The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Tactical Rifle & Carbine => Topic started by: warhawke on October 04, 2007, 11:07:23 PM

Title: Real rifles
Post by: warhawke on October 04, 2007, 11:07:23 PM
This will be short as I busted my typing hand.

I don't get SG as my cable co. doesn't carry it and I'm too broke (and cheap) for a dish, but here on the website you guys always seem to harp on the mouseguns. Now "high-tech" rifles are fine (except for AR's which I have no use for, not liking junk), but I want to see REAL rifles! Lets see the FN-FAL's, the PTR-91's and the M-1A's, you know, rifles for real men, not girlymen.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: gunman42782 on October 05, 2007, 04:27:55 AM
There are a whole lot of dead terrorists that could argue with you about the AR not being a "mans" rifle!  As for it being "junk", my two ARs are the funnest guns I have ever owned, and I have owned a lot.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: Hazcat on October 05, 2007, 06:24:20 AM
(except for AR's which I have no use for, not liking junk)

INCOMING!! :o
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: CLP on October 05, 2007, 07:09:12 AM
This will be short as I busted my typing hand.

I don't get SG as my cable co. doesn't carry it and I'm too broke (and cheap) for a dish, but here on the website you guys always seem to harp on the mouseguns. Now "high-tech" rifles are fine (except for AR's which I have no use for, not liking junk), but I want to see REAL rifles! Lets see the FN-FAL's, the PTR-91's and the M-1A's, you know, rifles for real men, not girlymen.

Warhawke,
  I used to feel exactly like you.  In 94 I was forced to buy a Colt HBAR full dressed because of the AWB.  It was a safe queen until a couple years ago.  Today with ammo prices and reloading the 223's are much more economical (half the powder).  I recently bought a S&W MP15
and really like it.  The quality and workmanship better than my M1A.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: Bidah on October 05, 2007, 10:26:12 AM
(except for AR's which I have no use for, not liking junk)

INCOMING!! :o

I will second that HazCat..  :o :o

Let me see.  FN-FAL, HK91, and the Cetme would all be considered High Tech rifles, depending on what time period you are looking at.  I do see a common theme here though.  .308 cartridges all.  Is this more of an issue with the rifle itself, or the round that it shoots?  Heck I have an AR-10 (.308), so is that included?

Sorry, I just could not help myself.

-Bidah
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: ratcatcher55 on October 05, 2007, 03:05:59 PM
but I want to see REAL rifles! Lets see the FN-FAL's, the PTR-91's and the M-1A's, you know, rifles for real men, not girlymen.

You funny guy!

How about these?
http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/semi-auto/SLR-semi.html

I'd love to have one, but I just can't afford it.

Heck, my wife doesn't drive her car much anymore!
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: warhawke on October 05, 2007, 11:34:20 PM
Heck I have an AR-10 (.308), so is that included?


-Bidah

No, cause an AR in any other caliber stinks just as much!
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: Bidah on October 06, 2007, 09:01:58 AM
Well Warhawke, at least we now know where you stand.  You do not like the AR platform, as it isn't a real rifle.

I would appreciate it, as I am sure some others would as well, if you simply would have stated that you would like to see more done on the site with some other rifles, such as an FN-FAL (go DSA!!), PTR-91 or the venerable M1A.  There was no need to put out there your feelings about our "junk".  If you do not like them, fine, I am ok with that. Have you tried them?  Perhaps you could offer some constructive criticism on what you did not like about AR's, in another thread, so that it can be discussed, instead of dissed..  ::)

I am not here to please you, or anyone else for that matter. I am here to enjoy the place, and open my eyes to some other firearms that I may not have considered.  I have even went out and got some of them to try for myself.  If I end up no liking them, no harm, no foul.

Better yet, post that you would like to see in the forum that MB has setup for suggestions, or that you would like to see more shows on those subjects.  That way he is sure to see it.

-Bidah
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: JohnJacobH on October 06, 2007, 04:07:23 PM


How about these?
http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/semi-auto/SLR-semi.html



Mmmmmm, BAR's! Mmmmmmm

The comforting burp of a BAR off my flank as the [deleted] head for the hills.

(Can't remember who wrote that)

Best regards,
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: 2HOW on October 07, 2007, 04:46:08 PM
Well warhawke, at least we know your  either a poser or a troll . Or worse just a jackass, who has no idea what hes talkin about. (sorry i had to say that) . be gone you idiot
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: warhawke on October 08, 2007, 11:06:31 PM
Actually I'm neither a poser nor a troll, as for jackass. . .been said before, I leave that to you, of course your opinion of me matters little.

As for my experience with the AR's, I fired my first on in 1978 (original Colt no forward assist) and in the last almost 30 years I've fired dozens. Rifles, carbines, A-1's, A-2's and just about everything but the M-4. I even fired an original Sudanese AR-10 as well as several current versions. I've seen them work without a hitch and I've seen then jamming up and down the line. Heck, I've cleaned more AR's than most guys have ever held.

What's wrong with them? I'll skip the gas system dumping carbon into the action as that has been hashed out ad nauseam. We could talk about the fact that most people don't realize that the action works like a pneumatic piston, or the relationship between the gas rings and gas flow out of the bolt-head and how it impacts reliability. We could talk about the fact that while the locking provide 230% of required strength collectively, individually they are weak and prone to damage from abrasion. We could talk about the weak springs throughout, the extractor which is weak and too small, the lack of mass in the fire control parts which adds to the reliability problems.

I don't think I'll go on, I've been dealing with the AR longer than most of those kids in the sandbox have been alive. I've seen enough ink spilled over them to have grow tired of the subject. If you like them fine, I hope you never have to bet your life on one. Myself, I'll stick to weapons that work, without needing to keep them practically sterile. I also prefer something that kills quickly, as someone once said; "I ain't got time for 'em to bleed to death".               
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: USSA-1 on October 09, 2007, 01:28:46 PM
Okay guys, deep six the personal comments.

Discussions and personal opinions are welcome.  Personal attacks are not.

Quote
the lack of mass in the fire control parts which adds to the reliability problems.


Warhawke, I was with you until this.  Care to elaborate?  I haven't heard this one before.

Quote
I also prefer something that kills quickly

Anything will kill quickly if you do your part.  A 223 in heart is better than a 308 in the arm.

Erik
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: CLP on October 09, 2007, 03:00:58 PM
Warhawke,
  I can agree with you on the extractor, but there are easy fixes for that.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: warhawke on October 09, 2007, 04:38:42 PM
Warhawke,
  I can agree with you on the extractor, but there are easy fixes for that.
CLP


If it had been designed better it would need fixing!


"the lack of mass in the fire control parts which adds to the reliability problems."

Warhawke, I was with you until this.  Care to elaborate?  I haven't heard this one before.

Erik Lund

Pull the trigger parts from an AR, an AK, M-1 ect. and compare the size and weight, the mass of the parts in other words. Just like the bullet, more mass means it's harder to stop once it's moving. Heavy parts take more force to move and are thus harder to stop moving once they start, they also require require heavier springs which are harder to damage and work better against resistance from dirt and debris. The lighter parts of the AR's, while reducing the weight of the weapon and being easier to make into a target grade trigger, are more easily jammed by dirt and debris and use lighter springs which themselves are more easily damaged. I've seen plenty of cracked sears, disconnectors and even a couple cracked hammers on AR's, I had an M-16 issued to me in the army which kept bending the disconnect spring (the trigger was cracked and bent behind the pin but not enough to notice until we pulled it out), this caused the weapon to FTF until you tried to apply the safety, then it would fire. The tighter tolerances of the AR trigger system adds greatly to this problem by giving the dirt and fouling nowhere to go and ensuring that even if the parts move the material will rub and scrape causing extra wear and tear on the parts.

The AK trigger group (like the M-1 Garand on which it is based) is full of big heavy parts and springs which are very hard to break and pay little attention to dirt and debris. They also add weight and bulk to the weapon and are difficult to modify to provide a good crisp trigger pull.

Look, the AK was designed to spit bullets, it didn't have to accurate it just had to work under any conditions and in the hands of ignorant peasants. The AR-15 was designed to meet some very specific requirements for the US Air Force. The AR was supposed to be a light weight, flat-shooting replacement for the M-1 Carbine. It was also designed to provide MINIMAL penetration against hard and semi-hard targets, like aircraft. The Air Force had discovered in WWII that security forces could do as much damage attempting to protect the aircraft as the enemy if the bad guys got on the flight line (the SAS noted this during operations in the western desert when they were attacking Rommel's airfields). The 5.56 M-193 did minimal damage because the bullets would break up on the skin of the aircraft and the tiny particles wouldn't penetrate very much. Also the accuracy of the weapon would help prevent hitting the plane in the first place. The Army and Marine Corps had the M-16 rammed down their throats by the DoD by people who had no understanding of small arms employment and the brass had burned up too much political capital fighting over idiotic stuff like different boots and band equipment.

Once the M-16 came into service, the brass had little choice but to get behind it. They came up with all kinds of excuses for why the M-16 was adopted, from the light weight to the "better to wound than kill" BS they spouted (that is only true when you are fighting people who medi-vac during the battle, which none of Americas enemies did, then or now). They couldn't say "This thing sucks but the Sec-Def made us adopt it". Even in 1968, when the Army considered total replacement with the AR-18, political considerations forced them to try to get the M-16 to work instead, because nobody wanted to go to Congress and explain why troops were dying in the field because of the M-16. Even now the military is moving heaven and earth to keep from admitting that the M-16 family of weapons is ill-suited for general purpose use in the field, look at the controversy over the M-4 procurement and how much effort it took to get a simple head to head test against the SCAR and the H&K-416. The military brass is afraid, once again, that they will have to explain why our troops are using the M-16/M-4 when there are much better weapons available.

The M-16 has been with us for 50 years because of politics! A 50 year legacy of failure and death, of men and women who were injured and killed because their weapons failed when needed most. It makes me want to scream when I hear people defending this weapon. Like when the 507th Maintenance company got tore up (the unit Jessica Lynch was in) and everybody blamed poor weapons maintenance, even though the same thing has been happening since the adoption of the weapon, even though identical problems have occurred with combat units and even Navy Seals and Army Special Forces (and I dare anyone to tell THEM that their problems were due to poor maintenance). It especially grates me when the people criticizing the troops are arm-chair commandos who have never tried keeping an M-16 clean and functioning in the field.

Once again, if you have a different opinion, fine. If you've had different experiences (assuming you've had them somewhere other than a nice neat range or your armchair), again, fine. I however have enough knowledge and experience otherwise to have my own opinions and to be willing to defend them against anyone. 
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: mnshooter on October 09, 2007, 07:53:13 PM
I'm thinking you meant: "If it had been designed better, it would not need fixing. 
There is a lot of validity to your comments regarding the politics attached to the M16.
Now if we can all cease the personal attacks, we'll continue to enjoy this fine site.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: JohnJacobH on October 09, 2007, 09:47:34 PM

The M-16 has been with us for 50 years because of politics! A 50 year legacy of failure and death, of men and women who were injured and killed because their weapons failed when needed most. It makes me want to scream when I hear people defending this weapon. Like when the 507th Maintenance company got tore up (the unit Jessica Lynch was in) and everybody blamed poor weapons maintenance, even though the same thing has been happening since the adoption of the weapon, even though identical problems have occurred with combat units and even Navy Seals and Army Special Forces (and I dare anyone to tell THEM that their problems were due to poor maintenance). It especially grates me when the people criticizing the troops are arm-chair commandos who have never tried keeping an M-16 clean and functioning in the field.

