I don’t want to get into all the gun control issues, but what is the advantage of having an automatic or semi-automatic rifle for hunting? Not being a gun person or a hunter, it seems to me that:
1- The more automatic something is, the more it must cost and the more likely it is to break down.
2- If you miss your first shot with a deer, he’s going to bolt and that second shot, no matter how quickly you take it, is going to be much harder.
My questions for the hunting crowd- are these assumptions reasonable? Do more automatic rifles cost more than the bolt-lever type? Are they more prone to mechanical failure? And is the ability to take a quick second shot valuable for a hunter? The engineer in me is by nature cheap, and if I was a hunter I’d be after the cheapest weapon to do the job.
Not looking to inflame a gun debate here, I’m just trying to understand a little more about guns and hunting.
If you want the cheapest rifle available for deer hunting the SKS is probably it, easily cheaper than a new bolt action rifle by a factor of three. It also uses 7.62x39mm ammunition which gives much less recoil impulse than a typical hunting rifle in 30-06. Not as well suited to long range shots more common in the west but tree stand hunting doesn’t require long range shots.
The fact that it is semi-automatic also further reduces the hard kick. Gas operated semi autos do have more moving parts but that doesn’t make them particularly trouble prone.
From what I’ve heard, it wouldn’t. The SKS Mr. Vang used had a fixed magazine, so it could not be considered an assult weapon by any means(Except in Califronia).
Semi-Autos are usally, but not always more expensive. They are somewhat more complex and thus more likely to break down, but really only makes a difference in how often they need to be cleaned and how many rounds expended will lead to a breakdown.
In terms of how often one is likely to fire when hunting, it really doesn’t matter.
Thanks for the reply. So with proper maintenance they aren’t likely to act up? Also, I’m just curious if you need to hit the deer with the first shot. If the first misses, I assume he’d run away from the noise and present a pretty small and fast moving target for shot 2.
In my limited experience with “Assault Weapons,” the ammunition magazine may have more effect on functional reliability that the mechanical action of the weapon. I have a few cheap magazines for my AR-15, and they cause frequent jams, whereas my more expensive (better made) magazines feed extremely reliable.
In extremely cold weather, the very lubricants may cause malfunctions as they get progressively viscous, but this tends to be true for just about any mechanical action firearm. I think this is more a problem for the military than your average hunter, though.
Thanks. This is all very interesting from a mechanical standpoint. I hadn’t considered the viscosity of the lubricants- how much thicker is that stuff than ordinary motor oil?
Most ordinary lube is probably little different than 3-in-1. There are silicon- and petroleum-based lubes available, most also indicating that they are also compatible with light machinery (sewing machines, fishing reels, bicycle gears, etc).
Having never been stationed in the Arctic (or Antarctic), I never saw any of the special lubes the military uses for seriously cold weather; I did see a passing reference to them once in a manual, many years ago, but don’t recollect anything special about them or their viscosity ratings.
Some, like Break Free CLP ™, claim to clean, lubricate and protect (hence the name).
Any reasonably accurate action will be succeptible to foreign contamination; rifles like the M-16/AR-15 have dust covers over their action which automatically pop open when you fire to allow the spent cartridge to be ejected.
Semi-Auto rifles (and their sub-group, “Assault Weapons”) may not be as accurate as a bolt-action hunting rifle, but they are usually more than accurate enough for most open-field hunting in North America.
Here in eastern Missouri, typical zero is 100 yards. It often makes me wonder why the hell anyone bothers with mounting a scope. I’m nearsighted, and even I don’t need a scope to hit center-mass on a man-sized target at 100 yards with my AR-15.
I personally see nothing wrong with using an “Assault Weapon” with a 20-round clip for hunting, even if I personally wouldn’t use one.
::Walks in looking around wide-eyed. “So this is Great Debates…it’s much greater and…debate-ier than I imagined.”::
Very interesting and informative responses, I appreciate them all.
I’ll say. I’m a hunter myself and I wouldn’t even want to try getting into some of my stands drunk. I don’t drink anything while actually hunting. My hunting drinks of choice are either coffee or cocao, and it’s after I’ve come in from the stand. Nothing to shock a deer (or a bystander) more than someone peeing from 15 feet in the air onto dry leaves. Albeit fun, and superb distance and arc can be achieved. But I’ll save the hot toddy for after the evening hunt.
[small sideline since you mentioned hunting]
Tagged my deer today… whee!! A Whitetail with a big ole flag on 'im. Five points on one side, 4 on the other. 21 1/2" Main beam, 18 3/4" at the widest span, 16" from tip to tip. Good eating for the winter.
[/small sideline since you mentioned hunting] JayJay, Unbelievable stuff on that site, frontier-era rifles are exactly what I’m looking for. I’ve looked at Cabela’s online as well, they have some nice rifles too. Thanks for the link, that’s some sweet action.
See, and it’s facts like this that, to me, discredit the WAVE even more. I would submit that it may have been even easier for the lunatic had it been a (readily available) handgun that was used instead of running around with a long barreled and clumsy rifle. And what about all the murders that happen during the year with knives, handguns, or like dotchan mentioned, a baseball bat? They’re certainly not banning those…yet. It just doesn’t seem that their impetus is well reasoned.
Thanks again, I’m learning quite a bit. I assume that zero at 100 yards is such that if you aim at a target exactly 100 yards away with the crosshairs centered on the target, you’ll hit it dead on? Conversely, at less than 100 yards you’ll aim a wee bit lower because the bullet won’t have as much time to fall? And then again, at more than 100 yards you need to aim higher?
Technically. Most hunting ammunition is of sufficient velocity that drop is negligible at 100 yards. For the most part, all bullets drop vertically the exact same amount for any given unit of time (gravity). The variable is bullet velocity, and how well it retains that velocity as expressed by it’s ballistic coefficient.)
Obviously, a faster bullet will travel further horizontally than a slower bullet for any given unit of vertical “drop.” For weapons zeroed at further ranges (200, 300 yards), a shooter would have to take into account the over/under factor for ranges different than their zero.
If the shooter was hunting with his SKS, he was probably using ammunition similar to this.
Compared to the “classic,” the .30-.30, you can see differences in velocity and energy over distance. Delivered energy is probably more important to a hunter, and the shape of the bullet has an appreciable effect on that; velocity is an important function, but only one of several.
Hunting rounds are designed with a different end-effect in mind than standard military ammo (as per Geneva Convention).
These folks are just chock-full of good info. The thing about ballistic coefficient came from the Rifle section. Ignore the political stuff further down the page; any gun geezer (and I’m no exception) will have a political opinion about gun control, but since the questions so far have been factual, I’ll keep it on that level.
Exactly. Cleaning the gun after each range/hunting session is probably more then enough. And no doubt you’re going to fire more at the range then during any hunting session. If you’re not, you’re doing something wrong.
The deer is going to take off once the first shot is fired, though what direction he takes off could provide a possibility of a follow up. For example, if the deer begins running directly towards or away from you, you might be able to get him with a follow up but not if the deer runs at a perpendicular angle.
So it’s best to make a kill with a single shot, but a 2nd shot might be possible in some situations.
Granted, I’m guessing somewhat here. I’ve only been hunting a couple times and never fired, partially due to not seeing any deer…and partially due to some stupidity on my part that prevented me from getting a shot off at an obvious target.
Something else I forgot to mention about the semi-auto’s that might make them more advantageous in a hunting situation: the second shot (thank you HPL for nudging my thinking a bit).
When shooting large caliber handguns in tactical situations, people talk about “recovery time.” A heavy recoil increases recovery time, decreasing time-between-shots. So most people advocate intermediate calibers for tactical shooting.
A similar difference applies to rifles. A bolt-action rifle, while possibly being more accurate overall than it’s semi-auto siblings, will be slower on the recovery for a second shot (should one present itself) than the semi-auto due to the firer having to manually cycle the action.
Snipers and military sharpshooters learn how to do this extremely well, so the impact is minimal for them.
Rifles like the SKS, that were designed by the Soviets, have a different design philosophy than many Western firearms. They were designed to be reliable even if poorly maintained, abused, dragged through the mud, etc., by a soldier with limited training and resources. Huge numbers of these rifles were manufactured by the Warsaw Pact and China.
Western rifles, in general, tend to be more accurate, expensive, and have tighter tolerances. They need regular cleaning, lubrication and maintenance to operate reliably. The M16, and civilian AR-15, are fine rifles. They will jam and malfunction if not properly maintained.
Bolt-action rifles have been obsolete for most military purposes since the end of World War II. Many hunters use surplus bolt-action rifles from World War I and World War II, but these have become increasingly difficult to find and expensive. They used to be plentiful and dirt-cheap in comparison to commercial rifles.
One advantage of a semi-automatic rifle is that you can take a quick second shot without losing your sight picture due to manipulating the bolt to load the next cartridge.
If I wanted to buy a cheap deer rifle, I would seriously consider the SKS. They are cheap, plentiful, reliable and the cartridge is adequate for deer at short distances. I would rather have a German World War I Mauser bolt-action rifle, but at current prices I might as well buy a new Remington or Winchester bolt-action rifle.
But I’ll save the hot toddy for after the evening hunt.