Divide we stand, united we shall fall.

[California Tanker]

About a week ago, at more or less the same time, pretty much every firearms board that I frequent exploded with Zumbo threads. Not only did the amount of threads cause me surprise, but so did the intensity of them: On one board, the thread had hit two dozen pages within a couple of hours. Barring terrorist attack or natural disaster, things don't usually get up there that fast.

My first problem was that I had absolutely no idea who or what a Zumbo was. Eventually I figured out that it was a person, but all the posts were so filled with vehemence, and I presume assumed that all others knew who he was, that it took quite some time to establish this fact.

Two days later I finally figured out what caused all the hassle.

There's a magazine called 'Outdoor Life', which generally speaking focuses on hunting and fishing. One of the regular columnists/bloggers, sponsored by Remington, is/was a chap by the name of Jim Zumbo. He's apparently had a column in the magazine for quite some time, and is a respected authority on the sport of hunting.

Well, last week he wrote in his blog about a recent hunting expedition, and he wrote that he was surprised when one of his colleagues mentioned that AR-15s are quite popular hunting rifles. Mr Zumbo apparently has only had the pleasure of shooting one once, and never seen anyone hunt with one before. He's a 'traditional' hunter, shooting deer, bears and whatnot with an old-fashioned bolt-action scoped rifle. In his blog, he expresses also his surprise at not having known that there were people who hunted with such rifles, and pontificates a little about it. In a nutshell, he went on to state that he didn't see why anyone should use such a rifle as a hunting weapon, and that they are terrorist spray-and-pray weapons which, frankly, have no place in hunting, make the neighbours uncomfortable, and should be banned for the common good.

This didn't go down too well. I'm evidently an owner of two terrorist rifles. Responses came in from people who use military-originated rifles such as the AR-15, SKS or AK-47 for hunting (a semi-auto .223 is very good for varminting, for example), people who use them target shooting (ARs have become the majority in National shooting competitions such as Camp Perry), and people who don't really care about such weapons themselves, but don't want to give any grounds at all, as if the 'terrorist weapons' get banned, then their 'high-powered scoped sniper rifles' that they -do- use, will be banned soon enough thereafter.

By the end of the first day, the editor put a note on the blog saying "This is Zumbo's opinion. We don't agree with him, but he can write what he wants and we implore you to recall that this is the same person who you've been reading and respecting for years." Outdoor Life apparently took quite a hit in cancelled subscriptions, and there were rumblings about shooters boycotting Remington as well. Pretty much immediately Zumbo realises that perhaps he made a 'whoops', and posts an apology on his blog, and a promise to go out and try hunting with an AR. By day 2, Remington make a statement saying pretty much the same thing as the magazine. The comments entry on the blog just didn't stop updating. By day 4, Remington announces it's severing its arrangement to sponsor Zumbo's column. Day 5, and Outdoor Life announces that it has accepted Zumbo's resignation. The archives on the website are removed and replaced with a simple statement.

So, we have established that shooters don't have much issue with turning on their own if they show weakness or ignorance. Granted, this makes great political capitol for the opposition. "Respected firearms author and hunter calls for ban on 'terrorist weapons'" is good press for people like Violence Policy Center (who this week have announced they're going after .22s)

In the meantime, at a meeting of police chiefs in Washington, an announcement is made that they're arming up their officers in response to an increase in high-powered rifles as a result of the end of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004. This is, of course, total claptrap as there is no practical difference between a 2003 rifle and a 2005 rifle, but nobody's listening.

Just for even more fun, Rep Carolyn McCarthy, (D-NY) has introduced HR 1022, the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007" This is basically draconian law which would declare illegal pretty much any semi-automatic centre-fire rifle built since before WWII. It even includes a wonderful line saying "Only sporting rifles will be exempted. Common use at a sporting event will not qualify it as a sporting rifle, it must be designed as such from the start". Fortunately, at this time it has no co-sponsors, but it's a bad omen for the future.

So, not only are shooters turning on each other, there are other issues out there which could affect everyone, but they're not worrying too much about them.

Hmm.

NTM

[Dingfod]

I'm going to partially agree with Zumbo. In all my years hunting, back when I did still hunt, I hunted everything from prairie dogs and rabbits to coyotes, from pronghorn antelope and deer to elk, and in the company of dozens and dozens of other hunters, I have never seen anyone hunt with an AR-15 or anything resembling it. Well, except for one guy I knew who hunted coyotes with a Ruger Mini-14, which itself can be fitted with pistol grip stock, flash supressors, and 30 round banana clips. It, nor the AR-15 would be legal to hunt big game with in Wyoming and a number of other states as they require the rifle calibre to be at least .25. For coyotes, there are better guns than the .223, the bull-barrelled .22-250, for example. When I hunted I didn't need more than one shot to down my game. A single-shot rifle would've done me just fine.

[Ari]

While I would question hunting with a full automatic, the very little I know about hunting suggests a semi-auto would be more or equally humane (possibly even sporting) than a bolt action (being that the sound of the first shot will probably scare animals and the ability to kill a possible injured animal is always good).

One thing that I want to know is a detailed explanation of what makes something a "terrorist weapon" or "assault riffle" beyond the fact they may be popular with terrorists, movie-producers, and assaultists.
It reminds me of an issue the sword community had awhile ago where a politician in one territory was trying to ban swords and considered samurai swords to somehow be more dangerous than other 3-foot-long sharp pieces of metal.

[Petra]

Gun nuts should be shot.

[Dingfod]

Give us enough time, it might happen.

[JackDog]

I agree with the Zumbo guy, and this incident proves just how crazy gun-people really are.

~edit~
When I say "gun-people" I don't mean all gun owners...just the nuts who think that they need military firepower to go hunting.

[California Tanker]

Gun nuts should be shot.

Perhaps, but the anti-gun people don't usually have the guns to do the shooting with, except for some high-profile exceptions.

One thing that I want to know is a detailed explanation of what makes something a "terrorist weapon" or "assault riffle"

An assault rifle already has an accepted and standard definition, along the lines of select-fire rifle firing an intermediate-power centre-fire cartridge. Those have been restricted since 1934, so the current ban is on 'assault weapons', which is a made-up term (They needed to come up with something scary!) defined primarily by aesthetics, not capability.

Evil Assault Weapon


Legal/Acceptable rifle


Both fire the same cartridge out of the same magazine, both fire a single shot per pull of the trigger, both are gas-operated, spring return. Basically they're mechanically as near to identical as makes no difference. They just look different, so one's banned here.

It seems Gerber (the knife people) are discontinuing their association with Zumbo as well, now.

NTM

[Ari]

Yes I meant Assault weapon.

Jackdog, can you define "military firepower"?

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by JackDog

~edit~
When I say "gun-people" I don't mean all gun owners...just the nuts who think that they need military firepower to go hunting.

What, you mean people who think they can go hunting with an AR which fires a 5.56mm round per shot to an effective range of 400m putting out 1.7kJ of energy instead of, say, a Remington 700 which shoots a 7.62mm cartridge to 600m and 3.2kJ of energy?

NTM

[Ari]

Correct me if I'm wrong but most standard carry military riffles are designed to fire a projectile that can pierce soft people or basic body armor, fly far accurately and not provide too much bulk.
Rather small but fast moving bullets seem to fit that criteria much better than a larger one.

Isn't the power of most riffles based mostly on the cartridge used? (Which seems odd to me as I'm used to pellet guns) in which case I would think banning cartridges would go a lot further to reducing the 'power' of publicly available weapons than banning a riffle.

[The Lone Ranger]

I don't know squat about the issue, but I know who Jim Zumbo is. He is (or, perhaps, was) a very respected person in the hunting community. He's written for Outdoor Life for a coon's age (I used to read his columns as a kid, while I was waiting in the barbershop for my turn to get my hair cut).

He and P. F. McManus are good friends and have a friendly rivalry going that each of them frequently writes about.

From his writings, Zumbo is very-much an "old-school" hunter, who seems to hold pretty-much anything that he doesn't consider properly "sporting" in contempt.

It'd be an awful shame to see him lose his job at Outdoor Life over this.

Cheers,

Michael

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Ari

Correct me if I'm wrong but most standard carry military riffles are designed to fire a projectile that can pierce soft people or basic body armor, fly far accurately and not provide too much bulk.
Rather small but fast moving bullets seem to fit that criteria much better than a larger one.

