Why more warriors than hunters on the rifle forum?

[mustanger98]

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).

If you don't know who Billy Dixon was, you haven't read enough history to know about the old buffalo hunters. They used bigbore single-shot rifles with iron sights from long distances. Billy Dixon was one such hunter and he was at Adobe Walls, Texas when Quanah Parker led a large war party against them there. The final shot of the engagement was Billy Dixon's shot which knocked an Indian off his horse at 7/8 of a mile. The Army surveyors measured the distance. According to Mike Venturino, such a shot is possible with only 5degrees of elevation.

As far as "Quigley Down Under" and "Legends", those are fictional stories as far as I know, however, from my reading on such matters as long-range shooting, I fealt the pertaining scenes from those movies accurately depicts the making of such a shot. (I've also watched some SASS long range which is shot generally with single-shot buffalo rifles.) Oh, and in Quigley's case, that wasn't his target rifle; it was his custom hunting rifle- his choice of barrel, caliber, and sights among other options. That rifle wasn't made just to bust buckets.

On further thought, let's not get brainwashed by this nonsense about the absolute necessity of a clean kill.

The clean kill is a sportsman's responsibility to the animal. Have you ever seen an animal you shot thrash and squall because your bullet wasn't placed right? If you think about it, it's a hunter's responsibility to himself as well knowing the animal didn't suffer because of something he did or didn't do.

Is that more important than using the gun you want to use?

You take the gun you want to use and get good with it. If it's a single-shot, you get good with it. If it's a repeater, you get good with it. Your rifle becomes an extension of yourself. Once you send a bullet, you cannot call it back. It's better to know you can do the job with one shot.

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?

Just a hunt? That kinda downgrades what hunting means to some of us. In some parts of this country, deer season is like a national holiday. And the Plains Indians, that was there life and livelyhood. Just an animal? Seems to me there ought to be a degree of respect given the animal whether it was killed or got away by wits, or was allowed to walk for whatever reason the hunter decides. To a Christian, those animals are God's creation and we ought to respect that if nothing else. With dominion comes so much responsibility.

 

[fistful]

I am sorry. I apologize for my snide comments in regard to single-shot rifles or their owners. However, I didn't mean to imply that we should just go out there and pepper every animal we see with .22's.

On the one hand, I don't want to start useless arguments; on the other, I just happen to resent the supposed superiority of the single-shot, as if it is the mark of a pure rifleman. I'm a gun bigot. There, I said it. I really like a few types of guns, and the rest seem like a waste of steel. Ironically, I have been eyeing those NEF Handi-rifles, lately.

Actually, I thought the retraction I made would end the whole silly argument I had raised, but of course, I just started another one. I simply wonder if hunters have not gone too far in distancing themselves from the buffalo extermination of yore. Stewardship and compassion, yes; fear and trembling, no. That kind of attitude has our police officers jumping up and getting out the bracelets every time someone kills an unwanted kitten. I wike wittle kittens, too, but they're private property with fur.

To repeat myself:

"The notion of animal rights makes our rights worthless, don't it? [intentional poor grammar]"

It doesn't make any sense to demand that hunters use a rifle with the fastest follow-up shot, because that would mean a semi-auto, and that would just be silly. In any case, I was only buying into this fetish of the game animal, which I now renounce.

No, I haven't read much about the buffalo hunters, although I've heard of Adobe Walls many times. I don't know when we started talking about shooting PEOPLE with a single shot, though.

My point about Quigly is that he arrived in Australia expecting to shoot dingos, IICR. Once the killing started, he didn't have a choice of rifles. Given the option of a repeater of equal range and accuracy, if such were then available, I think he would have taken it.

What happened in Legends of the Fall? There are guns in that film? I thought it was just a chick flick.

Mustanger, I'd like to get into hunting someday, but I doubt I will ever get as excited by it as some people. I think that's OK.

 

[mustanger98]

However, I didn't mean to imply that we should just go out there and pepper every animal we see with .22's.

I didn't take it that way. Elmer Keith said the only time he shot a mule deer with a .22 was when that was all he had with him and they really needed the meat. It took too many rounds to the back of the animal's head and he wasn't impressed at all, by his own re-count. FWIW, I just heard about somebody finishing off a deer (hit by a car) with a .22- 4rds in the head and IMO that's too many.

I simply wonder if hunters have not gone too far in distancing themselves from the buffalo extermination of yore.

I don't think us hunters distance ourselves from it so much as figure not to have it happen again. In my part of the country, I understand there was a time when there wasn't much game to be hunted. Now the deer population is running out everybody's ears, eating the shrubbery... Gotta have a balance.

My point about Quigley is that he arrived in Australia expecting to shoot dingos, IICR. Once the killing started, he didn't have a choice of rifles. Given the option of a repeater of equal range and accuracy, if such were then available, I think he would have taken it.

Right. But you dance with the one you brung, and like you said, he didn't have a choice of rifles. But a repeater of equal range and and accuracy, I don't know that one was available then, the closest thing being the 1886 Winchester which had a different sight system without so much elevation. I recall the scenes where Marston was talking up the Colt's revolvers and Quigley said "never had much use for one" and then close to the end, Marston says "I recall you don't know how to use one; here's your first and final lesson" (or words to that effect) and Quigley shoots them with the revolver and says "I said I never had much use for one; I didn't say I didn't know how".

I don't know when we started talking about shooting PEOPLE with a single shot, though.

I recall mention further back along the thread of a single shot hunting rifle not having any value in a SHTF scenario. That's why I mentioned Quigley and Legends- the Sharps rifles being used to varying degrees in an anti-personel role. While I'm on this point, I recall one of Sheriff Jim Wilson's articles in Shooting Times- he wrote about an idiotic tinhorn who got into a gunfight with a buffalo hunter. The hunter brought his Sharps to what was supposed to be a pistol fight and kept the wannabe pinned down and soaked behind some water barrels down the street. And I've read that in some Indian fights, some Army officers and senior NCOs had their personal .45-70 sporters and used them to good effect against Indians who acted more like modern snipers.

What happened in Legends of the Fall? There are guns in that film? I thought it was just a chick flick.

Brad Pitt's character's wife was killed by a triggerhappy Prohibition-era cop with a tommygun (they were stopped at a roadblock over a case of bootleg likker). Her father had a Sharps rifle and used it just a little later to take out the cop that killed her. It was a long range deal. (I'm not advocating that or discussing the moral and legal climate of the time and place. Just that it was long range shooting.) Actually, there were several scenes where the guns came out and some were repeating Winchesters. As for it being a "chick flick", it probably qualifies for one, but it wasn't an enjoyable movie to watch really with so many of the characters getting killed or killing themselves.

I'd like to get into hunting someday, but I doubt I will ever get as excited by it as some people. I think that's OK.

It is. We all have different aspects of guns and shooting sports that suit us better than others. And some of us are in a better position to enjoy some than others. It's all an individual thing.

NEF Handi-rifles

I have one in .45-70 and it's a good rifle. I'm working on getting the sights like I want them. Planning on getting a .30-30 barrel for it and loading spitzers for it too. Something I can't do with my repeating Winchester, although it's not going anywhere either.

 

[fistful]

an idiotic tinhorn who got into a gunfight with a buffalo hunter. The hunter brought his Sharps to what was supposed to be a pistol fight and kept the wannabe pinned down and soaked behind some water barrels down the street.

Hee-hee, hee-hee!

I really have reconsidered my previous posts on single-shots. I like to argue, so I sometimes make up controversies. A fault in my character, I admit.

The Handi-Rifle appeals to me as the inexpensive, light-weight gun I might put in some kind of survival pack, or for some situation where a light-weight, compact rifle is necessary. Unfortunately, even if they did make one with the right combination of features, I'm not sure it would be a take-down rifle, which would go better with the survival kit idea. Can they be taken down/re-assembled in the field? On second thought, I'd probably be happier with something else. Were money no object, I'd want a take-down Mauser.

End ramble.

 

[308win]

Barstool patriots talk the talk. Hunters walk the walk (mostly). Although on a goose hunting trip to the Union County Hunting area, I do recall a 'sport' from Chicago who was arrested in single digit weather wearing suit pants, white shirt, wingtips, and a pint of whisky. Not too sure how the Illinois Dept of Conservation personel at the checkin station ever let him go to his assigned pit tho

 

[mustanger98]

The Handi-Rifle appeals to me as the inexpensive, light-weight gun I might put in some kind of survival pack, or for some situation where a light-weight, compact barrel is necessary. Unfortunately, even if they did make one with the right combination of features, I'm not sure it would be a take-down rifle, which would go better with the survival kit idea. Can they be taken down/re-assembled in the field? On second thought, I'd probably be happier with something else. Were money no object, I'd want a take-down Mauser.

For a survival gun, in a HandiRifle's case, I'd recommend .223 or something like that since you can carry a lot of it. I'd change out the rear sight for an aperture (Williams Guide rear), but that'll mean changing the height of the front sight which will mean you have to change to a different ramp too. The same rifle chambered in .30-30Winchester would have more power as well as a decent point blank range out to 150yds.

Yeah, the HandiRifle is easily disassembled and reassembled. You have to remove the screw from the forearm and remove it, then hit the button that opens the action. To reassemble, just reverse the process.

I haven't seen a take-down Mauser, but I'm sure some gunsmith somewhere can fix you right up.

 

[rbernie]

I haven't seen a take-down Mauser, but I'm sure some gunsmith somewhere can fix you right up.

How about a Rigby? Only $9500 and it's yours.

 

[fistful]

Only $9500 and it's yours.

As I said,

Were money no object...

I'd really like a stainless Handi-rifle in .30-06 or .308, with a straight-combed, synthetic, sporter stock (with a nifty storage compartment like the survivor model) and while they're at it, they can install an aperture sight. Or, Kel-tec needs to get crankin' on something like the SU-16, but a bolt-action in .308.

 

[Delmar]

I'd like to get into hunting someday

Hey Fistful-get yerself down here to Texas and bring a Mauser or whatever you have on hand. Opening season is this weekend and runs through the first weekend in January. If you have never harvested a deer, you'll never know if you like it or not. I'd like to see you act all bored when a big ole buck comes tippy-toeing across your path

Bring a milsurp, single shot, bolt action, lever action, autoloader-don't really matter what. The only stipulation is at what range you can keep a group inside the size of your fist reliably.

Personally, I use way too much gun (Rem 700 vs in 308) and its way too heavy, but I like shooting paper as much as I do a nice, flavorful deer, and it does both for me. I also have a 6.5 Swede that I trimmed off half of the front end wood, has ridiculously optimistic ladder sights which start at 300 meters, and will hold small groups for a steady shooter. They are in company with a sporter weight Rem 700 in 270 Win and a 94 30-30, plus a couple of 22's.

I'm also a meticulous handloader for my rifles and pistols and have been for many years, which gives me two great hobbies.

Nothin in the world says you can't be hunting or target shooting with a warriors firearm-in the end, its nothing more than a bullet launcher. The mil-spec firearm is likely to be a bit more hardy and forgiving of abuse.

 

[fistful]

Delmar,

Thanks for the invite, and sorry I haven't answered your latest e-mail yet. I'd love to bring my thirty-ought Mauser down there, but I just started a new job, so no vacation days. Also, I've got a two-month stint at Ft. Huachuca this spring, and a honeymoon right after that. I don't know if I can find any other days off, but you can bet I'll be lookin'! The good news is, now that I've got regular work, I can buy ammo again, and maybe save up for a reloading press.