When did rifles lose their Testosterone???

[Kachok]

The 30-06 always has been more then needed for deer hunting, my dad told me growing up that he would not use one because his 30-30 worked just as well and was better suited to deer. I don't see the recent trend as being the woosifying of hunting arms but rather the realization that you don't need a middle of the road elk cartridge on a 150lbs whitetail, something that I have been saying for a long time. I too own and love a 30-06 but I keep mine around for larger game.
I am not real keen on the 223 though, I have seen it done over and over and have never been impressed, yes they kill deer but I don't like having to track that far and I sure don't like having to buy premium bullets to keep adequate penetration.

 

[itsa pain]

in order to challenge myself I hunt grizz with a slingshot and two highly polished stones

 

[jimmyraythomason]

"I think rifles lost their "testosterone" when folks started realizing that "testosterone" was really the only benefit the big guns offered most shooting needs."-SAM1911

I think this is spot on.

 

[itsa pain]

I am sure the old guys in the depression used a rimfire was because they had no money and it is the same case with eskimos that spend most of their money on booze. if the guys during the depression had money they would have used a springfield in 30-06. the best way to feed some one else is to shoot a deer with a 22 rimfire or centerfire

 

[HOOfan_1]

But not much having to do with 350 yd shots, and deer sized game.

At those distances and against that animal, a 7mm Mauser, a .243, a .257 Roberts, a .250-3000, a .260 Rem., and probably 30+ other smaller cartridges would do every single thing that .30-'06 will do.

I shot a 160 lb buck at 250 yards with 150 gr. Core-lockt bullets from a .30-06. It got both lungs and clipped the heart went all the way through...deer still ran 70 yards before it dropped.

Some might say a faster bullet would have more likely resulted in a DRT....who knows.

 

[dirtykid]

This will be my new 30-06 "target" rifle in a few more weeks,

Don't get me wrong, its fun to plink with my .223, and I love sending 70gr
pills downrange at 3500fps+ with my .243..
But there is nothing that puts a bigger grin on my face than seeing what
a 200gr Accubond WONT penetrate, at 300+ yards

If I want deer meat, I grab a shotgun with some slugs

 

[readyeddy]

I believe in the saying that you should shoot the biggest cartridge that you can handle comfortably, whether it's hunting or self defense.

 

[Sam1911]

In the introduction to his book The Sharp End about the life of the fighting man in WWII, John Ellis quoted some pretty amazing facts, such as the average height and weight of a US Soldier at that time. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but these men were waifs by today's standards of physical development, diet, and health. IIRC, the average soldier was 5'-2" and under 150 lbs. That we would issue these guys 4' long, nearly 10 lb. rifles to go to battle with ... to kill other 5'-2" (or shorter), 150 lb (and probably lighter) soldiers, is rather a telling testament to how we used to cling to the idea of a need for serious medicine from a rifle, far out of proportion to the real needs of battle, or of hunting.

 

[itsa pain]

In the introduction to his book The Sharp End about the life of the fighting man in WWII, John Ellis quoted some pretty amazing facts, such as the average height and weight of a US Soldier at that time. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but these men were waifs by today's standards of physical development, diet, and health. IIRC, the average soldier was 5'-2" and under 150 lbs. That we would issue these guys 4' long, nearly 10 lb. rifles to go to battle with ... to kill other 5'-2" (or shorter), 150 lb (and probably lighter) soldiers, is rather a telling testament to how we used to cling to the idea of a need for serious medicine from a rifle, far out of proportion to the real needs of battle, or of hunting.

no sam it shows how much tougher those guys were

 

[JustinJ]

In the introduction to his book The Sharp End about the life of the fighting man in WWII, John Ellis quoted some pretty amazing facts, such as the average height and weight of a US Soldier at that time. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but these men were waifs by today's standards of physical development, diet, and health. IIRC, the average soldier was 5'-2" and under 150 lbs. That we would issue these guys 4' long, nearly 10 lb. rifles to go to battle with ... to kill other 5'-2" (or shorter), 150 lb (and probably lighter) soldiers, is rather a telling testament to how we used to cling to the idea of a need for serious medicine from a rifle, far out of proportion to the real needs of battle, or of hunting.

5'2" average, for front line troops? That is hard to believe. My step-grandfather was in WWII and is an extremely small man, probably 5'4" or shorter. He was infantry in Europe and told me he was the smallest guy in his squad. Lucky for him, he actually managed to swap out his Garand for an M1 carbine.

