.270

dang, that's a big buck. Lark.

how can you kill a pope and young record book animal with a rifle? and they have november archery elk hunts now. and they have been killing some really nice bulls. people always have these opinions that some rifles aren't adequate for elk or whatever, but bows are. it always cracks me up to read it. when any rifle is better than any bow. Lark.

what kinda bush was that he et? that pig looks stoned to me. javelinas are an intersting critter for sure. Lark.

what scenario is crazy? if she flinches with a hard kick, then get her a gun she won't flinch with. a .243 will do anything you can make it do. and it will do more than "any" bow. but in the hands of a guy that knows what he's doing, a bow is fine too. from how i read what you just wrote, you made my arguement for me. i never said she was anything. with all the equipment that is available today, the only unkown variable is the hunter. no matter what the prey or what kind of tool you are going to use to kill it. the success of any hunt, depends on the hunter. no matter what the game, the weather, the conditions, the terrain or anything else. cartridge, rifle, bow, scope, ammo, broadheads, etc, none of it matters. just the hunter. is this lady doesn't like to get hammered every time she pulls the trigger, she needs a rifle she ain't afraid of. there ain't much that can overcome a flinch. when i was a little kid my first rifle was an old .30/30. steel crescent butt plate old model 94 winchester with 170 gr ammo loaded really hot . and it kicked me hard. i flinched so bad i had a hard time hitting the same hill the deer were on. we'd go target practice and my old man would get all pissed at me because i couldn't hit anything. the one day he sat down like i always did, and shot it a few times. bruised his shoulder. he got me some 150's and a slip on kick pad and i did pretty good with it. when i moved up to my first .270, that had a kick pad on it and a scope, it felt like feathers compared to that old 94. one of the worst things you can do to a kid or someone just starting to hunt, is to let em be afraid of their firearm. i don't know that i'd get locked into a semi auto, tho they do have a little less recoil. they are heavier and you have to deal with all day. but a good friend of mine has been using an old belgian browning auto in .243 for over 30 years, and he loves it. and he is bigger than me. just about anything will kill just about anything. just depends on who's using it. Lark.

cousin eddie always stoled the scenes tho. now we know why he was so good. he is actually crazy. Lark.

how is it a totally different ball game? i have to disagree with that. you're out there to kill an elk. you use what you have. i hear people all the time talk about this and that not being enough for a certain animal, when guys kill the same animal with a bow and arrow. there ain't a bow and arrow on earth that is even 50% as effective as a .243. i ask this question all the time. and so far nobody has answered it. here's the answer. the difference is the guy packin' it. if any gun ain't enough for an elk, it's because the guy doin' the shootin' ain't enough, not the gun. indians used to kill buffs by runnin' em off a cliff. no weapon. just experience. they killed all kindsa other stuff with bows that pale when compared to today's. and spears. cavemen killed mastodons and mammoths with clovis pointed spears. my ol' man shot several wily coues bucks with his ol' bear recurve. pigmys kill elephants with dinky little bows and arrows that will just barely stick in em. with poison tips, they get their animal. well, they used to. poor little fellers have about been outta business by progress. bows and rifles are completely and within reason, comparable, with the right guy packin' it. there are calibers that are "better" in a certain scenario, but they are all pretty much capable of the same results. i read a story once about an old eskimo that was real good at killin' polar bears. he used an old single shot .22. snuck up and shot em in the head. i think he had an extra sled just to haul his gonads. the greatest ivory hunter was karamojo bell. he used a 7x57 mauser and a .303 british. i kinda doubt you'll find anyone using those calibers these days for elephants. the only true variable, is the hunter. if anything is inadequate, it's the hunter. well, unless we're talkin' 7mm/08's. then it's just a severe behaviorial disorder. if you can only have one rifle, then get a .270. if someone can't take recoil, a .243 is a perfect choice. hotrod little cartridge, light recoil, even when loaded hot. and if you know what you're doing, they'll kill anything in this state. the reason i use a .270, for most stuff, is because i've shot one since i was 12, have used the same rifle now for almost 35 years, and because my ol' man says they are the best. Lark.

is it a real moon eclipse or is casey just gonna pull his pants up over the plumber's crack? Lark.

IF A 243 IS TOO LIGHT FOR ELK, HOW IS A BOW AND ARROW OK? LARK!

spend all the time you can learning all you can about it, then take a vacation there this summer and learn some about it, then after you get a tag, leave in time to give yourself a full week to scout before the season, then shoot a big buck. the strip ain't some mythical place that only a select few are able to know about and hunt effectively. i know a couple absolute idjuts that are pretty good at snakin' bucks off the strip. and tracking on the strip is a real good way to go. but so is glassing. and sitting water. and spot and stalk, and every other way to hunt that they have a name for. there are plenty of places that are far enough from a road that people don't get to. that place is big. like bigger than a lotta states. don't start out by being a pessimist. i mean muleys are like mensa bucks, when compared to midget deer, but they still ain't as smart as you, if you put your mind to it. invest half what a guide wants in time off work and maybe some good camping equipment. go early, set up a good camp and have fun. driving around and looking for a big track crossing the road is a good way to hunt that place. Lark.

get a .270. not much else matters after that. Lark.

i'm pretty sure what you just described is against the law. and i really doubt i'd have to worry about you ever doing something like that. and thinking up a buncha things that i sorta doubt would ever happen doesn't really add much to the discussion. if there's anything that isn't covered by a law, i don't know what it is. but again, if it's legal, it's ok with me. it really is. there's a lot of things that are legal that i would never do. just because i don't much care for that style of hunting. but if someone else does, i'm ok with it. most of the stuff that has been described here is peeves that folks have about others. and that's ok. and some of what has been described is a lack of experience. the more time people spend in the field, the better they get at things and they become a better sportsman. and there are a buncha jerks too, but i ain't talkin' about them. i'm refering to folks that are serious about it and try to adhere to the rules. we as sportsmen need to stick together, even if we disagree with some things that others do. one guy wrote on here that shooting something long range isn't hunting, it's shooting. i've read a couple of your posts about you spending days to get in place to make the shot. sounds a lot like hunting to me. i've done the same thing. i've read guys on here cussing people for shooting at running game, something that doesn't bother me in the least. but i'm really, really good at it. the biggest desert muley i ever shot was so far and running that i don't even like to tell folks how far because they won't believe me. amd it was a sitting offhand shot with my old .270. but i'd spent a couple years trying to get him and i shot anyway. and he rolled right over. and there was a lotta "luck" involved, but i still shot. i shot a coyote tuesday that scootin' along pretty good to at about 150 yards. tipped him right over too. and sometimes i miss. but i'll still shoot if i feel like it. and some folks don't agree with it. and that's ok. hunting styles are the least of our worries. anti hunters with lawyers and deep pockets and politicians on the payroll, are. ill sneak up and shoot em asleep if i can too. and anything in between. i've killed elk with a bow that were so close they blew snot on me. and i killed one last year that was 900 yards away. but not with bow. as long as folks ain't stupid, i'm on their side. and sportsmen need to stick together and not fight each other. disagree, sure. but we still all need to understand where the other guy is coming from and what he thinks about stuff. we need all the friends we can get. that's my opinion anyway. Lark.

once again, ethics= your opinion. nothing more. not one thing we do is "ethical" to an anti hunter. so is hunting unethical? not in my opinion. if you really want "ethics" to be legislated, who is gonna say what is "ethical"? and is what they say is ethical gonna agree with your "opnion". this ain't a slippery slope, it's a d a m n cliff. a cliff none of us wanna fall from. every year the laws in the azgfd regs become more and more restrictive. we don't need anymore laws. the ones we have cover everything there is in every direction, multiple times. we need folks to be responsible and as a group we need to support each other, even if with have different "opinions". just because one guy says something is "unethical", is it? like i've said before, if they had a season where all you could use was a busted wine bottle, i'd go. because i want to be in the field. whether i have a chance of killing something or not. and i want to support others who want to be in the field. even if we have different opinions. i don't have problem with backpackers or campers or hikers or mountain bikers or atv folks or kayakers or trailriders or birdwatchers, even if they don't hunt. it's a free country and it's public land. and i don't want them to have a problem with me because i do hunt. i'll do all i can to help anyone who has an honest desire to be outdoors and enjoy it. i'll do the same for hunters and anglers also, even i have a different opinion of how they like to enjoy the outdoors. as long as what they are doing is within the law, then they are being ethical, as far as i'm concerned. they might not be wise in the way they do things and they may not have much experience, but if they are making an honest effort to hunt and fish and enjoy the land, within the law, then i'm on their side. some one used the .25 auto scenario, and i've heard it dozens of times before. i honestly don't think there is one person alive who thinks using a .25 auto to hunt big game is realistic. in fact, i've never even heard of anyone attempting it. heck, a .25 auto has gotta be better than a 7mm/08. and as far as shooting the gut shot doe, it's fine with me, but don't go telling the game warden. because it is against the law. the reason Az has liberall laws in a lot of areas is because if they didn't they would have an enforcement nightmare. a lot of people think the new law that says you don't need a permit for a concealed weapon is "unethical". i don't. now i look at everyone as if they're armed. i know i am. there is an old saying "opinions are like buttholes, everyone has at least one, and all of em but mine stink". we're all that way. our way is the best way, or even the only way. well, that ain't really true. there's lotsa ways to succesfully achieve most things. if you're ok with it, and it is legal, i'm on your side. Lark.

go okie cowboys!! Lark.

as the unnamed philospher, or whatever it was outdoorwriter said, i still stand by that. if it's legal it's ethical. if you wanna open up a can o' worms, try to legislate ethics. don't even use the word. use opinions. anyway, i, for one, support any and all legal hunting practices, even tho there are a bunch of em i don't really like. hunters have to stick together. no to say coues and sheep is outta line either. he has real concerns. follks need to be competent marksman. you also need to take care of the meat. clean up your camp. close gates. honor private property. stay on the road with your vehicle. etc, etc. but just because anyone doesn't care for something another sportsman does, even if it's legal, ya need to think about the repercussions. what if you hunt over bait, or run hounds, or use quads, or are any of the other hot button issues that are out there? do you want a guy that likes to shoot long range to not support you? there used to be a cartoon strip years ago called "pogo". one of the most famous ones had a saying came from it, "we have seen the enemy, and we is them". if any one little group of this big "team" we should all be on doesn't support the other guys, well, it's the ol' divide and conquer deal. it's good to have concerns. everbody ain't a natural fantastic shot like me. a lotta folks need to practice more. but the stuff like spoiled meat and trashy camps bother me a lot more than a long shot or quads or bait or hounds or whatever. close ranks, stick together, support each other. let peta and the sierra club and wolfers and jerks like that do the badmouthin'. i used to not think to much of the long rangers and even the guys that sat around with binoculars and scopes all day just lookin' for things. and i still have some reservations about it, even tho i have farkiller and can shoot stuff so far away i hafta hurry to beat the buzzards to it. but it has it's place. so do muzzleloaders, bows, pistols, etc. a few years back, i feel, hunters sorta offered trappers as a sacrificial lamb. it was a bad deal. other outdoorsmen shoulda supported em more. we're all paying for it now with all the dang coyotes too. not too long ago, a few guys with some influence, gave up 25% of lion season for 99% of the hunters. a sorry rotten deal. how is that gonna work out next time some a buncha anti's want to outlaw hounds? think about it guys. it's ok to disagree, as long as we all stick together, because we ain't got too many friends outside o' us. lets us not be our own enemy. Lark.

there ain't anything wrong with being a college graduate, unless it's u of a, anyway. the problem is all the money that folks are making off this. take the money out of the equation, and this all goes away. lobbyist money greases the politicians palms that pass the laws. lobbyists money comes from folks who stand to make a lot more money by throwing around the lobby money. and now we know that all the money that the anti's toss around and spend on litigation is all refunded to them, whether they win or lose. laywers are basically leaches. the money is the prize. if it doesn't matter how much you spend, you're going to get it all back plus your "expenses", what is there to keep a lawyer from doing this? they can't lose. they can't even break even. they just make money. the azgfd has a lotta good folks that work for it. but unfortunatley, under shroufe, the organization sold out and became an accounting firm. wildlife conservation isn't even 2nd place to them anymore. it is about money to fund them. they are involved in this because of all the money they recieve from the usfw to help them out. i would guess that the only true brains involved in this wolf program are azgfd employees. not to say that all the azgfd folks involved have any brains, but if there are any, that's where they work. the usfw has proven time and time again that they don't have any smarts at all. they are idiots. it's a requirement. they have to be able to look at things that are wrong and things that are lies, knowing full well they are wrong and lies, but still agree with them. one you sell out, that's it. i would imagine, if you think about it, you've been around people that will sell out their principles for a little money or recognition. guys that will continue to pursue something they know is wrong, just because it has become their cause and they don't want to admit they are wrong. i know i have. once things become a cause or an agenda, then all objective views are gone and all you have are folks that will agree with lies. from the honcho down to the lackeys. that's where we are now in this wolf stuff. the guys in charge of it are about lies and money. we have to stop the money somehow. Lark.

$$$. Lark.

i thought game holler was in pa.? that looks like his tail. Lark.

grijalva's "tio" was probably the shooter. Lark.

now that's what i'm talkin' about. ya gotta hate to be a fan. oh yeah, feel the burn. now bring me some pizza, u of a boy. cheerleader photos? don't post any o' no u of a cheerleaders. my too many pixels. might bust the site. Lark. '

if i worked where you did my head would hurt too. any ducts fall lately? Lark.

cool. what is barrel twist? every time i go to a gunshow i look for an old ruger flat top or an international in .250/3000. Lark.

merry f&%$#@ Christmas. what a buncha bs. wonder how long it will take the fed investigators to say he shot himself, like they did with the pinal deputy? when in heck is obama and the rest of the dc jerks gonna do anything about this? man i feel for his family. what a rotten present for Christmas. when they have some place to donate to his family up and running, somebody please post it so we can all help out. this just really makes me mad. and if one of our bp guys shoots one o' them, they get procecuted over it. i'm sure they'll loophole these guys back to mexico so they can do it again. this is just too bad. Lark.

last week on the b&c tv hunting show the whole show was about predator introduction, mainly wolves. real enlightening. it's all about the money. all it is about is attorneys making money. if a conservation organization gets involved in a lawsuit with the gov't, they have to pay all their fees. if an anti hunting organization gets in a lawsuit, with the gov't, when they are done, win or lose, all their legal fees are reimbursed, by the gov't they just sued. it's a win, win, win, win, win, for the lawyers. the recovery of the so called endangered species has nothing to do with anything other than i they are the vehicle the lawyers drive to the bank. this whole system is really $h!t and anyone who is in favor of it really needs to research things and take a really truthfull look at themselves and what they are supporting. anyone in favor of any of this wolf stuff really has a problem with reality and is seriously deficient in a lotta ways. Lark.

great buck, now tell us about your rifle. i love .250's. been shooting them for decades. Lark.

if you're a true fan, ya hafta get derogatory, personal, mean, nasty................ ya gotta hate the other team. even their 400 lb cheerleaders and 3rd world country of a town. i love this post. this is almost what i was talkin' about, except nobody bashed anybodies mama. you know, combat boots, drives a pickle wagon, that kinda stuff. if it weren't for that stinkin' gadsen purchase we woulnd't hafta have that dang school in this state. well, at least u of a held good on their continued boycott of the rose bowl. you hafta give em credit for that. you hafta 'scuse now, the pizza i ordered for breakfast is here andi hafta got pay the guy with the u of a engineering degree for it. wonder if he'll take pesos? you guys are starting to get the spirit. also, Merry Christmas. Lark.