.50 BMG
 

I got a quick question for y'all. I'm trying to decide on which firearm to get next. Cabela's sells a drop in barrel, etc. to convert an AR-15 style rifle to shoot the BMG. Here's the question: Are there any ethical problems with using the BMG on elk, moose, bear and the like? It won't be used on anything smaller such as deer except maybe a 'yote. I understand about being able to shoot it, the recoil and the like. Supposing I can handle it what are the ethical implications of using the .50?

RE: .50 BMG
 

I don't see any thing unetical about it.It's a BIG,BIG, gun to pack around,shells are exspensive,and optics are to.It is shurly up to the task of handling them at long,long range farther that I care to shoot.The biggest problem I see is a good hunting bullet that won't destroy 1/2 of what you shoot and will hold up at ranges of 200-500 yds.

Now here comes my problem with it,I like to hunt and by that I mean get close as I possibly can,match my skills with the animal I hunt.If I can sneak up to Mr.Elk in his bed and dispatch him while he is still sleeping,not knowing what just happened.To me thats hunting,tracking him,watching him,know his moves so well he thinks that I'm a elk.
If you like the chalange of killing from 2000 yds thats fine but from where I come from thats sniping not hunting.
BBJ

RE: .50 BMG
 

If you want to use BMG so you can take 1000yd shots then I would say you don't respect the game much as its still too easy to pull a bad shot and blow a leg off an animal at those ranges. If you limit yourself to a range where you can actually hit where you aim then go ahead and get your jollies, can't understand it but to each his own.

RE: .50 BMG
 

The only question of ethics in this application is you making sure that you can cleanly kill the animal that you are shooting at. So assuming that you can cleanly kill the animal then go for it. It may not be for everyone but if you like this kind of thing then go for it.

IMO it matters little what caliber you use as far as ethics goes. Except for using a smaller than adequate cartridge.

Many people use rifles with larger bores than 50 and don't question their ethics.

RE: .50 BMG
 

It was just a matter of when. It will do if you can't find anything bigger.

RE: .50 BMG
 

A friend of mine killed a Pronghorn with a .50 Cal. BMG at 760 yds. He hit it center of the body right behind the shoulder. He lost no meat. If you have the skill to take that kind of shot, go for it. Good luck.

RE: .50 BMG
 

What I'm hearing, and I could very well be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time), is: out of respect for the animal, save it for the shooting range...?

RE: .50 BMG
 

If it is legal to do so and you become proficient with it, go for it. No such thing as overkill, but I have seen underkill.

RE: .50 BMG
 

Nanook85:

You probably need to carefully consider the backdrop to your shot. Even a perfect hit is liable to exit the animal with very substantial energy and residual damage potential.

Just another thought, is using a .50 BMG something the anti-hunter crowd can grab hold of to make hunters look bad? I don't know, but if I were considering an unorthodox hunting tool I would take this into consideration.

RE: .50 BMG
 

Let's face it the anti hunting crowd would use any excuse to make hunters look bad. Not using a .50 BMG to satisfy their warped sense of the world isn't going to change things. I think we ought to just go about our sport and not try to kowtow to our sworn enemies. I think it is safe to say that Republicans winning two presidential elections and increasing thier control of Congress hasn't changed the way the Democrats go about the game of politics one little bit.

RE: .50 BMG
 

A 50 BMG for pronghorn?[:-]

RE: .50 BMG
 

Or maybe quail?

RE: .50 BMG
 

Ethics to me is more than one question. Ethical to animals? Sure. In my observation, all weapons are pushed to the limits by some hunters. Is an 800+ yard shot with a .50 off a solid bench less ethical to the animal than a 70+ yard bow shot? A 400+ yard .270 prone shot? I don't see the difference.

Then you have ethics for other hunters. If you do what my friend said he wanted to do, but never went through with, you would set up in a blind on a mountain with dial-in benchrest and wait. Dial in to an elk at 1200 yds or more and pull the trigger with a string. If it got to that extreme, it would be unethical to other hunters in MY opinion and regs might have to change to accomodate. But there's no line - it's a judgement call based on opinoin from most hunters. Some could say that compound bows are unethical compared to long bows. Gunpowder projectiles are unethical compared to compound bows. .338 mags with bipods and power scopes unethical compared to .243 open sights.

I personally don't ever want to hunt with a benched .50 bmg, but I do use a .300 wsm with 3 to 9 scope off a bipod. Maybe I'm unethical.

RE: .50 BMG
 

I shot a grouse with my .454 Casull, I was helping my inlaws check on some cattle up on their ranch. We spotted the grouse, and I asked where the 22 was because my father in law always has a 22 handy in the truck. So the only weapon we had was my pistol that I brought along to tests some new reloads out. I figured it will ruin some meat, but its bullets are jacketed, and only a starting underpowered load. I was sure it wouldn't expand or do mush damage. WOW was I wrong, the grouse was about 20 yiards away at the shot and seemed to just explode! I still don't think the bullet expanded but even going at a modest 1300 f/s, it turned that grouse inside out.