I really want a battle rifle. I am settled on between the Garand, M1A or DSA FAL if I were to buy now. I know the price ranges from $350 - $1,400. $350 for a Danish CMP Garand and up to $1,400 for a Fulton Armory M1A.
I own a SLR-95 and a scoped Rem 700 in .30-06 and feel pretty well armed. However, the ability to provide rapid, semi-auto fire at distance is something I desire. I do not plan to scope the rifle. As a matter of fact, I've considered selling the SLR-95 to help finance a battle rifle, but cannot bring myself to do that.
The AK is an effective medium range handy rifle, but I want the long-range ability as well. So, do I need a battle rifle? Do I need the ability to provide sustained rapid accurate fire out to 300 or 700 yards? It would be nice knowing you have the capability, but is it necessary? It seems the scoped Rem would do just fine at those ranges with even more accuracy.
So convince me, do I NEED to spend my hard earned dough on a battle rifle? Or am I aptly armed?
I own a SLR-95 and a scoped Rem 700 in .30-06 and feel pretty well armed. However, the ability to provide rapid, semi-auto fire at distance is something I desire. I do not plan to scope the rifle. As a matter of fact, I've considered selling the SLR-95 to help finance a battle rifle, but cannot bring myself to do that.
The AK is an effective medium range handy rifle, but I want the long-range ability as well. So, do I need a battle rifle? Do I need the ability to provide sustained rapid accurate fire out to 300 or 700 yards? It would be nice knowing you have the capability, but is it necessary? It seems the scoped Rem would do just fine at those ranges with even more accuracy.
So convince me, do I NEED to spend my hard earned dough on a battle rifle? Or am I aptly armed?