Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/14/2003 4:46:24 AM EDT
I am at work and was reading up on the threads that I have missed. I stumble on this thread http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=173768 and the more I read the more I got mad. I have been proud to be a hunter and have always respected the game I have hunted. I do this by taking the time to know the Game, land, responsibilities as a hunter and my actions, and what my weapons limitations are. I know that I can harvest a deer with a 22 LR. But is it responsible to do it? The answer to this is NO. The reason it is not responsible is because the round can do the job if you do your job and hit the animal in the right area but there are too many risks to take in and the odds are that some thing will go wrong and the game you are after will suffer.
I know that I am can shoot better than most and have dropped every deer on the spot that I shot them. I have done this by matching my weapon to my game, and taking my time and placing the right shot. If for any reason the shot was not there I would pass and try a different stalk/stand. At no point did I ever consider taking a risky shot for my own persional gain. And for any person calling them a hunter should think twice.
This Kid goes out with his 223 because he saw one deer drop on the spot and thinks it is a great round. Come on please! You have a 30-06 and yet you choose to use a 223! Just so you know a gun kills by the bullets ability to 1. Penetrate to the vital area, 2. the trama/shock of the bullet loosing it energy in to the animal, and 3. by blood loss.
Now if your bullet can not do all three of these then you are not doing your job and should either use a different size gun, or place your shot better if your gun is of the correct size to take the animal down.
A bow for you that refereed to them kills by cutting in to the animal and letting it bleed out. I have seen deer shot with a bow and they never know they where hit and had them bed down and expire. Others I have shot have dropped with in 20 yards due to no blood left in there system.
For this person to hunt with a 223 for deer is bad enougf but to try to take a large thick skin Grizzly is just absurd, unethical, and selfish and down right wrong! You think you are a hunter? Well let me tell you that you are not! Just because you where successful in killing it after several shots and hours of pain and suffering and bleeding does not make you any better. I would be ashamed that you did what you did. But that is just me an ethical hunter with more in mind than killing.
You say that the Bear did not taste good but you would have not known if your buddy had not tried it. Hell it was probably bad from the time it was hit and laid in the field. I know that bear is not the best tasting but there are things you can do to the meat to make it better and edible. But yet once again only a real hunter would know these things!
I have many more thoughts on this but I have taken to much of your time. I know that there are many others out there that feel the way I do and I am happy for that. For you out there that do not know what hunting is about and do not care for the game they are after then do us all a favor and keep out of the field.


Thanks,
MtHunter
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 5:57:07 AM EDT
Well, once again mods/staff have shitcanned a thread so I can't read the thread that you refer to, but otherwise I say "What he said!" You are right. It's important to respect the game enough to use the proper tool for the hunt.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 6:18:56 AM EDT
first i agree with you, but my only exception is that all deer are not created equal. the deer at home in MN are large whitetail. heathy buck average 180# average doe 160#. where i worked in CA this year average bucks were 120-130# and does were around 100#. i would have no problem taking deer where i was i CA with a .223 as long as it had a proper hunting bullet. i would never take a deer in MN with a .223. i remember that there are something like 100 different sub-species of deer in the U.S. i agree that the .223 shouldn't be used to take dangerous game.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 6:25:07 AM EDT
[beathorse][sleep]
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 7:48:55 AM EDT
I know this thread (or type) has been beaten to death. I just have one issue. If a big old MN deer is 180# and a 223 is not a manly enough bullet to take out the deer...How come the US Military and many other world armies think it is a manly enough bullet to kill a 180# human? If snap shots are being taken and the hunter does not care if he blows a hip out and the deer dies that way, well then, use a cannon. Might as well go 375 H&H Mag while we are at it. I am sick of this thread, if you hit a man in the foot he can shoot you back before bleeding to death, a deer has no choice. Virtually no animal or man will drop on the spot without a head shot. My personal belief is that aiming is more important than caliber and the size of your "cartridge". My rant over
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 8:02:56 AM EDT
[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=173768[/url] CHRIS
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 8:05:29 AM EDT
