Please Note: I just posted a reply to Rohann's thread, Military vs LE Rifles, and it got me thinking about this topic. I enjoyed the similar topic about assault rifles. Let me premise things by saying that I am about to present an opinion for the sake of discussion only. Please don't get angry with me because you think I really believe we should outlaw hunting with these rifles. I don't.
 
 
Sniper Rifles - Are they hunting guns or just weapons designed and configured for the taking of human life and the destruction of property? Surely the State of California must have be forward thinking to recognize that any firearm firing the 50 BMG round has no sporting purpose and to outlaw such firearms in their state. I submit that ANY rifle designed and configured as a sniper rifle similarly has no sporting purpose especially as a hunting rifle. These rifles are too big and heavy to take to the field. They are designed for shooting at longer ranges than game animals are normally shot at and when used to shoot game at long ranges they often only wound an animal with too much of a head start to track and finish off. Many "sniper" rifles fire non-standard cartidges and super hig velocity ammunition that can travel greater distances that standard ammunition. The danger imposed from missed shots and ricochetes from these specialty rounds is unreasonable.
 
We should also commend France because many years ago they designated any firearm capable of shooting military ammunition as a military arm, illegal to posess without a special permit and unlawful to use for hunting. The 223, 308, 7mm mauser, 30-06, and 6.5x55 have no place in the hunting fields of France. Firearms shooting these calibers are miltary weapons only designed for killing PEOPLE and should be kept out of the hands of the general population. Because they have no hunting purpose, there is no reason for civilians to own them.
 
Every state in the USA has hunting equipment rules that limit the caliber of firearm used to take game. They also limit the types of rifles, length, magazine capacity, etc. States should amend these hunting regulations to restrict the use of "sniper" rifles, specialty "sniper" cartridges, and "sniper" ammunition. Limits on weight, barrel length, bipods and tripods, thumbhole stocks and pistol grips, night vision type scopes, scopes of excessive magnification, super magnum and high velocity ammunition, and military slings should be imposed. They have no place in the hunting fields of America and hunting usage should not be used as an argument for civilians to own such firearms and weapons. There are more than ample hunting rifles, cartridges, and rounds of ammunition to choose from without them.

Hmmm well i'm no expert but ummm there are hunting practices which require a high powered scope and calibre. Mountain hunting may require a high mag scope and round nessasary to attain a humane kill on an animal. I for one say there shouldn't be a limit to stocks or barrels or such things. a thumbhole over standard has little difference other than a more comfortable way to hold a gun that's how i merely see it and barrels of sniper rifles and  hunting rifles are of little difference other than weight.

Quote from: 45-70 RiflemanThe 223, 308, 7mm mauser, 30-06, and 6.5x55 have no place in the hunting fields of France. Firearms shooting these calibers are miltary weapons only designed for killing PEOPLE and should be kept out of the hands of the general population. Because they have no hunting purpose, there is no reason for civilians to own them.
 
Every state in the USA has hunting equipment rules that limit the caliber of firearm used to take game. They also limit the types of rifles, length, magazine capacity, etc. States should amemd hunting regulation to restrict the use of "sniper" rifles, specialty "sniper" cartridges, and "sniper" ammunition. Limits on weight, barrel length, bipods and tripods, thumbhole stocks and pistol grips, night vision type scopes, scopes of excessive magnification, super magnum and high velocity ammunition, and military slings should be imposed. They have no place in the hunting fields of america and hunting usage should not be used as an arguement for civilians to own such firearms and weapons. There are more than ample hunting rifles, cartridges, and rounds of ammunition choose from without them.

First I would just like to say I don't think they should outlaw sniper type rifles.  I don't see what is wrong with them.  With some of the things you listed, they would be taking away a large portion of the guns out there that people hunt with.  There is a lot of use for those calibers you listed and many even more powerful ones.  What's having a long barrel on a gun, or having a heavy gun, or thumbhole stock, or a high powered scope going to do?  Especially the slings, what is wrong with having a military sling on a rifle.  I don't want to sound rude, and if I am I'm sorry, I don't mean to but I just don't get it.  I agree there is no point in having a 50bmg for hunting, but the other calibers listed?  I personally use a 308 and my dad uses a 30-06 for deer.  I don't see how these are very excessive.  I have a 17hmr with a 6-24x50 scope on it, which I agree is more scope power than needed when hunting, but I use it at the range for shooting groups also.  There are varmint hunters out there who use heavy rifles with high powered scopes and bipods that are very similar to sniper type rifles.  I just don't get it.  I don't see anything wrong with it.  Later

Yes, thank you Marlin i've got a hard time trying to say the right thing. I tried to say just as you did but of course i'm wary of insulting ect others so again TY

I have a limited experience with the M-24 sniper rifle and I'd say that they may be more so than say an AK-47.  Most may not want to carry one around if they're hunting elk in the Rockies but they are made for better accuracy at longer ranges, much like a custom rifle.  May be fun to use at a prarie dog shoot, pronghorn or other forms of long range hunting.

QuoteWe should also commend France because many years ago they designated any firearm capable of shooting military ammunition as a military arm, illegal to posess without a special permit and unlawful to use for hunting. The 223, 308, 7mm mauser, 30-06, and 6.5x55 have no place in the hunting fields of France. Firearms shooting these calibers are miltary weapons only designed for killing PEOPLE and should be kept out of the hands of the general population. Because they have no hunting purpose, there is no reason for civilians to own them.

 Whewwww, thats a pretty bold statement.  It is absolutley pointless to outlaw a round, or ban it from hunting simply because of its pedigree.  Why should it be illegal to use a .223 but ok to use a 22-250.   Wrong to use a 6.55x55 but ok to use a .260?  We could go on and on with comparisons.  A round that was designed to KILL is exactly what should be promoted for hunting, a cartridge that is only intended to wound or maim wouldn't be fair to the animals.  Limiting general hunting to weak cartridges would cause a lot of suffering.  I say those rounds listed shoudl be the foundation of all hunting rounds, because of the same reason you use to ban them.  
 
 You would ban stocks, bipods, scopes and night vision.  Would you also ban synthetic materials to be used on the stocks. Do you have the same feeling towards the peep sight which has been adopted by the military?  How about red dot scopes? I have a vintage type leather military sling on my rifle, why shoudl it be banned?  
 
 I am sorry but I completely disagree in the strongest way with these ideas.  Was not your very own 45-70 a miltary rifle?

I use a sniper rifle alot in my day to day hunting.....Just this morning I killed a coyote that was circling the headquarters here. They find it amusing to circle the place in pairs...often 2-3 pairs at different locations. They messed up today though because I spotted a pair & busted the female as she trotted at 275 yards....That is 2 in a week that have fallen to that "sniper rifle"....

If we ever give the power to the Democrats & anti-gun groups to take away military calibers or scoped rifles, we might as well be poked with a fork, because we are "DONE"....

It is bad enough that the Democrats in California have banned the 50 BMG. Have you heard of a slaughter of school children by a wacko using one of those? While I might be a fan of the weapon, I'd not ban it for any reason.

Our right to keep & bear arms has already undergone surgery by liberal law makers & anti-gun people to the point that it is unconstitutional. When our forefathers drafted the Bill of Rights, it gauranteed the right to bear arms to the American People. The general public was armed as well or better than the military at that time.....You don't see fully automatic weapons in gun cabinets now, nor do you see a Scud Buster rocket launcher parked in driveways across our nation.....What you DO see is Americans losing RIGHTS that we have enjoyed for over 200 years. Not only with guns we use to hunt & protect our families & farms with, but FREEDOM!

Every time some law maker passes a new law we LOSE freedom! Every time some lawyer files a lawsuit, we lose that much more freedom!
When I bought my pick-up truck last year, they entered my name in a data base to check & see if I was a terrorist on the wanted list before they would sell me the truck!
GET REAL!!

