Jump to content

Hatsan Escort MPA


thepasty
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh really? Or are you just over reacting again? I suggest you have a lie down tulip, don't want you getting all flustered this close to bed time. You might have nightmares about scary men with black guns shooting more things than you.

 

 

 

I doubt anyone with spelling as atrocious as yours would be considered a 'snob' in any circles, so relax.

 

Well thank god for that, I thought I was on a public forum and stupidly did not spell check. However, Salty thank for your input, I now feel much better after reading your kind comment. I don't think I will bother to spell check in the future because of it though. :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

no need to close it, just remove all the tripe thats spoiled what could of been a good informative thread.... its a real shame that people cant hold back on the opinions (NOT facts) and feel the need to **** all over someone else interest just because they dont agree with it.

 

At no point did anyone ask whether anyone thought the modern style of gun was acceptable or not yet a few felt the need to spote off and answer a question that was never asked or indeed there view never asked for either.

 

Anyway... yesterday out of interest and to get some insight into what the public really think I did a quick survey (around 20 people) in the local shop, no one I asked were holders of firearms or shot in any way. I had two pics, one of a traditional style gun and one of the Hatsan MPA.... the only question I asked them was "what do you think of these two guns?"

 

Of cause I got some out there replies but interestingly no one said anything about the MPA looking more aggressive or menacing, the general out come was the traditional looked old and the MPA looked modern.

 

Soooo whos got the problem... the public or the narrow minded among us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no need to close it, just remove all the tripe thats spoiled what could of been a good informative thread.... its a real shame that people cant hold back on the opinions (NOT facts) and feel the need to **** all over someone else interest just because they dont agree with it.

 

At no point did anyone ask whether anyone thought the modern style of gun was acceptable or not yet a few felt the need to spote off and answer a question that was never asked or indeed there view never asked for either.

 

Anyway... yesterday out of interest and to get some insight into what the public really think I did a quick survey (around 20 people) in the local shop, no one I asked were holders of firearms or shot in any way. I had two pics, one of a traditional style gun and one of the Hatsan MPA.... the only question I asked them was "what do you think of these two guns?"

 

Of cause I got some out there replies but interestingly no one said anything about the MPA looking more aggressive or menacing, the general out come was the traditional looked old and the MPA looked modern.

 

Soooo whos got the problem... the public or the narrow minded among us?

 

Ok go out and buy one you asked whether it was a good gun for clays and pigeon shooting you got the answer, that it will go bang well some of the time being a hatsan and you got a but. You don't like the but so just go ahead and get one you will get what you want which is to have a tactical looking gun, you will be looked down on at clay shoots and treated with caution and in the field you will run the increased risk of people calling the old bill but why keep going on about snobbery and the sport. Personally if this thread is anything to go by I have a suspicion why you have a dodgy right wrist ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about thepasty, but if somebody was more concerned by the look of the gun than by how safe and well i shot, Then i don't really want to shoot with that person anyway.

 

But that's the point your missing, rightly or wrongly most people won't want to shoot with you anyway, perhaps you should all meet together at a clay shoot and have it arranged with the club so you can offer doubters a few shots with the guns in question? Once people have a go it might change their tune a bit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the barrel is not rifled, what is the need for the very large (ak47ish) type front sight? would this not hinder its practical use on the clays / pigeons anyway?

 

my tuppence worth - fill your boots if you want one, but the points that have been made re: public perception (right or not) are spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has already and the negative public "perception" of the modern style doesnt seem to be the case... as I proved above.

 

Infact some even mentioned that they were more familiar with the modern style as thats what they see most in the media.... still there was no mention of anyone feeling more threatened by the modern style.

 

One old boy said "I dont care for either, all guns scare me..."

 

Has anyone else done a similar survey or the like to back up their opinion on public views?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, missed that!, just had a look and i have got to be honest i would go down that route if you really want it to be a usable tool.

 

I have not seen any study, but i would say that the majority of people who shoot would hold this general perception about tactical weapons. i personally would not want to use it in the field, IMHO i would rather run into a member of the public in the countryside with something a little more discreet (traditional looking). the public are largely ignorant and scared of guns, I wouldn't want to fuel this with something that looked very 'military'.

 

I think it would also change the response from the police if called, the whole sight arrangement makes it look like some sort of SLR, (for no appreciable benefit in use for clays / pigeon shooting).

 

I know its only a subtle difference but removing both of the daft sights would make it a more usable tool, and look less like a military weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know its only a subtle difference but removing both of the daft sights would make it a more usable tool, and look less like a military weapon.

 

but that is why he is buying it, not because of shooting benefits but because the look is the one he wants when marching about the countryside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but that is why he is buying it, not because of shooting benefits but because the look is the one he wants when marching about the countryside.

 

well that's fair enough but then at least lets not pretend it will be a usefull tool for clays / pigeon shooting when equipped with SLR type sights! i'm sure it would be fun, and very good for PSG though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...