Firearms - Hunting/Target thread

[Krlll Mule]

Wish we could use rifles to hunt the deer here, it's shotguns only. My dad does have a 12 gauge with a rifled barrel but I'll have to practice with that sucker as I have only ever used mine to hunt small game and birds. There are so many deer here it is ridiculous..I see a buck almost every day, and doe even more here. Turkey is still on here I believe, which I wanted to do and have a tag for, but I am too busy to get to it... 

I don't know if you've looked into what shotgun slugs are available for a rifled barrel but some of the saboted slugs look interesting. You're not limited to the old foster or brenneke style slug any more. I was looking at one from winchester with a saboted spire ballistic tip bullet the performance is really good for a slug.
The SXP12 a 2 3/4" shell fires a 300 grain bullet at 1900 feet per second. The trajectory chart shows with a 100 yard zero it has a rather flat trajectory up to 125 yards and a 4.4" drop at 150 yards.
There is the SXP123 in 3" thats a little faster with a 300 grain bullet at 2000 feet per second.
Either way the sabot slugs make the old slugs look pathetic and weak.

The 1900 fps may be a bit of a stretch (and good for sales), but either way, if you get a hunk of lead that heavy going down a rifled barrel aimed through a decent scope - you have a powerful one shot stopper within 100 yards.

[|iR|Focalor]

Personally, I wouldn't attempt hunting deer with shot. I've never shot a rifled barrel shotgun, but I've shot plenty of slugs before. They definitely have more arc to them than bullets at flatter angles, and I'd suggest practicing with a several boxes of them shooting targets at different ranges and positions from any tree stand you'd be hunting from in the off season. You gotta be well prepared to make a longer shot than you might normally be comfortable with because that might be the only opportunity you're gonna get graced with. Plastic 1-gallon milk jugs filled with water are good cheap targets to use. Thing you gotta remember though is that shooting at a milk jug and shooting at a deer are two different things. When aiming down at a milk jug, you're aiming at clearly visible bullseye spot. With deer, where you wanna aim at is where you want the exit wound placed.

[Krlll Mule]

He can only use a shotgun.  You and I don't have that restriction by law, but where we are hunting should make us use common sense about what weapon to use.  I have woods behind my house, but beyond that are cows and potentially people.  I can't pull the trigger on a high velocity rifle in that direction.  I have hunted other areas from a stand looking down a power line or field in a remote area where I don't have that worry.  IF I had to use a shotgun, I'd have a rifled slug barrel and only attempt a 50-75 yard and like Foc. said know what I can hit.  Buckshot seems more like home defense medicine, although I've had numerous people claim they dropped deer with them, and they didn't run far. One friend of mine had his young son positioned along a trail with 12 ga buckshot for a close shot....25 yards.  Naturally, a 4 pt buck walked into view further off the trail and he took the shot. Deer dropped like a rock. He could only find one wound while dressing it.....One pellet right to the neck/spine.  Distance about 65 yards.

[Skyhawk]

Well as far as slugs I was just making a suggestion to M^ster and anyone else with the same restictions. What he would do with it was up to him. I haven't used slugs in a shotgun in years. The closest I come to that is a 50 caliber flintlock in the muzzle loader deer seasons.
In the regular rifle season use a good old .30-30 bolt action rifle. My only gripe with that is using bullets made to compensate for a 119 year old design flaw. I took my first deer with that rifle and I'll probably take my last one with it.   

[Krlll Mule]

Well as far as slugs I was just making a suggestion to M^ster and anyone else with the same restictions. What he would do with it was up to him. I haven't used slugs in a shotgun in years. The closest I come to that is a 50 caliber flintlock in the muzzle loader deer seasons.
In the regular rifle season use a good old .30-30 bolt action rifle. My only gripe with that is using bullets made to compensate for a 119 year old design flaw. I took my first deer with that rifle and I'll probably take my last one with it.   

If you reload, which everyone should learn/equip themselves to do, the new powders and bullets will increase your velocity and terminal performance. You get the right recipe for your gun by some trial and error and have a more modern deer rifle. Hornady teamed up with Hodgden to make their improved 30-30 round for lever guns. At first it was only sold as loaded ammo...LeverEvolution (or something like that). The bullets are pointed, but safe for a tube magazine, unlike the old flat points. Now you can get the duplex powder they used and the bullets separately. I have had some cycling issues with my first reloads in a lever action (case length, I think). I can only assume it would be easier with better results in a bolt action. Good hunting....

[|iR|Focalor]

Never owned a lever action rifle. Don't know that much about them, but from what I've seen, they tend have a little shorter barrels than bolt rifles. So I assume they probably have more intense rifling and more recoil. And it probably would make me a little nervous having pointed tip rounds in the tube of a gun that kicks that hard. Probably wouldn't be enough of a jar to bang them together and set them off, but you never know.

Really don't have much of a need for one though. I'm not really one of those guys that "collects" guns just for the sake of having a lot. I have several that were handed down to me, and I keep them, but when I go to buy any gun, it's always because I "need" it for some purpose, not just to expand my collection. But since I'm mostly oblivious about lever rifles, feel free to sell me on them if you're a fan.