A fast bullet will fly a flatter trajectory and be more accurate then a slow one. A smaller bullet will penetrate more armour only if it weighs the same as the larger one if travelling at the same speed. It needs less powder to accelerate a small bullet to the same speed, which means they have less recoil. Smaller rounds also means a soldier can carry more of them. The reason the military moved to 5.56 from 7.62 is that a soldier is a little more accurate at closer ranges with the lighter round, and he has 210 shots instead of 140. As a side-benefit, a smaller round is more likely to wound than a larger one.

However, once you get into longer ranges, the equation returns in favour of a large round. Bullets with greater mass will suffer less deceleration caused by wind resistance, and so will be more accurate at longer range. This is the primary reason military snipers use 7.62/.308 or larger. A large round will also cause much more damage to the target, hence the prohibition mentioned by Dingfod on the hunting of larger game with smaller rounds: You want to kill the target quickly, it's less painful. As both 5.56mm and 7.62mm generally have the same muzzle velocity, but a 7.62mm weighs about twice as much, the larger round will have the higher effective armour penetration at all ranges. It is also a lot better at going through walls/trees/etc.

Isn't the power of most riffles based mostly on the cartridge used? (Which seems odd to me as I'm used to pellet guns) in which case I would think banning cartridges would go a lot further to reducing the 'power' of publicly available weapons than banning a riffle.

Yes, with the primary exception of barrel length. Generally speaking, the longer the barrel, the faster the bullet goes. (It also provides more spin, making it more accurate). There is a point at which barrel length degrades power, however: The bullet must be out of the gun by the time the propellant gas has reached it's effective expansion limit, else you get deceleration caused both by friction and an vacuum effect. A few cartridges have been banned by type, such as the .50 cal ban in California.

NTM

[godfry n. glad]

So, shit...

If I can use a fully automatic military-issue type firearm to hunt, why not use an M20 rocket launcher?

It most certainly be a "humane" kill, but I'm not sure much in the way of either meat or trophy would be left.

If you are hunting with a tag, no matter what the quarry, then an automatic weapon makes no sense whatsoever. By spraying bullets, you are far more likely to injure and/or kill more than a single animal at a time. In most states, I'd bet that is a violation of the game laws.

Also, it's not the cartridge, so much as the bullet used for hunting, as versus battle (man-killing), that makes the difference. Hunters use soft-point (or, hollow-point) bullets which leave a small entry wound, but upon impact flatten and leave a much larger (like, melon-sized) exit wound. Most legal bullets (that is, those accepted for use in war under the Geneva Accords) must be solid, hardcore bullets which do not flatten out upon impact, meaning the entry and exit wounds tend to be much nearer the same size (assuming there is an exit wound). Hunting bullets would be known as "dumdum" bullets and considered heinously inappropriate for war.

A fully automatic weapon with a clip which holds more than five rounds is illegal in most states for the purpose of hunting game...and there are obvious reasons.

If someone wishes to own a fully automatic weapon, then I think they should be so allowed. They should also then be considered a member of the militia and be required to show up for semi-annual training (muster). Training is important for preparation, communication and promulgation of safety and tactical information. Those not appearing should have a warrant issued for seizure of their military weapon should they fail to appear for their militia duty.

Lastly, I see this as a case of suppression of free speech. The columnist stated an opinion. Others are welcome to question and challenge his opinion, but to act to terminate his employment and make him into a pariah within the gun community reflects very, very poorly upon the firearms owning community. I suppose I should be grateful that Zumbo wasn't hunted down and filled with hundreds of bullets, huh?

[Angakuk]

My dad has a Remington .22 long rifle, semi-automatic, with a scope. He has owned it as long as I can remember, at least 45 yrs. To the best of my recollection it has never killed anything larger than a tin can. Sure is some awesome terrorist weapon.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

If I can use a fully automatic military-issue type firearm to hunt,

Generally speaking, you can't, at least not legally.

Most legal bullets (that is, those accepted for use in war under the Geneva Accords) must be solid, hardcore bullets which do not flatten out upon impact, meaning the entry and exit wounds tend to be much nearer the same size (assuming there is an exit wound). Hunting bullets would be known as "dumdum" bullets and considered heinously inappropriate for war.

There is no reason you cannot use such deforming rounds out of a civilian-owned 5.56mm or 7.62mm. If I can fire the round out of a .308 hunting rifle, I can fire it out of my FAL battle rifle.

A fully automatic weapon with a clip which holds more than five rounds is illegal in most states for the purpose of hunting game...and there are obvious reasons.

A fully automatic weapon is generally illegal for any purposes, and has been since 1934.

If someone wishes to own a fully automatic weapon, then I think they should be so allowed.

Some states, such as Arizona, allow full-auto firearms subject to federal restrictions. Obtaining a Federal auto-permit is neither easy or cheap. I have yet to meet a person who lawfully owns a full-auto weapon.

In the meantime, Zumbo has posted this on another board.

JimZumbo
Junior Member posted 02-22-2007 11:49 AM
The last few days have been an educational experience, to say the least. My ill-conceived inflammatory blog, as all of you now know, set off a firestorm that, I’m told, has never before been equaled. I’m not proud of that.

Let me say this at the outset. My words here are from the heart, and all mine. No one can censor me, and I answer to no one but myself. And I have no one to blame but myself. Outdoor Life, a magazine that I worked for full-time as Hunting Editor for almost 30 years, fired me yesterday. My TV show was cancelled yesterday. Many of my sponsors have issued statements on their website to sever all relationships. This may cause many of you to do backflips and dance in the streets, but, of course, I’m not laughing, nor am I looking for sympathy. I don’t want a pity party.

They say hindsight is golden. Looking back, I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. What I’ve learned over the last few days has enlightened and amazed me. As a guy who hunts 200 days a year, does seminars on hunting, wrote for six hunting magazines, had a hunting TV show, and wrote 20 books on hunting, how could I have been so ignorant and out of touch with reality in the world of hunting and shooting?

But I was. I really can’t explain it, maybe because I just summarily dismissed the firearms in question in my mind when I saw them in magazines and catalogs. I saw one “black” firearm in a hunting camp in all my 50 years of hunting, and I shot one last year off a boat when fishing in Alaska. To tell the truth, it was fun and I enjoyed it immensely, but I never considered one for use in hunting. I have to tell you that I have had a revelation. I’m learning that many of my pals own AR-15’s and similar firearms and indeed use them for hunting. I was totally unaware that they were being used for legitimate hunting purposes. That is the absolute truth.

My biggest regret is not the financial impact of all this. I’m almost 67 and retirement is an option. The dreadful impact here is that I inadvertently struck a spear into the hearts of the people I love most…America’s gun owners. And, even though this huge cadre of dedicated people have succeeded in stripping me of my career, I hold no grudges. I will continue to stand as firm on pro hunting as I’ve ever done. But what’s different now is that I’ll do all I can to educate others who are, or were, as ignorant as I was about “black” rifles and the controversy that surrounds them. My promise to you is that I’ll learn all I can about these firearms, and by the time this week is out, I’ll order one. The NUGE has invited me to hunt with him using AR-15’s, and I’m eager to go, and learn. I’ll do all I can to spread the word.

I understand that many of you will not accept this apology, believing that the damage has been done and there’s no way to repair it. You have that right. But let me say this. I mentioned this above, and I’ll repeat it. I’m willing to seize this opportunity to educate hunters and shooters who shared my ignorance. If you’re willing to allow me to do that, we can indeed, in my mind, form a stronger bond within our ranks. Maybe in a roundabout way we can bring something good out of this.

Jim Zumbo

Seems honest enough, but doesn't acknowledge people like myself who use the rifles to shoot at paper targets and not animals.

NTM

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by Ari

Jackdog, can you define "military firepower"?

The two pics that CT provided are what I would call military firepower...but I was kind of using the term loosely. I've got absolutely no problem with hunting and people owing guns for hunting or handguns for self-defense, but I think that gun-people tend to want powerful weapons for no good reason. When hunting, I think that the only firearms you should only be allowed to use are pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns, and muzzle-loaders--anything else is overkill. As far as what defines a hunting rifle, I'd have to say I'll know it when I see it.

[Clutch Munny]

I agree that a .223 is a good varmint rifle, though between our Winchester .243 and Marlin Model 39 .22 on the farm, I thought we had the best small calibre rifles we could want.

From my perspective this episode is most interesting for the light it sheds on how radicalized and organized the gun lobby is.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by JackDog

The two pics that CT provided are what I would call military firepower...but I was kind of using the term loosely. I've got absolutely no problem with hunting and people owing guns for hunting or handguns for self-defense, but I think that gun-people tend to want powerful weapons for no good reason. When hunting, I think that the only firearms you should only be allowed to use are pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns, and muzzle-loaders--anything else is overkill. As far as what defines a hunting rifle, I'd have to say I'll know it when I see it.

OK, so you are basing your opinions on what should and should not be legal purely on aesthetics. On the plus side, you're not the only person to do that.

Bear in mind also that I personally don't care much what is or is not suitable for hunting: I'm a target shooter, not a hunter.

Reading through other threads on Zumbo's latest post, people are looking at it possibly as a net win: If he does indeed educate himself on ARs et al, he could be a useful ally in converting 'traditional' hunters and unifying shooters as a whole.

NTM

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

There is no reason you cannot use such deforming rounds out of a civilian-owned 5.56mm or 7.62mm. If I can fire the round out of a .308 hunting rifle, I can fire it out of my FAL battle rifle.

NTM

Acknowledged. When I was hunting, I was reloading. What we used for brass was surplused US military shell casings. For both .308 and .30-06 rifles.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Acknowledged. When I was hunting, I was reloading. What we used for brass was surplused US military shell casings. For both .308 and .30-06 rifles.

I had a nasty shock at the store this week. 20 rounds of Winchester .308 for $17 plus tax. At the same time I picked up a box of 50 9mm Para, for $11. If I take up shooting the FAL a lot (I only built it this week), I'm going to have to take a serious look at reloading. However, I'm not convinced I'll be doing it enough to be worth the initial investment in the tools. (Or the patience to do it!)

NTM

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I had a nasty shock at the store this week. 20 rounds of Winchester .308 for $17 plus tax. At the same time I picked up a box of 50 9mm Para, for $11. If I take up shooting the FAL a lot (I only built it this week), I'm going to have to take a serious look at reloading. However, I'm not convinced I'll be doing it enough to be worth the initial investment in the tools. (Or the patience to do it!)

NTM

Heh... Yeah, my father, the fussbudget tightwad hunters' safety instructor, loved to dink around with the reloading equipment he'd invested in years before I ever entered the picture. We even melted lead and cast our own bullets (he wanted his two boys to understand the process from beginning to end). He was a big fan of Herter's catalog...long before catalog shopping became fashionable.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

\I had a nasty shock at the store this week. 20 rounds of Winchester .308 for $17 plus tax. At the same time I picked up a box of 50 9mm Para, for $11.

Why is that? Just a demand difference?

I've never fired the FN, but with five family members in the military back when it was Canada's standard battle rifle, I heard a fair bit about it (though mostly about using it in full auto mode).

[godfry n. glad]

Probably.

The .308, .30-06 and .30-30 are the three most common rifles in the U.S.

The liberals are probably stocking up against a potential Bush martial law measure.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I had a nasty shock at the store this week. 20 rounds of Winchester .308 for $17 plus tax.

One reason I enjoy killing a paper target with penny or less .177 and .22 pellets.

[California Tanker]

OK, a test for JackDog...

Which of these would you ban, which would you allow, and why? (Hint, they all fire the same ammunition bar one)

Why is that? Just a demand difference?

I've never fired the FN, but with five family members in the military back when it was Canada's standard battle rifle, I heard a fair bit about it (though mostly about using it in full auto mode).

Pretty much. 5.56mm is hard to find these days as well, the Army's buying up a lot of production.

The FAL was my service rifle in Ireland, so I got mine as much for 'old time's sake' as anything else. Hell of a kick to it, full auto is kindof scary.

One reason I enjoy killing a paper target with penny or less .177 and .22 pellets

Back in the day, I once shot for Ireland with .177 / 4.5mm Olympic Air Rifle. I ditched it after I came to California: There's not much support around here for thousand-dollar air rifles, and not a single range supports it that I know of outside of Los Angeles area.

NTM