New IOF .30-06 Rifle Model of 2012

[Skyman]

You can try two more times if you have five? That's quite a difference there.

[hks2056]

It is a matter of common sense that more the cartridges in the magazine better it is for the shooter. I have earlier said in one of my posts that sitting ducks are just day dreams. The real shooting skill is to score hit on the moving target.

[TwoRivers]

It is a matter of common sense that more the cartridges in the magazine better it is for the shooter. I have earlier said in one of my posts that sitting ducks are just day dreams. The real shooting skill is to score hit on the moving target.

Would disagree. The fewer shots, the more care taken to place that first shot properly. As to "sitting ducks", no hunter worthy of that name would do that. And I have yet to see a bird bagged with that third shot, unless a cripple on the water. Few hunters have the skill to place a killing rifle shot on a running target, and unless it is a driven hunt, the game is wounded, you are starving, or being charged, what's the need?

[z375]

Thank you for punching that one out TwoRivers! My lazy digits can take another well-deserved breather! That reminds me to check out some loads for the IOF this afternoon in the new stock, results as soon as i'm done shooting!

[winnie_the_pooh]

TwoRivers,

Don't you think a higher capacity would be welcome where you have an opportunity to shoot at multiple targets?

[TwoRivers]

TwoRivers,

Don't you think a higher capacity would be welcome where you have an opportunity to shoot at multiple targets?

Definitely in that case, and when bag limits so allow, as in the video. With birds that come in flocks. But when it comes to walking up single pheasants, that extra capacity mostly benefits the ammunition manufacturer. In my experience, people who shoot single shot rifles, or double shotguns, generally have much better kill to cartridge shot ratios than those using repeaters. Don't get me wrong, there are excellent shots/hunters using repeaters; it's the poor shots who usually try to compensate for their lack of skill with bigger magazines. I have never seen a triple, except when the first or second shot got two at the same time, and never got a duck with the third shot, after missing the first two. And never seen a pheasant brought down with the third shot from the same gun; though I have seen it used as soon as the bird hit the ground. Wouldn't want it to escape wounded.
To sum up, that extra shot can come in handy at times, but it's not a cure for poor shooting. And yes, I am a fan of single-shot rifles; unless there are nasty critters around. Don't really care to get mauled.

[Vineet]

If you have a 5 round magazine, you can put three rounds in it but if you have a 3 round magazine you can not put 5 rounds in it therefore you have more options with 5 round magazine.

[TwoRivers]

If you have a 5 round magazine, you can put three rounds in it but if you have a 3 round magazine you can not put 5 rounds in it therefore you have more options with 5 round magazine.

Since the rifles we are talking about are hunting rifles, even though you can not use them as such in India, you have the option of two more misses. Your chance of hitting a fleeing animal with two extra shots, after missing the first three, at progressively longer distance are slim indeed. You will likely waste them on shots you would, as an ethical hunter, not normally take. If you are culling, that's a good reason for a larger magazine capacity.

[winnie_the_pooh]

TwoRivers,

In the Indian scenario,many who would buy the rifle would be doing so on a license for Self Defence.Now if I were using it for home defence,I would be more than happy with the extra rounds....and if 5 are not enough,how about 8

http://www.titanium-gunworks.de/safedat ... nworks.de/

[SriramK]

If you have a 5 round magazine, you can put three rounds in it but if you have a 3 round magazine you can not put 5 rounds in it therefore you have more options with 5 round magazine.

Since the rifles we are talking about are hunting rifles, even though you can not use them as such in India, you have the option of two more misses. Your chance of hitting a fleeing animal with two extra shots, after missing the first three, at progressively longer distance are slim indeed. You will likely waste them on shots you would, as an ethical hunter, not normally take. If you are culling, that's a good reason for a larger magazine capacity.

Or you're that brilliant shooter in that video posted earlier

[Vikram]

Or you're that brilliant shooter in that video posted earlier

As TwoRivers said, you have to remember that the guy in the video was shooting in a typical European boar drive where action is fast and furious and the number of beasts is very high.You do need that magazine capacity.In regular spot and stock or high-seat hunting scenario,higher magazine capacity may not be needed.

But,in India, the rifle is also a self-defence weapon.So, why not have a large capacity magazine! To each his/her own.

Best-
Vikram

[hks2056]

In hunting or self defense rifles the minimum is 5 shot capacity which is practical and more or less a norm. More the capacity the better it is. There is definitely some logic based on requirements that a revolver has usually six shot magazine chamber. I have not come across any two or three shot revolvers which were commercial success. The same goes for the pistol which usually have 13 to 15 shot magazine. Even more than 100 years old 45 ACP is 7 shot pistol.Only the concealed carry pistols have 6 or 7 shot magazines. Pocket carry snub nosed revolvers in 38/357 calibre do have 5 shot cylinders in some models. But the rifle is not a concealed carry firearm. If it can have 10 shot magazine then it will be advantageous from practical standpoint.Reloading a three shot rifle magazine in an action situation would waste precious moments which can not be retrieved. Coming to the postulation about MARKSMEN who need just one or two shots to compete the job all that I can say is that it is probable that they can manage with one or two shot rifle all the time. The MARKSMEN that I know off here in India, to whom I have accompanied in field situation, were more comfortable with their 5 shot rifles.Personally I would prefer a self loading rifle such as BAR. Unfortunately Indian laws do not permit self loading rifles in private arms licence.There is no substitute for large capacity magazine.

[Raptor]

In hunting or self defense rifles the minimum is 5 shot capacity which is practical and more or less a norm. More the capacity the better it is. There is definitely some logic based on requirements that a revolver has usually six shot magazine chamber. I have not come across any two or three shot revolvers which were commercial success. The same goes for the pistol which usually have 13 to 15 shot magazine. Even more than 100 years old 45 ACP is 7 shot pistol.Only the concealed carry pistols have 6 or 7 shot magazines. Pocket carry snub nosed revolvers in 38/357 calibre do have 5 shot cylinders in some models. But the rifle is not a concealed carry firearm. If it can have 10 shot magazine then it will be advantageous from practical standpoint.Reloading a three shot rifle magazine in an action situation would waste precious moments which can not be retrieved. Coming to the postulation about MARKSMEN who need just one or two shots to compete the job all that I can say is that it is probable that they can manage with one or two shot rifle all the time. The MARKSMEN that I know off here in India, to whom I have accompanied in field situation, were more comfortable with their 5 shot rifles.Personally I would prefer a self loading rifle such as BAR. Unfortunately Indian laws do not permit self loading rifles in private arms licence.There is no substitute for large capacity magazine.

with due respect sir, i beg to differ with you on this one. While i cannot fault your logic about a larger magazine capacity i fail to picture a scenario where one will be called to defend oneself with a sporting rifle in the indian context. For self defense, given our cramped existence, thanks to our burgeoning population, a handgun is surely more 'tactically' viable, no?

[Vikram]

In hunting or self defense rifles the minimum is 5 shot capacity which is practical and more or less a norm. More the capacity the better it is. There is definitely some logic based on requirements that a revolver has usually six shot magazine chamber. I have not come across any two or three shot revolvers which were commercial success. The same goes for the pistol which usually have 13 to 15 shot magazine. Even more than 100 years old 45 ACP is 7 shot pistol.Only the concealed carry pistols have 6 or 7 shot magazines. Pocket carry snub nosed revolvers in 38/357 calibre do have 5 shot cylinders in some models. But the rifle is not a concealed carry firearm. If it can have 10 shot magazine then it will be advantageous from practical standpoint.Reloading a three shot rifle magazine in an action situation would waste precious moments which can not be retrieved. Coming to the postulation about MARKSMEN who need just one or two shots to compete the job all that I can say is that it is probable that they can manage with one or two shot rifle all the time. The MARKSMEN that I know off here in India, to whom I have accompanied in field situation, were more comfortable with their 5 shot rifles.Personally I would prefer a self loading rifle such as BAR. Unfortunately Indian laws do not permit self loading rifles in private arms licence.There is no substitute for large capacity magazine.

with due respect sir, i beg to differ with you on this one. While i cannot fault your logic about a larger magazine capacity i fail to picture a scenario where one will be called to defend oneself with a sporting rifle in the indian context. For self defense, given our cramped existence, thanks to our burgeoning population, a handgun is surely more 'tactically' viable, no?

Rapror,

If I may, ideally a handgun is very useful in a typical urban self-defence situation.However, if a rifle is the only one you got, why not? And think of other contexts and places where a rifle can be mighty handy to defend one's property and life.

Best-
Vikram

[dsingh]

hks and Vikram andRapror it depends about the situation yes the handgun is ideal but it has to be backed by another weapon say shot gun or rifle in emergency .I personalt feel rifle is more useful as I have come accross a case of 1984 where a joint family of 27 was surrounded by a 3000 mob but 70 plus head of family just fired a accurate shot which just blew the skull of leader of the mob which had demoralising effect on others who fled it happened in Gurgoan the weapon used was a .315 bore rifle although the family has to face the legal prosecution but it saved many llives second case was of Group captain talwar case in delhi in motibagh it was reported in Nanawati commision report the mob attacked the house of air force official severel times when mob entered the house tried to kill the family the owner the talwar did open fire with his revolver which killed 6 invaders and others fled.These r some of the examples I personaly feel the rifle has more deterence with minimun causalties in another case when hand gun failed to deter the mob the owner fired from shotgun which caused 5 deaths .If u compare the use of rifle for self defence one must see the result is more positive with minimum force and minimum causalties .Although revolver is more handy and simple but most important is the temprement and how u react but even though I may be wrong but rifles the medium or big bores have more deterrence effect although same may be done with heavy loaded shotgun amno but rifles have more deterenceand handguns r more handy.