Grouse

I agree some hunters are like that, but I don't like the idea of paying "mercenary" hunters to kill deer and reduce the deer population. If the whitetail deer population is out of control in densely populated suburban areas, let the licensed hunters be the ones who fix the problem. We pay for the privilege to hunt, we pass a test to be able to do so, we use the meat from the deer we kill and we are prosecuted if we do anything wrong. Besides, if that is where a trophy buck has chosen to live, why not allow a bow hunter to take it if it can be done safely? I think, (and NJ's law proves this), that the majority of bow hunters can be trusted to hunt safely from a treestand within 50 yards of any occupied structure. I resent any opinion that suggests most hunters are bafoons and morons that are dangerous. I hear a lot of anti-hunters say that, but it angers me to hear another hunter say it. You align yourself with, and support, the anti-hunting argument when you air such views. Besides, we should all know by now, if we want to prevent any possibilty of danger in our lives, the government will be more than happy to restrict everything we might want to do, that it could deem dangerous to anyone. Change the law to 50 yards. If it becomes a problem, it can always be reversed. Remember, shooting in the direction of the occupied dwelling onto property within 50 yards of it, is shooting into a safety zone and therefore illegal. For one to complain about this law, seems to be a desire to control what is happening on property that is not owned by the complainer. I also have a real issue with opening up that Pandora's box. I have no desire to restrict a viable solution to excessive deer numbers, or greater bow hunting opportunity, if it can be done safely. I'll give the bowhunter the benefit of the doubt and deal with him only if he proves he cannot be trusted.

The NAHC is worth the membership fee just for the magazine and the online forum. Don't sign up on a deal that allows them to send you anything except the free stuff they offer you to join. If they send you anything they try to bill you for, if you didn't sign for it, you never received it, and they can't bill you for it. As far as free field test items go, if you get anything, consider it a bonus. I've been a member since 1988 and have gotten many things to test. But I'd say only 1 thing ever 4 years or so, and most things are not worth a lot of money. Still it's fun to get something to test and fill out the survey for them.

In NJ they lowered the distance for bow hunting to 50 yards, but they also stipulate you must be in a treestand if you are closer than 150 yards. The idea being your shots from a stand will hit the ground when you shoot at a deer. The law was changed to allow the deer population in densely people populated areas, to be controlled without spending tax dollars on sharpshooters, who were hunting at night with semi-auto rifles, silencers, night vision and bait, and leaving a lot of dead deer in the woods to rot. The residents of those areas generally approve of the new regs, after they found out the problems and expense created by using sharp shooters. Weighing all of the advantages vs disadvantages of the two options, letting bowhunters take the deer is the better option. I do not know if the NY law is proposing the hunter must be in a treestand if they are closer than 500' or not, but that would be a good idea. I'm for allowing bowhunters within 150' of a structure if a treestand is required. It is working very well in NJ where it's been in effect for years now. The sale of bownunting licenses is on the rise there as well, especially since they now allow Sunday bowhunting too.

Way To Go!! Congratulations.

Good Luck! Dress to impress and stay focused on the goal while in front of the hiring manager. A job interview is a sales call, because you are selling yourself to the company! Sell Yourself!

I had one for a little while, but sold it because I wasn't really impressed with the gun, or it's cartridge's performance. The .375 Win is a maxed out version of the old anemic .38-55 round. It is a big improvement on that round, but not very much better than other rounds already in my gun safe. It is relatively slow and not a real flat shooter, but it will work well on deer at closer ranges. If you like big and slow bullets that don't have a whole lot of recoil, it's OK. I already have a Marlin 336 in .35 Rem and found I used that gun a lot more anyway. As far as the rifle goes, I could never get used to the look of the receiver with all of that extra metal at the rear to beef it up. Just looked kinda funky and ruins the profile of the 94. But that's just my personal preference. The rifle worked just fine, as all Winchesters do.

PistolP71, you do know the Ruger LCP is a copy of the P3-AT right? Far from garbage if Ruger decided to copy it. They have sights by the way, just not target sights. If an attacker is on top of you, you don't have the option of keeping the muzzle at arms length. They are not all double action. There are plenty of blowback design pistols that use a safety in this category. You may want a pistol that is better at shooting accurately at longer ranges, but f it's to big to conceal, ortoo uncomfortable to carry all the time, you won't have it on you when the need arises. Not all people can afford high dollar guns, or more than one carry gun. If it's gotta be your only one, it's best if it can be carried in any weather, under any circumstances.

Not liking someone is understandable. Trashing him, falsely at that, is not. Gotta question the motivation there.

I found it.

This is what I have come to feel about some people and their opinions.

Sure it was. Say what you mean and back up what you say. Falsely charging someone with racism is a serious offense in my book. Equal to calling a black man the N word as far as I'm concerned.

I did. I didn't find anything. Maybe you are seeing something in what he said that you think is racist. You said it, so the burden falls on you to defend what you said with a quote. If you are not able to do that, you shouldn't say it.

Seems to me some guys dislike Ted because he challenges Obama and other Leftist anti-gun types, who think they can tell us what type of firearm, what type of bullets, where, when and how we can own a firearm. Seems to me that is because, although they claim to be pro-gun, they really align themselves with the desire to dictate to gun owners what they feel gun owners should be allowed to own. Ted will have none of that nonsense, so they feel he is too extreme. The desire to placate the masses and be respectable in their eyes is what motivates their hatred of Ted. I'd say they are not 100% pro-gun, but more like pro-gun lite! I would like someone here to show me any shread of evidence that Ted ever did or said anything that would brand him a racist too! Oh, and by the way, being on the board of the NRA is not a paid position, it is voluntary.

Nothing wrong with the Kel-Tec P3-AT. It is very much like the Ruger LCP, but a little lighter, thinner and less expensive. It's a CCW piece designed to be DAO, so you carry it loaded like a revolver, there's no safety, and it has a trigger pull like a double action revolver. It's not a target pistol, so it's sights are not good. But in a CCW encounter, you shouldn't be shooting at long range, or aiming like you do at targets on the range. You pull it out, stick it in the perps gut pouch and pull the trigger twice! Too many guys look at a CCW piece like they are looking at a target piece. It's not that type of gun. What it should be is a repeater that is thin, light, reliable and powerful enough to stop an attacker at close range. Most importantly, it must be small enough to be concealed in any type of summer clothing, and convenient enough to be carried all of the time, rather than left at home at any time. If you are thinking of a piece that you won't carry when wearing shorts, a tank top and sandals, you are looking at the wrong piece.

I've been seeing tons of Snows in the Bethlehem, PA area, wher I've been working lately. I had a phone photo of about 1000 of them in one field, but I can't find it on the PC now.

OK, so you wouldn't vote for Ted. What I wonder is, did you vote for Obama?

Love the Wood Ducks. (Hate the raccoons though!)

Because to them, it's all about gun control and nothing to do with crime control.

Felt recoil is a factor of weight, fit, choke, and the ammo fired fom the gun. I have had a few bolt action shotguns and found using them with target loads is quite comfortable. Using 3" mags and slugs is another matter. For bird shot and buck shot, a full choke will produce more felt recoil. Slugs fired through any choke setting other than cylinder bore, will do likewise. If the gun doesn't fit you well, or you are not holding it right, you are going to feel more recoil. Add some weight to the butt stock, or use a "Dead Mule" mercury filled recoil reducer and add a good recoil pad and you should not feel too much kick.

Like I said, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. I still don't see anyone pointing to someone else who is doing a better job of speaking up for hunters and gun owners. I guess they prefer we don't speak up at all. Me personally, until someone better comes along, I'll let Ted speak all he wants to.

Ted wants people to be able to excercise their 2nd Amendment rights. He is pro hunting and very informed and knowlegeable on the issues. He is also willing to stick his neck out and have people criticize him and call him an idiot, in order to debate the issues. I don't find fault with that. I don't think anyone can argue against what he says. They just don't like the way he says it. If you can't argue with the message, attack the messenger. It just aggravates me that hunters and gun owners attack him. Especially when they don't have any alternative pro-gun, pro-hunting spokesperson to suggest or offer as his replacement. I guess they would rather nobody defends our side of the issue when it is attacked and theatened by the anti's. I don't think he hurts our side. I think not challenging attacks from the other side hurts our side more.

A shorter L.O.P. than needed, will absolutely effect shooting performance, especially on quick shots where the rifle has to be brought into play and fired very quickly. A rifle has to fit the shooter to shoot well for that shooter. Felt recoil also increases when the stock doesn't fit well. Cutting the length of the stock or the barrel is not the right way to reduce the weight of a rifle. You want to cut down on weight without cutting down on performance.

Ruger makes a real nice Stainless Steel Super Black Hawk in .44mag with a 7.5 in barrel and a good trigger. It's a single action and very reasonably priced. I've seen used ones in mint condition selling for $400.

They called it a "punt" gun because it was securely fastened to a small boat called a "punt". The boat was "sculled" forward with one oar out the stern, into range of a flock of ducks resting on the water. Once you got all of "your ducks in a row", you fired that gun and killed a whole bunch of them with one shot. The whole boat was propelled backwards when the gun was fired. Musta been great fun!!

A handgun for big game hunting should be a .41 mag or larger, in my opinion. The .44 mag is the round I prefer. I think a revolver, with at least a 6" barrel, is the best choice, and I like Ruger guns. Prices are reasonable and they are accurate. If you've never fired a .41 or .44 mag, you will need lots of practice before you go hunting. If you can't hit a paper plate at 50 yards every shot, you ain't ready to hunt with it. If you can hit that plate every shot with open sights, you don't need a scope. If you want to shoot out to 100 yards, you have to hit that plate every time at that range. You may need to add a scope to do that. A lot of Ruger revolvers come with a set of scope rings and grooves on the rib to make adding a scope real easy. That's were I would start if I were getting a handgun for big game hunting. A handgun for personal protection, CCW, or any other purpose, would be a whole different choice.