MILITARY LOOKLIKE RIFLES GIVE BAD PRESS????

[JOE BLOCKY 0]

The styer AUG is an awesome weapon, In the public domain here in eire anyway they are single shot, not auto, I've seen the militery weapon in action and they are excellent, in both design and performance.

To say military looking weapons give shooting bad press in nonsense. It's numtie's running around in full camo with no sense pointing at anything that moves regardless of the weapon, loaded or unloaded.

I like the look of them personally. Ps. not a dig at anyone by the way, just a statement.

 

 

 

 

 

the walther g22 sort of looks likes a styer aug, very nice accurate and high rate of fire. If i could i would get a real stayer aug

[Ratman2 2]

It's in your own interest if stopped by the Police to state that you have a legally owned and unloaded gun in the car, describe what it is and why it's in your car. I always transport my guns with trigger locks fitted.

 

That's very good advice. If you've got nothing to hide then don't hide it. Trigger locks are something I must look into myself as I'll be travelling a bit with my rifle this year.

 

To answer the initial question, no. Uneducated sensationalist media types fulled by BS anti's give bad press. If a person is passed fit by their police force to hold a firearm legally then there should be no problem. The firearm itself cannot hurt anyone, it's the person shooting it.

 

This is OH!! so true, you can leave a loaded gun on the table for a thousand years, and it won't hurt anyone, it's only when a pr*ck picks it up and pulls the trigger that any harm is done.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Question. What is the attraction of the military looking rifle? What function does it have over the standard model?

[Guest Ditch_Shitter]

Self percieved dick enhancement.

 

It always reminds me of the bit in that Andy McNab book, where he and some fellow SAS guys were out for a hike on that Black Mountain. Bunch of self important looking blokes came sternly jogging past them, all done up in full military kit. He thought to himself; " Hang on: We're the SAS. So who the f*ck are These guys?! "

 

 

As I said to Dean O' just twenty minutes ago; It's not the look of the rifle. It's the man firing it.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

I tend to agree Ditch. I have nothing against the military rifle... I mean if it wasn't for the military market there would be a piss poor civilian one. All the great advances in firearms were as a direct result to the need in the field.

 

I can see why a black synthetic stock would be preferable to an expensive piece of walnut. While the environmental impact of plastic is questionable, the shortage of quality walnut is of concern and it also keeps the price down to the affordable.

 

I also understand the advantage of camouflage and the need for fieldcraft.

 

What I can't understand is why someone needs the capability for a tac-light and laser, I guess I just don't understand the attraction especially as some of the most decisive military rifles, in history, look pretty damn average!

[SNAP SHOT 194]

Some people just like the styling of the militery looking weapons, sleekness of the design. etc As we know most of the military weapons are designed to put lots of rounds down range with medium to good accuracy.

The designs in the military weapons filter into the civilian wepons over time because they are tried and tested. then the civilian market sort out the rest.

Each to there own, but i know plenty of gung ho clowns out there who think that the are the bees knees looking all military and thats about it cause they can't shoot worth a shit...........................

[tonetone 0]

i have no problem with the militery lookalike guns, it all comes down to personal taste. i prefer the walnut and a blued barrel while i know guys who would go for the military type.

do some of these guns blast of a fast rate of fire? i think it would be a bit expensive chucking loads of shots at a rabbit, if they do and you enjoy doing that, then i think you probably have more enjoyment out of using the weapon , rather than the hunting side of things. fair enough

all the best

tone

[Mr_Logic 5]

I happen to like things like the GSG MP5 lookalike, they're pretty cool. I wouldn't use them anywhere other than the range though, or perhaps 'zeroing' on a tin can in a field. Bit of fun and nothing more.

 

IMHO they don't do any harm so leave them. But then I think the same about fox hunting, as I rate freedom below the life of vermin, but look what happened there. Hey ho...

[comanche 2,991]

Some Bolt-action rifles with full length stocks resemble the military arms of yesteryear yet they are now regarded as being totally acceptable, traditional-style hunting tools.A synthetic stock is now seen as a sensible option rather than a slightly naff feature of budget guns. On that basis it seems illogical to frown on cammo patterns,thumb-holes or other martial -looking features providing they are truly functional . Faced with a .22 r/f BRNO bolt action or a Remington Viper ( Off the top of my head ,showing me age ,any still out there?)who could honestly say which action owed more of it's design to the theatre of war ? Those who oppose guns are against all gun regardless of appearance.It simply behoves the shooting community to ensure good ,safe and thoughtfull standards whatever the chosen style of rifle.

Edited May 26, 2008 by comanche

[JOE BLOCKY 0]

polymer stocks are better then walnut stocks because they are weather proof???? This is what i heard. If thats true that would be very good on the field with the climate we get in the UK.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Also walnut is expensive and synthetic stocks keep the cost down.

 

The offset is that while we're saving the walnut, in the environment, we're polluting it with the relevant amount of chemicals it takes to make a rifle stock.

 

Comanche said that people who are anti gun will be against guns no matter what. I can partly agree with that but I think public perception, of shooters, is based on our actions and our inability to present ourselves in a way to tackle these myths. It's our duty to educate others. To expect them to come to us is folly and partly the reason why hunting with hounds was banned.

 

If people could see what we see, there wouldn't be so much of an issue. The fact that they can't, and we refuse to show them, is more of a long term hindrance to our freedoms.

 

They will regulate further if we don't work on public relations. Next time someone goes on the rampage with a firearm it will be us that get the brunt of it.