Why a Retro?

[usmcvet]

It is fun for me to check out the older guns. I Like the history behind the older guns too. I don't have they money or desire to build a completely correct gun but did a retroish SBR.

I've never used a toward assist in anything but training or drills and I already have a pair of M4 AimPoints and didn't want to buy another one so an A1/2 upper made sense to me.



For me the A2 came first. If I'd used a 10.5" or 11.5" bbl on it instead of the 14.5" I might not have sold it.





Then the SP1

[Suwannee Tim]

Damn lucky to grow up like that. I love old WWII aircraft. That's why I got into aviation....

After my father died when I was 17-1/2 I completely lost interest in aviation. I wanted to follow in my Uncle's footsteps which was to be a Marine and a college professor. Neither of those worked out. I was so poor in college, I didn't do much more than study and whatever was necessary to survive. I attended Columbia University for three years and New York City is very expensive. I had not one dime left for fun. After that, career and family. Guns require a lot less commitment than aircraft. You can lock your guns in the safe and leave them alone for a year then take them shooting. Can't do that with an aircraft. They need ongoing care, insurance, a hangar, license fees, inspections, lots of money for a young guy with college debt, a mortgage and cetera.



Love that rifle on the left.

[djegators]

A good friend of mine, who swore he had no interests in ARs until he met, recently put together a clone of the M16A1 he was issued in Viet Nam in '67. I had already put together a real nice BCM middy for him, so his primary AR being settled, he is now venturing out, and building a collection.

[chadbag]

I fancy WW2 rifles.

Me too. There is something about picking up a 1903, M38 swede, K98, Ljungman, or my favorite, one of the various Enfield No 1 or No 4 models. Especially when they are relatively cheap. I have a few slightly more expensive "correct ones" (all original 1917 Australian No 1 Mk III) and a supposedly real No 5 jungle carbine but most are just fun shooters of the period.

My serious rifles are just that. The rest are for fun (and 5th string backup ;-0 )

Chad

[eo500]

I, for one, am glad that some people build/collect/ and shoot retro rifles. I love seeing and shooting them myself. Unfortunately I don't have the resources to get one for myself but perhaps someday... My current financial priority is obtaining a backup rifle possibly a SBR, and another G19. While I love the latest, greatest tech, I also have a great appreciation for historical rifles so I can remember where we came from. I'd love to eventually have a collection of every service rifle from the 1903 Springfield up to the M4, but I fear I'll need to hit the lotto before that dream becomes a reality. At least I have a few friends that together we can put a "shoot through the century" afternoon together at the range.

[usmcvet]

[QUOTE=Iraq Ninja;1009455]I fancy WW2 rifles. QUOTE]

And Sub Guns. I think you said you had a chance to to carry a Sterling in the Sand Box.

[jtb0311]

I like them for the history, and because I'm not much into tacticool shit. I've long wondered why guys who like retro ARs catch fire, while guys who like Garands, M14s, etc. don't.

I also take personal pleasure in shooting faster and more accurately with plain jane iron sights than guys with optics and free floated this and that. I shoot as well with my modern, free floated HB carbine with ACOG as I do with my Colt 603 clone (at least to 100 yards).

I'm a firm believer that 95% of performance comes from the shooter, not the equipment.

If you want to have the "best" AR, you have to rebuild it every few months, anyway, it gets old. My "modern" AR is at least 3 years out of date. The only Magpul product I have is the grip! I still use USGI magazines!!!

[120mm]

I'm kind of twisted that way as well.

I once spent a couple years getting reasonably good at shooting the Colt 1851 Navy revolver. No real reason except to get an idea of what kind of skill set it took, and to test some things I've heard as per the b.s. potential.

Since I learned my BRM on an M16A1, I am not that curious about them, but I can definitely see why others might.

[120mm]

Double post

[karlb]

My first hands-on experience with the M16 was the Hydra-matic M16a1 I was issued in basic. I shot it more accurately than any A2 I was issued after it. After I had put together a couple M4 type carbines, I decided to get back to basics and put together a 604 type slickside 20 incher. It's a fun gun, but it gets more attention at the range than anything else I bring along. Really, what's the difference between that rifle and all the ones you see on the boards running a flattop, rail, back-up sights only, while "saving up for the optic" that they will never buy. I'd rather have an A1 upper than Troy back-up sights with no optic. Just my 2 cents.