what do you classify as a 'premium' hunting rifle?

Most Canadian liberals are not anti-firearm. They are Fudds. Bolt actions and shotguns used for hunting and target shooting is OK with most liberals including Cretin. They don't believe in firearms for self-defense or protection against tyranny. The whole guns are tools only is a LIBERAL agenda.
 
Mr. Friendly said:
ah hah! and this gets to the crux of the matter. what do 'you' consider a good quality rifle?
Click to expand...

My Mdl 70 Stainless rifle, built by Bill Leeper is a good example. Very good parts and craftmanship. I'd take it anywhere. With optics and all done up it cost a few thousand dollars...

I'd much rather have that single rifle and hunt all of North America with it than have 20 mid grade factory rifles of various descriptions. I see and hear it all the time- Hunters with 20 crappy rifles and still not happy. But they refuse to buy one that does make them happy because it "costs too much"

Some people would rather eat 20 Big Macs, others prefer 1 really good steak.
 
"Are firearms weapons" discussions are supposed to be in general gun discussion. We do bear defense threads here. :)


I'm fine with calling firearms weapons. I don't personally have any issues with citizens owning weapons, whether it's guns, knives, bear spray, cannons or swords.
 
Gatehouse said:
"Are firearms weapons" discussions are supposed to be in general gun discussion. We do bear defense threads here. :)


I'm fine with calling firearms weapons. I don't personally have any issues with citizens owning weapons, whether it's guns, knives, bear spray, cannons or swords.
Click to expand...

Couldn't say it any better. Free countries allow citizens the capability to use deadly force.

As for premium hunting rifles...I am no authority. I shoot a Ruger M77 that is 40 years old...older than me. Do want a Sako Finnlight or custom Rem 700 action.
 
Ardent said:
Most rifle shots aren't fired to kill things, they even show up in the olympics still, where they are sporting equipment, not weapons. Weapon denote a very specific, and to me, military or defensive role. I consider hunting a sport, not a weaponized pursuit, so to me and it seems Supercub my rifles are tool of my sport. Golf clubs and baseball bats kill a lot of folks annually, and they're only weapons when used as such.
Click to expand...
What Angus said sums it up for me.
 
Gatehouse said:
"Are firearms weapons" discussions are supposed to be in general gun discussion. We do bear defense threads here. :)


I'm fine with calling firearms weapons. I don't personally have any issues with citizens owning weapons, whether it's guns, knives, bear spray, cannons or swords.
Click to expand...

Well played, I actually don't take issue with calling sporting firearms weapons- though I do see a distinction. I really couldn't care what folks like to call theirs, just the same happy to offer my own opinion and support a forum friend. Only take issue when the name calling and childishness starts, ala vanisler. :)
 
When I was a young teenager and was loaned an old Spanish side by side, 12 so that I could go grouse hunting, I was in heaven. Nice wood, with a little bit of engraving, what a beauty. My first moose hunt I had a sportorized Lee Enfield. I could load up that magazine and by the second or third practice shot, hit what I was aming at, WOW. After I started working for a living, and able to save a few bucks I picked up a used Browing BPS, with threaded chokes. Oh man, what I can do with this is amazing. Grouse, deer,it was everything I wanted. I have since purchased a number of firearms, and have coveted every one of them, from the Martini action .22, to the Weatherby Mark V Deluxe to the Cooper 280 AI. Every time I add a new piece to my collection I feel as if I have purchased a premium piece. The thing is, there is always another one out there that is nicer in some way than what I have now, and that is the one that is a real premium piece, and that my friends is what makes me, a CANADIAN GUN NUT
 
In my opinion, the use or intended purpose defines what it is, be it sporting good, firearm, and/or weapon. But, getting back to the original question of the thread, that being, "What do you classify as a 'premium' hunting rifle?" For me, that would be 'firearms' made by Schultz & Larsen, and my favorite bolt action by far, so, "Premium" in my book.
 
VanIsler said:
Stop supporting a liberal notion and agenda while thinking you are pro-gun and I won't point out how stupid your beliefs/actions are.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion you got your head stuck up somewhere and need to come out for some fresh air.
Anyone calling a gun a weapon is Lieberal noodle washed.
 
We're talking semantics here gentlemen, nothing to really get all worked up about. The term weapon may be applied to any object when it is used as an anti-personel device, all firearms were originally designed for warfare hence they are anti-personel devices by design. M&P application of firearms are as an anti-personel device hence the correct application of the term weapon. Sporting firearms, although they may certainly be used in an anti-personel role, are evolved from the warfare design for hunting and other sporting purposes. To use the term weapon when referring to a sporting rifle or handgun, in a general application, is incorrect, just as it would be to refer to a hammer as a weapon unless it has been specifically used in an anti-personel role.
So no, it is not incorrect for our military boys to refer to their rifles as weapons, as their rifles are designed and are very specifically used in an anti-personel role. The grey area comes when very specifically designed anti-personel "black rifles" are used for hunting and varminting. In my opinion this is using a "weapon" for sporting purposes, as these rifles are evolved as anti-personel weapons, being used outside their design intent, for sporting purposes.
For those who would wish to look it up, this is the difference between a sporting firearm and an M&P weapon.

The single exception of all firearm designs being for militrary application is the English designed double rifle, it was designed exclusively for sportsmen and to my knowledge has never been used or adopted by any military or police faction as an anti-personel device.
 
Last edited:
c-fbmi said:
We're talking semantics here gentlemen, nothing to really get all worked up about. The term weapon may be applied to any object when it is used as an anti-personel device, all firearms were originally designed for warfare hence they are anti-personel devices by design. M&P application of firearms are as an anti-personel device hence the correct application of the term weapon. Sporting firearms, although they may certainly be used in an anti-personel role, are evolved from the warfare design for hunting and other sporting purposes. To use the term weapon when referring to a sporting rifle or handgun, in a general application, is incorrect, just as it would be to refer to a hammer as a weapon unless it has been specifically used in an anti-personel role.
So no, it is not incorrect for our military boys to refer to their rifles as weapons, as their rifles are designed and are very specifically used in an anti-personel role. The grey area comes when very specifically designed anti-personel "black rifles" are used for hunting and varminting. In my opinion this is using a "weapon" for sporting purposes, as these rifles are evolved as anti-personel weapons, being used outside their design intent, for sporting purposes.
For those who would wish to look it up, this is the difference between a sporting firearm and an M&P weapon.

The single exception of all firearm designs being for militrary application is the English designed double rifle, it was designed exclusively for sportsmen and to my knowledge has never been used or adopted by any military or police faction as an anti-personel device.
Click to expand...

:)Well stated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom