Author Topic: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)  (Read 61756 times)

Hazcat

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10457
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #110 on: March 06, 2009, 10:10:00 AM »
That'll put a lot of AK's on the table!

While I dropped over a grand on my AR, I got a MAK 90 years ago for $169, 30 rnd clips for $4.50 ea..  With two grand on the table I might still buy the AK, a BUNCH of ammo, and more training...  Rifles are only as good as they guy carrying it.  Mighty, mighty few are as good as they think they are.







pet peeve ;)
All tipoes and misspelings are copi-righted.  Pleeze do not reuse without ritten persimmons  :D

Badgersmilk

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #111 on: March 06, 2009, 10:13:45 AM »
That IS a bad habbit!  Da$% TV! ;D

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #112 on: March 06, 2009, 11:37:24 AM »
Oh yeah!  The barrels kinda long, but wouldnt a SVD / Draganov fit in here?  Yeah, yeah, yeah, everybody calls it a sniper rifle, BUT!  Now we're talking about all kinds of variants and mods. with all the others guns listed too.  Put on a 20" barrel, 20 round clip, and BAM!!!



Still...  "Mosin Nagant"  Somebody jump all over that!

The SVD was DESIGNED as a SNIPER rifle. During WWII the Soviets fielded thousands of snipers, after the war they did a very thorough study of sniper performance and found that, most shots were inside 600 yards, quick follow up shots were needed for multiple targets, center of mass was a more likely target than head shots, They came to several other conclusions that I can not recall off the top of my head, but the body of knowledge obtained was all given to arms design Bureaus and incorporated into the sniper specific SVD "Dragonov". Have you ever handled one ? They are heavy and to long to be handy as a "battle rifle" They DO how ever do satisfactory work in their designed role. Oddly enough one conclusion of that study was that the 1890's era 7.62X54 cartridge was still more than adequate and it is still in use today having served longer than the .50 BMG OR the .45ACP. 

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #113 on: March 06, 2009, 11:42:18 AM »
That IS a bad habbit!  Da$% TV! ;D

He He He,   HE  SAID "CLIP".   ;D

Badgersmilk, You might want "clip" that out  ;D

Badgersmilk

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #114 on: March 06, 2009, 01:44:44 PM »
A new contender?  Not really a "battlerifle".

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1381517/auto_assault_12/

175 yards is probably light for even home defense though, ???  ::)

tombogan, never been lucky enough to even see one in person.  Arent they all 7.62X54 though?  If were offering up variants and mod.ed rifles as options an SVD with a short barrel and bigger clip fits the bill.  PRETTY GOOD!


Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #115 on: Today at 03:46:57 PM »

Badgersmilk

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #115 on: March 06, 2009, 01:59:41 PM »
Had to throw "clip" in there again.  Couldnt help it! ;D

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #116 on: March 06, 2009, 02:03:27 PM »
A new contender?  Not really a "battlerifle".

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1381517/auto_assault_12/

175 yards is probably light for even home defense though, ???  ::)

tombogan, never been lucky enough to even see one in person.  Arent they all 7.62X54 though?  If were offering up variants and mod.ed rifles as options an SVD with a short barrel and bigger clip fits the bill.  PRETTY GOOD!



 ;D Yes they are, spell check doesn't help with numbers when you hit the wrong key   ;D I went back and fixed it.

AA12 has been around since the late 70's / early 80's never seemed to take off though
There's the Saiga, lot less expensive

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/beta/storecategory95.aspx

shooter32

  • shooter32
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2945
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #117 on: March 06, 2009, 02:04:49 PM »
Had to throw "clip" in there again.  Couldnt help it! ;D

OOO NO  :o

Haz is going to flip out ;D
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. ~ Gerald Ford - August 12, 1974

Hazcat

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10457
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #118 on: March 06, 2009, 02:18:10 PM »
Had to throw "clip" in there again.  Couldnt help it! ;D

Badger!  You're gonna be on my sh!t list!  >:(
All tipoes and misspelings are copi-righted.  Pleeze do not reuse without ritten persimmons  :D

Badgersmilk

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #119 on: March 06, 2009, 03:23:39 PM »
I blame it all on to many episodes of A-team & Magnum as a kid! :P

No comments on the Mosin yet??  It WAS a "battle rifle" you know!  No chrome lined barrel, but you can buy the gun for the same price as a box of good ammo!  And supremely balanced  Acurate and powerfull enough at ANY range to easily compete with anything anyone here has, the 36 and 44 were classified as carbines, so there's a size to fit everyones taste!

No big supporters of the G3 or SKS either?  Come on people, think outside the box!  SAW, M60, BAR, dont just follow the leader!

The saiga...  I'm not sure I can wrap my brain around what a AK 12 guage would really be like to shoot!?!? Certainly an original thought though!

That thing is just cool!  The more I look at it the more I like it.  Anybody got one?  Has to be fun!  Hmm, Maybe for next squirrel season.


 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk