After bagging your deer, you can aggressively dress the carcass.
Posted on 11/18/2017 6:57:29 AM PST by Simon Green
I think MSR really stands for “Military-Style Rifle.”
My boss hunts with one. He showed it to me the other day. I didn’t recognize it. Custom stock, turned down custom bolt handle, Vortex glass, and a custom barrel. It must weigh 20 pounds.
Why he did that to a $120 rifle I’ll never know. But he’s Ukrainian so he’s allowed to do stuff like that.
L
I remember in years past, gunwriters and old time hunters would wax eloquent about why they preferred bolt actions with wood stocks. They were emphatic about the non appeal of plastic and aluminum.
More people and groups now have accepted the AR pattern rifle as a normal part of hunting and shooting. And of course there are wood Ar stocks/hangduards available.
Read the Savage web page
Read the Savage web page
Absolute nonsense
And hunters don’t trade in gear
You’re excused for sure
This article is just AR porn
Also, as you mention an auto is designed to shoot multiple rounds quickly and in succession. If a person cannot hit the target the first time while hunting and they have to pull the trigger several times to hit the target then maybe they are not that good of a shot.
Bottom line: a firearm is a tool and the more complicated the tool, the more problems it will have over the lifetime or under adverse conditions.
I do hate the use of acronyms presented without full use in the 1st mention within an article. Anybody care to enlighten me? I doubt if it is Main Stream Rifle, but I could be wrong.
That was drilled into me in English and writing classes back in Junior High and High School. Nobody seems to know how to write nowadays.
MSR stands for Modern Sporting Rifle and I hate that term. It almost sounds like the wordplay leftists use to skirt an issue. I think that term was coined to make them sound more appealing.
After bagging your deer, you can aggressively dress the carcass.
I never said that, just wanted to make fun of "hunters". Hell, they should be able to hunt rabbits with artillery if they want. Probably the only way they'll hit `em.
During my time in Vietnam, the only failure to fire I experience was after I'd disassembled to lower receiver for cleaning (this was either strongly discouraged or prohibited). When I reassembled it, this genius neglected to put the legs of a spring over the retaining notches on a pin. The pin drifted out the next time I fired a magazine and the weapon locked up. Entirely my fault.
Stateside, I never had a failure to fire or to chamber a round.
>>then maybe they are not that good of a shot.
Maybe they aren’t. So what? Some fishermen aren’t that good. Some bowlers aren’t that good. Most golfers aren’t that good.
But, we are humans. We can compensate with technology. That’s what makes us better than animals. A toothless old man can kill a healthy grizzly bear, but a toothless old grizzly bear cannot.
It’s really not your place or mine to decide that a person can’t use technology to overcome their shortfalls. That’s what Progressives do.
>>the more problems it will have over the lifetime or under adverse conditions.
Again, so what? My first 1911 (Colt Model 70) jammed on a round about every 14 shots. I spent a bunch of money and got it good enough to shoot 100 rounds with maybe one failure. My latest 1911 has never failed to feed.
Never. That’s with about 1000 rounds through it.
My 20 year old Glock 17 has never failed to feed or broken a part. As a test, I did not clean it for the first 750 rounds, except to brush the barrel. Never a problem. No reasonable person would make the claim that a Glock is not a gun that is built for adverse conditions.
The AR and AK platforms have fought in many wars. I have a friend with a Remington 700 that has a recall notice on the trigger. All machinery can and will break. The huge advantages of a modern semi-auto far outweigh the very small probability that they will fail more than anything else.
“Wonder if a low tech bolt action is more reliable than a semiauto. ... Or a revolver, too. Same idea.” [dhs12345, Post 7]
semi-autos statistically as reliable as revolvers and bolt-actions. ....” [Bryanw92, Post 57]
In handguns, revolvers are still more reliable than semi-autos: feed-failure rate of a revolver is only 1 percent that of a semi-auto (unchanged since early 1990s). Standard definition of reliability is the probability that the second shot will feed & fire successfully. Before 1980, the ratio was worse: 1/5000.
Similar rates for semi-auto rifles vs bolt actions.
These numbers are very approximate: much depends on gun design, cartridge design, choice of bullet & load, state of cleanliness of the arm, mud/dust contamination, rate of fire, etc.
Manufacturers keep figures as quiet as they possibly can. So does the military: Dept of the Army is executive agent for small arms development. Prying test results out of them is near impossible, even when other military departments seek the data.
I spent over half my active-duty career performing operational tests for DoD (13 years of it) so I was able to poke about in dark corners few others knew about. After leaving active duty, I spent over a dozen years working in gun repair for a small dealership, which helped shed additional light on the problems.
