Magazine Capacity and Hunting

[Hook686]

This is a correct, or proper hunting rifle:




simply because it was the hunting rifle the founding fathers were using when they wrote the constitution, and include the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Quite frankly, I don't know a single person who doesn't utilize a full size magazine to its fullest.

So you hunt exclusively with a single shot then? Because if you use a Rem 700 we can all assume you take 4 shots at game?

simply because it was the hunting rifle the founding fathers were using when they wrote the constitution, and include the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States.

Uhh, the founding fathers didn't have hunting in mind when they wrote the Second.

 

[One Man]

Gotta Disagree with someone.

I don't think that having a lot of rounds makes you use them "to the fullest." By that logic, the only "ethical" hunter is one who enters the fields/woods/whatever with only one shell. I have hunted with a fully automatic M-16 and 120 rounds with me, 30 per magazine. I shot ONE time, killed what was for dinner and called it good. (and before everyone has a fit, it was LEGAL for me to hunt where I was with what I did.)

 

[Regolith]

So you hunt exclusively with a single shot then? Because if you use a Rem 700 we can all assume you take 4 shots at game?

No, but I don't tend to gravitate towards high cap mags for my hunting rifles either.

5-10 rounds is reasonable, and strikes a balance of having enough rounds for quick follow up shots without going overboard.

Notice, though, that I never said that all states should restrict the mag capacity for hunting, only that it is acceptable should they chose to.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Quite frankly, I don't know a single person who doesn't utilize a full size magazine to its fullest. And having the extra ammunition on hand makes one less likely to concentrate on accuracy, as they know that they have a hell of a lot more in the mag should the first shot miss. This contributes to people making unethical shots. Hence the reason many states have banned high caps for use with game hunting.

Then I guess you don't know me. I use a 5 rd mag, but I never have used more than one out of it. A follow up shot on game is very difficult no matter what you are shooting. Once again it comes down to hunter ethics and not tools. along your logic cars shouldn't have the capability to go faster than 80 miles an hour because that is all you should ever need to use.

 

[TexasRifleman]

No, but I don't tend to gravitate towards high cap mags either.

5-10 rounds is reasonable

You talk about ethical hunting. What in the world is the difference between taking 10 shots at a single game animal vs 20 shots. Hint, there isn't any difference. Both cases would be far from ethical hunting. Magazine capacity has nothing to do with it. You yourself said everyone you know takes full advantage of magazine capacity, including yourself. Then you deny doing it.

So the truth is you and several other posters have some arbitrary idea in your head of what a "proper" hunting rifle is supposed to be and anyone using something outside that personal ideal if yours is an unethical hunter.

At least just come out and say what you mean rather than dance around it with goofy things like magazine capacity.

 

[Regolith]

So the truth is you and several other posters have some arbitrary idea in your head of what a "proper" hunting rifle is supposed to be and anyone using something outside that personal ideal if yours is an unethical hunter.

Not really. Like I said, I don't give two hoots what kind of gun you use, so long as you do it ethically. The problem with high cap mags is that they tend to be used unethically. HENCE, since hunting is not a RIGHT, I can understand why some states would limit magazine capacity. And since firearms with a removable magazine make complying is quite easy, I don't see such a limit as a burden, particularly since 5 or so shots are all you should need.

HOWEVER, if you use them ethically, more power to you.

 

[Hook686]

Uhh, the founding fathers didn't have hunting in mind when they wrote the Second.

They most certainly did .... perhaps it was hunting British Troops, but is not hunting hunting ?

 

[TexasRifleman]

The problem with high cap mags is that they tend to be used unethically.

Where exactly does this happen? I live in Texas where we have no mag capacity limits for hunting and I have never ever heard of this problem.

Again, this appears to be an emotional response rather than one based on any real issue.

perhaps it was hunting British Troops, but is not hunting hunting ?

OK, true there. Hunting redcoats or UN Blue Helmets, hunting is hunting. I stand corrected

 

[Millwright]

Really, there are reasons for magazine limits. Some, perhaps most, of those involving shotguns are linked to federal laws regarding waterfowl. Most mfg's decided 5 rounds was a good compromise between capacity/handling/appearance, plus reliability with the shells of the time. No doubt federal waterfowl managers concurred or went along with what was on the gun rack. The feds were charged with maintaining enough hunting to satisfy hunters, yet maintaining/increasing waterfowl populations. Mag capacity was one of the tools.....

Regards CF rifles a lot of states passed mag capacity laws long ago. I've got a .32/40 Marlin with a full rifle barrel, yet a carbine length magazine tube to accomdate game laws. I've come to suspect it was to prohibit the use of pistol cartridge rifles as hunting arms; perhaps to reduce the lost game kills. >MW

 

[Bartkowski]

They most certainly did .... perhaps it was hunting British Troops, but is not hunting hunting ?

No they didn't. It was more for the people to be able to defend themselves from government, and to have the government fear its people so that they do whats best for the country not for them individually.

 

[Regolith]

Where exactly does this happen? I live in Texas where we have no mag capacity limits for hunting and I have never ever heard of this problem.

Again, this appears to be an emotional response rather than one based on any real issue.

I have personally seen it happen. Then again, I ran with a bunch of morons when I was younger. Perhaps you've chosen to keep better company than I did back then.

The thing is: Can you think of a single situation in big game hunting where you would need all 20 of those shots? I can't. I can see situations where multiple shots could be required, but by the time the fifth or sixth has been fired (provided the shooter was taking aimed shots rather than letting loose), its likely that the animal will no longer be in the same zip code. Hence, large mags are not necessary.

The only time when hunting with high capacity magazines make sense is for varmint eradication, because they allow you to engage multiple targets without the need to reload. In big game hunting, the emphasis is on making precisely aimed shots at single animals, hence the need for large capacity mags isn't there.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

My cousin shot a 350 pound boar 10 times and it died at his feet.

 

[Regolith]

My cousin shot a 350 pound boar 10 times and it died at his feet.

Boars are usually considered pest animals, and I don't know of any states that limit magazine capacity when dealing with pest animals.

Check out big game hunting in Africa. The traditional weapon for that area is a large bore double rifle. Rather than using multiple rounds to bring down their prey, they use larger bullets and precisely aimed shots. Much more effective, and doesn't ruin as much meat.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

When hunting deer it is wise to assume they are not the only wildlife in the woods. It comes in handy to have a little more firepower on hand. I suppose you would freak but I have a friend who hunts with an m14. He ended up killing three pigs with it instead of a deer. Mean and nasty critters.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Can you think of a single situation in big game hunting where you would need all 20 of those shots? I can't.

Needing the shots is not the conversation here, of course no one should need that many. But that's not the topic, the topic is the ethics of hunting with a rifle CAPABLE of holding many rounds.

It is most certainly legal and ethical for me to hunt deer here in Texas with a 100 round Beta Mag on an AR15. Just because the rifle is capable of putting 100 rounds out doesn't mean that a hunter will use them.

If that is the argument then, again, where is "too much"? 10 rounds is too much, 5 rounds is probably too much. So we are to a place where we agree that a hunter should take one shot at a game animal and take care to do that always. Maybe a second shot in cases where things just didn't go right.

Whether or not the rifle HOLDS more than that 1 round is meaningless.

It's the guy holding it, not the gun. It's funny that this argument is being made by pro-shooting folks on this board because it's exactly the same argument made every day by the anti's; that somehow guns are bad on their own, and they incite people to behave at their worst so we need the government to regulate the tool and that will limit people's behavior.

I disagree with that statement on all levels. Guns are tools, tools can be used properly or abused, but it's not the tools fault.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

+1 Texas

 

[Charles S]

hunting is not a fundimental right, just like driving your car on the highway.

I certainly strongly disagree. I firmly believe that there are certain inalienable rights, we have been hunting long before arms were invented. Just because we have progressed does not change that fact nor change that heritage.

I firmly believe that hunting, like gardening is a basic right and falls within the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness clause. These fundamental rights are not bestowed upon us but are enumerated within the constitution.

I strongly feel one can hunt with any weapon they can ethically kill game with.

 

[Crunker1337]

I too don't want a mall ninja or Rambo unleashing a barrage of bullets when "hunting", but I don't think making a law about hunting with magazine limits is the best response.
The best idea would be to persecute people who spray and pray while hunting under the grounds of destruction of public property, or endangerment of public safety (be aware of your target and what is behind it).

I don't think magazine capacity is the real concern, it's more like the way the gun itself is used.

 

[Regolith]

I suppose you would freak but I have a friend who hunts with an m14. He ended up killing three pigs with it instead of a deer. Mean and nasty critters.

Have you been ignoring where I said I don't care what TYPE of rifle you use? An M14 can accept a 5 round mag just as easily as it can a 20.

You also seem to have missed the part where I stated that I don't think all states should ban high capacity magazines, only that I can see the justification for it if they do.

Finally, a .308 shouldn't fail to dispatch a pig, no matter its size, with one or two shots, if your placement is good.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Boars are usually considered pest animals, and I don't know of any states that limit magazine capacity when dealing with pest animals.

So suddenly the hunter becomes more or less ethical based solely on what a state government classifies an animal as? Even though they likely use the same weapon with the same magazine capacity for both game and non-game animals?

An interesting proposition. Completely false, but interesting.

 

[One Man]

Check out big game hunting in Africa. The traditional weapon for that area is a large bore double rifle. Rather than using multiple rounds to bring down their prey, they use larger bullets and precisely aimed shots. Much more effective, and doesn't ruin as much meat.

The reason they use(d) double rifles has much more to do with the reliability of having a two complete actions in one stock. The cartridge double rifle was a follow on to the muzzleloading double, which was the only way to get a practical second shot of adequate power in the pre-cartridge era. As for being the traditional weapon for that area, the most common weapon in the area's I've seen is the SPEAR. When a dangerous animal is being taken, quite often EVERYONE goes along, and they take several spears, EACH.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Finally, a .308 shouldn't fail to dispatch a pig, no matter its size, with one or two shots, if your placement is good.

Haven't hunted many pigs have you?

I put a .45-70 broadside through a 500lb pig once. Blew clean through both lungs. The pig asperated a blood trail that looked like a dirty mop for 1/4 mile. The shot was taken from twenty feet, so you can imagine I'm quite happy he ran instead of charged. When we found him, it looked like Godzilla had punched out his flank.

Then again, I've dropped pigs without even a squeak before.

 

[aguyindallas]

I went out this past weekend with my AR-15 chambered in 6.8SPC. I took 1 fully loaded mag. Why...hell, I was hoping to come up on a whole bunch of hogs. I figured if I came on a deer worth shooting I would, but my main objective was to help control the hog population.

With that said....I came home with every round I left the house with.

Its not the gun, or the capacity of it, its the operator. Its not my, or anybody elses right to determine what exactly a "hunting rifle" is. If I take my SKS hunting, its a hunting rifle (to me). If I take my Savage .270 hunting, its a hunting rifle (to me) etc....

If I take my Glock 20 hunting, its my hunting pistol (to me).

My point is, it is each ones own perception on what a "hunting" rifle really is. If you let the .gov figure it out for you (like they already try to do), you are just allowing yet another right to be slowly erroded away from us. Just because you dont see it as a hunting rifle (and therefore dont care), doesnt mean there isnt a hunter out there using that gun, that would be very upset if the .gov took away his right to use that gun for hunting purposes.

 

[Regolith]

So suddenly the hunter becomes more or less ethical based solely on what a state government classifies an animal as? Even though they likely use the same weapon with the same magazine capacity for both game and non-game animals?

An interesting proposition. Completely false, but interesting.

You took that out of context. Since I am not saying that all states should have a mag capacity, only that it is an acceptable restriction in certain cases if the states decide to implement it, I was arguing that trying to apply it to hunting boars was a non issue, since no states that I know of restrict mag capacity when hunting boars, as its considered a pest animal. THEN, I followed that up to state that it is possible to take ANY game animal with a single shot if you try. So no, I did NOT state that it was ethical to spray and pray just because they were pests.