He uses his guns. They're not showroom pieces.
<snip>All in what you're into I guess. I have optics on my guns that cost more than the gun.
I don't know what a reasonable amount of guns is, either. A hunter may have a catalog of guns for various types of hunting and that could add up quick.
You can spend a lot of money on guns. But a cheap gun could shoot better than an expensive gun.
All in what you're into I guess. I have optics on my guns that cost more than the gun.
I don't know what a reasonable amount of guns is, either. A hunter may have a catalog of guns for various types of hunting and that could add up quick.
You can spend a lot of money on guns. But a cheap gun could shoot better than an expensive gun.
<snip>
RE: Optics, IMO, in most cases, that is the way that it should be. What does not make any sense is a nice gun and crap for optics.</snip>
Aks were designed around a different doctrine. The US army prefers a longer engagement range than the Soviet era Russian did.
Try shooting steel at a 1000m, so rewarding when you fire and a split second here that wonderful ping. Doing it open sights is even better. I'm not really into optics.
Devildog01 said:I agree with you Ray, but there is nothing like shooting @ 500 yds in the prone position looking at a ring, a post and a man size target which is covered by the front sight post.
Nice pics! How'd you like the factory AK?
I loved shooting at 1k, but the M401A1 (and A3) made it rather easy on known distance ranges unless the wind was going strong-we didn't play too much with iron sights at that range given the application.
As a retort...try shooting at 2600m with a M82A1 holding off the last mildot hitting something the size of a small car-the satisfaction of a Raufoss round exploding at that distance is significant-but first round on target hits are rather rare!
r-
Ray