Not really ... in my younger days I was in a few American/Canadian conflicts in the Montreal bars
The perfect rifle
- Thread starter Don Fischer
- Start date
Last edited:
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Dakota?
Dunno. Just Googled "wood stock AR" because I knew they were out there
OntarioHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 5,980
Now I can say I've seen a picture of one. Let me know if you ever see one on the shelf.
I have in Liberal, KS. It was less fancy, but it had wood furniture. Boyd's sells a bunch of sets for them.
BrentD
Well-known member
I think that one is what's his name, Turnbull. Took me a sec.
MarvB
Well-known member
OntarioHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 5,980
Not walnut.
So was the Springfield, Mauser, and Enfield (I believe military issue Springfield was even stocked with walnut). Back in their day bakalite was the only plastic and it was too brittle for rifle stocks.
Last edited:
Ew 7.62x39mm.
MarvB
Well-known member
MarvB
Well-known member
Ew 7.62x39mm.
Yah I know but…you could use it for a boat oar, garden trowel, etc., and the damn thing would still cycle lol
OntarioHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 5,980
The bottom one looks like something designed to kill deer. As far as I know this BAR (not to be confused with WWII BAR) was never used in combat. A game rifle only. The top one still looks like a man killer, just wearing a lot of makeup.
EastTNHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2018
- Messages
- 1,782
Alright, I guess I’m inclined to chime in…
First of all, a sincere “thank you” for your service OntarioHunter. I must admit that knowing of your US military service changed the tenor of my response a bit. I have the utmost respect for veterans, as my brother and grandfather are/were veterans with combat service and Purple Hearts.
With that being said, the “look” of a firearm being so important to some people is pretty silly to me. I’m a “form and function over fashion” kinda guy, and that goes for both sides of the AR equation. I have found them to be a very functional hunting tool in certain applications, namely for (hunting) varmints and (use by) young hunters. I don’t go all “Soldier of Fortune” with my ARs and trick them out, and I have even removed the muzzle device from one of them. I usually use reduced capacity magazines for hunting and bench shooting, as the standard capacity mags get in the way. The collapsible stock makes this a great fit for growing kids, and I mentor a lot of youths from 6-17 in hunting. Also, the usage of effective hunting cartridges (6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC) with lesser recoil is has a synergistic affect in the gas operated platform.
I’ll be honest, my personal preference for hunting will always be a bolt action rifle (but give me stainless one with a synthetic stock of some sort), and my goal is to ultimately move a kid into this, but ARs definitely have their place in the field despite them being “ugly” to some people.
First of all, a sincere “thank you” for your service OntarioHunter. I must admit that knowing of your US military service changed the tenor of my response a bit. I have the utmost respect for veterans, as my brother and grandfather are/were veterans with combat service and Purple Hearts.
With that being said, the “look” of a firearm being so important to some people is pretty silly to me. I’m a “form and function over fashion” kinda guy, and that goes for both sides of the AR equation. I have found them to be a very functional hunting tool in certain applications, namely for (hunting) varmints and (use by) young hunters. I don’t go all “Soldier of Fortune” with my ARs and trick them out, and I have even removed the muzzle device from one of them. I usually use reduced capacity magazines for hunting and bench shooting, as the standard capacity mags get in the way. The collapsible stock makes this a great fit for growing kids, and I mentor a lot of youths from 6-17 in hunting. Also, the usage of effective hunting cartridges (6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC) with lesser recoil is has a synergistic affect in the gas operated platform.
I’ll be honest, my personal preference for hunting will always be a bolt action rifle (but give me stainless one with a synthetic stock of some sort), and my goal is to ultimately move a kid into this, but ARs definitely have their place in the field despite them being “ugly” to some people.
Attachments
At one point, so did your Springfield. At one point, so did all the sporterized Mosins, Garands, Krags, and Mausers in the world. It's amazing how the world changes its outlook isn't it?
Neither of the photos I posted were of guns used in war. They're sporting rifles built to be sporting rifles. The SIG Cross looks like it should be used in combat, but it was designed as a hunting rifle. Nothing wrong in having something with a modern design.
Last edited:
MarvB
Well-known member
^^^Exactly!
Hell one of the reasons I bought this one years ago, found it “interesting” at the time, though it’s going on the market next week lol.
ooo shiny
Don Fischer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 3,141
I don't like the AR's but recognize they are little more than a semi auto rifle. Problem with most people is they can readily identify it to a military rifle they are familiar with! Maybe I do the same thing, but they have no appeal to me. On the other hand, if I had to shoot myself out of a bad spot against an enemy soldier, it is what I'd use, not one of my bolt action rifles. Of course, if I was on the offence I'd be sniping, to damn old for up close and personal! So in comes the wood stocked bolt action! I think the majority will not believe the AR is not an assault rifle but stop and think a moment, the assault version is not called AR, it's called M-16! An M-16 has a selector and is fully capable of full auto fire! M-1 carbine we wouldn't hear anything about I don't think. Doesn't look like what people have come to believe an assault rifle is. But slip in an m-2 and they would see the same rifle with a selector button, capable of full auto and clueless of the difference in the two!
No idea how these perceptions came about but I do know we don't do shooting sport's any good copying them and just leaving out the full auto switch. Just thinking of an early assault rifle that gets no flack and in military configuration looks like the assault rifle is actually was. 1903A3. Shoot I have one completely re-done and it bears no semblance to the military version. Show it to an anti-gun person and they won't like it but they won't recognize the military in it either!
OntarioHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 5,980
A hundred and fifty years ago I'm sure there were plenty of old buffalo hunters who looked down their noses on the new repeating rifles inspired by military arms races. By early 20th century those old boys were gone and the new breed of gun enthusiasts were inspired by gangsters and African white hunters using the new technology. By the time I started to hunt we were essentially still stuck in that same mold. The most significant technological advancement in the early half of that century was the development of practical fully automatic weapons and those were effectively outlawed in the field fairly quickly. But that line was drawn for public safety, not game management. Since I started hunting, and especially over the last twenty years, technological "advancements" have exploded. Unfortunately, the game animals haven't evolved to meet the challenge of those advancements. They are compelled to cling to the past. Every fall when I return to hunt eastern Montana with my brother, we like to think it's still like hunting there with our dad in the sixties. Of course it's not. But some days when I'm alone in the windy rolling hills and coulees it's not that difficult to pretend nothing has changed. I'm wearing different clothes (the old ones wore out long ago) but carrying the same gun and using the same ammo. The Springfield has gone through some changes since 1964, due mostly to wear and tear, but it's essentially still the same gun I used to shoot my first deer. Though I hide from reality as much as I can, I am nonetheless very much concerned about the quantum leap into technology that hunting has taken recently. Where will it end? Since game cannot evolve fast enough to keep up, when does it stop being hunting in the traditional sense? What's the end result? Spotting from satellites and computer guided bullets that can shoot over the horizon? Besides being associated with warfare, for which they are specifically designed, I look on MSRs (Modern Sporting Rifles aka assault weapons) as just another technological step in the wrong direction. I don't own wind meters, trail cams, spotting scopes, drones, "tactical" optics, etc. My smart phone is used for business or safety only. An E-trex GPS was gifted to me years ago but subsequently stolen from my vehicle (I don't think I ever carried it in the field). I recently upgraded my rifle's scope but similar technology was available when it was first scoped in the sixties. Call me old fashioned ... or maybe I've just decided technology is redefining the future of hunting in a way I want no part of. It's a matter of personal ethics.
