Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Backpack Hunting Seen the Kifaru Rambling Rifle Gen II?

THAT, is EXACTLY the point, on two or three levels.

This rifle is obviously a "niche" item and will never be produced in large quantities, or, will most hunters even know it is available. It is designed and built for a very specific small group among the overall hunting fraternity and from all I have seen, is VERY popular among many serious, backpacking, backcountry hunters. So, again, if THEY WANT ONE, why should they not be able to spend their money for it as they wish?

The next and to my mind, most important issue, is the ...diminishing returns... aspect of this. I find a rifle this light to be just lighter than what I have found best, FOR ME, for the almost 50 years I have packed guns in northern and western Canada....BUT, another guy might find it absolutely "ideal" for HIM.

The third point is that, again, ANY legitimate activity in developing new products WILL strengthen the hunting industry and thus our sport. If, we all just stick with the cast-off military clothing, crudely "sporterized" Lee-Enfield, Springfield and Mauser rifles a la 1950s and ignore the real benefits of much of the techno. developments of the past two-three decades in guns, optics, bullets, clothing and so on, we WILL decline and become extinct as fewer young people enter and remain in our sport.

One does not "have to" buy and use every new gear item that is offered by the highend/boutique hunting gear makers and I certainly do not, but, I will say that, having spent years hauling meat and supplies with "Trapper Nelson" packboards in both my employment in the BC wilderness and recreationally, there IS a HUGE benefit to the new ways and new gear.

In short, I will never go back from my Mystery Ranch and Dana Designs packs, my eVent, Gore-Tex and Neoshell clothing/tents and my synthetic stocked rifles with their highend scopes to the old junk I started with and I doubt that any younger hunter would consider doing so, either.

Choices, boys, it is all about "freedom" and each of us will have different priorities in this regard.

Rocky Mtn Hi Sent you a pm

Looks like an expensive solution in search of a problem to me...

I'll change the subject slightly, in my neck of B.C. the younger(20-35) age group hunters seem to be obsessing on long range hunting. When they talk about spending thousands on custom rifles, the first priority is LONG range accuracy and then light weight. One of our popular builders in northern B.C. is making garauntees of 700 and 900 yard accuracy on these custom builds. If you ask me this is a bigger threat to the image of hunting than ultra-lighweight gear that will still function. I've seen a couple hunting programs that show people decked out in the latest camo gear walk 200yds from their vehicle to set up on a ridge to try and shoot animals out to 900yds without even the attempt of getting closer. Thats because the goal is becoming the shot not the hunt. Long range target practice at living targets. Makes me a little sick personally. I do carry a customized ultralight rifle roughly moddeled after the gen1 and others that I did myself and I love carrying it for everything I hunt.

Looky there, Rckymnthgh....Your "ramblin rifle" google search is paying off bigtime!
Three posts here and you're getting the love in spades...

No disrespect, but that's a load of crap.

The hunting "industry(s)" survival is far more predicated on hunter involvement in the political, social and biological arena.

Take a kid hunting, spend $350 on him (her) for a Savage rifle and truly help save our way of life.
While this isn't directly aimed at Kifaru, if anything, companies like Sitka gear (now Chinese made) direct our hard-earned American dollars away from this country to China where one can't even own a f*ck*ng gun.

There are other and far superior builders in B.C., who are much more realistic in terms of their rifles. I do agree about the younger hunters, but, even in the small northern and Kootenay towns I grew up and worked in resource management in for some decades, the younger people are largely "urbanized" and that is a major aspect of the problem, IMHO.

Given, what will happen in May, and the situation with the "natural conservationists", I rather doubt that we will be worrying about rifle weight soon and our hunting will be just a bit"different".

Who said ultra-lightweight gear was a threat to the image of hunting?

Kute, what's happening in May??

This May, we shall have a Provincial General Election,here in B.C. and the very strong odds are that my current Member of the Legislative Assembly of B.C., The Honourable, The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, will form the next government of this magnificent, wonderful and grossly mismanaged place.

Adrian Dix, his name is a HARDLEFT "social democrat", an urbanite and married to an east indian woman. His party is anti-gun, especially handguns and "black" guns, VERY pro-aboriginal special rights and extremely multicultural.

Mr Dix, was largely responsible for allowing the blockade by B.C. fishing boats of an Alaskan State Ferry, in Victoria, harbour, as an administrative assistant to a former N.D,P. premier.This, embarrassed many, even extremely nationalist B.C. people, like me, but, this sort of "statist" and "neo-Marxist" is a rigid ideologue who is ALWAYS RIGHT......sorta like that Kenyan, you folks have as POTUS.

I have seen this coming for several years and we hunters WILL take a beating, the "non-res" and especially "non-res. alien" hunting will be severely impacted, maybe even banned and guns will be even more vilified than has been the case in Canada.

For people here, like my wife and I, his government will be much better than the past two administrations as he suffers from "Diabetes Melitus" and will improve our faltering health care system as well as boosting pensions.

But, all in all, I think that the hunting in BC will suffer and thus a concern over the weight of one's "mountain rifle" will be of lesser importance to we hunters than the political climate we live in.

At my age, I no longer really care very much, I intend to hunt as much and as long as I can and then just dump the guns and gear and pursue other interests.

Now that's a poignant statement.
Probaby true in most all countries and soon our own.

The comment was'nt aimed exactly at ultra-light gear, but on page three the comment was how now you see people wearing full camo in the grocery stores, and that this type of thing tends to further alienate us from the anti-hunters in our population. I agree with the comment but I take it a step further and think that the new craze of long range "hunting" is going to be more damaging to our images as hunters. We have hunting programs that promote this stuff. So now not only do we have people wearing the latest and greatest camo patterns so they can drive around in their trucks and on their quads looking for something to shoot at, but now its getting popular to shoot at animals from as far away as possible and our industry is marketing all the camo and custom rifles that will make it possible for us to back up another couple hundred yards and see if we can do it. Try explaining that to an anti-hunting population. We all know that the anti-hunters far out number us and its not the radicals that will be the problem, its all the moderates that dont care enough to even get educated about hunting. I am a backpack hunter exclusively, I havent gotten to a kill with a vehicle in years and I will not buy a single piece of clothing with a camo pattern on it for just the reasons I mentioned. JMHO

Damn, sorry to hear all that, I was totally unaware of the politics up there, sounds like it's happening all over. But if you're serious about dumping the guns............PM sent

Well, if you really want to debate this point, you should go over to the long range hunting forum where it's the primary focus and you'll get more of a response.

But since you posted it here........I disagree with what you've written above. I italicized the parts of your post I disagree with most, I hope you don't mind.

First, I'm a backpack hunter myself, and it's been years since I was able to get a vehicle to a kill site. I do most of my hunting with a short-range weapon, a muzzleloader. But that doesn't make me more "ethical" than a long-range hunter. I also enjoy getting away from the road, but that doesn't make me more "ethical" than a hunter who doesn't or can't. It's taken me a some time and some reflection to realize that. Because it's easy to feel superior when you hunt up close and haul your kill out a few miles on your back; not everyone can do that.

I do wear some camo gear, as long as it's good quality and does what I need it to do. And I'll be damned if I'll change it before I go into a grocery store or restaurant because I'm worried about what someone might think, especially an anti-hunter. I'm proud to be a hunter and I believe people need to see hunters in stores and restaurants more often so it's not such an oddity when they do.

And I could really care less what "anti-hunters" think because as we all know, 90% of anti-hunters are so mis-informed as to be laughable and know diddly-squat about nature. Why should I worry about what these people think? The plain fact is, there is nothing I can do/not do that will change their opinion of hunting because their opinions are based on emotion and are totally illogical. Appealing to reason or logic does no good with these people, so why bother, and why worry about what they think.

Anti-hunters do not far outnumber us, their percentage of the population is roughly the same as the percentage of hunters. It's the people in the middle, the ones who are neither strongly anti- nor pro-hunting, that are the ones we need to concern ourselves with because they are the majority of voters.

So I feel no need and see no benefit to worrying about what anti-hunters think, and I won't waste my time trying to explain myself to them or change their minds. They can't change mine, and I know I can't change theirs.

As to your point on long-range hunting, if done right it's no more or less ethical than hunting at short ranges. There are some who don't do it "right," just as there are slob bowhunters. The longest shot any hunter should take is the one he's confident will result in a clean kill, and that varies not only with the weapon and skill but also with the conditions. Beyond that it's just a matter of personal preference or personal ethic.

I don't hunt long-range very much, but I have the right gear and enough rounds down-range to be confident to take long-range shots under the right conditions. I'm much more confident in a clean kill at 400 yards with my most accurate rifle and a good rest than 25 yards with my longbow, so for me the 400 yard shot is more ethical.

There is nothing inherently "un-ethical" about long-range hunting if it's done right and if you take the time to consider all the angles and think about it logically, setting emotion aside. It may not be your cup of tea, but that's your personal ethic, not be confused with "un-ethical."

If we really want to educate the non-hunting public (not anti-hunters) and get them on our side, we'll take the time to explain that to them, not throw other hunters under the bus just because they hunt in a way that doesn't appeal to us personally.

First off I want to say that I don't think the gear has anything to do with the hunter. One of the best elk hunters I ever knew didn't even own a pair of binoculars and most of his other gear would be thrift shop stuff at best, but he always got his elk.

I do however find it interesting how sometimes people; especially on the internet equate ethics with a dollar value, on both ends of the spectrum. From you can't possibly be a real hunter unless you own such and such gear, to if you drive the big diesel rig and have a custom rifle you are somewhat less of a man.

I, like most here probably fall into the middle ground. If I could afford a Rambling Rifle, or a fine English shotgun, I would possibly lay down the cash, but the reality is, I can't. But, I can hunt just as well with the gear I own and appreciate the fact that I have what I do have.

I also say more power to those that can and do buy the high end gear. We are all hunters and as long as a hunter doesn't violate the law, it make no difference to me what they drive, what they shoot, what pack they own or whether they wear camo.

The two preceding posts, are among the BEST comments on hunting that I have ever read on any 'net forum, in the nine years I have been on the internet and participated in several forums. I am VERY much in agreement with Phil, (Smokepole) and Ed, in all respects of their wise comments.

I own and use highend gear for one simple reason, it just works better for longer for me. I do not own and have never had most of the electronic gadgets or ATVs which, it seems, are now considered "manadatory" for most and I very probably never will. I do think that quality of function is worth paying big $$$$$ for, but, do not and have never purchased due to "cool factor" and am somewhat of an iconoclast in that respect.

So, at this point in my 66+ years, I could buy a Rambling Rifle, but, I want to spend every dime I can on further explorations of and hunts/fishing in Canada's wilderness and so I won't get one.

However, I still think that these and much of the other "cutting edge" gear DO promote sportsmanlike, conservation-oriented and socially responsible hunting, in ways that will benefit all hunters. JMHO and maybe I am wrong, but, that is how I see it.

Rky,
I will look him up and see if he wants to sell it. It was 4 or 5 years ago that I was messing with it. I only shot the .308 bbl. He lives near Pueblo, Co.

lefty

Very true. I'll be the first to admit that I own rifles and gear that are much more than I need to go out and kill an animal, mostly because I want these things, not that I need them. So if someone wants to make a $6,000 rifle and someone else wants to buy it, that shouldn't matter to me.

I just think it's very interesting how expensive things have become, to make the hunter more comfortable. My depression era grandparents would turn over in their graves if they knew how much some of this hunting "gear" costs. We spend gobs of money on boots so our feet don't hurt, the perfect fitting packs so our backs don't hurt, clothing so that (heaven forbid) we don't feel our own sweat, rain gear so we don't ment from the rain, super lighweight rifles so we don't carry an extra 2lbs, super-duper bags so we don't shiver a bit at night, pads so we feel like we are sleeping in a bed, alpha glass so we don't have to sneak closer, expensive lightweight tents to keep from making a shelter out of a tarp, etc etc etc. A guy almost needs to make a 100k a year to afford the stuff, and still be able to fund his kids college fund and not be in debt. Not to mention what gas, out of state tags, etc are now going for. And I ain't judging, I'm the biggest sinner of them all!

Exactly. It also depends on where you are in your career. When I look back at the gear that was available when I first started out, and then pare that back to the gear I could afford, it wasn't much and I scoffed at guys who had all the latest stuff. I'm sure the young me would have had a good laugh at the expense of the current version if we'd somehow crossed paths.

The young me used a Marlin .30-30 I got at K-Mart for $150 new. And that smart-assed little bastard used it to kill my best whitetail to date, the one that hangs over my mantle.

C'mon Calvin, you have some of the world's finest deer and black bear hunting literally out your back door, and you can hunt AK as a resident, and you are complaining about what it costs? Sell some of those 700 TI's, I'll make you an offer on one.