Hunting With Assault Weapons

I don't understand why hunting with a assault rifle or a machine gun is bad. People say that it is to easy and unfair for the animal. We slaughter animals and no one says anything about that being unfair! Yes I know we raised the cattle so it should give us the right to kill it right? No, thats like saying a parent killing their child isn't murder, it is.

 

They are too often too stupid to understand the contradiction in their position.

Sorry, but after all the threads after Sandyhook, I realized exactly how stupid and unwilling to learn most gun control advocates are.

 

EDIT: Previous post completely removed because I didn't get the point.

Semi automatic weapons allow a quicker follow up shot but don't make the gun anymore powerful. The true power comes from the ammunition though. A bolt action 30-06 is more powerful than a semi auto .223. It's easier to drop a deer in one shot with the 06. The semi auto .223 allows faster follow up shots but isn't as likely to drop in one shot. Dead is dead but if you have to shoot an animal half a dozen times it's not as easy a death. I would rather a clean kill in one shot instead of dumping half a mag to make sure it's dead. An M1 garand has the power of a 30-06 with the semi automatic capability for faster follow up shots. This offers the best of both worlds.

 

The only issue with the M1 is that you have to either buy or load special ammunition that is less powerful than your typical factory loads of today. The ammunition today is more powerful than what the M1 was designed to operate with, and the operating rod will be damaged.

As for the difference between the 30-06 and the 5.56 NATO, you are looking at a difference of two fold. The 30-06' is twice as powerful (measured in foot pounds of energy) as the 5.56 NATO. Hell, my marksman rifle chambered in .300Winmag is three times more powerful than the 5.56 NATO.

These facts, and the dismissal of, only lends to further the notion that most gun control advocates do not have a clue.

 

The M1 gas system was designed not only to operate at a certain pressure but also with a certain amount of gas volume. I've heard it's not too difficult to get an adjustable gas system. Semi auto rifle technology has advanced since then though and there are other semi auto 30-06 rifles out there to choose from.

As for 5.56/30-06 you should look up the Taylor Knockout Formula if you haven't heard about it before. It's a formula that factors in bullet speed, weight, and diameter to determine how deadly it is. It doesn't factor in other variables like steel penetrator vs hollow point so it is a bit crude but it gives a pretty good guideline. .22lr rated somewhere along 1.4 5.56 is somewhere around a 5, 30-06 is about a 19, a 12 gauge slug is about 70, and .50bmg is something like 140.

 

A Mini 14 was used a few years ago here to kill a number of people, including 2 Palm Bay police officers in a shooting at a pair for grocery stores. But you wont see a Mini 14 held up as a killing machine.

 

Wow, that is interesting.

 

If the AR-15 is banned and the mini 14 is left alone it will be next on the chopping block.

 

Taylor knockout formula was primarily designed for hunting big game in Africa. I'm really not convinced that beyond shooting elephants and cape buffalo that it is applicable. It gives the .44 magnum (19.9) about the same power as the .30-06 (20.1). I don't quite believe that is accurate for most game hunting beyond shooting through the skulls of big game. It also gives the .38 special (6.2) more power than the 5.56 (5..

 

They wont be banned. I dont say that off the cuff like I dont care, I know many that would love nothing more than for us to be stripped of our 2A rights.
But Barak Ofailure is losing steam and friends in all sectors of the country.

 

It's crude and not 100% accurate but it gives a general ballpark idea as to what power the respective cartridges hold.

 

First, do we know what an assault weapon is? You need an NFA stamp to own one. They have selective fire, including at least a 3 round burst. An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon. It's a semi-automatic firearm, and it's not a weapon at all until and unless it is used as such.
An AR makes a wonderful varmint rifle, if it's properly set up for that purpose. This normally involves a flat top receiver with a decent high power scope mounted, a longish barrel of 20 or 24", a free float tube, and a decent trigger. Mine is set up nicely for that:

It makes a nominal deer cartridge, and should not be used on animals that weigh more than about 140 lbs., even with the better bullets that are designed for the purpose.

 

Most anti gunners aren't gun savy enough to realize the difference between NFA firearms and assault weapons as defined by the Clinton AWB. As far as they know it looks scary so it's an assault rifle. Rather than explaining the misconception regarding the loading mechanism I wanted to address the misconception of the power of the cartridge. As you mentioned with your AR it's a good varmint rifle, but not good for bigger animals.

 

I found this in a gun store today. The one I found didn't have a scope or bipod and had a regular synthetic stock. This is way more powerful than the scary AR-15 but would make a pretty good hunting rifle.

 

That thing is basically a Dragunov by a different name. It would be powerful enough for game up to Elk and bear, but with the scope, it would weigh around 14 lbs. The cartridge performs basically the same as our .30'06.
I read accounts where one of our allies in Iraq were using a rebadged version of basically the same rifle. They could connect out to about 900 yards, but the thin barrel lost accuracy after only 2 or 3 rounds, and had to be allowed to cool before another attempt was made to shoot at distance.
Just for fun, in the movie "Hurt Locker", it's the rifle that the insurgents were using in the engagement where the good guys took 'em out with a .50 cal. Barret.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Why do I need to justify my use of such property? If I'm not initiating force with it against others what business is it of anyone else's?

Collecting weapons is a perfectly normal and peaceful thing to do.

 

My go to coyote gun is now a ar15, and if I had to purchase a new gun for deer, it would be a larger caliber ar10. I can get .7 inches groups at 100 yards with my semi-autos and misfires are so rare that I see no reason to buy bolts.

 

Yeah pretty much. I've heard the real Russian dragunov is difficult to get because of importation issues. The above rifle is manufactured here in Oregon. The weight and $1300 price tag leave a lot to be desired but it's still neat to see them popping up in gun shops.

You don't need to justify it to me. This thread was meant to counter the idea that a gun being unsuitable for hunting is justification to ban it.

Yeah a semi auto .308 is a nice way to go. Good for deer, elk, and even bear.

 

Wasn't directing that at you, but at society in general.

 

Ah got it. Just wanted to be clear on that.

 

I'm sorry but you're wrong. I don't say this because I agree with the gun control advocates, but simply because you're wrong. An assault weapon is a legal term defined as any semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine that has any one or any semi-automatic weapon with any combination of two or more of the following features: a pistol grip, a folding or collapsible stock, a flash suppressor, or bayonet lug. Assault rifle on the other hand is a technical definition defined as a selective-fire rifle of intermediate caliber. There is another legal term "machine gun" that differs from the technical definition of the same, a "machine gun" in the US legal code being any gun capable of firing two or more projectiles with a single trigger pull. You have conflated all of those terms with each other. An assault weapon doesn't require an NFA tax stamp unless it is also a short barrel rifle or shotgun, an assault rifle does because it is legally defined within the US Code as a "machine gun" even though it is not technically a machine gun as it is not a support weapon specifically designed for sustained automatic fire.

Is the term "Assault Weapon" an arbitrary one completely devoid of sense and based entirely on cosmetic features? Yes, but it's still a legally defined term distinct from "Assault Rifle".

 

I'm not a hunter, but I respect their right to use whatever they feel adequate.

The political cartooning is purely politically motivated disinformation preying on the ignorance of their intended sheepeople audience. It's just another not so veiled attack on the Ugly Scary Black Guns.

--- Tribble

 

As for the definition of "assault rifle" vs. the new age definitions of sporting arms....
These new distinctions exist only in the body of laws that are unconstitutional attempts by the liberal left to disarm the American citizenry. I am NOT wrong. The likes of Dianenstein and her ilk are wrong to the point where now, even the Ruger 10/.22 is an "assault weapon".

 

Quite.

It plays well with the politically apathetic vassal of government.

They use the odd mass shootings to justify their infringement. Strip the freedoms of 314million Americans for the misdeeds of less than 50 miscreants.

I call it the "plane crash" effect: 24 people die on a plane crash vs 24 in individual accidents. All are tragic, but only one gets attention. If it bleeds it leads.

It unfortunately results in a perception error that makes things look worse than they are. That's perfect if you are pushing an agenda that is contrary to the facts on the ground.

--- Cherif

 

So is what you are saying is that if the law defines Earth as the center celestial body of the universe then it is correct? Sorry but that doesnt work for me. If the law makers cant properly define something then it isnt a very good law. Anybody with any firearms knowledge knows that an "Assault rifle" is a weapon that combines the range & accuracy of a rifle with the rate of fire & mobility of a sub-machine gun. There is no other definition for it because anything else would fall into a different weapons class. And Assault Weapons are things like flamethrowers, mortars, bazookas, etc. Which those arent legal so the term "Assault Weapon" should not even be used at all.