Questions about rifles

Status
Not open for further replies.

AStone

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
24,174
Location
Far N, E coast
What are your top two questions about rifles?

Any rifle, any caliber, any climate, any weather,
any place on Earth, any situation.

Two questions. (+/- 1.3030...)

I have mine,
but I'll hold them 'til later.

Yours?

Oh, and no answers.
Just the questions ..
_______

Question 1: Can rifle owners let questions sit unanswered?
 
1) Why do manufacturers (and sometimes wildcatters) spend so much money and effort to make "new" calibers that merely replicate existing ballistics? Especially when they do it in the same action length. I can see it if you managed to get the same performance in a shorter action.

2) Why are scopes now mandatory? Rifles don't even come with sights anymore. Nothing against scopes, but i'd like the choice based on use.
 
Same as with cars, new models sell more than older models. Scoped let you see the target more clearly, and at disk/dawn amplify the light allowing you to see the target better.
 
1. Why does each manufacturer have to determine on a case by case basis what controls will go where on each rifle? No matter what brand of car you buy the brake, clutch and gas pedals will be the same, and this layout has been standardized for a couple of lifetimes.

2. Why are certain parts not identical across broad categories of guns? I'm thinking of stuff like sight posts on automatics just as one example. I can think of several rifles with replaceable front sight posts that look like an AR front sight will fit, but when you try it it won't go. Obviously one sight post won't work with every caliber and type of gun but why aren't more auto rifles designed around common standard parts?
 
1) What, if any, direct relationship(s) do the physical 3-brane measurements of a rifle have to any higher order dimensional observations we might make, in either the Kaluza Klein nano conceptualization, or in the super-macro "braneworlds" way of understanding?

2) If I were to scrape out and save the oil and carbon dreck that collects in my handguns and rifles, and mix it with a drop of linseed oil, and use that resulting thick suspension as my basic shading and lining tone in an oil painting, which color would this best substitute for in, say, the Goya palette? (Please do note that I use ATF as my primary lubricant so a certain crimson hue may linger in my collected pigment substitute.) Oh, and should I add Japan drier, or is that unnecessary? Sorry, maybe that's three questions.
 
Last edited:
I live near Eugene, Oregon (a very liberal town, home of the U of O, and hotbed of marijuana use and advocacy).

Q1: Why can't I talk to a Eugene stoner about Eugene Stoner without getting the giggles?

Q2: Am I the only one who thinks this is amusing?
 
.
Heehawww! you guys.

I have just one question at this point in time. I just wanna go shootin'.

Why does the *scout rifle* concept annoy some people but make others feel all warm and fuzzy? I guess that's more a *people* question...
 
.
Heehawww! you guys.

I have just one question at this point in time. I just wanna go shootin'.

Why does the *scout rifle* concept annoy some people but make others feel all warm and fuzzy? I guess that's more a *people* question...
Enter Jeff Cooper and his definition of "The Scout Rifle".

Unfortunately, there is a good number of shooter out there including some very accomplished shooters who disagree strongly with Cooper's thinking on the subject of what a scout rifle should be. Matter of fact many shooters tend to disagree with Jeff Cooper on several of his thoughts. Since Cooper is dead he certainly isn't about to change his mind or thinking, including what a scout rifle should be. That leaves us to either agree or disagree with his thinking. :)

It's like if I come out with a plan for the ideal range some SOB is bound to disagree with my plans. Be it my drainage or whatever, someone will disagree. :)

Ron
 
Just checking in here for the first time today (it's a work day; self-employed people too often have to do that).

Good questions so far. And thanks for mostly keeping it about the questions.

I'll be back after work.

I hope we can keep this thread focused on the questions for now, and leave substantive discussions about them for later.

I teach courses. (Another story for another day, perhaps, but nothing that is directly suitable for discussion on THR, so we won't here).

But the point is, sometimes, I start class sessions by just having students ask questions. We make a list of them, sometimes group them into logical groups, then dive in. That way, everyone's questions are heard, and later addressed, but early deep discussion doesn't lower the chance that someone's questions don't get heard.

Now, I'm emphatically NOT seeing this thread as a class in that sense, other than that on forums like this, we're all students and teachers at the same time, learning useful (hopefully) stuff from each other. (I've often referred to this forum as THRU -- The High Road University -- because I've learned so much more of value about guns, ammo, safety, etc here over the years than in the entire period of decades before that.)

So for now, it's about the questions.
 
Last edited:
What exactly makes rifle manufacturers think they know best what rifle twist I want in their rifle?

How much profit is there exactly on each manufacturer's model, when the same action, mostly the same stocks, and mostly bought in bulk barrels are used?
 
Only one question really, and maybe someone here can answer it.....

Who in the Denver area sells Rossi lever-action rifles and has them in stock? I'm starting a new job soon and have me a hankerin' for a .45 Colt R92 with the 24" octagonal barrel.

Oh, thought of another one.....

Why doesn't anybody make new barrels for the old Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.3 SMLE rifles? I love the two I have, but they'd be so much better with new barrels! Tight chambers, perfect bores, what a concept.....
 
1) Why do manufacturers (and sometimes wildcatters) spend so much money and effort to make "new" calibers that merely replicate existing ballistics? Especially when they do it in the same action length. I can see it if you managed to get the same performance in a shorter action.

2) Why are scopes now mandatory? Rifles don't even come with sights anymore. Nothing against scopes, but i'd like the choice based on use.

For your #2, scopes became mandatory for me when my eyes started to get older. :) I still shoot lots of iron sighted rifles, but not as well as I used to.

As a corollary to 2, why do some rifle manufactures who shall remain unnamed (cough, Savage 93R17, cough) make a rifle without iron sights, thereby requiring a scope, and then put it in a stock that is configured for only iron sights? Chin-weld anyone?

Matt
 
Why do folks seem so insistent on chambering magnums in sub-optimal barrel lengths when they could save money and get the same ballistics (at practical ranges) with standard cartridges with an optimal barrel length?

Why the hell is it so hard to find a matching reticle and turret, mildot/moa turrets?! For crying out loud it's 2015!
 
1. Why don't scopes and rings come with witness marks?
2. Why can't CAI twist on a barrel with a front site that aligns with the rear trunnion?
3. Why do hunters show up to camp claiming they need a .300 win mag to harvest a 70lb Texas whitetail?
4. Why do those same hunters rightfully teach their spouses /children that a .243 is perfectly acceptable to harvest typical North American game?
5. How does Savage make 1/3rd MOA rifles for under $500?
6. Does no one cherish pretty, high-gloss wood and bright, shiny blue steel anymore?
7. Why do cheap Remmy corlokt loads shoot more accurately than most super pricey match ammo choices?
8. Why can't people follow clear directions to limit thier responses to only two questions?
 
Last edited:
1. why can't hollywood movies with reasonable budgets come up with better scope rings than sheet metal straps?
2. does anyone think real rings would improve michael douglas' chance of hitting something?

2AE258A700000578-0-image-a-21_1438303214699.jpg
 
1) Why would anyone think that a round too underpowered to be legal on 90lb deer is suitable for 200lb humans?

2) Why do manufacturers under-twist their barrels - e.g. 9.5 twist in a 7mm barrel? They realize that heavy loads and cold dense air exist, right?

3) How has the Remington 700 stayed popular when the Winchester 70 exists? The comparison is completely lop sided.
 
My 2nd (rhetorical) question.

.30-30 has taken more deer,
and fed more people, in NA
than any other caliber.

It works well in the E,
in heavy brush like
the great north woods.

What's wrong with it?
 

Attachments

  • _01 pack.jpg
    _01 pack.jpg
    230.5 KB · Views: 19
Why are a bunch of manufacturer's making their rifles with so called, adjustable triggers, that in fact only offer a heavy, gritty, pull with excessive travel, or an even heavier, gritty pull, with excessive travel?

The other question, why are manufacturers putting these crappy plastic stocks on their rifles? You can't float the barrels without doing a whole bunch of work to strengthen the fore stock.

GS
 
1. Why can't Kel-Tec make enough rifles to support the demand of said rifles?

2. Which rifle is better, the AR-15 or the AK-47?



OK, #2 was obviously a gag, but someone already asked about modern rifles lacking iron sights making scopes a necessity rather than an option.

#3. If 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything, what is the actual question? Second part of this question, why is it I can't get the hang of Tuesdays?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top