yes I would ban semi-autos from general because I don't consider them to be sporting and they inevitably lead to spray and pray.
Someone suggested a round limit as a compromise.
Really? What about the Remington 740, 742, 7400, 750 series rifles?
Rifles don't "spray and pray", people do. Just because some unethical idiot makes a poor decision does not make it acceptable to limit my options. :twocents:
And why must we compromise???
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2016, 10:46:25 AM
They are no more unsporting than range finders, high-end glass, trail cams, bait, electronic calls, GPS, google, maps, . . . , the horseless carriage, . . . , smokeless powder, self-contained cartridges, rifling, . . . , sturdy boots . . . .It can be argued that it doesn't matter, but I suspect the general public doesn't see it that way.
The Seattle Times headline will read “Hunters seek to make automatic assault rifles legal for deer hunting”.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 30, 2016, 10:50:44 AM
Start with semi-auto rifles...
Then later somebody says "Hey! They can't use semi-auto rifles to hunt, so lets take semi-auto shotguns away. No need for them, pumps and single or doubles will be good enough!!
Then after that, someone says "Hey, lever and pump actions can be shot just as fast as a semi-auto, and they can't use those...so no need for anything other than a bolt action or single shot..."
And so on and on it goes, one little piece at a time is freely given up...
As has been said, either in this or one of the other .22 cal mimimum posts, there are truely better things to address and try and change than trying to fix what is really a non-existent problem.
If a shooter is too young, small, frail or just plain scared to shoot a .243/6mm, then maybe it is time to consider that person may need to either be older, get more training & shooting experience, or use any of the current semi-autos that are availible in those already legal calibers, which can include the beloved AR style.
Take the semi-auto option away and you have just lost some or most of those hunters...
If you want a true, pressing problem to address and expell energy on, how about access to places to actually hunt??
Maybe spend time effort and energy into getting something in place that stops the large private companies from landlocking publc lands accsess??
Work on mandating easements so that we can access "our" public land land without having to pay a fee to cross the private that blocks it.
That is fight worth fighting....
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 10:54:03 AM
I find them to be unsporting myself, but am not necessarily opposed to their legality. Anybody hunting south of I-10 here in Arizona is wise to be ready to encounter armed drug traffickers. I also had a pastor with a shoulder injury and the reduced recoil from the semi-auto action made shooting more comfortable. My church pastor.. hunting.. with a sport utility rifle. #'Merica #Arizona 8)How are they unsporting? They shoot the same as any other rifle.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Last I checked the cycle of operations on a bolt action rifle requires mechanical input from the user, as opposed to a bottom feeding sport utility rifle, which allows the user to blast away at a much higher rate.
I feel that if I was too sloppy to kill a deer with one pull of the trigger that the time I need to move my big dome out of the way and throw the bolt is good for self-reflection to rethink my life. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2016, 10:55:50 AM
Post by: JohnVH on December 30, 2016, 10:57:30 AM
Post by: Mongo Hunter on December 30, 2016, 10:57:56 AM
Ill give examples:
someone here mentioned no ARs at all regardless of caliber. All and AR is, is a fancy semi auto rifle. someone else said no semi auto rifles at all.
so theoretically lets say you get your way and they ban semi auto rifles from hunting...what's to stop them from going after semi auto shotguns next? or compound bows? or inline muzzleloaders? and so on and so on. shrinking the already small hunting community till we are so few we are irrelevant and hunting is band all together. or so little money is going towards conservation that catching poachers just becomes unrealistic and people loose interesting in lawful hunting.
If you don't want to use an AR, semi auto, compound bow, inline ect because you think its unsporting than don't use one. Don't put restrictions on me. I think we should be able to use optics on muzzleloaders as well, I don't see the drawbacks because it doesn't effect you now does it?
Individual rights people.
I don't like using the slippery slope argument because it can be made about anything but in this case I do see it happening. the governemtn doent like undoing restrictions once they have them in place.
and stop putting the AR in its own special category. its a semi auto rifle, nothing special besides they make a lot of stuff for it and it looks a certain way. big deal.
Post by: h2ofowlr on December 30, 2016, 10:58:02 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2016, 11:08:35 AM
I don't believe the value of engaging in an effort to legalize .22 centerfires for big game hunting is worth the fight and potentially adverse exposure.
Post by: huntnphool on December 30, 2016, 11:11:28 AM
I find them to be unsporting myself, but am not necessarily opposed to their legality. Anybody hunting south of I-10 here in Arizona is wise to be ready to encounter armed drug traffickers. I also had a pastor with a shoulder injury and the reduced recoil from the semi-auto action made shooting more comfortable. My church pastor.. hunting.. with a sport utility rifle. #'Merica #Arizona 8)How are they unsporting? They shoot the same as any other rifle.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Last I checked the cycle of operations on a bolt action rifle requires mechanical input from the user, as opposed to a bottom feeding sport utility rifle, which allows the user to blast away at a much higher rate.
I feel that if I was too sloppy to kill a deer with one pull of the trigger that the time I need to move my big dome out of the way and throw the bolt is good for self-reflection to rethink my life. :twocents:
I can fire, cycle another round and fire again with my Remington Model Six .308 pump faster than you can with your bolt rifle, does that mean pump action rifles should be banned too?
Sad that people cannot grasp the concept that taking anything, however small and seamingly insignificant is detrimental to the overall.
Start with semi-auto rifles...
Then later somebody says "Hey! They can't use semi-auto rifles to hunt, so lets take semi-auto shotguns away. No need for them, pumps and single or doubles will be good enough!!
Then after that, someone says "Hey, lever and pump actions can be shot just as fast as a semi-auto, and they can't use those...so no need for anything other than a bolt action or single shot..."
And so on and on it goes, one little piece at a time is freely given up...
As has been said, either in this or one of the other .22 cal mimimum posts, there are truely better things to address and try and change than trying to fix what is really a non-existent problem.
If a shooter is too young, small, frail or just plain scared to shoot a .243/6mm, then maybe it is time to consider that person may need to either be older, get more training & shooting experience, or use any of the current semi-autos that are availible in those already legal calibers, which can include the beloved AR style.
Take the semi-auto option away and you have just lost some or most of those hunters...
If you want a true, pressing problem to address and expell energy on, how about access to places to actually hunt??
Maybe spend time effort and energy into getting something in place that stops the large private companies from landlocking publc lands accsess??
Work on mandating easements so that we can access "our" public land land without having to pay a fee to cross the private that blocks it.
That is fight worth fighting....
Spot on!
Post by: ghosthunter on December 30, 2016, 11:19:51 AM
Sad that people cannot grasp the concept that taking anything, however small and seamingly insignificant is detrimental to the overall.
Start with semi-auto rifles...
Then later somebody says "Hey! They can't use semi-auto rifles to hunt, so lets take semi-auto shotguns away. No need for them, pumps and single or doubles will be good enough!!
Then after that, someone says "Hey, lever and pump actions can be shot just as fast as a semi-auto, and they can't use those...so no need for anything other than a bolt action or single shot..."
And so on and on it goes, one little piece at a time is freely given up...
As has been said, either in this or one of the other .22 cal mimimum posts, there are truely better things to address and try and change than trying to fix what is really a non-existent problem.
If a shooter is too young, small, frail or just plain scared to shoot a .243/6mm, then maybe it is time to consider that person may need to either be older, get more training & shooting experience, or use any of the current semi-autos that are availible in those already legal calibers, which can include the beloved AR style.
Take the semi-auto option away and you have just lost some or most of those hunters...
If you want a true, pressing problem to address and expell energy on, how about access to places to actually hunt??
Maybe spend time effort and energy into getting something in place that stops the large private companies from landlocking publc lands accsess??
Work on mandating easements so that we can access "our" public land land without having to pay a fee to cross the private that blocks it.
That is fight worth fighting....
:yeah:
I sold my 742 ,I had it for 40 years. But went to a pump many years ago.
But if you buy into limiting any firearms than you should move to the anti column.
How about we ban long range shooting ? It is the same old story people are the problem but everyone wants to ban some firearm.
How about we get back to ethics.
Post by: grundy53 on December 30, 2016, 11:37:09 AM
Why can't you kill with one shot if you are using a semi auto? Just because the rifle automatically reloads doesn't mean I'm going to be less ethical with my shot placement. Bad shots do happen. So why not use a rifle that allows a quicker follow up shot to put an animal down humanely. Why must an animal suffer longer so you can feel superior to others?I find them to be unsporting myself, but am not necessarily opposed to their legality. Anybody hunting south of I-10 here in Arizona is wise to be ready to encounter armed drug traffickers. I also had a pastor with a shoulder injury and the reduced recoil from the semi-auto action made shooting more comfortable. My church pastor.. hunting.. with a sport utility rifle. #'Merica #Arizona 8)How are they unsporting? They shoot the same as any other rifle.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Last I checked the cycle of operations on a bolt action rifle requires mechanical input from the user, as opposed to a bottom feeding sport utility rifle, which allows the user to blast away at a much higher rate.
I feel that if I was too sloppy to kill a deer with one pull of the trigger that the time I need to move my big dome out of the way and throw the bolt is good for self-reflection to rethink my life. :twocents:
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: northwesthunter84 on December 30, 2016, 11:37:38 AM
The biggest thing that everyone is arguing about right now is hunting ethics, which are very similar to values. These are individual things that are learned or that are innate to the individual. You have to remember that hunters have always throughout history utilized technical advances to there advantage. The changing of the tools is why these advances occur. So what we do is limit the number of animals that can be harvested and maintain a healthy population of the species without regard to method of harvest. Then we restrict the periods of hunting to certain months and further restrict the methods by number of hunters using said method and historical harvest rates. That is conservation. Otherwise we would kill everything.
As a community we need to focus on our purpose, which should be to continue this heritage for future generations, make it easy for them to learn and teach them what hunting is really about. Teach them that in this world of instant gratification, some of the best moments are those when you get nothing at all. That a sunny day on a ridge chasing elk or a soggy day sipping soup with you dad in a duck blind is better than any day where that is not a possibility. So as long as you are out there legally pursuing game, my hats are off to you ladies and gentlemen.
I decided to add this because based on reading a lot of posts on the forum, I think this also needs to be said. Nature is not "humane", we as hunters throw that word around to appease certain people, hunters just tend to be more "efficient" at killing and we call that humane. This goes back to the top of the post and the fact that a lot of people in this country are so far removed for nature that they have forgot that they are part of it until it bites them in the rear.
Post by: Holg3107 on December 30, 2016, 11:38:20 AM
a. Must be minimum of .24 caliber (6 mm).
b. Must have a minimum 16-inch barrel and be at least 26 inches long.
c. If semiautomatic, a maximum of six rounds are allowed in the magazine and chamber combined.
d. Must use expanding bullets that weigh minimum 70 grains for deer, pronghorn and bear, 85 grains for elk and moose, and have an impact energy (at 100 yards) of 1,000-ft.-pounds as rated by manufacturer.
This eliminates most of the is the issues people have with the semi-auto / .22 caliber rules. Growing up in CO I can tell you that no one that I know of had an issue with these regs for firearms. It makes the "spray and pray" a non issue as well.
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 11:46:15 AM
Why can't you kill with one shot if you are using a semi auto? Just because the rifle automatically reloads doesn't mean I'm going to be less ethical with my shot placement. Bad shots do happen. So why not use a rifle that allows a quicker follow up shot to put an animal down humanely. Why must an animal suffer longer so you can feel superior to others?I find them to be unsporting myself, but am not necessarily opposed to their legality. Anybody hunting south of I-10 here in Arizona is wise to be ready to encounter armed drug traffickers. I also had a pastor with a shoulder injury and the reduced recoil from the semi-auto action made shooting more comfortable. My church pastor.. hunting.. with a sport utility rifle. #'Merica #Arizona 8)How are they unsporting? They shoot the same as any other rifle.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Last I checked the cycle of operations on a bolt action rifle requires mechanical input from the user, as opposed to a bottom feeding sport utility rifle, which allows the user to blast away at a much higher rate.
I feel that if I was too sloppy to kill a deer with one pull of the trigger that the time I need to move my big dome out of the way and throw the bolt is good for self-reflection to rethink my life. :twocents:
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I'm pretty sure most bow hunters (I am elk hunter 100% with the bow) would find bow hunting more sporting than rifle hunting. Do you go accuse them of wanting to feel superior to rifle hunters?
Just based on my personal experience I've killed a lot more deer with my bolt action rifle than any of the hunters that I've hunted with that use ARs. Much like photography with a tripod or a film camera, I think the inherent nature of a bolt action rifle causes me to slow down and be more intentional in minding the wind, elevation, and yardage. I'd bet dimes to dollars that there are far more injured "less humane" kills from AR hunters than bolt action rifle hunters. To me, its even apparent at the range. I'd only fire 25-30 rounds at a practice session at the range prior to the season and the aforementioned pastor would fire 75-100 rounds :rolleyes:
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 11:48:18 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 30, 2016, 12:01:41 PM
Now your a better hunter because you practice with less shots at the range? Give me a brake... what does that make me? Sometimes I'll take my bolt gun out and shoot 100 in a trip to the range. I must be a real bad hunter and shot since it takes me 100 rounds to practice and you can practice in only 25-30... :bash:Why can't you kill with one shot if you are using a semi auto? Just because the rifle automatically reloads doesn't mean I'm going to be less ethical with my shot placement. Bad shots do happen. So why not use a rifle that allows a quicker follow up shot to put an animal down humanely. Why must an animal suffer longer so you can feel superior to others?I find them to be unsporting myself, but am not necessarily opposed to their legality. Anybody hunting south of I-10 here in Arizona is wise to be ready to encounter armed drug traffickers. I also had a pastor with a shoulder injury and the reduced recoil from the semi-auto action made shooting more comfortable. My church pastor.. hunting.. with a sport utility rifle. #'Merica #Arizona 8)How are they unsporting? They shoot the same as any other rifle.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Last I checked the cycle of operations on a bolt action rifle requires mechanical input from the user, as opposed to a bottom feeding sport utility rifle, which allows the user to blast away at a much higher rate.
I feel that if I was too sloppy to kill a deer with one pull of the trigger that the time I need to move my big dome out of the way and throw the bolt is good for self-reflection to rethink my life. :twocents:
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I'm pretty sure most bow hunters (I am elk hunter 100% with the bow) would find bow hunting more sporting than rifle hunting. Do you go accuse them of wanting to feel superior to rifle hunters?
Just based on my personal experience I've killed a lot more deer with my bolt action rifle than any of the hunters that I've hunted with that use ARs. Much like photography with a tripod or a film camera, I think the inherent nature of a bolt action rifle causes me to slow down and be more intentional in minding the wind, elevation, and yardage. I'd bet dimes to dollars that there are far more injured "less humane" kills from AR hunters than bolt action rifle hunters. To me, its even apparent at the range. I'd only fire 25-30 rounds at a practice session at the range prior to the season and the aforementioned pastor would fire 75-100 rounds :rolleyes:
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 12:36:01 PM
Major John Plaster, who wrote The Ultimate Sniper (http://ultimatesniper.com/), is an advocate of shooting no more than 30 or so rounds at a training session. In his book he writes that there should be a very specific, intentional purpose for every round fired at the range. Serendipitously plugging rounds downrange, according to him, is not only unhelpful but counter productive.
Post by: huntnphool on December 30, 2016, 12:41:51 PM
Major John Plaster, who wrote The Ultimate Sniper (http://ultimatesniper.com/), is an advocate of shooting no more than 30 or so rounds at a training session. In his book he writes that there should be a very specific, intentional purpose for every round fired at the range. Serendipitously plugging rounds downrange, according to him, is not only unhelpful but counter productive.
I'll tell that to my kids the next time they want to grab their "bucket O bullets" and go plinking.
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 12:44:18 PM
Major John Plaster, who wrote The Ultimate Sniper (http://ultimatesniper.com/), is an advocate of shooting no more than 30 or so rounds at a training session. In his book he writes that there should be a very specific, intentional purpose for every round fired at the range. Serendipitously plugging rounds downrange, according to him, is not only unhelpful but counter productive.
I'll tell that to my kids the next time they want to grab their "bucket O bullets" and go plinking.
Plinking is different than training for precision marksmanship.
:twocents:
Post by: h20hunter on December 30, 2016, 12:45:54 PM
Post by: JDHasty on December 30, 2016, 12:56:08 PM
I have said that I will NEVER leave Tacoma again to go rock chuck or grey digger shooting with anyone who has a Ruger 10/22 in their possession. Does this mean that I want to see them banned? No, it means that experience has taught me that inviting anyone chuck or digger shooting on certain properties, who has a Ruger 10/22 in their hands, is an invitation to loosing access to property that I have spent years cultivating. Ergo, if you are going chuck or digger shooting on a property that I have access on, you are simply not free bring a Ruger 10/22 along. Period, and I am not going to discuss it.
Why volley fire has never been an issue with a Marlin Model 60 or 75 or a Browning SA 22, Winchester 63 or a Weatherby Mark XXII and it seems to be a universal with a 10/22, I cannot say. But it has never been with the former and it is almost a given with the latter. The Ruger 10/22 dynamic is what it is and I just accept it for what experience has shown can be expected if anyone is allowed to bring along Ruger 10/22.
It doesn't seem to matter if the 10/22 is in the hands of someone in their fifties or if it is in the hands of a fifteen-year old.
It does not matter how many times it is said before leaving the vehicle that anything greater than one shot per second will not be tolerated PERIOD... I can almost guarantee you that if anyone has a Ruger 10/22 that within the first hour I will be making a couple hundred yard to quarter-mile run to shut down some idiot who just cannot understand that when you are told to shoot no more than one round per second they cannot understand what that means.
And to make it clear, I am not talking about taking a couple quick shots in succession, I am talking about emptying a magazine, inserting a fresh, fully charged magazine, and taking up where they left off.
Post by: huntnphool on December 30, 2016, 12:58:22 PM
Major John Plaster, who wrote The Ultimate Sniper (http://ultimatesniper.com/), is an advocate of shooting no more than 30 or so rounds at a training session. In his book he writes that there should be a very specific, intentional purpose for every round fired at the range. Serendipitously plugging rounds downrange, according to him, is not only unhelpful but counter productive.
I'll tell that to my kids the next time they want to grab their "bucket O bullets" and go plinking.
Combined with your Cruz blather, you are sounding more and more elitist every day.
Plinking is different than training for precision marksmanship.
:chuckle: Exactly, I wouldn't say someone sending 75-100 rounds down range with a AR is "training for precision marksmanship" either.
beans wrote
Quote
I'd bet dimes to dollars that there are far more injured "less humane" kills from AR hunters than bolt action rifle hunters. To me, its even apparent at the range. I'd only fire 25-30 rounds at a practice session at the range prior to the season and the aforementioned pastor would fire 75-100 rounds :rolleyes:
So your comparison and arguement are really apples and oranges! :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2016, 01:01:24 PM
Olympia, WA
A fist fight broke out today between hunters at a meeting of the Washington Fish and Game Commission. Several hunters suffered minor injuries; one was taken to a local hospital for further evaluation.
The Commission held a public hearing on a proposal to legalize the use of .22 centerfire rifles for deer hunting in Washington. Currently, the minimum caliber is .24.
When one attendant addressed the Commission with an opinion that the minimum standard should not be lowered, he was immediately gang tackled by several other hunters in attendance. Punches were thrown, which caused a temporary free for all.
Several members of PETA, an anti-hunting organization, were in attendance to speak out against the cruelty of hunting in general. After the fight started, they were seen in the lobby munching organic vegetarian sandwiches, drinking free-trade shade-grown coffee, and laughing at the spectacle of hunters fighting among themselves.
One stated that "we came to put a stop to hunting, but then realized hunters are doing it for us."
Post by: grundy53 on December 30, 2016, 01:09:28 PM
I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."That would have been better. However, I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on December 30, 2016, 01:13:55 PM
I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
+1
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 01:14:36 PM
I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."That would have been better. However, I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
I agree. Sportsmanship is not forthcoming from the tools one uses.
I maintain that its more a sporting challenge to use a bow than a rifle, as well that the folks that use a traditional bow are more sporting than hunters like me with the training wheels. :hello:
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2016, 01:35:05 PM
If ethics are only within a hunter, should night vision scopes/aircraft/artificial lights/radio telemetry equipment/motor powered boats/drones/.etc be allowed?I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."That would have been better. However, I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I believe that some degree of regulation is appropriate.
Post by: grundy53 on December 30, 2016, 01:48:46 PM
Never said there shouldn't be regulation. Just stating that a semi auto rifle won't make an ethical hunter become unethical. The same way a bolt action doesn't make an unethical hunter ethical.If ethics are only within a hunter, should night vision scopes/aircraft/artificial lights/radio telemetry equipment/motor powered boats/drones/.etc be allowed?I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."That would have been better. However, I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I believe that some degree of regulation is appropriate.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on December 30, 2016, 01:53:03 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 02:00:06 PM
If ethics are only within a hunter, should night vision scopes/aircraft/artificial lights/radio telemetry equipment/motor powered boats/drones/.etc be allowed?I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."That would have been better. However, I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I believe that some degree of regulation is appropriate.
That's a good question. if you asked hunters 50 years ago if an unmanned, tree mounted camera with heat/motion based activation should be allowed my guess is the overwhelming consensus would be a "h-e-double-hockey-sticks no." I own three myself that I haven't used for a while, but at what point do we legislate ethics? :dunno:
Post by: Woodchuck on December 30, 2016, 02:01:39 PM
Can't be done.If ethics are only within a hunter, should night vision scopes/aircraft/artificial lights/radio telemetry equipment/motor powered boats/drones/.etc be allowed?I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."That would have been better. However, I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I believe that some degree of regulation is appropriate.
That's a good question. if you asked hunters 50 years ago if an unmanned, tree mounted camera with heat/motion based activation should be allowed my guess is the overwhelming consensus would be a "h-e-double-hockey-sticks no." I own three myself that I haven't used for a while, but at what point do we legislate ethics? :dunno:
Post by: Skillet on December 30, 2016, 02:02:27 PM
If ethics are only within a hunter, should night vision scopes/aircraft/artificial lights/radio telemetry equipment/motor powered boats/drones/.etc be allowed?I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."That would have been better. However, I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I believe that some degree of regulation is appropriate.
If it's legal or not has little to do with whether it is ethical or not. There is often overlap, but they are two different things. The legal status of hunting methods/tools are usually meant to prevent an undue advantage in the sportsman's favor, or to prevent undue suffering of the game animal. In a sense, the rules are meant to ensure a minimum of ethical behavior - but whose ethics are we using as the baseline to create laws to enforce? Advocating for something other than what I feel is ethical seems... unethical to me. But I at least have the wherewithal to know that the ethics that were instilled by me during my hunting upbringing, in addition to those that I've developed during a lifetime of hunting, are not the same for everybody. I cannot fault a guy for wanting a quick follow-up shot, even though I like to think the most ethical thing is the one shot kill (which I have not always been successful at achieving, admittedly).
These arguments about changing the legality of calibers, semi's (AR platforms, really - noticed not many people saying BAR's don't belong in the woods), lighted nocks, shooting toms out of the roost, etc., are really just hunters judging other hunters for having different ethics than themselves. I don't think it's very helpful to discuss in terms of laws. It is a discussion of ethics, and one I would think hunters would be proud to have with other hunters without going on the attack and vilifying their fellow hunters for not sharing the same ethical code verbatim.
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 02:15:23 PM
I find them to be unsporting myself, but am not necessarily opposed to their legality. Anybody hunting south of I-10 here in Arizona is wise to be ready to encounter armed drug traffickers. I also had a pastor with a shoulder injury and the reduced recoil from the semi-auto action made shooting more comfortable. My church pastor.. hunting.. with a sport utility rifle. #'Merica #Arizona 8)
Major John Plaster, who wrote The Ultimate Sniper (http://ultimatesniper.com/), is an advocate of shooting no more than 30 or so rounds at a training session. In his book he writes that there should be a very specific, intentional purpose for every round fired at the range. Serendipitously plugging rounds downrange, according to him, is not only unhelpful but counter productive.
I'll tell that to my kids the next time they want to grab their "bucket O bullets" and go plinking.
Plinking is different than training for precision marksmanship.
:chuckle: Exactly, I wouldn't say someone sending 75-100 rounds down range with a AR is "training for precision marksmanship" either.
Well we were supposed to be more getting ready for hunting than plinking. And again, I'm a better shot with a rifle AND a bow than he. Take a guess how he injured his shoulder :chuckle:
Be it arrows or bullets, shooting 30 rounds in a session is generally enough, and going over 40 would just be ridiculous, for how I hunt.
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2016, 02:20:20 PM
We can't use night vision scopes, or radio telemetry equipment to track animals, or shoot ducks from a motor powered boat, or a whole host of other regulations that restrict hunting methods. Why is that?Can't be done.If ethics are only within a hunter, should night vision scopes/aircraft/artificial lights/radio telemetry equipment/motor powered boats/drones/.etc be allowed?I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."That would have been better. However, I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I believe that some degree of regulation is appropriate.
That's a good question. if you asked hunters 50 years ago if an unmanned, tree mounted camera with heat/motion based activation should be allowed my guess is the overwhelming consensus would be a "h-e-double-hockey-sticks no." I own three myself that I haven't used for a while, but at what point do we legislate ethics? :dunno:
Post by: Skillet on December 30, 2016, 02:22:07 PM
I agree 100% with this.If ethics are only within a hunter, should night vision scopes/aircraft/artificial lights/radio telemetry equipment/motor powered boats/drones/.etc be allowed?I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."That would have been better. However, I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I believe that some degree of regulation is appropriate.
That's a good question. if you asked hunters 50 years ago if an unmanned, tree mounted camera with heat/motion based activation should be allowed my guess is the overwhelming consensus would be a "h-e-double-hockey-sticks no." I own three myself that I haven't used for a while, but at what point do we legislate ethics? :dunno:
I think we should keep in mind the continual advance of technology is moving the "ethics" needle in terms of equipment that is legal to be used, and confusing the ethics of technique (shot selection, appropriate range, etc). Most hunters are gear junkies, and want to have cool stuff to use. The marketing departments of manufacturer's depend on our insatiable need to up our odds or increase our enjoyment of our time in the field.
90% of these discussions are centered around equipment advances and their legality, with the ethics of using/not using the equipment as the argument hunters use to advocate for their side.
The most recent one I can think of that resulted in legislative change is the expandable broadheads. Is the Ulmer Edge unethical in and of itself? Or is the hunter using it allowing himself an extra 20 yards because of his confidence in the flight characteristics unethical? Or is he still ethical if he allows the extra 20 yards based on his knowledge that he will pass on shots that are not optimal for the expandable at any range? And ultimately, how can you legislate for that guy's shot discipline, and another's lack of shot discipline?
Really interesting discussion here, and one that has boosted my confidence in HuntWa members' ethical baselines - and simultaneously eroded my confidence in our members' ability to or willingness to accept that their own ethics aren't the right ones for everybody else in every case.
Post by: Skillet on December 30, 2016, 02:26:09 PM
We can't use night vision scopes, or radio telemetry equipment to track animals, or shoot ducks from a motor powered boat, or a whole host of other regulations that restrict hunting methods. Why is that?Can't be done.If ethics are only within a hunter, should night vision scopes/aircraft/artificial lights/radio telemetry equipment/motor powered boats/drones/.etc be allowed?I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."That would have been better. However, I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I believe that some degree of regulation is appropriate.
That's a good question. if you asked hunters 50 years ago if an unmanned, tree mounted camera with heat/motion based activation should be allowed my guess is the overwhelming consensus would be a "h-e-double-hockey-sticks no." I own three myself that I haven't used for a while, but at what point do we legislate ethics? :dunno:
These seem far-out and unreasonable right now, just as lighted nocks, expandable broadheads, inline muzzleloaders and handguns that develop less than X number of ft. lbs of energy did just a few years ago.
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 02:32:01 PM
Really interesting discussion here, and one that has boosted my confidence in HuntWa members' ethical baselines - and simultaneously eroded my confidence in our members' ability to or willingness to accept that their own ethics aren't the right ones for everybody else in every case.
Well if you remember what I first posted in this discussion, I don't think ARs should be outlawed for hunting, so that my former pastor who injured his shoulder by shooting too many arrows could still shoot a rifle too many times at the range and on the hunt, but I wont use one because of my own personal standards :chuckle:
I find them to beunsportingerratum: less sporty myself, but am not necessarily opposed to their legality. Anybody hunting south of I-10 here in Arizona is wise to be ready to encounter armed drug traffickers. I also had a pastor with a shoulder injury and the reduced recoil from the semi-auto action made shooting more comfortable. My church pastor.. hunting.. with a sport utility rifle. #'Merica #Arizona 8)
Post by: Skillet on December 30, 2016, 02:40:07 PM
Really interesting discussion here, and one that has boosted my confidence in HuntWa members' ethical baselines - and simultaneously eroded my confidence in our members' ability to or willingness to accept that their own ethics aren't the right ones for everybody else in every case.
Well if you remember what I first posted in this discussion, I don't think ARs should be outlawed for hunting, so that my former pastor who injured his shoulder by shooting too many arrows could still shoot a rifle too many times at the range and on the hunt, but I wont use one because of my own personal standards :chuckle:
I find them to beunsportingerratum: less sporty myself, but am not necessarily opposed to their legality. Anybody hunting south of I-10 here in Arizona is wise to be ready to encounter armed drug traffickers. I also had a pastor with a shoulder injury and the reduced recoil from the semi-auto action made shooting more comfortable. My church pastor.. hunting.. with a sport utility rifle. #'Merica #Arizona 8)
I don't see myself ever using one to hunt big game with either. Not because they offer a quick follow-up shots like a BAR, or are so scary looking either :rolleyes:, but because they tend to weigh a ton more than a lightweight bolt gun. Plus, I can't even imagine trying to move through some of the very brushy terrain that I've hunted with one. Look at all those edges & protrusions for twigs and branches to snag on. No thanks -
Post by: konradcountry on December 30, 2016, 02:43:00 PM
Sad that people cannot grasp the concept that taking anything, however small and seamingly insignificant is detrimental to the overall.
I understand the slippery slope argument. But Washington's caliber rule doesn't make sense and should be changed. In the other thread I suggested allowing 223 for deer as long as semi-autos are restricted. That is what started the debate.
Then later somebody says "Hey! They can't use semi-auto rifles to hunt, so lets take semi-auto shotguns away. No need for them, pumps and single or doubles will be good enough!!
But that argument is harder to make since you have to get a lot closer with a shotgun. It really isn't an advantage over a bolt action rifle that can shoot 400 yards if the goal is to get the deer.
As has been said, either in this or one of the other .22 cal mimimum posts, there are truely better things to address and try and change than trying to fix what is really a non-existent problem.
There is a problem. I can hunt deer with my 9mm Glock but not my scoped 223 rifle. Which is more likely to miss? Washington's caliber rule is crude and should be changed.
Take the semi-auto option away and you have just lost some or most of those hunters...
I don't believe that at all. The cost of a big game license in our state is nearly half that of a cheap 243. They would just switch.
Maybe spend time effort and energy into getting something in place that stops the large private companies from landlocking publc lands accsess??
I have thought about this problem as well.
Post by: konradcountry on December 30, 2016, 02:58:21 PM
I think we should keep in mind the continual advance of technology is moving the "ethics" needle in terms of equipment that is legal to be used, and confusing the ethics of technique (shot selection, appropriate range, etc). Most hunters are gear junkies, and want to have cool stuff to use. The marketing departments of manufacturer's depend on our insatiable need to up our odds or increase our enjoyment of our time in the field.
I see there being two ethics issues:
1. Advantages that reduce the amount of sport of the hunt
2. Considerations to encourage the ethical kill of the prey
AR-15s fall into both categories which is why they can't be simply compared to night cameras. We just saw someone in this thread talk about how he has seen people unload 10/22s at grouse. Spray and pray happens and it will only be encouraged if we allow in the AR-15 for big game. So there are two levels of consideration. One for the sport, the other for the prey.
I have an AR-15 and I know how easy it is to put a volley of shots down range. It isn't like semi-automatic shotguns or grandpa's semi-auto 3006. There are youtube videos where 10 year olds hit 200 yard targets on their first try. I would vote to keep them out and if anyone here disagrees then explain your position instead of getting emotional and calling people names or questioning their dedication to hunting.
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 03:00:43 PM
Really interesting discussion here, and one that has boosted my confidence in HuntWa members' ethical baselines - and simultaneously eroded my confidence in our members' ability to or willingness to accept that their own ethics aren't the right ones for everybody else in every case.
Well if you remember what I first posted in this discussion, I don't think ARs should be outlawed for hunting, so that my former pastor who injured his shoulder by shooting too many arrows could still shoot a rifle too many times at the range and on the hunt, but I wont use one because of my own personal standards :chuckle:
I find them to beunsportingerratum: less sporty myself, but am not necessarily opposed to their legality. Anybody hunting south of I-10 here in Arizona is wise to be ready to encounter armed drug traffickers. I also had a pastor with a shoulder injury and the reduced recoil from the semi-auto action made shooting more comfortable. My church pastor.. hunting.. with a sport utility rifle. #'Merica #Arizona 8)
I don't see myself ever using one to hunt big game with either. Not because they offer a quick follow-up shots like a BAR, or are so scary looking either :rolleyes:, but because they tend to weigh a ton more than a lightweight bolt gun. Plus, I can't even imagine trying to move through some of the very brushy terrain that I've hunted with one. Look at all those edges & protrusions for twigs and branches to snag on. No thanks -
There's also the fact that the tolerances in a semi-auto are more loose, as opposed to the snug fit of that delicious bolt being locked down into place, which means more tighter groups, ceteris paribus.
I also spent $300 on my first hunting rifle and $200 on my second, but have never seen even an entry level AR in .223 for less than $500 (and up for an AR-10). I also have an ethos of spending as little as practical on a weapon system and ammo so that I can spend as much as I can on optics :)
Post by: Woodchuck on December 30, 2016, 03:10:31 PM
That still doesn't change an individual's ethical compass. You can't legislate personal beliefs. You can make it illegal, but that doesn't even stop some people.We can't use night vision scopes, or radio telemetry equipment to track animals, or shoot ducks from a motor powered boat, or a whole host of other regulations that restrict hunting methods. Why is that?Can't be done.If ethics are only within a hunter, should night vision scopes/aircraft/artificial lights/radio telemetry equipment/motor powered boats/drones/.etc be allowed?I probably should have used the phrase "less sporting" than "unsporting."That would have been better. However, I still believe that the sportsmanship/ethics are within the hunter not the tool he uses.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I believe that some degree of regulation is appropriate.
That's a good question. if you asked hunters 50 years ago if an unmanned, tree mounted camera with heat/motion based activation should be allowed my guess is the overwhelming consensus would be a "h-e-double-hockey-sticks no." I own three myself that I haven't used for a while, but at what point do we legislate ethics? :dunno:
Post by: Bean Counter on December 30, 2016, 03:17:49 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on December 30, 2016, 03:21:57 PM
Ethics according to some, include doing what's right, even if doing what's "wrong" is still legal.Exactly and that can't be legislated IMO.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 30, 2016, 03:27:09 PM
Sad that people cannot grasp the concept that taking anything, however small and seamingly insignificant is detrimental to the overall.
I understand the slippery slope argument. But Washington's caliber rule doesn't make sense and should be changed. In the other thread I suggested allowing 223 for deer as long as semi-autos are restricted. That is what started the debate.Then later somebody says "Hey! They can't use semi-auto rifles to hunt, so lets take semi-auto shotguns away. No need for them, pumps and single or doubles will be good enough!!
But that argument is harder to make since you have to get a lot closer with a shotgun. It really isn't an advantage over a bolt action rifle that can shoot 400 yards if the goal is to get the deer.As has been said, either in this or one of the other .22 cal mimimum posts, there are truely better things to address and try and change than trying to fix what is really a non-existent problem.
There is a problem. I can hunt deer with my 9mm Glock but not my scoped 223 rifle. Which is more likely to miss? Washington's caliber rule is crude and should be changed.Take the semi-auto option away and you have just lost some or most of those hunters...
I don't believe that at all. The cost of a big game license in our state is nearly half that of a cheap 243. They would just switch.Maybe spend time effort and energy into getting something in place that stops the large private companies from landlocking publc lands accsess??
I have thought about this problem as well.
I don't believe you have given the slippery slope factor enough consideration, if you had, you would not have responded to the second part about shotguns in the manner that you did...
Where does it say anywhere I was talking about shotguns for deer???? Please point that out, since part of the slippery slope danger is that it effects all aspects of something... that includes waterfowl. upland birds, small game, predators, etc.
In regards to the 9mm Glock example. If you are taking semi-automatics away, it could end up meaning all of them... no more Glocks allowed out in the woods because someone may use one to dispatch a wounded animal which could also mean no more Glocks out in the woods period during hunting season... again, that slippery slope effect.
In regards to my comment: "Take the semi-auto option away and you have just lost some or most of those hunters..."
Based on your response: "I don't believe that at all. The cost of a big game license in our state is nearly half that of a cheap 243. They would just switch."
I don't think you have even a remote grasp of what was written. Sorry, but the point of that comment was that if there are no semi-autos, exactly what are they to switch to?? What are their choices if the milder recoiling semi-auto is taken away...just suffer through or quit hunting??
As far as thinking about the access issue, that is awesome!!! But if something isn't done to correct it, sooner than later there will be precious few places to hunt that don't have a hunter every 50 feet or two dozen trying to watch the same clear cut.
Your enthusiam for change is commendable, but to severly limit or exclude other user groups just because of said wanted change is not beneficial to the greater good.
We have so many that are trying to eliminate hunting and the tools we use, from so many different angles and approaches, why is it that the most potential damage can and often does, come from within our own ranks???
@konradcountry. Still waiting for a response with your opinions on my rebuttal...
Post by: Skillet on December 30, 2016, 03:58:45 PM
I see there being two ethics issues:
1. Advantages that reduce the amount of sport of the hunt
2. Considerations to encourage the ethical kill of the prey
AR-15s fall into both categories which is why they can't be simply compared to night cameras. We just saw someone in this thread talk about how he has seen people unload 10/22s at grouse. Spray and pray happens and it will only be encouraged if we allow in the AR-15 for big game. So there are two levels of consideration. One for the sport, the other for the prey.
I have an AR-15 and I know how easy it is to put a volley of shots down range. It isn't like semi-automatic shotguns or grandpa's semi-auto 3006. There are youtube videos where 10 year olds hit 200 yard targets on their first try. I would vote to keep them out and if anyone here disagrees then explain your position instead of getting emotional and calling people names or questioning their dedication to hunting.
I disagree wholeheartedly, and as stated I can't imagine myself using an AR platform for big game hunting. A semi-auto anything functions like any other semi-auto anything - pull trigger repeatedly to operate. My A-5 or grandpa's semi-auto 30-06 is the same as an AR platform in the functional respect. It is a red herring to say that the style of the semi auto gun changes the equation. Keeping black guns out of hunting because of style is the wrong answer to the ethics question.
Ethics according to some, include doing what's right, even if doing what's "wrong" is still legal.Exactly and that can't be legislated IMO.
Exactly this. In addition, sometimes ethics demand you do what's right even though it is technically illegal. I dispatched a deer within city limits after it had been hit by a car - even though it was technically illegal for me to do so. Multiple compound fractures, loss of an eye, some of his insides ending up on the outside and his not being able to stand up on his two remaining legs made it a no-brainer for me (dates and time withheld to protect... me).
Personal hunting ethics come from being taught/mentored by respected hunters. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that a person has been exposed to ethical discussion before they buy that tag. So, as mentioned before, I think it is appropriate there should be some baseline rules to prevent the undue suffering of game.
Example - The .24 cal min was instituted long before the high weight retention, premium bullet technology came along. That shifted the landscape, and has (imho) made a heavy-for-caliber monolithic/bonded bullet out of a centerfire .22 cal at least an equal to a standard cup-and-core .24 cal. I think there is room for adjustment as technology improves without compromising what most would consider good hunting ethics.
Post by: huntnphool on December 30, 2016, 04:37:06 PM
Spray and pray happens and it will only be encouraged if we allow in the AR-15 for big game.
I think we should keep in mind the continual advance of technology is moving the "ethics" needle in terms of equipment that is legal to be used, and confusing the ethics of technique (shot selection, appropriate range, etc). Most hunters are gear junkies, and want to have cool stuff to use. The marketing departments of manufacturer's depend on our insatiable need to up our odds or increase our enjoyment of our time in the field.
I would vote to keep them out and if anyone here disagrees then explain your position
In a nutshell you are arguing the number of shots fired in a given time period.
Perhaps we should restrict the number of shots you can legally take within a given time period, say 1 every 10 seconds or 6 within a minutes time.
We have all heard "that guy" taking 6....8....10 shots during hunting season, it's almost as though you can picture exactly what's going on. Bang......oops I missed, open bolt and jack in another shell......bang......missed again, open bolt and jack in another shell......bang, etc, etc etc.
So even "bolt action" hunters "spray and pray", its not the action in the firearm that's the issue!!!
But why stop with semi auto's, why not simply ban everything except single shot rifles for hunting? Wouldn't bother me a bit, maybe then I'd take my Cooper out of the safe, but how many other people would be okay with that decision, would you?
Post by: bradleyr001 on December 30, 2016, 04:51:35 PM
I see there being two ethics issues:
1. Advantages that reduce the amount of sport of the hunt
2. Considerations to encourage the ethical kill of the prey
AR-15s fall into both categories which is why they can't be simply compared to night cameras. We just saw someone in this thread talk about how he has seen people unload 10/22s at grouse. Spray and pray happens and it will only be encouraged if we allow in the AR-15 for big game. So there are two levels of consideration. One for the sport, the other for the prey.
I have an AR-15 and I know how easy it is to put a volley of shots down range. It isn't like semi-automatic shotguns or grandpa's semi-auto 3006. There are youtube videos where 10 year olds hit 200 yard targets on their first try. I would vote to keep them out and if anyone here disagrees then explain your position instead of getting emotional and calling people names or questioning their dedication to hunting.
I disagree wholeheartedly, and as stated I can't imagine myself using an AR platform for big game hunting. A semi-auto anything functions like any other semi-auto anything - pull trigger repeatedly to operate. My A-5 or grandpa's semi-auto 30-06 is the same as an AR platform in the functional respect. It is a red herring to say that the style of the semi auto gun changes the equation. Keeping black guns out of hunting because of style is the wrong answer to the ethics question.Ethics according to some, include doing what's right, even if doing what's "wrong" is still legal.Exactly and that can't be legislated IMO.
Exactly this. In addition, sometimes ethics demand you do what's right even though it is technically illegal. I dispatched a deer within city limits after it had been hit by a car - even though it was technically illegal for me to do so. Multiple compound fractures, loss of an eye, some of his insides ending up on the outside and his not being able to stand up on his two remaining legs made it a no-brainer for me (dates and time withheld to protect... me).
Personal hunting ethics come from being taught/mentored by respected hunters. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that a person has been exposed to ethical discussion before they buy that tag. So, as mentioned before, I think it is appropriate there should be some baseline rules to prevent the undue suffering of game.
Example - The .24 cal min was instituted long before the high weight retention, premium bullet technology came along. That shifted the landscape, and has (imho) made a heavy-for-caliber monolithic/bonded bullet out of a centerfire .22 cal at least an equal to a standard cup-and-core .24 cal. I think there is room for adjustment as technology improves without compromising what most would consider good hunting ethics.
A very well written reply Skillet.
For some that are comparing price tags of AR's to $2-300 bolt guns, I can assure you there are hundreds of companies out there making custom bolt action guns with $3000-6000 price tags with months long backlogs. An expensive AR can be built for much less.
There are also some talking about the accuracy of AR's and their fit & finish aspect. Again, there are AR's that rival the most expensive and accurate custom bolt gun in respect to fit & finish and will shoot .5 moa all day long.
The bottom line is that further regulating and limiting law abiding hunters will not eliminate unethical or even illegal hunting practices by others. Ethics are internal to each individual human, adding more regulations or rules won't shower them in pixie dust and magically make someone ethical that is not. Train them young, show them ethical behavior as a major part of hunter education programs and parent/grandparent/relative experiences and instill in the next generation of hunters ethical behavior in and out of the field.
Post by: huntnphool on December 30, 2016, 04:54:39 PM
I see there being two ethics issues:
1. Advantages that reduce the amount of sport of the hunt
2. Considerations to encourage the ethical kill of the prey
AR-15s fall into both categories which is why they can't be simply compared to night cameras. We just saw someone in this thread talk about how he has seen people unload 10/22s at grouse. Spray and pray happens and it will only be encouraged if we allow in the AR-15 for big game. So there are two levels of consideration. One for the sport, the other for the prey.
I have an AR-15 and I know how easy it is to put a volley of shots down range. It isn't like semi-automatic shotguns or grandpa's semi-auto 3006. There are youtube videos where 10 year olds hit 200 yard targets on their first try. I would vote to keep them out and if anyone here disagrees then explain your position instead of getting emotional and calling people names or questioning their dedication to hunting.
I disagree wholeheartedly, and as stated I can't imagine myself using an AR platform for big game hunting. A semi-auto anything functions like any other semi-auto anything - pull trigger repeatedly to operate. My A-5 or grandpa's semi-auto 30-06 is the same as an AR platform in the functional respect. It is a red herring to say that the style of the semi auto gun changes the equation. Keeping black guns out of hunting because of style is the wrong answer to the ethics question.Ethics according to some, include doing what's right, even if doing what's "wrong" is still legal.Exactly and that can't be legislated IMO.
Exactly this. In addition, sometimes ethics demand you do what's right even though it is technically illegal. I dispatched a deer within city limits after it had been hit by a car - even though it was technically illegal for me to do so. Multiple compound fractures, loss of an eye, some of his insides ending up on the outside and his not being able to stand up on his two remaining legs made it a no-brainer for me (dates and time withheld to protect... me).
Personal hunting ethics come from being taught/mentored by respected hunters. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that a person has been exposed to ethical discussion before they buy that tag. So, as mentioned before, I think it is appropriate there should be some baseline rules to prevent the undue suffering of game.
Example - The .24 cal min was instituted long before the high weight retention, premium bullet technology came along. That shifted the landscape, and has (imho) made a heavy-for-caliber monolithic/bonded bullet out of a centerfire .22 cal at least an equal to a standard cup-and-core .24 cal. I think there is room for adjustment as technology improves without compromising what most would consider good hunting ethics.
A very well written reply Skillet.
For some that are comparing price tags of AR's to $2-300 bolt guns, I can assure you there are hundreds of companies out there making custom bolt action guns with $3000-6000 price tags with months long backlogs. An expensive AR can be built for much less.
There are also some talking about the accuracy of AR's and their fit & finish aspect. Again, there are AR's that rival the most expensive and accurate custom bolt gun in respect to fit & finish and will shoot .5 moa all day long.
The bottom line is that further regulating and limiting law abiding hunters will not eliminate unethical or even illegal hunting practices by others. Ethics are internal to each individual human, adding more regulations or rules won't shower them in pixie dust and magically make someone ethical that is not. Train them young, show them ethical behavior as a major part of hunter education programs and parent/grandparent/relative experiences and instill in the next generation of hunters ethical behavior in and out of the field.
:tup:
Post by: hunter399 on December 30, 2016, 06:00:41 PM
Bonded bullets have came a long ways from 30 years ago.
https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/federal-fusion-223-rem-jacketed-soft-point-62-grain-3000-fps-20-round-box-f223fs1-029465060381.do?sortby=ourPicks&refType=&from=Search
Just like bow,muzzle loader,handgun,hunting where you get close,make a good shot a little bit more challenging , we shoulnd be able to do it if we want,it just a way of limiting yourself to see how well of a hunter you can be.most bow hunters started hunting with rifle and wanted harder hunting or better season.Semi-auto will always be a gun option.
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2016, 06:05:20 PM
Quote
The bottom line is that further regulating and limiting law abiding hunters will not eliminate unethical or even illegal hunting practices by others. Ethics are internal to each individual human, adding more regulations or rules won't shower them in pixie dust and magically make someone ethical that is not. Train them young, show them ethical behavior as a major part of hunter education programs and parent/grandparent/relative experiences and instill in the next generation of hunters ethical behavior in and out of the field.If that is true, then why are any regulations required?
Post by: hunter399 on December 30, 2016, 06:23:40 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2016, 06:32:10 PM
Outback Steakhouse time. "No rules, just right."
Post by: huntnphool on December 30, 2016, 06:33:09 PM
QuoteThe bottom line is that further regulating and limiting law abiding hunters will not eliminate unethical or even illegal hunting practices by others. Ethics are internal to each individual human, adding more regulations or rules won't shower them in pixie dust and magically make someone ethical that is not. Train them young, show them ethical behavior as a major part of hunter education programs and parent/grandparent/relative experiences and instill in the next generation of hunters ethical behavior in and out of the field.If that is true, then why are any regulations required?
Why do we have cars that can exceed the speed limit, why not set the limit at 60 on the interstates and require governors on all vehicles to limit them?
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2016, 06:35:32 PM
Just get rid of speed limits. You can't legislate what people do.QuoteThe bottom line is that further regulating and limiting law abiding hunters will not eliminate unethical or even illegal hunting practices by others. Ethics are internal to each individual human, adding more regulations or rules won't shower them in pixie dust and magically make someone ethical that is not. Train them young, show them ethical behavior as a major part of hunter education programs and parent/grandparent/relative experiences and instill in the next generation of hunters ethical behavior in and out of the field.If that is true, then why are any regulations required?
Why do we have cars that can exceed the speed limit, why not set the limit at 60 on the interstates and require governors on all vehicles to limit them?
Post by: huntnphool on December 30, 2016, 06:43:15 PM
Just get rid of speed limits. You can't legislate what people do.QuoteThe bottom line is that further regulating and limiting law abiding hunters will not eliminate unethical or even illegal hunting practices by others. Ethics are internal to each individual human, adding more regulations or rules won't shower them in pixie dust and magically make someone ethical that is not. Train them young, show them ethical behavior as a major part of hunter education programs and parent/grandparent/relative experiences and instill in the next generation of hunters ethical behavior in and out of the field.If that is true, then why are any regulations required?
Why do we have cars that can exceed the speed limit, why not set the limit at 60 on the interstates and require governors on all vehicles to limit them?
Would be fun.
Post by: bradleyr001 on December 30, 2016, 09:46:29 PM
QuoteThe bottom line is that further regulating and limiting law abiding hunters will not eliminate unethical or even illegal hunting practices by others. Ethics are internal to each individual human, adding more regulations or rules won't shower them in pixie dust and magically make someone ethical that is not. Train them young, show them ethical behavior as a major part of hunter education programs and parent/grandparent/relative experiences and instill in the next generation of hunters ethical behavior in and out of the field.If that is true, then why are any regulations required?
Why don't criminals follow the laws?
Post by: JJB11B on December 30, 2016, 10:39:34 PM
Post by: JJB11B on December 30, 2016, 10:40:02 PM
Should firearms be legal for hunting?hould hunting be legal?.....slippery slope
Post by: bradleyr001 on December 30, 2016, 10:46:54 PM
Should firearms be legal for hunting?should hunting be legal?.....slippery slope
Everything and everyone fits somewhere on the bell curve of life... there exists no perfect anything especially when there is human meddling involved.
Post by: bullfisher on December 31, 2016, 10:54:23 PM
Post by: konradcountry on January 01, 2017, 02:38:31 PM
My wife hunted with my ar-15 this year chambered in 6.5 grendel. Why should it be illegal to shoot a 123grn sst at 2650fps just because it auto loads. I dont get it. :dunno: This thread should be illegal.
This question was already answered.
The problem is that semi-auto encourages spray and pray, especially with smaller and medium calibers in combination with the AR platform.
There are valid arguments on both sides. I think a round limit is the best compromise.
Post by: JJB11B on January 01, 2017, 03:03:22 PM
which is why buckshot and any repeating arms shouldn't be legal for hunting....I am totally not serious here but you see where this argument goes....My wife hunted with my ar-15 this year chambered in 6.5 grendel. Why should it be illegal to shoot a 123grn sst at 2650fps just because it auto loads. I dont get it. :dunno: This thread should be illegal.
This question was already answered.
The problem is that semi-auto encourages spray and pray, especially with smaller and medium calibers in combination with the AR platform.
There are valid arguments on both sides. I think a round limit is the best compromise.
Post by: bullfisher on January 01, 2017, 03:27:13 PM
The spray and pry argument is a ridiculous assumption of what someone might do and falls under the poor ethics argument, along with long shots beyond ones ability, under powerd cartridges, poor firearms ect ect..My wife hunted with my ar-15 this year chambered in 6.5 grendel. Why should it be illegal to shoot a 123grn sst at 2650fps just because it auto loads. I dont get it. :dunno: This thread should be illegal.
This question was already answered.
The problem is that semi-auto encourages spray and pray, especially with smaller and medium calibers in combination with the AR platform.
There are valid arguments on both sides. I think a round limit is the best compromise.
The mag capacity rule is a waste of money and recources for a law against one D bag in the woods. Nobody can rest a gun with a big 30rnd mag extending from the bottom anyway, nor want to pack around another 2lbs of ammo.
Hunters shouldn't be so quick "compromise" our rights away. It drives me nuts when people want to bubble wrap society for the assuption of one idiot. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on January 01, 2017, 03:32:50 PM
The spray and pry argument is a ridiculous assumption of what someone might do and falls under the poor ethics argument, along with long shots beyond ones ability, under powerd cartridges, poor firearms ect ect..My wife hunted with my ar-15 this year chambered in 6.5 grendel. Why should it be illegal to shoot a 123grn sst at 2650fps just because it auto loads. I dont get it. :dunno: This thread should be illegal.
This question was already answered.
The problem is that semi-auto encourages spray and pray, especially with smaller and medium calibers in combination with the AR platform.
There are valid arguments on both sides. I think a round limit is the best compromise.
The mag capacity rule is a waste of money and recources for a law against one D bag in the woods. Nobody can rest a gun with a big 30rnd mag extending from the bottom anyway, nor want to pack around another 2lbs of ammo.
Hunters shouldn't be so quick "compromise" our rights away. It drives me nuts when people want to bubble wrap society for the assuption of one idiot. :twocents:
:brew:
Post by: konradcountry on January 01, 2017, 05:50:58 PM
The spray and pry argument is a ridiculous assumption of what someone might do and falls under the poor ethics argument, along with long shots beyond ones ability, under powerd cartridges, poor firearms ect ect..
It's not an assumption, it's an inevitability based on the capability of the firearm.
The mag capacity rule is a waste of money and recources for a law against one D bag in the woods. Nobody can rest a gun with a big 30rnd mag extending from the bottom anyway, nor want to pack around another 2lbs of ammo.
You don't need to rest an AR-15. They're easy to shoot in a standing position. I know because I own one.
In states that allow them for hunting people take 30 rounders all the time. In Texas they are common for hog hunting and yes people pack around a couple magazines. It's not a big deal.
Hunters shouldn't be so quick "compromise" our rights away. It drives me nuts when people want to bubble wrap society for the assuption of one idiot. :twocents:
There is no right to spray and pray deer with an AR-15. Stop making stuff up.
I'd rather see hunting be more sporting and less supportive of the idiot community. If you don't like that opinion then feel free to disagree but you have no authority on what hunting should be.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 01, 2017, 06:55:37 PM
My wife hunted with my ar-15 this year chambered in 6.5 grendel. Why should it be illegal to shoot a 123grn sst at 2650fps just because it auto loads. I dont get it. :dunno: This thread should be illegal.
This question was already answered.
The problem is that semi-auto encourages spray and pray, especially with smaller and medium calibers in combination with the AR platform.
There are valid arguments on both sides. I think a round limit is the best compromise.
Why compromise on a subject, that based on the poll, is overwhelmingly against taking semi-auto's out of the field??
@konradcountry. Still waiting for a response with your opinions on my rebuttal...
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 01, 2017, 08:03:24 PM
The spray and pry argument is a ridiculous assumption of what someone might do and falls under the poor ethics argument, along with long shots beyond ones ability, under powerd cartridges, poor firearms ect ect..
It's not an assumption, it's an inevitability based on the capability of the firearm.
You don't need to rest an AR-15. They're easy to shoot in a standing position. I know because I own one.
Soooo, based on your above statement of "FACT" about the inevitablity of predicted use, which you say is based solely on the capability of the firearm alone, considering all the anti-hype about AR's in general and being used as reasons to support their total ban, how long before we read about you and your AR in the news?
Or, instead, would it be fair to say that for each individual incident of misuse, there are literally 10's, even 100's of thousands of proper usage? Isn't it more reasonable to say, it is not the item to blame, but in fact the person and how that individual chooses to use it?
@konradcountry. Still waiting for a response with your opinions on my rebuttal...
Post by: sled on January 01, 2017, 08:04:43 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 01, 2017, 08:06:19 PM
Sad that people cannot grasp the concept that taking anything, however small and seamingly insignificant is detrimental to the overall.
I understand the slippery slope argument. But Washington's caliber rule doesn't make sense and should be changed. In the other thread I suggested allowing 223 for deer as long as semi-autos are restricted. That is what started the debate.Then later somebody says "Hey! They can't use semi-auto rifles to hunt, so lets take semi-auto shotguns away. No need for them, pumps and single or doubles will be good enough!!
But that argument is harder to make since you have to get a lot closer with a shotgun. It really isn't an advantage over a bolt action rifle that can shoot 400 yards if the goal is to get the deer.As has been said, either in this or one of the other .22 cal mimimum posts, there are truely better things to address and try and change than trying to fix what is really a non-existent problem.
There is a problem. I can hunt deer with my 9mm Glock but not my scoped 223 rifle. Which is more likely to miss? Washington's caliber rule is crude and should be changed.Take the semi-auto option away and you have just lost some or most of those hunters...
I don't believe that at all. The cost of a big game license in our state is nearly half that of a cheap 243. They would just switch.Maybe spend time effort and energy into getting something in place that stops the large private companies from landlocking publc lands accsess??
I have thought about this problem as well.
I don't believe you have given the slippery slope factor enough consideration, if you had, you would not have responded to the second part about shotguns in the manner that you did...
Where does it say anywhere I was talking about shotguns for deer???? Please point that out, since part of the slippery slope danger is that it effects all aspects of something... that includes waterfowl. upland birds, small game, predators, etc.
In regards to the 9mm Glock example. If you are taking semi-automatics away, it could end up meaning all of them... no more Glocks allowed out in the woods because someone may use one to dispatch a wounded animal which could also mean no more Glocks out in the woods period during hunting season... again, that slippery slope effect.
In regards to my comment: "Take the semi-auto option away and you have just lost some or most of those hunters..."
Based on your response: "I don't believe that at all. The cost of a big game license in our state is nearly half that of a cheap 243. They would just switch."
I don't think you have even a remote grasp of what was written. Sorry, but the point of that comment was that if there are no semi-autos, exactly what are they to switch to?? What are their choices if the milder recoiling semi-auto is taken away...just suffer through or quit hunting??
As far as thinking about the access issue, that is awesome!!! But if something isn't done to correct it, sooner than later there will be precious few places to hunt that don't have a hunter every 50 feet or two dozen trying to watch the same clear cut.
Your enthusiam for change is commendable, but to severly limit or exclude other user groups just because of said wanted change is not beneficial to the greater good.
We have so many that are trying to eliminate hunting and the tools we use, from so many different angles and approaches, why is it that the most potential damage can and often does, come from within our own ranks???
Also, still interested to hear your views on my responses to your disection of my previous post.
@konradcountry. Still waiting for a response with your opinions on my rebuttal...
Post by: bullfisher on January 01, 2017, 08:52:25 PM
No, YOU have no authority on what hunting should be and yet here you are preparing to "comprimise" a perfectly legal and lethal method of killing food, and then stating you want hunting to be more sporting?The spray and pry argument is a ridiculous assumption of what someone might do and falls under the poor ethics argument, along with long shots beyond ones ability, under powerd cartridges, poor firearms ect ect..
It's not an assumption, it's an inevitability based on the capability of the firearm.The mag capacity rule is a waste of money and recources for a law against one D bag in the woods. Nobody can rest a gun with a big 30rnd mag extending from the bottom anyway, nor want to pack around another 2lbs of ammo.
You don't need to rest an AR-15. They're easy to shoot in a standing position. I know because I own one.
In states that allow them for hunting people take 30 rounders all the time. In Texas they are common for hog hunting and yes people pack around a couple magazines. It's not a big deal.Hunters shouldn't be so quick "compromise" our rights away. It drives me nuts when people want to bubble wrap society for the assuption of one idiot. :twocents:
There is no right to spray and pray deer with an AR-15. Stop making stuff up.
I'd rather see hunting be more sporting and less supportive of the idiot community. If you don't like that opinion then feel free to disagree but you have no authority on what hunting should be.
And yes, several 30 rnd mags are needed to exterminate pigs in Texas.
You have a fine list of solutions looking for problems that don't really exist.
Post by: csaaphill on January 01, 2017, 08:56:07 PM
Post by: bullfisher on January 01, 2017, 08:59:16 PM
Post by: Dan-o on January 01, 2017, 09:58:03 PM
Nice animals sled, did you spray and pray :chuckle:
Look at the magazine on that rifle.
Of course he sprayed and prayed.
He was probably shooting at a deer, and these were just "incidental" hits.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 01, 2017, 10:51:20 PM
Nice animals sled, did you spray and pray :chuckle:
Look at the magazine on that rifle.
Of course he sprayed and prayed.
He was probably shooting at a deer, and these were just "incidental" hits.
:chuckle: Now that was funny!!!
Post by: Bean Counter on January 01, 2017, 10:58:20 PM
Post by: yorketransport on January 02, 2017, 06:44:02 AM
For everyone who's convinced that a semi auto breeds high volume shooting, have any of you sat down with the accused shooter and taught them a better method? People do what they know because that's all they know.
The last time I went to a public range (years ago) I was disgusted by how many shooters sight in their rifles with the barrel resting on an object. So they sight in and get a 2" group at 100 yards and they're ready to hunt. Of course they don't understand that their point of impact is going to shift dramatically when they try and shoot without the hard upward pressure from the barrel on the rest. Most of these were the guys who take their gun out once a year, 2 weeks before season to sight it in. Instead of sitting back and watching it happen and quietly judging them for their poor form, I help them understand why what they're doing isn't ideal. It's typically well received but bot always.
The "spray and pray crowd" which everyone is so concernened about is very different than an accomplished marksman sending follow up shots at an animal which is "dead on its feet" and just doesn't know it yet. It seems pretty likely that the spray and pray shooter is simply doing what they know because that's how they learned. If nobody teaches them a better way how will they know a better way? If you're worried about semi autos ruining the image of the sport, why not work to correct the behavior instead of condemning it? You wouldn't scold your kids for doing something the wrong way without offering an alternate method would you? So why would you scold or shame a fellow hunter but not provide an alternate method of doing things?
Post by: Duckslayer89 on January 02, 2017, 06:56:51 AM
Results. Why not?
That bear is huge dude!
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 02, 2017, 11:33:19 AM
I've always been a "shoot till it's down" kind of hunter, maybe that qualifies as spray and pray. I don't know though because I've never taken a second shot on a big game animal.
For everyone who's convinced that a semi auto breeds high volume shooting, have any of you sat down with the accused shooter and taught them a better method? People do what they know because that's all they know.
The last time I went to a public range (years ago) I was disgusted by how many shooters sight in their rifles with the barrel resting on an object. So they sight in and get a 2" group at 100 yards and they're ready to hunt. Of course they don't understand that their point of impact is going to shift dramatically when they try and shoot without the hard upward pressure from the barrel on the rest. Most of these were the guys who take their gun out once a year, 2 weeks before season to sight it in. Instead of sitting back and watching it happen and quietly judging them for their poor form, I help them understand why what they're doing isn't ideal. It's typically well received but bot always.
The "spray and pray crowd" which everyone is so concernened about is very different than an accomplished marksman sending follow up shots at an animal which is "dead on its feet" and just doesn't know it yet. It seems pretty likely that the spray and pray shooter is simply doing what they know because that's how they learned. If nobody teaches them a better way how will they know a better way? If you're worried about semi autos ruining the image of the sport, why not work to correct the behavior instead of condemning it? You wouldn't scold your kids for doing something the wrong way without offering an alternate method would you? So why would you scold or shame a fellow hunter but not provide an alternate method of doing things?
Well thought out and written, thank you for offering a perspective that has so far, been missed.
But, in order to offer help or guidance, it requires a modicum of open-mindedness and willing to accept a different point of view. Not seeing that, at least in one case here.
Post by: huntnphool on January 02, 2017, 11:37:27 AM
I've always been a "shoot till it's down" kind of hunter, maybe that qualifies as spray and pray. I don't know though because I've never taken a second shot on a big game animal.
For everyone who's convinced that a semi auto breeds high volume shooting, have any of you sat down with the accused shooter and taught them a better method? People do what they know because that's all they know.
The last time I went to a public range (years ago) I was disgusted by how many shooters sight in their rifles with the barrel resting on an object. So they sight in and get a 2" group at 100 yards and they're ready to hunt. Of course they don't understand that their point of impact is going to shift dramatically when they try and shoot without the hard upward pressure from the barrel on the rest. Most of these were the guys who take their gun out once a year, 2 weeks before season to sight it in. Instead of sitting back and watching it happen and quietly judging them for their poor form, I help them understand why what they're doing isn't ideal. It's typically well received but bot always.
The "spray and pray crowd" which everyone is so concernened about is very different than an accomplished marksman sending follow up shots at an animal which is "dead on its feet" and just doesn't know it yet. It seems pretty likely that the spray and pray shooter is simply doing what they know because that's how they learned. If nobody teaches them a better way how will they know a better way? If you're worried about semi autos ruining the image of the sport, why not work to correct the behavior instead of condemning it? You wouldn't scold your kids for doing something the wrong way without offering an alternate method would you? So why would you scold or shame a fellow hunter but not provide an alternate method of doing things?
:brew:
Post by: JJB11B on January 02, 2017, 11:38:12 AM
Post by: yorketransport on January 02, 2017, 11:46:00 AM
I made a poll
And it's a very nice poll! You earned a gold star! :chuckle:
Post by: JJB11B on January 02, 2017, 11:48:29 AM
you like my pole?I made a poll
And it's a very nice poll! You earned a gold star! :chuckle:
Post by: Lucky1 on January 02, 2017, 12:07:14 PM
I've always been a "shoot till it's down" kind of hunter, maybe that qualifies as spray and pray. I don't know though because I've never taken a second shot on a big game animal.:tup: That is a excellent perspective. Thank you.
For everyone who's convinced that a semi auto breeds high volume shooting, have any of you sat down with the accused shooter and taught them a better method? People do what they know because that's all they know.
The last time I went to a public range (years ago) I was disgusted by how many shooters sight in their rifles with the barrel resting on an object. So they sight in and get a 2" group at 100 yards and they're ready to hunt. Of course they don't understand that their point of impact is going to shift dramatically when they try and shoot without the hard upward pressure from the barrel on the rest. Most of these were the guys who take their gun out once a year, 2 weeks before season to sight it in. Instead of sitting back and watching it happen and quietly judging them for their poor form, I help them understand why what they're doing isn't ideal. It's typically well received but bot always.
The "spray and pray crowd" which everyone is so concernened about is very different than an accomplished marksman sending follow up shots at an animal which is "dead on its feet" and just doesn't know it yet. It seems pretty likely that the spray and pray shooter is simply doing what they know because that's how they learned. If nobody teaches them a better way how will they know a better way? If you're worried about semi autos ruining the image of the sport, why not work to correct the behavior instead of condemning it? You wouldn't scold your kids for doing something the wrong way without offering an alternate method would you? So why would you scold or shame a fellow hunter but not provide an alternate method of doing things?
In my limited experience volunteering as a RSO at our local range I have seem the barrel resting on the sand bags a couple times. I tried to approach the shooters in a nice way to explain that they would have better results if they rested the stock on the bags. The guys were thankful for the tip. A positive helpful attitude toward fellow shooters and hunters will go a long way towards helping us present a positive image to the non shooting public and help keep our rights to hunt and shoot.
Post by: Yondering on January 03, 2017, 11:15:04 AM
The spray and pry argument is a ridiculous assumption of what someone might do and falls under the poor ethics argument, along with long shots beyond ones ability, under powerd cartridges, poor firearms ect ect..
It's not an assumption, it's an inevitability based on the capability of the firearm.The mag capacity rule is a waste of money and recources for a law against one D bag in the woods. Nobody can rest a gun with a big 30rnd mag extending from the bottom anyway, nor want to pack around another 2lbs of ammo.
You don't need to rest an AR-15. They're easy to shoot in a standing position. I know because I own one.
In states that allow them for hunting people take 30 rounders all the time. In Texas they are common for hog hunting and yes people pack around a couple magazines. It's not a big deal.Hunters shouldn't be so quick "compromise" our rights away. It drives me nuts when people want to bubble wrap society for the assuption of one idiot. :twocents:
There is no right to spray and pray deer with an AR-15. Stop making stuff up.
I'd rather see hunting be more sporting and less supportive of the idiot community. If you don't like that opinion then feel free to disagree but you have no authority on what hunting should be.
You don't know nearly as much as you think about AR-15s or shooting in general apparently, your ignorance is really showing. Why is it the people who know the least who are so sure of their position and willing to take away other people's rights and freedoms?
We should probably ban flat shooting rifle calibers too because they encourage people to shoot at game too far away. It's not an assumption, it's an inevitability based on the capability of the firearm. :hunt2:
(that was sarcasm of course)
Post by: lokidog on January 03, 2017, 11:24:16 AM
I've always been a "shoot till it's down" kind of hunter, maybe that qualifies as spray and pray. I don't know though because I've never taken a second shot on a big game animal.
For everyone who's convinced that a semi auto breeds high volume shooting, have any of you sat down with the accused shooter and taught them a better method? People do what they know because that's all they know.
The last time I went to a public range (years ago) I was disgusted by how many shooters sight in their rifles with the barrel resting on an object. So they sight in and get a 2" group at 100 yards and they're ready to hunt. Of course they don't understand that their point of impact is going to shift dramatically when they try and shoot without the hard upward pressure from the barrel on the rest. Most of these were the guys who take their gun out once a year, 2 weeks before season to sight it in. Instead of sitting back and watching it happen and quietly judging them for their poor form, I help them understand why what they're doing isn't ideal. It's typically well received but bot always.
The "spray and pray crowd" which everyone is so concernened about is very different than an accomplished marksman sending follow up shots at an animal which is "dead on its feet" and just doesn't know it yet. It seems pretty likely that the spray and pray shooter is simply doing what they know because that's how they learned. If nobody teaches them a better way how will they know a better way? If you're worried about semi autos ruining the image of the sport, why not work to correct the behavior instead of condemning it? You wouldn't scold your kids for doing something the wrong way without offering an alternate method would you? So why would you scold or shame a fellow hunter but not provide an alternate method of doing things?
:brew:
:yeah:
Post by: timberfaller on January 03, 2017, 12:16:26 PM
"placement" is far more important then what is used or not used!
Semi-auto's have been around for a long time even before the evil "black guns"!
When the government ruling body's finally got tired of the "bolt" action battle rifle(bolt after the single shot)they went with a semi-auto and have pretty much stayed with it.
A firearm is only as good as the person who is pulling the trigger!!
Post by: JJB11B on January 03, 2017, 01:36:01 PM
Can I just use my Mod powers and nuke this thread? IMO, this is just a stupid question..... :bash:this thread was intended to trigger discussion on ridiculous restrictions to fire arms for hunting
I've always been a "shoot till it's down" kind of hunter, maybe that qualifies as spray and pray. I don't know though because I've never taken a second shot on a big game animal.
For everyone who's convinced that a semi auto breeds high volume shooting, have any of you sat down with the accused shooter and taught them a better method? People do what they know because that's all they know.
The last time I went to a public range (years ago) I was disgusted by how many shooters sight in their rifles with the barrel resting on an object. So they sight in and get a 2" group at 100 yards and they're ready to hunt. Of course they don't understand that their point of impact is going to shift dramatically when they try and shoot without the hard upward pressure from the barrel on the rest. Most of these were the guys who take their gun out once a year, 2 weeks before season to sight it in. Instead of sitting back and watching it happen and quietly judging them for their poor form, I help them understand why what they're doing isn't ideal. It's typically well received but bot always.
The "spray and pray crowd" which everyone is so concernened about is very different than an accomplished marksman sending follow up shots at an animal which is "dead on its feet" and just doesn't know it yet. It seems pretty likely that the spray and pray shooter is simply doing what they know because that's how they learned. If nobody teaches them a better way how will they know a better way? If you're worried about semi autos ruining the image of the sport, why not work to correct the behavior instead of condemning it? You wouldn't scold your kids for doing something the wrong way without offering an alternate method would you? So why would you scold or shame a fellow hunter but not provide an alternate method of doing things?
:brew:
:yeah:
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 03, 2017, 01:37:29 PM
And I am hoping @konradcountry comes back, if he was really serious in the first place, and responds to my posts.
Seems like a good, lively discussion, some good points being raised.
Much more pertinent than a thread about fart guns for elk....
Post by: lokidog on January 03, 2017, 02:15:45 PM
Post by: pd on January 03, 2017, 02:42:36 PM
As somebody said earlier, most of us have heard of "that guy" who somehow shoots 8 to 10 rounds at a deer or an elk with a bolt action rifle. I know for a fact that this happens. So, 'spray-n-pray' already exists, and has for decades.
As another person said earlier, I would hope that this community (everybody on this forum should be well informed about rifles) would understand that AR-type rifles are not distinct in any way from other rifles.
Post by: floatinghat on January 03, 2017, 02:52:08 PM
So if semi auto are used to reduce s/p should they be (and bolt guns) be limited to 3 shots like a shotguns for gamebirds?
Post by: JJB11B on January 03, 2017, 03:09:02 PM
Post by: Mongo Hunter on January 03, 2017, 03:20:41 PM
As a compromise I would be fine with letting us use .22 caliber with a 5 round detachable mag limit. so it wont apply to lever or blot guns. most of use don't use mags over 5 anyways. my 7mm only holds 3 and that's been just fine.
Post by: grundy53 on January 03, 2017, 03:27:17 PM
An honest question (especially for those who think AR-type rifles have no place in big game hunting): "Have you ever seen or heard of somebody actually doing a 'spray-n-pray' in a hunting situation?"The "the spray and pray" argument is a straw man argument. Pure and simple.
As somebody said earlier, most of us have heard of "that guy" who somehow shoots 8 to 10 rounds at a deer or an elk with a bolt action rifle. I know for a fact that this happens. So, 'spray-n-pray' already exists, and has for decades.
As another person said earlier, I would hope that this community (everybody on this forum should be well informed about rifles) would understand that AR-type rifles are not distinct in any way from other rifles.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on January 03, 2017, 03:36:54 PM
An honest question (especially for those who think AR-type rifles have no place in big game hunting): "Have you ever seen or heard of somebody actually doing a 'spray-n-pray' in a hunting situation?"The "the spray and pray" argument is a straw man argument. Pure and simple.
As somebody said earlier, most of us have heard of "that guy" who somehow shoots 8 to 10 rounds at a deer or an elk with a bolt action rifle. I know for a fact that this happens. So, 'spray-n-pray' already exists, and has for decades.
As another person said earlier, I would hope that this community (everybody on this forum should be well informed about rifles) would understand that AR-type rifles are not distinct in any way from other rifles.
+1, pure spin.
Post by: Bob33 on January 03, 2017, 03:57:20 PM
I appreciate hearing opposing points of view, and in particular it's important for hunters to get some sense of how non-hunters may perceive certain issues. That said, I don't see any valid argument for banning semi-automatic firearms for hunting purposes.
Post by: sled on January 03, 2017, 04:13:59 PM
one shot on each animal👍. It's a ten round mag because the 5 is a pain in the ass to get in and out if you know the rifles. I put that mag in ad I don't need to have extra shells in my pocket, also why wouldn't you want the extra rds for bear or cougar, or even tweakers, but go ahead and be a hater😂Nice animals sled, did you spray and pray :chuckle:
Look at the magazine on that rifle.
Of course he sprayed and prayed.
He was probably shooting at a deer, and these were just "incidental" hits.
Post by: bullfisher on January 03, 2017, 04:42:26 PM
Ah yes, the ever alusive tweaker tag. Wish i had one right now :tup:one shot on each animal👍. It's a ten round mag because the 5 is a pain in the ass to get in and out if you know the rifles. I put that mag in ad I don't need to have extra shells in my pocket, also why wouldn't you want the extra rds for bear or cougar, or even tweakers, but go ahead and be a hater😂Nice animals sled, did you spray and pray :chuckle:
Look at the magazine on that rifle.
Of course he sprayed and prayed.
He was probably shooting at a deer, and these were just "incidental" hits.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 03, 2017, 05:09:30 PM
An honest question (especially for those who think AR-type rifles have no place in big game hunting): "Have you ever seen or heard of somebody actually doing a 'spray-n-pray' in a hunting situation?"I've known of one in another state that did a spray and pray, I guess. The one guy was using a mini-14 and missed the first two shots then the doe ran off and he kept firing as she went.
As somebody said earlier, most of us have heard of "that guy" who somehow shoots 8 to 10 rounds at a deer or an elk with a bolt action rifle. I know for a fact that this happens. So, 'spray-n-pray' already exists, and has for decades.
As another person said earlier, I would hope that this community (everybody on this forum should be well informed about rifles) would understand that AR-type rifles are not distinct in any way from other rifles.
Back when there were large clear cuts and spikes were legal on the west side there was a lot of spray and pray from the bolt guns. Dozens of vehicles would pull up on the landings and guys everywhere running around and shooting as the herds were running for some cover. It would get pretty wild, I can think of at least one guy that got killed from all the crossfire.
Post by: pd on January 03, 2017, 06:54:58 PM
So if semi auto are used to reduce s/p should they be (and bolt guns) be limited to 3 shots like a shotguns for gamebirds?
I see where you are going with this.
Although you and I might not agree on this point, let me state my position: I do not care if your shotgun holds 2 shells (like my side-by-side) or 50. I know the law, but I think it is silly. Likewise, if somebody wants to hunt with an AR with 30 rounds in the magazine, I frankly do not care. Think about it, restrictions such as these are arbitrary. What difference does it make if a bolt action rifle has 3 rounds in it, compared to 4??
My father would never approve of an AR in the hunting field. Likewise, he still has not accepted synthetic stocks. Same problem, in my opinion.
Post by: JJB11B on January 03, 2017, 06:56:07 PM
Post by: JDHasty on January 04, 2017, 02:44:43 AM
An honest question (especially for those who think AR-type rifles have no place in big game hunting): "Have you ever seen or heard of somebody actually doing a 'spray-n-pray' in a hunting situation?"The "the spray and pray" argument is a straw man argument. Pure and simple.
As somebody said earlier, most of us have heard of "that guy" who somehow shoots 8 to 10 rounds at a deer or an elk with a bolt action rifle. I know for a fact that this happens. So, 'spray-n-pray' already exists, and has for decades.
As another person said earlier, I would hope that this community (everybody on this forum should be well informed about rifles) would understand that AR-type rifles are not distinct in any way from other rifles.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
A straw man argument is one that is brought up by the opposing side in a debate. In the case of spray and pray, magazine dumping or whatever you would care to call it, the case for it was brought up and debated in another thread a year ago and that side of the debate was participated in by many who are commenting on these current threads.
It is one thing to deny that such behavior is not supported by a certain faction, it is quite transparently disingenuous to actually have been a participant in a late night discussion wherein just exactly that was being advocated for and discussed, then wake up in the morning and delete your posts, then go running to the mods when I post a link to the discussion that was taking place and archived evidence of what exactly was being discussed, advocated on behalf of and debated as to the fine points of among like minded magazine dumpers in the wee hours, and demand that it be not allowed as evidence that there is a faction what does in fact advocate volley fire at big game animals.
Post by: grundy53 on January 04, 2017, 04:44:43 AM
A theoretical debate doesn't doesn't make something reality. No matter what size thesaurus is used in the argument.An honest question (especially for those who think AR-type rifles have no place in big game hunting): "Have you ever seen or heard of somebody actually doing a 'spray-n-pray' in a hunting situation?"The "the spray and pray" argument is a straw man argument. Pure and simple.
As somebody said earlier, most of us have heard of "that guy" who somehow shoots 8 to 10 rounds at a deer or an elk with a bolt action rifle. I know for a fact that this happens. So, 'spray-n-pray' already exists, and has for decades.
As another person said earlier, I would hope that this community (everybody on this forum should be well informed about rifles) would understand that AR-type rifles are not distinct in any way from other rifles.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
A straw man argument is one that is brought up by the opposing side in a debate. In the case of spray and pray, magazine dumping or whatever you would care to call it, the case for it was brought up and debated in another thread a year ago and that side of the debate was participated in by many who are commenting on these current threads.
It is one thing to deny that such behavior is not supported by a certain faction, it is quite transparently disingenuous to actually have been a participant in a late night discussion wherein just exactly that was being advocated for and discussed, then wake up in the morning and delete your posts, then go running to the mods when I post a link to the discussion that was taking place and archived evidence of what exactly was being discussed, advocated on behalf of and debated as to the fine points of among like minded magazine dumpers in the wee hours, and demand that it be not allowed as evidence that there is a faction what does in fact advocate volley fire at big game animals.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: JDHasty on January 04, 2017, 05:48:11 AM
A theoretical debate doesn't doesn't make something reality. No matter what size thesaurus is used in the argument.An honest question (especially for those who think AR-type rifles have no place in big game hunting): "Have you ever seen or heard of somebody actually doing a 'spray-n-pray' in a hunting situation?"The "the spray and pray" argument is a straw man argument. Pure and simple.
As somebody said earlier, most of us have heard of "that guy" who somehow shoots 8 to 10 rounds at a deer or an elk with a bolt action rifle. I know for a fact that this happens. So, 'spray-n-pray' already exists, and has for decades.
As another person said earlier, I would hope that this community (everybody on this forum should be well informed about rifles) would understand that AR-type rifles are not distinct in any way from other rifles.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
A straw man argument is one that is brought up by the opposing side in a debate. In the case of spray and pray, magazine dumping or whatever you would care to call it, the case for it was brought up and debated in another thread a year ago and that side of the debate was participated in by many who are commenting on these current threads.
It is one thing to deny that such behavior is not supported by a certain faction, it is quite transparently disingenuous to actually have been a participant in a late night discussion wherein just exactly that was being advocated for and discussed, then wake up in the morning and delete your posts, then go running to the mods when I post a link to the discussion that was taking place and archived evidence of what exactly was being discussed, advocated on behalf of and debated as to the fine points of among like minded magazine dumpers in the wee hours, and demand that it be not allowed as evidence that there is a faction what does in fact advocate volley fire at big game animals.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
When a guy is saying: "This is how I roll," then I am willing to take his word for it. When others are in agreement or are saying they too have an experienced opinion regarding emptying a magazine, laying down a barrage, directing volley fire towards, etc... are you saying there recollection is faulty?
What I prefer is that if people are candidly discussing their experience regarding the same is: It is more likely than not that they really do have the experience they claim.
And these discussions are not rare at all. They take place fairly frequently on AR sites especially one that is focused on a particular hot little AR15 round that has an almost cultist following.
Good luck finding them, the moderators on most of these forums are on the lookout for this type of post and the forums delete them "faster than some shmuck can say U-N E-T-H-I-C-A-L!"
If you hang out on those forums for any length of time you will see one take off and go places you can only imagine, but only until it is discovered and airbrushed out of history as thoroughly as Stalin airbrushed away any evidence of Trotsky or his words.
Post by: yorketransport on January 04, 2017, 06:42:26 AM
A theoretical debate doesn't doesn't make something reality. No matter what size thesaurus is used in the argument.An honest question (especially for those who think AR-type rifles have no place in big game hunting): "Have you ever seen or heard of somebody actually doing a 'spray-n-pray' in a hunting situation?"The "the spray and pray" argument is a straw man argument. Pure and simple.
As somebody said earlier, most of us have heard of "that guy" who somehow shoots 8 to 10 rounds at a deer or an elk with a bolt action rifle. I know for a fact that this happens. So, 'spray-n-pray' already exists, and has for decades.
As another person said earlier, I would hope that this community (everybody on this forum should be well informed about rifles) would understand that AR-type rifles are not distinct in any way from other rifles.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
A straw man argument is one that is brought up by the opposing side in a debate. In the case of spray and pray, magazine dumping or whatever you would care to call it, the case for it was brought up and debated in another thread a year ago and that side of the debate was participated in by many who are commenting on these current threads.
It is one thing to deny that such behavior is not supported by a certain faction, it is quite transparently disingenuous to actually have been a participant in a late night discussion wherein just exactly that was being advocated for and discussed, then wake up in the morning and delete your posts, then go running to the mods when I post a link to the discussion that was taking place and archived evidence of what exactly was being discussed, advocated on behalf of and debated as to the fine points of among like minded magazine dumpers in the wee hours, and demand that it be not allowed as evidence that there is a faction what does in fact advocate volley fire at big game animals.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
When a guy is saying: "This is how I roll," then I am willing to take his word for it. When others are in agreement or are saying they too have an experienced opinion regarding emptying a magazine, laying down a barrage, directing volley fire towards, etc... are you saying there recollection is faulty?
What I prefer is that if people are candidly discussing their experience regarding the same is: It is more likely than not that they really do have the experience they claim.
And these discussions are not rare at all. They take place fairly frequently on AR sites especially one that is focused on a particular hot little AR15 round that has an almost cultist following.
Good luck finding them, the moderators on most of these forums are on the lookout for this type of post and the forums delete them "faster than some shmuck can say U-N E-T-H-I-C-A-L!"
If you hang out on those forums for any length of time you will see one take off and go places you can only imagine, but only until it is discovered and airbrushed out of history as thoroughly as Stalin airbrushed away any evidence of Trotsky or his words.
The fact that your argument constantly comes back to quoting the same post from over a year ago, by an individual who's no longer an active member on here shows that you're struggling to make your case. Please present a fresh angle on this and move on from your disagreement with the people in your past.
Coming back to the same point and expressing it in the same way, using the same quotes (out of context) is the sign of a failing debater. :twocents:
Post by: JDHasty on January 04, 2017, 08:59:35 AM
A theoretical debate doesn't doesn't make something reality. No matter what size thesaurus is used in the argument.An honest question (especially for those who think AR-type rifles have no place in big game hunting): "Have you ever seen or heard of somebody actually doing a 'spray-n-pray' in a hunting situation?"The "the spray and pray" argument is a straw man argument. Pure and simple.
As somebody said earlier, most of us have heard of "that guy" who somehow shoots 8 to 10 rounds at a deer or an elk with a bolt action rifle. I know for a fact that this happens. So, 'spray-n-pray' already exists, and has for decades.
As another person said earlier, I would hope that this community (everybody on this forum should be well informed about rifles) would understand that AR-type rifles are not distinct in any way from other rifles.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
A straw man argument is one that is brought up by the opposing side in a debate. In the case of spray and pray, magazine dumping or whatever you would care to call it, the case for it was brought up and debated in another thread a year ago and that side of the debate was participated in by many who are commenting on these current threads.
It is one thing to deny that such behavior is not supported by a certain faction, it is quite transparently disingenuous to actually have been a participant in a late night discussion wherein just exactly that was being advocated for and discussed, then wake up in the morning and delete your posts, then go running to the mods when I post a link to the discussion that was taking place and archived evidence of what exactly was being discussed, advocated on behalf of and debated as to the fine points of among like minded magazine dumpers in the wee hours, and demand that it be not allowed as evidence that there is a faction what does in fact advocate volley fire at big game animals.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
When a guy is saying: "This is how I roll," then I am willing to take his word for it. When others are in agreement or are saying they too have an experienced opinion regarding emptying a magazine, laying down a barrage, directing volley fire towards, etc... are you saying there recollection is faulty?
What I prefer is that if people are candidly discussing their experience regarding the same is: It is more likely than not that they really do have the experience they claim.
And these discussions are not rare at all. They take place fairly frequently on AR sites especially one that is focused on a particular hot little AR15 round that has an almost cultist following.
Good luck finding them, the moderators on most of these forums are on the lookout for this type of post and the forums delete them "faster than some shmuck can say U-N E-T-H-I-C-A-L!"
If you hang out on those forums for any length of time you will see one take off and go places you can only imagine, but only until it is discovered and airbrushed out of history as thoroughly as Stalin airbrushed away any evidence of Trotsky or his words.
The fact that your argument constantly comes back to quoting the same post from over a year ago, by an individual who's no longer an active member on here shows that you're struggling to make your case. Please present a fresh angle on this and move on from your disagreement with the people in your past.
Coming back to the same point and expressing it in the same way, using the same quotes (out of context) is the sign of a failing debater. :twocents:
The quote was not taken out of context.
It was part of a conversation that revolved around the applicability of the AR platform for shooting a big game animal into to the ground. That conversation was not where the thread started, that side topic "took off" after others who had been debating on various threads had retired for the evening and there was no opposition to it being debated as a legitimate (i.e. ethical) hunting method.
I suppose you could say the thread was "thread jacked," but irrespective of where it started, that is where it ended up.
Fact is there is active participation on a fairly frequent basis on various sites in debating this topic, I have seen the threads pop up, be shut down, the entire thread or most of it deleted, and the participants given a stern warning about publicly debating a topic that "does not do our cause any favor."
Post by: Bob33 on January 04, 2017, 09:04:56 AM
The reason the post was removed had nothing to do with spray and pray.
Sorry, JD - your conspiracy theory isn't based in fact.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 04, 2017, 09:13:16 AM
Post by: bullfisher on January 04, 2017, 11:12:00 AM
Wild animals get killed for food, nobody's advocating for strangling them with a piano wire. If you're sensative about how they're killed or how sporting your weapon was, maybe you'd be better off playing the bongos. This isn't complicated, pick a season, pick a weapon and kill your food.
Post by: Jimmy33 on January 04, 2017, 11:41:05 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JJB11B on January 04, 2017, 11:53:57 AM
I find most, if not all semi auto firearms to be safer than the bolt action striker fired counterpart.you're back!
Post by: JDHasty on January 04, 2017, 12:26:56 PM
Banning or limiting an effective legal hunting method over the spray and pray conspiracy is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. The reason threads get banned, if there ever was one, is because its a dumb thing to debate/argue over. Anyone who sprays and prays be it a bolt or semi auto, is a dingaling and dingalings aren't too concerned with laws or ethics anyway. Though I've never met, seen or read about anyone actually doing it outside of exterminating nuisance animals in other states.
Wild animals get killed for food, nobody's advocating for strangling them with a piano wire. If you're sensative about how they're killed or how sporting your weapon was, maybe you'd be better off playing the bongos. This isn't complicated, pick a season, pick a weapon and kill your food.
When this exercise started the question was something to the effect: should the current minimum caliber restriction be changed to .224 for deer?
People were invited to participate in a poll and also to comment. People who don't agree commented on both sides of the issue.
The poll on the initial thread has ranged from 60%-70% opposed to changing the current rule, and has never moved far from where it settled after enough initial responses came in to tabulate. It has been about 65/35 against CHANGING the current minimum caliber restriction. Basically what this poll tells us is that 2/3 of the members who responded are happy with the law as it stands today and as it has stood for decades upon decades.
Then this thread was started, with this as an explanation for it's existence: This stems from the .224 min cal thread.
I absolutely believe that the Govt. should shut the heck up and quit tightening our noose and further restricting an already ridiculously regulated sport.
I believe this is a little more than a backdoor attempt to conflate a reluctance to CHANGE EXISTING MINIMUM CALIBER RESTRICTION that doesn't appear to have much support with opposition to hunting with an auto-loading rifle, particularly with an AR15. I have never been opposed to the use of semi-automatic firearms, including AR15's, for big game hunting or ever suggested that the law should be changed to ban them. You wouldn't know that by reading what has been ascribed to me by others as they have attempted to set up a straw man argument so that they could then run and, like a pyromaniac in a field of straw men, burning them down.
Likewise, the State is not tightening our noose and further restricting anything if this minimum caliber restriction is not changed. If it is not changed, nothing changes, the caliber restriction remains the same as it has been since at least the 1960's.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 04, 2017, 12:33:10 PM
I find most, if not all semi auto firearms to be safer than the bolt action striker fired counterpart.you're back!
That's right!
And all you heathens better be ready.............
Post by: Curly on January 04, 2017, 12:37:15 PM
Post by: h20hunter on January 04, 2017, 12:47:07 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 04, 2017, 12:49:10 PM
For those people that did not vote "yes" in the poll, are you just being funny? Why would any hunter want to further restrict the laws by which we currently have to abide?
I voted no black guns :chuckle:
I usually vote polar opposite my beliefs on online polls.
Post by: JDHasty on January 04, 2017, 12:49:18 PM
For those people that did not vote "yes" in the poll, are you just being funny? Why would any hunter want to further restrict the laws by which we currently have to abide?
Here is the poll again, the laws by which we currently have to abide include a minimum caliber restriction. If the minimum caliber restriction is not changed, nothing is changed, nothing is further restricted.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 04, 2017, 12:54:51 PM
For those people that did not vote "yes" in the poll, are you just being funny? Why would any hunter want to further restrict the laws by which we currently have to abide?
Here is the poll again, the laws by which we currently have to abide include a minimum caliber restriction. If the minimum caliber restriction is not changed, nothing is changed, nothing is further restricted.
Pssst......
Wrong poll. Hope this helps.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on January 04, 2017, 12:56:09 PM
I voted other than yes to be funny. My intentions of having a hunting ar in .308 are very serious. I have no intention of spraying rounds. Its the complete opposite. I personlly enjoy shooting an AR, am more prone to recoil anticipation, and simply wanted one. The weight and configuration of the gun shoukd allow me better spot the impact and in turn provide a quicker follow up shot if deemed necessary. The notion that the gun will make me into a soray and pray hunter is absurd and laughable. The gun is only a tool, the ethics, morality, and decision to pull the trigger is on mewait! So you're saying that if an animal you shoot doesn't crumple in his tracks, you will follow up your initial hit with other rounds until you have anchored your prey? You sir are so unethical with your shoot em into the ground mentality!!!!!
I think you need a self time out :nono: :ban:
Post by: h20hunter on January 04, 2017, 01:00:14 PM
I also will responsibly practice a double tap on paper in the field under hunting conditions. Imagine a dude with a precision designed weapon out in the woods just a blazing away@ kah boo yah kah boo yah!
Post by: h20hunter on January 04, 2017, 01:02:27 PM
Carry on.
Post by: bullfisher on January 04, 2017, 01:04:16 PM
Post by: bullfisher on January 04, 2017, 01:25:31 PM
Fyi, that is the sound in my mind and does not represent the sounds of real spray and pray. Also, when pistol shooting it sounds like pew pew pew.Pfffft... thats obviously a laser sound... Hey can we start a laser poll?
Carry on.
Post by: Curly on January 04, 2017, 01:27:11 PM
For those people that did not vote "yes" in the poll, are you just being funny? Why would any hunter want to further restrict the laws by which we currently have to abide?
Here is the poll again, the laws by which we currently have to abide include a minimum caliber restriction. If the minimum caliber restriction is not changed, nothing is changed, nothing is further restricted.
Pssst......
Wrong poll. Hope this helps.
:yeah:
I wasn't talking about the .22 cal debate. That debate is something more worthy of debate in my opinion than even entertaining the notion that semi-autos should be banned.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 04, 2017, 01:38:42 PM
Fyi, that is the sound in my mind and does not represent the sounds of real spray and pray. Also, when pistol shooting it sounds like pew pew pew.Pfffft... thats obviously a laser sound... Hey can we start a laser poll?
Carry on.
Lasers are over rated :chuckle:
Maybe a thermal thread?
Evil rifle.....very evil rifle
Post by: h20hunter on January 04, 2017, 01:42:22 PM
Post by: JJB11B on January 04, 2017, 02:14:43 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=207009.0For those people that did not vote "yes" in the poll, are you just being funny? Why would any hunter want to further restrict the laws by which we currently have to abide?
Here is the poll again, the laws by which we currently have to abide include a minimum caliber restriction. If the minimum caliber restriction is not changed, nothing is changed, nothing is further restricted.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on January 04, 2017, 03:07:54 PM
Its so black!!!! Make it stop!!!!!!Fyi, that is the sound in my mind and does not represent the sounds of real spray and pray. Also, when pistol shooting it sounds like pew pew pew.Pfffft... thats obviously a laser sound... Hey can we start a laser poll?
Carry on.
Lasers are over rated :chuckle:
Maybe a thermal thread?
Evil rifle.....very evil rifle
Post by: Yondering on January 04, 2017, 03:12:41 PM
Lasers are over rated :chuckle:
Maybe a thermal thread?
Evil rifle.....very evil rifle
maybe if you paint it brown with wood grain panels on the sides it will be less evil and less likely to cause spray and pray?
Post by: cbond3318 on January 04, 2017, 03:18:48 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 04, 2017, 03:21:21 PM
Lasers are over rated :chuckle:
Maybe a thermal thread?
Evil rifle.....very evil rifle
maybe if you paint it brown with wood grain panels on the sides it will be less evil and less likely to cause spray and pray?
Meh, they are all the same on the inside.... right?
Post by: cbond3318 on January 04, 2017, 03:27:18 PM
Post by: tgomez on January 04, 2017, 04:04:38 PM