If you have less than 1000 rounds through your gun then do not tell other people about the gun unless it shit the bed. You are a fag trying to a shill a gun you barely bought. Thats like having a car for 1 year with under 10,000 miles and saying its good and recommending it. Youre doing a disservice to yourself and those around you. Shoot it more
>>65167516>If you have less than 1000stopped reading right there. the word you're looking for is "fewer", not "less".
>>65167533it's cute when retards try to do grammar policing
>>65167593I wasn't complaining about your grammar; it is your vocabulary that needs work.
>>65167516What if it's a used gun with well over 1000 rounds through it but you personally put less than 1000 rounds through it?
>>65167598>I wasn't complaining about your grammar; it is your vocabulary that needs work.NTA, but people use "less than" in informal conversation all the time. Being pedantic about this doesn't mean you're smart.
>>65167705The thread is pedantic, most people don't have to take 1000 dicks up their ass before they can say they don't recommend it. Obviously OP thinks differently
>>65167752mild guffaw
>>65167516Oh look, it's OP sucking a 1000 cocks yet again. There's no symmetry in determinations retard. You can talk about any tool, be it a gun or a car, on a spectrum of confidence. Yeah it takes a lot to separate the absolute cream of the crop, but failures are much easier. If a gun jams up on the very first mag, and is a PITA to clear, then that tells you plenty. Basics like trigger feel or whatever don't change with round count. If you're doing serious accuracy shooting (very few people are) then yes most barrels tend to speed up for the first 50-200 rounds, but definitely not 1000, and you find that out objectively via chrono. If it promises 0.5-1moa then you should be able to determine whether it does that fairly quickly.It's perfectly fine to say "this gun is shit and I'm already seeking to sell it at 300 rounds" or "preliminarily I'm really loving this gun, no issues in first 400 is a good sign, but long term remains to be seen".
>>65167516Stupid ass take
>>65167516I don't know how many rounds I've put through it over the years but it's well over 1000 and I've only had 3 malfunctions with it, one was because of a brass catcher and the other two were magazine related. now let's see yours.
This is bait but I'll engageWhen I had never owned an AR before by half a mag I understood what I had read about trigger quality, gassing and the buffer. A light&tight trigger set and an H2, and 30 rounds later I was doing skull sized groups at 200 with a red dot.I'm not trying to say innate competency beats experience, not that a 6-8 inch group is competent, it doesn't and that isn't, but its a dead simple platform and a gun is a gun. When you know how to point it's all in the shooting.
>>65167598>I wasn't complaining about your grammar; it is your vocabulary that needs workWhoa, BURN!
You're all sick people.I hope you all get cancer. Fuck youse all.I put a curse upon you all.Fuck yamudda
>>65167516Actually agree completely. You can still recommend a gun for being cool and being enjoyable to shoot, but if you've barely shot it then you cant really make qualitative judgements about it in terms of reliability or performance. Reminds me of how the pre-EM SR25s and early M110s had a bad reputation among their users for being unreliable and having an embarrassing barrel life, while in the civilian sphere they've always been beyond reproach; because civs who own KAC precision rifles aren't going to risk scratching the finish on their investment, let alone magdumping them to the extent the rifling or throat burns out.
>>65167516OP is too poor for collector guns.
tldr and probably indian(curry) as wellanyway what gun would Marco White use?
>>65169082>but if you've barely shot it then you cant really make qualitative judgements about it in terms of reliability or performanceFirst: Yes you can, just with larger uncertainty bars, which then shrink the more you use it. At 300 rounds though you can already make some judgements. In particular:Second: I'm not sure quite the right wording, but I think you're making mistake in terms of, I dunno, "symmetry of assessment". Ie, the difference in difficulty between "proving a positive" and "proving a negative". Or maybe sorta>All good guns share the same fundamentals, but a gun can be broken/shit in an large variety of unique ways? Basically though if like >>65168798 says you are a decent shooter, you've shot lots of other guns a lot, you pick up a gun and after a few mags you're doing 1-2moa at a few hundred yards consistently, you're already in a position to judge that at least the basics of the gun are clearly right. It's CAPABLE of good performance, you can't say how the reliability will be over 2000 rounds of course, but you can say it's not fundamentally fucked. You can definitely make judgements about the basic manual of arms and ergos, not in situations you haven't tried yet or extreme conditions or whatever but the basics work.Whereas if the gun jams on the first round and then jams regularly over a few mags of different ammo, and you've done a field breakdown before hand and done all the recommended initial cleaning and so on, and it's doing like 8moa no matter what, well you don't need thousands of rounds to determine it's either shit or a lemon. A good gun shouldn't do that. You'll know right away how the trigger is and how fits you overall.If you see highly variable performance that then is a trickier message. Some guns particularly older ones are a lot of fun but picky eaters. So legit yeah now you may need to spend some real time with it. But you'll still know a lot about it after a few mags.
>>65167598>I wasn't complaining about your grammar; it is your vocabulary that needs work.The only vocabulary I need to know is YOU ARE A FAGGOT AND PROBABLY BROWN LOL
what if the ammunition is prohibitively expensive? I put 5-10 rounds through my magnum every range trip because shooting a whole box of that shit in one sitting is too much, man.
>>65167598>/k/ - retarded, pedantic, useless, prissy faggots
>>65170246Illiteracy is for niggers.
