How many members would like a firearms discussion area

ever see the movie called "Breaker Morant" when some Australians serving with their British Overlords in the Boer war were scapegoated for harsh measures against the Boers?

[video=youtube;Aj8N8Nvv6ys]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj8N8Nvv6ys[/video]

 

I'm still on dial-up, so my PC doesn't do video. Never saw that flick.
There was a story I read years ago, before the internet, about the record for elephant kills being 1,066 in a contest where the guy was shooting a .30'06. I can't find any mention of it now.
I find some interesting reading in the process of looking for it, like "it's not unusual to find smaller bullets in a downed elephants' skull", meaning that others had tried and failed to kill it in the past.

 

You're probably thinking about Bell, who shot 1011 and perfected his "shot" using a 318 Westley Richards. You're right about finding lots of "junk" inside elephants.

 

There's a couple of things here that I need to add. The 9.3 X 62 Mauser round could be chambered in the relatively cheap and plentiful standard 98 Mauser action so the rifles along with very high quality ammo was plentiful and just anyone who could afford a standard mauser could buy one. The 375 H&H would have probably been a footnote if it wasn't for WW1.
The British used the lightweight Browning machine gun in its aircraft for much of WW2 and could have had the weapon in the much more effective and faster firing 30.06. Instead they chambered it in the 303. The 303 was a highly effective man killer because the round was unstable and would yaw and sometime fragment, especially at close ranges. Even with armor piercing bullets the ammo was unstable and had very great difficulty penetrating even the thinnest of German armor plate that the their planes carried. It was still considered "adequate" till the Spits ran into the heavier armored FW 109's in the channel fights after the BoB. They had to add cannon then.

 

It's amazing he only needed on average 1.5 shots per elephant and 800 he shot with the .275 Rigby.

You would think even with the high velocity it wouldn't be enough but obviously it was.

I would think he would have to know EXACTLY where to have the round penetrate as we are talking about an elephant.

I could never personally shoot an elephant and I have seen them in the wild.

It sicken's me to think of those poachers who still kill them for their Ivory but as well there are many parts of Elephants and Rhino's that the Chinese use from everything for Sexual Enhancement...etc.

As far as the .22 round that opens up sensing a pressure wave....I read a portion or an article I never finished and I cannot seem to find it again so I thought I would ask.

AboveAlpha

 

One other thing....the biggest problem you encounter with the M4 with the 5.56 is CQB you want to drop the guy. You also don't want to have a guy who you have already shot multiple times still standing firing at you.

You could drop them on Full Auto but if your like me in the middle of freakin' nowhere and with a limited amount of ammo you can carry....well I prefer one shot if possible as we don't even set up for short bursts if we don't have to.

Out in the open we are OVERLORD Protected as we make sure to have at MINIMUM 2 Snipers and I have these guy's set up several day's in advance in possible.

They use the Barrett M82's and we use all sorts of custom .50 Cal. Rounds and the Team just knowing they have those guy's looking out for them gives them confidence upon levels you could hardly imagine.

The biggest threat we face is RPG's as the damn things are easy enough for a child to use and damn well effective.

But if you want to get in and get out and do it as quickly and quietly as possible....the last thing you want to do is have to repeadly shoot someone who is dead but just doesn't know it yet.

AboveAlpha

 

I vote yes, as the moderator stated; discussion of guns or ammo themselves would actually be considered as off topic in the Gun Control Section, so why not have a Section for those that wish to discuss guns and ammo. I would consider it as balance for the site and by the way it is fairly common on many sites similar to this one.

 

yes I would

 

Nope, this a political forum and not a "guns" forum. I'm all in for guns and 2nd Amendment and if you want some gun forums, I have several that I visit if you need recommendations.

Besides, why would you want a "guns" section here that any liberal that hates guns can get into a troll when you can go to a forum dedicated to the topic that nearly everyone on the forum is there for.

 

Incorrect, go up and click on List All Forums and you will see that Politics is only one part of this site.

Trolling is a fact of life on all Forums, deal with it by ignoring them and by the way not all gun haters are Libs and not all Libs are gun haters.

 

not all libs are gun haters. radical leftwing famous attorney Ron Kuby of NYC was-at the time we were friends-a strong advocate of people carrying firearms. he saw gun control (correctly) as an attempt by urban elites to disarm the poor.

However, every GRABOID in public office who has pushed gun bans is on the leftwing side of the ledger. The worst you see from some conservatives who pushed laws generally designed to disarm groups like the black panthers etc or to keep them carrying in public. But stuff like the Clinton gun ban and the attempts to renew it, is almost exclusively the province of Democrats and a few well known RINOS

every gun banning group in the USA is leftwing. indeed, one of the ways you can determine if an organization is a gun banning organization or supports gun bans is one that sees white conservative Christian males as their enemies or opponents because that group of white conservative Christian males is perceived to be equivalent to gun owners by these leftwing groups

 

so you see this as political persecution against white christian conservatives?

 

gun control certainly is not motivated by its main advocates for crime control

 

just like Voter ID laws are not motivated by a desire to crack down on voter fraud.

just like Abortion restrictions are not motivated by a love of children or of Life.

 

I agree with you on abortion. many of those who want to ban abortion claim their motivation is to protect innocent life when in reality they despise the politics or lifestyle of those they perceive as seeking abortions. Abortion and guns have lots in common: the most vehement opponents of both are often incredibly dishonest as to their real motivations.

 

i disagree.

i think many of them are motivated by a simple desire to regulate the lives of all women.

 

either way, the stated motivations are not congruent with the real motivations

Just like most gun banners

 

yes, you suspect sinister conspiratorial motivations to persecute right-wingers.

we all understand that

 

tell me Ron, why is it that gun laws that mainly impact honest gun owners almost exclusively advocated by left-wingers?

why do the people who are least likely to support harsh laws on criminals are usually the same people who push gun bans

why is it the politicians who pander to black voters almost always support gun control'

why is it that Graboids in office spend far more time whining about the NRA than armed urban gangsters?

 

because its a secret Communist/UN/Zionist conspiracy to disarm the American people to the point that their resistance against an invasion will be futile.

The Truth is Out There!!!

 

I suspect you realize that such an answer only proves my point

 

but im right, u know.

 

you haven't denied my points

just saying........

 

there's nothing logical or rational to deny.

you suspect a sinister conspiracy to disarm white christian heterosexual right-wingers, so as to allow a UN/Zionist/Communist invasion.

kinda hard to deny something soo silly

 

I voted yes, but the reality is the anti-gun lunatics will invade any sub-forum and pollute it regardless of its intent...