SimplyMichael
Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
Thanks Aswad, that's awesome info. My rest heart rate is already quite low. Around 60 last I checked. I used to be a competitive long distance swimmer, and I'm working out again, so I should easily be able to get it back under 50 like it used to be.
I've checked out some sites on the Sako and it's all pretty confusing right now. http://www.eurooptic.com/sako-trg-42-rifles.aspx
Where is the difference between the 2.8k and the 3.3k other than the finish? Am I missing something. I can tell why the 6k ones are more expensive, but on the "lower" end ones I can't seem to notice much difference. I'm actually in the luxury position right now that 3K on a riffle is in my "reasonable" price range. Hell, I've dropped about that on kink gear in a single month a couple times in the past year, and I consider guns to be more important that kink stuff. However, am I correctly understanding that the 3k would just be the base rate, and there'd be another 1.5-2k on top of that for scopes? Are the other things that also are a "must have" before you're done spending on using the riffle, or are the scope and the riffle pretty much it? I understand that there are probably other "goodies" to be had, but are those less essential than the scope? Or not? And what kind of goodies are they for a riffle like that? And how much would you end up spending if you completely deck that riffle out to be a wet dream? More than the 6.5K I'm assuming, considering that those don't seem to have scopes either.
Its money wasted.
You can't yet outshoot a decent used hunting rifle with a crappy scope. You are FAR better off, buying a decent Ruger 10/22 and a 10,000 rounds of .22 and spending the next year shooting that than buying that Sako. Besides, if you ever break a part on that rifle, good luck getting spares when they drop/change production. Also, .338 Lapua is overkill for anything you will ever do and is pretty useless for hunting. I was in a shop the other day and saw a beautiful mauser in .270 for $200, rebuilt by BSA in England. Great round and the recoil isn't going to punish you like the .338 will.
Accuracy is SO overrated, most people can't shoot one minute of angle from anything but a bench rest. WHY? Because they don't shoot enough to get that good. You want to hunt? Learn to shoot offhand and you ain't gonna do that with a .338 Lapua, lol! You are getting lost in the "sex appeal" aspect and forgetting the real world realities. Skill and experience trump "accuracy" any day of the week. I can take a beat up used rifle with NO sights and probably outshoot you at 100 yards with that Sako, especially if we add in any real world factors. Trying to hit a deer at 150 yards requires far less accuracy and far more skill than most realize. Leading a target, follow through, a weapon that handles well and is easy to do a follow on shot are far more important. The kill zone on a deer is about a foot in diameter, which doesn't require pinpoint accuracy and pinpoint accuracy won't put that round in that spot if you don't know how to actually SHOOT.
Put another way, a fancy toy bag does not a hot Top make.
As far as HITTING things, I practice hitting a target at 100 yards with a handgun and gongs at 1,200 yards with iron sights...
That aside, Sako makes wonderful weapons. I have a Russian Negant built by Westinghouse that was sold to the Czar in WWI and then used by the Russians when they invaded Finland. The Finns handed the Russians their ass and captured my rilfe and thousands of others. It was then rebuild by Sako to defend their homeland. When the guns came in surplus they were $39...now you can't find them for ten times that amount because most will shoot under 1 MOA.
|
RE: What gun to get? -first firearm - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread