Have you ever wondered what it feels like to get shot? People in the military and others who were unfortunate to experience this ordeal have describe their personal experiences of what it feels like when a bullet hits them, and how they ultimately survived. They know what it’s like to get shot, and the incredible amount of physical and emotional pain that accompanies a bullet wound. They unfortunately found themselves at the wrong end of a gun, and not only survived their brush with death, but were fortunate enough to tell others about their experience.
Based on these accounts, people have different experiences of how it feels to get shot. Some felt as little as a slight bee sting, and others felt the worst pain they had ever experienced. There seems to be no way to gauge how one’s body will react to a bullet, but the majority of these experiences suggest it will be extremely painful. Check out these first-hand accounts of getting shot by a gun to learn how it feels to survive a bullet wound.
What happens to your body when you get shot?
Here’s a semi-physiological answer. For starters, when a bullet enters your body, your flesh absorbs a great deal of the momentum the bullet was carrying. A 9mm bullet, which is typically fired from handguns used for self-defense and by police, travels at a speed of about 900 mph. All that momentum has to go somewhere, the bullet transfers it to your body, causing it to expand and create a large cavity, then falling back in on itself. That tremor can cause serious damage to your organs and tissues, even if the bullet doesn’t actually hit them.
After the bullet tears into your flesh, fate rolls the dice. It’s possible to survive being shot, multiple times even, but it largely comes down to the path those bullets take. Connor Narciso, former combat medic and Army Green Beret who served in Afghanistan, says don’t let movies and TV fool you. A single gunshot in the arm or leg is more than enough to kill you if you’re unlucky.
The following excerpts are people that have experienced getting shot and survived:
Felt Like A Wasp Stinger Was Pushed Into My Skin CZulu: “Got shot in the calf with a .22 LR while landscaping about a decade ago. It just felt like a push-pinch, like if someone pushed a wasp stinger into my skin and since I was using a weed whacker at the time, I thought it had picked something up and thrown it against my leg. It went numb, and when I looked at the wound, it was bleeding way too much to be from random debris. It really only hurt after I started f*cking with it to stop the bleeding. If you get shot, don’t look at the wound if at all possible. The shooter was a German foreign exchange student with surprisingly bad muzzle awareness, trigger safety, et cetera, but since the damage was minor, we all laughed it off. Honestly, it didn’t hurt that bad. Hopefully, being shot by a smaller caliber has helped me build my immunity up towards larger bullets.”
Felt Like A Punch sidneywidney: “My brother used to promote parties and hang around with questionable people. My parents knew there was basically nothing they could do to prevent him from going out since he was already in his twenties, so my dad got him a vest. My mom thought my dad was being ridiculous. Just a couple of months later, […] on the night before Mother’s Day, he was shot point-blank in the back with a .38 hollow point. My brother said it felt like he was punched in the back. Those vest really do save lives…”
Felt Like A Sudden Impact Of No Sensation, Then There Was A Horrible Burning Sensation Tia_Jamon: “Surprisingly painless compared to what you might expect. I’m not one of those, ‘I didn’t even realize I was shot’ people, though I can definitely understand where they’re coming from. The very first thing I felt can only be described as a sudden impact of no sensation. I felt numbness wash over the area. If I had not realized I was about to be shot shortly before I was, I could see how I could have easily have been too distracted to notice this immediate response. That feeling then gave way to a horrible burning sensation. It’s a very ‘hot’ pain. It feels the way a very flushed face or a blister feels, but intense and painful. After a little time passes, the area around it has this very unexpected achy pain that feels more like what you would expect from being hit with a bat than being shot. And yet I wouldn’t know how I would even rank it in terms of how painful it actually was. The feeling of being shot was seamlessly paired with the adrenaline and wooziness of having REALIZED I was shot and the knowledge that I really couldn’t afford to get shot again. The three intermingled and alternately masked and intensified each other. For a few moments, I’d totally forget I had been shot, only for my attention to come back to myself in a lot of pain. I’ve never had to describe it before – my words seem so inadequate. It’s a very bizarre series of sensations that I imagine is almost never experienced by people in an otherwise clear state of mind. I really cannot understate the significance of the psychological impact it had on me in the moment, which totally distorted my processing of physical sensation.”
Felt Like Nothing Gangrel13: “I got shot in the foot about two years ago with a .45. Went in one side and out the other, pulverized some of the bone, too. There was no pain at all. Only knew I was shot because of all the blood. At the hospital about a half hour later, it started to hurt a little. Doctor was surprised that I only rated the pain as a four out of 10. It hurt a fair bit in the days and weeks after, but never intolerably.”
Felt Like A Weird Wave Of Feeling Hot And Wet Jigur0: “About four years ago, I was struck by four rounds from machine gun fire. One actually skipped off my body armor, right into my left bicep. Honestly did not feel pain when I got hit, just this weird wave of feeling hot and wet on my left side. The pain definitely came […] once a tourniquet was applied.”
Felt Like A Baseball Bat Him Me, But There Was No Pain Ktojongolt: “I was shot with AK-47 to the leg. Felt like a baseball bat hit me, but with no pain. This was followed by a buzzing feeling for five to ten seconds, then the severe achy pain set in. Once I got back, I was diagnosed with a spiral fracture. Less painful than I thought it would be, but it was still up there!”
Felt Like My Leg was Heavy And Wet, But Getting Shot Didn’t Hurt secondhand_organs: “I took a bullet in the *ss cheek that did some kind of parabolic arc and exited out of the back of my thigh. I didn’t feel the impact, but wondered why my leg felt heavy and wet (I was on a bicycle at the time). Getting shot itself didn’t hurt, but getting treated for it did. The finger in the a** at the hospital didn’t help much.”
Felt Like Absolute Agony jnips: “I got shot through the thigh with a .45, [and] it burned like a motherf*cker. The bullet went through the bone completely and the tendons pulled everything out of place. That leg was about four inches shorter than the other. Trying to move it was absolute agony – I was praying to pass out, but never did.”
Felt Like I Was Slapped Or Punched In The Face Zoklett: “We were sitting on my front steps when the gun fight broke out. We stood up to run inside and I never even heard the gun go off. It just felt like someone punched me or slapped me really hard in the face and I fell off the steps and crawled (quickly) inside. When I got inside, my friend was screaming that I’d been shot but I didn’t feel anything really until I looked in the mirror and saw I was bleeding from a burn that went from my cheek THROUGH the top of my ear. I didn’t really feel anything, to be honest. Just stinging and ringing ears. The burn lasted FOR MONTHS. […] I became famous in school as the tough girl who almost got shot in the face.”
Felt Like A Really Weird Bee Sting eradicATErs: “I was shot in left foot when I was seventeen. At first, I thought it was a bee sting because it sounded like bees flying by. Two seconds later, I realized something was wrong. The bee noises were bullets flying by. It felt like a hot fire poker along the path of the bullet. We were camping and like an hour and a half [from] a hospital. The burning lasted the entire time until morphine got in. Was in a walking boot [cast] for months due to tendon and nerve damage. No bones were damaged, but my foot is still numb on top due to nerve damage and it always hurts. I always feel it and if anything hits the entry or exit points or the scar from surgery to remove bullet fragments, it send weird tingles up my leg. Definitely changed my life.”
Felt Like My Hand Was Slammed Between A Textbook And A Desk Cowboychimps: “My right hand got clipped by a .223 ricochet while shooting targets on a friend’s property. Initially felt like my had got slammed between a large math textbook and a wooden desk followed by an intense burning sensation. I will say that after the impact, I didn’t immediately think much of the injury. I checked that my firearm was still functioning and didn’t stop firing until I felt the blood dripping down my arm.”
Felt Like A Tight Pressure On My Arm, But There Was No Pain BBBBrendan: “Shot in the arm when I was young, when I got caught in the middle of a drive-by shooting.
