Over the last little while I have been re-watching my hunting videos/DVD’s. I usually put them on while doing something else and let them play in the background. Anyway, I started to notice how people responded after letting the first shot go. It seems that working the bolt hastily, from the shoulder, in anticipation of a second follow up shot, most of the time, doesn’t happen. In fact many times a second shell doesn’t make it into the chamber. When it does happen the rifle is usually brought down and the round is methodically, while the hunter watches, cycled from the magazine to the chamber.

In this type of scenario, why would a rifle that functions and feeds in a flawless manner be a necessity. It probably wouldn’t. Case in point; I have a Remington 700 that when is being shot off of a bench or cycled in the manner described above functions without a hitch. But twice, while hunting, it has smokestack jammed when the bolt has been worked quickly in preparation for following up that first shot. It doesn’t happen every time, but it has happened.

Is a rifle that performs under extreme duress really necessary considering how, apparently, many of us hunt?

Chuck

Well, hell no, and any hunter or outdoors worker that thinks that such nonsense is necessary is just a blowhard, a braggart and a pligrim who probably has too much money, owns too many expensive guns and just pisses off the real men on this forum who know what BS reliable function really is! Geez, what next, like you will expect a rifle to shoot them un-necessary tiny groups and maybe even hold it's zero!!!! Keerist, don't cha believe in giveng them animals up there in your socialist, liberal, igloo of a country that we'uns DEFEND a sportin' chance????

I like a rifle to function properly.

Chuck,

Interesting that you mentioned that, because just the other day I saw the same thing in a hunting video. Guy never ejected the shell after the shot...

When I was a young kid learning to hunt, my Grandfather used to have me work the action of the rifle over and over again from my shoulder. The practice paid off, because now it's a reflex action. I can't usually remember after the shot having worked the bolt, but I always do it. The stroke of the bolt is usually with such force that I can't find the spent cartridge cases. Claw extracters are also part of that reason.

I have also experienced "stove-pipe" jams in push feed rifles, once when I was slowly cycling the bolt and didn't pull it all the way back, and the other time after a shot.

I much prefer the feeding of controlled round actions, but understand that for most this isn't that big of an issue.

I can't afford to waste money on junk. I expect certain products like parachutes, condoms and firearms to be designed and manufactured with the utmost quality.

quote:

Originally posted by KurtC:
I can't afford to waste money on junk. I expect certain products like parachutes, condoms and firearms to be designed and manufactured with the utmost quality.

Well, I don't know about parachutes or condoms 'cause I never use either of them ;-) But I do know you'd better spend a fair amount of time working with a new rifle to get the kinks out if your going to depend on it to preserve your life when push comes to shove :-(

It is not a necessity, it is one of life's little pleasures. I like knowing that I can leave my old M70 at my shoulder and cycle the bolt firmly and there will be a round in the chamber. I can concentrate on the deer or elk rather than the rifle. You are right though that most people take a rifle off their shoulder before cycling in a new round. I have seen this many times whether the shooter is using a bolt, lever, or pump rifle. I learned to cycle with the rifle at my shoulder. Taught by a thick headed Marine who ran the rifle range at Camp Pendleton when I was only eight - my father. If a rifle doesn't feed smoothly I fix it rather than put up with the poor functioning. It generally doesn't cost dollars, only time.

Humans by our nature are going to be the weak point in the equation, in my opinion, why would you want to add one more factor? I think that if nothing else confidence is a major factor. I don't want there to be in my mind anywhere "once this thing stovepiped a round when I needed it" and then when I should be concentrating on the next shot, needed or not, I am distracted.

It is so reasonable to expect it to function 100% that to except less just seems silly.

Red

Yes and No. Depending what you are hunting.

Shooting P dogs a miss feed is not going to cost you much. My savage varmit rifles are very accurate but they feed like crap. But it is not worth my time make them feed better.

On other none dangerous big game it can cost you a lot more I expect them to feed each and every time. I would be really piss off if I lost a nice buck,elk, moose ect because of a miss feed. That is why I don't use Savage rifles for big game.

On dangerous game a rifle dam well better feed with out a hitch each and every shot. That is if the shooter doesn't screw up. A lot of miss feeds are shooter induced not gun induced.

So for the most part a rifle should feed each and every shoot slicker the goose shit.

I feel it is critical in hunting, which is why I had my Whelen built on a Mauser action. The rifle doesn't leave my shoulder while cycling the bolt and I'm confident the next round is chambered.

If you don't care if you have flawless feeding, why would you use anything but a single shot?

I guess I am just the opposite. I have formed a habit of shooting, lowering the rifle, looking intently at the game to see what its reaction was to the shot and where it is going (most of the time nowhere). I then get another round in if need be with the rifle off my shoulder. Generally I look to see if its going in. Takes but a second or two, and quite frankly in 35 years of hunting I don't think that practice has ever been the cause of a lost animal.

22WRF,

If you watch Boddingtons new video on Buff hunting, he puts two or three follow up shots into a buff in much the same manner. This shooting is very quick (and accurate), but the butt of the rifle still leaves the shoulder...

I don't think it matters too much which method you use as long as you practice and make sure the rifle is reloaded ASAP..

Regards,

Pete

On a big game rifle absolutely. No matter what the situation I cycle the bolt from my shoulder immeadiately and am prepared to shoot again if necessary. Standing there admiring your shot is like a ballplayer watching a long fly ball he just hit. It's great when it goes out but you can feel pretty stupid when it hits off the wall.

Jeff

I think my signature says it all.

It's kind of like asking how well you want the brakes in your car to work. It's rare that you'd need them to stop youself from driving off a cliff, but it'd be nice if they were up to the task on a daily basis, at any rate.

RSY

I don't care if you are shooting flies off of shit if you are going to kill anything you had better be ready, willing and able to do a humane job of it. If you shoot anything, be it a p-dog, skunk, rat, "varmint," or anything else and wound it, you better follow up quickly so you can end its agony ASAP. this doesn't have to have anything to do with *your* safety, we have a moral and ethical obligation to kill cleanly. not being able to make a second shot if and when necessary is *not* fulfilling that obligation.

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:
Over the last little while I have been re-watching my hunting videos/DVD’s. I usually put them on while doing something else and let them play in the background. Anyway, I started to notice how people responded after letting the first shot go. It seems that working the bolt hastily, from the shoulder, in anticipation of a second follow up shot, most of the time, doesn’t happen. In fact many times a second shell doesn’t make it into the chamber. When it does happen the rifle is usually brought down and the round is methodically, while the hunter watches, cycled from the magazine to the chamber.

In this type of scenario, why would a rifle that functions and feeds in a flawless manner be a necessity. It probably wouldn’t. Case in point; I have a Remington 700 that when is being shot off of a bench or cycled in the manner described above functions without a hitch. But twice, while hunting, it has smokestack jammed when the bolt has been worked quickly in preparation for following up that first shot. It doesn’t happen every time, but it has happened.

Is a rifle that performs under extreme duress really necessary considering how, apparently, many of us hunt?

Chuck

Ah yes, the hunting video. Our hero fired the rifle on camera. Bang, and you see him rock back from the recoil. Then the camera shows his poor hapless game being knocked ass over teakettle by the bullet strike. Two camera? Or film hanky panky? Then our hero marches up to the downed game and goes through the handshaking and other BS. Funny thing though. The critter didn't bleed.
Just a possible scenario, OK? Our great hunter has shot the deer which was filmed being hit. later, after finding it and cleaning everything up, they do a recreation of firing the shot then show the animal being hit, the tracking up (?) of the animal, and the final comments and handshaking ad nauseum. During the actual shooting, our hero may have done a rapid reload, but this is not shown when filming the recreation.
I've gotten to where I don't bother watching most of them. To damn much poor gun handling by some, and why is it that they never seem to get their game until the last day of the hunt. Smacks of total bullshit to me.
Paul B.

While I doubt if I'll ever have the chance to use my DGRs in the realm they were intended for, I want every rifle I have to feed flawlesly. I couldn't afford a misfeed when I was a NRA hipower shooter, and I won't tolerate one when hunting varmints. I would hate to think I lost a game animal after the effort and expense of hunting one because I had an improperly functioning rifle. My single shots even feed flawlesly because I practiced until it was reflex to eject and reload. In December I shot an Oryx at WSMR, NM and it wasn't until she was dead (spine shot)that I unloaded the round that had mysteriously appeared in the chamber. It was all instinct based upon practice. So I guess that if you want to use mediorcore equipment fine, but I feel we owe it to the animal and ourselves to be use the best we can afford.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete E:
22WRF,

If you watch Boddingtons new video on Buff hunting, he puts two or three follow up shots into a buff in much the same manner. This shooting is very quick (and accurate), but the butt of the rifle still leaves the shoulder...

I don't think it matters too much which method you use as long as you practice and make sure the rifle is reloaded ASAP..

Regards,

Pete

Well, thats buffalo hunting and thats Boddington.

Quite frankly on this topic I don't care what anyone else does and how they do it. What I care about is how I do it and how it works for me, and as I said, I like to be able to look intently at the animal to see its reaction and whether its going anywhere.

If cycling the bolt fast works for some people then they should use it. If keeping your eye on the game works, then use that.

delloro I guess you well never hunt with a bow,cross bow, muzzle loader or even some single shot firearms.

The all can be to slow for a quick follow up shot it needed.

Chuck,
I lost two red fox last year due to a improperly installed magazine box in a custom Remington 700 in .223. The rifle uses a Williams Trigger Guard and SHOULD have been fitted with an screw on ADL magazine. It was not and the work was done by a name that has a stellar reputation in the field. This left the BDL box in the gun which allowed it to fall away from the action and bind in the stock. The long and short of it is that I had two VERY WEARY Reds coming to the call I could not get the to feed a round into the chamber. Those two animals represented 2 out of 3 mature Reds that were suitable for mounting that I had a shot on in two years...

The rifle would shoot one holers with boring regularity, however, it's inablity to feed from the magazine made it worse than useless. It cost me a rare opportunity. In short the guys who built the rifles knew better, however, there was no need to argue the point. I bought the ADL magazine and screw before I sold the rifle. All for want of a $5 part in a $2000 project...

Regards, Matt.

I have no use for a rifle that does not function flawlessly, or one that does not shoot well, I may need a quick follow up shot to anchor game and maybe to save my bacon in a charge situation, or simply to get my elk or not get my elk....

A faulty gun is JUNK, nothing more in my corner. I don't even want a varmint rifle that won't feed, I don't want to mess with it.

quote:

Ah yes, the hunting video. Our hero fired the rifle on camera. Bang, and you see him rock back from the recoil. Then the camera shows his poor hapless game being knocked ass over teakettle by the bullet strike. Two camera? Or film hanky panky? Then our hero marches up to the downed game and goes through the handshaking and other BS. Funny thing though. The critter didn't bleed.
Just a possible scenario, OK? Our great hunter has shot the deer which was filmed being hit. later, after finding it and cleaning everything up, they do a recreation of firing the shot then show the animal being hit, the tracking up (?) of the animal, and the final comments and handshaking ad nauseum. During the actual shooting, our hero may have done a rapid reload, but this is not shown when filming the recreation.
I've gotten to where I don't bother watching most of them. To damn much poor gun handling by some, and why is it that they never seem to get their game until the last day of the hunt. Smacks of total bullshit to me.
Paul B.

You and I watch different hunting videos.

Chuck

Delloro,

Funny you say that, the way I practiced when I was a kid was shooting flys off of crap. I had an old red rider bb gun and would sit in the back yard of our house and wait for them to land. good practice.

I would like to mention that although not powerful that red rider fuctioned perfectly all the time.

Red

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:
Over the last little while I have been re-watching my hunting videos/DVD’s. I usually put them on while doing something else and let them play in the background. Anyway, I started to notice how people responded after letting the first shot go. It seems that working the bolt hastily, from the shoulder, in anticipation of a second follow up shot, most of the time, doesn’t happen. In fact many times a second shell doesn’t make it into the chamber. When it does happen the rifle is usually brought down and the round is methodically, while the hunter watches, cycled from the magazine to the chamber.

Chuck

I think most of what you're seeing is the hunter "admiring" his first shot. A big no-no in my book.
Yes, the simple answer is your rifle should feed flawlessly from any angle, cycled fast or slow and shoot straight too. Same goes for single shot's too, just more operator input is required.

Terry

quote:

Is feeding and flawless function really necessary?

If it's my gun it is.
You're right that I might shoot and just lower the gun to observe the outcome of the shot.....but if I then decide I need a quick follow up shot it damn better feed and flawlessly.

A couple of comments here...

1) if your rifle feeds perfectly, you can watch the game WHILE you are cycling the bolt with the rifle still at your shoulder...especially if you use a sight appropriate to the game and terrain rather than an ungainly, too heavy, and too powerful scope. You don't need to pull the rifle down.

