MoA: I like your thread! Just to add a little of my own 2¢:
The K98 platform:
Good military rifle and great sporting rifle. Mine is a Radom wz 29. I like it a lot for the White Eagle crest. For a 98 action, it is one of the best, with perfect heat treatment. What I'm not so keen about is that, as a milsurp, it kicks like a mule. The stock is, like all the 98s I've had much to do with, very short. Also, the "V" sight and inverted "V" front sight are not too easy on my eyes. So when time for a trip to the range comes, it seems to stay in the safe.
K-31: Dont have one
Me either, and about the time they came on the market here in numbers, I lost my job. The earlier ones have wonderful looking walnut stocks, but I'm told that if one gets it to compete with, get the ugly blonde beech stocked version, which is heavier and more accurate. No doubt about the workmanship. It's like a Swiss watch.
SMLE
When it comes to ugly, the SMLE is, but after one gets to liking it, it's ugly like a moose: when the aesthetics are judged from a functional point of view, it's beautiful. I still think it was the best bolt action battle rifle. Sporting writers went on about how anything that locked at the back of the action had to be bad, but the rifle wasn't designed for their teacup tastes. It was designed to be a superb killing machine on the battlefield and I think it was the best of the bunch. I'm not completely impervious to the allure of aesthetics, however, and the Asoka stamped on mine made the decision: I HAD to have it!
AK-47 and variants
Mine's the NHM91, an attempt to make a civilian look-alike of the RPK. Really, it's just a Chinese semi-auto version of an AK with a 20" barrel and a totally useless bipod. It's OK -- I like mine. I don't bother with AK vs M16 comparisons because I've never been in battle and therefore can't offer even a semi-educated opinion of either for that purpose. I like mine, I had to have one, now I do, and it's OK, but not tremendous.
Mosin
Of course, I'm a fan. I think that the Arctic Birch stock on my M39 is quite attractive. The Finn-modified trigger is pretty smooth. It's quite accurate. It also has a properly sized stock for someone my size, which is most appreciated. I love to shoot it. I also have 4 M91 barreled actions that I want to do various projects with -- some day. Anyway, the actions are very simple and easy to take down, and the ones that were finished well are quite smooth to operate. I'm not crazy about the short bolt handle, but other than that, I'll sign up for Mosins any day of the week!
FAL
I would like one because I'm a disciple of John M Browning and believe in planar design.
M-16: What's there to like?
Eh -- I'm not sold on them, either.
Styer Aug: Have used one... coool looking. Not much beyond that.
If whoever buys one likes it, good. I can pass, as well.
Thompson: Shoot one and you will know why I dont want one.
I would like one because it's what my Dad carried in WW2. Other than that, I don't think that they were a particularly good design. I really don't believe in the theory of the Blish System and feel that they are nothing more than a blowback system with someone's name attached.
Also:
1903 Springfield: I don't think that the design was as good as the M98. Wags said that all of the things the Army copied were the things that worked and the things they modified to evade patent infringement didn't work (but of course, the US still had to pay Mauser royalties, anyway), and I'd pretty much agree. However, I still like the streamlined bolt stop that incorporated a magazine cutoff. The cutoff wasn't a very useful battlefield provision, but the way it's incorporated in the Springfield is quite elegant. A Springfield, especially a double heat treat version, is quite smooth. They bed better than a M98 and thus will keep accuracy better. I don't think that the cone breaching (copied for the M54 and M70 Winchester) is any kind of improvement over the M98 and take a dim view of it, although the action is more than strong enough as it is. The gas protection is poor compared to an M98, which I can personally attest to. But none the less, I still like the 1903 Springfield a lot.
SKS: I
like mine! I like it a lot better than the NHM91. I guess it's the Browning disciple coming out in me. But the SKS is very pleasant to shoot, I think. It may not make the full auto buff happy, but I don't care about that at all. It's simply a great bunch of fun!
SVT 40: I want one! I know that they have a wandering zero problem -- then again, they didn't have the development advantage of the Garand, either. But I do like the tipping block planar action better than the rotary bolt of the Garand. That's enough reason for me.
Berthier: I came across one of those neat Mannlicher-style stocked Turkish Forestry Rifles at the same time I almost bought a K31, but didn't have the money. I'd have taken the Berthier over the K31, only because it was so slim and trim. I still want one!
Krag: I had one and got rid of it. I still kick myself. They are a wonderfully slick action, the only thing US made that I know of that can approach (I said, "Approach," not equal!) a M-S in slick smoothness. the .30-40 will do whatever kind of hunting I'd care to do. It's accurate. Yes, there were faults -- the heat treating, like the early Springfield, made for brittleness. However, it also makes for a very slick action and there's nothing wrong with a Krag, as far as I'm concerned.
Nice one MoA
