I've recently indulged myself in a firearm after Kenosha and militant groups in my area have started making a name for themselves, so I've been exploring the SRA and it's various media outlets to see what it's about, but something about it all is just, off.

To quote a movie line from a movie of which I cannot remember the name, "It's too quiet."

More specifically, I'm well aware that the SRA is meant to be a decentralized organization, but despite being left wing the leadership is completely radio silent, and I'm just expected to give all my information, name, birthday, address, etc to some sign up page so I can recieve some rinky dinky SRA card and patch? That's sketch as fuck.

And I know how much leftists care about OpSec shit, yet the SRA sorta has a "Come on in! :-)" attitude that a CIA officer would put in place to rud out local chapters and spy on them through their laptop cameras, or insert a CIA plant to pull a Michigan situation and lock up a bunch of lefists under some bullshit terrorism charges.

(And I know it's not crazy to assume the security state hasn't already found all the information on me, but like, still man.)

This shit is incredibly sketch as fuck, a leftist gun organization and no transparency? If someone wants to de-schizo me and convince me that the SRA isn't an OP, then by all means go ahead, but for now I'll remain independent of this socialist honeypot.

-7DeadlyFetishes

    • Audeamus [any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      only buy pitted out old Mosins and 1950s era Tokarevs

      A certain percentage of gun owners, whatever their politics, are classic fetishists. The gun isn't a weapon to them, it's a symbolic possession that by the fact of its very existence endows its owner with a magic aura. It's hilarious and sad when someone calls themselves a socialist, which takes at least rudimentary philosophy or critical thinking, but simultaneously thinks a Russian gun designed a million years ago is the socialist-est gun.

        • ssjmarx [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          AKs are great, and there are a ton of modern variants in every caliber you could want (some people will think it's heresy to get one chambered in 5.56, but if you live in America where that's the most common ammunition it's a pretty practical decision). Since they're so common it will be easy to get parts to fix it if there's a problem or if you want to modify it for whatever reason.

          • Harukiller14 [they/them,comrade/them]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I would say an ak in 7.62 is still better only because in both cases you'd still need to supply your own magazines and parts. Most AKs you'll find out there to repair your weapon will be in 7.62 so you can use the parts. An AK in 5.56 is an unrepairable gun basically.

        • Posadist_Moby_Dick [comrade/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Compared against guns of a similar age it’s really good, and is still top notch for certain purposes. Newer variants are all pretty good too. A gun is ultimately a tool and different guns have different usages that the design philosophy accounts for. The ak platform has many variants and the higher quality ones can compete with the best. These days the classic is outclassed by other rifles in almost every use case except the one that made it a classic: the rifle for revolutions and rebel groups. It still can’t be beat if you want something you can easily equip and train people with.

        • Alaskaball [comrade/them]A
          ·
          4 years ago

          AKs can be good and can be shit, like any gun. It really depends on the manufacturer and the parts/materials they're using.

          An example is that an AK from Kalashnikov Concern or Tula Arms will be a top-of-the-line quality AK with internal moving pieces being made with quality steel that won't easily deform or warp from short-term usage, whereas a Century Arms AK tend to use inferior parts in their internals and wear down a lot faster than it should.

          It's easier to maintain and disassemble/reassemble and clean than the M-16 platform, and while it takes a bit of learning how to calibrate the iron sights on an AK they're accurate as well. In my own personal preference I'll take an AK over an AR since it has greater durability, maintainability, and kinetic impact as a general service rifle.

          If I need something that's highly accurate or a close-quarters weapon then I'll get the right tool for those jobs. After all thats what guns are: tools.

    • sawne128 [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      “my great grandfather’s bolt-action is more reliable than an AR15!”

      How is this a crazy thing to believe though? I don't really know about AR15s, but any bolt action rifle made in the last 150 years should close to 100% reliable. It seems to me that in the very best case an AR15 would be equally reliable, but feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong.