steve863

I see no reason why 150 grainers should not cycle. It's not like the owners manual tells you to shoot any specific grain ammo. All standard sized ammo should function thru it. Make sure you got all the packing grease out of the action since it's a new gun. I would try a couple of different brands of ammo anyway and see what happens. I think if it isn't cycling right with 150 grain loads it probably won't with others either. See what happens, if you are still having problems Remington should be contacted since it is a brand new gun.

I do believe he is dead, but I also do think a photo should have been released. Yeah, some people still won't believe it and all, but as they say a picture is worth a thousand words and an image can stick in people's minds. Without any sort of photographic or other evidence we are simply taking someones word for it, which will not be enough for everyone. Way too much respect was given to this thug by our government in my opinion. I am the type that won't publicly cheer his death, but I won't go out of my way to show him any respect either.

This is actually not true. I will let you look it up for yourself but even last year, states like Nevada, Louisiana, New Mexico, Tennessee, Arizona topped the list according to FBI figures as far as crime was concerned and none of these states have restrictive gun laws. Sure some urban areas in restrictive states still have substantial crime rates, but NO one will convince me that allowing anyone and everyone to carry a gun in a city like Washington DC will help LOWER the crime rate, LOL! Yes, NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws, but guess what? The crime rate has been dropping there for a good long while now, and cities with way less oppressive gun laws like St Louis, Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans, Little Rock, Kansas City, etc, etc. have way HIGHER crime rates than NYC. So your premise that states with common sense gun laws have the highest crime rates actually doesn't hold much water at all. Many other factors come into play in urban areas, and not all of it is due to gun laws. You read too much NRA literature that fudges numbers to their favor in everything they say.

Steve, What do you consider as a "resonable" application of the 2nd Amendment? What woudl be a good middle ground in your eyes? To me a reasonable application would be for all sides to look at guns in this country and give thought to why some people want them, while others loathe them. There are valid reasons for the right to own and there are valid reasons why people think less guns in society would be better. I think both sides need to stop and listen. The pro gun side to why we are a nation with such a high gun violence rate for surely the easy availability of them must play a role, and the anti gun side to why people who have cleared background checks should not have the right to own for self defense, hunting, collection, etc. purposes. I see absolutely NO reason why a middle ground couldn't be reached. I honestly think we are close to a middle ground right now, but of course the pro gun side thinks every gun law is an infringement of what they think is a "God" given right, while the anti gun side needs to realize that their are millions owned by private citizens in this country and an awful few are ever used in crime. Yeah, both sides need to give in and understand the realities here, and I have NO doubt that there will be plenty here who will say that we have given in plenty already. But, in my opinion it's up to us to prove to modern day society that guns in private lawful ownership should not be feared, because the other side obviously still has plenty of evidence against us that maybe they should. We don't want to compromise and put some attention to whose hands guns might be falling into and to the how and why's this is happening so readily and easily, then guns will without a doubt be in jeopardy for all of us one day soon in my opinion.

Steve, you can't speak from that position until you personally go through such a tragedy. What you feel before isn't what you will feel after such an event. That's all I will say on this subject.Dave I am sure you are right, but all the cheering in the world will not bring back one of those people killed that day. I don't think anyone can argue that. Again it all boils down to the revenge is sweet thing. I agree, no need to discuss this any further.

Dave, I don't presume. I will never know their true feelings and neither will you since neither of us know each and every family member who lost someone that day. All I know is that if it were me who lost a loved one, yes I would feel happy that Bin Laden was finally brought to justice, but in NO way would his killing lessen my grief for the person I lost.

I don't think there is anything to disagree with me about actually. I didn't say that I agreed with either side, just said that maybe they did have a point. I also just stated what human nature typically can be. I am sure that for many who lost people on 9-11 killing Bin Laden really does very little. Sure as hell doesn't bring their loved ones back. But as I said, revenge can be a good feeling to some. Human nature is what it is and always will be. Little has changed.

They are not all liberal. Many from religious backgrounds and conservative have had similar sentiments. I guess to some degree they have a point. Eventhough he deserved what he got, we maybe shouldn't stoop to a barbaric level where we cheer like we are still at an arena where people were being thrown and eaten by lions. Then again humanity has evolved very little over the years. Technologically we may have advanced, but in other ways we are no different to when we carried spears and walked barefoot. Most people would still stone to death those who cross them if they could somehow get away with it. In most cases the good feeling that revenge brings pushes aside any straight and reasonable thinking.

LOL, Virgil, yeah you will find plenty getting all out of shape on a forum like this, but that is their problem and not ours. Some people can see the reality of a situation while others can't mostly because they refuse to. I could care less how others construe my opinions on all this. I usually call things the way I see them which surely won't sit well with the hardliners.

Virgil, what I was saying should be, as Doc used the term "common sense" to anyone. As much as the pro 2nd amendment people try to say that those opposed to it have no common sense, I think many on the pro side don't have any either. Without stopping to listen to why the other side might think the way they do, one will never come up with a common sense approach to anything.

I love it when people start comparing automobile deaths to gun deaths. Automobiles were invented for transporting people. Maybe someone could tell me what guns were invented for?? They were invented as a more efficient means to to stop or kill someone or something, be it in self-defense, war, hunting, etc. Yeah, people die because of automobiles, as they do with planes, trains, bicycles, in their bathtubs, etc. There is NO comparison between why many perceive guns as an easier means to kill someone to anything else that may kill people. I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to realize that it is easier and a whole lot less personal killing someone with a gun than it is any other way. You kill someone without laying a hand on the victim when a gun is used.

Well at least I am glad that you think the 2nd amendment shouldn't allow anyone to own any type of weapon they want. As far as people not viewing the 2nd amendment as you view it, what can I tell you? Maybe the gun owners in this country need some better PR ideas than what is currently used by the likes of the NRA and others. Not like our society doesn't see gun violence each and every day in this country. You may think people need to have even more guns to combat this while others obviously don't. Who is right and who is wrong? I don't know. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, while extreme views on either side are most likely wrong.

Doc, I myself don't question it, but why on earth would we want to follow Muslim tradition for this guy? Does he deserve any respect whatsoever? I am not saying we need to drag his body thru the streets or hang him by his nuts on Times Square, but we should have displayed his body on a wooden butcher board and invited all diplomats of countries that harbor terrorists to take a good look at him. At the same time we could have reminded them that we are a nation that will never cease in finding those that want to bring it down. Talk about a Kodak moment, that surely would have been it. Afterwards you can dump him in the ocean of your choice.

He could have been dumped into the sea in a few days or a in a couple of weeks. Of all people we surely didn't have to abide by Muslim tradition for this guy. To me it just doesn't make sense dumping his body so quickly when we were pursuing him for 10 long years and even went to war in Afghanistan to find him and destroy his organization. We displayed Saddam's sons when we killed them for all the doubters and media to witness. Same should have happened with Bin Laden.

He's a politician, what politician would not take credit for something like this no matter what party he belonged to?? Plus, some who are not giving him any credit for this would have been the first to blast him if the mission had somehow failed. I must say that Obama has had a pretty good few days. He showed Trump that birth certificate that he wanted to see, then he humiliates him at that function they both attended. Obama kept telling everyone that he had more important issues to handle than to discuss irrelevant issues like where he was born, and then out of the blue they catch & kill Bin Laden. His best week of his presidency in my opinion.

You'll get them next time!

You're not kidding. You think the segment of this nation who doesn't believe that Obama was born in the US will believe Bin Laden's death without any real evidence??

Supposedly it was too honor Muslim tradition. I don't think anyone really needed to worry about Muslim tradition when it comes to this guy. They better post some pictures and other proof real fast in my opinion. After him being on the lam for 10 years it is downright stupid that they disposed of his body so quickly. I don't think it needed to be dragged thru the streets, but surely not gotten rid of so quickly neither.

