Do fudd style weapons have any practical advantages other than looking "dignified"? I've been looking at the accuracy discussions on some of the more popular fudd rifles and they don't seem noticeably better than what people report for their "tacticool" rifles. Am I missing something here? Are they all just e-statting and so the numbers should be ignored?
>>65063448>>>QTDDTOT
>>65063462Sorry for not posting another Iran vs Israel thread, I'll get back to making those as soon as the cooldown timer for new threads runs down
>>65063448Wood is always heavier than polymer. This allows you to choose whether you want a lighter rifle that is easier to carry or a heavier rifle that has less felt recoil (assuming everything else is the same). If you go to any pawn shop, then all the time you'll see a hunting rifle that has a super light stock, a carbon fiber barrel, and shoots a big cartridge; you can always find these custom guns for sale on the used market because the owner shot it a few times, found the recoil unpleasant, and got rid of it. On the other hand, anyone shooting .308 or weaker can benefit from the lightweight designs (assuming they are already great shots).
>>65063448It depends almost entirely on what you mean by "fudd" and "tacticool".It seems like you're asking "Are rifles with wooden stocks with no subtantial updates to their design in the last 50 years obsolescent?" and if so, then yes.On the other hand I think that's misrepresenting both what a "tacticool" rifle is and what a "fudd" rifle is. Most fudds these days own tacticool modern sporting rifles, and if they own a durr gun it's probably synthetic.There are a lot of guns that aren't really either "tacticool" or "fudd", and that probably includes most of the hunting and target rifles that have been released in the last few decades, and yeah, a lot of those have clear advantages over a similar "tacticool" option near that price. Usually they'll be some combination of lighter and much more accurate.On the point of accuracy, the internet is littered with people who lie about the accuracy of their rifles, and this is especially bad for tacticool guns. Nearly anyone who tells you their tacticool rifle shoots MOA or sub-MOA is, at best, massaging the truth based on some weak and cherry picked data points and often doesn't even realise they're doing it.
>>65063605I mean like a BAR Mk4 vs an AR10 for example
>>65063466it's not like /k/ even has enough traffic these days to warrant a QTDDTOT thread tooweird too, cause I remember even just a few years ago this board was decently fast paced instead of the 1-reply-every-hour-if-you're-lucky activity most threads see
There's no difference.All firearms have intended design purposes and field uses. (Terms OP uses are mere cosmetic adjectives to describe the physical appearance of some firearms and their features, furniture, accessories etc.)>accuracySee above. Firearms with myriad physical appearance can be designed and machined to similar standards of precision and shooting accuracy (<--that also depends on ammunition used, and skill/training of the shooter)
>>65063448i personally got a single shot .22lr with a 23" barrel (Remington Model 514)its practically just a tube that shoots bullets, but the thing is dead fucking accuratethe biggest part of it though? noise levelyou're guaranteed to get full powder burn with the 23" barrel, this makes subsonics extremely quiet, well within hearing-safemy other 16" .22lr is noticeably louder, and it can't run subsonics either, making it way less suitable for killing pestscurrently, however, theres basically nothing on the market in .22lr with a barrel that longin the modern minmaxed kit, nobody wants the length, even though its quieter
>>65063448There are advantages, although they do mostly apply to sporting use more than anything else. First up, classic stock shapes just point better. This is due to them putting the wrist and support hand more in line with the barrel. While steep grips favor stability and recoil control, these stocks are better for quick, intuitive shots. Like a shotgun. They also usually pose less of a snagging hazard when used in thick brush, due to having no sharp edges, holes, etc. Helps in keeping quiet. With carbon fiber especially, a modern chassis-style stock with a wraparound handguard will also be far more fragile than a traditional stock, while aluminium will tend to be even heavier than wood stocks. As for wood by itself, it does have some advantages like being a warm material and thus nicer to handle in the cold. The kinks of warping and the like have also been pretty well worked out with the advent of bedding and internal chassis. So a nice thing to have, if you're not torture testing your gun every day. For extreme use cases, a carbon or fiberglass stock is, of course, preferable.Sadly all of these advantages have long been misrepresented by manufacturers who make shit-tier wood stocks that are bulky, heavy and don't fit properly.
>>65063448Nah. These days most fudd guns are tactical guns under the hood, like they use chassis, pillar bedding and free floating which are all things that got their start in sniper rifles. Nobody glass beds anymore, and most deer rifle stocks are plastic with a realtree skin. Its also not uncommon for otherwise retrograde wooden rifles to use magpul or aics mags. face it tactichads, we won.
>>65063448so I think bolts are fucking gay, but bolts are going to be lighter and cheaper than a equivalent semi auto of the same caliber with the same accuracy.you can make accurate ARs and HK blow back guns, but it's cheaper to make a bolt action accurate and bolts can get more accurate, but at that point you're beyond the threshold for most shooters and in the Fclass and olympic rifle range. Like a bolt action isn't going to be more accurate enough to matter for high power or those urban SWAT sniper jobs that they used to do with those G3/HK sniper rifles in the 90s. And I'm sure my NRA high power national match AR would dab on WWII era bolt actions or older hunting rifles. they are also lighter because you don't need to have a piston or springs or anything and cheaper because no piston or springs and it's easier to chamber a big or weird round because you don't have to deal with the receiver issues an AR would have with a big roundthat said, all the super accurate, light and cheap bolt guns are those ugly ass plastic/aluminum tacticool mall ninja ugly ass garbage and actual fudd rifles just look nicer.Like in your example in OP, the sling on the barrel fucks with accuracy and that stock doesn't have an adjustable LoP or comb so shooting the irons vs the scope or with/without a jacket leads to compromises in ergos that those ugly ass plastic savage 110s don't have to compromise on >>65063466this
>>65063610How many 22in barrel AR10s in 308 that shoot MOA with factory ammo with an unloaded weight of 7lb have you seen for an MSRP of $1639?In don't think an AR10 with those specifications is currently for available for retail sale at all. I think you can get close to any two of the three of weight, barrel length and accuracy if you're willing to pay a lot more than that MSRP, but I'm not actually sure that you can even do all 3 with your own build using commercial parts.
Wood and blued steel is just nice and makes the experience of shooting more enjoyable.Hunting and sport shooting isn't war, we can allow ourselves to have nice things, not everything has to be min-maxxed.
>>65063448Cheaper. A $400 Ruger American is a pretty good .308. A $400 AR-10 might blow up on you
>>65063811Oh, and any rimmed cartridge is going to greatly benefit or can only be found in a "fudd" design
>>65063448>Do fudd style weapons have any practical advantages other than looking "dignified"?No. But when it comes to looking dignified holy shit they mogg.
>>65063605>On the point of accuracy, the internet is littered with people who lie about the accuracy of their rifles, and this is especially bad for tacticool guns. Nearly anyone who tells you their tacticool rifle shoots MOA or sub-MOA is, at best, massaging the truth based on some weak and cherry picked data points and often doesn't even realise they're doing it.yeah it's really funny seeing people claim better accuracy out of their off the shelf tacticool AR than you see people describe how accurate their high power ARs are when the high power ARs are "semi custom" like compass and white oak and whoever else is making them since compass died hand fits the bolts to the barrel
>>65063448I actually don't mind a nice piece of timber with some patterns, grain and character to it. Spent way too much of my life dragging around something that looked like recycled Subaru car interiors and while that had its place, there's nothing wrong with a bit of tree and a decent bolt or lever action for shooting targets or animals.
>>65063612Yeah i really hate what has become of this board. I wish they just made a military board so all the tank plane geopolitical slop would be gone even if the board slows down even more, at least it'll be firearm related again. God forbid i want to discuss weapons that i can own . . . and hold . . . and shoot instead of>omrg bro, have you heard about the united states new fighter jet that travels 3.467996532q35 miles per hour faster than the last fighter jet. This will truly be revolutionary for modern warfare.
>>65063448Tactically speaking i am 99% sure most of the people blowing off the top of your head with a 6mm Lee-Navy, a Arisaka or a Ethopian Cacarno are better shots than the ones holding a rifle that has any aluminium or plastic in it. People who like older guns tend to be better shots because they appreciete the guns limitations and work to improve themselves instead of buying something new. Fudds tend to be good shots.>25 years CCing a Tok
>>65063448>tacticool is just as goodLOL If you think some dipshit stamped/plastic piece of shit is going to deliver the same accuracy as a precision bolt-action, this thread is gonna be hilarious
>>65064087I mean, coming from other hobbies there's always a contingent of stubborn retards who think every technological innovation after the mid 20th century is a jewish conspiracy and will engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to rationalize why old and shitty is actually a good thing. I expect guns to be the same. Old and pretty is great, old things generally do look nicer for some reason, but you lose me when you start dismissing things just because of an irrational fear of plastic.
>>65064087What? Your precision bolt actions all have mlok bipods and AR grips, everything is tacticool now. What are you even picturing when you say stamped?
>>65064538>Everything is tacticool nowLOL. Only for juvenile faggots playing armyman. My 30yo 700BDL with 3x9 Redfield Widefield Illuminator has a beautiful stock and no bipod gets within 100 yards of it. Yet somehow it hammers enough deer every year to keep my freezer full.>StampedMost AKs and all their derivatives, G3, CETME, the list is a long one....>PlasticYou know the answer to that without even taking a single breath
>>65064637The AK is old enough to be your BDL's dad
>>65063448idk but i went with a sako s20 out of spite for boomers and it was either this or a similar bergara
>>65063612Yeah, welcome to the pre-ukraine pace. You'd know this if you were here pre-covid
>>65063448>Do fudd style weapons have any practical advantages other than looking "dignified"?They will shoot your eye out, sonny. Op is retarded.
>>65064087>irrational fear of plasticSpeaking of irrational, that's you reading something that wasn't there. I spent 8 years in a green suit, midwit. While it's true I preferred my 240 in the field, I put thousands of rounds through a plasticshit rifle too. Stating the obvious that a mass-produced cheapest bidder military rifle isn't going to outperform a purpose-built, small-run tack-driver is apparently too complicated for you to grasp.>inb4 muh custom pasticshit that I paid 20 zillion dollars forDon't bother. When it takes thousands of dollars to cobble together accuracy that barely approached what can be got off the shelf at fucking Walmart for a fraction of that, you're taking your "hobby" into the land of mental illness
>>65064657You can use mass production techniques to bring down the cost of tack drivers too
>>65063811Made me curious.Looks like a Ruger American is pretty accurate. .5 to 1.5 MOA:https://www.ronspomeroutdoors.com/blog/rugers-new-american-rifle-a-winnerTeh Googlez says something like a S&W M&P15 is a 1.5 - 3 MOA
>>65063448Give specific examples of a "fudd style" weapon and a non-"fudd style" counterpart, and I will layout what advantages one has over the other.
>>65064973see >>65063610There's a discussion I'm looking at now where a guy is claiming 1MOA with a DPMS AR10That's cheaper than the Browning
>>65063448They're lighter and better for hunting because they use more powerful cartridges.
>>65063605>the internet is littered with people who lie about the accuracy of their riflesThis is actually a huge problem I am having trying to improve my shooting. I have no idea what benchmarks to aim for because everyone fucking lies all the time or they post a 3 round group they achieved once and claim "yeah i can do that any day bro trust" and I can't find out what to realistically expect from the guns I'm shooting.>>65063767>I'm sure my NRA high power national match AR would dab on WWII era bolt actionsDoes anyone really seriously doubt this anymore? Even hand selected No4 Enfield snipers were like 4moa iirc.>>65063940Problem is most people here now know effectively fuck all about guns. You think the guys arguing about drones know anything about guns beyond what they can pick up from telegram/twitter shit flinging?>>65064637What is the relevance of 1950s/60s military rifles to a discussion of precision rifles? I think everyone reasonably knows that expected accuracy for guns of that period wouldn't hold up for precision shooting, it wasn't meant to.
>>65063515Apparently guns like that are often sold with half a pack of ammo
>>65063448that twat is resting the whole weight of the rifle on thr trigger guard>>65063448>Do fudd style weapons have any practical advantages other than looking "dignified"?better made rifles are more accurate and durable. Your entire understanding of yourself as knowlegable in the sli8ghest on guns because you play video games is deeply flawed
>>65063448Wood used to be the cheapest, lightest material by which non-wear parts like stocks, grips, and handguards could be made.Now with polymers, billet aluminum, etc, these parts can be made stronger and lighter so there isn't much need for wood.I guess it might serve a better purpose for glass bedding or something of the sort, but even that can be done in polymer just fine or better.
More ergonomic to carry by hand. Less stuff sticking out to get caught on shit.
>>65065267I wondered what part of op's question would cause such an offended response, so I had to reread it a few times and still didn't get it. But after reading the thread, it appears to be perceived as a reasonable question based on the majority of the other posts. So that leaves me to ask, why are you like this?
>>65063610>I mean like a BAR Mk4the BARs just look nicer and come in more hunting calibers. >>65063612the whole site is like that. But I'm sure the constant no gunz threads don't help plus a lot of gun stuff got "solved" or made "meta" in the last 10-15 years with the GWoT ending and the import bans
>>65065414Wood is just inherently less accurate because of warping, even with glass bedding. It's also less durable. Arguably easier to repair?Which is why all the arguments on this thread rely on the idea of a wood stock being "high quality" or a gun with a wooden stock being "better made", which is just an argument in favour of better quality guns not "fudd rifles".My argument in favour of wood stocks is that they just look far better. Same way high gloss bluing looks far better than matte cerakote. It's like classic cars, you're not buying them because they are technically better than a modern car, it's because they feel nicer, they look nicer, the experience is more enjoyable because of that.
>>65063651There's this things called a suppressor.
>>65065414>but even that can be done in polymer just fine or better.Epoxy doesn't stick to most polymers very well. Trying to bed in a plastic stock is a fool's errand. You skip the plastic and use either a metal chassis, or a composite one.
>>65065260Yep. People think that super-light .300 Win Mag sounds real cool, but then they go shoot it. It recoils worse than a dangerous game rifle because it's a wicked sharp slap rather than a big slow shove.
>>65065154>and I can't find out what to realistically expect from the guns I'm shootingShoot groups with a good sample size (10+ rounds) from a bench rest with bags. Take your time between shots, don't just spit them out as fast as you think you can go. Whatever accuracy you get from that is about the best your rifle will perform. That's your new baseline to compare the rest of your shooting to.
>>65068069No, that's how that particular gun-and-ammo combination performs. The gun might be substantially more or less accurate with different ammo.
>>65064637>LOL. Only for juvenile faggots playing armyman. My 30yo 700BDLSTOP RIGHT THERE!!!!!!!The anon you are replying to clearly says "now"If your rifle is old enough to have credit card debt and google searches for norwood pattern baldness, it is not from the "now"
>>65068074Run the test with different ammo, numbnuts. Nobody's stopping you from getting the bags out to see how cheap ammo really performs.
>>65068076Norwood pattern baldness is no longer a measure of age since Zoomers are going bald in highschool
>>65067079It's not like people are making barrels out of wood though
>>65068091People make log cannons all the time
>>65063448>fudd style weaponskys retarded zoomer
You're all sick people. I hope you all get cancer. Fuck youse all. I put a curse upon you all. Fuck ya mudda
>>65063651They must have discontinued it since it isn't on their site anymore, but henry used to have 2 models of their basic bitch .22 with a 24 inch barrel. one was round barrel and threaded and the other was octagonal and not threaded they redid their whole catalogue recently and I think they do the ruger thing where outside of a few evergreen models they are just making random shit from parts they already made and spamming different SKUs and then discontinuing anything that doesn't sell super well. cause now it looks like all of the octaginal .22s are just using the golden boy 20 inch and 16 inch barrels.
>>65063466Kek, this. This is at least a mildly interesting topic.Being a 35 year old boomer myself, I feel the draw of Dr pepper and walnut. Allow this young man his thread.
First off let’s agree on what a fudd gun is.>Anything but semi-automatic unless it’s WW2/M1A milsurp>Large caliber for the class of weapon>No pistol grips>No optics except for scopes>Wood furniture>No box fed magazines on anything that isn’t milsurpThe fudds are the kings of the brush guns and hunting rifles. Low tech generalists and to be fair there are few things you can’t kill with 5 .30 caliber bullets.>Tacticool>Modularity above God>High capacity>Rattle canned, coyote, or black>Metal and synthetics only>Autistic specialization pushing the boundaries of 5.56 and 7.62 as far as mathematically possibleDon’t break into a tactifags house. They are desperately praying for the opportunity to dump down the stairwell. With the average self defense scenario is closer to dusting middle eastern goat herders and Central American narcos than assaulting an entrenched position the edge in CQB is obvious.Personally I like all guns but have a special place in my heart for the late boomer era firearm niche where fudd met tactifag and we got shit like the Mini-14, the USAS and SPAS 12s, Scout Rifles, and the Bren Ten. These guns have soul and moderately updated tech without being fucking boring.
>>65063718>While steep grips favor stability and recoil control, these stocks are better for quick, intuitive shots. Like a shotgun.all modern shotguns like overunders and a lot of American side by sides have pistol grips instead of bong style straight grips
>>65065154>Does anyone really seriously doubt this anymore? Even hand selected No4 Enfield snipers were like 4moa iirc.I see people, mostly no gunz, claim bolt actions as a class are more accurate than semi autos
>>65063814there's no reason to have a rimmed round in a semi auto. it's one of the reason a lot of .22lrs that aren't tube fed or rotary mag suck
>>65065154>Even hand selected No4 Enfield snipers were like 4moa iirc.Not even close.The Brits were ~1.5 MOA for acceptance as a sniper rifle, same as the US.The Germans were slightly worse at ~1.6 MOA. Suprisingly the Russians had the lowest at ~1.4 MOA.
>>65063940>>65065154>>65063612one of the problems is one if the jannies (the only janny?) on /k/ is a slav or German or something and hangs out in the war tourist threads and they give the jannies a lot of leeway in deciding what is or isnt allowed on their board so he keeps his threads around even though they are technically against the rules in the sticky.if you go read the leak the no gunz board should have been made a while ago because they "only really make new boards when something on topic disrupts normal discussion to the point where it overwhelms the board"and then they specifically cited needing /vt/ because /jp/ was mostly vtubers. also see /mlp/ and/co/ but the /jp/ janny is an autists and idk what actually is allowed on /jp/ because threads about japanese history/culture or like japanese baseball arent allowed. /k/ jannies like the war shit and /meg/.I think the only exception is that they made /vg/ and maybe /vp/ to get all those generals off /v/ because they were dominating the board. but then they keep creating poorly jannied /v/ subboards to try to reduce traffic in /v/ because /v/ and /vg/ are too fast to janny but no one uses them because the jannies are usually faggots on the subboards. like apparently one of the /vr/ jannies is some nortious tranny from the doom community that has shat up every other retro gaming and doom forum in existence
>>65063940fucking same
>>65063962>Tactically speaking i am 99% sure most of the people blowing off the top of your head with a 6mm Lee-Navy, a Arisaka or a Ethopian Cacarno are better shots than the ones holding a rifle that has any aluminium or plastic in it.this is fucking retarded. if you go to an NRA high power match it's like 95% boomers using ARS with LPVOs
>>65064087modern polymer furniture guns mog the shit out of old fudd bolt guns in terms of accuracy.
>>65064530>old things generally do look nicer for some reasoncause most of the old shit that actually survived was richfag gucci shit.
>>65064640I get that it's ergonomic, but holy shit is it ugly
>>65069855Just googled it to check myself, it seems more like acceptance (for a No4) was 2.5 MOA (or 5" @ 200 yard, per Skennerton), looks like I was getting 4 MOA from " Capt. Shore relates, “An excellent shot with good rifle, iron sights, and standard Mk VII ammunition would put up consistent five shot 3” to 4” groups at 100 yards" but it could also just be a bad source I've seen elsewhere misquoting it.https://www.thearmorylife.com/the-no-4-mk-i-t-sniper-battle-ready-accuracy/It could also be I've misread a FOM stat (or read it misinterpreted):https://www.leeenfieldresource.com/enfield-accurizingNow what that FOM stat means for snipers I don't know, where were you getting figures from? For the No4T at least I can't find any specific accuracy mention, only the standards No4 2.5 MOA equiv figure. Cant speak to the other nations much so I'll take your word for it but it'd be good to see a source. I have seen a British table comparing a variety of rifles to each other for accuracy before from around 1945-1950 but can't find the fucking thing now as is always the case.
>>65069967Fuck you for making me dig out my Skennerton. Too many damn books to do spur of the moment searching. You are right as well.4 MOA is the general acceptance for military rifles. For the past century pretty much every infantry rifle in every country has had to be within the 5-3.5 MOA range.No4(T)s were tested - 7 of 7 in a 5" diameter circle at 200 yards and 6 of 7 in a 10" diameter circle at 400 yards. Good rifles from testing were rebuilt and scoped.From memory the American sniper rifle standards were 100 yards and 1.5" circle. They built dedicated rifles and rebuilt exceptional ones from the production line.The Germans were supposedly 5cm at 100m, varied quite a bit as many factories had issues. They tried building dedicated rifles with not too much success. The preferred rifle was simply an exceptional K98 with a scope added on.The Russians were 3cm at 100m. They selected the most accurate during testing and scoped them. They had so many that many sniper stamped rifles were never scoped and simply sent to line units.
>>65064657>I spent 8 years in a green suit,NTA, but no one cares, homo>I preferred my 240 in the field,oh shit, manlet detected. What are you, 5'2"
>>65064680>You can use mass production techniques to bring down the cost of tack drivers tooNTA but some of the accurate guns are hand fitted and shit. like if you buy an NRA high power AR they hand fit the bolt to the barrel to improve accuracy
>>6506468899% of the time accuracy claims are measured in a retarded way>we shot 20 three round groups and one of them was sub moa
>>65064995I bet you $5 he shot multiple groups and is cherry picking the best one and the groups are like 3 or 5 rounds
>>65065154>This is actually a huge problem I am having trying to improve my shooting. I have no idea what benchmarks to aim for because everyone fucking lies all the time or they post a 3 round group they achieved once and claim "yeah i can do that any day bro trust" and I can't find out what to realistically expect from the guns I'm shooting.the 10 ring on the NRA high power target is 7 inches at 200 yards so like 3.5 moait's still 2 moa at the 600 yard slow fire prone targets. 12 inch 10 ring at 600 yards
>>65065267>better made rifles are more accurateshitty ruger plastic fantastics made in current year will fucking dab on the 1 in 1,000 had built winchester 1873s in terms of accuracy
>>65065154>>65068069>>65068074go buy a starter high power rifle or small bore rifle and shoot that in matches. it's a good way to see how good you are at shooting because you can compare your scores to your peers and you can compared your scores as you get better to your older scores
>>65063466>>65069422>>65063612>>65066694>>65063940>>65065154for some fucking reason /k/ is one of the only boards, along with /pol/ that doesn't limit you to a certain number of threads. Like you can only make 3 /v/ threads at a time, you can make 5 threads on most boards but /pol/ and /k/ don't limit you and you can theoretically make like 100+ threads
>>65069635most fudd rifles have boxmags and the browning BAR, most semi auto shotguns and the remington model 8 are fudd guns
>>65066694No offense, but you aren't outshooting an FNAR with an AR-10 dollar for dollar. You can get an FNAR for like $800. Just make sure you don't get raped on mags, but that's almost impossible unless the fudd selling it to you doesn't know any better.
>>65069855NTA but I'm pretty sure they measured the accuracy differently and it wasn't strict MOA it was like 8 out of 10 rounds on a square of x size instead of measuring moa
>>65063448The main practical advantage is that they're not homosexual, it's so weird hearing about fudds from people who massacre perfectly functional weapons to add gay accessories they have no use of or red dots and shit just to shoot a gun at hugging distance and everyone who likes to keep most of the design original is somehow a fudd
>>65070127Fudds are bad in their own ways, just like CAGLARP guys are bad in their own different ways. You can criticize both crowds, and that's just two of the many crowds of gun owners and you should know this.
>>65070094Anytime accuracy is measured in groups it's fake and retarded, who gives a fuck if a gun can print holes in paper that have q certain pattern from a set distance and bench rest? Might as well put it in a vise and pull the trigger with a cord. The question is can you consistently shoot something or different things at various distances while holding the gun in your hands. I mean if you shoot a rifle long range yeah you should know what moa is and how to adjust your scope and whatnot but we're talking about 300, 400, 500 meter and more distance, not what youtube guntards in tactical gear do.
>>65070127red dots are based and make sense on hunting guns that only need 1x magnification
>>65070130The only genuine fudds I've met were a few and were the hunters who yap about rifles needing to have an engraved wooden stock because everything else is apparently too modern and yeah they were annoying and didn't really know shit about guns. I mean I find hunters annoying in general with their theories on which round you should use to kill a wild pig as if it's gonna survive any rifle bullet as long as it's hit correctly kek >>65070132> 1x magnification That's called iron sights
>>65070137To clarify I don't mean the obvious like don't hunt with a 22 but their extensive yapping about common and economical cartridges being useless and you needing a specific rare European caliber that's only found in some stores and costs too much instead of a 308 for example. I'm 100% sure no wild animal is gonna survive getting shot by a 308 or 7.62x54 or anything like that minus an elephant and the point of having guns is being able to shoot them and being able to find shit to shoot out of them
>>65070137red dots are better than irons
I hate the anti-fudd crowd that took over in my country and a lot of countries in Europe now, it's impossible to find a normal 1911 or cz75 or anything like that for a reasonable price because all you see in stores is glocks, glock clones, or other shit similar to glocks and glock clones with shitcatinny rails and other shit, like why the fuck would you intentionally make a pistol bigger when you're just gonna lug it around in a holster and shoot it on a nice sunny day at the range ffs, people fought the bloodiest and most terrifying wars without attachments on their guns and you need a flashlight on a gun you're scared of scratching up
>>65070139They probably think the guys who go hog hunting with ARs are somehow being counterproductive.
>>65070149According to what? Nothing against you personally but every time I've heard that from someone is when he didn't even know how tu use irons out of sheer ignorance and hatred towards anything made before he's born. I have a fucked up eyesight and still manage to hit shit easily with an sks that's got nothing screwed to it. You look through the rear sight and over the front one and see the target, pull trigger, done. You can't tell me this is hard to do
>>65070155No they just think they're not "real hunters" as if that means anything, I could say real hunters hunt with rocks and bows and would technically be right, it doesn't make any sense and is a dumb way to think. But I'd really like to be wrong but everyone I've met who owns an ar is a showoff and uses his gun for dick measurement contest, though I'm biased and don't like the AR anyway, most of them suck except the old ones
>>65070162I shoot NRA high power with irons. red dots are better. I have a rifle I've shot with open sights, peep sights and a red dot and the best groups were with the red dot and worst were with the open irons and I can shoot a red dot quicker too
>>65070139>>65070155As a 'pest exterminator' there's really no way to do this job economically without a lot of ammunition. With 556 and 308 being essentially shot in the 1000's each year and yep, its out of essentially military rifles.If I was using something else other than those two and once in a while I do use 12G and 300win mag, there would be nothing left in terms of money after you pay for fuel, the traveling time, helicopter hire and whatever else comes along like poisons and baits.Sort of why I tell people who aim to do a lot of shooting is to pick the ammo you're going to use a lot, then find the rifle to shoot it out of to find a good mix of what works for your budget, effectiveness and whatever peripherals you need to make it work like scopes, thermals and other bits and pieces. That may mean if you're using a good old boy Winchester, Sako, Tikka or any number of reputable brands of hunting rifles that have been around for years.
>>65070190You must use .300 Win Mag or you're not a real hunter.
>>65070195Honestly, the excuses to shoot off a 300 win mag are really lame, mostly its me justifying to myself that I just can't be fucked walking any closer
>>65070077If it's any consolation I spent about half an hour trying to find a rifle accuracy trials table in Jonathan Fergusons bullpups book because I remembered it having a bunch of relevant service rifles in it. Couldn't find it.
