Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Sheldon
To me a "shooter" is a gun that isn't too perfect or unsafe or rare to shoot.
An example of too rare, IMO, is say a gun that has a name hammered into the damascus pattern. Could you shoot it, yes. But if you blew the barrel, the loss would be to great to the collecting community.
To shoot a 120 year old mint gun is just selfish.
To shoot an unsafe gun is just foolish.
Tim
|
Tim, you raise some interesting philosophical questions here. I think we all agree that shooting an unsafe gun is foolish.
At what point in a 120 year mint gun's history does it become selfish to shoot it?
Can we agree that it is not the original purchaser's starting point, otherwise, there would be few examples of shooters and lots of NIBs. Shooters would then become the prized find
Let's assume an original purchaser died before using it and the widow(er) just stored it until s/he passed and it was inherited 40 years out from factory - still unfired. Is the heir selfish if it were pressed into service at that point? Hunting with Dad's gun that had all but been forgotten, would any of us consider that selfish and not use that gun?
Once it has been used from there on it matters not that it continues to get used.
Now let's assume that the first heir was not the least bit interested in guns and it passed to a grandson who is an enthusiastic hunter/shooter. He is wowed at the beautiful gun he just inherited, lets say 75 years out from the factory. Is he selfish to shoot it?? If he knows nothing about collecting, is he selfish? If he does know all about collecting but choses to use his Grand Dad's gun, is he selfish??
Where is that cut off point between the gun being a tool versus a need to preserve?
Let's assume the gun has remained in the family from the beginning and unfired until it recently became inherited. Is the shooting enthusiast of today selfish if s/he finally uses Great Grand daddy's gun?
Now, lets assume it went to auction rather than stayed in the family but did so at the same points as the example above. When does it become selfish to use the gun for it's intended purpose, as per Mr. Parker ("Much care is bestowed to make it what the Sportsman needs-a good gun"-Charles Parker )
Continuing in a philosophical vein. Is collecting mint/minty guns selfish? From the caretaker perspective are all collectors equipped to provide controlled conditions to preserve wood/metal without deterioration? If not, would the proper thing be to donate any mint gun acquired to somewhere like the Smithsonian or the NRA museums for controlled condition preservation. Even if a collector has the controlled environment, is it selfish to retain them for a select few to ever see or should they be donated for the masses to be able to enjoy as well??
I have had 3 NIBs in life. Winchester 1200 that has seen a lot of shooting. Savage O/U .22/.410 Has not seen a full box of .410 and maybe a box of .22. One Winchester '94 Commemorative which remains unfired.
The unfired NIB is closing in on 40 years out from factory. Is it selfish to decide one day to drop a whitetail with it?
Where is that line that some feel should not be crossed? Is it now or did it arrive decades ago?
These are philosophical questions not directed to anyone specifically.
I grew up with guns being tools, nothing more, even if they were pretty. I don't have answers to my own questions. They can be considered rhetorical or to open/continue debate.
Cheers,
Jack