Shooting sports with Rolex on ?

[delldeaton]

Again, I'm interested in putting numbers to this -- since "James Bond" and fire arms go hand-in-hand (is there a pun in that?).

Omega publishes its shock-resistance, and I'm sure there is data on Rolex as well. So my question would be if there is information regarding the shock introduced to the shooter's wrist per gun fired.

The field experience here is great, and I really appreciate this Thread. Just wondering how practical it might be to put hard numbers to gun models. Thanks.

[Peter Hightower]

Wow guys, I had no idea Rolex could take so much. Thanks for the info. Some of you members have great pieces there. Here in Canada though it would be difficult to obtain some of that hardware legally. Supressors and such, mags with more than so many rounds, full auto capability etc. Mostly shoot 40 cal Glock, very little kick.
Cheers.

[CoopJr]

I shoot Sporting Clays with no problem.

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by Klink

Which one is the best? I like the G3 in 7.62

For a controllable select fire 7.62 the G3 is probably the best in it's class.

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by MrClean

es possible? - is that one of the rumored but never seen Shrikes?

wow - serious collection

That is my Shrike. Had it for a couple years now. I also have a couple unicorns in my basement and a mermaid in my pool.

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by delldeaton

Again, I'm interested in putting numbers to this -- since "James Bond" and fire arms go hand-in-hand (is there a pun in that?).

Omega publishes its shock-resistance, and I'm sure there is data on Rolex as well. So my question would be if there is information regarding the shock introduced to the shooter's wrist per gun fired.

The field experience here is great, and I really appreciate this Thread. Just wondering how practical it might be to put hard numbers to gun models. Thanks.

As recoil impulse in not consistent from firearm to firearm even when chambered for the same round I doubt such a reference exists.

Consider for a moment that the M-14, HK G3 and FN FAL all fire the same 7.62x51 NATO round. Due to the various actions the G3 is the only one that is controllable in select fire. The FN FAL has a much more distinct punch to the recoil impulse. And any bolt action chambered for the same round, like the Remington 700 is going to have more pronounced recoil as there is no semi auto action to diminish it.

Now consider that a FAL Para Carbine is a lighter rifle with a more compact buffer system so it would recoil more dramatically than a full size. Conversely the Heavy Barrel FAL would recoil less than the standard rifle as it has more mass to diminish recoil energy. And this is still just considering firearms that fire that same 7.62x51 NATO round.

So as you can see any kind of generalized database on associated recoil with respect to given rifles would be almost impossible. Additionally many other factors would come into play as there are variations of loads for the same round and the number of accessories on a rifle or the addition of a suppressor or muzzle brake changes things greatly with respect to recoil impulse.

Bottom line is this. I have yet to kill a crappy Timex even when shooting significant firearms. My father has worn his Submariner for 30+ years of shooting some heavy duty hardware. Any Rolex made in the last 40 years is gonna handle anything you shoot just fine.

[Trurolexer]

No.

[pwrslider]

Originally Posted by Trurolexer

No.

X2!....18 yrs.....40,000+- rounds...no problems!

[MrClean]

[QUOTE .... Due to the various actions the G3 is the only one that is controllable in select fire. .[/QUOTE]

you're kidding, right?
the roller lock action, the running joke i've had about it, is it's the only weapon designed to punish the shooter as much as the target - in FA, that's the weapon i'm concerned about at a range regarding muzzle climb.

[delldeaton]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

As recoil impulse in not consistent from firearm to firearm even when chambered for the same round I doubt such a reference exists.... Any Rolex made in the last 40 years is gonna handle anything you shoot just fine.

Great reply; appreciate the detail and discussion.

Still-- not even a range of shock values to which a watch would be subjected here?

[oneillba]

I hunt, play the shotgun sports, shoot handguns and rifles too. My Rolex has never skipped a beat. I usually see quite a few Rollies at my shotgun club on the other members. I imagine, as long as you aren't shooting at them, they will hold up quite well with aplomb!

I'm the good looking guy on the right, BTW!

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by MrClean

[QUOTE .... Due to the various actions the G3 is the only one that is controllable in select fire. .

you're kidding, right?
the roller lock action, the running joke i've had about it, is it's the only weapon designed to punish the shooter as much as the target - in FA, that's the weapon i'm concerned about at a range regarding muzzle climb.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely not.

The G3 is the ONLY select fire .308 that you can actually hit stuff with.

The FAL is so bad the UK adopted it as a semi only with the L1A1 and the M-14 has never been known as controllable on FA.

Now this isn't to say the G3 doesn't kick, it does. But so does every other .308 and the G3 is the only one that is practical at all. I've even run the 51 in FA and it is NOTHING like shooting a shorty FAL.

[wust588]

At the beginning of this thread it was suggested that the material / subject that might appear as it attracts posts, might offend people of other country's.
Well, I have heard over the years that some Americans have a sort of primeval blood lust- clearly illustrated here.
I'm offended by the sad thought that anybody could kill a defenceless creature for pleasure.
And I suppose you travel in armoured cars.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Originally Posted by JYogi

I do not think I would sit there and fire a full auto .50 cal on daily basis....

No, but you should do it at least once!

[Nigel Tufnel]

Originally Posted by wust588

At the beginning of this thread it was suggested that the material / subject that might appear as it attracts posts, might offend people of other country's.
Well, I have heard over the years that some Americans have a sort of primeval blood lust- clearly illustrated here.
I'm offended by the sad thought that anybody could kill a defenceless creature for pleasure.
And I suppose you travel in armoured cars.

"Blood lust"? I am assuming you are referring to the hunting talked about so far? The hunters I know hunt for food. It just so happens Tesco's provides you your chicken, beef, pork and fish "pre-hunted". Think about it. And, if I may, I will you offer some food for thought (no pun intended) on the gun ownership issue here. Ironically, America's citizen ownership of firearms is a direct offshoot of actions of your country's soldiers during the 18th century in America, namely, the crown's policy of housing British soldiers in civilian homes, forcefully and without any permission whatever, and then the subsequent arming of a citizen militia to prevent this terrifying practice from happening again, post revolution. So, in a sense, if early Americans had use of "armoured cars" back then, the arming of the citizenry against the British would have been moot.

Finally, I guess the "blood lust" of a fox hunt, where zero food value is derived by its efforts, would not fall into this category? Also, your driven pheasant hunts are outstanding, the proceeds thereon being used to feed various charitable groups (I have participated in one of these in Scotland, and my Rolex performed beautifully).

Interesting observations on your part, by the way, and certainly thought provoking.

[Cmaster03]

I'm unabashedly a throwback in a lot of the ways I view things, and I rarely join in internet discussions that turn political. It is almost unheard of for anyone to change anybody's mind and they usually get ugly pretty quickly. This one has stayed fairly civil, and that's the reason I am jumping in for a quick point or two.

Nigel made some good points but I'd just like to say I don't get the no hunting argument. I understand the aversion some people have to killing and "violence" but as Nigel pointed out it seems a bit hypocritical to bemoan hunting and the killing of animals and then turn around as most do and eat "mass murdered" or factory killed animals in one's hamburgers, steaks, and fish dishes. I realize some people are strict vegetarians and variations of that theme, and I can at least respect their consistency. They should just realize the rest of the world still likes to eat meat and plans to continue doing so. If you're a meat eater the best and most sporting way of killing something you're going to eat is fair chase, hunt style. Much more sporting than a slaughter house.

My father taught me a valuable lesson when I was little about indiscriminate killing. He said we only killed animals for food. I shot a little bird with a BB gun and he showed me how to prepare it and cook it. It wasn't roasted duck in a five star restauant, but it taught me the lesson.

I am not a hunter anymore and haven't been since I was a kid. That is more a symptom of the ever increasing urbanization of society than a political statement on my part.

As far as the blood lust of Americans, well I won't go too far into that. Suffice to say many peoples all over the world continue to hunt and although we used to call natives "barbaraians" and similar things for hunting with bows and arrows and such, I thought we were a little more enlightened these days.

I realize these issues are hot button ones for many people, and I sincerely do not wish to offend any members here. America is one of the last places in the free world with wide spread lawful gun ownership and hunting, and I realize it appears alien to many others.

As a police officer I think I can honestly say these guns and hunting practices were here before the upsurge in violent crime in the 1960s and have little effect on the crime rate. If you want to argue that our social fabric and education system has deteriorated and there is too much poverty and despair in such a great country, I will be the first to stand up and agree with you. Too many guns? Nah, just too many bad eggs. Just my humble opinion of course.

By the way, nice iron in those pics guys.

[oneillba]

Remember, goodwill and fellowship. Otherwise this thread may be closed. I have enjoyed it so far. Good work guys! Similar threads could be posted, such as, how does your Rolex perform after a tough motor cycle ride, etc. Let's keep it cool...

[oneillba]

Originally Posted by Rawhyde

I have shot about 150K 12 gauge shells at Sporting Clays through a 686 Onyx Sporting and a 687EELL Sporting, and more pistol rounds than I can count while wearing Rolexes over the last 18 years. I don't think shooting harms Rolexes much if at all...

PULL!

Boom!


*&@#^ IT!

Rawhyde

I never want to hear the puller say, "LOST"!!! I shoot a Beretta 686 Silver Pigeon that fits me to a tee and is the one that I can bust the most clay birds best with. I love it!

[Lol-x]

The topic has strayed from how it was originally (discussing Rolex) to now relating to the right and wrongs of hunting, owning weapons etc. nothing to do with Rolex at all.

If it had only stayed on course.