Great Mysteries of the Sporting Arms World

jjohnwm said:
What?!?!? Mutilate a classic H&R? Say it isn't so!

Well, as long as you do nothing silly like install a thumbhole stock on an exposed-hammer gun...oh, wait...:)
Click to expand...

I can go one better... how about a thumbhole AND a muzzlebrake;



I suppose this "chopped up" .44 is more your speed;

 
30-30 Model 94's are not capable of taking game anymore, today Deer shop at tactical stores for the latest in kevlar. Hunting Deer requires a minimum of _______magnum, handloads that group less than 1/2 MOA at 500 and projectiles worth more than a box of factory loads. For a animal that is typically shot at less than 100 yards and weighs about 200lbs.

Conversely, if i take my $200 dollar SKS, spend $500 on a tactical stock, optic, handloads, and practice it is capable of taking anything in North America at 100 yards. No i dont own a range finder. Yes i have _____ rifles in better caliber choices but its not needed.
 
Ardent said:
True too Hitzy. Exploring that, why are irons almost impossible to find on a decent hunting rifle?!
Click to expand...


So true, I scope all of my hunting rifles because I find scopes more accurate and faster but I still wont buy a rifle without iron sights.
 
And further to nowarning's considerations, the mystery of the statement applied to all sorts of mediocre cartridges,

"Good for anything in North America..."

When perhaps passable, and not recommended for Bison, Polar Bear, Brown Bear and Grizzly should be applied to the majority of chamberings under .30-06 given this label. Curious part is they've usually never hunted even one of those species, so how is a guy in Kentucky on an Internet forum so well established and experienced as to be able to make such a sweeping and wonderful statement? It's fascinating!
 
"Good for anything in North America..."
Click to expand...

The statement is usually followed by "if someone else is paying for it". They have to put that part in because they aren't doing it, will never do it, don't even have a chance in hell of ever doing it, and if they won the lottery tomorrow they would have a change of heart and decide that "Use enough gun" is a pretty good adage.

I'd hunt everything in North America with a obsidian pointed spear if someone else was paying for it and made that a condition of the deal. Hasn't happened yet, but I haven't given up hope yet. On my own dime, I don't go looking for handicaps.
 
Dogleg said:
... On my own dime, I don't go looking for handicaps.
Click to expand...

I can't say the same... I choose (and have chosen) archery equipment to hunt every species requiring a significant expedition... all on my hard earned dime... but I agree with your premise, which is based less on range as a factor and more on lethality... my gear is range limiting, but highly effective in the lethality department. I would not, for example, shoot a 45 pound yew self bow and 7/8" broadhead (the legal minimum) to hunt moose or big bears... it might do it... but I'm not gambling my time and money (and life) on it.
 
See, that's the thing. Whether its rifle hunting or bow hunting people first pick what they want to do; then go about getting good at it. It could be better or more tuned equipment, or learning the specific skills that would aid success. If you were interested in stick bows you'd be getting the best you could find and hand matching cedar arrows. Turkey or goose fletching?

If it were completely about difficulty there are many ways to make things harder. We could go bare-foot, or wear bear bells, or Santa Claus suits or walk on our hands. Hunting poor areas adds to the challenge. Mix and match, combine a bit and the perfect hunting sport emerges. Bare-foot, Santa Claus suit hunting with willow bows, in game-devoid areas while playing an accordion.

Oddly, or perhaps not so oddly it hasn't taken off. Nobody wants to do it. Plenty hard, should be popular. Sport of kings and purists.;)

It begins with a want, and moves to a how.
 
I would say, that for most, not all, the thing is done the conventional way first... if that eventually proves to be "too" efficient or quick or anti-climatic for some other reason, then self imposed limitations are adopted... I won't be wearing bells or a Santa suit any time soon, because I actually want to get into close proximity of the game, but after forty years of hunting, I am far less concerned with actually harvesting game and focus more on the experience... I would rather get to slapping distance of a mature game animal and not harvest it than I would actually shooting one at 500 yards... that is not a purist or elitist statement and not a commentary on anyone else's methods... just my personal preference... it is what I get the most enjoyment from.
 
Both good takes, Dogleg said it to me recently and I know you think the same Hoyt, it's all about the experience. While we work for excellent trophy quality we're damn happy to be out there, I always have taken that perspective to Africa and the PHs there have always been a bit taken aback. Most are used to guys with a grocery list and particular inch benchmarks, that kills hunting. Doesn't mean you can't do well and even take book examples anyhow, but no.1 is the experience and doing it well. Haven't got into stick and string in earnest yet (missed a rat this morning though by the compost bin), but it's certainly interesting me. I go iron sights for a similar reason, we all settle into a groove we enjoy and all are equal when handled ethically. Have to admit I'm as impressed by the excellent 500 yard shot, well within the shooter's limitations not a guess and stretch, but a talented hand like the Hughes shot we watched Hoyt. Also impressed by an impeccable stalk, or good 200 yard irons shot. Once any of us have hunted a bit we start seeking our challenges, just none of us will chase half ton bears with a .223 and a TSX(even if legal!). Hoyt nearly did something stupid and bought a recurve yesterday, came to my senses seconds before the mistake. My homemade recurve is shot, I used epoxy lamination and did something wrong.
 
I just try to have fun. Theres lots of different ways to do that, and one isn't better than the the other. Just different. In the end the experience is all you get out of it. Probably out of life too.
 
nowarningshot said:
30-30 Model 94's are not capable of taking game anymore, today Deer shop at tactical stores for the latest in kevlar. Hunting Deer requires a minimum of _______magnum, handloads that group less than 1/2 MOA at 500 and projectiles worth more than a box of factory loads. For a animal that is typically shot at less than 100 yards and weighs about 200lbs.

Conversely, if i take my $200 dollar SKS, spend $500 on a tactical stock, optic, handloads, and practice it is capable of taking anything in North America at 100 yards. No i dont own a range finder. Yes i have _____ rifles in better caliber choices but its not needed.
Click to expand...

Had a guy tell me once they banned anyone in their hunting group from using 3030s because they saw the bullets bouncing off a moose hide.
 
I had to listen to my dad and grandfather swear that if you shot a black bear in the forehead the bullet would bounce off. They were both dead before I could prove them wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom