Why more warriors than hunters on the rifle forum?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mustanger, I like peeps too. I own a Mauser that was sporterized and scoped when I got it. I gave the scope back to my friend. I chopped the sporter barrel down to 19" and had a front sight installed. No biggie. Put an aperture on it, and had the trigger sweetened - she's light and single-staged, now. Yeah, the barrel's a bit shorter than optimum, but I'm one of those scout guys.
 
Why do AK's, AR's, Enfields and other military rifles seem to dominate Rifle Country?

Another possibility is that there is a hunting forum on this board. I can't speak for everybody, but if I have a question related to a hunting rifle, I usually post it on the hunting venue.
 
I guess i'm a throwback to the old school then. I prefer hunting rifles ie., bolts, lever guns and semi-auto's such as the BAR's. I like M1 carbines. I never have got into the AR type guns or the older Nagants, etc. I do have a hankerin for a M1A though. :D

Too many guns, not enough cash. :mad:
 
Well, a lot of people just like other types of sights; sorry

I'm not criticizing Bubba so much as what Remchester Inc. does to their new production rifles. At heart they're still based on bolt-action military rifles, albeit with some modifications in the feeding and extraction systems. But compare a true Mauser with a moder Remchester and you instantly notice that the modern production rifle was made with a lot less steel, inferior stock materials, has no iron sights at all, and no sense of balance.

The only modern rifles that I consider quality for the money are CZ's. I've been spoiled by Mausers and Mosins.
 
Disposable income might be part of the picture. Back 50 years, most folks had a .22 rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun, and maybe a 30-30 or, if they read Jack O'Connor, a 270 win. There was a lot more talking about calibers, guns, and hunting with the Shah of Iran because talking was a lot cheaper than buying. After all, all anyone needed was one pre-64 model 70 in 270 done up in an Al Biesen stock with a Weaver K-4 on top.

Now, AIM has their gunsmith specials and shooter's packages, we're awash in aptly named SMLEs and K-31s, and ammunition is cheap. And it's fascinating to hold these moldy relics and imagine where they've been all these years, wonder whose idea it was to insist on a 600 yard sight, and what in blazes does this tool do. Sporterizing is frowned upon because no one needs to do it to shoot a deer, and most don't have the skill or patience to make the product worthwhile. Time was, however, that $114 model 700 ADL was out of reach and this here old 03 would have to do. It's tough for many of us not to try to improve our equipment, y'see.

This is the golden age of deep pockets and cheap rifles. We are obligated to enjoy it while we can. Hunting requires a whole lot more work and good fortune than cranking rounds through the SKS at the range, so we do what we can.
 
TallPine wrote:
Hunting rifles: so which is better ... a 270 or a 30.06 ...?

Gee...doncha read the internet....:D

Model 70 in '06
Model 70 in .243
Model 94 in 30-30
Model 94 in .243

Covers everything from varimits to Racks ....mutant zombies, pumas, and blue helments....

pssst....it is the Blue & Wood& Leather that does it. :D
 
I defy anyone to not find this rifle interesting:
attachment.php


That said, I have everything from a charcoal burner to antiques, to an AR-10A4 Carbine. I hunt, and I expect to keep buying nice rifles of any persuasion, as I find them.:)
 
Ok I finally read this thread and I've got a question.

I hunt with an iron pipe that I cram full of black powder and nails.

What size nails for deer and what size for elk?
 
I'm an engineer; a gearhead. Stuff that has moving parts and is designed well, with a history, is interesting to me. I like learning the history of the pieces and how they work. I also enjoy shooting them immensely.

I'm not too terribly concerned with the UFOs landing or the Commies invading or anything of the sort. I just like my rifles. The fact is, I find most of this "let's kill the blue helmets" talk distasteful. I don't think anyone would be waxing gleeful about it if they actually had to fight a war on their own nation's soil. What romantic value the concept holds is lost on me. That is not to say that I don't believe the Second Amendment is necessary; it is. I derive a peaceful pleasure from my rifles, and I don't generally fantasize about having to use them against anything but paper, game, and plinking junk.
 
(tex_n_cal)
I defy anyone to not find this rifle interesting
It's a beautiful rifle, although it's not aesthetically my cup of tea. The targets you posted are what make it really interesting...

What make/model/caliber/distance?

I'm an engineer; a gearhead. Stuff that has moving parts and is designed well, with a history, is interesting to me. I like learning the history of the pieces and how they work. I also enjoy shooting them immensely.
That's a major reason I gravitate toward EBR's (my favorite rifle is a Kalashnikov, a SAR-1), because to me they are the most mechanically interesting. My M39 is fantastically interesting from a historical standpoint, but not all that interesting mechanically; an AK, on the other hand...
 
It's a beautiful rifle, although it's not aesthetically my cup of tea. The targets you posted are what make it really interesting...What make/model/caliber/distance?

Ruger #1V, in .22-250...those are three consecutive groups at 100 yards. My Dad bought the rifle in the late '70s, sold it to me in the '80's and I literally spent 20 years off and on getting it to shoot those strings. It took a lot of tuning and handload development, but the results speak for themselves, it was very satisfying to finally put five in a half inch. The loads are 50 gr Noslers, and they are scooting along at over 3800 fps.
 
What size nails for deer and what size for elk?

Hmmm...Well, I like to use a variety (but not roofing nails). One handful for deer, two for elk. ;)
 
Single-shot rifle with monotonously consistent groups? Says only one thing, to me. Pretension. Nobody's good enough to use a single shot, but that's another thread.
 
Last edited:
Single-shot rifle with monotously consistent groups? Says only one thing, to me. Pretension. Nobody's good enough to use a single shot, but that's another thread.

It's a .22-250 Varmint rifle. One shot is fine on small varmints. You either miss, or they're done.

I have also taken a few deer with larger caliber single shots.

Lots of other folks have taken deer and bigger game with centerfire single shots, including lots of other folks with single shot muzzleloaders.

And it's spelled "monotonously". Precision, ya know. :)
 
Nobody's good enough to use a single shot.
That's funny. I thought all you had to do was make sure the safety is off, striker cocked/hammer pulled, align the sighting device and pull the trigger like the other rifles. Didn't seem any more complicated to me. I even usually hit my target. :confused: :neener:

You might want to qualify that statement with a purpose, function or other performance criteria.

If you're talking hunting, I've only been hunting twice and only had a good shot available once. Only took 1 shot, and only needed 1 shot. I wasn't all that experienced then but I got both lungs and the heart and the deer didn't even take a single step. 98 paces off. I had a 2nd shot in the magazine. Never even bothered chambering it.

Now for stopping hordes of jack booted international zombie deer I want more than 1 shot in my gun. But I won't take a shot on an animal unless I KNOW it will only take 1 shot. I can reload my Dad's Browning 87 pretty darn quick as well. I guess you can count me as just another Nobody when you're talking deer hunting.
 
I think you'll find that most of us shoot both sporting (bolt) rifles and the milsurps. My 6.5 x55 and .30-06 bolt hunting rifles, and my .45-70 Sharps, are supurbly accurate...but not nearly as much fun on the range as the cheaper milsrp rifles, which also use much less expensive ammo. There's a lot more challenge in shooting them.

To echo a common theme, the bolt guns are rather boring...not much challenge in shooting them. So, we rarely discuss them...:p
 
Tex n cal, your point on the hunting of varmints is well taken. I sit corrected. My spelling, however, is always above reproach. If you will take a second look at my previous post, you will see that I indeed spelled the word correctly. I have, however, added some words in italics - something about an edit.


Hunting big game with a single-shot, WHEN REPEATERS ARE AVAILABLE, is arrogant and silly. You may be good enough, but you shouldn't depend on it.


Too taxed, I will repeat myself - if bolt guns are boring, that is only your opinion, don't state it as if it were universally true. And are you saying that semi-auto's are more difficult to shoot? I'm not sure how that could be. I think AR's are easier to shoot, just because of the pistol grip. Still hate 'em.
 
Single-shot rifles impose a discipline on the shooter to make the shot count.

Semi-automatic rifles impose a discipline on the shooter to not get in a hurry and spray-and-pray.

In a hunting scenario, a semi-auto mostly just shows everybody how bad a shot the guy on the next ridge is.

A single-shot in an anti-personel role, well, didn't anybody see Quigley Down Under or Legends of the Fall or read about Billy Dixon's mile-long shot at Adobe Walls, Texas?

The only guns I find boring are garbage like Tec-9.
 
Single-shot rifles impose a discipline on the shooter to make the shot count.
This may be true, but shouldn't we impose that discipline on ourselves? And even if one trains with a single-shot, the field is no place to bring a training tool, one should also train with a repeater and use it to hunt. Of course, muzzle-loaders have their reasons for limiting themselves, and I respect that.

I didn't see Legends, and I don't know who Billy Dixon is, but Quigley didn't plan on shooting folks with his target rifle. It was all he had. Also, it was a fictional movie (or at least I thought it was).

I repeat:

Hunting big game with a single-shot, WHEN REPEATERS ARE AVAILABLE, is arrogant and silly. You may be good enough, but you shouldn't depend on it.
 
I RETRACT MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS.

On further thought, let's not get brainwashed by this nonsense about the absolute necessity of a clean kill. Is that more important than using the gun you want to use? I don't think so. It's just a hunt, it's just an animal. But it's your hunt, so do what you want. Don't wound animals willy-nilly, but don't treat 'em like holy objects, either. The notion of animal rights makes our rights worthless, don't it? [intentional poor grammar]
 
To everyone: forgive me this thread drift but fistful has made some sweeping and wrong statements.

Fistful: you act as if single shot rifles cannot be reloaded. A rifleman with a single shot and a buttcuff full of rounds effectively has a repeater.

Do I hunt with a single shot? No. I use a bolt action repeater. I also have an uninterrupted record of 13 one shot kills on big game. You are right, we all should have the discipline to do that every time regardless of what we shoot. But to question the character, ethics or skill of those who choose single shots is just wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top