If I were gonna start collecting guns, they'd have to be smart investments, not just something I picked up for the cool factor of it. A Nazi German MP40 would be pretty "cool". In addition to the Nazi's using them in WW2, a lot of gangsters in the US used them after the war. Most people think of gangsters from the 40's using Thompson drum-fed machine guns, but many of them used MP40's as well as a few other military submachine guns from various countries involved in WW2. But those are actually pretty common to find in people's collections, so in my opinion, it isn't all that smart of an investment. I'd rather own shit from the 18th and 19th centuries or before. Flintlocks, trapdoors, old Colt revolvers, muskets, blunderbusses, shit like that. There are lot less of those floating around outside of museums, and seem like a better investment to me. As the years pass, more and more of them currently in private collections will probably end up in museums, making the ones owned by private collectors even more valuable. Problem is, it's so hard to find someone willing to part with them. And when you do, they all want the current estimated value of them or MORE and are unwilling to negotiate down at all. So if you end up buying it from them, you gotta sit on it for at least 20 or 30 years before you'll be able to resell it and make any money. And by then, with inflation, you might just barely break even. So if you're really gonna come out ahead on it as a true investment, you gotta find someone willing to take a little less than it's actually worth. And there just aren't that many people who own these damn things without knowing that much about them to know their true value and desirability.

So yeah, "collecting" weapons is probably never gonna be my thing. I just don't think I have the money or the time to make it worth my while. But I'd still love to buy one or two rifles to actually use. At the moment, I actually have a need for some type of automatic rifle. The coyote population around here has apparently grown a bunch, which is why hunting deer around here has obviously become so damned difficult. I hear A BUNCH of them out there howling and barking their asses off all night long as of late. They sound pretty close, but it's cold as shit lately, and sound around here travels a lot farther in the cold, so I can't tell exactly how close they are. Been thinking about getting something like your typical Browning BAR. They're proven to be trouble-free workhorses, but I'm also kinda wanting to have a little more magazine capacity than 4rds. That shit just ain't gonna cut it. So if I do ever get an automatic, it'll probably be some highly-customizable AR style, probably in 223 or something similar. I'd never use it for anything other than varmint hunting, so bigger game 30 cal and above ain't necessary.

[Skyhawk]

If you reload, which everyone should learn/equip themselves to do, the new powders and bullets will increase your velocity and terminal performance. You get the right recipe for your gun by some trial and error and have a more modern deer rifle. Hornady teamed up with Hodgden to make their improved 30-30 round for lever guns. At first it was only sold as loaded ammo...LeverEvolution (or something like that). The bullets are pointed, but safe for a tube magazine, unlike the old flat points. Now you can get the duplex powder they used and the bullets separately. I have had some cycling issues with my first reloads in a lever action (case length, I think). I can only assume it would be easier with better results in a bolt action. Good hunting....

Well I handload my flintlock every time I shoot it does that count? 
I've thought about getting into reloading but for one gun doesn't warrant the expence. I'm seriously thinking about an other gun but that would only make it two guns. I'd like to use a spitzer or spire shape bullet but there isn't any load data available for that in .30-30. I'd have to start from scratch. The longer spitzer bullet would require a higher seating depth or a longer cartridge. I don't think a longer cartridge wouldn't be a problem in my Stevens 325. It has a capture style bolt and a long throw so it should handle anything that can fit in the clip. The use of a bullet like a Speer #2022 150 grain SPBT would make a major difference in down range performance versus factory flat nose ammo. It's something I've looked into but haven't resigned myself to doing........yet.

The other gun I'm thinking about is a Stevens 322 in .22 hornet and there's lots of reload data for that cartridge. It's more novelty with that gun, all though the .22 hornet is a good varmint round, I'd just like to have the 'sister' to my 325. The down side is they only made it from 1948 to 1950 so they are few and far between.

Never owned a lever action rifle. Don't know that much about them, but from what I've seen, they tend have a little shorter barrels than bolt rifles. So I assume they probably have more intense rifling and more recoil. And it probably would make me a little nervous having pointed tip rounds in the tube of a gun that kicks that hard. Probably wouldn't be enough of a jar to bang them together and set them off, but you never know.

That's the 'design flaw' I was refering to regarding the .30-30. The rule of thumb with tubular magazines 1. No pointed bullets only flat or round nose 2. roll crimp the case in a cannelure. Number one is because the recoil could cause a chain reaction dischange in the magazine destroying the gun and injuring the shooter. Number two is neck tension may not be enough to keep the recoil from pushing the bullet deeper in the case. If the bullet is pushed deep enough it could cause a high discharge pressure and rupture the case or worse.

I'm not a fan of lever action guns myself because most have tubular magazines. I'd say there is only one I like is the Savage model 1899 and the later model 99. It was designed to take care of most of the short comings with lever action guns. The use of a rotary magazine in the receiver meant it wasn't limited to flat or round nose bullets. It could be chambered in cartridges the tubular magazines couldn't like .250 & .300 savage, .308 & .243 winchester and .22-250 Remington to name a few. It has a numbered round indicator on the receiver so it's easy to know how many rounds are in it. It's hammerless so you don't have to cock the hammer.
I've also heard of some lever actions discharging if you short stroke the lever. The hammer doesn't engage the sear and falls when you close the action. I think that happened to my grandfather once that's why he always said "I'll never own another of those damned things, I don't trust them.".

A friend of mine has a Savage 99 chambered in .300 savage, passed down from his grandfather. It's a nice gun and the .300 savage puts a deer down hard and fast. He stopped using it and was going to hand it down to his son but he's not sure of that now. When at the shooting range he told the kid to hold it tight because of the recoil. The boy didn't listen and the scope did a meet and greet with his forehead, now he's afraid to even touch the gun.

[|iR|Focalor]

Good news for all you Left Coasters. Packing heat is now totally legal. Good for you, California.

http://news.yahoo.com/court-tosses-californias-concealed-weapons-200220826.html

[Sgt. Dick]

Bad Ass shotgun, it can hold up to 15 rounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDoPl92o2xc

I saw where it was called the ultimate home defense weapon.

[|iR|Focalor]

Not a fan of it, myself. Like he showed in the video, you gotta manhandle the shit out of it to clear the empty shells and chamber the next one. And because the forward portion of it is so short, you gotta cock it back to where your pumping hand is slamming pretty close to the trigger guard. You aint watching what you're doing close enough and you pinch the shit out of the edge of your hand.

The bullpup design is great for tac shit because the shorter muzzle allows you to pie off around corners closer and quicker, but they need to go back to the drawing board on that particular shotgun in my opinion. They could move the receiver forward a good 3 or 4 inches making it a little easier to cycle and still keep a short enough length on the weapon. Doing that might also allow them more room to deal with recoil with a special design butt pad. For my money, there's better shit on the market.

[Sgt. Dick]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/11/big-guns-army-soldiers-to-get-powerful-new-swedish-made-tank-stopper/?intcmp=latestnews
 

[|iR|Focalor]

That's kinda misinformation. That's the AT4 anti-tank rocket system. They ALREADY use them, it's nothing new. And the "anti-tank" terminology for it is pretty much bullshit, too. It won't stop a tank. But it might stop a lighter armored vehicle. Tank armor is way too thick for the warhead to punch a hole in. Fire one at a tank and all you're gonna do is really really piss off the guys inside, after which they're gonna retaliate by blowing your ass to kingdom come.

[Sgt. Dick]

"after soldiers in Afghanistan repeatedly complained that insurgents were wise to the limitations of their M-16 rifles"

I was applauding the capability to bring heavy munitions on the enemy at far greater distances by infantry soldiers. 

[|iR|Focalor]

A better weapon for them to have would be a Javelin missile. From what I've heard, it takes a little bit to figure out how to find a target and lock it in quickly, but once you do and get the hang of it, you can pop out of hiding and fire it quickly and the missile does the rest. No guiding it at all. Much safer for the operator. And it definitely WILL take out a tank. This portable missile system is every tank crews worst nightmare. And as an anti-personnel ordinance, you can probably nail a fortified building from 2 miles away, well out of rifle range, and kill every last motherfucker in and around it. If I'm not mistaken, the warhead is comprised of a material more powerful than both composition B and C-4. And the fact that it's a shaped charge means it can punch a hole through any uranium plated explosive reactive armor out there. And we make these fuckin' things right here in the good ole US of A.

<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8VdRnY-TUb4/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8VdRnY-TUb4"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/8VdRnY-TUb4" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/8VdRnY-TUb4</a>

[|iR|Focalor]

"after soldiers in Afghanistan repeatedly complained that insurgents were wise to the limitations of their M-16 rifles"

I was applauding the capability to bring heavy munitions on the enemy at far greater distances by infantry soldiers.

These terrorist sand fags are working with nothing but antiquated weapons and duct tape. So a lot of times what they like to do is set up up mortars. They know no ones gonna authorize a squad of troops to go running out into the open charging after people shooting mortars. So they're hoping they can get lucky and drop one on a vehicle full of soldiers while they're out of rifle range. They aren't too bad with a shitty RPG-7 either. But they aren't entirely professionally trained with mortars, so they're gonna miss a few times, but not always. And I don't give a damn what kind of mortar they use, they just don't make one with the ability to reach as far as a 2 man Javelin crew can be setting up to fire on them. Problem is they're expensive as fuck. A lot of times, the 1 missile itself is gonna cost more than the tank it's blowing up, especially in the sand monkey part of the world where they're still using garbage Russian surplus tanks from the 70's. The AT4 however is relatively cheap. Hmmm, should we field one 80,000 dollar Javelin missile, or should we field fifty-something 1,500 dollar AT4 rockets? From what I've heard, they've been kinda hard to come by in the service no matter where or what you do. A lot of them have been stuck using the old M72 LAW tubes. It ain't a horrible rocket, it's highly portable and comparable to the RPG7 that the diaper heads are sporting. But when you're in the (supposedly) biggest baddest deadliest military force on the face of the earth, why should you have to settle for having tools just as good as the enemy. They need to break out with the fucking checkbooks and buy our guys the shit they need.