Big pig

Quote:

---

Care to elaborate on why you think he's an idiot?

---

thats a complicated question . lets see ....

Quote:

---

Just about any hunter with half a brain goes boar hunting with at least a .38 back up. Now going and hunting a 1,000lb boar with just a pistol is stupid.

---

that covers it quite well....
now you might notice that used the plural in my post Hosa ......

Quote:

---

these are the sort of idiots

---

.....the hunters had rifles as backup , instead of just killing the animal they let a kid with a penis substitute plug away at it.

Quote:

---

Funny how many commenting on this "cruel" act are the same folks that don't even bat an eye when a baby is ripped out from the womb of its mother and call it "choice"..

---

yes dave ......errrrr.... ?:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Anything short of a supersonic .30 + would not have killed on the first shot. Anything large enough to have killed it on the first shot would be unrealistic to go hunting with as you wouldnt be left with meat on a normal boar.

---

How is a .308 an impractical hunting weapon? What calibur of rifle is there between a .22 ans .308? When do you use a pistol as your primary weapon?

Even if you can't get it on the first shot 3 hours and eight rounds is cruelly sloppy.

If a head shot doesn't kill it it's almost certainly going to bring it down, then you get in the follow up shot to finish it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

that covers it quite well....

---

Also what does a man do when he sees a new wonder of nature? He takes it as a trophy...:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Also what does a man do when he sees a new wonder of nature? He takes it as a trophy...:no:

---

The problem is that this pig is not a new wonder of nature. Its was just a huge pig.

Hunting with pistols is not a activity I would recommended for anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Generally the point of hunting is to bring home food. In which case they massively suceeded.

There's very little chance of actually killing that massive boar on the first shot unless you came prepared to bag a rhino or a elephant. I highly doubt any of them thought they were going to run across this monster when they brought the guns that they did. A .50 cal is more then enough to down a boar, and most other game.

Anything short of a supersonic .30 + would not have killed on the first shot. Anything large enough to have killed it on the first shot would be unrealistic to go hunting with as you wouldnt be left with meat on a normal boar.

---

A proper way of doing it, would be to go home, get a better rifle, and then go hunting again. Bring along a 7.62 AG-3 rifle, and that boar would be dead within seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

the hunters had rifles as backup , instead of just killing the animal they let a kid with a penis substitute plug away at it.

---

I think that's one of the best points made here.
If they were underequipped, how could they say something like:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

His father said that, just to be extra safe, he and the guides had high-powered rifles aimed and ready to fire in case the beast with 5- inch tusks decided to charge.

---

Sounds like hunting for trophies and fun to me, otherwise they could have killed the pig right away...

Boars maul people. Thats how they attack. You don't go boar hunting with just a rifle or a shotgun unless you plan on shooting a friend. Boars are best killed with large caliber handguns. you guys are misguided.

on a side note, the kid had people acting as snipers following him when he was chasing down the kill.....it almost seems orchestrated. Too bad the pig didnt kill someone

Again, I inquire if any of the critics have ever hunted big game? Until recently, I have hunted big & small game all my life. An activity passed down to me from my Father at a very young age. I remember tagging along and being carried on his shoulders as a 5 year old during his forays into the woods. A common practice in the rural north-western Pennsylvania communities my family comes from (opening day of deer season is a State holiday because so many hunting age children and their Dads take the day off from work and school anyway). It's a cultural thing in most rural areas of the US, a "rite of passage" into the rural male community; a bond and social activity shared with your father, uncles, grandfathers, and friends. It's not just about "killing sumptin" as some seem to stereotype it as.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A little ballistics info: bullet weight velocity energy
S&W .50 cal pistol rd. - 400 gr. 1800 ft/sec 2877 ft/lbs.
12 ga. shotgun slug - 438 gr. 1600 ft/sec 3000 ft/lbs.
.308 cal rifle rd. - 180 gr. 2600 ft/sec 2750 ft/lbs.

The .50 cal pistol rd. and 12 ga. slug are almost identical ballistically. From my near 40 years of experience shooting and hunting with a 12 ga. shotgun this is astounding, mind boggling power from any handgun. Effective range for both 100-150 yds.
From my experience with the .308, the main difference is effective range because of the velocity and more ballistically efficient characteristics of the bullet. Effective range 300-500 yds. and even farther for a crack-shot.

Why opt for a pistol over a rifle then? The same reason some hunt with bows over a scoped rifle...the challenge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

but please show us all what lengths you can goto to justify your own sadistic cruelty

---

Trolling are we...

Could the taking of this animal have been done more quickly and humanely. Certainly could and should have, and is the goal of any hunters I've ever been associated with. However, anyone that has any practical experience hunting wildgame realizes that this type situation can and does happen.

Hosakawa Tito, the fact that the boar took 3 hours to kill shows that these hunters did it very, very wrong. It should have been killed within seconds. And yes, that is possible. Take a semi-automatic 7.62 rifle like the AG-3, and you would use 2-3 seconds shooting all the shots(and well-placed too) you needed to kill it almost instantly.

Also, the fact that the adults with the boy merely covered him, shows that the point of this hunt was for the boy to have some fun, not to kill the animal as quickly as possible with the least amount of pain. Instead, they opted to torture the animal for a long time. That's usually called sadism.

I refuse to call these people hunters. They should be called "killers" instead.

Not knowing all the particulars of the incident it's hard to say their actions were intentionally cruel and sadistic imo; possibly just misguided and wrong.
If someone had a shot with a rifle after the initial wounding, then they should have attempted to dispatch the animal (there might not have been a good shot available). Not doing so is wrong and I heartily agree with that. Allowing the lad to take the initial opportunity to take the animal, nothing at all wrong with that, how else is a young hunter to gain experience?

I bet those who think it cruel would call it real sport if he had used a bow and arrows lol. The reason hunters want to take big game down with one shot is for their own saftey not for any inherant concern for the well being of the animal or its suffering lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Not knowing all the particulars of the incident it's hard to say their actions were intentionally cruel and sadistic imo; possibly just misguided and wrong.
If someone had a shot with a rifle after the initial wounding, then they should have attempted to dispatch the animal (there might not have been a good shot available). Not doing so is wrong and I heartily agree with that. Allowing the lad to take the initial opportunity to take the animal, nothing at all wrong with that, how else is a young hunter to gain experience?

---

Well, as the article stated, the adults with him had rifles aimed at the animal, but they didn't shoot. So, I say it's sadism.

I don't disagree with giving the boy the initial opportunity, if the others felt that he was good enough to kill it quickly. It turns out that he wasn't, but that's a consideration that has to be taken on the spot, and I don't blame anyone if it turns out wrong. However, they should have taken measures to ensure that if the pig didn't go down at once, they could immediately shoot it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

The reason hunters want to take big game down with one shot is for their own saftey not for any inherant concern for the well being of the animal or its suffering lol.

---

I have no idea how the culture is where you live, but here, that's the reason. We don't hunt animals capable of hurting you here(few such animals exist, and the ones who do are illegal to hunt), but still we want to kill it with the first shot. There are two reasons for that, the first is the quality of the meat, the second is to prevent unnecessary pain for the animal. I'm not sure I want to believe you when you say that american hunters doesn't care about animal cruelty though.

Quote:

---

The reason hunters want to take big game down with one shot is for their own saftey not for any inherant concern for the well being of the animal or its suffering

---

From my experience and the way I was taught and raised; I must disagree, though like everything else there are exceptions. However, I do find it interesting that a Native American killing wildgame with bow & arrow or spears can be portrayed/considered as "noble", while Johnny Cornbread doing the same type challenge as cruel & sadistic. It's all about perceptions, and the real world of predators and prey is no Disney Land theme park. Some animals die, so that others may live and man is still a part of this cycle.

