The 2nd amendment was never about hunting to start with. As for "combat rifles" and huntung; so long as it's legal and ethical it shouldn't be a problem.
Remember that the squirrel rifle served in the American Revolution to devastating effect. Every weapon that has ever been devised has been both a hunting weapon and a weapon of war. When talking about infantry arms there really is very little difference between the two.
Matt, a distinction I like to make is that I do not use a hunting weapon. My hunting rifles and shotguns and bows are tools. Were I to go to war I'd use similar tools as weapons. It's intent that makes the difference. Similarly, a bolt-action, flintlock, pump (think WW1 trench gun,) autoloader are just firearms, not combat or assault rifles until used for combat or assault.
@@RonSpomerOutdoors That is a perfectly reasonable distinction to make. Because when it all comes down to it, the importance of the tool is in the intent, not the tool itself.
@@matthewblumenthal804 In the old days, it was a Bolt Action, then the Garand and later the M14 (in between M1-2 carabine) after (today) 5.56 and US military got wisser (6.7-6.8-277) a hundred years later the 7 MM mauser reigns again ( bit dif cartrigge ) but same balistics
Absolutely many old battle rifles where used as is and sporterized into hunting rifles in the past. And we still have the browning BAR which is a beautiful rifle. Further more these don’t have battle rifle capabilities they are nothing more then a auto loader. What they do offer is a modern rifle with modern ergonomics for improved handling and comfort. The auto loading feature offers reduced felt recoil same as a auto loading shotgun soaks up the recoil. Perhaps for hunting as with hunting water foul a round restriction could be implemented in the ethics of fair chase. If black makes it scary for the deer 🦌 give it a camo paint job. Keep up the great work Ron 👍👍 from communist Canada 🇨🇦
Thanks Dale. Yup, the single shot trapdoor Springfield 45-70 was a U.S. military rifle. Ditto the Springfield bolt-action, the M1 Garand. German military gave us the Mauser 98, Spain employed the Mauser 93, I believe. Russia bought many Winchester lever actions for their military. Etc.
Dale, please don't conflate the US Military Browning BAR with today's Browning BAR. Other than the name they are nothing alike. Today's BAR is a beautifully designed semi-auto sporting rifle. The BAR of the Military was a heavy, kind of crude, fully auto capable SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) of it's day. Lovely weapon but the only similarity with today's BAR is the name. BTW the name BAR stands for Browning Automatic Rifle.
It actually goes both ways as civilian firearm usage & innovation also helped drive firearms development that was later adopted for military usage. For example US citizens were developing, buying and using repeating rifles (e.g. Winchester Model 1873) before repeating rifles became standard issue to US troops (with the selection of the Krag-Jorgenson in 1892). As amazing as it is some of the earliest Gatling guns were actually privately purchased and provided to the US/Union Army despite objections of some military leaders at the time. More recently the popular .223 Remington & 5.56x45 NATO rounds were something of an evolution/modification of the .222 Remington. Once a person really starts digging into it, the history of firearms development isn't so cleanly divided into military vs. civilian use - though military adoption may have accelerated a widespread adoption & awareness of some technologies faster than would have otherwise been achieved. Likewise sport and sustenance hunting of native species may drive/have different considerations than controlling/exterminating non-native invasive species. A few examples being wild hogs (across much of the US), iguanas, pythons (both primarily in Florida), or even armadillos (east of the Mississippi). Which (from the way I understand it) is part of the reason (at least some) states have started to permit night hunting of such species - along with the use of thermal & other night-useful sights. In those situations being fair or sporting could be counterproductive to making progress.
@@WillyK51 Agree a .22 (especially if suppressed) can work well if a person can get close enough to be effective and it's a single animal. For groups of hogs or feral/abandoned dogs (running wild & hostile) a semi-auto with a bit more oomph than a .22LR becomes appealing (especially if it's also suppressed). Granted that may cross more into "pest control" (or even self-defense) rather than "hunting" in some people's views. Though whatever a person wants to call it with some types of animals it can make sense not to get any closer than necessary to humanely dispatch them. ...at least in my opinion.
Ron always provides an intelligent and well thought answer to most all questions. I totally agree with his response to the increasing technology in current hunting guns.
I have built almost every caliber that an AR pattern rifle can be chambered in, but swore I wouldn't touch 300 B/O. A few years went by and my curiosity got the best of me and I built one with an 18" barrel. I have to admit with a 125 grain sst handload I have killed more hogs than I can count here in the swamps of Louisiana.
There's nothing wrong with a 300BO or 350 Legend if you're shooting medium game at ranges less than 200 yards. It's kind of like a 3030 in a semi-auto.
@@userJohnSmith I seriously doubt you have the skills to build a .284 win on an AR15 platform. What you gonna do use it as a single shot? We are taking about the AR15 platform not the AR10
The question from 308 Dad is interesting. My late mother-in-law had a cousin who was a rancher in Idaho. They would go hunt, on horseback, in the mountains. The photos of them, three generations, looked like something out of the 19th century. He thought they got way too many, so one year he decides they will use only muzzleloaders. Well, they still got way too many.
One of my favorite hunting rifles is an all-original K-31. The rifle really doesn't matter when you get down to it. It's all about the rounds going down range.
Ron, that's the quickest 20 minutes in the youtube universe. Keep them coming. In my opinion, technology is similar to morality in many ways. Neither can be legislated and what works for me, might not work for you. Personally I don't like nightvision for hunting, but I love it for observing wildlife. I have friends who use it for vermin control and coyote hunting. Are they wrong? Not at all and I'll often join them and call for them while they use nightvision. It just doesn't hold the romance for me. I don't think we should legislate it or trail cams or lazers or any technology. That would open Pandora's box. I'm more of a live and let live guy. We, hunters and shooters, should create a united front before we lose it all. You are 100 percent correct about physics class. I did the reverse. Knew ballistics and hot rodding then converted it to physics. Still works the same. When the teacher lost the class, 30 blank faces staring at her, she'd ask me to explain it in a way they'd understand. Learning is so fun. Keep well and keep 'em coming. Cheer, Jeff
You had me worried for a bit when I read the title of this podcast, bu, as always you had a great answer when it comes to using military rifles for hunting. I personally could care less what style of rifle is used for hunting as long as the caliber is legal and the hunter is proficient using the rifle/ cartridge combination. So if someone want to hunt using all the modern technology good for them, the same goes for someone who hunts with a musket from the 1700. The important thing is that they hunt ethically (meaning that they do not take shots beyond their ability to make a clean kill) and that they have fun during the hunt.
I just got my 8.6 blackout bolt gun back from my gunsmith and I'm gonna be using mine for an elk hunt this November. I've been been doing some load development for it and I'm really impressed with my groups and how hard it's hitting steal targets at distance. Very impressed with it.
When my “middle”, son was a Senior in High School I was in charge of buying the “Raffle Rifle”, for Project Graduation. I bought a New England Handi-Rifle in .300 Blackout, 16” barrel & threaded, and put a Leupold VX-1 3x9x40, with Warne rings. Not all that surprised but compared to years past the rifle I’d set up for the raffle made more $$ than rifles past. I think the .300 Blackout (while I don’t have 1, nor do I dislike it, just haven’t played w/1 yet), is essentially American engineers coming up with the U.S.-7x62x39mm AK-47 round ubiquitous around the world. That cartridge is nothing more than the .220 Russian necked up. Take the .300 Blackout which is .223 necked up to .308 or 7.62 that fits AR-15 magazines. So to me on their face the 7.62x39mm vs. the .300 Blackout are essentially the same, for all intense & purposes, the SAME!
Night vision is a must for for predtor control in some areas. Losing livestock is like taking an un-necessary pay cut. I saw a coyote by a park i lived by a few years ago in ohio on my way to work one morning. 2 days later my neighbor said he let his dog out heard screaming and watched that coyote drag his friend off into the dark
In Florida AK's are legal for whitetail deer hunting IF AND ONLY IF the magazines are limited to 4 rounds. Easy to limit a AR magazine so that it will not load on a closed bolt but not nearly so easy on an AK that is meant to load on a closed bolt. Not all G&F officers know this, but one who did explained it to me. I have several AK magazines limited to 4 rounds for deer hunting. Feral hogs can be taken anywhere with any method
My first deer rifle was a WWII Mauser that was rebarreled to 30-06. I ended up putting a 4x scope on it. I was king of the woods in 1965. My second rifle was an 03 springfield that had been sporterized. My cousin had an Arisaka 6.5mm he rebarreled to .257 Roberts. A friend of mine used an M-1 Garand to hunt deer with.Lost are those days when we bought milsup and turned weapons of war into deer rifles. Along the way we learned wood working, metal finishing, and gunsmithing. I feel sorry for people that think ARs are the only weapon of war to be used for hunting.
Why not, I prefer standard shaped bolt actions, and BAR like SemiAuto plus BLR lever, (grew up on them) But a AR platform in a Proper Deer -Big Game caertridge will de as efective as my 30-06
For whoever asked why use “military” type equipment, here’s a breakdown: 1. Semi-automatic rifles (what the uneducated call “military-style rifles”) allow for much quicker follow-up shots in cases where the first shot doesn’t cleanly take the animal, which means the animal is in pain/suffering for less time. 2. Night vision/thermals/night hunting is only legal in some places and almost always very limited in scope, generally to predators and other animals considered to be nuisance animals (raccoons, feral hogs, etc.). Take Idaho for instance: only predators can be hunted at night and only on private property unless you have a permit from IDFG, which requires a good reason. 3. Sniper equipment (not sure what you’re talking about here, but I’m assuming camouflage, scopes, and kestrels) helps with accuracy. Camo allows you to get closer to animals without them seeing you, making your shots easier to make, accurately. Kestrels provide data about the environment (wind, humidity, etc.) which helps the shooter make elevation and windage adjustments to compensate for these variables, increasing the likelihood of a clean, one-shot kill. And scopes… they make shots more accurate at extended ranges (this should be self-explanatory, but just in case), again increasing the likelihood of a clean, one-shot kill. In other words, the same reason the military has for using their equipment is the same reason hunters use it: better accuracy at longer ranges, which increases the likelihood of a clean kill. No honest hunter (which make up the vast majority of hunters) wants an animal to suffer. We want good, clean kills that knocks the animal over immediately. It’s a point of pride to quickly and humanely take animals and we want to use anything available to us for that reason. Hunters care more about animals than any anti-hunting, anti-gun, or PETA types-I guarantee it. We love animals and do more for conservation and humane treatment of them than all of the anti-hunting types combined. Don’t believe the narrative being pushed that we’re all just crazy gun nuts with no reason for what we do or need for what we use.
As I have mentioned before, here in Illinois we have to use shotguns to hunt deer. We can also use handguns. I have gotten many with both. I started out with a Savage M67 with a 28" bbl. Smooth bore using rifles slugs. Maybe 75 yard range. I move up to a Savage 210 with a 24" rifled bbl. I use Winchester Partition Gold slugs. These are 385 grain going about 1900 fps. So, clearly comparable to the 45-70 rounds you are talking about. Expansion is fantastic and they are very effective. They are actually Partition Gold bullets. A very good pistol bullet, just supersized. I usually use one round to confirm zero (always right on, it is a dedicated gun). Then I use one round per deer. Good thing too, since they are $3 per round.
On the military rifle issue, actually the 5.56x45 cartridge was derived from the .222 Remington which was a varmint cartridge which has no parent and was not developed for the military. So, this was not like the .30-06 or Mauser rounds.
If I am not mistaken….everything from a muzzleloaders to full auto has been used in combat. In a multitude of calibers. Mr Spomer is a great …like his stuff because he explains things and does it quiet well
Sporterized military rifles are are an American tradition. As a niche deer gun for hunting deer in heavy Missouri forest I even sporterized an SKS . What can I say? Some of us just love to tinker.
25 years ago as a hand loader the ballistics book by Hornady changed my mind. The book gives range and trajectory of every bullet without reference to the case. The target and animal doesn’t know what case was used to hold powder. I got rid of my hand loading equipment and all odd ball caliber rifles. I bought a 30-06 and moved on.
Camel, I spent time in the USArmy but started hunting when I was 12. I have sat stands out of season cameras in hunt every season in MS with the firearms allowed. Squirrel and Turkey I stick with shotguns, but dear I hunt with everything from slug guns and open sights to the newest scopes and rangefinders and newfangled calibers. I like to test new things AND like having the opportunity to test new things. However, I'm as happy during primitive weapon with a .54 cal Hawkins Renegade with iron sights as I am in gun season with an AR15 pattern in 6mm ARC. I love watching the animals and am very selective. Most of all I enjoy the time at the camp with family and friends no matter who is shooting what. Thanks Ron for doing what you do so well! Best regards to you and Camel
The 8.6 Blackout has a 6.5 Creedmoor case as the 338 Federal has a 308 case. Same guy making the 8.6 as the 300aac. Kevin from "Q". An arrow can out penetrate a rifle. My carbon arrows are 400 grains with razor sharp blades and a pin point. Good video Ron!
I don’t see a problem with using “military” gear and Ron began to hit on that. PA hunters are the worst with that whole thing. You’ll hear a lot of “you’re not at war with the deer” well, that’s good to know, but when have we not used “battlefield” tech? Semi auto rifles are just rifles and don’t mean you can’t shoot. I’ve got 20/10 vision in my dominant eye and I’m not going to usually opt for irons. I don’t use range finders, but that’s because I usually shoot deer a ranges that it won’t make a difference. Thermal works well for hunting hogs and coyotes and so on. If a hunter wants more of a challenge, that’s cool, they have seasons for obsolete equipment and even during seasons where the latest and greatest is legal, a person can still use the old timey gear.
When the Lapua cane out it was slower than the 340 I figure we built one of the first bill at Champlain's built it for me on the BBK action was good 100 ft slower than 340 Weatherby
Ron this younger generation is all for trying to shoot game at long range, because they are to lazy to stalk game animals to get in close and nail that animal with perfect shot placement! This younger generation just doesn't have the patience our old school generation has. Please keep up the great content and excellent videos. An fan in Texas
You did well on being polite on answering the combat rifle question. The problem with people that call rifles weapons of war and not necessary for hunting is they don't hunt, and they believe left wing falsehoods. Bows and arrows were weapons of war, so are knives. The AR-15 is used to eradicate runaway hog infestation damaging crops. The real answer is yes in some instances certain rifles that some people want to name combat rifles should be allowed and are rightfully allowed. Even night vision in the hog situation. I do appreciate you being polite to the entire audience, but I thought it would be good for me to clarify why one would use so called military style weapons hunting.
Well said, Garry. Clubs, spears, arrows, knives, fists, fire ... All weapons of war if used in warfare. If used for sport the club becomes a baseball bat, spear a javelin, arrow part of an Olympic archery competition, knife a juggler's prop or chef's tool, fists for boxing matches, fire for cooking and staying warm. Blaming inanimate objects for the crimes humans commit suggests a superficial analysis of reality.
I've fired 1000's if not 10,000 rounds on an AR pattern rifle in the military and civilian world. It is what is most comfortable and familiar to me. Obviously there isn't much of a learning curve for a bolt gun but still, I can own an AR-15 and an AR-10 and with 2 serial numbers, have access to a firearm that is configured well for squirrels all the way up to moose and bear at reasonable ranges just by swapping uppers. All without much change in trigger feel, shooting fundamentals, manual of arms, etc. As for modern equipment, the same thing happens in golf. Someone will say something about some new-fangled club or ball or whatever and I often respond that unless you are willing to go back to smacking a straw-filled leather sack with a niblick then someone has said the same thing about the equipment you use.
There are some great rifles that can be used for hunting. And I understand the people saying you don't need an AR to hunt. But that platform can be used to build a very good hunting rifle.
In regards to the same weight bullet and powder having the same recoil. I think the bore matters as well. A larger bore will kick more because more gas is being expelled at once.
I know what you're saying by balistics but in Arkansas most hunter's have 300 or less most of the time it's 150 or less if you have lanes unless your on a power line the longest I've taken a deer is at 300 yards with my 270 winchester
Rules governing sport are intended to level the playing field and establish mutually agreed guidelines to ensure the outcome of competition is not in dispute. Rules governing civil behavior are SUPPOSED to be about ensuring and protecting the liberties of all members of society. So when it comes to rules governing hunting and restrictions on the choice of weapon and caliber, which of the above categories would a restriction on the TYPE of firearm fall under? It seems to me that restrictions based on cosmetic features are less about “fair play” or protecting the liberty of all members of society and more about appeasement of the ill informed and hyper emotional.
Nathan, you are correct, mostly. Personally I don't like to hunt with an AR style rifle. The just don't "carry" well in the field for me. More importantly, for me, they don't have the look, feel, beauty of walnut and blue steel. In other words, no romance. Life is too short to hunt with an ugly rifle. I will say that often game laws are created to make enforcement easier. Ticketing hunters is a big source of revenue for game departments.
The problem is that physics problems are now like “if Jenny is a racist and launches a hurtful word at Jessie how long does it take before she posts on social media and ruins Jenny’s life?” Answers will be graded on ethnicity….
Living in Australia where semi automatics are very hard to get a license for , I can see no real need for the average shooter to have an Ar15 or such with a 20 shot magazine for any reason.
Each of us assesses our need for firearms based on our desires, philosophy, perceived needs, etc. Millions of Americans, and I imagine Australians, see no "need" for a lever-action 30-30 with a 7-round magazine. Who decides who gets to set the rules? In a true democracy, 51% does. In a Republican democracy that recognizes certain unalienable rights granted by God/Nature, a Bill of Rights guarantees these rights against infringement by govt. Said govt. doesn't grant its citizens (owners) permission to speak, worship, defend life and property, etc. The citizens own those rights and the written Bill of Rights spells that out to the govt. servants elected to serve the citizens, not rule over them. I'm sorry, Warren, that your govt. does not allow you this freedom, but I also understand and respect anyone who decides for him/herself what firearms they do or do not need.
The reason is if you feel like shooting 20 rounds. Why should anyone be able to tell you that you can’t. I’ve never had to shoot a deer more than twice so I guess 2 rounds is all anyone needs 🙄
I think you handled the modern sporting rifle( combat rifles) question very well for my grand father he was very old school 3 rounds across the board and only use open sights which I grew hunting like that but I think the modern sporting rifles are a good thing to make a more efficient hunter cause if by chance you get a shot that misses you can get a follow up shot easily, as for night vision or thermals personally I'm not going to be using it outside of night hints for feral hogs that destroy our farm land and attack pets and even people
I thought all guns could be used in combat....pretty sure we fought ww1 and ww2 with bolt actions.....So I guess my short answer is, yes since there's no big difference between a bolt action, a lever action and a semi or full auto in terms of what they do.
@@thelittledetailscr7231 A .308 shot out of a semi, or bolt action, is still just a .308. Or do you argue that it becomes more lethal fired out of a semi AR10?
@@theangrycanuck8331 I'm saying that 1 shot per second, at the fastest, out of a bolt action is much different than 100 round mag dump in seconds. Way more firepower over time.
@@thelittledetailscr7231 also Lee Enfield mad minute was 15 rounds per minute. They make 10 round AI mags now that are detachable. A lever action can mag dump its tube pretty quickly as well. The point is, a firearm is a firearm is a firearm and difference in action has both cons and pro's and idk where you'll find a 100 round .308 drum mag or a reliable .223 drum mag. Just a reliable drum mag in general is hard to find. That's why drums were made obsolete and we use belt fed firearms in military use.
Many people--hunters included--do not want the impression to be established that they are somehow "at war" with the game they're pursuing, which is what some will think if they see assault-style firearms in the woods. Further, they don't want to hear someone open up on a deer and empty a 10-round magazine in a few seconds. Just a couple of reasons why many are opposed to those types of guns being used on big game, as I am. Why use them when traditional hunting guns (designed for hunting and not combat) are more effective.
All military personel is trained in a AR -M4 etc stile action, 223 not mi faw deer round but it will get the job done, and is sent to snipper school 308(762x51) popular deer cartridge
Great answer on the recoil question Mr. Spomer. I really had to think about it. I wish I would have taken a semester or two of physics. I did all chemistry which has served me well but the recoil question had me scratching my head for a few minutes.
Part of me agrees with his answer and part of me doesn't. He's right about the ejected mass part for sure, but there might be a couple other factors at play. The smaller diameter bullet will come in contact with more of the barrel giving more friction and energy loss to heat I would think. Then again I would also think that the velocity on the smaller bore bullet would be greater because the expanding gases can more easily fill the barrel. An example would be firing a 115gr. 9mm vs a 115gr 243 with the powder charge from a 9mm. It just seems unlikely to me that the velocities would be the same. Excellent question though and I'd like to see a test
Anybody else notice on the show “Life Below Zero”, the folks hunting with the AR platforms could not get them to fire consistently in the Arctic? I’ll stick with my bolt gun for hunting. Just don’t see the advantage for me.
Ron, you mentioned the “original” load for the .45-70 used a 405 grain bullet, but if my memory is correct, there were two military loads for the .45-70. I seem to recall that the 405 grain bullet was for the cavalry using Trapdoor Springfield carbines and the infantry used a load with a 500 grain bullet in the longer Trapdoor Springfield rifles.
The slippery slope technology in the woods. The problem is nobody's morals are the same. The traditional archer probably sees the guy using a vintage savage 99 with iron sights cheating. The guy using the 99 sees the guy with a 1000 dollar bolt gun cheating. At the end of the day if it's legal to each their own.
Absolutely. The real question is about using ARs and similar rifles. No one seriously questions the legitimacy of using legacy combat rifles like 1903s, K98s, even the M1 Garand or something chambered in the .45-70 or some other military round. The AR platform rifles and other such as the Ruger mini-14, are simply semi-automatic rifles no different than say a Remington 7400. If the number of rounds in the magazine is an issue, they (AR-15s, etc.) can be used with a 5-round magazine, 10- round magazine, etc. Anyone saying these guns shouldn't be used for hunting is no better than the anti-gun crazies who cry about scary looking weapons of war. While not my personal choice for hunting, (other than varmints) ARs and other such semi-automatic "combat rifles" are perfectly legitimate hunting rifles.
Milsurps have been used for hunting for as long as soldiers have taken guns home with them. I own an actual weapon of war (ww2), it's an Australian smle made in 1945. It's been retired since ammo costs 2-3x what similar rounds for my .308 go for. Should I want to go hog hunting, the optimum rifle I own is an ar15 in 300 blackout. If bears or mountain lions take up residence nearby, a .450 bushmaster upper will turn it into a dangerous game gun. With the right parts, an ar15 can take pretty much anything in North America. From varmints with a .223 upper to bears with .450 bushmaster. I'll take it over any civilian design, 60 years of tweaking have made it a near perfect design.
They surely are, Brett. But so-called combat or military rifles are not necessarily different from hunting rifles. The Mauser 98 German military bolt-action has been a preferred hunting action for more than 120 years. The U.S. Springfield bolt-action 30-06 quickly became a preferred hunting rifle. The M1 Garand autoloader of WWII never became a wildly popular hunting rifle, but iterations of it (autoloading Winchesters, Remingtons, Brownings, etc.) throughout the 20th century and into 2022 have been built and sold as hunting rifles. I used a BAR in 300 Win Mag. to take my first two nilgai bulls in TX years ago.
Very much so, Brett. I love to hunt, don't want to be in a combat situation. But are the technology of one different from the other, in regards to cartridges, rifle, optics and personal gear? I would say not.
I think a lot of hunting has become focussed on gear testing rather than actual hunting and field craft. Like you said Ron, humans have been hunting for our entire evolutionary history, we know what to do.
I killed a big ole Tom some years ago with my shoulder pinned against a red oak. That 2oz No. 5 turkey load nearly pressed the stock of my SP-10 Magnum through my shoulder! Lesson learned.
What was a 1898 mauser? Smle? 1903? Henry? Sharps? What was the original black powder rifle used for? They have all been combat rifle so what? The thing that make them a good combat rifle makes them a good hunting rifle.
In talking about the use of technology like thermal sights for hunting, the most prominent usage of such earth technology I have found is in the management of feral hogs.
Good point, Ron, about teaching young boys science and math through everyday activities. Most boys will fall asleep only learning math and science through class room instruction and school book work. That is needed, for sure, but allow a boy to make a woodworking project and he will learn basic arithmetic, fractions and decimals faster than just sitting in class. When you can use it to build something, or in this case, shoot a deer, you are more apt to learn the principles required for that task.
I think the combat rifle question is more to "why do we need AR/AK platforms for hunting". Those ugly black guns. I wouldn't want to go into combat these days with a semi-auto rifle so calling them combat rifles is a misnomer. The .223/5.56 cartridge is valid for hunting small, distant game that needs a flat shooting cartridge. Same with the 7.62x39mm. Modern sporting rifles should be allowed for hunting, period.
What is interesting is how any weapon is used determines what it should be called. Many M-1 Garands have taken deer, Elk, & bear. Does that make it a combat rifle? A .22 rimfire single shot rifle, depending on how it is used, can be an assault rifle. As long as political language is concerned we should be careful not to allow politicians to define the tools of our sports. If not carefully watched, we may end up debating what an assault popsicle is!
Every rifle ever used started as a military action, or at least tried to be sold to one military or another. The arguments against AR's are the same arguments against bolt actions
Every type of rifle has been used by a military somewhere, so aren't they all combat rifles? LOL Muzzle loaders, single shot, bolt action, lever action, semi-auto...They've all been military rifles. LOL Night vision and thermal scopes are used a lot in predator hunting and feral hog eradication. In the end, all of these are just tools for a job. There are people that only bow hunt and complain about crossbows and rifles. Some people complain about people that shoot deer past 100 yards, or 200 yards, or 300 yards etc...In the end, we all have limitations and those change with age. When we're 60 years old, we don't get around as well or see as well as we did when we were 30. That's life. Now we go to a deer blind with a rifle and scope and put deer meat in the freezer. Shooting a deer can be a lot cheaper than buying beef at the grocery store.
Ron! You missed a point on the bullet weight/recoil question! If we put 47 grains of 4895 in a 308 win using a 150gr bullet it have different CHAMBER PRESSURE than that same 47gr of 4895 in a 30-06 or 300 winmag or *insert 30 cal cartridge* using the same 150 grain bullet. Different chamber pressures will yield different velocities and you explained the rest. So, NO! The recoil will not be the same!
I don't think so, Sam, because none of the recoil calculators I consult includes chamber pressure as an input variable. Chamber pressure (from expanding gas) is a cause of MV, but it is the action of the mass at velocity that causes the opposite reaction, recoil.
@@RonSpomerOutdoors consulting Sierra's 5th edition manual I find 308 win data for 150gr bullets, 43.7gr of 4895 at 2800 fps. For 30-06, 150 gr bullets to achieve the same 2800 fps velocity, requires 48.1gr of 4895! According to the published data, 43.7gr of 4895 would not achieve even 2600 fps in a 30-06. This is due to volume inside the cartridge in which the powder burns. This more confined the propellant is during ignition, the faster it builds pressure to push the bullet. Maybe we need some lab equipment to put it to the real test!
I never thought much about hunting until I started bow hunting, before that I just went got my animal took it home, ate it. After bow hunting though rifle hunting was never the same again its way way too easy. Respect thought to every hunter that respects their prey enough to ethically hunt it.
Well I have never heard of the 8.6 blackout. I am guessing we are going down to bow hunting speeds? Definitely want to hear about that one! Love what you do sir!
Warthogs are strange animals. Ron I know you were talking about shooting some of them and having a difficult time getting the 1 shot kills. You are not alone. I have seen them shot with some serious firepower but then some of them shot with smaller rounds/calibers and drop. I don't know what causes this and would like to know. If you have any insight on this I would like to know. Thank you.
Wish I knew. I've dropped them cleanly with 7x57, 7mm Rem Mag., 330 Dakota, 30-06 -- yet seen them take solid chest hits from 375 H&H and 45-70 and run off. Most likely the lighter bullets fragment and expand more to do more tissue damage and faster hemorrhaging.
Exactly!!! I feel the same way. The more legal wild game u can put in my freezer, the less I have to buy!! It’s so much better for u too!! Hunting in our family is a spot. But it’s also a way to sustain our food without buying food with steroids and antibiotics in it.
Why would it not be allowed?! For example the mosin nagant in 7.62x54r would be great for larger game animals like moose and bear. But it’s been a “weapon of war” for decades, yet no one questions it because it’s a bolt action. So why question an ar-15 just because it may look like the modern M4A2 or m16a4 service rifles. The extended capacity may just save your life if you have a whole sow of wild boar rushing you.
Yes so long as the right type of bullet is used not a fmj or armor piercing ammo.needs to transfer it's energy efficient and not be a thru and thru type of bullet needs to expand
Maybe the question about "combat rifles" was really about assault rifles, semiautomatic, large magazines, short barrels.... Designed to wound people, fast, and not designed, really, for accurate fire at long ranges (talking mainly about .556), and with small diameter, fast bullets, not ideal for plains hunting, or clean kills on large game, and suboptimal for reliable performance in woodland shooting. Ron?
Lohi, some of what you suggest might have been the questioner's intent, but he didn't specify assault rifles, which are a rather vague category anyway. I've perused a lot of gun store shelves, gun manufacturers' website and catalogs, and haven't seen an assault rifle advertised yet. Unless you mean the Mauser Model 1898 bolt-action which was the German military combat rifle in 8x57mm Mauser in WWs I and II. Or perhaps you're thinking of the caplock muzzleloader Springfield Model 1861 used by Union troops to assault the Confederates at Gettysburg. Or the more modern, deadly Model 1873 single-shot trapdoor Springfield in 45-70 that Custer's soldiers used to assault the Sioux/Cheyenne camp on the Greasy Grass in 1876. But those might not fit your definition of assault rifle because they fired much smaller bullets than .556. There aren't many shoulder fired modern rifles throwing bullets more than a half-inch wide! The 45-70 in the Trapdoor Springfield was close at .458". Bullets from that German battle rifle are just .323". No, wait a minute! The 1861 at Gettysburg fired .58" bullets. But they weren't all that fast. Probably just 1,400 fps. Still, that style of assault rifle was quite popular with the Mountain Men for taking mule deer, pronghorn, elk, and bison on the High Plains from about 1825 through 1850. Those didn't have large magazines, though. Nor short barrels. Neither did the U.S. military's Model 1903 Springfield in 30-caliber, more commonly known as the 30-06 used to assault German trenches in WWII. "White Feather" Hathcock used a civilian version of one of these as his primary sniping rifle in Viet Nam. I guess his actions were a type of assault, but the millions of hunters who've used the 30-06 for taking deer, elk, moose, bears, kudu, oryx, sable, and even elephant probably weren't mounting an assault as they tracked and stalked and sneaked within range. By the way, small diameter, fast bullets are ideal for plains hunting. The little 25-06 is considered by many the quintessential pronghorn cartridge. The even smaller 243 Winchester is also quite popular and effective, as is the 22-250 Remington, although many consider that faster and more powerful than needed, so they shoot the 223 Remington, which is roughly 300 fps slower but, by reputation, more accurate. Of course, when talking accuracy, one can't discount the even smaller 222 Remington which, starting in 1950, set all kinds of world records for accuracy. As for semi-automatics, the John Moses-designed semi-auto rifle of 1900 never could, to my knowledge, win a military contract even though it sold on the civilian market for years as the Remington Model 8. As for woodland hunting, yes, short barreled, quick handling rifles with large magazines like the Win M94 and Marlin 336 and Savage M99 (in caliber 22 Hi-Power and larger) have long been popular, although some states restrict magazine capacity to 5 or even 4. I suspect this is why the 20" barreled carbine versions were more popular than the full length barrel versions that hold 7 rounds plus one in the magazine. While I, like many, agree that a 22 centerfire such as 221 Fireball, 222 Rem., 222 Rem. Mag., 223 Rem., 22-250, and 220 Swift spitting 50- to 60-grain bullets are a bit small for deer, elk, moose, etc., they remain extremely popular with hunters who don't like heavy recoil or do appreciate low-cost ammo, efficiency, and precision shooting. Many claim that a 50- or 55-grain bullet tight behind the shoulder of a deer, elk, or moose kills more quickly and cleanly than much larger and more powerful bullets from such military cartridges as 45-70, 30-40 Krag, 308 Win., 30-06, 8mm Mauser, 303 British, etc. Back in the mid-20th century a professional culler for the National Parks Service discovered that the little 220 Swift shooting 48- to 55-grain bullets as fast as 3,900 fps killed destructive, invasive feral burros faster and more reliably than 30-40 Krag, 30-06, and 8mm Mauser. Bottom line: hunters have been using military rifles and cartridges for at least 230 years, and militaries have been using hunting rifles and cartridges for just as long. Which is better for which application remains a contentious issue. Some like small and fast, some prefer large and fast, some even large and slow. Some like long barrels, some short. One thing is certain, however: fully automatic combat rifles are not legal for regulated sport hunting for large game or small, upland birds or waterfowl, in any jurisdiction I know.
Farmers and ranchers in the south have a very serious problem with feral pigs. They are invasive and VERY destructive of crops. Thermal optics have revolutionaized population control.
The 2nd amendment was never about hunting to start with.
As for "combat rifles" and huntung; so long as it's legal and ethical it shouldn't be a problem.
They definitely have their place like in hog hunting where it's more about population control than it is about traditional hunting.
Remember that the squirrel rifle served in the American Revolution to devastating effect. Every weapon that has ever been devised has been both a hunting weapon and a weapon of war. When talking about infantry arms there really is very little difference between the two.
Matt, a distinction I like to make is that I do not use a hunting weapon. My hunting rifles and shotguns and bows are tools. Were I to go to war I'd use similar tools as weapons. It's intent that makes the difference. Similarly, a bolt-action, flintlock, pump (think WW1 trench gun,) autoloader are just firearms, not combat or assault rifles until used for combat or assault.
@@RonSpomerOutdoors That is a perfectly reasonable distinction to make. Because when it all comes down to it, the importance of the tool is in the intent, not the tool itself.
@@matthewblumenthal804 In the old days, it was a Bolt Action, then the Garand and later the M14 (in between M1-2 carabine) after (today) 5.56 and US military got wisser (6.7-6.8-277) a hundred years later the 7 MM mauser reigns again ( bit dif cartrigge ) but same balistics
@@RonSpomerOutdoors Very good and very true. Too many people try to make some guns bad and others good. Like you said, they are tools.
Absolutely many old battle rifles where used as is and sporterized into hunting rifles in the past. And we still have the browning BAR which is a beautiful rifle. Further more these don’t have battle rifle capabilities they are nothing more then a auto loader. What they do offer is a modern rifle with modern ergonomics for improved handling and comfort. The auto loading feature offers reduced felt recoil same as a auto loading shotgun soaks up the recoil. Perhaps for hunting as with hunting water foul a round restriction could be implemented in the ethics of fair chase. If black makes it scary for the deer 🦌 give it a camo paint job. Keep up the great work Ron 👍👍 from communist Canada 🇨🇦
Thanks Dale. Yup, the single shot trapdoor Springfield 45-70 was a U.S. military rifle. Ditto the Springfield bolt-action, the M1 Garand. German military gave us the Mauser 98, Spain employed the Mauser 93, I believe. Russia bought many Winchester lever actions for their military. Etc.
Dale, please don't conflate the US Military Browning BAR with today's Browning BAR. Other than the name they are nothing alike. Today's BAR is a beautifully designed semi-auto sporting rifle. The BAR of the Military was a heavy, kind of crude, fully auto capable SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) of it's day. Lovely weapon but the only similarity with today's BAR is the name. BTW the name BAR stands for Browning Automatic Rifle.
The Mauser bolt action rifle was developed as a military arm and it gave birth to every bolt action rifle the world has ever seen.
@@retirednavy8720 Right you are sir!
@j k cool I already knew that 50 some years ago. I was comparing it as to it’s semi auto or auto loading capability.
I still have a sporterized '03-A3. It was a combat rifle.
Mine is a 1917 Enfield
Me too! My old ‘03-A3 is a shooter! I also have a sporterized Lee Enfield .303 British & just as good today on any game!
It actually goes both ways as civilian firearm usage & innovation also helped drive firearms development that was later adopted for military usage. For example US citizens were developing, buying and using repeating rifles (e.g. Winchester Model 1873) before repeating rifles became standard issue to US troops (with the selection of the Krag-Jorgenson in 1892). As amazing as it is some of the earliest Gatling guns were actually privately purchased and provided to the US/Union Army despite objections of some military leaders at the time. More recently the popular .223 Remington & 5.56x45 NATO rounds were something of an evolution/modification of the .222 Remington.
Once a person really starts digging into it, the history of firearms development isn't so cleanly divided into military vs. civilian use - though military adoption may have accelerated a widespread adoption & awareness of some technologies faster than would have otherwise been achieved.
Likewise sport and sustenance hunting of native species may drive/have different considerations than controlling/exterminating non-native invasive species. A few examples being wild hogs (across much of the US), iguanas, pythons (both primarily in Florida), or even armadillos (east of the Mississippi). Which (from the way I understand it) is part of the reason (at least some) states have started to permit night hunting of such species - along with the use of thermal & other night-useful sights. In those situations being fair or sporting could be counterproductive to making progress.
If feral game(not becesareily Hogs) are wreaking havok witrh vegetation (wild or home) a simple .22 behind the ear will get the job done
and if Suppresors allowed, won't bug neighbors
@@WillyK51 Agree a .22 (especially if suppressed) can work well if a person can get close enough to be effective and it's a single animal.
For groups of hogs or feral/abandoned dogs (running wild & hostile) a semi-auto with a bit more oomph than a .22LR becomes appealing (especially if it's also suppressed). Granted that may cross more into "pest control" (or even self-defense) rather than "hunting" in some people's views.
Though whatever a person wants to call it with some types of animals it can make sense not to get any closer than necessary to humanely dispatch them. ...at least in my opinion.
Exactly.
Ron always provides an intelligent and well thought answer to most all questions. I totally agree with his response to the increasing technology in current hunting guns.
yup my mausers, enfields, and 03a3 along with the carbine and ak and ar work great!
I have built almost every caliber that an AR pattern rifle can be chambered in, but swore I wouldn't touch 300 B/O. A few years went by and my curiosity got the best of me and I built one with an 18" barrel. I have to admit with a 125 grain sst handload I have killed more hogs than I can count here in the swamps of Louisiana.
I was afraid it was just a gimmick myself. My cousin has one and it's a great little cartridge. I'll build one for myself one of these days.
There's nothing wrong with a 300BO or 350 Legend if you're shooting medium game at ranges less than 200 yards. It's kind of like a 3030 in a semi-auto.
But do you have a .284 Win AR?
Seriously I'm wondering if I'm the only person craft enough to build one.
@@userJohnSmith I seriously doubt you have the skills to build a .284 win on an AR15 platform. What you gonna do use it as a single shot? We are taking about the AR15 platform not the AR10
@@iBleedStarsAndBars AR-10. No way that's fitting in a 15. Been having fun with my 6ARC though. You said AR, they are both ARs.
The question from 308 Dad is interesting. My late mother-in-law had a cousin who was a rancher in Idaho. They would go hunt, on horseback, in the mountains. The photos of them, three generations, looked like something out of the 19th century. He thought they got way too many, so one year he decides they will use only muzzleloaders. Well, they still got way too many.
One of my favorite hunting rifles is an all-original K-31. The rifle really doesn't matter when you get down to it. It's all about the rounds going down range.
Yes Ron, I love my AR 10 for hunting. Originally I got it for hog hunting and I got hooked on it.
Ron, that's the quickest 20 minutes in the youtube universe. Keep them coming.
In my opinion, technology is similar to morality in many ways. Neither can be legislated and what works for me, might not work for you. Personally I don't like nightvision for hunting, but I love it for observing wildlife. I have friends who use it for vermin control and coyote hunting. Are they wrong? Not at all and I'll often join them and call for them while they use nightvision. It just doesn't hold the romance for me. I don't think we should legislate it or trail cams or lazers or any technology. That would open Pandora's box. I'm more of a live and let live guy. We, hunters and shooters, should create a united front before we lose it all.
You are 100 percent correct about physics class. I did the reverse. Knew ballistics and hot rodding then converted it to physics. Still works the same. When the teacher lost the class, 30 blank faces staring at her, she'd ask me to explain it in a way they'd understand. Learning is so fun.
Keep well and keep 'em coming.
Cheer, Jeff
The muzzle loaders were military weapons. I gotta say, I didn't use scops much, till I got older. They help old eyes
I think a lot of people forget that Sniping, at a basic level, is really just hunting a dangerous game that hunts you back.
You had me worried for a bit when I read the title of this podcast, bu, as always you had a great answer when it comes to using military rifles for hunting. I personally could care less what style of rifle is used for hunting as long as the caliber is legal and the hunter is proficient using the rifle/ cartridge combination. So if someone want to hunt using all the modern technology good for them, the same goes for someone who hunts with a musket from the 1700. The important thing is that they hunt ethically (meaning that they do not take shots beyond their ability to make a clean kill) and that they have fun during the hunt.
I just got my 8.6 blackout bolt gun back from my gunsmith and I'm gonna be using mine for an elk hunt this November. I've been been doing some load development for it and I'm really impressed with my groups and how hard it's hitting steal targets at distance. Very impressed with it.
When my “middle”, son was a Senior in High School I was in charge of buying the “Raffle Rifle”, for Project Graduation. I bought a New England Handi-Rifle in .300 Blackout, 16” barrel & threaded, and put a Leupold VX-1 3x9x40, with Warne rings. Not all that surprised but compared to years past the rifle I’d set up for the raffle made more $$ than rifles past. I think the .300 Blackout (while I don’t have 1, nor do I dislike it, just haven’t played w/1 yet), is essentially American engineers coming up with the U.S.-7x62x39mm AK-47 round ubiquitous around the world. That cartridge is nothing more than the .220 Russian necked up. Take the .300 Blackout which is .223 necked up to .308 or 7.62 that fits AR-15 magazines. So to me on their face the 7.62x39mm vs. the .300 Blackout are essentially the same, for all intense & purposes, the SAME!
Night vision is a must for for predtor control in some areas. Losing livestock is like taking an un-necessary pay cut. I saw a coyote by a park i lived by a few years ago in ohio on my way to work one morning. 2 days later my neighbor said he let his dog out heard screaming and watched that coyote drag his friend off into the dark
All "hunting" rifles we use today were at some point a combat weapon from bolt gun to flintlock. All these were made for battle not hunting.
Just face it by the liberal lefts definition you couldn't hunt with a bow and arrow.
I use my AR10 in .308 for both hunting and life and liberty! It is important to have gear you have vetted and trust.
In Florida AK's are legal for whitetail deer hunting IF AND ONLY IF the magazines are limited to 4 rounds. Easy to limit a AR magazine so that it will not load on a closed bolt but not nearly so easy on an AK that is meant to load on a closed bolt. Not all G&F officers know this, but one who did explained it to me. I have several AK magazines limited to 4 rounds for deer hunting. Feral hogs can be taken anywhere with any method
My first deer rifle was a WWII Mauser that was rebarreled to 30-06. I ended up putting a 4x scope on it. I was king of the woods in 1965. My second rifle was an 03 springfield that had been sporterized. My cousin had an Arisaka 6.5mm he rebarreled to .257 Roberts. A friend of mine used an M-1 Garand to hunt deer with.Lost are those days when we bought milsup and turned weapons of war into deer rifles. Along the way we learned wood working, metal finishing, and gunsmithing. I feel sorry for people that think ARs are the only weapon of war to be used for hunting.
spot on about combat rifles. To me, its all about what is legal to use in the state where you are hunting.
Why not, I prefer standard shaped bolt actions, and BAR like SemiAuto plus BLR lever, (grew up on them) But a AR platform in a Proper Deer -Big Game caertridge will de as efective as my 30-06
When you do the 8.6 Blk, remember to compare it to the 338 Fed
For whoever asked why use “military” type equipment, here’s a breakdown:
1. Semi-automatic rifles (what the uneducated call “military-style rifles”) allow for much quicker follow-up shots in cases where the first shot doesn’t cleanly take the animal, which means the animal is in pain/suffering for less time.
2. Night vision/thermals/night hunting is only legal in some places and almost always very limited in scope, generally to predators and other animals considered to be nuisance animals (raccoons, feral hogs, etc.). Take Idaho for instance: only predators can be hunted at night and only on private property unless you have a permit from IDFG, which requires a good reason.
3. Sniper equipment (not sure what you’re talking about here, but I’m assuming camouflage, scopes, and kestrels) helps with accuracy. Camo allows you to get closer to animals without them seeing you, making your shots easier to make, accurately. Kestrels provide data about the environment (wind, humidity, etc.) which helps the shooter make elevation and windage adjustments to compensate for these variables, increasing the likelihood of a clean, one-shot kill. And scopes… they make shots more accurate at extended ranges (this should be self-explanatory, but just in case), again increasing the likelihood of a clean, one-shot kill.
In other words, the same reason the military has for using their equipment is the same reason hunters use it: better accuracy at longer ranges, which increases the likelihood of a clean kill. No honest hunter (which make up the vast majority of hunters) wants an animal to suffer. We want good, clean kills that knocks the animal over immediately. It’s a point of pride to quickly and humanely take animals and we want to use anything available to us for that reason. Hunters care more about animals than any anti-hunting, anti-gun, or PETA types-I guarantee it. We love animals and do more for conservation and humane treatment of them than all of the anti-hunting types combined. Don’t believe the narrative being pushed that we’re all just crazy gun nuts with no reason for what we do or need for what we use.
As I have mentioned before, here in Illinois we have to use shotguns to hunt deer. We can also use handguns. I have gotten many with both. I started out with a Savage M67 with a 28" bbl. Smooth bore using rifles slugs. Maybe 75 yard range. I move up to a Savage 210 with a 24" rifled bbl. I use Winchester Partition Gold slugs. These are 385 grain going about 1900 fps. So, clearly comparable to the 45-70 rounds you are talking about. Expansion is fantastic and they are very effective. They are actually Partition Gold bullets. A very good pistol bullet, just supersized. I usually use one round to confirm zero (always right on, it is a dedicated gun). Then I use one round per deer. Good thing too, since they are $3 per round.
In my state, apart from a mag cap for hunting. If it's a rifle and shoots a centerfire cartridge it's legal to take big game with.
Absolutely! Use what you brung!
Christ Bless!
On the military rifle issue, actually the 5.56x45 cartridge was derived from the .222 Remington which was a varmint cartridge which has no parent and was not developed for the military. So, this was not like the .30-06 or Mauser rounds.
If I am not mistaken….everything from a muzzleloaders to full auto has been used in combat. In a multitude of calibers. Mr Spomer is a great …like his stuff because he explains things and does it quiet well
Sporterized military rifles are are an American tradition. As a niche deer gun for hunting deer in heavy Missouri forest I even sporterized an SKS . What can I say? Some of us just love to tinker.
25 years ago as a hand loader the ballistics book by Hornady changed my mind. The book gives range and trajectory of every bullet without reference to the case. The target and animal doesn’t know what case was used to hold powder. I got rid of my hand loading equipment and all odd ball caliber rifles. I bought a 30-06 and moved on.
Camel, I spent time in the USArmy but started hunting when I was 12. I have sat stands out of season cameras in hunt every season in MS with the firearms allowed. Squirrel and Turkey I stick with shotguns, but dear I hunt with everything from slug guns and open sights to the newest scopes and rangefinders and newfangled calibers. I like to test new things AND like having the opportunity to test new things. However, I'm as happy during primitive weapon with a .54 cal Hawkins Renegade with iron sights as I am in gun season with an AR15 pattern in 6mm ARC. I love watching the animals and am very selective. Most of all I enjoy the time at the camp with family and friends no matter who is shooting what.
Thanks Ron for doing what you do so well!
Best regards to you and Camel
Thanks John. Enjoy your times afield!
338 Bullets are build though for about Elk,Moose ,Grizzly, A slow(non Mag) cartridge might not speed up to expansion on a short cartridge
1917 Eddystone 30-06 works great... very accurate 👌😃
Mr. Spomer, your videos, both here on the podcast and on your regular channel are fantastic. Keep up the good work.
The 8.6 Blackout has a 6.5 Creedmoor case as the 338 Federal has a 308 case. Same guy making the 8.6 as the 300aac. Kevin from "Q". An arrow can out penetrate a rifle. My carbon arrows are 400 grains with razor sharp blades and a pin point. Good video Ron!
I don’t see a problem with using “military” gear and Ron began to hit on that. PA hunters are the worst with that whole thing. You’ll hear a lot of “you’re not at war with the deer” well, that’s good to know, but when have we not used “battlefield” tech? Semi auto rifles are just rifles and don’t mean you can’t shoot. I’ve got 20/10 vision in my dominant eye and I’m not going to usually opt for irons. I don’t use range finders, but that’s because I usually shoot deer a ranges that it won’t make a difference. Thermal works well for hunting hogs and coyotes and so on. If a hunter wants more of a challenge, that’s cool, they have seasons for obsolete equipment and even during seasons where the latest and greatest is legal, a person can still use the old timey gear.
When the Lapua cane out it was slower than the 340 I figure we built one of the first bill at Champlain's built it for me on the BBK action was good 100 ft slower than 340 Weatherby
Ron this younger generation is all for trying to shoot game at long range, because they are to lazy to stalk game animals to get in close and nail that animal with perfect shot placement!
This younger generation just doesn't have the patience our old school generation has. Please keep up the great content and excellent videos. An fan in Texas
Just because ur eyes are to bad to hit a target at 100yds dosnt make u better than “this younger generation “ fudd
You did well on being polite on answering the combat rifle question. The problem with people that call rifles weapons of war and not necessary for hunting is they don't hunt, and they believe left wing falsehoods. Bows and arrows were weapons of war, so are knives. The AR-15 is used to eradicate runaway hog infestation damaging crops. The real answer is yes in some instances certain rifles that some people want to name combat rifles should be allowed and are rightfully allowed. Even night vision in the hog situation. I do appreciate you being polite to the entire audience, but I thought it would be good for me to clarify why one would use so called military style weapons hunting.
Well said, Garry. Clubs, spears, arrows, knives, fists, fire ... All weapons of war if used in warfare. If used for sport the club becomes a baseball bat, spear a javelin, arrow part of an Olympic archery competition, knife a juggler's prop or chef's tool, fists for boxing matches, fire for cooking and staying warm. Blaming inanimate objects for the crimes humans commit suggests a superficial analysis of reality.
I've fired 1000's if not 10,000 rounds on an AR pattern rifle in the military and civilian world. It is what is most comfortable and familiar to me. Obviously there isn't much of a learning curve for a bolt gun but still, I can own an AR-15 and an AR-10 and with 2 serial numbers, have access to a firearm that is configured well for squirrels all the way up to moose and bear at reasonable ranges just by swapping uppers. All without much change in trigger feel, shooting fundamentals, manual of arms, etc. As for modern equipment, the same thing happens in golf. Someone will say something about some new-fangled club or ball or whatever and I often respond that unless you are willing to go back to smacking a straw-filled leather sack with a niblick then someone has said the same thing about the equipment you use.
There are some great rifles that can be used for hunting. And I understand the people saying you don't need an AR to hunt. But that platform can be used to build a very good hunting rifle.
In regards to the same weight bullet and powder having the same recoil. I think the bore matters as well. A larger bore will kick more because more gas is being expelled at once.
Yes sporting rifles should be used for hunting
Thank you for answering my question. It sounds like The speed you are asking for a bullet to travel at influences what you have to pay to get that
Great video Ron
Thanks Ryan.
.338 Federal is the smallest .338 that is practically useful. It will open up at reasonable ranges and delivers good energy out to about 250 yards.
8.6 blackout is plenty capable
I know what you're saying by balistics but in Arkansas most hunter's have 300 or less most of the time it's 150 or less if you have lanes unless your on a power line the longest I've taken a deer is at 300 yards with my 270 winchester
Rules governing sport are intended to level the playing field and establish mutually agreed guidelines to ensure the outcome of competition is not in dispute. Rules governing civil behavior are SUPPOSED to be about ensuring and protecting the liberties of all members of society. So when it comes to rules governing hunting and restrictions on the choice of weapon and caliber, which of the above categories would a restriction on the TYPE of firearm fall under? It seems to me that restrictions based on cosmetic features are less about “fair play” or protecting the liberty of all members of society and more about appeasement of the ill informed and hyper emotional.
Nicely analyzed, Nathan.
Nathan, you are correct, mostly. Personally I don't like to hunt with an AR style rifle. The just don't "carry" well in the field for me. More importantly, for me, they don't have the look, feel, beauty of walnut and blue steel. In other words, no romance. Life is too short to hunt with an ugly rifle.
I will say that often game laws are created to make enforcement easier. Ticketing hunters is a big source of revenue for game departments.
A civilian semi auto look a like of a military selective fire rifle is not a military weapon
just about to say that
The problem is that physics problems are now like “if Jenny is a racist and launches a hurtful word at Jessie how long does it take before she posts on social media and ruins Jenny’s life?” Answers will be graded on ethnicity….
Living in Australia where semi automatics are very hard to get a license for , I can see no real need for the average shooter to have an Ar15 or such with a 20 shot magazine for any reason.
Each of us assesses our need for firearms based on our desires, philosophy, perceived needs, etc. Millions of Americans, and I imagine Australians, see no "need" for a lever-action 30-30 with a 7-round magazine. Who decides who gets to set the rules? In a true democracy, 51% does. In a Republican democracy that recognizes certain unalienable rights granted by God/Nature, a Bill of Rights guarantees these rights against infringement by govt. Said govt. doesn't grant its citizens (owners) permission to speak, worship, defend life and property, etc. The citizens own those rights and the written Bill of Rights spells that out to the govt. servants elected to serve the citizens, not rule over them. I'm sorry, Warren, that your govt. does not allow you this freedom, but I also understand and respect anyone who decides for him/herself what firearms they do or do not need.
The reason is if you feel like shooting 20 rounds. Why should anyone be able to tell you that you can’t. I’ve never had to shoot a deer more than twice so I guess 2 rounds is all anyone needs 🙄
Australians are fudds aparently keep your mouth shut because ur goverment has brainwashed u into handicapping ourselves dosnt mean we should
I think you handled the modern sporting rifle( combat rifles) question very well for my grand father he was very old school 3 rounds across the board and only use open sights which I grew hunting like that but I think the modern sporting rifles are a good thing to make a more efficient hunter cause if by chance you get a shot that misses you can get a follow up shot easily, as for night vision or thermals personally I'm not going to be using it outside of night hints for feral hogs that destroy our farm land and attack pets and even people
Lol you're lucky ,mine only gave me two.
Told me to come back with food or bullets. If I had niether,don't come home.
I thought all guns could be used in combat....pretty sure we fought ww1 and ww2 with bolt actions.....So I guess my short answer is, yes since there's no big difference between a bolt action, a lever action and a semi or full auto in terms of what they do.
There is no difference between a bolt action and full auto in terms of what they can do? Lol. Comonnnnnn.
@@thelittledetailscr7231 A .308 shot out of a semi, or bolt action, is still just a .308. Or do you argue that it becomes more lethal fired out of a semi AR10?
@@theangrycanuck8331 I'm saying that 1 shot per second, at the fastest, out of a bolt action is much different than 100 round mag dump in seconds. Way more firepower over time.
@@thelittledetailscr7231 So you plan on mag dumping while hunting?
@@thelittledetailscr7231 also Lee Enfield mad minute was 15 rounds per minute. They make 10 round AI mags now that are detachable. A lever action can mag dump its tube pretty quickly as well. The point is, a firearm is a firearm is a firearm and difference in action has both cons and pro's and idk where you'll find a 100 round .308 drum mag or a reliable .223 drum mag. Just a reliable drum mag in general is hard to find. That's why drums were made obsolete and we use belt fed firearms in military use.
I am very happy to know that ron spomer is not a gate keeping fudd and dosnt by into anti gun bs from people who are ignorant on guns 💪🏽
Many people--hunters included--do not want the impression to be established that they are somehow "at war" with the game they're pursuing, which is what some will think if they see assault-style firearms in the woods. Further, they don't want to hear someone open up on a deer and empty a 10-round magazine in a few seconds. Just a couple of reasons why many are opposed to those types of guns being used on big game, as I am. Why use them when traditional hunting guns (designed for hunting and not combat) are more effective.
Yes!
All military personel is trained in a AR -M4 etc stile action, 223 not mi faw deer round but it will get the job done, and is sent to snipper school 308(762x51) popular deer cartridge
Great answer on the recoil question Mr. Spomer. I really had to think about it. I wish I would have taken a semester or two of physics. I did all chemistry which has served me well but the recoil question had me scratching my head for a few minutes.
Part of me agrees with his answer and part of me doesn't. He's right about the ejected mass part for sure, but there might be a couple other factors at play. The smaller diameter bullet will come in contact with more of the barrel giving more friction and energy loss to heat I would think. Then again I would also think that the velocity on the smaller bore bullet would be greater because the expanding gases can more easily fill the barrel. An example would be firing a 115gr. 9mm vs a 115gr 243 with the powder charge from a 9mm. It just seems unlikely to me that the velocities would be the same. Excellent question though and I'd like to see a test
@@ringofasho7721 Interesting point!
Anybody else notice on the show “Life Below Zero”, the folks hunting with the AR platforms could not get them to fire consistently in the Arctic? I’ll stick with my bolt gun for hunting. Just don’t see the advantage for me.
Ron, you mentioned the “original” load for the .45-70 used a 405 grain bullet, but if my memory is correct, there were two military loads for the .45-70. I seem to recall that the 405 grain bullet was for the cavalry using Trapdoor Springfield carbines and the infantry used a load with a 500 grain bullet in the longer Trapdoor Springfield rifles.
The slippery slope technology in the woods. The problem is nobody's morals are the same. The traditional archer probably sees the guy using a vintage savage 99 with iron sights cheating. The guy using the 99 sees the guy with a 1000 dollar bolt gun cheating. At the end of the day if it's legal to each their own.
Absolutely. The real question is about using ARs and similar rifles. No one seriously questions the legitimacy of using legacy combat rifles like 1903s, K98s, even the M1 Garand or something chambered in the .45-70 or some other military round. The AR platform rifles and other such as the Ruger mini-14, are simply semi-automatic rifles no different than say a Remington 7400. If the number of rounds in the magazine is an issue, they (AR-15s, etc.) can be used with a 5-round magazine, 10- round magazine, etc. Anyone saying these guns shouldn't be used for hunting is no better than the anti-gun crazies who cry about scary looking weapons of war. While not my personal choice for hunting, (other than varmints) ARs and other such semi-automatic "combat rifles" are perfectly legitimate hunting rifles.
Night vision and thermal equipment are absolutely essential for feral hog control
Another great one! Thanks for the info.
Milsurps have been used for hunting for as long as soldiers have taken guns home with them. I own an actual weapon of war (ww2), it's an Australian smle made in 1945. It's been retired since ammo costs 2-3x what similar rounds for my .308 go for. Should I want to go hog hunting, the optimum rifle I own is an ar15 in 300 blackout. If bears or mountain lions take up residence nearby, a .450 bushmaster upper will turn it into a dangerous game gun. With the right parts, an ar15 can take pretty much anything in North America. From varmints with a .223 upper to bears with .450 bushmaster. I'll take it over any civilian design, 60 years of tweaking have made it a near perfect design.
Have built an AR (223) which I would hunt with!
Hunting & Combat are two different things.
They surely are, Brett. But so-called combat or military rifles are not necessarily different from hunting rifles. The Mauser 98 German military bolt-action has been a preferred hunting action for more than 120 years. The U.S. Springfield bolt-action 30-06 quickly became a preferred hunting rifle. The M1 Garand autoloader of WWII never became a wildly popular hunting rifle, but iterations of it (autoloading Winchesters, Remingtons, Brownings, etc.) throughout the 20th century and into 2022 have been built and sold as hunting rifles. I used a BAR in 300 Win Mag. to take my first two nilgai bulls in TX years ago.
What's a combat rifle? It's like saying assault rifle.
Very much so, Brett. I love to hunt, don't want to be in a combat situation. But are the technology of one different from the other, in regards to cartridges, rifle, optics and personal gear? I would say not.
I think a lot of hunting has become focussed on gear testing rather than actual hunting and field craft. Like you said Ron, humans have been hunting for our entire evolutionary history, we know what to do.
I killed a big ole Tom some years ago with my shoulder pinned against a red oak. That 2oz No. 5 turkey load nearly pressed the stock of my SP-10 Magnum through my shoulder! Lesson learned.
What was a 1898 mauser?
Smle?
1903?
Henry?
Sharps?
What was the original black powder rifle used for?
They have all been combat rifle so what?
The thing that make them a good combat rifle makes them a good hunting rifle.
I am all about people using thermal scopes on an AR.
In talking about the use of technology like thermal sights for hunting, the most prominent usage of such earth technology I have found is in the management of feral hogs.
Which isn't really like normal hunting since you'd exterminate them if you could.
If the Taliban can have them, why not us?
Randy Newburgh please
Good point, Ron, about teaching young boys science and math through everyday activities. Most boys will fall asleep only learning math and science through class room instruction and school book work. That is needed, for sure, but allow a boy to make a woodworking project and he will learn basic arithmetic, fractions and decimals faster than just sitting in class. When you can use it to build something, or in this case, shoot a deer, you are more apt to learn the principles required for that task.
I think the combat rifle question is more to "why do we need AR/AK platforms for hunting". Those ugly black guns. I wouldn't want to go into combat these days with a semi-auto rifle so calling them combat rifles is a misnomer. The .223/5.56 cartridge is valid for hunting small, distant game that needs a flat shooting cartridge. Same with the 7.62x39mm. Modern sporting rifles should be allowed for hunting, period.
What is interesting is how any weapon is used determines what it should be called. Many M-1 Garands have taken deer, Elk, & bear. Does that make it a combat rifle? A .22 rimfire single shot rifle, depending on how it is used, can be an assault rifle. As long as political language is concerned we should be careful not to allow politicians to define the tools of our sports. If not carefully watched, we may end up debating what an assault popsicle is!
Looking forward for a 50 blackout
Every rifle ever used started as a military action, or at least tried to be sold to one military or another. The arguments against AR's are the same arguments against bolt actions
Looking forward to the 8.6 discussion. With the higher BC. Can a smaller load still be effective?
Every type of rifle has been used by a military somewhere, so aren't they all combat rifles? LOL Muzzle loaders, single shot, bolt action, lever action, semi-auto...They've all been military rifles. LOL
Night vision and thermal scopes are used a lot in predator hunting and feral hog eradication. In the end, all of these are just tools for a job. There are people that only bow hunt and complain about crossbows and rifles. Some people complain about people that shoot deer past 100 yards, or 200 yards, or 300 yards etc...In the end, we all have limitations and those change with age. When we're 60 years old, we don't get around as well or see as well as we did when we were 30. That's life. Now we go to a deer blind with a rifle and scope and put deer meat in the freezer. Shooting a deer can be a lot cheaper than buying beef at the grocery store.
Ron! You missed a point on the bullet weight/recoil question! If we put 47 grains of 4895 in a 308 win using a 150gr bullet it have different CHAMBER PRESSURE than that same 47gr of 4895 in a 30-06 or 300 winmag or *insert 30 cal cartridge* using the same 150 grain bullet. Different chamber pressures will yield different velocities and you explained the rest. So, NO! The recoil will not be the same!
I don't think so, Sam, because none of the recoil calculators I consult includes chamber pressure as an input variable. Chamber pressure (from expanding gas) is a cause of MV, but it is the action of the mass at velocity that causes the opposite reaction, recoil.
@@RonSpomerOutdoors consulting Sierra's 5th edition manual I find 308 win data for 150gr bullets, 43.7gr of 4895 at 2800 fps. For 30-06, 150 gr bullets to achieve the same 2800 fps velocity, requires 48.1gr of 4895! According to the published data, 43.7gr of 4895 would not achieve even 2600 fps in a 30-06. This is due to volume inside the cartridge in which the powder burns. This more confined the propellant is during ignition, the faster it builds pressure to push the bullet. Maybe we need some lab equipment to put it to the real test!
I never thought much about hunting until I started bow hunting, before that I just went got my animal took it home, ate it. After bow hunting though rifle hunting was never the same again its way way too easy. Respect thought to every hunter that respects their prey enough to ethically hunt it.
Well I have never heard of the 8.6 blackout. I am guessing we are going down to bow hunting speeds? Definitely want to hear about that one! Love what you do sir!
Subsonic ammo is lethal on big game ( like water buffalo ) to 300 yards and the supers are going to 1000. 1-3 twist. Just search 8.6 blackout on here
Warthogs are strange animals. Ron I know you were talking about shooting some of them and having a difficult time getting the 1 shot kills. You are not alone. I have seen them shot with some serious firepower but then some of them shot with smaller rounds/calibers and drop. I don't know what causes this and would like to know. If you have any insight on this I would like to know. Thank you.
Wish I knew. I've dropped them cleanly with 7x57, 7mm Rem Mag., 330 Dakota, 30-06 -- yet seen them take solid chest hits from 375 H&H and 45-70 and run off. Most likely the lighter bullets fragment and expand more to do more tissue damage and faster hemorrhaging.
Exactly!!! I feel the same way. The more legal wild game u can put in my freezer, the less I have to buy!! It’s so much better for u too!! Hunting in our family is a spot. But it’s also a way to sustain our food without buying food with steroids and antibiotics in it.
A gun is a gun is a gun.
Better question: why do people allow self-appointed rulers tell us how we can hunt.
Can you tell me is it worth getting mags ammo and a new upper to swap my AR 15 to a more efficient and effective rifle?
Why would it not be allowed?! For example the mosin nagant in 7.62x54r would be great for larger game animals like moose and bear. But it’s been a “weapon of war” for decades, yet no one questions it because it’s a bolt action.
So why question an ar-15 just because it may look like the modern M4A2 or m16a4 service rifles.
The extended capacity may just save your life if you have a whole sow of wild boar rushing you.
It doesn't matter if you swing a 15 lb sledge hammer if you always miss the nail
Yes so long as the right type of bullet is used not a fmj or armor piercing ammo.needs to transfer it's energy efficient and not be a thru and thru type of bullet needs to expand
Maybe the question about "combat rifles" was really about assault rifles, semiautomatic, large magazines, short barrels.... Designed to wound people, fast, and not designed, really, for accurate fire at long ranges (talking mainly about .556), and with small diameter, fast bullets, not ideal for plains hunting, or clean kills on large game, and suboptimal for reliable performance in woodland shooting. Ron?
Lohi, some of what you suggest might have been the questioner's intent, but he didn't specify assault rifles, which are a rather vague category anyway. I've perused a lot of gun store shelves, gun manufacturers' website and catalogs, and haven't seen an assault rifle advertised yet. Unless you mean the Mauser Model 1898 bolt-action which was the German military combat rifle in 8x57mm Mauser in WWs I and II. Or perhaps you're thinking of the caplock muzzleloader Springfield Model 1861 used by Union troops to assault the Confederates at Gettysburg. Or the more modern, deadly Model 1873 single-shot trapdoor Springfield in 45-70 that Custer's soldiers used to assault the Sioux/Cheyenne camp on the Greasy Grass in 1876. But those might not fit your definition of assault rifle because they fired much smaller bullets than .556. There aren't many shoulder fired modern rifles throwing bullets more than a half-inch wide! The 45-70 in the Trapdoor Springfield was close at .458". Bullets from that German battle rifle are just .323". No, wait a minute! The 1861 at Gettysburg fired .58" bullets. But they weren't all that fast. Probably just 1,400 fps. Still, that style of assault rifle was quite popular with the Mountain Men for taking mule deer, pronghorn, elk, and bison on the High Plains from about 1825 through 1850. Those didn't have large magazines, though. Nor short barrels. Neither did the U.S. military's Model 1903 Springfield in 30-caliber, more commonly known as the 30-06 used to assault German trenches in WWII. "White Feather" Hathcock used a civilian version of one of these as his primary sniping rifle in Viet Nam. I guess his actions were a type of assault, but the millions of hunters who've used the 30-06 for taking deer, elk, moose, bears, kudu, oryx, sable, and even elephant probably weren't mounting an assault as they tracked and stalked and sneaked within range. By the way, small diameter, fast bullets are ideal for plains hunting. The little 25-06 is considered by many the quintessential pronghorn cartridge. The even smaller 243 Winchester is also quite popular and effective, as is the 22-250 Remington, although many consider that faster and more powerful than needed, so they shoot the 223 Remington, which is roughly 300 fps slower but, by reputation, more accurate. Of course, when talking accuracy, one can't discount the even smaller 222 Remington which, starting in 1950, set all kinds of world records for accuracy. As for semi-automatics, the John Moses-designed semi-auto rifle of 1900 never could, to my knowledge, win a military contract even though it sold on the civilian market for years as the Remington Model 8. As for woodland hunting, yes, short barreled, quick handling rifles with large magazines like the Win M94 and Marlin 336 and Savage M99 (in caliber 22 Hi-Power and larger) have long been popular, although some states restrict magazine capacity to 5 or even 4. I suspect this is why the 20" barreled carbine versions were more popular than the full length barrel versions that hold 7 rounds plus one in the magazine. While I, like many, agree that a 22 centerfire such as 221 Fireball, 222 Rem., 222 Rem. Mag., 223 Rem., 22-250, and 220 Swift spitting 50- to 60-grain bullets are a bit small for deer, elk, moose, etc., they remain extremely popular with hunters who don't like heavy recoil or do appreciate low-cost ammo, efficiency, and precision shooting. Many claim that a 50- or 55-grain bullet tight behind the shoulder of a deer, elk, or moose kills more quickly and cleanly than much larger and more powerful bullets from such military cartridges as 45-70, 30-40 Krag, 308 Win., 30-06, 8mm Mauser, 303 British, etc. Back in the mid-20th century a professional culler for the National Parks Service discovered that the little 220 Swift shooting 48- to 55-grain bullets as fast as 3,900 fps killed destructive, invasive feral burros faster and more reliably than 30-40 Krag, 30-06, and 8mm Mauser. Bottom line: hunters have been using military rifles and cartridges for at least 230 years, and militaries have been using hunting rifles and cartridges for just as long. Which is better for which application remains a contentious issue. Some like small and fast, some prefer large and fast, some even large and slow. Some like long barrels, some short. One thing is certain, however: fully automatic combat rifles are not legal for regulated sport hunting for large game or small, upland birds or waterfowl, in any jurisdiction I know.
Yes they should.
I believe the 45-70 was a 500gr rifle cartridge then they came out with a 405 gr. For the carbine version to reduce recoil in the lighter carbine
How about that 500gr in a 45-90 or bigger. It was probably just a gentle push for recoil. LOL
Farmers and ranchers in the south have a very serious problem with feral pigs. They are invasive and VERY destructive of crops. Thermal optics have revolutionaized population control.
Who Tee Who took a plains animal with a 338 Lapua. I believe it was in Montana. He has a video of it