"I seriously doubt your uncle shot ducks on the wing with a rifle."

Umm... yes, he did. I was just a young kid, but his friends seemed to think it was some kind of a joke, because they were always razzing him about it. One guy asked if he did any competition target shooting, and another guy laughed and said my uncle didn't, because there was no fun in hitting a target that didn't move.

This was in the old days when uncles could "babysit" in a bar as long as the kid didn't have beer in the bottle.

It's all I can do to keep the car between the lines on the road. I guess all my eye/hand coordination came from the other side of the family. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Sue

20 years experince, thank you for asking.

Oh, I assure you, my thumb fits in the chamber of either, and I can't tell the shells apart by feel when I'm fully awake. If we are talking about a defensive firearm, you might want to be able to do whatever you need to by touch if you have to. I don't expect people to be able to clean and strip blind folded, but able to find the right ammo and get them in is something I'd consider worthwhile.

Well, rand, I wouldn't speak too soon. It used to be a pretty common bit of the trick shooter's shtick in wild west shows to shoot doves or clays with a pistol or a carbine.



This message has been edited. The origional posting contained a most unseemly display of temper, and I apologise to anyone who saw it. Congrats, rand, you got my goat.

Re taking bird on the ground: Where I live, it is actually illegal to take sporting birds (pheasant, quail, etc.) on the ground. As well it should be.

Do shotguns tear up the fowl? For the most part, no. Once in a while, yes, but experienced gunners learn not to take those shots. Even on a shot that does tear up some meat, you can salvage 3/4 of the meat on a given bird with a pair of game shears and a filet knife.

Re using a rifle on flying birds: It can be done. I've seen a couple guys good enough that they could do it with some consistency if they wanted to. Could probably do it myself on some shots (a flaring bird in close isn't actually a very tough shot). Still, it is ill-advised and dangerous ... a lowly .22-caliber long-rifle shell can travel 1.5 miles in the air, and they gotta come down somewhere. Also, a warden catches you with rifle shells in the blind, you may have some big trouble, as waterfowl hunting is both state and federally regulated.

Re defense: I can see ironsraven's points about shells in the dark, storage etc. I never looked at it that way because I haven't had to. My sporting guns are locked away unloaded; my defense gun is not not locked away and is loaded (no kids at the house). I agree: I would not keep shotguns of two different gauges at hand for defensive purposes.

Sorry about all the "re"s and the definitive statements; i'm no expert; just trying to share my opinions on several topics quickly.

Yeah, but you gotta admit it is rare, rare.

Raven,

I don't want to get into some sort of pissing match over a silly subject. but as of last month I've been doing this for 41 years, 20 or so of that time with EDC. All I can say is that everydoby's level of skill, dexterity, and manual sensitivity is different.

It's all a matter of practice and familiarity. At one time I could tell the difference between a low-power .38 sub-load and a hot .357 by feel in the loops in the back of my belt - but I wouldn't want to depend on it any more because I'm out of practice.

Folks need to try to get over their testosterone load when it comes to weapons and truly evaluate their skill set. Then, either enlarge their skills, or limit themselves accordingly.

Isn't tungsten a heavy metal?

The various types of non-toxic shot approved for waterfowl are listed here, including tungsten:

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/nontoxic_shot/nontoxic.htm

The article I read regarding tungsten shot was interesting and I wish I could remember the writer. His opinion was that the FWS mandating steel shot was a blessing in disguise for waterfowlers. It forced ammo companies to develop new and improved shot wads, buffers, and propellants in order to make steel shot perform at an acceptable level. Now that bismuth and tungsten have been developed, which are much denser than steel (although still not as dense as lead), the result is a much better overall package than what was available 20 years ago with the old-fashioned lead shot.

Regards, Vince

I can't speak for your uncle, don't know him, but I don't doubt it one bit, I knew two different farmers (long gone on to better hunting grounds now) that regularly took low flying geese with a .22... it might not have been legal, but they kept their families fed, and sporting or not, I won't judge a fellow for putting food on the plate.

Troy

Raven, as randjack said, I, too, do not want to get into a pissing match. It's not necessarily a question of the non-lethal load being illegal, but a question of litigious liability. In today's world, you can be sued for yelling at a burgular. No, they might not win, but you might spend about $70,000 defending yourself (which happens to be a current estimate for defending yourself in a righteous shooting).

People should think twice before pulling the trigger and it's always best to run when you can. But if you must make a stand, IMHO and the NRA instructors who lead our course in home defense, if you draw your gun, you'd better shoot to kill. If you didn't want to kill him/her, then your life was not in danger. It is much more difficult to defend an attempt at wounding someone, than it is to defend your actions in an attempt to kill them, or in fact, killing them. If you attempt to wound, then your life must not have been in danger...and they'll eat you alive!

If you draw your gun, your life, or the life of someone in proximity to you, had better be in danger. Or you have no business drawing that gun. A non-lethal response, to the jurors (12 people too stupid to find a way out of jury duty), could come across as you were pissed, but not in fear for your life. And remember, a non-lethal response can be interpreted as attempted homicide. As the leutenant who ran that portion of the course explained, "When cops show up at your house, at 3AM, and there's a body on the floor, they're looking for a murderer and you're it. And they'll do everything they can to prove you did it and send you to jail, because that's their job." Scary, isn't it?

Reason: is there a non-lethal weapon that if used incorrectly could not in fact inflict a fatal wound? Your sand bags to the chest could strike a temple and cause brain injury, leading to death, or worse a coma! This of course depends on the condition of the attacker. But if a young child can die on an amusement ride, anything is possible. If that weapon has the potential to kill, then you are screwed anyway. What's important is using a force that is equal to or justifiably greater than your assailant. But again, if your life is not in danger, you shouldn't pull the gun. And if you pull the gun, you'd better mean to kill someone. Again, IMHO, run like hell if you can! Lock yourself and family in a room, face the door, and call 911.

I was not advocating reloads for self-defense either, as you are correct they'll hang you for sure. Hell, just using a Colt Python could hurt becuase that's a "killer" snake. Thank you for clarifyin that, because I wouldn't want anyone using reloads.

Last piece of friendly advice to everyone. Practice!!! Get to the range as often as you can. Sign and date the targets and have a range officer sign them as well. Thiss, too, will come in handy at trial. It shows you were responsible as a gun owner. However, this can backfire. Citizens certified in the use of firearms are held to a higher standard in the use of firearms, than are those who have no formal training. Basically, the more you know, the better your legal and physical judgement and abilities are expected to be.

We're on the wrong side of this whole mess. The bottom line is would you prefer to be carried by 6 or judged by 12?