20050122

I've ignored this beast for too long

It's well reviewed by anyone who picks one up or fires it, in spite of its looks and its all-plastic construction.

It's damned light, a minimalist approach to a utility carbine.

It's got the wrong caliber but maybe that can be corrected. Either Grendelization or conversion to a TCU caliber could get me interested.

It's no service rifle but wasn't meant to be. In the Charlie model, the SU-16 looks like a contender.
Posted by at

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The weight of this gun, lends it to be more of a survival gun than a 'service' gun. Bravo sights stink. Which I recently replaced with a Konus red/green dot because the scope is large and makes pickup easier. Very light weight. Very low cost, Bi-pod, folding stock, extra magz in the stock. M-16 magz. I bought mine new less than 5 bills. You can't beat it. The only thing fragile is the hinge of the folding stock, and the butt pad sucks. Start adding cheap accessories however and you quickly have a significant weapon. I'm just not a fan of .223's They tumble to much... And oh yeah. LOUD. VERY loud. But in a thunderclap sorta way.

22 December, 2010 18:22

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)