Obsession with tactical rifles & equipment

[Woodcarver]

however, I think the antis are smarter this go around. They will make these ARs worthless using a few tactics. 1.) change them or lose them. You’ll have to surrender them or remove features. 2.) Grandfather without transfer. You can keep what you own, but you can’t buy more or sell what you have. 3.) Register them as NFA or similar, pay a tax stamp to possess them, then make transfer so cumbersome or expensive that secondary trade is impossible.

Just my opinion, probably biased by the fact I hate them so much. The average owners are way too interested in talking about killing people or using them in a rebellion. I don’t like the role play and rhetoric that goes along with them either.

I think you presume a larger cooperation from the public IF the antis actually managed to get this type of ban/restriction passed and IF it wasn't struck down by the Supremes. We have seen more proper decisions out of the courts in the last few years. I think that trend will continue for the foreseeable future.

The AR and it's clones aren't my thing either. Those wannabes that the press likes to find irritate the shit out of me also. That being said, it is in our (gun owners) best interest to embrace anyone entering into the realm of gun ownership and try to steer them in the right direction as regards protecting ALL of our interests.

 

[Tanks]

I think you presume a larger cooperation from the public IF the antis actually managed to get this type of ban/restriction passed and IF it wasn't struck down by the Supremes. We have seen more proper decisions out of the courts in the last few years. I think that trend will continue for the foreseeable future.

There are no more IFs in CA any more. They did pass the actual law when they tightened up what defines "an assault rifle". One had to register it or convert it to an awkward configuration. If registered it can NOT be sold or inherited in CA. Also, legal to possess only to range and back.

 

[Woodcarver]

There are no more IFs in CA any more. They did pass the actual law when they tightened up what defines "an assault rifle". One had to register it or convert it to an awkward configuration. If registered it can NOT be sold or inherited in CA. Also, legal to possess only to range and back.

My understanding is the number registered is a fraction of what actually exist in CA. That ban is another headed for the Supremes as well, and the expectations that I have seen/read are that it will fail to pass the constitutionality test as well.
CA passing their ban does show that there are still enough fools in that state that keep reelecting the idiots that write this kind of legislation. Believe it was Sen Boxer who was quoted when she was pushing some piece of blatantly unconstitutional legislation, "It's not my job to decide if it's constitutional. The Supreme Court has to make that decision".
Strikes me in the same way that everything in the world causes cancer in CA, but nowhere else.

 

[Ray B]

One of the stages of tyranny is when the government seeks to have neighbors rat on neighbors- just as is being done with neighbors breaking the various virus restrictions, the neighbors have been divided into US vs THEM so it's a simple matter to change the reason for ratting someone from virus to "weapon of war" or some such derogatory term for a firearm. The result is a lot of distrustful neighbors and guns that have gone into hiding.

 

[mark-hunter]

Residents of Warsaw 1940 - 45 might have a different point of view as to the effectiveness of government bans and pricing/value of a gun.

You can say the same to residents of the rest of Poland, Checkoslovakia, Yugoslavia, France, Belgium and others.
But in same situation, only Yugoslavia raised the army to push Nazi back. Yugoslavia lost the army, majority went to POW camps, civilaian poplation was disarmed by 1941.

And they raised the army, to kick nazi out. How?

I dont think nazis let them have their shotguns at home, neither did they won war at Balcans 41-45 with black powder shotguns.
All of other european countries had their armies, surrendered to germany, and there was a lot of war materials around, Yugosalvia included.

The point is: in ww2, who ever wanted to fight, could get a gun, and start fighting. But many did not. They were waiting for allied powers to sort out euroepan war theater.

People, individual resistance, some guerilla here and there, who were actually fighting ww2 in Europe; had their gun - from their own surrendered army, or had some illegally, or got it from some allies weapon air drop, or from black market, or they took it from dead enemy.

Those who have chosen to wait for better moment, and allies to come, has also chosen not to get a gun, and not to fight at all. And this was majority of Europe.

in WW2, European war theater was resolved by two fronts, starting in 1944:
In West: american and british pushing, in the east (the longest front in history from balitcs in the north to mediteranean in the south) Soviet red army in the north, and Tito partisans in the south. Titos partisans started ther final westward push in late 44, and came chasing germans till Italy and Austria, in a manner of frontal battle by a real army and with significant losses, and not partisan guerilla hit and run tactics, which is how they started in 41.

But in the same time: who else was fighting meaningfull war in other countries, 41-45 in Europe? And why Not, when yugoslavia could, and did in same circumstances?

To me it only proves, a shotgun at home (or ar15 today) is not enough to fight war. And those who wanted to figh nazis, did get a gun one way or another

 

[Tanks]

...

To me it only proves, a shotgun at home (or ar15 today) is not enough to fight war.

Obviously, you did not watch the movie "Red Dawn"

 

[Tanks]

To be honest I don't care if someone buys an AR-15 or multitude of clones, fantasizes about SHTF scenarios, great uprising of the inner cities, riots, war games or whatever.

Important thing is they bought a firearm and ammo and presumably they will vote to be able to keep them in the future.

Also, it did come in handy during the Rodney King riots.

We also had barricades in the neighborhood in Long Beach with armed people under cover just in case. I used to live on the peninsula where Ocean Blvd. dead-ended. We set up barricades at the entrance to the area.

 

[mark-hunter]

Obviously, you did not watch the movie "Red Dawn"

hahahaha - good point!
Actually, I did.

 

[John Camp]

This is a sad reality to me for several reasons. Now, first I will say that I hunt with rifles that are walnut with blued steel. I also hunt with synthetic and stainless, especially in the North Georgia mountains. I also have no problem with people doing their own thing.

This apparent generational shift to synthetics and tacticool fashion does concern me however. I see two primary reasons for the shift. The first is the scarcity of walnut for stocks. It takes hundreds of years to grow the trees to make quality stocks, so the reality that manufacturers had to shift to synthetic and then had to convince a new generation of buyers that the synthetics were a major upgrade and not just a cost saving change.

Some synthetic stocks are better than walnut, especially in cold and
environments. But, these stocks are not cheap and do not come attached to the many plasticated, low price point rifles that now fill the racks at retail stores. I looked through the many guns sold right now by Bass Pro Shops. Not the ones just at my local shop, but all they had online. They had one bolt action rifle with a wood stock. They also had a Sharps reproduction with wood furniture. I really hope no one decides to make a modular, synthetic reproduction anything. I do think the pandemic has hastened this shift. Manufactures paused most of their lines and went with their cheapest to produce products knowing they would sell everything they made.

Now however, it is very common for younger hunters and shooters to have never shot or even handled a wood stock rifle. To them it is like wooden paneled station wagons - a remnant of the past they view as inferior.

I have some strong opinions about open sights on bolt action rifles as well. To each their own, but to me a rifle should have sights. I consistently hear people demand an example of one situation where open sights are better than a scope. There is a stack of situations when open sights are better. A lot have to do with the scope not functioning properly, but not all. This past year I came to understand that two hunters I know in their early 20s question the need for open sights because they never learned to shoot with open sights and really are not qualified to have an opinion.

To address the OP’s point. The tacticool fashion and imagery is a problem. I get using an AR for hogs. I did not have an argument against using AR for deer, except to say that a lot of the newer rounds and wildcats are an attempt to elevate performance to the minimum for hunting by deer size game. So, if you want to hunt deer with one, you really must have any to hunt deer with one. This does not apply to everyone. I met a dad and son hunts my at a WMA. He was using an AR because his young son was too small to handle the heft and recoil of any other rifle he could afford at that moment.

But, the modular, chassis, big magazine fed rifles that look suspiciously like MG 42s, and the super customized AR frame rifles with bipods, and every other gadget available, mix with the military backpacks, super fashion camo, and face paint to create an image. It really looks like we are going to war with animals.

 

[Jfet]

Ok so where do these guys fall in our discussion?

MilSim.org – ARMA 3, DayZ, Airsoft, MilSim Communities

www.milsim.org

 

[Jfet]

More infor on MilSim

MilSim - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hogpatrol]

Ok so where do these guys fall in our discussion?

MilSim.org – ARMA 3, DayZ, Airsoft, MilSim Communities

www.milsim.org

?? Maybe the same ones who think a blank gun in the house for intruders is a good idea??

 

[rdog]

Wankers! that is where they fit. the way the world is going with Russia & China they may have the opportunity to play for real if they have the balls.

 

[baxterb]

Dunno, maybe the guys are just ahead of the curve. By the time the leader of your country tweets this, it’s a little too late:

 

[baxterb]

And another example of how it only takes the shit hitting the fan to see how an opinion can change:

 

[Thedoveshooter]

I am a younger chap, but I prefer classic rifles with walnut and blued steel. My personal interest is in classic rifles, their history in the field and all the chamberings related to them That was the first reason I joined this forum. As a veteran and 2A advocate I definitely get the tactical side of firearms. I also do a little tactical shooting, run and gun, especially with my CCW.
The threat related to political entities makes the tactical market understandable and there seems to be a lot of weekend warriors out there buying all the high speed gear they can find. I sure am disappointed when I go to gun shops and gun shows these days because all I see is black plastic and polymer. I want to look at fine rifles, but the interest just isn't there. That is why the DSC was so great. There are no gun shops in my area with my kind of rifles, the closest being Gulf Breeze Firearms.

I'm younger a well, but I was raised around guys building and shooting classic hunting rifles. It was ingrained in me that "there's not much better than a pre-64 Winchester" and "you can't beat wood and steel." I have a couple black guns, but rarely shoot them. They are more for "just in case I need it".

I agree about the gun shops and gun shows being mostly tactical arms now, but sometimes I come across smoking deals on great traditional hunting rifles, just because most don't appreciate/want them anymore.

 

[Captain Munro]

I'm younger a well, but I was raised around guys building and shooting classic hunting rifles. It was ingrained in me that "there's not much better than a pre-64 Winchester" and "you can't beat wood and steel." I have a couple black guns, but rarely shoot them. They are more for "just in case I need it".

I agree about the gun shops and gun shows being mostly tactical arms now, but sometimes I come across smoking deals on great traditional hunting rifles, just because most don't appreciate/want them anymore.

My black guns are also for the just in case situations and I train with them, but my real enjoyment is walnut and steeI. Guns that I cannot quite afford yet...I keep looking and waiting for those smoking deals! Missed one on a CZ-550 before Christmas last year because I still had to buy other people presents. Damn generosity and selflessness!

 

[mdwest]

Some younger shooters & gun shops seem to have an obsession with tactical fire arms & equipment , cammo chassis
rifles, high capacity magazines. muzzle breaks bipods , night vision gear, military packs & cloathing i have seen kids at the range with muzzle breaks on a 22 RF , & banana mags & tactical scopes, I believe that is the wrong image to be setting & it plays right into the anti gun turds agenda. Or am i out of touch?. The blued steel & walnut hunting rifle seems to be a thing of the past . They even sell lever release 12 g shot guns with pistol grip stocks & detachable box magazines, for duck hunting.

Im coming in super late to this thread....

I think a lot depends on the "where" and the "why"...

There are certainly a lot of "tacticool" folks running around that find great joy in buying every piece of paramilitary kit they can find just for the sake of owning it, that will blow your earpro off your head with every trigger squeeze when you sit next to them at the range due to their $600 super duper recoil eliminating brake that was absolutely necessary to add to their 556 AR.. In the US, they do it often times just because "they can".. the law allows it.. and they enjoy the whole tacticool culture.. I'd guess you dont see this sort of behavior nearly as often in Oz, the UK, etc.. where firearms ownership is much more regulated and access to some of the stuff these guys are running around in (low profile helmets, lvl 4 plates, the latest/greatest nylon gear, etc) isnt as available or may not even be allowed)..

But.. you also have a lot of folks that now use "tactical" firearms as primary hunting weapons and/or as primary home defense weapons.. and there also has been a growing "survivalist" / "prepper" movement in the US as well, where people think there is an actual NEED to be in possession of "tactical" firearms and equipment due to what they think the world is soon to become (or may become)... which is perfectly legal in the US..

I'd use myself as an example.. I dont have any sort of obsession with the AR platform.. but... I do own 6 AR rifles in a variety of configurations.. I also do not consider myself a prepper or a survivalist in any capacity... but I do own both a helmet and plates and some other "tactical" gear (although you'll never see my old ass wearing any of that crap at the range or anywhere else...)...

While there are 6 AR's in the safe.. they actually represent a pretty small % of my arsenal (60 +/- firearms).. I own far more bolt action rifles in "deer" calibers, and just as many shotguns, for example..

2x of my rifles are set up specifically for hog hunting.. they are larger calibers (.350 Legend and .458 SOCOM), have night vision optics, etc (so, they "look" very "tacticool".. but are in fact very purpose specific)... 2x of the AR's are set up specifically for home defense (compact, light weight, high lumen white lights, red dots, etc...).. so they also look very "tacticool" but are also very specifically built for a single purpose.. and the remaining 2x AR's are honestly pretty plain jane, basic rifles that are for fun, plinking, etc.. that I only own because I picked them up for stupid cheap prices at times when the market dumped (AR's in the US at times can be as cheap as $500 brand new in the box.. and the same rifle will be $1200 a year later when the political climate and supply/demand changes)..

I own the other "tactical" gear because I spent 20 years between 2 career fields where those things were the tools of my trade.. At different times I self purchased equipment that was better than what was issued/provided by my agency/employer.. and I've never seen a reason to get rid of it... If we ever do have a TEOTWAWKI situation, I suppose I'll be reasonably prepared for it.. but TEOTWAWKI is not even remotely my motivation for having a bunch of OD green nylon gear, armor, multiple AR's, and several thousand rounds of ammo on hand believe it or not...

Its just the way life has worked out over time.. (I suspect things are similar for quite a few others)..

 

[wesheltonj]

I have two SIG 516, I would have liked to buy a third. So I would have one for each family member. They are still in the box. And several ammo cans of 556 with desiccant. Hopefully they will never have to be used, but I have them if necessary.

I like wood guns.

I would like to purchase a SIG 716 for a hog gun, but those SOB’s go into hiding once the first shot of opening weekend, so far it’s not been necessary, except one time when I would have needed a Gatling gun.

 

[JPmbogo]

More marketing BS. The NRA catalog is a perfect example - "tactical shorts" for god's sake - give me a break.