phatmax first off if you read my post you would have seen "Now if your bullet can not do all three of these then you are not doing your job and should either use a different size gun, or place your shot better if your gun is of the correct size to take the animal down.". shot place ment is everything and yes a deer will drop on the spot with out being shot in the head or neck/back. I well placed shot to the vitals, IE heart,lungs area and they will drop on the spot. Trus me I know I have harvested several dozen deer. As for your thaught about the 223 for a military gun I am in the service and the round is not make to kill. The 223 or 5.56 is made to hurt the combatant. By doing this his fellow troups must stop fighting and help him. Which takes more manpower than just letting his corpse lay in the field. If the military wanted to kill they would not use a FMJ. And they would have never moved away from teh 30 caliber guns. MtHunter
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 8:07:15 AM EDT
The 5.56x45mm Nato wasn't designed to "kill" humans, it was designed to "wound" them. The idea being that if you wound someone it would take two people to carry him off the battle field that way you could take out 3 people with one shot. The .223 may not be enough for all deer but on the other hand you sure as heck don't need a .300 Win. Mag either. The "little 'ol" 30/30 Win. has been killing deer for years without any problems. If you want long range get a .270 Win. , it'll shoot just as flat as any magnum out there with much less recoil and noise.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 8:18:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 8:25:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TheRicker:
Originally Posted By TNFrank: The 5.56x45mm Nato wasn't designed to "kill" humans, it was designed to "wound" them. The idea being that if you wound someone it would take two people to carry him off the battle field that way you could take out 3 people with one shot.
View Quote
[BS] 5.56 NATO was chosen to allow the soldier to carry more ammo in the field.
View Quote
And to allow more control over the rifle in full-auto. This BS about "designed to wound" is a ammo urban legend.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 9:01:29 AM EDT
I debated about joining in on the kicking of this dead horse. I decided to throw out something other than my opinions on caliber, to see if this helps. First of all, I am a gun hunter, and a bow hunter. Anyone who thinks that with a bow shot, the animal just saunters off, and dies a peaceful death, has probably never done so. This occurs for a lot of reasons. Whether or not the animal is suffering, well I guess we will never know. Unless a major organ or spine is hit, it will lay down and bleed to death, EVENTUALLY. Is this humane? I still bowhunt, so I guess you know where I come in on this one. I will not get into the bullet reactions/humanity other than to say that no two animals are ever the same. Every animal is different, as is every shot/harvest. Sometimes the best laid plans turn out ugly, even with enough gun, bullet and placement. Do I want needless suffering to take place, hell no. Does it happen, yes. Should we try our best, yes. Will I second guess someone else? Nope. Will I tell someone else how to hunt? No, unless they are a youngster, or someone seeking my advice. We all have to live with the decisions we make. If someone chooses to hunt in a manner that seems cruel, I would suggest that after the first experience they will modify their ways, or continue to do so. In either case, it will be their decision, and no amount of keyboard chest beating is gonna change that. About the best that I can come up with is to focus my energies on those folks who know nothing of hunting, and try and persuade them that I do my very best. Sometimes it is "good" enough, and sometimes not. As in any endeavor, there are all kinds of ways to get to the end. The bottom line for me is that anyone who hunts, get's my support. I may not agree with the methodology, but I have no problem with that. I have made my choices, and that is good enough for me. If you are a young or novice hunter, do your homework. Death is not to be taken lightly. You will be the one to have to live with the results, not the animal. Craig
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 11:14:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TNFrank: The 5.56x45mm Nato wasn't designed to "kill" humans, it was designed to "wound" them. Uh, wrong.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 11:22:29 AM EDT
http://www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=003602 the thread above should put the "wound" urban legend to rest.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 11:32:05 AM EDT
Ok, so there are other reasons for the 5.56x45mm, so shoot me for God sake. Only thing that I'm trying to say is that you really can't take a "varmint" ctg. seriously as a "man stopper". Sure, it'll "tumble" in flesh and make a nasty wound but it can't be trusted to do it every time. It's funny how everyone loves the 45ACP and beat up on the 9x19 Nato when it was adopted but they'll try to defend a .22 as being a "battle rifle" ctg. Give me a break. And NO, I wouldn't want to be shot with one, not even a .22 short but that's not the point. Point is a good .30cal makes the 5.56 look like so much of a pop gun and ya'll well know it does so don't argue the point.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 11:32:58 AM EDT
Seriously guys... lets drop the "meant to wound" bs. If that was the case wouldn't CQB require a different gun? It's really sad if anyone believes our troops would fight CQB with a weapon that's meant to only wound the enemy that may be within 20yds of them. Drop this wounding misconception. [BS]
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 11:40:22 AM EDT
It just terrifies me that in this day and age there are shooters out there that actually believe a bullet won't kill but wound a man. When I was a kid, you never heard that kind of nonsense. 5.56 will kill you deader than Johnny Cash (R.I.P) take that to the bank y'all.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 11:45:51 AM EDT
Seems like people are still trying to follow the bigger is better train-of-thought. Let's put it this way, you have two men who are hit by trucks. One is an f-350 with a trailer hauling a boat and the other is a 16-wheeler....which man is more dead? This is the same logic that goes into 5.56 vs. whatever. They are both more than capable of consistent killing, you can't make a man deader than he already is.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 11:53:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2003 11:54:33 AM EDT by eswanson]
Originally Posted By TNFrank: Ok, so there are other reasons for the 5.56x45mm, so shoot me for God sake. Only thing that I'm trying to say is that you really can't take a "varmint" ctg. seriously as a "man stopper". Sure, it'll "tumble" in flesh and make a nasty wound but it can't be trusted to do it every time. It's funny how everyone loves the 45ACP and beat up on the 9x19 Nato when it was adopted but they'll try to defend a .22 as being a "battle rifle" ctg. Give me a break. And NO, I wouldn't want to be shot with one, not even a .22 short but that's not the point. Point is a good .30cal makes the 5.56 look like so much of a pop gun and ya'll well know it does so don't argue the point.
View Quote
Translation: I'm trying to be nice, but shut up, y'all know I'm right, don't argue with me. The fact that you refer to the "tumbling" demonstrates that you really don't grasp the wounding mechanism of the 5.56 round. Please read the [url=www.ammo-oracle.com]ammo oracle[/url]. It's not the tumbling, it's the violent and explosive fragmentation.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 12:33:44 PM EDT
While you are reading the Ammo Oracle, you may want to read the Dr. Fackler article on the wounding mechanism of military bullets. He found the U.S. issue 5.56 round to be MUCH more devastating than the U.S. issue .308.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 12:41:17 PM EDT
Ok you guys are getting off subject! The 223 round was made to do what it does. Point blank. Was the 223 made to penetrate the thicker hides of deer/elk/bear? Sure it can but is that what it was made to do? Let me think about that... NO! My point about this thread is that even though [u]any [/u] round can kill any living thing it does not mean that you should try! The stunt this young kid tried was not what a hunter would call a morally sound judgment call.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 1:00:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2003 1:03:01 PM EDT by brouhaha]
Oh my God. This gets old so fucking fast. To all you who think the 5.56 is designed to wound/maim/annoy the enemy with teensy, tiny little wounds... Beyond what others have said, why would the military have gone with using different bullets (which, btw, are even deadlier) for use in long distance engagements? Certainly, the 55gr/62gr bullets will "wound" a person just as well at 400yds, right? So why the expense of switching to a different round for long distance engagements? The answer is to KILL people at longer ranges. The other ammo is good for shorter ranges, the 75/77gr stuff is good for longer ranges. And you wonder why we use FMJ if we don't want to wound? What do you think the 7.62x51 and 7.62x63 use, smart guy? It has nothing to do with what we want, and everything to do with rules of war we follow (but never signed). Jeez. Take a look at the threads tacked at the top of the ammo forum. After that, if you STILL insist on believing this urban legend, then you are beyond hope, and may God have mercy on your soul (nobody else will, and you'll be flamed here everytime you mention it). There needs to be a "nervous twitch" smiley here.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 1:18:11 PM EDT
So you can't hunt bear with a 17HMR??? [:E] CHRIS
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 2:03:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mthunter: Ok you guys are getting off subject! The 223 round was made to do what it does. Point blank. Was the 223 made to penetrate the thicker hides of deer/elk/bear? Sure it can but is that what it was made to do? Let me think about that... NO! My point about this thread is that even though [u]any [/u] round can kill any living thing it does not mean that you should try! The stunt this young kid tried was not what a hunter would call a morally sound judgment call.
View Quote
Sure it wasn't made to do it but the point you seem to be ignoring is that it is more than capable of doing so. a .223 wasn't designed to kill rabbits but surely you aren't going to question that as well.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 3:03:10 PM EDT
Once again read what I wrote! “I have done this by matching my weapon to my game, and taking my time and placing the right shot. If for any reason the shot was not there I would pass and try a different stalk/stand. At no point did I ever consider taking a risky shot for my own personal gain. And for any person calling them a hunter should think twice." This post was not about can it or can’t it kill what it did and larger game. The post is about what a hunter is about and talking game with a weapon that is of the correct size to harvest the animal with minimal pain and suffering. For crying out loud he had to shoot the damn thing 8 times over a few hours! I do not call that a great success story! Point Blank this so called hunter has a 223 with him to shoot deer and a 30-06 at his home. If for any reason he thought that he may need to shoot a Grizzly (he had the tag) then why in gods name did he not have that with him on at least in his truck? I am just saying that any hunter that is it to the sport for food/fun/nature what ever the reason has a responsibility to make the correct call out in the field. MtHunter
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 3:05:52 PM EDT
"Sure it wasn't made to do it but the point you seem to be ignoring is that it is more than capable of doing so.[b] a .223 wasn't designed to kill rabbits but surely you aren't going to question that as well."[/b] Well if it took 8 shots and a few hours to kill the rabit with a 223 then I would be saying the same thing... Mthunter
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 3:26:22 PM EDT
Well it sounds to me like the criticism doesn't lie with his choice of round but on his skill in general. If it took him 8 shots, he shouldn't be hunting period. Most hunters follow the rule, "If you don't have a clean shot...don't take one." Many people here have taken good sized game with a single .223 round. Don't blame the round.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 3:29:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mthunter: As for your thaught about the 223 for a military gun I am in the service and the round is not make to kill. The 223 or 5.56 is made to hurt the combatant.
View Quote
I don't know what branch of the military you are in, but the Marines have certainly never had a strategy involving wounding anyone. While I can't speak for all the services, I can definatly say that the 5.56 round is a very effective killer, and is meant for no other purpose by the military.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 3:36:50 PM EDT
Argue the design/tradeoffs of 5.56x45mm or any ammo all you want... 5.56mm on man-game works, Hit in most of the "center mass" area. 5.56mm works on medium sized game, Hit in a much smaller area, than is "center mass". Phatmax, ever hunt? Ever see a deer bolt, 100yds, or more, w/ a "center mass" shot from a rifle caliber bulet? Say 30.06? I have. Ever see a human run 100-150 yds. w/ a 5.56mm, let alone a 30.06, in its "center mass" area. No. Ammo. designs aside, no human reacts physiologically and/or psychologically, from a GSW, or most any trauma, for that matter, like wild animals. /S2
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 3:48:52 PM EDT
Personally, I haven't hunted humans. But I have hunted deer (and successfully with a .223 on mule deer out here in Texas). I've seen em bolt when hit with a .460 Weatherby. Shot placement is everything. I can see more latitude in more than optimal shot placement with a larger round but unless you can tell us why MORTAL trauma to vitals in game inflicted by a 5.56mm round is any different than one inflicted by a larger round, I'll stick by the premise that a 5.56mm round can be successfully used by the SKILLED hunter. For the hunter that needs 8 shots to kill a deer, I suggest a SCUD.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 3:58:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SULACO2: 5.56mm works on medium sized game, Hit in a much smaller area, than is "center mass".
