For you coastal bear types.

sherlockbonez said:
That looked like someone bubba'd an old ruger from afar.
Click to expand...

Taste is different for everyone, but let’s not get carried away.

The following rifle would be my preference, but it does not take away from the skill and craftsmanship of the former.

http://echolsrifles.########.ca/2017/10/the-perfect-alaskan-rifle.html?m=1
 
^^^let's not get carried away, you wouldn't be able to handle the recoil on that. And who would knowingly chase sheep with a big bore topped with a fixed 2.5x scope?
 
chuck nelson said:
Taste is different for everyone, but let’s not get carried away.

The following rifle would be my preference, but it does not take away from the skill and craftsmanship of the former.

http://echolsrifles.########.ca/2017/10/the-perfect-alaskan-rifle.html?m=1
Click to expand...

They could use a bit of spell check on that page, esp given the class of hunters they are targeting. I gave it a quick read and found "argonomics" & "bolders" in the mix.:rolleyes:
 
chuck nelson said:
So you really couldn’t tell me what is no right with the rifle. Thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...

At $14K, there is no reason that a rifle shouldn't look good as well as have fine tolerances of fit & finish and functionality... Supercub told you what is wrong with it in his opinion and I would concur with that and many others here have as well... asthetics may be subjective, but they likely missed the mark for most buyers.

And the website grammar and spelling are abysmal.
 
hoytcanon said:
At $14K, there is no reason that a rifle shouldn't look good as well as have fine tolerances of fit & finish and functionality... Supercub told you what is wrong with it in his opinion and I would concur with that and many others here have as well... asthetics may be subjective, but they likely missed the mark for most buyers.

And the website grammar and spelling are abysmal.
Click to expand...

The colour of the recoil pad is not a flaw or lack of quality. Sorry, but you are way off base.
 
Pick this up and read it.

vbxmiHq.jpg
 
chuck nelson said:
So you really couldn’t tell me what is no right with the rifle. Thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...

See post 33 for what is no right with the rifle. IMHO

If you like that rifle, that's great but I wouldn't spend 14k on it solely based on the name of the maker. It's just plain ugly and I'm not into branding.
 
chuck nelson said:
No uglier than 14 scoped rugers.
Click to expand...

I would take one scoped Ruger over that rifle... let alone the half dozen scoped No.1's I could buy...

But, hey Chuck... if that rifle speaks to you so much that you feel the need to defend it's sensibilities, buy it... personally I think it is a great match for you.
 
Not going to chime in on looks. I made a conscious effort some years back to eliminate safe queens that would never be used for fear of scratching them.

Think it's Ted W....why not...who has a tag line about being afraid to use pretty rifles. Hits home with me. I sold my exhibition pieces, still have some nice stuff. But it's used, I don't even mind really nice stuff, it just has to have that first devaluation scratch .....and I acquire it devalued....then I'm ok to walk through the Bush.
 
nowarningshot said:
Not going to chime in on looks. I made a conscious effort some years back to eliminate safe queens that would never be used for fear of scratching them.

Think it's Ted W....why not...who has a tag line about being afraid to use pretty rifles. Hits home with me. I sold my exhibition pieces, still have some nice stuff. But it's used, I don't even mind really nice stuff, it just has to have that first devaluation scratch .....and I acquire it devalued....then I'm ok to walk through the Bush.
Click to expand...

In this case the rifle would cost me $14,007.50... $14K for the rifle and $7.50 for a rattle can of flat black Krylon...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom