Big Bore Rifles Why??

30 January 2002, 11:29

<500 AHR>

Will all of the attention placed on hunting by antihunting groups with regard to how "inhumane" hunting is should big bore rifles be banned from hunting?

I pose this question because while I personally believed that the big bore was a better killer when used accurately other seem to disagree. My opinion was based solely on personal experiences. Now upon review of a much larger data base, namely the experiences of many posters here, I question the validity of my personal experience. I believe that perhaps the big bores are in fact not better than the the smaller say 30 and 338 calibers and in actuality may be worse. As many have correctly asserted bullet placement is first and foremost important consideration for a clean kill. The recoil generated by the big bores can be at the least intimidating leadin many to flinch. The end result a poorly placed shot and a wounded/crippled animal. Now if this animal escapes a follow-up and survives it becomes a poster child for PETA and such.

Now I aske again. Should the big bores be banned from hunting?

Now obviously I suppose a shooting proficiency test could be conducted to discern if someone is able to shoot the big bore well so I will ask this question.

Should a hunter have to pass a shooting proficiency test in order to prove the proficiency with a big bore to hunt with it?

One last question. Knowing that the big bore does not kill any better, or provide a true knock down, than a smaller less punishing caliber why hunt with the big bore?

Todd E

30 January 2002, 11:42

Paul H

quote:
Originally posted by Todd E:
(sic) Knowing that the big bore does not kill any better, or provide a true knock down, than a smaller less punishing caliber why hunt with the big bore?
Todd E

A few reasons. While under ideal conditions, the small bores kill just as well as the big bores, the real world doesn't always dish out ideal conditions. Most folks ignore reality, so say, my small bore will work just fine. I'm conservative by nature, and figure that I owe it to the game to have a round that will work under ideal conditions, as well as less then ideal conditions, and if things really go awry, I want a blodd trail Ray Charles could follow up.

The second reason is I like the big bores, and all my guns are hunting guns, so whether a 500 Jeffrey is not needed for moose hunting won't disuade me.

30 January 2002, 12:02

dan belisle

I agree with Paul. Sure when everything goes well I can kill a moose with a 22. But if conditions aren't perfect, it doesn't work that well. And yes, everyone here is going to say that they only take the perfect shots, I'd like to say that too, but it wouldn't be true. Sometimes lousy conditions and a poor choice are all you have or the freezer is empty this fall. So it's kind of an insurance policy. Also, it's just a lot of fun. FWIW - Dan

30 January 2002, 12:30

Robgunbuilder

First you have to agree with the basic premise that big bores don't kill better. I don't agree, and I've seen no scientificly valid data that proves otherwise. All the energy,velocity,duration of effect calculations in the world are inherently flawed and thus, won't convince me that a big gaping hole through any animal( that will result in its death) is not far more effective than a tiny one. Perfect shot placement rarely actually happens in the real world and a big bore can help to compensate for error. I would in fact argue that hunting with a big bore is in fact the more humane approach since the hunter under nearly all circumstances is more likely to kill the animal rather than wound it. Using this logic, a hunter WHO DOES NOT CHOOSE to use a Big Bore should be required to demonstrate his /her abilities with a small bore.-Rob

30 January 2002, 14:08

<500 AHR>

Rob, Dan, & Paul,

I have calculated the forces imposed upon animals by big bores. In general with the true big bores these forces are over 1 ton! Almost everyone told me that scientific data was bullsh!t. Paul, you even told me it was not correlated to real life. Believe me it has.

I am somewhat of an ass when dealing with so called know it alls. Most of the individuals that responded negatively to my post have never shot a big bore into a game animal. Even some that say they have haven't there posts are obviously bull.

Having said that I will explain how it all works. In the thread I started dealing with the force generated by a stopping rifle I gave half the solution. JonA came painfully close to figuring it out. He is however stuck on momentum, which is not constant. Here is the rest of the story.

The bullet is decelerated by the animals body until it stops. In the case of my 500 AHR, this deceleration imposes a force of around 2200 pounds (exact number is on the other thread). This force is generated in a time of approximately 0.0025 seconds. In that time as it was calculated on the other thread the animal is accelerated to a velocity of .145 ft/sec. That however is not the end of the acceleration. The animal continues to accelerate until acted upon by a resisting force. This resisting force is the animals muscle structure. The animal senses the acceleration to it's mass caused by the bullet and compensates by leaning into the force. The response time of the animal will fall in the 0.1 to 0.4 second timeframe. By the time the animal begins to compensate it, the animal, has been accelerated to a velocity much of 5.4 to 21.6 ft / sec depending upon the animals reaction time. As you can see the animal is now moving pretty good and will fall! That is how if works. Now this is valid with a stationary animal such as my example. Now keep in mind that we have not taken into account the mass of the bodily fliuds that have been accelerated by the passing of the bullet either. Consideration of those will increase the velocity.

For those that say the rifel want knock me over so the bullet cannot knock over the animal. Try this. Take that rifle and hold it loosely out about 4 inches from you shoulder and shoot it. Does it strike your shoulder harder than if you hold it in tight against your shoulder. I believe that you will answer this question with a yes. The reason the rifle is accelerating even after the bullet has left. The same holds true with the animal that has been hit with the bullet.
Anyone that argues this one has a problem with reality.

Todd E

[This message has been edited by Todd E (edited 01-30-2002).]

30 January 2002, 14:34

Mike375

Todd,

From your post:

"This force is generated in a time of approximately 0.0025 seconds. In that time as it was calculated on the other thread the animal is accelerated to a velocity of .145 ft/sec. That however is not the end of the acceleration. The animal continues to accelerate until acted upon by a resisting force"

Why does acceleration continue after the force has ceased?

Mike

30 January 2002, 14:46

D Humbarger

What should it matter what you mess up an animals vital organs with?????????? as long as you use ENOUGH gun.

------------------
NRA Life member

[This message has been edited by Bear Claw (edited 02-01-2002).]

30 January 2002, 15:29

<500 AHR>

Mike,

The acceleration does cease with the end of the bullets travel because the animals mass is now moving. Until the animal's mass is stopped the animal continues to accelerate due Newton's third law. I admit that the numbers I quoted are an approximation, but they are representative of the phenomena at hand.

Todd E

30 January 2002, 16:19

Mike375

Todd,

I am with JonA on the other thread

a = f/m

a = 0

Mike

30 January 2002, 17:56

WyoJoe

quote:
Originally posted by Todd E:
should big bore rifles be banned from hunting?...................................Should a hunter have to pass a shooting proficiency test in order to prove the proficiency with a big bore to hunt with it?

In answer to your question IN NO WAY, SHAPE, FORM, OR FASHION SHOULD BIG BORES BE BANNED FROM HUNTING. Todd I am not saying in any way you are, or ever would advocate gun control but that is a tactic that the gun controllers use. They get to saying a particular type of gun has no use so it should be banned.

WyoJoe

30 January 2002, 18:25

jnc91

Todd,
I may never have fired a big bore rifle into a game animal but I can recognize elephant dung when I see it.

My answers to your questions.

1. "Now I aske again. Should the big bores be banned from hunting?"

2. "Should a hunter have to pass a shooting proficiency test in order to prove the proficiency with a big bore to hunt with it?"

3. "One last question. Knowing that the big bore does not kill any better, or provide a true knock down, than a smaller less punishing caliber why hunt with the big bore?"

My answers
1. No
2. Hell No
3. Because I damn well want to.

30 January 2002, 18:26

500grains

Someone asked me why I would want to shoot an elephant.

I do not think it is possible to answer a question that makes no sense.

31 January 2002, 15:42

Robgunbuilder

Todd- The biggest thing I've ever shot with a big bore (470NE) was a cape buffalo at about 35 yrds. Right smack in the shoulder and he didn't get knocked down at all. What did I do wrong? I Want to knock -em down! . With over 1 ton of energy he should have at least moved backwards a foot or two. Damm those calculations!-Rob

31 January 2002, 16:55

Brian M

Never thought I'd live to say this,but 500grains hit the nail right on the head.It's hard to give a good answer to a dumb question.

In my experience,if I person flinches with a big bore they generaly flinch with any type of firearm.I'd rather see someone shoot a deer in the ass with a 458 any day over a 243.

Further more,the big bores in the American hunting fields are generaly carried by gun savvy people,since a 375,416 or 458 isn't something Joe Average buys to do his big game hunting with.They know shot placement and handel their rifles well.

What I am trying to say,is that someone hunting North American game with a big bore is probibly a more humane killer of game than an inexperienced hunter packing a small bore.

It is extremely dificult to answer this question since it is so stupid.I could say "we should ban all small bores from hunting use".That one would actualy hold more water than your argument.

------------------
I'm out to wrong rights,depress the opressed,and generaly make an ass of myself!

01 February 2002, 05:57

tsturm

quote:
Originally posted by Todd E:
Rob, Dan, & Paul,
I have calculated the forces imposed upon animals by big bores. In general with the true big bores these forces are over 1 ton! Almost everyone told me that scientific data was bullsh!t. Paul, you even told me it was not correlated to real life. Believe me it has.
I am somewhat of an ass when dealing with so called know it alls. Most of the individuals that responded negatively to my post have never shot a big bore into a game animal. Even some that say they have haven't there posts are obviously bull.
Having said that I will explain how it all works. In the thread I started dealing with the force generated by a stopping rifle I gave half the solution. JonA came painfully close to figuring it out. He is however stuck on momentum, which is not constant. Here is the rest of the story.
The bullet is decelerated by the animals body until it stops. In the case of my 500 AHR, this deceleration imposes a force of around 2200 pounds (exact number is on the other thread). This force is generated in a time of approximately 0.0025 seconds. In that time as it was calculated on the other thread the animal is accelerated to a velocity of .145 ft/sec. That however is not the end of the acceleration. The animal continues to accelerate until acted upon by a resisting force. This resisting force is the animals muscle structure. The animal senses the acceleration to it's mass caused by the bullet and compensates by leaning into the force. The response time of the animal will fall in the 0.1 to 0.4 second timeframe. By the time the animal begins to compensate it, the animal, has been accelerated to a velocity much of 5.4 to 21.6 ft / sec depending upon the animals reaction time. As you can see the animal is now moving pretty good and will fall! That is how if works. Now this is valid with a stationary animal such as my example. Now keep in mind that we have not taken into account the mass of the bodily fliuds that have been accelerated by the passing of the bullet either. Consideration of those will increase the velocity.
For those that say the rifel want knock me over so the bullet cannot knock over the animal. Try this. Take that rifle and hold it loosely out about 4 inches from you shoulder and shoot it. Does it strike your shoulder harder than if you hold it in tight against your shoulder. I believe that you will answer this question with a yes. The reason the rifle is accelerating even after the bullet has left. The same holds true with the animal that has been hit with the bullet.
Anyone that argues this one has a problem with reality.
Todd E
[This message has been edited by Todd E (edited 01-30-2002).]

Todd, Reality = Quit smokin that SH_T!! or take a VACATION!!!

Goog Luck!!!!

01 February 2002, 06:05

500grains

"In my experience,if I person flinches with a big bore they generaly flinch with any type of firearm. I'd rather see someone shoot a deer in the ass with a 458 any day over a 243."

If I found a guy deer hunting with a .458, I would offer to gut his deer and drag it out for him. And I agree that a poorly hit animal is more likely to be found if it has a big hole in it instead of a small one.

'It is extremely dificult to answer this question since it is so stupid.I could say "we should ban all small bores from hunting use". That one would actualy hold more water than your argument.'

It makes me queasy when I hear of guys hunting deer with a .223 or 22-250. I really do not know what they are trying to prove. Once while hunting some Indian tribal land (non-reservation), there was a pickup truck with 2 landowners in the back firing a 223 with a bipod at a deer. By the time I saw it, the deer was 500-600 yards off and running, and he was still shooting. Through binos, it was obvious that the deer was wounded (from his gait), but he was hightailing it onto national forest land where he could hide in the pines. The shooter knew he hit the deer, but they drove off to look for another one.

01 February 2002, 06:20

raamw

This is a very complex topic that is being discussed, does a big bore kill faster than a small bore?, why does one animmal die or become incapcitated quicker than another animal even tho it was hit with a lesser cartridge. First of all the act of death is the lack of oxygenated blood to the brain, simply put the brain is nerve central and it needs a constant supply of oxygen rich blood to do it's job (the control of the body), starve this supply you have shock which is the process of the body shutting down, doesn't mean death is eminent but serious repair time is in effect, the body conserves the use of oxygenated blood to the parts that needs it the most. If the repair is not possible death takes place. Heart lung shot disrupts the fluid system to supply the brain, brain shot, the blood has no where to go and body function stops as soon as the oxygenated blood is consumed and spine shots disrupts the body control system thereby the body can't do what the brain wants to do. The most letal shot that can be made is disruption at the base of the brain, very similar to the basal skull fracture damage done to race drivers in violent accidents, this is the shot that police snipers are trained to shoot for since all body function will cease on impact, something that cannot be guarented with a simple brain shot.
Now with this in mind, obviously the deeper you can penetrate the more tissue bone and vital organ can be disrupted, the bigger the bullet the more the area of damage. Bone breakage can either stop an animal from doing what it was doing or slow it up affording time for follow up shots. Muscle damage causes temporary incapcitation and moderate blood loss, rarely will death come quickly if at all. Vital organs by its definition provides vital functions, some more important than the other, they share one think in common.... they have extremely high concentrations of blood vessels, which when disrupted causes a high loss of blood and loss of function...a double hit so to speak. Now a small bore can do the same thing except it may lack the penetration and cross section of damage during it lenght of travel. A small bore which delivers lets say 3,000 foot pound of energy and the projectile stops inside the animal it is save to say all energy was efficently delivered. Now lets look at the big bore, 4800 Foot lbs and complete penetration...meaning the projectile only left a percentage of its energy in he animal. If you have seen Saeeds latest video you will see what I mean, same caliber same weight bullet used on everything fronm small antelopes to large jumbos, some down on the shot some not. Also if the bullet is properly selected based on velocity and intended target it will expand and penetrate at the correct depth and thereby cause the highest diruption as possible, the wrong bullet or velocity the expansion will occur too fast or not fast enough thereby effecting penetration. Which in MHO as a general statement it is the ability to know were to shoot an animal and the ability to hit them there than what you shoot them with provided the rifle is capable of producing sufficent energy and penetration for the intended animal.

01 February 2002, 07:04

Kent in IA

raamw,

I agree with you 100%. I think that Todd's original post was basically driving toward don't most people shoot more accurately with a smaller bore than a larger bore. Hard to say. I would think so. I also don't like the idea of banning any firearm which can do the job for the reasons another poster here stated.

The second post Todd did sounded to me like he was trying to trick all of us and I found it to be somewhat insulting. He seems to believe that bigger is better wouldn't you all agree. He also seems to be upset because he cannot accept the truth about knock down power.

Todd, get over it.

Kent

01 February 2002, 08:22

Brian M

500grains,

Something must be wrong here,because we're agreeing WAY too much.

Heck,you just drive your onery butt out to Kalifornia.I'll be deer hunting with my Browning 458 this season.Heck,I'll even let you pack my lunch and water.

I think the problem with 22 centerfires on deer sized game is that idiots who probibly couldn't kill a deer with a 20mm cannon want to use them.When they are used in the hands of a good,experienced and cool headed shot they work wonders-and even Elmer Keith said that.I've seen several good sized bucks absolutley hammered with the 22 Hornet and 222 (not in my hands though).

I'd rather see an exellent woodsman and rifleman stalking deer with a 222 than a half drunk idiot running around the woods blazing away at deer at a half mile with a 300 Weatherby (which I have seen before).

------------------
I'm out to wrong rights,depress the opressed,and generaly make an ass of myself!

01 February 2002, 09:34

raamw

I don't want to get on a podium, but I believe we, as hunters we need to monitor ourselves as to be ethical, conscientious and humane. Sure a good shot with a 22LR or 223 or 22-250 can kill a deer but was the cartridge designed for that...your answer has to be NO. To use one is unethical maybe not to you but surely to the animal that you?re shooting. Unless your shooting these animals in cages there are so many variables that turn a good shot ...bad, i.e.: wind twigs bugs etc. couple that with an underpowered cartridge and you are putting an animal through an agonizing slow death. Think of that animal as your pet or some other living thing that you care for, I believe most of us hunt out of sport not necessity, If you view yourself as a semi professional hunter or one who takes themselves very seriously how many sports at that level do not have referees, which means we need to referee ourselves. I care for the animals I hunt, You may think me goofy but I wish or pray that they have a quick and painless death after the shot. Have I wounded animals?.yes, am I proud of it ...no, can I guarantee that it won't happen again...of course not. So what can you do to minimize the wounding of game do your best to know the capabilities of yourself and the weapon, understand the anatomy of the game and take what I call high percentage shots. I have 222, 223 and 22 and have never contemplated them for anything bigger than a fox or coyote. I have larger more adequate guns for those larger animals; I would error on over rather than underpower for hunting. If we as hunters don't regulate ourselves you are paving the way for someone else to do for you. I had a friend who guided hunts in Africa many years ago, I don't remember the countries that he hunted but he would get upset because of a caliber minimum of 40 or larger was established and people would show up with 44 magnum or 444 cartridge rifles to hunt dangerous game, ethical? Surely not but legal. As with any forum once you hit the send button it is like a bullet fired out of the barrel.... You can't take it back; you have to live with it. To think that anti hunting elements are not probing this site would be naive but keep in mind there is nothing wrong with defending yourself for what you believe just make sure the ground your standing on is solid.

01 February 2002, 09:48

Brian M

Raamw,

Ah crap,here we go again.I ought to get my father to post on here.He's killed deer with everything from the tiny 17 Remington up to the 460 Weatherby.He'll tell you how well the varmint cartridges work on deer IN THE HANDS OF A GOOD,RELIABLE,EXPERIENCED AND COOL HEADED SHOT.

Sure,there are lots of variables on killing game with a 22 centerfire,but there are twice as many variables with bow hunting and people turn out in flocks every year in the woods with bows.Why hunt with a 22 centerfire you ask?Well,why hunt with a 300 Weatherby,or a cannon for the matter?If you are good enough to use it well,knock yourself out.If not,don't use it.True,people lose deer every year with 22 centerfires,but ten times as many are lost with 300 Magnums and the like.The 30/30 cripples more deer every year than all others combined.

------------------
I'm out to wrong rights,depress the opressed,and generaly make an ass of myself!

01 February 2002, 10:13

raamw

Here we go is right, first of all more animals are wounded with larger guns simply because most people would not use smaller calibers, same reason why people like V8 engines over 4 cylinders, better to have it and not need it than the reverse.

What I have said is ethics, using somethin that was not designed or beyond the persons capabilities, I read a report that a broadhead shot animal will die quicker than one shot will a rifle (other than head shot) but with this in mind would you shoot an arrow at a deer at 300 yards or an elephant at 25 yards, I don't think so. I dare these 22 calibers dead eyes to try their sport on an Elephant or Buffalo, if its their ability not the weapon then they should be able to do it. In my state to hunt on certain state properties with a bow you have to pass a qualification course. I am told you had to hit a 6" paper plate via different postions I believe out to 30 yards. A good number of people will not spend the time or expense to become marksman with rifles nor will they spend the money to buy an appropriate firearm for the job. I will go on record that anyone that shoots large game with small game weapons is either to cheap to buy a proper gun or unethical or both.. I also will say anyone who can say unequivically that they are not capable of wounding an animal with these inappropriate calibers is lying to himself and anyone else that he is telling that to, just state you can't buy the right gun or you just don't care. I never needed much of a reson to buy a new gun, but matching the weapon to the game is a good one.

01 February 2002, 12:34

Kent in IA

raamw,

I hate to beat up on you because I agree with you regarding the use of small 22 caliber rifles for deer. Bow hunting as far as I am concerned should have died when the gun was created. I no longer allow bow hunters on my land because I got sick of shooting the wounded and lame the did not die after hit with an arrow.

An arrow kills by bleed out. If the arrow head does not stay in the animal then there is a good chance that an animal that has not recieved an immediately fatal hit will clot up and live. Now I got that from a guy I know that is an expert archer and I trust his words. They are backed up by numerous deer I have put out of their misery with broken arrow shafts still lodged in their bodies. In all honesty I have actually killed more than one deer that a broken arrow shaft had actually healed into the deers body. I mean the meat was adhered to the shaft.

If it were up to me bow hunting would be banned!

Kent

01 February 2002, 13:42

Brian M

Raamw,

I am not going to discus this any further as you obviously have no real world knowledge.There is a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT of difference between shooting a cape buffalo and a deer,with ANY type of weapon.They simply can't be compared.

How can something be unethical when it is being used ethicaly?Use a good bullet and keep them in the heart/lung area and 22 centerfires are VERY effective on deer sized game under 150 pounds.Shoot a deer through the hams with a 458 and he'll suffer a whole lot more than with a 222 through the heart.

------------------
I'm out to wrong rights,depress the opressed,and generaly make an ass of myself!

01 February 2002, 17:20

D Hunter

Brian you are wrong. I shot 2 deer in the hams with a trifling 375 H&H this fall. Much less gun than the 458 mentioned. Both fell where they were and expired with a minimum of activity. Both gave me a quartering away shot in brush that I thought was a shoulder shot. Believe me the 375 (and up) make great deer guns. You will not have to trail them far and the bloodtrail will be deep and wide. No big bores should never be banned any more than any other bore. Good hunting. "D"

01 February 2002, 17:27

Brian M

D Hunter,
I was refering to a broadside shot to the hams,where that it would only be through the flesh.A solid body shot with a 375,45/70 or 458 at any angle will put a deer straight down with minimal meat damage.

------------------
I'm out to wrong rights,depress the opressed,and generaly make an ass of myself!

01 February 2002, 17:38

Jeremy

I just can't stay quiet here. It seems that someone here stated that even once the force the bullet applies to the animal has stopped that the animal continues to accelerate, and tried to back it up with Newton. That is like saying that a thrown baseball continues to accelerate once it leaves the hand. F=MxA : F=force M=Mass A=Acceleration, when the force is gone, so is the acceleration.

------------------
"Those who would give up essential liberty,
to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

[This message has been edited by Jeremy (edited 02-01-2002).]

02 February 2002, 05:55

Kent in IA

Jeremy,

I think that the guy in question was screwing with us. I thought about this for awhile. When I was a kid we used to tip cows. We did not move then very much but they still fell over. The reason it that we moved them they kept moving because gravity was pulling them over. Think about it. If you start letting yourself fall over you will because of gravity. The other thing about that guys post is he kept talking about fliud pressure or force or something that the bullet imparts to the animal. Harald and I have been discussing it also. It seems that the bullet makes considerable pressure in front of it. Since pressure is force over area may be this increases the push the animal gets helping gravity some more.

I don't know if that will apply to an animal that has been shot though. I still don't think that any shoulder held gun will knock over a big animal. Hell I have shot oak logs that are 10 inches thick and 2 feet long with my 500 Jeffery and they hardly move. There is a nice little 1/2" hole in them though.

Kent

02 February 2002, 16:55

Jeremy

Kent in IA,
I understand what you are saying. I do however think we are saying two different things. I have no doubt that the animal will continue moving even after the bullet has imparted all it's force. What I had a problem with was that he said that the animal continues to accelerate. The animal can continue to have velocity, but it will not continue to accelerate.

------------------
"Those who would give up essential liberty,
to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

02 February 2002, 22:22

<redleg155>

An honest answer:

I'm a guy and like bigger tools.

I'm an American and bigger is better.

Well, I could go on but that about sums it up.

redleg

03 February 2002, 03:52

Kent in IA

Jeremy I don't know if this is what he meant or not. I believe that the animal is still accelerating but not because of the bullet anymore but becasue of gravity. I really kinda think that Todd E thinks that too but feels that we are all idiots or something. I mean look at his posts he starts of saying part of it and then adds a little more then I mean I think this guys is just screwing with us probably because he thinks we are a bunch of stupid gun owners or something.

Kent

03 February 2002, 12:54

Atkinson

Scrap all the balistic BS....

The bigger the gun, the better it hammers Buffalo...I am surprised that some do not know that and that it was excepted so easily to the contrary...must be a computer thing.

