[Skewed]

Hi all,
I am beginning to educate myself as to what all is out there and it is becoming very overwhelming. I hope people can give me some pointers on how to begin and what to look for. Right now my collection only consists of a .45 and I want to expand upon this. Maybe if I give my thought process in what I am looking for, it will help in what I am doing. If I am missing the point or off base in any of my thinking, please let me know so that I do not go down the wrong path. I have a budget and the last thing I want to do is buy something I do not like.

First off, I am the type of person that likes to keep things simple, basic and realistic. I also believe in having the right tool to do a job, I don't use a flat head screwdriver to take out a phillips head screw. That said, ultimately I think I want a few pistols, which I think I have that area covered and can handle what I want with respect to handguns. Eventually, I think I would like a shot gun, a tactical weapon and a mid to long range rifle. I feel as if that would give me the diversity to handle anything I could come across or need. The tactical firearms are what is throwing me for a loop. There are just so many options. In my thought process, I think I want a tactical weapon to kind of be the one weapon that could be used just about for anything, you know, the "all around" type of weapon. I naturally see a ton of info about the AR-15's but I am not sure if this would be the right choice for me. I dont have my mind set on anything at this point. I do know that I do not want all these "cool" gadgets attached to my weapon. I am of the opinion that if there is a chance of failure, I do not want it. Especially, anything electronic. I work with computers and I know there is a failure rate when electronics are involved so I shy away from that, even if the failure rate is one in a million. There are of course some exceptions to this rule. Basically said, I do not want some electronic device to "help me shoot better". Just the basics is all I want. However, I do recognize the difference between guns made 40 years ago versus today, I understand the technology advances in the machine work involved in making a reliable weapon. As an example, although I see a lot of good things said about the AK-47s, I don't think I would like something that old, knowing that advances in machining will have made todays guns better than the AKs to some extents.

What would be some things I should look at to make my decision for this? What are some weapons I should consider? I do not mind attachments and upgrades, as long as there is a realistic reason to have it and there are some upgrades that I would get. I dont want "cool" or get something just because everyone else has one. I want functionality and what works for me. Remember, for this weapon, I just want an all around weapon. One that could be used indoors, outdoors, short range, long range(loosely stated of course), hard target, soft target, etc etc. I guess you could say I want a "utility" weapon.

If there is something I am missing the point with please educate me.

[CA357]

I eschewed the AR type rifles because when I served, they weren't well developed yet. So when I looked for a long gun that would serve as a main battle rifle, I bought a DSArms SA58 FAL carbine chambered in .308. I liked the idea of an adjustable gas system and the fact that it was called the "Right Arm of the Free World". It had hitting power, a track record, a standard caliber and easy parts availability.

That said, I longed for a Springfield M1A. Eventually I sold the FAL and bought a new Springfield Scout Squad model with a synthetic stock. The rifle was accurate, had light & comfortable recoil, was nice ergonomically and was an accurate and easy shooter. I would still have it, but economics forced me to sell it.

I currently have a 1943 Springfield Garand for my main battle rifle. It's most definitely about as old school as you can get. It's accurate and a pleasure to shoot. I have always liked the characteristics of the .30-06 round and this rifle shoots it well.
I dislike only having eight rounds. However, I find that it's the only negative when I compare it to the M1A. In fact, surplus .30-06 ammunition is cheaper than .308, so there is a bit of a financial savings.
The Garand is also considerably less expensive to purchase than the M1A. The savings will buy a lot of ammunition and other toys.

For closer in, I have a 1943 Inland M1 carbine. It is as reliable as they come.

You can buy both the M1 Garand and an M1 carbine for less than the price of a new Springfield M1A. I also really enjoy having a piece of history in my hands.

I too do not care for all the tacticool goodies that get stuck on firearms these days.

I have a Mossberg 500 shotgun with an 18.5" barrel, factory Ghostring sights that I bought and installed myself and an elastic butt shell cuff. I keep it loaded and the buttcuff gives me five more rounds right to hand if ever necessary.

For plinking, I have a Ruger 10-22 with a Nikon Pro Staff scope. It's much more scope than the rifle really needs, but I had the scope laying around and so on it went. I really like the combination and have been quite spoiled by it.

For hand guns, I have a 1927 Sistema Colt .45acp, an FM Hi Power in 9mm, a S&W model 37 .38spl. Airweight and a Ruger GP160 .357 magnum. My wife has a S&W model 60 .357 magnum loaded with .38 HP's for a S.D. handgun.

I like .44 magnum, have owned several, but currently don't have one. I have bought and sold many guns, both rifles and handguns, but the ones I just wrote about are essentially my keepers.

I don't know if this will help you, but I hope it at least gives you food for thought.

Best,
CA357

[CA357]

double tap.....sorry

[Skewed]

Ok, Thanks. I will get this figured out.

I just got done reading an article about the LMT's Piston 16. What are some opinions about this rifle? One of the things I gleened from this article is that they made a change to the rail system, apparently ARs have a few design gotchas that are maybe a little frustrating to some and this manufacturer seems to have fixed some of those. This article is in the Guns & Ammo, Book of the AR-15.

I failed to mention earlier, I do not want to buy a "name". I refuse to pay extra money for something just because of its name. However, I do not mind paying a little more for a better product. I totally believe that you get what you pay for. As of now I have not really looked at the prices, I am looking for something I like first then I will start looking at the cost and narrow things down from there.

[Skewed]

Actually, I think I know what I want to do. I want to just build my own. I am good with tools and I have no problem working with parts. Find me a new bare bones AR base from a top of the line manufacturer. You know, a piece of "junk". Then as I shoot it and get the feel for it, I will begin to not like things about it and those are the things I replace with new parts. I am kinda curious to see if these things are as modular as they say they are. Being cost prohibitive is the only reason I can think of this to be a bad idea.