My new guy, who shall remain nameless (Grant) had an interesting job,
when still going to school, working on a farm. He was part of a
castrating team on a pig farm one summer. He mentioned he wore ear-
muffs as that gets noisy.
With a dead-pan face he told me that "pigs don't feel pain, but squeel
because they don't like to be held."
That struck me as very funny
r
In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Some years ago, I was deer hunting with my brother-in-law; he shot and killed
>> a buck. When I came over to help him field-dress it, he was puzzled by finding
>> only two wounds in the carcass, though he was sure he hit it with three
>> rounds. He said he jerked the gun a bit with his first shot, but thought he
>> must have hit it because it flinched -- but he said it just stood there. He
>> knows the second shot missed: he watched a sapling explode, and the deer began
>> to walk away, very slowly. Third shot hit it in the shoulder - he knows where
>> that hit, because it began limping. Fourth shot right through the heart. So I
>> checked it over too. Sure enough, one wound in the shoulder, another drilled
>> straight through the center of the heart. No sign anywhere of his first
>> round... until we started to cut the genitals loose from the carcass, when
>> I discovered the bullet hole in the center of its left testicle. Ummm....
>> Mike.... I think I know why it just stood there....
>>
>
>What in the world did he shoot it with that only put a hole through there?
.44 mag revolver. Range somewhere around 40yd, IIRC.
>Anything I shoot (besides my bow) would have blown those suckers right off.
We live in Indiana, where legal firearms for deer hunting are limited to
shotguns loaded with one-piece slugs, pistols (subject to minimum cartridge
size requirements), and muzzleloaders. No breech-loading rifles allowed. :-(
My preferred deer gun, subject to those limitations, is a 12ga shotgun, which
I'm sure would have done a little more damage. I can't seem to persuade my BIL
that the .44 mag isn't really as effective on deer as he believes it to be:
three times, I've knocked a deer completely off its feet with the 12ga, and
it's unusual for my kills to go more than thirty yards or so after being shot,
but this is the only one of his that *didn't*.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Jul 31, 1:00 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> My new guy, who shall remain nameless (Grant) had an interesting job,
> when still going to school, working on a farm. He was part of a
> castrating team on a pig farm one summer. He mentioned he wore ear-
> muffs as that gets noisy.
> With a dead-pan face he told me that "pigs don't feel pain, but squeel
> because they don't like to be held."
>
> That struck me as very funny
>
> r
That is funny!
On the same general topic there was a news article last night that
discussed how much people spend on their pets. And to prove the
excess, they pointed to a company that sells prostetic testicles for
dogs. There is even a video on the website. $900 plus intallation
bythe vet!!! The site says it makes the dogs feel better about
themselves!?!?!
http://www.neuticles.com/
Dave
On Jul 31, 2:49 pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey, make sense to me. If I was a dog and couldn't lick > my balls, I'd feel bad too. :)
A little warning there, Upscale. I almost spewed on my monitor!
How true!
Robert
On Jul 31, 5:54 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
[snip]
>
> They would probably pass a law against these too. Apparently vehicles with
> testicles would be offensive to those who wish to eliminate them from the
> world.
Personally, I think castration is a wonderful way to deal with
molesters, rapists, etc..... (I was going to include liberals, but you
got to have balls to lose them, right?)
I can't, for the life of me, relate to the dilemmas you're all going
through.
FEW targets are as simple to take down as a deer.
A pissed-off grizzly is another matter.
I don't believe too many here ever had the challenge to mess with a
determined Grizzly.
I say this with all due respect.
It is a decision you make when that huge, magnificent animal rises to
its hind feet.
On Aug 4, 3:52 pm, Tom B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy:
>
> You're quite correct, shooting a deer is not particularly difficult.
I didn't make that quote, btw....
DLB wrote:
> That is funny!
>
> On the same general topic there was a news article last night that
> discussed how much people spend on their pets. And to prove the
> excess, they pointed to a company that sells prostetic testicles for
> dogs. There is even a video on the website. $900 plus intallation
> bythe vet!!! The site says it makes the dogs feel better about
> themselves!?!?!
>
> http://www.neuticles.com/
>
There might be a market:
Sacramento to be 'testicle-free zone'
http://www.officialnewsagency.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=73
HeyBub wrote:
> DLB wrote:
>> That is funny!
>>
>> On the same general topic there was a news article last night that
>> discussed how much people spend on their pets. And to prove the
>> excess, they pointed to a company that sells prostetic testicles for
>> dogs. There is even a video on the website. $900 plus intallation
>> bythe vet!!! The site says it makes the dogs feel better about
>> themselves!?!?!
>>
>> http://www.neuticles.com/
>>
>
> There might be a market:
>
> Sacramento to be 'testicle-free zone'
>
http://www.officialnewsagency.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=73
Is that for real or satire?
If real, I thought it was somewhat ironic that the supporter of the bill
DAN Nender made the comment, ""We cannot have intact testicles on
government property. As California government officials, at least the ones
on our side, will attest to, Sacramento is a testicle-free zone." Now,
presumably DAN was in Sacramento when DAN said this, as well as a few
non-female legislators.
Kinda speaks volumes there.
Also liked the comment when he was called on his "3 million euthenasias a
year" comment. "...Concentrate on the point I'm making, not the numbers."
i.e. don't confuse me with the facts, it's fake but accurate
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>To the best of my knowledge though, the 44Mag in a handgun is *not* a 1 MOA
>weapon. It is very hard to imagine a 44Mag shooting sub MOA. Like I said -
>I have no trouble believing your brother-in-law(?)
Yes - SWMBO's brother.
>is as highly skilled as
>you say,
FWIW, it runs in the family. SWMBO brought down a deer with a single shot in
the neck, fired from a 16ga shotgun -- at *ninety* yards. And she shoots a bow
more accurately off-hand than I can with sights -- and I can hit a deck of
cards at 20 yards if I'm in practice.
>but I can't get past the thought of him placing 44Mags that tight.
>He's gone well past the gun's capability at that point.
I think you're underestimating the potential performance of handloads that
have been carefully tailored to a single, specific weapon. He's tried dozens
of different bullets, and hundreds of combinations of bullet + primer +
powder, in an effort to get the maximum possible accuracy. And he's been
working at it for a long, long time.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Well, actually, Mike's an excellent shot -- when he's calm. :-) When he
>> has a
>> 200-lb 8-point buck in his crosshairs, he isn't always calm. He is on a
>> range, though. (Shot competitively the whole ten years he was in the
>> Navy.)
>> The first year that pistols were legal for deer hunting here, I went with
>> him
>> to the firing range when he sighted in. He set up a standard 25-foot
>> pistol
>> target on the hundred-**yard** range and shot the black out of it. When he
>> was
>> done tweaking the scope, you could cover all six rounds with a quarter.
>
>He's more than just an excellent shot - he's magical. That's well beyond
>the accuracy of that round... even for a competitive shooter.
He hand-loads his own rounds. He's been tweaking everything -- experimenting
with different primers, different powders, and so forth -- for years,
customizing the load to the weapon. After he finished sighting in, he let me
have a go at it. I'm no better than an average shot, really, and it was the
first time I'd ever fired that gun (or any .44, for that matter), but I still
managed to put two rounds in the ten ring, and all but one inside the nine.
All this was done seated at a bench, with sandbags, using a Ruger Super Red
Hawk with a Leupold 9x rifle scope.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Robatoy:
You're quite correct, shooting a deer is not particularly difficult.
Getting close enough to have a clean shot can be 'a bit' tricky.
Haven't had the chance to face a Grizz, not sure I want to. Only thing
that scares me more is facing an armed man who wants you dead first.
Been there, done that, though I didn't draw the issue .45, I unloaded
a full mag from a CAR 15 at the guy while he was swinging up his AK
47. He did fire 5 or 6 rounds into the ground on the way down. 15
metres is too bloody close!
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:28:40 -0700, Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I can't, for the life of me, relate to the dilemmas you're all going
>through.
>FEW targets are as simple to take down as a deer.
>A pissed-off grizzly is another matter.
>I don't believe too many here ever had the challenge to mess with a
>determined Grizzly.
>I say this with all due respect.
>It is a decision you make when that huge, magnificent animal rises to
>its hind feet.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Russ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> That's about what I'd expect from a good handloaded, precision load...
>>> in the right gun. 1 MOA makes for a pattern of 6" when shooting a
>>> 6-shooter, worst case. Very hard to believe a 44Mag handgun shooting
>>> subMOA, even from the bags with precision loads. Very easy to believe a
>>> shooter with those skills, but not with that round/gun combination.
>>
>> 1 MOA, by definition, makes for a group of 1.047197580733 inches at 100
>> yds. (Most of us just round it to 1") Doesn't matter how many cylinders
>> your gun has, or how many rounds it can hold in a magazine.
>> A revolver that is producing 6" groups is shooting around 6 MOA.
>>
>
> Yes, of course you are correct in what you say. I was trying to avoid a
> long dissertation, and resorted to a shortened commentary that was based
> on thoughts going through my head while I typed. 1 MOA is going to give
> you error +- 1", so the real potential error is 2" hole to hole.
Correction again. God - I'm just going to call it a night and go to bed...
1" center to center. Not 2" hole to hole. Edge to edge (outer) is going to
be a little less than 2".
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Some years ago, I was deer hunting with my brother-in-law; he shot and
> killed
> a buck. When I came over to help him field-dress it, he was puzzled by
> finding
> only two wounds in the carcass, though he was sure he hit it with three
> rounds. He said he jerked the gun a bit with his first shot, but thought
> he
> must have hit it because it flinched -- but he said it just stood there.
> He
> knows the second shot missed: he watched a sapling explode, and the deer
> began
> to walk away, very slowly. Third shot hit it in the shoulder - he knows
> where
> that hit, because it began limping. Fourth shot right through the heart.
> So I
> checked it over too. Sure enough, one wound in the shoulder, another
> drilled
> straight through the center of the heart. No sign anywhere of his first
> round... until we started to cut the genitals loose from the carcass, when
> I
> discovered the bullet hole in the center of its left testicle. Ummm....
> Mike.... I think I know why it just stood there....
>
What in the world did he shoot it with that only put a hole through there?
Anything I shoot (besides my bow) would have blown those suckers right off.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> DLB wrote:
>> That is funny!
>>
>> On the same general topic there was a news article last night that
>> discussed how much people spend on their pets. And to prove the
>> excess, they pointed to a company that sells prostetic testicles for
>> dogs. There is even a video on the website. $900 plus intallation
>> bythe vet!!! The site says it makes the dogs feel better about
>> themselves!?!?!
>>
>> http://www.neuticles.com/
>>
>
> There might be a market:
>
> Sacramento to be 'testicle-free zone'
> http://www.officialnewsagency.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=73
National Association of Dogs in Service is called NADS. NADS? Are they serious?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I can't, for the life of me, relate to the dilemmas you're all going
> through.
> FEW targets are as simple to take down as a deer.
> A pissed-off grizzly is another matter.
> I don't believe too many here ever had the challenge to mess with a
> determined Grizzly.
> I say this with all due respect.
> It is a decision you make when that huge, magnificent animal rises to
> its hind feet.
>
Reach down between your feet, grab some sh*t and wave it in his face. They don't like the smell of
human sh*t.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, actually, Mike's an excellent shot -- when he's calm. :-) When he
> has a
> 200-lb 8-point buck in his crosshairs, he isn't always calm. He is on a
> range, though. (Shot competitively the whole ten years he was in the
> Navy.)
> The first year that pistols were legal for deer hunting here, I went with
> him
> to the firing range when he sighted in. He set up a standard 25-foot
> pistol
> target on the hundred-**yard** range and shot the black out of it. When he
> was
> done tweaking the scope, you could cover all six rounds with a quarter.
He's more than just an excellent shot - he's magical. That's well beyond
the accuracy of that round... even for a competitive shooter.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, Peter Huebner <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <%[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> We live in Indiana, where legal firearms for deer hunting are limited to
>> shotguns loaded with one-piece slugs, pistols (subject to minimum cartridge
>> size requirements), and muzzleloaders. No breech-loading rifles allowed. :-(
>
>Sounds like an edict by the Village Idiot. (Unless they made those rules to
>stop the village idiot from shooting things beyond his event horizon). Nuts.
It certainly doesn't stop the Village Idiots from shooting people beyond their
event horizon, as you put it -- we have plenty of idiots who don't bother to
wear safety orange, or wait for daylight before they start shooting.
I really don't know what they were thinking; a lot of the rules don't make any
sense at all. I commented on some of the weapons insanity in another post.
Then there's the issue of safety clothing. The law says one or more of (hat,
cap, coat, vest, or coveralls), solid hunter orange in color. So forest camo
from the forehead down, with a solid orange baseball cap, is OK. And blaze
orange *camo* over your entire body is not. (Yes, there is such a thing as
blaze orange camo; deer don't see that color. And as long as I don't move,
they don't see me.)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DLB wrote:
>> That is funny!
>>
>> On the same general topic there was a news article last night that
>> discussed how much people spend on their pets. And to prove the
>> excess, they pointed to a company that sells prostetic testicles for
>> dogs. There is even a video on the website. $900 plus intallation
>> bythe vet!!! The site says it makes the dogs feel better about
>> themselves!?!?!
>>
>> http://www.neuticles.com/
>>
>
> There might be a market:
>
> Sacramento to be 'testicle-free zone'
> http://www.officialnewsagency.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=73
>
Maybe they should hang some testicles under their vehicles as a protest to
this castration terrorist group.
http://www.bullsballs.com/
They would probably pass a law against these too. Apparently vehicles with
testicles would be offensive to those who wish to eliminate them from the
world.
"DLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> excess, they pointed to a company that sells prosthetic testicles for
> dogs. There is even a video on the website. $900 plus intallation
> by the vet!!! The site says it makes the dogs feel better about
> themselves!?!?!
Hey, make sense to me. If I was a dog and couldn't lick my balls, I'd feel
bad too. :)
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Well, actually, Mike's an excellent shot -- when he's calm. :-) When he
>> has a
>> 200-lb 8-point buck in his crosshairs, he isn't always calm. He is on a
>> range, though. (Shot competitively the whole ten years he was in the
>> Navy.)
>> The first year that pistols were legal for deer hunting here, I went with
>> him
>> to the firing range when he sighted in. He set up a standard 25-foot
>> pistol
>> target on the hundred-**yard** range and shot the black out of it. When he
>> was
>> done tweaking the scope, you could cover all six rounds with a quarter.
>
> He's more than just an excellent shot - he's magical. That's well beyond
> the accuracy of that round... even for a competitive shooter.
>
I've seen the .454 shoot sub moa from a T/C Encore. I understand that
the Freedom Arms revolver will come close as well.
--
"Praise Jebus!" - H. J. Simpson
In article <[email protected]>, Tom B <[email protected]> wrote:
>Ah, now I understand! I was going to say something nasty about the
>number of rounds your BIL required to knock the poor guy down. With a
>handgun, I understand. Only done wild hogs with my .454 Casull and I
>have been known to miss when they're moving.
Well, actually, Mike's an excellent shot -- when he's calm. :-) When he has a
200-lb 8-point buck in his crosshairs, he isn't always calm. He is on a
range, though. (Shot competitively the whole ten years he was in the Navy.)
The first year that pistols were legal for deer hunting here, I went with him
to the firing range when he sighted in. He set up a standard 25-foot pistol
target on the hundred-**yard** range and shot the black out of it. When he was
done tweaking the scope, you could cover all six rounds with a quarter.
>
>I had to put up with the shotgun only BS in Alabama years ago. Thank
>god for Texas, where 1 round expended in anger is 1 deer nose in the
>dirt. At least, that's the way it's been for the last 11 seasons. It's
>real cheap ammo wise if your rifle stays sighted in. 4 rounds per
>season is normal. 3 sighters, 1 for real.
I sure wish they'd allow rifles here. Some of our regs are insane: my BIL has
a pistol with an 18" barrel in .243 Winchester. I have a rifle with a 22"
barrel, also in .243 Win. His pistol is a legal weapon for deer in Indiana. My
rifle is not -- but it *is* legal for coyote, and, incredibly, for *squirrel*
(for which the rule is "any legal weapon"). IOW, it's legal to stand on the
ground and point a 3300-fps rifle up into a tree to shoot a squirrel, but
illegal to sit in the tree and point the same weapon down at the ground to
shoot a deer. How much sense does that make?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
> You're quite correct, shooting a deer is not particularly difficult.
> Getting close enough to have a clean shot can be 'a bit' tricky.
>
> Haven't had the chance to face a Grizz, not sure I want to. Only thing
> that scares me more is facing an armed man who wants you dead first.
>
> Been there, done that, though I didn't draw the issue .45, I unloaded
> a full mag from a CAR 15 at the guy while he was swinging up his AK
> 47. He did fire 5 or 6 rounds into the ground on the way down. 15
> metres is too bloody close!
That's because you were using a round so weak that is illegal for deer
hunting in most states.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> in 1368562 20070731 180049 Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >My new guy, who shall remain nameless (Grant) had an interesting job,
> >when still going to school, working on a farm. He was part of a
> >castrating team on a pig farm one summer. He mentioned he wore ear-
> >muffs as that gets noisy.
> >With a dead-pan face he told me that "pigs don't feel pain, but squeel
> >because they don't like to be held."
> >
> >That struck me as very funny
> >
> >r
>
> Anyone who thinks animals don't feel pain should have their nuts cut off
> without an anaesthetic.
>
Well Bob, different animals seem to feel things differently. Human animals sure
feel it when you kick them in the nuts. But tell you what, I got kicked in the
gut by a bull once, and I got mad and kicked him right back, right in the
balls, because that's what he was presenting me with. He didn't feel a thing.
Now, poke the same bull in the nostril with a finger, and he'll be in
considerable pain (by the way, I have had that confirmed by another bloke who
had the exact same experience) .... having said that, I don't know the first
thing about pigs, and their sensitivities. But I've seen an old farmer
castrating calves with a razor sharp knife, while he was standing behind them,
and they never even twitched. Brrrrr. You try and put a tag in their ear and
they sure do holler! Horses apparently are super sensitive, going on hearsay.
-P.
--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I can't, for the life of me, relate to the dilemmas you're all going
> through.
> FEW targets are as simple to take down as a deer.
Yeah, I used to think that too, back when I hadn't tried it either.
In article <%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> We live in Indiana, where legal firearms for deer hunting are limited to
> shotguns loaded with one-piece slugs, pistols (subject to minimum cartridge
> size requirements), and muzzleloaders. No breech-loading rifles allowed. :-(
Sounds like an edict by the Village Idiot. (Unless they made those rules to
stop the village idiot from shooting things beyond his event horizon). Nuts.
;-P
--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
In article <[email protected]>, Russ <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>> That's about what I'd expect from a good handloaded, precision load... in
>> the right gun. 1 MOA makes for a pattern of 6" when shooting a 6-shooter,
>> worst case. Very hard to believe a 44Mag handgun shooting subMOA, even from
>> the bags with precision loads. Very easy to believe a shooter with those
>> skills, but not with that round/gun combination.
>
>1 MOA, by definition, makes for a group of 1.047197580733 inches at 100
>yds. (Most of us just round it to 1")
Or in other words, just slightly larger than a quarter. <g>
>Doesn't matter how many cylinders
>your gun has, or how many rounds it can hold in a magazine.
>A revolver that is producing 6" groups is shooting around 6 MOA.
To clarify: 6" groups at 100 yds = 6 MOA
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Peter Huebner <[email protected]> wrote:
>Well Bob, different animals seem to feel things differently. Human animals sure
>feel it when you kick them in the nuts. But tell you what, I got kicked in the
>gut by a bull once, and I got mad and kicked him right back, right in the
>balls, because that's what he was presenting me with. He didn't feel a thing.
Or was paralyzed by the pain. :-)
Some years ago, I was deer hunting with my brother-in-law; he shot and killed
a buck. When I came over to help him field-dress it, he was puzzled by finding
only two wounds in the carcass, though he was sure he hit it with three
rounds. He said he jerked the gun a bit with his first shot, but thought he
must have hit it because it flinched -- but he said it just stood there. He
knows the second shot missed: he watched a sapling explode, and the deer began
to walk away, very slowly. Third shot hit it in the shoulder - he knows where
that hit, because it began limping. Fourth shot right through the heart. So I
checked it over too. Sure enough, one wound in the shoulder, another drilled
straight through the center of the heart. No sign anywhere of his first
round... until we started to cut the genitals loose from the carcass, when I
discovered the bullet hole in the center of its left testicle. Ummm....
Mike.... I think I know why it just stood there....
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> That's about what I'd expect from a good handloaded, precision load... in
> the right gun. 1 MOA makes for a pattern of 6" when shooting a 6-shooter,
> worst case. Very hard to believe a 44Mag handgun shooting subMOA, even from
> the bags with precision loads. Very easy to believe a shooter with those
> skills, but not with that round/gun combination.
1 MOA, by definition, makes for a group of 1.047197580733 inches at 100
yds. (Most of us just round it to 1") Doesn't matter how many cylinders
your gun has, or how many rounds it can hold in a magazine.
A revolver that is producing 6" groups is shooting around 6 MOA.
--
"Praise Jebus!" - H. J. Simpson
In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>That's about what I'd expect from a good handloaded, precision load... in
>the right gun. 1 MOA makes for a pattern of 6" when shooting a 6-shooter,
I don't think so...
>worst case. Very hard to believe a 44Mag handgun shooting subMOA, even from
>the bags with precision loads.
Easy enough for me to believe: I watched it happen. I was watching on a 30x
spotting scope as one of his rounds drilled right through the "0" in the "10"
in the center of the target. Whether you believe me or not is of course up to
you, but I'd suggest that you might want to recheck your math before you
decide it's not possible.
>Very easy to believe a shooter with those
>skills, but not with that round/gun combination.
Again, you may want to check your math. And my BIL has been using the same
pistol for some 25 - 30 years now, so he's pretty familiar with his weapon,
and he's had plenty of time to get his handloads tailored just the way he
wants them. I certainly wouldn't claim to be able to do that myself, but I did
watch it happen.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> FWIW, it runs in the family. SWMBO brought down a deer with a single shot in
>> the neck, fired from a 16ga shotgun -- at *ninety* yards. And she shoots a bow
>> more accurately off-hand than I can with sights -- and I can hit a deck of
>> cards at 20 yards if I'm in practice.
>
>Around here we'd consider that to be acceptable shooting. I really like 16
>guage shot guns except for the increasing unavailability of ammo.
There was a time when it was almost impossible to find. Not so any more. It
isn't as easy to find as 12ga, but there's a lot more of it available than
there was 12-15 years ago.
>I shoot
>12 guage when I use a shot gun, but the 16 was a very under-rated gun in my
>opinion.
I entirely agree.
>Most of our deer shots around here are under 50 yards, due to the
>terrain/growth, but one can get 100 yard shots from time to time. We've all
>dropped deer at those ranges with both shotguns and rifles. I've not pushed
>my handgun that far, and probably wouldn't but I'd probably go out to 75
>with it. My bow shots I try to keep under 40 yards, though I practice at
>50. I can group fletch to fletch at 50 yards consistently, but like you I
>stand somewhat in awe of my daughter who does it without the benefit of
>releases, sights, etc. Strictly an instinctive shooter. Not me - I've got
>the stuff on my bow.
I *have* to have it on mine -- I'm doing well to hit a pizza box at 30yd
offhand. :-(
>>
>> I think you're underestimating the potential performance of handloads that
>> have been carefully tailored to a single, specific weapon. He's tried dozens
>> of different bullets, and hundreds of combinations of bullet + primer +
>> powder, in an effort to get the maximum possible accuracy. And he's been
>> working at it for a long, long time.
>>
>I reload all of my ammo except my shotgun ammo, so I have an appreciation
>for precision loads. There is a limit to what a gun can do with even the
>most precise ammo though. The Super Blackhawk is a great gun - probably one
>of the best in my opinion, but it's not a sub-MOA gun.
>
>I should probably go on record as saying that I can't really dispute your
>claim Doug, since I've never met this fellow, never seen him shoot, etc.
>I've learned a long time ago not to rely solely on what "should be" in the
>world. It's more that I would be surprised and indeed impressed by anyone
>that could group sub-MOA with a 44mag handgun. That would be one unique
>individual.
He definitely is that. He took the test to join Mensa about 15 years ago... IQ
measured in the upper 160s. That runs in the family, too. :-)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Tom B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My FA .454 is right at MOA from the bags with a 4X Leupold on it.
> That's with tailored handloads, not hunting loads. Those are more like
> 2 MOA, but that's close enough for my needs with hogs. I rarely touch
> one off at a target more than 50 metres away, maybe 75 if I've got a
> solid rest and am shooting over flat ground. What I have found is that
> a hit generally knocks the 200 - 300 pounders down One 450 pound boar
> took 3 rounds in the chest plate at about 25 metres before he droped.
> The first 2 just seemed to surprise him. I was sure surpised! 300 GR
> Barnes X solids at ~ 1500 FPS (29 Gr of 296 under the bullet)
> generates around 1500 ft-lbs but it really didin't seem to phase him.
> All 3 bullets penetrated the chest cavity and lodoged in the hind
> quarters, so he got all the energy. I think he just stood there and
> bled out.
>
>
That's about what I'd expect from a good handloaded, precision load... in
the right gun. 1 MOA makes for a pattern of 6" when shooting a 6-shooter,
worst case. Very hard to believe a 44Mag handgun shooting subMOA, even from
the bags with precision loads. Very easy to believe a shooter with those
skills, but not with that round/gun combination.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Russ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> That's about what I'd expect from a good handloaded, precision load... in
>> the right gun. 1 MOA makes for a pattern of 6" when shooting a
>> 6-shooter, worst case. Very hard to believe a 44Mag handgun shooting
>> subMOA, even from the bags with precision loads. Very easy to believe a
>> shooter with those skills, but not with that round/gun combination.
>
> 1 MOA, by definition, makes for a group of 1.047197580733 inches at 100
> yds. (Most of us just round it to 1") Doesn't matter how many cylinders
> your gun has, or how many rounds it can hold in a magazine.
> A revolver that is producing 6" groups is shooting around 6 MOA.
>
Yes, of course you are correct in what you say. I was trying to avoid a
long dissertation, and resorted to a shortened commentary that was based on
thoughts going through my head while I typed. 1 MOA is going to give you
error +- 1", so the real potential error is 2" hole to hole. In my mind as
I typed, I was thinking of 10 spots up to 4" in diameter. I added the 2"
error to my envisioned 4" 10 spot to arrive at the quoted 6". Maybe not
untypical for a lot of shooters, but as you pointed out, not accurate in the
context of my post. Don't ask me to explain it better than that - my mind
is not something you want to fool around trying to figure out.
I mentioned 6 shooter to differentiate it from a long gun. It is indeed
much harder to achieve 1 MOA from a 6 or 7 inch barrel than it is from a
rifle.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
My FA .454 is right at MOA from the bags with a 4X Leupold on it.
That's with tailored handloads, not hunting loads. Those are more like
2 MOA, but that's close enough for my needs with hogs. I rarely touch
one off at a target more than 50 metres away, maybe 75 if I've got a
solid rest and am shooting over flat ground. What I have found is that
a hit generally knocks the 200 - 300 pounders down One 450 pound boar
took 3 rounds in the chest plate at about 25 metres before he droped.
The first 2 just seemed to surprise him. I was sure surpised! 300 GR
Barnes X solids at ~ 1500 FPS (29 Gr of 296 under the bullet)
generates around 1500 ft-lbs but it really didin't seem to phase him.
All 3 bullets penetrated the chest cavity and lodoged in the hind
quarters, so he got all the energy. I think he just stood there and
bled out.
>> He's more than just an excellent shot - he's magical. That's well beyond
>> the accuracy of that round... even for a competitive shooter.
>>
>
>I've seen the .454 shoot sub moa from a T/C Encore. I understand that
>the Freedom Arms revolver will come close as well.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> FWIW, it runs in the family. SWMBO brought down a deer with a single shot
> in
> the neck, fired from a 16ga shotgun -- at *ninety* yards. And she shoots a
> bow
> more accurately off-hand than I can with sights -- and I can hit a deck of
> cards at 20 yards if I'm in practice.
Around here we'd consider that to be acceptable shooting. I really like 16
guage shot guns except for the increasing unavailability of ammo. I shoot
12 guage when I use a shot gun, but the 16 was a very under-rated gun in my
opinion. Most of our deer shots around here are under 50 yards, due to the
terrain/growth, but one can get 100 yard shots from time to time. We've all
dropped deer at those ranges with both shotguns and rifles. I've not pushed
my handgun that far, and probably wouldn't but I'd probably go out to 75
with it. My bow shots I try to keep under 40 yards, though I practice at
50. I can group fletch to fletch at 50 yards consistently, but like you I
stand somewhat in awe of my daughter who does it without the benefit of
releases, sights, etc. Strictly an instinctive shooter. Not me - I've got
the stuff on my bow.
>
> I think you're underestimating the potential performance of handloads that
> have been carefully tailored to a single, specific weapon. He's tried
> dozens
> of different bullets, and hundreds of combinations of bullet + primer +
> powder, in an effort to get the maximum possible accuracy. And he's been
> working at it for a long, long time.
>
I reload all of my ammo except my shotgun ammo, so I have an appreciation
for precision loads. There is a limit to what a gun can do with even the
most precise ammo though. The Super Blackhawk is a great gun - probably one
of the best in my opinion, but it's not a sub-MOA gun.
I should probably go on record as saying that I can't really dispute your
claim Doug, since I've never met this fellow, never seen him shoot, etc.
I've learned a long time ago not to rely solely on what "should be" in the
world. It's more that I would be surprised and indeed impressed by anyone
that could group sub-MOA with a 44mag handgun. That would be one unique
individual.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Russ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Gw%[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>> He's more than just an excellent shot - he's magical. That's well beyond
>> the accuracy of that round... even for a competitive shooter.
>>
>
> I've seen the .454 shoot sub moa from a T/C Encore. I understand that the
> Freedom Arms revolver will come close as well.
>
Apples and oranges. The 44Mag shot from a handgun is going to be one tough
thing to achieve sub MOA, even in the hands of an expert competitive
shooter. Even with precision loads. This is a Ruger Super Blackhawk he was
shooting through. A good gun, but not sub MOA. Out of a rifle the 44Mag
has a pretty hard time making sub MOA.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Russ
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> That's about what I'd expect from a good handloaded, precision load...
>>> in
>>> the right gun. 1 MOA makes for a pattern of 6" when shooting a
>>> 6-shooter,
>>> worst case. Very hard to believe a 44Mag handgun shooting subMOA, even
>>> from
>>> the bags with precision loads. Very easy to believe a shooter with
>>> those
>>> skills, but not with that round/gun combination.
>>
>>1 MOA, by definition, makes for a group of 1.047197580733 inches at 100
>>yds. (Most of us just round it to 1")
>
> Or in other words, just slightly larger than a quarter. <g>
>
To the best of my knowledge though, the 44Mag in a handgun is *not* a 1 MOA
weapon. It is very hard to imagine a 44Mag shooting sub MOA. Like I said -
I have no trouble believing your brother-in-law(?) is as highly skilled as
you say, but I can't get past the thought of him placing 44Mags that tight.
He's gone well past the gun's capability at that point.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Ah, now I understand! I was going to say something nasty about the
number of rounds your BIL required to knock the poor guy down. With a
handgun, I understand. Only done wild hogs with my .454 Casull and I
have been known to miss when they're moving.
I had to put up with the shotgun only BS in Alabama years ago. Thank
god for Texas, where 1 round expended in anger is 1 deer nose in the
dirt. At least, that's the way it's been for the last 11 seasons. It's
real cheap ammo wise if your rifle stays sighted in. 4 rounds per
season is normal. 3 sighters, 1 for real.
Regards.
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:25:09 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>
>We live in Indiana, where legal firearms for deer hunting are limited to
>shotguns loaded with one-piece slugs, pistols (subject to minimum cartridge
>size requirements), and muzzleloaders. No breech-loading rifles allowed. :-(
>
in 1368562 20070731 180049 Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>My new guy, who shall remain nameless (Grant) had an interesting job,
>when still going to school, working on a farm. He was part of a
>castrating team on a pig farm one summer. He mentioned he wore ear-
>muffs as that gets noisy.
>With a dead-pan face he told me that "pigs don't feel pain, but squeel
>because they don't like to be held."
>
>That struck me as very funny
>
>r
Anyone who thinks animals don't feel pain should have their nuts cut off
without an anaesthetic.