45-70 Rifleman, I see why you posted this thread. I want you to know that I will not give up much more freedom. They can take my scoped Police Tactical Rifle after the last of my life-blood has joined the ranks of our hereos that have fallen in battle preserving our rights as American people, and freedom......

Rockinbbar

The militaristic, police-state look of the sniper rifles also does a lot to denegrate our sport. People are afraid of these rifles because they associate them with "head shots" and assasinations. If we turn non-hunters against us then all we are doing is helping the anti-hunter's agenda.
 
There is no reason to hunt with a rifle capable of killing at 1000 yards when it is generally considered unsportsman-like to shoot game much beyond 300 yards. Most deer are shot within only 70 yards.
 
A 30-340 Weatherby Magnum, for example, delivers three times the energy needed to kill a deer cleanly. The only real purposes for such a cartridge are to kill at such a distance that the shooter cannot be detected or for participation in some type of "long range" shooting event. The only reason a shooter wouldn't want to be detected is because he doesn't want to be caught for someth wrong he has commited, and there is little merit to justifying the use of such a firearm only on the basis of it's usfullness for "long range" shooting events. In any case, it is absolutely out of place for hunting. Long range sniper weapons can be used by criminals and terrorists but even well meaning sportsmen don't realize the long range danger these weapons create when they shoot through an animal and, with lethal velocity, penetrate the bedroom or sleeping bag of an inocently sleeping child half a mile away. Why risk the lives and safety of the masses to allow someone to use something for an unneccesary purpose?

OR maybe he/she needs a Magnum to take a very large-dangerous game? Didn't see that there. It's not like standard Remington 700 and Winchester 70 were ever 'sniper rifles'. Marine snipers used one like Sgt. Carlos Hathcock. I also think that if people relate sniper 'looking' to implements of terror then they need some education i'd say, kinda like how anti-hunting people don't seem to grasp that a animals population needs to be controlled for it's and our benefit either that or they're too blinded by there own ideals to recogize the truth.

p.s. as i recall the Sharps was in 45-70 "Custer's Last Stand"???they had 45-70s of some type

45-70 Rifleman,

So you would have us limited to WHAT type of firearm & WHAT caliber? You would also have weapons that "LOOK" a certain way done away with? Get Realistic!

I also think you are very wrong when you refer to hunters as being ignorant of what thier weapons are capable of! Hunters as group are very educted & have a thirst for knowledge of the weapons they use, the skill to use it, the effective range, and the animals they hunt.

So, if I understand you correctly, then you would also ban Weatherby Magums? I guess that leads to Remingtom & Winchester Magnum calibers as well?

I don't know where YOU hunt, but I hunt in an area where the chances of my spent round hitting ANYTHING after it passes through my animal are FAR less than my chances winning the lottery! "Hitting a sleeping innocent child" as you put it is absurd.

The members & administration of this site is dedicated to the family outdoors adventures we can encounter here & around the world. we do not support the "Banning" of any specific type of gun. This is a clean, family oriented website that promotes to the eyes of the public a very favorable view of what goes on in reality with hunters & fishermen, & shooters of ALL types. Long range shooting happens to be one of them. It is a legitimate sport. It is even sactioned by and participated in in the World Olympic Games.

We don't favor your views on gun control, & I might suggest to you that your message to the hunters & sportsmen & women that visit these pages are challenging & inflammatory.

I might also suggest that you might want to educate yourself on the Bill of Rights, Shooting Sports, Hunting, and re-evaluate your freedoms as an American.

Rockinbbar

Very well said everyone.
A valid point, but lets look at some facts:
The majority of modern "sniper" rifles (Law-Enforcement to be specific) are based off varmint-rifles, such as the Remington 700 PSS or even the M24. So to ban "sniper" rifles, you would need to ban varmint rifles as well.
Yes, the .30-06 Springfield was originally a military round, but it has come to be the most widely used hunting caliber in North America. Just because it was used as a military round sixty+ years ago, why would that change the performance of the rifle?
Let's take a look at a Moisin Nagant 1891/30 sniper rifle: The thing that made it a "sniper" rifle was the fact that the bolt was flush with the stock and not sticking out like a normal infantry rifle, and it had a 3.5x scope mounted on top. What makes this different from the normal rifle besides the fact that it has a scope on it?
People that associate sniper rifles with "headshots" and "assasinations" and don't like the look of them because they do such things, normally don't know much about them. I know that that's a sniper rifle's main purpose, but what makes them so much different from other hunting rifles? The fact that they have thumbhole stocks, bipods, and matte black metalwork? How does this make it "more dangerous" or "more lethal"? How does this affect the actual accuracy and performance of the rifle?
Banning calibers such as the .308, .30-06, and the 6.5 is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. I'm not saying you're wrong about what they banned in France, but what is the point of it? How will this make hunting more "ethical"/safer?
Now the 30-340 Weatherby isn't used, to the extend of my knowledge, as a sniping round. I can understand why a cartridge .338 Lapau might be banned in a country with very stict rules (which would still be ridiculous, and I doubt that it is banned) because it's sole use is for military "sniping", but this still doesn't change the effectiveness of the cartridge.
The military currently uses the .308 Win. as it's medium-range sniping round and in some of it's machine-guns, but why does this fact make it unsuitable for hunting?
Responsible hunters should know what is beyond their target and be safe about this, so what is a more accurate or powerful rifle going to do to change this?
Also, if the government were to ban sniper rifles or "sniping" calibers, then no one would be able to collect military rifles and such.
 
I have become deeply interested in the art of "sniping"; not because you get "headshots" or get to "assasinate bad guys", but because of the amazing skill and precision trained snipers achieve. Their equipment, patience, stealth, intelligence, and adaptability.
Yes, a few these "sniper" rifles may be more dangerous (all depends on the caliber) and some may "frighten non-hunters", but I don't think anyone should go as far as banning rifle's that are made for "sniping". For one thing, that would take much of the fun out of shooting, but how could they justify it? Many are based off hunting rifles, so banning these would be pointless.
 
Now I know you said that this is for the purpose of disscusion only, and we shouldn't get angry or anything like that, but this thread automatically raises controversy and is provocative.
 
Regards,
-Rohann

Ammentdment II:
 
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the prople to bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
The above ammendment says nothing about "hunting" as a reason for owning firearms.  Honestly, I believe that using those firearms for hunting was a given back then.
 
That said, I was at first on the verge of locking this thread....or moving it to a private forum for discussion between the administrators of this site to decide whether to leave it or not.  Threads started only to cause problems are not usually well recieved here, and I won't allow this to get carried away.  I'm leaving it for now, but will remove it at any time that I feel that it's gone beyond it's usefullness.  Please post accordingly.

I actually think an accurate rifle is 'safer' to a degree. Like knowing whats behind the target it's also important to know Where that round is gonna go. if you can't determine where that rounds goin your just a hazard to others outthere and to the animal next to your target or say a few feet/yrds off from your target could be an object of which the bullet could bounce off-of and then unless it's a tracer, hope not, that bullet is outta there. Ya gotta remember the point to an accurate rifle is to have that projectile go exactly where ou want it. I don't think it's unsportsmanlike to shoot at 200+ yrd targets to have no care for making it a humane kill is though.

Quote from: rockinbbarIt is bad enough that the Democrats in California have banned the 50 BMG. Have you heard of a slaughter of school children by a wacko using one of those? While I might be a fan of the weapon, I'd not ban it for any reason.
Rockinbbar

The Governor and people of California recognized 50 BMG rifles for what they truly are and the threat they truly pose. For that reason they classified them as Assault Weapons and banned them under California's assault weapon act. They just happen to be bigger, heavier, fire slower, and hold less ammunition than the other Assault Weapons on the California list.

Quote from: RohannNow I know you said that this is for the purpose of disscusion only, and we shouldn't get angry or anything like that, but this thread automatically raises controversy and is provocative.
 
-Rohann

Just the point.