Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Thank you, Jonnyrig. And by "support" I don't mean passive. If the right sort of legislation went before Congress, I would actively write my congresscritters urging them to support it, even though I do dislike the feds handling it. The states just are not going to engage in the sort of coordination it would take to make background checks sweeping enough.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
I figure that the single vs. double question refers to the first shot. After that it's neither.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Madbolter, we agree on far more than we disagree.
I have never proposed any outright "ban" on guns of any type, nor do I have such a ban as any ultimate hidden agenda. I fully support an individual right to buy, own and carry appropriate arms for self-defense in the home or in public places. With all rights come responsibilities, and existing laws have utterly failed to hold gun owners and dealers responsible for the consequences of their actions. Many constitutional laws could be implemented that would preserve and protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners, while reducing unnecessary accidents and making it more difficult for criminals to get, carry and use guns.
There is no constitutional right to sell firearms to criminals. There is no constitutional right for firearm dealers to keep sloppy records. There is no constitutional right to leave a loaded firearm visible on the seat of an unlocked parked car. There is no constitutional right to leave loaded weapons within reach of unattended children.
You can have your philosophical right to the means of armed rebellion against perceived threats to intangible rights, but 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.
TE
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
Thoughts on 30-.06 for an elk rifle? I am looking at the Winchester model 70 Super Grade.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
..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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
...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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!