hunting with an m305
- Thread starter olansky
- Start date
Yes, you can hunt with it. Alberta puts a 5 round limit on semi's in the hunting regs, but that is no issue since you are limited to 5 round mags anyways. Open sights are OK out to pretty decent ranges if you are good with them, but the biggest problem is that they are useless in the low light conditions at first light and sundown, which is when a lot of game is taken.
FWIW, I plan to take my Garand out for a day or two next season, but I will also bring a scoped rifle with me for the early/late hours with poor light.
Mark
FWIW, I plan to take my Garand out for a day or two next season, but I will also bring a scoped rifle with me for the early/late hours with poor light.
Mark
yeah i plan on using that or my sks in the bush and along the river next to my house for a throw around rifle since last year my .300 hit a tree
p.s my m305 came with a 20 shot mag
let that puppy bark the day after i bought it at the high prairie gun show after i fixed the jammed ejector pin
p.s my m305 came with a 20 shot mag
let that puppy bark the day after i bought it at the high prairie gun show after i fixed the jammed ejector pin
You throw your guns?........Against trees?
blasted_saber
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- A blue part of Ontario
I would think they are a tad heavy for an ideal hunting rifle. I dont own one however. And as for the open sights question, yes, they are fine. We havent always had scopes, you know.
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
I thought mine was a tad heavy for the average hunt...alright for stand hunting i guess. would make a hell of a club
lol no i dont i forgot that gun boot was higher then my handle bars and hung over and went under a fallen tree and yeah haha so no more expensive rifles on quads for me haha
and yeah it is heavy but still lighter then my .308 remington
and yeah it is heavy but still lighter then my .308 remington
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I've heard this criticism before, and find it curious. How is it that a copy of the rifle that was issued to troops 50 years ago and had to be carried with a pile of other gear as well, is now deemed too heavy? Have we become so diminished since the 1950s? A hunter must seldom carry as much gear as a soldier, and while we have been able to purchase light rifles for quite some time, I don't see how a 9 pound rifle is much of a hardship. The double rifle I carried under the African sun weighed half again as much as an M-14, and I'm no good at high altitude or in the heat, but I didn't find the rifle to be a burden, nor would I find an M-14 clone, a full stocked Lee Enfield or military Mauser to be much of a hardship here.
- Location
- Saskatchewan
Exactly what I was thinking....
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
Wonder why they changed from the M14 to the M16? Because the M14 was too heavy to hump around effectively. Better use of that amount of weight was for more ammo and gear of which the modern M4 equipped soldier carries several times more than the WW2 or Korean War era grunt.
The same parallel can be drawn with hunting rifles. If you can only practically carry X lbs all day over hill and dale you have to decide where to allocate that weight. Plus you have to plan to hump a carcass at least part of the way back to the truck along with all your gear. Why overburden yourself at the start with a rifle that is unnecessarily heavy? Sure you can, but why bother? Particularly when there are no shortage of sporter weight rifles available that will save you weight, be easier to scope and more accurate than the M305?
And I'm pretty sure that while my double rifle weighs a comparable amount to an M305 (with all the usual tarting up done to it), when I'm in Africa I won't have to worry about packing more than a light day pack (if that) and won't have to pack any meat out.
The same parallel can be drawn with hunting rifles. If you can only practically carry X lbs all day over hill and dale you have to decide where to allocate that weight. Plus you have to plan to hump a carcass at least part of the way back to the truck along with all your gear. Why overburden yourself at the start with a rifle that is unnecessarily heavy? Sure you can, but why bother? Particularly when there are no shortage of sporter weight rifles available that will save you weight, be easier to scope and more accurate than the M305?
And I'm pretty sure that while my double rifle weighs a comparable amount to an M305 (with all the usual tarting up done to it), when I'm in Africa I won't have to worry about packing more than a light day pack (if that) and won't have to pack any meat out.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Some people need to spend more time on the treadmill instead of in front of the computer, that's why! I guess it helps that I used to hunt exclusively with a scoped No.1 Tropical and still carry my day pack and still had to pack my own meat out. Was younger back then though, good conditioning.
Complaining about the weight of a rifle reminds me of having kids. With the first one you go to the mall with 3 diaper bags, 1 stroller, a carrying basket 2 blankets and toys. By the time you get to the third kid you have a couple wetones in a ziplock and 1 spare diaper in her purse.
It's not the weight of the rifle - it's usually the pack. Do you really need 200' of rope on a deer hunt? Full dressing kit... ect. I have taken my Norinco M305 a couple of times and don't see any real difference from one rifle to another. 1-2 lbs just don't make that much difference to me. If it did, I'd have a smaller breakfast and bigger bowel movement before a hike and all's good.
It's not the weight of the rifle - it's usually the pack. Do you really need 200' of rope on a deer hunt? Full dressing kit... ect. I have taken my Norinco M305 a couple of times and don't see any real difference from one rifle to another. 1-2 lbs just don't make that much difference to me. If it did, I'd have a smaller breakfast and bigger bowel movement before a hike and all's good.
There is a vast difference between the technology of 50yrs ago compared to now. Bullets, powder, optics, manufacturing, materials, etc all come to mind. I'm pretty sure that the troops and hunters of the 1950s would have appreciated these advances as we do.
When I go afield, I do it for recreation. This is a lot different with what a soldier has in mind.
.
If you will be doing a lot of walking with the rifle, get a sling designed to carry the rifle out front. A Safari tactical sling makes carrying it effortless, and frees your hands to do other things. Carried out front, its faster to lift and shoot.
I think the weight of the rifle itself took back seat to the change in calibre, allowing troops to carry a lot more ammunition and engage targets using full auto more effectively. Seeing as a hunter needs a fraction of the rounds a soldier does, the weight is not that significant, assuming you use a sling properly. Take what you like to the field, but I'd take a m305 in a heartbeat.
