Why more warriors than hunters on the rifle forum?


PDA






fistful
October 15, 2004, 10:05 PM
Why do AK's, AR's, Enfields and other military rifles seem to dominate Rifle Country? Just curious. I'm not a hunter, myself, but I like bolt-action sporters more than I do my SKS.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why more warriors than hunters on the rifle forum?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Third_Rail
October 15, 2004, 10:08 PM
Personal tastes, etc.... but mostly because milsurps are rugged, cheap, and the ammo is widely available and/or easy to mail order for great deals.

It comes down to being economical, IMO. Plus cheaper = more rifles.

Harry Tuttle
October 15, 2004, 10:08 PM
Cause ya rapidly run out of things to whine about when yer talking bolt action hole pokers.

My ruger m77 is dang boring.

:D

El Tejon
October 15, 2004, 10:13 PM
High volume/hardcore shooters are more attracted to such weapons.

Stereotypical sport hunters do not train, thus more questions and threads about the weapons you cite.

fistful
October 15, 2004, 10:25 PM
Cause ya rapidly run out of things to whine about when yer talking bolt action hole pokers.
Sooo...that means bolt rifles are so reliable and straightforward that there's nothing to talk about? Not a rhetorical question.

MrMurphy
October 15, 2004, 10:28 PM
As Jeff Cooper once put it, the rifles in use now are not terribly different than the one he used when he started hunting in 1937 or so. Glass is better, stainless/synthetic is now available, and new calibers abound, but the basic bolt action hunting rifle's performance hasn't changed much.

Onmilo
October 15, 2004, 11:29 PM
Far more people shoot their firearms for the pure pleasure than those who actually use them for hunting.
The numbers of people who hunt has been on the decline for at least the last twenty years.
The number of people who keep and use firearms for the pleasure of the sport has been on the increase during each of those twenty years.
I enjoy hunting but don't consider it the only justifiable reason one should own a firearm.
By the way, you like bolt action rifles, I happen to have a severe soft spot for lever actions.

Carlos
October 15, 2004, 11:38 PM
Ohhh, I want a lever action 30-30 soooo bad.

I like em all though, but must admit my favorites are the milsurp semis; FALs, AKs, SKSs.

My best skill level is achieved using bolt action rifles, such as my two mauser actions or the absolute fav or mine - the Mosin.

Couple weeks ago at the Dump, I shot a pump action Israeli 357 rifle. Now, that was a different world altogether.

I LOVE EM ALL!!!!!

:cool:

roscoe
October 16, 2004, 12:03 AM
This is a forum full of frustrated chairborne warriors out there hoping the balloon will go up so we can start actually using our expensive hardware for something other than shredding paper. Deer don't attack, and a bolt gun is a bolt gun. But a street full of shuffling zombies, now that is something to talk about preparing for.

RevDisk
October 16, 2004, 12:06 AM
Because when the UN blue helmet zombie bears come to implant a microchip into my neck, I want a high volume of fire. :D

Gabe
October 16, 2004, 12:26 AM
Are you asking a serious question?

The gun culture in America today is centered on a militia/survivor culture rather than a hunter culture. I think the change began with the babyboomers. Maybe it's because of the availability of military surplus, maybe it's the higher disposable income, maybe it's Hollywood, maybe it's the Cold War. Whatever the reason, we have a very different gun culture than say 40-50 years ago.

KaceCoyote
October 16, 2004, 12:35 AM
I'm a coyote hunter myself, which means a .223 is my caliber of choice. I've got a simple, no frills Savage bolt action which takes Coyotes quite well with pretty much no surprises. Theres no pre ban, no post ban its a hunting rifle pure and simple. I also dont use this weapon for defence, and Its not super fun.

People dont talk about their work truck, they talk about their hot rod. People dont talk about their school bus, they talk about the Ferrari Enzo.

Malamute
October 16, 2004, 12:44 AM
What Roscoe said

Delmar
October 16, 2004, 12:57 AM
A lot depends on what discipline appeals to you personally. I like all rifle actions, put I prefer bolt actions for accurate shooting.

That said, I have a friend who owns a Browning lever action in 308, and it is without a doubt the most accurate lever gun I have personally fired.

Autoloaders are fun for me too, and some can be very accurate-as good as just about any bolt gun made, if you have the money.

The one center fire action I have yet to try is the pump-it looks like a lot of fun!

Malamute
October 16, 2004, 12:59 AM
I think it may ahve something to do with the increasing urbanization of our culture. Folks raised in, and living in cioties are not as likely to have been raised hunting, and are less likely to pursue hunting.

Personally, I think military rifles are interesting, but not important to me. Important in the sense that they do anything practical for me. Hunting guns make meat. In my list of the "most important" or "last guns" I'd keep if limited for some reason, hunting guns are the only ones on my list . I hunt, I live in bear country. I plan to retire to Alalska to live a more rural or even remote lifestyle. Military guns just dont fit my picture of being practical for anything I do. I LIKE them, they are fun, but not practical for me. I'm not a police officer doing entries on crack houses, I'm not in the military, the chancers of screaming hordes of Canadians streaming across the border is slim (for now). My Winchester 94's will just have to do for a "defensive" gun along with my Smith 44 or Ruger 45 SA. I don't feel poorly equipped. Just me.

Chris Pinkleton
October 16, 2004, 01:22 AM
This is a forum full of frustrated chairborne warriors out there hoping the balloon will go up so we can start actually using our expensive hardware for something other than shredding paper. Deer don't attack, and a bolt gun is a bolt gun. But a street full of shuffling zombies, now that is something to talk about preparing for.

Hey, I'm as "Walter Mitty" as the next armchair commmando in my firearms tastes, but the last thing I want to do is to have to deal with real combat. I love plinking away with my SAR, but I don't thnk it would be nearly as fun with targets that shoot back.

mustanger98
October 16, 2004, 01:30 AM
I'm a hunter. I like that type rifles. I also like to shoot M1 Garand, K98k, and Lee Enfield. That said, what some folks may not realize is a lot of deer have been taken with milsurp rifles. Elmer Keith, during early parts of his career, used the US '03 Springfield- stock military and sporterized/rebarreled- to hunt mule deer, elk, and sheep among other things (Source: "Hell, I Was There"). The M1 Garand- in states where the 8rd capacity is legal, or if you can get 5rd clips that work- will also put a deer down with proper bullet placement. That said, I also like my Winchester .30-30 (with Lyman #2 tang sight) real well- it fits me and does what I want it to do with any load I've fed it. Although Elmer Keith wasn't fond of the .30-30 round, he was shooting larger animals at longer distances dictated by the terrain in his part of the country. Around here, I don't have that problem- Eastern Whitetails out to 150yds. I'm not past using a .303 on them too.

fistful
October 16, 2004, 01:41 AM
Very interesting responses, so far. My own answer to the question is that most of those who like sporting guns are more likely to be on a hunting forum, or out still-hunting, or something, not endlessly talking about the tools they use to earn their meat.

Yes, Gabe, I really am curious. I'm not slamming the semi-auto's - I like some of those, too. I've been hangin' about here for a few months now, and when I first saw "Rifle Country," I expected to see a lot of threads about .338's and Ruger No. 1's. There are some of those, but the AR, AK, FAL threads seem to be the vast majority. I hope to own more guns like those someday (just got an SKS), but I also like bolt-actions, both military and sporting.

Some people have said that the assault/battle rifles are more fun. I guess I'm in the minority, because I have more fun shooting my Mauser scout than I've ever had with a SAW, grenade launcher or M16A2. Just goes to show you, the military can suck the fun out of anything. I think an M1A would be a lot of fun, though, but so would an Enfield or a Krag or a Handi-Rifle - and I don't even like single-shots, in principle. I'm an odd duck, I reckon.

Tuttle, let me take that M77 off your hands. Been dreaming about having one of those beauties. Fun, fun, fun!:)

hillbilly
October 16, 2004, 01:53 AM
Simple fact is the vast majority of hardcore "hunters" are just not shooters.

Most hunters are happy if they have a rifle that they can hit a dinner plate with at 100 yards.

That's all they need to take a deer.

Most hunters shoot their rifles less than 15 or 20 times every single year.

I've heard more than one hunter brag about making one box of 20 cartridges last for several hunting seasons.

Why would you need to browse or get onto an Internet bulletin board area devoted to rifles when you shoot your own rifle less than 20 times a year?

hillbilly

mustanger98
October 16, 2004, 02:16 AM
Most hunters are happy if they have a rifle that they can hit a dinner plate with at 100 yards.

A dinner plate is about the size of the average deer's kill zone. It really helps, though, if you can group 'em tight in the center of that dinner plate. FWIW, I use paper plates for targets a lot of times, but I also have a .5" dot in the center for POA- the free AOHell CDs that come in the mail make good templates. Believe it or not, a .30-30 at 100yds will group a lot tighter than the size of that plate, but the shooter must do his part. Some people don't understand that, but the guys at the range I go to mostly do.

Most hunters shoot their rifles less than 15 or 20 times every single year.