2) I have personally shot two elk out of a small band while they ran across a woods-bordered wagon-road without taking the rifle down from my shouilder, and that was with a Ruger No. 1 single shot in 7x65-R. Not only that, when I checked later to find the empty brass, I found it (both of them) in my right hand front pants pocket. That's the result of PRACTICE, not from contemplating the shot, its effect(s), or brass disposal, as part of a "time-out" in the middle of the key moments of a hunt. But I AM a lot faster with my Steyr-Mannlicher Pro-hunter in 8x57, which DOES feed perfectly. And I don't have to take my gun down to see what is happening to the animal, with either rifle.

3) Watching an obviously grossly over-weight and out-of-shape military reservist "brass-hat" on a filmed hunt is, to me, a lot like watching some of the "action movies" currently the craze from Hollywood....interesting entertainment, but hardly a commentary on, or guide to, the real world.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
delloro I guess you well never hunt with a bow,cross bow, muzzle loader or even some single shot firearms.

The all can be to slow for a quick follow up shot it needed.

If I am hunting with something, I make sure I am able to follow up as fast as I can. if using BP, I have one of those premeasured thingies ready to go. Were I to bowhunt, I would have a quiver handy.

Now, if anybody is hunting p-dogs with BP or archery, that would be interesting....

Deloro, my compliments on your post concerning the moral imperative of making quick kills on any animal, your ethics do you proud. You are the kind of hunter that I respect and I hope you can come hunt in B.C. some day.

Chuck,

No, you absolutely do not need a reliably functioning rifle to make a hunting video. You get as many retakes as you can afford, and the deer farmer whose deer feeder the "hunter" is shooting over is getting promoted, so the deer that get poorly shot need not show up on film. The farmer will provide more, cheap, as needed for a good video take.

H. C.

I've known a lot of rifles that were great on paper, but functionally illiterate past that point, and amoung other ills, wouldn't feed well at all.

Wayne Van Zwoll said it best:

"IF IT WON"T FEED, IT'S JUNK!"

AD

Ironically, my most "flawless feeding, slickest Sumbitch" is a Rem 700 VSSF worked over by Darrell Holland. I mean this thing has the most amazing feel to it when you cycle the action. Pure pleasure...feels like..well, OK, kids might be reading this...

Anyway, it's not a necessity, but if you have one, it sure does feel good in my book!

The less you have feed and function the more you learn to appreciate it.


Make mine a crf, and I feel that if I am not ready for an immediate follow up then it is because I am being complacent or lacadasical. Its just part of the territory and should be made second nature. Even with a single shot.

If it doesn't feed & function right w/ my hunting ammo, I won't hunt w/ it, DG or NDG.

YES I WANT MY RIFLE TO FEED FLAWLESSLY BUT I WON'T SHOOT THE SECOND SHOT UNLESS IT'S NESSARY...EVERY BULLET HOLE CONSUMES EDIBLE MEAT.

I bought a pre 64 M70 in 300 H&H a few years ago and it would not feed CRF from either side of the magazine. Of course the rifle was already over 40 years old I have no idea how many owners.

I ground some metal off of the bottom of the extractor and now it feeds fine.

I heard of some hunters who went on a guided hunt out of the country and each had 740's or 7400's. The magazines fell out of both rifles when firing at game. Due to this one of the hunters lost a deer.

Opening day in CT a guy was in my stand. I went back about an hour and a half later to see if he was still there and he was just leaving. His 7600 would not shoot. He had an easy shot at a fork horn and never got a shot off. He did not have a back up gun in the vehicle.

Chuck,

What you describe has far more to do with the operator being “flawless†than it does with the rifle being “flawless.â€

I used to work allot on 1911 pistols and normally whenever someone brought one in complaining about poor ejection and stove pipes 90% of the time it was due to a poor shooting grip not the weapon.

Ummm...should a repeating rifle 'repeat' ? If a single shot will do, then why not buy a single shot.

To me it's a bit like asking if a 4x4 should be OK if it 'sometimes works'... kinda defeats the purpose...

Well, they should work 100% unless there is something wrong ie crook hand loads dopy short strokers etc.
And seeing Rugeruser bought it up, most 4x4's
arn't realy, unless they have diff lockers and
or limited slip diffs. Most are 2 wheel drives at best if both tires on one side slip.
John L.