The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Dave McCracken Memorial Shotgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 23, 2011, 10:10 AM   #26
bswiv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2006
Location: NE FL.......
Posts: 1,081
Interesting thread........

IMHO it comes down to glare and not camo as such. I would bet that in a controlled experement a matt finish, ( brown, green, tan.....some woodland color ) would prove as effective as actual camo.

That said, my old Mossberg ( flat black finish ) has some really ugly spray paint on it.......and I think in every instance when I've been busted by a animal it's been something other than he shotgun that caught their attention.
bswiv is offline  
Old January 23, 2011, 03:06 PM   #27
anthonygordon
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2011
Location: Scott Ohio
Posts: 10
it all depends on what your hunting really, i dont think that it makes any difference when hunting but some people think that the more the animal cant see then the bettter
anthonygordon is offline  
Old January 23, 2011, 06:10 PM   #28
blutob
Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2008
Posts: 70
In upstate NY we are required to wear bright orange during gun season. I don't think a camo shotgun is going to matter much if you're wearing bright orange. The deer don't see you anyway unless you move while they are looking at you. A gun with a wood stock blends in very well with the trees (they are made out of wood also). I have one shotgun which I have installed a camo stock and forend because the original stock is nice walnut and I don't want my son to ruin it in the woods. The synthetic camo stock is very durable and after 9 years still looks new. But as far as spooking deer is concerned, it makes no difference.

For turkey or waterfowl, I doubt that a camo shotgun would provide an advantage. In order for the gun to move, the person holding it must move also and I think any animal will see movement from a 6 foot bulky human before seeing movement from a 4 foot, very thin firearm. Most wild animals have a natural fear of humans, not inanimate objects.
blutob is offline  
Old January 27, 2011, 03:36 PM   #29
DG45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Posts: 904
Sorry, I don't buy the need for camo guns for waterfowl. In the late 1800's my granddad used to be a "market gunner" in the winter, killing geese to ship north to railroads and fine restaurants. He probably killed more geese every year than most of the members of this forum will ever see. He didn't use camo anything. Today, I live on a river about 30 miles as the crow flies from where he used to hunt, in what used to be considered the greatest goose-hunting area in the world. The huge sky-darkening flocks of geese that were common in my grandads day are no more, but we still occasionally get migrating Canada geese and Mallards in our backyard. People still hunt them about a half mile upriver from where I live, in an area where theres no development. You can hear shotguns blasting away up there at ducks and geese early every morning this time of the year.

When we first built this house about ten years ago, anywhere from 2 to ten geese at a time would occasionally land (or swim up) to graze on our lawn, but then my wife started feeding them cracked corn and we'd get over 50 adult geese in our backyard sometimes, and at least that many ducks. They made a disgusting mess of our yard, so we had to quit feeding them. Now we're back to occasionally getting from two to ten at a time again.

If you don't make any sudden movements, you can walk up to within about 30-40 feet of a flock of these geese. Once, I got too close to some (within about 25 feet of them) and one of them looked like he was going to attack me while all his buddies made an unhurried retreat back to the waters edge. Then some of them swam, and others flew out about 30 feet or so from shore and watched until I went back in, then they all returned to my yard to graze (and defecate).

Camo shotgun needed to hunt them indeed! Harrumpph!

Incidentally, the local golf courses in this area hate Canada geese. They'd probably PAY you to bring your camo shotgun and walk up to within about 30 feet of a flock of geese grazing (and defecating) on their fairway, and start blasting.
DG45 is offline  
Old January 27, 2011, 04:30 PM   #30
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,969
I put mine down and cant seem to find it now
markj is offline  
Old January 27, 2011, 05:47 PM   #31
twobit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2010
Location: Coyote Creak, SW Texas
Posts: 570
camo is good for the economy. Each year guys with metal detectors flock to the public hunting lands after the seasons close. How else would all that slightly used camo gear end up at garage sales and on ebay
__________________
Twobit,
LEO, NRA member, Native Texan. Shooting and hunting for over 49 years!
twobit is offline  
Old January 27, 2011, 10:19 PM   #32
silvercorvette
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2010
Location: Anderson SC
Posts: 466
Don't ever get any camo stuff, I have some camo gear in the house that I can't find because the camo works so well.

================================

Serious reply, I have no use for it and I doubt I ever will, but if anyone has the need or desire for it I support their right to own camo gear and guns.
__________________
I am broke, I spent my money on fast cars, guns, reloading equipment and ammo, the rest my money was wasted on nonessential stuff
silvercorvette is offline  
Old January 28, 2011, 04:42 AM   #33
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Sorry, I don't buy the need for camo guns for waterfowl. In the late 1800's my granddad used to be a "market gunner" in the winter, killing geese to ship north to railroads and fine restaurants. He probably killed more geese every year than most of the members of this forum will ever see. He didn't use camo anything. Today, I live on a river about 30 miles as the crow flies from where he used to hunt, in what used to be considered the greatest goose-hunting area in the world. The huge sky-darkening flocks of geese that were common in my grandads day are no more, but we still occasionally get migrating Canada geese and Mallards in our backyard. People still hunt them about a half mile upriver from where I live, in an area where theres no development.
First, I agree that a camo shotgun is not required to hunt waterfowl. However, it helps. As you point out, the flocks are smaller now and the habitat smaller. This means that the concentration of hunters is much denser than before. By the end of the season the birds have been shot at enough that they take a long, close look before they land. Anything that makes you less visible helps.

I am always amazed by the argument "They didn't have it 100 years ago, so it must not be any good." Do you still drive a Model T?
natman is offline  
Old January 28, 2011, 04:42 PM   #34
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,969
No camo and we still shoot ducks and geese here but what the heck, if you really have to justify an expense I will back ya with the wife

I did buy a cabelas waterproof camo gun case that floats for my upland guns
markj is offline  
Old January 28, 2011, 10:35 PM   #35
HKGuns
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2005
Location: Bora Bora
Posts: 886
Quote:
In the late 1800's my granddad used to be a "market gunner" in the winter, killing geese to ship north to railroads and fine restaurants. He probably killed more geese every year than most of the members of this forum will ever see. He didn't use camo anything. The huge sky-darkening flocks of geese that were common in my grandads day are no more
Your post serves to re-inforce why camo IS effective today. "The sky darkening flocks are gone." They sure are and when you may only see one flock in a day of hunting you should take advantage of anything that will give you an edge. Otherwise, you're just wasting time.

There was no such thing as camo anything in the late 1800's. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have used it if it were available.

Punt guns were very common in that time, especially for market hunters. Not sure I'd need camo either if I were sportin' a punt gun.

Your argument against using camo for duck or goose hunting TODAY isn't very compelling to me.
HKGuns is offline  
Old January 29, 2011, 09:35 AM   #36
Dave McC
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 13, 1999
Location: Columbia, Md, USA
Posts: 8,812
I started waterfowling well before the camo craze. We killed lots of stuff, maybe too much. However, I do not drive the 49 Willys anymore either.

Much of my hunting stuff is more Early Lumberjack than designer pattern camo. I do add some camo stick on tape to Frankenstein before a hunt, but that's a tweak, not a quantum leap in invisibility.

Camo,IMO, is less crucial than movement discipline and glare. Shiny=bad.
Dave McC is offline  
Old January 29, 2011, 10:13 AM   #37
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Much of my hunting stuff is more Early Lumberjack than designer pattern camo.
Hunters wore those large plaids in an effort to "break up your outline", in other words, camo. We just have better patterns available today.
natman is offline  
Old January 30, 2011, 09:16 AM   #38
Dave McC
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 13, 1999
Location: Columbia, Md, USA
Posts: 8,812
True, Natman. Even earlier, my Celtic ancestors devised tartans for the same purpose. Every clan had a fancy pattern and an everyday one. The non fancy one blended into the heather and gorse.....
Dave McC is offline  
Old January 30, 2011, 09:29 AM   #39
ARick81
Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2011
Posts: 38
Just don't set it down in the grass.
ARick81 is offline  
Old January 30, 2011, 04:17 PM   #40
RLFD5415
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2004
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 129
Quote:
In upstate NY we are required to wear bright orange during gun season.
Not sure where you are hunting, but there is no NY state law that requires you to wear orange.


Scroll half way down the page:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9186.html

Back on topic, given today's hunting pressure, why not use camo on your gun? I'll admit that I have been busted by game due to untimely movement. But, I did not blow the hunt, since I froze and game could not figure out what I was. So, what I am saying is some good camo can make up for some minor sins.
RLFD5415 is offline  
Old January 30, 2011, 05:12 PM   #41
blutob
Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2008
Posts: 70
RLFD5414, Sorry for the error. There is in fact no law requiring deer hunters to wear hunter orange in NY state. However, it is strongly advisable. This past season I kicked out 3 nice bucks together on my property and was almost going to shoot but then decided against it since they were on the run at about 70 yds away. I heard 3 shots up ahead and walked over to find a neighbor hunter on the property line directly ahead of me dressed in full camo! Had I shot I would have been shooting directly in his direction. He had seen me but I could not see him. (By the way, he missed the bucks, and I later took one of them, a nice 9 point).

But back to the topic, if I buy a shotgun with a synthetic stock (for durability), I would definitley prefer camo over black if only for aesthetic appeal. I still can't see though, a significant advantage as far as hiding the gun from the game, for the reasons stated in my previous thread. A stock made of wood is already camoflauged since it is the same material as the trees. A few years back, I set my (wood stocked) gun against a tree to go over and help my son gut a deer. It later took me about half an hour to find it! I could not believe how well it blended in.
blutob is offline  
Old January 30, 2011, 06:12 PM   #42
RLFD5415
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2004
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 129
No apology necessary, Blutob. That's why I asked where you were. I wouldn't put it past some of the Southern Tier or Western counties to pass their own ordinance requiring orange. While I am all for it, I don't want to be told I have to wear it.

You bring up a good point regarding materials. If your barrel is blued and your stock is wood, then converting to camo is probably a wasted effort. Most of my new purchases involve synthetic and stainless - on my rifles at least. At this point, camo is worth the extra expense/effort, at least for me.

There really is no right answer. This is a very personal thing. Kinda like Chevy vs. Ford...
RLFD5415 is offline  
Old February 2, 2011, 05:02 PM   #43
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,969
During the depression, Grandpa used fishing line a treble hook, some corn and a 2x4 to catch geesde and ducks. Add them up you get a fowl on a hook tied to the 2x4 so he cant fly away. a small club later and you got dinner...



No camo then.

I ask my kid (8) to not wear camo in case he gets hurt afield or on his way home as we live in the country. I have him wearing reds and bright colors just in case. I dont like the camo craze fad. But some do and we live here in a free well somewhat free country and anyone can wear whatever they wish.
markj is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10810 seconds with 9 queries