Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.

Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.

Ah... as I recall 5.56 is ILLEGAL for deer hunting as it doesn't score a clean kill on one hit. As I recall you're required to use at least a .30 caliber of some sort. or 7.62x51/30-06. 5.56 is rated as a varmit round, for stuff like racoon, coyote, and the like. (Of course, this might be just a local regulation, YMMV.)

Now if you get an AR in 7.62 (and yes, I've seen them), THAT would be fine for deer hunting, but that's not a 5.56...

Hunting regulations vary by state. Some states allow .223/5.56 for deer, others don't.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.

Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.

Ah... as I recall 5.56 is ILLEGAL for deer hunting as it doesn't score a clean kill on one hit. As I recall you're required to use at least a .30 caliber of some sort. or 7.62x51/30-06. 5.56 is rated as a varmit round, for stuff like racoon, coyote, and the like. (Of course, this might be just a local regulation, YMMV.)

Now if you get an AR in 7.62 (and yes, I've seen them), THAT would be fine for deer hunting, but that's not a 5.56...

I have yet to hear of any place in the US that bans specific calibers for hunting, but I'm not familiar with the regulations everywhere.

At least here in CA, as long as it is a legally owned rifle chambered in a center fire cartridge, and as long as the ammunition is an expanding bullet, you can take game with it. IE: Anything that isn't a rimfire is legal.

What is it about Rimfire that they’re not legal?

Sorry if it’s a proper idiot question, but I looked up the physical difference, and couldn’t see any mention as to legality.

It’s because the only rimfires that commonly exist today are .22 Caliber. Too weak to reliably kill game. Which is why you can’t use them. It’s “unethical”

Note that you can use them for stuff like rabbits or coyotes. Those are not ‘game’ animals. It’s only larger stuff that is considered game.

Ahhh, fair enough. Makes sense really.

 helgrenze wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
And sure, rifles for hunting, but don't tell me you're using a 5.56 for deer.

Many do. Its perfectly adequate for white and black tail. I prefer my AK as I can tackle bigger game if needed but 5.56 is a perfectly acceptable hunting round. You certainly wouldn't go after Elk or Bear with it, but most hunters aren't so lucky to get a tag for those. Which is why ARs and AKs are good firearms. They can be for hunting, self-defense(criminals and tyrants), and just having fun at the range.

Ah... as I recall 5.56 is ILLEGAL for deer hunting as it doesn't score a clean kill on one hit. As I recall you're required to use at least a .30 caliber of some sort. or 7.62x51/30-06. 5.56 is rated as a varmit round, for stuff like racoon, coyote, and the like. (Of course, this might be just a local regulation, YMMV.)

Now if you get an AR in 7.62 (and yes, I've seen them), THAT would be fine for deer hunting, but that's not a 5.56...

You can get an AR platform up to .50 cal, if you have the money. I know someone with a .45 cal platform he uses for hunting bear.

Yes, I've seen a 12.5x44 (.499) AR platform as well.

It's STILL not a 5.56, which is what I was originally talking about and what most AR owners have.

.22 rimfire LR ... 120 ft lbs energy
.223 ar 15 round ... 1200 ft lbs energy
3030 deer hunting round ... 1700 (ish) ft lbs energy
ak47 round (note its the same width as a 3030, basically) 2100 ish ft lbs energy.
.308 hunting round 2550 ft lbs energy
shotgun slug (3 inch / 12 gauge) 2300ish ft lbs.

For taking deer, the recommendations are about 1000 ft lbs at the point of delivery -- note that shotgun slugs fall off fastest. The .223 round would work if you snuck up real close, but since those guns are pretty much going to lose their Ke (much like the shotgun) out past 100 yards to below the "good" deer kill level.... it makes sense to not use them in open areas.
Of course, the ar15 is pretty accurate even farther out than that -- so I suppose some hunters would try to take longer, still accurate, but weak shots with the .223, resulting in a falloff of energy and wounded deer rather than "clean" kills.

Its less of an issue in some geographic areas. My understanding is taking deer on the west coast or "out west" in the less tree covered areas of the country (or more sparse) with hills and valleys, gives more opportunities for almost sniperlike precision firing with high velocity rounds. By comparison, the close in deer hunting on the east coast generally happens below 100 yards, so the larger, slower, but solid 30/30, ak47, and similar are excellent choices. The ar 15 might work here, but not out west, as well, which is a fairly sane reason to consider the laws different by geography.

Also, among humans, the 22lr is the most lethal round in the USA, historically. No kiddin.

Emmm. .223/5.56 doesn't really drop off that fast. It keeps its power further than that, which is one reason why it is such a flat shooting and accurate round. It just has less overall than other calibers. 7.62 and 3030 have more energy total, but they have a big drop off which means you have to account for bullet drop. 5.56's main advantage is that it doesn't begin to drop for a very long way.

5.56 doesn't really need you to be close, if anything its the opposite. It gives you a longer window to take a good accurate shot because you can take them. It just relies more on being accurate because it is a little wimpy.

Though those are NATO spec ammo stats IIRC. If you get a heavier hunting rounds you can get more energy.

That's all fair, in fact, was my point. .308 would be my ammunition of choice for such an endeaver, I think.

Dukeofstuff wrote:


Also, among humans, the 22lr is the most lethal round in the USA, historically. No kiddin.

Yup, I was surprised when I heard this a few years back.

I think it was in Chopper Reads books where he described the.22 rounds bouncing around inside the body.

I guess their prevalence, low price and easy availability all contribute to that too.

One certainly imagines the wider spread a given calibre (right word? Clueless on guns except they go bang, and which end you point at the target ) then the more they’ll be used to hurt people.

Now, what about modern day, non-fire armed robbery bomb based ways to thwart or slow an invasion? The clever things, not the outright destructive things.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

One certainly imagines the wider spread a given calibre (right word? Clueless on guns except they go bang, and which end you point at the target ) then the more they’ll be used to hurt people.

Now, what about modern day, non-fire armed robbery bomb based ways to thwart or slow an invasion? The clever things, not the outright destructive things.

you mean stuff like this?
https://99percentinvisible.org/article/designed-for-demolition-why-the-swiss-rigged-critical-infrastructure-to-explode/
You kinda need the terrain for it. And the nerves to do it at the right moment, else your great plan backfires....

Generally tho, there are 2 types of things you can target:

targeting the Infrastructure: especially bridges, rail hubs(depending on terrain to be effective since raillines can be easily remande), Entrances into cities, - valley, forrests, hydroelectric dams, dams in general.
Aim, slow down an enemy, make terrain difficult, strengthening your own defensive position.

Industry and Production / money: Aka, Blowing up industrial building facilities, destroying machinery (especially precision one), destoriyng industrial shematics, hiding schematics, throwing gold reserves into lakes, blowing up mining facilities ( if you have any), destroying chemical plants, destroying fuel depots, destroying ressource stockpiles.

this is more to lower potential gains of an attack. There is no worth f.e. in conquering a country and dealing with it's occupation if what you wanted is just destroyed. Depedning on ressources and industry this might be less or more effective with the more raw ressources making it less effective.


Then there is detterence via weaponry. Let's just say that if we were to look in some arsenals and magazins we'd break the conventions on warfare quite heavily, heck only last year we managed to "finish" the destruction of our cluster bomb stockpile. Also "Finish "
( it wouldn't surprise me if they' d find chemical warfare agents left over from the coldwar. no seriously it wouldn't, considering we find whole tanks in our bunkers which we lost?)

 OldMate wrote:




This is glorious

glorious, ehhh.
It's more like the : "Why can't you be normal? REEEEEEEE" meme.

especially for the actual related countries to us.

Tbf that is also kinda wanted because idological defense is the whole foundation of swiss defensive stratagems but to explain that propperly i'd have to write too much.

Oh yeah, I understand it being a pain in the arse and real world consequences of having explosives etc still scattered over the countryside, not to mention the cultural fallout from being right in the middle of something like the coldwar.

But I do love tanks and the idea of finding a lost tank, well yeah, ultimate hidden treasure. I mean it'd be like someone else finding a vast hoard of gold, becasue if I found a vast hoard of gold I'd spend it on a tank.

 OldMate wrote:
Oh yeah, I understand it being a pain in the arse and real world consiquences of having exsplosives etc still scattered over the countryside, not to mention the cultural fallout from being right in the middle of something like the coldwar.

But I do love tanks and the idea of finding a lost tank, well yeah, ultimate hidden treasure.

Nah, we never really had explosives in our country, EXCEPT WHEN THE AMERICANS CAN'T BLOODY READ A MAP, THIS IS WHY GEOGRAPHY IS IMPORTANT!.
As for the self sabotage thing, that is a non issue if you work with precision and care.

it also helps when litarlly half the population knows that: gun / explosives + non education in these matters = dangerous.


Btw, there were multiple occaisons of finding "tanks", between the 400 in wallis and the 12 centurions, to the time in a drill where a squad lost it's transport tank and a year later the peasant shows up asking when they intend to take it back because it's blocking his barn.

yeah, not uncommon, also don 't be surprised when you find an assault rifle on a train... it's probably one of the most often lost pieces of equipemnt and in general things lost on trains.

LOL with the Americans not reading maps, in the second battle of El Alamein, American bombers took part in the softening of axis positions(Yeah I did not know this either).
Anyway, so naturally something goes wrong and a wing of bombers basically drops all their bombs on a very nearly empty desert, except there's two Australians, lying on the ground with bombs going off all round them(one was already injured) wondering what they did to deserve this.

By way of explosives I didn't mean unexploded ordinance I was referring to that article you linked in there was a bridge that was found to still have explosives on it, rigged to blow in 2014!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We sort of have an issue with un-exploded ordinance nearby becasue around a local dam was the Jungle training area in WW2. Occasionally something shows up,

Mine is more in the take it down while you retreat/retrograde aspect.

Transportation - I would take down power poles, trees, and other long heavy awkward things to put in major roadways and cause diversions. Its easy to use a map when you have a straight line from point a to point b. Turning around and finding new routes can be confusing even with GPS.

Take down power/water - there would be an assumption that a modern fighting force would try to stay in the buildings of those places they are fighting around. No need to make it easy on them.

Damage the integrity of bridges and other similar structures without destroying them. If they are on the attack and not really looking at the integrity we could get one or two tanks to sink into a river and drown their crew if they aren't inspecting the bridges before hand.

Without going down the poisoning water/food/alcohol route that can get quite dark I'll stick with these.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Mine is more in the take it down while you retreat/retrograde aspect.

Damage the integrity of bridges and other similar structures without destroying them. If they are on the attack and not really looking at the integrity we could get one or two tanks to sink into a river and drown their crew if they aren't inspecting the bridges before hand.

Build roadblocks near the end of the bridge, on the side you are on. Sets up a kill zone on the bridge that further blocks access.
Use cars rigged with explosives/mines so any tank is disabled if it goes over/through it. Make sure the cars have full gas tanks. Tankers hate fire. So does Infantry.

I remember reading about one of the special operations the allies undertook just after D-day, to slow German reinforcements;

Block the road with a tree.

A few miles later, block the road with a tree and lay anti-tank mines, to take out the recovery vehicle

A few miles, another tree, this time with non-magnetic anti-personnel mines to blow up the guys checking for anti-tank mines.

Etc.

(I think there were a few more steps, but the ultimate result was half a dozen guys held up an entire armoured column for about days without ever actually engaging the enemy, just by predicting how the enemy would respond to each new challenge)

Could also throw some basic spike traps in there th keep the infantry on their toes. I mean you're not combat ready if you have a hole in your foot. You could do certain things to encourage infection, that would amplify the effect. And it's cheaper than a mine.

Cheaper than a mine, yes, but a bit more labor intensive.

It would be another thing you'd want the locals involved in, for extra labor and to remember where the traps are so they can be filled in once the need is gone.

caltrops were a horrendous invention....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop Imagine marching through a field of these ancient landmines!

Think I’d make mine non-barbed. And cover them in poopoo.

After all, having the sole of your foot stabbed is gonna hurt loads. Better it’s easily batted out ready to stab the next person

The poopoo is for infections!

Nah, barbed is better. If someone does remove a caltrop from their foot they're not going to leave it on the ground for the next guy to step on. Might as well make the wound as nasty as possible.

Remember the idea of them is to hurt and slow the advance of the enemy and perhaps cripple some of their troops and horses.

Barbed means its going to do more damage going in and out and makes it harder to pull out. So that not only means more pain, and more chance if disabling injuries (esp on livestock); but also means more time spend dealing with them. That means slowing the marching column and that means you've bought yourself precious time to prepare/run away.

going to be a lot of war crime trials after these invasions!

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
going to be a lot of war crime trials after these invasions!

In general, starting a war is little more than armed robbery writ large. "They have it, we want it, so we're going to go take it!"

There are exceptions, but they're rare in historical terms.

And once you consider invading a neighbor to be a crime itself, well, self-defense is still a valid legal defense.

Usually the victor gets to determine who plays in the war crime trials.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
going to be a lot of war crime trials after these invasions!

Only the losers get tried for warcrimes. And only if the people in power care about prosecuting them.

The idea of warcrimes is silly anyway. Like when the Germans in WW1, the inventors of flamethrowers and chlorine gas, complained about the Americans using shotguns...