Recreational shooting and firearms collecting thread

[Guest Derek L]

I'll have to upload a coulpe vids I took at the range with a friend. Got to fire couple different firearms. The 12 gauge tactical shotgun was a bit bit/long for my arms. First crack, not seated right in my shoulder .. gave me a nice big bruise.

Since then he has acquired a couple more I am itching to smack some targets with.

Really? The above mentioned SXP, like most "tactical shotguns", is just over 3' long overall.......If you had a problem with that, you wouldn't want to try a Browning Auto-5......they're just under 5' long.......A shotgun has bruised many a novice......What were you shooting? 2 3/4 Buck?

Glad to hear you had a good time though!!!

[GostHacked]

Really? The above mentioned SXP, like most "tactical shotguns", is just over 3' long overall.......If you had a problem with that, you wouldn't want to try a Browning Auto-5......they're just under 5' long.......A shotgun has bruised many a novice......What were you shooting? 2 3/4 Buck?

Glad to hear you had a good time though!!!

Regular shot, then some buck, and a few slugs (boom!) I just did not hold it properly, and I had to hold it in real tight in order to comfortably use the trigger. Had to reseat every time I pumped it.

The first shot bruised me. The next 30 shots did not help either .

[Guest Derek L]

Regular shot, then some buck, and a few slugs (boom!) I just did not hold it properly, and I had to hold it in real tight in order to comfortably use the trigger. Had to reseat every time I pumped it.

The first shot bruised me. The next 30 shots did not help either .

Yeah, even #7 can hurt if you're not holding it right..........With that said, my wife's about 5' 6" 130 lbs and can run 2 3/4" foster slugs without it looking like I've been smacking her around

What you really have to be careful of if you're new around guns is scoping yourself.......basically placing your eye too close to a scoped rifle and the recoil putting the scope into your eye.......got to be really careful with that

[Guest Derek L]

To further highlight the folly within Canada’s gun laws, manufacture & dealers have now answered the calls of the public for CX-4 Storm with a 3” longer barrel:

http://www.reliablegun.com/en/beretta-cx4-storm-semi-auto-carbine-9mm-500mm-19685-black-synthetic-2x10rds

Now what might be the difference between the above gun with a 16" barrel versus a 19" barrel? The classification from a restricted to non-restricted rifle under the Canadian Firearms Act…….Before, owners of a restricted CX-4 Storm (Like myself/wife) that wanted it reclassified would have to go to a gunsmith and have a custom barrel added, then mountains of paperwork and time with the CFC……..Not now to enjoy this little carbine.......A great review of it:

[Guest Derek L]

Though I don’t agree with “Uncle Ted”'s usual form of delivery, in this interview he does make several good, and in my view, bad points:

I whole heartedly disagree with Ted on the benefits of requiring firearms licenses, coupled with mandatory safety courses. I think Government firearms licenses, like our current PAL/RPAL system does help to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from acquiring firearms. Likewise, government mandated safety courses helping to significantly reduce gun related accidents. Both in my view can’t be disputed as the contrast as to why Canadian firearms related deaths are much less of a percentage point then American ones.

Where I do fully agree with Ted is his point on the Canadian laws preventing the carrying (and discharge) of handguns in the same areas as we allow long guns……Be their usage by hunters, hikers, those that work in the bush or even recreational shooters, that I fully agree does not make sense. There is no excuse, be it for safety or criminality, as to why a 30-06 rifle can be discharged in some areas without creating a hazard to public safety, but a .22lr handgun can not. Uncle Ted makes a very good case here.

I will also add, an example that he didn’t touch upon but like handguns, also falls under the Canadian deemed restricted class, is the various variants of the AR-15. A 5.56 round discharged from an AR-15 is no more dangerous then a 5.56 round discharged from the various other rifles in said calibre. Using an AR-15 to hunt varmints doesn’t put the public at any more risk then using any other varmint gun, like for example, the Ruger Mini-14. Nor does using a .308 calibre AR-15 variant for deer, moose or elk endanger society any more then using any other currently non-restricted rifle in .308.…….

These are just common sense (for people that actually understand firearms) things, that if altered well still being coupled with the PAL/RPAL program wouldn’t have a net-negative effect on Canadian society…..There really is no argument against them……Just as a rifle with a 16” barrel being classified restricted, but the same rifle with a 19” barrel being classified non-restricted make sense.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Also wanted to add, tried out ones of these Wobbler targets today:

http://www.canadiantire.ca/en/pdp/duraseal-wobbler-target-1750715p.html#.Uub49NLTlkg

The maker says it's rated up to .50 BMG.....I dunno about that...maybe once........My experience today saw it holding up with no real damage to 500 rounds of Remington high velocity (1500 FPS) .22lr round nose cartridges, shooting it at 20 yards with handguns and 50-60 yards with a 10/22.…held up great, and unless I hit it near the base, righted itself every time. Even with .30 carbine FMJ at 60 yards the thing would do a couple of summersaults backwards and end up on it’s side, but no real damage….tired 30 rounds of .357 jacketed hollow points at about the same distance, no hits, but I sure scared it!!!

With 7.62x51mm NATO Full Metal Jacket rounds at 200 yards the thing was launched into orbit, but other then some deep gashes, still holding up…….Now with 180 grain .303 British soft points, at the same distance, the metal weight at the bottom of the base and the plastic body separated, but was still able to be put back together…..

At 40 yards (with that aide of two BC Sheriffs) managed about 20 hits with 00 buck and the thing would cartwheel back ~5 yards each time…..

Overall assessment, great for .22lr, stands up to centerfire rounds but is a pain in the ass walking 400 yards every couple of times to reset it……..I’ll stick with paper and gongs for the big stuff.

[Remiel]

Do the laws in Canada differ to those of the US with regards to what actions can be considered criminal intimidation while in possession of certain weapons? I was reading the regs once on things like swords and axes, and it seemed they said it was perfectly legal to carry around a sword in plain view but practically any communication with those around you could potentially be considered an act of intimidation. I would guess it is the same for firearms here, but I am not so sure about how that works in the US.

Anyway I can no longer say I have never killed anything with a gun, though it was just a pellet gun. The poor critter probably would have wished it was a real gun because it was appallingly ineffective at killing it quickly, to the extent I worry I could have been guilty of something. I will not likely become an afficianado, nor will I stop being relatively anti-gun, but since I am super hypocritical I will say that I kind of wish I could get my hands on a Macmillan TAC-50. Just because it was the gun used by the Canadian sniper for his World record shot.

[Guest Derek L]

Do the laws in Canada differ to those of the US with regards to what actions can be considered criminal intimidation while in possession of certain weapons? I was reading the regs once on things like swords and axes, and it seemed they said it was perfectly legal to carry around a sword in plain view but practically any communication with those around you could potentially be considered an act of intimidation. I would guess it is the same for firearms here, but I am not so sure about how that works in the US.

Yes and no…….Obviously if you’re acting threatening with firearms in Canada, the police will respond both very quickly and very aggressively….and rightly so. As to swords etc, that too depends…Some religions and cultures incorporate said weapons in various events, like say Highland games or a Sikh religious ceremony.

As to the carrying of firearms openly, there are certainly laws surrounding what, where and how you carry firearms openly, but overall most is common sense……For example, say you purchased a shotgun from a dealer that’s located in a urban strip mall…..Legally, you could simply put a trigger lock on it and walk it out on your shoulder to your car, but it only takes one nervous person to call 911 and the police will respond. As such, it’s smarter to have said trigger locked gun inside a bag or box etc.

Anyway I can no longer say I have never killed anything with a gun, though it was just a pellet gun. The poor critter probably would have wished it was a real gun because it was appallingly ineffective at killing it quickly, to the extent I worry I could have been guilty of something.

