• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mohammed Bin Lyin

Agriculture minister tell farmers to get semi auto rifles

181 posts in this topic

Quote

Byrne responds to call for government to coordinate NQ feral pig cull

 

State Agriculture Minister Bill Byrne has advised north Queensland landholders concerned about the ability
feral pigs to spread the Panama TR4 virus they have the capacity to acquire category D weapons – pump action shotguns and rifles – to up the ante themselves.
 
Banana growers and Biosecurity Queensland staff are doing their best to contain the latest outbreak, but one has to question the effectiveness of their efforts when we have thousands of feral pigs roaming around the area,” he said. “For the sake of our banana industry this issue needs to be addressed and it needs to happen now.”
 
Mr Byrne said Queensland legislation meant there were a number of tools available in terms of trapping and poisoning programs, and firearms, “particularly the capacity for landholders to acquire Category D weapons for the purpose of feral animal removal”.
 

A Category D firearm is a semi auto rifle with no magazine limits or semi auto/pump action shotgun.

Nice to see the Queensland Agriculture minister admit farmers need semi auto rifles with large capacity magazines to control feral pests like pigs.

 

 

feral pig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Australia a licensed firearm owner cannot maintain their firearm as your license only allows you to possess and use your firearm, cleaning a gun by sticking a cleaning rod down the barrel is illegal if you don't have a Firearm Dealers license.

There are idiots who are proud of our laws some of them post in this forum.

Quote

Category A licence

Authority conferred by the licence:
The licensee is authorised to possess or use a registered firearm of the kind to which the licence applies, but only for the purpose established by the licensee as being the genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm.

Category B licence

Authority conferred by the licence:
The licensee is authorised to possess or use a registered firearm of the kind to which the licence applies, but only for the purpose established by the licensee as being the genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm.

 

Firearms dealer licence

Authority conferred by the licence:
In the case of a firearms dealer other than a club armourer or a theatrical armourer, authorises the licensee and (subject to the conditions of the licence and the regulations):

(a)  employees or directors of the corporation specified in the licence, or
(b)  employees of the partnership so specified, or
(c)  employees of the individual so specified,

who are eligible to be issued with a licence and who are authorised in writing by the Commissioner, to possess, manufacture, convert, acquire, supply, repair, maintain or test, in the course of carrying on the business of a firearms dealer,

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1996/46/part2/div2/sec8

If your wooden stock splits under our 1996 gun laws you cannot glue it up yourself you have to take it to someone with a Firearm Dealers license and pay them to glue it up, fitting a recoil pad is also a not on you will lose your license.

This idiocy which the bedwetters are so proud of means farmers cannot repair or maintain their own firearms they must take them into a firearm dealer which is really inconvenient for people who live in country areas.

The Police used this section 8 legislation to shut down a paintball venue when the owner admitted to repairing his own paintball guns.

We have no standards or qualifications to become a gun smith in Australia, what makes firearm dealers the only people qualified to do simple maintenance work like cleaning barrels?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

A Category D firearm is a semi auto rifle with no magazine limits or semi auto/pump action shotgun.

Nice to see the Queensland Agriculture minister admit farmers need semi auto rifles with large capacity magazines to control feral pests like pigs.

 

 

feral pig.png

1. You need LCM's to shoot into herds of feral pigs. Got it.

2. The term "semi automatic" can be easily separated from the concept "military design."

3. Go for it Mo, but mind your enviable gun safety stats.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would some (hopefully non-Libertarian) anarchist please lay out the differences between centerfire and rimfire, NTTAWW either, and the importance of such distinction.

Thank you.

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Would some (hopefully non-Libertarian) anarchist please lay out the differences between centerfire and rimfire, NTTAWW either, and the importance of such distinction.

Thank you.

Joe

Centerfire has the primer in the center of the cartridge. Rimfire has the cartridge at the edge.

rim-center-1.jpg

AFAIK in rifle ammunition, rimfire is mostly .22 caliber in modern times. All shotguns and most rifles bigger than 0.22 are center fire. I am not sure why it is important, they both shoot just fine, except maybe someone is trying to limit "powerful" guns by not allowing center fire. For hunting big animals it would totally suck to shoot at them with a .22, but as far as humans go you can do a good job killing them with a .22 unless you are trying to shoot through body armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Would some (hopefully non-Libertarian) anarchist please lay out the differences between centerfire and rimfire, NTTAWW either, and the importance of such distinction.

Thank you.

Joe

Since you don't know the difference between rimfire and centrefire you're not qualified to tell people what type of guns they should have.

Some like Tom would use a rimfire for these I use a centrefire

 

fox.png

d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition is sweeping. It would include SAW's.

Quote

Queensland Police Category D weapons

(1) Each of the following is a category D weapon—

a) a self-loading centre-fire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates a rifle of that type in design, function or appearance;

b) a non-military style self-loading centre-fire rifle with either an integral or detachable magazine;

c) a self-loading shotgun with either an integral or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 5 rounds and a pump action shotgun with a capacity of more than 5 rounds;

d) a self-loading rim-fire rifle with a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds.

 

(2)  Subsection (1) applies to a weapon mentioned in the subsection even  if the weapon is permanently inoperable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

The definition is sweeping. It would include SAW's.

 

No, full auto or selective fire are prohibited have been for over 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

1. You need LCM's to shoot into herds of feral pigs. Got it.

2. The term "semi automatic" can be easily separated from the concept "military design."

 

1.You take aim with every  shot you don't just shoot into herds ,ammo is expensive it's easy to miss.

2.Yes,  is the Remington 700 a military design since your snipers use them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Since you don't know the difference between rimfire and centrefire you're not qualified to tell people what type of guns they should have.

 

Bullshit. By your logic, only gunsmiths could govern. And Diane Feinstein would be mute. Mike the Gun Guy would own your ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) Each of the following is a category D weapon—

a) a self-loading centre-fire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates a rifle of that type in design, function or appearance;

b) a non-military style self-loading centre-fire rifle with either an integral or detachable magazine;

c) a self-loading shotgun with either an integral or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 5 rounds and a pump action shotgun with a capacity of more than 5 rounds;

d) a self-loading rim-fire rifle with a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds.

 

(2)  Subsection (1) applies to a weapon mentioned in the subsection even  if the weapon is permanently inoperable.

What they are doing here is drawing a line between the .22 rifle, sometimes thought of as a low power rifle for kids, and the .223 and above rifles. The .223 cartridge goes in the (in)famous AR-15s and M-16s and a ton of other guns. This must be incredibly frustrating to the "tacti-cool" brigage that love to pretend they are in SEAL Team 6 or something.

bf33b84dda7f68ed8ecfd3d22d0a6e18--specia

It also would suck for pig hunting, pigs are not going to die from a .22 anytime soon and they are dangerous too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

(1) Each of the following is a category D weapon—

a) a self-loading centre-fire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates a rifle of that type in design, function or appearance;

b) a non-military style self-loading centre-fire rifle with either an integral or detachable magazine;

c) a self-loading shotgun with either an integral or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 5 rounds and a pump action shotgun with a capacity of more than 5 rounds;

d) a self-loading rim-fire rifle with a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds.

 

(2)  Subsection (1) applies to a weapon mentioned in the subsection even  if the weapon is permanently inoperable.

What they are doing here is drawing a line between the .22 rifle, sometimes thought of as a low power rifle for kids, and the .223 and above rifles. The .223 cartridge goes in the (in)famous AR-15s and M-16s and a ton of other guns. This must be incredibly frustrating to the "tacti-cool" brigage that love to pretend they are in SEAL Team 6 or something.

It also would suck for pig hunting, pigs are not going to die from a .22 anytime soon and they are dangerous too.

 

The Aussie terms are harsh, they include both rimfire and centerfire. Line d covers tube feeder rimfire .22's with ten round+ capacity, as per Tom Ray's issues in (too many) posts about grannie's AW, aka an infamous SAW, or squirrell assault rifle. They load up with 17 rounds. I own one.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mo, I thought that you no longer live in Oz, why the worry over the feral pigs?

The Panama disease supposedly can't spread to humans, but it kills banana crops, aside from the semi-auto thing, aren't there other legal, large caliber hunting methods available to you folks for hunting pigs? Maybe address the pig problem first then focus on changing your gun laws?

When I lived in Alabama, wild hogs were a huge problem, folks I knew hunted them in a few ways; dogs, semi-auto, regular rifles, bow hunting, one of the favorite methods was with the floodlights on the truck, they would wait in the quiet of a field until several came out, then hit the lights and shot away. I'm not sure if that was legal, but they were hogs, so nobody cared.

But the most effective method was supposedly trapping, rather than shooting,  http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/alabamas_feral_hog_problem_can.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

(

What they are doing here is drawing a line between the .22 rifle, sometimes thought of as a low power rifle for kids, and the .223 and above rifles. The .223 cartridge goes in the (in)famous AR-15s and M-16s and a ton of other guns.

 

Category C is semi auto rimfires with 10 round max and pump action-semi auto shotguns with max 5 rounds, they become Category D with larger capacity magazines.

The .223 is considered a rabbit/fox/wild dog calibre here, you need at least a .243 for pigs and goats, since property owners can only have 1 Cat D license with 2  Cat D firearms in Qld it's usually a .308 and semi auto shotgun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

AFAIK in rifle ammunition, rimfire is mostly .22 caliber in modern times. All shotguns and most rifles bigger than 0.22 are center fire. I am not sure why it is important, they both shoot just fine, except maybe someone is trying to limit "powerful" guns by not allowing center fire.

Or trying to limit "all" guns by not allowing either.

Yes, that includes .22's with fixed magazines, among other "assault weapons."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Category C is semi auto rimfires with 10 round max and pump action-semi auto shotguns with max 5 rounds, they become Category D with larger capacity magazines.

The .223 is considered a rabbit/fox/wild dog calibre here, you need at least a .243 for pigs and goats, since property owners can only have 1 Cat D license with 2  Cat D firearms in Qld it's usually a .308 and semi auto shotgun.

Why does this arrangement ^^^ sound so reasonable and adequate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Or trying to limit "all" guns by not allowing either.

Yes, that includes .22's with fixed magazines, among other "assault weapons."

You are a victim being victimized. Seventeen round .22 long guns are considered very dangerous by some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You are a victim. Seventeen round .22 shooters are considered very dangerous by some.

If only "some" could convince you to get rid of yours, you'd seem a lot less hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If only "some" could convince you to get rid of yours, you'd seem a lot less hypocritical.

 

The gun management of Australia isn't about me. It involves excessive firepower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Australia talking about guns at all? In the United States, guns have been found to be mostly ineffective solving the problem. Professional hunters go after boars and leave the smaller pigs alone resulting in a negative fix,  pigs are also among the smartest animals and can outwit hunters, resulting in wasted hunts. Traps are effective, but only if done properly, hunting pigs by helicopter is effective but how many people can charter a helicopter for a day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:
3 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Category C is semi auto rimfires with 10 round max and pump action-semi auto shotguns with max 5 rounds, they become Category D with larger capacity magazines.

The .223 is considered a rabbit/fox/wild dog calibre here, you need at least a .243 for pigs and goats, since property owners can only have 1 Cat D license with 2  Cat D firearms in Qld it's usually a .308 and semi auto shotgun.

Why does this arrangement ^^^ sound so reasonable and adequate?

Most likely because no one has yet caused you to piss your pants by showing you a picture of a .308 round next to the fearsome .223.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not my sphere. Sounds like someone has power issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Why is Australia talking about guns at all? In the United States, guns have been found to be mostly ineffective solving the problem. Professional hunters go after boars and leave the smaller pigs alone resulting in a negative fix,  pigs are also among the smartest animals and can outwit hunters, resulting in wasted hunts. Traps are effective, but only if done properly, hunting pigs by helicopter is effective but how many people can charter a helicopter for a day?

This thread doesn't seem to have anything to do with addressing the wild boar problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mikewof said:

This thread doesn't seem to have anything to do with addressing the wild boar problem.

I know, but that's the way gun owners roll. If it isn't an expensive night vision or IR scope, if it isn't high power rapid fire, it won't solve the problem. In truth, gummy bears probably work better than any weapon. http://www.iberianet.com/opinion/columnists/gummy-bears-may-be-solution-to-killing-wild-hogs/article_b104fc7a-364d-11e4-b5e2-0019bb2963f4.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gun laws in Australia are pretty simple.  If you can prove that you have a valid need for a weapon, have a designated area to use it in, and you have the required training then you can get a license for the tool required to do the job. 

Just stops fuckwits from owning weapons in the suburbs that have no place or need.  Australians aren't generally afraid of each other as some other countries (uh hum) are.  In the cities, real men don't need guns.

Look what happens in the US when the cops assume that everyone else has a gun.  They shoot first, even unarmed Australian women get shot, just in case they are armed.  Here, cops assume you are not armed.  Any sniff that you might have one at home for no good reason is jumped on like a tonne of bricks.  They have a vested interest in keeping it that way and I agree with it.

The laws are now over 20 years old and they have done exactly what they were designed to do.   Nothing succeeds like success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Most likely because no one has yet caused you to piss your pants by showing you a picture of a .308 round next to the fearsome .223.

You saying that the .223 would only half kill someone or something?  In this country it is illegal to gut-shoot animals, they must be dispatched by a single killing shot to the head.  I have found that the .223 is very good at that job.  Must be a lot of cruel cunts that cannot shoot well over your way. 

What was that story someone posted about shooting deer down powerliner clearings?  Shoot then track the blood trail?  That's seriously fucked up.

Can't work out why someone in a US city needs one of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Centerfire has the primer in the center of the cartridge. Rimfire has the cartridge at the edge.

rim-center-1.jpg

AFAIK in rifle ammunition, rimfire is mostly .22 caliber in modern times. All shotguns and most rifles bigger than 0.22 are center fire. I am not sure why it is important, they both shoot just fine, except maybe someone is trying to limit "powerful" guns by not allowing center fire. For hunting big animals it would totally suck to shoot at them with a .22, but as far as humans go you can do a good job killing them with a .22 unless you are trying to shoot through body armor.

all44.jpg_thumbnail1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I know, but that's the way gun owners roll. If it isn't an expensive night vision or IR scope, if it isn't high power rapid fire, it won't solve the problem. In truth, gummy bears probably work better than any weapon. http://www.iberianet.com/opinion/columnists/gummy-bears-may-be-solution-to-killing-wild-hogs/article_b104fc7a-364d-11e4-b5e2-0019bb2963f4.html

Actually, in a recent (now gone) Dabs thread, I pointed out that trapping is more effective than any other method.

In the same thread, the topic article said that the expensive helicopter program the government was running had killed a thousand or so. Private hunters had killed tens of thousands. But the trappers are who can really eliminate a problem on your property. Of course, taking out tens of thousands of them doesn't hurt either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Most likely because no one has yet caused you to piss your pants by showing you a picture of a .308 round next to the fearsome .223.

You saying that the .223 would only half kill someone or something?

No, just having a bit of fun with Joe, who agrees with you that a .22 is way too powerful and absolutely freaks over the awesome .223. If he finds out what a .308 is, he's going to freak that he called it "sensible."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I know, but that's the way gun owners roll. If it isn't an expensive night vision or IR scope, if it isn't high power rapid fire, it won't solve the problem. In truth, gummy bears probably work better than any weapon. http://www.iberianet.com/opinion/columnists/gummy-bears-may-be-solution-to-killing-wild-hogs/article_b104fc7a-364d-11e4-b5e2-0019bb2963f4.html

 

Maybe they can bury those gummies in some pinhole plastic so that deer, insects and other animals won't eat them, but hogs like to dig and rip things open.

Tom, I think badlat has a point that you have still overlooked ... these wild hogs are sexually mature in something like 18 months, and the hunters tend to kill the older, bigger animals which doesn't come close to solving the problem. If your control method doesn't take out an even cross section or better just the youngest ones then it won't help much. All you're doing is making it easier for the younger ones to reproduce. If anything, leave the large dominant males and sterilize them somehow.

But hunters and their guns are apparently not the solution to this problem because it's getting worse. Blaming the wild hog population on gun regulations is fairly ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mikewof said:

 

Maybe they can bury those gummies in some pinhole plastic so that deer, insects and other animals won't eat them, but hogs like to dig and rip things open.

Tom, I think badlat has a point that you have still overlooked ... these wild hogs are sexually mature in something like 18 months, and the hunters tend to kill the older, bigger animals which doesn't come close to solving the problem. If your control method doesn't take out an even cross section or better just the youngest ones then it won't help much. All you're doing is making it easier for the younger ones to reproduce. If anything, leave the large dominant males and sterilize them somehow.

But hunters and their guns are apparently not the solution to this problem because it's getting worse. Blaming the wild hog population on gun regulations is fairly ridiculous.

Really? You mean to inform me that

On 9/2/2017 at 8:44 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

trapping is more effective than any other method.


Wow. I never knew. Nor said it twice.

No wonder you didn't realize what "my control method" actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Really? You mean to inform me that


Wow. I never knew. Nor said it twice.

No wonder you didn't realize what "my control method" actually is.

I read what you wrote, my point is to what you wrote about "taking tens of thousands of them" by hunting "doesn't hurt either."

But if those hunters are getting mostly the bigger hogs and not the horniest little pigs that fuck like bunnies, then in fact, it might not help at all.

There is a corollary in air pollution, industry finds it easy to take out the large, 10 micron particles, but the submicron particles are difficult to remove. By removing the easy, big particles, they actually make the particulate problem worse, they would be better taking 10% of an even cross section, than 90% of only the biggest.

The dominant male animals control the smaller animals, I see it in my area with the damned coyotes. They shoot the big ones and then the little ones reproduce at 2 years old, they make pups like mad.

Normy, I do get your narrative, but in this case, the hunters might need some better info to help. Again, the problem is getting worse, not better. The premise of this thread may even be wrong; if killing the big ones is worse than nailing the small ones, hunters may actually be more helpful with the small ammo that is suited for smaller pigs. But Mo is gone, his point was about gun control, not pig control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trap the little ones. Send them to the swamp areas of Punta Gorda FL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

But if those hunters are getting mostly the bigger hogs and not the horniest little pigs that fuck like bunnies, then in fact, it might not help at all.

The ones I know aren't particular but will avoid males if possible because the meat tends to be stinkier. There are very, very few "trophy" boar hunters. Most hunt for meat and want young female meat. I shot a good sized male because he was in my yard. That one happened to be pretty tasty but males generally are not. You can tell when you cut them open. If they don't smell like anything, they're good. If they stink, that won't go away and that's how they'll taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The ones I know aren't particular but will avoid males if possible because the meat tends to be stinkier. There are very, very few "trophy" boar hunters. Most hunt for meat and want young female meat. I shot a good sized male because he was in my yard. That one happened to be pretty tasty but males generally are not. You can tell when you cut them open. If they don't smell like anything, they're good. If they stink, that won't go away and that's how they'll taste.

Around here you'll find quite a lot of "feral" barrows, and they taste just as good as a gilt, or a sow. The boars are stanky, and usually just killed, not butchered.

 And yes, you can kill a big pig with a .22, but you need to be a good shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2017 at 7:52 AM, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Since you don't know the difference between rimfire and centrefire you're not qualified to tell people what type of guns they should have.

Some like Tom would use a rimfire for these I use a centrefire

 

fox.png

d.jpg

Claymores.  That's the only defense against hordes.

HandTool.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

 And yes, you can kill a big pig with a .22, but you need to be a good shot.

Yes, you can, and I know Aussies do it.

The gun I shoot most accurately is an ancient single shot .22 that I first shot when in elementary school. I could shoot through a pig's ear or eye with it. But that's not what I grabbed. I'm less accurate with the 30/30 but could take a heart/lung shot with a better chance that the pig would be dead right there. My chances of missing an eye-sized target with the .22 are greater than my chances of missing a dinner-plate sized target with the 30/30, despite being a better shot with the .22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The ones I know aren't particular but will avoid males if possible because the meat tends to be stinkier. There are very, very few "trophy" boar hunters. Most hunt for meat and want young female meat. I shot a good sized male because he was in my yard. That one happened to be pretty tasty but males generally are not. You can tell when you cut them open. If they don't smell like anything, they're good. If they stink, that won't go away and that's how they'll taste.

Yeah, the hunters I knew in Bama ate the meat or fed it to their dogs. It was dirty work, one guy lost both of his expensive hunting dogs from the same boar, the fugger tusked them both. I didn't get every detail of their pig hunts, but it seems that they were difficult hunts, and they tended to go after groups, sows and adolescents, rather than the lone boars, which is what you noted. So if they're shooting the slower, bigger 100-some lbs. sows, rather than the zippy 50-some lbs. adolescents, then maybe that's part of the problem? Could their methods take out food competition and let the littlest, horniest ones fuck themselves into a population explosion?

Hunting isn't reducing their overall numbers as far as we know, the famous model shows that even a 70% reduction in population leads to a complete replacement in something like two years. Recreational hunting seems not to be "less effective than trapping" but more accurately "ineffective" based on the population explosion over the past 30 years.

So why are recreational hunting guns even part of this discussion? Using the tool metaphor it's like saying "laser shock peening isn't as effective at driving roofing nails as either 16 ounce claw hammers or nail guns."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

 

Hunting isn't reducing their overall numbers as far as we know, the famous model shows that even a 70% reduction in population leads to a complete replacement in something like two years. Recreational hunting seems not to be "less effective than trapping" but more accurately "ineffective" based on the population explosion over the past 30 years.

So why are recreational hunting guns even part of this discussion? Using the tool metaphor it's like saying "laser shock peening isn't as effective at driving roofing nails as either 16 ounce claw hammers or nail guns."

This is not about recreational hunting Mike it's the Agriculture minister telling farmers to get semi auto rifles to help control feral pigs, farmers don't do it for recreation they do it because they have to.

Feral pigs were under control before our gun laws, back in the 1980's-early 1990's if you hadn't been pig shooting you knew people who have done it today not many people even know someone who shoots feral pigs.

Here is a good article for you to read-

http://www.suncoasttimes.com.au/features/best-methods-for-feral-pig-eradication/

 

The government spent 7 million for feral pig eradication for Queensland in the last couple of years, we didn't need state and federal governments spending millions of dollars on this before our 1996 gun laws

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/2/18/feral-pigs-targeted-to-save-endangered-turtles

 

Here is something else to look at Mike

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/governments-to-take-on-feral-pig-menace-from-the-sky-as-native-species-pushed-to-the-brink/news-story/6d2d5df8742b196922d130d260d1e19c

 

As for trapping what happens when they are trapped , are they shot before trap is opened? The traps that only catch single pigs are a waste of time and keep in mind traps have to be checked daily or the animal rights dickheads will start wetting their beds.

These type of traps are pretty good they catch more than one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HheXrvjA0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

As for trapping what happens when they are trapped , are they shot before trap is opened? The traps that only catch single pigs are a waste of time and keep in mind traps have to be checked daily or the animal rights dickheads will start wetting their beds.

These type of traps are pretty good they catch more than one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HheXrvjA0

A quality person such as yourself would want to check his traps every day. Such traps were used for cougars on the ranches where I grew up. We got $3.75 per hide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Feral pigs were under control before our gun laws, back in the 1980's-early 1990's

Ah, that must have been why we had no problem finding herds of pigs in the 80s, and farmers who thanked us for thinning them out.  Thanks so much for explaining that for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

Yeah, the hunters I knew in Bama ate the meat or fed it to their dogs. It was dirty work, one guy lost both of his expensive hunting dogs from the same boar, the fugger tusked them both. I didn't get every detail of their pig hunts, but it seems that they were difficult hunts, and they tended to go after groups, sows and adolescents, rather than the lone boars, which is what you noted. So if they're shooting the slower, bigger 100-some lbs. sows, rather than the zippy 50-some lbs. adolescents, then maybe that's part of the problem? Could their methods take out food competition and let the littlest, horniest ones fuck themselves into a population explosion?

Hunting isn't reducing their overall numbers as far as we know, the famous model shows that even a 70% reduction in population leads to a complete replacement in something like two years. Recreational hunting seems not to be "less effective than trapping" but more accurately "ineffective" based on the population explosion over the past 30 years.

So why are recreational hunting guns even part of this discussion? Using the tool metaphor it's like saying "laser shock peening isn't as effective at driving roofing nails as either 16 ounce claw hammers or nail guns."

I think it's part of the discussion in Australia for the reasons Mo noted.

Here in FL, I don't want our grabbers to succeed in their efforts to ban what I consider ordinary, semi-automatic .22's as "assault weapons."

As for effectiveness, I no longer had a pig tearing up my yard after just one shot. My friend who manages an organic farm up the road has continuing problems with wild pigs but shooting them eliminates some problem animals and makes the rest go elsewhere. Pigs get shot or that go elsewhere are still an environmental problem for the State of FL but NOT for his business. He would definitely argue with you about your "ineffective" assertion and he has the delicious veggies to back up his argument. And some dead pig parts, if you like those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.22 is the preferred weapon of professional hit men. Double tap through the eyeball. Less mess to clean up that way. No 'Made Man' would carry anything else to a job.

And now we return you to our scheduled shit fight...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think it's part of the discussion in Australia for the reasons Mo noted.

Here in FL, I don't want our grabbers to succeed in their efforts to ban what I consider ordinary, semi-automatic .22's as "assault weapons."

As for effectiveness, I no longer had a pig tearing up my yard after just one shot. My friend who manages an organic farm up the road has continuing problems with wild pigs but shooting them eliminates some problem animals and makes the rest go elsewhere. Pigs get shot or that go elsewhere are still an environmental problem for the State of FL but NOT for his business. He would definitely argue with you about your "ineffective" assertion and he has the delicious veggies to back up his argument. And some dead pig parts, if you like those.

If all it took was one or two shots to save your garden from a single feral or possibly escaped farm pig, then that probably has nothing to do with the larger problem of feral pig control. Same thing with your friend up the road. Please save the "gun grabber" thing for another day, nobody has grabbed your guns, you're complaining about a boogeyman.

As for Oz, these strawman arguments are a waste of time. If wants to change Australia's gun laws, then convince Australians with rational arguments. But more effective firepower in the hands of people who apparently just make the feral pig population even worse is a piss poor argument for changing gun laws in Oz, or for justifying your own artillery here.

Why not argue that you need freely available fully automatic weapons in the USA to properly control feral pigs? My friend's stepmom got his dad a machine gun for a Christmas present, her reason "that he likes them" is far more compelling than some pseudo-scientific bullshit about feral pig control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

This is not about recreational hunting Mike it's the Agriculture minister telling farmers to get semi auto rifles to help control feral pigs, farmers don't do it for recreation they do it because they have to.

Feral pigs were under control before our gun laws, back in the 1980's-early 1990's if you hadn't been pig shooting you knew people who have done it today not many people even know someone who shoots feral pigs.

Mo, just look at this rationally ... our feral pig population has exploded and we have all the guns and hunters that you want there.

Your feral pigs were probably under control before 1980 for the same reason that our feral pigs were under control before 1980, because of a combination of population critical mass and changing agricultural and game management practices. In the USA, chronic wasting disease kills off about 20% of our wild deer population every year, which probably has something to do with less food competition for the pigs in the Southern states.

You guys have about four times the number of pigs that we have, and a much smaller population of willing hunters. If you want semi-autos, then change your laws. But you had better hope that your tiny population of NT and NSW hunters have some magical friggen abilities, because there isn't a whole lot to indicate that they're going to make much of a dent in the problem. If quarter-million Australian hunters (a difficult number in a country with some 20 million adults, most of whom live in cities) all armed up with semi autos, they would have to each shoot an average of 64 pigs each year just to keep the population from popping right back to where it is right now. (Recreational hunters in Bama whom I knew killed maybe five a year, if that.)

Do you think that presents a compelling argument to change your gun laws back, or a compelling argument to do some wildlife and agricultural studies, isolate the problem and work on that? If your agricultural minister used science rather than politics, then he or she would advocate free traps for NT banana growers and a few dollar bounty for trapped pigs. Then maybe sterilize and release the live sows, and kill the trapped boars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mikewof said:

If all it took was one or two shots to save your garden from a single feral or possibly escaped farm pig, then that probably has nothing to do with the larger problem of feral pig control. Same thing with your friend up the road. Please save the "gun grabber" thing for another day, nobody has grabbed your guns, you're complaining about a boogeyman.

As for Oz, these strawman arguments are a waste of time. If wants to change Australia's gun laws, then convince Australians with rational arguments. But more effective firepower in the hands of people who apparently just make the feral pig population even worse is a piss poor argument for changing gun laws in Oz, or for justifying your own artillery here.

Why not argue that you need freely available fully automatic weapons in the USA to properly control feral pigs? My friend's stepmom got his dad a machine gun for a Christmas present, her reason "that he likes them" is far more compelling than some pseudo-scientific bullshit about feral pig control.

You figured out where our local pigs came from, and that they were not feral, all the way from over there? And our judgement on the scene means nothing? OK.

I'm not complaining about a "boogey man" but about an actual legislative proposal by state-level elected officials to ban ordinary .22's. If you don't think grabbers mean it when they talk about classifying ordinary .22's as "assault weapons," look up what happened to Joseph Pelleteri in New Jersey.

Full auto is a waste of ammo and I don't want to spend tens of thousands of dollars just to waste more ammo. I see a difference between saying that we want to keep our ordinary .22's and saying "full auto for all" even if you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You figured out where our local pigs came from, and that they were not feral, all the way from over there? And our judgement on the scene means nothing? OK.

I'm not complaining about a "boogey man" but about an actual legislative proposal by state-level elected officials to ban ordinary .22's. If you don't think grabbers mean it when they talk about classifying ordinary .22's as "assault weapons," look up what happened to Joseph Pelleteri in New Jersey.

Full auto is a waste of ammo and I don't want to spend tens of thousands of dollars just to waste more ammo. I see a difference between saying that we want to keep our ordinary .22's and saying "full auto for all" even if you can't.

Your pig may have been feral, or not, it doesn't really matter, their digging is similar and they die similarly, so who cares? The wild pigs aren't a distinct species from the kind in the pen, right?

You see full auto as a waste of ammo, but statistically, most methods of artillery-based pig control are a waste of ammo, so what difference does it make? You're still mixing in the killing of a rogue pig or two with the problem of widespread control. The two have nothing to do with each other except in the wacky world of PA gun shitfights. The recreational control you describe would need to remove some 75% of the population to make a lasting improvement. Semi-auto, full auto, guided robotic exploding apple, ain't going to happen.

Normy, there is a similar statistical problem out West here with invasive fish. You need a better than 90% reduction to control population, and a 100% reduction to preserve species integrity. Luckily the latter isn't a problem with pigs because there are no native pigs. Do you know how they handle a lake or stream with invasive fish species?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mikewof said:

The recreational control you describe would need to remove some 75% of the population to make a lasting improvement.

But that's not the goal. I do a lot of weed control at this time of year. I can't kill them all. I can't even kill most. It's essential that I kill a bunch anyway.

I know shooting at them isn't as good for population control as trapping but it DOES change their habits. They're smart and figure out which farmers shoot at them and avoid those. Doesn't do much for the overall population problem but does control the local pig problem. Will they be back? Sure, just like the weeds. And when they're back, I want our .22's to be legal.

I think waiting until a confiscation program is in effect (or just halted by a federal judge), as they have in California, is waiting too long and will speak out about proposals to ban and confiscate our guns before that happens.

Funny how the "no one wants to take your guns" crowd has nothing to say in that thread, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom likes to include the Gun Grabber term to raise search hit counts in the gun nut community.  Got any white text in there Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2017 at 10:26 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

If only "some" could convince you to get rid of yours, you'd seem a lot less hypocritical.

Less dangerous as well.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2017 at 5:14 PM, random said:

You saying that the .223 would only half kill someone or something?  In this country it is illegal to gut-shoot animals, they must be dispatched by a single killing shot to the head.  I have found that the .223 is very good at that job.  Must be a lot of cruel cunts that cannot shoot well over your way. 

What was that story someone posted about shooting deer down powerliner clearings?  Shoot then track the blood trail?  That's seriously fucked up.

Can't work out why someone in a US city needs one of these.

Power line clearings aren't in the city ranDUMB.   

What fucked up about tracking a dead animal?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mikewof said:

Mo, just look at this rationally ... our feral pig population has exploded and we have all the guns and hunters that you want there.

Your feral pigs were probably under control before 1980 for the same reason that our feral pigs were under control before 1980, because of a combination of population critical mass and changing agricultural and game management practices. In the USA, chronic wasting disease kills off about 20% of our wild deer population every year, which probably has something to do with less food competition for the pigs in the Southern states.

You guys have about four times the number of pigs that we have, and a much smaller population of willing hunters. If you want semi-autos, then change your laws. But you had better hope that your tiny population of NT and NSW hunters have some magical friggen abilities, because there isn't a whole lot to indicate that they're going to make much of a dent in the problem. If quarter-million Australian hunters (a difficult number in a country with some 20 million adults, most of whom live in cities) all armed up with semi autos, they would have to each shoot an average of 64 pigs each year just to keep the population from popping right back to where it is right now. (Recreational hunters in Bama whom I knew killed maybe five a year, if that.)

Do you think that presents a compelling argument to change your gun laws back, or a compelling argument to do some wildlife and agricultural studies, isolate the problem and work on that? If your agricultural minister used science rather than politics, then he or she would advocate free traps for NT banana growers and a few dollar bounty for trapped pigs. Then maybe sterilize and release the live sows, and kill the trapped boars.

Why not trap as you mentioned AND use semi autos on them?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, you can, and I know Aussies do it.

The gun I shoot most accurately is an ancient single shot .22 that I first shot when in elementary school. I could shoot through a pig's ear or eye with it. But that's not what I grabbed. I'm less accurate with the 30/30 but could take a heart/lung shot with a better chance that the pig would be dead right there. My chances of missing an eye-sized target with the .22 are greater than my chances of missing a dinner-plate sized target with the 30/30, despite being a better shot with the .22.

Why is it illegal to hunt in Michigan with a .22?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deer are bigger here, and we insist on a humane kill.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Greever said:

The deer are bigger here, and we insist on a humane kill.......

That's part of it.  What about safety to hunters?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a shotgun zone, and a rifle zone. In the areas where there are more people you must use a shotgun, farther North you can use a rifle, but not a .22

Except during bow season, hunters must wear orange... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 11:11 PM, mikewof said:

Mo, just look at this rationally ...

You guys have about four times the number of pigs that we have, and a much smaller population of willing hunters. If you want semi-autos, then change your laws. But you had better hope that your tiny population of NT and NSW hunters have some magical friggen abilities, because there isn't a whole lot to indicate that they're going to make much of a dent in the problem. If quarter-million Australian hunters (a difficult number in a country with some 20 million adults, most of whom live in cities) all armed up with semi autos, they would have to each shoot an average of 64 pigs each year just to keep the population from popping right back to where it is right now. (Recreational hunters in Bama whom I knew killed maybe five a year, if that.)

Do you think that presents a compelling argument to change your gun laws back, or a compelling argument to do some wildlife and agricultural studies, isolate the problem and work on that? If your agricultural minister used science rather than politics, then he or she would advocate free traps for NT banana growers and a few dollar bounty for trapped pigs. Then maybe sterilize and release the live sows, and kill the trapped boars.

I am looking at this rationally mike perhaps you should stick to topics you know like physics.

The Agriculture minister has advised these primary producers to get semi auto rifles, they can have Cat D firearms if they have proven feral pig problems yet when the pigs are under control their Cat D license is revoked resulting in them owning a Cat D firearm they cannot possess which means they have to surrender their Cat D firearm to a firearm dealer.The dealers usually charge around $30 a month storage so if the gun isn't sold quickly they lose a lot of the value in storage fees to the firearm dealer.In many cases these farmers pretty much lose their Cat D firearm without compensation when feral pigs are under control perhaps this needs to change so they can keep their Cat D once they have proven they have problems

This thread is not about recreational hunters getting semi autos it's about farmers, we have spent $7 million of taxpayers money on feral pig eradication in Qld alone since 2014 this is taxpayers money we did not have to spend on this before our gun laws.Once upon a time we exported wild boar meat at present we are the worlds largest exporter of goat meat which is another introduced feral pest causing massive damage we need to change the laws on using this meat as well.

The single pig traps are a waste of time the larger traps that catch multiple pigs are expensive and difficult to move, are you saying taxpayers should hand over their hard earned taxes to buy pig traps for these farmers?

This guy shot 70 pigs on the day he filmed this video, we have rules saying a .243 is considered the smallest round for ethical pig shooting which rules out Ar15 types using .223. The SKS used in this video is 7.62x39 which means a shorter case holding less powder compared to the 7.62x51 (.308w).Before our 1996 laws we had many people out chilling pigs just like this guy , today only contract shooters can have guns like this after they provide numerous contracts to shoot and prove they derive income from shooting these pests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTpTIVlC7Ho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

I am looking at this rationally mike perhaps you should stick to topics you know like physics.

The Agriculture minister has advised these primary producers to get semi auto rifles, they can have Cat D firearms if they have proven feral pig problems yet when the pigs are under control their Cat D license is revoked resulting in them owning a Cat D firearm they cannot possess which means they have to surrender their Cat D firearm to a firearm dealer.The dealers usually charge around $30 a month storage so if the gun isn't sold quickly they lose a lot of the value in storage fees to the firearm dealer.In many cases these farmers pretty much lose their Cat D firearm without compensation when feral pigs are under control perhaps this needs to change so they can keep their Cat D once they have proven they have problems

This thread is not about recreational hunters getting semi autos it's about farmers, we have spent $7 million of taxpayers money on feral pig eradication in Qld alone since 2014 this is taxpayers money we did not have to spend on this before our gun laws.Once upon a time we exported wild boar meat at present we are the worlds largest exporter of goat meat which is another introduced feral pest causing massive damage we need to change the laws on using this meat as well.

The single pig traps are a waste of time the larger traps that catch multiple pigs are expensive and difficult to move, are you saying taxpayers should hand over their hard earned taxes to buy pig traps for these farmers?

This guy shot 70 pigs on the day he filmed this video, we have rules saying a .243 is considered the smallest round for ethical pig shooting which rules out Ar15 types using .223. The SKS used in this video is 7.62x39 which means a shorter case holding less powder compared to the 7.62x51 (.308w).Before our 1996 laws we had many people out chilling pigs just like this guy , today only contract shooters can have guns like this after they provide numerous contracts to shoot and prove they derive income from shooting these pests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTpTIVlC7Ho

Change your gun laws, complain about your gun laws, disregard your gun laws, make some new gun laws, not my business, not my country, I don't care.

But you can be sure that the number of countries willing to allow your wild boar meat and wild goat meat will continue to dwindle. We usually don't allow wild meat to be sold for food here (except aquatic) because of prions and other weird effects. Other countries have similar concerns.

So do whatever you want with your pigs and your guns, but you're high if you think that more powerful guns are going to put a dent in your invasive species problem. Just to get a grip on this Mo, recognize that feral pigs can reproduce insanely fast, as young as 6 months. That's even faster than a lionfish. And if those properly-equipped hunters managed to kill 50% of all pigs in the NT each year, something like 5 million of them, your pig population would still increase.

Here's a suggestion ... change your gun laws just because you like guns. At least that reason is unassailable. But if you attach junk science and junk math to your gun argument as you have done here, you're weakening your position.

I have a gun with 7.62x54 ammo that I bought in case I need a pronghorn or an elk, because my 0.30 semi-auto isn't strong enough to safely take down animals that big. I do understand that you need bigger rounds to kill bigger animals. But I also understand basic arithmetic. If anything, hunt all the small pigs there and trap and sterilize the big sows. At least you have a chance with the math that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

Change your gun laws, complain about your gun laws, disregard your gun laws, make some new gun laws, not my business, not my country, I don't care.

Why would you? I complain about our gun laws and you dismiss my concerns as if grabbers don't really want to ban and confiscate ordinary .22's or something, when legislative proposals and court documents show that they actually do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Why would you? I complain about our gun laws and you dismiss my concerns as if grabbers don't really want to ban and confiscate ordinary .22's or something, when legislative proposals and court documents show that they actually do.

For some people, the sky is falling when one roofing shingle loosens a bit.

You have all of your guns, the people wanting to confiscate them have little to no power to actually do so. If you want to be a victim you'll need to find something else, Normy, or at least wait a few years.

Or, complain about some rule change that forced you to change something about one of your guns. But please do keep the conversation on guns, because you apparently don't give a rat's ass about invasive species. Maybe you can dig a moat around your house and connect to the swamp, and then stock with pythons, lionfish, and irukandji ... won't that keep them damned revenuers away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Greever said:

We have a shotgun zone, and a rifle zone. In the areas where there are more people you must use a shotgun, farther North you can use a rifle, but not a .22

Except during bow season, hunters must wear orange... 

Why not s .22?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

Or, complain about some rule change that forced you to change something about one of your guns.

I can't buy an assault weapon like Joe's.

Marlin quit making them after what happened to Joseph Pelleteri in New Jersey.

Now they make a shorter .22 with a smaller fixed magazine that's legal in all 50 states.

But I want one like Joe's. And he doesn't seem to want to get rid of it. Besides, I want a new one. But until it's not considered an assault weapon in New Jersey any more, no one will make one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, you can buy a squirrel assault rifle like Joes, but you have to buy a used one. They fetch a high price these days because of the extra capacity.

Rockdog, I am not a hunter, but as I said, it is my understanding that the State of Michigan does not consider .22 caliber rifles to be powerful enough to provide for a humane kill. Not even the immensely powerful .223/5.56 is legal to hunt deer with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I can't buy an assault weapon like Joe's.

Marlin quit making them after what happened to Joseph Pelleteri in New Jersey.

Now they make a shorter .22 with a smaller fixed magazine that's legal in all 50 states.

But I want one like Joe's. And he doesn't seem to want to get rid of it. Besides, I want a new one. But until it's not considered an assault weapon in New Jersey any more, no one will make one.

Me me me. New only, waah. Me  me me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Greever said:

Tom, you can buy a squirrel assault rifle like Joes, but you have to buy a used one. They fetch a high price these days because of the extra capacity.

Rockdog, I am not a hunter, but as I said, it is my understanding that the State of Michigan does not consider .22 caliber rifles to be powerful enough to provide for a humane kill. Not even the immensely powerful .223/5.56 is legal to hunt deer with...

My gun is the star of the show now? It's a cool gun (as they all are). I'm surprised to hear it's not junk. I always did consider the 17 round capacity to be over the top, simply not required by myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But I want one like Joe's.

You said you had one. (Grannie's .22.)You described your Dad's model, a Marlin. I may remember a picture of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2017 at 1:08 PM, mikewof said:

...the wacky world of PA gun shitfights.

Just some facts outta me, Mike, nothing but the facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is. I prefer my Ruger 10-22, since I don't like tube fed magazines on .22lr rifles, but your gun commands a premium these days because of the extra capacity.

Of course with my Ruger 25 round magazines, I have you beat in capacity, and ease of reloading.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Greever said:

Yes it is. I prefer my Ruger 10-22, since I don't like tube fed magazines on .22lr rifles, but your gun commands a premium these days because of the extra capacity.

Of course with my Ruger 25 round magazines, I have you beat in capacity, and ease of reloading.......

What became of the receiver project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greever said:

Tom, you can buy a squirrel assault rifle like Joes, but you have to buy a used one. They fetch a high price these days because of the extra capacity.

I know. I'm just messing with Joe and Mike. And pointing out that these rules do affect people like me, even if we don't live in New Jersey. That gun shouldn't fetch a high price in a sane world where people don't call it an "assault weapon" because of the scary 17 round tube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I know. I'm just messing with Joe and Mike. And pointing out that these rules do affect people like me, even if we don't live in New Jersey. That gun shouldn't fetch a high price in a sane world where people don't call it an "assault weapon" because of the scary 17 round tube.

How long will your suffering last Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Greever said:

Tom, you can buy a squirrel assault rifle like Joes, but you have to buy a used one. They fetch a high price these days because of the extra capacity.

Rockdog, I am not a hunter, but as I said, it is my understanding that the State of Michigan does not consider .22 caliber rifles to be powerful enough to provide for a humane kill. Not even the immensely powerful .223/5.56 is legal to hunt deer with...

A head shot with a lever action single shot .22 mag will down a white tail right quick.  But you sure as shit don't want people shooting those things within a long long long range of humans.  30-06 is much safer.  12 ga slug gun with unlimited capacity even more so.

As I recall, the warning on the box of .22 mags my dad had when I was a kid read "...travels up to 1 3/4 miles".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I can't buy an assault weapon like Joe's.

Marlin quit making them after what happened to Joseph Pelleteri in New Jersey.

Now they make a shorter .22 with a smaller fixed magazine that's legal in all 50 states.

But I want one like Joe's. And he doesn't seem to want to get rid of it. Besides, I want a new one. But until it's not considered an assault weapon in New Jersey any more, no one will make one.

Golly, I guess I was premature in suggesting that your life isn't all that different in this post-Gun-Control hell that we share. I didn't realize how much pain you have to endure with these First World problems.

I do understand your misery Normy. I wouldn't mind one of those Marlin 308 lever actions, with the blonde laminated stocks. But I have to pay bills and buy boat stuff, so I don't have one. I've been tortured every night for the past four years due to this item not being part of my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I want one like Joe's. And he doesn't seem to want to get rid of it. Besides, I want a new one.

 (armslist.com) For Sale: New Marlin model 60 (22LR)   $ 199  

  • Listed In: Rifles
  • Save to Favorites
    • Report illegal firearms activity to 1-800-ATF-GUNS or your local police department

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, if it's "new" than it's not an assault rifle like yours.

Mike, you lefties complain about voting and abortion laws in other states despite their not directly and immediately affecting you. Those of us who care about second amendment rights do the same thing you do. Why is it bad when we do it? Why did you claim that the gun bans and confiscation programs I have complained about and documented are "bogey men" and not real political issues?

I'll just add you to the growing list of people who say I'm complaining about nothing at all and have nothing at all to say about this summer's planned confiscation program in California. That's fine. Silently tolerate gun confiscation if you wish. Just don't try to tell me it's not happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Those of us who care about second amendment rights

You don't give a fuck about the Constitution tom-boy, you only care about yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So randumb, did you "discover" that keeping guns is dangerous immediately after your government told you to discover it or before?

Don't bother to answer, dupe. We know you did as told and only wish to act like you have a mind of your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in the country.  I have animals, I keep a gun in case I need to put one down, or defend young ones from predators. 

There are dingoes in these parts, but wandering domestic dogs are a worse problem.  They have on occasions, entered my place to chase calves and afterbirth, some didn't leave.  A side-mounted scope on a lever action 30-30 worked for them with hand loaded custom rounds.  Domestic dogs like to range in pairs, best to drop one and let the other go to tell the story.  I don't like killing.

Dingoes know better than to get inside 200m, but I like them anyway.  I see one at least once or twice a year.   We stop, look, and give each other a distant nod of understanding then we go separate ways.  I no longer have that weapon, no need, as the neighbours for quite some distance around don't let their dogs anywhere near my place.  The word-of-mouth of women is more effective than bullets.

But I am quite attached to a 22 Magnum with a nice scope.  It has a precise short reliable bolt action that is a pleasure to use.  It is very effective on feral cats I have found.  They need to be eliminated controlled to allow the Bandicoots to prosper.  But traps also work with less effort.

So my country's laws have not stopped me from owning the guns I need for the place I live.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. It was semi-autos that you discovered were dangerous, wasn't it?

And did that happen before or after your government told you to discover it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a really nice Browning semi-auto that broke my heart to sell to the government.  But I did, rather than hide it.  It went with some other guns in 1996 and I have not missed it, let alone needed, since.

But I have noticed a total absence of mass murders and a reduction in the per-capita deaths in this country as a result of those law changes.  I did my part as did tens (hundreds?) of thousands of other Australians who demonstrated that they do give a fuck about others.  We all have more mates to sail with as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So randumb...We know you did as told and only wish to act like you have a mind of your own.

Tom, if you hate doing as told, if you have a mind of your own, don't drive a car, or marry a woman. And Shirley, avoid militia entanglement.

Quote

(see P329)  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1705564

 Naturally, the debates over the 1792 National Militia Act and its subsequent amendments convey this understanding of federal-state power over the militia, and give great insight as to how the Founders viewed the “right to keep and bear arms” as a militia right. I say militia right because Supreme Court precedent differentiates between the Second Amendment in the constraints of a militia38 to that of lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home, and rightfully so.39

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Joe, if it's "new" than it's not an assault rifle like yours.

Same damn gun, diddums.

Armslist features the old model, identical to mine, and brand new. The Model 60. (The tube extends to the end of the longer 22""barrel. Conventional birch stock. No magazine receiver.)  Hey, my bad for not providing a link, whoops.

http://www.armslist.com/posts/6589034/raleigh-north-carolina-rifles-for-sale--new-marlin-model-60--22lr-

POOPLIUS ALERT.  Did you not once claim that you possess your dad's "Model 60"? WTF?

FIRING RATE FOR SHOOTIST JEFF  Firing rate per wiki: "less than 2 seconds per shot, typical". (Jeff maintains that all semi-auto's are as fast as a typical finger.)

 

new_marlin_model_60_22lr__.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

piYou are wrong, diddums.

 

Armslist features the old model, identical to mine, and brand new. The Model 60. (The tube extends to the end of the longer 22""barrel. Conventional birch stock. No magazine receiver.)  Hey, my bad for not providing a link, whoops.

FIRING RATE FOR SHOOTIST JEFF  Firing rate per wiki: "less than 2 seconds per shot, typicall"

 

 

This guy shoots 10 rounds in 6.5 seconds from an old WW1 Lee Enfield, do you consider this bolt action gun to be rapid fire?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8

 

Since you crap on about guns and didn't know the difference between rimfire and centrefire perhaps you should seek professional help for your Hoplophobia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

This guy shoots 10 rounds in 6.5 seconds from an old WW1 Lee Enfield, do you consider this bolt action gun to be rapid fire?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8

 

Since you crap on about guns and didn't know the difference between rimfire and centrefire perhaps you should seek professional help for your Hoplophobia.

How would my life (or yours) be better by my knowing the difference between rimfire and centerfire? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Two Marlin 60's.

Only one is an assault weapon.

marlins-99.jpg

You are correct. But we find there are three models. The top photo is my '70's version. The first, mid-eighties adaptation is the lower one in your shot (with the longer 22" barrel and shorter magazine. The Armslist photo has the 19" barrel over the shorter tube. Of course, no decent wanker would be satisfied by this 14 round model.

How about a photo of the Model 60 which you said was in your possession (IIRC).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

How would my life (or yours) be better by my knowing the difference between rimfire and centerfire? 

How can you claim to have firearm knowledge when you don't understand simple things like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

How can you claim to have firearm knowledge when you don't understand simple things like this?

I make no pretense at being a gunsmith or gun aficionado. But I've owned and enjoyed plinkers, and once applied myself to be good at shooting for a bit.

I pride myself on needing to know very little about guns, they are pathetic IMO. My knowledge base gets drawn to the psychology of those attracted to guns, and the outcomes of that attraction. You are as mesmerized by guns as they come, IMO. Good luck with better firepower vs. 24 million wild pigs you crybaby.

I found the amazing fence in the pig butchering photo to be more impressive than the Bin Lyin presentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

How would my life (or yours) be better by my knowing the difference between rimfire and centerfire? 

My limited knowledge on this is that rimfire is the newer method, it was developed so that the bullets could be stacked head-to-tail in the feed tube of a lever-action, without a bump setting them off. The tip of the round can bang the back of the round in front of it without setting off the cap.

But I might have this all wrong.

I do find the psychology more interesting than the "tools" too. For instance, I really want that lever-action Marlin, even though I have no actual need for it, the guns I have are sufficient, and I barely use those either. Why do I find it appealing? I just find the machining in it to be beautiful, an expression of craftsmanship and artistry, not in a handmade way, but rather in a mass-produced industrial way. I have a few pens, Snap-on wrenches and outdoor equipment that I find similarly appealing; just gorgeous examples of good industrial design. 

But at the same time, I no longer take any pleasure in firing them like I did when I was a kid. As a teenager, I loved to burn though a box of ammo, I loved the noise and I liked to see my accuracy and abilities at the range improve. But now it's a hassle ... getting to the range, buying the ammo, cleaning the filthy military round residue out of the gun, re-oiling it. It's a chore. But when I was a kid, it gave me an undeniable feeling of personal power that I couldn't get any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

My limited knowledge on this is that rimfire is the newer method, it was developed so that the bullets could be stacked head-to-tail in the feed tube of a lever-action, without a bump setting them off. The tip of the round can bang the back of the round in front of it without setting off the cap.

But I might have this all wrong.

 

Good insight on tube feeders needing rimfire. Sounds right. I have lived a fine life without understanding that bit up to this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, the receiver project turned out just fine thanks. However since I built a "retro" style gun with a heavy 20" barrell, fixed butt stock, rifle length gas system, carry handle iron sights, it turned out quite heavy. My Mini-14 is more fun to shoot, but it tears up brass, so I tend to shoot the AR-15 more often, and shoot reloads through the Mini-14. I will probably build a modern style "M forgery" for my next AR, but that may be a while since I seem to be fixated on "Cowboy" guns lately. Something like a revolver, and a lever action rifle, that share the same cartridge, will probably be my next purchase. Maybe next year?

 

Tom: I know you know the difference between the two guns, I am just trying to keep the gun threads current, since I am sick of all the Trump threads.

 

Rockdog: I know the .22lr is a deadly cartridge, but not many recreational hunters are good shots. Most shoot a box or two of ammo per year and all of the deer hunters at work that I have talked to seem to think that since the gun shop lazer bore sighted their scope, that they are good to go. That means they are shooting through scopes that are not even zeroed properly.

 

Mike: center fire cartridges mostly replaced rim fire , because rim fire is considered an unreliable ignition system, some rim fires even have two strikers to give you a better chance of igniting the cartridge. I get duds all the time from rimfire, but have never had one from a center fire cartridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's to be done regarding the hairless monkeys, the species that destroyed the Great Barrier Reef, etc., etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Good insight on tube feeders needing rimfire. Sounds right. I have lived a fine life without understanding that bit up to this point. 

My 30/30 has a tube magazine. But not pointy bullets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just in case you didn't know Joe, 30/30 is a center fire cartridge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Greever said:

I seem to be fixated on "Cowboy" guns lately. Something like a revolver, and a lever action rifle, that share the same cartridge, will probably be my next purchase. Maybe next year?

IIRC, the wild west characters often went with the .44 so the same ammo would work in handguns or rifles. On the left here, a .308 Winchester round:

 

8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

My 30/30 has a tube magazine. But not pointy bullets.

Your carbine's setup is similar to the Winchester '94. How does that work?  On the left here, a .308 Winchester round:

 

Marlin ,308 Expresses.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 0:13 AM, mikewof said:

Change your gun laws, not my business, not my country, I don't care.

But you can be sure that the number of countries willing to allow your wild boar meat and wild goat meat will continue to dwindle. We usually don't allow wild meat to be sold for food here (except aquatic) because of prions and other weird effects.

 But if you attach junk science and junk math to your gun argument as you have done here, you're weakening your position.

But I also understand basic arithmetic. If anything, hunt all the small pigs there and trap and sterilize the big sows. At least you have a chance with the math t