Ah, but the big surprise comes at 0-degrees of elevation which would be more or less a typical shot at a deer on level terrain. Here the rifle, shotgun and muzzleloader projectiles travel 1,408', 840', and 686' respectfully plus ricochet distances of 3,427', 4,365', and 3,812' respectfully. Now the total distances traveled by the projectiles are 4,835' for the rifle, 5,205' for the shotgun and 4,498' for the muzzleloader.
"The smaller cross sectional area of the .30-caliber projectile and its shape contributes to a higher loss of energy on impact and, after ricochet, the 30-caliber projectile tends to tumble in flight with a high drag. Test data confirm that the 50-caliber projectile's larger cross sectional area and its shape contribute to less energy loss on shallow angles of impact and, after ricochet, the projectile exhibits less drag which results in a greater total distance traveled.
As far as I am concerned, the proper use of a firearm is shooting people, not defenseless animals. At the end of the day, I am against hunting but I think that hunters using their common sense and being subject to legal liability for any damage that they cause will do more to protect unintended targets than a law will. Of course, I understand that it is hard for many people to swallow that claim.
8 comments:
Good God, Man. Does that mean that you intend to shoot humans with the firearms you own?
A gun toting vegetarian? And they call ME an enigma...
>>Good God, Man. Does that mean that you intend to shoot humans with the firearms you own?>>
Hunters in Maine shot a woman for the "crime" of hanging laundry in her backyard. According to some, she "deserved" it for being stupid enough to venture outside her house during hunting season.
I actually do intend to shoot humans, but only those who break in my house in the middle of the night with the intent of doing me harm. Or to return fire of anyone who mistakes me for a deer if I am doing chores in my yard.
Anon 8:00- the most disturbing part of that story is that, supposedly, the hunters mistook the white gloves the woman was wearing for the tail of a white-tailed deer.
white gloves while hanging laundry? why? who does that?
I guess the hunters were actually the fashion police.
"At the end of the day, I am against hunting but I think that hunters using their common sense and being subject to legal liability for any damage that they cause will do more to protect unintended targets than a law will."
Please explain to me why this makes sense. To my uniformed mind, it seems you are suggesting that legal (read: constructed by law) liabilities are better than laws. How are they not precisely equal?
I am talking about civil law being better than criminal law.
The legal liability of hunters being responsible for property damage or accidental death of their victim (in other words, hunters interfering with the rights of individuals) will do more to protect unintended targets than general public laws specific to hunting. In other words, an arbitrary law telling hunters to stay 150 yards or 1,000 yards away from buildings is not the optimal way to balance the desires of hunters and the safety of the general public. However, holding hunters responsible for property damage will, and has. The threat of legal action from the victim, not the state, makes us safe.
I can’t sue a hunter for shooting a deer within 150 yards of my house, but I can sue the hunter for shooting my window.
>>white gloves while hanging laundry? why? who does that?
I guess the hunters were actually the fashion police.>>
ROFL! It's not my job to tell people what they should wear to hang clothes. :-)
Seriously, as someone who grew up around guns, the FIRST lesson that was drummed into my head was to NEVER EVER fire at anything I couldn't identify, and NEVER EVER to shoot where I knew people would be. A housing development is NOT a good place to shoot because you can reasonably expect people to be there.
Post a Comment