There are a lot of rifle owners who see their firearm in a rosy tint, as the One that can do All - or at least better than most others. I used to do that, too, and had my favorite.
Then I changed my mind, and got another, then another.
What I discovered is that some rifles do some things very well, and completely fall down in other areas. Even at that, some focus too much on a perceived deficiency, and make it the sole reason the avoid the entire gun.
The AK comes to mind: ingenious bolt design, nearly flawless magazine feed, but operator controls less than first class. Or the AR: ingenious gas piston design IN the bolt, user friendly fire controls, mediocre charging handle, and a magazine and mag well design that creates most of the reliability problems.
Civilian arms like the Winchester 94 are wonderfully light and handy, the manual lever action easy to use, but what about that tubular magazine? It really diminishes the kind of ammo you can shoot. A spiral feed would allow loading 6.8SPC, and that concept seems doomed now that it's an imported collector grade gun.
Got your favorite gun, and really looked at it? Does it contain all the best features for it's type that you think should be there? OR, like some many of us still learning about guns, do we even know what could be better?
Do you even study up on different stuff, or just light candles in front of the gun rack and bask in the glow of what Marlin/Remington/Winchester/Saiga/Olympic/whatever produces that is so utterly perfect? Can you step back and see what isn't so great about what you have?
There is no perfect gun, and making excuses about it won't make it so. It's like the Army said about my deployment station, it was the least worst place. Do you pick a gun with the least worst features, knowing what you can tolerate as second best in the design?
Then I changed my mind, and got another, then another.
What I discovered is that some rifles do some things very well, and completely fall down in other areas. Even at that, some focus too much on a perceived deficiency, and make it the sole reason the avoid the entire gun.
The AK comes to mind: ingenious bolt design, nearly flawless magazine feed, but operator controls less than first class. Or the AR: ingenious gas piston design IN the bolt, user friendly fire controls, mediocre charging handle, and a magazine and mag well design that creates most of the reliability problems.
Civilian arms like the Winchester 94 are wonderfully light and handy, the manual lever action easy to use, but what about that tubular magazine? It really diminishes the kind of ammo you can shoot. A spiral feed would allow loading 6.8SPC, and that concept seems doomed now that it's an imported collector grade gun.
Got your favorite gun, and really looked at it? Does it contain all the best features for it's type that you think should be there? OR, like some many of us still learning about guns, do we even know what could be better?
Do you even study up on different stuff, or just light candles in front of the gun rack and bask in the glow of what Marlin/Remington/Winchester/Saiga/Olympic/whatever produces that is so utterly perfect? Can you step back and see what isn't so great about what you have?
There is no perfect gun, and making excuses about it won't make it so. It's like the Army said about my deployment station, it was the least worst place. Do you pick a gun with the least worst features, knowing what you can tolerate as second best in the design?