Always good for a laugh...or at least a heavy sigh....

the "Home of the Brave" is filled with gun humping cowards

They hump guns because it fits!

nt

In Vietnam we taped two magazines together so we could change them fast. The lower half of each magazine were taped together. We had OD duck tape. I always wonder why some shooter hasn’t thought of that.

feed by an en bloc clip such as on the M1 Garand

And the mags could be a yard long. No harm. No foul.

I grew up hunting and when I was young spent a lot of time doing it. To me, there is absolutely no need for a repeating action at all. If it is a sport then having more than single shot is entirely unncessary. Nearly always the game is gone after the first shot because of the time it takes to recover from recoil and aquire the target. Me thinks the popularity of assault rifles has more to do with ideation and even repeaters are a mere convenience.

I gather that the only action you approve of is the single shot break action. As you say, the game is nearly always gone after the first shot anyways if not hit.

Edit: My next purchase is going to be a 20 gauge break action single shot shotgun. I don't need a bolt action, lever action or semi auto for hunting rabbit, squirrel, grouse, racoon and deer. And it will be fine for my wife to use in home defense backing me up with my revolver.

Many hunt with them, with a 5 round magazine, much like you put a plug in a shotgun to limit the magazine.

Others choose them for competition, and some for home defense. (It's a small round that doesn't go through walls like a larger caliber hunting round will.)

They're light to carry, serviceable by anyone (not just a gunsmith), easy to expand / modify for a particular use or caliber, and there are a ton of accessories for them.

Its still the best rifle i have for handling coyotes.

Sheep rancher? I live in the boonies and have lots of coyotes. I love 'em.

But as their numbers in many areas have skyrocketed, we've had trouble with them in terms of domestic animals and small livestock. Last year the guy down the road had two of them getting pretty aggressive with his young son.

But I agree with you there's no pleasure in it.

The big bears on Kodiak. Never saw anyone carry an AR-15. 700 BDL action was far more popular. Poorer guys used the Savage rifles.

But with the right cartridge, it hunts deer well.

Never saw anyone use an AR-15 on those either.

I grew up in some of the best elk country in the west. I see friends on the Outdoor Channel quite a lot. A couple are considered anong the top elk guides in the nation. A popular host has hunted our ranch and it's been on TV multiple times.

Nobody is getting it done with AR-15's. Sorry. It's bullshit that "lots of guys hunt with them"

More like"a few guys like the novelty of hunting with them"

An Ar-style rifle with 7.62 would probably be more appropriate. I'm not a hunter myself, but plenty of hunters I know take white tails with 5.56mm

Or, with the Mini-14, either way. No, Elk obviously don't get taken with them, but you clearly have a very limited range of experience. The fact that you threw in the TV plug really is meaningless. Anything whitetail and smaller, which are what the majority of hunters take, are well within the effective capability of the round, especially with the Nosler loads.

You sound like a pay for play trophy guy...that doesn't exactly support your case either, cannons and mosquitos and all that.

And lived in Alaska for a decade. I hunted hard, on my own, and lived in the bush for weeks at a time.

I 've siwashed for an elk with a tarp multiple times and a have been charged by a grizzly.

I never paid a guide. I'm a hard core SOB, as were the guys I grew up with.

I'm sorry your experiences are shooting deer from a tree stand 20 minutes from town. Others grew up differently.

Like I said, your claimed experience is clearly only in large, high-caliber suited animals, in much more open country than most. In a lot of places we don't generally get to take 300 - 400 yard shots. The necessary stalking puts us well within the effective range of the weapons I'm talking about. Different kind of hunting entirely. And i can't even spell tree stand. Cute use of the siwash term though; might impress some here until they actually look it up. But many of us have done it, and it's nothing terribly impressive. Kind of like trophy hunting.

And here's a hint; if you have to tell people you're a hard-core SOB, you aren't.

You can hurl all the insults you want. The truth is no one serious is really using these guns for hunting anything other than varmints.

The ability to customize the gun for different calibers is one draw for folks. Hog hunting? 223. Plinking cans? 22lr. Deer in a hilly brush area? 7.62.

See my handle? I've run a few boar hunts in my day.

Lot of folks hunting pigs with .223. Not everyone has a o deal with monster wild boars with skulls an inch think.

Shooting fat sows with a varmint gun is hardly any hog hunt.

Feral pigs are hunted with 5.56mm. End of argument.

For fucks sake... this isn't about the caliber. The same mechanical system can support a wide variety of calibers.

They are not. Most hunters use bolt actions and you damned well know it - and they do it for good reason.

That was my point.

Eom.

According to a recent study conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 27% of respondents said they have used a MSR (Modern Sporting Rifle of which group the AR-15 is included) while hunting. Of that 27%, only half (48%) have used such a gun in the past 5 years.

I live in a rural area where deer hunting is very popular and I have yet to see a hunter with an AR-15 type platform. But that's just my personal observation but that combined with the National Shooting Sports Foundation study leads credence to the argument that the AR-15 is not a common hunting rifle.

...not exactly none as the above poster suggests.

I also think you could get rid of ALL AR-15 type rifles and mass-shooters will just use something else.

27% of respondents say they've used a so-called MSF for hunting. But of that 27 percent, slightly less then half have used such a gun in the past 5 years. So just about 12% of respondents have used a MSF in the past 5 years and it isn't known how often those 12 % used a MSF in lieu of another type of gun while hunting. That could range from just once in 5 years to 100 % of the time.

None of the knowledgeable posters here has claimed that they are the MOST popular, only that they ARE popular. You said "Most hunters use bolt actions" fair statement but all you're accurately expressing is that bolt actions are the MOST popular.

It was too damned cold for me, I parked my butt by the camp fire.

These days. By no means a majority, but seem to be gaining some popularity.

You're a trip! A 111 right out of the box will shoot inside the 700 all day long.

And I bet if you pay attention you'll see some AR-10s out there. The .308 has no trouble keeping up, unless you're pushing WinMags.

It's not a trip, it's s fact. Most custom rifles are built on a 700 action.

Long hunting guns are fine. See Canada and Australia. Both don't have gun violence problems and both allow long guns for hunting

What's the best available weapon for bringing down 6 to 18 year old humans?

Subthreads happen. The fact that other conversations continue doesn't diminish the weight of anything. When people post things that aren't true, there is response. It's not a terrible thing, and it doesn't make current events any less important.

Soldiers on guard duty might need one. Notice, I said soldiers who are military people because it is a military level weapon. There is not one, single reason a civilian should ever have one, ever. They were designed to kill and maim the maximum number of people in the shortest period of time. If someone wants to shoot one they can enlist in the military.

so it isn’t because of never being around guns. I shot everything from an M-14 to a fifty cal on an APC and don’t want to ever hear about civilian gun culture.

It gives me a very uneasy feeling reading it on DU. The tone of each reply is anti social in the way I read it. It says I don’t give a shit about gun violence in this country I want my guns. Something wrong about that in my way of thinking.

And I am perfectly willing to discuss reasonable gun control measures. But people ask questions and they get answers they don't like.

I own an ar-15. I primarily shoot it for sport. And while I am not a gun under me pillow kind of guy, I would use it for self-defense if it came to it. But I really doubt it ever will.

But if we are going to address the problem, we cannot just get uncomfortable anytime someone mentions some technically accurate information about guns.

Last edited Thu Feb 15, 2018, 04:45 AM - Edit history (1)

As you can see, there are blinker-wearers on both side of the issue...

What are your ideas for reasonable gun control measures?

The semi-auto action is now over 100 years old. It's unlikely we successfully ban it in this country, even if that were desirable.

But we can regulate magazines, which are what really make these weapons so dangerous. We can add magazines over a certain capacity (I'd suggest 10 rounds) to the NFA list. We can lower the tax stamp to $25 (instead of the standard $200), but the point would be that magazines would be individually serial numbered, and legally associated with a single owner. Transferring such a magazine would require the same NFA paperwork as other NFA items.

That way, people who think they "need" larger magazines can get them, but you can't just order a case of 20 30-round magazines from Brownell's.


There's a reason crimes aren't committed with NFA registered machine guns.

gun wars here for many years. The gunner side never changes. They offer no solutions just more gun culture awareness, pro gun statistics and gun control obfuscation.

One thing I notice is the lack of endless lists of question type replies.

I don’t want to ignore it.

NRA has on law makers. Just anti gun control

Just keeping and acquiring more guns is all they care about. It is a selfish self centered motivation.

Can they go to the list of children that died yesterday and look at their pictures and cry like the rest of us? I doubt it.

Here try it

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/the-victims-of-the-douglas-high-mass-shooting/ar-BBJaSQb?li=BBnb7Kz

SCOTUS made it very clear in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that the Second Amendment right is a personal right not dependent on the "well regulated militia" clause. IMHO, that opinion was misguided. However, absent a constitutional amendment, which will not happen in any of our life times, the elimination of all firearms cannot be the goal.

What must be the goal is common sense regulation. A demand for a complete firearms ban will prevent attaining possible goals. These common sense goals would include the restoration of the assault weapons ban. Weapons like the AR-15 are combat weapons designed to allow for the killing of many people in a short time. It will be a long time before this country bans hunting rifles and shot guns. However, we can and should ban military style weapons.

Weapons of war belong in military armories -- for that well-regulated militia I read about someplace.

The vast majority of break ins are to steal tvs, etc....not to kill you.

Dangerous concept to be locked and loaded at all times. And if your weapons need to be unlocked and loaded do you tell the perpetrator "hold on just a minute while I get my weapon?"....not much use then are they?

Better to just let them take your tv, insurance will cover it and no one ends up dead imo....



Again this is my opinion.

And has served me well with any bad guys that want to kill me. So far....not a one has tried!

Good luck with your firearms. Statistically, you're putting your family at risk more by having firearms, but maybe you're one of those responsible gun owners....

Guns make people less safe, not more safe.

If someone wants to brag about their firepower because it makes them feel more masculine, so be it, but not being honest about what it's really about just makes them look even more ridiculous.

People do not subscribe to fire extinguisher magazines, or collect fire extinguishers, or own 10 of them.

You gun nuts read about, discuss, drool over new guns, etc.

And fire extinguishers do not cause 9000 murders a year.

What a fucking stupid argument.

Are you welding spacers into the mag well, or fitting the mag some other way?

Thanks for the info

They are one of the best, if not the best, defensive platforms for women. They are extremely durable, highly serviceable and reliable, and for me, the best for dealing with coyotes.

The function no different than guns you could buy 60 years ago.

But when we started allowing the sale of them with 10-40 round magazine we put what amounts to machine guns in civilian hands.

And before my fellow gun owners start trying to shame me in the difference in semi auto and full. When you are in a combat that matters. When you are in a fucking school it matters not at all. I have bolt, pump and semi automatic guns.

5-10 magazines capacity max and make possession of larger after a reasonable date a felony is what I would do if I were king.

Problem is, that will lose at the polls.

The problem is not the politicians but too many Americans.

The AR-15 is the "civilian version" of the M-16, a weapon designed as a basic infantry weapon. The only real difference between the AR-15 and the M-16 is that the M-16 has a selector switch that allows for fully automatic mode. Mind you, any reasonably competent gunsmith can alter an AR-15 to fire in fully automatic mode. Failing that, a bump stock has much the same effect.

The AR-15/M-16 fires a 5.56mm round - essentially the same as a 22 caliber but with more propellant. It would make a terrible hunting rifle. If the goal is household protection, get a 12 gauge shotgun - preferably a pump (the sound of a shotgun pump will stop anyone is his tracks).

The M-16/AR-15 only has one purpose - killing people.

The 5.56 round is a very good hunting round, when used properly. Standard ball ammo is about the best for handling coyotes and, and Nosler (Among others) makes a very good deer bullet in the caliber.

The .223/5.56 is not even close to the 22 LR that you are talking about.

As far as defense, the 5.56 is one of the better rounds, especially for women, who typically have much more trouble handling a defensive shotgun. The women I train favor it over everything else. The AR frame makes the overall package that much better, although the round is just as useful in a traditional frame like a Mini-14.

And if you ARE using a shotgun, by the time your intruder is close enough to hear it, you should have already racked your first round. Pumping the shotgun for audio effect doesn't "Stop anyone in his tracks," but it does do 2 things; 1: warns the intruder as to what you have likely causing him to fire sooner, which is bad because 2: it does a good job of giving your position away.

I have been firing hunting rifles and shotguns since I was a teenager. There are firearms designed for hunting. The M-16/AR-15 is not one of these. The M-16/AR-15 is designed for killing people.

There is no valid reason for a civilian to have these weapons. The insistence that civilians have that right leads to days like today.

Heck, even your shotguns were once 'trench sweepers' in WWI.

Seems kind of hypocritical.

it's a stretch to say than hunting rifles are designed to kill people. Shotguns were developed long before WWI.

I think you're missing my point. There is no reason for civilians to have weapons designed for the military.

The AR-15 was not designed to kill people. It is the civilian version of the M-16.

Just like the m1 carbine is the civilian version of the M2.

The list goes on and on.

But hey, if you want to take away all the M1 garrands & 03 springfields, because they were 'designed for the military', then I think you're going to have a challenge.

aka, your criteria seem rather arbitrary and nonsensical.

That doesn't make your information any more accurate. The Army doesnt teach exterior ballistics to the rank and file. Most people who have been driving cars for most of their lives know very little about them. Your facts are simply wrong; that's all there is to it. That you equate the .223 to a 22LR "With more propellant" pretty much settles that.

Although I agree with you that the M/AR platform was not specifically designed as a hunting platform, the .223 round is a very effective round in that capacity, and the AR frame quickly became useful and popular for it. You are conflating the appearance of the rifle with the fired round in order to make an emotional statement. Remember though, that facts don't care about your feelings.

Assuming animals of a similar size to humans.

2016 showed the dangers of unregulated voting, donchaknow?

Good.

not analogous.

Best suggestion on the thread.

A lot of local ranges and clubs require NRA membership. I will not, ever, become an NRA member.

FWIW, my guns are always kept unloaded and locked up.

...I would still want strict regulation of such weapons designed to kill a lot of people at range.

That is one of the circular arguments they are making, although they don't use the word idiot.

Applying the second amendment, which was written in the time of muzzle loaded single guns, to such weapons as the AR-15 is ridiculous. The "strict interpretation" people should interpret it with the meanings at the time of writing. What if for some reason any gun other than a muzzle loader was not considered an "arm" in the English language now?

The militia in my home town during colonial times had a building where all the powder and weapons were stored. In a time of need for protection the governor called out the militia and the arms and powder were given out. Another word that has perhaps been expanded to cover more than it used to.

I could go on about the other BS that we will hear, but I'll stop at saying it is my firm belief that if the writers of the second amendment were here today they would first be amused at the wide interpretation used and then aghast at the effects.

Firearms were permitted to be kept at home?

It was not an ordinance. Some people had their own firearms, some did did not. The militia stored their firearms there.

At home?

Cheers.

... in a short amount of time with little human resources or training.

That's a WMD not something "19" yr olds should be able to pick up off the damn shelf !!!

"Because I can" was his response.

And yes, a trump supporter.

As a dog has for licking his balls.

BTW, I prefer the company of the dog.

But I prefer Buddy's company over my cousin.....

And they are cowards and bullies