Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Halo on May 08, 2007, 11:22:03 AM
-
Since military guns are so effective and designed to take abuse and still function in awful conditions, how many of you prefer to use military guns for hunting rather than the usual civilian long or short guns?
If you do, which military guns do you recommend for hunting?
This presumes that the military guns meet federal and state hunting laws, e.g., magazines with limited number of cartridges, etc.
For example, I'm not a hunter, but if I were, I'd try my replica M1 Carbine .30 caliber with a five-round magazine for varmints up to maybe small deer size within 100 yards.
I'm curious whether military guns are perceived as sufficiently accurate and cost effective because hunting places a premium on well-placed shots delivering the quickest and most humane kills.
Kinda ironic, isn't it, that most military, law enforcement and home defense applications accept slightly less accuracy since their emphasis is on knock down, stopping the assault.
-
M-14 with 5 round box works dandy on any large game on the North American continent.
I think it's the H&K H91 that's in the same caliber but more accurate. *mental note to check* Was thinking the H92, but that was .223
M1 Garrand is probably better suited all around if you don't mind carrying the weight around and using those 8 round clasps.
.45 Colt Commander is reserved for smaller to mid size game.
-
You don't have to use the 8 round clips with the garand. You can get 5 round clips, 2 round clips, and you can load each round singly by hand.
However in Pennsylvania, you're not allowed to hunt with a semi. You can deactivate the semi automatic feature to compensate for this.
-
Yep the HK91 and M14 share the same cartridge NATO 7.62 (.308). The HK93 was chambered for the 5.56 (.223). The .308 cartridge is a good all around shooter, and many hunting rifles are chambered for it. I think in the long run it is easier to just buy a hunting rifle for hunting than it is to use a military style rifle.
-
Hunted in TN with my Father-in-Laws .30 M1 Carbine. My then wife used it for deer also. Was just not impressed with it. Never hit anything with it, but the rounds themselves and the feel of the gun made me think I was a kid again running through the woods with a toy. From what he told me he'd killed quite a few deer with it, but he was a ranging alcoholic...so who knows if it was true (shrugs shoulders). He used to carry it behind the seat of his truck for "popping deer outa corn fields".
I've used a Mk 4 mod 1 .303 British several times, starting when I was a kid (one of Grandpops guns). Dang peepsights, I've only ever managed to hit one deer with it, followed the blood trail for about 1/2 a mile before it petered out. Again, less than impressed, never used it again. I'll stick with my .270 thank ya very much :aok
-
I have a friend of mine that hunts with a Lee Enfield .303 surplus British army rifle. He loves the thing. My uncle has used a Springfield 1903 service rifle for years to hunt with. I also know a few people that use Mosin Nagant Russian army rifles. Of course those are all bolt action rifles, but I have in the past used an AR-15 for varmit hunting. Coyotes and stuff like that, but for big game hunting I think I'll stick to either my Ruger 77 .308 or my Remington 700BDL 30-06.
-
Have killed a deer with the 1895 Mauser carbine in 7 x 57, but the main drawback with that was the closest sight on that rifle is 200 meters or so, and the deer was 20 yards away. So had to aim at the feet just about to hit it in the engine room.
Killed my first deer with a replica 1873 Sharps carbine in 50-70, again from about 20 to 30 yards away. Killed another deer with a replica 1865 Zouave (Remington) in .577 from about 30 yards away. Most shots in these woods are close in, and these probably aren't the military style weapons Halo is referring to. Guess my point is iron sight usage on some of the military rifles may involve Kentucky windage, and I am a bit uncomfortable with that for hunting. Of course, with plenty of practice at the expected range most shots will be, there should be not too many missed shots. I still prefer a scope for hunting.
Les
-
There is an old saying that:
Springfield makes the best target rifles, Mauser makes the best hunting rifles and Enfield makes the best battlefield rifles.
-
My only concern hunting with military weapons is to not use military ammunition.
Military ammunition is full metal jacketed and not intended for hunting.
Another drawback though is that self loading military weapons tend to damage the soft lead or hollow point tipped ammunition and this leads to jams and inaccuracy downrange.
My solution was to use the Nosler ballistic tipped ammunition in my M1A.
It's hunting ammunition that is designed to be durable enough to withstand the feeding process and recoil while in the magazine.
-
Had a friend that used a garand ONCE, after an hour all I heard was complaints about how heavy it was. One year i used a 6.5 x55 swedish carbine. Worked great, bolt action, light weight, iron sights
-
Originally posted by derelict
Hunted in TN with my Father-in-Laws .30 M1 Carbine. My then wife used it for deer also. Was just not impressed with it. Never hit anything with it, but the rounds themselves and the feel of the gun made me think I was a kid again running through the woods with a toy. From what he told me he'd killed quite a few deer with it, but he was a ranging alcoholic...so who knows if it was true (shrugs shoulders). He used to carry it behind the seat of his truck for "popping deer outa corn fields".
I've used a Mk 4 mod 1 .303 British several times, starting when I was a kid (one of Grandpops guns). Dang peepsights, I've only ever managed to hit one deer with it, followed the blood trail for about 1/2 a mile before it petered out. Again, less than impressed, never used it again. I'll stick with my .270 thank ya very much :aok
I've also hunted with the Universal 30 cal M-1 carbine. Its agreat gun for deer at close range but the knockdown power still leaves a bit to be desired. I've also hunted with a 303 British Enfield which is a great gun with great accuracy but a lot of weight as is the case with the Garand. However I wouldnt shoot at a deer at over 50 or 60 yards with the peep sights. You can have them drilled and tapped for scope mounts as is the case with my 303 which now has killed deer in excess of 250 yards. I also hunt with a 30-06 Savage 110 LY with Simmons 4x10x44 scope which is now my main deer rifle. Its a great budget gun and can be bought in a package deal at most Wally Worlds for under $300.00. I bought mine without a scope just because I didnt like the one that came with the package deal and I also wanted the laminated stock instead of the poly or standard walnut. It cost me about $100.00 more to go that route but I got the gun and scope I wanted. It's all about personal preference.
-
I took my 98K hunting one season. It's ok for the job, but there are better choices available commercially at very reasonable prices.
-
i use a scoped Mauser 98 Sporter in 30.06 cal for deer hunting. the bolt action is like butter. the thing is a heavy canon, but very accurate. its all i need. im picky about what shots i will and won't take. i'd still like to try the military version just for the fun of it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You don't have to use the 8 round clips with the garand. You can get 5 round clips, 2 round clips, and you can load each round singly by hand.
However in Pennsylvania, you're not allowed to hunt with a semi. You can deactivate the semi automatic feature to compensate for this.
Didn't know you could get 5 and 2 round clasps for the M1... Got links? :D
Would love to replace my missing Lee-Enfield Mk4 =( I found the .303 to be a pretty good deer stopper in VA if you pick your shots properly. 200 yards was tops I went... got a neck shot that dropped 'ol buck like he hit a 9G gravity well. *lucky shot imo*
-
SKS works great.. I have killed deer Hundreds of pigs coons and anything else that needed killing.
M1 Carbine might be on the weak side out side of 50 yards.
Their is nothing wrong with a military rifle for hunting. Only problem is that a Remington 700 .270 bolt gun is better than most assault weapons and cheaper.
-
Bullet is a bullet doesnt matter what it is fired from. Just dont show up at my deer camp with a uzi because i will ask you to go home..
-
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/cb/cb.asp?a=70846
I'm currently having trouble digging up the 2 round clips. But I have seen them plenty of times at gun shows.
Ontop of that, it's relatively easy to load a full sized clip with any number of bullets in it that you want.
-
My favorite hunting rifle is my M1903-A3. Sub MOA at 300 yds, I love it!
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/cb/cb.asp?a=70846
I'm currently having trouble digging up the 2 round clips. But I have seen them plenty of times at gun shows.
Ontop of that, it's relatively easy to load a full sized clip with any number of bullets in it that you want.
Thanks Sailor... yer a peach for a squid.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Halo
Since military guns are so effective and designed to take abuse and still function in awful conditions, how many of you prefer to use military guns for hunting rather than the usual civilian long or short guns?
If you do, which military guns do you recommend for hunting?
This presumes that the military guns meet federal and state hunting laws, e.g., magazines with limited number of cartridges, etc.
For example, I'm not a hunter, but if I were, I'd try my replica M1 Carbine .30 caliber with a five-round magazine for varmints up to maybe small deer size within 100 yards.
I'm curious whether military guns are perceived as sufficiently accurate and cost effective because hunting places a premium on well-placed shots delivering the quickest and most humane kills.
Kinda ironic, isn't it, that most military, law enforcement and home defense applications accept slightly less accuracy since their emphasis is on knock down, stopping the assault.
The .303 cartridge and SMLE rifle has taken more deer in New Zealand than all the other calibres combined. For decades after WW2 deer were numerous but commercial hunting rifles were scarce and expensive, and commercial hunting ammo for them was even scarcer. The abundant supply of milsurp .303's, often un-scoped and feed with clipped ball ammo filled the needs of the deer cullers and hunters until sporting rifles and optics became more common and affordable. Plenty of hunters still prefer to use the SMLE, and since most deer in NZ are shot at ranges under 100 yards it's more than adequate and at no real disadvantage to today’s fancier sporting rifles/ cartridges.
I've owned two M1 carbines and although the M1 is a ton of fun to shoot imo it's too inaccurate for small game and too underpowered to reliably drop medium sized game at even relatively close range. I think 100 yards might be a stretch for it.
I don't think it matters whether someone uses a milsurp semi auto or bolt gun to hunt with as long they enjoy using it, and it fires a projectile with enough accuracy and energy with consideration to the size of game and ranges they'll be using it at.
-
When I started hunting with my Father In Law, I used his surplus Enfield. Back in the 70's he bought it and had the gun professionally cut to a monte carlo stock. That thing was a blast to shoot.
-
It used to be quite common for sporting goods stores to cut down the stocks on military bolt guns like mausers and sprigfields and add peep sights or a cheap 4 power scope and sell the guns for $50 -$100 for hunting... ought six, 8 x 57 7x57.. carcano and swiss were all good hunting rounds and the guns were cheap and accurate for hunting.. You could shoot surplus ammo for fun and soft point for hunting.
I have an 8mm mauser with peep sights that was built like that in the late 60's or so.. It probly sold for 40-50 bucks and will shoot 2" groups or so at 100 yards... the stock is cut down and the barrel is cut down a few inches and recrowned. It has a quicky glass bedding job and the williams peep sight with a swedged on front sight. Someone put in a no name aftermarket trigger that seems pretty decent.
All these mods cost maybe $30 back in the day. the gun is accurate and weighs about like a commercial sporter.
nowdays.. you can still buy a mauser for around $100 and cut the stock and bed it yourself. 8mm is a good hunting round. use the sights it came with or cut down and recrown the barrel and add peep sights of maybe another $60
Add a recoil pad and sling swivels for another 20 bucks or so and you are ready.
lazs
-
I used SVD-63 for elk and boar hunting few times. Really better if to compare with usual 12 caliber bullet.
-
Originally posted by FX1
SKS works great.. I have killed deer Hundreds of pigs coons and anything else that needed killing.
M1 Carbine might be on the weak side out side of 50 yards.
Their is nothing wrong with a military rifle for hunting. Only problem is that a Remington 700 .270 bolt gun is better than most assault weapons and cheaper.
Remington 700VLS 22-250 is hands down the favorite gun in my arsenal. You can literally drive tacks with it at 150 yds and lay out consistent 3" groups at 300 yds +. It's an amazing weapon. A work of art...
-
For hunting I wouldn't use any of the semi's out there. It's not that I dislike the system or even their accuracy, it's just because most of them are heavier than anything I need to carry around to get the job done.
Having said that, I wouldn't use the M1 Carbine to hunt anything larger than a coyote. The round is extremely anemic, especially in plain ball format and is essentially like a .32 magnum pistol round. Less effective than a .38 special from a pistol with a decent HP loading. I've got an M1 Carbine and like shooting it but wouldn't hunt with it as long as I have anything else in a more capable cartridge. My SKS is far more capable than the M1 Carbine and just as fun to shoot.
The Garand and the M14 are just too darn heavy to tote all day long when the same cartidge can be fired from a much lighter bolt action rifle. With my eyes I also want a scope if at all possible now. I don't hunt large game with a .223 or other .22 caliber so my AR 15 is also out of the question even though with the national match barrel and improved sights it's better suited accuracy wise than the SKS.
I used to hunt deer with a black powder muzzleloading rifle (.45 and .50 cal). I felt it was more of a challenge to get inside 100 yards (my self imposed iron sight range limit) and take the deer with that style rifle. One shot is all you're likely to get. I enjoyed the hunt whether I took a deer or not. Most of the time I didn't but the hunting trip was always a great trip.
-
The round is extremely anemic, especially in plain ball format and is essentially like a .32 magnum pistol round. Less effective than a .38 special from a pistol with a decent HP loading.
I agree that it's a poor choice for hunting, but from a muzzle energy standpoint it's far more effective than a .38 special or even a .357 magnum, especially with hollow points. Comparison of muzzle energy barrel, 50 yards and 100 yards.
.357 (110 gr. Winchester JHP): 410 292
.357 (125 grain JHP): 583
Carbine (110 gr. Winchester FMJ):967 778 622
.44 Magnum (240 grain) 1044
As you can see, it has more stopping power at 100 yards than a .357 does at the muzzle, and few would consider a .357 to be anemic. And a .44 magnum isn't that much more powerful. The carbine works just as developed, as a weapon far more effective than a .45 sidearm yet far easier to tote around for logistics and support troops and officers than the Garand.
Now, a good brush hunting gun to consider that I'm not personally familiar with is the Deerfield carbine, based, I believe on the M1 action (sure looks like one) but in .44 magnum with a 4-round magazine. It generates a muzzle energy of 1796 foot lbs.
Charon
-
What, is america filled with girly men now? A garand is too heavy to carry around?
-
Originally posted by Charon
I agree that it's a poor choice for hunting, but from a muzzle energy standpoint it's far more effective than a .38 special or even a .357 magnum, especially with hollow points. Comparison of muzzle energy barrel, 50 yards and 100 yards.
.357 (110 gr. Winchester JHP): 410 292
.357 (125 grain JHP): 583
Carbine (110 gr. Winchester FMJ):967 778 622
.44 Magnum (240 grain) 1044
But Charon I would argue that when I had my Ruger SA .357 I never loaded 110gr or 125 gr bullets. I used 135 FMJ and jacketed hollowpoints for target practice and small game, and 180gr FMJ when I carried during hunting, fishing, and camping trips.
what is the muzzle energy for the 135gr and 180gr. also wont there be differences in muzzle energy depending on barrel length, primer type, and powder?
-
there is a little more to it than just raw energy figures. I have killed a few deer with a high standard .22 pistol.
The carbine is pretty marginal in accuracy and stopping power. I would rather hit a deer with a .357 mag round than the carbine one. the .357 is bigger around.
I have killed a hog with my 44 that an ought six had wounded. the 44 anchors em... right now. The ought six has double the energy of the 44 but it is not a big blunt round that expends all it's energy into the target. Is it better to expend 1000 lbs of energy into the target or to expend 200 lbs into the target and another 1700 into the woods somewhere?
That being said... with a little caution... any round will do. the high standard dropped them little deer just fine if you hit em in the head good.
lazs
-
But Charon I would argue that when I had my Ruger SA .357 I never loaded 110gr or 125 gr bullets. I used 135 FMJ and jacketed hollowpoints for target practice and small game, and 180gr FMJ when I carried during hunting, fishing, and camping trips.
what is the muzzle energy for the 135gr and 180gr. also wont there be differences in muzzle energy depending on barrel length, primer type, and powder?
This from Chuck Hawks
For this article I shot the Hunter .357 Magnunm 180 grain BCSP load in my 4" Colt Ultimate Python revolver. This is a full power load driving 180 grain bullet (SD .202) at a muzzle velocity (MV) of 1200 fps and muzzle energy of 576 ft. lbs. from a 4" barrel, and it hits hard at both ends of the gun. The recoil is sharp and substantial, subjectively greater than the old Remington load that advertised a 158 grain bullet at a MV of 1550 fps, which until now was the stiffest .357 Magnum load I had encountered.
The carbine is pretty marginal in accuracy and stopping power. I would rather hit a deer with a .357 mag round than the carbine one. the .357 is bigger around.
I have killed a hog with my 44 that an ought six had wounded. the 44 anchors em... right now. The ought six has double the energy of the 44 but it is not a big blunt round that expends all it's energy into the target. Is it better to expend 1000 lbs of energy into the target or to expend 200 lbs into the target and another 1700 into the woods somewhere?
I see where you're coming from, there is always the velocity argument that is pushed with the 9mm but it does come down to dumping energy. Apparently the hollow point 30 carbines are fine for stopping power with smaller game and zombies and the soft points OK and both better than the FMJ. But my carbine is plenty accurate at 100 yards (more accurate than me with my limited practice opportunities) and I would rather have an carbine at 100 yards than a 357 magnum pistol and wouldn't feel underarmed at 25 yards. For that matter my "protection" .357 revolver is loaded with lead 38 special +Ps which I don't lose any sleep over figuring limited over penetration but enough to get the job done if ever required. Just pull the trigger twice if I had to.
If you take away the ancedotal stories from those who liked the added stopping power of the 30-06 you can find plenty of ancedotal evidence of soldiers and marines from WW2 to Vietnam who had no complaints with the M1, especially in jungle or urban environments. And, a LOT of people have actually hunted deer with these. I just get a bit tweaked by those who think it's some sort of .22LR or something.
BTW, the Taurus Thunderbolt seems like a neat little pump action (improved) pistol caliber carbine. You can currently find it in .45 colt and .357. http://www.gunblast.com/Taurus_Thunderbolt.htm
Charon
-
I hunt with a scoped Lee Enfield Mk. 4.
I love the gun, but I have to tell you that it's a mite too heavy to carry into the tree stand and a lot more awkward than comercial hunting rifles. Hunting with a nice lever action 30-30 was miles easier and a lot faster to the shoulder. The Enfield also has a considerably heftier kick, and you better be using hunting rounds (I prefer Hornady) as the military surplus FMJ stuff has a nasty habit of going all the way through the deer.
My advice is get a purpose built deer hunting rifle in a reasonable calibre, hunting with a military rifle is too much like flying a Wildcat in the late war arena.
- SEAGOON
-
I have nothing against the little m1 carbine but...
there is a reason it never got real popular.. you would think it would be.. millions of em made... semi auto.. light and no recoil... I have owned a few.
They have a following but it is not huge. I think it is because of the round. The power level is at a strange place... powerful enough for deer and zombies if you are careful but.. heartbreaking if you are not. a small dia. bullet that has little chance of expanding at long range or not expanding too much at short range with bullets that will expand. A very light bullet.
What most people into guns think is that the carbine would have been improved if it had been .35 caliber instead of .30 It was at first. It would have been much like a 350 win self loader in a small handy package.
I don't think a 4" .357 is a good hunting gun either... 6 or 8 inch would be better and a 44 mag WAY better.
The carbine uses very light bullets..if you make em soft they will explode at close ranges. There just isn't enough bullet weight and.... they aren't long enough to stableize that well. The guns are not really much more accurate than a good handgun... practically speaking tho... most should be able to use the extra sight radius and rifle length to shoot them better than a handgun.
I know that if I had to shoot a wild hog or bear I would rather have hard cast 160 grain .357's at max from a revolver than .30 carbine hollow points from an M1.
An interesting fact is that Ruger made a single action blackhawk in .30 carbine.. it never sold well and is discontinued... my brother has one.
lazs
-
The M1 Carbine seems to be just what it was designed as: a more effective pistol for most shooters but a less potent rifle than heavier calibers.
Still kinda amazing the .223 success in military carbines and rifles although the .308 is always there wanting to push the .223 into the background. I just talked with a Virginia Guardsman back from two tours in Iraq and he says he thinks the M16 in .223 (5.56 mm) is a great weapon, no complaints at all, although acknowledging that a .308 has more oomph.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What most people into guns think is that the carbine would have been improved if it had been .35 caliber instead of .30 It was at first. It would have been much like a 350 win self loader in a small handy package.
lazs
wouldnt the .357 Maximum equal what you're talkin about, M1 carbine chambered for the .357 Max... if i recall correctly Ruger made a blackhawk chambered for it and someone else had a lever-action rifle
-
Winchester, Marlin, Rossi, Uberti, and H&R make rifles in the .357 caliber.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Winchester, Marlin, Rossi, Uberti, and H&R make rifles in the .357 caliber.
yes .357, but what about .357 maximum, longer case. I'm just thinking that a M1 carbine chambered for the .357 Maximum would be close to what Laz is suggesting would have been a better gun than the .30 M1
-
There is no high power rifle season here in Ohio. But you can use a muzzleloader for deer during shotgun season…. So here is the military rifle that I hunt with!
(http://www.MyOnlineImages.com/members/goalyeb/images/springfield1.jpg)
It’s an 1864 Springfield rifle. It was fitted with a reproduction .58-caliber barrel back in the 1960s for a Civil War reenactor. I bought it at his estate sale.
(http://www.MyOnlineImages.com/members/goalyeb/images/springfield2.jpg)
I carried it for the first time last season, but never had the chance to take a shot. At the range it easily shoots six-inch groups off hand at fifty yards. That’s better than most 12guage slug guns with open sights, so I shouldn’t have any problem with it.