Re: Buffalo raffle caliber restriction 45/70 POLL

Why donï¿½t we make it a 2:1 hunt where one guy uses a 45-70 and the other any other caliber except the 45-70. Then we post the results and then we start the pissing contest!

Joke!

ErikD put it nicely: To each his own.

Posts: 2213 | Location: Finland | Registered: 02 May 2003

Ignored post by cewe posted

Moderator

posted

Quote:

Quote:

500grains,

You know, if memory serves me, you were also dead set on the first raffle. Not legal, stunt hunt, and wouldn't sell.
I don't care what gun you take. If you can't use a 45/70, by all means don't. I didn't put this feeler to start another 45/70 pissing contest. Just wanted to possibly get a Raffle going so some lucky person, me hopefully, could win and hunt a buff.

I mentioned in my first post, as well as to Saeed my intentions, and it has gotten to where it's not fun any longer.

My suggesttion to you is, put it together yourself, and do whatever it takes to put on.

Roger QSL

I intended for my question to be civil, but apparently it caused offense.

500grains, I think you meant to say that you PREtended for your question to be civil.

Canuck

Posts: 7122 | Location: The Rock (southern V.I.) | Registered: 27 February 2001

Ignored post by Canuck posted

maxman001

one of us

posted

Nice

Posts: 190 | Location: Blue Island, IL | Registered: 25 August 2004

Ignored post by maxman001 posted

500grains

One of Us

posted

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

500grains,

You know, if memory serves me, you were also dead set on the first raffle. Not legal, stunt hunt, and wouldn't sell.
I don't care what gun you take. If you can't use a 45/70, by all means don't. I didn't put this feeler to start another 45/70 pissing contest. Just wanted to possibly get a Raffle going so some lucky person, me hopefully, could win and hunt a buff.

I mentioned in my first post, as well as to Saeed my intentions, and it has gotten to where it's not fun any longer.

My suggesttion to you is, put it together yourself, and do whatever it takes to put on.

Roger QSL

I intended for my question to be civil, but apparently it caused offense.

500grains, I think you meant to say that you PREtended for your question to be civil.

Canuck

That's a little uncalled for, don't you think?

After all, I just asked whether under Roger's proposed rule a ballistic equivalent would be ok. What is uncivil about that?

Personally I think groundless accusations are uncivil.

Posts: 18352 | Location: Salt Lake City, Utah USA | Registered: 20 April 2002

Ignored post by 500grains posted

Moderator

posted

My comment was made tongue-in-cheek (I guess I forgot the winky graemlin) but in all seriousness, c'mon 500grains, with your history on this subject you know full well how all of your posts re: a 45/70 raffle will be taken, whether you intended it that way or not. You cannot walk away from your past.

It'd be like trying to take you seriously if you attempted to say something civil about Craig Boddington. It might be genuine but it wouldn't come off that way to anyone who has read your previous posts on the subject.

No offence intended, but you made your bed....

Cheers,

Canuck

Posts: 7122 | Location: The Rock (southern V.I.) | Registered: 27 February 2001

Ignored post by Canuck posted

500grains

One of Us

posted

Quote:

No offence intended, but you made your bed....

As do we all.

By the way, I read a great CB article a couple of months ago. It was about the best calibers for deer hunting. He recommended .270, .308, 30-06 and .280.

Posts: 18352 | Location: Salt Lake City, Utah USA | Registered: 20 April 2002

Ignored post by 500grains posted

Moderator

posted

Quote:

By the way, I read a great CB article a couple of months ago. It was about the best calibers for deer hunting. He recommended .270, .308, 30-06 and .280.

Good one. See, you are very good at that. Those three sentences could be interpreted in any number of different ways, ranging from genuine to highly sarcastic. Since I am pretty sure I know how you really feel, guess which way I'm leaning?

Cheers,

Canuck

Posts: 7122 | Location: The Rock (southern V.I.) | Registered: 27 February 2001

Ignored post by Canuck posted

500grains

One of Us

posted

Canuck,

It seems I am serving as a lightning rod for pent-up feelings some people have. There is no reason for to have a tizzy about whether a load which is the ballistic equivalent of a 45-70 could be used on a raffle buffalo instead of an actual 45-70, but that it the question at hand. You can read something more into it if you want to. By the way, if I had to comply with a 45-70 caliber restriction, it would be with a trapdoor Springfield.

As for the CB article, do you disagree with his caliber recommendation?

Posts: 18352 | Location: Salt Lake City, Utah USA | Registered: 20 April 2002

Ignored post by 500grains posted

Moderator

posted

Quote:

If I had to comply with a 45-70 caliber restriction, it would be with a trapdoor Springfield by the way.

Wouldn't that be illegal?

I don't think you are a lightning rod here. You have just made some people very jumpy (gun-shy?) when it comes to dealing with you (on this issue particularly).

WRT CB's recommendations, I cannot disagree with him (as usual

). Of course I did jump to the conclusion that you are implying that his article was more vacuous drivel with no meaningful insight and answers that everyone already knows. But of course, that would potentially be a groundless accusation, so I'll just keep it to myself.

Cheers,

Canuck

Posts: 7122 | Location: The Rock (southern V.I.) | Registered: 27 February 2001

Ignored post by Canuck posted