I don't know about that statistic. Each of us has a different experience depending on who we're listening to. I know I didn't shoot nearly so much before I got into handloading as after. And I got a lot better at it too. As for the guy that said he made a box last several years, maybe he was good at making one-shot kills or maybe he didn't shoot at everything he saw regardless of circumstances like some idiots. I don't know because I wasn't hunting with him.

Why would you need to browse or get onto an Internet bulletin board area devoted to rifles when you shoot your own rifle less than 20 times a year?

I don't know, but I do know it's best to know your rifle- it's strengths and limitations, as well as your own- before you try to kill something with it. One shot, one kill. Try not to waste ammo. But then, practice ain't the waste of ammo some folks think of it as.

M1911Owner
October 16, 2004, 02:35 AM
Why more warriors than hunters on the rifle forum?
It's bleed from the Legal and Political forum.

Mulliga
October 16, 2004, 02:45 AM
Why more warriors than hunters on the rifle forum?

Some people have said that the assault/battle rifles are more fun

They're not just more "fun" - they're better for self-defense. Simple as that. If we have to face whatever zombies/civil war/space aliens/black helicopters/etc., a falling-block action ain't gonna cut it. ;)

MAKOwner
October 16, 2004, 03:05 AM
Can't speak for everyone but I really couldn't care less about your average hunting weapons or such. For me I enjoy reading, learning, and talking about military weapons. But that at least does include WWI and WWII era firearms as well. Maybe it's because I'm a young punk, one who only went deer hunting a few times because it was a good excuse to roam around the woods with my AK?? "iwannacoolgun itis" spreads like wildfire it seems, I've pretty much always had it.

The only "sporting" guns I own are a Winchester 30-30 and Remington 1100 I inherited from my grandfather. And the 1100 would be decidely "unsporting" if I had some extra cash to blow...

I think the hotrod vs work truck analogy was good though, seeing as how I frequent several of the Camaro/Mustang/Corvette message boards as well. Don't particularly see too many websites dedicated to the station wagon, nor too many people excited over ownership of station wagons either...

sm
October 16, 2004, 03:23 AM
I'm a '55 model myself , one of them 'babyboomers".

We "used to" instill the Milita aspect, that part about being being able to shoot no matter - men , women and children. We "used to" teach this in schools, with BB guns...but we also brought knives to school, and really neat when the Ben Pearson Bows showed up and we got to learn and practice that too.

I started out competiting with rim- fire rifle as a kid , Model 52 to be exact. Then I touched off a round from a model 70 in '06...."Gunny....I want to compete in this instead - Please Sir!!!" :D

Then being in the South it was just natural for a Model 94 in 30- 30 to "appear", I mean hell the ctgs grow wild on the roadside and all...might as well shoot the darn things. :p

I stated on another thread , I pretty much settled on my platforms and calibers early in life....These platforms were instilled in meas as being I might have to hunt for food, protect my home from anything from Riots to the Commies. Some bearded fellow was pointing missles at us....I was a 3rd grader when JFK was shot....

So Society has become more PC, we have more concrete jungles than land to hunt, we have more folks hugging trees ....

Hunting....most folks are "hunting" in the grocery store for that damn dish Martha spoke of that " all you have to do is nuke it". A real bitch to have to actually use a stovetop or oven.

MY fault I never became interested in firearm history , past a certain interest. I do appreciate and do learn from folks sharing. As I get older, I tend to be more interested in these things, part is because of my rebel attitude about synthetic and stainless....

Now it is no secret I have more trigger time on shotguns, I figured when things became more populated, well if stuff got serious it meant more up close and personal...shotgun and a 1911 is good for that.

Don't worry , I may be a bit rusty , but if the blue helmet, mutant zombies need shooting, Gimmee a model 70 in '06, yeah so its Wood&Blue&Leatherslung ....from the distance I nail 'em ....well we won't tell anyone - okay?

If per chance I'm using a model 94 in 30-30 , well I'll have to just make I don't miss so they can't run off and tell everyone " there is a fellow with a antiquated fiream...and he just nailed ole Pierre with a 170 grainer".
;)

Hunting? Warriors?

Hunting might be for food , the fellow that is shooting at you. Warrior attitude, never seen me get serious with targer or game have you?

Goodness, you ought to see how I go after doves or when we had ' em - busting quail with a shotgun. :)

Them orange clays are evil...I didn't / don't let many go unscathed.

Daemon688
October 16, 2004, 04:00 AM
Simple.

AR's, FAL's, AK's are fun guns. They are the guns you would bring with you every time you go to the range. The deer rifles on the other hand only go to the range to be sighted in (or maybe that's just me).

Other than the semi-autos the bolt actions appeal to me. There's something about moving a bolt back and forth that feels good.

fistful
October 16, 2004, 11:56 AM
A station wagon? You compare a hunting rifle to a station wagon? Blasphemy! Ok, ok, I guess the AR's are so soullesly utilitarian that I would compare them to station wagons. To each his own, I suppose. I know, I know, I'm just a minority. That's ok, I'm used to it. At least sm will back me up, even if he won't watch his language.

Have fun, everybody. Shoot whatever you like.

Langenator
October 16, 2004, 12:04 PM
One of the reasons the military rifles get talked about so much is accessories. The number of add-on widgets for the AR family alone boggles the mind. Whic gives rise to the "show us your pile of accessories with a rifle somewhere inside it" threads. Not that there's anything at all wrong with that-they're fun threads to browse through.

Milsurps get talked about a lot for a variety of reasons: they're cheap (as low as $50 if you know where to shop), generally inexpensive to shoot a whole lot, they have a lot of history, and can be really nice to look at.

Nothing against hunting rifles, but, for the most part, they're pretty dull. Especially the newer synthetic stocked ones. If you've seen one black stock deer rifle with a 3-9x scope, you've pretty much seen them all. (Note: I own a synthetic stock Browning A-bolt .270 with a 3-9x. Just because they're dull doesn't mean they don't work.)

45shooter
October 16, 2004, 12:10 PM
There are a lot more armchair commando wanna be than there are armchair hunter wanna be. :rolleyes:

Malamute
October 16, 2004, 01:14 PM
There seems to be some examples of people seeing the extreme ends of the spectrum as being representative. I also know hunters that shoot very little, but also know many that shoot their bolt guns quite a lot. My personal observation and opinion, a very good shot with a bolt gun is much more "effective" than a semi-shooter that likes to "hose down the countryside". I'm not wanting to jump into the extreme opposites camp either, I don't tend to see the world in black and white opposites. Most good shooters can be very effective with any gun they use, but the likelyhood of any average guy NEEDING a semi-auto high capacity gun to truly make the difference in saving their life is rather slim. I've never heard of anyone not in military or law enforcement that was saved BECAUSE they had a semi-auto military rifle. This is not a political discussion, but a practical one. If anyone chooses to see it different, feel free, but that is not what I'm talking about, so you will be on your own. I LIKE military style guns, but for MY use, and most guys that spend much time in the hills, military guns are simply not very practical. Sporters are lighter for similar caliber, available in more powerful calibers, less bulky, easier to carry, generally more accurate, and more flexible for different uses. Cooper makes some very good points about even most police being entirely adequetly armed with the average deer rifle. For any "defensive" use, high capacity sounds very appealing at first, but if you hit with each shot, you dont need a lot of shots, and ANY shot that misses is a serious liability in any populated area. To restate that point, high capacity is great, if you miss a lot. If someone LIKES shooting modern military guns, that is plenty of reason to own and shoot one. In the strictest reading of the constitution, the ONLY guns we are truly guaranteed is military weapons. Sorry hunters if you thought that we had some constitutional right to hunt, but the reason we are guaranteed the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is for defense of the state, from foreign or domestic threats, no mention of hunting, even remotley implied. We cannot say "this gun is acceptable, and this other one is not" because it isn't suitable for miltary use, because any gun can, (and most were intended for, erived from those intended for, or were attemped to be sold for military use, even winchester lever actions). All guns are protected constitutionally, but some are just more practical for real life, everyday uses for most of us. I have absolutely nothing against anyone that likes military guns, but I just dont find them very practical for any of my uses. I LIKE shooting my levers and bolt guns, and I carry and use them pretty regularly.

12-34hom
October 16, 2004, 01:31 PM
Warren Page once stated - Only accurate rifles are interesting.

Your run of the mill gas guns are rather weak in this department. I have seen semi auto's that will shoot with the best of bolt gun configuration, but they are the exception not the rule.

Varmint - Target - Benchrest - Tactical rifles - the vast majority are bolt guns & for good reason.

The work involved in the making, upkeep, shooting, of a great bolt gun is more than some folks want to sacrifice.

Each to his or her own - each type rifle has a niche that it likes to fit into.

12-34hom.

TallPine
October 16, 2004, 01:59 PM
My favorite rifle to shoot is my lever action Winchester.

But in regard for my eyesight, my hunting rifle is now a scoped bolt action. Interesting ...? Well, it puts the bullet right where you aim it, every time. So a box of ammo should equal 20 deer, right? ;)

What I shoot most is a scoped bolt action 22 LR. Cheap, and a real demon on the local gopher population. Not much different from my deer rifle except for recoil so I keep in practice.

For a home defense rifle, I went with a semi-auto. Ammo is cheaper than 30-30 and slight "tactical" (sigh) advantage of being a self-loader. Main thing though is it is cheap and replaceable (at this point in time). If I ever had to really use it against a person, I don't want my "heirloom" 30-30 to be confiscated.

Plus, I wanted to own at least one POTG (piss off the govt) rifle :D

Heck, they're all fun and have a purpose. I might even get a pistol caliber lever action just because.

mustanger98
October 16, 2004, 02:27 PM
AR's, FAL's, AK's are fun guns. They are the guns you would bring with you every time you go to the range. The deer rifles on the other hand only go to the range to be sighted in (or maybe that's just me).

That's kinda the way I am about my M1. I consider it a fun rifle. I can take the little peices of clay birds off the 100yd berm from standing with it on a good day. But, my main deer rifle- the Winchester .30-30 I mentioned earlier in the thread- goes with me a lot of trips to the range. I don't shoot just 150gr JSPs, but also 165gr LFP CAS loads. One of these days I'm intending to make it to one of the club's cast bullet matches I've heard so much about. That's just me.

Malamute
October 16, 2004, 02:49 PM
Forgot to mention, there ARE a couple of forums that have more hunters than Mil-type shooters, try leverguns.com forum, graybeardoutdoors.com, shootersforum.com, and there are a couple of others that are sponsored by or offshoots of reloading or powder companies. One is handloads .com I think. I go to a couple off and on, but have them book marked so am not exactly sure of the addresses. A search should turn them up.

Try accuratereloading.com they have a nice hunting oriented forum with sections related to areas of the states on up to worldwide hunting

GSB
October 16, 2004, 03:28 PM
But a street full of shuffling zombies, now that is something to talk about preparing for.

Man, it always comes back to the zombies. It's all about the zombies.

rock jock
October 16, 2004, 03:43 PM
Whatever the reason, we have a very different gun culture than say 40-50 years ago.
I would offer two reasons for this:

1. The evolution of every sport requires constant change as new technologies and tools are introduced. Bolt actions and lever actions are 19th Century tools (albeit good ones). AKs and ARs are 20th century. It takes awhile for these things to catch on.
2. Gun owners are responding to the ever-increasing erosion of our Constitutional rights.

Mannlicher
October 16, 2004, 03:53 PM
Other than the hunting section, most of the guys here seem much more interested in Tactical than Practical.
HuntChat is a nice place to visit to talk about hunting, and there are other forums out there.

Feanaro
October 16, 2004, 04:55 PM
My opinion: because run of the mill producting hunting rifles are boring. They are excellent tools but bland ones. C&R rifles have history and are cheap to boot. Plus one can argue for days about the best. EBRs are fun to shoot, accessorize, and fiddle with. And you can argue for YEARS about which is better against mutant zombie Care-Bears.

benEzra
October 16, 2004, 05:25 PM
Why more warriors than hunters on the rifle forum?

Why do AK's, AR's, Enfields and other military rifles seem to dominate Rifle Country? Just curious. I'm not a hunter, myself, but I like bolt-action sporters more than I do my SKS.
Part of it may be simple demographics. There are very roughly 80 million gun owners in the U.S., give or take, and roughly 16 million licensed hunters. So four out of five gun owners don't hunt.

(If the Democratic party would get their head around that statistic, maybe they'd stop trying to ban nonhunting guns.)

Dr.Rob
October 16, 2004, 06:03 PM
Well , as one of your 'mods here, I am a hunter, and we all have a little armchair commando in us.

I own a handful of rifles, those for taking game, and those for fun. I can't really say I was very interested in 'evil black rifles' until someone decided that me or anyone else should get to own one. So I went out and got one, before this year is over I may buy another.

Are the military style rifles more popular? I doubt it. How man deer rifles are there in the US vs. how many 'assault' rifles are there?

It's certainly fun and interesting to collect and shoot old military rifles.

But as far as hunting goes, I pretty much stick to one rifle only.

schromf
October 16, 2004, 06:31 PM
I think the real reason you don't see much interest has been stated above. If I post here on Hunting/varmit/target rifles I get very little response. I moved on to other sites where there is an interest, and like minds meet. Most of the sights were listed above, I would add benchrest.com to the list. There is plenty of interest in this just not here, the auto/milsurp crowd dominates here. Nothing wrong with that. I have interest in these types of rifles, but I subscribe to an old saying "only accurate rifles are interesting". Not hard and fast rule, as I own some auto's and will be buying some more. But for meat and potatoes situations, and my favorite shooting disciplines I like bolt rifles, always have, always will.

A quick example would be if I started a thread here on the technical merits of these actions: Hall, BAT, or Stolle, Farley or Borden. And have any meaningful discussion in regards to stiffness, lock time etc. I might get a couple of responses, and one will be what in the hell am I talking about. I know it and this isn't the only board that has the same interest level in precision rifles, there are a couple of good boards and they are pretty much the same, dismal. It takes a certain amount of knowledgable participants to keep topics alive. One or two individuals can't really do it. And the real accurate rifle fans have their own boards. Don't underestimate the interest in precsion rifles, its there and a lot of the gunsmiths pay a lot of attention, and spend time and money in the sport.

Areas I wish were stronger here besides the precision side, is more knowledge of Mauser rifles in particular, and euro bolt actions like Mannlichers, BRNO's, Huskies and such. This leads to another example of a wasted thread. I have been on a kick as of late to increase the amount of BRNO rifles in my collection. Brief history is pre war military VZ-24's, 21-F and 21-H's, ZG-47's, ZKM's, ZKK-600 (601,602), and new commercial VZ-24's. How much active interest would I get here on a thread detailing the differences in these rifles? Not much I expect just on the high level, and when I get down to details like scope mounts, and trigger systems, I can see eyes glazing over from boredom.

Serious rifle boards break down the topics usually into big bore, medium bore, and small bore, and usually a precision category thrown in. Gunsmithing and Auto's are usually seperate sections also.

The good thing at THR is there are shooters that are keeping the rifle thread alive, and there is some activity. Most as a whole there just isn't enough critical mass to keep rifles alive, by limiting it to bolts only.

For those who posted there isn't enough to talk about, I can only respond you only are showing your ignorance. There is an enormous amount of information to be passed around. And I am sure there are hunters who shoot less than 20 rounds a year, they are both not very dedicated shooters and in most probability once a year hunters, so what? They no more represent serious benchrest shooters, than they do the combat pistol competions.

There is a wide diversity in shooting sports, we all don't have the same interests. Not neccesarily a bad thing, it it was left up to me and my purchases you wouldn't be able to buy a shotgun. All the manufacturers would have quit building them 35 years ago, I just am not interested in scatter guns. Does that make a avid skeet and trapshooter wrong, absolutely not, it adds diversity to our collective sport. We all have different interests, and chewing on each other and criticising only serves to divide and ultimately have the anti's win.

TheLastBoyScout
October 16, 2004, 07:09 PM
Right now, my goal in life is to serve in a Combat Arms MOS in our country's military.

My shooting preference naturally turns towards ARs for that reason.

cracked butt
October 16, 2004, 08:29 PM
I'm a hunter. I spend 2 moths out of the year hunting, I spend 10 months shooting.

Battle rifles are fun, some are really cheap to shoot, and they are cheap to own. Most of them are no where near as accurate as my deer rifle, but if you take away the bench rest, I can shoot any one of them as well as someone with an accurate sporting rifle.

goon
October 16, 2004, 10:30 PM
Most hunters I know only shoot a few shots a year to check the zero on their rifles.
The Milsurps were made to be used. Surplus ammo for the Mausers and Mosin Nagants, as well as 7.62x39mm, is flooding into the country. Add up cheap, rugged guns and cheap ammo, and shooters are going to go nuts over them.
And here on THR, there are some hunters but everyone is a shooter. :D

fistful
October 17, 2004, 01:01 AM
Feanaro: My opinion: because run of the mill producting hunting rifles are boring. They are excellent tools but bland ones. C&R rifles have history and are cheap to boot. Plus one can argue for days about the best. EBRs are fun to shoot, accessorize, and fiddle with. And you can argue for YEARS about which is better against mutant zombie Care-Bears. SchromfFor those who posted there isn't enough to talk about [with hunting rifles], I can only respond you only are showing your ignorance.

Obviously, most people on this board find military rifles more interesting, but that is only their opinion. That opinion is fine and dandy, but so many are entranced by those tricked out, super-duper-tactical Remington 700's, that they think it is THE bolt-action, and all others are just plain vanilla copies.

In fact, there are many varieties of hunting rifles, from single-shots, to doubles, to levers, to slides, to pumps, to semi-autos, to bolts, to double-barrelled bolts. I won't even get into the black-powder guns, as they have their own place on The High Road.

All of these action types, except perhaps the double-bolt, of which I've seen but one example, come in different varieties. The bolts can be had in push-feed or controlled-round-feed, or in a combination of the two, with varying degrees of bolt throw, different numbers of lugs, fixed-blade or plunger ejectors, and different sights and scope-mounting options. Bolt-actions come in longer or shorter actions, with blind, fixed, swing-out, or detachable magazines of differing capacity.

Stocks can be wood, laminate, or synthetic. Synthetic stocks can vary greatly in weight, quality, stiffness, price or appearance.

They can be equipped with a similar variety of barrels, with chambers that are more or less tight, and offer more or less leade.

Sporting arms are available in an array of cartridges that dwarfs the number of options in military guns. Some of these headspace on the belt, some on the rim, some on the shoulder.

Some sporters are 300 dollar guns, some cost thousands.

Although it doesn't happen on this forum, some hunters debate all of these points just as eagerly as we argue AR vs. AK. And don't think that sporters don't have history. Some single-shots and lever-actions go back to the mid-nineteenth, and have seen military conflict. Lever-actions have a significant place in American history, and the American mind. (Well, not mine.) The doubles and bolts are the stuff of big-game legend, heros of hunting on the Dark Continent and all others.

Speaking of which, many have said that military arms are cheaper. I understand that C&R's are cheap and milsurp ammo is cheap, but I have always thought of AR's as being expensive. Am I wrong? I KNOW the M14 clones are expensive. And with the money some of you appear to be spending on your many, many toys, finance just doesn't seem to be an issue for many of you.

run of the mill producting hunting rifles are boring. They are excellent tools but bland ones. Run of the mill sporters, yes; that's why they're called run of the mill. 700's and Sako's are no more bland than the millions of Russian-pattern semi-auto's that are all more or less the same, and harder to customize than a bolt-action.

If you bothered to read this whole post, do you really think that sporters are station wagons, that offer less fodder for discussion than military guns?

Mausers rule. Thank you.:neener:

mustanger98
October 17, 2004, 01:17 AM
I'm reminded of this one 03/A3 I held in my hands once. The owner had done a beautiful job sporterizing it. The barrel- the original military stairstep barrel had been turned to a sporter's taper. The front sight had been changed to a globe. The original Remington C- stock had been cut back and fitted with a good rubber butt pad; a really nice deal with a slick finish. The rear sight was changed to a Williams FP with target knobs. The gentleman who owns it showed me the target he'd just shot with cast lead handloads- a very respectable 100yds group that gets tighter with jacketed bullets.

ShootAndHunt
October 17, 2004, 01:46 AM
I like my hunting rifles very much, they are accurate, reliable and pretty! A work of great Art. However, I also enjoy military type alike rifles, it is very cool and fun to shoot them at the range!

In fact, I found that I began to buy more military type alike rifles than the hunting rifles. You only need ja few hunting rifles for your annual hunting, but you could enjoy many different kinds of military rifles.

In my opinion, rifle shooting is one of the most interesting things in the world!:D

goon
October 17, 2004, 02:00 AM
mustanger98 - I have seen similar rifles built out of Mausers, Springfields, and Enfields. As a collector, I don't really like the idea of hacking and tearing on one, but when you think about what they were in their day, it makes perfect sense.
Hunters didn't need full length stocks and bayonet lugs on their rifles. They just needed tough, simple guns that did the job. That is exactly what they got with military weapons, so I guess that the sporters are a logical progression.
I try to remind myself of that when I look at a 1903 and immediately think to myself "hack job". To the guy who used it, it was much more than that.

At any rate, sporting guns interest me too. I am a very eclectic type of shooter. I really love milsurps, but any gun will get my attention.
The first time I shot my first M-39, there was almost a foot of heavy, wet snow on the ground. It was one of those "warm" cold days where you can feel the cold but you don't really feel cold. (Some of you know what I mean). As I trudged the last 100 or so yards into the range, I got just a very small taste of what it must have been like for the Finns during the winter war.
Really, I love history. It is part of the reason that I love guns, and it is the reason that I am drawn to old military weapons.
I guess that is why I choose one over the other.

Having said that, I still want a Marlin .357 and a .30-30, a 99 Savage .308, a Ruger No. 1 30'06, and a Marlin 45-70 guide gun. Those alone should keep me busy earning money until I come up with some more to add to the list.

Omaha-BeenGlockin
October 17, 2004, 02:01 AM
While I have AR's--an AK ----a MAS 49/56---a DSA FAL and a couple SKS's----the real jewels in my safe are my bolt action hunters.

The bolt actions see less use mainly because they are cannons in comparison to the military rifles----and they are more expensive to feed(even handloading) and take a greater toll on the shooter.

Sort of like---if I drop $80 on 7.62x39---I get 1000 rounds------$80 on .375 H&H gets you 2 boxes---maybe-----------which one do you think is going to get shot more???

mustanger98
October 17, 2004, 02:27 AM
As I trudged the last 100 or so yards into the range, I got just a very small taste of what it must have been like for the Finns during the winter war.

I think that's what I'd think of if I took my M1 Garand out in the snow- US soldier at Bastogne. My Grandpa was there, BTW.

Really, I love history. It is part of the reason that I love guns, and it is the reason that I am drawn to old military weapons.

I know what you mean. And there's that statement they open every episode of "Tales of the Gun" with. And Col Cooper is quoted as saying "If you don't understand weapons, you don't understand fighting, and if you don't understand fighting you don't understand war. If you don't understand war you don't understand history, and if you don't understand history, you might as well live with your head in a sack."

Another quote that comes to mind is that "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

c_yeager
October 17, 2004, 02:43 AM
Varmint - Target - Benchrest - Tactical rifles - the vast majority are bolt guns & for good reason.

With the exception of benchrest semis are well represented in all of those disciplines, particularly varients of the AR15 and M14.

fistful
October 17, 2004, 02:58 AM
those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it Yeah, they're doomed to freeze in the snow like you two nostalgic twerps. :p Just kiddin'!

Art Eatman
October 17, 2004, 11:46 AM
Being from the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." school, I'm content to use what's always worked for me. That is, a couple of pets I've had for over 30 years; bolt-actions in '06 and .243.

That doesn't mean I don't meddle around with some load-testing from the bench, or just sit around busting rocks at 300 or so yards. Sometimes I dig out a .22 and burn through a bunch of rounds in just plinking.

I've shot everything from a Daisy Red Ryder to a Quad .50. It's all fun.

I've done a lot of trading into and out of all sorts of stuff. HK 91, AR 15s, M1A, miscellaneous whatzits. I've shot them all before trading them off.

But, for all that I think I'm pretty knowledgeable about home defense and all that, the odds are that the only "action target" I'll ever really need to be concerned with is Bambi or Wiley.

:), Art

Feanaro
October 17, 2004, 03:44 PM
Obviously, most people on this board find military rifles more interesting, but that is only their opinion.

Well that's kinda obvious. :evil:

And don't think that sporters don't have history. Some single-shots and lever-actions go back to the mid-nineteenth, and have seen military conflict.

They have history, there is no doubt, but it's a different kind of history. When you hold a C&R you are touching the actual history, a weapon that was used(or at least ready to be used) by a soldier. Sporters have history but it's more distant, a lineage if you will. It's grand-daddy might have been used by an outlaw or cowboy to bring in game, or to hold off the Injuns. Not that either is better than the other, there is simply a different feel. One can't quite get the same connect to Custer or (insert favorite Wild West hero) as you can get to Stalingrad when you hold a 1938 Mosin.

700's and Sako's are no more bland than the millions of Russian-pattern semi-auto's that are all more or less the same,

No more logic out you mister! :p

They are more or less the same but they are also a little more... out of place than most hunting rifles, I think. I can't think of many people who don't have a shotgun or hunting rifle in their house, or who used to. But I can't think of too many that have a FAL, SKS, or AK. Maybe that's where the allure is, being different. Or maybe it's the "they don't want me to have it, so I'll by God get it" syndrome. Either way you choose, you're still hopelessly addicted and doomed to argue over how to kill zombies/Bambi. ;)

If you bothered to read this whole post, do you really think that sporters are station wagons, that offer less fodder for discussion than military guns?

There is a great deal one can hash, rehash, and then reheat a la 45ACP vs. 9mm. But I don't think the majority of people on this forum are as interested in that, for whatever reason. All I can give is my reasons for not hashing it out.

fistful
October 17, 2004, 08:06 PM
They are more or less the same but they are also a little more... out of place than most hunting rifles, I think. I can't think of many people who don't have a shotgun or hunting rifle in their house, or who used to. But I can't think of too many that have a FAL, SKS, or AK. Maybe that's where the allure is, being different.

Are you kidding? A FAL might make you different. A CZ 52 might make you different. An FR-8 might make you different, but an AK or SKS. No way. No way. If you don't know many people that don't have a hunting arm, then you just don't know that many people, or you live in some kind of hunter-heavy part of the country (any real estate for sale?) I have to agree with some earlier contributors who have noted a decline in hunting. Of course, there are a lot of old coots out there who have them and don't use them no more, or inherited them.
Sporters have history but it's more distant, a lineage if you will. Point taken.

Feanaro
October 17, 2004, 08:29 PM
Are you kidding? A FAL might make you different. A CZ 52 might make you different. An FR-8 might make you different, but an AK or SKS. No way. No way.

As I said, maybe that's the reasoning. I can't tell you why THR is more interested in military and military style weapons, just put some ideas forward.

If you don't know many people that don't have a hunting arm, then you just don't know that many people, or you live in some kind of hunter-heavy part of the country (any real estate for sale?)

Come on now, I live in Alabama. I know some people who don't have them but they are a minority. Of course, I could just be a little odd. ;)

fistful
October 18, 2004, 01:29 AM
Good for you, Feanaro, wish all my neighbors had guns. No I don't; half my neighbors are so heavily medicated that I wouldn't trust them with a weedeater. I need to move out of the city - just ain't natch-ral.

bullfrog99
October 18, 2004, 03:18 AM
Hunting guns are tools

Fighting guns are toys

People find it more interesting to talk about toys.

Feanaro
October 18, 2004, 03:45 AM
No I don't; half my neighbors are so heavily medicated that I wouldn't trust them with a weedeater.

Buy a police scanner and listen to that instead of the radio. You will never see humanity quite the same again. :uhoh:

I need to move out of the city - just ain't natch-ral.

Now yer talkin'! Buy ya some land n' move out ter da country. Buy enough and you can have your own shooting range. *dangles carrot* :evil:

fistful
October 18, 2004, 09:23 AM
Feanaro, don't tease a wistful country boy. I'm-a always dreamin' 'bout my ole, Franklin County home.

Hunting guns are tools

Fighting guns are toys That doesn't make the least bit of sense. Shooting people is a game, but hunting is serious business? Some people hunt for a living, and others hunt for fun. Some tote a people-shooting gun for a living, and some like the job more than others. Still, shooting people is not entertainment, no matter how much fun you have playing Counter Strike.

I'm just trying to point out that if you have more fun with military guns, it's only a matter of opinion. You can't objectively state that military guns are just more fun. They only happen to be more fun for some people.

the AR's are so soullesly utilitarian that I would compare them to station wagons I've said it again.

TallPine
October 18, 2004, 11:17 AM
Hunting rifles: so which is better ... a 270 or a 30.06 ...?

:D

kfranz
October 18, 2004, 12:53 PM
I prefer surplus for a number of reasons. In no particular order;

cost of the arm
cost of the ammo
ability to amass rather than collect
ability to revive(from a parts kit) a destroyed rifle
the DIYS factor associated with rolling my own
The history associated with surplus

of course the increased zombie protection they offer....:uhoh:

rbernie
October 18, 2004, 12:55 PM
While by no means a definitive reason for the 'MilSurp' focus, the fact that I can buy (for example) a SKS and 2000 rounds of practice ammo for less than the cost of one bottom-end Rem700 at WallyWorld has to be considered.

People shoot what they can afford to shoot, and tend to accessorize what they have. If the MilSurp/non-hunting-centric rifles are simply cheaper to buy and feed and dress up, IMO that's gonna drive a lot of the conversation on the board.

Cosmoline
October 18, 2004, 01:54 PM
I find curio rifles to be far less "toy" than "tool." Especially when compared with the overpriced nonsense sold as "hunting rifles." To make a hunting rifle, you must apparently strip off the iron sights, destroy the quality wooden stock, put on a nasty POS wood or synthetic material (in the monte carlo pattern, of course), hack off any barrel length over 24", install a super high power scope on it at great additional cost, and chamber it for a cartridge way more powerful than you need to take down the largest moose.

I hunt with my Mosin-Nagant. Modern American "hunting rifles" are overpriced garbage.

Black Snowman
October 18, 2004, 02:28 PM
I think the AWB had a huge impact on the popularity of military arms. Before the AWB gunshows had maybe 1 or 2 tables with that "weirdo" with the "inaccurate and ugly military stuff". Everyone else had a favorite specialty. There would be one or two Weatherby tables. Many competing tables of model 70s and 700s. The pump shotgun table, the SxS and O/U tables. A handgun table here and there. Not very many, and the reloading and ammo tables. Maybe a couple guys with mil-surps. Maybe.

Now you just see a few die-hards with the quality bolt rifles and everyone else is pedelling the latest tacticool EBRs and CCW pieces. I'm not saying this is wrong. Just that the market has changed. What was collectable (pre-64 Winchesters, etc . . . ) has been usurped by the new collectables ( Colt SP-1, Norincos, etc . . . ) and people are selling what folks want to buy. Free market at work.

Look what the 50 ban did in Cali. Sales skyrocketted. Flooding the state with the weapon they were trying to ban immidiately having the complete opposite effect as what it's proponent's claimed putting decades worth of regularly paced sales into the state in the space of a few months.

Bwana John
October 18, 2004, 05:02 PM
"Mall Ninja Syndrome"

wasrjoe
October 18, 2004, 05:13 PM
All the modern bolt actions I can afford are boring. :)

WhiteKnight
October 18, 2004, 05:38 PM
Part of it may be simple demographics. There are very roughly 80 million gun owners in the U.S., give or take, and roughly 16 million licensed hunters. So four out of five gun owners don't hunt.

That's incredibly faulty reasoning. I guess you didn't take into account the hunters who own more than one gun either for hunting different game or for variety. :uhoh:

Dave Markowitz
October 18, 2004, 09:00 PM
Warren Page once stated - Only accurate rifles are interesting.

It was Col. Townsend Whelen who said that, although I'm sure Mr. Page would agree. ;)

Ash
October 18, 2004, 09:59 PM
Okay, anybody want to talk about my Mossberg 810 in 30-06?

Ash

SteveS
October 18, 2004, 10:20 PM
I find curio rifles to be far less "toy" than "tool." Especially when compared with the overpriced nonsense sold as "hunting rifles." To make a hunting rifle, you must apparently strip off the iron sights, destroy the quality wooden stock, put on a nasty POS wood or synthetic material (in the monte carlo pattern, of course), hack off any barrel length over 24", install a super high power scope on it at great additional cost, and chamber it for a cartridge way more powerful than you need to take down the largest moose. I hunt with my Mosin-Nagant. Modern American "hunting rifles" are overpriced garbage.

That is too modern. I hunt with an iron pipe that I cram full of black powder and nails.

Seriously, I like modern hunting rifles and have two with synthetic stocks. I see no reason to put on a heavier wooden stock and take it out it the rain. OTOH, wood stocks certainly have more character and look a heck of a lot nicer. I also have an Enfield that I’d like to take hunting one of these years.
BTW, I also hate monte carlo stocks.

LiquidTension
October 18, 2004, 11:18 PM
I'm sure age and level of skill have some impact on representation of different rifles in the forum.

Age: In my experience, younger people tend to like semi-autos more than bolt guns. Younger people are also more prone to using the internet, so they may be disproportionately represented on the forums.

Skill level: Being "good" with a bolt gun and being "good" with an AK are not the same. It takes some practice to be able to put several rounds into a 1" group @ 100yards with a bolt gun. With semi's, accuracy is not really the main goal. Besides, if your target looks like it was hit with a shotgun you can always say, "yeah, those AKs are fun but they aren't very accurate." Not that I've ever used thate excuse :uhoh: Most of the time when I see semis at the range, the targets are coke bottles or other reactive targets. Doesn't take as much skill to hit a 2 liter bottle as it does to put five rounds in the X ring.

Of course, the main reason is that semi-autos are so cool :D

Chris Pinkleton
October 18, 2004, 11:51 PM
Hey, y'know this thread has made me realize that despite the fact that my sole centerfire rifle is a SAR-1, I wish this forum had more threads on hunting weapons. I know far less about them than I do about military weapons.

Right now, even though I really want a another AK variant (maybe a homebrew Saiga-based AK-type folder or a new Vepr with the folding stock and muzzle threading) I have an almost equal desire for a good hunting rifle with a nice big scope (to aid my swiftly degenerating, if not old, eyes) in some non-sexy caliber like .308 or .30-06. I'm also hankering for a .45-70 levergun (maybe a Guide Gun?) and even though I have no "need" for either in the slightest, if I buy a good .30 caliber rifle, I still want a pair of European-style guns in 7mm Mauser and 9.3x62mm.

And I don't even hunt yet! Although my wife and I are currently trying to purchase a home with a whole bunch of land with the express idea of hunting and shooting on it. I'm just a sad suburban boy, but luckily I've got plenty of more "country" friends willing to school me in the way of the hunter.

Let's face it, most guns, even if we have "practical" justifications for them, are effectively toys. Even in large collections of fine hunting weapons, how many ever actually get used to hunt? How many new manufacture Holland & Holland doubles actually get blooded these days? If we limited ourselves to "tools," really the only guns most of us would need would be 1) one hunting rifle (maybe bolt, maybe lever depending on where you live and taste), 2) a home defense gun (which could be anything from a full-size pistol, to a shotgun, to a semi-auto "assault weapon" depending on many factors), 3) a shotgun, for hunting, if it already isn't #2 already, and 4) a concealable pistol for self defence. And, if we really only care about tools, just maybe we could justify duplicates of several of the above. And of course, a .22LR pistol and rifle for target practice.

Heck, my grandfather got through most of his life owning a single barrel 12 gauge and a .22 rifle. Uncle Sam povided for his needs during WWII, and he could always borrow a centerfire rifle from a friend if he wanted to hunt with one. He did buy a Ruger Mk.II, purely for fun, near the end of his life. By his standards, it was a pretty big indulgence. He was also a great shot. As he said, "if I didn't hit it, I didn't eat." He didn't have enough money for many .22 rounds. His weapons were indeed "tools," but his overall mentality was lightyears away from just about everyone on this board.

If you are motivated enough to post on this forum, most likely you are at least as much a collector as shooter or hunter. If you are a collector, you're not in it for pure tool use alone. Collections of fine hunting weapons reach astronomical dollar amounts very quickly. Collections of military-type weapons, especially C&R rifles, don't reach insane cost levels quite as fast. So, of course, most collections don't focus on fine hunting guns. And, most discussions here will not focus on hunting rifles.

On second thought, please don't start discussing hunting rifles more, you older and wiser heads! I don't need anymore "needs!"

MeekandMild
October 19, 2004, 12:01 AM
Whiteknight, I think that there are several other demographic, cultural and political factors.

1) More people in the burbs than in the country so more people have access to target ranges than woods.

2) A major negative effect of 'hunter safety class' laws is that it has become illegal to learn to hunt the traditional way, so a lot of younger people aren't hunting.

3) Lets face it, if you hunt, you have to be prepared to remove blood, guts, skin, hair et cetera before the game becomes food. Come to think of it, with the demise of the family garden, how many suburbanites are psychologically ready to pull a screaming turnip from the ground, cut off its roots and stalk and scrub it before chopping it into little pieces and boiling it?

4) For some odd reason the majority of the last generation of movie and rock stars haven't been interested in hunting, though lots of them wore leather and waved tricked out hi tech rifles.

5) Boring? Of course hunting rifles are boring. They bore holes in animals. But they have no media appeal. See #4

fistful
October 19, 2004, 12:46 AM
To make a hunting rifle, you must apparently strip off the iron sights, Well, a lot of people just like other types of sights; sorrydestroy the quality wooden stock, - which was too heavy in 1933, and is still too heavy. Doesn't it also impinge on the barrel when affected by humidity? Some people cut down the issued stock to more reasonable porportions. put on a nasty POS wood or synthetic material (in the monte carlo pattern, of course), My Mauser came to me with a black synthetic, and I don't like it either, aesthetically. On second thought, it is a moral blight. But synthetic stocks can be of high quality, if you got the cash. Certainly, not every aftermarket wooden stock is a "POS," and monte carlos are going out of style these days, I believe. hack off any barrel length over 24", -which was too much barrel in 1915 and is still too much. install a super high power scope on it at great additional cost, I could ask why you think that anybody who modernizes a milsurp is going to use a 15-87x120 scope, but I realize that you only want to conflate mil-surp hotrodders with scope extremists.and chamber it for a cartridge way more powerful than you need to take down the largest moose. same as response to previous


WhiteKnight, I don't understand your comment regarding statistics.

how many suburbanites are psychologically ready to pull a screaming turnip from the ground, cut off its roots and stalk and scrub it before chopping it into little pieces and boiling it? I must object to such barbaric practices!

mustanger98
October 19, 2004, 01:01 AM
.To make a hunting rifle, you must apparently strip off the iron sights,

Well, a lot of people just like other types of sights; sorry

Hmmm... I'm usually the one that gets disgusted by not finding a Model 70 with sights on the barrel and goes plotting what aperture sight I'd like on one.

destroy the quality wooden stock,

- which was too heavy in 1933, and is still too heavy. Doesn't it also impinge on the barrel when affected by humidity? Some people cut down the issued stock to more reasonable porportions.

I wouldn't destroy the original stock. Keep it in original configuration. You might want to put the rifle back in "as issued" shape at some point. Choose a really nice sporter stock for hunter use.

hack off any barrel length over 24",

Nah, you lose the front sight that way, which is needed if the rear is changed out as opposed to scoping it.

and chamber it for a cartridge way more powerful than you need to take down the largest moose.

Been reading Jim Carmichael in Outdoor Life? I've read where he told about his old .458 Win Mag several times. The he custom built on the Mauser action.

fistful
October 19, 2004, 02:04 AM
Mustanger, I like peeps too. I own a Mauser that was sporterized and scoped when I got it. I gave the scope back to my friend. I chopped the sporter barrel down to 19" and had a front sight installed. No biggie. Put an aperture on it, and had the trigger sweetened - she's light and single-staged, now. Yeah, the barrel's a bit shorter than optimum, but I'm one of those scout guys.

SteveS
October 19, 2004, 12:49 PM
Why do AK's, AR's, Enfields and other military rifles seem to dominate Rifle Country?

Another possibility is that there is a hunting forum on this board. I can't speak for everybody, but if I have a question related to a hunting rifle, I usually post it on the hunting venue.

Marshall
October 19, 2004, 01:50 PM
I guess i'm a throwback to the old school then. I prefer hunting rifles ie., bolts, lever guns and semi-auto's such as the BAR's. I like M1 carbines. I never have got into the AR type guns or the older Nagants, etc. I do have a hankerin for a M1A though. :D

Too many guns, not enough cash. :mad:

Cosmoline
October 19, 2004, 02:00 PM
Well, a lot of people just like other types of sights; sorry

I'm not criticizing Bubba so much as what Remchester Inc. does to their new production rifles. At heart they're still based on bolt-action military rifles, albeit with some modifications in the feeding and extraction systems. But compare a true Mauser with a moder Remchester and you instantly notice that the modern production rifle was made with a lot less steel, inferior stock materials, has no iron sights at all, and no sense of balance.

The only modern rifles that I consider quality for the money are CZ's. I've been spoiled by Mausers and Mosins.

rust collector
October 20, 2004, 03:29 AM
Disposable income might be part of the picture. Back 50 years, most folks had a .22 rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun, and maybe a 30-30 or, if they read Jack O'Connor, a 270 win. There was a lot more talking about calibers, guns, and hunting with the Shah of Iran because talking was a lot cheaper than buying. After all, all anyone needed was one pre-64 model 70 in 270 done up in an Al Biesen stock with a Weaver K-4 on top.

Now, AIM has their gunsmith specials and shooter's packages, we're awash in aptly named SMLEs and K-31s, and ammunition is cheap. And it's fascinating to hold these moldy relics and imagine where they've been all these years, wonder whose idea it was to insist on a 600 yard sight, and what in blazes does this tool do. Sporterizing is frowned upon because no one needs to do it to shoot a deer, and most don't have the skill or patience to make the product worthwhile. Time was, however, that $114 model 700 ADL was out of reach and this here old 03 would have to do. It's tough for many of us not to try to improve our equipment, y'see.

This is the golden age of deep pockets and cheap rifles. We are obligated to enjoy it while we can. Hunting requires a whole lot more work and good fortune than cranking rounds through the SKS at the range, so we do what we can.

JohnBT
October 21, 2004, 07:20 PM
"Back 50 years, most folks had a .22 rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun, and maybe a 30-30"

You were in wealthy neighborhood. :)

John

sm
October 23, 2004, 12:41 AM
TallPine wrote: Hunting rifles: so which is better ... a 270 or a 30.06 ...?

Gee...doncha read the internet....:D

Model 70 in '06
Model 70 in .243
Model 94 in 30-30
Model 94 in .243

Covers everything from varimits to Racks ....mutant zombies, pumas, and blue helments....

pssst....it is the Blue & Wood& Leather that does it. :D

tex_n_cal
October 23, 2004, 12:17 PM
I defy anyone to not find this rifle interesting:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=76221

That said, I have everything from a charcoal burner to antiques, to an AR-10A4 Carbine. I hunt, and I expect to keep buying nice rifles of any persuasion, as I find them.:)

Texian Pistolero
October 23, 2004, 12:58 PM
I read the other day that the State of Alabama now gets more annual income from birders than from hunters.

A SAD state of affairs!

Gewehr98
October 23, 2004, 12:58 PM
Why more warriors than hunters on the rifle forum?

Because there's a separate hunting sub-forum on THR?

gaston_45
October 23, 2004, 01:38 PM
Is there a difference between the two?

Bigfoot
October 24, 2004, 01:02 AM
Ok I finally read this thread and I've got a question.

I hunt with an iron pipe that I cram full of black powder and nails.

What size nails for deer and what size for elk?

RavenVT100
October 24, 2004, 01:32 AM
I'm an engineer; a gearhead. Stuff that has moving parts and is designed well, with a history, is interesting to me. I like learning the history of the pieces and how they work. I also enjoy shooting them immensely.

I'm not too terribly concerned with the UFOs landing or the Commies invading or anything of the sort. I just like my rifles. The fact is, I find most of this "let's kill the blue helmets" talk distasteful. I don't think anyone would be waxing gleeful about it if they actually had to fight a war on their own nation's soil. What romantic value the concept holds is lost on me. That is not to say that I don't believe the Second Amendment is necessary; it is. I derive a peaceful pleasure from my rifles, and I don't generally fantasize about having to use them against anything but paper, game, and plinking junk.

benEzra
October 24, 2004, 10:05 PM
(tex_n_cal)
I defy anyone to not find this rifle interesting
It's a beautiful rifle, although it's not aesthetically my cup of tea. The targets you posted are what make it really interesting...

What make/model/caliber/distance?

I'm an engineer; a gearhead. Stuff that has moving parts and is designed well, with a history, is interesting to me. I like learning the history of the pieces and how they work. I also enjoy shooting them immensely.
That's a major reason I gravitate toward EBR's (my favorite rifle is a Kalashnikov, a SAR-1), because to me they are the most mechanically interesting. My M39 is fantastically interesting from a historical standpoint, but not all that interesting mechanically; an AK, on the other hand...

tex_n_cal
October 24, 2004, 10:30 PM
It's a beautiful rifle, although it's not aesthetically my cup of tea. The targets you posted are what make it really interesting...What make/model/caliber/distance?


Ruger #1V, in .22-250...those are three consecutive groups at 100 yards. My Dad bought the rifle in the late '70s, sold it to me in the '80's and I literally spent 20 years off and on getting it to shoot those strings. It took a lot of tuning and handload development, but the results speak for themselves, it was very satisfying to finally put five in a half inch. The loads are 50 gr Noslers, and they are scooting along at over 3800 fps.

SteveS
October 25, 2004, 04:37 PM
What size nails for deer and what size for elk?

Hmmm...Well, I like to use a variety (but not roofing nails). One handful for deer, two for elk. ;)

fistful
October 26, 2004, 12:23 AM
Single-shot rifle with monotonously consistent groups? Says only one thing, to me. Pretension. Nobody's good enough to use a single shot, but that's another thread.

tex_n_cal
October 26, 2004, 12:40 AM
Single-shot rifle with monotously consistent groups? Says only one thing, to me. Pretension. Nobody's good enough to use a single shot, but that's another thread.

It's a .22-250 Varmint rifle. One shot is fine on small varmints. You either miss, or they're done.

I have also taken a few deer with larger caliber single shots.

Lots of other folks have taken deer and bigger game with centerfire single shots, including lots of other folks with single shot muzzleloaders.

And it's spelled "monotonously". Precision, ya know. :)

Black Snowman
October 26, 2004, 01:15 AM
Nobody's good enough to use a single shot. That's funny. I thought all you had to do was make sure the safety is off, striker cocked/hammer pulled, align the sighting device and pull the trigger like the other rifles. Didn't seem any more complicated to me. I even usually hit my target. :confused: :neener:

You might want to qualify that statement with a purpose, function or other performance criteria.

If you're talking hunting, I've only been hunting twice and only had a good shot available once. Only took 1 shot, and only needed 1 shot. I wasn't all that experienced then but I got both lungs and the heart and the deer didn't even take a single step. 98 paces off. I had a 2nd shot in the magazine. Never even bothered chambering it.

Now for stopping hordes of jack booted international zombie deer I want more than 1 shot in my gun. But I won't take a shot on an animal unless I KNOW it will only take 1 shot. I can reload my Dad's Browning 87 pretty darn quick as well. I guess you can count me as just another Nobody when you're talking deer hunting.

TooTaxed
October 26, 2004, 05:23 PM
I think you'll find that most of us shoot both sporting (bolt) rifles and the milsurps. My 6.5 x55 and .30-06 bolt hunting rifles, and my .45-70 Sharps, are supurbly accurate...but not nearly as much fun on the range as the cheaper milsrp rifles, which also use much less expensive ammo. There's a lot more challenge in shooting them.

To echo a common theme, the bolt guns are rather boring...not much challenge in shooting them. So, we rarely discuss them...:p

fistful
October 26, 2004, 11:30 PM
Tex n cal, your point on the hunting of varmints is well taken. I sit corrected. My spelling, however, is always above reproach. If you will take a second look at my previous post, you will see that I indeed spelled the word correctly. I have, however, added some words in italics - something about an edit.


Hunting big game with a single-shot, WHEN REPEATERS ARE AVAILABLE, is arrogant and silly. You may be good enough, but you shouldn't depend on it.


Too taxed, I will repeat myself - if bolt guns are boring, that is only your opinion, don't state it as if it were universally true. And are you saying that semi-auto's are more difficult to shoot? I'm not sure how that could be. I think AR's are easier to shoot, just because of the pistol grip. Still hate 'em.

mustanger98
October 27, 2004, 01:20 PM
Single-shot rifles impose a discipline on the shooter to make the shot count.

Semi-automatic rifles impose a discipline on the shooter to not get in a hurry and spray-and-pray.

In a hunting scenario, a semi-auto mostly just shows everybody how bad a shot the guy on the next ridge is.

A single-shot in an anti-personel role, well, didn't anybody see Quigley Down Under or Legends of the Fall or read about Billy Dixon's mile-long shot at Adobe Walls, Texas?

The only guns I find boring are garbage like Tec-9.

fistful
October 29, 2004, 01:47 AM
Single-shot rifles impose a discipline on the shooter to make the shot count. This may be true, but shouldn't we impose that discipline on ourselves? And even if one trains with a single-shot, the field is no place to bring a training tool, one should also train with a repeater and use it to hunt. Of course, muzzle-loaders have their reasons for limiting themselves, and I respect that.

I didn't see Legends, and I don't know who Billy Dixon is, but Quigley didn't plan on shooting folks with his target rifle. It was all he had. Also, it was a fictional movie (or at least I thought it was).

I repeat:

Hunting big game with a single-shot, WHEN REPEATERS ARE AVAILABLE, is arrogant and silly. You may be good enough, but you shouldn't depend on it.

fistful
October 29, 2004, 01:52 AM
I RETRACT MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS.

On further thought, let's not get brainwashed by this nonsense about the absolute necessity of a clean kill. Is that more important than using the gun you want to use? I don't think so. It's just a hunt, it's just an animal. But it's your hunt, so do what you want. Don't wound animals willy-nilly, but don't treat 'em like holy objects, either. The notion of animal rights makes our rights worthless, don't it? [intentional poor grammar]

buzz meeks
October 29, 2004, 02:24 PM
To everyone: forgive me this thread drift but fistful has made some sweeping and wrong statements.

Fistful: you act as if single shot rifles cannot be reloaded. A rifleman with a single shot and a buttcuff full of rounds effectively has a repeater.

Do I hunt with a single shot? No. I use a bolt action repeater. I also have an uninterrupted record of 13 one shot kills on big game. You are right, we all should have the discipline to do that every time regardless of what we shoot. But to question the character, ethics or skill of those who choose single shots is just wrong.

mustanger98
October 29, 2004, 05:21 PM
I didn't see Legends, and I don't know who Billy Dixon is, but Quigley didn't plan on shooting folks with his target rifle. It was all he had. Also, it was a fictional movie (or at least I thought it was).

If you don't know who Billy Dixon was, you haven't read enough history to know about the old buffalo hunters. They used bigbore single-shot rifles with iron sights from long distances. Billy Dixon was one such hunter and he was at Adobe Walls, Texas when Quanah Parker led a large war party against them there. The final shot of the engagement was Billy Dixon's shot which knocked an Indian off his horse at 7/8 of a mile. The Army surveyors measured the distance. According to Mike Venturino, such a shot is possible with only 5degrees of elevation.

As far as "Quigley Down Under" and "Legends", those are fictional stories as far as I know, however, from my reading on such matters as long-range shooting, I fealt the pertaining scenes from those movies accurately depicts the making of such a shot. (I've also watched some SASS long range which is shot generally with single-shot buffalo rifles.) Oh, and in Quigley's case, that wasn't his target rifle; it was his custom hunting rifle- his choice of barrel, caliber, and sights among other options. That rifle wasn't made just to bust buckets.

On further thought, let's not get brainwashed by this nonsense about the absolute necessity of a clean kill.

The clean kill is a sportsman's responsibility to the animal. Have you ever seen an animal you shot thrash and squall because your bullet wasn't placed right? If you think about it, it's a hunter's responsibility to himself as well knowing the animal didn't suffer because of something he did or didn't do.

Is that more important than using the gun you want to use?

You take the gun you want to use and get good with it. If it's a single-shot, you get good with it. If it's a repeater, you get good with it. Your rifle becomes an extension of yourself. Once you send a bullet, you cannot call it back. It's better to know you can do the job with one shot.

It's just a hunt, it's just an animal. But it's your hunt, so do what you want. Don't wound animals willy-nilly, but don't treat 'em like holy objects, either. The notion of animal rights makes our rights worthless, don't it?

Just a hunt? That kinda downgrades what hunting means to some of us. In some parts of this country, deer season is like a national holiday. And the Plains Indians, that was there life and livelyhood. Just an animal? Seems to me there ought to be a degree of respect given the animal whether it was killed or got away by wits, or was allowed to walk for whatever reason the hunter decides. To a Christian, those animals are God's creation and we ought to respect that if nothing else. With dominion comes so much responsibility.

fistful
October 30, 2004, 03:01 AM
I am sorry. I apologize for my snide comments in regard to single-shot rifles or their owners. However, I didn't mean to imply that we should just go out there and pepper every animal we see with .22's.

On the one hand, I don't want to start useless arguments; on the other, I just happen to resent the supposed superiority of the single-shot, as if it is the mark of a pure rifleman. I'm a gun bigot. There, I said it. I really like a few types of guns, and the rest seem like a waste of steel. Ironically, I have been eyeing those NEF Handi-rifles, lately.

Actually, I thought the retraction I made would end the whole silly argument I had raised, but of course, I just started another one. I simply wonder if hunters have not gone too far in distancing themselves from the buffalo extermination of yore. Stewardship and compassion, yes; fear and trembling, no. That kind of attitude has our police officers jumping up and getting out the bracelets every time someone kills an unwanted kitten. I wike wittle kittens, too, but they're private property with fur.

To repeat myself: "The notion of animal rights makes our rights worthless, don't it? [intentional poor grammar]"

It doesn't make any sense to demand that hunters use a rifle with the fastest follow-up shot, because that would mean a semi-auto, and that would just be silly. In any case, I was only buying into this fetish of the game animal, which I now renounce.

No, I haven't read much about the buffalo hunters, although I've heard of Adobe Walls many times. I don't know when we started talking about shooting PEOPLE with a single shot, though.

My point about Quigly is that he arrived in Australia expecting to shoot dingos, IICR. Once the killing started, he didn't have a choice of rifles. Given the option of a repeater of equal range and accuracy, if such were then available, I think he would have taken it.

What happened in Legends of the Fall? There are guns in that film? I thought it was just a chick flick.

Mustanger, I'd like to get into hunting someday, but I doubt I will ever get as excited by it as some people. I think that's OK.

mustanger98
October 30, 2004, 04:49 PM
However, I didn't mean to imply that we should just go out there and pepper every animal we see with .22's.

I didn't take it that way. Elmer Keith said the only time he shot a mule deer with a .22 was when that was all he had with him and they really needed the meat. It took too many rounds to the back of the animal's head and he wasn't impressed at all, by his own re-count. FWIW, I just heard about somebody finishing off a deer (hit by a car) with a .22- 4rds in the head and IMO that's too many.

I simply wonder if hunters have not gone too far in distancing themselves from the buffalo extermination of yore.

I don't think us hunters distance ourselves from it so much as figure not to have it happen again. In my part of the country, I understand there was a time when there wasn't much game to be hunted. Now the deer population is running out everybody's ears, eating the shrubbery... Gotta have a balance.

My point about Quigley is that he arrived in Australia expecting to shoot dingos, IICR. Once the killing started, he didn't have a choice of rifles. Given the option of a repeater of equal range and accuracy, if such were then available, I think he would have taken it.

Right. But you dance with the one you brung, and like you said, he didn't have a choice of rifles. But a repeater of equal range and and accuracy, I don't know that one was available then, the closest thing being the 1886 Winchester which had a different sight system without so much elevation. I recall the scenes where Marston was talking up the Colt's revolvers and Quigley said "never had much use for one" and then close to the end, Marston says "I recall you don't know how to use one; here's your first and final lesson" (or words to that effect) and Quigley shoots them with the revolver and says "I said I never had much use for one; I didn't say I didn't know how".

I don't know when we started talking about shooting PEOPLE with a single shot, though.

I recall mention further back along the thread of a single shot hunting rifle not having any value in a SHTF scenario. That's why I mentioned Quigley and Legends- the Sharps rifles being used to varying degrees in an anti-personel role. While I'm on this point, I recall one of Sheriff Jim Wilson's articles in Shooting Times- he wrote about an idiotic tinhorn who got into a gunfight with a buffalo hunter. The hunter brought his Sharps to what was supposed to be a pistol fight and kept the wannabe pinned down and soaked behind some water barrels down the street. And I've read that in some Indian fights, some Army officers and senior NCOs had their personal .45-70 sporters and used them to good effect against Indians who acted more like modern snipers.

What happened in Legends of the Fall? There are guns in that film? I thought it was just a chick flick.

Brad Pitt's character's wife was killed by a triggerhappy Prohibition-era cop with a tommygun (they were stopped at a roadblock over a case of bootleg likker). Her father had a Sharps rifle and used it just a little later to take out the cop that killed her. It was a long range deal. (I'm not advocating that or discussing the moral and legal climate of the time and place. Just that it was long range shooting.) Actually, there were several scenes where the guns came out and some were repeating Winchesters. As for it being a "chick flick", it probably qualifies for one, but it wasn't an enjoyable movie to watch really with so many of the characters getting killed or killing themselves.

I'd like to get into hunting someday, but I doubt I will ever get as excited by it as some people. I think that's OK.

It is. We all have different aspects of guns and shooting sports that suit us better than others. And some of us are in a better position to enjoy some than others. It's all an individual thing.

NEF Handi-rifles

I have one in .45-70 and it's a good rifle. I'm working on getting the sights like I want them. Planning on getting a .30-30 barrel for it and loading spitzers for it too. Something I can't do with my repeating Winchester, although it's not going anywhere either.

fistful
October 31, 2004, 01:52 AM
an idiotic tinhorn who got into a gunfight with a buffalo hunter. The hunter brought his Sharps to what was supposed to be a pistol fight and kept the wannabe pinned down and soaked behind some water barrels down the street. Hee-hee, hee-hee! :)

I really have reconsidered my previous posts on single-shots. I like to argue, so I sometimes make up controversies. A fault in my character, I admit.

The Handi-Rifle appeals to me as the inexpensive, light-weight gun I might put in some kind of survival pack, or for some situation where a light-weight, compact rifle is necessary. Unfortunately, even if they did make one with the right combination of features, I'm not sure it would be a take-down rifle, which would go better with the survival kit idea. Can they be taken down/re-assembled in the field? On second thought, I'd probably be happier with something else. Were money no object, I'd want a take-down Mauser.

End ramble.

308win
October 31, 2004, 08:58 AM
Barstool patriots talk the talk. Hunters walk the walk (mostly). Although on a goose hunting trip to the Union County Hunting area, I do recall a 'sport' from Chicago who was arrested in single digit weather wearing suit pants, white shirt, wingtips, and a pint of whisky. Not too sure how the Illinois Dept of Conservation personel at the checkin station ever let him go to his assigned pit tho:confused:

mustanger98
October 31, 2004, 05:32 PM
The Handi-Rifle appeals to me as the inexpensive, light-weight gun I might put in some kind of survival pack, or for some situation where a light-weight, compact barrel is necessary. Unfortunately, even if they did make one with the right combination of features, I'm not sure it would be a take-down rifle, which would go better with the survival kit idea. Can they be taken down/re-assembled in the field? On second thought, I'd probably be happier with something else. Were money no object, I'd want a take-down Mauser.

For a survival gun, in a HandiRifle's case, I'd recommend .223 or something like that since you can carry a lot of it. I'd change out the rear sight for an aperture (Williams Guide rear), but that'll mean changing the height of the front sight which will mean you have to change to a different ramp too. The same rifle chambered in .30-30Winchester would have more power as well as a decent point blank range out to 150yds.

Yeah, the HandiRifle is easily disassembled and reassembled. You have to remove the screw from the forearm and remove it, then hit the button that opens the action. To reassemble, just reverse the process.

I haven't seen a take-down Mauser, but I'm sure some gunsmith somewhere can fix you right up.:D

rbernie
October 31, 2004, 06:48 PM
I haven't seen a take-down Mauser, but I'm sure some gunsmith somewhere can fix you right up. How about a Rigby (http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976514406.htm)? Only $9500 and it's yours.

fistful
November 1, 2004, 12:59 AM
Only $9500 and it's yours. As I said, Were money no object...

I'd really like a stainless Handi-rifle in .30-06 or .308, with a straight-combed, synthetic, sporter stock (with a nifty storage compartment like the survivor model) and while they're at it, they can install an aperture sight. Or, Kel-tec needs to get crankin' on something like the SU-16, but a bolt-action in .308. :)

Delmar
November 1, 2004, 06:05 AM
I'd like to get into hunting someday

Hey Fistful-get yerself down here to Texas and bring a Mauser or whatever you have on hand. Opening season is this weekend and runs through the first weekend in January. If you have never harvested a deer, you'll never know if you like it or not. I'd like to see you act all bored when a big ole buck comes tippy-toeing across your path:D

Bring a milsurp, single shot, bolt action, lever action, autoloader-don't really matter what. The only stipulation is at what range you can keep a group inside the size of your fist reliably.

Personally, I use way too much gun (Rem 700 vs in 308) and its way too heavy, but I like shooting paper as much as I do a nice, flavorful deer, and it does both for me. I also have a 6.5 Swede that I trimmed off half of the front end wood, has ridiculously optimistic ladder sights which start at 300 meters, and will hold small groups for a steady shooter. They are in company with a sporter weight Rem 700 in 270 Win and a 94 30-30, plus a couple of 22's.

I'm also a meticulous handloader for my rifles and pistols and have been for many years, which gives me two great hobbies.

Nothin in the world says you can't be hunting or target shooting with a warriors firearm-in the end, its nothing more than a bullet launcher. The mil-spec firearm is likely to be a bit more hardy and forgiving of abuse.

fistful
November 2, 2004, 12:01 AM
Delmar,

Thanks for the invite, and sorry I haven't answered your latest e-mail yet. I'd love to bring my thirty-ought Mauser down there, but I just started a new job, so no vacation days. Also, I've got a two-month stint at Ft. Huachuca this spring, and a honeymoon right after that. I don't know if I can find any other days off, but you can bet I'll be lookin'! The good news is, now that I've got regular work, I can buy ammo again, and maybe save up for a reloading press.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why more warriors than hunters on the rifle forum?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!