It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pistol hunting?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   


Shoot it and eat it I'm Ok with.


By your own statement.

I stated exactly what i do with my kills but you seem to want to ignore it. Hmm lets see a few hundred bucks in meat without paying for it, does help my family. That means my daughter gets her braces, i can do a few oil changes on the family vehicles so we can get back and forth to work without buying new cars this year. Apparently you are so rich you dont see the need for supplemental food supply.

whose getting uppity?? that would be you mr.holier than thou. I stated what and why i do what i do with a civil tongue, unlike you. You said you were ok with it, then you werent. So what is bugging you so much anyways. That you cant own one? That there are no wild boar in your area to help fill your freezer with meat. Im truly not understanding your hostilities towards this subject. oh and before you go off on another tangent, i didnt purchase that anaconda, my grandfather gave it to me as he did the same thing. Hunted Boar with it for food for the family. So come down off your high horse. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then ignore it and move on to the next airplane thread that you DO have knowledge about, because clearly you dont have any about this subject. You dont pay my bills, you have no clue how much money i make, why is it so hard for you to believe that YES, I do need to hunt to sustain mine and my families existance. And im glad you speak for everyone here cuz i know for a fact alot here would NOT think that is hard to believe.

This will be my last response to you planeman as you are clearly here for baiting and not to discuss. your own questions were answered and yet you continue asking the same things and stating derogatory remarks.




You are coming at this from a postion where you accept gun owbership and hunting with sod off great big pistols as "normal". It being the norm isn't good enough for me.


again you are speaking about something you know nothing about. my handguns are not sawed off. and whatever isnt the norm being good enough for you is "your" opinion.


Edited for Apology.
I apologize to the Original Poster for going off topic with this incessant baiting. Can the posters who were having a rational discussion please continue?

[edit on 4-9-2006 by S1LV3R4D0]




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
deleted by author

[edit on 2006/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
"hey guys, hunting with a pistol is dumb".


Okay, you've had your say. This is a thread about handgun hunting. If you want to discuss the right to keep and bear arms, why don't you brush up on your grammar and compositional skills and join us over at Social Issues on PTS.

Why Fear an Armed Public?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
I must agree with Silverado. The only one getting uppity here is you ...while fingerprinting others through your prisim as if they were uppity.

I totally agree with Silverados rationale for hunting. It saves his family moneys. I have taught myself several skills/diciplines which save me moneys with the same rationale.
While I dont hunt..or pistol hunt I do own pistols which are suitable for this type of hunting. As stated before a .357 magnum and a Thompson Contender in .35 Remington.

I would also not count out hunting for me if I chose to do so in putting meat on my table and in my freezer. It is just that I enjoy fishing much more and living close to the sea it suits me much better. However I prefer to fish. Easier than hunting and I enjoy it more though I dont consider myself a sport fisherman. I have no intrest in catching Marlin, Sailfish etc etc. THese are not fish I can eat. I have no intrest at all in adoring my walls with caught fish or Deer heads etc etc. However those who do adorn with fish and deer heads..that is thier buisness..it is just not for me. A simple photograph will do. I want meat on my table and in my freezer....not hanging on my walls.
If this is not acceptable in England..I feel sorry for you folks. I am not intrested in keeping the Butcher or the Fishmerchant in buisness when I can pocket the moneys or redirect them to other uses as Silverado very capably quotes. THough I do recognize these trades, Fishmerchant or Butcher ,as legitimate trades..no doubt...I am just not intrested in keeping them in a job if I can do it myself or do without their services. But that is me..if you want to do so ..that is your buisness...just as hunting/fishing here in America is our buisness.

As to responsible gun ownership, once again I agree with Silverado. Mostly the airheads get hurt ,injured, or hurt others. I dont agree with these types of airhead peoples and will seperate myself from them quickly once I mark them. THese are mostlly the kinds of people who make the news and form your opinions of Americans. Responsible Americans who own firearms and hunt seldom make the news.
We are not Englishmen here and have no desire to take on English values since we can clearlly see they have gone down the tubes in the last 60 or so years.

I will remind you planeman that some of the most powerful hunting tools have been manufactured by English Companys. Holland and Holland being one of them and often used for hunting African/Indian game. I have no intrest in this type of hunting. I do know that this company produces very high quality firearms. I can admire this type of workmanship though I am not intrested in owning one.

Do not presume to lecture us about our ways with your prisim. We are not Englishmen and I have no desire to become an Englishman. I have a great respect and admiration for the History of the UK but have no desire to become a Englishman or a subject of the Crown or take on such value systems.

One more thing..I am not a member of the NRA. I have alot of respect for the NRA but have no intrest in joining them.

Thanks to all for thier patience with my posting and continuing on with the topic of pistol hunting.

As to the pistol in 30.06 caliber...if this is what you like and are willing to spend your moneys.

30.06 is a very potent caliber ..especially in a pistol. I can attest so since I reload for this caliber in a rifle and also .35 Remington in my Thompson Contender single shot pistol.
THe .35 Remington Thompson Contender is a pistol in which I have found that I need to wear a glove when shooting as it will jam my wrist into my forearm and cause numbing. It would be so with a pistol in 30.06 unless you are very stout in this area of your body. With a Glove it is quite managable. THese are not calibers you are going to do alot of practicing with in one day at the shooting range...from the standpoint of expense if not from the mere physical propertys involved.

People who shoot calibers like this in pistols tend to be reloaders to get the best performance from thier tools for the purposes intended. Thus meaning that you can load them up or down as nessesity dictates. This is a great advantage to those who can school themselves in the dicipline.
One advantage of the 30.06 cartridge ,as well as its cousin the .308 Winchester, is that there is a large bullet selection. There is also ample loading tables giving one a huge cross section of power ratings in which to load for intended purposes.

Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Keep em in the X ring...!!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Ohh a fellow reloader! What grain of bullets do you normallly use in 30-06 for use in a pistol?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
A couple of gun-owning members have proudly allowed that they are not NRA members. This is something that I don't really understand, because without the NRA, our Second Amendment rights would have been annihilated by now.

If you are a gun owner, you really have an obligation to belong to an organization that protects your liberty. The NRA is not the only one.

www.nracentral.com...

nra.org...

nra.org...

www.gunowners.org...

www.jpfo.org...

www.ccrkba.org...

www.saf.org...

www.pinkpistols.org...

www.wagc.com...

www.a-human-right.com...

www.ar15armory.com...

www.azcdl.org...

www.blackmanwithagun.com...

www.concealcarry.org...

www.directedfire.com...

www.federalobserver.com...

www.friendsofliberty.com...

www.gunlaws.com...

www.guncite.com...

www.guned.com...

www.inlibertyandfreedom.com...

www.keepandbeararms.com...

www.leaa.org...

www.liberty-belles.org...

www.saveourguns.com...

www.womenshooters.com...

www.gunssavelives.com...

www.2asisters.org...

www.madison-society.org...




[edit on 2006/9/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I do not reload for 30.06 Caliber Pistol. What I reload this caliber for is rifle. Two different Springfield rifles. One standard issue WW1/WW2 with the fold up blade foreward of the receiver. This is a very nice shooting rifle for standard issue with iron sights even by todays high tech standards.
The other is a similar Springfield Rifle modified with heavy barrel for bench rest type shooting.

for the standard issue rifle I load 150 and 180 Grain spire points with my favorite being the Serria 180 grain boat tail spire point. About 52.3 grains of IMR 4350 powder and standard large rifle primer. The boat tail seems to be a nice shooter in this rifle...verses the standard flat base. This is a simple rugged rifle..no thrills and frills and I like that.

The heavy barrel rifle I load the 168 grain Serria Boat tail match bullet after careful brass preparation..including case trimming and neck turning...and run outs on the loaded cartridges. I try to keep the usable batchs for this rifle under .005 run out on the dial indicator. Same powder load as above just more case preparation and different bullet. I seperate these reloads from the standard reloads.

Hope this helps. I have no ambition to own a 30.06 caliber pistol as I can get more than sufficient punnishment if so desired from my Thompson Contender in .35 Remmington. I hear all these guys talk about .44 magnums and I laugh. No disrespect intended to the .44 magnum cartridge.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I have a great respect for the NRA and the work that they do both in the states and the Federal government as well as among shooters and the general public.
I merely have no intrest in becoming a member. This is my right as a American.
What I do support is the Junior shooters at the club to which I am a member. I often contribute moneys to them and spent brass which they also sell to support the Junior teams.
I think more kids should be able to shoot and shoot safely if they have the ability and enthusiasm for it. This requires good training and I am all for this.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
This is one of those unfortunate situations where a topic is subtly censored and a "party line" dictated. With all due respect Grady, you are both a "subject matter expert" and demonstrably also preacher for gun owbership/NRA etc; you are clearly not unbiased. In this thread the answer to the question which pistol is best for killing animals?, the answer "none can really be justified" is not permitted, but it is clearly a valid viewpoint.

To people reading this thread who may be wishing to step back and view the topic objectively: note how all the advocates of hunting with pistols so far are gun owners - they have a vested interest in drowning out any counter argumement.


Now consider this: if you really must go killing animals, is it not more logical to use a hunting rifle which has better range, acuracy and stopping power than a pistol?

The pro-pistol hunting loby inevitably cite the most powerful pistols and compare them to the weakest and least relevant rifles (or shotguns). They even show pistols with telescopic sights on them (lol).

No-one can seriously dispute that firing a pistol accurately is more difficult than firing a rifle accurately, all other things being equal. Indeed pistol shooters often see it as added challenge. A pistol is essentially a barrel mounted almost entirely in front of the hands (the natural fulcrum) offering only one point of support - whereas "long" guns such as rifles have two points of support - which can be made even more steady with a bipod or sling.

This is why no-one (credible, lol) has suggested a sniping pistol.

So in essence these "pistol hunters" are CHOOSING to loose off deadly bullets employing a weapon which is inherently less accurate than the alturnative.

For certain prey a shotgun is more suited, particularly birds. An added advantage of shot guns (firing bird shot) is that the pellets that miss (many) fall at a velocity at which they are unlikely to do any serious harm to any one accidently standing where they land - whereas a rifle or pistol round can travel a great distance (far further than the firer could reasonably observe if it was safe or not) and still land at leathal velocity. So anyone who hunts birds with a conventional pistol is grossly irrisponsible, criminally so IMO.




[edit on 5-9-2006 by planeman]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Just because I have taken a stand, doesn't mean I am unbiased.

Unfortunately for you, you don't have one of these:




THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution



Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

usinfo.state.gov... [emphasis mine]


Now, is that so hard to understand?

[edit on 2006/9/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Notice the post on page one about the pistol hunter. 20 yards...surely rifle range??

Amazing!! I have news for you Planeman. I dont approve of most hunters using powerful rifles and attempting shots of 400 to 600 yards. The chances of wounding verses killing game are much higher. You find that responsible hunters seldome make shots over 300 yards and most of them under 200..with rifle that is. Around here in the thick woods of the Eastern United States ranges are seldome over 40/50 yards if not closer and mostly shotgun. Out west on the plains you get longer shots.
Most really long range shooting is done with rifle with special loadings and is of the varmit type not big game....It is becoming quite popular in the states.

However..nice drama you are wont to attach to your positon.

People pistol hunt here because they can.

Agree totally with Grady Phillpot...and his last posting. We have one of those laws of which he posted. Big difference in here and the UK or the colonies. As I said earlier ..we have no desire to become a subject..though some of us admire the history of the UK.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
While I am thinking about it...

