Why more warriors than hunters on the rifle forum?

[fistful]

those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Yeah, they're doomed to freeze in the snow like you two nostalgic twerps. Just kiddin'!

 

[Art Eatman]

Being from the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." school, I'm content to use what's always worked for me. That is, a couple of pets I've had for over 30 years; bolt-actions in '06 and .243.

That doesn't mean I don't meddle around with some load-testing from the bench, or just sit around busting rocks at 300 or so yards. Sometimes I dig out a .22 and burn through a bunch of rounds in just plinking.

I've shot everything from a Daisy Red Ryder to a Quad .50. It's all fun.

I've done a lot of trading into and out of all sorts of stuff. HK 91, AR 15s, M1A, miscellaneous whatzits. I've shot them all before trading them off.

But, for all that I think I'm pretty knowledgeable about home defense and all that, the odds are that the only "action target" I'll ever really need to be concerned with is Bambi or Wiley.

, Art

 

[Feanaro]

Obviously, most people on this board find military rifles more interesting, but that is only their opinion.

Well that's kinda obvious.

And don't think that sporters don't have history. Some single-shots and lever-actions go back to the mid-nineteenth, and have seen military conflict.

They have history, there is no doubt, but it's a different kind of history. When you hold a C&R you are touching the actual history, a weapon that was used(or at least ready to be used) by a soldier. Sporters have history but it's more distant, a lineage if you will. It's grand-daddy might have been used by an outlaw or cowboy to bring in game, or to hold off the Injuns. Not that either is better than the other, there is simply a different feel. One can't quite get the same connect to Custer or (insert favorite Wild West hero) as you can get to Stalingrad when you hold a 1938 Mosin.

700's and Sako's are no more bland than the millions of Russian-pattern semi-auto's that are all more or less the same,

No more logic out you mister!

They are more or less the same but they are also a little more... out of place than most hunting rifles, I think. I can't think of many people who don't have a shotgun or hunting rifle in their house, or who used to. But I can't think of too many that have a FAL, SKS, or AK. Maybe that's where the allure is, being different. Or maybe it's the "they don't want me to have it, so I'll by God get it" syndrome. Either way you choose, you're still hopelessly addicted and doomed to argue over how to kill zombies/Bambi.

If you bothered to read this whole post, do you really think that sporters are station wagons, that offer less fodder for discussion than military guns?

There is a great deal one can hash, rehash, and then reheat a la 45ACP vs. 9mm. But I don't think the majority of people on this forum are as interested in that, for whatever reason. All I can give is my reasons for not hashing it out.

 

[fistful]

They are more or less the same but they are also a little more... out of place than most hunting rifles, I think. I can't think of many people who don't have a shotgun or hunting rifle in their house, or who used to. But I can't think of too many that have a FAL, SKS, or AK. Maybe that's where the allure is, being different.

Are you kidding? A FAL might make you different. A CZ 52 might make you different. An FR-8 might make you different, but an AK or SKS. No way. No way. If you don't know many people that don't have a hunting arm, then you just don't know that many people, or you live in some kind of hunter-heavy part of the country (any real estate for sale?) I have to agree with some earlier contributors who have noted a decline in hunting. Of course, there are a lot of old coots out there who have them and don't use them no more, or inherited them.

Sporters have history but it's more distant, a lineage if you will.

Point taken.

 

[Feanaro]

Are you kidding? A FAL might make you different. A CZ 52 might make you different. An FR-8 might make you different, but an AK or SKS. No way. No way.

As I said, maybe that's the reasoning. I can't tell you why THR is more interested in military and military style weapons, just put some ideas forward.

If you don't know many people that don't have a hunting arm, then you just don't know that many people, or you live in some kind of hunter-heavy part of the country (any real estate for sale?)

Come on now, I live in Alabama. I know some people who don't have them but they are a minority. Of course, I could just be a little odd.

 

[fistful]

Good for you, Feanaro, wish all my neighbors had guns. No I don't; half my neighbors are so heavily medicated that I wouldn't trust them with a weedeater. I need to move out of the city - just ain't natch-ral.

 

[bullfrog99]

Hunting guns are tools

Fighting guns are toys

People find it more interesting to talk about toys.

 

[Feanaro]

No I don't; half my neighbors are so heavily medicated that I wouldn't trust them with a weedeater.

Buy a police scanner and listen to that instead of the radio. You will never see humanity quite the same again.

I need to move out of the city - just ain't natch-ral.

Now yer talkin'! Buy ya some land n' move out ter da country. Buy enough and you can have your own shooting range. *dangles carrot*

 

[fistful]

Feanaro, don't tease a wistful country boy. I'm-a always dreamin' 'bout my ole, Franklin County home.

Hunting guns are tools

Fighting guns are toys

That doesn't make the least bit of sense. Shooting people is a game, but hunting is serious business? Some people hunt for a living, and others hunt for fun. Some tote a people-shooting gun for a living, and some like the job more than others. Still, shooting people is not entertainment, no matter how much fun you have playing Counter Strike.

I'm just trying to point out that if you have more fun with military guns, it's only a matter of opinion. You can't objectively state that military guns are just more fun. They only happen to be more fun for some people.

the AR's are so soullesly utilitarian that I would compare them to station wagons

I've said it again.

 

[TallPine]

Hunting rifles: so which is better ... a 270 or a 30.06 ...?

 

[kfranz]

I prefer surplus for a number of reasons. In no particular order;

cost of the arm
cost of the ammo
ability to amass rather than collect
ability to revive(from a parts kit) a destroyed rifle
the DIYS factor associated with rolling my own
The history associated with surplus

of course the increased zombie protection they offer....

 

[rbernie]

While by no means a definitive reason for the 'MilSurp' focus, the fact that I can buy (for example) a SKS and 2000 rounds of practice ammo for less than the cost of one bottom-end Rem700 at WallyWorld has to be considered.

People shoot what they can afford to shoot, and tend to accessorize what they have. If the MilSurp/non-hunting-centric rifles are simply cheaper to buy and feed and dress up, IMO that's gonna drive a lot of the conversation on the board.

 

[Cosmoline]

I find curio rifles to be far less "toy" than "tool." Especially when compared with the overpriced nonsense sold as "hunting rifles." To make a hunting rifle, you must apparently strip off the iron sights, destroy the quality wooden stock, put on a nasty POS wood or synthetic material (in the monte carlo pattern, of course), hack off any barrel length over 24", install a super high power scope on it at great additional cost, and chamber it for a cartridge way more powerful than you need to take down the largest moose.

I hunt with my Mosin-Nagant. Modern American "hunting rifles" are overpriced garbage.

 

[Black Snowman]

I think the AWB had a huge impact on the popularity of military arms. Before the AWB gunshows had maybe 1 or 2 tables with that "weirdo" with the "inaccurate and ugly military stuff". Everyone else had a favorite specialty. There would be one or two Weatherby tables. Many competing tables of model 70s and 700s. The pump shotgun table, the SxS and O/U tables. A handgun table here and there. Not very many, and the reloading and ammo tables. Maybe a couple guys with mil-surps. Maybe.

Now you just see a few die-hards with the quality bolt rifles and everyone else is pedelling the latest tacticool EBRs and CCW pieces. I'm not saying this is wrong. Just that the market has changed. What was collectable (pre-64 Winchesters, etc . . . ) has been usurped by the new collectables ( Colt SP-1, Norincos, etc . . . ) and people are selling what folks want to buy. Free market at work.

Look what the 50 ban did in Cali. Sales skyrocketted. Flooding the state with the weapon they were trying to ban immidiately having the complete opposite effect as what it's proponent's claimed putting decades worth of regularly paced sales into the state in the space of a few months.

 

[Bwana John]

"Mall Ninja Syndrome"

 

[wasrjoe]

All the modern bolt actions I can afford are boring.

 

[WhiteKnight]

Part of it may be simple demographics. There are very roughly 80 million gun owners in the U.S., give or take, and roughly 16 million licensed hunters. So four out of five gun owners don't hunt.

That's incredibly faulty reasoning. I guess you didn't take into account the hunters who own more than one gun either for hunting different game or for variety.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

Warren Page once stated - Only accurate rifles are interesting.

It was Col. Townsend Whelen who said that, although I'm sure Mr. Page would agree.

 

[Ash]

Okay, anybody want to talk about my Mossberg 810 in 30-06?

Ash

 

[SteveS]

I find curio rifles to be far less "toy" than "tool." Especially when compared with the overpriced nonsense sold as "hunting rifles." To make a hunting rifle, you must apparently strip off the iron sights, destroy the quality wooden stock, put on a nasty POS wood or synthetic material (in the monte carlo pattern, of course), hack off any barrel length over 24", install a super high power scope on it at great additional cost, and chamber it for a cartridge way more powerful than you need to take down the largest moose. I hunt with my Mosin-Nagant. Modern American "hunting rifles" are overpriced garbage.

That is too modern. I hunt with an iron pipe that I cram full of black powder and nails.

Seriously, I like modern hunting rifles and have two with synthetic stocks. I see no reason to put on a heavier wooden stock and take it out it the rain. OTOH, wood stocks certainly have more character and look a heck of a lot nicer. I also have an Enfield that I’d like to take hunting one of these years.
BTW, I also hate monte carlo stocks.

 

[LiquidTension]

I'm sure age and level of skill have some impact on representation of different rifles in the forum.

Age: In my experience, younger people tend to like semi-autos more than bolt guns. Younger people are also more prone to using the internet, so they may be disproportionately represented on the forums.

Skill level: Being "good" with a bolt gun and being "good" with an AK are not the same. It takes some practice to be able to put several rounds into a 1" group @ 100yards with a bolt gun. With semi's, accuracy is not really the main goal. Besides, if your target looks like it was hit with a shotgun you can always say, "yeah, those AKs are fun but they aren't very accurate." Not that I've ever used thate excuse Most of the time when I see semis at the range, the targets are coke bottles or other reactive targets. Doesn't take as much skill to hit a 2 liter bottle as it does to put five rounds in the X ring.

Of course, the main reason is that semi-autos are so cool

 

[Chris Pinkleton]

Hey, y'know this thread has made me realize that despite the fact that my sole centerfire rifle is a SAR-1, I wish this forum had more threads on hunting weapons. I know far less about them than I do about military weapons.

Right now, even though I really want a another AK variant (maybe a homebrew Saiga-based AK-type folder or a new Vepr with the folding stock and muzzle threading) I have an almost equal desire for a good hunting rifle with a nice big scope (to aid my swiftly degenerating, if not old, eyes) in some non-sexy caliber like .308 or .30-06. I'm also hankering for a .45-70 levergun (maybe a Guide Gun?) and even though I have no "need" for either in the slightest, if I buy a good .30 caliber rifle, I still want a pair of European-style guns in 7mm Mauser and 9.3x62mm.

And I don't even hunt yet! Although my wife and I are currently trying to purchase a home with a whole bunch of land with the express idea of hunting and shooting on it. I'm just a sad suburban boy, but luckily I've got plenty of more "country" friends willing to school me in the way of the hunter.

Let's face it, most guns, even if we have "practical" justifications for them, are effectively toys. Even in large collections of fine hunting weapons, how many ever actually get used to hunt? How many new manufacture Holland & Holland doubles actually get blooded these days? If we limited ourselves to "tools," really the only guns most of us would need would be 1) one hunting rifle (maybe bolt, maybe lever depending on where you live and taste), 2) a home defense gun (which could be anything from a full-size pistol, to a shotgun, to a semi-auto "assault weapon" depending on many factors), 3) a shotgun, for hunting, if it already isn't #2 already, and 4) a concealable pistol for self defence. And, if we really only care about tools, just maybe we could justify duplicates of several of the above. And of course, a .22LR pistol and rifle for target practice.

Heck, my grandfather got through most of his life owning a single barrel 12 gauge and a .22 rifle. Uncle Sam povided for his needs during WWII, and he could always borrow a centerfire rifle from a friend if he wanted to hunt with one. He did buy a Ruger Mk.II, purely for fun, near the end of his life. By his standards, it was a pretty big indulgence. He was also a great shot. As he said, "if I didn't hit it, I didn't eat." He didn't have enough money for many .22 rounds. His weapons were indeed "tools," but his overall mentality was lightyears away from just about everyone on this board.

If you are motivated enough to post on this forum, most likely you are at least as much a collector as shooter or hunter. If you are a collector, you're not in it for pure tool use alone. Collections of fine hunting weapons reach astronomical dollar amounts very quickly. Collections of military-type weapons, especially C&R rifles, don't reach insane cost levels quite as fast. So, of course, most collections don't focus on fine hunting guns. And, most discussions here will not focus on hunting rifles.

On second thought, please don't start discussing hunting rifles more, you older and wiser heads! I don't need anymore "needs!"

 

[MeekandMild]

Whiteknight, I think that there are several other demographic, cultural and political factors.

1) More people in the burbs than in the country so more people have access to target ranges than woods.

2) A major negative effect of 'hunter safety class' laws is that it has become illegal to learn to hunt the traditional way, so a lot of younger people aren't hunting.

3) Lets face it, if you hunt, you have to be prepared to remove blood, guts, skin, hair et cetera before the game becomes food. Come to think of it, with the demise of the family garden, how many suburbanites are psychologically ready to pull a screaming turnip from the ground, cut off its roots and stalk and scrub it before chopping it into little pieces and boiling it?

4) For some odd reason the majority of the last generation of movie and rock stars haven't been interested in hunting, though lots of them wore leather and waved tricked out hi tech rifles.

5) Boring? Of course hunting rifles are boring. They bore holes in animals. But they have no media appeal. See #4

 

[fistful]

To make a hunting rifle, you must apparently strip off the iron sights,

Well, a lot of people just like other types of sights; sorry

destroy the quality wooden stock,

- which was too heavy in 1933, and is still too heavy. Doesn't it also impinge on the barrel when affected by humidity? Some people cut down the issued stock to more reasonable porportions.

put on a nasty POS wood or synthetic material (in the monte carlo pattern, of course),

My Mauser came to me with a black synthetic, and I don't like it either, aesthetically. On second thought, it is a moral blight. But synthetic stocks can be of high quality, if you got the cash. Certainly, not every aftermarket wooden stock is a "POS," and monte carlos are going out of style these days, I believe.

hack off any barrel length over 24",

-which was too much barrel in 1915 and is still too much.

install a super high power scope on it at great additional cost,

I could ask why you think that anybody who modernizes a milsurp is going to use a 15-87x120 scope, but I realize that you only want to conflate mil-surp hotrodders with scope extremists.

and chamber it for a cartridge way more powerful than you need to take down the largest moose.

same as response to previous


WhiteKnight, I don't understand your comment regarding statistics.

how many suburbanites are psychologically ready to pull a screaming turnip from the ground, cut off its roots and stalk and scrub it before chopping it into little pieces and boiling it?

I must object to such barbaric practices!

 

[mustanger98]

.

To make a hunting rifle, you must apparently strip off the iron sights,

Well, a lot of people just like other types of sights; sorry

Hmmm... I'm usually the one that gets disgusted by not finding a Model 70 with sights on the barrel and goes plotting what aperture sight I'd like on one.

destroy the quality wooden stock,

- which was too heavy in 1933, and is still too heavy. Doesn't it also impinge on the barrel when affected by humidity? Some people cut down the issued stock to more reasonable porportions.

I wouldn't destroy the original stock. Keep it in original configuration. You might want to put the rifle back in "as issued" shape at some point. Choose a really nice sporter stock for hunter use.

hack off any barrel length over 24",

Nah, you lose the front sight that way, which is needed if the rear is changed out as opposed to scoping it.

and chamber it for a cartridge way more powerful than you need to take down the largest moose.

Been reading Jim Carmichael in Outdoor Life? I've read where he told about his old .458 Win Mag several times. The he custom built on the Mauser action.