The irony being that black is a colour that hardly exists in nature. Whereas if you are hunting in, say, a wood, then a sort of brown wood colour is much better camouflage than black.Originally Posted by TonyL
Dodgy Diana User
The irony being that black is a colour that hardly exists in nature. Whereas if you are hunting in, say, a wood, then a sort of brown wood colour is much better camouflage than black.
Six out of seven dwarfs aren't happy
To that degree then, never see many varnished branches... lol
I don't think the colour makes as much of a difference as to say a really shiny finish? But then I don't have pigeon eyes so maybe it's all just about the movement?
Dodgy Diana User
Yes, that post was slightly tongue-in-cheek.
Though I think I have a point. Dull, non-varnished oil-finished walnut is better camouflaged compared to black. Black is not camouflage, even at night, when dark green is better (especially as colour vision fades to shades of grey).
Look at the evolution of British military rifles since about 1880: everything up to and including No4 Lee-Enfield, the exterior is mostly brown; early L1A1, black metal with brown wood butt and fore-end; late L1A1, all black; L85A1: black with green furniture (to hide in German forests); L85A2: same but green-brown; new L85A3: mostly light to mid-brown, including the metal.
We have after a fifty year hiatus gone back to the colour scheme that worked ever since the miraculous military discovery in the late nineteenth century that dressing in order to be harder to see correlated with being harder to hit.
Of course, that doesn't apply directly to birds and animals, which do see things differently from us, but none of them see black as invisible.
Nor does it change the differing handling, resonance and other characteristics of artificial stocks ranging from the cheapest plastic through to high-end carbon-fire jobs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote