Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I only target practice on private land, mine
.
Maybe the bullets stay on your land, but the noise doesn't. Your neighbors hate you.
Though I carried a Colt Trooper IV longer, that .45 was nice. All fixed up but with stock sights...Longing sigh.
Dunno that one, but used to carry an Federal Ordnance M1911 myself. Got it as a curios at a gun show in SF of all places, no waiting period. Took it to a smith, got the chamber and barrel modernized for JHPs and the like (was getting stove-pipe jams with such ammo at the range, but got really good at clearing them heh.) Sounds like a good-un
Aren't there dedignated areas in parks for that? I went to one that was right up against a hill. The bullets had no place to go but in the side of the hill.
I support this. I live in a state with lots of national forest land and shooters are everywhere. They put a piece of target paper on a tree 10" thick and fire away. When they miss the tree (they're all drunks) the bullet goes for miles. And the noise can easily travel 5 miles. I do lots of camping and all day long you hear gun shots. I don't know how people who live in the mountains handle it.
GUN WATCH: Kurt Hoffman: Obama Administration to Ban Shooting on Public Lands
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Kurt Hoffman: Obama Administration to Ban Shooting on Public Lands
The U.S. News and World Report noted Monday that the Obama administration, perhaps frustrated at its inability to impose yet more restrictive gun regulation through the legislative process, is once again doing everything it can by executive diktat. This time, the infringement on that which shall not be infringed is to come via proposed new regulations barring hunters and target shooters from millions of acres of public land.
Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms.
With candor that has likely not endeared him to his superiors, a Department of the Interior official freely admits that the idea here is not to make anyone safer:
"It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.
Not a bad idea really.
Aren't there dedignated areas in parks for that? I went to one that was right up against a hill. The bullets had no place to go but in the side of the hill.
Yes, there are shooting ranges but many people like to go off in the woods and shoot. I've done it many times myself. You wouldn't believe the crazy dangerous people i've seen at shooting ranges.
When they miss the tree (they're all drunks) the bullet goes for miles.
This statement shows that you have no clue about ballistics.
You are an idiot. When you shoot from a ridgetop a couple thousand feet above the surrounding land, the bullet can go for miles even if the rifle is horizontal. We don't all live in OK.
I support this. I live in a state with lots of national forest land and shooters are everywhere. They put a piece of target paper on a tree 10" thick and fire away. When they miss the tree (they're all drunks) the bullet goes for miles. And the noise can easily travel 5 miles. I do lots of camping and all day long you hear gun shots. I don't know how people who live in the mountains handle it.
GUN WATCH: Kurt Hoffman: Obama Administration to Ban Shooting on Public Lands
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Kurt Hoffman: Obama Administration to Ban Shooting on Public Lands
The U.S. News and World Report noted Monday that the Obama administration, perhaps frustrated at its inability to impose yet more restrictive gun regulation through the legislative process, is once again doing everything it can by executive diktat. This time, the infringement on that which shall not be infringed is to come via proposed new regulations barring hunters and target shooters from millions of acres of public land.
Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms.
With candor that has likely not endeared him to his superiors, a Department of the Interior official freely admits that the idea here is not to make anyone safer:
"It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.
I really want to know what kind of guns the people in your area have access to. Everything I have ever seen that would shoot a shell for miles would obliterate a target that was 10 inches away even if it was fired directly away from the target.
Can you even read? Your thread titles are consistently complete bullshit, you either don't have the education to digest simple texts or are a compulsive liar. There aren't trying to ban all target shooting on public land, they are simply trying to manage it better instead of the current free-for-all.Obama wants to ban target shooting on all public land
Here is the draft of Bureau of Land Management policy being referenced by your thread: http://www.fws.gov/whhcc/doc/draftBLMshootingsportspolicy.pdf
shooting and possession and use of firearms are allowed on public lands managed by the BLM. However, the specific shooting activity must not:
- Cause a public disturbance or create risk to other persons on public lands. 43 C.F.R. § 8365.1-4(a) (Public health, safety and comfort);
- Deface, remove or destroy natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic
structures or government and/or private property. 43 C.F.R. § 8365.1-5(a)(1); Facilitate and create a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal
property. 43 C.F.R. Sec. 8365.1-1;
- Violate existing use restriction, a closure and restriction order, or supplementary rules notice. 43 C.F.R. §§ 8365.2-5(a), 8364.1, 8365.1-6.Background: Recreational shooting is a permissible use of public lands. As the West has become more populated, recreational shooters now often find themselves in conflict with other public lands users, and the BLM is frequently called on to mediate these conflicts.
In the past, BLM managers have avoided identifying areas available for recreational shooting, and instead have managed this use by closing areas to shooting in order to address public safety and resource concerns. This past management practice has created some confusion about where public land remains open to recreational shooting. Typically, little useful, specific information about where the public can shoot is available on maps, websites, or signs. Despite rising conflicts, recreational shooting continues to be popular on public lands, and public demand for safe, legal places to shoot remains high.
This guidance is based on the understanding that identifying areas where recreational shooting presents lower risks and conflicts while closing areas where risks are high may reduce shooting related conflicts, and may also reduce legal claims against the BLM for shooting-related injuries or damages.
Furthermore I doubt Obama had anything to do with it, but then again I've seen people on here thinking he delivers mail and wrote the code for the health website.
I'm not sure where the OP is talking about but most national forest have a gun range, there isn't any such thing as a free for all. But they do allow hunting in some national forest.There aren't trying to ban all target shooting on public land, they are simply trying to manage it better instead of the current free-for-all.
You are an idiot. When you shoot from a ridgetop a couple thousand feet above the surrounding land, the bullet can go for miles even if the rifle is horizontal. We don't all live in OK.
No it can't. It's just something you're making up. Like global warming, free health care and all the other liberal agendas liberals try to propagate on society.
If you drop a bullet from muzzle level at the same time you fire the weapon, both projectiles will hit the ground at the same time. Physics is phun.
This statement shows that you have no clue about ballistics.
You are an idiot. When you shoot from a ridgetop a couple thousand feet above the surrounding land, the bullet can go for miles even if the rifle is horizontal. We don't all live in OK.
No it can't, there is something in the real world called friction that would make that impossible.
If you drop a bullet from muzzle level at the same time you fire the weapon, both projectiles will hit the ground at the same time. Physics is phun.
If the land is flat, that is (approximately) true. But it's not as simple as you think.
Looks like another Rightwing "We can't read" propaganda piece
I only target practice on private land, mine
.
Maybe the bullets stay on your land, but the noise doesn't. Your neighbors hate you.
If you drop a bullet from muzzle level at the same time you fire the weapon, both projectiles will hit the ground at the same time. Physics is phun.
If the land is flat, that is (approximately) true. But it's not as simple as you think.
It is exactly as simple as you think he thinks.
On a good day a .22 MIGHT travel a mile if you shoot it into the air at a 45 degree angle. Is the OP trying to tell us that the shooters climb 40 feet into the tree to tack their target?
Personally, I think the OP is pajama boy posting here.
TPWD: Firearms - Distances Bullets Travel
According to these ballistic tables, a 30-06 bullet can travel 3.5 to 4.5 miles. And if the shooters in question were on a ridge shooting at a tree with nothing behind it, that could be possible. It would be extremely unlikely, and the shooter would have to be a complete idiot, and the wind would have to be perfect, and there would have to be a significant drop from that ridge.........in otherwords, it isn't something we should worry about. But bullets can travel for miles.
On a good day a .22 MIGHT travel a mile if you shoot it into the air at a 45 degree angle. Is the OP trying to tell us that the shooters climb 40 feet into the tree to tack their target?
Personally, I think the OP is pajama boy posting here.
TPWD: Firearms - Distances Bullets Travel
According to these ballistic tables, a 30-06 bullet can travel 3.5 to 4.5 miles. And if the shooters in question were on a ridge shooting at a tree with nothing behind it, that could be possible. It would be extremely unlikely, and the shooter would have to be a complete idiot, and the wind would have to be perfect, and there would have to be a significant drop from that ridge.........in otherwords, it isn't something we should worry about. But bullets can travel for miles.
That chart is full of shit.
A .300 Win Mag has a muzzle velocity of 3260 ft/sec which means it would take 8 seconds to travel 5 miles if we ignored air resistance. In order to get a range of 5 miles you would have to be over 1000 feet above the target when you fired. If we factor in air resistance it just gets worse.
If you went 5 miles straight up and fired a .22 bullet straight down it would end up hitting the ground at a lower velocity that it left the weapon. Firing it at any other angle
TPWD: Firearms - Distances Bullets Travel
According to these ballistic tables, a 30-06 bullet can travel 3.5 to 4.5 miles. And if the shooters in question were on a ridge shooting at a tree with nothing behind it, that could be possible. It would be extremely unlikely, and the shooter would have to be a complete idiot, and the wind would have to be perfect, and there would have to be a significant drop from that ridge.........in otherwords, it isn't something we should worry about. But bullets can travel for miles.
That chart is full of shit.
A .300 Win Mag has a muzzle velocity of 3260 ft/sec which means it would take 8 seconds to travel 5 miles if we ignored air resistance. In order to get a range of 5 miles you would have to be over 1000 feet above the target when you fired. If we factor in air resistance it just gets worse.
If you went 5 miles straight up and fired a .22 bullet straight down it would end up hitting the ground at a lower velocity that it left the weapon. Firing it at any other angle
The charts are based on facts. The air resistance has some effect, which is why velocities drop as range increases. But if you aim the rifle at about 30 to 45 degrees, your range increases.