If you’re killing any deemed game animal, big or small, with a firearm (and there are some pellet guns more powerful then rimfire rifles, as such, you need a PAL to purchase), and you’re not First Nations or defending yourself, you’ve very possibly broke the hunting regulations within your province and probably various animal cruelty laws…….You might be alright if it were a varmint/pest like a rat etc, but even some rodents are included within the hunting regs.

I will not likely become an afficianado, nor will I stop being relatively anti-gun, but since I am super hypocritical I will say that I kind of wish I could get my hands on a Macmillan TAC-50. Just because it was the gun used by the Canadian sniper for his World record shot.

Though the TAC-50 is prohibited within Canada by name, with a regular firearms license, and a bucket of cash, you can most certainly purchase a .50 BMG rifle......Of course you could also purchase the rifle used by the Brit that bested the Canadian record:

http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/details/15275/Accuracy-International-338-Lapua-Mag-27-Black-with-Butt-Spike.aspx

Whatever floats your boat.

[Remiel]

If you’re killing any deemed game animal, big or small, with a firearm (and there are some pellet guns more powerful then rimfire rifles, as such, you need a PAL to purchase), and you’re not First Nations or defending yourself, you’ve very possibly broke the hunting regulations within your province and probably various animal cruelty laws…….You might be alright if it were a varmint/pest like a rat etc, but even some rodents are included within the hunting regs.

It was one of a number of squirrels any of which could have been the ones chewing into our attic.

[Guest Derek L]

It was one of a number of squirrels any of which could have been the ones chewing into our attic.

In BC, that would be illegal, both in relation to the hunting regulations and animal cruelty laws.

Simply put, and I’m making an assumption, you didn’t shoot said squirrel with a pellet gun that shoots over 500 FPS (since I assume you don’t have your firearms license), and even a more powerful pellet or air gun fosters a very cruel and painful death for a very small animal. There is a humane expectation that if you’re hunting an animal the size of a squirrel, you’d probably be using either a hollow point .22 rimfire or a .410 shotgun with a light loaded shot to kill the animal very quickly.

It’s very likely that your squirrel didn’t die from the pellet, but from a heart attack induced by panic....I wouldn't do it again.

[Remiel]

In BC, that would be illegal, both in relation to the hunting regulations and animal cruelty laws.

Simply put, and I’m making an assumption, you didn’t shoot said squirrel with a pellet gun that shoots over 500 FPS (since I assume you don’t have your firearms license), and even a more powerful pellet or air gun fosters a very cruel and painful death for a very small animal. There is a humane expectation that if you’re hunting an animal the size of a squirrel, you’d probably be using either a hollow point .22 rimfire or a .410 shotgun with a light loaded shot to kill the animal very quickly.

It’s very likely that your squirrel didn’t die from the pellet, but from a heart attack induced by panic....I wouldn't do it again.

Believe me, I would not do it again that way. But when you have already shot it once and it did not work properly the first time there is not a lot of room for backing down. If these are well known facts though that a pellet gun is not going to work well on a small animal then it should be illegal to market a weapon as sufficient for hunting rodents. That was not the case, however.

In any case, I looked up the relevant laws at the time and it seemed as if it were in principle okay to deal with pests. In Ontario what is illegal is to relocate them somewhere far away from your house, so if they are damaging it there is not really any alternative to killing them.

[Guest Derek L]

Believe me, I would not do it again that way. But when you have already shot it once and it did not work properly the first time there is not a lot of room for backing down. If these are well known facts though that a pellet gun is not going to work well on a small animal then it should be illegal to market a weapon as sufficient for hunting rodents. That was not the case, however.

I doubt any pellet gun maker markets pellet guns under 500 fps for being sufficient for killing small game.

In any case, I looked up the relevant laws at the time and it seemed as if it were in principle okay to deal with pests. In Ontario what is illegal is to relocate them somewhere far away from your house, so if they are damaging it there is not really any alternative to killing them.

Not for squirrels:

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/document/239852.pdf

Like BC, Ontario considers squirrels as small game/furbearing mammals……..As such, you’d require a hunting licence, which I’m assuming you don’t have since you’ve asked the above question……I’ll also assume, the required hunting course in Ontario, like BC, would cover said regulations:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_97f41_e.htm#BK131

As such, you've broken the law.......perhaps next time call a pest control company.

[jacee]

It was one of a number of squirrels any of which could have been the ones chewing into our attic.

Have you tried 'Critter ridder'?

Once it chases them out, you will have to seal up the holes, of course.

Much more effective than shooting every squirrel that "could" invade your attic.

[Remiel]

Have you tried 'Critter ridder'?

Once it chases them out, you will have to seal up the holes, of course.

Much more effective than shooting every squirrel that "could" invade your attic.

Fortunately they have not been so persistent in trying to get in since then.

[Guest Derek L]

From the "I guess it was just a mater of time" file:

http://www.tacticalcapitalcorp.com/

Just be sure to get the rust proofing on that new Accuracy International .50BMG target rifle…….With that, I think I’m surely in need of a Benelli M4 to ring in the return of The Walking Dead next weekend.....

[dre]

I just bought myself a Barnet Ghost 410 because its way easier to get elk draws if you bow hunt.

Gotta say its the nicest weapon I own. I've been shooting at bale of hay standing on end from 100 yards and can hit it every time. I wouldnt try to shoot an animal from that distance but thats pretty impressive.

Edited April 20, 2014 by dre

[kimmy]

Cool! Do you hunt?

I was interested in archery, and still am, but have yet to try it. I have heard that when it comes to hunting, bows tend to not give an outright kill and you have to track the animal for some time. It sounded excessively cruel to me.

-k

[eyeball]

Even more excessive given it's easier to get a licence to hunt with a bow than with a gun. What's that all about? The less immediate the lethality the weapon being used the likelier you are to get a permit? How many animals elude their trackers only to die anyway and how many animals does a bow hunter have to shoot before actually landing one?

[dre]

Cool! Do you hunt?

I was interested in archery, and still am, but have yet to try it. I have heard that when it comes to hunting, bows tend to not give an outright kill and you have to track the animal for some time. It sounded excessively cruel to me.

-k

Well... just like with a gun if you take an irresponsible shot it can be excessively cruel. But most bow hunters wont take a shot from outside about 50 yards. Its completely different than hunting with a gun... you have to get real close, or wait for the animal to get close to you. If you are that close you are going to hit the animal in the boiler room and it wont take more than 5 or 6 steps after.

Edited April 20, 2014 by dre

[dre]

Even more excessive given it's easier to get a licence to hunt with a bow than with a gun. What's that all about? The less immediate the lethality the weapon being used the likelier you are to get a permit? How many animals elude their trackers only to die anyway and how many animals does a bow hunter have to shoot before actually landing one?

It makes perfect sense. Its a hell of a lot harder to hunt with a bow. If everyone bow hunted then WAY less animals would get killed by humans period. Draws and lotteries are about managing the animal populations so it makes good sense that it would be easier to get a draw for a form of hunting thats much harder to do.

And I guarantee you for every animal that gets winged by a bow 100 get winged by rifles.

[eyeball]

That makes sense I guess but I trust no one is permitted to hunt with a club, knife or bare-hands.

[Derek 2.0]

The new Colt Canada (semi only) C7 and C8 line of rifles are in stores now......

[Derek 2.0]

Some other interesting news:

Applications to carry handguns have skyrocketed in B.C. and Alberta in the past three years – likely driven by demand among people who work in the bush and want portable protection against wildlife.

Rates have held steady in the rest of Canada, according to RCMP figures show released in response to an access-to-information request.

We don’t know how many of these applications were approved because the RCMP won’t tell us.

I doubt many.

We also don’t know how many were for concealed-carry permits for people facing “criminal threats” and how many are for openly carrying handguns in wilderness areas to defend against wildlife. RCMP Staff. Sgt. Julie Gagnon refused to break out the two categories.

Very few, typically only Politicians, Judges, Crown lawyers and high level police officers are deemed worthy by the Provincial CFOs to effectively defend their lives with a firearm.

The RCMP’s access-to-information office also refused to make that distinction, citing a section of the federal Access to Information Act exempting “information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to threaten the safety of individuals.”

How would said information threaten those individuals?

What’s less clear is whether a small gun will be much good against a big animal – a bear, for example – in a life-or-death situation.

Bull stuffing…….gun makers have been making specific calibers and firearms to contend with all forms of potentially dangerous game found in North America……

Other than armoured car guards, private citizens in Canada can be licenced to carry handguns in one of four situations: if they are trappers, need protection from wild animals in remote areas, or if “the life of that individual … is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals” and police protection is insufficient under the circumstances.

Of course, with average Canadian metropolitan police response times being ~10+ minutes, their definition of insufficient is clearly subjective……

Ottawa lawyer Solomon Friedman says these permits are “almost impossible to get.”

“The legislation actually contemplates somebody who has been the subject of specific threats of harm or death from a particular person,” he said. “The guy signing your authorization to carry, who is a very high-ranking police officer, has to certify that the police aren’t able to help.

.......And that almost never happens...........

Gardiner, a Metro councillor at the time who sat on the Police Services Board, was approved after talking to then-Toronto police chief Jack Marks, he said. For several years, Gardner carried a Glock 19, a compact handgun.

So a Toronto city counsellor was not only granted a carry permit because he got into a scuffle with a drug dealer, but was also allowed to purchase a Glock 19, which is prohibited firearm in Canada based on being less then 1/10th of an inch under the legal length…..

[Derek 2.0]

And the new proposed changes:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-owners-may-face-less-red-tape-new-responsibilities-under-proposed-law-1.2715612

Under the proposed law, firearms regulations across the country will be streamlined and standardized.

Here's hoping....

Currently, gun owners in Ontario, Quebec and P.E.I. have to apply to each province's chief firearms officer when they want to transport a restricted or prohibited weapon. Under the new rules, gun owners in all provinces would get permission to transport weapons as a condition of their licence.

I've been saying for a long time that the ATT is redundant........

The government also plans to allow a grace period for gun owners with expired permits.

They would not be allowed to buy new guns or ammunition, but wouldn't be at risk of jail time because of the expired permits. The length of the grace period is still being determined.

And so they should.......If Grandpa's renewal get’s lost in the mail, there’s no reason the RCMP needs to kick in the doors for paper criminals.

The new rules would also give the federal government more say in decisions previously made by each province's chief firearms officer.

And so they should……Firearms are a federal responsibility, there is no need for Provincial fiefdoms.

The government also wants to make firearms safety courses mandatory for first-time gun owners.

Good, but as it stands, very few people are actually able to challenge and pass the safety course without the course material unless they have prior knowledge of firearms.

Gun owners convicted of domestic assault-related crimes would also be at greater risk of losing their guns, as judges would be given more discretion to remove guns in the case of certain offences.

No brainier.

The public safety minister is also striking another blow in his battle with police over the Swiss Arms family of rifles.

The RCMP previously reclassified the Swiss Arm Classic Green rifle as "prohibited," which essentially banned it. In March, the government said it was troubled by the decision, and gave gun owners permission to keep the weapons, via a two-year amnesty.

Under the new plan, gun owners would also be allowed to use the weapons, in essence restoring them to their previous status.

The elected Government, not the RCMP write the laws.

I of course await to see further details of the legislation, and to hear if it will combined with several other private members bills, but overall many gun owners will get most of what they want and I fully expect the remainder to be an electoral carrot.