Thread: Rifle and Optics Snobs

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Greetings All,
I don't know that snobbery is all that rife in NZ with regard to rifles, I have seen little of it. There is plenty of banter and good natured ribbing but this is what friends are for. There is a tendency for younger hunters to believe that all the fancy kit that influencers on the interweb promote is absolutely essential but this is not snobbery. It just makes them a target for the banter and ribbing mentioned earlier. Some hunters approaching their twilight years may purchase or even commission rifles that they have lusted after all their lives but not had the funds to acquire. These may never be hunted with but, hopefully, are still shot. Again not snobbery just remembering their younger life which should be treated with respect.
If, however, you do encounter snobbery then it can be dealt to with ribbing and banter which we do so well in NZ if you can be bothered.
Regards Grandpamac.

reallly liked your post words of wisdom yes when I get my Shultz and Larsen then I will hold that up and yes I will be snobby about it and I simply wont care

I have met a great many people who insist on 'label' gear, vehicles, clothing, tools, rifles, scopes, etc. Whilst there is no doubt that a lot of it is very nicely made, I believe the only thing that matters is results, nothing else counts for anything other than pride of ownership. A Nikko or Bushnell scope in aluminium rings on a .222/.223 Savage 340 or a Remington 788 will embarrass the hell out of many much more expensive combinations. The perfectly perforated paper, or the dead animal, fail to be impressed by the brand or the quality, just the results. Many expensive hunting rifles are only capable of good hunting accuracy, ie: 60mm (2.5") groups at 100 metres, and in the hands of a good shot will kill reliably at realistic hunting ranges. My old .223 8" twist Chinese Ranger AR15 was the most accurate rifle I have ever owned and would shoot sub 0.5" groups all day with my 69 grain Sierra HPBT handloads (sadly now gone in the buy-back). I was testing my .44 Magnum S&W 29 8-3/8" with full-power loads, prior to going to a shoot in the US in 1987, on the NZDA 100 metre range and another shooter was zeroing his new .243 Steyr Mannlicher with a Kahles scope. He was not happy when my revolver consistently produced sub 2" groups while his best with rifle was about 2.5" (perfectly acceptable for hunting). It is all about the results.

Originally Posted by ChrisW

This thread has made me realise that I have some deep down unconscious snobbery and bias and that I need to recognize my privilege and work on decolonising my gear.

Classic! And exactly right.

A few years ago I accompanied a mate who was headed down to humping and fisting to purchase a new Sako rem mag with a swaro z5 on the top. I was only going because I wanted to see him hand over his life savings for the new rig. On the shelf at the time was a beaten up old 303 for $150, so I bought it mostly because I was feeling like I was missing out on all the fun. My mate bought the most expensive factory ammo known to man while I got given a handful of loose ammo from under the desk that looked like it was made several decades ago.
Off to the range we trotted, and with a spare $300 scope I had lying around (spending twice the value of the rifle on the glass like you old buggers all recommend) I went and shot a 2.5 inch 5 shot group at 100m. Not bad I thought. Even better when my mate could only manage 3 inches with his close to $7k set up!
He did point out that the old 3-0 had potentially dislocated my shoulder but the bruising was worth it!

I like good gear that works, and i appreciate well made/ engineered stuff, I buy once , cry once, got gear I use, 30 years later and it holds its own to some new stuff.
Call me a snob I don't care, if I only get an extra 10mins of usable time more at dusk or dawn due to a better qaulity optic, or can clearly still identify when cheaper scopes are not, it's worth it, compared to the rest of a trip , flying , fuel etc
I'm an optical snob, as for guns , got plenty cheap ones that shoots as well as custom jobs,
Sold a rifle German custom job to a client , go for a hunt with him , what does he pull out , a 20 yr old hand me down , why I ask?
Didn't wanna damage the new one in the bush- go figure

Originally Posted by Missalot

A few years ago I accompanied a mate who was headed down to humping and fisting to purchase a new Sako rem mag with a swaro z5 on the top. I was only going because I wanted to see him hand over his life savings for the new rig. On the shelf at the time was a beaten up old 303 for $150, so I bought it mostly because I was feeling like I was missing out on all the fun. My mate bought the most expensive factory ammo known to man while I got given a handful of loose ammo from under the desk that looked like it was made several decades ago.
Off to the range we trotted, and with a spare $300 scope I had lying around (spending twice the value of the rifle on the glass like you old buggers all recommend) I went and shot a 2.5 inch 5 shot group at 100m. Not bad I thought. Even better when my mate could only manage 3 inches with his close to $7k set up!
He did point out that the old 3-0 had potentially dislocated my shoulder but the bruising was worth it!

Did you swap rifles and try again?

I’ve found the more high end the firearms the friendly the owners are and some of the wealthiest Shooters own some of the most average firearms.

Zimmer… I wish, that 25x swaro would’ve paired nicely to the 303!

Originally Posted by gundoc

I have met a great many people who insist on 'label' gear, vehicles, clothing, tools, rifles, scopes, etc. Whilst there is no doubt that a lot of it is very nicely made, I believe the only thing that matters is results, nothing else counts for anything other than pride of ownership. A Nikko or Bushnell scope in aluminium rings on a .222/.223 Savage 340 or a Remington 788 will embarrass the hell out of many much more expensive combinations. The perfectly perforated paper, or the dead animal, fail to be impressed by the brand or the quality, just the results. Many expensive hunting rifles are only capable of good hunting accuracy, ie: 60mm (2.5") groups at 100 metres, and in the hands of a good shot will kill reliably at realistic hunting ranges. My old .223 8" twist Chinese Ranger AR15 was the most accurate rifle I have ever owned and would shoot sub 0.5" groups all day with my 69 grain Sierra HPBT handloads (sadly now gone in the buy-back). I was testing my .44 Magnum S&W 29 8-3/8" with full-power loads, prior to going to a shoot in the US in 1987, on the NZDA 100 metre range and another shooter was zeroing his new .243 Steyr Mannlicher with a Kahles scope. He was not happy when my revolver consistently produced sub 2" groups while his best with rifle was about 2.5" (perfectly acceptable for hunting). It is all about the results.

ahh yes the old 788 still have mine wont part with it one of the most accurate rifles I have ever had and holds its zero well

Had one in 222 one of those rifles I should never of sold

Originally Posted by blip

Had one in 222 one of those rifles I should never of sold

Nah. Heavy clunky things.

By comparison with a lot of pursuits, shooting is cheap - and if you're hunting, it has the additional benefits of fitness and food.

Look at anything with a motor - on any medium. Rally tyres would cost more in a season than my lifetime supply of ammo, and don't even begin to buy a dragcar motor if money is your concern.... while would there be any change out of 40K for a 5m family runabout boat with a new outboard?

None of this should be taken to mean that I'm happy with paying $0.30 per primer, and a new barrel makes me cry, but in the scheme of things, I think it is money well spent. There aren't many sports where you can buy the sort of gear you could win a world championship (Olympic 3 position .22, for example) for less than $10,000. Try F1, off shore power boats - even jet sprints. You got to PAY to play there.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

By comparison with a lot of pursuits, shooting is cheap - and if you're hunting, it has the additional benefits of fitness and food.

Look at anything with a motor - on any medium. Rally tyres would cost more in a season than my lifetime supply of ammo, and don't even begin to buy a dragcar motor if money is your concern.... while would there be any change out of 40K for a 5m family runabout boat with a new outboard?

None of this should be taken to mean that I'm happy with paying $0.30 per primer, and a new barrel makes me cry, but in the scheme of things, I think it is money well spent. There aren't many sports where you can buy the sort of gear you could win a world championship (Olympic 3 position .22, for example) for less than $10,000. Try F1, off shore power boats - even jet sprints. You got to PAY to play there.

Sky is the limit with Hunting/Shooting too Driven Grouse, Elephant Safari in Botswana and Markhor Hunts aren’t cheap.

an old bloke once said to me'son a duck or deer wont know what its been hit with when it goes down greatgrandads old 12SXS or a flashy new holland and holland gold engraved SXS.
its the nut behind the butt son ,just like the oldtime crafteman and his tools ,plain functional dearly loved and cared for and thats where you get satisfaction.
my collection is basically budget gunnery with a few freebees(including a bloody flash Italian skeet gun i was gifted) but if Im on song yeah i can bring home the bacon likewise my shooting mates .what is most p recious and i hold as such is their unstinting friendship and ability to put up with me!!!!!

Originally Posted by Tahr

Nah. Heavy clunky things.

But it would shoot as good a new light slick fashion piece..