Quote:

---

I have no idea how the culture is where you live, but here, that's the reason. We don't hunt animals capable of hurting you here(few such animals exist, and the ones who do are illegal to hunt), but still we want to kill it with the first shot. There are two reasons for that, the first is the quality of the meat, the second is to prevent unnecessary pain for the animal. I'm not sure I want to believe you when you say that american hunters doesn't care about animal cruelty though.

---

Gawains' comment not withstanding, the great majority of hunters in our culture have feelings and goals toward the humane pursuit of hunting & taking game as yours.

Kudos for taking responsibility and staying with their prey until they made sure it was bagged. That's the way a proper hunter does it. He shot it, he makes sure it's dead.

And a kick in the crotch for taking eight shots at the animal without hitting anything vital enough to keep it down. Bigger animals than this drop with one bullet if you know what you're doing. Spine, heart or lungs FTW.

PS: If a hunter wants the challenge of using weapons other than a rifle then go ahead. Arrows have been used to kill with since the late stone age so I think they have a proven record. Big sixguns are fine if you can sneak close enough to aim properly. Just train first and make sure you have the skills to track down the animal if it doesn't drop dead immediately.

The big issue I have with hunting with a handgun is accuracy, most hand guns aren't arrurate beyond 50 metres if that and I have trouble believing a boy could even aim the thing properly.

I'm well aware boars gore, but they only attack when they feel threatened. That said they seem to have a broad definition of threatening behavior. In any case if I'm 50 metres or more away, down wind, why shouldn't I use a rifle?

If boars are that dangerous, why did the other hunters just watch the whole thing with their "high-powered rifles" while the 11 year-old boy kept missing/failing to kill the boar with his new .50 toy pistol?

Doesn't sound like they were vewry concerned, sounds more like they were ready to kill the beast had it started to get dangerous for them, but as long as it was running away, they let the boy have his fun harassing the animal.
And hunting for fun is something I don't like.:thumbsdown:

Hosakawa Tito

yep Ive hunted wild pigs and roos

1. we always used high power rifles - this was not a game
2. my mate (who was a more experienced hunter) always aimed at the target with me - if my shot failed to take the animal down - then his would not fail and would come seconds after mine - THIS IS HOW YOU KILL A LIVING THING - QUICKLY

3. I understand your trying to draw from your own experience here but I do hope your experience is not comparable to this spectacle

4. why are you defending these sickos - I am starting to think you know alot about hunting but have gained small wisdom from it, and am losing some respect

bottom line - you dont practice on living things - a hunter would know that

edit: added not

Quote:

---

Gawains' comment not withstanding, the great majority of hunters in our culture have feelings and goals toward the humane pursuit of hunting & taking game as yours.

---

I was reffering to why hi powered rifles were designed and used by big game hunters mostly in Africa not here in the US unless your hunting bear. They had no compulsion back then for the animals as we do today. Sorry if i came off as callous. Im a real animal lover.

We've a lot of vegetarians here at the org.... or a lot of hypocrites. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

We've a lot of vegetarians here at the org.... or a lot of hypocrites. :yes:

---

So what grain & caliber do you recommend for bagging a 5 pound cucumber?












Sorry folks. I saw the set - I took the shot. My bad. :thumbsdown:

Isn't banging a cucumber a bit x-rated? ~;) ~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Isn't banging a cucumber a bit x-rated?

---

I guess you're right, in a philosophical kinda way. I shudda asked about the cauliflower.

I've shot lots of animals before, but I generally use my Canon EOS-1D (Camera) instead of a high powered rifle (or pistol:inquisitive: ). I've always reserved the right to killing animals as mostly a ceremonial thing, and not the whimsical fantasies of rednecks with nothing better to do. I can understand where killing animals is beneficial because of over population or your starving and can't afford food or theres none around, but to kill it as a game... I don't know, it sort of cheapens the draw and makes the world less exciting for the worldly observers who like to look beyond the long and ever encroaching maw of civilization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I was reffering to why hi powered rifles were designed and used by big game hunters mostly in Africa not here in the US unless your hunting bear. They had no compulsion back then for the animals as we do today. Sorry if i came off as callous. Im a real animal lover.

---

Oh I don't know. Generally hunters have always had a level of compassion, remember they stalk and track animals for a living. You don't get good at that without getting to know the animals you hunt.

Personnally I'm of the opinion that hunting is fine if your going to eat it or it's vermin after your sheep.

Like with all human endeavours, there are good people and bad people. Hunters are no different. My wife's uncle I consider a good hunter. Example: several years ago he decided to try hunting deer with a bow & arrow. He hit one and it took off. He tracked it for 2-3 hours but lost the trail in a swampy area. He was very upset with the whole episode and he hasn't picked up the bow since.

There are also good things and bad things, it's ok to hunt out of necesity like they do in africa, but when you hunt for sport at least be honest about what you are doing, shooting animals for your own enjoyment. We have hunters here that claim they balance the eco-system, but they also kill birds of prey because they rather balance the ecosystem themselves.

Pretty much all the males in my family hunted, so it was natural that I give it a try. I hunted as a teenager but gave it up after a couple of years (for bowling!). I liked the being in the woods part, but wasn't that crazy about the shooting the animal part. I have some very fond (and powerful) memories of hunting - watching a sunrise from a mountain top and seeing the world wake up below and I'll tell you the best sandwich I ever had was one I sat on for about 5-6 hours while deer hunting. :laugh4:

I do agree with you Fragony, that there are good reasons and bad reasons for hunting. Unfortunately, you can't make your motivation to hunt a reason to issue or not issue a license. The hunters in my family always ate what they killed. Venison summer sausage is awesome. :2thumbsup:

I must say I am very surprised at the muzzle energy quoted for the pistol. The same as a 12 bore firing solid slugs? Can that be right? How the :daisy: would you hold it?

If it IS right, then there can be no complaint about the round used. 12 bore with solid slugs are considered fine for shooting boar in the UK. The kid obviously can't shoot for :daisy:, though, and needs to get back onto the range until he can be fairly sure of a one shot kill. OK, two, that can happen. But eight?

Quote:

---

Why opt for a pistol over a rifle then? The same reason some hunt with bows over a scoped rifle...the challenge

---

I am so not going into bow hunting here, but this does raise an interesting issue about what is "sporting". In the UK, a rifle shooter will only take a shot if he is as sure as he can be that its a clean kill. That is the ethics, and that is considered sporting. A game shooter, on the other hand, considers it sporting to shoot in a way that shows his skill, and that may give the game "a chance" (hence in part why sbs are preferred on posh shoots, as opposed on o/u. And turn up with a semi auto and the colonel will never invite you again. Also why you never shoot game on the ground)

Possibly this is simply because you can never be "sure" of a clean kill shooting birds with a shotgun, but its still an odd inversion of the stalking rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

I do agree with you Fragony, that there are good reasons and bad reasons for hunting. Unfortunately, you can't make your motivation to hunt a reason to issue or not issue a license. The hunters in my family always ate what they killed. Venison summer sausage is awesome. :2thumbsup:

---

Does Dick Cheney hunt for sport or for food?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

I am so not going into bow hunting here, but this does raise an interesting issue about what is "sporting". In the UK, a rifle shooter will only take a shot if he is as sure as he can be that its a clean kill. That is the ethics, and that is considered sporting. A game shooter, on the other hand, considers it sporting to shoot in a way that shows his skill, and that may give the game "a chance" (hence in part why sbs are preferred on posh shoots, as opposed on o/u. And turn up with a semi auto and the colonel will never invite you again.

---

Is it OK to use a belt-fed with tripod?

Imagines hunting deer with an MG42.