What do you look for in a Rifle?

[Andrew Wyatt]

Sights: aperature rear mounted on the reciever, post or bead front, provision for optics a plus.

Safety: must be wasily manipulated, for a left handed person.

trigger: trigger pull less than 6 pounds, should not be gritty, preferably two stage.

 

[psyopspec]

What do you look for in a Rifle?

Thirty rounds and a well-maintained bolt carrier group.

 

[MM]

Primarily, the inherent ruggedness of miltary pattern rifles.
SatCong

 

[rbernie]

It has to catch my eye, it has to have the premise of field reliability, it has to be affordable, and it has to be in a caliber/action that doesn't duplicate what I already have. Lately, this means sporterized MilSurps.

 

[buzz meeks]

Good thread.

I like handiness first. For me that means some nexus of short length, light weight and minimal bulk. Handy rifles shoulder like a familiar shotgun and track running game or multiple targets with the same ease. I've never warmed up to the EBRs (owned an FAL and handled/shot nearly everything else) because they lack that intangible. A guy at a three gun shoot kidded me when I uncased a Marlin 336 in a crowd of ARs and AKs. But on a course of fire that favored mobility and accuracy over rate of fire, I did just fine.

The other thing I ask for is repeatable accuracy. While 444 and others have laid out good guidelines for accuracy, the thing that really endears me to a rifle is total predictability. They must shoot the same hot or cold, dirty or clean. They should shoot most all ammo well enough. I will always take a two MOA rifle that is even tempered like that over a finicky rifle that will do .5 MOA when everything is just so.

 

[mustanger98]

buzz meeks, I'm liking the way you think. That's much as I like my MBR's too, it's hard to outright beat a good levergun or single shot.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Sights: aperature rear mounted on the reciever, post or bead front, provision for optics a plus.

Safety: must be wasily manipulated, for a left handed person.

trigger: trigger pull less than 6 pounds, should not be gritty, preferably two stage.

You're describing Fionn MacCummhail, my pre-64 Model 70 Winchester. Although you might have problems manipulating the bolt.

 

[Black Snowman]

#1) Value. Not just say, accuracy for the money, but what is it worth to me. Will I enjoy it more than if I put that same money into something else? This is about the only way thinks like my SKS can compete with my Browning A-Bolt Eclipse in my desires.

#2) Accuracy. If I can't hit anything with it all it does is burn up ammo. If it's less accurate, like my SKS, it needs to be fun to shoot from unsupported positions where the accuracy differances are less signifigant.

#3) Variety. An unusal action scores more points with me than beutiful wood or excellent condition. Unusal variations score points to. My next rifle purchase will be an Oly Arms PCR-8 Magnum in .243 WSSM. Potent and compact. Next on the list is a K-31. Which may actually come 1st since it's a fraction of the cost of the PCR-9M.

#4) Visceral. How does the gun make me feel? Is it interesting to look at? Fun to shoot? I'm somewhat of a recoil junky. Give me something with some punch, a bang, and a fireball doesn't hurt either.

From there the priorities pretty much drop off the chart.

 

[goon]

I am a sucker for guns that are fun to shoot.
That is why it bothers me when I get the "but you can't hunt with it" response from someone.
I don't own guns to hunt. I own guns to shoot and I make them work for hunting too. The only "hunting" gun I own is a single barrel 12 gauge that cost about $100. That is what a "hunting" gun is worth to me.

To me, fun means a little bit of thump, fairly cheap to shoot, pretty common ammo, and as accurate as I can get.
I also love guns with some history behind them.
I love the Mosin Nagant, especially the M-39. I also like military styled guns in general.
Add history, military, thump, accuracy, and inexpensive (compared to what you get) and the M-39 is the greatest rifle ever (IMO). To me, it just completely puts most modern guns to shame. When you work the bolt on an old Finn (or Mauser, Enfield, etc) you can just tell that someone put that together knowing that it had to stand up and work right. A man's life depended on that rifle. Modern hunting rifles generally don't have that same solid, dependable feel to me.

As I said, one class of guns that don't really interest me at all is "sporting" guns. I use a single barrel H&R 12 gauge and an SMLE that I hunt with. I own a CZ-452 that works for small game but that is really more for practice and plinking.
I will never own something like a Ruger over and under. Just don't have any use for those prestigious "pretty" guns. I will also never own something like a Desert Eagle or anything that is gold plated/commemerative/ bling-blinged up the wazoo.
The only exception I can think of is if I got one of them dirt cheap or free. Then I could trade or sell it to get something I could use.