Remington does in fact sell, quite literally "military-issue weapons of war" to civilians. (GUN PIC)

[sir pball]

Last edited Thu Jun 16, 2016, 02:51 AM - Edit history (2)

I'm not talking about a mid-power semi-auto based on a military design (that's actually legal across much of the world, including Germany, Austria, Finland, New Zealand, - maybe we should "worry less about the gun and more about who's holding it" as Recursion says).

No, no, no. Remington Defense will openly, explicitly, and legally sell the exact same rifle the US Army currently fields, to any schmuck off the street who can pass an NICS check and cough up $11,500. Kill a man with one shot at 1200m. Who needs Richard Roper when you can buy direct?

I present you with the entirely civilian-legal, in almost every country on Earth (including the UK and Aus), Remington M2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle:



And you can buy it right this second, in friendly Montoursville, PA!

So, do you think civilians should be allowed to own this rifle, and if not - 1. why? and 2. how would you restrict it? At its heart, it's a Model 700, one of the most popular, benign, and well-loved bolt-action rifles of all time...this is the exact same rifle, just in different clothes:

[sir pball]

1. This is going to be a semi-drive-by..

I just got my "stripes" (sous chef spot) at a very major NYC spot, so sleep let alone free time is going to be a luxury...hell, I have to be back up in six hours, but the beer is so cold and tasty, and the chicken isn't quite ready for the deep fryer, so I might respond in the next hour or so.

[aikoaiko]

8. Congrats, chef!

[Odin2005]

52. Congratulations!!!

[Eleanors38]

57. Congratulations. Buddy of mine was a sous chef at a big oe in Baton Rouge...

...and all the Creole cooking that implies. He kept a 200-300 pp self-bound (duct tape), hand-written "book" of favorite recipes, gravies, rues, sauces, etc. He regularly chefs on big cruise ships out of Lauderdale, then works in other on-shore gigs.

[sir pball]

133. Thanks guys!

It's sure hard but quite worth it, and I hope if we find some disagreements here we can all agree that good food, prepped with lots of love, is just freakin awesome.

[dilby]

2. People who spend $11,000 on a rifle don't usually shoot up schools with them.

To own a rifle like that is an investment and it's not something used ever for a mass shooting.

[sir pball]

5. So why the persistent calls for bans on .50s?

I'm not saying you support them at all, but that's a common and logical argument against restrictions on BMGs (but not 338s, and I know my 338RUM can outshoot a 50 at 1500) - a good Barrett is in the tens of thousands, and a true precision 50 is like a freaking Formula 1 car. I think the hypothetical capability of these guns makes people think the world really is a Tom Clancy or Jason Bourne novel..

[jmowreader]

6. Probably because the bullet from one can travel over four miles

[sir pball]

7. Ballistically, yeah.

A 338 will travel about 3.5, but I can't find a calculator for a 45 degree angle...which is what you need to make a 50 go 4 miles. Fuck, shoot a 22LR at that angle and the range, printed on the box, is 1.5 miles. But that's literally lobbing shots off at random, even if you aimed them here at Manhattan, you'd maybe hit let alone kill two people.

So, random bullets off into space aside, since a moderately trained asshole can pull a Charles Whitman times ten from twice the range with this rifle, why is it legal again?

[malthaussen]

155. I shot a bullet into the air...

... and who it hit, I do not care.

-- Mal

[Drahthaardogs]

13. A .338 RUM is my Alaskan rifle

And it most certainly will NOT outperform .50 BMG at 1500 yards. You are talking foot-pounds of a 250 grain bullet vs. 750 grain bullet.

Where did you come up with this?

[sir pball]

131. Outshoot, not outperform.

The big 338 twins (RUM and Lapua), especially with the super-sleek 300gr ultra-low-drag bullets, are far superior ballistically to a .50 in the ultrararified 1500m+ range. Flatter, more predictable in wind, and far more consistent. Just like there are plenty of rounds that will outPERFORM a .308 inside of 800 yards - there is nothing that will outSHOOT it. See CoH Craig Harrison making two consecutive kills at 2,706 yards with a 338Lap. I suspect the .408 CheyTac would do even better, but NATO doesn't like wildcats.

[jonno99]

45. Contollers are compelled to control...nt

[dilby]

90. I have no issue with .50 cal rifle, they weigh 30 lbs and cost an insane amount of money.

[The_Casual_Observer]

83. I would guess he paid with a credit card!

[Lord Magus]

125. Quite possibly.

A terrorist who's going on a suicide mission wouldn't have a problem with maxing out his credit card.

[dilby]

91. Still a fraction of the price on a rifle that is not designed for mass casualties.

And I have no issues with AR or other sporting rifles I just want a magazine capacity limit of 7 rounds.

[msongs]

3. a song to guns: aint no corpse pile high enough to keep me from getting to you (sorry Diana) nt

[sir pball]

4. For the record, I love me some guns but they're power and demand great responsibility.

I don't believe in any kind of "AWB" or much in the way of controlling the GUN. Control the PEOPLE.

I believe in a nationwide, mandatory ownership license, with safety and responsibility training.
I believe in mandatory dealer transfers, where not only is a background check performed, but a record of the sale is made.
I believe in a "title", much like a car, where the duly legal owner of the firearm is documented, and it must be passed to the next owner, with record of transaction. Possessed by the owner, but severe penalties for not having it.
I believe in severe, mandatory, criminal charges for gun crime, including failure to secure your gun properly.
I believe in handgun registration.

Again, I do NOT believe in a cosmetic ban on firearms - a functional ban (eg. semi-autos, or magazine-fed guns, or both) is silly, but I'm OK with it, but "NO PISTOL GRIPS OR BAYONET LUGZ ERRRR" is so dumb as to be counterproductive.

Discuss.

[Odin2005]

16. +1

[fleabiscuit]

86. I get nothing but positive responses for this...

“An assault weapon is one that is pointing at you” ~ Jesus, GUNS AR:15

A gun that won’t work if they steal one.

ALL Guns should be computer chipped to only operate in legally designated areas, and able to be overridden by legal authority. All POLICE weapons should be fitted with iSight type cameras and audio. All guns should have a built in “find my gun” feature to disable and recover lost/stolen guns. It is way past time for a 700 year old technology to advance to the 21st century.

In addition, guns sold to public:
~ Mandatory comprehensive universal background checks before guns are sold.
~ Mandatory comprehensive universal background checks before ammunition is sold.
~ All ammunition must be micro-stamped.
~ No fragmenting ammunition to be sold to civilians.
~ Mandatory 6 month waiting period to purchase a gun.
~ All guns and ammunition required to be stored in/with approved gun safes or gun/trigger locks at home.
~ All long guns to have fixed internal magazine of no more than 5 rounds.
~ Handguns to have fixed internal magazine of no more than 7 rounds.
~ No minors under 16 should be allowed to own or carry/handle a gun.

Including:
* National buy back program of all civilian non chipped modern guns. (paid for by gun makers)
* $50K fine for possessing working non chipped modern guns.
* $50K reward for reporting owners of working non chipped modern guns.
* Antique guns cannot be loaded or used in public space.
* Mandatory liability insurance for gun ownership.

Help stop NRA=ISIS.

(might be some sarcasm in my title)

[sir pball]

132. Um...well, how about German gun laws instead?

You're mostly off the deep end, dude. Technologically impossible and functionally useless at best.

How 'bout this instead? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

[fleabiscuit]

175. When ever you say never to high technology it comes back to haunt you. ~ Dean Kamen

Last edited Sat Jun 18, 2016, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Steve Ballmer Laughs At The iPhone

There once was an Apple 1, and some got fabulously rich with updated models.

Those Germans!
Smart gun
Armatix iP1
http://www.armatix.de/iP1-Pistol.779.0.html?&L=1

Their barrel locks are the bomb.
Still lots of room for further innovation.

Gun Company Tries To Sell Safer Gun, CEO Gets Threatened And Harassed Because Of It (VIDEO)
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/04/30/gun-company-tries-to-sell-safer-gun-ceo-gets-threatened-and-harassed-because-of-it-video/

New Jersey Institute of Technology smart gun technology

NJIT: ‘No one is proposing we roll out a weapon’ that isn’t safe
http://www.msnbc.com/all/njit-responds-gun-lobbyists-claims

Spotlight: Smart Gun Technology Works
http://www.njit.edu/news/spotlight/2005/jan/index.php

And the effectiveness of Dynamic Grip Recognition? The NJIT reports it’s 99%.

Then there is the military stuff that’s being developed. We're in the Apple 1 stage.

[linuxman]

9. Aaaaaaaaaand there it is.

I've been saying it for years. Bolt action rifles simply aren't as low-hanging of a fruit as everything else, but slap a scope on it, call it a sniper rifle, and you'll have people clamoring for them to be restricted as well. Gun control has a credibility problem.

It can hit a person at 1200 meters? I can use my laptop to write the great american novel. Potentially. I'm not about to pretend that I or anyone else has the ability to do so. People would have you believe you can plunk $11,000 on the counter, buy some ammo off the shelf, walk out with it and be putting rounds of targets 1200 meters away, training be damned. That's so entirely laughable it could only come from someone seriously advocating a restriction on bolt-action rifles (one of the few items at least SOME gun controllers repeatedly assure everyone they'd never come after. Well, as long as it isn't scary and black...)

What's an acceptable max effective range of a rifle? Why? Serious question, BTW.

[Odin2005]

20. The problem is that a lot of urban liberals don't know much about guns.

As someone who grew up in the sticks I am often shocked how ignorant some of my fellow liberals from major metro areas are about guns.

[jonno99]

29. Speaking of ignorant:

"PTSD" from simply firing an AR-15...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201

[DashOneBravo]

38. Wow

[Odin2005]

50. Wow, what an insult to vets, rape survivors, and others with actual PTSD.

[Eleanors38]

63. Strange. I fired an AK-47 several times. Hardly any kick. Complete destruction...

of a Lone Star can.

[jonno99]

78. That's what I call good, clean fun.

[Eleanors38]

87. The can stood right there, thought I had missed. Hit it 4 times.

[malthaussen]

156. I understand the kick is more brutal on full rock and roll.

The only weapon I've fired on full auto, though, is an M-16, which has trivial recoil.

-- Mal

[Eleanors38]

176. I only fired semi, but it was nicely set up and it fit me well. Not bad

when compared with burning a box of .270s at the range, sighting in.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

174. Shooting a Lone Star can seems just ... wrong.

A Lone Star can?

To me, Lone Star should ONLY be available in long-necked bottles!

A can is just not right.

[Eleanors38]

177. Agree on the bottles, but when on a deer hunt, and charged with clean-up...

crushed cans are better to pack out.

Upon arriving in Texas 46years ago, I asked a local why the Texas beer was so cold (and they were), he answered: "To hold the stink down."

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

178. Understood, cans are easier to pick up than broken glass...

... but I thought deer hunting was mostly for shooting at stop signs. They're easier to hit than a little beer can.

[Fumesucker]

30. I learned to put about 90% of shots on a man sized target at 500 meters with iron sights

Marine Corps basic training, M14 was the rifle in question.

[linuxman]

32. Same, only it was an m16.

Granted I had several weeks of classes, training, preperation, a target sling, wind call flags, known distance range, ammo loaded to mil specs, drop data corresponding to range and the necessary info for sight adjustment, 20 minutes to fire the 15 rounds, etc. If you'd put me out there with the rifle and a "good luck", I might have hit once in 20 shots, and only then on the backer at that.


My point being, the rifle by itself isn't inherently precise. Accurate, sure. Some shmo isn't going to pick it up and be Carlos Hathcock, though. The rifle in question is functionally identical to basically every deer rifle in the country. I'm inclined to believe that if it had a wood stock, no pistol grip, and no rail/stock adjustment pieces, nobody would give two shits. Just seems silly to me.

[Aerows]

60. You are asking the wrong question.

Would you like for *me* to be behind the rifle aimed at you from 1000 meters away?

[linuxman]

70. I'd rather nobody take a shot at me, personally.

Though there are rifles out there for 1/10th the price where you could hit a person at 1000 yards with a few days of instrucion, and nobody wants to ban those. If you wanted to shoot me, it would be a much better bargain.

A 308 Remington 700 can be had for 500 bucks, and a decent scope for another 500. 308 is one of the most commonly used rifle cartridges in the US for deer huning. There's nothing special about it at all, and the rifle is the most common one currently used. It's a bolt action with an internal fixed mag of 5 rounds. Nobody is talking about whether or not it should be restricted. What makes this particular rifle special? Why should I care if anyone has one, as it's pretty much the same thing as every bolt action, centerfire hunting rifle already out there?

I'd care exactly as much if you used the one below, frankly, and those aren't going anywhere, ever.

https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/mobile/product/97359/redirect

http://www.opticsplanet.com/vortex-riflescopes-vpr-m-06fp.html

[Aerows]

71. Again, you aren't asking the right question. n/t

[linuxman]

74. Which is what, this time?

No, I'd rather you not sight in on me with this rifle. I'd also rather you do it with the legal in every state and most countries one I linked. Or a single shot ruger 22 youth model, for that matter.

What's your point exactly?

[Aerows]

75. It's clearly pointless

to argue with a person that has absolutely no ability for self-reflection.

[linuxman]

80. Irony, thy name is aerows.

Being willfully obtuse and coy is cute and all, but I sort of just wanted a mature conversation where you clearly answer my questions, much like I did for you. I see know I was asking a lot.


Your cryptic nonsense really showed me.

[Aerows]

81. And, once again ...

Are you using a knock off Mint revision that changes meaning into an unknowable character set?

[A HERETIC I AM]

10. Should cops be allowed to have these?

.

That by the way was a cop in Ferguson Missouri set up on the street in a residential area.

What the ever living fuck does a police department need with such a weapon?

[jmg257]

12. Ask Orlando.

[A HERETIC I AM]

14. I'm asking the OP

But regardless, the answer is no

[metalbot]

21. Out of curiosity

What do you think that weapon is?

I mean, it certainly looks scary, but what makes it different from "ordinary" rifles that police have?

[A HERETIC I AM]

22. I think it's a rifle equipped to kill people from a long distance

Do I give a fuck what caliber or model?

No. Not in the least.

[metalbot]

25. That makes it clearer

But that means that what you are really asking is "why would police officers need a weapon that lets them kill people from a long distance?"

However, I'd offer an alternative explanation. That rifle is also equipped to kill people from a short or medium distance with much greater accuracy and with lower risk of missing and hitting the wrong person. That's pretty much exactly the kind of rifle that I _would_ want police officers to have.

[A HERETIC I AM]

33. Nonsense

The cop in charge put that guy there with that weapon for one reason and one reason only;

To kill citizens in case the cops lost the upper hand.

And BTW, he's sitting on top of an armored personnel carrier.


My answer to the question posed by the OP is yes, as long as the cops are allowed to have them.

[Matt_R]

119. I have to agree to this but would like to add...

Disarm the police, military, and the personal security that were exempt last AWB.

[FuzzyRabbit]

129. To kill citizens in case the cops lost the upper hand?

The Ferguson police department put that guy and gun on top of an armored car to intimidate citizens peacefully protesting the murder of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson.

We can't have citizens questioning the government, can we? Got to keep them in their place, especially the black ones. </snark>

[Matrosov]

34. Many police departments have sniper teams

I'm not sure why that's surprising?

Sometimes it's safer to end a situation with one shot than to send in the entire SWAT team.

Of course, whether or not they should've had their guns trained on the people of Ferguson is an entirely different question.

[EX500rider]

76. "What the ever living fuck does a police department need with such a weapon?"

For when this happens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

Or this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

[Straw Man]

124. What -- ARs? Or tripods? Or scopes?

What the ever living fuck does a police department need with such a weapon?

It's an AR with a scope and a tripod. ARs have been commonplace in police departments ever since the North Hollywood bank robbery. I don't know why they deployed it in Ferguson, but a typical use would be if a hostage situation goes bad.

What would you suggest in such a scenario? Storm in with revolvers and billy clubs?

[jmg257]

11. Bolt action with 5 rounds? Not a big deal. When 30 round mags come out, then worry. nt

[Odin2005]

15. This is what I don't get about the gun debate...

It seems like people are freaking out over the gun LOOKING "military" (the basis of the nonsensical label "assault weapon&quot and not caring about the specs. I know many people who use semi-automatics to hunt, but they look like normal hunting rifles so they don't cause the freak-out the AR-15 does.

[metalbot]

27. There's a greater irony about the concern over civilian weapons being military grade

Which is that for most of US history, soldiers wished that they could have weapons as good as were available in the civilian world. Military issue weapons in the civil war were definitely substandard compared to what civilians could buy (and many civil war soldiers did buy/bring their own). We fought WW1 with bolt action rifles - the exact same technology that was already in wide civilian use. We fought WW2 with wooden semi-automatic rifles, a technology that was entering the civilian market at the same time.

Side note:

There's a fascinating book called "American Rifle: a biography" that discusses the slow pace of the US military to adopt changes in technology that went to the civilian world first. The army didn't want repeating rifles in the 19th century, for example, because then soldiers might have to carry 30 bullets each, and would probably shoot too fast and run out of ammo.

[Odin2005]

49. IIRC one of the "robber barons" purposefully sold the Union army shoddy guns...

in order to maximize profit. I think was was Cornelius Vanderbilt.

[Lord Magus]

128. During the Civil War the (limited) adoption of repeaters was because Lincoln overrode the Army.

The Army didn't want the Spencer carbine but the president ordered them to use it after it was personally demonstrated to him by the inventor. With the effectiveness of repeating rifles was proven in the war, the Army refused to use them again for the next 25 years.

Something very similar happened after WW2. The war had shown that most fighting happens at inside 300 yards and a less powerful rifle that could be fired accurately in short bursts was ideal. The Army promptly insisted that any future rifle needed to be optimized for shooting out to 600 yards and just as powerful as the existing M1 Garand, and forced the rest of NATO do the same. The Soviets had already adopted a modern assault rifle in 1947, but the US Army wouldn't do so until 1964 and even then only when the government forced them to. And the Army still managed to screw it up in the process.

[Paladin]

17. The Model 700 is designed for killing game animals.

The M2010 is designed to kill human beings. Appropriate fantasies accompany each model of rifle. What sort of next-door neighbor do you want: one who owns a 700, or one who owns a 2010?

[Odin2005]

18. They're functionally the same gun.

You can use the 700 to kill people and the 2010 to hunt deer.

[Paladin]

24. The fantasies attached to each style of firearm are markedly different.

That's not just my opinion. A few days skimming DU's Gun Control/RKBA group confirms it. All the more so for on-line sites dedicated to the AR-15 and AK-47. The combination of militarized styling and juvenile Guns As Toys attitude is why my guns stay in the closet.

[Amishman]

26. hopefully not literally in the closet, you should store them securely

(assuming that you don't have some sort of lockup arrangement in the closet)

[DashOneBravo]

37. I'm not getting your point

I hunt with a bolt action .243 that was my fathers rifle. If that stock is damaged I plan on replacing it with a synthetic one. It will prob be a drab dark color.

[Odin2005]

51. The vast majority of people are capable of differentiating fantasy from reality.

The genuinely unhinged "I'm gonna hold of the UN Commie Hordes with mah gunz" crazies are an extremely small minority of gun collectors and sports-shooters, at least in my area.

Invoking the "fantasies" argument is the same sort of argument people used 20 years ago against video games like Doom and Mortal Kombat.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. So products should be banned based on the fantasies they inspire? n/t

[Odin2005]

54. I guess we should ban Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto, too, based on that logic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Or place an $11,000 price tag on it to make it even more of a public threat. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. If you are talking about THIS Model 2010 for hunting deer...

http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/Firearms/Sniper%20Rifles/XM2010.aspx

NO, you couldn't... at least not in my State. No rifles with pistol grips, adjustable stocks or suppressors of any kind allowed, and Tennessee has some of the least restrictive OWNERSHIP laws in the Country... no Assault Weapon Bans, no magazine capacity bans and, as of July 1st, 2014 when the enhanced "castle doctrine" laws went into effect, you can carry a LOADED rifle or pistol in your own private vehicle without a permit. However, when it comes to hunting, THAT'S where you start finding all of the restrictions and bans. They take Conservation very seriously here, since the Tennessee Wildlife Resourses Agency (TWRA) is funded solely by the sales of hunting/fishing licenses and accompanying permits (trout stamps, waterfowl stamps, big game stamps, commercial fishing, Wildlife Management Area (WMA) stamps, etc.). This year, we just had our 3rd License Fee increase in 40 years, and it was only an $8 increase.

Back in the late 70's and early 80's, our deer herd was almost extinct. Deer Season was only open for 2 weeks for gun season, and you were allowed ONE buck, period. I moved away in 1981, right after graduating, and didn't come back, except to visit a couple of times, until 2002 so I am not sure what year they changed the seasons and laws. While I lived here, from '76 to '81, they were trying to restock the herd by bringing in deer from Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and a few other states. It was very effective, as we are over-populated now. They have also successfully re-introduced Elk into the State and just had the first, very limited, hunting season on them last year.

I can walk out my back door and deer hunt on my own property without a license, but I think I have only been hunting twice since 2010. I only hunt for meat, and I have never, nor ever will, use a tree stand. I "still hunt" from the ground, and prefer hardwood stands or creek bottoms. My preferred hunting rifle is a bare bones .30-.30, as they are good "brush guns" where the bullet doesn't deflect easily just from hitting a twig. I don't think I have ever taken a shot that was over 30 yards, and the closest one was about 30 feet. I have pretty much decided that IF I do any more hunting, it's going to be with a Long Bow.

With all of the craziness going on, I have gotten rid of all of my guns except for 2... I kept a Benjamin .22 cal pump-up pellet gun that I have had for 30 years, and a Mossberg pump 12 gauge. NOBODY needs more than 5 shots while hunting, and if you think that you do, you probably shouldn't be hunting anyways. Even though my .30-.30s would hold 7 shots, I never put more than 3 in it. That was just easier to unload when I was done hunting, if I hadn't taken a shot.

Peace,

Ghost

[jmg257]

42. Has anyone advocated for more then 5 rounds when hunting? I get your concern,

but haven't seen that much.

Even the one linked to is only 5 rounds.

[Ghost in the Machine]

48. No, I was just pointing out that the statement that you could deer hunt with this gun was wrong, at

least in MY State, and in several other States that I know of, where you can't even use a rifle at all... "Shotgun ONLY"...

Peace,

Ghost

[ManiacJoe]

136. So few places have that shotgun-only restriction

that the rest of the country needs to be repeatedly reminded that some places actually have that restriction when it comes to these discussions.

[Ghost in the Machine]

166. In some States, the "Shotgun Only" restriction wouldn't work, either...

Even with a rifled "slug barrel", the maximum effective range is only about 60 - 80 yards. It wouldn't be of any use in some States that have a lot of wide open Prairie land, where you're looking at a 300 yard shot. You still don't need a tactical stock & 30 round magazine to do it, though.

Hunting is a vital, and the most effective, means of population control and conservation. "Trophy Hunters", however, make me ill.... but I have no problem with someone who hunts for the meat, and uses it to feed their families.

Peace,

Ghost

[Odin2005]

55. You missed my point, all I was saying was that both are at their core the same gun.

The differences are cosmetic. Whatever the local regulations are isn't really relevant.

[Ghost in the Machine]

165. I get the point about the cosmetics, I made a similar post on facebook earlier this week comparing a

Ruger 10/22, and how it can go from a simple squirrel hunting gun to a "big, black, scary looking "assault weapon"....

Like this: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/322640760777381222/

I don't know if you have to have a Pinterest account to view, so here's 2 more links:

From THIS: http://www.ruger.com/products/1022Carbine/models.html

To THIS: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ProMag-Archangel-Ruger-10-22-Conversion-Stock-Kit-w-Bayonet-Black-AA556R-/361496515362

just by changing the stock...

Peace,

Ghost

[Straw Man]

130. Huh?

NO, you couldn't... at least not in my State. No rifles with pistol grips, adjustable stocks or suppressors of any kind allowed, and Tennessee has some of the least restrictive OWNERSHIP laws in the Country...

Do you have a link to that? I couldn't find anything about it in here:

https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/twra/attachments/huntguide.pdf

All I came up with was this:

7. Use or possession of the following equipment is prohibited:

• Predator calls while night hunting.
• Pod arrows (any pod-type device for holding drugs or chemicals on an arrow) or any drugs or chemicals used in pod arrows while archery hunting.
• Explosive arrowheads while archery hunting.
• Firearms capable of fully automatic fire.
• Firearms or archery equipment with any device utilizing an artificial light capable of locating wildlife.
• Any electronic light amplifying night vision scope or device while in possession of a firearm or archery tackle between sunset and sunrise.
• Electronic calls or live decoys while hunting wild turkey, foxes and waterfowl (except electronic calls are legal during the Conservation Season for Blue, Snow and Ross’ geese).
• Rifles or handguns with full metal jacketed ammunition.
• Rifles or handguns with centerfire ammunition between 30 minutes after sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise.
• Any loose shot other than non-toxic (as approved by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) on any shotgun shell loaded with shot other than non-toxic while hunting waterfowl, coots, gallinules, Virginia rails, and sora rails.
• Any firearm including air guns using archery bolts.
• Tracer ammunition

[Ghost in the Machine]

168. No, I don't have a link. going by what the Game Warden said, and what the Hunter's Safety Instructor

said, a few years ago when I sat through the class while my son attended.... some laws have changed since then, but I will look through the link you provided and see what I can dig up. That's the same link I always use, but I think it has the different rules in each section, Like "Deer Hunting", "Turkey Hunting", "Waterfowl", etc... I know that while Turkey hunting, you used to not be allowed to have more than 3 rounds in your shotgun, and the plug HAD to be in it...

Peace,

Ghost

[Straw Man]

169. OK, thanks.

I know that while Turkey hunting, you used to not be allowed to have more than 3 rounds in your shotgun, and the plug HAD to be in it...

Yeah, that's pretty standard -- here in NY too. Also for waterfowl, but I think that might be a federal reg.

[Ghost in the Machine]

172. Yes, I think it's an NWTF rule on the 3 rounds. I downloaded and looked through the .pdf link, and a

LOT has changed. On page 17, at the very bottom, it now says that you can use suppressors/silencers, as long as you have the required Federal License from the US Dept. of the Treasury on your person....

It *USED* to say "no 'military style' weapons with a pistol grip, fixed or detachable bayonette (or even the LUGS for a bayonette), or detachable magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds"... THAT excluded using an SKS, because they had 10 round mags and only had full metal jacket ammo. I did notice a few years ago that they began selling "hollow point hunting ammo" for the 7.62 x .39, because I had a Romanian Military Issue Model 1956 SKS, but it was nested in a TAPCO synthetic tactical stock, with pistol grip, adjustable butt stock, 20 round magazine and still had the bayonette on it. It was cheap to use for target shooting.. $5 for 20 rounds at Wally World, Cabela's, Gander Mountain and most gun shops. I know the local Game Warden personally, and he told me that it was illegal to hunt with, but that was several years ago. Not that I would have hunted with it anyways, I'd be embarrassed, as a *hunter*, to even be seen in the woods with something like that! I just got rid of it a couple of months ago, along with the rest of my guns, except for 2.... I kept a Benjamin .22 cal pellet rifle that I've had for over 30 years, and a Mossberg 835 Ulti-Mag Turkey Edition (that I am fixing to put up for sale because I need tires for my car).

Peace,

Ghost

[Straw Man]

173. Yeah, instructors might not be keeping up ...

... with all the changes.

As far as SKS, I believe you could legally hunt with a five-round detachable magazine if you could find one. Here in NY detachables are illegal for the SKS because the SKS has a bayonet lug. Bayonet lug + detachable magazine = "assault weapon." I don't know how you could modify the internal mag to make it five rounds.

[oneshooter]

97. Both the Remington M700 and the Winchester M70 were used as sniper rifle by the military.

Rem M700
https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Med4cf0fe1a692f0d97c2da7128bcaee8o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=351&h=172

Win. M70
https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/0YEnBDufYNd6RwEYVGHzWQ--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9Mzc1O3E9OTU7dz01MDA-/

[sir pball]

135. Not just functionally, but legally.

I dialed up an acquaintance who owns a gun shop and he confirmed for the purposes of an NICS background check, this would be listed as a "Remington Model 700, M2010 spec" with serial number recorded, the exact same as an off-the-rack M700 from Walmart.

[hack89]

19. Both the Army and the Marines adopted the Model 700 as their standard sniper rifles

not sure I understand your point.

[EX500rider]

77. "Appropriate fantasies accompany each model of rifle." Psychic are we? lol

[Marengo]

88. Better a neighbor who has both, than one who believes guns have mind control properties

[jonno99]

154. Ouch! nt

[GOLGO 13]

23. Thats a nice looking weapon.

Quite pricey.

[Hoyt]

28. Sniper rifles are a must. Never know when you need to shoot unarmed fleeing kid at 300 yards in back

because they stole you pink flamingo or something.

[Marengo]

31. Which one can't be used to engage a target at 300 yards?

[Hoyt]

39. Actually, Marengo, I'm not much into "engaging" citizens with your beloved gunz. Believe it or not,

you are no longer in a war zone.

[Marengo]

40. Another non-answer. Try again, which rifle is not capable of hitting a target at 300 yards?

[Marengo]

89. Where did you go Hoyt? Why are you avoiding post #40?

[Hoyt]

93. Because it is an ignorant question. When gunners buy a rifle marketed as a "sniper"

rifle, it's clear what they are thinking. At best they'll play army with it pretending to be a sniper or urban warrior. What ever the case, there is no place in our social for those rifles, and at times those attracted to them. Enjoy your lethal weapons.

[Marengo]

94. In other words, you can't answer as that fatally weakens your argument.

[Marengo]

96. What is the substantial performance difference between the two at 300 yards Hoyt?

[Hoyt]

98. I don't give a darn about the performance. I do care about yahoos who buy a gun marketed as

a sniper rifle, tactical rifle, George Zimmerman original, etc., or one designed to shoot at long range where they are not remotely a threat

[Marengo]

101. Which one doesn't have a 300 yard range, Hoyt?

[Marengo]

116. I'm a long range target shooter Hoyt, and the design of the M2010 is appealing...

For that purpose. If I had th coin, I might just add one to the collection. Does that make me a Zman-like yahoo?

[Hoyt]

141. Well, you can give up your "hobby" for the good of society.

[Marengo]

142. That isn't an answer. I thought you were okay with folks having a couple...

Of firearms for sporting purposes such as hunting or target shooting so long as they weren't assault weapons.

[Odin2005]

56. Do you not know what hunting is?

[Hoyt]

58. I'll bet my ass right now, not 15% of the yahoos that covet sniper rifles hunt with the damn things

unless you include humans in the category of game.

[SuperDutyTX]

62. Is this a serious claim?

I just did a quick google search to see if I could find one example in recent years of someone in the US who had legitimately been "sniped"; I couldn't find one. I've also not heard of it anecdotally at all.

[Hoyt]

65. Here's how Barrett advertises their sniper rifles to yahoos. Not a friggin thing about hunting.

Just macho crud for sick stateside militia wannabees.

[SuperDutyTX]

66. Right that's how they've chosen to market that, but..

Can you give one example of one person being actually "sniped" in the US in the past 20 years? I've honestly never heard of it happening.

For what it's worth, that Barret is a semi-auto, and functionally quite different than what this thread is about.

[Hoyt]

67. Yeah, you don't have to reload as often when shooting people on the perimeter of one's compound.

If it were a long-range mountain goat rifle, it wouldn't be called a "sniper" rifle to appeal to gun yahoos' baser instincts.

[AntiBank]

170. DC sniper

I am not a "ban all guns" delusional btw. Just giving you what you asked for in terms of a sniper attack.

[SuperDutyTX]

171. to be fair

Fair point; I'd forgotten about that.

That said, this thread is about bolt action "sniper rifles" being used to pick off people at extended distances; the DC/Beltway Sniper used an AR15.

[Hoyt]

64. Here's how Barrett markets a sniper rifles to stateside yahoos, nothing about hunting.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. So, umm, how many people have been murdered with one? Do let us know...

...so we may determine for ourselves the difference between
"unusually dangerous" and "offends the sensibilities of gun banners"...

[Hoyt]

82. Well ask police departments, and check out militia groups.

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. Why should I? You are the person implying that they are dangerous

If you can't come with examples of their misuse, then they're only dangerous
to your sensibilities

[friendly_iconoclast]

179. It's been two days, and so far the only harm demonstrated is to your sensibilities

[Marengo]

95. Which one more resembles the rifle most often used by Carlos Hathcock?

[Paladin]

99. You're flailing. Give it a rest. (nt)

[Marengo]

104. How about you answer the question? Which one of the two rifles pictured in the OP

Resembles the rifle most often used by Carlos Hathcock?

[Paladin]

107. The 700 was closer to what Carlos used. The additional bells and whistles weren't available to him.

But then, he was a for-real military sniper. Not some civvy poseur, trying to make up for various inadequacies.

[Marengo]

110. So, other than for bells and whistles, no substantial difference in ballistic performance?

[Marengo]

115. Does that mean anyone who uses a 700 (or Win 70 as he actually used, or any other...

Similar bolt rifle) is a wannabe Carlos Hathcock?

[Marengo]

118. I'm posing the same question to you as I did to Hoyt in post #116.

[Paladin]

143. No, you're doing a frantic technical dance to avoid the really important question:

What measures need to be put in place to prevent a lunatic from acquiring one of those Remington rifles---either that plain old 700 or the pimped-out "sniper" model---and using it on a major political figure? Because the way things stand right now, it's just a matter of time.

[Marengo]

144. That isn't an answer, but I'll take it as acknowledgment that you agree...

Both models are more similar in performance that not.

[Paladin]

145. I've answered your questions. Have the courtesy to answer mine. (nt)

[Marengo]

146. No, you haven't. You either overlooked or avoided my question...

Concerning your opinion as to the differences between ballistic performance.

[Marengo]

147. It appears posts 109, 110, 112, & 115 are pending responses from you.

[Paladin]

148. I'll take that as a chickenshit cop-out by you. Many thanks. (nt)

[Marengo]

149. If you had time to type this bail-out, you had time to answer #146...

A reiteration of a question I asked last night. Why are you evading it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

181. They want their aesthetic judgements encoded into law, yet are reluctant...

...to outright admit it.

[Marengo]

106. And, while you're at it, explain the substantial difference in performance between the two platforms

At 300 yards. You'll notice I didn't establish that metric.

[Paladin]

108. Well, the available jerkoff feature on the "sniper" model has its charms....... (nt)

[Marengo]

109. How about ballistic performance?

[Marengo]

112. Ergonomic enhancements are "jerkoff" features?

[oneshooter]

100. This one.

https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/0YEnBDufYNd6RwEYVGHzWQ--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9Mzc1O3E9OTU7dz01MDA-/

[Marengo]

105. Hmmmm...sure looks a lot more like a deer rifle than the M2010

[oneshooter]

111. It is a Winchester M70 with a heavy barrel

Sling, match trigger and what looks like a 10X Unertil scope.
Standard issue in Vietnam with both the Army and the Marines.

[Marengo]

114. I know, USMC vet here.

[sir pball]

134. Ah, so it really is how a rifle looks.

I mean, this gun will hit as hard at a thousand yards as an AR-15 point-blank...but it doesn't have pistol grips and bipods and Things That Inflame the Violent Humours...so you're OK with it?

[Marengo]

152. That appears to be the argument. Appearance determines intent. Performance on the other hand...

Is irrelevant.

[malthaussen]

157. Maybe the argument is "appearence determines appeal."

One who buys a rifle because of its technical attributes is indifferent to the cosmetics, except insofar as they might ease his convenience of use (e.g., some people like pistol grips). I think the point that is being made is that not all potential buyers are really interested in the technical aspects, but just want something to fondle. Since such persons will rarely, if ever, use the weapon to shoot a person, it is arguably moot what their motivation for purchase is.

OTOH, it is pretty clear that mass shooters are fond of AR-15s and similar pretend assault rifles. I tend to doubt they pick them up because of their technical attributes, but I really don't know. I lean towards the thought that they may just buy them because it feeds into their power trip.

That gun control laws are absurd (and inconsistent, since every state has its own) is not in question, I agree. It might be useful to consider what sort of laws might be efficacious in modern society. Yet the jurisdictional problem remains: if we were to enact some Federal statute to regulate firearms sales, would that not require a great expansion of the ATF Department?

-- Mal

[arendt]

35. Lets muddy the waters by conflating sniper vs assault rifles.

Sniper rifles are one shot. Assault rifles are semi-auto, easily converted to full auto.

But, let's have another pointless debate about technical details that further confuses the basic issue of semi-atuomatic weapons use in massacres. Let's not talk about massacres, but about "gun grabbing".

Pardon the expression, fire away. I will not be participating in this exercise in distraction.

[EX500rider]

79. "Assault rifles are semi-auto, easily converted to full auto." No, no they are not.

[DustyJoe]

36. High Time

It's time to ban scopes and based on some posts here ban iron or peep sights on all gunz along with the dreaded bolt action killing rifles. No rifling allowed in the barrels, no sights on top of the barrels, we need to go back to all smooth bore sightless muzzle loaders.

[Rex]

43. The weapon used in the Orlando massacre is used by US special forces.

It should never be in civilian hands.

[Straw Man]

137. No, it isn't.

The weapon used in the Orlando massacre is used by US special forces.

The full-auto version is the one that the special forces use.

It should never be in civilian hands.

It isn't.

[Hoyt]

140. Yeah, semi-autos don't kill fast enough. Full-auto, or semi-auto, kill plenty quickly.

[Straw Man]

150. What's your point, Hoyt?

You're proving mine.

[Rex]

162. Waste of time, those that worship the Death Culture that comes with assault rifles

are not worth a reply, I only did because I bet good money the poster has no clue.

[Rex]

161. Wrong it is custom made for special forces, I bet you don't even know what I am talking about.

Don't worry I won't try and take your Precious away from you.

[Straw Man]

167. I know exactly what you're talking about, ...

Wrong it is custom made for special forces, I bet you don't even know what I am talking about.

Don't worry I won't try and take your Precious away from you.

... which has nothing to do with the discussion. The MCX that was developed for special forces is not the one that is for sale to civilians. That's all I said, and I'll stand by that.

SIG SAUER developed the MCX rifle for America’s special forces. Their goal: a firearm that’s as quiet as an MP5, as deadly as an AK-47, and more modular than anything ever designed. Originally chambered in 300 AAC Blackout, SIG built the MCX to fill the same need that inspired AAC’s Honey Badger. I’ve been watching the SIG SAUER MCX come together for well over two years, from the first prototypes to the finished product. The military version is a useful firearm; even with a massive silencer attached, shooting in full-auto, the MCX is extremely controllable. It’s more like a big MP5 than anything else. [Click here to watch.] My biggest concern: would SIG SAUER translate the mil spec masterpiece into a useful semi-automatic civilian model? They certainly started on the right foot . . .

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/foghorn/gun-review-sig-sauer-mcx/

I don't own one of those. It's not "my Precious." I'm not sure why you want to continue to conflate military and non-military weapons. If you think there's no meaningful difference, than just say that, but please stop spreading misinformation.

[hunter]

44. Every gun lover is a potential terrorist, a potential suicide, an accident waiting to happen.

No thanks.

One of my obsessions as as a teen was rockets and explosives. My parents owned a small farm. I could buy all the nitrates I wanted to play with, no problem. I was largely unsupervised.

I was damned certain then I wasn't a fool, not one of those people who blows off their own arm like my grandma's friend who had lost his arm fishing with dynamite and wore a hook. Yet I've got many scars that prove my foolishness and when I had kids of my own these memories and experiences became my nightmares. I discouraged my own kids from following a similar path.

My family tradition is Wild West. It's not the television version. Fools and their guns are soon parted. As a kid I witnessed my mom disarming people in anger. If she broke a few fingers along the way, well, even better that they remember. My brother owned a bit of a dive beer drinking place. If anyone got too boisterous about guns or anything else he had a big baseball bat, knew all the locals who might rob the place, and kept an eye on strangers. My great grandmas were holy terrors, forces of nature, excellent hunters. I'm pretty sure they severely damaged a few bad men along the way.

Gun love is disgusting.

If I posted loving descriptions of bombs, or nerve gas formulations, or reservoir toxins, etc., people would be rightfully worried about me. Why should guns get a pass?

Piss on guns.

[Hoyt]

59. +1. I would like to see bumper stickers -- "PISS ON GUNS."

[Straw Man]

138. That would be great.

I would like to see bumper stickers -- "PISS ON GUNS."

Then everywhere you go, people would marvel at your wit and erudition.

[Hoyt]

139. I bet I'd get more thumbs up than you guys and your NRA bumper stickers.

[Straw Man]

151. Ah, yes.

I bet I'd get more thumbs up than you guys and your NRA bumper stickers.

I don't have any bumper stickers, Hoyt. I'm not one of those people that thinks difficult concepts can be expressed with a limited vocabulary.

[mwrguy]

68. Bravo

[Throd]

69. How about people like me that own them but don't love them?

What stereotypes can you project on me?

[hunter]

85. Why would you do that?

My brother has my grandfather's favorite deer rifle, but he doesn't hunt. It sits on the shelf.

Which is probably why my brother got it.

In my home, and a couple of my sibling's homes, the gun would meet arc welder and become art. In my parents home guns end with my mom, destroyed, especially guns belonging to fools. I'm the child of Wild West matriarchy, that's the family tradition.

I've been hunting. I've been shooting. I didn't fancy it.

I also have this fantasy that nobody should be allowed to be a cop until they've spent a decade teaching middle school in rough urban environments.

[oneshooter]

102. So is every driver of a motor vehicle.

Go ahead, deny it.

[hunter]

113. I loathe automobiles.

Why would I deny that?

Automobiles are an environmental catastrophe and they kill and maim many people every year. I'll bet you know someone who has been killed or maimed in an automobile accident. I'll bet you know of some once pretty place that was paved over for cars, or made accessible to lazy car driving vandals.

But automobiles do have practical purposes, especially in a society specifically designed to encourage the use of automobiles and discourage walking or public transportation.

I have a car. I hate it and it hates me. It continues to roll past 300,000 miles, and when it finally expires I'll probably have to buy another piece of shit $800 car. No problem, I can fix most things that go wrong with a car, and I know better mechanics with more tools who are honest and find me entertaining.

On the other hand, my wife and I don't drive much. When my wife and I met we were Los Angeles commuters, 20mph freeways or worse, many hours wasted sitting in our cars breathing smog. By some planning, and more good fortune, we left that and haven't suffered commuting like that since the mid 'eighties. One of the compromises is living in a place that's a little wild west, with a high crime rate and serious gun problem. Our kids got free lunches in school because so many kids qualify for free lunches it's not worth the trouble to collect money from those who can pay.

It's still a much nicer place than the affluent white suburban hell I grew up in. I fled, my siblings fled, my artist parents fled when they retired from their "day jobs."

[Marengo]

120. Have you communicated your concerns about these potential terrorists to the FBI?

If you're serious and not just spouting shit, maybe you better be making phone calls.

[hunter]

121. Oh bother.

What should I do, put you on my list???



Talk about spouting shit.

Gun lover's appeal to authority.


Ooooohh, The FBI!

[Marengo]

122. Oh, so you don't actually believe it and are spouting shit...

Good to know, I wonder just how much more of your blather is made of the same substance.

[hunter]

123. Piss on guns.

Gun love is disgusting.

And predictable.

There's a reason there's a place informally called the "gungeon" here on DU.

Pretty soon now it will be time to get all this gun love crap out of General Discussion.

The second amendment is an ugly 18th century thing, like slavery. It has no place in the 21st century.

[Marengo]

127. So, yes, you acknowledge it's bullshit.

[Marengo]

126. Or, maybe you lack the courage of your convictions. What are you waiting for?

Lives may be a stake here. That is, if you actually believe that clever phrase you've been polluting discussions with like guano from above.

[Adrahil]

153. Every drinker is a potential drunk driver!!!! NT

[hunter]

158. This is true. And we can use the same social pressures and legal remedies to reduce gun violence...

... as we do to reduce drunk driving.

You don't see a lot of people bragging about their drunk driving, or even their drinking prowess, these days. People who drive drunk lose their licenses and eventually their cars. Establishments that sell alcohol in reckless ways, to minors or obvious drunk drivers, lose their permits.

Sociopath drunks are going to think twice about raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster now, right? Nobody wants to be the internet's villain of the week.

Same is true with smokers, at least in my part of the world. They know they've got a bad habit, one that is likely to kill them, a habit irritating to others. They don't teach their children to smoke, they try to quit smoking.

[Adrahil]

159. By the same token, we don't shame people who enjoy the occasional beer or rum.

We do need to differentiate between hunters and responsible recreational shooters, and militia-type yahoos, IMO.

[hunter]

160. All twelve of them.

I doubt the responsible hunters are disturbed by my rants.

My name is Hunter. I don't hunt, I have hunted, and some among my friends and family still hunt. I'm now mostly vegetarian, but I don't turn down meat at other people's dinner tables. One of my nieces has decided goats, not cows, are the future of meat and dairy products, which goes a little against the family traditions of cattle ranching on my mom's side, and dairy on my dad's side.

The hunters in my social sphere say nastier things about the yahoos with guns than I do. Some have threatened to shoot them when they feel their livestock, dogs, or horses are endangered. As a kid I witnessed my mom disarming one of these yahoos and breaking his gun. He screamed about suing and such, but nothing came of it. My mom was unarmed when she did this. One day I was out riding with one of my inlaws in his big old truck, we were going out to swim in an irrigation canal, when a drunken, armed, yahoo riding a Honda four-wheeler skidded to a stop inches from the driver side door. My inlaw looked at the yahoo calmly and coldly said "Get the hell out of here or I'll kill you." The poor fellow fled. That's the kind of people I live with. You don't even want to know what my great grandmas were like.

I don't have a high opinion of "recreational" shooters at all. Recreational drunks are less dangerous so long as they refrain from driving, shooting, or operating heavy machinery.

[Adrahil]

163. The problem is ALL drunk-drivers are recreational drunks.

Not one of them drinks alcohol for sustenance. With 9,000 drunk driving deaths a year, I suspect recreational drunks are a LOT more dangerous than recreational shooters.

I'm just pointing out what I see as disparity. A new tactic seems to be derision and disdain for gun owners because they are unmoved by so many hurt by gun violence. I get that, but it seems to me that's a pretty selective outrage and disdain.

[hunter]

164. Look. I AM ANGRY. There's a horrible tragedy in a community I care deeply about and what happens?

All the gun fucks think it's a fine time to post their gun porn and their masturbatory fantasies about shooting the imaginary bad guys that rattle around in their empty little heads.

Piss on guns. Piss on gun fuckery. Piss on the NRA. Piss on all their allies and enablers. Piss on the second amendment, it's an ugly relic of the 18th century, just as slavery was.

[NaturalHigh]

46. Cool, but I'm not a good enough shot to get something like this.

That's why I pretty much stick with shotguns. I'm a lousy marksman.

[oneshooter]

103. Thats ok. I ain't much of a wingshot. n/t

[Eleanors38]

72. That Rem 700 is almost exactly like my deer rifle. I like wood, but if

I had to get a new rifle it would be either a Savage 111 "beanfield" rifle (guaranteed moa @ 100 yds) in butt-ugly composite and prosthetic-looking adjustable stock for a thousand bucks. Or maybe an AR 10 in 308, but these are a little heavy in the field. NOTE when an AR is described in the lower suffix number, it is usually of heavier caliber and more attuned to hunting at longer ranges.

DUers should take seriously the trend to composite stocks and flat black metal, as these promote, respectively, accuracy, and less visibility when hunting. Further, the plastic & flat black starts out ugly, but doesn't get much worse after yearsnof banging around in the field.

[Just reading posts]

117. I'm giving serious consideration to getting the new Ruger Precision Rifle.

It's one hell of a rifle for the money from everything I've read.

[sir pball]

182. Crap, I just noticed you mentioned big ARs.

I have one, an AR-10(T), and it's a fantastic deer rifle if you're stationary, in a stand or a blind. Reliable in all weather and incredibly accurate. It is a freakin' anchor, and even when you're parked you need a rail to rest it on or a bipod, but for what it is it's great. I'd invest in a 300RSAUM upper for bigger jobs, but 1. I have an M700 in 300WM and 2. I may divest my semiauto, it would go for a very good price.

For stalking/walking, I use a 45-70 lever action Marlin 1895 Guide Gun with modern handloads. It IS overkill for deer, but I only go "on the ground" in Maine where moose and bear could pop up.

[Eleanors38]

183. The Holy Thunderer (Frank Zappa) 45-70 has a rep for bear hunting.

But the AR 10s, ar least the models I shouldered, were just a little too heavy.

I did like the ergonomics of an AK, and the weight wasn't bad. Some folks use it for average deer hunting in Texas, esp. if you are good with iron sights (not me at my age).