Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Is it good sense or just middle age?

I am 73.So many guns,so little time.The fun part for me is load development.When I get a rifle shooting good,I move on to the next quest.Selling and trading is all part of the fun.I still hunt Michigan,Wisconsin and Montana.I would rather eat venison than just about any other type of meat and shoot all I am allowed.I found "Time" is much easier on you if you have a daily regimen of walking and exercise.I also weight lift every third day.My days are pretty busy and I have a hard time cramming in everything I want to do.

I'm in that same position. I've been sitting on 264 mag brass and dies for a couple years waiting for the right rifle to appear... And yes, I have NO need for one, but have always wanted to try it.

KUDOS to you Huntz ! ! I never thot about you being a little older than I am.

I appreciate the things you said and are doing. Keep it up man. Good on ya.

Jerry

To some extent I can agree with this. However, it isn't just gaps caused by the chambering, and often having another rifle in the same chambering can make a lot of good sense. For instance, I have 8 30-06 rifles and they are currently loaded with 3 different loads. However, they have different stocks and different scopes.

Since I'm primarily a whitetail hunter, my collection is geared towards that. I have different rifles for different venues and conditions.

I have my treestand rifles. They are for short range work in dense woods. I primarily use a lever or a pump. The loads I pick usually are downloaded considerably.
I have my ground blind guns. These have the longest barrels and the best scopes. I'm usually firing off a sandbag from a seat.
I have rifles that I won't purposefully take out in the rain. I have rifles that are stocked for warm weather and cold.
There are rifles that I would not pick for stalking and those that I would.

Overthinking? Who? Me?

There haven't been gaps for many years.

With respect to having more than one rifle chambered in the same cartridge, that practice has been observed for many years. It eliminates the need for owning multiple die sets and reduces cost. It also makes things easier, should a rifle fail.

I'm not sure where you're going with your last statement about having a number of rifles of the same calibre. Efficiency would be the thing there, not good sense. Good sense tells me that eight rifles is excessive. Two or three would suffice and the money saved put toward outstanding glass or a good trigger.

At any rate, you fellows have fun. I'm out the door.

A shooter with only 4 rifles is like a mechanic with only 4 wrenches.

Bruce

Apples and oranges.

And that makes perfect sense to me. This year will be a .250 Savage year, with three .250s and a .250AI getting the nod. Last year was .30 cal., with two '06s, a .300 Savage, and a .303 Savage. I'm on a five year rotation now.

With you all the way on the Hornet. I just got back from a groundhog expedition. I was carrying my .223, but the rangefinder showed that 95% of the ground I was watching was in range of my Hornet. Going back this weekend with my son. He'll be carrying the .223, while I'll have my pretty little Browning Low Wall. If you're going to get skunked, you might as well do it in style.

The .223 is very flexible and also cheap to feed; even shares some of the same nice platforms as the Hornet, but there's just something sbout those tiny cartridges.....

Originally Posted by Seafire:
I think most of the guys on the Campfire have too many guns and not enough opportunity to use them all.

Then Steve Redgwell added:
I agree, and many have fallen under the spell of the ad men.


A man named Greg Henderson just published an editorial in "Drovers" magazine regarding the incredible confusion around food labeling on today's grocery store products.
A line from his writing was very relevant to our consumer society. Mr Henderson said:

"...marketing professionals polish labeling phrases to elicit consumer emotion".

This phrase applies to guns about as well as it does to the products at the supermarket.

It does indeed. Marketing generates revenue. I've got no problem with that at all. For my personal situation however, I look at magazine or TV ads with a critical eye. Is what they are offering of any value? And please, don't tell me that people are not influenced by the hype. I see evidence of it when I walk into gun shops, go to the range and spend time at some hunting camps. Someone is buying "useless, but cool stuff", so there is a market.

Be picky about what you need. Be critical of yourself and your requirements. Spend smart. Do not buy junk that you saw on a commercial just because it looks cool. The ad guys are attempting to work 'your stupid side'. And they appear to be winning. Educate yourself. Buy what your situation demands. Spit in their eye.

We have all seen the 'tactical take overs'. Picatinny mounts. Funky scope rings with 6 or 8 screws per. Flashlight and bipod attachments that once were the exclusive domain of real tactical people are now showing up on odd looking 30-30 "tactical" levers, shotguns and others. Everyone wants to be a cool, tactical ops guy! And of course, there's the camo clothing, covers and cases. Mildot scopes. etc. How many people know how to use this stuff properly? How many need it? The answer is, not many, and they do not know how to use it, but they cannot live without it. Marketing makes it embarrassing to go to the range or deer camp without something cool.

This made me howl with laughter, the first time I saw it.





Successful hunters buy the things that will increase their odds of success, not what the commercials tell them are needed. That means knowing your quarry, the land where you hunt and the cartridge needed.

Know your rifle. If your trigger sucks, replace it. Make sure your stock fits. Get a good scope, but not necessarily a model that costs $1000s. Buy something with a good reputation and a power that fits your situation. Research your needs. Read. Engage your brain. If you are going on a trip, take along a spare rifle of the same calibre. That eliminates the problem of not having the correct cartridge when you arrive at your destination.

And practice shooting in the off season!

The basic reason riflemen beat themselves up over having too many rifles, usually falls into one of two reasons, they have buyers remorse because they know deep from within they can't afford the expense of a new scope and reloading dies or ammo that follows the new purchase. Or, they are worried about peace with the wife.

So, after some honest reasoning we come to the answer, then we can apply a successful strategy of coping with a goal toward our happiness.

Pretty good stuff there Steve R, I enjoyed seeing the tacticool 30-30!

I've actually thinned my rifle herd over the past 10 yrs, going from about 20 hunting rifles to currently owning 7. My weakness is optics.....I love good binocs.

Thanks for the kind words Jerry,Huntz

.22lr + .223 + .30/06 + 12ga = all the calibers someone needs to cover everything in America.

Other combos will do it, but not any better.

You can even toss the .223 out if you aren't a high volume target/tactical/p-dog hunter and just do everything from woodchucks to moose with the .30/06.

This is about the transition from guns as a principal component of the entertainment, to guns as a tool integral to the hunt as entertainment.

I've rid myself of a few rifles too. I was watching a show about hoarders a few yrs back. The therapist said that anything you haven't used in 3 yrs should go. That applies to rifles as well, I think.

If I was still looking to thin things out, I would look at buying a better spotting scope. The one I have came over on the Mayflower and the glass isn't the best.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ This ^ ^ ^ the people i see in my region never practice enough to gain any kind of familiarity of their firearms.
i also see too many posts online of folks asking " where do i sight in at 25 yards to shoot a deer at 500 yards ?"

I first ran into the old saw about sighting in at 25 to be 3" high at 100 in one of my old Jack O'Connor books. The implication was that you'd verify it at 100 (and hopefully farther), but I'll bet fewer than half ever did. That 3" high business has probably saved the lives of a good many deer.

When I was still working, one guy in my crew was a captain in the National Guard. His unit did a tour in Iraq. We were taking about his M4 one night and he told me that they were instructed to sight in their AimPoints at 25 yards. I said, "You check them at 100 to be sure, right?". He said, "Nope. If they're on at 25, they're good." I tried to make the case that any error at 25 would be multiplied by 4 at 100, but he was having none of it. Still not clear whether that method was his or Army doctrine. During his unit's tour in Iraq, they only fired one round, that a single .50 cal fired at the place where they thought an enemy had fired from.

O M G. ! ! ! !

I have NOT owned a 30-30 since 1974 A D. It's hard for me to find words that adequately express my
DISGUST at that application. All the words that come close are not fit for public publication.
G A G reflex.

Mr Steve I didn't know that anybody would be that stupid --not aiming at you.

Jerry