Hunting Rifles Vs. Military Rifles...

[RLsnow]

well, i think the way i choose to kill my deer should be my buisness, and my buisness only....just on principle

unfortunately it aint so

 

[SteyrAUG]

woof


How many times do I have to say this? For me it is the idea that someone would want, and especially to hunt with, a rifle that is a watered down replica of what its real cousins are.

I'm with you, everytime I see a hunter with a commercial version of Mauser, Springfield or Enfield action rifles I just view them as the wannabe's they really are out on their Sgt. York fantasy.

 

[woof]

Ash, I don't know who Zumbo is and I don't know what a SVT-40 is. But to answer your question, if you "walked up to me" with what I'm picturing what would I do? I guess it would depend on what you said or did after you walked up, but I wouldn't be rude or berate your choice of gun. On the other hand, if you invited me to join you and walk over the next ridge, I'd probably be a lot less likely to accept than if you were carrying something else. I'd probably politely decline and go the other way.

 

[Oohrah]

You're hanging with the wrong crowd!!!!! Pretty hard
to teach and convince stupid when their minds are made up. Most
on that road are of the mind all guns are evil and there is no place
for any, being the bottom line!:banghead:

 

[woof]

Click, To answer your questions - I would not give a second thought to a ranch rifle simply because I don't think they have the look that attracts the people who are so interested in the look (you know, the ones who clearly want to be seen carrying an M16 but can't so they carry a replica). In other words, I would not seriously wonder if someone with a ranch rifle was a Rambo wannabe. While I have seen a pic or two of Saigas I know little about them. I believe your question gets to the fact that they can be modified with all kinds of accessories to make them look progressively more "assaulty" right? I guess the answer then, as above, is when it got to the point where I seriously wondered if your goal was more to make an impression by having a assault rifle replica than to hunt deer.

 

[woof]

Steyr, Sigh, I think the analogy fails but if it works for you go for it.

 

[Ash]

Zumbo is a hunting writer who evidently shares your belief about black rifles not having any legitimate use. Last year he managed to write an article to that effect.

An SVT-40 was the Soviet semi-auto combat rifle of WWII. It is and was always a semi-auto rifle (not unlike an SKS).

For that matter, consider what I said in that light. What if you were to see me getting out of the Jeep with an SKS? It bears the same overall aesthetic of the Ranch Rifle. For the record, a Saiga is an AK with a hunting stock (semi-pistol grip like the Ranch rifle or any Remington 700 made).

Ash

 

[JesseL]

Is there a THR member in central Ohio with a few black rifles (AR, AK, FAL, H&K91, etc.) who can take woof out for some range time?

It really looks more and more like his inexperience is coloring his opinions more than anything.

 

[woof]

Ash, I think the goal here is to get me to draw a sharp line where no line can be drawn. I'm not talking about definable characteristics of fifles than those who want to make laws need to define. I'm talking about gut reactions (and for that matter only my own). Frankly if I saw you with an sks my first thought would probably be "gee, you can pick up a 336 for 200 or so, is he really limited to that?" I would probably not think - uh-oh Rambo, unless you were also decked out in other stuff more suitable to the eastern front than the deer woods.

But let me tell a story, two stories:

1. probably 12-15 years ago at the local range which was then unmonitored and wild and wooly, a friend and I went to shoot. This guy shows up toting some AR and wearing full camo gear with a handgun strappen to his leg below the knee and a huge knife strapped to the other leg. He shoots standing full half of his shots from the hip. Then he struts around spitting every ten feet or so with this angry frown looking like a drill sargeant. I half expected him to start shouting "maggots" at us.

2. I have a friend who is a PhD physicist and a very mild mannered guy. He has an AR that he shoots a lot. He is very into the technology, the history of military arms, and he is always tinkering with the rifle. he would laugh his head off if he saw the guy above.

There are two extremes. Most AR/AK owners probably fall in between. Perhaps I do some of them an injustice by being too quick to wonder if they are rambos. If so I'm sorry but I'm only human and I'm only being honest to advance this discussion even though clearly I am making no friends.

 

[ArmedBear]

JesseL, not likely.

When you're out hunting and there are other around, you have to use a lot of cues to try to figure out what sort of person you're dealing with so you don't get shot by some yahoo.

Sure, you may be wrong in your impressions, but nobody ever died from staying too far away from another hunter...

 

[Gewehr98]

Cosmetics aside...

There are some fine "hunting" rifles that need no improvement, straight from their original issuers.

I have no problems packing this little guy in the whitetail woods next week:



Same goes for this handy little fellow, all original:



Those were yesterday's AK-47 and M-16, lest we forget.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Respectfully, this thread has taken an ugly turn...and gone from what could have been an interesting discussion to a flame war. Any antigunner/antihunter groups must be having a field day linking this. Please lets all remember that this is a public board and professionalism and education are our best tools in this crucial election year.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Click, To answer your questions - I would not give a second thought to a ranch rifle simply because I don't think they have the look that attracts the people who are so interested in the look (you know, the ones who clearly want to be seen carrying an M16 but can't so they carry a replica).

Really?



I take it by extension of your acceptance of the Mini-14 you also wouldn't have a problem with anyone using a Mini-30, M-1 Garand, M-1 Carbine, M-14 or M1A?

These do all share the exact same action after all.

As for the Saiga:




These are both pictures of the exact same rifle. The first is the factory "sport" configuration. The second is post conversion. Can you tell me at which point I became the kind of hunter that you wouldn't hang out with? Was it when I was cutting the hole in the reciever for the pistol grip lug?

While I have seen a pic or two of Saigas I know little about them. I believe your question gets to the fact that they can be modified with all kinds of accessories to make them look progressively more "assaulty" right? I guess the answer then, as above, is when it got to the point where I seriously wondered if your goal was more to make an impression by having a assault rifle replica than to hunt deer.

Classic anti sentiment.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

sigh...isn't this horse dead yet?

 

[woof]

Wow, I don't think this thread has become a flame war at all, in fact I think most are being very tolerant of a viewpoint they obviously don't share. Click, however, keeps beating the same dead horse. Gewehr - If I saw you with one of those I would ask what it was and why you chose it. I would think that if you were a rambo you really came up short in your gear so you probably are not. Depending on your answers, if you asked me to walk with you I probably would.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

But let me tell a story, two stories:

You're talking about _people_, not guns. And it's stupid to judge people by their guns. Period.

I mean, we can all tell anecdotes about scary individuals with guns. I've been in the woods (with my "A-team fantasy" folding stock Mini-14) and come across some unpleasant "gentlemen" armed with lever action .30-30s. I mean, does the phrase "squeal like a pig" mean anything to you? Scary hunters come in all sorts.

I own two firearms you'd seem to approve of "in the woods", and both are military -- an '03A3 (and, no by G-d, I would never "sporterize" it -- want an ugly opinion? to me sporterize is a code word for "it's icky to carry a heavy rifle") and an Israeli K98. These aren't only "military inspired" like a lot of guys bolt actions, these are honest to G-d, been in a war, maybe killed folks, military issue guns.

What I don't understand is your insistence that "real" assault rifles are full-auto, while folks have given you a number of examples of "self loading" military rifles that are semi only. (All front-line rifles are "assault" rifles in the military role.) M1 carbine, M1 Garand, SKS, SVT-40, heck, the IDF issued semi auto only FALs, because the FAL is just barely more controllable than an M-14 in FA. Add on top of that the fact that most 'professional' military operations today insist that the rifleman use semi fire only seems to destroy this premise of "they only want M-16s but can't have 'em so they build toy replicas". It is my understanding that currently the IDF mandates all rifle engagements be in semi, and I believe some US units have similar viewpoints. Full auto is for machine guns (which are not rifles by definition, if you think the "assault rifle" fills the role of even a light machine gun you have a gross misunderstanding of infantry engagements) and subguns. You are free to your opinion about who owns what guns, but your premise of "real assault rifles have to be full auto" is blatantly wrong.

Now for your opinion as to who owns what -- how do you explain folks like me that have owned both semi and full auto variants of the same type of firearm at the same time?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Click, however, keeps beating the same dead horse.

Just trying to understand how you can rationalize descriminting against the users of various semi-automatic rifles based completely on aesthic grounds (which congress rightly got reamed for doing) even to the point of making crass statement to the regards of anyone who choses an AR platform must be a Rambo wanabee.

You see, this completely blows my mind since the AR platform is well known as, and widely customized specifically to be a hunting platform. You may not believe that, but it's not my job to inform you of reality.

Hey, you approve of the Mini-14. That's great. Is a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223/5.56 that accepts high capacity magazines. Just like the AR platform, which you don't approve. Oh, and it's also less accurate than the AR platform... but still somehow a more acceptable hunting implement..

I'm trying to get you to rationalize your position, but so far all I can get is that you are a snobby elitest jerk of a hunter who doesn't comprehend the applications of modern technology to the field and wants to crap all over fellow hunters simply because they hunt with an EBR. Now, I could be wrong. You could actually come out and demonstrate how a person who choses an AR platform or an AK based platform is actually likely to be a more dangerous or unethical hunter. The burden is of course on you to demonstrate that.

 

[ArmedBear]

Look, when you come upon another hunter in the woods, there's usually no time or place for a formal interview process. You try to quickly estimate the wisdom of your proximity to the other hunter.

Lots of cues go into that estimate. The gun might figure into it, particularly in the presence of other factors that indicate "Ramboid with itchy trigger finger". Or not. "Vibe" figures into it, too. You can often just tell what sort of person you're dealing with, can't you?

