Chuck Hawks Review on Tikka's
- Thread starter b72471
- Start date
NolanOsborn
Regular
- Location
- British Columbia
F**K Chuck Hawks is what I say. Tikka's are well built and accurate rifles.
I own a Tikka T3 Lite in 25-06, and the only thing I would say is that the safety could be quieter. My savage Euro Classic in 30-06 has a 3 position sliding tang safety thats silent, and I prefer that, But the Tikka has better fit and finish. Read up a little more on this forum and you will see that those who own tikkas love them.
I own a Tikka T3 Lite in 25-06, and the only thing I would say is that the safety could be quieter. My savage Euro Classic in 30-06 has a 3 position sliding tang safety thats silent, and I prefer that, But the Tikka has better fit and finish. Read up a little more on this forum and you will see that those who own tikkas love them.
Red Herring
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Victopia BC
A Critical Look at Modern Hunting Rifles
and the Failure of the Outdoor Press
By Chuck Hawks
Like many old geezers, I bemoan the loss, or lack, of standards in our modern world. And nowhere is this devaluation of quality more evident than in 21st Century hunting rifles. (Actually, the slide started in the 1960's and accelerated toward the end of the 20th Century).
We are, today, reaping the crop of sub-standard rifles previously sown. Most of the blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the writers and publishers of the specialty outdoors print magazines. In the quest for advertising dollars they have turned a blind eye to the constant cheapening of our hunting rifles. Often they have merely parroted the promotional flack handed to them by the manufacturer's ad agencies in their gun reviews.
Thus flimsy, injection molded synthetic stocks are praised as "lightweight" or "weather resistant" rather than criticized as the inferior bedding platforms that they actually are. Free floating barrels, introduced simply to minimize the labor cost of precisely bedding a barreled action in a gun stock, are now praised as an asset by those who know nothing else. A perfect example of an economy shortcut becoming the new standard.
The deficiencies of receivers that are simply drilled from bar stock and that substitute heavy washers for integral recoil lugs are never mentioned in modern rifle reviews. Often the loading/ejection port--merely a slot cut into the tubular receiver--is so small that it is difficult or impossible to load a cartridge directly into the chamber, or manually remove a fired case. But the implication of this drawback in the field is never examined in most rifle reviews.
In many cases, "short actions" are merely long actions with the bolt stop moved forward to limit bolt travel. The modern gun writers who review these creations likewise never mention that this defeats the fundamental purpose of the short action calibers for which these rifles are chambered.
The receiver holds the bolt, which brings up a salient question: does anyone really believe that a cheap multi-piece, assembled bolt has any possible advantage over a one-piece forged steel bolt except economy of manufacture?
The use of plastic, nearly disposable, detachable magazines (what in hell is a detachable magazine doing on a hunting rifle, anyway?) and trigger guards is overlooked by the popular press, or actually praised for their lightweight construction. Talk about spin, these guys could teach the Washington political hacks some tricks!
In fact, "lightweight" and "accuracy" are the buzzwords most frequently used to "spin" hunting rifle reviews in a paying advertiser's favor. Cheap substitute materials are usually lighter--but not stronger--than forged steel and most production rifles will occasionally shoot a "braggin' group" that can be exploited in a review. Whenever reviewers start touting either, watch out! There may not be a lot to tout in the critical areas of design, material quality, manufacture, or fit and finish.
A rifle's lines and finish are largely cosmetic, but why should we be condemned to hunt with ugly rifles? Matte finishes on barreled actions are sold as a benefit ("low glare"), but in reality they are simply faster and thus less expensive for the manufacturer to produce than a highly polished finish. And the flat black color touted as a stealth advantage of plastic stocks over walnut is patently absurd. Why would a rational person believe that such stocks are any less visible to animals in the woods than a wooden stock?
Have you noticed how the checkered areas on wood stocked Tikka T3 rifles, for example, are divided into several small patches? That is done because it is easier (and therefore cheaper) to cut a small patch of checkering than a larger one. The shorter the individual checkering lines, the easier it is to keep them straight. Once again, manufacturing economy triumphs over aesthetics and function.
The Tikka T3 referenced in the paragraph above is certainly not the only modern hunting rifle to adopt some or most of these production shortcuts. I did not mention it just to pick on Tikka rifles. I chose it as the poster child for cheap rifles because it is one of the few models to incorporate all of these cost and quality reducing shortcuts. If there is a production shortcut out there, the T3 has probably already incorporated it. (Well, okay, the T3 doesn't have detachable sling swivel attachment points molded into its plastic stock in the incredibly cheap manner of the S&W I-Bolt, I grant you.)
To add insult to injury, the Tikka T3 is a cheap rifle to produce, but not an inexpensive one to purchase. (Ditto the I-Bolt!) These things cost as much or more than some higher quality, better designed, and better turned-out hunting rifles. The T3's success is a tribute to the ignorance of the modern American sportsman--and the connivance of the sporting press upon which they rely for information.
None of this means that a person cannot hunt successfully with a Tikka T3 rifle, or that Tikka owners are a particularly dissatisfied lot. There are many T3 owners who have no complaints and most are pleased with the performance of their T3 rifles and satisfied with their purchase. Some T3 buyers--fully aware of its shortcomings--purchased a T3 to use as a "knockabout" rifle, a purpose for which it is well suited. In truth T3's are safe, functional rifles and perfectly capable of killing game in the hands of an adequate shot. The same could be said about most other economy models, including the far less expensive Stevens 200, Marlin XL7C, Remington 770 and NEF rifles.
I suspect that most satisfied T3 customers are not experienced rifle buyers. A person who has never owned a fine rifle is much more likely to be tolerant of an economy rifle's shortcomings than an experienced shooter and hunter. The relative newcomer simply has inadequate personal experience upon which to base an informed opinion.
Then there is the heavily advertised Tikka 1" at 100 yards accuracy claim. Based on my experience and correspondence from T3 owners, I am convinced that a number of T3 rifles will not consistently meet Tikka's 3-shots into 1" at 100 yards out of the box accuracy claim when tested with factory loaded hunting cartridges.
Experienced hunters know that such a guarantee, even if true, is actually pretty meaningless, but beginners are impressed. The reality is that big game animals are large and hair-splitting accuracy is almost never required. A rifle that will consistently shoot into 2" at 100 yards (2 MOA) is accurate enough. A hunting rifle that will average 1.5 MOA groups with an occasional sub-1" group thrown in for good measure (and an occasional 2" group, too) is a very good one and the off the shelf Tikka rifles with which we have had experience met or exceeded that standard.
However, the real question is: Why do none of my fellow gun writers in the popular press point out the vagaries of such a guarantee? That is, of course, a rhetorical question. The answer is simple: Beretta Corp. (who markets Tikka rifles) is a big bucks advertiser in the popular print magazines. What about the writers' and editors' obligation to their readers, who pay their hard earned dollars to read those reviews? Obviously, the word "integrity" has been deleted from the big print magazine publishers' spell checkers.
This little opinion piece, for example, drew a rather impassioned exchange of e-mails from Beretta's Marketing Manager, who was offended because I used the Tikka T3 rifle as an example in this article. In one of those e-mails (clearly hoping that I would withdraw the article) he wrote: "Do you actually think that an article like this couldn't negatively affect our business?" And a bit later: "How comfortable do you think I will be sending you additional consignment guns for testing if this (article) is an acceptable practice? Working with the media is a two way street, is it not?"
That thinly veiled threat, in a nutshell, is the problem. Most of the established outdoor media have become little more than the promotional arm of the major manufacturers. That "two way street" has, in reality, become a one way street and the prime directive of most of the shooting press is never to offend a major advertiser. The "good" publications, bought and paid for by their advertisers, are rewarded with inside information and the latest products to review, while any publication that dares criticize even a single offering from a major advertiser is shunned.
The print publications, in particular, survive only because of paid advertising. A threat like that would have them pulling the offending article (this one!) in a New York minute. Fortunately, although Guns and Shooting Online sells advertising banners, we basically survive on our loyal readers' paid Memberships. (God bless those of you who spend a few of your hard earned dollars to join Guns and Shooting Online!) A good thing, as I suspect that Beretta Corp. will not be advertising on Guns and Shooting Online. Nor are we likely to be getting any new guns consigned for review from Beretta/Sako/Tikka anytime soon. But, hey, I can sleep well at night and you, gentle reader, get to read the truth as we see it.
and the Failure of the Outdoor Press
By Chuck Hawks
Like many old geezers, I bemoan the loss, or lack, of standards in our modern world. And nowhere is this devaluation of quality more evident than in 21st Century hunting rifles. (Actually, the slide started in the 1960's and accelerated toward the end of the 20th Century).
We are, today, reaping the crop of sub-standard rifles previously sown. Most of the blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the writers and publishers of the specialty outdoors print magazines. In the quest for advertising dollars they have turned a blind eye to the constant cheapening of our hunting rifles. Often they have merely parroted the promotional flack handed to them by the manufacturer's ad agencies in their gun reviews.
Thus flimsy, injection molded synthetic stocks are praised as "lightweight" or "weather resistant" rather than criticized as the inferior bedding platforms that they actually are. Free floating barrels, introduced simply to minimize the labor cost of precisely bedding a barreled action in a gun stock, are now praised as an asset by those who know nothing else. A perfect example of an economy shortcut becoming the new standard.
The deficiencies of receivers that are simply drilled from bar stock and that substitute heavy washers for integral recoil lugs are never mentioned in modern rifle reviews. Often the loading/ejection port--merely a slot cut into the tubular receiver--is so small that it is difficult or impossible to load a cartridge directly into the chamber, or manually remove a fired case. But the implication of this drawback in the field is never examined in most rifle reviews.
In many cases, "short actions" are merely long actions with the bolt stop moved forward to limit bolt travel. The modern gun writers who review these creations likewise never mention that this defeats the fundamental purpose of the short action calibers for which these rifles are chambered.
The receiver holds the bolt, which brings up a salient question: does anyone really believe that a cheap multi-piece, assembled bolt has any possible advantage over a one-piece forged steel bolt except economy of manufacture?
The use of plastic, nearly disposable, detachable magazines (what in hell is a detachable magazine doing on a hunting rifle, anyway?) and trigger guards is overlooked by the popular press, or actually praised for their lightweight construction. Talk about spin, these guys could teach the Washington political hacks some tricks!
In fact, "lightweight" and "accuracy" are the buzzwords most frequently used to "spin" hunting rifle reviews in a paying advertiser's favor. Cheap substitute materials are usually lighter--but not stronger--than forged steel and most production rifles will occasionally shoot a "braggin' group" that can be exploited in a review. Whenever reviewers start touting either, watch out! There may not be a lot to tout in the critical areas of design, material quality, manufacture, or fit and finish.
A rifle's lines and finish are largely cosmetic, but why should we be condemned to hunt with ugly rifles? Matte finishes on barreled actions are sold as a benefit ("low glare"), but in reality they are simply faster and thus less expensive for the manufacturer to produce than a highly polished finish. And the flat black color touted as a stealth advantage of plastic stocks over walnut is patently absurd. Why would a rational person believe that such stocks are any less visible to animals in the woods than a wooden stock?
Have you noticed how the checkered areas on wood stocked Tikka T3 rifles, for example, are divided into several small patches? That is done because it is easier (and therefore cheaper) to cut a small patch of checkering than a larger one. The shorter the individual checkering lines, the easier it is to keep them straight. Once again, manufacturing economy triumphs over aesthetics and function.
The Tikka T3 referenced in the paragraph above is certainly not the only modern hunting rifle to adopt some or most of these production shortcuts. I did not mention it just to pick on Tikka rifles. I chose it as the poster child for cheap rifles because it is one of the few models to incorporate all of these cost and quality reducing shortcuts. If there is a production shortcut out there, the T3 has probably already incorporated it. (Well, okay, the T3 doesn't have detachable sling swivel attachment points molded into its plastic stock in the incredibly cheap manner of the S&W I-Bolt, I grant you.)
To add insult to injury, the Tikka T3 is a cheap rifle to produce, but not an inexpensive one to purchase. (Ditto the I-Bolt!) These things cost as much or more than some higher quality, better designed, and better turned-out hunting rifles. The T3's success is a tribute to the ignorance of the modern American sportsman--and the connivance of the sporting press upon which they rely for information.
None of this means that a person cannot hunt successfully with a Tikka T3 rifle, or that Tikka owners are a particularly dissatisfied lot. There are many T3 owners who have no complaints and most are pleased with the performance of their T3 rifles and satisfied with their purchase. Some T3 buyers--fully aware of its shortcomings--purchased a T3 to use as a "knockabout" rifle, a purpose for which it is well suited. In truth T3's are safe, functional rifles and perfectly capable of killing game in the hands of an adequate shot. The same could be said about most other economy models, including the far less expensive Stevens 200, Marlin XL7C, Remington 770 and NEF rifles.
I suspect that most satisfied T3 customers are not experienced rifle buyers. A person who has never owned a fine rifle is much more likely to be tolerant of an economy rifle's shortcomings than an experienced shooter and hunter. The relative newcomer simply has inadequate personal experience upon which to base an informed opinion.
Then there is the heavily advertised Tikka 1" at 100 yards accuracy claim. Based on my experience and correspondence from T3 owners, I am convinced that a number of T3 rifles will not consistently meet Tikka's 3-shots into 1" at 100 yards out of the box accuracy claim when tested with factory loaded hunting cartridges.
Experienced hunters know that such a guarantee, even if true, is actually pretty meaningless, but beginners are impressed. The reality is that big game animals are large and hair-splitting accuracy is almost never required. A rifle that will consistently shoot into 2" at 100 yards (2 MOA) is accurate enough. A hunting rifle that will average 1.5 MOA groups with an occasional sub-1" group thrown in for good measure (and an occasional 2" group, too) is a very good one and the off the shelf Tikka rifles with which we have had experience met or exceeded that standard.
However, the real question is: Why do none of my fellow gun writers in the popular press point out the vagaries of such a guarantee? That is, of course, a rhetorical question. The answer is simple: Beretta Corp. (who markets Tikka rifles) is a big bucks advertiser in the popular print magazines. What about the writers' and editors' obligation to their readers, who pay their hard earned dollars to read those reviews? Obviously, the word "integrity" has been deleted from the big print magazine publishers' spell checkers.
This little opinion piece, for example, drew a rather impassioned exchange of e-mails from Beretta's Marketing Manager, who was offended because I used the Tikka T3 rifle as an example in this article. In one of those e-mails (clearly hoping that I would withdraw the article) he wrote: "Do you actually think that an article like this couldn't negatively affect our business?" And a bit later: "How comfortable do you think I will be sending you additional consignment guns for testing if this (article) is an acceptable practice? Working with the media is a two way street, is it not?"
That thinly veiled threat, in a nutshell, is the problem. Most of the established outdoor media have become little more than the promotional arm of the major manufacturers. That "two way street" has, in reality, become a one way street and the prime directive of most of the shooting press is never to offend a major advertiser. The "good" publications, bought and paid for by their advertisers, are rewarded with inside information and the latest products to review, while any publication that dares criticize even a single offering from a major advertiser is shunned.
The print publications, in particular, survive only because of paid advertising. A threat like that would have them pulling the offending article (this one!) in a New York minute. Fortunately, although Guns and Shooting Online sells advertising banners, we basically survive on our loyal readers' paid Memberships. (God bless those of you who spend a few of your hard earned dollars to join Guns and Shooting Online!) A good thing, as I suspect that Beretta Corp. will not be advertising on Guns and Shooting Online. Nor are we likely to be getting any new guns consigned for review from Beretta/Sako/Tikka anytime soon. But, hey, I can sleep well at night and you, gentle reader, get to read the truth as we see it.
Same here...
He's an angry old man .
This article should read,why can't I buy a Griffin and Howe pre 64 custom for a 1000.00.
NEW RIFLES SUCK!!!!
If I wrote it it would say.Tikka rifles are competitivly priced ,have good triggers ,shoot accuratly and have smooooth actions.
Thanks for showing American manufacturers how to do it.
Please make it with an aluminum triggerguard.
This article should read,why can't I buy a Griffin and Howe pre 64 custom for a 1000.00.
NEW RIFLES SUCK!!!!
If I wrote it it would say.Tikka rifles are competitivly priced ,have good triggers ,shoot accuratly and have smooooth actions.
Thanks for showing American manufacturers how to do it.
Please make it with an aluminum triggerguard.
Suka
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
You have to keep in mind, he was only using the tikka as an example, and he stated that.
As someone who has recently been looking at All the readily available brands I understand what he's trying to say.
I looked at tikka's, vanguards, literally every brand I could find as my only interest is an accurate hunting rifle that is well made and fairly priced. Keep in mind though I'm not a fan of plastic stocks on hunting rifles.
I'll be buying either an m70sporter or an abolt medallion.
If I wanted to spend less I'd be looking hard at either a marlin xl7, or let's face it, for the price, a savage edge may be a pretty darn good buy.
I honestly see little difference in anything from the savage edge right up to just below the m70. Well, other than price, and you may want to put some of those, "light" guns on a scale.
As someone who has recently been looking at All the readily available brands I understand what he's trying to say.
I looked at tikka's, vanguards, literally every brand I could find as my only interest is an accurate hunting rifle that is well made and fairly priced. Keep in mind though I'm not a fan of plastic stocks on hunting rifles.
I'll be buying either an m70sporter or an abolt medallion.
If I wanted to spend less I'd be looking hard at either a marlin xl7, or let's face it, for the price, a savage edge may be a pretty darn good buy.
I honestly see little difference in anything from the savage edge right up to just below the m70. Well, other than price, and you may want to put some of those, "light" guns on a scale.
Chuck tells it like it is and he doesn't care who he offends...he's right. Nothing really "wrong" with the T3 and the other's mentioned........they are just not a Pre'64 Model 70 or an FN Browning, or a Husqvarna 1600,...or a Tikka M55/65....or an L series Sako...and others of thier era and quality level...which is what Chuck is lamenting the loss of....
Not that I'm a big fan of Chuck, don't know him from...anyway he does have a lot of good advice and food for thought.
Personally, I owned a Savage 10FP for target shooting and thought that it would be too heavy for hunting. So, braniac that I am, I bought a Ruger M77 Hawk Eye Laminate Compact .308 (I hate writing all that out every time). It's a great little rifle (16.5" barrel), especially after I got the Vais muzzle brake put on. Unfortunately, I'm a Savage lover and target shooter, so I am now just buying one rifle for both target and hunting. Which will be the Savage 10 Precision Carbine. 20" heavy barrel, will allow for using slower powders than a 16.5" barrel (which I found that Benchmark provided the best all around bullet choice) and slow heat up for target shooting.
Point is, for all around low cost, best shooting rifle, buy a Savage with the new Accustock. Even Chuck likes the Accustock. This stock takes care of the cheap manufacturing issues of modern injection molded stocks. You can't beat a Savage for the price.
Personally, I owned a Savage 10FP for target shooting and thought that it would be too heavy for hunting. So, braniac that I am, I bought a Ruger M77 Hawk Eye Laminate Compact .308 (I hate writing all that out every time). It's a great little rifle (16.5" barrel), especially after I got the Vais muzzle brake put on. Unfortunately, I'm a Savage lover and target shooter, so I am now just buying one rifle for both target and hunting. Which will be the Savage 10 Precision Carbine. 20" heavy barrel, will allow for using slower powders than a 16.5" barrel (which I found that Benchmark provided the best all around bullet choice) and slow heat up for target shooting.
Point is, for all around low cost, best shooting rifle, buy a Savage with the new Accustock. Even Chuck likes the Accustock. This stock takes care of the cheap manufacturing issues of modern injection molded stocks. You can't beat a Savage for the price.
Roughneck12
Regular
- Location
- Blackfalds AB
I agree with him also. The media, whose bills are paid by the companies like Beretta and other big companies feel obligated to be complimentary about said companies and their products. How can you be objective about a product when you are being led around by the nose.
There may be some truth in there. I would have to say it's really hard to find any magazine stand review that has very much of the short comings if any of the kit they are reviewing. He used the t3 mostly. I have a t3 and can agree on something he said. I think he used this rifle because it is one of the better running budget rifles out. If he pick a Remington 770 of mossberg ATR most would think it's just an other article one crap everyone already wrote about.
stickhunter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Victoria, B.C.
I remember reading that article a couple years back when I researching a new hunting rifle. While I think he's right that there is a trend toward cheaper manufacturing and making claims that cost cuts are really performance enhancements (who can blaim the manufacturer's?), I think he's overly critical of the Tikka, which seems contrary to the many apparently happy Tikka users.
What I didn't remember, and only just noticed in this latest reading, is the comment about the email exchange with the Beretta marketing person. I don't think it's any revelation that the vast majority of reviews in advertising-based media are heavily influenced by the manufacturers, but it's interesting to see the direct confirmation of this in emails.
What I didn't remember, and only just noticed in this latest reading, is the comment about the email exchange with the Beretta marketing person. I don't think it's any revelation that the vast majority of reviews in advertising-based media are heavily influenced by the manufacturers, but it's interesting to see the direct confirmation of this in emails.
gunrunner8
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Kamloops, B.C.
Chuck tells it like it is and he doesn't care who he offends...he's right. Nothing really "wrong" with the T3 and the other's mentioned........they are just not a Pre'64 Model 70 or an FN Browning, or a Husqvarna 1600,...or a Tikka M55/65....or an L series Sako...and others of thier era and quality level...which is what Chuck is lamenting the loss of....
Exactly. Tikka T3 should cost no more and no less than Stevens 200....Plastic disposable magazine and bolt flange? no thank you. The older Tikka's on the other hand were fine crafted rifles!
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
Gun Tests magazine. They have no advertisers and are very critical when warranted.
I'd have to agree with Hawks. Many new guns feel cheap, though I don't think Tikka should bear the brunt of the criticism. The new Sako's don't feel much better. Same goes for Savage, they are the king of cheap. If they weren't accurate, they'd have nothing going for them.
Chucks right. He has the trait of being a "seer of the obvious", normally a boring characteristic.
I've had a couple T3s, both of which shot well, worked well and felt like cheaply made toys. Both are gone now.
I've had a couple T3s, both of which shot well, worked well and felt like cheaply made toys. Both are gone now.
Last edited:
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
The problem I have with Chuck's reviews is that it seems most of them are based off things he's read or just ballistics that copied from a reloading manual . I prefer reviews based on actual experience and usage in the field.....I take everything he writes with a grain of salt.
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
I generally agree with Chuck on this one, though I am certainly not always agreeing with him.
There is a place for manufacturing shortcuts and plastic parts on rifles - at the $300 MSRP level. The Stevens 200 and Savage Edge/Axis have it right for what they are.
Plastic lipped mags and bolt shrouds just aren't acceptable of a full priced rifle. Frankly, having used rifles at -40 Celcius, they aren't really acceptable on any rifle. Steel doesn't cost that much. Neither does wood, now that I think of it...
There is a place for manufacturing shortcuts and plastic parts on rifles - at the $300 MSRP level. The Stevens 200 and Savage Edge/Axis have it right for what they are.
Plastic lipped mags and bolt shrouds just aren't acceptable of a full priced rifle. Frankly, having used rifles at -40 Celcius, they aren't really acceptable on any rifle. Steel doesn't cost that much. Neither does wood, now that I think of it...
I got on of those POS tikka's and love it. I have a T3 in 338 fed and love the fit and feel and the accuracy is pretty good. It is very consistantly at 1moa and for the shorter range caliber it is, that is more than enough. A buddy has a 204 T3 that's a tack driver, and I'm sure a rifle that shoots as good as his is not out of the ordinary.
IMHO a T3 is a great shooting, smooth hunting gun. If you want a show piece this isn't the gun you want.
As far as the "plastic disposable mag" I think it works great. One of the reasons I really like the "plastic" mag is it doesn't give you frost bite when you put it in your pocket while driving to the next stand while out coyote hunting like my metal mag from my savage. But what do I know ..I don't have my own website spouting my opinions
.....I just borrow this forum to do it
Chuck Hawks shares information through: Guns and Shooting Online; Motorcycles and Riding Online; Naval, Aviation and Military History, Travel and Fishing ...)
This guy seems to know everything about everything
IMHO a T3 is a great shooting, smooth hunting gun. If you want a show piece this isn't the gun you want.
As far as the "plastic disposable mag" I think it works great. One of the reasons I really like the "plastic" mag is it doesn't give you frost bite when you put it in your pocket while driving to the next stand while out coyote hunting like my metal mag from my savage. But what do I know ..I don't have my own website spouting my opinions
.....I just borrow this forum to do it Chuck Hawks shares information through: Guns and Shooting Online; Motorcycles and Riding Online; Naval, Aviation and Military History, Travel and Fishing ...)
This guy seems to know everything about everything
