hunting with an m305

Hell yeah, you can hunt with an M14. It's slightly heavy ('specially after you carried it for 8 hours!!) but exercise never hurt anyone especially if you're young. Of course you can hunt with it.

Practise shooting those iron sights and learn your capabilities with them - most people with healthy eyes can adapt to iron sights pretty easily.

If you want to hunt but all you got for a rifle is an M14 - then get out there and hunt with it and don't worry about what the internet gurus say or think. People spend too much time talking and worrying if their equipment is the best or if it will work - get your butt out hunting and you'll know first hand pretty quickly. ;)
 
BigUglyMan said:
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.
Click to expand...

The M-16 was chosen so more ammo could be carried in the field, not to lighten the soldier's burden. Since the curent conflict has moved from the jungle to the sandbox, it appears that atleast some American units have reverted back to the M-14.

What's the weight on that new .470?
 
yeah its just going to sit in my truck anyways till i see a deer or yote or in my quad boot its not like i walk cutlines from sun up to sun down haha. i was just wondering if it was legal or what ever and how accurate it is since i just started hunting last year so dont much about gun regs haha and i lay down to shoot or use a fence post anyways
 
I have hunted with an M1 Garand and a M14S. I hunt very well with open sites. I don't find them too heavy and I'm not a big muscle bound "He-Man".

I'm used to carrying a No4Mk1* with full field gear so I'm not particularly opposed to the M14S. In fact I am taking a M14S to Dease Lake with me shortly as my back up rifle. Running 165gr SPFB projectiles just fine. I'm sooooo looking forward to getting away from everything and roaming the buck brush, swamps and alpine.
 
casterpollox said:
Exactly what I was thinking....
Click to expand...

The qualities of the rifle hasn't changed, we the humans have :(

I'm thinking my Grandfathers accomplished far more acts of physical strength and endurance than I'll ever know (fighting wars, building houses with their own hands). And each generation will get worse, as all become more and more sedentary (and/or just plain lazy).

Tower Muskets for our Great-Grandfathers, Garands and Enfields for our Grandfathers, M16s for our Fathers, and we're panting during an advance-to-contact with Airsoft or paintball (Yikes!).
 
Boomer said:
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?
Click to expand...

actually we have.

go a bit further back than the '50s - during the fur trade, each voyageur was responsible for carrying at least two 90lb standard trade bales in addition to their regular kit - and they didnt have high-tech lightweight hauler frames either. there are Hudson's Bay co. records that recall one voyageur carrying eight 90lb bales at one time :eek:
of course this was alongside maintaining a pace of 55 paddle strokes per minute for 14 hours a day on a low-tech diet of lard and corn.

go even further back, and you have English Longbowmen who drew longbows with up to 190lb draw weights.

how many people do you know today - assisted by modern knowledge, nutrition and supplements - that can come even close to accomplishing that, much less doing it as a profession every day? i know zero.

the human race has become extremely diminished - i predict in another hundred years most will be morbidly obese slugs that need motorized wheelchairs to get around.

ironically i was just reading a thread where people were discussing different packs for BOB use, and many were criticizing that one pack weighed a pound or two more than the other (but had vastly increased durability/expandability). given that a full two thirds of America is overweight, i wonder how many of those critics are carrying around ten, twenty, or even fifty pounds of excess weight on their bodies that makes the 1-2lbs on the pack seem laughable.
 
I'M STILL USING A TRAPPER NELSON.
I'm 40 years old and I think this T.N. is older than me.
Why aren't I spending hordes of cash on aircraft aluminum frames and composites?
I ain't got no $$$$$ so I suck it up and soldier on.
Plus I can fix the T Nelson in the bush using native materials if I need to.
It's heavy'ish but it's what I have.

And that's all that matters.
You have something that you know how to use and use well.
If it's lightweight GREAT
If not thats great too.
 
manbearpig said:
actually we have.

go a bit further back than the '50s - during the fur trade, each voyageur was responsible for carrying at least two 90lb standard trade bales in addition to their regular kit - and they didnt have high-tech lightweight hauler frames either. there are Hudson's Bay co. records that recall one voyageur carrying eight 90lb bales at one time :eek:
of course this was alongside maintaining a pace of 55 paddle strokes per minute for 14 hours a day on a low-tech diet of lard and corn.

go even further back, and you have English Longbowmen who drew longbows with up to 190lb draw weights.

how many people do you know today - assisted by modern knowledge, nutrition and supplements - that can come even close to accomplishing that, much less doing it as a profession every day? i know zero.

the human race has become extremely diminished - i predict in another hundred years most will be morbidly obese slugs that need motorized wheelchairs to get around.

ironically i was just reading a thread where people were discussing different packs for BOB use, and many were criticizing that one pack weighed a pound or two more than the other (but had vastly increased durability/expandability). given that a full two thirds of America is overweight, i wonder how many of those critics are carrying around ten, twenty, or even fifty pounds of excess weight on their bodies that makes the 1-2lbs on the pack seem laughable.
Click to expand...

That's a good observation. I see signs of physical weakness everywhere in society. At a gym where I used to work out, I once saw a young guy doing arm curls with 15 pound dumbells while two young women on the other side of the gym were doing clean and presses with a barbell that was at least over a hundred pounds. I felt embarrassed for the guy. Those young ladies would have probably opted for an M305 on the hunt while buddy would feel manly with his lightweight sporter. ;)
 
While I do agree that our older generations were indeed heartier, I don't think there are tons of sporterized Enfields around because they wanted to be tacticool :D
 
Yes, they are too heavy to hunt with. I get my wife to carry mine. Then she'll pass it to me i see something worth shootin. My three year old will pack those massive five rd mags for me as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom