Dilemma - $2000 - buy lots of C&R guns, or one expensive one?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Golden Hound

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
778
I'm going to be paid $2,000 for some freelance writing work at the end of the month, and I'm going to put that money towards my rifle collection. I'm trying to decide between one of two options:

1. Get another Mosin, a Swiss K-31, a Mauser K98, an Enfield, and a whole bunch of ammo,

or...

2. Blow it all on a National Match M1A.

On the one hand, I'd like to take advantage of that C&R. On the other...I've just been drooling like crazy over the M1A after recently watching Full Metal Jacket. The M14 just seems like such a beautiful rifle, and such a special one - the end of an era. The last wooden battle rifle of the United States. The super-Garand that never got its chance to shine, getting replaced by the M16 after just a few years. They look so elegant to me, and I would just love to have one.

What would YOU do?!
 
Beware the man with one gun.

Personally I like the idea of having a bunch of guns, problem is that I still shoot about the same no matter how many guns I have. Its kinda like saying would you rather have three Honda Civics or a Corvette? Honda Civics are cool and all but in the end or the day you only do so much driving so you might as well be driving a Corvette. I would recommend getting one fine gun and shooting the heck out of it every chance you get.
 
My choice would be somewhere in the middle: buy another Swedish M41B and another Swiss 1911. Should be enough left over for plenty of ammo.
 
buy a $2000 c&r gun like a very nice pre-war sporter. i've seen a couple of mauser model c's in that price range
 
definitely one gun. i'd do the following:

CD M4LE qty 1
aimpoint micro t1 qty 1
prvi m193 qty 2000
 
Well, you don't say what you already have. You imply that you have a MN already. What about other C&Rs?


I'd prolly get the M1A. You need a big chunk of money all together to get that. The others you can buy one at a time for much lesser amounts.
 
I'd prolly get the M1A. You need a big chunk of money all together to get that. The others you can buy one at a time for much lesser amounts.


+1 Beat me to it...
 
I have a pile of milsurps. I never shoot them. Many are still in grease. Bought them all for pretty cheap.

I shoot other guns that I bought because I like them and/or have a legitmate recreational use for them. Some, I shoot a LOT.

Since I'm not a Tsar looking to join WW I, or a broke Communist government looking to arm its illiterate troops for the Cold War, or whatever, I find that milsurps don't fit any of the criteria that I'd use when selecting a gun. I bought them because they were cheap.

Now, we're thinking about moving, and I have all these heavy, greasy old guns I never shoot. I'm trying to figure out how to get them 1500 miles, while also transporting the few prettier, more useful, more fun, more refined, and far more expensive guns that I have and prize -- guns I actually enjoy shooting, and use for competition, hunting, etc. PITA to have those old things with their steel buttplates and straight bolt handles.

Personally, I've found that I enjoy one gun I really want, even if it cost an arm and a let, a lot more than a closet full of old guns that I don't really want, but bought "just 'cuz."

Another vote for the M1A if that's what you have your eye on.

(For me it was a Beretta O/U. IMHO, get the really nice gun that you really want to go out and shoot.:) )
 
I'd go with quality not quanity. Anyone can go out and get a pile of cheap rifles. JMO :scrutiny:
 
I think every gun guy needs an M1 Garand (before they're gone), a Swiss K31 (before they're gone), and some kind of AR (before they're illegal). And you'd have ammo money left over.
 
If it's for "investment" purposes, I strongly suspect you'll see a greater return on the C&R guns, as opposed to a single high-dollar one which will probably lose money, at least in the near-mid term.

If it's for "fun", get whichever you want the most.

I personally am leaning towards getting rid of many of my mid-level guns and having only a relatively few high-level guns. I am not getting the satisfaction from merely owning a lot of guns, that I once did.
 
Split the baby in half and maximize your dollar and investment return.

1) Spend $1,500 on a used M1A and ammo. Buy used so you don't lose money/value;

2) Spend $500 on a K31, a Mosin, and a Mauser before they're all gone. You can always get ammo later and you said yourself you don't shoot them that much. You will see a return on this investment or at least they will increase in value if you get good ones.
 
Alright, I've decided it, I'm going for the M1A. But I'll try to find one that's used like you said (in good condition, but a little wear doesn't bother me.)
 
+1 quality vs quantity, especially if that lets you get more ammo so you can actually shoot it at lot. I'm presuming you're more of a shooter than a collector.

If you are a shooter, a good question to ask - what goal or problem does this purchase "solve"? You should be able to clearly and enthusiastically articulate that purpose, to yourself even if no-one else.
 
One expensive rifle.

You can mange to find the cash for less expensive stuff more frequently.

You can only find the $2000 all in one place at one time... now and then.

Blow it all and don't look back.
 
i would buy lots of cheaper guns that are going up in value

when my dad was growning up alot of his friends were buying rolling blocks for cheap (30-40 bucks in the 50s) then they all sold them recently for hundreds-thousands
 
Sounds like you really want an M1A so I think that's what you should get first.
Maybe look for a used one to see if you can get a good rifle for a little less cash, and that will leave you some money for ammo and mags.
You are going to need at least $500 to get 1K of ammo.

The C&R's will still be around in the future.
 
Let's postulate:

I'm back from cruise with a pocket-full of cash:

Do I date several cheap, sleazy, kinda scary chicks?

Or just one high-class mega-hotty?

Does this analogy hold true in this case? I'm honestly not sure.
 
Cheap, sleazy, kinda scary chicks are way easier, so long as you don't get into a relationship with them.

Kind of like milsurps in a way. You get them cheap, feed them slop and have a lot of fun all while getting sneered at by the more well heeled shooters at the range.

The frustration only comes if you try to pretend they're something other than what they are and sporterize, (marry), them.
 
Hahaha, that's a pretty good analogy. I wonder how far that concept can be stretched?

Anyone here have a Springfield M1A? How do you like it?
 
I have an affinity for the females of the trash-barrel nature... and if it were me, I'd take the one you want the most. Somedays I'm feeling like a classy M1A, some days it's a dumptser-grade nagant.

Scratch whatever itch it is you have.
 
Depends on your goal. I may not shoot my mil-surps all the time but I value them as part of my collection. Given that there is a limited supply of them, they would go to the head of the list before any newer gun. It's not like the M1A is going anywhere soon.
 
If you want to shoot really often, people can base decisions partly on ammo prices or just a dynamite rifle, whose ammo only allows them to shoot half as much, or half as often? It will remain in top-notch condition when it is seldom touched and will be easier to sell down the road. But as load of money for ammo at today's prices is much better than tomorrow's.

This might be totally backwards, but so be it.
I based my gun (SKS, Mosin, Minis) selections mostly on ammo but some rifle prices on being able to shoot often: all rifles were used and quite durable. Fired about 30 rounds through the MN 44 today-the rounds cost about $5.50.
How much for 30 rounds through your future M-14?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top