quote:

We were travelling First Class - Air Zimbabwe from Vic Falls to Johannesburg, then Emirates to Dubai.

May be some of us are just lucky??

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Buy insurance against losing a rifle on an African hunt? What financial goal are you attempting to accomplish? Seems nonsensical to me.

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate a loss you cannot otherwise afford to absorb. The simplest of African plains game hunts will cost a minimum of $10,000, with $25,000 closer to the norm. If a hunter can afford the "loss" of this amount of money, then it is difficult to see not being able to absorb the loss of a $1,000 to $2,000 rifle.

Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost?

Perhaps the rifle has great sentimental value to you. An insurance pay-off won't do anything to mitigate the loss of sentiment, now will it?

Whatever the premium for such insurance, it amounts to a built-in "loss". Why would you intentionally incur such a loss when you can afford to absorb a larger, but by definition, unlikely loss?

Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Buy insurance against losing a rifle on an African hunt? What financial goal are you attempting to accomplish? Seems nonsensical to me.

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate a loss you cannot otherwise afford to absorb. The simplest of African plains game hunts will cost a minimum of $10,000, with $25,000 closer to the norm. If a hunter can afford the "loss" of this amount of money, then it is difficult to see not being able to absorb the loss of a $1,000 to $2,000 rifle.

Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost?

Perhaps the rifle has great sentimental value to you. An insurance pay-off won't do anything to mitigate the loss of sentiment, now will it?

Whatever the premium for such insurance, it amounts to a built-in "loss". Why would you intentionally incur such a loss when you can afford to absorb a larger, but by definition, unlikely loss?

Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Buy insurance against losing a rifle on an African hunt? What financial goal are you attempting to accomplish? Seems nonsensical to me.

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate a loss you cannot otherwise afford to absorb. The simplest of African plains game hunts will cost a minimum of $10,000, with $25,000 closer to the norm. If a hunter can afford the "loss" of this amount of money, then it is difficult to see not being able to absorb the loss of a $1,000 to $2,000 rifle.

Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost?

Perhaps the rifle has great sentimental value to you. An insurance pay-off won't do anything to mitigate the loss of sentiment, now will it?

Whatever the premium for such insurance, it amounts to a built-in "loss". Why would you intentionally incur such a loss when you can afford to absorb a larger, but by definition, unlikely loss?

Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.

quote:

Horrible advice.

quote:

. . .Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost? . . .

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Buy insurance against losing a rifle on an African hunt? What financial goal are you attempting to accomplish? Seems nonsensical to me.

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate a loss you cannot otherwise afford to absorb. The simplest of African plains game hunts will cost a minimum of $10,000, with $25,000 closer to the norm. If a hunter can afford the "loss" of this amount of money, then it is difficult to see not being able to absorb the loss of a $1,000 to $2,000 rifle.

Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost?

Perhaps the rifle has great sentimental value to you. An insurance pay-off won't do anything to mitigate the loss of sentiment, now will it?

Whatever the premium for such insurance, it amounts to a built-in "loss". Why would you intentionally incur such a loss when you can afford to absorb a larger, but by definition, unlikely loss?

Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.

quote:

Originally posted by BigBBear:
Eastern Insurance is the only way to go. Price is much better than SAIA or Corvens, homeowner, etc. Ive priced them all. For example $50,000 in blanket gun insurance cost $150.00 per year. Contact person is now Laura Sewell since Jack Richardson has passed.

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

. . .Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost? . . .

Yes, I would. My personal banker would not let me spend community funds to replace said firearm. However, if insurance were paying the replacement cost, it would be no problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

. . .Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost? . . .

Yes, I would. My personal banker would not let me spend community funds to replace said firearm. However, if insurance were paying the replacement cost, it would be no problem.

Now there's a logical reason to buy insurance. I'd be interested in hearing others which make financial sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

. . .Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost? . . .

Yes, I would. My personal banker would not let me spend community funds to replace said firearm. However, if insurance were paying the replacement cost, it would be no problem.

Now there's a logical reason to buy insurance. I'd be interested in hearing others which make financial sense.

You don't think spending $150 to insure a $20,000 or more rifle makes financial sense?

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has collected a claim for a firearm lost in transit on a hunting trip.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Thanks for all of the replies.

Some people buy insurance (on many things, not just guns) in a way that seems to defy financial logic. I've long been puzzled by this phenomenon, but the comments here provide a great deal of insight into the emotions and decision-making processes that result in a choice of whether to buy or not.

I am a bit surprised that a group of people who are likely on the higher end of the income scale are apparently rather sensitive to the prospect of relatively small losses. Few people, even those in the top 5% of income, can absorb the loss of something like a house or a small business location without significant financial distress,. The same is true of losing the cost of an automobile. So virtually all of us insure those things.

However, if you have a loss on your house or car the deductible is similar to, or even higher than, the cost of the typical hunting rifle -- even a very nice one. But this same group of people doesn't seem to fret over the deductible. This seems very odd to me. The deductible on my car is $2,000. The deductible on my house is around $4,000. I own some very nice firearms whose value runs into four figures, but none of them start with more than a "4".

So, if a hailstorm (exceedingly common in Texas) beats the roof off of my house I'll be out $4,000 before the insurance starts to help out in replacing it. But if I'm not losing sleep over that, why should I fret about the possibility of losing a gun on a hunting trip which is of some lesser value? I think you can understand why trip insurance for my gun seems illogical to me. But I can now understand why it seems compulsory for others. Decisions need not follow logic when emotion is involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Thanks for all of the replies.

Some people buy insurance (on many things, not just guns) in a way that seems to defy financial logic. I've long been puzzled by this phenomenon, but the comments here provide a great deal of insight into the emotions and decision-making processes that result in a choice of whether to buy or not.

I am a bit surprised that a group of people who are likely on the higher end of the income scale are apparently rather sensitive to the prospect of relatively small losses. Few people, even those in the top 5% of income, can absorb the loss of something like a house or a small business location without significant financial distress,. The same is true of losing the cost of an automobile. So virtually all of us insure those things.

However, if you have a loss on your house or car the deductible is similar to, or even higher than, the cost of the typical hunting rifle -- even a very nice one. But this same group of people doesn't seem to fret over the deductible. This seems very odd to me. The deductible on my car is $2,000. The deductible on my house is around $4,000. I own some very nice firearms whose value runs into four figures, but none of them start with more than a "4".

So, if a hailstorm (exceedingly common in Texas) beats the roof off of my house I'll be out $4,000 before the insurance starts to help out in replacing it. But if I'm not losing sleep over that, why should I fret about the possibility of losing a gun on a hunting trip which is of some lesser value? I think you can understand why trip insurance for my gun seems illogical to me. But I can now understand why it seems compulsory for others. Decisions need not follow logic when emotion is involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Buy insurance against losing a rifle on an African hunt? What financial goal are you attempting to accomplish? Seems nonsensical to me.

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate a loss you cannot otherwise afford to absorb. The simplest of African plains game hunts will cost a minimum of $10,000, with $25,000 closer to the norm. If a hunter can afford the "loss" of this amount of money, then it is difficult to see not being able to absorb the loss of a $1,000 to $2,000 rifle.
Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost?

Perhaps the rifle has great sentimental value to you. An insurance pay-off won't do anything to mitigate the loss of sentiment, now will it?

Whatever the premium for such insurance, it amounts to a built-in "loss". Why would you intentionally incur such a loss when you can afford to absorb a larger, but by definition, unlikely loss?

Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.

....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1
DRSS Charter member
"If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982

Hands of Old Elmer Keith

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Thanks for all of the replies.

Some people buy insurance (on many things, not just guns) in a way that seems to defy financial logic. I've long been puzzled by this phenomenon, but the comments here provide a great deal of insight into the emotions and decision-making processes that result in a choice of whether to buy or not.

I am a bit surprised that a group of people who are likely on the higher end of the income scale are apparently rather sensitive to the prospect of relatively small losses. Few people, even those in the top 5% of income, can absorb the loss of something like a house or a small business location without significant financial distress,. The same is true of losing the cost of an automobile. So virtually all of us insure those things.

However, if you have a loss on your house or car the deductible is similar to, or even higher than, the cost of the typical hunting rifle -- even a very nice one. But this same group of people doesn't seem to fret over the deductible. This seems very odd to me. The deductible on my car is $2,000. The deductible on my house is around $4,000. I own some very nice firearms whose value runs into four figures, but none of them start with more than a "4".

So, if a hailstorm (exceedingly common in Texas) beats the roof off of my house I'll be out $4,000 before the insurance starts to help out in replacing it. But if I'm not losing sleep over that, why should I fret about the possibility of losing a gun on a hunting trip which is of some lesser value? I think you can understand why trip insurance for my gun seems illogical to me. But I can now understand why it seems compulsory for others. Decisions need not follow logic when emotion is involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Thanks for all of the replies.

Some people buy insurance (on many things, not just guns) in a way that seems to defy financial logic. I've long been puzzled by this phenomenon, but the comments here provide a great deal of insight into the emotions and decision-making processes that result in a choice of whether to buy or not.

I am a bit surprised that a group of people who are likely on the higher end of the income scale are apparently rather sensitive to the prospect of relatively small losses. Few people, even those in the top 5% of income, can absorb the loss of something like a house or a small business location without significant financial distress,. The same is true of losing the cost of an automobile. So virtually all of us insure those things.

However, if you have a loss on your house or car the deductible is similar to, or even higher than, the cost of the typical hunting rifle -- even a very nice one. But this same group of people doesn't seem to fret over the deductible. This seems very odd to me. The deductible on my car is $2,000. The deductible on my house is around $4,000. I own some very nice firearms whose value runs into four figures, but none of them start with more than a "4".

So, if a hailstorm (exceedingly common in Texas) beats the roof off of my house I'll be out $4,000 before the insurance starts to help out in replacing it. But if I'm not losing sleep over that, why should I fret about the possibility of losing a gun on a hunting trip which is of some lesser value? I think you can understand why trip insurance for my gun seems illogical to me. But I can now understand why it seems compulsory for others. Decisions need not follow logic when emotion is involved.

Yeah, I get real emotional when I consider losing any one or more of them that cost more than an automobile - or, God forbid, all of them in a house fire!

But there is no emotion in the equation I posted above.

Just arithmetic:

Value of insured item(s) minus cost of insurance.

If the answer is a significant positive number, then buy the insurance.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Wow, one can tell who actually understands the risks of traveling to and moving though Africa and who doesn't.

For more than 25 years of traveling to and living in Africa, I have lost count of the number of folks who have had bags, valuables, equipment and/or firearms stolen at airports, hotels, vehicles, and camps. And with the risk of violence and crime only rising on the African continent, it only makes sense to protect yourself and equipment with insurance.

I find it odd that some folks believe that emergency medical evac insurance or trip insurance is a good buy, but investing a few additional bucks for gun insurance is a terrible idea. Some folks need to go back to logic school. I suppose if one goes to malaria country it's also good idea to save all that money on prophylaxis medication and just roll the dice.

Insurance of any kind is a complete and total waste of money... until you need it.

....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1
DRSS Charter member
"If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982

Hands of Old Elmer Keith