View Quote
5.56mm absolutely works on medium sized game. It will work on Large game, like you said w/ proper shot placement. But as your game gets larger, your shot placement options become fewer, like your margin of error. I'd never tell any hunter his business, but I wouldn't risk my skills, to hunt a deer w/ a 5.56", in a pinch, sure, but not if I had the option. At best its marginally a deer round, and should be reserved in its use in that role to all, but the most skilled marksman/hunter. And you don't need me to explain, how and or why humans react differently to being shot, than animals do. /S2
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 4:06:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/14/2003 4:26:28 PM EDT by armax]
Well I agree. I wouldn't take down anything larger than the runt mule deer that's out here. My skills are far from expert. My conflict seems to lie in the initial poster whose misconception of the round is the foundation for his argument. If he had stated his post similar to your last one, I don't think this topic would have spanned two pages. thanks for posting effectively and in perspective SULACO2.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 4:13:33 PM EDT
Well done, well said. Thank you /S2
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 4:49:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TNFrank: The 5.56x45mm Nato wasn't designed to "kill" humans, it was designed to "wound" them.
View Quote
You forgot the part about how the bullet was designed to "tumble"...
Link Posted: 11/16/2003 3:58:50 PM EDT
I hear the same stuff about hunting with handguns. It is all shot placement and accuracy. Anyways while my 454 has a heck of a lot more power then any 223, my shots are shorter to make up for a shorter sighting plane,its a limitation of a shorter barrel. Personally I think shotgunning for deer is inhumane because of all the crappy shooters using them. 5 shots to miss or wound a deer. I use 1 shot each time. They die immediatly. period. 45 cal going in 100 cal going out. Do I let longer shots go by? sure. Part of the hunt.At least I can see where my deer fall, some sobs with rifles cant even find a blood trail or the body cause they shoot 300 yds away and cant track worth a damn. So anyways what Im saying is to each his own. Just be humane and ethical while doing it.
Link Posted: 11/16/2003 5:41:51 PM EDT
My grandad poached hundreds of deer with a 218 Bee, which is a lot weaker than a .223. He did not remember ever using more than one bullet. He took shots at short range and liked head shots. The .223 round has its limitations, but with good shot selection and at moderate ranges it will do the job. I want to be able to take much longer shots, so I use a much bigger and somewhat faster cartridge.
Link Posted: 11/16/2003 6:29:55 PM EDT
[img]www.btammolabs.com/fun/qualityammo.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 11/16/2003 7:00:50 PM EDT
The .223 was is not intended to be used as a big game cartridge, more so for varmints. With a well placed shot it will probably kill any big game animal in the lower 48. But as you know not all shots are well placed and that could just lead to not recovering the animal, but if using the proper round (30-06, 270 etc) which will cause more damage, penatration and shock which gives you a greater chance at recovery on a not so well placed shot. As for use on humans, I'm sure there are plenty of military personal that could tell you how effective it is, I for one would not want to find out. Just my .02
Link Posted: 11/16/2003 7:17:18 PM EDT
Well personally I think regardless of the size of the round, proper shot placement should be the number one priority. I wouldn't depend on the size of the round to down an animal, but I would depend on my marksmanship skill to do so. just my .02 cents.