Well said, Doc.

Too funny!! So do you think civilians should be allowed anti-aircraft weapons, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. to fight off a modern day military force?? You can keep dreaming I guess. I have said it before and will say it again that things said, believed and written 200+ years ago don't exactly apply in the same context today. Whether you want to accept it or not, the 2nd amendment is one of these things that does not apply in the same context today. NO bloody way that it would have been written the way it was, if the type of weapons available today were available back then. You can take the most conservative minds out there today, and I guarantee you that they would not write a document to allow civilians to possess the same weaponry as a modern day military force. I love anti 2nd Amendment responses like this. Extreme to the point of ridiculous. : First of all, the 2nd Amendment has no provision for less civilian gun rights as the centuries pass by. Second, people of wealth are already allowed to own (or more precisely impossible to ban) any of the weapons mentioned already, if they have been crafty enough to buy and rule their own country. Are you aware how many countries like that exist in the world currently? How about allowing American citizens to own any shoulder fired rifle or shotgun they want, as well as handguns and magazines of any capacity? Would that be too funny? It seems some people are happy with a right to own just hunting rifles and shotguns. Thankfully, there are some people who realize that is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they put that amendment in the Bill of Rights, 2nd only to Freedom of Speech and Religion. Am I to believe those rights, along with all the others, do not apply in the same context today either? There are certainly enough Constitutional nay sayers who would have me believe that too. If the 2nd Amendment is no longer verbatim, neither are the rest of them! Anti 2nd amendment? Why don't you stop with your patriotic mumbo jumbo and read what I wrote. Name one damned modern conservative thinker who would be comfortable with allowing civilians to own the weapons I mentioned? Even Justice Scalia who is as conservative as you can find these days came far short of stating that the many gun laws that are already on the books should now be overturned in his statements in the Heller case last year. Anyone with half a brain realizes that many gun laws do make sense and are there for a reason. You of course want anarchy. I surely don't trust my government completely neither, but maybe I do trust it more than I would some mad at the world yahoo nutjob who was allowed to have cruise missiles just because he thinks the 2nd amendment allows him to.

Too funny!! So do you think civilians should be allowed anti-aircraft weapons, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. to fight off a modern day military force?? You can keep dreaming I guess. I have said it before and will say it again that things said, believed and written 200+ years ago don't exactly apply in the same context today. Whether you want to accept it or not, the 2nd amendment is one of these things that does not apply in the same context today. NO bloody way that it would have been written the way it was, if the type of weapons available today were available back then. You can take the most conservative minds out there today, and I guarantee you that they would not write a document to allow civilians to possess the same weaponry as a modern day military force.

My condolences. Whether a guy is 10 or 70, losing a mother is probably the saddest day in a man's life. I could only see losing a child being worse. It's funny how our wives, when we first marry them typically have problems with us having a deep respect for our mothers. They only get over it when they have children (most especially sons) of their own. Then they finally realize what a mother means to a guy.

I also agree that the scope movement is what makes this gun a poor design eventhough it costs and arm and a leg. The inexpensive Remington 760 will not give shooters such problems. I can also see someone getting a glove or part of a coat caught in all the exposed movement of the action where one would not be able to close it and making a follow up shot impossible. Again with the Remington 760 with it's enclosed bolt this would be less likely to happen. Leave it to the Germans to overdesign something that really doesn't need it.

I will agree with this. Lets not forget that the man has a .308 with and 18.5 inch barrel. The gun will no doubt kill any deer walking in NYS if he does his part, but I really don't think a super high magnification scope with a large front lens and assorted other gizmos is what that gun needs to carry.

What can't you do with a 2x7 Leupold? Yup, I think that would be the perfect scope for that gun. The gun is an 18.5 inch barreled .308 so it isn't exactly a beanfield rifle that needs a scope with any more power.