Magazine Capacity

imported post

I think a good high capacity magazine would be a four hundred page Playboy. For the articles of course.

imported post

Well done.

I wonder if it is coincidence only that "for the articles" is no longer the typical response?

imported post

Doug: At my age I don't remember what other reason there would be.

imported post

I agree why would you need 30+ rounds? If you can't kill the deer in three shots why are you out there?

First miss: scope maybe fogged:X

Second miss: deer on the move didn't leadit enough:?

Third miss: no excuse:banghead:

If you shoot more than two deer at a time it is a back ache. I know.

My Dad would tell son don't shoot unless you know you can hit it. No need to wound the animal.


When were are out hunting and we heard more than 5 shots we would figure they were from Ill or Milwaukee because we knew people from Madison never hunt. :lol:

imported post

Packer fan wrote:

I agree why would you need 30+ rounds? If you can't kill the deer in three shots why are you out there?

Click to expand...

Read what you wrote, that sounds like a page right out of the Brady bunch's book..


Although I prefer hunting with a muzzleloader with iron sights, if I choose to go out with an AR variant withmultiple 30-Rnd Magazines, it should be my choice with no laws stating thatI cannot.

I feel that once people start accepting maximum magazine capacity rules, it will just open the doorfor that capacity being legislated down to smaller & smaller amounts.

imported post

I never said you can't. I (me) don't see the need to. Heck, if you want to go out with four guns and an ammo box worth that is your business. I just never saw the need to. If you need that many rounds you need to go to the range. I don't care what a person hunts with as long as he is safe and knows how to handle a gun. I could care less how many shots a man takes at the deer so long as he knows what is behind his target.

I know that someone else brought this up; but with so many people OC their shot guns or rifles during deer season, Wisconsin should be have been pillaged long ago. Guns don't make criminals people do.
The one thing I do miss about Wisconsin is the hunting. Loved it! Oh yeah and the cheese curds.

imported post

Packer fan wrote:

I never said you can't. I (me) don't see the need to. Heck, if you want to go out with four guns and an ammo box worth that is your business. I just never saw the need to. If you need that many rounds you need to go to the range. I don't care what a person hunts with as long as he is safe and knows how to handle a gun. I could care less how many shots a man takes at the deer so long as he knows what is behind his target.

I know that someone else brought this up; but with so many people OC their shot guns or rifles during deer season, Wisconsin should be have been pillaged long ago. Guns don't make criminals people do.
The one thing I do miss about Wisconsin is the hunting. Loved it! Oh yeah and the cheese curds.

Click to expand...

I am not arguing with you, but your statements like "I never said you can't. I (me) don't see the need to." sound exactly what the calmer anti-gun people like to say.

For instance, A guy planting trees on his property with a holstered firearm on his side, Alot of the anti's said "Why would you need to carry a gun to plant trees? You don't need a gun in West Allis!"

Need is not the point, But having the freedom to do so is.

imported post

I see what you are saying and I support what you are saying. The difference is the anti try to push their point of view on others by force; I just state my opinion and leave a person to make their own choices. Just because I don't see a need doesn't mean that a person can or can't.

I could come back and say that you are doing what the antis do in putting extra words or meaning in things that just aren't there. Have they (the antis) hijacked how we care a normal conversation or are we being so paranoid that we have to watch every nuance of every word.

I know many people look for fights but I never thought you were arguing.

imported post

Went out the second weekend with my AK and one 30 round clip loaded with 20 in her. I'm a one shot one kill guy, the other 19 are for any wolves, bears or whatever. Better to be more prepared than less prepared. I usually use my Marlin 30-30 lever action but I was hunting in the thicket so I brought the semi-auto. If anyone doesn't like it they can KMA!

imported post

BJA wrote:

Went out the second weekend with my AK and one 30 round clip loaded with 20 in her. I'm a one shot one kill guy, the other 19 are for any wolves, bears or whatever. The "whatever" is the part that would have me bring the extra rounds. Better to be more prepared than less prepared. I agree 100% I usually use my Marlin 30-30 lever action but I was hunting in the thicket so I brought the semi-auto. If anyone doesn't like it they can KMA! Again, I agree 100%

Click to expand...

imported post

Does anyone know the reasoning behind the federal ruling that guns used for migratory waterfowl must be plugged to hold no more than 3 rounds??

It puts grouse hunters in an oddpredicament, since grouse and woodcock inhabit the same environment, grouse is an upland game bird whilewoodcock is considered magritory waterfowl.

I have often shot what I thought was a grouse flushing only to find a long-beaked woodcock being brought back by my pooch. While reading the WIDNR regs on woodcock, steel-shot is also a requirement for taking them.
And before anyone states "You should know what you are shooting before firing" I will invite you to go grouse hunting with me, they flush the same in flight, they look the same, and you need to snap-shoot when grouse hunting or you come home empty handed.
Those 2 birds are virtually impossible to tell apart when flushing and flying in the wooded areas where they are hunted. It is not as easy as determing a hen or cock when pheasant hunting where you need to wait several seconds before firing.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

Does anyone know the reasoning behind the federal ruling that guns used for migratory waterfowl must be plugged to hold no more than 3 rounds??

Click to expand...

That's why I carry my double barrel. Besides, I can snap shoot MUCH faster with that as opposed to my 870.

Click to expand...

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

Does anyone know the reasoning behind the federal ruling that guns used for migratory waterfowl must be plugged to hold no more than 3 rounds??

It puts grouse hunters in an oddpredicament, since grouse and woodcock inhabit the same environment, grouse is an upland game bird whilewoodcock is considered magritory waterfowl.

Click to expand...

Hey Harry,
Woodcock are considered migratory game bird, not waterfowl. But you're right about the three rounds. That sucks, and like you, I hunt grouse and you can't tell the difference. I'll keep to my 5 rounds anyways since I usually miss. If the dog had thumbs, he'd be a much better hunter than I.
From WI Small Game Regs 2009, p.14:
"Weapons and ammunition: Only shotguns capable of holding 3 shells or less, with
bores 10 gauge or smaller are legal for hunting Migratory Game Birds. Hunters are
required to use nontoxic shot while hunting Snipe and Rail. Hunters must also use
nontoxic shot while hunting for Mourning Dove on DNR managed land. Hunters are
encouraged to use nontoxic shot for Mourning Dove on private lands as well as for
hunting Woodcock."
Notice the nontoxic shot is for Snipe and Rail. Also for Mourning Doves on DNR land only and the DNR recommends nontoxic shot on private lands for Woodcock. In their obscure way of writing as usual, they're not saying you have to use nontoxic on Woodcock anywhere in the regs. They're say they recommend it on private lands. Go figure, they have idiots writing the regs anyways.

imported post

From my understanding and I don't have anything to back this up but the three round steal shot has to do with environmentalist and such. People were complaining that ducks and geese were dying from lead poisoning after being wounded by lead shot. I think the three shot was to prevent sky busting. Geese and duck numbers at the time were down.

That is my understanding only of why.

imported post

Packer fan wrote:

[ ... ]People were complaining that ducks and geese were dying from lead poisoning after being wounded by lead shot....That is my understanding only of why.

Click to expand...

Lead poisoning is via ingestion or inhalation. Elemental lead is relatively inert (2.3 Pauling electronegativity) so the poisoning is commonly caused by lead compounds that are inorganic or organic. Organic lead compounds and metabolites are relatively rare (i.e., low concentration), more so in nature.

Think of how many humans live normal long lives with lead embedded, like a bullet.

Lead phobia is a symptom of hoplophobia.

imported post

But why should facts get in the way of an agenda?

Just like any group that knows how best to save you from yourself because you are dumb and they are so much smarter, "... don't confuse me with facts."

When you argue a point with emotions facts do not matter.

imported post

Packer fan wrote:

When you argue a point with emotions facts do not matter.

Click to expand...

Of course that never(!) happens here.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Packer fan wrote:

When you argue a point with emotions facts do not matter.

Click to expand...

Of course that never(!) happens here.

Click to expand...

What it happens here:shock:

:lol:

imported post

I always love it when people tell me something (gun related) is against the law. I always ask them what law that would be and to cite a source.

That shuts em up.