The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 4921 - 4940 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jonnyrig

climber
Feb 8, 2015 - 08:56am PT
I just took my third elk with a 30-06. It is my grandfather's old rifle, a Remington 760 pump action. I run 180 grain handloads, with a 180 grain boattail by Hornady. I can reliably take down an elk at 300 yards with it, 3-9 power Walmart scope, in most conditions.
The 30-06 is capable, but if you have the option you may want to go with a 300 mag or 7mm mag, either of which is flatter shooting and retains more energy than the tried and true 06. There are other, newer calibers as well; but it all depends on what's available to you I suppose.
I have passed on shots near 500 yds, which are common in the open conditions often encountered in the local high desert elk country. The 06 can do it, but the newer magnums just do it a little better. Either way, most important is to get comfortable with the specific gun and specific load you will be using, under the conditions you expect to encounter. This year we had a 30mph crosswind which i was not prepared for, and had to track a wounded animal two miles uphill in the freezing snow. It sucked. And I've seen people miss shots at 500 and at 150 yds with the flat shooting 7mm mag. More important than the specific caliber is knowing what you can do with it.
The 30-06 is plenty capable, but if you think you may shoot past 300 yds at elk, you might take a look at something with a bit more reach. The model 70 is a fine choice regardless of caliber, and the best thing you can do is equip it with high quality optics and learn how to use them, in whatever caliber you purchase.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 8, 2015 - 12:21pm PT
TE, I agree that we probably agree about more than we disagree. This one, however, I'm not sure about.

the moment someone steps into a public place with a loaded military firearm, they should be considered to have expressed the intention to subvert my (semi-)democratically elected government, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think I tend to agree, but only because the isolated guy brandishing a gun (your context was not clear, and it also wasn't clear if he was brandishing) doesn't tend to be some principled guy attempting to start a legitimate revolution.

Armed revolution, if it ever arises in the US again, will not be started by this or that isolated guy brandishing a gun. And if wide-scale, armed revolution does arise on these soils, lines will quickly be drawn in the sand, and everybody will be dealing with everybody "accordingly."
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 8, 2015 - 04:13pm PT
and a little zen with yur gun

Understatement, Ron. That's some good shootin'.

My eyes wouldn't be good enough these days to make 300 yards open-sights. LOL
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Feb 8, 2015 - 04:45pm PT
I simply don't see any legitimate lawful reason for almost any civilian to be carrying any loaded long rifle (military style or otherwise) in most public places, yet many gun owners seem to assert that this act is the very essence of the second amendment. How would those Bundy supporters feel about the second amendment rights of fifty armed, masked US citizens walking down the street in Bunkerville under an ISIS flag?

I could even accept that the right to own and train with such weapons is protected by the original intent (however obsolete now with a standing army), but I cannot accept that "we the people" or our police force have to wait until triggers are pulled to protect ourselves against one or fifty, or fifty thousand armed men walking down our streets with ill intent.

TE

TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Feb 8, 2015 - 05:06pm PT
..doesn't tend to be some principled guy attempting to start a legitimate revolution.

I don't care if he's a lone nut or fifty thousand principled rebels, the second amendment wasn't intended to require "we the people" to stand idly by until triggers are pulled. Loaded long rifles no longer have any lawful purpose in a public place therefore should be considered an implicit threat to "we the people".

TE

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 8, 2015 - 05:07pm PT
I simply don't see any legitimate lawful reason for almost any civilian to be carrying any loaded long rifle (military style or otherwise) in most public places, yet many gun owners seem to assert that this act is the very essence of the second amendment.

Oh, I see your point now.

Yeah, it's very hard to "carry" a loaded long gun without it seeming like "brandishing." And most people I know (myself included) think that the Texas "protests" with open-carrying of long-guns are doing more harm than good.

The one thing that can be said in their defense is that the Texas law regarding open carry is pretty nuts. The cause of the protest is to point out the sheer nuttiness of a law that precludes open-carry of handguns (holstered) but does nothing to preclude the open CARRY (a virtual necessity) of loaded long guns, which, as you rightly note, strike most people as far more threatening!

Most of those people don't want to open carry long guns around. They want to open carry holstered handguns around. But the (inane) law precludes sensible, (to most people) non-threatening holstered handgun carry.

At least here in Colorado, quite a few people open-carry holstered handguns, and nobody seems to even notice. So, there's a cultural aspect as well. But even in Colorado, I don't think the public wants to see loaded long guns (which are necessarily unholstered) open-carried!

I am sympathetic to the principle behind the Texas protest but also think that these people are actually harming the big-picture public perception! There are other means by which to get the law changed, including mass-scale civil disobedience by open-carrying holstered handguns, which IS what they want the law to allow.

Anyway, yeah, I agree that open-carrying loaded long guns legitimately feels threatening to most people, and the cause of the sane gun-carrying public is not helped by this form of "protest."
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 8, 2015 - 05:09pm PT
I don't care if he's a lone nut or fifty thousand principled rebels, the second amendment wasn't intended to require "we the people" to stand idly by until triggers are pulled. Loaded long rifles no longer have any lawful purpose in a public place therefore should be considered an implicit threat to "we the people".

Agreed also. And fifty-thousand wouldn't even start to get the job done.

Furthermore, if it comes to that, the whole question will be WHO "we the people" consists of!

So, yeah, there is something non-self-defense feeling about open-carrying loaded long guns in public.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Feb 8, 2015 - 08:31pm PT
I understand the point of the Texas protests, even if I don't sympathize, but I'm referring to the apparent legal inability to deal with the Bundy confrontation, and to the almost inevitable terrorist act which will take advantage of this absurdity in many state laws.

The practicalities of unloading a flintlock firearm and the relatively minor public danger of a lunatic or fanatic armed with one shaped the checks and balances arguments of the 1780's. That equation has changed beyond recognition, and our laws should too. There is no constitutional reason that can't happen except that the gun lobby knows the ultimate result would be lower gun sales, and therefore they oppose any efforts to reduce gun deaths and injuries, whether it be by criminals, lunatics or by the currently lawful negligence of gun owners.

If being a relativist means that I'm willing to sacrifice a narrow self-serving interpretation of an abstract philosophical principle for laws that save more innocent lives than they cost, then I'm a relativist.

TE
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 8, 2015 - 08:46pm PT
...our laws should too.... If being a relativist means that I'm willing to sacrifice a narrow self-serving interpretation of an abstract philosophical principle....

Can you tell me how exactly you'd like to see the laws change to save so many innocent lives?

And can you tell me what "narrow self-serving interpretation of an abstract philosophical principle" you refer to? I'd like to know what your perspective is of what makes it "self-serving" and exactly what principle you think is "serving self" by some "narrow interpretation."

Thanks in advance!
tradmanclimbs

Ice climber
Pomfert VT
Feb 9, 2015 - 06:42am PT
Ron, rang the 8" steel @ 200m yesterday despite my feeble 52yr old eyes with my No4 Mk1 lend lease made by savage .303
That 72 year old rifle is still smooth as silk and a straight shooter.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Feb 9, 2015 - 06:56am PT
When it comes to self-loaders there is a plethora of actions.

Single action
Striker fired
Double action
Double action only

There was even a self-loading recoil operated revolver with diagonal grooves on the cylinder for cycling to the next round.

BTW I have a Ruger LCP with laser and kydex holster, a nice package to replace my Colt Government .380 (which is now for sale with MANY extras).
xtrmecat

Big Wall climber
Kalispell, Montanagonia
Feb 9, 2015 - 09:06am PT


ontheedgeandscaredtodeath











Feb 8, 2015 - 08:34am PT

Thoughts on 30-.06 for an elk rifle? I am looking at the Winchester model 70 Super Grade.


I have a different view on the 30.06 for an elk rifle. Although this trusted and true cartridge was very popular for many years, it time has for the most part gone. Please let me explain.

What type of terrain do you plan to hunt? How far will animals on your hunt typically be when they can be shot? How much time do you have shooting, and are you proficient at shooting a big game caliber?
All questions and a hundred more would have to be answered honestly for anyone to even begin to be able to answer this question, for you!

Example, prior to the woods here bing over run with wolves, a typical mule deer shot could be anywhere from five yards to up to and uncluding 200 yards. Mule deer are not typically as tough as an elk, but you must place a shot well at the upper end, say 200 yards to have a clean humane kill almost assured, beyond that would be foolish without some considerable skills. Now that the wolves have ruined any form of outdoor activity as we used to know it, mule deer can only be rarely spotted anywhere under 700 to 2000 yards.

I use this example for a reason, stick with me please. My regular mule deer partner have a long history of time together and both have considerable ability at distance with our arms. When changes were occuring to our hunting, I changed to a much more modern caliber than I used to use, because the 7mm Magnum could only do the job well for a limited distance, and my abilities exceeded, as well as opportunities exceeded the range of this rifle. It is more than capable, at one time of up to 500 yards, with 300 being a more realistic range.
My partner carries the exact rifle you mentioned, and has done well with it for many decades, and so has his father. Now with changes and distances involved, he has been forced to shoot at the upper end of the range, and believe it or not, lost a well shot deer at the closer end of our now days range. Twice! We did put in our time and many really rotten miles trying everything to recover these animals, but in two instances and several days spent tracking and trying to recover them, the animals were lost.

The point, it once was a great all around gun for novice and experienced enthusiast alike, but not so today. All the stars and planets would have to be positioned right to get to use a rifle with this caliber and be doing the right thing. Can it kill an elk at 1000 yards? Yes absolutely,but only in hands capable of shooting way beyond anything you or I can. Is it good for elk hunting at 200 yards? Yes, and no. This is where the questions asked above come into play. Can you off hand, while possibly out of breath, without a bench, hit the boilerroom of a moving target, which is about the size of a bowling ball or even smaller, EVERY TIME? At 200 yards? If your answer is yes, by all means I would encourage you to do so. If your answer is anything but Yes, I would encourage you to gander at the hundred or so calibers and cartridges developed since then and find a more suitable tool.

This wasn't intended to downplay any other opinion, or insult any one else. It was intended as a small eye opener as to the thoughts that one should ponder prior to a hunting rifle of any use. I would say the same of the .308, maybe even 7mm, and hope you take time to make a more informed decision. One based of your ability, intended use and range, etc., etc..

ok folks, back to the discusion at hand.

Burly Bob

PS, for anyone considering posting a link or clip of gun stupidity, another week has gone by, and my guns, carried and used daily have gone through nearly a 1000 rounds of ammo with no incidents or accidents. Not a single complaint, no laws broken, and no fear instilled in the people. carry on.

fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Feb 9, 2015 - 10:11am PT
Bob commented:
Can it kill an elk at 1000 yards? Yes absolutely,but only in hands capable of shooting way beyond anything you or I can. Is it good for elk hunting at 200 yards? Yes, and no. This is where the questions asked above come into play. Can you off hand, while possibly out of breath, without a bench, hit the boilerroom of a moving target, which is about the size of a bowling ball or even smaller, EVERY TIME? At 200 yards?

Good comments Bob... Although here in Konnecticut we'd never be legally hunting out to 1000 yards I frequently see "hunters" lined up right before opening day at the range unable to hit the paper at 200 yards... From a bench... not out of breath... etc....

The old questions of "Can it...... " are often best answered with.... "Can YOU....."....

Stick with .338 Lapua.... :)
xtrmecat

Big Wall climber
Kalispell, Montanagonia
Feb 9, 2015 - 11:03am PT
fear wrote,


Good comments Bob... Although here in Konnecticut we'd never be legally hunting out to 1000 yards I frequently see "hunters" lined up right before opening day at the range unable to hit the paper at 200 yards... From a bench... not out of breath... etc....

The old questions of "Can it...... " are often best answered with.... "Can YOU....."....

Stick with .338 Lapua.... :)

You made me laugh so hard I have bubbles coming out of my nose. It isn't just your locale that the phenomenon of people lining up to "sight in their rifles" for the season and can't hit sh!t. I usually avoid watching this sh!t show as much as possible.
It isn't only the lapua that can do the job at this range, and I wouldn't want to eat the mess left afterward, that thing has very few uses in the hunting world.

Comes more back to the old "ethics" thing, every time. Tried to not use the word, but it fits. I have only shot one animal at this range, and if had it to do over, wouldn't take the shot again. That is a long ways, and although my practice plate is 10 inches by 11 1/2 inches, and can be struck at this range and beyond repeatedly, it still wouldn't be right to take a cold bore shot with unkown air conditions at this range ethically, for me. Can I do it? Probably. Should I? Absolutely not with my current abilities. That shot was taken succesfully in the early eighties, and I have considerable more experienc now.

Burly Bob


Edit because I cannot spell for crap.
jonnyrig

climber
Feb 9, 2015 - 11:32am PT
Summary:
Doesn't much matter what you shoot. Get proficient with it, and know both your limits and your gun's limits. Some calibers are more capable than others, and some people can do more with less. Other's can't hit the broad side of a barn from 5 feet with a shotgun.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Feb 9, 2015 - 07:44pm PT
tradEddie, so what you are really saying is that since our GOVT now has formidable personal firearms, that we the people should no longer have an equal means of self preservation?

I never said that you can't have the means of self preservation, but unless you can provide me an example of a non-insurgent reason to carry a loaded formidable firearm in a crowded public place, doing so should be regarded as an explicit threat to democracy and the rule of law, and the majority of "we the people" should be able to use the rule of law to preserve it.


Madbolter, to borrow a phrase, safe, legal and relatively rare is how I'd like to see gun ownership or gun carrying. To do that, we need to reduce the urge (and need) of people to own and carry a gun that is far more likely to injure their spouse or children than prevent a life-threatening crime. It's trivially easy for criminals and lunatics to get guns, and that needs to change.

We agree on universal background checks, if not on the level of government to best perform them. If you remain skeptical about their effectiveness, go to any popular gun sale website, select a state without universal background checks, and search for "no background check". Count how many "law abiding" gun owners are openly and legally offering to sell guns to criminals. See also the number of dealers who need to point out they will do a background check, to reduce the barrage of online inquiries from criminals. Some criminals will always be able to get guns, but guns are not like drugs, the market is tiny, illegal trade is not self-sustaining, the same profit margins are not there. Lunatics and the less motivated will choose less lethal tools. Take your own critical look at the raw numbers from states with and without universal background checks.

The penalties for negligent gun dealers are laughable, with almost no risk of serious prosecution for dealers who lose the paperwork and sell guns on the side. Ron boasts that his store exceeds federal security requirements, but there are no federal requirements, merely recommendations. Many first-time dealer offenses are merely misdemeanors, prosecutors are not going to build an expensive case for such crimes.

We've been over this before. The gun industry opposes any effective measures because effective measures would reduce gun sales, directly by preventing criminal purchases, and indirectly by reducing crime and thereby reducing legitimate demand. They rally around this small-government rhetoric because they, like many corporations, know that Big Government is a far bigger threat to corporate profits than it is to the well-being of its citizens.

TE
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Feb 9, 2015 - 08:14pm PT
I carry a "loaded formidable firearm" in public every day.... I'm hardly an insurgent. What's the measure for something you're personally "comfortable" with? Why should your comfort matter assuming you're in no real danger?

I agree that the clowns in Texas open carrying various rifles slung in the front in restaurants certainly seems childish to me. I would not be comfortable sitting with my family in a public place with 10 20-something asshats so equipped trying to make a statement. I'd most likely just leave.

That being said, if they were not carrying such rifles in an unsafe manner there is no crime or real danger and I'd absolutely respect their right to do so even though I wouldn't be "comfortable" with it.

I'm not comfortable with a lot of things people do every day. I don't like being at parties where people are shitfaced drunk and/or high.... Too bad for me.

It's a dangerous thing to try and legislate one's "comfort". We live, or at least used to, in a country based on freedom and liberty. That means sometimes sacrificing your comfort for peoples rights to live as they choose.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 9, 2015 - 09:40pm PT
And just when I think we're on the same page, it all goes to hell in a handbasket. Sigh

Madbolter, to borrow a phrase, safe, legal and relatively rare is how I'd like to see gun ownership or gun carrying.

Why "relatively rare"?

In Colorado, law enforcement states that they wish every law-abiding citizen was packing. The Sheriff that granted my CCW stated to the whole group of us there that day (over fifty just that one day out of five that week) that he supports CCW because he believes that an armed citizenry is the FIRST line of defense against crime. I could go on. I, for one, just don't even go a STEP down the road you suggest: "Relatively rare" should instead be, "VERY common, coupled with well-trained."

To do that, we need to reduce the urge (and need) of people to own and carry a gun that is far more likely to injure their spouse or children than prevent a life-threatening crime.

Nope, again, not going there with you. The need and urge is real and legitimate. That's one you are not going to get me to agree with you about.

Even if that study I quoted was an order of magnitude off (no way, not even the critics claim that!), that would still be at least an order of magnitude more legitimate uses each year than idiots and negligents doing dumb things. This is one that you're just not gonna convince me on. I'll always ante up for more training and better lock-down of unattended firearms. But your above statement about "more likely" just isn't getting off the ground with me.

It's trivially easy for criminals and lunatics to get guns, and that needs to change.

Yup. Agreed. And that has very, very little to do with your above statements.

We agree on universal background checks, if not on the level of government to best perform them. If you remain skeptical about their effectiveness....

I'm not skeptical that they can do SOME good. That's enough for me, as I've said. Let's not start up a disagreement where we don't actually have one. Your above points provide plenty of grist for that mill already!

The penalties for negligent gun dealers are laughable, with almost no risk of serious prosecution for dealers who lose the paperwork and sell guns on the side.

Fine, but I'm less sympathetic about this than you would think I should be, because I think we have SO many other FAR more damaging and pressing enforcement problems than this.

One of my good, good friends and her daughter were recently hit by a drunk driver, which totaled their new car, put both of them in the hospital for over a week, and now has both of them (particularly my friend) suffering from what looks to be such severe concussions that it means permanent brain damage. She has been an excellent, highly-evaluated, middle-school teacher and just two weeks ago tried to go back to work. It's not looking good. Her evaluations went through the floor, and they are talking about her not being fit to continue. She honestly can barely think coherently now. It's a struggle for her to keep two sentences together on the same topic.

So, her car cannot be replaced by insurance (you know how a new car goes when totaled: underwater). Her insurance company is saying that she can only get medical coverage, etc. up to the limits of the drunk driver's insurance policy, which was the minimum-legal (of course). Nobody is covering her now massive medical bills. She's looking at suing, but the 30-year-old drunk driver is a loser working in fast food and not, shall we say, upwardly mobile, so will never have money to speak of.

And the drunk driver is about to get a plea-bargain to do 48-hours in jail and six months of probation.

This woman (I really struggle to not explode in pejorative terms!) ruined my friend's and her daughter's lives. I mean, literally, no-exaggeration ruined. Nothing will every be like it was, even close: health, career, car, loss of house due to catastrophic medical expenses... it goes on and on. And the drunk driver is going to WALK with six month's probation! No fines. No requirement to devote 1/4 (at least) of her paycheck for the next 20 years to even START to make up for the damage she did. She just basically walks!

And she is the tip of the iceberg, and that pisses me off a LOT more than the tiny proportion of bad shoots that take place in this country (we're 1/3 of a BILLION people, remember!).

So, you start talking about throwing away the key on people like this drunk driver, and I'll start having a shred of sympathy about another enforcement hobby horse!

TE, it seems that whenever we get close to a pretty sweeping agreement, you make some envelope-edge comments that push me way back from you again.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 9, 2015 - 09:41pm PT
It's a dangerous thing to try and legislate one's "comfort". We live, or at least used to, in a country based on freedom and liberty. That means sometimes sacrificing your comfort for peoples rights to live as they choose.

And THAT, my friend, is where the rubber meets the road!
zBrown

Ice climber
BrujÚ de la Playa
Feb 10, 2015 - 06:06pm PT
I 'spose that drunk should just be able to live his life as he chooses, right? Why should he (or the legal system) be concerned about someone's comfort at the expense of winoman's right to live free?

The world has definitely gone wrong when the man is even shooting sovereigns.

Florida Deputies Kill 'Sovereign Citizen' After Ambush in Florida

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/florida-deputies-kill-sovereign-citizen-after-ambush-florida-n304031



Messages 4921 - 4940 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews