Briman

To add:
Remington 700 rifles have been used by the military to kill people since the vietnam war. There are alot of dead Iraqis who were sent to Allah by soldiers and marines armed with Remington 700 rifles.
To add to the list- the military also uses Remington, benelli and Mossberg shotguns for assault purposes- these are some of the most brutal small arms used by infantry in close range assaults. None of these are any different than the shotguns you can buy a Dick's sporting goods, with the exception of a few addons and different finishes.

Bigcountry- also, how would you classify an AR-10? These have never been used widely by any significant military, yet its little brother the AR-15 is the mainstay of the American soldier. Also, what are your feelings about the Mini-14- its actually been used for some military purposes in the past- probably more than the AR-10.

Winchester Model 70's? Pretty similar to the eeevil rifles of the Third Reich than killed 10's of millions of people. In its day, the model 98 was the foremost military rifle in the world, and was made for the purpose of killing people.

bigcountry

Briman Listen, I support people having AR's and stuff. I have no problems with these guys. But when at the range, I just roll my eyes at some of these guys. Most I see don't hunt (which wierds me out, and I realize I have to understand not everyone is like me) and pretend they are GI Joe (which also wierds me out). I realize we all have to stick together so thats as far as I go knocking them. And I only do that inside our inner circle(gunpeople). Its easy to see its a "us and them" mentality between the hardcore hunters and military enthusist, same as serious smokepole shooters and centerfires hunters, or serious archers and gun only hunters. Now outside our inner circle we have, these people are one of us and our brotheren, and I will stand right beside of. I tried the military arms thing, and it wasn't for me. Just didn't see the need of owning guns that were more of a novelty than a actual sporting arm. I had the AK's, and a mini 14, even a mod 98 sniper rifle brought back during WWII. I figured out I like preparing for the hunt. And this didn't include repeaters. So sold them all. Hey if it makes you feel better, call em what you want. But if I see a guy with a SKS or this Saiga in the woods, I can't take him seriously as a hunter. Just some guy with a poor choice of firearms. Most with pressed metal.

NO_GILLS

I know everyone has there own opinions, but look at what this is doing to everyday sportsmen. A weapon, any weapon, is just that. Personally, i have never seen any weapon jump up and say " I'm gonna kill something today" Guns dont kill people, PEOPLE kill people! Lets not argue amonst ourselves about whats an assault rifle and whats not. When we fight amonst ourselves.....it gives the anti's more ammo to use against US!! As a law enforcement officer, I deal with this type of crap every day. It really pisses me off to hear someone say 'the gun just went off by itself'.

bigcountry

See No-Gills, some people say thats the problem. That us "gunfolks" won't be honest in classifying one as a useless novelty, thats a american right to own, and others are ligetiment sporting rifles. Therefore alot says we lose credibility with people we need. I know middle of the road people that don't hunt, and don't enjoy guns at all and don't have a problem with what I do, that feel this way. When you got some guys saying, "yes a street sweeper is a ligit sporting tool". It makes us look bad, and maybe ignorant, and just lose credibility with these people. When maybe its best to just explain, we are americans and like to drive fast cars, turn the heat up in our house to 90 degrees and have stuff that is just fun just to make sure we are still "free" and not constricted by someone else's idea of whats right or wrong.

Briman

This is pretty much what it boils down to, as I've stated in other places, some people have the attitude that "if you can't afford the same $1000 rifle that I use, you have no business hunting."

bigcountry

Not at all briman. I consider both of these guns in question to be "junk" guns. I have had them both (the AK version), and quickly disposed of them. I think I paid more for my AK than I did for my 243. There's alot of ways to practice our "sporting heritage" without a 1000 dollar rifle. I mean if its just a deer they want, I am sure beef would be cheaper than the 40 acres he bought in Minnisota. When I was a kid, I wanted the semi's and felt I needed them. But quickly figured out its not about how many deer you killed.

Briman, I have thought alot what you said. You make alot of sense, but what you won't consider is, the mentality that comes with 90% of the hunters using a SKS or the AK knockoff. We have all seen it I am sure. The mentality is what mine was when I was 12 or 14. Its usually dangerous and sometimes risky, see it, shoot it with as many shots as possible. Which I think most of us on this page would agree, is not an ideal/ethical hunters mentality that come to mind for most Americans.

HighDesertWolf

Myself I prefer a good remington bolt action for hunting, But some folks out there may not be as good of a shot and a self loading rifle offers a fast follow up shot. If i needed a gun that gave me a fast follow up shot I would favor my remington 742. The saiga rifles really are no different then my 742 other then its a kalashnikov design and may not be as accurate either. the saiga isnt exactly a cheap or poor mans rifle...... they have a milled steel reciever chromed line bore and the wooden stock version has a high luster finish hardwood monte carlo sporter stock. A saiga with a hard wood stock goes for $429 and the synthetic stock version goes for $349 and a suped up version the saiga 100 goes for $459. Those prices are roughly what a decent bolt action like a remington M700 ADL or a Winchester M70 blackshadow go for. I dont think people who choose the saiga are looking for a low priced gun to fit their budget, more likely the saiga fits their taste.

HighDesertWolf

If you want more info on saiga rifles heres the website to EAA who imports them
http://www.eaacorp.com/firearms/saig...es/index.shtml

jmfa1957

HDW, I would agree with you almost wholeheartedly, although in my own experience if I missed the first shot, I also missed the second and third because the critter was running and I was agitated. These days I am too afraid of wounding an animal and losing it, so if I miss clean, I usually don't follow up. This is more a reflection of my confidence in my own shooting skills than the relative advantages of a given rifle action; a guy can't miss fast enpugh to put meat on the table.

I have had a 742 for years because I felt the need for a quick second shot when hunting wounded hogs in the shrubbery. My 742 is not all that accurate compared to my 700 BDL, but is plenty good enough for short range (~100 yards or less.) The idea of fumbling around with a bolt action, especially one like a Remington which trades reliable extraction for superb accuracy, has never appealed to me, and the 742 is very reliable in my experience.

eldeguello

I prefer a single-shot, generally using the Ruger No. 1 in various calibers these days. Where I now hunt, one shot is about all you get anyway. Most of my big-game kills in the last 10 years or so could just as easily have been made with a muzzle-loader!