 

[tomrkba]

people in north America do not need a magnum pushing 300g at 3200 fps. they need to learn to friggin shoot and practice more often.

This for the win.

I go to the NRA Range in Fairfax, VA and frequently watch shooters with $2,000+ AR-15s who shoot "minute of paper" groups at 50 feet.

 

[Robert]

I am a knuckle dragging Neanderthal so I will stick with my heavy 375H&H and my Marlin Guide gun in 45-70. I enjoy shooting my 375, it is no worse than a 12 ga in my 10 lbs Winchester. My 1895G on the other hand kicks like a damn mule with a 405gr bullet at around 2000fps.

There are smaller lighter faster calipers out there that will kill an elk just as dead but I love the history and romance of both these rounds. Do I need them? No. But thankfully need has nothing to do with it.

 

[Ignition Override]

Recoil seems so normal for classic milsurp rifles.

It's too bad that the 'manly' owners of some cut down the wood (not already done),
i.e. Enfields, because they were too heavy to carry into battle with a deer.

 

[blarby]

When ?

Right about here :

 

[taliv]

I go to the NRA Range in Fairfax, VA and frequently watch shooters with $2,000+ AR-15s who shoot "minute of paper" groups at 50 feet.

i do that all the time. standing offhand, rapid fire.

 

[JShirley]

Oh, wow, sexism on a gun board. Say it ain't so.

And some folks wonder why we don't have more female shooters in evidence here. :banghead:

I think I'm going to start a thread about insecure shooters who think their hardware is going to make up for their software deficiency. Maybe I'll call it "When Did Shooters Lose Their Smarts and Become Blithering Sexist Idiots".

Sam, if you look at the conclusions of this study and accept them, if Ellis' stats are correct, the mass of those US soldiers can almost certainly be attributed to nutrition problems caused by the Great Depression. It is a bit hard to believe...considering that the minimum height to be a soldier in Great Britain until 1873 was 5'6"!

John

 

[Kleanbore]

The thread title is a very poorly chosen one. Tools and weapons do not secrete hormones.

Nor is their efficacy a masculine thing.

Nor are the best rifle markspersons male. That may be counterintuitive to fans of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett, but it has to do with how women generally hold heavy rifles as compared to men. Long-time readers of The American Rifleman would know that.

To the question: I have been a dyed in the wool .257 Roberts fan for fifty years, and my second favorite is the 6.5x55.

A late friend preferred the .257 Ackley Improved, and I would not turn one of those down.

 

[taliv]

Nor are the best rifle markspersons male.

well, the best marksmen are. gotta disagree with you on that one. you could maybe argue that if women competed in equal numbers as men, they would have a better showing, but by any objective measure, the top competitors are male. (edit: not that this has anything at all to do with the topic)

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by taliv: you could maybe argue that if women competed in equal numbers as men, they would have a better showing,

One can argue that.

...but by any objective measure, the top competitors are male

The top competitors are male. But when women's teams do compete with men in rifle shooting, they have the advantage, and they show it.

According to an article in The American Rifleman published before most of our members started shooting firearms, that's because men tend to use muscle strength to hold the rifle steady, and that cases tremors and shake. Women shooters, having less muscle strength, learn to hold the rifle steady by balancing it without trying to "manhandle" it.

After having read an article on the subject the first time, I began to observe that phenomenon. However, I was unable to train myself to use the same technique.

 

[CountryUgly]

My OP had nothing to do with a boys vs girls argument. I think I got my answer though. Between the decline in interest in hunting and the popularity of the AR the "hormones" got sucked out of the rifle. Not all ARs are sissys though, that .458 SOCOM looks like a beast. Too bad I've never seen anyone actually shoot one. I'm not saying the evolution of it all is bad but I do miss the days of the rifle report being louder than the action cycling and not being able to watch your hits on paper (getting back on the rifle to check your shot was kinda like opening a Christmas present for me). At least it was fun while it lasted and I got the scar above my eye brow to prove it.

 

[taliv]

that's actually a pretty sexist position to try to stereotype them that way. taking a highly suspect article (no doubt the result of numerous scientific studies) and adding your own anecdotal observations is how most offensive stereotypes start.

I for one do not personhandle my rifles.


edit, yeah, i think this one is done.