on a warranty claim and i must say...i am impressed with the customer service.
no questions asked. they simply replace the defective one with a newer and better one.
where i made a mistake is i selected the wrong scope for MY use. it's an 8-32x scope for a .308 Winchester.
seldom do i ever shoot more than 300 maybe 400 yards. so...do i need a scope of that magnitude? probably not.
no matter.
I'll have to 'zero' at 200 yards as i have a 20 MOA scope mount base it's mounted on so zeroing at 100 yards may be next to impossible.
over the years, i accumulated a number of scopes. some good, a few, not so good.
I've finally come to realize that the more a person can afford to pay, the better quality scope he will have...duhhhhh...
i have three top name scopes that cost into the four figures and i would not part with any of them. they are more than i could hope for for what i use them for.
i think the best thing i could have/should have done would be to configure the mounts so i could transfer them to any rifle i have.
but each rifle and each scope has a different application designation so it changes things...a 4x is really not too good for long range shooting (200 yds plus) and a 8x is too much for short range (100 yards and less) it gets challenging to arrive at the best solution (not to mention expense)
then...i get into another area...I'm also an avid airgunner...i like PCP air rifles and have two quality PCP's at the moment. but...air rifles are limited, normally, to less than 100 yards so...do i really need a $1000.00 scope in 10x? for the largest part...no.
it gets better and more complex as the issue expands.
one day...I'm gonna sort it out...
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
i've made
the decision to get an AR.
i decided to get a complete .22 caliber lr AR that will accept 5.56 'uppers' as well so i will be able to enjoy the best of both worlds.
the only "catch" is that i have to decided whether or not I'm going to have a "bullet button" installed all the time or, if practical, remove it when using the .22 lr as it's not required on rimfire detachable magazine, semi-automatic rifles in the state of kaliphornia. (not yet, anyway. i suspect with Jerry brown and the idiot Gavin newsome coming in to power, there may be monumental changes in firearms laws in California.)
right now, there's a buying frenzy of AR's, and handgun ammo, in California due to the changes that're coming. like many others i am going to get what i can, while i can, before the legislators panic and try to shut the door of opportunity for us to have and own AR's.
anyway...
i decided on the M4 platform as it's lighter, shorter and easier to handle. the only other runner-up in my decision weighed in at a hefty 9.7 lbs without optics or ammo; add a good quality scope, a bi-pod and 10 rounds of 5.56 and you've got a rifle that will be near the 12 lb. mark...not exactly a light-weight...
geeeeee...my savage 12fv in .308 Winchester in the tech 2000 stock and with the Barska scope weights in at 14 lbs WITHOUT a bi-pod. I've decided that if I'm going to do any "long range" shooting, the 12fv is the way to go. i also have an 'intermediate' rifle, a rem 700 BDL in 22-250 that can be accurate to the extreme at longer .22 caliber ranges and is capable of shooting the heavier .22 cal bullets...and...last but not least...with the 5.56 i can have a good short to intermediate range SD carbine. (i do also have a Ruger PC9 carbine and a Remington 870 that's highly capable for very close CQB/SD encounters should i ever have the need.)
to be honest, i have my thoughts about having to use any of my firearms as SD tools.
right now (in our historical, political, societal and cultural positions, it's not exactly what I'd call "a bowl of cherries") i feel there's a very good chance that we, the U.S., will surely break apart in the not to distant future.
it's a historical fact that no "empire" lasts long. each and every one of them is formed out of the fermentation of revolution of some sort, rises rapidly to power, enters a plateau of that power, becomes complacent where everyone demands "rights" to extremes, becomes oppressive to it's citizenry as a results of those "rights" and eventually declines in to decay, moral rot and chaos.
from what I'm seeing and hearing in the news, we, the United States, are in the last stages. like it or not. all one has to do is to look around and the signs are all there and very evident to even the most casual of observers.
with that in mind, it may behoove a person to have some SD capabilities ready and able to use should the need arise; hence the AR, PC9 and Remington 870.
probably the only real disadvantage to the M4 is that it's a 16" tube and I'm not sure that's truly a "disadvantage" per-se. another feature of the M16/M4 platform is the changes that can be done by the owner/operator with minimum effort and expense.
i will be able to switch between an A2 and a number of other "tactical" butt stocks and forearms should i choose to, there is an endless array of optics and lighting accessories that are available and. at the moment, ammo is still available, accessible and still affordable.
for years, i was NOT an advocate of the AR or the 5.56 AS A COMBAT cartridge and the M16 had proven to be very unreliable and controversial due to it's many short-comings and fatal flaws during the Vietnam war. too many soldiers and marines died because of those short-comings.
not only that, but i was in the U.S. Army at the beginning of the war in Vietnam and spent time over there on that peninsula at that time. i was armed and trained with the M1 Carbine and M1 Garand not to mention the Browning M1919 machine gun and was, later, issued an M14 rifle; you might say i was "biased" towards the .30 caliber cartridges.
i also had purchased a Ruger Mini-14 in .223 shortly after they came into production and i was NOT satisfied with it's accuracy at all. Ruger addressed that issue later down the road, though.
i believe the AR platform, after being "adjusted" is a suitable platform, that the 5.56 cartridge is, still, NOT a suitable combat cartridge and from the looks of it, I'm correct as the military has begun a switch back to a .30 caliber, albeit a shorter version, for the rigors and demands of a capable cartridge in the form of the 6.9mm Grendell and 6.8mm SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) and the 7.62 NATO has returned bigger than ever in the hands of "Special Ops" groups such as Navy SEALs, army green berets and such.
evidence of that also lies in the world-wide success of the AK47 and SKS series rifles; they're 7.62mm x 39mm cartridges and in spite of all the AR/M16 advocates here, (especially those that have not faced the AK or SKS in battle) has become the most prolific and successful battle rifles ever developed...even over the M1 Garand.
the way it has evolved now, is that the 5.56 is employed more for CQB where encounters are seldom over 100 yards such as in door-to-door fighting in cities.
i read a staggering statistic about the war in Vietnam that said that the average "kill" by an infantryman was within 40 yards. even then, i, personally, know men who shot enemy combatants within that range and it failed to kill them. to further bolster that fact, our own General Petreaus, now commander of our forces in Afghanistan, was shot in the chest, in a training accident, at Ft.Bragg, N.C. at point blank range, and survives now to command our forces. not a very convincing testimony for the 5.56 as a combat cartridge is it? had that shot been from a 7.62 NATO...i think the outcome would have been much different.
i believe it's being delegated into becoming a "specialized" cartridge for very close encounters, in very special locales such as in cities or urban environments where it's more than likely the opposing combatants will NOT be "armored up" and where law enforcement deal with singular, unsophisticated threats; the 5.56 simply does not have the 'punch' of the .30 calibers but does work well in limited applications.
be that as it may...i like the 5.56/.223 for a sporting cartridge. it has very little recoil, has very good speed to size ratio, is a proven 'varmint' round and from what I'm seeing, is being more widely accepted to hunt up to deer sized game with effectively, has been proven to be extremely accurate, is fairly economic in use and readily available country wide; not a bad selection if you keep those limitations AND good points in mind.
i decided to get a complete .22 caliber lr AR that will accept 5.56 'uppers' as well so i will be able to enjoy the best of both worlds.
the only "catch" is that i have to decided whether or not I'm going to have a "bullet button" installed all the time or, if practical, remove it when using the .22 lr as it's not required on rimfire detachable magazine, semi-automatic rifles in the state of kaliphornia. (not yet, anyway. i suspect with Jerry brown and the idiot Gavin newsome coming in to power, there may be monumental changes in firearms laws in California.)
right now, there's a buying frenzy of AR's, and handgun ammo, in California due to the changes that're coming. like many others i am going to get what i can, while i can, before the legislators panic and try to shut the door of opportunity for us to have and own AR's.
anyway...
i decided on the M4 platform as it's lighter, shorter and easier to handle. the only other runner-up in my decision weighed in at a hefty 9.7 lbs without optics or ammo; add a good quality scope, a bi-pod and 10 rounds of 5.56 and you've got a rifle that will be near the 12 lb. mark...not exactly a light-weight...
geeeeee...my savage 12fv in .308 Winchester in the tech 2000 stock and with the Barska scope weights in at 14 lbs WITHOUT a bi-pod. I've decided that if I'm going to do any "long range" shooting, the 12fv is the way to go. i also have an 'intermediate' rifle, a rem 700 BDL in 22-250 that can be accurate to the extreme at longer .22 caliber ranges and is capable of shooting the heavier .22 cal bullets...and...last but not least...with the 5.56 i can have a good short to intermediate range SD carbine. (i do also have a Ruger PC9 carbine and a Remington 870 that's highly capable for very close CQB/SD encounters should i ever have the need.)
to be honest, i have my thoughts about having to use any of my firearms as SD tools.
right now (in our historical, political, societal and cultural positions, it's not exactly what I'd call "a bowl of cherries") i feel there's a very good chance that we, the U.S., will surely break apart in the not to distant future.
it's a historical fact that no "empire" lasts long. each and every one of them is formed out of the fermentation of revolution of some sort, rises rapidly to power, enters a plateau of that power, becomes complacent where everyone demands "rights" to extremes, becomes oppressive to it's citizenry as a results of those "rights" and eventually declines in to decay, moral rot and chaos.
from what I'm seeing and hearing in the news, we, the United States, are in the last stages. like it or not. all one has to do is to look around and the signs are all there and very evident to even the most casual of observers.
with that in mind, it may behoove a person to have some SD capabilities ready and able to use should the need arise; hence the AR, PC9 and Remington 870.
probably the only real disadvantage to the M4 is that it's a 16" tube and I'm not sure that's truly a "disadvantage" per-se. another feature of the M16/M4 platform is the changes that can be done by the owner/operator with minimum effort and expense.
i will be able to switch between an A2 and a number of other "tactical" butt stocks and forearms should i choose to, there is an endless array of optics and lighting accessories that are available and. at the moment, ammo is still available, accessible and still affordable.
for years, i was NOT an advocate of the AR or the 5.56 AS A COMBAT cartridge and the M16 had proven to be very unreliable and controversial due to it's many short-comings and fatal flaws during the Vietnam war. too many soldiers and marines died because of those short-comings.
not only that, but i was in the U.S. Army at the beginning of the war in Vietnam and spent time over there on that peninsula at that time. i was armed and trained with the M1 Carbine and M1 Garand not to mention the Browning M1919 machine gun and was, later, issued an M14 rifle; you might say i was "biased" towards the .30 caliber cartridges.
i also had purchased a Ruger Mini-14 in .223 shortly after they came into production and i was NOT satisfied with it's accuracy at all. Ruger addressed that issue later down the road, though.
i believe the AR platform, after being "adjusted" is a suitable platform, that the 5.56 cartridge is, still, NOT a suitable combat cartridge and from the looks of it, I'm correct as the military has begun a switch back to a .30 caliber, albeit a shorter version, for the rigors and demands of a capable cartridge in the form of the 6.9mm Grendell and 6.8mm SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) and the 7.62 NATO has returned bigger than ever in the hands of "Special Ops" groups such as Navy SEALs, army green berets and such.
evidence of that also lies in the world-wide success of the AK47 and SKS series rifles; they're 7.62mm x 39mm cartridges and in spite of all the AR/M16 advocates here, (especially those that have not faced the AK or SKS in battle) has become the most prolific and successful battle rifles ever developed...even over the M1 Garand.
the way it has evolved now, is that the 5.56 is employed more for CQB where encounters are seldom over 100 yards such as in door-to-door fighting in cities.
i read a staggering statistic about the war in Vietnam that said that the average "kill" by an infantryman was within 40 yards. even then, i, personally, know men who shot enemy combatants within that range and it failed to kill them. to further bolster that fact, our own General Petreaus, now commander of our forces in Afghanistan, was shot in the chest, in a training accident, at Ft.Bragg, N.C. at point blank range, and survives now to command our forces. not a very convincing testimony for the 5.56 as a combat cartridge is it? had that shot been from a 7.62 NATO...i think the outcome would have been much different.
i believe it's being delegated into becoming a "specialized" cartridge for very close encounters, in very special locales such as in cities or urban environments where it's more than likely the opposing combatants will NOT be "armored up" and where law enforcement deal with singular, unsophisticated threats; the 5.56 simply does not have the 'punch' of the .30 calibers but does work well in limited applications.
be that as it may...i like the 5.56/.223 for a sporting cartridge. it has very little recoil, has very good speed to size ratio, is a proven 'varmint' round and from what I'm seeing, is being more widely accepted to hunt up to deer sized game with effectively, has been proven to be extremely accurate, is fairly economic in use and readily available country wide; not a bad selection if you keep those limitations AND good points in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