 


Warhawke;

These are good points and have much truth, but a bigger truth is that some things never change.

The rule has always been (and always will be ) :

Never let the sun set on a dirty gun.

Back in the Black Powder days the hydroscopic characteristics of the residue would rust the holy heck out of everything, then you
had the wonderful corrosive primers of the WWI era (straight through to WWII as I understand in some instances) and now
you have the fiddly jewel movement of a inordinately precise machine that needs constant attention.

Do they still teach the troops to field strip and reassemble their weapons blindfolded? (Even better, do the tactical instruction
courses cover that topic?)

If I recall correctly even Clyde Darrow of Bonnie and Clyde fame religiously cleaned his 1911A1 every night. He was in a bunch
of gunfights and won most of them right to the end.  Was it because he was a better shot or a more disciplined fighter?

The ways of the military have always been and always will be mysterious and right now most of our troops prevail most of the time with better training, better equipment and better discipline than their opponents.

Should we do some of the things we do? Probably not. Will anyone listen until the feathers hit the fan? Probably not.

A marginal weapon in the hands of skilled troops will always be used to better effect than a superior weapon in the hands
of marginal troops.

Hope this helps.

Have you had an opportunity to examine the Benelli Inertial Bolt setup? Everything I have heard has really excited me.

Best regards,
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: m25operator on October 09, 2007, 09:58:53 PM
I guess I'll stick my toes in the water here. It sounds more like caliber selection than weapon selection on one point, reliability versus accuracy on another, adaptability to the situation on another.

Well here go's. I've owned ar15's and still do, M1a's and still do, M1 garands but don't now, ak47's not now, sks's and still do, HK91-don't now, M1 carbine - not now, enfield smle's mk1 and mk2, o3a3's - still do.

None are select fire.

Reliability for all 100% with decent ammo, not match but good surplus.

Accuracy, ar15 1st by a hair, not including my match gun, issue barrels and under 300 yards.

2nd my M1a service rifle, consistently shoot 89% possible score with czech 147 ball surplus, jumps to 94% with US Lake City match 168grn. Beats the 5.56 hands down beyond 300 yards.

3rd my a303, 2 minute gun, but holds it way out there.

4th M1 garand, 2.5 minute gun and no complaint.

5th Hk91 2.5 minute gun, mainlydue to trigger and less than perfect sight picture or adjustments.

6th Sks, 3 minute gun, but holds it out to 500 meters, 15 inches does not sound great, but from a 200 dollar rifle with a crappy trigger and poor sights using chinese milsurp ball, very usable.

7th Ak47 3.5 to 4 minute gun, I like ak triggers, long and light, better than most issue triggers for close fast work, and not bad for careful application.

I would not feel under gunned with any of the above but concessions have to made about caliber. 5.56 allows us to carry many rounds into the field, but does not have the penetration against things bad guys like to hide behind. ( good guys too ) but on a raw target unprotected, yeah it works just fine. On just about any hit on a human it makes bad juju. Head, torso or extremities.

The 7.62 x 39 round is no joke, I shot a match that the first 5 places were taken with sks's and ak's due to penetration, at the last part of the run, you had 20 steel targets propped up on logs( that you could not see, because the grass was too high )
and with the 5.56 your normal aiming point was into the grass for a center of mass hit, that round would not penetrate the logs to reach the steel. But boy did that 7.62x39.

I'm a big fan of the .308 and 30.06, it will do both jobs, but at a cost of weight, ammo count +  weight, I've carried the M1a's and Garands in the field, and you want to sling it as soon as possible, bless you guys who carried them for real, ready for action, it gets old fast. If you and your units bacon is on the line, do what you gotta do. I do certainly like a rifle I count on to 600 meters, to hit hard and accurate. The latest designated marksman m4's do that with the mk77 ammo.

The extractor on an ar15 compared to the rimsize is just as robust as it's counter parts.  I too like the gas piston system versus the direct gas pressure on the bolt, but guess what, you can get that if you want, and will probably be the next evolution of the AR platform, that is the coolest thing about AR's, kind of like chevrolets small block engines, what ever you don't like can be remedied. Caliber, trigger pull, sighting systems, stock configurations, options for sighting or lighting, bipods and a host of other options. You can't get that on a Garand or a303. Just now coming out for the M1a, Ak47, and even the Sks. But it can be had.

As to the design, remember Eugen Stoner built the rifle for extruded powder and 500 rpm, it was the dod, who said at the last minute, it needs to use ball powder ( changing the burn time to put more fouling in the gas tube ) and 650 rpm. It was designed wonderfully. Unlike the other guns I have mentioned, it has evolved, only a few of the previously mentioned rifles have to any degree. The HK91/93 had the sniper versions with better sighting systems and trigger. Only recently have the M1a's been paid attention to, I think mainly because the people in the sand box have issues with penetration with the 5.56. I for one am glad to see the m14 come back to life. ( except for the milsurp ammo drying up, but if our guys can use it, go for it and if they run out, I'll send em my stash  ).

As to the mass of the fire control, it is dimunitive to match the size and caliber of the rifle. Granted, the 5.56 has plenty of pressure, but all things considered, it does not take a big hammer and spring to set off primers, and the buffer spring is humongus compared to any of the above mentioned firearms. They also do not have a buffer at all.

You posed a lot of scenarios, in my home it's 12 guage and 9mm first to allow me to get to my AR15, if I gotta go play with some notice my M1a will be there, along with the aforementioned. My sks with the 75 round drum, ( works flawlessly) also has it's place. My M40a3 also has it's place as does my 26" match AR built for 80 grn vld Berger bullets. 800 meter mouse gun. I would definitely like to have an AR in 7.62x39 that accepts AK mags to complete the armory.

A firearm choice has always been built on reliability , power, distance to the target, size of the target, how many targets could there be, accuracy requirement, conditions of deployment, ( needs are different in a tank than out of one ) and what are you personally willing to carry.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: USSA-1 on October 10, 2007, 10:00:18 AM
Warhawke,
 
Quote
  ...are more easily jammed by dirt and debris and use lighter springs which themselves are more easily damaged.


In my experience, I've never seen anything in the fire control system jam from dirt or debris, but I, like you, have seen parts in the fire control system break.  Mostly disconnectors and hammer springs.  Never saw a trigger or hammer break, but I'm sure it's happened.

Quote
The tighter tolerances of the AR trigger system adds greatly to this problem by giving the dirt and fouling nowhere to go and ensuring that even if the parts move the material will rub and scrape causing extra wear and tear on the parts.

There is plenty of clearance at the bottom of the fire control section for dirt and debris (D&D) to collect, but I've never really had a problem with much accumulation in this area.  The only way for D&D to get into that area is through the trigger area (assuming the rifle is closed up.)  I'm not saying it can't happen, only that I've never experienced it and I've been had my rifle down in some pretty nasty stuff.  About the only D&D that has caused my a problem in my fire control system is a blown primer that got stuck under the trigger.  It prevented the trigger from releasing the hammer, effectively causing the rifle not to fire.

The only area in the fire control system that is susceptable to wear are the tiny areas on the sides of the hammer and trigger that fit snugly against the side of the receiver.  The possibility of D&D getting into those areas is very remote for the same reason you've already stated.  The tolerances in those areas are very tight.  I've never seen anything other than the finest particules of dust get into those areas. 

I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you on this issue.  My experiences just do not relate to yours.

Quote
They also add weight and bulk to the weapon and are difficult to modify to provide a good crisp trigger pull.

Are you raising this issue as a good point or bad point?  I would think that extra weight and and heavier trigger pulls would be a bad point, but I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with respect to this statement.

Quote
It was also designed to provide MINIMAL penetration against hard and semi-hard targets, like aircraft.

Okay, makes sense to me.

Quote
from the light weight to the "better to wound than kill" BS they spouted (that is only true when you are fighting people who medi-vac during the battle, which none of Americas enemies did, then or now).


The premier "enemy" of the United States was the Soviet Union, which did and still does place a very high regard on recovering and treating it's wounded soldiers.  When debating the merits of this philosophy its important to remember that nearly all weapon systems and strategic planning were based on an eventual confrontation with the Soviet Union.  Taken in this context, this was a very valid argument.

Quote
Even now the military is moving heaven and earth to keep from admitting that the M-16 family of weapons is ill-suited for general purpose use in the field, look at the controversy over the M-4 procurement and how much effort it took to get a simple head to head test against the SCAR and the H&K-416. The military brass is afraid, once again, that they will have to explain why our troops are using the M-16/M-4 when there are much better weapons available.

I can say from personal knowledge that nothing is ever simple when it comes to Government procurement.  Many of the delays in testing were a result of manufacturers requesting extensions.  When the Government issues a request for submission, it can not specify who submits items for consideration.  The Government will issue a set of criteria that any submission must meet prior to testing.  The Government cannot simply say, "We want to test the SCAR and 416."  They have to open testing up to anyone who can meet the submission requirements.  Numerous issues have crept up with the testing process from which tests were selected to how the results were evaluated.  None of delay issues are on the Governments side.  Remember, the contract for the replacement of the standard military rifle is worth Billions over decades.  Every manufacturer is pulling out all the stops to win this contract and everyone that loses is crying foul the instant something doesn't go their way.  As a result, the testing process is moving slower than a snail on flypaper.

As for the M4 being ill-suited for general issue, I'll have to disagree with you. Consider two things.  First, if you look at the Special Operations Community (SOC), it has the ability to go outside the normal procurement system and use any weapon system they desire.  This is plainly visible by the fact that the SEALS use 9mm Sig 226 pistols, while DELTA and Marine Force Recon still use 1911 pistols.  Back in the early 90's, the M4 came to life at the request of the SOC as the SOPMOD M4.  They were not required to use the M4, but requested several improvements and design changes to the original Colt Commando (11" carbine.)  They could have used or selected any weapon in the world, but they chose to use an upgraded M16 platform.

Second, consider the rest of the world.  There can be no argument that the two most prominent weapon systems in the world are the AK and the M16.  The biggest difference being that we didn't give M16's away to every country in the World for free.  Some we did, but others willfully choose it and paid for it.  The best example I can think of is Israel.  They have produced some of the best and most reliable weapon systems ever (the UZI and the Galiel come to mind), yet they are now using older A1 commando M16's.  If there is any Country in the World that would dump a weapon system for failure to perform, it would be the Israeli's.  They don't even use their own stuff because when taken as a whole, the M16 is a better system.

Quote
The M-16 has been with us for 50 years because of politics!


No argument here.  Politics have always been involved with expensive weapon systems and always will be.  Remember the Bradley FV?

Quote
Like when the 507th Maintenance company got tore up (the unit Jessica Lynch was in) and everybody blamed poor weapons maintenance,


I've trained enough Military people (from line troops to all the go fast guys) to appreciate that the real fault here was a lack of training in all aspects of warfare, including weapons maintenance.  This was an example of training failures at all levels.  The outcome would not have changed even if every weapon worked perfectly.  These brave soldiers did the best they could under the circumstances, but the outcome was inevitable.  I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole as this is quite a drift.  Another topic for another time.

Quote
Once again, if you have a different opinion, fine. If you've had different experiences (assuming you've had them somewhere other than a nice neat range or your armchair), again, fine. I however have enough knowledge and experience otherwise to have my own opinions and to be willing to defend them against anyone.
 

Never been called an armchair commando before, guess there is a first time for everything! :D

Warhawke, fortunately you live in a Country that has plenty of options for you.  We know how you feel about the AR, so what is your choice instead of the AR?

Erik 

Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: JohnJacobH on October 10, 2007, 08:28:37 PM


Back in the Black Powder days the hydroscopic characteristics of the residue would rust the holy heck out of everything,

Okay, I have had my coffee and can now confidently say it is hyGROscopic, not hyDROscopic!


If I recall correctly even Clyde Darrow of Bonnie and Clyde fame

And yes, it is equally true the famous Bank Robber's name was Clyde Barrow, not Clyde Darrow!

Many thanks to all for not mercilessly heckling me.

If you spot any other errors please just keep them to yourselves as well.

Best regards to all,
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: warhawke on October 10, 2007, 08:55:23 PM
USSA-1
First off I wasn't calling YOU an armchair commando, you are clearly not.

I've been trying to answer this all day and between my busted right hand and my computer which is crying for tech support right now I have not managed too do so.

I'm just gonna let this whole thing drop. I didn't intend to start this whole thing in the first place really. I just would like to see more Main Battle Rifles instead of the 'Cult of the AR' which you can get at just about any website around.

As for what rifles I like better (skipping the FN, H&K etc. that I mentioned at the beginning) I like all the SIG's from the PE-57 to the AMT to the 55X's. The FN-FNC is nice, the FAMAS, the AUG is interesting, heck I just like firearms, but I prefer ones that do the job, as advertised, right out of the box. I don't demand perfection, the AK is far from perfect, but it works.

I like 7.62 NATO, but the 6.5 Grendel has awesome potential, the 6.8 looks to be a fine close to medium range round, heck the 7mm-08 would be one of the finest rounds you could have if it were loaded well, say with a 150gr VLD bullet at about 2800fps, and let's not forget the 7.62x54r, the 7.92mm or the 30-06. I like what I shoot at to fall down and not bother me anymore, not keep coming till I pop it a half-dozen times. I also don't like to depend on luck or trick bullets or super fine shooting skills in the middle of a fire-fight, those fine motor skills tend to get less fine when somebody is throwing hot lead biscuits in your direction. Thump a guy in the torso with a 7.62 NATO or a '54r and he is likely to get the message, with a 5.56 I don't want to bet on it.

So, I'll keep believing what I do, you all will keep doing the same and we can just get back to enjoying things here.

Sorry about the mess.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: someguy on October 10, 2007, 09:40:28 PM
Just want to note that of all the (many) debates/flamefests/complete tantrums I've read lately debating the merits of ARs, this one has been handled in the most adult and professional manner.

Nice job not being jerks, everyone.  I'm serious.  It's refreshing.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: USSA-1 on October 11, 2007, 07:51:54 AM
Warhawke,
 
Quote
Sorry about the mess.   
 

There's no mess.  You started a thread with a pretty strong statement about the AR system that started quite a discussion.  You are to be commended!  Discussion, accurate information, and the free exchange of ideas or techniques is the whole idea.  Other forum members may use this or some other thread as a resource for a purchasing decision.  I think we have a duty to provide accurate information and dispell common myths and misconceptions in a respective, conversational tone.

As for your other selections..I like the Sig family of rifles although I do think the quality of the triggers is exaggerated, but that may be because I'm used to 2lb. competition triggers in my AR.  Compared to a standard, off the shelf rifle, the Sig triggers are excellent.

Interesting choice with the FN-FNC and the FAMAS.  I handled some FNC's, but never a FAMAS.  The FNC handled well enough, but it kinda struck me as being similar to the original M16.

I'm with you on the AK.  I think it's a fine weapon.  I have a 74 that I'll break out occasionally during my carbine classes just to show the students that it doesn't matter what weapon you are shooting, fundamentals translate.

I've also been watching the 6.5 vs. 6.8 scene pretty close.  I'd like to get one, but the price of ammunition it too high at this point.  Hopefully, some branch will pick up a caliber and then ammunition manufacturers will start to crank out ammunition.  This should hopefully cause some price drop on the retail sales side.  Until then, I'll just have to wait it out.

Erik 
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: Bidah on October 11, 2007, 09:42:21 AM
I am fine Warhawke, no mess, maybe a little fuss.  ;D

I cannot comment on any of those other systems as I have never shot them (or even handled many of them).  Heck, I have not handled or even shot an AK, so I can't comment there either.

I have been watching the whole 6.5 vs 6.8 thing as well, intently.  I do not believe that the whole ammo issue is as big of a deal now with $400 .223 and .308...  :o  The 6.5 is popular here in MT, and one dealer that I frequent is doing quite the business in it.  A lot of them are being purchased for hunting.  I want to take the plunge and get one.. I just can't decide which one... !!!!!  Since I reload almost all of my ammo, either one would not be as big of a deal for me.

-Bidah
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on October 12, 2007, 09:26:36 AM
I am going to poke my blond head in the doorway for a second and get my 2 cents in.. Not about the AR's, cause I don't know squat from siccum about them.. other than I like to shoot 'em.. ;D
BUT...
 One of the things I DO know about is people..and different personality's on forum's and how things can stay level one minute and go to sh** the next second.
To learn as much as I can, I read every thread in the forum or try to anyway.. and this one ..even though it had all the potential of being a good informative thread.. kinda got started out on the wrong foot. And right off the bat, some burrs got caught under a few saddles. But with a gentle tactful tug.. Erik turned it around from a head butting contest to a wonderful informative and positive thread.
Now you know why Down Range is so darn lucky to have Erik Lund on board. I can't brag on this man enough. His character and common sense approach is something we all are going to benefit from on this site.

Also my personal thanks to everyone who shares their knowledge and viewpoints here on Down Range.  :)
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: tumblebug on October 12, 2007, 10:51:14 AM
 
 Knowledge pro & con is what it is ALL about .LOL .
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: Iraq Ninja on October 28, 2007, 01:49:18 PM
Warhawke,

It is interesting that you mentioned Jessica Lynch.  Personally, I feel that in their case, there was a serious lack of maintenance, and this problem exists to this day with many of the support soldiers in the Sandbox. 

I used to be based in Tallil, right next to Nasiriyah. This is where Jessica Lynch was captured. I used to drive the same route her convoy took. I know where they got lost, where they fought, and where she was captured. Thus, I often reflected on what went wrong. If you read the AAR on the 507th, one thing that stands out is that these soldiers did not have their weapons properly maintained and many of them jammed or failed. Compare their failure rate to the Marine units in the same battle, and you will see that it was an isolated event for this one unit. It was not so much the fault of the weapon, but of the soldiers, their NCOs and officers.

I don’t know why, but many support soldiers have poor weapon maintenance skills. They just don’t get it. I used to watch them clear their weapons on the way into the dining facility and the majority had dry bolts. Even their officers had dry pistols slung in shoulder holsters, which btw often fell out onto the ground. You could tell which soldiers were the ones who went outside the wire, because their weapons were well maintained.

I never had any issues with my M4, which started off as a bushmaster 11.5, and later traded in for a Colt 14.5 Some of our Bushmasters had extraction problems. People make a big deal about the dust and sand in Iraq. First of all, it is not like sand as most of us know it. It is a fine dried dirt.  It can be a problem during sandstorms, but those are not very common. The choice of oil is a factor, as some of them seem to attract dirt more so than others.

I have owned a HK 416 upper and though I liked it, I sold it because I could not get spare parts from HK. About this same time I started to realize that my standard DI M4 was doing its job. I will admit that the DI system does decrease the life of certain parts of the rifle. Personally, I am not looking to fix the M16, but rather move on to a modern rifle such as the SCAR or Masada.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: someguy on October 28, 2007, 04:13:21 PM
Erik-   I don't have the link handy, but if you go take a look at LWRC's forums regarding the 6.8, you'll see some not-so-subtle hinting from several LWRC factory guys re: agency contracts for 6.8 coming in 2008.  Probably old news to you, but thought it worth mentioning, given your previous comments. 
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: m25operator on October 29, 2007, 12:01:18 AM
I think this thread has gone about as far as it can go, without the govt, deciding. My vote go's for the 6.5 on pure ballistics, and inherent accuracy, remember the 6.5 carcano with the equivalent of a low end Tasco scope took JFK'S  head off at a considerable distance for a moving target. The .270 winchester is not an inherently accurate cartridge, but ballistically is very sound..  The 6.5x55 swedish round is both, the data I've gathered from the aforementioned websites, supports this selection. The 6.5 has it all, ballistic coeffiecient, sectional density coupled with sufficient velocity ='s downrange performance, and with the right bullet weight, extended range, 600 meters + performance. This thread has made me look at the differences enough to make a decision, I'll be looking forward to a 6.5 grendel or the next improvement for my new AR project. The main drawback for the 6.5 anything has been bullet length taking up too much volume in the case. At the stated velocitys of the 6.5 grendel, this does not seem to matter. I do think the US, will continue to alter the 5.56 with heavier bullets before much else changes. Politics aside, if we want better performance, the 6.5 will win out.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: pioneer on October 30, 2007, 02:14:25 PM
Real rifles?  Oh, you mean like a Remington 700?

(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/pioneer461/Long%20Guns/Guns010.jpg)
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: timjffrs on November 10, 2007, 05:55:53 PM
Looks like this warhawk guy just got right in everyones rear end.  Bravo! Question:  If the 556 is inferior why did other countries produce battle riffles in that caliber subsequent to the ar. (the Galil and AK74)
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: warhawke on November 12, 2007, 12:56:26 PM
In the case of the AK74 the Soviets thought they were missing the on micro-calibers and wanted to look just as advanced as the US, plus with their tactical doctrine the reduction of strategic materials was important. Colonel Kalashnikov HATED the idea, fought against it, and told all and sundry that they needed to improve the 7.62mm rather than go smaller, he was overruled.

As far as the other countries, the early adopters were either getting huge quantities of ammo from us, or our allies (like Israel and South Africa) or they saw the writing on the wall about a forced adoption by NATO. America has always supplied the lions share of ammunition and equipment to NATO and they knew that we would eventually make them adopt the 5.56 as we did in 1979-80.

Personally I think that if we had adopted something like the British .280 or the 7x49mm instead of the 7.62x51 NATO, we might well be using it today. Instead we demanded the 7.62 NATO, offered to adopt the FN-FAL. We reneged on that deal and adopted the M-14, played political games and lied to congress and the SecDef about the cost and production numbers on the '14 and generally screwed the pooch until McNamara slapped the whole system and made them take the M-16.

The ballistics of the .280 are strangely close to the 6.8mm Rem with a 140gr 7mm bullet fired at 2,415fps out of a 43mm case. This little puppy in an FN would be cool, not to mention that the FN would be about a pound lighter, and I think with 50 years of improvements and modifications we would be very happy to go to war with it, I know I would. Heck, a with modern powder and a VLD bullet this round would give the 6.5 Grendel a run for it's money I bet. Instead we have to have these silly arguments about a round and weapon designed with faulty data and rammed down the throats of the military by it's political leadership.       
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: Bidah on November 12, 2007, 05:55:20 PM
Looks like this warhawk guy just got right in everyones rear end.  Bravo! Question:  If the 556 is inferior why did other countries produce battle riffles in that caliber subsequent to the ar. (the Galil and AK74)

Tim, in defense of warhawke (of which he really does not need, or require).  A lively discussion was started, and yes, it was spirited.  The .223 is not quite what the discussion is about, since in general terms it is not a Rifle round, but that of a Carbine.  What we were ultimately discussing is Rifle platforms, not the rounds that they fire, overall anyway.

-Bidah  (here I go stirring the mud again).
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: SIG229DAK on November 16, 2007, 08:16:21 PM
I have friends shooting .223 chambered rifles, that shoot very straight to 200-300 yards and don't kick much. I'm glad they're happy with them.  ;)

 But my choice was for an AK 47 clone for, A: reliability B: .30 cal projectile C: Cheap, easy to find ammo D: Being able to hunt game animals with it (as WA state doesn't allow deer hunting with .223 cal). D: Low initial cost of the rifle and it's parts.

To me that makes it the best "all around" useful semi-auto rifle, for MY use.  ;)
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 04, 2008, 02:45:37 PM
its not so much that AR's are crap as the service ammo, accurate .308 in an EFFECTIVE bullet design doesn't care what launches it. FMJ is everyones last choice (other than paper or tin cans) even in 155
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 04, 2008, 06:21:10 PM
Warhawke, Do you realize the AR system has been military standard for a bunch of countries for over 40 years. Thats longer than the 03 Springfield, It's more than twice as long as the M 1 Garand and the M-14/M-1A combined. Thats longer than some of our fellow posters have been alive. You may think it's junk but there seems to be alot of people who don't agree with you. :p
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: warhawke on January 05, 2008, 02:44:06 AM
Warhawke, Do you realize the AR system has been military standard for a bunch of countries for over 40 years. Thats longer than the 03 Springfield, It's more than twice as long as the M 1 Garand and the M-14/M-1A combined. Thats longer than some of our fellow posters have been alive. You may think it's junk but there seems to be alot of people who don't agree with you. :p


Gee, we adopted the M-60 in 1957 and messed around trying to get them to work until we finally adopted the M-240 (AKA the FN MAG) a weapon that was adopted all over the planet starting in 1958. Now, we adopted the Browning M1919 MG in 1918 and replaced it in 1957, so the Browning was our weapon for 39 years and the M-60 has been around for 61 years, does this make the M-60 a better weapon?

Hey, since the M-14 was adopted in 1957 and replaced in 1964 ( 7 years) the M-14 must have been the most useless POS ever built, right? That was even less than the Krag-Jorgensen.

WAIT!!!!!!!! The AK-47 has bee around LONGER than the M-16 so it must be the ULTIMATE WEAPON

Just because a bad idea has been around a long time doesn't make it right, look at Communism.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 05, 2008, 06:50:29 AM



Hey, since the M-14 was adopted in 1957 and replaced in 1964 ( 7 years) the M-14 must have been the most useless POS ever built, right?
I've been told exactly that by Marines from the early 60's. You ever read early comments about the Garand ? At Camp Perry they hated it in the 30's, Thats why the Marines on Guadalcanal were issued the Johnson rifle.

WAIT!!!!!!!! The AK-47 has bee around LONGER than the M-16 so it must be the ULTIMATE WEAPON
 Do you want to get the Gatling gun into this discussion of Rifles as well ? Dr. Gatling first developed it during the Civil war, First hooked it to an electric motor in the late 1800's and its only been slightly modified since.
    I also knew guys in the Marines who could shoot 500 yard bulls all day long from sitting Kneeling and prone positions  with the AR. No bench. and that was with general issue M16-a1 off the rack in the late 70's

Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 05, 2008, 06:53:55 AM
Darn, I know point and click,  but I think my last post makes a point. A person will stink with equipment he doesn't  TRAIN with. ( got to read them directions :))
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 05, 2008, 07:01:25 AM
In the case of the AK74 the Soviets thought they were missing the on micro-calibers and wanted to look just as
As far as the other countries, the early adopters were either getting huge quantities of ammo from us, or our allies (like Israel and South Africa) or they saw the writing on the wall about a forced adoption by NATO. America has always supplied the lions share of ammunition and equipment to NATO and they knew that we would eventually make them adopt the 5.56 as we did in 1979-80.

Personally I think that if we had adopted something like the British .280 or the 7x49mm instead of the 7.62x51 NATO, we might well be using it today. Instead we demanded the 7.62 NATO, offered to adopt the FN-FAL. We reneged on that deal and adopted the M-14, played political games and lied to congress and the SecDef about the cost and production numbers on the '14 and generally screwed the pooch until McNamara slapped the whole system and made them take the M-16.

 I think with 50 years of improvements and modifications we would be very happy to go to war with it, I know I would.         

  Try this again, :)  How about a Berreta Matchlock   with 350 years of improvement they must have it right by now
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 05, 2008, 07:02:37 AM
YES I"M TECHNICLY CHALLENGED. :)
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 05, 2008, 08:18:54 AM
Another thought Warhawke, ( I have alot of them , I think its cuz I live alone. Thank god no quotes in this one )
  At  Parris Island we had intense training in how to shoot the AR. Now Reread that, Isaid we had intense training in how to shoot THE AR. A course with some one like Erik SPECIFICLY GEARED TOWARD SHOOTING THE AR, may not change your PREFERANCE, but will PROBABLY give you more respect for the AR. That said ,I still the for military purposes the .223 FMJ stinks.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 05, 2008, 09:01:38 AM
Also , Hope the hand heals up OK. That would not bother MY typing as I have ONE finger on my other hand as well :D
   You started this thread with an out rageuos statement and then defended it based on you experience , minus the personal stuff it has been an interesting read.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: warhawke on January 06, 2008, 03:51:50 PM

  At  Parris Island we had intense training in how to shoot the AR. Now Reread that, Isaid we had intense training in how to shoot THE AR. A course with some one like Erik SPECIFICLY GEARED TOWARD SHOOTING THE AR, may not change your PREFERANCE, but will PROBABLY give you more respect for the AR. That said ,I still the for military purposes the .223 FMJ stinks.

My father was a drill Sargent (as was my uncle, in fact I served with both of them in my brief stint in the USAR), he also served in Panama CZ in 1963 (IIRC) when they tested the XM-15 there. He reported that they loved it, right up till they took it into the field and they stopped working due to corrosion and dirt and debris. Later when he went back in the reserves he used the M-16A1 and then the A2. I remember that I used to argue with him about the M-16, because I listened to guys who told me "Keep it clean and it is fine". It took me years of using them to discover just how useless they are, and even longer to admit that the old man was right.

My friends and I are survivalists and we used to train ourselves to operate without support. No gunsmiths (except as a last resort), we repaired and cleaned these things ourselves. We took our weapons out in the boonies and used them, not carrying them in nice cases to clean well kept ranges and then home to clean them in our clean well kept homes. Our weapons got cleaned and maintained in the field, they got used in the field, and rarely did we fire less than a case of ammo each in a weekend. The guys with AK's, SKS's, H&K-91's and such had few problems out there while the AR guys were constantly maintaining them, cleaning them, losing parts, breaking parts and often winding up lugging non-functioning weapons until we got home.

We tried all kinds of things, Rhino gas systems and special springs and you name it, if somebody had a trick doodad in the shotgun news or the back of Soldier of Fortune we tried it. Finally it dawned that there was no widget that was going to turn that sows-ear into the silk purse we wanted and we all bought M-1A's and H&K's or whatever, and guess what? We could fire a case of ammo without breaking them down 2 or 3 times, and we didn't need to spend money on trick parts and replacement parts and such. Heck, swabbing down my M-1A took twenty minutes with my cleaning kit and not and hour-and-a-half with dental picks, 3 foot pipe cleaners and special liquids culled from a witches cauldron. I never lost a single part in the grass either.

As for the 5.56 round, I don't like it much because it doesn't deliver the power to take the target down most of the time. Once again, I am a survivalist, if the world goes to hell (as it has been trying to do for years) I want to be able to take my target down with the least number of rounds, be it a human or an animal and the 5.56 just doesn't do that often enough. Read about the Miami FBI shoot out, read "Blackhawk Down", read the books and stories from Viet Nam to present, talk to the guys down at the VFW and you will see and hear about guys not hitting the target because their rounds broke up on grass and twigs, or targets not going down because the round didn't do the job. Animals? If you want to try to take down a Bear or a Moose in rut with a .223, be my guest, maybe you can sell the story to a magazine after you get out of the hospital (assuming you survive). That being said, there are reasons for having and using assault rifle style weapons, as long as you work within their limits, but those limits don't stretch very far. My wife can use an AK-74 much better than my FN and it is a dandy little pest controller, but when the pest is 6' 6", 300lbs and carrying an Glock, bigger medicine is called for.

Once again I have succumbed to temptation and refused to let this thread die quietly. Oh, and my hand is much better now.
Title: Re: Real rifles
Post by: tombogan03884 on January 06, 2008, 04:43:54 PM
In six years of Service , three as unit armorer , the only part I saw broken was a stock,and that was during manual of arms. The DI said he wanted to hear our hands HITTING the stock, (I think it was "port arms" to "shoulder arms")
 He offered $20 to anyone who hit thier stock hard enough to break it. This big Ole Boy from Georgia collected :D
 As for jams the only ones I saw  or experienced were when shooting blanks, 3 or 4 magazines and you had a club, I understand that suppressors have a similar effect, One other time I had a jam was after low crawling through a puddle of S.C. clay mud the inside of the lowwer was packed with slime. I sloshed it through a deeper (less muddy )
puddle and kept on going AND FIRING. Cleaning THAT  was a horror but it worked.
  Whats that Weight loss disclaimer "Your results may vary" :D  I wish some other folks would give thier own experiences pro and con,just cuz gun stories are fun to read !
   But I do agree that Varmint calibers with crappy bullets have no place in a fight. I've read "Blackhawk Down" 3 times and what those guy's were complaining about was .223 FMJ not the AR platform also in the Miami shoot out one of the robbers  used a Ruger AC556, the FBI agents were using pistols.
 For some perverse reason, I haven't let this thread die iether but my typing still su#ks. :D