You know in the movies where a gun goes off and there’s a sudden look of shock on the victim’s face before he looks at the wound? That’s very accurate. I did not feel any pain or anything. I heard the gunshot and felt a tight pressure in my arm. I looked and saw the wound and how much blood I was losing, and the next thing I know I’m in the hospital.”
Felt Like Being Continuously Poked By Something Sharp – But Pushing, Not Stabbing Transam96: “It’s a bit of [a] burning sensation mainly. The quick pierce into your body hurts like hell. Best way I can describe it is that it feels like being continuously poked as if someone is holding multiple sharp pricks to you and pushing in, but not stabbing.
Painful as sh*t, but it’s not an ungodly amount of pain to where you can’t even cope with it if it’s in an area of non-importance in your body, such as [the] arm or shoulder.”
Felt Like Something Blasted Into Me And Was Very Noisy Idiputchko: “I didn’t even really know I was shot. I felt the blast and the noise and didn’t realize until liquid was gushing onto my chest. Since I was shot in the head/face, I was worried about brain damage and kept doing multiplication in my head. It really wasn’t too bad. I was lucky and it did not affect my hearing or sight. I only have a small circular scar that kind of looks like a dimple.”
Depending on what the AR’s or Mini’s are used for, we can all agree that the AR’s is better for most situations. (SHTF, home defense, hunting, etc..) But, if we talk about the costs to have either a low end or tricked out piece of hardware, I guess the discussions can go on almost forever with the die hard AR’s and Mini-14 folks. Or, better yet which one is most accurate?
For the Mini-14 fans here are 8 reasons why its better than the AR15.
has a Low Profile – looks more like a hunting rifle a subtle looking
Stock Trigger – outstanding trigger on the newer version (580 series) 5.5 to 6 lbs crisp pull
Maneuerability – The length is shorter than the AR another to note is the recoil forward of the stock – you can now make the length mini-14 shorter.
Longer Sight Radius – Rear sights same location but at the front the mini-14 sight is further out.
Piston Operation – Fixed gast piston is a cleaner gas system, plus less blowback if using a suppressor
Accuracy – Ruger has come up with a revised gas system that is less turbulant and fewer vibration helps the gun more accurate.
Cold Hammer Forged Barrel – gives you greater durability and longer barrel life.
All Stainless– complete rifle
Let’s hear what some are saying on AR15Forum and Reddit about the accuracy:
Poison_Tequila: the truth is a little different. An AR can be picky or reliable, a mini is probably more accurate than 95% of shooters. Comparing an AR to a mini is a little like comparing an iPhone to some Android device. There are plenty of great android devices but with a million manufacturers and so forth it can be hard to decide who is good and who is bad.
I like wooden stocks so I have a mini. I love it, it throws brass a long way. It throws steel a long way. I can hit a paper plate at 200 yards. That said the AR is cheaper (maybe) more fun to build (really) and just about as much fun as you can have with a gun.
If you want an out the door cheapish shooting gun, go mini. If you want a great experience the, you want to be one with the rifle, (if your range time is limited) go AR. Though I don’t think you can really go wrong either way.
LCDJosh: Unbiased appreciator and user of Ak,AR15,Mini14 platforms here: The new Mini 14’s have a different, heavier barrel and are significantly more accurate. This change was made around 2005.
The newer Minis are also not as finicky about mags as the older models. I like Ruger factory mags the most, but I’ve never had a faliure to feed from the cheap plastic eagle mags(not the greatest feed lips though), the polymer thermolds(though I do not recommend thermolds because I couldn’t insert the mag with the bolt closed), or even the pro mags.
AdmiralTiberius: Biggest advantage is if you were either living in a place you have to be 21 to purchase a “military style rifle” (i.e. Minnesota et al.) or need a permit to purchase a “military style rifle”. Also, mini is cheaper, and looks more classic, grunt, m1 style badass instead of modern, stealth, badass.
Edit: also I don’t buy the accuracy argument. $100 says 95% of shooters can’t put rounds down accurately enough to matter. If you can, that’s awesome, but I haven’t invested the time to be an expert marksman; I just love guns.
Edit 2: just thought of this. Mini is a simple gun. If it were a “survival” or brush situation or whatnot, I would absolutely pick the mini. Quick and dirty teardown, can get dirty, rugged in my opinion. But… If you plan to oper8, obviously pick ar.
Edit 3: mounts on mini are shit. Biggest weakness imho.
LCDJosh: I neither live in a state that has regarding age or needing a permit. I actually thought the Mini-14 would have been A- cheaper then the because its made with wood furniture or B- More accurate than the AR.
DaSilence: I inherited the Mini-14, and rarely shoot it.
The AR is the barbie doll of guns. You can do literally anything you want to it.
They’re both fine rifles, and either would be a good choice.
white17509: The minis are OK as long as you get a ranch rifle. They are later in production and have a better rear sight and known to be more accurate. You will have a harder time finding mags.
AR-15 style rifles are as good as the parts they are built from. Comparing a cheap poly AR and a ranch rifle, the ranch rifle wins. But generally and decent AR beats a mini in adaptability, parts availability/price, magazine availability, accuracy and ease of use. Your wife may benefit from the adjustable stock. Also, you can swap out uppers intended for different applications.
9millaThrilla: I got a mini due to a local AWB. Every day I wish I could get an AR. I really like the action of the mini, but mag changes and the ergos of the AR are much smoother. Plus the fact that every part you’ll ever need for an AR is readily available locally while mini parts need to be found online makes it a more versatile weapon and easier to maintain in a pinch.
mewarmo990: OP, whichever rifle you pick I don’t think you will regret it. But here’s my two cents:
After some consideration, I went with the AR-15 because I wanted to put it together myself, and learn a thing or two about rifles while I was at it.
Since I parted it together a little bit at a time over most of last year, I was able to build a considerably nicer rifle (maybe $1300?) than I would’ve had if I had bought a complete rifle on an immediate budget of around $800.
That said, I have shot my friend’s Mini-14 a bit and have only good things to say about it. The only thing that could have been better were the “ghost ring” iron sights – if I bought a Mini I would personally put the excellent Tech Sights on it for the (American) service rifle aperture sight picture I am used to.
As others have said, the mechanical accuracy of the Mini-14 is going to be somewhat less than an AR-15 — especially if you’ve built the AR to be more accurate than stock M4 style setup — but unless you are seriously into rifle marksmanship you will never see the difference.
AR15Forum Fozzy: I’d go with the AK. My mini 14 is the least accurate and least reliable gun I own. Granted it is an older model one, so it ‘s expected to be a little inaccurate, but I also have not found any mags that are reliable enough for me to trust the rifle if SHTF. If I were you, I’d tell him to get the AK, or be a good friend and spend some time talking him in to an AR.
PredatorWhacker: I’ve had several minis over the years and currently have one of the newer ones. They are ok rifles if expectations are not that high. They are robust. With my handloads it is pretty accurate. (for a mini) Right at 1 1/2″ groups. With ball ammo it is typical mini accuracy. About 6″….with a scope. I haven’t employed any of the touted accurizing techniques other than retourqing(sp) the gasblock, which did help.
My complaints with the mini-14
Spare parts availability.
Mag price and availability (although much better in recent years).
Long term durability.
Hard usage durability, like extended firing. Not designed to be drug around in conflict long term.
At the moment for AK pattern rifles I only have a Norinco 7.62×39, Arsenal 5.45×39 and IMI Galil 5.56. All these will shoot more accurately than the ball ammo fueled mini.
Moondog: Take your friend to the range, and demonstrate the reliability of the AR platform. Also, give him a history lesson about how the AR has been improved in the last 45 or so years, and part of the problem in Vietnam was bad ammo.
The arguments goes on and on, tell us what your experiences with either and what you prefer.
Source: AR15.com/Forum and Reddit/guns/, TFB TV Youtube
There are many ways to carry your concealed handguns, which brings up the argument of appendix carry vs the four o’clock, small of back or under the armpit position, etc.
Appendix carry has grown in popularity, whether that’s by watching too many Hollywood movies or experimenting with the different position. Another thing that’s talked about is the carrier body composition as a factor. Seems like the thinner folks have an easier time concealing the handguns versus another who’s a little on the heavier side.
Whoa, lets put the brakes on here, in the video below Rob Leatham(Team Springfield) is talking with Rob Pincus (Personal Defense World) on the subject.
As you know Leatham isn’t fat by obesity standard, but pudgy. As you can see with the correct body posture and technique, its easy to get the pistol out without pointing it at yourself, its quick and efficient. Appendix carry’s concept is straight forward: The handgun is holstered at the front of the body where the hands are at most of the time. The advantages are many: a fast, intuitive, and easy to draw from nearly any body position; provides excellent retention and some comfort.
Some experts like Massad Ayoob of Personal Defense World have stated, “our hands are more likely to be in front of our torsos instead of down by our sides most in the time in everyday life,” which means “in real life,” our hands may be closer to the gun if the weapon is also at the front of the body.
For the weapon retention minded, “an attempt by a criminal to snatch your gun out of its holster from behind will probably be harder if your sidearm is in the appendix position.”
So how effective is the carry?
One way is to implement it through a course of fire, but is that adequate for a gun fight?
Maybe, run the test while going through a force on force test with air guns. The results may vary based on your training and experience level.
Here are some sentiments on the subject from Reddit, USACarry and Glock Talk: Nodpete: I prefer the appendix carry. It just feels better with my body shape and I think that you get less printing at this position. It’s also comfortable when your sitting/driving and doesn’t show when you bend forward. I use an Aliengear Tuck 2.0 and love it. It comes stock with a 15 degree FBI carry but I modified it to the straight up position.
bofh: I carry a Glock 26 (and sometimes a Glock 19 or Glock 20) at 4 o’clock, but that shouldn’t influence your decision at all. There are pros and cons for both. You need to try it out. In any case, a good belt and holster make the difference.
mudshark100: I find 4:00 more comfortable, especially when sitting. But more importantly, consider where the barrel is pointing in both positions. An accidental discharge at 4:00, you maybe loose a little of your backside. At appendix, particularly while sitting, an accidental discharge means major damage into the upper thigh, possibly hitting an artery……or worse yet, the family jewels. Just my thoughts.
grantar2: the answer will be based on feel. I personally carry at 3 0’clock, but I carry a full size M&P. It’s also the position I carry when I compete in IDPA. Appendix position is the stronger position If you are attacked your arms, movement and hands will work best close to center of body. You can bring the gun straight up, roll the wrist for a shot from retention. If the bad guy is driving on you, having your primary weapon behind you even slightly puts your arm in a weaker position. This is true even if your blading into the threat.
At the 4 0’clock position clearing a garment may be harder as well. Practice is what you normally wear will help you decide. The appendix position is easy, grasp and lift shirt, draw weapons. The act of lifting the shirt keeps the free hand out of the way until you drive the gun our and the hand joins up. If you clawing one hand well engaging with the other, being up front is easier as well.
tcox4freedom: I’ve personally seen a close family member shoot himself; severing his femoral artery and almost all the other blood vessels in his upper mangled leg. It took us over 4hr to get him to the hospital because we were so far out in the boonies. He never lost consciousness. (Known other people that have had similar damage and survived as well.) I carry appendix because it’s more comfortable, provides the fastest access (even while sitting & buckled up) and it affords you better retention should you ever find your self in a grappling match with a drunk MMA fighter.
SR9: I carry with more of a 5:00 O’clock position and with the cant of my holster, I see not major problem. If my gun should accidently fire, and considering my age, and build, I don’t have a lot of butt to lose, if any.
Appendix carry with Glock19
Damn_Yankee: Very comfortable even while seated and driving. I am 5′ 7″ and 160 lbs and I can conceal my G19 in just about anything I want to wear.
F14Scott: This $16 holster is thin and perfect. I wear it with a leather gun belt, and it keeps the G19 tight against my belly. It is very comfortable.
ken grant: Tried several different AIWB holsters but then decided on a trigger guard type and it hit the sweet spot for me.
I tried several different lanyard lengths and found one that lets the pistol ride where wanted and also lets it float a little with my movements.
The guard is pulled off as soon as the pistol clears the belt and pointed forward away from my body.
OutWest: I carry a G19 AIWB. My preference is for a low carry. On my body this conceals the best. I’ve tried several kydex holsters and they tend to carry the gun higher than I like. This results in obvious and goofy printing from the grip frame. What I’ve found to work best for me is a cheap Uncle Mike’s cloth holster. It rides low and disappears.
The disadvantage of the low ride is getting a good grip when drawing. As with any holster, practice makes perfect.
Some complaints with carry at small of back
MichaelsPerHour: My issue with SOB is that you’re placing a hard metal object in a place where your body has basically no padding of your spine, which means if you slip and fall on your back, bad things can happen. There are other advantages to AIWB like draw speed, retention, easier to see if your shirt is riding up, etc. But the fear of slipping on ice and making myself a paraplegic is number one.
LumberCockSucker: I never thought of that, I don’t like SOB because you don’t have eyes on the back of your head and it seems like it would be easier for someone to sneak up behind you and snag your firearm.
crazyScott90: I avoid small of back. It’s the slowest draw stroke on the waist, has increased chances of printing/your shirt riding up, and it’s not very comfortable when sitting. Also, if you have to draw while sitting, it’s going to be fairly difficult.
Daraholsters: I carry appendix and 4:30-5 o’clock. I’m female, so I have wider hips than a guy would and these positions are easier to conceal than the hip. I carry with a mid ride & straight draw so I can switch back and forth.
crazyScott90: If you check out our FAQ section, you’ll see I’ve made a point to include some holster options for women. Theres bra holsters and inside thigh holsters to name a couple. Maybe one of those would work.
AnonomyousFemale: I’ve tried the bra holsters but I don’t like looking like I am at Mardi Gras to grab my gun LOL
PincersofPower: It would create a moment of “WTF? Is this woman seriously gonna… Oh shit!” Tactical advantage.
Bottom line is if its for tactical reason, appendix may rule as the position to carry. For comfort and concealing your print, try a different position. What do you all think?
Source: Reddit, USACarry, GlockTalk, Springfield Armory Youtube, Personal Defense World
Photos from Google Image
[su_heading size=”30″]Magpul Expands Into Traditional Riﬂe Stock Offerings, Including A Model For The Remington 700[/su_heading]
REVIEW AND PHOTOGRAPHS BY RICHARD SHARRER
[su_dropcap style=”flat” size=”5″]M[/su_dropcap]agpul Industries has long been known for manufacturing superior riﬂe (and now pistol) magazines, as well as improved stocks for ARs. The company is now expanding into more traditional riﬂe stocks and is taking them to new levels.
I was recently sent a Magpul “Hunter” stock for the Remington 700 series riﬂes to test. Now, admittedly, I’m not much of a hunter. I choose to spend my shooting time a bit more tactically, but with that said, I really do like this stock.
The version I received was in basic black, but other available colors include ﬂat dark earth, stealth gray and olive drab green. This stock features reinforced polymer construction, and includes such unique features as a spacer adjustable length of pull with a range of adjustment from 13 to 15 inches in half-inch increments. That is a wonderful addition to any stock, in my opinion. I think of myself as an average-sized guy (5-foot-9, 170 pounds), but I’ve yet to ﬁnd a stock that ﬁts me out of the box. The ability to simply add or remove spacers to get the gun to ﬁt me the way I like it is an excellent improvement over a “standard” stock.
Another unique addition is the ability to adjust the height of the cheek piece. A high cheek riser kit is available that enables users to modify the height of the stock comb and allow a proper cheek weld behind a scope. Most “hunter” stocks seem to be set for iron sight use, and adding even a low mounted scope forces the shooter to compromise a good cheek weld to use the scope. This leads to less accuracy and a slower shot, as the shooter has to ﬁnd the eye box behind the scope. Not with this set-up. Simply mount the gun to your shoulder, get a solid cheek weld and the crosshairs are right in front of your eye. Nice!
The stock comes out of the box it set up to use both the OEM bottom metal and the blind magazine standard on the Remington 700 series riﬂes. There is, however, an option to replace that with detachable AICS-pattern magazines. A section of M-LOK compatible slots in the forend make attaching accessories easy and fast. This is a “drop-in” product. No ﬁtting or inletting is required.
The Magpul Hunter stock makes an excellent after-market addition to a Remington 700 short-action series rifle.
Here’s some sentiments on the Magpul Hunter 700 stock from Reddit and AR15 Forum: heathenyak: picked up an older 700 bdl the other day in .338 win mag because why not. The action is smooth as glass. I’ll be taking it out to the range next weekend or the following
nomadicbohunk: It shoots sub moa no problem. We’re actually pretty impressed with it. The only work I’ve done to it was to stiffen the stock and bed it. He wishes he’d have bought a few of them.
tomj762: Yeah I thought it was the Remington 770 that gets a lot of hate. The 700 gets accreditation for being a rifle you can buy for under $1,000 and get out of the box 1,000 yard precision.
Chowley_1: Or spend $650 for a Tikka and have a vastly superior rifle.
Isenwod: Considering it’s been the platform for every military sniper rifle since the 70s, I would say not.
morehousemusicplease: grip angle is excessive for my liking price isnt bad at 260 which puts it in line with the b&c.
The_Eternal_Badger: Admittedly no one has really handled or used the Magpul stock yet, but if it’s up to their current standards I can’t see how it wouldn’t be a better deal with equal or better performance out of the box.
THellURider: Honestly – I’ve wondered why they hadn’t released this many years ago. And then I remember that they’re more a marketing and design company than a manufacturer of anything with more than 1 moving part.
Hunting rifle: Going to be tough to beat a B&C Alaskan (I or II) or if you’re going to go spendy, McMillan Edge.
KC45: I’ve never been much of an aftermarket stock guy. I bet for 99% of shooters here a decent factory stock will do just as well and the money they save would be better spent getting some good precision shooting training/instructions and on ammo (or components). It’s the indian…not the arrow
JohnBurns: Mid-priced platform for bench shooting? Sure. That style of hunting, that guy’s set up is all wrong. Ultra light hunters want small, light, compact rifles with small, light scopes. Leupold VX6 2.5-10, McMillan Edge, on a light profile 260 rem – yes.
Lost_River: Great video quality. However it pretty much showed nothing in regards to technical information.
Bubbatheredneck: What does it offer vs the AICS? And no mountain hunter is gonna lug that beast around very long if it is as heavy as it looks..
Dash_ISpy: I like my Magpul 870 stock. Id probably get one of these as well. I wonder if itll be easier to integrate a mag. Im not excited to spend $300 extra just for a mag.
bulldog1967: it doesn’t do anything my Tikka T3 in .270 WSM doesn’t do.
Foxtrot08: That set up will be my next rifle. My current rifle is an older M700 long action, in 300WM on a B&C Alaskan II stock. Barrel has been blue printed, and bolt has been fitted. Not 100% light weight, but I haven’t needed it yet, as I only do day hunts on the western slope of Colorado.
LuvBUSHmaster: My .300 WinMag 700 BDL could use some MAGpul love but I need specs and a Long Action Model.
RePp: I don’t need another stock but for that price it will be very hard to beat. Now those magazines I will buy a shitload of. A polymer AICS mag like that will be a huge hit.
If you are looking to upgrade your Remington 700 stock, be that of your favorite deer riﬂe in .308 Win, a suppressed 700 SD in 300 Blackout or any other short- or long-action 700, you should give this option a good long look. ASJ