"a nation of rifleman"
- Thread starter bamaranger
- Start date
JG Terry - that's sad. We should introduce the younger generation to hunting and shooting, but with the range closures, anti-2A propaganda, it's tough. We lost a lot of ranges in the SF Bay Area when I was there. Even retired cops have trouble getting to the range for LEOSA. 4H is good, but is it even feasible in a big city?
"a nation of rifleman"
In 1932 if we were a nation of riflemen it was the .22 rimfire rifle.
I’ll bet east of the Mississippi the shotgun was more common than a centerfire rifle, If only because deforestation eliminated the big game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In 1932 if we were a nation of riflemen it was the .22 rimfire rifle.
I’ll bet east of the Mississippi the shotgun was more common than a centerfire rifle, If only because deforestation eliminated the big game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Probably not even then. The NRA was founded in 1871, to promote rifle marksmanship and safety. Some of the NRA founders stated how they were appalled at the state of marksmanship common in the US and felt a group to teach basics and advanced shooting was needed.
There was also a matter of national pride involved. We lost a prestigious match (Creedmore? Wimbleton? I forget and don't feel like looking it up) to I think the Irish, and that stung more than a few people's sense of propriety.
In one way, we were a nation of rifleman, at one time, with more of our people literally earning their living using a rifle, or some firearm, than other nations.
Most, by a fair margin, but not all. There probably wasn't any number of actual rifles at Lexington or Concord, certainly none on the British side.
A couple years later, when the colonists fought the British in actual battles with formed military units, there were a few rifle equipped units, but the main infantry used muskets.
With the weapons in use at the time, the musket was the military arm, primarily because it allowed for a few (2, perhaps 3) rapid shots, and mounted the "real" weapon, the bayonet. Standard tactics was the formed unit (all those guys stupidly lined up in the open -which was because commanders aimed the fire of the unit,) giving the enemy a volley or two. and then closing to decide the issue with cold steel (the bayonet).
Rifles did not allow the mounting of a bayonet, and were slower to load per shot.
Lack of a bayonet put riflemen at a serious disadvantage when combat closed to hand to hand. Woodsmen with their rifles and farmers with their fowling pieces (which are essentially muskets that can't mount bayonets) were formed into units of their own, and by 1777 when we had some actual Continental "Regulars" tactics had been developed to use the riflemen and fowlers as skirmishers, primarily, and have the regulars (equipped with arms similar to the British) to stand and go toe to toe with the British. Didn't always work as planned, but that was the idea, anyway.
bamaranger
New member
context
Let me put Whelen's comment in context as to the best of my knowledge, which is limited. I believe it was written for a column in "Outdoor Life" where he was the gun editor. The "rifleman" comment was worded "wish to create a Nation of Rifleman", Whelen did not claim at that time that the US was indeed such already. He goes on to describe ideal rifles with good stocks, sights and triggers meeting his approval, and rifles priced that they will "be within reach of everyone". I'd add that his comments regards "everyone" could be amended with "who is interested" as he was writing to a specific audience, the subscribers and those who purchased or read Outdoor Life. Whelen was big on the .22 as a trainer, and starting little boys" (his word ladies) off right with good instruction on the art of marksmanship.
I'm drawing this from an internet discussion at the Project Appleseed website.
Let me put Whelen's comment in context as to the best of my knowledge, which is limited. I believe it was written for a column in "Outdoor Life" where he was the gun editor. The "rifleman" comment was worded "wish to create a Nation of Rifleman", Whelen did not claim at that time that the US was indeed such already. He goes on to describe ideal rifles with good stocks, sights and triggers meeting his approval, and rifles priced that they will "be within reach of everyone". I'd add that his comments regards "everyone" could be amended with "who is interested" as he was writing to a specific audience, the subscribers and those who purchased or read Outdoor Life. Whelen was big on the .22 as a trainer, and starting little boys" (his word ladies) off right with good instruction on the art of marksmanship.
I'm drawing this from an internet discussion at the Project Appleseed website.
J.G. Terry
New member
Well, I'm going to do the best I can. Thanksgiving. My nephew and his family are coming to stay with my sister for the holiday. My niece by marriage, a former non-gun person asked to go shooting with the family. This started my loading and scrounging cartridges. In this crew in two young grand nephews. All these folks showed an interest in shooting. Off we go to the range on that Friday. I do not have a black rifle but have an assortment of handguns and 22 rifles for everybody to shoot. Got ear plugs for everybody. I will not give the women, first time shooters, a 338 Magnum with scope for their first shooting experience.
Don Fischer
New member
I wonder about that. I wonder just how many gun owner's are willing to take up arms if something like that happened? I would like to think we all would but just will not know till it happens, that could be to late!
Also make sure the shooter (and anyone else on the line with them) have safety glasses. And if you have any semi autos, make sure the ladies are not wearing low cut shirts! Scoop neck, or V neck or even regular button up worn open is a BAD idea. Take an XXL t-shirt or two for them to put on over anything they can't button up.
Nothing impresses a beginner like sensitive spots being burned by hot brass!
For my part, I've taught quite a number of people to shoot for free. But back then, we had ranges in the SF Bay Area.
I think the following are still open:
San Leandro Optimist Club
Coyote Point (San Mateo County)
Palo Alto (or something like that down the Peninsula)
Livermore Rod & Gun
Richmond Range
United Sportsman (Contra Costa County)
There's one in Marin County but I forgot its name.
Ranges we lost:
Pacific Rod & Gun (in Pacifica and at Lake Merced in San Francisco; so that's two)
Bullseye (South San Francisco)
Mare Island Naval Base (made into a golf course)
Sheriff's range in San Bruno (popo only)
Presidio Army indoor range (popo only)
Chabot Gun Club
I think the following are still open:
San Leandro Optimist Club
Coyote Point (San Mateo County)
Palo Alto (or something like that down the Peninsula)
Livermore Rod & Gun
Richmond Range
United Sportsman (Contra Costa County)
There's one in Marin County but I forgot its name.
Ranges we lost:
Pacific Rod & Gun (in Pacifica and at Lake Merced in San Francisco; so that's two)
Bullseye (South San Francisco)
Mare Island Naval Base (made into a golf course)
Sheriff's range in San Bruno (popo only)
Presidio Army indoor range (popo only)
Chabot Gun Club
bamaranger
New member
"prior WWI few had seen firearms I......none (firearms) in cities"
Hogwash! Both my grandfathers, my great uncle, all men of that era, had multiple firearms, hunted, and moved in circles of men that were just like them. Many states across the country, east and west had huge deer hunting traditions, businesses and schools closed for the opening day of deer season. Many small town and country folks hunted, for sport and small game to supplement the pot, and the population was far more rural than it is today Magazines were the medium of era, and there were lots of examples of hook & bullet publications catering to the sportsman. Consider all the big shooting names of that era that were young men in their prime, O'Conner, Keith, Askins (Sr.), Cooper and Ruger would have been in their teens (I think).
There were lots of folks who owned and were at ease and relatively competent with firearms in that era, percentage wise, I believe more so than today
Hogwash! Both my grandfathers, my great uncle, all men of that era, had multiple firearms, hunted, and moved in circles of men that were just like them. Many states across the country, east and west had huge deer hunting traditions, businesses and schools closed for the opening day of deer season. Many small town and country folks hunted, for sport and small game to supplement the pot, and the population was far more rural than it is today Magazines were the medium of era, and there were lots of examples of hook & bullet publications catering to the sportsman. Consider all the big shooting names of that era that were young men in their prime, O'Conner, Keith, Askins (Sr.), Cooper and Ruger would have been in their teens (I think).
There were lots of folks who owned and were at ease and relatively competent with firearms in that era, percentage wise, I believe more so than today
J.G. Terry
New member
It may be different elsewhere but, down South you find an interesting connection. My folks were one or two generations from the farm. My Grandmother, my primary caretaker, was raised in South Alabama There was a strong tradition of hunting and firearm ownership. My first rifle was a Winchester 06 that was a family gun. Guns and hunting were part of life. We adapted to city living but retained many rural traditions. Two of my shooting cronies are one generation from from the farm. We see old Crescent arms singles and doubles worn out that were a necessary part of subsistence living-another hunting tradition down here. All three of us are senior citizens.
Added: Take a look at today's shooting magazines to find the real interest. It would appear that assault type firearms are where it's at.
Added: Take a look at today's shooting magazines to find the real interest. It would appear that assault type firearms are where it's at.
Last edited:
while I hesitate to use the word "pander" there are magazines that feature the military style look alikes because they sell magazines. There are also magazines that do nothing but "old west" era firearms. You won't usually find issues on the magazine rack, I know there's a magazine that does nothing but high quality double shotguns.
A number of people will buy a magazine because it has a featured gun they'll never own but are curious about.
Car mags often have race cars on the cover, or high end sports cars, doesn't mean that's "where its at" for the majority of us, just something we like to look at and read about.
Yer in Colorado....many ranges all up and down the front range, many, many LGS'....in spite of the bad press CO gets(got an ear-full from 2 LGS people while visiting up here in Milwaukee)....really easy to find/buy lotsa guns, lotsa cheap ammo and for $20, visit any of a number of ranges. Even on Sunday. PLUS, at least 2, in National Forest, uncontrolled ranges close to Denver...
I just took a guy, born in Peru, to a range. Although in his late 60s, had never even held a gun...he had a great time, might even buy one..here in Colorado.
My son, gonna get his daughters into shooting in the next year or so...ages 6 and 8...easy, at least in Colorado.
Most of my shooting friends are into pistol shooting so riflemen they are not. They own rifles but don't shoot them regularly. I carried a gun in my truck rack at school until they kept getting stolen. I had a wooden one in there for a while trying to catch the guy that stole the first ones but no one bit on my trap.
I love shooting distance. There is no greater satisfaction than to let one fly & be able to lay the gun down to look at the distant gong before you hear it ring.
I love shooting distance. There is no greater satisfaction than to let one fly & be able to lay the gun down to look at the distant gong before you hear it ring.
Well... seems like a nation of riflemen would need a few things
1) Rifles (check, at least rifles per person, we're fine there)
2) Knowledge of how to operate a rifle (I would say a lot of people would fall in this category, between being raised, military service, hunters, etc.)
3) The ability to recognize evil and willingness to stand against it...
I think that we're losing #3, being slowed neutered. My 2 cents.
1) Rifles (check, at least rifles per person, we're fine there)
2) Knowledge of how to operate a rifle (I would say a lot of people would fall in this category, between being raised, military service, hunters, etc.)
3) The ability to recognize evil and willingness to stand against it...
I think that we're losing #3, being slowed neutered. My 2 cents.
FYI last time I was at my favorite indoor range I saw a group exercising a civilian AK at 7 yards.
I had fun doing my thing, they had fun so no harm no foul but I doubt 7 yard four inch groups qualifies you as a rifleman.
But like I said they were having fun and maybe just maybe when the next "assault weapons" ban comes around (and in MN it's quite possible it will) they might just see how absurd the thing is.
I had fun doing my thing, they had fun so no harm no foul but I doubt 7 yard four inch groups qualifies you as a rifleman.
But like I said they were having fun and maybe just maybe when the next "assault weapons" ban comes around (and in MN it's quite possible it will) they might just see how absurd the thing is.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Well, if affordable, quality rifles are one of the categories, we are doing great there. Despite 30 years of inflation, you can buy a better quality AR15 cheaper than what I paid for my first budget AR. You’ve got rifles like the Ruger American that give you the ability to reach put to 1,000yds with the stock configuration for under $400 for the rifle. Then you’ve got glass like Vortex that can give you the entire package at under $1,000.
reynolds357
New member
We are a nation of weak, liberal, leftists.