Ray,



M1Tanker has referred to you as someone that supported the banning of the 50 for hunting in Idaho (spellling....not sure)



Is that true?



Mike

Come on Mike,
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but how ethical is it to shoot an Elk, or something 1000+yards away, with a bullet that has the capability of passing through half a dozen more Elk at the same time?
Mind you, the right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, so by all means, any citizen in good standing should be allowed to own as many 50's as she or he wants.
At the same time, something that large detracts heavily from the spirit and meaning of the hunt and has no use as a hunting arm in the fields of North America. Thats my opinion, and just like assholes, everyone has one.
Sorry your battle with arms priveledges down under did'nt go so well, but up here our RIGHT to bear arms gaurantees that we'll have the choice to be ethical, or unethical in the field. Man, I love America.
Cheers,
Trigger

So what next we ban the 338 Lapua or the 338 Ultra mag because they can shoot a hell of alot better at long Range than a 50 cal. So who decides what range we can shoot at? Dont put your own limits on anyone but yourself cause the guy that is bumping Elk off at 1000 yards has a hell of alot more time in it then the guy who pulls the old 30/06 out of the closet for the first time in a year the day before season and trys to shoot a Elk at 400 yards with it.

Isn't this really an ethics issue?

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but how ethical is it to shoot an Elk, or something 1000+yards away, with a bullet that has the capability of passing through half a dozen more Elk at the same time?

Then ban the 50 Peace Keeper. What about 50 Peace Keeper with Hornady A max bullets Vs 50 BMG with ball ammo.

But all I am asking is if Ray supports the ban of the 50 for hunting. His name has been used as a supporter of the ban and the suggestion has been that he was part of getting the ban.

Mike

Dakor,
You said it. If the 338 shoots better than the 50, than why
use the 50 with weight, muzzleblast and recoil being that much more?
I'll say it again, the 50 has no practical use afield.
One can never have too many guns, and i'm living proof of that, hell, go buy 10 50's if you can afford it.
However, to hunt with one is a stunt, just like using a rimfire on whitetails, but on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Yes, i'll support the ban on the 50bmg for "HUNTING". I'll also be the guy to put a 75 cal 12 GA slug through your forehead when you come to take my arms.
Trigger

To be more accurate - Idaho did NOT ban the 50BMG for hunting.

Idaho law states that a legal hunting rifle must weigh no more than 16 pounds. This WAS in response to people sniping at elk using 50BMG rifles from one ridge to another at ranges exceeding 1000 yards, but they did not specifically ban any caliber.

If anyone wants to hunt elk with a 16 pound 50BMG, have at it.

Back in the early 90s I hunted in Montana with an outfitter who hunted guys that would not shoot at an Elk at less than 1000 yds. These guys said they were shooters and liked the Elk meat. According to the outfitter they were very selective in their targets. Used range finders etc just like artillary. He also said the couldn't shoot mule deer as they would not stand long enough for the ranging and windage adjustments. Not my style but if they were not indiscrimatly throwing lead around hey who am I to cast the first stone. I think many of the hunting parctices we frown upon is the result of "hog hunters" not the method employed.

Mike,
Could you answer my question? Isn't this about hunting ethics ?
In your part of the world, is it legal to take any game with any firearm?

Rusty,



I think the 270 is the minimum calibre that can be used on Sambar deer.



But minimums are not a problem. We can let the antis argue that it should be a 243 or 222 for Sambar deer. In fact I would like to see the minumum be a 600 Nitro. Then the antis can argue that such a minimum discriminates against the working man and needs to be changed In fact a 700 Nitro minimum is even better.



The main issue is legislating against calibre/gun. The very basis of the pro gun side is that the gun itself is not the issue. Of course on the anti side the gun/calibre is the key issue and in terms of the gun debate there is a huge difference between banning less than a 270 as opposed to banning at the high end.



By banning a calibre for hunting like the 50 and then boasting how effective such a ban has been can only support the antis that the issue is calibre/gun. In other words the solution to the problem is to ban the gun/calibre. Saying that you can still own the gun is straight out of Gun Control Australia.



But my question is quite simple. Was Ray misquoted or does he support the 50 ban for hunting.



Mike

Mike,
I am not sure what your asking, but will attempt an honest answer...

I had nothing to do with passing the law....I do support the law...It has nothing to do with caliber or gun control, it is a weight limit on hunting rifles, but it did do away with the road hunting use of 50 BMG, which was its goal, and no one is using the 50 BMG in Idaho these days..This is a high rough country and steep, no flat spots, all up and down, and no one in there right mind would pack a 16 pound rifle and that ammo all day long..The law worked..It accomplished its goal without restricting caliber and getting into a gun control issue..

I said in a previous post that if some one coulded pack one of those monster all day long in our Idaho mountains then more power to them..Idaho for your information is the most up and down state in the USA, More like the Alps for the most part, I don't think there is a level spot north of Ketchum....

Its a none issue with me, its a done deal and all the posts in the world can't change it.

"It has nothing to do with caliber or gun control, it is a weight limit on hunting rifles, but it did do away with the road hunting use of 50 BMG, which was its goal, ...."

Sorry but that is the exact mo that the gun control crowd typically uses and no matter how "noble" the goal, passing laws that limit the legal use of any firearm, no matter how impractical, as a means of controlling potential criminal activity is stupid and no amount of rationalization will change that.