It's not my loss at all....
Hilarious stuff.
You have your opinion and certainly ostracize the counter point quite vigorously. Bringing in the buzz words of kool-aid, cheap, junk, etc.
For my criteria, an old left hand "salvage" 30-06 factory, a douglas 30-06 barrel (used), a stock built in the back yard, and a burris FFII and I was into an long range (400-600 yard) gun that did all I needed quite "cheaply".
Not sure what criteria the OP has for long range, but you're opinion on the matter doesn't mean it can't be done economically.
I understand you wouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean it won't work...
Edit to add:
The only reason I got rid of my savage is that I spent so much time swapping barrels and working up new loads from 300WM, 30-06 and 308, that I wasn't spending enough time hunting. Seems I can't control myself when it comes to tinkering. My next bolt gun will be "fiddle proof" I hope.
My opinion is mine, but well founded in fact. Long range shooting is not a cheap sport. The more competitive you get, either with yourself, or others, the more exspensive it gets. I happen to be quite competitive, and want to do the best I can. There are lots of examples of people doing all of sorts of silly things with their money, both in the shooting world and out of it. The examples out of it make more sense. Why would a guy spend thousands and thousands of dollars customizing a piece of crap car, when he could have spent that money on a better car? Does a resonably good golfer play with the cheapest clubs he can find? I like this one the best, as it is the closest example to what we are speaking about. A good golfer, can play a round with cheap clubs. They work, and he scores a 96. Not bad for money! Now he plays the same round with better clubs, and scores an 88. A pro plays, with the best that is availble, and scores a 68. The good guy plays with the pro's clubs, and scores an 83. It's all relative, and at a point, spending money has diminishing returns.
Shooting is a precision sport. It is about putting the bullet exactly at the point aim, not getting it close. Getting something to mearly work, as opposed to getting it to perform, is not a criteria I would apply to much of anything, but everyone has to start somewhere. It's a shame to see a decent shooter invest in all sorts of equipment up front, that may handcuff them on the back. By invest, I mean both time and money.
With regards to the OP, will it work? Of course it will. Will it perform? Not as well as something better, for not a significant increase in price.
R.
