because it's either shtf foraging, in which case the canned 223 will suffice to brain such critters, or it's for sport, and in the latter case, I'd much rather do the deed with a ccw pistol. Hell, anybody can get within 300m of any animal, and anyone can hit it, from the bipod, with a scoped, high v rifle,too.Nothing to it. However, gettting within 30m and useing a lw Commander to take the animal, that takes somedoing, and if you succeed,you've DONE something.
I'd never bother owning a big game rifle.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Joined
·
10,278 Posts
I agree that the ability to get very, very close to a game animal is a very important skill. However not everyone has that ability, either because of physical problems or even more because of the area that they hunt in. When we hunt, we want every advantage we can get to kill our prey quick and clean at whatever distance.
In my mind, a really nice big game rifle is like the work of an artist as well as a practical tool. Its something to be enjoyed during our lifetime and then passed to the next generation - not like a car to be driven for a few years and then sent to the scrap yard when we get a new one.
RIKA
In my mind, a really nice big game rifle is like the work of an artist as well as a practical tool. Its something to be enjoyed during our lifetime and then passed to the next generation - not like a car to be driven for a few years and then sent to the scrap yard when we get a new one.
RIKA
exactly
i think the illusion is that we will have the need... or mentally create the need to have a big game rifle that will make the clean quick kill provided the right shot is there.
but... how often can you rely on a brain shot? moving target, thick bone, very small incapacitation zone. With a high powered rifle the brain shot should still suffice (one shot per each, right?) but you have the option of going for an organ and letting it squeal and kick until it's shed a ghost... kinda like the .22 vs. tango at 50m plus?
i think the illusion is that we will have the need... or mentally create the need to have a big game rifle that will make the clean quick kill provided the right shot is there.
but... how often can you rely on a brain shot? moving target, thick bone, very small incapacitation zone. With a high powered rifle the brain shot should still suffice (one shot per each, right?) but you have the option of going for an organ and letting it squeal and kick until it's shed a ghost... kinda like the .22 vs. tango at 50m plus?
Well, I agree 100% with you there. Hell, for millenia, man has had to stalk in close to get a kill with bows, or even spears, so a hunter SHOULD be able to get within handgun range. Of course those are the same ranges I hunt to with recurves and frontstuffers.223 fan said:
But the reason most people buy a big game rifle is
I.E. people WANT one. I think the only people who think they NEED one are city folk that rarely if ever have been hunting, and believe the gun rags that you can't kill a deer without the latest and greatest SuperUltraMegaLoudenboomerMagnum rifle.Raider said:
The Indians were artful hunters that could get close to most game.
Even after they acquired firearms they would stalk close. This was also due to the fact that they were notoriously rough on guns and Indian weapons were seldom accurate.
The first guns traded with the Indians were also smoothbore muskets anyway and were inaccurate. It was said that any man killed with a smoothbore past 60 yards was indeed unfortunate.
When they had rifled weapons, the rifling didn't last long since the Indians had a habit of firing charges of pebbles out of their rifles to kill small game.
A lot of the weapons the Indians had, they had sawed down to very short carbine or sub-carbine lengths at trading posts. The horse tribes were very fond of doing that. When hunting buffalo, for instance, when they weren't running them off of a cliff, the Indians would ride right up to the running buffalo and fire into it at point blank range.
Needless to say, the concept of long range shooting on the frontier was primarily a White man thing. The ability to shoot long ranges made the Whites who had adapted to the frontier more effective hunters than the Indians and a very deadly opponent.
The skilled Whites on the frontier, many of whom had merged White and Indian shooting and hunting skills, could get more game, they were harder to attack, their attacks were more effective, and they could kill game and opponents in ways, in numbers, and varieties that the Indians had a very difficult time doing, if they could at all.
Even after they acquired firearms they would stalk close. This was also due to the fact that they were notoriously rough on guns and Indian weapons were seldom accurate.
The first guns traded with the Indians were also smoothbore muskets anyway and were inaccurate. It was said that any man killed with a smoothbore past 60 yards was indeed unfortunate.
When they had rifled weapons, the rifling didn't last long since the Indians had a habit of firing charges of pebbles out of their rifles to kill small game.
A lot of the weapons the Indians had, they had sawed down to very short carbine or sub-carbine lengths at trading posts. The horse tribes were very fond of doing that. When hunting buffalo, for instance, when they weren't running them off of a cliff, the Indians would ride right up to the running buffalo and fire into it at point blank range.
Needless to say, the concept of long range shooting on the frontier was primarily a White man thing. The ability to shoot long ranges made the Whites who had adapted to the frontier more effective hunters than the Indians and a very deadly opponent.
The skilled Whites on the frontier, many of whom had merged White and Indian shooting and hunting skills, could get more game, they were harder to attack, their attacks were more effective, and they could kill game and opponents in ways, in numbers, and varieties that the Indians had a very difficult time doing, if they could at all.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
