Bestselling Sporting Optics Rings in 2020
TPS TSR Low Sporting Optic Rings (.925), 30 mm
- The Most Precision Scope Rings On The Planet.
- Ring bore diameter circularity (roundness) within 2/10000 of a thousands.
- Ring bore parallelism and perpendicularity to ring base less than 1/10000 of a thousands.
- Direct supplier to to Canadian Defence Ministry for the C14 Timberwolf .338 Lapua (MRSWS)
- Manufactured in the United States by U.S. Veterans from 7075-T651 Aluminum Alloy
Vortex Optics Hunter 1-inch Riflescope Rings - Medium Height (0.87 in)
Vortex Optics Tactical 30mm Riflescope Ring — High Height [1.18 Inches | 30.0 mm] - 2 Pack
Hawke Sport Optics 22117 Riflescope Rings - Weaver 30mm High 2 pc, Black
- Double hex screws to hold your scope firmly in place
- Weaver version features crossbar for additional security
- Internal cushion tape prevents marking and damage
- High grade aluminum anodized in matte black
- 2.1" high mount for Weaver rails
Vortex Optics Hunter 1-inch Riflescope Rings - High Height (1.22 in)
Vortex Optics Hunter 1-inch Riflescope Rings - Low Height (0.63 in)
TAC Vector Optics Tactical Mark 30mm Middle Med Height Weaver Mount Ring Color Black
- Full Metal
- 30mm Diameter
- One Pair
Vortex Optics Precision Matched Rings 30mm - Height 1.26 inches - Picatinny Mount
Vortex Optics Hunter 30mm Riflescope Rings - Medium Height (0.94 in)
- These Vortex Hunter Rings position the center of the riflescope tube at a height of 0.94 inches (24.0 mm) from the base
- Mounting to a Picatinny or Weaver type rail, the standard, 2-screw Hunter rings are a nice match for general hunting setups
- Made from aircraft-grade 6061-T6 aluminum for optimum strength
- Sold two rings per package
Vortex Optics Tactical 30mm Riflescope Ring - Absolute Co-Witness [1.46 Inches | 37.0 mm]
Vortex Optics Tactical 30mm Riflescope Ring — Absolute Co-Witness [1.46 Inches | 37.0 mm] - 2 Pack
BARSKA 1-Inch High Weaver Style See-through Riflescope Ring
- Hunting scopes rings
- Versatile top of the line
- Another quality product
Vortex Optics Sport Cantilever 1-Inch Mount - 2-Inch Offset (CM-102)
Destructive Creation in Hemingway's Green Hills of Africa
Discussing the use of hunting as a metaphor for the creation of art in Green Hills of Africa by Ernest Hemingway.
Often, Hemingway's novels will read as a textbook on certain subjects, such as fishing or pitching a tent, that his audience may not be as adept at as he. Here, Hemingway takes on literature not as entertainment but as art. The subjectivity of art, however, makes a universal definition extremely difficult, a problem that Hemingway understands when he states that all writers must have "an absolute conscience as unchanging as the standard meter in Paris" (33). If there is to be absolute judgments of literature, they must all be based on the same principles. Hemingway, at this point, is rather vague. The first three appear to be talent, discipline and a "conception of what it can be" (33). The fourth and fifth, what Hemingway calls "dimensions" (33), are only acknowledged as possibilities and not named. However, a reader can guess that if one follows the dimensions of physical reality - length, width, and breadth-then fourth dimension is time. There must be a sense of reality based on the awareness that time is passing in the novel. The fifth is identified much later in the story as being a novel's ability to blend the fiction and reality, or as Hemingway puts it "For we have been there in the books and out of the books - and where we go, if we are any good, there you can go as we have been" (110). The reader must remember that Hemingway the character in a novel written by Hemingway the author has explained this to an audience reading a piece of literature. These, therefore, are not just experiences Hemingway wishes to gain out of his own reading, but also what he wants to recreate for his audience.
Yet, didn't this novel begin as one focusing on hunting in Africa? Isn't the purpose of Hemingway and his wife's presence to hunt? And yet, he wishes to theorize on literature more than once. This lecture is the catalyst to the novel along with a scene that introduces the audience to the frustration of hunting; a frustration which carries throughout the novel. The reader becomes aware that hunting is not a simple process of see and shoot, but it requires much the same aspects of writing a great novel. In order to enjoy hunting, one must be able to sense the proper time for hunting, and one must have the time to experience nothing but hunting even if the hunter waits all day. Hemingway mentions that and ideal hunting trip would mean:
to hunt something that you want very much over a long period of time, being outwitted, out-maneuvered, and failing at the end of each day, but having the hunt and knowing every time you are out that sooner or later, your luck will change and that you will get the chance that you are seeking. But it is not pleasant to have a time limit by which you must get your kudu or perhaps never get it, nor ever see one. (19)
Thus meaning that this particular hunting trip fails at the fifth dimension. In this way he would be able to better interact mentally and physically with his surroundings, just as a great novel will allow the reader to interact mentally and emotionally. Hemingway is unable to accomplish this due to time constraints, but the reader can see that this is an unwavering desire after reading "Big Two-Hearted River" or even The Sun Also Rises. Both feature scenes where Hemingway's characters take great time and pleasure in fishing, a pleasure made greater by solitude and no rushing. Particularly in "Big Two-Hearted River", the protagonist focuses on his tasks and fishing and is capable of reaching an emotional connection with the river, and mainly the daunting swamp. This is what Hemingway wants for his trip in Africa, but he never achieves it. Most of the other dimensions are based on skill. Hemingway and the other's have the ability to know what time of day is the best for hunting the different animals. Likewise, there must be the conception of what the greatest of these animals looks like in order to know what to shoot, which then must be followed by the discipline of knowing when and how to shoot, and the talent to make the shot. These four later principles are all within Hemingway's skill, yet one characteristic he lacks that continues to thwart his hunting trip is luck.
Luck haunts Hemingway's hunting excursion due to the presence of his friend Karl. Karl has little skill, and confesses to having to shoot an animal several times, as opposed to the one or two shots Hemingway requires, before he can take an animal down. He is not a particularly good shot, and what's more he doesn't realize that his multiple shootings scare away the game for the other hunters. Hemingway complains about this kind of luck-based talent in his rant on literature, also. He explains to Kandisky that sometimes a writer will create a good book, but then cannot continue writing so adeptly because they actually have no skill. They may be writing for money or fame, in reality, and do not recognize the principles of great writing (29-30). He even goes as far as to say that this is an affliction of Herman Melville: "We have writers [...] who had the good fortune to find a little, in a chronicle of another man and from voyaging, or how things, actual things, can be" (26), and in this vein Karl flows. The art of hunting is muddled with people akin to Karl who find success easily without skill and thus ruin the experience for those whose intentions are to use their skill and do well despite where luck is. And as much as Hemingway does not want to compare himself with a man with far less talent than he, Karl's ability to have the largest prize always ruins Hemingway's mood. This is not to say that Hemingway's trophies aren't impressive, often they are enough to make Hemingway and his guides elated, and in one scene the success is so much that he is informally initiated into the tribe; however, when later compared to Karl's kudu, Hemingway still falls impotent. Hemingway and his follower's disgust at this flagrant display of luck shows that Hemingway does not approve of this kind of artistry in any way and that when seen in hunting, it is truly an abominable act. The lay person may not understand this if she does not know the world of writing, but it is as disgusting in art as it is in hunting.
Within regards to his own skill, Hemingway realizes that there is certain protocol that he follows that that once he cannot do so, he must stop hunting. When hunting, one must preserve the art and beauty of the animal, and thus the least amount of shots it takes to kill an animal, and above all the animal must die quickly, is preferred. Hemingway's last shot in the book ends badly and he "felt rotten sick" (262) because he had caused the animal to suffer by not killing him. In the same way that Hemingway believes that one must understand a subject if writing about it, he has experienced pain enough to know how it feels to suffer from a bullet wound, and thus he kills with a conscience. In the earlier section of the novel, Hemingway discusses at length American writers and their talent. One major subject was the fact that none of them were capable of maintaining their talent into old age, yet they continued writing. What's more, writers who never had talent, yet wrote anyway were unable to know when to stop and thus muddied American literature. Hemingway's principles for hunting could follow his principle for writing, so once he cannot finish a story or novel cleanly, he should stop. It comes with not only with the knowledge that art is like a living being, but also that there must be some pride in the catch. There must be some pride as an author knowing that novels are not simply luck, but can be created out of skill and hard work. Likewise, more pride and art comes out of having a fur or skull that has not been destroyed by bullet holes. Hemingway knows where to shoot in order to have the best pelt, just as he has certain principles he writes by in order to have a novel he is proud of
Art and hunting follow the same process for Ernest Hemingway, yet they are split by the creation and destruction dichotomy. The death and murder of an animal is far different from the birth of a character or plot, yet Hemingway does not see hunting as destruction. Killing the animal is not taking it away or ruining it, he is merely changing it. The animal turns from on state to another, even if that state is just a trophy on his wall. He sees it as the creation of art just as his writing and his literature. The kudu or oryx is a beautiful animal whether alive or dead, and the difference appears in how one disposes of the animal. Hopefully, the hunter is able to kill quickly with no suffering, and also preserving the pelts, just as executing a novel must preserve its morals and standards. There are certain ways and techniques which need to be followed in order to create as best as one can, and in killing a kudu or oryx, one can create a piece or art from that animal, but they can create a novel on the subject.