VAhuntr

What I find amusing is how some on this forum and many other forums as well, quote chuck hawk's opinions as fact. I have to agree with some of the others who have stated he really does not offermuch more than what is usually considered common knowledge.

oldelkhunter

Some of the things he writes are contradictory. An example would be a Browning Abolt which is one of his favorites and the Tikka which he doesn't plainly like . In my opinion both are very similiar rifles in that they are not your typical mainstream rifle but a system rifle. I really don't care for the opinions other contributors addto his website as well . I certainly wouldn't pay for his advise or opinion. Best way to find out about a potential purchase is to research it a bit and then buy it . If it is no good it goes down the road.

falcon

Bingo. They will test a rifle that gives 2.5 inch 100 yardgroups and call it a "tack driver."

Sheridan

Expert - somebody with a great deal of knowledge about, or skill, training, or experience in, a particular field or activity.

I sell wine for a living.

Am I an expert……?

Well, I probably know more about wine than 90% of the population.

I like reading his “opinions”.

BTW - I don't consider myself an expert.

CalHunter

In a court of law, an "expert" is considered somebody who knows more than the average person. A professional is somebody who gets paid for what they do. IMHO, Chuck Hawks is knowledgeable and is a resource to be carefully considered. I like some of his articles and disagree with others. I think Chuck is more honest or accurate than some of the guys who post on his website.

I think anybody who makes money for giving their opinion about guns, etc. and receives guns without charge from gun companies has a potential conflict of interest that they need to disclose. I'm not saying they are going to lie about any particular gun, etc. BUT they do have to consider not offending some of their clients who pay the bills.

As other members have mentioned, a lot of the time there isn't any substantial difference between 2 rifles, scopes, etc. and it comes down to personal preference. It's always helpful to speak with another hunter who has used both products you want to compare but even then you're sometimes still left with just their personal preference as an opinion.

nyorange

From what I have read of Chuck Hawks his opinions are asvalid and informative as 99% of the rest of thestuff out there. As long as you remember its just an opinion, who cares. As for his opinion on motorcycles, never read them but from what you posted he is 100% correct.

"I read his article as I was in the process of buying a sport tourer,and once I looked at the specifications for the K1200S,it became quite obvious that it did not have the fuel range or luggage capacity, that makes a bike suitable for sport touring."

Well sorry to disagree but it seems youhave never really ridden a serious sport bike and put it through someturns.If you did, you would know that theBMW is no sport bike. Sort of like pulling up to a Corvette with your Ford ****** "GT Sport" model. While it may be sportier than the rest of their lineupas said by another poster, it ain't no canyon carver by a long shot. Throw on a tank bag and some saddle bags and the thing is a comfortable sport tourer good for a weekend. The idea that a sport tourer should have huge fuel capacity and "luggage capacity" is a contradiction of the very term. While CHmay be wrong on some specifics regarding guns, he is never too far off the mark from what I have read.Take care and be safe riding.

SJAdventures

I use Chuck's material just for what it is, a reference for when I do my own homework. He seems to me to know his stuff with guns and ammo but I don't take anyone's views as the Gospel with out my own research.

zrexpilot

well when you compare this BMW to say a ZX10 or GSXR 1000 it isnt a sport bike. I think hes right in this regard.
That BMW is more in the FJR ZZR class, a sport tourer. Maybe even in the Busa ZX12-14 class, but on the slow end of that spectrum. To me the Busa or zx12-14 arent sport bikes either, more like road burners or hyper bikes.To me asport bike is a canyon carving beast that will weigh under 400lbs.

stubblejumper

I have owned both an rg500,and a gsx-r750,both of which are extremely good handling ,highly tuned bikes.However a bike does not have to be so radical to be considered a sportbike.Look at the lists below.Notice that both list the k1200s as a sportbike?

http://motorcycles.about.com/od/galleries/ig/Bike-Types/SportDucati1098STri.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_bike

From the bottom link

The so called tank bags that are available for the k1200rs are so small that they are far more suited for a day ride than any type of turing,sport or otherwise.

I chose the BMW r1200st,which is considered to be a very good sport touring bike by several motorcycle magazines,and although it weighs only 450lbs dry,and handles quite well,it can travel over 400km on a tank of fuel,and it does come with optional 33 liter side cases and a 28 liter top case.So yes a sport tourer can have good fuel range,and a fairly good luggage capacity as well.

The FJR is a very good sport touring bike,but it has a much larger luggage capacity than is available for the k1200s.

And some sources would disagree.Many of the bikes listed below as sportbikes weigh far more than 400lbs?

http://motorcycles.about.com/od/galleries/ig/Bike-Types/SportDucati1098STri.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_bike

Again from the bottom link

And more sources that consider the k1200s a sportbike.

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/Article_Page.aspx?ArticleID=4877

http://www.bmwk1200s.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1727&sid=132cbe05d3dbe2f388e3c 952a19a3ee7

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-4823252_ITM

http://www.motorsports-network.com/bmw/2005/k1200s.htm

http://www.amadirectlink.com/riding/reviews/2006/K1200S/K1200S.asp

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051210/news_lz1d10bmw.html

http://www.webbikeworld.com/BMW-motorcycles/bmw-k1200s/

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/newsandupdates/2005_bmw_k1200s/index.html

So,the choice is to either believe you and chuckhawks,or believe all of the sources above,not a difficult decision at all.

Folically Challenged

When I was getting back into shooting/hunting after a lenthy absence, I got a lot of information from Chuck's site. I found it refreshing when he'd give negative reviews of ANYTHING, given that one simply doesn't see that out of the print magazines. Granted, Chuck seems to have a hard-on against Tikka, while Rugers & Leupolds seem to make his [Daddy Part] rigid. Still, I think he offers more candor than anything I've read that comes in a mailbox or on a news stand.

I've seen several magazine articles where they'll talk about the 3"+ groups the test rifle shot, then say some BS about, "... and I'm positive the production rifles will consistently deliver the accuracy for which this brand is famed." Or they'll promote each & every "new" cartridge as the final breakthrough we've all been breathlessly waiting for, when there's really nothing that's filled a true need since the 1930's or so. At least Chuck calls 'em as he sees 'em. Now it seems thatChuck would never recommend a Remington over a Ruger, though I personally much prefer the latter. And Chuck refuses to put a Zeiss Conquest in even the same league as a VXIII, though most of the civilized world would disagree. Those are his opinions, & he's entitled to them. I can see his opinions, and his reasoning, and then go use my own eyes, hands, ears, and brain when I inspect a rifle, shotgun or scope, to see whether or not I agree with him.

People who've actually owned a bunch of rifles/scopes/shotguns, etc. are somewhat hard to find. That group gets far, far smaller when one asks who's actually used those tools, and/or then hunted with them. Then one has to ask about taking game with the weapons, & then what the performance of the weapon/bullet/broadhead actually was. Chuck's got more experience than the vast majority of the people around here, so I think that makes him a good starting point. I see nothing wrong with sending a link to his site to the first-time posters here who ask, "Is a .25'06 enough for ________?", or especially those who ask, "What's a .243?".

What I admire Chuck is that he's going about it in the most wonderful, and cruel, way possible: he puts it out there for the world to see on a subscription basis, and he's willing to let the marketplace be the judge of his knowledge, insight (or lack thereof), and opinions. If people cease to be willing to pay for his output, he'll have to take the site down. I haven't found many others who are willing to do the same.

I had a subscription for a while, and I used it. I'm not willing to sendhim any more $, though, because I don't get too much out of it. Actually, I tend to wander away from this and other such forums for a few months at a time, for exactly the same reason. But at least around here, I can find buyers for those guns of mine that have fallen out of favor!

FC