Link Posted: 11/16/2003 9:39:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By arjohnson: The .223 was is not intended to be used as a big game cartridge, more so for varmints. With a well placed shot it will probably kill any big game animal in the lower 48. But as you know not all shots are well placed and that could just lead to not recovering the animal, but if using the proper round (30-06, 270 etc) which will cause more damage, penatration and shock which gives you a greater chance at recovery on a not so well placed shot. As for use on humans, I'm sure there are plenty of military personal that could tell you how effective it is, I for one would not want to find out. Just my .02
View Quote
I'm not sure thats true. Out to 200 yds. or so the .223 acts like a much larger round due to fragmentation. I don't remember the statistics but I believe that as long as the bullet is traveling above 2700 fps, effective fragmentation should provide as much stopping power as larger cartridges hitting in the same spots.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 3:20:55 PM EDT
Here are a few words of wisdom (mine)- Idiots should not have guns, nor be allowed to hunt. Many deer are wounded because people use TOO BIG of gun. A heavy kicking caliber is hard to shoot accurately without a lot of practice. A larger caliber is no substitute for good shot placement. Scot
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 3:40:04 PM EDT
5.56 was developed because the 7.62 could not be controlled in full-auto, plus you can carry more ammo. the "Intermediate round" came to play for military best of both worlds. Has for the urban leagend of only wounding came from the geneva convention of only using FMJ instead of hollow-points etc! etc! for humane reasons, has to the term "humane" in warefare. I do not know where they came up with that one.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:45:04 PM EDT
Dear mthunter, First off I'd like to say I don't believe in hunting for sport. I hunt for meat. I don't believe in hunting deer over corn or from one mountain top to another with a high powered rifle. I do believe in giving game a chance, by this I mean stalking on foot. Now I don't try to tell people how to hunt this is just the way I was brought up. How other people hunt is their own business. Do you remember the first deer you ever killed? I'm sure you were worried about proper shot placement and weather or not you had the proper meat stick for that certain situation. Maybe this young guy you speak of got a little excited and went a little overboard. Hell, I remember my first deer. When I first saw her I liked to passed out from adrenaline. My point is, not every one gets an oppertunity to see, let alone shoot at a dear. Not everyone can afford to be in nice hunting clubs. Most people don't have the spare time it takes stalk out good hunting grounds. So I'm not going to give them the business because they get excited and shoot more than one round or they made a poor weapon decision. I have hunted with my AR and I find it's a suitable round with of corse proper shot placement. But down here in the thick pine rows of Florida I prefer the 870 for obvious reasons.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 8:03:10 PM EDT
I am not a hunter/killer. I shoot paper from 6-600yds. maybe if all the foodstores closed, then maybe I would go a hunting. Silly wabbit,hahahahahahahaha. So what I have read is: .223 is for killing people and everything else for animals? Now I get it. Is that why I have 5000 rds of .223? So, correct me if I'm wrong, I am shooting paper at my favorite range here in sunny FLorida. A polar bear walks into my sight picture. I have a 30rdr w/ 5 rounds of 55gr loaded, do I double tap to the head and then one to the vitals or yell at the top of my lungs, scare the crap out of it and then shoot it in the butt as it runs away and let him bleed out??
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 11:09:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 11:22:30 PM EDT by MurdochsM4]
I agree with MtHunter. AR15Hunter whom shot a bear with a .223 is just a stupid kid trying to show off and prove himself to his gay friends. No self respecting hunter would do what he did. Not that Im an expert on military rounds; however, if the .223 is supposed to be a "lethal" round and not meant to wound as many say, then how come the larger 9mm round will not usually kill a person with one shot? Velocity? As far as the rabit analogy goes; the .223 was contracted as a round for military use against average sixed human beings; 500 pound human beings are extremely rare, thus the round would not have been contracted if the average weight of humans was 500; thus it is a BAD hunting round for 500 pound bears.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 11:10:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 11:20:47 PM EDT by MurdochsM4]
I am not a hunter/killer. I shoot paper from 6-600yds. maybe if all the foodstores closed, then maybe I would go a hunting. Silly wabbit,hahahahahahahaha. So what I have read is: .223 is for killing people and everything else for animals? Now I get it. Is that why I have 5000 rds of .223? So, correct me if I'm wrong, I am shooting paper at my favorite range here in sunny FLorida. A polar bear walks into my sight picture. I have a 30rdr w/ 5 rounds of 55gr loaded, do I double tap to the head and then one to the vitals or yell at the top of my lungs, scare the crap out of it and then shoot it in the butt as it runs away and let him bleed out??
View Quote
The house that you live in has displaced and KILLED animals and life. The meat that you eat is KILLED animals. You are a KILLER. As far as hunting with a .223, humans have soft skin, the bullet was contracted for military use against humans. Thick hided animals are not what the round was contracted for so it may or may not work well on animals of a similar weight as humans.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:23:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2003 3:25:02 AM EDT by JustL00king]
I dont care what caliber you use as long as you take your time and place your shots. You can drop anything with a .223 A hole in the heart, lung, or spine will put anything down real quick.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:39:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LocknLoaded: 5.56 was developed because the 7.62 could not be controlled in full-auto, plus you can carry more ammo. the "Intermediate round" came to play for military best of both worlds.
View Quote
Thats one of the reasons the m16 replaced the m14 but not the reason the round was made. It was made because the extra range, size, and weight of the 7.62 was deemed unnessessary by a study in the korean war. Which showed solders held their fire until they thought the enimy was close enough that they could hit them. Which was usuialy within 150 meters and since you can carry three times the ammunition for the same combat load with the m16 than the m14 It seems like the best thing to do.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 4:13:38 AM EDT
as i posted in another thread. The true hunter uses a knife. It is out of respect for the games spirit and you WILL know if you killed it or not.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 5:07:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mthunter: I am can shoot better than most [red]and have dropped every deer on the spot[/red] that I shot them. MtHunter
View Quote
I'll be 50 in March, I began hunting when I was 8, I have lost 3 deer in my life which I shot at; one was shot w/ a 223 (Ruger Mini-14), the other 2 were shot with bows. While I cannot say exactly how many deer I have killed over the years, I can say that the above statement is [BS]. The only deer that I can honestly say have fallen "on the spot" were neck shots and over the last 5-6 years or so I've had quite a few, as the older I get, the less horns interest me, the "MEAT" does. That said over the last twenty years, since using the 30-06 I have "heart" shot plenty deer. I've had a few (maybe half a dozen) drop "on the spot", but most make it 40 to 60 yards, hence the BS flag. (Unless of course your new to deer hunting and have shot less that 4 or 5 and you neck shot every one.) BTW, I think the pic is [BS] too....... Mike
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 5:32:15 AM EDT
Is there a difference between killing and slaughtering? If I lived in a cardboard box, would that make me a "killer" of trees? If I eat meat bought from the store, does that make me an accessory to "slaughter or killing". Read into the humor of the post. Then we all are guilty of being accessories to the disappearance of everything that is gone.. we don't know if anything was "killed in the proccess of building my home, sheer speculation, but there is an awfull abundance of wildlife in my backyard woods. How many red foxes and bald eagles do you have in your backyard? Mine looks like "Animal Planet" I once shoot a squirrel w/ a BB gun 40 years ago, I never "killed" anything since then.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 7:19:11 AM EDT
GunnedUp: That is fine that you choose to not do any direct killing. Most people make that choice. Some, but not all, of these people take a moral high ground for this stance, when in reality they are just paying others to kill for them. For instance, my sister looks down on me for hunting. But she still eats beef and poultry, all of which was killed for her consumption. Instead of doing the dirty work herself, she pays someone to do it. I don't see her as really holding the moral high ground, especially in light of the fact that at least the elk or deer, unlike the beef cow, has a chance at dying of old age. In answer to your question, "[i]f I eat meat bought from the store, does that make me an accessory to 'slaughter or killing'," the answer is obviously yes.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top