Rifle - iron sights - what should I get.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wood stocks aren't as fuctional as synthetic stocks, hence the lack of selection in the semiautos.

"I like a wood stock cuz my grandpappy would approve of it. Ding-a-dang-doo."

Don't let everyone else's uneducated, ill-conceived notions determine what you buy. Get an AR15, if you could only own(carry) one gun, this is the choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I don't want an AR15. If I go that route I'm getting a G36. I will probably buy 15 more guns than I already have before I even think about getting an AR15.

2) I want a wood stock. I like the look of WWII style rifles.

3) I'd like to take other people with me. Everytime I bring a topic like this to an AR15 owner I get the same response. I don't understand why so many AR15 owners can't get it through their thick skull that it's 1000x easier to get someone to at least "TRY" shooting a gun when it doesn't look like your preparing for an alien invasion. Ask a girl who is nervous around guns to shoot skeet/trap and she will be fine. She can tell herself "it's a gentlemens sport" and she will open up. Ask her to go hunting with a bazooka and she will freak out. Why can't so many AR15 obsessed owners figure that out?

[ILL34GL3]

AR15 owners are the ones with "thick skull"? It seems your friends that judge a gun by its appearance are the thick skulled ones. That's just unreasonable.

[swede123]

Wacki,

There's nothing wrong with the more traditional looking rifles of the world. In fact, if you would ever need it to defend yourself or the ones you love I bet you'd have a much easier time being found not guilty by a jury if you used this

rather than this

Look at Springfield Armory for a great selection of high quality M1 rifles with various features and prices.

Once again let me reiterate that you really should consider looking at an SKS as well.

Swede

[ILL34GL3]

Aww man, enough with the SKS already. That's the biggest piece of crap gun I've ever owned. Someone said the sights suck on the SKS and they are exactly right.

[swede123]

There are many different makers of SKS rifles. I agree that certain models and vintages were utter crap, incapable of shooting very straight, but there are also certain models that are plenty accurate out to 100 yards or so, with stock iron sights.

Obviously I'm not comparing one of these rifles which can be bought for 200 bucks to a newly manufactured Bushmaster or Springfield weapon, which will set you back five or ten times that amount. But you get what you pay for, and if you don't need to shoot sub-1 MOA groups why pay the extra cash?

Swede

[Martin]

[ QUOTE ]
Sights on the SKS are terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true and they are very difficult to adjust. Having said that mine was quite accurate. It was a war trophy and shot as straight as my friends out the box mini 14. The sites are better on the mini 14 though. If money isn't too much of an object then the Mini 14 is a better choice

[Martin]

[ QUOTE ]
I also wish they had the M-1 Carbine in .223. That would be my dream rifle. I wonder why they don't make one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Like slamdunkpro said the action wouldn't hold together. There was talk in the mid 80's of someone tooling up to make a beefed up version but I think the cost of redesign was too much.

[wacki]

Sights on the SKS are easy to replace. That is a non issue IMO.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also wish they had the M-1 Carbine in .223. That would be my dream rifle. I wonder why they don't make one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Like slamdunkpro said the action wouldn't hold together. There was talk in the mid 80's of someone tooling up to make a beefed up version but I think the cost of redesign was too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Martin]

If you do change them get a ghost ring. Unless ofcourse you like a v type site. Some do for close up shooting. With decent sites and a bit of work the SKS is great value for money.