Crypto-liberal "Sportsman" booted from NRA [Archive]

Osborne Russell

03-02-2007, 04:34 PM

This guy had his own hunting TV show; NRA pressure took it from him. Elitists, beware!

http://www.codyenterprise.com/articles/2007/02/28/news/news2.txt

Zumbo loses writing, TV jobs after firestorm - By Blaine Harden

SEATTLE (AP) - Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo.

A mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone Park, he has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big game hunting in the West.

Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture - and his multimedia success has come undone.

It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

“Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity,” Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site.

In announcing that it was suspending its professional ties with Zumbo, the NRA . . . said the new Congress should pay careful attention to the outdoors writer's fate.

Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.

“This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness,” Pat Wray, author of “A Chukar Hunter's Companion” said.

Zumbo's fall highlights a fundamental concern of the NRA and many champions of military-style firearms, according to people who follow the organization closely. They do not want American gun owners to make a distinction between assault weapons and traditional hunting guns such as shotguns and rifles.

If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have passion, but less cash.

htom

03-02-2007, 05:41 PM

I think it was his claim that anyone who owned one was a terrorist that really got the crowd going, and the NRA was very late to the party. I read that Remington let him go before I read of any statement from or by anyone officially with the NRA. (Of course, I don't have a direct line to any of them.)

This is one of those things that happens when you're very deep in one culture (hunting, in this case) and make extreme statements about folk who are very deep in another (rifle shooting). You can see the same thing happening here between the stink-potters and the rag-baggers; one of the major differences is that the sailors are very touchy because Congress keeps trying to outlaw yawls.

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)

03-02-2007, 05:50 PM

I disagree with suppression of a free and fair exchange of ideas, and I just read an article in Field and Stream (can't remember the author, sorry) that said that we in the gun-owning and hunting community need to better police practices of poor sportsmanship. I haven't read the article, though I think that judging a hunter based on rifle aesthetics is incorrect, but may agree with some of Zumbo's assertions (for example, I don't believe in killing anything that you don't eat, i.e., "varmint" shooting).

HOWEVER, I should say that my first hunting rifle was a "sporterized" WWII surplus '98 Mauser. My dad didn't have the money for a brand-spanking new gun for me. His first hunting gun was a (military surplus) '17 Enfield, and later, he sporterized a (military surplus) '03 Springfield by re-tapering the barrel, polishing the action, and fitting a beautiful walnut stock (in the tradition of fine gunmakers Griffen and Howe of New York City that made their name customizing Springfields after the war for a fraction of the cost of custom British guns). In essence, he recycled this tool of war into something beautiful and functional.

I love the aesthetics of fine firearms, I'm still hoping to build or have built that Express Rifle I've always wanted; Never will use it, have no desire to hunt dangerous game in Africa, I just have an appreciation for the craftsmanship of (the last) turn-of-the-century fine sporting arms. But my point is, many folks just don't have the bucks for the finer guns. So judge people by THEIR (PERSONAL) ACTIONS, not what gun they are using (or what action type it is, i.e., semi-auto as opposed to bolt or lever action.) Just like with cars, BOATS, etc., it's not what you are driving but how you drive it.

Also, on the issue of guns in general, I don't believe in hypocrisy; you can't endorse individual freedoms in 9 out of 10 Bill of Rights, but then say that the 2nd amendment only applies to government militias; When you have to interpret the founding-fathers' intentions, I think this would be out of context with the times and spirit in which the other rights were written. Accordingly, this goes both ways; I have jumped on fellow gun owners for homophobia and discrimination against gay marriage when both have absolutely no effect on their lives. It really is a two-way street.

I welcome other viewpoints.

Bob

Donn

03-02-2007, 06:08 PM

I usually avoid threads started by this rabid LWW, but I must say, BobOTB, I can't remember ever seeing more opinions, on more diverse and unrelated issues, expressed in one post.

Leaving gay issues aside, My antiquated experience with assault weapons is limited to BAR's, AK's, AR's, M60's and such. I don't really see much purpose for using such weapons in hunting. They are 'field of fire' weapons.

There are, however, several military rifles which are certainly useful as hunting arms. The Garand, and the M14 are two examples. The M1 Carbine could qualify.

I'm not sure about your concept that the cost of high faluting sporting arms forces hunters to assault weapons. Many perfectly adequate single shot rifles are well within the reach of most hunters.

I've read Zumbo since he started being published, and have always enjoyed him. He's crossed rifles with the NRA before, and survived. I expect he will this time, as well.

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)

03-02-2007, 06:23 PM

Donn,

Well I do tend to ramble, staying focused on one topic is not my strong suit...LOOK, A WOODEN BOAT!

But, as in most generalizations, mine are not entirely correct. People do spend big BIG money on AR (mini-Mattel) copies these days, way over the cost of a model 70, and some do hunt with them. I don't get it, but then, in anything I don't "get" or agree with, I always try to ask myself, "is this harming me?" I think the behavior of these hunters may be objectionable, but I would have to render judgment based on what they DID with the guns, not the guns. The gun that they use may, MAY, be an indicator of their hunting ethics, but don't count on it.

I don't think an AK is a great hunting gun either, but that's not because of it's AW status, but because it has very loose fitting tolerances so that it will function after being submerged in mud. I'm not a fan of guns in which the receiver is stamped (or cast, or, egad, *aluminum*, what was Browning thinking when they changed the BLR from steel to aluminum, ok, sorry, there I go again...)

Bob

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)

03-02-2007, 06:32 PM

Donn,

Also, I too share your affection for the single shot rifle, especially the Browning High Wall that hasn't been improved upon in well over 100 years, I think hunting would be improved with more single-shot hunters (which includes all muzzle-loaders).

All the best, and I do appreciate it when you spot flaws in my thinking.

Bob

Phillip Allen

03-02-2007, 06:36 PM

I consider caliber first...not the rifle. I don't have much use for para-military rifles but have owned them and probably will again...

I like 30-06, 7.62 NATO and some of the European calibers. The M-16 cartridge hasn't much use nor does the .30 carbine...

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)

03-02-2007, 06:47 PM

Phil,

I agree. There are a lot of folk using too small or too large a caliber these days. I know people like low recoil but you need to have enough gun for a clean kill, assuming good placement. And of course those going afield with hand-cannons. .375 H&H is a bit much for deer, but hell, in Field and Stream was an article about a couple that uses a .50 Browning for pete's sake. But, read the article out of fairness. Not as easy as it sounds. They take game at extreme ranges, far enough to be a real challenge with a .50, so far that that big bullet actually does little damage, and it's complicated enough to require a team of three; one shooter, one spotter (not just for game but anyone wandering into the impact zone, a bit worrisome to me) and rangefinder, and one to do the calculations, guestimates are not good enough. It's not my cup of tea, I'm not sure I agree with it yet, but I read the article as fair argument. I'm still considering it. Perhaps I am too open minded...YMMV.

Bob

Donn

03-02-2007, 06:48 PM

The M-16 cartridge hasn't much use nor does the .30 carbine...

The .30 carb has a lot of use. I'll inherit, someday, a carbine and a .30 carb revolver which is a grand set of arms. A long as you have ear protection, the two weapons are perfect compliments.

BrianW

03-02-2007, 06:48 PM

BrianW

03-02-2007, 06:59 PM

I consider caliber first...not the rifle. ...The M-16 cartridge hasn't much use nor does the .30 carbine...

Well if we're gonna consider the caliber first, and I think we should, let's start referring to it as the .223 Remington, not the M-16 cartridge.

Yes we could be more accurate and say the 5.56mm, but for hunting purposes the .223 Rem is more accurate as it can be purchased with bullets designed for hunting. Of course 5.56mm should not used in firearms chambered for 223 Rem, but the reverse is okay.

There's a lot of critters that are very successfully hunted using the 223 Rem. I know folks who use that cartridge on black bear. Not me, but it's done. I'd personally, limit the use to deer size animals and below.

BrianW

03-02-2007, 07:02 PM

My antiquated experience with assault weapons is limited to BAR's, AK's, AR's, M60's and such. I don't really see much purpose for using such weapons in hunting. They are 'field of fire' weapons.

The M16A2 specs are...

Area target: 2,624.8 feet (800 meters)
Point target: 1,804.5 feet (550 meters)

It's quite accurate and while not a sniper rifle, it's certainly not a simple 'spray and pray' weapon.

Phillip Allen

03-02-2007, 07:24 PM

Brian...the caliber choice for me is as it relates to civilian use...obviously, military use changes the basic requirments...for instance, the .30 carbine is no more than an upgrade of the old black powder 32-20 round...suitable for small game only. The .223 has no weight capacity in bullets unless one shoots bullets over an inch long. I caution all and sundry not to confuse civilian requirements and military requirements.

Donn

03-02-2007, 07:39 PM

...for instance, the .30 carbine is no more than an upgrade of the old black powder 32-20 round...suitable for small game only.

What an unbelievable crock of crap.

Stick with bricks, Phillip.

Phillip Allen

03-02-2007, 07:44 PM

Donn, try not to get emotionally involved with a rifle cartridge (meant to replace the .45 ACP btw)

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)

03-02-2007, 08:24 PM

Donn, try not to get emotionally involved with a rifle cartridge (meant to replace the .45 ACP btw)

(OK here we go off on a tangent...) Oh and look how well THAT has worked out! .45. No 9mm. Okay, .40. What? Special forces are STILL using .45s because they work better? OK, maybe .45 again.

Of course the above applies to service pistols, I understand about the motivation to replace the pistol with a small carbine as they are vastly more accurate (more in terms of accurate aiming then the firearm itself), but sometimes situations prevent walking around with a rifle (too bad actually). While I don't need a full auto or sawed off shotgun, I am very sorry that SBRs (short-barreled-rifles, AKA shoulder-stocked pistols) are banned (in the same piece of legislation, Gun Control Act of 1934 I believe), or at least it is not legal to connect a stock with a capable pistol. They are mighty versatile weapons, and I think police should be carrying them. Many of the European police do.

Bob

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)

03-02-2007, 08:36 PM

The M16A2 specs are...

Area target: 2,624.8 feet (800 meters)
Point target: 1,804.5 feet (550 meters)

It's quite accurate and while not a sniper rifle, it's certainly not a simple 'spray and pray' weapon.

As a former competitor with a Garand and M14 (auto selector locked out), I am truly amazed at the refinements to the AR/M16 rifles. They have truly become competitive at the championship level on the national match course out to 600 yards (I am not active enough anymore to know if anyone shoots it in the 1000 yard matches, how that small bullet bucks the wind), some even prefer these to custom bolt guns, I think only a few years ago, one won the national matches outright. (A testament to both rifle and cartridge, it certainly is more economical to shoot.) Looking back at the assemblage of plastic and aluminum from years past, I never thought it would happen. Kudos to those who figured out how to make the gun more accurate (some benefits of which have shown up on the battlefield for the benefit of our troops.)

Bob

rbgarr

03-02-2007, 09:11 PM

Colbert weighs in: http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1936

htom

03-02-2007, 09:54 PM

Yes, we must ban the dreaded assault weapons, used in ~0.01 % of murders with firearms. I suspect that there were probably more cherry-stocked shotguns so used.

Bob Smalser

03-02-2007, 10:11 PM

It's a mixed bag, but I'm with Zumbo.

Want to shoot assault rifles? Then join the Armed Services. Or if you don't qualify, then be a card-carrying DCM competitor, but that program only exists for the support of the services, too.

Otherwise SAKO makes a lovely scaled-down bolt action for the .223 if you prefer that caliber for your targets or woodchucks.

BrianW

03-03-2007, 12:05 AM

It's a mixed bag, but I'm with Zumbo.

Want to shoot assault rifles? Then join the Armed Services.

Zumbo recanted his position.

There was a day, when my old Swede...

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid18/p404ab470bd284c9e1ed0f93c8d89f363/fdcdf4f6.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid18/pe41f9f255157bf1dc40a0cc46550f2bd/fdcdf4f5.jpg

...was considered the top of the line 'assault' rifle.

Bob, don't succumb to the dark side. ;)

BrianW

03-03-2007, 12:08 AM

Colbert weighs in: http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1936

Colbert is a joke, why would any one listen...

Oh wait, Colbert is a joke. Never mind. :D

Bob Smalser

03-03-2007, 12:19 AM

Zumbo recanted.

Bob, don't succumb to the dark side. ;)

Beat me up enough and I'll probably recant, too.

I understand the merits of the NRA strategy, but the Walter Mitty's and yahoos with their AK copies may ruin it for all of us in time.

M16's, M14's, AK47's, AKM's, G3's, FAL's, etc, et al...and their legal copies....are not legitimate sporting weapons. Unless society's idea of "sporting" is to shoot people, because that's all they were made to do.

I think there's a lot of merit to a DCM program training civilians as Service Rifle instructors and juniors as future service personnel. But that's about the limit I see to the legitimate use of AR15's and M1A's in the hands of civilians. Garands and previous weapons without high-capacity magazines don't fall in the same category, IMO.

PS. I've shot against those old 6.5mm Swedish Mausers in reduced-range competition and was always surprised at how accurate those antiques were right out of the box. Usually beat a good rack-grade M1903 hands down, and could give my heavy-barrel NM TRW M1A a run for its money through almost 300yds when bullet weight and quality become factors.

htom

03-03-2007, 08:49 AM

I've taken more deer, antalope, and mountain goat with an '03 Springfield and a M1A than with any "sporting" rifle.

The problem is the yahoos and their behaviors. The firearms just sit there, not much brighter than a rock. Which makes them smarter than some of the yahoos who think that the firearms are responsible for the deeds the yahoos do.

Wayne Jeffers

03-03-2007, 10:16 AM

. . . I understand the merits of the NRA strategy, but the Walter Mitty's and yahoos with their AK copies may ruin it for all of us in time. . .

Exactly!

IMO, there’s no surer way to have all guns outlawed, in time, than to refuse to acknowledge the difference between a Model 70 or an ’03 Springfield on the one hand and machine guns, fully-automatic assault rifles, armor-piercing rounds, and light artillery on the other, and accept limits on the latter.

If limited to a choice between the extreme positions of outlawing all guns or accepting all manner of military armaments in the hands of whatever “yahoos” want to hoard them, I would not hesitate to choose the former.

Wayne
(presently sitting about 4 miles from one of the largest neo-Nazi camps in the country)

SamSam

03-03-2007, 12:18 PM

The reason for Zumbos downfall was exactly because if what we see here.

It was immediately recognized that his words would be latched onto by the anti-gun crowd and used against us.

He has apologized, and even admitted his ignorance on the issue, but the damage was done.

He's not in jail, he's not going to the poor house, he's simply lost a sponsorship and the respect of some, certainly not all, of the gun community.

If ya wanna ride the wave, be prepared to wipe out. :)

[Washington Post
The reaction -- from tens of thousands of owners of assault rifles across the country, from media and manufacturers rooted in the gun business, and from the National Rifle Association -- has been swift, severe and unforgiving. Despite a profuse public apology and a vow to go hunting soon with an assault weapon, Zumbo's career appears to be over.
His top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine and his corporate ties to the biggest names in gunmaking, including Remington Arms Co., have been terminated or are on the ropes.]

If there hadn't of been such an over reaction by the above people, I don't think the anti-gun crowd would have ever been able to make much at all of it. But, since even bad publicity is good publicity, pretty much everyone heard about it. "Us" may have shot yourselves in the foot. Sam

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)

03-03-2007, 01:21 PM

Exactly!

IMO, there’s no surer way to have all guns outlawed, in time, than to refuse to acknowledge the difference between a Model 70 or an ’03 Springfield on the one hand and machine guns, fully-automatic assault rifles, armor-piercing rounds, and light artillery on the other, and accept limits on the latter.

If limited to a choice between the extreme positions of outlawing all guns or accepting all manner of military armaments in the hands of whatever “yahoos” want to hoard them, I would not hesitate to choose the former.

Wayne
(presently sitting about 4 miles from one of the largest neo-Nazi camps in the country)

None of the above mentioned ("on the other hand") are legal to own (without a class III license, very restricted and big big bucks now, $5000 last I recall from years past). The argument is over *semi-auto only* rifles that LOOK like their full-auto counterparts, but will not fire fully auto. While the military aesthetics are not my cup of tea, *functionally*, there is no difference between an AK or M1A versus semi-auto versions from Remington, and yes, you can get larger magazine for those. Except that the military guns are more reliable when exposed to dirt and the elements.

On the other hand, I have always pined to have a SIG-AMT (semi-auto commercial version of the excellent Swiss STGW Type 57 rifle) to go with that really fancy bayonet they made for them, which I have (I can afford the bayonet :D). Just because it is incredibly well made, craftsmanship, because it's not the prettiest rifle in the world. (Though the bayonet is. I am not into collecting edged weapons, but I saw the bayonet, spiffiest looking bayonet in the world, looks like a small sword or something medieval, all polished and individually serial-numbered, and this is for service grade rifles. That's the swiss for ya. Had to have it.)

Bob

Bob Smalser

03-03-2007, 02:19 PM

...While the military aesthetics are not my cup of tea, *functionally*, there is no difference between an AK or M1A versus semi-auto versions from Remington, and yes, you can get larger magazine for those.

The Remington Model 8 has been around since 1906 and the Remington 740 since the 1950's. They are legitimate, semi-automatic sporting rifles made to take deer, elk, moose and bear. They have 5 and 4 round magazines respectively. Like all semi-autos, they have also been illegal to hunt with (as "unsporting") in Pennsylvania from the getgo. Gifford Pinchot was prescient back in 1923.

I spose I could take a hacksaw and cobble together higher-capacity magazines for these classic deer rifles, but for what purpose? Deer hunting, where I rarely get two clean shots, let alone 5? Or to impress by fellow yahoos at the range (or worse, somebody else's forest land) with a little spraying and praying? Maybe a few road signs while I'm at it, too.

I admit I'm a die-hard, conservative elitist looking down my nose at certain others when it comes to responsible behavior with firearms. My opinion is that as our country gets more crowded, you should hope for more of us if you expect to keep yours.

Wayne Jeffers

03-03-2007, 02:34 PM

. . . The argument is over *semi-auto only* rifles that LOOK like their full-auto counterparts, but will not fire fully auto. . .

Bob,

Beg to differ. The argument has mainly been about semi-auto rifles that can easily be modified to fire fully auto. I have no quarrel with auto-loading rifles.

There’s a lot of misinformation out there on this issue. The authors of posts 21 and 24 seem to believe that bolt-action military rifles (Mauser / Springfield) would be affected by an “assault weapons” ban. Perhaps they think the .58 muzzleloader issued to my great-grandfather in 1862 is also an “assault” rifle. :rolleyes:

If the NRA had its way, all the items in my “on the other hand” list would be readily available without restriction.

Sportsmen should take back the NRA from the arms manufacturers and the extremists.

Wayne

paladin

03-03-2007, 02:51 PM

O.K.....I'm somewhere in between......Years ago I bought several machined action 30 caliber carbines from the NRA at $20 each......

and before I continue...the mind wanders...(had my dose of pain pills a couple hours ago)...check the ballistics on the .30 carbine and the .357 magnum.......compare...my 1892 carbine (formerly .25-20) was rechambered for the .357 in 1960...and it's stopped a lot of deer...

Re-barrel and rechamber the .30 carbine for .44 magnum...use cut down .30-06 brass, reneck the case and load with a jacketed 260 grain bullet and 21.5 gr. IMR 4227 powder...makes a hot load .44 magnum that may just outperform Ruger's Deerstalker carbine....likewise you could make a nice .357 carbine the same way...the very first magazine fed firearm that I owned was a reworked '03-A3....beautiful conversion.....the next one was a large ring mexican mauser action reworked the same way...so there's lot's of use for converted firearms for hunting..it MAY not be cheaper....I built a beautiful thumbhole mannlicher stock for the mauser, and that nice blank from Fajen gunworks cost me more than the rest of the weapon.....
Some folks like wood boats, some other materials...some like large boats..others are happy with a sunfish or rhodes 19......that said....I don't feel comfy in the woods with some feller that probably can't see what he's shooting at, or is a lousy shot and needs a full auto machine with a 50 round magazine...

and there's a reason the SKS was a sniper weapon and the AK-47 wasn't.....

BrianW

03-03-2007, 03:48 PM

The authors of posts 21 and 24 seem to believe that bolt-action military rifles (Mauser / Springfield) would be affected by an “assault weapons” ban.

Hey Wayne, that's pure crap.

Reread my post about my Swede. I said it was considered an assault weapon when it was built. Didn't mention the ban at all.

htom

03-03-2007, 06:34 PM

Modern semi-autos (those built since 1968 in the USA, or imported into the USA since then) go through design review by BATF (sorry, BATFE these days) so that they cannot be "easily modified" to fire full auto.

So we really are talking about weapons that "look like" assault rifles. There have been several bills proposed to forbid the sale or transfer of any military service weapon, which would include the '03 ... and a number of pump shotguns, which will probably either be exempted or the end of the bills.

Minnesota deer requires
at least .23 caliber and
single projectile ammunition and
soft or expanding point bullet and
case length of at least 1.285" (or 10mm, .95"; or .45 Win Mag; or .50 A.E.; or a .30 caliber M-1)
(there are more for muzzleloaders.)

The anti-gunners are playing divide and conquer, and winning.

Tristan

03-03-2007, 07:06 PM

We was always too poor to buy a rifle. When I'd hunt rabbits for the evening meal mah daddy would give me a brick and I'd run alongside the rabbit and kill it with that.

canoes

03-03-2007, 07:53 PM

hi,
The best expalnation I heard for assault weapons was a episode of the Simpsons. They were at a NRA meeting. heres the quote,,,,

"Assault weapons have gotten a lot of bad press lately but they're manufactured for a reason;
to take out today's modern super animals, such as the flying squirrel and the electric eel"

I liked all the weapons I fired in the reserves,,,but I see no need for one at home.

paladin

03-03-2007, 08:27 PM

My uncle Karl (Norwegian, married my mother's sister during WWII) didn't believe in high powered rifles for hunting. He was an avid shotgunner, long barrels, side by side, no automatic ejectors (a "Gentlemans" gun)...they lived in Spokane Wash. after the war.....
Uncle Karl wanted to take me bear hunting.....and as it turns out, black bear......Mommy said no, but dad and grandpa won this round. Grandpa loaned me his model 1885 Winchester Low wall rifle, chambered for .44-40....and 5 rounds of ammunition. I asked if he had more ammo but he replied how many bear was I intending to shoot......and an admonition not to waste ammo and bring back the unfired ones and the spent brass....
I went to Spokane...Three days later we passed into Canada to a friend of Uncle Karl, whose cabin we occupied. They played cards and drank beer, I gathered and chopped firewood and cleaned up around camp, kept a fire in the stove, water in the cistern etc....
The next day we got dressed, and left the cabin with the intent of bagging a BAR.......we found one...or more exactly she found us, snitching berries from her favorite berry patch. Uncle Karl raised his shotgun to fire, and the bear suddenly turned away from him and went down on all fours..just as he fired....bear got a load of light shot in the fanny. Uncle Karl had not replaced his birdshot with double ought buck loads....bear was somewhat disturbed, very noisy, and reminded me of someone with a bad toothache that wanted the entire world to know about it....bear turned towards us, Uncle Karl had the breach open trying to remove the spent shells, bear makes lunge over berry patch right for us...I'm yelling "Hurry, hurry"....and uncle karl has a stuck case. I thmbed back the hammer on the low wall and aimed for the bears shoulder and fired, bear stumbled, doubling the paw under her as she rolled, then started to get up again but I had already reloaded and from 20 feet away fired an oblique shot aiming behind the ears, bear stumbled and fell, and before she could get up I had the third round in the chamber and the hammer cocked. Bear was struggling to get up...so I walked around behind her and fired one more shot square between the shoulder blades.
I was 12 years old, and just killed something bigger than the small deer that we have running loose all over Oklahoma.....and Uncle Karl was standing there, walking around and around the bear, with a knife in his hand, trying to get the spent cartridge out of the chamber of his shotgun.......

Tristan

03-03-2007, 08:53 PM

Damn, Palidan yew probably could'uv done it with a brick too!

paladin

03-03-2007, 09:14 PM

yeah...but I like .44 cal bricks....Now I have done sorta what Michael (MMD) suggests, and hunt with marbles....and it works well with wild pigs.....25-30 grains of FFFG powder down the muzzle, and a lubed patch around a large marble fits just fine in the muzzle of a .69 aliber horse pistol, flintlock. The wild boar would hide in and around old fallen down buildings outside of Fort Smith Arkansas....and this nicefat porker comes through the door and literally tries to stare me down. My flintlock blinked twice and the marble went through the top of her head, down through the back and hit a piece of the sheet iron pen that we put up for the hogs, leaving a very deep dent, breaking a hole in the metal, but not shattering the marble.....

Wayne Jeffers

03-03-2007, 09:18 PM

Reread my post about my Swede. I said it was considered an assault weapon when it was built. Didn't mention the ban at all.

Brian,

I’ve never seen the term “assault rifle” used in a context other than semi-auto or full auto military rifles. I doubt the term had been coined when your Mauser was made.

There’s a big difference between a bolt-action military rifle and an assault rifle. Your Mauser has more in common with a Win. Model 70 or a Rem. Model 700 than it does with any assault rifle. But you knew that.

If sportsmen continue to dig in their heels insisting that there is no difference between a bolt-action Mauser, for example, (which in military terms is now an antique) and a modern assault weapon, (which scares the bejuzus out of many people) you will “ruin it for all of us in time,” as Bob S said.

Your choice.

Wayne

BrianW

03-03-2007, 09:36 PM

Brian,

I’ve never seen the term “assault rifle” used in a context other than semi-auto or full auto military rifles. I doubt the term had been coined when your Mauser was made.

Most likely because you've accepted a label, place on a certain types of firearms, which was intended to invoke the reaction your experiencing now.

The Swede was made specifically for killing people. As in, the greatest sort of assault one can inflict on another. Yet it's just fine.

100 years from now, we may look back the AR-15 with the same feeling we now do with the Mauser.

If sportsmen continue to dig in their heels insisting that there is no difference between a bolt-action Mauser, for example, (which in military terms is now an antique) and a modern assault weapon, (which scares the bejuzus out of many people) you will “ruin it for all of us in time,” as Bob S said.

Your choice.

Wayne

The 'line in the sand' was pretty much laid down in the 1960s. Nobody was asking Zumbo to endorse anything new. Yet for some reason he decided to take up the issue. That cost him, and as you can see, it's not helping gun owners.

That's why we sent him away.

htom

03-03-2007, 09:56 PM

Legally, an "assault rifle" is a rifle that is designed for automatic (full or burst) fire. A semi-automatic rifle is not a legal "assault rifle".

(nb. BATFE have defined parts of assault rifles to be machine guns.)

Legally, an "assault weapon" is a rifle which is not an "assault rifle" but has characteristics so that it looks like one. These characteristics depend on which legal system is using the term; typically, a flash-hider or muzzle brake, a thumb-hole stock, a large magazine, a forearm barrel shield, a bayonet attachment point, a threaded barrel, where the magazine is in relation to the trigger, ....

Modern firearms are actually somewhat safer than the "golden oldies"; they are more likely to have safeties that don't fail, for the most part (not that I trust them anyway.)

Being afraid of a firearm is silly. The thing to be afraid of is the yahoo who's pointing it at you. And if he is, it doesn't matter if it's an assault rifle, an assault weapon, or something else. He's an idiot, and you should react like your life is in great danger. Ignore the color of the stock and whether or not it has a 9 or 11 round magazine -- one round will do you in.

Wayne Jeffers

03-03-2007, 10:23 PM

Brian,

I’m sure you don’t really know what “reaction” I’m experiencing.

I suspect I was hunting before you were born. I still have several guns, though I don’t shoot much anymore. Once when I was shooting at the range in college, the coach of the rifle team suggested I should come try out for the team (which was one of the best in the country.) So I suppose I must have even been reasonably competent with a rifle before my eyes went south.

I’m not against hunting, and I’m not against most guns. But I don’t buy in to the NRA BS.

This country is becoming less and less rural. You keep insisting on “all or none,” you may eventually end up with none.

Wayne

Phillip Allen

03-03-2007, 10:40 PM

Wayne, I agree with Brian here...I believe the term "assult" is a plant in the (your) mind to elicet an emotional response...and it is working.

Wayne Jeffers

03-03-2007, 10:58 PM

Most likely because you've accepted a label, place on a certain types of firearms, which was intended to invoke the reaction your experiencing now.

Are you suggesting that the term “assault rifle” was coined by the anti-gun lobby?

I just Googled “assault rifle” and what came up on the first several pages of results was almost entirely weapons related sites (many of them in Russia, LOL.) No results from sites related to seeking to ban them.

If the term was coined by the anti-gun lobby, it seems to have been embraced whole-heartedly by the arms merchants!

Wayne

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)

03-04-2007, 12:43 AM

I *believe* the term Assault Rifle originated with the German STGW (I think Sturmgewehr literally translates as Assult Rifle, no? Anyone?) type 44 rifle, introduced before war's end. It was chambered for a reduced length/power rifle round, to increase full-auto fire rate (shorter action cycle time), better work with the shorter barrel, and to reflect it's intended use at limited ranges. I think it may have had a stamped receiver and the gas cylinder was located above the barrel to lower the barrel centerline (reducing muzzle climb under full-auto); The AK designs mimicked all of these concepts, the 44 was a pivotal weapon design in history. I believe it was deployed with squads in concert with those carrying other weapons such as full rifles and light machine guns, if my memory serves correctly. I think this rifle's action design (roller-locked) also formed the basis of many rifles that followed by SIG and H&K. None of the above make superb hunting rifles. The Garand and M1A, etc, are capable of much greater accuracy and make excellent all-purpose rifles, aesthetics notwithstanding. I still think, though, it's how you use the arm that matters. I remember hunting and hearing inexperienced guys with (probably commercial) semi-autos in the distance, "Bang. Bang. Bang-Bang-Bang-Bang." But it is also possible to fire one, only one, carefully placed shot with the same rifle. I knew guys that competed with an M1A but didn't want to buy another rifle to go hunting with so just replaced the 20 round magazine with a 5 round one for hunting.

There's a neighborhood here in Seattle called 'Cap Hill, sorta Seattle's equivalent of Greenwich Village in New York City; I see young folks walking down the street with blue and orange hair, black all-leather clothing, chains and spike chokers around their necks; A bit disconcerting for someone from the sticks like me, perhaps you could make assumptions about them based on their appearance, maybe with regards to their interests, maybe not, but definitely their appearance is no indication of their character, worth, or integrity. Point is, there are some genuine mechanical differences between traditional sporting arms and what are correctly termed assault rifles, such as full-auto capabilities, but those rifles that are not actual assault rifles but just LOOK like them, I don't think you should consider them assault rifles. You may think this is a poor analogy, I welcome opinions.

Best regards,

Bob

Phillip Allen

03-04-2007, 05:18 AM

Are you suggesting that the term “assault rifle” was coined by the anti-gun lobby?

I just Googled “assault rifle” and what came up on the first several pages of results was almost entirely weapons related sites (many of them in Russia, LOL.) No results from sites related to seeking to ban them.

If the term was coined by the anti-gun lobby, it seems to have been embraced whole-heartedly by the arms merchants!

Wayne

Yes...used to create fear in blue-haired old ladies and their male equivalent. In this case it back fired a bit because it caught on with a lot of 20 and 30 somethings for the same reasons that other fashion coups do...it appeals to the shallow-think age bracket. The "news hour" defination I heard often when the term first roiled to the social-surface was any military or former military "gun" designed for war. It may not be the defination you looked up post establishment but just like the smart lawyer's manipulation of a jury, even after the verbal record is offically corrected, the impression remains in the jurys' minds.

I once owned a FN-FAL rifle which had been retired from some military and the full auto function altered to limit it to semi auto. It was a fine rifle and I could shoot consistant 2 inch groups at 100 yards with battle sights. In fact, I intend to get another sometime...point for me is the term I applied to it was a retired "garrison rifle". It just sounds less offensive than your chosen term.

htom

03-04-2007, 09:39 AM

htom

03-04-2007, 09:41 AM

And a timeline of the events:

http://standardmischief.com/2007/02/25/the-washington-post-spins-the-zumbo-saga-plus-a-timeline/

htom

03-04-2007, 09:44 AM

And Zumbo writes what appears to be a real apology:

http://www.codyenterprise.com/articles/2007/02/28/news/news3.txt

Phillip Allen

03-04-2007, 09:50 AM

It does sem to be a great tragedy for Mr Zumbo...hope he has an alternate means of earning a living.

he was kicking the dirt offa land mine

George.

03-04-2007, 10:34 AM

It took some digging, but I think this is the complete post that started the outrage...

Assault Rifles For Hunters?

by Jim Zumbo

"As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming..."

See? If he had used one of these, he woulda stayed outta trouble... :D

http://stun-ningsales.com/SportStore/sportstore_images/wristrockpics/sr-7_1.jpg

Wayne Jeffers

03-04-2007, 05:42 PM

It took some digging, but I think this is the complete post that started the outrage; it seems to be an example of getting what you asked for (a divorce between the "shooters" and the "hunters") and not good for either:

Assault Rifles For Hunters?

by Jim Zumbo

"As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods."

Thanks, htom, for posting this. Very enlightening.

The fact that Zumbo was fired due to posting this speaks volumes about the intolerance of those who currently control the gun lobby.

I can’t imagine anyone but an extremist finding it inflammatory. Zumbo is arguing to preserve the public image of hunters, an opinion with which you may agree or not. IMO, the news is not the posting; it is the gross over-reaction of the gun fraternity.

The post is a little stronger than I would have written. Perhaps much of the public at large thinks of them as “terrorist rifles.” I don’t. I think of bombs (or airplanes) as terrorist weapons.

Aside from their obvious military role, I think of AK-47’s, M-16’s, and their ilk, as the firearm of choice for our domestic wackos (e.g., David Koresh), drug gangs, and those who want to shoot up schoolyards. If you want to hitch your wagon to that crew, don’t blame me if all guns are outlawed.

Wayne

skuthorp

03-04-2007, 06:28 PM

The people on this thread I like and respect, yes you too Donn. But every time I begin to think that we are rather alike as countries I come across a thread like this, on a wooden boat site, and I realise just how far apart we are. Not to say that given similar gun laws we wouldn't be more alike. I can't see what's 'sporting' about killing things, and I'm not talking about laying in some venison for the year either. Military weapons, machine guns, for 'hunting'? More like ego massage.
I used to drop a line to the infamous Stan V, he was a hunter, set his quota, laid his plans, shot his game and stored it. It wasn't my thing but I could respect his attitude and his professional approach.
"Zumbo is arguing to preserve the public image of hunters"
Maybe it explains the US's attitude in Iraq, their 'the enemy', us and them, it's a hunting trip by any other name. Army's rely on the de-humanising of the 'enemy' to get men to kill other human beings, The other side does the same, they 'deserve to die' because some 'religious' says so.
This is not a criticism of any one of you, I just think you are different.

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)

03-04-2007, 06:48 PM

I spose I could take a hacksaw and cobble together higher-capacity magazines for these classic deer rifles, but for what purpose? Deer hunting, where I rarely get two clean shots, let alone 5? Or to impress by fellow yahoos at the range (or worse, somebody else's forest land) with a little spraying and praying? Maybe a few road signs while I'm at it, too.

I admit I'm a die-hard, conservative elitist looking down my nose at certain others when it comes to responsible behavior with firearms. My opinion is that as our country gets more crowded, you should hope for more of us if you expect to keep yours.

Bob, Regarding higher capacity magazines for the Remingtons, my point wasn't to use them for hunting, but given that they are available, a whacko could use one of those just as easily as a military design to do something bad. I am more on the same page as you than you may think (YMMV?) in that I believe there are a ton of people out there that do not behave responsibly and ethically with firearms of all kinds, and yes I do worry about it a lot. (I used to know a generally responsible, highly educated engineering manager that kept a loaded revolver between the mattress and box spring, no trigger lock, nothing, with small kids in the house. I told him that it was a tragic accident waiting to happen, I could not dissuade him.) But I believe the solutions are a much greater push on education from the NRA and the government, and yes peer pressure, not controlling the supply, which has been a miserable failure in every avenue that tactic had been attempted (alcohol, drugs, etc.). Thanks for listening, Bob

Bob Smalser

03-04-2007, 06:53 PM

... I come across a thread like this, on a wooden boat site, and I realise just how far apart we are.

Yup.

There's something rather strange about somebody who prefers these......

http://www.vm68.com/vm68/pic/vm16_ar15_ak47.jpg

...to this:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/139233184.jpg

I mean, one of the most enjoyable aspects of firearms is that, like boats, the best ones involve mastering wood:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/221241380.jpg

paladin

03-04-2007, 06:55 PM

I look at most military weapons as cheap, loose tolerance work devices for the most part. They are not designed for placeing a single precision bullet on target, except for "specialized weapons"....They have to be cheap to purchase, have high cyclic rates and loose tolerances to withstand abuse. When I came back from overseas I had a few souvineers....for 4-5 years, then traded most away. The only thing I kept was an 1896 Mauser pistol, made in 1923, with the selective fire mod.....and it's registered. I brought back the Swedish K that I carried in the cockpit......and I donated it to a museum. When I discovered that if I could see it, I was gonna get it, I stopped hunting with a rifle....then used a bow....then a few years later a camera. People change...in cycles. It's like discussing sex or religion...everyones view is different. Don't chastise your neighbor because your view is different...your view may change, as may his.

paladin

03-04-2007, 06:56 PM

Nice work, Bob....

Phillip Allen

03-04-2007, 07:20 PM

I agree with Chuck...my attitude has evolved too. However once a "type" is identified as wrong for us to possess, then it is simply a matter of re-re-defining that bad old gun to remove, incrementally, the public's access to arms of all sorts. I am confident that there is NO government in the world which voluntarily submits to its public...including the USA

paladin

03-04-2007, 07:43 PM

There are all sorts of trips and arrangements to make weapons that are firing from a closed bolt into full auto weapons....and especially easy if the weapon fires from an open bolt. Most of the "Military look alikes" that are now imported fire from a closed bolt, to make it harder to convert for full auto fire...but..in many ways it makes it easier..just short load the cases, the round goes off, bukket leaves the muzzle, gas forces back the bolt far enough to extract the spent case and pick up another one, but does not drive the bolt far back enough to engage the sear so it cooks off the next shot and the cycle starts again,and again, and again, as long as a short round is fired or the trigger is released or a full round is chambered....This is used to quite an advantage using the M-11.

Wayne Jeffers

03-04-2007, 08:09 PM

Chuck -- I had a .22 that would occasionally do that. Stevens 87D that my grandfather gave me as a kid. Bolt sometimes wouldn’t come back quite far enough on recoil for it and the firing pin to catch. Pin hit the primer concurrent with bolt coming fully closed on the next round.

It would jam after 4 or 5 rounds, though, because the tubular magazine could only feed the rounds so fast. :eek:

Bob -- Nice work on the custom stock!

Wayne

BrianW

03-04-2007, 08:13 PM

The fact that Zumbo was fired due to posting this speaks volumes about the intolerance of those who currently control the gun lobby.

It does speak volumes, but not about intolerance. It speaks towards their fairness in dealing with anyone who takes a view opposing their own.

Some would expect gun owners to give him a pass, much like Gore got with his mansion. But it appears gun owners have higher standards.

I can’t imagine anyone but an extremist finding it inflammatory.

You may not find this 'infammatory"...

I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern.

... but I did, and more importantly, so did a lot of folks who actually picked up a pen or sent an e-mail.

When anyone, even a gun writer (and that's all he was, certainly not a leader) takes a group of honest, law abiding gun owners, and makes that sort of comment towards them, they should expect the backlash.

Bob Smalser

03-04-2007, 08:14 PM

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/139233184.jpg

This one's not mine. Dates from before 1920.

I have it as a stockmaking teaching aid because it's the only antique linseed oil finish I've ever seen that didn't darken with age. Too bad the maker's secret went to the grave with him. That's the message.

Paul Pless

03-04-2007, 08:23 PM

I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles.

It seems to me the gentleman was really misinformed. The 'terrorist' I see on the news rarely carries a several thousand dollar tuned AR series rifle. And the rifle he does carry is rarely used in the act of terror. It seems most terrorist around the world employ some type of chicken **** IED, or a suicide type car bomb. Just my thoughts...

Paul Pless

03-04-2007, 08:27 PM

rbhawk

03-04-2007, 10:37 PM

He mentioned both AR's and AK's in his blog, so it's possible he was thinking of the AK's when he wrote of the "terrorist" image.

The really disgraceful thing about watching this unfold was the viciousness of the "yahoos" responses... the "I hope you burn in hell, you fat old man" type of postings. It wasn't about educating him or debating him. It was just about freaking out.

Though the NRA was slow on getting involved, they've encouraged this mindset of "everybody's out to get your guns so you must over-react to everything..."

The NRA response to last years UN action on illegal small arms trafficking is a prime example. The UN says it wants to keep blackmarket small arms out of the hands of kids in third world conflict areas, so the NRA immediately freaks out, saying the UN is trying to take away your wingmaster or your 30-30. The NRA needs to constantly convince their members that the sky is falling, in order to keep the donations coming in.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/139233184.jpg

This one's not mine. Dates from before 1920.

Springfield '03?

Bob Smalser

03-04-2007, 11:06 PM

Springfield '03?

Of course. Sold through the DCM. One of the few domestic bolt guns available then. Winchester didn't make their Model 54 until around 1925, and the M70 didn't come along until the mid-1930's.

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)

03-05-2007, 12:46 AM

This one's not mine. Dates from before 1920.

I have it as a stockmaking teaching aid because it's the only antique linseed oil finish I've ever seen that didn't darken with age. Too bad the maker's secret went to the grave with him. That's the message.

Bob,

My dad's hunting rifle based on an '03 has a linseed finish and it doesn't appear to have darkened with age, but it only dates from the early 60s; at what age do they start to darken? He's still around so I could ask him about it. He also shot an '03 with a heavy Mann(?) proof barrel in competition for many years until he could afford model 70 and 40x match guns. (He started his engineering career at Frankford Arsenal, when he left for greener pastures, they asked, "Is there anything you need?", and he's like, "Naw, I got a couple of spare firing pins for my '03s, thanks.", then later when he got into shooting seriously, and things got rare, he has always kicked himself, he could have gotten a truckload of parts.)

By the way, I got my Garand via a DCM sale, saved it from being "de-milled" (chopped in half).

As this thread winds down, I would like to say Bob that while I disagree with you on some of the fine points in this thread (I agree with your heart about quality sporting arms but worry about bad precedence, like many a judge, in banning ugly guns), you do strike me as a thoughtful and reasonable person. I'd definitely buy you an ale if you make it to town.

Best regards,

Bob

P.S. - OK, I gotta relate this one: I was in high school in the 70s and had a paper route, I had just gotten back from collecting and told my dad that Fitzgerald (the more liberal democratic candidate for governor in Michigan at the time) was having a campaign party at one of the neighbors, and dad doesn't even look up and says "Ask him what he thinks of wiry redheads walking around with high-powered rifles." (I was competing as a junior in high power at the time with a DCM-loaned M14, later a NM Garand) That was dad, never hesitated to press people's buttons, LOL.

Osborne Russell

03-05-2007, 01:06 PM

It seems to me the gentleman was really misinformed. The 'terrorist' I see on the news rarely carries a several thousand dollar tuned AR series rifle. And the rifle he does carry is rarely used in the act of terror. It seems most terrorist around the world employ some type of chicken **** IED, or a suicide type car bomb. Just my thoughts...

All true. Meanwhile, in this flood of tech talk, I still have two questions:

1. If "terrorist rifles" was a poor choice of description, what was he trying to say?

2. Isn't the reaction a bit out of proportion?

BrianW

03-05-2007, 01:18 PM

All true. Meanwhile, in this flood of tech talk, I still have two questions:

1. If "terrorist rifles" was a poor choice of description, what was he trying to say?

Here is a quote from Zumbo...

"They say hindsight is golden. Looking back, I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. What I’ve learned over the last few days has enlightened and amazed me. As a guy who hunts 200 days a year, does seminars on hunting, wrote for six hunting magazines, had a hunting TV show, and wrote 20 books on hunting, how could I have been so ignorant and out of touch with reality in the world of hunting and shooting?"

2. Isn't the reaction a bit out of proportion?

You've seen the results in the media, I'd say losing his job as an editor of a hunting magazine is about right. Now if his real career was not based on hunting or guns, then I'd say losing his job was too much.

Paul Pless

03-05-2007, 01:25 PM

All true. Meanwhile, in this flood of tech talk, I still have two questions:

1. If "terrorist rifles" was a poor choice of description, what was he trying to say?

2. Isn't the reaction a bit out of proportion?

see my post #63 to this thread

htom

03-05-2007, 01:59 PM

I know that I have written in the past to Outdoor Life, complaining about their continuing the confusion between "assault rife", "assault weapon", and "semi-automatic rifle". I don't remember getting a reply. I got the impression from various editorials that they thought that they were above the fray, so to speak, and didn't have to pay attention. I think that firing Zumbro was their final over-reaction (their first being pulling his blog, preventing people from reading what he'd really said, and then pulling his apology.) Having kicked the hornet's nest, taking cover is a good plan. Denying that there are hornets about who can be disturbed is foolish. Letting him continue could have been a learning experience for both sides; this just seals in the hurt feelings and their self-justifications.

The anti-gunners and anti-hunters won this one.

Osborne Russell

03-05-2007, 04:44 PM

Further, I suspect he made the comment with the thought in his mind that he was being really arrogant in his choice of ultrafine firearm, in the same way that some flyfisherman disdain the ordinary baitcaster or spinning reel. I think he probably calculated that he would gain sympathy from those with similar taste in firearms and would only upset the minority of those who use the highend specialized varmint rifles. Obviously his comments backfired.

Sounds to me like his original thought was something like "These guys toppin' prairie dogs with AR-15's are slob dirtbags." Terrorists being a prevalent image he associated the two.

Hunting presumably involves aesthetics and ethics, i.e., what behavior ought to bring self-esteem and the esteem of others? That's what makes a sportsman. Someone who's dedicated much of his life to it is likely to have standards that are highly developed and much higher than the crowd's. Why is that bad? Why bad enough for banishment? What is he banished from?