quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
It seems like so many of todays hunters are more interested in showing off how much they have spent on gear and less interested in actually learning how to be a hunter and the responsibilities that go along with being a hunter.

Spot on!.

Must choices we have today is lifestyle choices. When you buy a BLaser R8 it´s not because you need a rifle, it´s because you want a Blaser R8. When you buy an Audi it´s not because you need a car, it´s because you want an Audi....etc etc. The choices we make reflects more of lifestyle than a true need.

Guns and optics are absolutely dirt cheap compared to 40-50 years ago if you factor in inflation - then consider the accuracy and quality of the rifles and the quality of the optics.

Go buy a Mossberg or Savage Axis rifle/scope package and try some factory Hornady ammo with it. And look thru the scopes in low light. They will beat anything from even the 80s or early 90s.

What percent of the profit do yall think an employee should be paid?

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:
... Must choices we have today is lifestyle choices. When you buy a BLaser R8 it´s not because you need a rifle, it´s because you want a Blaser R8. When you buy an Audi it´s not because you need a car, it´s because you want an Audi....etc etc. The choices we make reflects more of lifestyle than a true need.

Interesting brands you mention, too, Jens. By what I hear they both fail to impress many people in matters of design or reliability, considering the high prices involved. This raises that other old question concerning the emperor's clothes.

Austin Hunter's point is probably true price-wise, in fighting brands at least, but I'm not always sure about quality. For instance, I'd rather have an old FN Mauser Browning or Husqvarna sporter than the rifles that followed them and my 1980 Kahles scope had not succumbed to the decadence of image-movement. Some brands, like Sako and Steyr Mannlicher are dear as ever and H&H keep lifting their prices, while admitting increased use of machines.

Jarrod's question is hard to answer because profit often sits on a razor's edge and can be fiddled anyway. In many businesses when I was young wages would make up more than half a company's operating costs, while profit might only be a single-digit percentage on top of those costs. That did not stop the CEO and chairman from driving Rolls Royces and smoking enormous cigars, of course.

Like political corruption, a minute percentage fraction of total revenue can make a massive income for a leader in the right place, and this take can be increased exponentially by dudding others down the line.

Do you remember the infamous executive who came into a certain company, cooked the books and sacked many of the staff in the name of efficiency? This somehow bumped up his bonus big time before he ran away laughing. It turned out he was just a thief; the company had not been in trouble at all - until he got there.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:
What percent of the profit do yall think an employee should be paid?

During the 1990s early 2000s, UAW built automobiles had about 10% labor costs. Dealer mark-up was 15% on the base price and 18% on options.

The American buyer has been suckered by high dollar foreign scopes, and Leupold wants a chunk of the pie, can't blame them,. the shooter believed the high dollar scopes were the berries. and what a farce big huge heavy scope took the market and ran..

I refuse to use a 2x20 X scope worth more than my rifle just to shoot a deer out of a blind.

All isn't lost, Leupold is making a 2x7 Redfield scope for $167. I bought two of them at Sportsman Whse to hunt with and test..They have worked as well as any other scope, they are lean and mean, light of weight and I have used them hard to try and destroy them, they passed in flying colors in Idahos cold, rain and snow, Humidity and heat in Texas and Arizona and been a 100 or more miles in a saddle scabbard and 500 miles in a bouncing pickup truck..For what its worth. and for that matter a used Leupold in a pawn shop can be fetched for under $200 as a rule, that's where Ive bought most of mine..

Like Alf, this has been an issue with me for years..

quote:

All isn't lost, Leupold is making a 2x7 Redfield scope for $167.

Lightweight, practical magnification for someone hunting out to 300 yards.
Sounds like something similar that I did last month.

I picked up a Nikon Prostaff 2-7 last month for $123 delivered, but even $149 would be a lot of scope for the dollar. It is quite lightweight, clear, rugged, and a good match for a lightweight hunting rifle of medium range. The scope will sit around until I set up a 30-06 for a youngster in the Fall or next year.

I have asked several times over the years, when you buy a say $400 scope that is rugged, water-proof, tracks well, and has clear optics is a $800 scope twice as good? Other than the "brag" factor, how much better (if any) is the high dollar scope? Exactly what are you getting for the extra money?

quote:

Exactly what are you getting for the extra money?

Brag factor, "He Who Dies With The Toys That Cost The Most Wins".

With the changes in hunting practices that have occurred since most of us started hunting, to me, the majority of the "Improvements" that have been made in hunting equipment has been designed purely to attract people wanting the Latest/Greatest/Priciest!

Except for hunts in Africa and possibly Alaska, hunts in America have become week long or less concepts, based out of well equipped lodges and conducted in such a manner as to ensure fairly consistent instant gratification for the client.

It is simply a case of most folks not having the luxury of checking out of the "Rat Race" for 10 to 20 days in the Rockies.

quote:

Originally posted by Austin Hunter:
Guns and optics are absolutely dirt cheap compared to 40-50 years ago if you factor in inflation - then consider the accuracy and quality of the rifles and the quality of the optics.

Go buy a Mossberg or Savage Axis rifle/scope package and try some factory Hornady ammo with it. And look thru the scopes in low light. They will beat anything from even the 80s or early 90s.

Not sure that is the case, but I haven't done the math. I bought a Rem 700 BDL in 270 with a Redfield 3-9x Widefield scope in the late 60s for $300. The scope finally gave up after 40 years, but the rifle still shoots nickel sized groups at 100 yards and still looks good. And it has been hunted hard, some 100 day / years back before I had a real job. My son now has it and got his first elk, and feral hog with it.

There is a small but significant portion of society that is making unholy amounts of money. Dropping $5,000 on a scope is chump change. Right now that is. I have a customer that is grossing $50,000 a month selling used auto/truck repair manuals on E-Bay! He has three employees and one is his wife. Do the math. He buys anything he wants when he wants it. But he may regret it one day.

When I was 16 years old in 1970 I was making $7.50 an hour as a glassier, installing auto glass and store fronts. A local big box sporting goods store is advertising a gun counter sales job right now at $8.00 an hour in my town. With inflation this has to be $2.50 and hour or less equivalent to 1970.

There is a huge inequity in many businesses between corp profit and employee income. Most folks need to look at used items to even contemplate participation in the shooting sports.

Early in my career when I was cash strapped all I could afford was a sporterized M96 Swedish Mauser and a cheap Tasco 3-9x32 scope. I managed to join a deer hunting club and for three years I harvested more deer than any other member. Most of which were armed with new Remington/Winchester guns with Swarovski scopes.
They had money to burn but couldn't shoot.

Simply stated: You cannot buy your way into the winner's circle. But many people still believe that you can. I guess to them, having the most expensive toy is a form of winning.

quote:

When I was 16 years old in 1970 I was making $7.50

In 1970 I was 20 years old, making less than $2.00 an hour working as a Janitor at the local hospital, was newly married and my wife was a nurse at that same hospital making about $4.00 an hour.

Basically, it has became a mindset and those playing the game wander between one latest and greatest and the next newest latest and greatest.

In 1959 I waw was working as a journeyman welder for $.90/hr. Everything over 40 was time and a half. I was making so much money I couldn't spend it all. Or rather, what that money would buy.

A little bit of steady inflation would seem to be a good thing. For one thing, if wages rise with it, over time your mortgage becomes a less-significant part of of your outgoings.

Before (and since) Keynesian economics, that has not been the case. For instance with the various booms busted by depressions, it seems the US dollar would buy just as much in 1900 as it had in 1850.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
In 1959 I waw was working as a journeyman welder for $.90/hr. Everything over 40 was time and a half. I was making so much money I couldn't spend it all. Or rather, what that money would buy.

Minimum wage was $1 an hour in 1956. How was it you were making less in 1959 as a "Journeyman Welder"?

quote:

Minimum wage was $1 an hour in 1956. How was it you were making less in 1959 as a "Journeyman Welder"?

You might want to do a little research.

There are still a few states that Do Hot have a minimum wage law, Tennessee is one that does and also many states did not adopt minimum wages laws until later than 1956, in Texas it wasn't until 1972.

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
In 1959 I waw was working as a journeyman welder for $.90/hr. Everything over 40 was time and a half. I was making so much money I couldn't spend it all. Or rather, what that money would buy.

Minimum wage was $1 an hour in 1956. How was it you were making less in 1959 as a "Journeyman Welder"?

It wasn't in VA. While I was working at the shop, the minimum wage was raised to $1/hr (by then I was making more that that) and the owner said he was going to let some people go as they weren't worth a dollar an hour.

quote:

ply

Really? Me thinks there is a little BS going on in this thread. roger

I have no problem killing and elk at up to 400 yards under decent conditions with a 2x7, or even a 3X or 4X, magnification might help in trophy judging and that's its only positive up side, but I do always have my pair of 8x30 Leicas..with less magnification one tends to aim more carefully, but the sight picture is good enough..All manor of problems develop with large high dollar scopes, they are bulky and unbalance a rifle, they tend to break down, at high powder they simply bounce around in such a magnified degree that it not unusual for a hunter to grab at the trigger as the cross hairs float by the animal..The add weight to just name a few problems with $2000 scopes..Most of all Ive never felt the need for one...I like used Leupolds with less power, I like 3X and 4X scopes, and on a couple of guns I have 2x7s and my varmint rifles have 3x9s. most were purchased for under $200..They work, and if they don't I send them to Leupold, the fix them at no charge, or replace them..but to each his own, if someone is happy and loves a $2500 scope and can afford it, then what blows their skirt up, have at it, you earned it.