Hunting Rifles Vs. Military Rifles...

[yesit'sloaded]

And just when you had me convinced you were a nice guy that just had a differing opinion. I think you did kind of ask for it, and shouldn't be surprised at the response knowing full well this is a "gun nut" forum. I think there were a few personal attacks that were not called for, but leaving the forum doesn't help any of us. Considering what would have happened over at arfcom I think it was a decent discussion.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Woof, look at your first two posts and wonder how it made us feel

Amazingly, I agree with everything in this thread. It is the cartridge not the rifle etc etc. I don't care who hunts with what and I don't want laws to dictate any of that.

Fine and dandy.

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.

That is where it started to go bad. Then it got worst with your second post.

If you are asking for my personal opinion here ya go. It isn't the gun I find scary but the person carrying it. I find the "black rifles" to be basically replica guns. The military doesn't make these rifles in semi-auto form. But civilians want them. Why? Because they look and feel like something they aren't - replicas. Why does someone want a rifle that looks like something it isn't? The only reason I can think of is that they want to pretend they are doing what they real thing was intended for. And I don't want to be in the woods with someone on that kind of trip. You asked.

We did indeed ask, we also reserved the right to comment on said opinion if you offer it on a public online forum. With a start like that I don't see how you could have expected anything but a negative response. You did, more or less, call all of us that hunt with military rifles wannabes pretending to kill people in battle when we go hunting.

 

[JWarren]

woof wrote:

You know, I've posted almost 500 times here since July and have generally found it a friendly and tolerant place. But if I can't say I respect your right to shoot and hunt with what you please but I might not want to join you without being attacked this way, then maybe I was wrong. Congratulations, you have alienated me. And believe it or not I "was" on your side. I wonder how many people you alienate every day like this? I've sold four guns here and bought several others in these few months. But I give you your way and I permanently withdraw from THR. I will not post again and I will PM mods and ask that my registration be cancelled.

woof, that's your choice. I would hate to see you leave, but I do have to say this.


Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, when you make a statement such as

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.

YOU invite the responses you get. And YOU become an agent of alienation, not those you alienate.


I do not buy the "hypothetical" angle. Frankly, I fail to see how it would be. Sure, you did not mention a specific person-- but you do not have to do so.

You gave us a simple cause-and-effect scenerio of what you will do:

I see you with a military style rife = I am getting away from you [because] I think you are a Rambo-wannabe.


Nothing hypothetical about that.


You voiced an opinion, and you were met with the responses of those who that opinion categorizes. Your freedom of expression has been met with the Marketplace of Ideas.

Tolerance is a tough arguement to make after making a statement like yours. It is akin to a Klansman getting upset that the Rainbow Coalition does not tolerate his views. Sure, he can say what he thinks, but he cannot expect his statements to go unanswered.

And he really doesn't have the right to make anyone feel guilty for answering him.


I do think you've been "on our side." But that doesn't make you immune to criticism of stereotypes you've made. Those stereotypes themselves are alienating in nature-- yet you accuse others of alienating you.

I wonder how many people you alienate every day like this?

It is fair to ask the same question of you, my friend.


This was an opportunity to learn-- a failed opportunity, it seems. Sadly-- if rightfully so-- there was no real opportunity to push forward with those comments sitting around like the 800 pound gorilla in the room. You made some statements past that were more "tolerant" and "insightful," but you still felt some compusion to defend your postion on "Rambo-wannabe's." I don't know if it was an ego thing, or if desire not to "lose" an arguement, but it seemed that you held onto it like a squirrel holding the last nut on earth.

I can imagine a scenerio where this could have gone very differently if you'd have said something like "You know, I've seen a lot of differing postions and examples where that stereotype just doesn't hold. I should probably retract my statement."

Then, like magic, we could move on. But you see, with that statement hanging there, no one can. With that positon continually being defended, the debate HAS to continue. You wouldn't expect a person who you just tossed a racial slur at to simply let it pass while you defend that slur to the end, would you?

So in short, do not gloss over your own complicity in any alienation that has occured. It is not a guilt you should be placing upon those you slurred.


All the best to you.


-- John

 

[SteyrAUG]

woof


Steyr, Please take that a step further. Explain what should be done about my wrong opinion that I don't want to hunt with someone shooting an AR. Should a law be passed? Should I be jailed? Beaten? Killed? If not respecting my opinion means you will shake your head and roll your eyes and pay no regard to me, then fine because that is pretty much my reaction to you. But you seem to be saying your disrespect of my opinion means my opinion should not and will not be tolerated. Do explain.

No problem.

Wrong opinions should neither be accepted nor endorsed.

It is like people who really do believe we never went to the moon. They are free to believe this nonsense, but it should never be accepted as a valid opinion and should always be corrected.

What did you expect? Me to flip out and go Rambo on you?

 

[SteyrAUG]

woof

Congratulations, you have alienated me.

And yet you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that you do the same to others when you suggest there is something wrong with them for owning "replicas" and that there is a suitability difference between military and hunting rifles.

And now when people return the favor, you cry the victim.

 

[pete f]

my problem usually is one of comfort. i would much prefer to carry a rifle like a savage 99 or a little ruger RSI than a clanking 10-11 pound EBR in the woods.

Military rifles were meant for fighting wars, they had to be ultimately robust, they had to withstand being used as war club, a spear handle. and to function under the care of some dunderkind conscript who HATED the idea that he was there.

A hunting rifle is meant as a tool of the stalker, the hunter. its meant to be light, powerful, durable, and used as it was designed. we do not bayonet venison. go pick up a true hunting rifle, like the 86 winchester, or the 99 savage or the model 70, feel how your hands naturally cradle it, versus how you have to prop up a milsurp or EBR.

Mind you I own Milsurps, both sporterized or stock, and EBR's and I use a EBR in the form of a accurized Colt's AR Hbar for prairie dogs, but thats sitting at comfy bench, not having to carry it, but for hunting
i use a hunting rifle.

to me is like driving vehicles, If I could only have one vehicle, and it had to do everything, I might consider a 4X4 dual cab, big block pickup, while not the best for getting a paper in the morning, it would do that as well as carrying a house full of furniture, plow the snow, move the family, etc. But for just driving, I much prefer my BMW 3 series convertible, lighter, faster, more fun to drive and a whole lot more efficient for the morning run to buy a paper.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

we do not bayonet venison.

You must not hunt with an m44. Saves you the cost of that finishing shot.

 

[SteyrAUG]

pete f


my problem usually is one of comfort. i would much prefer to carry a rifle like a savage 99 or a little ruger RSI than a clanking 10-11 pound EBR in the woods.

Military rifles were meant for fighting wars, they had to be ultimately robust, they had to withstand being used as war club, a spear handle. and to function under the care of some dunderkind conscript who HATED the idea that he was there.

In the past perhaps, but that hardly describes modern rifles such as the M4, Steyr AUG, SIG 550, FNC or XCR.

And I still remember the .410/.22 over and under I was given as a kid. I swear that thing weighed 12 pounds and would have made one hell of a war club.

 

[pete f]

A M4 is still in my mind a clanking war machine. It has parts sprouting all over that catch brush and it has no easy way to let it hang from your hand.

If you look at the guns listed above, a sig 550 or FNC or XCR with a loaded mag weighs a lot more than a 99 f.

Also you got the wrong model 24 savage, you got a C model, the a models were light as afeather and so elegant, but took a lot more to make, the C model had redesigned receiver that was stout enough to hold 12ga/3030 combo's, and fitting 22/410 barrels to that was just absurd.

To me its personal opinion, I will never condemn you for trying those, only I would suggest you might enjoy the hunt more with something a whole lot easier to tote around.

As far as the comment earlier about more ergo FN FAL's, sorry bud, it still weighs 11 pounds loaded, its has nothing comfy to hold on the 99.999999999% of the time a hunting rifle is carried, and the 3 position safety of a model 70 or the index finger tip lever safety of a 99 is far easier to use, quieter as well, than anything ever mounted on a FAL.

 

[Z_Infidel]

Sheesh, this was a tough thread to even read through. Ya know, I prefer lever guns and full-stock bolt actions over so-called "black rifles", but why should anyone care what type of firearm another guy likes to use? Is one inherently good while the other is inherently bad? I owned a nice Bushmaster AR-style rifle a while back and it was a great gun -- totally reliable and very accurate. I simply became bored with it and that's when I started getting into lever guns. It's simply a preference, combined with picking the type of gun that works best for what you are using it for.

I ride a Harley too, but I wave at guys on sport bikes...

 

[BullfrogKen]

Z Infidel said: I ride a Harley too, but I wave at guys on sport bikes...

I'm closing this on that high note.


This one just got too ugly. If we don't have the patience to educate and gently persuade guys on our own team, how are we going to do it with the fencesitters?

Some of the members here got quite angry and offended at guys who prefer more traditional firearms. I'm sure this happened when we invented the bolt action, and the muzzleloaders got upset guys were using military rifles to take game then, too. The internet just didn't exist then. Thank God we have it now, where we can discuss our differences and attempt to build bridges. But that's never going to happen if we attack our fellow gun owners as if they were the enemy.


Up until very recently Pennsylvania's muzzleloader season was restricted to flintlock only. I'm not much of a hunter anymore, but I recall that change occured in this current decade. In-lines are now acceptable in the early October hunt. PA still prohibits any semi-automatic firearm from deer and small game hunting. That isn't going to change if we use emotionally-charged language and attack each other.