Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Walt · 02-17-2011, 10:04 AM

I think the goal should be to embrace simplicity and practicality beyond simply standardizing your sling selection and the location of your safety.

IMO, variety is good in a "match the tool to the job" kind of way. As an example, owning a variety in optics (EOTech vs. ACOG) would allow you to match your sights to the needs of your environment without changing weapons systems. As far as collections go, I think a practical one would include a battle rifle, a target rifle, a shotgun and a pistol. If you're a hunter, throw in a do-it-all hunting rifle and a rimfire and you're set.

I cant imagine why I would own multiple pistols of different make but of the same size/caliber. Keeping track of extra parts, the control layouts and the different magazines would just be a hassle that I don't need.

More than one M4 is redundant and a waste of money and space. I'm not trying to outfit a post-apocalyptic hillbilly infantry squad. I can't shoot/carry more than one M4 at a time. That, and the fact that swapping out parts/uppers on an M4 is easy enough, negates the need to own more than one rifle. Of course the exception would be if you were hitting both ends of the spectrum; a shit-kicking "battle rifle" and a target rifle.

I think the only redundancy should be in ammo in that it would be beneficial to have your target rifle and battle rifle to be able to use the same mags/ammo interchangeably. Same goes for pistols; ideally your deep carry pistol would be able to rock the same ammo/mags as your full-sized pistol (like all Glock 9mm pistols being able to run the G17 mags).

02-17-2011, 10:04 AM	#5 (permalink)
Walt I'm calmer than you are, dude Location: North Carolina	I think the goal should be to embrace simplicity and practicality beyond simply standardizing your sling selection and the location of your safety. IMO, variety is good in a "match the tool to the job" kind of way. As an example, owning a variety in optics (EOTech vs. ACOG) would allow you to match your sights to the needs of your environment without changing weapons systems. As far as collections go, I think a practical one would include a battle rifle, a target rifle, a shotgun and a pistol. If you're a hunter, throw in a do-it-all hunting rifle and a rimfire and you're set. I cant imagine why I would own multiple pistols of different make but of the same size/caliber. Keeping track of extra parts, the control layouts and the different magazines would just be a hassle that I don't need. More than one M4 is redundant and a waste of money and space. I'm not trying to outfit a post-apocalyptic hillbilly infantry squad. I can't shoot/carry more than one M4 at a time. That, and the fact that swapping out parts/uppers on an M4 is easy enough, negates the need to own more than one rifle. Of course the exception would be if you were hitting both ends of the spectrum; a shit-kicking "battle rifle" and a target rifle. I think the only redundancy should be in ammo in that it would be beneficial to have your target rifle and battle rifle to be able to use the same mags/ammo interchangeably. Same goes for pistols; ideally your deep carry pistol would be able to rock the same ammo/mags as your full-sized pistol (like all Glock 9mm pistols being able to run the G17 mags). __________________ Calmer than you are...