Other State Pennsylvania Sportsmen's groups push for use of semi-automatic rifles for big game hunting

[The Heretic]

Sportsmen's groups push for use of semi-automatic rifles for big game hunting

Some sportsmen’s league leaders are pushing for the Pennsylvania Game Commission to allow the use of semi-automatic rifles for big game hunting. Members of the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League, Beaver County Sportsmen’s Conservation League, Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania and the Institute...

triblive.com

Read More

 

[RVTECH]

It should be up to the individual's choice of what they want to shoot. It doesn't matter how many hunters say no

I agree with this part completely. No argument whatsoever.

However - if this were to be allowed I would not want to read about any subsequent beeotching if it were to include a round limit, such as what we (in OR anyway) have lived with forever.

It's bad enough to be out hunting and hear someone rip off all five of their mag and the animal probably running off un-hit, and it's obvious what would be happening if the limit was higher

 

[Koda]

It's bad enough to be out hunting and hear someone rip off all five of their mag and the animal probably running off un-hit, and it's obvious what would be happening if the limit was higher

I haven't heard of it being an issue in states that allow it. Id prefer no limit myself as I find a 10rd mag fits as flush as a 5rd mag.


I find it suspicious the Pennsylvania Game Commission did a survey that shows over 60% of hunters oppose using semi autos to hunt big game.

 

[RVTECH]

I haven't heard of it being an issue in states that allow it.

Well, no I'm sure most hunters that hear fast, multiple shots from SA rifles don't do much more than roll their eyes when they hear it happen - or duck for cover.

My point is greater (or no) ammo limits will result in 'hunters' just ripping off more shots as the animal runs away and the rounds end up further behind the animal and flying off to who knows where.

 

[The Heretic]

Well, no I'm sure most hunters that hear fast, multiple shots from SA rifles don't do much more than roll their eyes when they hear it happen - or duck for cover.

My point is greater (or no) ammo limits will result in 'hunters' just ripping off more shots as the animal runs away and the rounds end up further behind the animal and flying off to who knows where.

The only time multiple shots like that would be justified would be if you were dealing with a bear or the like and it was charging you (or someone else).

I've only ever needed two shots, and they were from a bolt action. Hunting/shooting pests - like feral pigs, gophers/etc., I could see semis with unlimited shot capacity.

 

[Koda]

My point is greater (or no) ammo limits will result in 'hunters' just ripping off more shots as the animal runs away and the rounds end up further behind the animal and flying off to who knows where.

I guess I dont see how the magazine and rifles action type makes a poor marksman make better choices, a poor marksman will also mag dump a bolt or lever action (which currently doesnt have any ammo limits).

The majority of hunters are responsible, and there are compelling survival or self defense and other reasons to carry a spare 5 or more rounds in the field. I don't typically support restricting responsible people because just someone "could" do something wrong. There are some states that restrict rounds regardless of action type, some states prohibit carrying a handgun when hunting... these policies are rooted in anti gun anti hunting agendas. I don't want to encourage that.

 

[RVTECH]

I guess I dont see how the magazine and rifles action type makes a poor marksman make better choices,a poor marksman will also mag dump a bolt or lever action (which currently doesnt have any ammo limits).

It doesn't - but give a 'hunter' a SA with an unlimited amount of ammo and many WILL likely rip off whatever they have - especially if they are new and have no idea as to what they are doing and seem to equate hunting with some sort of 'Larper' undertaking.

I'm not going to 'beat around the bush' with this, or 'pull any punches'.

I read far too many posts, not only here, but in other places where 'new' hunters post about wanting info about hunting, and how they plan to hunt with their AR or AK (or whatever) and somehow seem to equate it with some sort of 'survivalesque' scenario where they think they are on some some sort of SHTF mission and while hunting they may 'encounter' lions, tigers and bears (Oh my!) and might need to defend themselves.

I have been hunting for over 45 years and most of it has been in the 'traditional' sense with firearms, IE - bolts, levers and MLs and even 'early on' I have OFTEN heard 5 shot blasts that were NOT that of bolts or levers due to the sheer speed of it.

Hunting for ME (and I believe I speak for others as well) has always been a family/friend orientated undertaking, combining great camping trips, good talk about guns, reloading, shooting etc. and OFTEN more about the experience and the environment rather than some sort of survivalist mission requiring a 'tactical' approach with paranoia and fear as the primary basis.

and there are compelling survival or self defense and other reasons to carry a spare 5 or more rounds in the field.

Carrying a spare 5 rounds or more? Totally acceptable and justifiable BUT Please give me an example of where 'survival or self defense and other reasons' are particularly necessary , or a concern, when hunting in the 'traditional' sense because other than basic 'reasons' for such I have NEVER in my life of hunting, or spending time in the woods - which have likely been far greater than the average person - have I EVER felt an ELEVATED need for 'survival or self defense' other than what I have ALWAYS considered to be reasonable and prudent for any of of my experiences.

 

[Koda]

I'm not going to 'beat around the bush' with this.

I read far too many posts, not only here, but in other places where 'new' hunters post about wanting info about hunting, and how they plan to hunt with their AR or AK (or whatever) and somehow seem to equate it with some sort of 'survivalesque' scenario where they think they are on some some sort of SHTF mission and while hunting they may 'encounter' lions, tigers and bears (Oh my!) and might need to defend themselves.

Ive honestly never seen a post anywhere of some newbie AR hunter equating hunting with a SHTF mission.
But plenty of people have been attacked by mountain lions, bears, and now we have wolves here in Oregon. I don't think its unreasonable to consider the possibility.

This just isn't something Ive ever considered before; the idea of someone magdumping on a deer or elk let alone humping a 30rounder around in the first place.

 

[msgriff]

Advocating for magazine limits and scolding those who hunt with semi-automatics. Someone is blaming the weapon and not the user. Right out of the gun control proponents playbook. SMDH

 

[gmerkt]

I don't typically support restricting responsible people because just someone "could" do something wrong.

Unfortunately, we can't assume that everyone in society will act responsibly. Hence the need for speed limits, for example.

 

[Koda]

Unfortunately, we can't assume that everyone in society will act responsibly. Hence the need for speed limits, for example.

and yet nobodys advocating everyone has to put a governor on our engines.

 

[RVTECH]

But plenty of people have been attacked by mountain lions, bears

They have? You want to cite some SPECIFIC examples of these 'plenty of' attacks in Oregon?

And 'Plenty of' does not mean the one 2018 cougar attack which was the FIRST (fatal) attack in Oregon history.

I LIVE in bear and cougar country - with many cougars being shot several years ago in my area when a snowstorm forced many to take shelter in peoples barns, under their decks, outbuildings etc. - but no one was 'attacked'.

Also how about any bear attacks as well? I am sure you might find something in history about some but nothing recently.

Advocating for magazine limits and scolding those who hunt with semi-automatics.

No need to 'advocate' for mag limits - we already HAVE THEM in Oregon.

 

[Koda]

They have? You want to cite some SPECIFIC examples of these 'plenty of' attacks in Oregon?

And 'Plenty of' does not mean the one 2018 cougar attack which was the FIRST (fatal) attack in Oregon history.

Also how about any bear attacks as well? I am sure you might find something in history about some but nothing recently.

So we can only use -your- definition of "plenty"? As if that matters to the one person who was the first?
Here is a list of 6 Black Bear attacks in the 2020s alone. And it doesnt matter what state it happens in.

List of fatal bear attacks in North America - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RVTECH]

Here is a list of 6 Black Bear attacks in the 2020s alone.

I NEVER said, mentioned or inferred defense against bears - or ANY wild animal - was NOT a viable consideration but is it something that needs to be thought of as so 'essential' that it should occupy one's thoughts to the point of being a 'paranoid' consideration?

Quite frankly a LOT of posts (over the long term) suggest some seem so concerned and frightened by wild animals they should probably stay out of the woods entirely if it is that big of a issue - because if ALL they consider is what gun they should have for 'defense' against this or that then they OBVIOUSLY have no respect for, or will ever enjoy the woods/wilderness.

 

[Koda]

I NEVER said, mentioned or inferred defense against bears - or ANY wild animal - was NOT a viable consideration but is it something that needs to be thought of as so 'essential' that it should occupy one's thoughts to the point of being a 'paranoid' consideration?

Quite frankly a LOT of posts (over the long term) suggest some seem so concerned and frightened by wild animals they should probably stay out of the woods entirely if it is that big of a issue - because if ALL they consider is what gun they should have for 'defense' against this or that then they OBVIOUSLY have no respect for, or will ever enjoy the woods/wilderness.

People who prepare themselves for a risk are not paranoid.

 

[red442joe]

I haven't heard of it being an issue in states that allow it. Id prefer no limit myself as I find a 10rd mag fits as flush as a 5rd mag.


I find it suspicious the Pennsylvania Game Commission did a survey that shows over 60% of hunters oppose using semi autos to hunt big game.

It is a lie.

Joe

 

[red442joe]

Unfortunately, we can't assume that everyone in society will act responsibly. Hence the need for speed limits, for example.

? LOLz

Joe

 

[red442joe]

and yet nobodys advocating everyone has to put a governor on our engines.

Not to be testicle....nearly all engines are governed....but I get what you mean.

Joe

 

[The Heretic]

Not to be testicle....nearly all engines are governed....but I get what you mean.

Joe

Late model (say, 2000 and later, maybe earlier depending on the model) EFI gas engines generally have RPM limiters, and some automobiles (usually not motorcycles), especially those from Europe, have speed limiters - but it is academic as the speed is well above safe levels - usually well over 100 MPH.

My BMW has a limiter set to 155 MPH (which is probably about its max speed anyway) - the X1 model is usually set at 133 MPH, but mine has the M-Sport option so the limiter is set higher. Some of the "super" cars that come into the USA have their limiter set to 155 MPH at the factory, but it is common and trivial for the shops to tweak the setting to over 200 MPH. Generally, sport bikes only have RPM limiters, not speed.

Older cars/pickups, like my 92 Toyota, generally have no speed limiters, and the non-EFI models generally don't have an RPM limiter. My diesel truck does have a governor - but that is academic and customary on diesels (has been for many decades), not something the gov mandates.

 

[gmerkt]

I remember driving army trucks that had governed engine speed. On a Dodge M37 3/4 ton, for example, you could mash your foot down on the accelerator pedal and keep it there, the engine had only so much rpm to give. Some larger Ford gasoline truck engines I remember as having governed speed.

But here we're talking about mechanical means of governing. Speed limits are a societal limitation, expected to be observed by reasonable and responsible people. As a permit to carry a concealed pistol might be. Yes, unreasonable people will violate both limits.

There was a time when government did try to influence vehicle speeds, from about 1879 to 1982, they caused vehicle manufacturers to make speedometers that only went up to 85 mph.

Does anyone remember the 55 mph national speed limit? 1974-1987, intended to save fuel. These days, gasoline is as expensive as ever but I guess it's felt there is no need to conserve it for the sake of money. The 55 mph limit was widely ignored, but I remember a long, straight stretch of I-5 between Eugene and Albany, Ore. where the OSP really racked up a lot of tickets for disobedience of that law.