I don't shoot the real biggies but I don't kid myself either...bigger is better and has more put'em down.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

09 February 2002, 01:38

<Double50>

Ban big guns? Where has this odd idea came from? There are many good answers over this.
Hunter should think carefully his/hers caliber against the animal which is going to be shooted. Why so? Because after long hunt and shoot it is not so nice find out after skinning, that we have lost huge amounts of meat. I have studied this many years and thats why i have big bore and quite slow bullet. Its safer too. Thanks BrianM about Your comment considering 300 WinMag + Booze.

Double50

09 February 2002, 07:41

Wachtel

No way!

I'm a recently hooked big bore fan and my next project is probably a real "biggie"

13 February 2002, 05:03

MacD37

This thread is an ANTI-HUNTER's dream! Everyone here has made some good points for THIER point of view, and everyone here has committed the unforgivable sin, for a hunter, by falling for the Anti-hunter's bait and swallowing the hook all the way to the seat of their pants. This one thinks bow hunting should be banned, that one thinks a person who kills a deer with anything smaller than a 16" shore batery, should be shot by a fireing squad, and this one thinks everyone who doesn't shoot 4000 fps commits a crime. SHEESSSSSSSSSSSSH! What on Earth can you guys be thinking? Go back and read some of the rediculous crap that has been posted here!

This is only my opinion, but I think we would do a lot better if we stuck together, rather than tare each other down. I don't want to see any kind of hunting, or gun type banned, only have the law abided by, and simply use what ever you choose to hunt with or for, in a legal, and responsible manner.

Come on guys, lets get together here,the PeTA heads are listening!

------------------
..Mac >>>===(x)===>
also DUGABOY1
DUGABOY DESIGNS
Collector/trader of fine double rifles, and African wildlife art

13 February 2002, 05:58

DB Bill

If they are going to ban big-bores from hunting they should also make sure that blondes don't have big tits cause most can't handle them either....they're dangerous!

14 February 2002, 16:03

<pshooter>

Ok guys, here's my .02. The big bores were created originally for animals with big tempers, bodies, hooves,...etc. They bridged the gap between "questionable" killing power, and "predictable" killing power. Which must be relied upon to protect hunters/guides in certain senarios. Penetration is a by-product or energy. A 22cal might could be designed to travel at 10,000fps (enough energy) but would be impractical to produce and impossible to buy. But I can move a larger projectile slower and achieve it(enough energy) quite nicely and quite practically, and disperse its energy faster with a larger frontal area. The goal is still, trying to hit them with a sledge hammer and not a ballpeen. The other aspect of the kill is the displacement of fluids, organs, grey matter,etc. Which is achieved much better with a larger hole. I think I would feel much more comfortable with my guide using something in the .500" range, instead of the .22" range. If we were only shooting rabits, then these guns would never have been designed. mvm

15 February 2002, 12:58

Kent in IA

Mac, I disagree with you. This thread is not a antihunter dream. It is a thread filled with truth and that truth is a antihunters dream.

Truth #1.

Bows often leave wounded game that recover and in the mean time walk around with arrows hanging out of there sides. This gives the antis far more ammunition than this thread ever will! Arrows are obsolete and inhumane. Any reasonable person who has witnessed the typical bow shot knows this is true.

Truth #2
Small caliber weapons are frequently used on animals that they were never intended for resulting in the same thing as truth #1.

Truth #3
Many many hunters do not possess adequate markmanship skills; therefore, making bad shots again the end result is the same as Truth #1.

The PROBLEM is that many many hunters are not responsible. This behaviour leads to inhumanely shot animals and the negative publicity that follows. There are fewer and fewer areas that we sportmans can hunt in. Much of this reduction is do to the irresponsible and in my opinion plain stupid behavior of many many "hunters".

IF YOU ARE GOING TO HUNT THEN DO SO RESPONSIBLY! So the animal some respect and use an appropriate caliber and practice until you can hit in the kill zone in any shooting position. If anyone has a problem with this then they are merely reinforcing my statements about irresponsible hunter behavior!

There seems to be a great many people that post on this forum that have little or no hunting experience. I base this conclusion on the responses made by so many. To those that are new to hunting and looking for good information we owe them the teaching of responsible hunting.

Kent