Explain the difference between Hunting Guns and Other guns (and associated legislation)

Factual Questions
1

Hello all,
Long story short, ever since I have visited the USA and shot my first pistol in a firing range, I have been interested in acquiring firearms in my European homeland.

However I am confused by legislation and gun ownership.
Basically I initially thought firearms were completely outlawed in Europe except in Czech Republic.

However, gun ownership is actually allowed I believe in most EU countries except the UK, if they fall under the hunting weapons category.

So my questions to American and other gun-experts are:

  • What is actually the difference between a Hunting firearm and a non-hunting firearm?
  • I know this sounds stupid but: Can’t you just aswell kill someone with a hunting firearm as with a regular firearm? Isn’t it actually more likely since hunting bullets are larger (I believe)? So why is legislation against 'regular" guns and pro hunting guns?

Bonus question: Can you give me the low-down on gun ownership in Europe, where its allowed, etc? Did I get it right with Czech? How about Australia and Canada, I heard these two are as strict as the UK on guns.

2

Here’s the wiki page that has the rundown of all the gun laws in the EU although you might want to double check elsewhere if there’s a specific country you’re interested in: Overview of gun laws by nation - Wikipedia

In general, things like shotguns and rifles that don’t reload themselves (i.e. bolt actions instead of semiautos) are seen as being both legitimately useful for hunting and less useful for crime. They will shoot you just as dead as a handgun, but being harder to conceal and slower to reload limits their usefulness to criminals. In many countries, you also have to be able to demonstrate to the authorities that you are actually a hunter or interested in hunting to be issued a permit for one of those weapons.

There are other reasons why you can be allowed to buy a gun in most gun-restrictive countries, but hunting is usually the most common. There’s things like target shooting or antique collecting but, again, the gun has to match the reason. Semiauto handguns and revolvers are usually hard to get permitted for because self-defense usually isn’t seen as an acceptable reason and those are the types of guns are the most commonly used in crimes.

3

U.S. gun legislation is a quagmire of politics. Pretty much anything said on that subject leads straight into IMHO or GD territory, so I’m not going to go there.

I will say that there are some distinctions between hunting and non-hunting weapons that do make a lot of sense. Automatic weapons, defined as a weapon that fires more than one shot for a single pull of the trigger, typically have no use in hunting. Short range weapons like pistols and riot shotguns also aren’t very practical for hunting.

When you start trying to figure out exactly where to draw the line, though, that’s when things stop making a lot of sense. The problem is that folks try to make a distinction between a military style weapon that is designed to kill people, and a hunting weapon which is designed to kill animals. The reality is that anything designed to kill a deer will also kill a man just as easily.

This picture clearly illustrates some of the silliness in U.S. politics and legislation:

The top rifle is clearly a military weapon, and is therefore an “assault weapon” and should be illegal. The bottom rifle is a hunting rifle, and should be legal. The catch? They are the same weapon. It’s just that one has a military style plastic stock on it and the other has a traditional smooth wooden stock on it.

In order to be useful for hunting, a weapon has to be reasonably long range (typically accurate to 100 yards or more) and it has to do enough damage to reliably kill an animal. There are obviously different types of hunting weapons. You don’t need a large caliber round against a squirrel. If you shot a squirrel with a typical round used against deer, there wouldn’t be much left of the squirrel, and that kinda ruins the point of hunting the squirrel if you intend on eating it. On the other hand, a round designed to kill a squirrel will probably just wound a deer without killing it, which is just cruel. So many states have laws about what caliber of weapon you can use against certain types of game. The point is though that the size of the round doesn’t determine whether the weapon is designed for hunting or some other purpose. A hunting weapon can be anything from a varmint gun to an elephant gun.

The U.S. does not operate under a single set of rules. Each state has its own rules. So exactly how things are defined in the U.S. generally results in 50 different answers simultaneously. My state (Pennsylvania) classifies weapons as handguns, rifles and shotguns (basically, hunting weapons), “offensive weapons” (those which are required to be registered under the National Firearms Act, like automatic weapons and short barreled shotguns), and antique weapons (which includes modern replicas, as long as they follow the same design). Handguns require paperwork. Hunting weapons are basically not restricted, nor are antique weapons. “Offensive weapons” are more tightly regulated.

Other states will vary significantly.

I have no idea what the legal distinctions are in Europe. Heck, I can’t even keep up with all of the different states over here. I know my state and the surrounding states, but I’d have to look up the laws for anything else.

4

I see.
Thats quite interesting.

I kind of see a more or less clear distinction between military weapons and hunting weapons:

  • Automatic
  • Easy to conceal (revolvers, sawed off shotguns, etc)
  • And other factors.

I also understand I think that in USA, semi-auto rifles are perfectly authorized for most states.

While in Europe, even for hunting, you can only use bolt action and not even semi-auto?

Thats strange…Because I definitely thought Semi-Auto was allowed in many EU countries, I think its just that the magazine can only hold a ridiculously low amount of bullets.

My main point of uncertainty now is…Where exactly you draw the line between a hunting weapon, and semi-auto or bolt action rifles?

I really didnt imagine that the looks and features/options on the gun itself (stock, material, looks, etc) would influence this judgement.
But obviously people are ridiculously stupid, as in the argument shown in your attached picture: Obviously its the mecanism ITSELF which defines the weapon, not the added features or looks of it.

I guess to solve my argument from a European point of view…I will have to look into what exactly is defined as a hunting firearm. I am personally interested in hunting.
Its funny I would have imagined that many features (except full auto) would make sense for hunting. I really dont understand why semi-auto version of assault rifles would not fit the bill.

5

There are two types of difference between hunting and military rifles, practical and political. Practically military rifles need to be lighter, since they are carried everywhere, and have a capacity for a large magazine, since they are designed for sustained periods of combat. Hunting rifles need to be accurate at long distances and take a large bullet to kill quickly. Hunting rifles are typically deadlier than military rifles but are more difficult to schlep. Handguns are not military weapons except as a last resort. They are used for personal protection, law enforcement, or crime.
Politically in the US the definition of an assualt rifle had to do with how the weapon looked. Collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and flash suppressors all made a rifle an assualt weapon.

6

If you want to know about hunting regulations in Europe, your best choice would be to search the regulations/laws in the country you intend to hunt. Specifically, can you keep your firearm in your home? What fees/taxes do you have to pay in order to own and/or shoot your firearm? How often do you have to register your firearm? Are there any public lands available for hunting/shooting or do you have to join a private club? How much does that cost?

As to the effectiveness of a firearm for hunting, there is no effective (bullet placement/accuracy and bullet performance) difference between military small arms and hunting firearms except when some government or political party decides to invent one. Military small arms and hunting firearms use the same cartridge but bullet selection is usually different.

FYI - Automatic weapon (machine gun, sub-machine gun) means a weapon that will fire more than one round per trigger pull. A semi-automatic (semi-auto) firearm means that the firearm will reload another round into the chamber without additional action by the shooter.

Bullet selection makes a big difference in how effective a particular cartridge is for hunting or self-defense or target shooting. Military arms require a full-metal jacket (FMJ) except when it doesn’t. The hollow point expanding bullet became popular when it was created by the Dum Dum Arsenal, near Calcutta, India in 1896. The “expanding” bullet was later restricted from military use.

Military rounds and rifles/pistols have always been popular with U.S. shooters and hunters. The WWI M1917 Springfield used the .30-06 Springfield cartridge, same as the WWII M1 Garand. The M14 used the .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO. The Vietnam era M16 used the .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO. All of these rounds became popular hunting and target rounds. The same can be said for the .45 ACP and 9mm Luger.

7

There really is no difference. A hunting rifle can be either bolt action or semi-auto.

Any difference in the law is purely a political matter. A jurisdiction may define a particular type of gun as something, for various reasons, even when there is no practical difference.

There’s really not much more we can do to help you. The best thing you can do now is to find out the laws in the particular jurisdiction that you’re interested in. If you’re not sure how to do that, a Google search will at least point you in the right direction.

8

The line is drawn by the hunting regulations and laws wherever you wish to hunt. Any practical or functional differences are very hard to define. I’ve read several posters erroneously write that handguns are not hunting tools. Incorrect. Handguns are allowed by law in most US states for both small and large game hunting. My state allows revolvers and single-shot pistols, but does not allow semi-auto pistols. It also does not allow semi-auto rifles, but does allow semi-auto shotguns. Other states allow semi-auto pistols and rifles.

I’ve hunted deer many times with a .44 magnum revolver, and know people who use single-shot rifle-caliber pistols. To confuse things ever further, the .44 magnum round was designed for and mostly used in revolvers, but there are rifles that fire the same exact cartridge. So, would someone argue that this cartridge is appropriate for hunting when fired from a rifle, but not from a revolver?

In the end, you need to look at jurisdictional hunting and firearm laws to define what is suitable for hunting. You can’t look at the form, function or appearance of a firearm to determine this.

9

Or lever action.

10

This was very helpful.
I realized the confusion really stemmed from the political aspect of the issue, rather than reality.

Its pretty astonishing to me that politicians will try to implement legislation without really understanding how the firearm in question works, what really is meant by assault vs. hunting weapons, etc.

It’s definitely not perfect by any means I guess.

11

That pretty much sums up gun laws in a nutshell. Ineffective, foolish and counterproductive laws passed by people who lack knowledge and experience regarding the very items they are legislating. Very few of the most strident opponents of gun rights have much knowledge about firearms. Just look at some of the public comments that indicate incredible confusion regarding bullet vs. cartridge vs. magazine.

12

Or black powder.

13

This picture is misleading to the point of lying. The differences are not just cosmetic. For starters, the top one has a grenade launcher mount. which obviously is a pretty big functional difference. Beyond that, the top one has a folding stock, which makes it easier to conceal. It has a pistol grip, which, along with the folding stock, makes it somewhat more effective in tight spaces.

14

Honestly, the only difference between a hunting and combat arm is the shooter.

15

There’s no grenade launcher mount. If you mean the rails, that’s for mounting various accessories like lights and/or optics. How many crimes have been committed with a grenade launcher?

The pistol grip is needed as you can’t otherwise work the trigger with a straight line stock.
Notice both rifles are the same length. The stock doesn’t provide more than a few inches adjustment.
The main purpose is to adjust the distance from shoulder to trigger hand to suit different sized shooters.

16

And the ammo perhaps. You could put “birdshot” loads into basically any firearm and use it for bird hunting.

17

Lying? Really? It’s obvious that you have no idea what you are looking at.

There is no grenade launcher mount on either rifle. Those are Picatinny Rail mounts on the top one for attaching lights and sights. They wouldn’t be able to withstand the recoil of a grenade launcher and were never intended to.

The top one has a “telescoping” stock, not a “folding” stock.

The pistol grip actually makes the top rifle “more” bulky and difficult to conceal. The slender profile of the “lower” rifle would be easier to conceal.

BOTH rifles fire the exact same .223 Remington / 5.56 NATO cartridges with the exact same bullet selections.

Neither rifle is more/less effective as a hunting/target/self-defense rifle than the other one.

18

I do not claim to be a firearms expert, but even a rank amatuer like me can see that a pistol grip and a different type of stock are not cosmetic changes. They are functional differences that change how the weapon can be used, transported, and concealed. Pretending those rifles are the same except for appearances is silly. Whether those differences mean that the rifle should be banned is a separate question.

19

They are the same base rifle.
Like I explained, the military style stock requires the pistol grip for the user to properly reach the trigger. The straight stock on the original M-16 (full-auto) was to reduce muzzle climb during full auto fire. it has little effect on semi-auto.

The stock does not fold, rather it telescopes 4 inches, not really much more concealable. It’s still 34 inches long.

Stretch out one arm to the side. From your fingertips to just past the center of your chest ( more or less). Where do you hide that? And the wood stock rifle is only 4 inches longer.

ETA: M203 grenade launcher. Show me where this mounts on the rifle.

20

(bolding added)

Thanks for identifying yourself as not being a firearms expert.

How is a stock made from wood functionally different than one made from nylon/plastic?

The barrel, reciever, and magazine (aka the working parts of the rifle) are exactly the same for both rifles. Both rifles fire the exact same cartridges.

You could remove either/both stocks and you would still be able to fire both rifles.