A sniping pistol?? Ever seen one??? I have!!!

Its called a silencer. Usually used under 20 yards too.

One more thing. I have no problem with you posting your viewpoint or your "party line." Be ready for the views of others. Not all will agree with you. This is our right too.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Just because I have taken a stand, doesn't mean I am unbiased.

Unfortunately for you, you don't have one of these:




THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution



Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

usinfo.state.gov... [emphasis mine]


Now, is that so hard to understand?

[edit on 2006/9/5 by GradyPhilpott]
Now that is a political post and presents your/NRA's interpretation of that law as fact. You well know that there are others who read it differently. And my bemusement at the logic of pistol hunting is not based on the Bill of Rights at all - I couldn't care if someone wrote about the Malitia (currently called the National Guard) in the 18th century. Hell Slavery was legal back then. Laws should and do change over time. But even then only a fool would go hunting with a pistol.


Grady, with all your gun totting experience, do you agree that if you mounted the same barrel/chamber in two configurations, one a pistol and one with a stock and forestock/forward grip of some sort, the latter configuration would be inherently more accurate?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Grady, with all your gun totting experience, do you agree that if you mounted the same barrel/chamber in two configurations, one a pistol and one with a stock and forestock/forward grip of some sort, the latter configuration would be inherently more accurate?


No.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by planeman
Grady, with all your gun totting experience, do you agree that if you mounted the same barrel/chamber in two configurations, one a pistol and one with a stock and forestock/forward grip of some sort, the latter configuration would be inherently more accurate?


No.
Lol, why would you say that?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
The real question is why you believe that the arrangement you prefer is inherently more accurate.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Lol, sounds like you are attempting to contrive ways out of the obvious conclusion.


The short answer is stability, that much should be obvious. In comparing a real pistol to a typical hunting rifle I'd add barrel length and the ballistics of the round - though the range of rounds available for hunting rifles makes this a very variable factor).

Take the same barrel/chamber/round/mechanism. Add a (normal) pistol support position to one - i.e with the handle behind the bolt head.

Take the other and add a typical rifle stock, a forestock.

Both are built to the same build quality.

Then fire both weapons, the pistol in the manner typical of pistol firing, the latter in the manner typical of rifle firing.

Which one would achieve the best results at a static target at say 50m, 100m, 150m etc? -and moving targets?

And that's not considering that in general hunting rifles have longer barrels and no breach shift until you pull the bolt back. We could also add a bipod and/or a sling to further enhance accuracy.

So why do you think the pistol would be more accurate to fire in the normal manner?

[edit on 5-9-2006 by planeman]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
You said that the rifle configuration would produce an inherently more accurate weapon, all other things being equal. This is false. The rifle configuration might be easier to shoot because it is a shoulder-fired weapon, which is easier to support, but a skilled pistol shooter knows how to properly support his weapon to achieve maximum accuracy of fire.

It should be noted that when hunting with a pistol, even one in a rifle caliber, it is not advisable to shoot at ranges equal to what is possible with a rifle.

Handgun hunting is not for everyone. Most people would be better served with a rifle, but there are those for whom a pistol makes better sense, either from a sporting point of view, or from the perspective of weight and size.

Thompson Contender offers the best of both worlds.

www.tcarms.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You said that the rifle configuration would produce an inherently more accurate weapon, all other things being equal. This is false. The rifle configuration might be easier to shoot because it is a shoulder-fired weapon, which is easier to support, but a skilled pistol shooter knows how to properly support his weapon to achieve maximum accuracy of fire.
More accurate than the someone with equal skil firing a 'long' gun of equal build quality?


but there are those for whom a pistol makes better sense, either from a sporting point of view,
i.e. because it takes more skill to achieve the same end - i.e. the reason for choosing the pistol is not for efficiency of getting the task done and food is not the motivation. So these people go hunting for the challenge of killing animals that are otherwise minding their own business?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join