First answer - So what.

The Second is not the right to hunt.

It is the right to live free and protect yourself.

Backing up, I remember thinking the Ruger Ranch Rifle was an interesting idea. Just not applicable to my circumstances. Prairie dogs have been my issue because I back up to county open space. The Ruger 10-22 has done just fine.

Then our circumstances changed. We bought some mountain land. Inhabitants include deer, elk, bear and moose.

The concept of a ranch rifle became real. Protecting your family from large animals is now a definite consideration.

With deep woods, I wanted a semiautomatic with a shorter barrel and a big punch. What I wanted was a Ruger Ranch Rifle on steroids. The .223 just wasn't going to do it. The 6.8mm Rem SPC is ballistically an unknown to me and ammo availability could be an issue.

What I ended up with is a Springfield Armory Socom 16. It is not small, but is smaller. Certainly not pretty, but very functional.

The bottom line is that the best choice for the job is a firearm the gun grabbers want to say NOBODY needs.  

A basis of need is not in the Constitution. But if it were, the gun grabbers would still be wrong on what they want to call assault weapons.

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!