Posted on 11/18/2017 6:57:29 AM PST by Simon Green
With my Winchester 70 Long Action, my target is dead in its' tracks after the first shot.
Modular Sporting Rifle.
Way to go!
Now just curiosity on my part. Can you, after taking that killer shot, maintain your sight picture, not changing your cheek-weld to the stock, and cycle the next round. Or will your hand or bolt handle impact your face?
I'm curious because I've done most all my hunting with the short action. And yes, I kill on the first shot as well. I'm a boiler room shooter though(except on hogs). No immediate drop, but they don't go far. I've found there's less meat damage on a heart/lung shot, than the neck shot. One's never got away.
Thank you for your service to our country, my FRiend!
Ah.
“I have zero problems with my $350.00 Savage 30.06 bolt action.“
I have a Model 110 in .308. Got it at Cabelas topped with a Nikon BDC scope. Paid $350 pretty much out the door.
It’s wicked accurate with the best out of the box trigger I’ve ever had.
L
You are very welcome, thank you.
Nice. Can I borrow a grand from you?
CC
After putting a thermal scope on it, I’m broke.
Yep, hunters need that 30 round magazine/clip for “quick follow up shots”. Sometimes it takes 5 or 6 rounds to make sure a rabbit is _really_ down.
——-
And the herd will get mad.
There is no capacity clause in the 2A, nor a target shooting clause, nor a duck hunting clause.
I believe you are at the wrong site.
“... I’m not in the Army so their definitions are irrelevant....
...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. ...”
Military requirements gave rise to the AR-15 family of firearms, and have driven every development. Civilian adaptations are minor variants. This means that military definitions are just the opposite of irrelevant: they control and constrain everything Bryanw92 will be able to purchase, modify, or build.
If by “one-gun solution” Bryanw92 means a rifle/cartridge combination the average individual can master, with effective range no greater than that at which the average can score an acceptable percentage of hits, then I agree: an AR-15-style rifle isn’t a bad compromise.
But the moment the range lengthens beyond that, the AR-15 user is at a disadvantage, especially against an opponent firing a reasonably accurate rifle chambering one of the original bottle-neck military cartridges charged with nitro propellant introduced in the period 1886-1906. The bolt action rifles issued by the Euro powers, US, and Imperial Japan will outshoot the AR-15. Each and every one will: every time.
A Glock 17 is a great choice to go with the AR-15, not so by the way.
I’m hunting blacktail, so , as a rule, if an animal drops, it’ll be obscured by brush. If I catch a doe or spike in the open, good to go. I’ll know where it dies. I hunt 30-06, 180 grains. Recoil ruins my sight picture before hand or bolt enter into it. Thought about going with the .243...just haven’t. Hope that helps.
>>If by “one-gun solution” Bryanw92 means a rifle/cartridge combination the average individual can master, with effective range no greater than that at which the average can score an acceptable percentage of hits, then I agree: an AR-15-style rifle isn’t a bad compromise.
I don’t know why you are trying to turn this into an argument that I’m saying that the AR-15 is a good rifle from CQB to 1000 yds.
But if you are trying to educate me, then you totally miss my thesis: the AR-15 IS a good compromise, as you admit. That’s all I’m saying. It is good compromise that is very reliable for a citizen, effective at reasonable distances, and can put out a volume of fire that meets the needs of a citizen trying to, as an example, take down a solo shooter from across a parking lot.
>>The bolt action rifles issued by the Euro powers, US, and Imperial Japan will outshoot the AR-15. Each and every one will: every time.
If the bolt-action is so superior and the Army knows that, then explain the Garand.
.
>> “then explain the Garand” <<
Easy:
The need to make lots of lead fly rapidly, accurately, and reliably.
.
>>Easy:
>>The need to make lots of lead fly rapidly, accurately, and reliably.
Exactly. But the other poster, who says he is an expert on Army weapons, says that an AR-15 does meet the Army definition of “firepower”, so an 8-shot Garand certainly would not.
“So you understand cost vs benefits analysis of functional vs perfect. ...” [Bryanw92, post 78]
Pretty succinct. Except that “perfect” never happens. Also assumes that:
1. The user knows what they want
2. Politics (institutional, interservice, national, international) don’t intervene
3. Original requirements remain stable
Item 2 almost never happens. Item 1 is sometimes an uphill battle - especially when the user is slow to acknowledge that constraints exist (laws of physics, development time is never zero, designers and manufacturers want money before they perform, etc) or is over-impressed with advancing technology and clings to the dippy faith that tech solves all (and does so overnight, for no money). Item 3 is unpredictable, but is made worse when the user clings to the “tech solves all” faith. There are more; these loom larger.
“...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? ...”
Not a bad approximation, but still too generalized. Chances of success depend too tightly on situations, which are simply too varied, and change too quickly in the field, to predict the need beforehand.
Military units compensate by creating teams (more manpower enhances flexibility), improving communications (radio for air support), and fielding heavier weapons (ATACMS outrange sniper fire). The civilian user ordinarily cannot call on any of those.
“...Factory ammo baby!! That’s the name of the game. ... Factory quality control is very good. ... I quit reloading year ago. Don’t have the patience ... I do have money and plenty of suppliers.”
If Bryanw92 has the money and what he buys fills the requirement, good enough. After reloading for all but two calibers (out of dozens), I confess my patience has declined (along with my physical stamina).
But my experience has been just the opposite when it comes to accuracy: no reload I have created has ever proven less accurate than factory ammunition. And reloads have proven more accurate by wide margins, typically: 70-80 percent reduction in group size. Holds true across all chamberings and all platforms. Only one exception: cast bullet, wrong configuration & weight.
Gun magazine writers wax enthusiastic about advances in factory loads, which deliver much smaller groups. Heard it by word of mouth also, from former customers (no one ever brought us targets to compare, though). But prices for the newer stuff have been high, so I’ve never bothered; my reloading was already delivering better results, at a fraction of the cost.
My other experiences in gun sales and repair indicate that the shooters too busy to reload are thes one firing magazine upon magazine through their Kalashnikov (or AR-15). They demand the cheapest ammo they can find, then complain about poor results. Volume means more to them than performance
>>Military units compensate by creating teams (more manpower enhances flexibility), improving communications (radio for air support), and fielding heavier weapons (ATACMS outrange sniper fire). The civilian user ordinarily cannot call on any of those.
Please try to understand what I’m saying. I’m not talking about unit tactics. I am literally talking about a gun that a private citizen owns. If you can’t restrict the conversation to that, then you are wasting your time.
>>Not a bad approximation, but still too generalized. Chances of success depend too tightly on situations, which are simply too varied, and change too quickly in the field, to predict the need beforehand.
That is exactly what I’m talking about. Question: will an AR-15 meet the non-specialized needs of the common American citizen in the 21st century? I’m not talking about a stand-up battle with a mechanized infantry unit or shooting down aircraft. But everything from small game to rabid dogs to taking down a killer from across a parking lot, while being inexpensive enough for widespread ownership with ammo that is cheap enough for enough practice. Think hand-size accuracy, not 1 MOA.
>>Pretty succinct. Except that “perfect” never happens.
Umm. Yeah. That’s what I was telling you. I don’t want a golf bag full of “perfect” rifles. I own an 870, an AR-15, and a 10/22. There is nothing that I would do that requires a different long gun. I can bag a squirrel with the 10/22 so a bolt-action that can allow me to bag a cockroach at the same distance is unnecessary.
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.