Arsenal SGL21 or FN SLP HELP!!!

gunjunky · Oct 18, 2012

I know this was not on your list but...If I had your collection I would ad the Sig 556R, it uses the mags and ammo you have but is a MUCH nicer platform to launch the rounds IMHO. Check it out you will not be sorry you have this rifle and I think it will be one of the first to go away if we start to ban guns again.

The SLP is a great 12 ga and there is a Winchester version as I am sure you are aware. However, for the money spent I like the
the Mossberg 930 SPX. At about 1/2 the money of the FN you get a 12 ga auto with self adjusting gas system and excellent sights.

Blitzkrieg · Oct 18, 2012

22many said:
Really? So now your the expert on what I have or haven't done? Nice to see you can make that assessment.....

For half the money you can buy a saiga 12. Or is that not a "properly loaded, combat designed, quality semi auto 12 ga" good enough for ya?

Yes you can buy a saiga.. with that huge projecting magazine and in reality no faster reload, maybe slower if you use speedloader tubes

22many · Oct 18, 2012

Blitzkrieg said:
Yes you can buy a saiga.. with that huge projecting magazine and in reality no faster reload, maybe slower if you use speedloader tubes

And I can deal with that for a savings of close to $500. Even the prices of the saiga 12 I have a hard time paying. I mean cmon, it's Just a shotgun.

Blitzkrieg · Oct 18, 2012

22many said:
And I can deal with that for a savings of close to $500. Even the prices of the saiga 12 I have a hard time paying. I mean cmon, it's Just a shotgun.

Each to their own.. I prefer the sleek FN with no mag in the way so I can shoot prone/barracade. I have AKs but with them you can pack 10 or 20 rd mags for prone shooting

raftman · Oct 18, 2012

22many said:
I don't know where you are looking but all of the rifles you mentioned can be had for less than a arsenal. Just because it's used doesn't mean it's any less of a rifle. In fact, I just finished up building 3 yugo milled, matching numbers, underfolders for around $300 apiece.

I think you misunderstood my post. What I suggested was there are better rifles than the Arsenal, but they will cost more money, by extension implying that anything costs less will likely also be a lesser product. That is, I am aware that all of the rifles I listed can be had less than an Arsenal, but I also believe they are inferior. The lesser reputation of Century rifles doesn't come entirely from the fact that they're assembled with used surplus parts, but mostly from the shoddy quality control used throughout the assembly process: canted sights, gas blocks, sloppy mag wells. Other differences include things inferior barrels with probably a third the useful life of the cold hammer forged chrome-lined barrels you see on Arsenal rifles.

22many · Oct 19, 2012

raftman said:
I think you misunderstood my post. What I suggested was there are better rifles than the Arsenal, but they will cost more money, by extension implying that anything costs less will likely also be a lesser product. That is, I am aware that all of the rifles I listed can be had less than an Arsenal, but I also believe they are inferior. The lesser reputation of Century rifles doesn't come entirely from the fact that they're assembled with used surplus parts, but mostly from the shoddy quality control used throughout the
assembly process: canted sights, gas blocks, sloppy mag wells. Other differences include things inferior barrels with probably a third the useful life of the cold hammer forged chrome-lined barrels you see on Arsenal rifles.

I agree with you on century rifles being sloppy. I have a couple and none of the numbers match and could be better built. But, there are other rifles out there that are available for cheaper that, IMO, are better built. If you have to ask then you haven't done your ak homework.

As blitz said in a earlier post. To each their own.....

raftman · Oct 19, 2012

22many said:
... If you have to ask then you haven't done your ak homework.

To be fair, I didn't ask.

I think it may be a matter of criteria. For example, some might argue something like the MAK 90 is better. As a left-handed shooter, the hideous MAK 90 thumbhole stock is almost completely unusable, and rather uncomfortable shooting right-handed as well. A conversion to standard AK configuration would add considerably to the cost. The lack of a threaded muzzle counts against it as well. Not a fan of the additional (and unnecessary) weight that comes with a thicker receiver (which IMO doesn't provide any quantifiable benefits). Some people may not view it the same way.

22many · Oct 19, 2012

raftman said:
To be fair, I didn't ask.

I think it may be a matter of criteria. For example, some might argue something like the MAK 90 is better. As a left-handed shooter, the hideous MAK 90 thumbhole stock is almost completely unusable, and rather uncomfortable shooting right-handed as well. A conversion to standard AK configuration would add considerably to the cost. The lack of a threaded
muzzle counts against it as well. Not a fan of the additional (and unnecessary) weight that comes with a thicker receiver (which IMO doesn't provide any quantifiable benefits). Some people may not view it the same way.

Usually people that are interested in buying a ak doesn't want the mak90 thumbhole stock anyways. So swapping it out it a non issue. Furniture for ak can be had pretty cheaply (unless you want ironwood). There are so many bolt on stocks out there for the ak that you have a wide selection to shoos from. The fact of the muzzle nut, yeah, nonexistent. Threading one is fairly cheap and a lack of one has never deterred me from buying a quality rifle. As far as receivers, you may not need the 1.5 (actually 1.6 but whatever) but we as humans want to get the best we can for our money. If it came down the the same rifle but on was built on a 1mm and the other on a 1.6 receiver then, well, we all know what we would choose.

Either way, it comes down to what you want for your money.

mouse · Oct 19, 2012

Hello everyone. Just wanted to say I went with the FN SLP. Its simply beautiful. A real hero's gun. Thanks for all your input and advice.

raftman · Oct 19, 2012

As far as receivers, you may not need the 1.5 (actually 1.6 but whatever) but we as humans want to get the best we can for our money. If it came down the the same rifle but on was built on a 1mm and the other on a 1.6 receiver then, well, we all know what we would choose.

Honestly I am not sure I would bother with a 1.6, what with the weight increase and all. I have had AK's with the thicker stamped receivers, and even a few with milled receivers; if I could keep just one, I'd still lean towards the SGL-21. I've never seen an AK receiver wear out, and I think what barrel is used would have more bearing on the rifle's useful life than receiver thickness.

All in all, you are right in that it largely comes down to preference, in my case the SGL-21 has everything I want in an AK, nothing that I don't, and came at a price I was able to afford and willing to pay.