Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aarondhgraham" data-source="post: 1785002" data-attributes="member: 13337">About a year ago American Rifleman did a comparison of all of the .22 Tactical models.Naturally they were as biased towards the guns who spent lots of advertising money.Their review on the Mossberg was hilarious,,,You could tell they didn&#039;t want to give this gun high ratings,,,But by virtue of their testing it actually rated rather high against all of the others.It didn&#039;t jam,,,It was as accurate as any other,,,It ate all of the different ammunition brands/types.But they only ran a small ad,,,So while the gun wasn&#039;t ignored it was &quot;damned with faint praise&quot;.It&#039;s basically just a 702 Plinkster with a fancy stock and oversized magazine.But having owned a 702 for three years now,,,Mine (the standard stock version) has been a great performer,,,It&#039;s the rifle I take when I just want to burn some ammo and have lotsa fun.The &quot;tacti-kewl&quot; factor is all for show.Aarond.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aarondhgraham, post: 1785002, member: 13337"] About a year ago American Rifleman did a comparison of all of the .22 Tactical models. Naturally they were as biased towards the guns who spent lots of advertising money. Their review on the Mossberg was hilarious,,, You could tell they didn't want to give this gun high ratings,,, But by virtue of their testing it actually rated rather high against all of the others. It didn't jam,,, It was as accurate as any other,,, It ate all of the different ammunition brands/types. But they only ran a small ad,,, So while the gun wasn't ignored it was "damned with faint praise". It's basically just a 702 Plinkster with a fancy stock and oversized magazine. But having owned a 702 for three years now,,, Mine (the standard stock version) has been a great performer,,, It's the rifle I take when I just want to burn some ammo and have lotsa fun. The "tacti-kewl" factor is all for show. Aarond . [/QUOTE]

Verification