Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Let's all take a trip back to the late 1970s and early 1980s.  This was the time of punk.  This was the time of despair.   Punk was all about minimalism; strip everything down to a few chords, wear

Stechkin's Abakan (TKB-0146). https://www.kalashnikov.ru/abakan-stechkina-avtomat-stechkina-tkb-0146/        Bullpup, system of "recoil impulse shifted in time", 2-stage

So what, my 5.56 rounds are groundbreaking too if I shoot the dirt.

Which is it, Tox, is it cruel and unsporting, or is it efficient and indiscriminate? Seems like you can't make up your goddamn mind.

"It's unethical because it wounds rather than kills!" "They should be poisoning them instead!" This really proves to me that you've NEVER had to do animal control in your life. Poisoning is the fucking poster child of a culling method that's indiscriminate, cruel, and that wounds, not delivering a clean kill.

And guess what, genius: They CAN'T poison them because these are CATTLE RANCHES. You might as well slaughter all the cattle and roll up shop and move to Hawaii. Not to mention all the potential collateral wildlife damage from a poisoning campaign big enough to adequately cull hogs.

So get your head out of your ass, stop projecting, and stop acting like people who are solving problems you've got not even the slightest familiarity with are sociopaths.

 

 

Dude, flip your propaganda switch to the off position to a second and re-assess. I'm South African. Nearly every adult male I know hunts - either every once in a while or regularly. My country makes a goodly chunk of its money from farming and hunting, and I was trained by ecologists who advocate for commercial hunting as a means of preserving wildlife. So don't put words in my mouth regarding the ethics and utility of hunting (which is to say: fuck off). 

 

My problem with the specific scenario we're describing is that damn near all of the hunters I know would be aghast at it. It is unethical, because it wounds rather than kills. It is indiscriminate. It is unsporting. To these people (again, a large number of persons in my acquaintance) what you're describing would be viewed in the same light as a catholic priest detailing how he got into the business to diddle kids.

 

Even viewed as animal control it is inefficient, crude and inexact. And, again, would be viewed as unethical for all the reasons described above. Far better here to deploy traps, poison (carefully), biocontrol or damn near anything other than blazing away from the animals on high with weapons of insufficient killing power.

 

So, in short: get the fuck off your high horse about this, and stop pretending that I'm arguing with you because I don't understand the fundamental issues or something. This thing is retarded, and no regard for the need to control wildlife or secure farming livelyhoods is going to serve as a fig leaf for such stupidity and cruelty.

 

Bolded and enlarged for emphasis. Read what I write if you're going to piss all over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what your reasoning is, here. He never said either of those things excluded each other, and has some reasonable points that different hunting methods are better than others.

 

I did some reading on this years ago when I first heard about it, and these are the methods I've read about specifically:

 

Snaring and trapping: Argued by the Texas Animal Damage Control Service as the most effective methods that account for over half of the culling of the boar population. At this point, it seems to be property owners' preferred method due to effectiveness.

 

Fencing: There's no way to measure effectiveness that I've seen carried out on this, but there are suggested fencing techniques that seem to work. This is one of those "Evidence of absense" cases until someone compares properly fenced property to non. This one obviously carried logistical nightmares due to terrain and land size, too. This has an added effect though of keeping farm hogs on farms, as one of the most common cited reasons for their stable-to-growing populations are escaped pigs (the other being illegally introducing them to new environments).

 

Aerial Hunting: Still debated on its usefulness. It's seen as a way of monitoring herds and being able to give chase, but killing an animal is really hard, and flying a plane/helicopter to allow for accurate shooting is really hard. The former requires a well-placed shot, and as any GC will tell you, there are animals that you can pump rounds into all day and not reduce their lifespan too much. Flying a plane carries the same restrictions as it always does vis a vis weather, lack of vision in dense terrain, and requiring ground parties to coordinate with. Then there's the issue of flying well enough to not freak out a pack or being able to give someone a good enough shot (which is why they seem to recommend things like shotgun slugs over any other kind of weaponry). The TADC puts this as much less effective than trapping and snaring, and more useful than traditional hunting or baying.

 

Poisoning: Currently, there are no approved methods of poisoning hogs. Some methods are being trialed while certain chemicals are being tested and developed. The most promising methods involve taking advantage of their digging instincts to poison things like potatoes to specifically target the hogs.

 

Hunting itself is apparently not helping the overall problem greatly. There's nothing to say it hasn't helped individuals protect their property by diverting the population, but what I've read says hunting needs to cull around 50-70 percent of the hog population per year to properly address the problem, but hunting has overall done around maybe 20% per year. It's not ineffective, but it's obviously not the single solution. There are low-cost, high-payout options in animal population control that can result in a better long-term solution. Hell, Kansas and Arkansas outlawed forms of hog hunting due to cases of people illegally introducing more of these hogs into the environment.

I regret only being able to upvote this once.

 

I was joking about introducing hyena, but biocontrol really is one of the few ways to deal with this sort of problem permanently. Hunting et al is just a management technique.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bolded and enlarged for emphasis. Read what I write if you're going to piss all over it.

 

How is it inefficient? In the big scheme of things, ammo is cheap.

Also, you can't really poison large enough numbers of hogs without threatening your own livestock and game. That would be why it's not recommended to do so.

I'm pissing all over it because you're sitting over there in South Africa acting like you know what's best for ranchers over here in Louisiana and Texas. It's bullshit. You have no freaking idea what pigs can do to a ranch, and how hard they are to successfully cull. I don't own a ranch, so I don't live that life either, but I've seen it firsthand at least, and I'm also not the one telling these guys "you're doing it all wrong!"

It's time for you to get off this hobbyhorse. Pest control is not pretty business, not if you trap them, not if you shoot them, not if you poison them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that a 7.62mm machine gun is somehow inadequate for pig hunting and causes unnecessary suffering is a bit beyond me.

 

Yeah, they're having fun with it... Literally every hunter does this, even native ones (actually, I reckon ESPECIALLY native ones, that whole "respect for mother earth" shtick Hollywood pushes is largely a fiction). I think it's funny that shooting pigs with an M240L is unethical and sociopathic according to Tox, but I reckon he'd think hunting cape buffalo with a $500,000 double gun was just peachy (it would be much more ethical - and more tastefully restrained for that matter - to hunt them with a 37mm AT gun).

I'm all for hunting a cape buffalo with a 37mm, but for the fact that you'd ruin the meat, hide and horns (which is hella wasteful).

 

The problem with machinegunning the animals is that you're not delivering aimed shots. You're sure as fuck not doing it from a helo. So some of the hogs are going to get 5 bullets into the vitals and die instantly, and some are going to get a few in the wrong place and limp away to die of sepsis while you and your buddies fly home to jerk off and post youtube videos.

 

For elephant culling we use helicopters, but we also use large-bore rifles or dart guns loaded for instant death (as a by-the-by, an elephant tranq dart will kill a man within seconds). So you're targeting individuals rather than a group, and taking them out one by one. Elephants also make easier targets than hogs by dint of being, you know, fucking enormous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunting tourism is a huge boon to African conservation efforts, where have you been?

Pigs don't need help being translocated. They need help being dead. You could consider using a machine gun to do this "gratuitous", but it works, and the idea that it's inadequate and therefore unethical is ridiculous.

You want to kill one animal surely? Yep, break out the accurized bolt gun. That's not applicable to hog hunting, where you have to kill as many as possible.

I think you forget that we also have a long tradition of mass hunting to feed our love of biltong and venison. This means hundreds of animals taken in a single night, all by a small group of hunters backed up by what amounts to a mobile slaughter-house. And all with bolt guns.

 

Try again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it inefficient? In the big scheme of things, ammo is cheap.

Also, you can't really poison large enough numbers of hogs without threatening your own livestock and game. That would be why it's not recommended to do so.

I'm pissing all over it because you're sitting over there in South Africa acting like you know what's best for ranchers over here in Louisiana and Texas. It's bullshit. You have no freaking idea what pigs can do to a ranch, and how hard they are to successfully cull. I don't own a ranch, so I don't live that life either, but I've seen it firsthand at least, and I'm also not the one telling these guys "you're doing it all wrong!"

It's time for you to get off this hobbyhorse. Pest control is not pretty business, not if you trap them, not if you shoot them, not if you poison them.

I'm glad that you've retreated to using me as johnny foreigner here. Please feel free to trot out the yoeman farmer argument next, or defend the livelyhood of all the poor, struggling smallholdings that just need the obviously superior solution I'm objecting to to make it through the winter.

 

It's inefficient for the reasons I described above: because you aren't making aimed shots, aren't apportioning shots equally and (potentially) aren't using a calibre suitable for the job. It's going to result in some dead animals, some wounded animals who will die later and some who will walk it off and come back next week.

 

I'm not saying that pest control is clean or neat. Farmers here poison and trap here too. But I'm saying that there should be an obligation to do a good job and at least try to minimise suffering. This means using the most efficient methods (which this isn't), doing your best not to cause gratioutous harm (which this doesn't) and trying to extract as much value from the carcasses as you can (which this doesn't).

 

I think it is time you drop this, as your need to argue has brought you to defending something that everyone with a pulse can see is silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      There are many who feel that the 5.56 NATO is a superlative rifle round. Much has been said about larger alternatives to 5.56, such as various 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds among others. Less has been said about smaller rounds. Off the top of my head, I can recall that there was a German 4.6x36mm round, used in the HK36, and the British 4.85x49mm round. Neither of these rounds managed to gain widespread acceptance. My knowledge of the voodoo that is ballistics is somewhat limited, so I'm uncertain as to whether these failures were caused by flaws with the rounds themselves, or because they were below some lower limit of effective bullet size, beyond which performance decreases rapidly. Could we see a resurgence of these concepts in the future, or do they represent an evolutionary dead-end?

×
×
  • Create New...