The I LOVE THIS GUN Thread

[El Guero]

Originally Posted by PolloAsesino

That is the hand press?

Resizing dies too?

Yup. I had my fun with it but can't imagine I'll use it much now.

[pilot]

Originally Posted by El Guero

Yup. I had my fun with it but can't imagine I'll use it much now.

It was a great training device, wasn't it.

[GoGo Gadget]

Originally Posted by Xeraux

This is the issue, not that they don't trust their officers with the rifles.

There are plenty of departments that don't trust their officers.

When I tried to get a 1911 approved for off duty use, the Chief Deputy told me that while he trusted me not to shoot myself in the ass, if he let me carry a 1911 then he would have to let everyone. And he did not trust everyone to not shoot themselves in the ass.

When I tried to get weaponlights approved, he said that he thought someone would accidentally shoot when they meant to turn the light on.


It is also about money. It is easier and cheaper to restrict the equipment they can use than to give them the best equipment available and spend the money to train them. They actually weigh the possibilities. How much can we cut from the training budget vs the likelihood of a lawsuit. Which is more probable and which will cost more?

[NDEBT]

Originally Posted by lagcam

My new coyote gun, a cheapy Rem model 700 sps in 22-250. I added the Bell and Carlson stock and the $68.00 scope from my 10/22 'till I can swing something nicer.

It doesn't get much better than that. I might get flamed for this but I think the ultra high dollar scopes are overated in real world hunting.

[zuk16l]

I recently acquired a Ruger 10/22 and when I opened the box there was a form from Ruger looking for older single action rrevolvers that are eligible for a safety retrofit. I happen to have one of the older SA Blackhawks that qualify and wonder if anyone has sent there pistols in for the refit?

Travis

[ttpete]

Originally Posted by zuk16l

I recently acquired a Ruger 10/22 and when I opened the box there was a form from Ruger looking for older single action rrevolvers that are eligible for a safety retrofit. I happen to have one of the older SA Blackhawks that qualify and wonder if anyone has sent there pistols in for the refit?

Travis

Don't do it! You'll wreck the collector's value and wind up with a crappy trigger pull. All Ruger is trying to do is prevent lawsuits from people too fucking stupid to carry one properly with 5 rounds loaded and the hammer down on an empty chamber.

[doc_ricketts]

Originally Posted by NDEBT

It doesn't get much better than that. I might get flamed for this but I think the ultra high dollar scopes are overated in real world hunting.

Or even for benchrest accuracy shooting. I had my Savage 12 BVSS .308 outfitted with a medium cost ($350) Sightron 36x scope and very good Burris mounts. I got tired of it a couple months ago and took a Tru-Glo 36x ($75) off one of my Ruger 10/22s and like it better. And the groups at 100 yds (0.3-0.5") are just as good. It has no caps on the adjustment knobs and a better reticule for my eyes. No way would I pay $700-1000 for a scope like many people do I chat with at the ranges.

[McNeal]

Originally Posted by doc_ricketts

Or even for benchrest accuracy shooting. I had my Savage 12 BVSS .308 outfitted with a medium cost ($350) Sightron 36x scope and very good Burris mounts. I got tired of it a couple months ago and took a Tru-Glo 36x ($75) off one of my Ruger 10/22s and like it better. And the groups at 100 yds (0.3-0.5") are just as good. It has no caps on the adjustment knobs and a better reticule for my eyes. No way would I pay $700-1000 for a scope like many people do I chat with at the ranges.

I would be willing to bet the big difference between the cheap and expensive scopes is the ability to same point after making changes. Try this with the cheap scope; shoot 5 rounds at a 100 yards, adjust the scope up by 8 clicks, then 8 clicks to the left, followed by 8 clicks down, and finally 8 clicks right. Shoot 5 more rounds and I bet the cheap scope doesn't place them in the same spot. Most folks tend to get a scope sighted in and then leave it the hell alone which means a cheap scope would work just fine. Others need that ability to return to zero.

[CodeMonkee]

Originally Posted by NDEBT

It doesn't get much better than that. I might get flamed for this but I think the ultra high dollar scopes are overated in real world hunting.

It depends on how you are using it and what you are using it on. I am not going to put a $100 scope on my .50 BMG rifle for several reasons:

1) I think it would fall apart in short order from the recoil.

2) At the longer ranges is where the quality of a high priced scope will start to show a difference.

3) Very few variable scopes go up to 40+X magnification.

On some guns recoil is an issue and cheap scopes tend to fall apart. Other times the sealing of the scope is done poorly and you get moisture inside the scope. If I were on a high priced hunt in Alaska or Africa I wouldn't want the hunt to be ruined because my scope got foggy inside or it wouldn't hold zero.

That said, today's inexpensive scopes are often as good or better than premium scopes of 3 or 4 decades ago.

[troidus]

Originally Posted by zuk16l

I recently acquired a Ruger 10/22 and when I opened the box there was a form from Ruger looking for older single action rrevolvers that are eligible for a safety retrofit. I happen to have one of the older SA Blackhawks that qualify and wonder if anyone has sent there pistols in for the refit?

Travis

Originally Posted by ttpete

Don't do it! You'll wreck the collector's value and wind up with a crappy trigger pull. All Ruger is trying to do is prevent lawsuits from people too fucking stupid to carry one properly with 5 rounds loaded and the hammer down on an empty chamber.

Never mind that the original hammer has a safety position that would require shearing the sear or bending the hammer to get the firing pin to strike a primer.

I have my dad's un-modded Blackhawk in .30 carbine. It has the finest trigger I've ever pulled on a handgun. I'm not interested in letting Ruger mess that up.

[Dysco]

Originally Posted by CodeMonkee

It depends on how you are using it and what you are using it on. I am not going to put a $100 scope on my .50 BMG rifle for several reasons:

1) I think it would fall apart in short order from the recoil.

2) At the longer ranges is where the quality of a high priced scope will start to show a difference.

3) Very few variable scopes go up to 40+X magnification.

On some guns recoil is an issue and cheap scopes tend to fall apart. Other times the sealing of the scope is done poorly and you get moisture inside the scope. If I were on a high priced hunt in Alaska or Africa I wouldn't want the hunt to be ruined because my scope got foggy inside or it wouldn't hold zero.

That said, today's inexpensive scopes are often as good or better than premium scopes of 3 or 4 decades ago.

I know that people do hunt (especially elk) with the .50BMG, but I don't think that's what he's talking about.

I get the <$200 Leupolds now. Same warranty as the high-dollar stuff. They work just as good as my 14x Nikon, and I can see great as far out as I can shoot accurately with a 3-9x40. I had a Bushnell that would creep badly (8" @50 in 10 rounds) on my 17HMR so I stopped using the cheapo scopes.

[NDEBT]

Originally Posted by McNeal

I would be willing to bet the big difference between the cheap and expensive scopes is the ability to same point after making changes. Try this with the cheap scope; shoot 5 rounds at a 100 yards, adjust the scope up by 8 clicks, then 8 clicks to the left, followed by 8 clicks down, and finally 8 clicks right. Shoot 5 more rounds and I bet the cheap scope doesn't place them in the same spot. Most folks tend to get a scope sighted in and then leave it the hell alone which means a cheap scope would work just fine. Others need that ability to return to zero.

Why in the hell would I want to do all that? A hole in paper is just that. If I can drop a yote at 250 it really does not matter to me. Once I have a scope were I want it It stays on the gun.

[doc_ricketts]

Originally Posted by McNeal

I would be willing to bet the big difference between the cheap and expensive scopes is the ability to same point after making changes. Try this with the cheap scope; shoot 5 rounds at a 100 yards, adjust the scope up by 8 clicks, then 8 clicks to the left, followed by 8 clicks down, and finally 8 clicks right. Shoot 5 more rounds and I bet the cheap scope doesn't place them in the same spot. Most folks tend to get a scope sighted in and then leave it the hell alone which means a cheap scope would work just fine. Others need that ability to return to zero.

The step click method will identify the better quality horizontal and vertical controls. I have done this with my scopes. The Tru-Glos will have some slop when moving from one aim point to another and back, but once it is sighted in it will stay on the same POI just fine. All I am concerned with usually is getting zeroed on one standard USBR target circle and getting a good group. My shooting is about getting the most out of my Savage .308 and my handloads. My wife can put three shots in less than .25" when things are working right on the rifle (I am more impatient with trigger pull than she is). The big challenge on the Savage is cleaning the barrel often and getting the harmonics of the barrel under control.

[lagcam]

Originally Posted by McNeal

I would be willing to bet the big difference between the cheap and expensive scopes is the ability to same point after making changes. Try this with the cheap scope; shoot 5 rounds at a 100 yards, adjust the scope up by 8 clicks, then 8 clicks to the left, followed by 8 clicks down, and finally 8 clicks right. Shoot 5 more rounds and I bet the cheap scope doesn't place them in the same spot. Most folks tend to get a scope sighted in and then leave it the hell alone which means a cheap scope would work just fine. Others need that ability to return to zero.

Yes, the 'box' test. I'm pretty sure my china special will not pass the box test, but I don't really need it to. I can see the benchrest guys or even long range hunters needing that, along with the better optics. Mine is a 4-16x scope, but past about 12x it starts to get tunnel vision and the eye relief shortens up. I'm pretty much stuck at 200-300 yards max with the 22-250 here in Iowa anyway. Any farther than that here has you shooting over roads or at a farmhouse.
It holds zero and there's not much recoil from the two-fiddy to tear it up, so it will work for now!

[McNeal]

Originally Posted by NDEBT

Why in the hell would I want to do all that? A hole in paper is just that. If I can drop a yote at 250 it really does not matter to me. Once I have a scope were I want it It stays on the gun.

My point is that for most folks, like yourself, the cheap scopes work just fine because once you sight the scope it doesn't change.

The high power matches used to only allow open sights and good open sights aren't cheap since you'll have different elevation settings for the 200, 300, and 600 yard courses of fire. Many of the matches are now allowing folks to use scopes because some people are no longer capable of using open sights, but still wish to compete. These scopes need to be able to change elevation settings repeatably. Then there's the military and police who need to be able to determine a distance and adjust their scope based on previous knowledge. I know the mil-dot reticle comes into play, but it's not the only answer.