Prejudice can be problematic. Someone's rifle does not determine who he is. But quick judgments, made as best you can, keep you alive, especially when there are loaded guns around.

I've never been shot at in the hills, but my hunting buddy has. Fortunately, along with being unable to tell the difference between a man and a deer, the guy was a lousy shot. Otherwise, I might not HAVE a hunting buddy.

 

[woof]

Click, I never ever once said a hunter with an AR was likely to be more dangerous or unethical. Some of you people are having a very hard time accepting a differing point of view, but most are not. For the first group, if it makes you feel better to label me a jerk or stupid, have at it. For the others, thanks for listening, I'm pleased to find more open-mindedness than I expected. Anyone really wanting to get (not buy) my point of view can go back and read my posts and find it in its entirety, so I'm done with the thread.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

Lots of cues go into that estimate. The gun might figure into it, particularly in the presence of other factors that indicate "Ramboid with itchy trigger finger". Or not. "Vibe" figures into it, too. You can often just tell what sort of person you're dealing with, can't you?

Totally agree on the "vibe" aspect. My little story about the fellows with lever actions occurred on the "edge" private land, up in the Ozarks. My best friend has quite a bit of property up there, including some very remote land along a minor water way. We had camped by the river, had come back from lunch, and these three gents came walking in to our camp. They had a distinct negative vibe about them, kind of along the lines "what're you city folk doin' in our woods". Their words were polite; their body language and tone not so. At that point I was very glad I was hunting with my KAC556F "toy clone wannabee", because one of them kept eying me and the Mini in a rather uncomfortable way. They departed and we never saw them again. My buddy, who grew up there, lives up there, said they made him uncomfortable; he had same vibe I had. Oh well, there's my anecdote about "evil black rifles" (even if that one is shiny!) in the woods.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Click, I never ever once said a hunter with an AR was likely to be more dangerous or unethical.

That said, if I meet you out in the woods and you have a military style semi auto, I'm getting away from you quickly because (sorry) I do think you're a rambo wannabe.

Okay then, what about "a rambo wannabe" were we not supposed to think you meant as a dangerous hunter?

 

[woof]

No, a Rambo wannabe is not necessarily a dangerous hunter. I don't doubt that many are, but I'm not jumping to that conclusion. I do think that a rambo wannabe is, by definition, out in the woods for a very different set of reasons than I am. Call me a bigot (which you essentially have) but I tend to choose the people I hang out with according to whether they are on the same wavelength as I am. Rambo isn't, so while I don't condemn him or want to make his rifle illegal, he isn't my choice of company and I'm equally sure I am not his. A very long time ago in the thread I said I'm into live and let live. If Rambo and Fudd both float their boats without hurting anyone then that's fine with me.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Call me a bigot

And will do again.

You have as much admitted that you are chosing not to hunt with someone not beacuse they are dangerous or unethical, but simply because you don't like the equipment they chose. Not beacause the equipment is faulty, or incapable of perfoming the job, but because you associate it with mall ninjas.

I'm sorry, that is bigoted and irrational.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

Call me a bigot (which you essentially have) but I tend to choose the people I hang out with according to whether they are on the same wavelength as I am.

I entirely agree with you on the "wavelength" thing; I'm much rather hang out with folks that realize the functional word in "assault rifle", "automatic rifle", "hunting rifle", "sniper rifle", "lever action rifle", "bolt action rifle", "target rifle" is rifle.

 

[MDHunter]

Easy there ladies...

Seems like we have some folks with their panties in a bunch, sounds like a lot of us need more time at the range or in the woods...

To woof and people who might be leaning to the Fudd side of things (e.g., having a slight or more than slight propensity to peer down the nose at EBRs in the woods): I've hunted for 40 years, and in that time I've had the distinct displeasure to observe my fair share of poor muzzle discipline in the woods or in the field. The common factor: NONE of the people were carrying EBRs. Does that mean that people carrying EBRs have better muzzle discipline, or are safer in the woods, than Fudds? No - it just means that as a group, we hunters aren't as safe as we might think we are. This is a big reason why I tend to hunt alone these days - if I've ever had the occasion to see your muzzle pass my way, that will be our last hunt together, and you will know why. Someone in the woods using poor muzzle discipline, is just as dangerous IMHO as someone who takes questionable or unsafe shots.

To those on the EBR side of things: EBRs are somewhat new to some people in the woods and the field, so understand that some people will have a reaction to them. This will likely decrease over time, as these rifles are used more widely by a new generation of hunters. The best way to overcome the perceptions is to conduct yourselves responsibly in the woods, at the range, and wherever you have occasion to carry your rifle.

Everyone take a deep breath, close your eyes, and repeat after me: people who use rifles unlike my own, are still my friends in the fight for the RKBA.....

Michael