I am giving serious thought to buying a couple SKS rifles just for the sake of having them around. You used to be able to pick them up pretty cheap...haven't looked recently though. I suppose it might be time to shoo the moths out of my wallet and go hit a gun show or six.

I was going to buy a rifle at the same time I bought the pistol but the kids were not really interested in learning to use one...they waffle on that issue. My daughter wanted one of the crossbows. I may get the USP anyway...the SIG serves several purposes. Its a compact which means I can carry it in this crap weather down here without suffering heatstroke. Its chambered in 9mm which means I wont go broke shooting it. Its mild enough that I can get the wife, now that she is willing, trained to an adequate level of proficiency and comfort to move on to a more serious handgun. Its also of a size for teaching my kids some handgun skills.

When I have accomplished those things, I can move on to another weapon. They have some very nice Kimber 45s...enough to piss the wife off.

I'll never understand people who buy guns simply for the joy of collecting them. Guns are designed to kill, not to blow holes in a paper target on a gun range.

I mentioned the pleasure it gave me to join my Father and my siblings on the rifle range at Ft. Benning and this is true. But I don't think my Father really enjoyed guns. If he did, it was because they were mechanisms. He didn't enjoy hunting and never hunted after he was required to do so.

You often come across, Law, as Rambo--armed to the teeth with carry weapons and more. You say you want to arm your family--why?

The .22 rifles we learned with came from the range. Is this no longer true? Do you have to teach your family how to use a firearm with weapons you've bought for them?

The whole thing smacks of ulterior motives to me. If you want to buy guns for yourself, say so. If you enjoy the feel, balance, and accuracy of a weapon, continue to say so. Just don't give us crap about your family's desires when you've already said

or


Most recently, you've said,


What all this says to me, Law, is that you'll continue to do as you please and all of the crap about your family is nothing more than justifying your desires to do as you please.

You must be extremely difficult to live with.

I really don't think you can go wrong with an SKS. While the price has recently gone up on them, you should be able to find them within the $200 - $300 range. What's interesting about them, is they're not "assault rifles". Not by the traditional sense anyway. The good thing about them is that you can easily swap them out of the wood stocks into something a little more assault weapon like, parts are cheap and plentiful, and field stripping them is a breeze. Check out Tapco's site for what you can pick up... you can refurbish an SKS with a complete composite stock for something like $80.

Regardless, it's still not an AK. Many SKS users bitch and moan about people turning the SKS into something its not. That being an assault rifle. Whatever though, I took the fixed 10 round magazine out of mine, sanded down the mag well a bit, and I was able to easily fit the Tapco 20 round mags in it. Tapco really is the company to go to when accessorizing the SKS. You won't read one bad thing about them. The SKS is a great rifle though, versatile and exceptionally reliable, fires a cheap round, and is good out to nearly 700 yards.

The thought of stocking up on SKS's isn't a bad idea, though.

On a side note, I read an interesting bit about why the 7.62 round is going up in price. Supposedly, it's due to the government buying up massive quantities of the round to supply the Afghan army with it. Not sure how true it is, but it drew my attention none the less.

Guns are designed to kill. They're also designed to defend and provide sustenance. As they evolved in both of those rolls, they also turned into a hobby. Liz, have you ever seen people with six shooters blasting holes in quarters as the coin flies through the air? Or what about skeet shooting challenges.

No, guns aren't there just to kill, no more than planes are just there to drop bombs.

Get over it.

Liz, this isn't really as much as to make a case for Lawmage as it is to give you some insight on something you're obviously all that not too familiar with.

My appreciation of firearms is a relatively new thing. I picked up my first gun about eight years ago. It was a pistol. I never grew up with them as my father wasn't never really a hunter, and he was never into firearms all that much. He'd trap muskrats and what not back in the day for the pelts but that was about it. But growing up in PA, nearly all of my friends were raised in hunting families. My grandfather hunted and taught all my uncles, along with my dad on how to properly handle guns.

As far as most my friends go, growing up, they learned how to handle firearms at a very early age, whether they liked it or not. Was this detrimental to their upbringing? Absolutely not. In fact, if it wasn't for the influence of my close friends, I'd have not the slightest clue on how to safely handle a weapon, clean it, or properly maintain it. Again, these guys were raised at seven, eight, and nine years old learning how to hunt and fire weapons.

You're coming off in an exceptionally pretentious manner in your criticism of Lawmage. If and when I have a family, I'll also be adamant in that they know how to safely handle a firearm for it may very well come in handy some day. If after I teach my children how to handle such weapons, they don't want to have anything to do with them, so be it. At least I'll know I don't have to worry about them going over to a friends house and accidentally killing someone, plus I'll also be comforted in the fact that if the need arises, they'll be somewhat familiar in handling said firearms in a manner that will allow them to defend themselves, along with their loved ones, in a safe and efficient manner.

So hop down off that high horse of yours and try to understanding that learning the fundamentals of firearms is hardly damaging to ones children.

Stone, I was going to apologize to Law--well not really apologize, but try to explain what I said in my last post.

While I didn't really mean to say that Law uses his family as reasons for his collecting guns, I did mean to say that Law uses his family as his reasons for collecting guns. Everything Law says about guns reinforces my perception that he thinks of guns as weapons of defense rather than as a hobby, or as the means to practice a hobby.

As Law has so often said, he deplores dishonesty. If Law loves the feel, the heft,the balance of a well-manufactured weapon, he should say so. If he wants to collect guns because he loves how they make him feel, because they're finely constructed weapons, that's fine.

But a gun is a weapon, pure and simple. It can be used for other things, sure--but it's basically a weapon.

A car is a means of transport, That's its basic function. It's used for sport, all sorts of ways of entertainment (see the various ways it's used in racing,} as a status symbol and so on. It can also be used as a weapon. But that isn't its basic function.

A lot of people collect cars because they think of them as art, or as the epitome of functional design. So what? If they're honest about the reasons they have for collecting cars, that's fine.

I've never been against individual gun ownership. I am against the use of the 2nd amendment as a reason to justify individual gun ownership--simply because I feel the 2nd amendment really has nothing to do with it and because I feel it should be a matter of state's rights.

You and Law have a personal thread going on here that discusses the various merits of various weapons--for whatever use you decide for them. I intruded on that thread for an entirely different reason. I apologize.

In the meantime, get off my back!

Hey, it's a public forum, anyones free to chime in with whatever they wish, as long as it's remotely on topic. No need to apologize. Just don't get offended when someone takes you to task on your comments.:)

Dear Friend, (I'd call you Sweetpea, but noone around here likes that name.)

I've already said that my Father taught me, at a very early age, how to handle a weapon. Is this or is this not a given?

As a brat, I did't have the luxury of growing up in just one or two places, Plus the rules of the Army were imposed on me from the time I was born.

I am not criticizing Lawmage for his collecting weapons. I am saying that he shouldn't use his family as his reason for doing so. That's it.

Did your Father ever break down his rifle on the dining room table, then reassemble it so that he could use the display to intimidate your older sister's date? My Father did, when my sister went past her curfew. He thought it would be funny to emulate a father's 'concerns' of the times. He scared the sh*t out of me.

I don't know why he did it, but he did it.

Is there a perception perhaps that I have an armory in my home? LOL. At the moment there is now exactly one gun in my house...I suppose one could represent a collection though most people would not see it that way. In the near future there will probably be three guns in the house and in the longer terms probably as many as ten or so...I suppose twn would amount to a collection.

Here is the thing though, Liz, I view guns as tools. I certainly respect and appreciate a finally crafted tool and that includes guns. When I buy a tool, such as a wood working tool (a hobby I am trying to develop), I look for a quality tool...one that feels good in the hand and works well. Similarly, when I buy a gun I look for one that feels good in the hand and works well. However, just as I do not buy a saw that feels good and looks well when what I need is a hammer I do not buy a gun I do not need just because of the aesthetics. I buy a gun, such as the SIG I just pruchased, for a reason. As I detailed with Stone, I bought this particular gun because I needed one that was small enough to conceal for carry and was mild enough and sized appropriately for use as a training tool with which to teach the wife and kids proper handgun handling. The reason this particular gun is a SIG rather than Star Arms or Morinco is because SIG makes quality guns...I hope you can understand the distinction.

If you think I am using my family as an excuse to purchase guns to meet some deep seated psychological desire to hoard them you are way, way, way out in left field.

We are discussing that issue in the political forums at the moment.

It wasn't all that long ago, I could buy 1000 rnds of wolf 7.62x39 for about $75.00. It has all but doubled that now.

But I think all other ammo is going up also. Im sure gas prices had a lot to do with it.

If you can get it fairly reasonable, better buy it.

I like the SKS also. Because they are a military rifle, each one may have a varied history. Which can affect their accuracy. I have never gotten a bad one. The only complaint I would have is that the stock feels at first too short. It causes you to have to bring your arms closer which has an uncomfortable feeling. But as you say, there are other stocks.

The SKS out of Yougoslavia seem to be the most available now. Ruger makes a mini 30 which shoots the same round. It would cost more, $600.00, and Ive read where others say its not as accurate as their surplus SKS. Saiga also makes a present day SKS. It is Russian made and a very good gun. Cheaper, but the barrel is shorter than the surplus SKS. About $250.00

So many nice guns out there.