HankB
Member
(I debated putting this in the "Rifles" column, but figure it's more political.)
I recently received the Fall 2005 copy of Dakota magazine, published by Dakota Arms to publicize their line of high-grade rifles and shotguns.
The magazine had an article about their new Scimitar rifle. The Scimitar is built on a Dakota 76 action with a 24” Lilja barrel, McMillan A-5 stock, Picatinny rail and Nightforce scope, a proprietary bedding system, removable bolt knob, detachable magazine, and other goodies. This rifle was a .308, but presumably other chamberings are available. It seemed to be a good performer, producing a 3.8” group at 600 yards.
Now on to Dakota's apparent politics . . . the article was penned by a retired LEO, and peppered with comments like:
A couple of days before Thanksgiving, I sent Dakota an email asking why a bolt action rifle – not subject to any assault weapon, .50 BMG, or other bans, completely legal from New York to Hawaii, Alaska to Texas, and all points in between, is NOT available to John Q. Public.
I wanted to know their reason for this policy.
They ignored my email.
Judging by the inventory section of their magazine, they're eager to sell high-buck sporting firearms to regular folks, but not something that looks “tactical.” I have to conclude that they’re of the mindset that John Q. Public shouldn’t have certain types of guns . . . you know, the way some duck hunters or skeet shooters are fine with a ban on EBRs. (Note, I only said some.)
As for myself, when a company decides that, though 100% legal in all jurisdictions in the United States, certain firearms are “inappropriate” for me to own . . . I choose not to do ANY business with that company.
Period.
I recently received the Fall 2005 copy of Dakota magazine, published by Dakota Arms to publicize their line of high-grade rifles and shotguns.
The magazine had an article about their new Scimitar rifle. The Scimitar is built on a Dakota 76 action with a 24” Lilja barrel, McMillan A-5 stock, Picatinny rail and Nightforce scope, a proprietary bedding system, removable bolt knob, detachable magazine, and other goodies. This rifle was a .308, but presumably other chamberings are available. It seemed to be a good performer, producing a 3.8” group at 600 yards.
Now on to Dakota's apparent politics . . . the article was penned by a retired LEO, and peppered with comments like:
A couple of days before Thanksgiving, I sent Dakota an email asking why a bolt action rifle – not subject to any assault weapon, .50 BMG, or other bans, completely legal from New York to Hawaii, Alaska to Texas, and all points in between, is NOT available to John Q. Public.
I wanted to know their reason for this policy.
They ignored my email.
Judging by the inventory section of their magazine, they're eager to sell high-buck sporting firearms to regular folks, but not something that looks “tactical.” I have to conclude that they’re of the mindset that John Q. Public shouldn’t have certain types of guns . . . you know, the way some duck hunters or skeet shooters are fine with a ban on EBRs. (Note, I only said some.)
As for myself, when a company decides that, though 100% legal in all jurisdictions in the United States, certain firearms are “inappropriate” for me to own . . . I choose not to do ANY business with that company.
Period.
