Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mac - You are correct. Everything except the 12ga and one .22 is a handgun. I'm good enough with the 9mm and .357 to hit a target out to about 100 yards. I'm not sure how effective the stopping power is at that range even for the .357 but I can make the plate ring pretty consistently.
I am looking for a rifle. Problem Is I don't know all that much about them as I've never put much time into using one. The little .22 I have is fun and would serve me well for hunting small game for quick food but not effective should someone threaten my family.
I'm looking for something that would be effective out to about 500yrs in a common caliber. Unfortunately I don't know what that caliber might be right this second.
Any recommendations are always welcomed. Price really isn't and issue but it would need to be portable enough to carry around a ranch etc.
.308 easily at 500. It's effective out to 800 plus. It's a common caliber, and ammo is relatively cheap.
And to think that humans survived for 10's of thousands of years before the first firearm was even thought of what idiots they must have been.
Yes they did. But the question is, would they today? Certain technologies offer huge advantages. Firearms are one of them. Before firearms, it generally came down to who was stronger with a blade or whatever other hand-held weapon. A woman or a smaller man was at an overwhelming disadvantage in battle. Even the "higher tech" weapons such as longbows require enormous physical strength to shoot effectively.
Nowadays, a small-framed woman can be on a level playing field with a 300 pound Neanderthal... as long as she has a firearm and knows how to use it. If she does not have a firearm, that 300 pound Neanderthal is going to win every time. If you don't believe me, think of a small woman in the ring with a UFC champ. She hasn't got a prayer. At one time, you had to basically be a UFC champ to be an average warrior or soldier.
You can't turn back the clock, and in general the man with the gun is going to win against the man without a gun. If niether have a gun, whose bigger or who can wield the bigger weapon?
Yes they did. But the question is, would they today? Certain technologies offer huge advantages. Firearms are one of them. Before firearms, it generally came down to who was stronger with a blade or whatever other hand-held weapon. A woman or a smaller man was at an overwhelming disadvantage in battle. Even the "higher tech" weapons such as longbows require enormous physical strength to shoot effectively.
Nowadays, a small-framed woman can be on a level playing field with a 300 pound Neanderthal... as long as she has a firearm and knows how to use it. If she does not have a firearm, that 300 pound Neanderthal is going to win every time. If you don't believe me, think of a small woman in the ring with a UFC champ. She hasn't got a prayer. At one time, you had to basically be a UFC champ to be an average warrior or soldier.
You can't turn back the clock, and in general the man with the gun is going to win against the man without a gun. If neither have a gun, whose bigger or who can wield the bigger weapon?
BS on the bolded section...
The average warrior or soldier prior to firearms was a farmer or laborer who was given a uniform (if he was lucky) and some form of pole arm. He wasn't even trained in the use of the polearm until he was on the way to his first battle.
The only exceptions to the above were the Greeks, Romans, Samurai, and the English Longbowmen.
Mercenaries were also highly trained, but in general via experience then from spending spoils for training and improved weaponry, and of course anyone who could buy a commission would have had some training in the use of arms and armor, but how much may well depend on how far their family money would run, and how valuable they were considered to their families.
However what you're discussing is also strategically and tactically setting yourself up for failure, unless you're armed with a firearm as is your opponent. If you have a firearm and your opponent does not, then by your description your opponent has no chance of success, thus you are underestimating the risk of that opponent, conversely if you are not armed and your opponent does, then you're stating you have little chance of success, and believing you will fail is the first and most critical step to failure, something that you should not be considering in a situation where failure means death. So that only leaves you with only neutral footing in a firearm vs. firearm confrontation where the success will only result from surprise or being more skilled in the use of the firearm, both of these rely on the failure of your opponent to first identify the risk of being surprised and thus be unobservant, and being out skilled and thus not improving his firearm handling skills.
I'd much rather rely on my own abilities and skills than the failure of my opponents abilities and skills.
More pertinently suppose for the sake of argument the small framed woman against the 300lb neanderthal chooses instead of taking the face-to-face confrontation, proceeds to undress and imply she is willing to engage in sexual activities, once the 300lb neanderthal is in a vulnerable position it would be no problem for that small framed woman to inflict life threatening and immobilizing injuries on her opponent. In such a scenario, the small framed woman walks off alive and well, while the neanderthal is bleeding out or has suffered catastrophic brain damage. In your estimation however she has no chance of success, whereas in my estimation she just needs to select and use the correct strategy to survive.
The average warrior or soldier prior to firearms was a farmer or laborer who was given a uniform (if he was lucky) and some form of pole arm. He wasn't even trained in the use of the polearm until he was on the way to his first battle.
The only exceptions to the above were the Greeks, Romans, Samurai, and the English Longbowmen.
Mercenaries were also highly trained, but in general via experience then from spending spoils for training and improved weaponry, and of course anyone who could buy a commission would have had some training in the use of arms and armor, but how much may well depend on how far their family money would run, and how valuable they were considered to their families.
However what you're discussing is also strategically and tactically setting yourself up for failure, unless you're armed with a firearm as is your opponent. If you have a firearm and your opponent does not, then by your description your opponent has no chance of success, thus you are underestimating the risk of that opponent, conversely if you are not armed and your opponent does, then you're stating you have little chance of success, and believing you will fail is the first and most critical step to failure, something that you should not be considering in a situation where failure means death. So that only leaves you with only neutral footing in a firearm vs. firearm confrontation where the success will only result from surprise or being more skilled in the use of the firearm, both of these rely on the failure of your opponent to first identify the risk of being surprised and thus be unobservant, and being out skilled and thus not improving his firearm handling skills.
I'd much rather rely on my own abilities and skills than the failure of my opponents abilities and skills.
More pertinently suppose for the sake of argument the small framed woman against the 300lb neanderthal chooses instead of taking the face-to-face confrontation, proceeds to undress and imply she is willing to engage in sexual activities, once the 300lb neanderthal is in a vulnerable position it would be no problem for that small framed woman to inflict life threatening and immobilizing injuries on her opponent. In such a scenario, the small framed woman walks off alive and well, while the neanderthal is bleeding out or has suffered catastrophic brain damage. In your estimation however she has no chance of success, whereas in my estimation she just needs to select and use the correct strategy to survive.
When I said warrior, I was thinking professional warrior. I was not including a farmer or shopkeeper who was called to arms. That would be like me being called to a front-line battle in a war--that doesn't make me a warrior. I'd be dead within five minutes whether I was armed or not. My fault for not being clear and specific.
I never said the unarmed man had absolutely no chance. I was not being absolute. There are always exceptions to an expected outcome. I once read of a boy with a slingshot killing a "giant" warrior--who presumably was trained, professional, and armed to the hilt with the latest and greatest weapons of the time. But I'm talking probability and mathematical expectation here, not the outliers.
Here is what I'm getting at: Take a random sample of 100 cases of fatalities where there was a confrontation between victim and assailant wherein one was armed with a firearm of whatever sort and the other was not armed at all. If you were a bookie at a casino, how would you honestly set the odds (if you valued your job) of armed with firearm vs unarmed? I don't think you would be thinking of the one case where little Sara was able to knee the attacker, Bubba, in the... well, stones. It's not that it cannot happen, but that's NOT the expected outcome.
All I can say is that if I were face to face with a 90 lb woman pointing a .45 at my face (she's for whatever reason ready to shoot me) and I am unarmed, I haven't much of a chance unless she is unwilling to shoot me in the back. If I stood there, undressed and offered sex, she'd laugh just before the vomit began inching up her esophagus... and then shoot me out of disgust, for ruining her day--because that is a revoltingly disgusting thought. I'd be half tempted to shoot myself.
Good Lord almighty, now I think I'm going to have to grab some Pepto-Bismol.
The only exceptions to the above were the Greeks, Romans, Samurai, and the English Longbowmen.
And even they weren't built like UFC fighters...
They were built like my husband; what Louis L'Amour called "whipcord lean." Strong enough to bench-press a washing machine, but quite slender as they walked too many of their calories off to build serious muscle.
However, the fact still remains that a gun does indeed level the playing field.
Mac - You are correct. Everything except the 12ga and one .22 is a handgun. I'm good enough with the 9mm and .357 to hit a target out to about 100 yards. I'm not sure how effective the stopping power is at that range even for the .357 but I can make the plate ring pretty consistently.
I am looking for a rifle. Problem Is I don't know all that much about them as I've never put much time into using one. The little .22 I have is fun and would serve me well for hunting small game for quick food but not effective should someone threaten my family.
I'm looking for something that would be effective out to about 500yrs in a common caliber. Unfortunately I don't know what that caliber might be right this second.
Any recommendations are always welcomed. Price really isn't and issue but it would need to be portable enough to carry around a ranch etc.
I wish I knew about the local area where you hunt, like if it is desert, jungle or mountains, and if the mountains are far away areas mostly open or like mine where you can't see 50 yards.
With in reason cookie cutter bolt action guns in .264 to 30-06 will all do.... and Do all, but maybe the .308 does it all as well, and could cost as little or as much as you could wish to pay.
The .308 I have didn't break the bank either, being used and under 400 bucks. It never had any iron sites, and it never will. (old guys need scopes)
So I put on as bomb proof scope mounts as Leupold makes, and a fair to middlin Scope. Because my woods is dense this scope is variable but low power.
The .308 is a relatively flat shooter to 300 yards. In other words if you site it for 150 yards before that you will be about 1 inch high and at 300 yards 1 inch low.
You need a better long ranger shooter than a Yankee in New Hampshire to tell you what happens after 300 yards because here you almost can't hunt that far. Only under power lines and I don't hunt the power lines.
In case suggestions means brands there is a zillion, and i don't know that many, but Winchester Model 70 is on my wish list. A Remington is too, but i have the Interarms Mark X in a Fajen Stock so that's good enough.
I like hand guns, I love the 12ga... I own a mess of flintlocks too, but any gunner must have a rifle.
I have other bolt guns too, but they are not on any beaten path type of guns... To find one is plain hard to do... Like a Mauser Model 91 Always a Sporter never a military gun and in 65.x54 MS( mannlicher-schoenauer) just a real odd ball type of gun.
Really if you are any good with a hand gun rifles will come easier... I play at hand guns, but i would never hunt a deer with one, unless I had no choice. I am sure i would wound the deer and it would suffer for it. I don't hunt like that. Hunting with flinters means one shot one kill.
I don't suggest you get a flintlock either
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd be half tempted to shoot myself. 
