[Ace]

Let's face it there are few guns that I own that look like a million bucks. They are workhorses that I use to eat up ammo for the most part. So to me fit and finish is not as important as reliablity. Too me a good looking gun that doesn't shoot is absolutely wothless. And I don't understand the pepole who complain about machining marks on their perfectly working firearm. Granted if I were to drop 10000 on a shotgun I expect that thing to be perfect and it better shoot good. But I dont see that happening anytime soon. Either way I'd take reliability over asthetics any day.

 

[Ace]

There is a difference between loose and imperfect. I had a ruger that the tolerances weren't up to spec. But the thing ran like a champ. I looked inside and the slide had gouges and machining marks all ove rthe place but it did not affect the function at all. Same with an enfield I own. It was made in 1945 and by the looks of it, you'd think a kid filed the reciever out a solid block of metal, but it shoots dead nuts. I'm not talking about the guns that are falling apart here I'm talking about the ugly guns that may not be purdy but get the job done. Like your cz-52's and your SKS's. You look at them and you may see daylight between some parts, but they work and they are often more durable than your thousand dollar baby.

 

[Ace]

Those pictures look a lot better than the commanches I've seen in real life. The only drawback I've seen to owning one I believe is the resale value. They are like the kias of firearms.