Traps are NOT gay!

File: 1468199914155.jpg (183KB, 1202x863px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1202x863px

Not even a shitpost?

>>34039674
OP ain't a faggot for once, assuming he gives me a source to this.

File: 4fb86fa865040_f_improf_600x457.gif.jpg (94KB, 600x457px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 600x457px

>>34041586
It's in the picture.
>The Most Dangerous Game: Advanced Mantrapping Techniques
Now post traps.

File: Mosin9159Carbine.jpg (76KB, 700x465px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 700x465px

The Mosin is NOT a piece of shit.
I keep seeing people suggesting that the Mosin is a bad rifle, and I just don't see what they mean.
Also, post more mosins or discuss how great they are.

File: 1431309234289.jpg (318KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 2048x1536px

>>34041644
Maybe it could be used as a lure, since it's so great.
Like this.

>>34041644
I feel like the shitting on mosin trend is started by those salty that the cat is out of the bag and surplus is drying up and want to drive off potential new buyers to slow the market.

>>34041839
The cat has been out of the bag for years. The mosin gets shit on because it's been overhyped for so long

>>34041644
>>34041839
Most Mosins are shit, though. They tend to be worn out and poorly made - which was okay when you could get them for $80 and a spam can of ammo to belch fire with for another $60, but there's no reason to get them now at the prices they go for, unless you find an immaculate and well-made one going for a reasonable price.

-QUALITY- Mosins are still undervalued, though, like the Finns, even though Classic is selling them for more than Pat Burns was.

One of my biggest regrets - I saw a M/28-76, on an antique receiver at that, for $800 years ago. The only thing that stopped me from buying it, besides my stupidity, was that they have .308 bores, not .311. At $800, that rifle was a -steal-

>>34041632
Where's the PDF.
Don't electronically jew me out of seeing some cash booby traps.

File: IMG_0153.jpg (1MB, 3621x1807px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3621x1807px

>>34042568
I'm sorry anon, but I don't have it, I only knew the source.
I have this though, look interesting, huh?