quote:

---

Originally posted by Buell:
To all you Remington feens out there who can't appreciate a good thing when he comes across it, here are some guns that may change your minds. If you all really think these are ugly peices of crap, there is no hope for you.

---

You should remember that I said "chacun a son gout." If you like that kind of stuff, then go for it. I don't. I don't like curved or humpback buttstocks on rifles -- I think they look incredibly gross. (I'd consider getting a CZ550 in .416 Rigby, for example, if it were not for that horrible humpback stock they come with.) I don't like double triggers on a rifle unless it's a double. I don't like carvings or gold inlays on guns -- certainly not on rifles. Maybe if they're done in the very best of taste, gold inlays might be permissible on a double (SxS or OU) shotgun.

But why gild the lily? It seems to me that carvings and inlays and such crap are attempts to disguise the fact that this is a gun. Do you like guns or not? It seems to me that if you like guns, then you like them for being guns, not for being places to do inlay and carving work.

I do admit to liking wood stocks and I think that wood looks better than synthetic. But keep them straight on rifles, not dropped down like an ugly dog's hind leg.

I partly agree with you that the Remington 710 is ugly -- but not because it has a straight stock. Instead, its problem is that it has a drop-out magazine and you can see the magazine under it. In other words, the Remington 710 is ugly because it's not sleek or slim enough for my taste. Also, although I've never shot one, from what I've read they seem not to be very accurate.

I do think that the later post'64 Model 70s with straight stocks and modest Monte Carlos are beautiful. I agree with you in not liking the exaggerated Monte Carlos, as in Weatherby rifles. If you want to say that Weatherby stock design is ugly, then I'd agree with you.

Classic simplicity is the key, both in good engineering and in gun stock design. Guns are not furniture or jewelry, and attempts to make them such are gross in my opinion.

[This message has been edited by LE270 (edited 01-26-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buell:
One of the things that pisses me off the most about pushfeeds is the spread of the stupid slide safety. I hate slide or "push" safeties. A good wing safety on a true 98 is when I get a tingle for a gun.

---

I agree with you that slide safeties, such as the one on the Remington 700, are an abomination. I don't like tang safeties (Ruger 77) on rifles either. But I also don't like Mauser wing safeties. In my opinion, the Winchester Model 70 type 3-position safety -- locking the firing pin instead of the trigger or the sear -- is the best ever designed for a bolt-action rifle.

I think that straight-stock, unadorned Dakota and Kimber rifles are among the best-looking ever made.

Another thing I dislike on rifles is open (iron) sights -- I think they degrade the rifle's appearance enormously. In my view they are acceptable only on target rifles for shooting sports where scopes are prohibited, and on heavy-caliber (.375 H&H and up) rifles that just might be used without scopes in very close, dangerous game situations.

But note that Saeed does not have open sights on his 375/404, and that he has been spectacularly successful against dangerous game with that rifle and its scope.

[This message has been edited by LE270 (edited 01-26-2002).]

Talk about reliable!!!!!!!!!!!! Controlled feed indeed. Break it open, slip in shell (shot or shell, as they say!). Close action. Now you're ready for anything!!! Need a second shot? Push the tang, listen for extractor to "sing," poke in another shell with the brass part at the end facing out at you. Snap the bbl and stock closed. Pull back the hammer until it clicks, and it will shoot when you jerk the trigger. You can try squeezing the trigger, but ol' Cooey she ain't no fancy missus. Jest give 'er a squeeze and she'll bang fer ya.

Safety lesson. Once when I was 15 wearing a huntin jacket that was too short in the arms, the sleeve pulled back my thumb as I was raising and cocking. Blew a hole in the sky beneath some mallards and never saw another duck all day.

But the feed is ultra controlled. Ease it in or drop it in, yer choice!

Cheers.

I like open sights on most guns. About the only guns I do not like them on are guns with heavy barrels. All sporter weight rifles need iron sights for them to be called a rifle in my realm. It all really just depends on the rifle in question, and the intended purpose of the gun.

I too like Dakotas a lot. Their iron sights allow for a straiter stock becuase of the sight's height. I like the slimmer stocks they have. They just feel right. Just the other day I was handling a Dakota 76 in .338 and I liked the gun a lot. There are good deals on used Dakotas.

I never used to like 3 pos safeties for some reason. I have now come around and I like them now, but I hate them on M. 98's. Those need wing safeties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buell:
I like open sights on most guns. About the only guns I do not like them on are guns with heavy barrels. All sporter weight rifles need iron sights for them to be called a rifle in my realm.

---

In my view a rifle without a scope is like a pump without a handle -- useless. And, since you have a scope on the gun, the iron sights are only an eyesore.

The only possible exceptions to this requirement that rifles have scopes are double rifles and other heavy-caliber rifles that are to be used at distances less than 25 yards, and target rifles for target games where scopes are prohibited.

[This message has been edited by LE270 (edited 01-27-2002).]

I prefer scopes on almost all rifles except when close up work is needed or for dangerous game. This is for bolt-actions. There are several reasons why all guns used for north america should have scopes, but there are just as many reasons why these same guns should have open sights. There is no telling when you may drop your rifle and the scope is a goner. Open sights may save your hunt.

I have had the most experience in guns with trapshooting. For this reason I like open sights a lot. It can be kind of weird looking through a scope after a time of trapshooting. Also becuase of my shotgun shooting I would never consider hunting dangerous game with a scoped rifle of even the lowest power. This is becuase I am more a-tuned to swinging on a target without looking at a sight.

However I think if I could have only one commerically made gun off the rack it would be a Dakota 76 with a S&B fixed 4 power scope with german claw mounts... A good set of express sights and a barrel band. No fancy wood or engraving either. A leather butt pad is a must! The cal would be 375HH

Sort of back to the original topic, however, there is just something about push feed guns that I dont like. I am more of a rugged looking gun type of guy- most push feeds are too modern looking for me to really appreciate. They just dont look like what a rifle should, I guess. That is the reason I will never hunt with a gun that has a plastic stock nor stainless steel anywhere on it.

I am reminded of the line from Full Metal Jacket, " This weapon of iron and wood"

Thats all anyone really ever needs in a rifle. I dont get why people act now as though if you dont have a plastic stock your rifle is going to be ruined. People have been hunting with wooden stocks for hundreds of years and they still do, just fine that is. There is no need for a plastic stock. There are sealants out there that look good on a rifle and at the same time will protect your wood stock.

I guess this all gets back to when rifles sounded better and looked better.

I actually will admit to once owning a Remington 700. It was made in the late 70's, a time when Remingtons quality was decent enough. That was the most accurate rifle I have ever owned. I sold it soon after I bought it. With cheap Rem core-lokts at 100 yrds it shot groups around .25 inches. Averaged well under an inch though. This was with a completely facotry gun with a Cabelas Pine ridge scope. The gun was a 3006

I think I am going to make a pact with myself to never touch a sythetic stocked gun again. I just hate them so much they make me vomit...

Speaking of eyesores I would make a pact with myself to never look at a Remington 710 again if it were feasible!

Here is a sexy peice-

[This message has been edited by Buell (edited 01-27-2002).]

I will also have a set of quick disconnect scope bases, or at least a set that would allow me to rapidly swing the scope out of the way should I have to take a shot without and from 5 to 50 feet.

For my type of hunting in Alaska, a .338 WM Ruger M77 MK-II, stainless, CRF, and open sights is perfect. Of course, it would be topped with an old Leupold Vary-X III 2.5-8 scope I have been using for years.

I know...I know...Those Ruger rifles with synthetic stocks-and shiny too-may be ugly. But this rifle of mine has been very reliable and drops a moose for me each year. Both the scope and rifle have never failed me, even when I drag them through mud, snow, and rain.