Shane45

What I would pick for "WAR" and what I would pick for CCW are different. The goals and considerations are different in my opinion. Now in terms of CCW, I pick the pistol that covers the broadest spectrum of considerations since there is no telling what outlier circumstance may befall you.

Its just money!

Those in the know go for the P2K!!!

HK P2K LEM.

Let me guess, bottom rail?

I shoot everything, including precision rifle both eyes open.

JC, Im not here to speak for High Exposure but I am very sure he knows how to adjust an iron sight. I would say his response is to your scenario that put your opponent with an optic not zeroed for the distance of the engagement you proposed. Similar to what I said in regards to an OBR. But lets focus for a second on your specialization comment. I would argue that your rifle, with irons only is more specialized than mine with a red dot. Why? Because I believe mine will work better in a broader spectrum of scenarios. And now for something completely different, at this stage I have moved away from red dots to low power optics. I find that they give 90% of the advantage of a red dot and all the advantages of a scope with one personal need for etched reticles and diopter adjustment. I don't think anyone here is saying don't enjoy irons if you like them. And I doubt anyone in this thread doesn't have a fundamental understanding of irons. What is being said to those that are pointing at those that use other means and crying mall ninja, do not understand of what they speak. We all know a mall ninja when we see one. Again, I don't think anyone in this thread really qualifies for that title. So the comments don't really make sense in this discussion.

The only thing I would add to the conversation is that point or retention shooting does have its place IMO. But it is almost exclusively at contact distances. But after the GTFOM shot and some distance is created, aim I shall.

Tried the HD's twice. A Street Bob and a V-Rod. Performance, always an issue. Additionally, except for the dressers, they seem to really be made for the small of stature. Im not huge or anything, 6'2" 250 but they feel so small. If performance is at all an issue, Id look at the V-Rod if you have to have a Harley. It at least has some pep. I would have liked it better if it wasn't to small for me.

HE, I think some people get stuck on a theme because its often repeated. They fail to dive a little deeper and do the research to find that the research actually supports what we are saying. Fer example PD's that teach aimed fire and the improvements in OIS as a result. Or the follow up of post Givens class students that go on to be involved in armed conflicts. JC_68Westy, Im not sure I fully understand your statement. I think its rather self evident that all shooting scenarios are relative. To extrapolate your statement, its like saying you would do better than me with your AR than I would with a 38 snub. Indeed the context matters. But is it likely I would fair better than you at 500 meters using my OBR with my Hendsolt 4-16 scope? Does that make me a better shooter or am I picking a better suited tool for the task? As I have said many times before, pick the right golf club for the shot you need to make. Now many of us see an advantage to having a rifle configured in a way that it covers a broad spectrum of capabilities. The fact of the matter is I shoot more accurately with iron sights when I am shooting on a static range. But I shoot a red dot more accurately and at greater speed over a broader spectrum of conditions and circumstances.

Just because point shooting is employed by the masses doesn't mean that's how it should be done or a goal to aspire to. A few I know who have been in multiple actual gunfights, they are not proponents of point shooting. Granted they are highly trained. But if you look into it you will find a common theme amongst this level of shooter, they aim....

I hung up with my boss when this happened. I actually told him I bet a house blew up. Its got a distinct sound. Freaky I was right mostly. I just figured propane not NG. Hope no one was seriously injured but looking at the pics.... oof.

Scorpio64, your last post stands in pretty heavy contrast to your earlier posts. I think if you look, you will find that the majority of people proposing optics in this thread said that BUIS were present. That they were a plan B. But you should consider that some have a plan B in the form of the pistol on their side. But I don't want to digress into a urban combat, military action, civil unrest derail.

Your post makes no sense.

"But an RDS uses a battery and can fail! Then what do you do?" Depending on distance, it makes a handy ghost ring. Try it, I think you would be surprised how well you can still hit your target.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that those that don't use them cant. Indeed I have my preferences for what Iron sights adorn my rifles but you will rarely find me using them and in fact every rifle I own has an optic on it. They are still zeroed. But they are a backup. There is simply no denying the advantages optics bring to the table. The delta of difference at 25 yards for equal shooters might be small, but take two equal shooters and give them a coarse of fire that includes movement and a significant variance in range to target, the person with the optic will do much better than the one without. Add in a set of aging eyes and for many it becomes a necessity. Add in low-light/no-light scenarios and that delta grows exponentially.

The problem is that in NJ there is no definition of permanent. But the logic I apply is this. If the state recognizes blind pinning a stock as permanent (allowing manufacturers that do this to make them compliant to sell in this state) I think they would be hard pressed to turn around and say this is not permanent at the other end. The bottom line is that owning a black rifle in NJ always puts you at risk of becoming a Nappen client.

Actually the OP asked about a 308AR . Citing the FAL was too pedestrian But whats a little thread drift amongst friends

Carcano, then it would seem it is truly a "love" for the platform for you. And... I get it! With that being said, some of us look at it in entirely a non emotional way. I like to use golf clubs as an example. If I need to make a certain type of hit I want club X, another type of hit, club Y. I tend to favor rifles with broad strengths, not a single strength and a handful of weaknesses. Im not here to convince you a SCAR is a better rifle for you. Although I think you sell it far short for the capabilities it brings. Im discussing the merits with no emotional investments in any system. I had a DSA SA58C, an early one that was exceptionally well made. But the limitations for optics and the ergonomics saddled with a hinge mag system were all deal breakers for me. I find that is common for most people wanting a little more from their rifle than Iron sights and reliability.

If Im not mistaken they are sub 500 these days. And I would take 1 Prismatic over a case of Barska's

Im well aware, But your saying it would never happen if they didn't do it first. Im saying it would have been someone else to be first so they would indeed still exist. But hey, you can stay on the side of the fence steeped in lore. Be my guest. But your logic behind the rifle you champion is seriously flawed. When I run into guys like you who tell me their Imbel kit FAL is just as good as X, it usually means they were feint of wallet.....

The rear iron sight on my SCAR doesn't move with the lower like it does on your FAL. Carcano , its a rather straw man argument to imply any accessories one would attach to a SCAR are cheap and arbitrary. "You can very much thank Heckler & Koch for the Glock, if it wasn't for HK you wouldn't have plastic pistols." This is just plainly a silly statement. Its like saying if Benz didn't make the first car there would be no cars today.

The only one that comes to mind is the Leupold Prismatic. It is a non magnified, permanently etched reticle.

Logic is abandoned when love is the motivation

Carcano, your on the verge of blind faith here. Changing a FAL barrel is a pain unless you have a tray full of locking shoulders. Indeed it isn't 1982 and as a battle rifle, its an advantage to be able to equip it with some non 1982 equipment. Accuracy, not with a FAL. Seen a number of prototypes. None could pull it off. Seen a few that were seemingly successful hand built ventures, but these were a handful at best and the juice wasn't worth the squeeze according to the makers. It was not designed as such and to turn it into a precision semi is counter to the design. Hinging mags suck! The dust covers with rails to mount optics are very hard to get to hold zero(if at all). Now to the FAL's credit, indeed it is reliable and can continue to function in less than ideal conditions, but so can many others. But now you champion the M1A and that just tells me you dig the nostalgic rifles and that's fine. But don't mistake lore with reality. The reality being that by most accounts the M1A wasn't all that great and certainly lacked in the accuracy department as well. Its ok to like old rifles. I wouldn't mind having an IZZY Fal, a LRB M1A, a HK SR9, but none of them would be my choice if I had to pick a battle rifle to go in harms way.