Roving thugs are going to be opportunistic, and will likely take the path of least resistance. A shot from ANY gun is going to send them running to the next (probably gunless) house.
Thats why Germany never tested Switzerland.
![Wink [wink] [wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif)
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms April Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Roving thugs are going to be opportunistic, and will likely take the path of least resistance. A shot from ANY gun is going to send them running to the next (probably gunless) house.
Thats why Germany never tested Switzerland.![]()
Great post Depicts. Let me add something that you sort of touched on.
While it's fun to kick around the idea of a "Katrina" gun, the fact is that virtually anything that goes BANG! will work around here.
We live in Mass, where there are fewer households with any kind of firearm than many (all?) other areas.
Roving thugs are going to be opportunistic, and will likely take the path of least resistance. A shot from ANY gun is going to send them running to the next (probably gunless) house.
If they're out to steal, and hear a shot from a .22 sent in their direction, there's no reason for them to stay and duke it out when there's plenty of other unarmed residences all around.
Don't kid yourself. The roving thugs have the same weapons that roving thugs have all over the U.S.
I'm not kidding myself. You misunderstood my post. Let me simplify it for you.
A Katrina-type situation happens in Mass and armed thugs are out to loot/steal. They may be well-armed, they may not; that's not the point. They know - because this is Massachusetts - that the occupants of most of the houses they approach will be unarmed. They walk into a development with ten houses. They loot house #1, house #2, house #3, and house #4 without encountering any armed resistance. On the way up to house #5, someone sticks a firearm out the window and takes a shot at them.
What do they do? Do they risk death and assault the house anyway, against an unknown number of opponents armed with who-knows-what, or do they turn around and continue to harvest the "low hanging fruit" on the rest of the street, and then move on to the next street?
Yes, "half-baked assumptions"
http://www.givethemback.com/
As the OP let's bring this back close to topic. Thanks to tele_mark and MrTwigg I've now had a chance to try out a Yugo SKS and AK-47 (SAR-1). I must say I prefer the AK over the SKS. It's a bit lighter, handier in balance, and the ergonomics with the pistol grip fits me better. Still have yet to try an AR, but for the moment I'm leaning towards an AK to help encourage thugs to move along in the event of a sociatal emergency.
Thanks Jim for letting me try your AR. Now I know why people just have to have one. It's clearly the best of the 3 in terms of handling, and I'm sure for accuracy too.Kevin - Come out to Shirley on the 29th and you can try my AR. I've owned or tried all three and I like the AR the best - and it's not even close.
That's the rub. I found the AK much better for me than the SKS (or the Mosin-Nagant, thanks W'Beard), and the AR better than the AK. However, I'm not sure the difference is worth the extra price for the AR, at least for me right now.Of course, you can by two each of the SKS and AK for the price of 1 AR.
My plan now I'm thinking is to get an AK for my SHTF rifle.
Remember when that much 7.62X39 ammo was only worth $40?? Those were the days.Don't even own an SKS or a 7.62X39, yet I have half a case of ammo that's all on clips!
![]()
Arrrr
-Weer'd Beard
As you said today, the answer of course is to get both.It was good meeting you today Kevin and I'm glad you liked the AR. There's one more thing you might want to keep in mind: Ammo availability...
Wow, don't let her shoot Derek's then. That thing weighed a ton! Let her try the Bushmaster instead.If I am going to get her into shooting rifles, particularly anything larger than a .22 then it needs to be something like an AR.
It was good meeting you today Kevin and I'm glad you liked the AR. There's one more thing you might want to keep in mind: Ammo availability.
Since that crap weasel Clinton banned, by executive order, the importation of ammo from China (and the ATF has classified the Chinese steel core ammo as "armor piercing) almost all of the 7.62 x 39 that you'll need to feed either an SKS or AK is made in Russia. If the Russians somehow run afoul of .gov, it is not inconceivable that the importation of Russian ammo could also be banned. After all, it already happened with China.
Is it possible to legally own a firearm in Mass that does not leave a paper trail?
I would take a paperless SKS over a 4473'ed AK.
The AK is bit lighter than my air rifle and your AR definitely is. If I am going to get her into shooting rifles, particularly anything larger than a .22 then it needs to be something like an AR.
There is no such thing as a paperless SKS unless someone built the reciever
in their basement or the gun was imported so long ago that the original
FFL burned the records. If any federal licensee imported it or manufactured
it, someone has paper on it, somewhere, which invariably leads to somebody.
In the grand scheme of things wether it's 4473ed or not really doesn't
matter. There are -millions- of the things laying around at gun
dealers, and the operation required to raid all those buyers would be
massive in scope. At that point they might as well just do hitler-style
house to house searches. As much as I hate federal gun laws, a 4473
really isn't an effective "confiscation device" so to speak.
-Mike
If someone chose to build their own AK with a parts kit and homemade reciever, would they need to submit paperwork on it?
IANAL but; If someone did and if they were caught, either directly or indirectly, the consequences would be severe, permentently affecting one's ablility to lawfully posess firearms at the very least.
Is it possible to legally own a firearm in Mass that does not leave a paper trail?
I would take a paperless SKS over a 4473'ed AK.
There is no such thing as a paperless SKS unless someone built the reciever
in their basement or the gun was imported so long ago that the original
FFL burned the records. If any federal licensee imported it or manufactured
it, someone has paper on it, somewhere, which invariably leads to somebody.
-Mike
I do believe that is state-dependent. AFAIK MA residents are required by MA law (That's true up to the point a private transaction takes place. Once John Smith sells it to John Doe, paperwork ends there.
Anybody with any sense would get a driver's liscense from somebody they sell to, but there is no law saying they HAVE to.