No rifle can be as accurate as a bolt action, for a given weight, cartridge, and cost. Semi-auto rifles have to be made to looser tolerances merely to function; all those moving parts slamming about at high speed also degrades accuracy. Some semi-autos can be tuned to deliver very good accuracy; only then can they challenge the average bolt action. US military marksmanship unit technicians spent decades ironing out the problems of the M1 Garand; then it was able to fire groups almost as small as issue M1903 rifles did, right off the rack.
Apart from reliability and accuracy, manually cycled arms like revolvers and bolt actions will function with any bullet shape and any load; semi-autos are limited to a narrow range of bullet shapes, propelling powders, and load density.
Revolvers and bolt actions are also far more forgiving of poor reloading practices. They will fire a round that will tie up an autoloader. And semi-autos can be reduced to junk if the reloaded round has a high primer.
Autoloaders toss brass all over the place, which matters more to reloaders than shooters who do not bother with reloading.
“...The huge advantages of a modern semi-auto far outweigh the very small probability that they will fail more than anything else.”
An incomplete view of the situation. Also neglects the key element of mission orientation. Like any other tool, a firearm is designed to perform a specific function. Try to make perform other functions, and it will not be so successful. Tradeoffs are inescapable; we live in a suboptimal world.
Small arms like the AR-15 family of rifles were designed to lay down large volumes of fire without interruption, and to be controlled in full-auto fire. Individually aimed shots are not even part of the Army Dept’s definition of “firepower” (which is shots per minute). Optimization for the volume-fire mission renders them less useful for the private-party owner, who would typically operate alone and will not have the money nor the field transport to support the lavish logistics needed to accomplish volume fire.
Autoloading guns have no “huge advantage” that renders them superior for every task in every circumstance.
Grenades work pretry well too. :)
Only joking. I agree people should use whatever you want. Black powder, bow, even a shotgun.
>>Small arms like the AR-15 family of rifles were designed to lay down large volumes of fire without interruption, and to be controlled in full-auto fire. Individually aimed shots are not even part of the Army Dept’s definition of “firepower” (which is shots per minute). Optimization for the volume-fire mission renders them less useful for the private-party owner, who would typically operate alone and will not have the money nor the field transport to support the lavish logistics needed to accomplish volume fire.
What are you even talking about? This was a discussion of semi-auto vs non semi-auto (revolvers and bolt actions and such). I’m not in the Army so their definitions are irrelevant. If the AR15 is too slow to be considered “firepower”, then the bolt action rifle is definitely not “firepower”.
I don’t think i said that the AR15 is “superior for every task” either. It is a good one-gun solution for just about anything that a private citizen will encounter. Obviously if you are in bear country, you take a bear gun. If you are taking sniper shots from a bell tower, you take a sniper rifle (but shots from a hotel seem to be pretty effective with a semi-auto, as are shots into a crowd, or even single shots at a distance).
You can carry a golf bag full of weapons for each and every situation if you want to. I’ll carry a Glock 17 and an AR-15.
>>I spent over half my active-duty career performing operational tests for DoD (13 years of it) so I was able to poke about in dark corners few others knew about. After leaving active duty, I spent over a dozen years working in gun repair for a small dealership, which helped shed additional light on the problems.
So you understand cost vs benefits analysis of functional vs perfect.
>>No rifle can be as accurate as a bolt action, for a given weight, cartridge, and cost. Semi-auto rifles have to be made to looser tolerances merely to function; all those moving parts slamming about at high speed also degrades accuracy. Some semi-autos can be tuned to deliver very good accuracy; only then can they challenge the average bolt action. US military marksmanship unit technicians spent decades ironing out the problems of the M1 Garand; then it was able to fire groups almost as small as issue M1903 rifles did, right off the rack.
OK. So, a rifle that can put its rounds reliably into a 10 pie plate at distance is useless or not? If I am a sniper, I want the eyeball shot. If I am a regular soldier or militiaman, is a solid center mass or pelvic hit good enough?
>>Apart from reliability and accuracy, manually cycled arms like revolvers and bolt actions will function with any bullet shape and any load; semi-autos are limited to a narrow range of bullet shapes, propelling powders, and load density.
Factory ammo baby!! That’s the name of the game.
>>Revolvers and bolt actions are also far more forgiving of poor reloading practices. They will fire a round that will tie up an autoloader. And semi-autos can be reduced to junk if the reloaded round has a high primer.
Again, factory ammo. Factory quality control is very good.
>>Autoloaders toss brass all over the place, which matters more to reloaders than shooters who do not bother with reloading.
Yep. I quit reloading year ago. Don’t have the patience for that. But I do have money and plenty of suppliers.
XLNT Thread....
Thanks
Like “... ditch traditional rifle set-ups in favor of modern sporting rifles? The biggest benefit to the AR, or modern sporting rifle” in the first two paragraphs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.