Author Topic: Question ........ why the fad/move towards "Compact" hunting rifles? (Read 4439 times)

Swampman · « **Reply #30 on:** October 31, 2010, 03:09:58 PM »

"The German Jaeger rifle was a short, stocky, usually large caliber, flintlock rifle designed for hunting by the well to do in the fields and forests of Europe. At one time, some thought that rifling and a patched ball were innovations unique to the American longrifle. They weren’t. These things were known to European gunsmiths for at least two centuries before the American longrifle and were incorporated into the Jaeger. Some also have the impression that the Jaeger was heavy and hard to handle. They were not."

Barrels were frequently under 20". As usual you have no idea what you're talking about.

Squib · « **Reply #31 on:** October 31, 2010, 08:45:45 PM »

people get tired of carrying one at the ready in the field for a few hours at a time and go to a gun store and feel-up a lighter one and get gitty.. then they buy it. next time they're out to do some terminal testing with their new rifle, pop something and feel psyched/amped and then it's the short rifle that did it. then they get the new gun bug again and realize what they lost to fund the last "new one" and feel stupid because they lost long range punch for comfort. it's happened to me, can't fix stupid- without experience and messing up a few times. same for shotguns! I had a 28 inch barrel 12ga and I could have sworn that thing was magical because it was like I just had to look at something at 25 and bullseye and usually the same at 50 but then I had to get a youth sized 20ga for home-defense or plinking or deer-stand mobility and that wasn't a bad idea but at the range I sucked and realized that the shorty was useless past 25. short long-guns is an oxymoron and a stupid concept.... unless it's really intended to be a very short range gun that fits good for fast shots and has PRECISE iron sights. I think that it takes a whole different set-up than a bolt-action precision rifle to do it though, and it's gotta fit good enough for instictive reflex shots or the game will be on full run before you get them sighted, then you gotta get a lead on them, then they duck into the woods... $:-\$

there are rifles and there are carbines

ironglow · « **Reply #32 on:** November 01, 2010, 01:27:32 AM »

A few thoughts..

  A) I never worried about weight until recently, but now that I'm in my mid 70s..it makes a difference in the field.

  B) The hunting population is aging..that's a clue for my young hunter friends and why I am a hunter safety instructor. We must recruit new hunters and shooters, or have our great tradition greatly infringed upon.

  C) New alloys, advanced powders and simple scientific proof of feasibility have promoted shorter barrels.

  D) Scopes negate the need for a long sighting plane.

  E) Less weight in the rifle means we can pack in much other gear. How much extra gear do we carry on a deer hunt or predator calling than Dad carried ?

  F) Much is governed by what we have learned from a century+ of smokeless powder use. Rifles are lighter, but often barrels are heavier.

  G) For many, myself included..bigger is not always better. I live in a small home and drive a small Toyota car and a 4cyl Ranger truck. This is all by choice..I could easily buy bigger in all these things, but prefer efficency.

  H) A deer or bear won't know if the .308 that killed it came from a rifle with a 22" or 26" barrel..or whether it weighed 7.5 lbs or 10.2 lbs.

  I) Yes, a lighter rifle will kick a bit more but if that bothers, there are newer devices to manage the recoil.

  J) When hunting, we carry the rifle all day..but normally only feel the recoil for a couple split-seconds... a good trade-off as I see it.

   ....Added to that, with todays developments in rounds, powder and bullets, we don't need as big and heavy recoiling a round to take a given animal as was needed a few decades ago.

dpastordan · « **Reply #33 on:** November 26, 2010, 03:08:19 PM »

Wow! A lot was said. As a kid, I remember the .30-30 being the number one deer rifle. People would hunt primarily by drives - lots of walking. But at the same time I lived in a few areas where shotguns were the only legal arm for deer. Shotguns back then were used with whatever choke was in the barrel and the sight was generally the bead. So guys would drive deer with 28-30" barreled shotguns shooting slugs.

One trend I have noticed is the change from deer drives to sitting in stands in trees. As this occurred, bolt action rifles began to be more popular along with scopes. So if a person walks about a quarter of a mile to a mile to the tree stand...size and weight are not much of an issue. For the guys who spot and stalk or still hunt then weight and length is a factor.

Another trend I have picked up on in the past five years is the increased use of ground blinds...lot of hunters with hip and knee replacements do not climb trees. Again, the weight and length of the rifle may not be an issue if one only walks to a blind and does most of the hunting frome a sitting position.

I believe the recent military arm to influence hunters is the M-16/AR type of rifle which does have a shorter barrel and a bit lighter than older bolt actions.

Empty Quiver · « **Reply #34 on:** November 26, 2010, 06:46:38 PM »

I think the long barrel tradition has died. Traditionally length meant accuracy ie., sight radius. Traditionally length meant higher velocity, powders needed more time to burn efficiently. Traditionally dad handed a gun down along with his wisdom gained from his father to his son, about 75yr old info at that point possibly.

Now you have telescopic sights, sight radius means nothing. Dovetailed receivers will become traditional I predict. Modern powders are being developed to take advantage of the fact a short barrel, is a stiff barrel, is a more inherently accurate barrel. Who wants to hog around an extra pound of barrel weight just to stiffen up a 26" tube? Grandpa carried an M-16, so did dad, maybe he even carried an M-4, their experience has shown them weight is better carried in a ruck not on a sling.

My final arguement and likely the correct one is this. Marketing, plain and simple. The same reason your ties are wider and your lapels are too. The folks who make your gun need to sell you another. You have disposable income and they want it. You need to convince the wife your old gun is inadequit they are happy to provide you with a plausable reason. They convince you that shorter is better, then you convince the wife. She knows it is a line of BS, but she wants new shoes so plays along. Told you this was the real reason!

Brithunter · « **Reply #35 on:** November 26, 2010, 10:17:25 PM »

Ahhh just one small point

On dovetailed receivers the American don't want them as it limits their choice of mounting systems. How do I know well BSA made their rifles with dovetailed receivers and in 1968 dropped the dovetails for a smooth drilled and tapped profile same as the Rem 700 as folks were complaining and not buying as they could not use the poor and out dated Redfield Junior style mounts etc.

Through very clever marketing the Tikka dovetail are just about accepted but Sako I believe also D&T their receivers so you can use the screw on types.

Also how does one equate a M16 to a fine hunting rifle?

Sorry does not compute

me I'll stick with slim graceful proper hunting rifles made the traditional way with wood and blued steel and 22"-24" barrels where possibly. The Stutzen has a 20" barrel to go with the full stock and I am also fitting receiver sights for back up and even use at some times when I fancy it. Weights does not come into the equation as the stock material will determine it more than a few inches of barrel length. The nicely figured Walnut stocks on the Parker-Hale 1200C and the Medwell & Perritt are heavy. Plainer straight grained walnut is lighter.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #36 on:** November 27, 2010, 03:26:43 AM »

Quote from: Brithunter on November 26, 2010, 10:17:25 PM

Ahhh just one small point On dovetailed receivers the American don't want them ...
...
Sorry does not compute me I'll stick with slim graceful proper hunting rifles made the traditional way with wood and blued steel and 22"-24" barrels where possibly. The Stutzen has a 20" barrel to go with the full stock and I am also fitting receiver sights for back up and even use at some times when I fancy it. Weights does not come into the equation as the stock material will determine it more than a few inches of barrel length. The nicely figured Walnut stocks on the Parker-Hale 1200C and the Medwell & Perritt are heavy. Plainer straight grained walnut is lighter.

As to milled receivers, I prefer the Ruger system to the itty-bitty screws that hold the scopes on my M700’s or Interarms Mark X.

Nice walnut is good looking but a fine walnut stock is not what I want on my elk rifles – what I want is a functional handle that can suffer through falls, rain, snow and mud without detracting from its value. Most of my bolt guns have factory walnut, three have laminate and I have three Ruger “boat paddle” stocks, two on rifles and one waiting to be. The laminate and synthetic purchases have been the bulk of the more recent additions to the inventory and I expect the trend to continue.

When it comes to rifle length, why would I want more length than necessary? My heavy barrel .22-250 has a 26” barrel but everything else is 24” or shorter. My favorite carry rifle is my Ruger .257 Roberts with its 22” barrel and many times I have lusted after a bolt gun (Ruger Compact .308 Win or 7mm-08) with a 16-1/2” barrel. Longer barrels mean more weight to carry and less handy to maneuver in the field yet provide nothing of significance when it comes to my ability to put an animal down cleanly.

The best combination for my purposes is a lightweight but rigid synthetic stock with a standard weight barrel of 22” or less. That’s one reason my Ruger “boat paddle” .30-06 got the call for this year’s elk hunt. (The backup this year was my Ruger “boat paddle” .3000 WM with its heavier 24” barrel. It never went in the field, though.) The .30-06 is on bottom, the .300 on top:

My introduction to elk hunting was in 1982 and I’ve gone every year since with one or two exceptions. During that time I have not taken any animals I could not have taken equally well with a Ruger Compact in .308 Win or 7mm-08. More is not necessarily better, often it is just more – more weight to carry all day and more unwieldy.

By the way, the blue tape adds 200fps and eliminates flyers...

One Eye · « **Reply #37 on:** November 27, 2010, 03:59:36 AM »

Short barrels are not really a "fad", at least here in the States. Carbines and short-barreled guns have been preferred for woods hunting for many years. You can go all the way back to the Old West and look at some of the picture of outlaws and lawmen and see what many of the preferred: short-barreled carbines.

Long barrels become fashionable when powder technology required longer barrels for complete ignition. Today's technology allows powder burn rates in whichever range you want or need. If anything, I think the resurgence of short barreled guns is simply a "rediscovery".

Good topic!
Dan

ironglow · « **Reply #38 on:** November 27, 2010, 05:15:47 AM »

Our American Legion post recently turned in their Springfield 03s and got M1 Garrands in return from Uncle Sugar. Many of our guys are of the gray haired variety (those who have hair), and cut their military teeth on the M1. As each one held the M1 for the first time in many years, their common exclamation was about the same..." The M1 didn't seem near so heavy when I was eighteen " !
I also realize that a light rifle with a heavy barrel helps in the accuracy dept. This is easily proven with the H&R models..I like the synthetic stocks and I have a .223 Rem in a fairly heavy barrel and a .243 Win with an ultralight barrel. The heavier barrel just "settles in" much better with it's forward weight bias. Same is true between a Marlin 25N and a Marlin 880SQ..that forward bias just leads to better control.
Another reason for lighter rifles may well b e the trend towards more tree stands than years ago..easier to pull up and not so likely to "overbalance " one on a tree stand..perhaps causing a fall...and shorter would allower a wider range of motion with it while in a tree stand.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #39 on:** November 29, 2010, 04:54:32 AM »

fad ? when did the 20 inch bbl 30-30 winchester come out ?

Brithunter · « **Reply #40 on:** November 29, 2010, 08:31:35 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on November 29, 2010, 04:54:32 AM

fad ? when did the 20 inch bbl 30-30 winchester come out ?

Your talking about for mounted use. This was made for mounted use:-

This one was made to the Arabs of Oman. Hence short short overall length and it was for a specific Military purpose and not a sporting one.

http://www.martinihenry.com/

That shows the Martini Henry carbines adopted to be easier for the mounted drivers, Artillery etc. The British Army even used some carbine length Muzzle loaders for the likes of artillery crews. However they were for specialist use and units and not as a hunting rifle

woodchukhntr · « **Reply #41 on:** November 29, 2010, 08:43:32 AM »

I just picked up a Ruger Mk II Ultralight in .243. I've taken it afield and really appreciate it's light weight. Of course, it's not as short and light as my Contender Carbine with it's 16-1/4" .35 Remington barrel that I carry when there no or little chance of a long shot.

Imagine, silencers are illegal in the US, but in gunphobic Great Britain, they are legal!

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #42 on:** November 29, 2010, 09:16:06 AM »

Slincers are not illegal as far as the Federal laws they require a transfeer tax/stamp. In my state they are legal several gun shops stock them. Guess we could bring up what GB won't allow but who has the time to list all that or read it ?

Swampman · « **Reply #43 on:** November 29, 2010, 11:21:34 AM »

In nearly all states they are illegal for hunting....in blokeland they don't want to hurt the queen's ears when she's taking tea so they allow you to shoot the king's deer with a silencer.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #44 on:** November 30, 2010, 01:52:45 AM »

I'll check , don't remember seeing anything about in in Va. game laws. But then with the 50 cal. air guns what do the afford that other guns don't already cater to.

Brithunter · « **Reply #45 on:** November 30, 2010, 02:37:21 AM »

Hmmm well technically silencers and sound Moderators are different it has to do witht eh amount of noise reduction I understand. We have sound moderators. The Police here tried very hard to stop their use becoming common place on centre fires. Sound Mods on rimfires have been common place for decades and are used for rabbiting:-

No close season of rabbits as they are classed as vermin unless you poaching when they magically become game......no don't ask

.

The change about for centrefires came after the Government was sued for hearing loss by a few of their employees in the Forrestry Commission who were employed to control the deer in the forest. So yes it became a heath and Safety issue and after this case all one has to quote is helath and safety and the Police have to give in. each sound mod is entered onto your firearms certificate (Licence) and you need permission to obtain one

.

Noise pollution is another reason and with the amount of antis and townies who don't understand shooting well if we can keep the noise down it helps. Locally a new 100 metre range is being built and the range regulations to get the plannign consent stuipulate that after a certain time only rifles equipped with sound moderators can be used on it. Construction will noit be finished and in operation until late spring next year. Another benfit is not havign to wear muffs or plugs. The mods are very useful for vermin control at night like lamping foxes and in very special circumstance deer. Neighbours don't appreciate the sharp crack of a .243 at 02:00 in the morning..

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #46 on:** November 30, 2010, 07:43:37 AM »

I know hunters here who hunt fox , bobcats and yotes with a silencer at night for the same reason. One who hunts grond hogs close to neighbors also.
I like the idea of there use as it allows the shooter to hear other noise , a safety factor really.

ironglow · « **Reply #47 on:** November 30, 2010, 10:33:29 AM »

Just yesterday I was out in the woods looking for a deer/bear with my Marlin 336 30/30. I was moving around and got into a very dense piece of woods, including vines, briars and much fallen trees. Now, my 336 has a nice wood stock, not walnut..but still OK. I soon found myself wishing I didn't have to be concerned with the stock.
As with coyote hunter, my guns are for 'go' rather than 'show' ... and they are used primarily for hunting, only punching paper enough to keep sighted in or teying out loads.
My H&R/NEF rifles are relatively compact and handi to carry, so I rather like them, especially with synthetic stocks. Pictured below is the finish I am currently putting on Handis and other rifles which have a rough wood stocks. It couver many flaws and scratches and gives a rather camo finish which is usable under many conditions.
The stone finish comes in various colors..
1) I started with a Krylon "Fusion" plastic friendly base paint of a color similar to the "stone" color
2) Applied "stone" finish (always let paints thoroughly dry bretween coats).
3) Finished with a coat of non-gloss clear enamel..

Squib · « **Reply #48 on:** December 07, 2010, 01:12:04 PM »

that looks real nice ironglow... I tried painting a gun once and think I learned a lesson: I'm not an artist, especially not a spray-painter.

I got tired of carrying 3plus pounds of birdshot in a sock in my handi-rifle stock. couldn't figure out why I was getting to be so slow with my rifle... it's because I weighted it up to shoot off a bench for load developement and since haven't been using the rifle every weekend so I'm not used to it being off balance anymore. I took that crap out of it and now it's up in my face again really fast. I'm not going to enjoy shooting "grown man loads" anymore.. but now that I took that junk out and am going to replace my gear with more purpose driven cold weather stuff so I'm not carrying 30lbs of crap back and forth. I'm 26 and my back is garbage... I better go ahead and get some better gear now because I'm going to be dealing with it for a long time.

on a sidenote though... when did 30lbs become a lot? (bibs, combat boots, flashlight, keys wrapped in a washclothe, wallet, gi 1911 in leather holster and leather belt, handi-rifle weighted and with sling and cheekriser, folding knife, combat "ish" knife, two sets of gloves, two beanies, one balaclava, thermal top and bottom, undershirt OR sweatshirt, sweatpants, two layers of socks, orange vest, medium weight coat, a big matte dark brown blanket rolled up in a bag with a raincoat too.... sometimes an extra shirt or two and small back-up blanket and meal).

Squib · « **Reply #49 on:** December 07, 2010, 01:16:30 PM »

Quote from: Brithunter on November 30, 2010, 02:37:21 AM

Hmmm well technically silencers and sound Moderators are different it has to do witht eh amount of noise reduction I understand. We have sound moderators. The Police here tried very hard to stop their use becoming common place on centre fires. Sound Mods on rimfires have been common place for decades and are used for rabbiting:-

No close season of rabbits as they are classed as vermin unless you poaching when they magically become game......no don't ask .

The change about for centrefires came after the Government was sued for hearing loss by a few of their employees in the Forrestry Commission who were employed to control the deer in the forest. So yes it became a heath and Safety issue and after this case all one has to quote is helath and safety and the Police have to give in. each sound mod is entered onto your firearms certificate (Licence) and you need permission to obtain one .

Noise pollution is another reason and with the amount of antis and townies who don't understand shooting well if we can keep the noise down it helps. Locally a new 100 metre range is being built and the range regulations to get the plannign consent stuipulate that after a certain time only rifles equipped with sound moderators can be used on it. Construction will noit be finished and in operation until late spring next year. Another benfit is not havign to wear muffs or plugs. The mods are very useful for vermin control at night like lamping foxes and in very special circumstance deer. Neighbours don't appreciate the sharp crack of a .243 at 02:00 in the morning..

you have to use a legitimate caliber and need a sneaky rig... it's like they only want sniper/assault weapons

way to go british liberals! do you actually miss american priviledges like wounding and losing game with a .223 and making a bunch of noise and scaring all the deer away that WEREN'T spooked off by your arrival in the woods?