Author Topic: Question about Battle Rifles  (Read 17458 times)

JohnJacobH

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 234
    • JohnJacobH's RKBA Commentary
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Question about Battle Rifles
« on: June 28, 2007, 09:03:09 PM »
Mr. Bane,
   In your podcast you juxtaposed car carry of a battle rife*hi tech carbine* with the recent Juneteeth mob homicide of a passenger in a vehicle related
injury of a child. 

While I frequently carry a car rifle ranging from a 30-30 lever action to sporterized beater Enfield bolt action I could not run the scenario you proposed
through my head without stumbling on issues such as overpenetration or weapon retention. 

It would seem to me in this scenario a pistol would be as effective if not superior to a underfolder AK 47.

Short of absolute Apocalypse even a pistol caliber carbine would be as much a liability as an aid in an urban riot assault on an individual in a vehicle.

Other scenarios, vehicle to vehicle, or cross country off road travel an Ak 47 maybe more useful but still not as useful overall as an accurate 300-500 yard .308.

Please correct my misperception at your earliest convenience. Many thanks.

Best regards,


JohnJacobH

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 234
    • JohnJacobH's RKBA Commentary
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question about Battle Rifles
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2007, 07:17:33 PM »
Okay, I probably should have read the June 20 Blog and comments before I posted about the June 27 Podcast.

Most of the comments I would have made are already covered in one fashion or another.

The most serious point: if you are afraid to leave the scene of an accident, you should be terrified of loading an
AK 47 and firing even in the vicinity of a drunken, drugged out mob attacking your car.

I know Mr. Bane is old enough to remember Kent State, where a group of hapless National Guard fired their
rifles at an angry mob and managed not to kill or injure any of their assailants but did manage to kill or injure students
on the other side of campus on their way to class.

Target selection should be on the closest, most immediate threats and  the opening that creates should be used to
drive as far and fast as you can in your vehicle.

The Juneteenth type mob attack illustrates more than ever the need for a short barreled (yes, sawed off) magazine fed
semi-auto shotgun.  The exact type the government has inexplicably labeled illegal.

Short of that, a pistol of some sort, maybe a Tauras 410 Shotshell Revolver.

Just my humble two cents in inflation adjusted Euros.

Best regards,




texcaliber

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
  • "My best friends are Smith & Wesson"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question about Battle Rifles
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2007, 08:00:46 PM »
shotgun makes some pros, but still has a bunch of cons. A-Numero-Uno
Quote
he need for a short barreled (yes, sawed off) magazine fed
semi-auto shotgun.  The exact type the government has inexplicably labeled illegal.
  Notice even the person pushing for them addmit ILLEGAL!!
So what is a law abiding American with out classIII or NFA firearms to do.........AK or other hightech rifle seem to be the perfect go to. Let me just point out a little problem with the likeness of "Kent State" vs."Juneteenth".......undertrained National Guard vs. Citizen in fear of his/her/family/friend safty. Let me tell yall something, pull one of mine out of the car...........hope that person can pray to the Almighty like the Micromachine Guy, talk about flashback, because there time is coming to a end at about 1100fps. The seriousness in which i speek is grand. And if there is a mad mob. I hope I remember the face of my father and my aim is true. But then again a mob is a big target. So IMHO the situation grew extreme after the person left the car, which is way to late to hit-n-run, and the passanger would/sould of drew the hightech rifle to engage mob. Which is done faster with a hightech rifle rather than a shotgun. If you cant own hightech then shotgun is good choice but another opinion of mine, which I have many :) , is the barrel lenght of 18in. at least is needed due to the extreme spred of the shot and "garbage" and nontargets being hit all in one trigger pull. Why a gun company doesnt put more choke in defence gun is a wonder to me. But then again i have many question with the way things are. ;D ??? ::)

tex
"All I need in life is Love and a .45!"

m25operator

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2628
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question about Battle Rifles
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2007, 09:07:47 PM »
Tex it looks like we were trying to answer at the same time, johnjacobh, has some valid points but, this particular situation has a lot of concerns, and angles. What is the first priority " to live", our subjects were obviously concerned over their actions and wanted to help. The crowd, were obviously not concerned about their concern or reaction to the event. As I understand it, the little girl was ok, the crowd was enraged and took action " mob mentality action" and killed this man. Regardless of weapon selection, let's dissect this.

1) The deceased went into a heavily populated area of revelers, and was party to  someone who hit " a child ", he was not the driver so he was attached, but did not commit the offense. rule #1 don't be somewhere if there is a high probability something bad can happen.

2) The operator of the car, got out leaving the passenger with nothing to work with. In good faith yes, in retrospect not a good decision. Who knew the mobs mindset?

3) " when confronted with superiour numbers, run in circles scream and shout " Heinlein.

4)  This was a very delicate situation, in my opinion, the moment they got out of the car, they were toast.

5) What could they have done? I think nothing, they were vulnerable from the get go. If they even suspected the mindset of the crowd, they should have put it in reverse, and got out of there and called the police. Knowing they were leaving the scene of an accident.  But these individuals thought of the child first, as most of us would.

6) Now as to the solution to the unwinnable scenario. If both participants had ccw, and were both armed. The instant of agression, could have presented arms and MAYBE,  pushed the crowd back, and that is a big maybe. If they had battle rifles, yes they could fight their out, but what would happen after that?

7) I hope we all learn a lesson from this, Don't go where we should not be, and if the worst happens, get out of there. Where we want to go, and where we should go are 2 different places.

8) This unfortunately is a very good scenario of what can happen, when we try to do the right thing.

I hope all of us will review this situation, and comment.
" The Pact, to defend, if not TO AVENGE '  Tarna the Tarachian.

texcaliber

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
  • "My best friends are Smith & Wesson"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question about Battle Rifles
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2007, 09:41:47 PM »
Quote
ex it looks like we were trying to answer at the same time
someone once said something about "minds thinking alike"......... but dont remember how the rest goes ;D

Well said m25operator, but life is full of "Bad desisions" which we all wish we could do over. Bad situations can always be solved with superior firepower. Well.........most of the time anyhow. ;)

tex
"All I need in life is Love and a .45!"

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Question about Battle Rifles
« Reply #5 on: Today at 12:38:17 AM »

JohnJacobH

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 234
    • JohnJacobH's RKBA Commentary
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question about Battle Rifles
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2007, 10:35:11 PM »
this particular situation has a lot of concerns, and angles. While  the first priority is " to live", our subjects were obviously concerned over their actions and wanted to help.

Mr. Bane's point of view seemed to be the need for everyone to be prepared so  if an unruly drunken and drugged mob in one city attacks a vehicle the unruly
drunken and drugged mob in another city that mimics the behaviour of the first mob will get a nasty surprise from the muzzle of a battle rifle, preferably an Ak underfolder with the magazine in the drivers side door pocket and the rifle nekkid and exposed behind the seat.

This is the kind of legalistic hoop jumping that can get people killed. As you said, if you think you are about to be beset by an unruly mob, drive away!  And if you think you will need a battle rifle you may as well just load it up and have it next to you ala the United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

My question was why a long range cartridge in those circumstances?  A shotgun or pistol would effectively do as much to calm things down and you would not
see your picture on the front page of the New York Times as a wild and crazy guy who fired into a mob from hundreds of feet away.

Best regards,

DonWorsham

  • MWAG
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
  • I feel more like I do now than I ever did
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question about Battle Rifles
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2007, 06:48:02 AM »
And if you think you will need a battle rifle you may as well just load it up and have it next to you ala the United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

My question was why a long range cartridge in those circumstances?  A shotgun or pistol would effectively do as much to calm things down and you would not
see your picture on the front page of the New York Times as a wild and crazy guy who fired into a mob from hundreds of feet away.


John, if I understand the postings so far, you are NOT against being armed and prepared, you just believe that a shotgun or more likely a pistol would do in the situation being discussed. I tend to agree. We all have our preferences. However, I believe the New York Tiimes would still portray a person as "wild and crazy guy who fired into a mob..." even while protecting is own life.

Don Worsham
Varied Movements Performed Intensely

JohnJacobH

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 234
    • JohnJacobH's RKBA Commentary
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question about Battle Rifles
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2007, 07:45:21 AM »
John, if I understand the postings so far, you are NOT against being armed and prepared, you just believe that a shotgun or more likely a pistol would do in the situation being discussed. I tend to agree. We all have our preferences. However, I believe the New York Tiimes would still portray a person as "wild and crazy guy who fired into a mob..." even while protecting is own life.



In my first post I referred to the lever action or bolt action that is  my usual  car carry rifle.

Mr. Bane has mentioned this mob scenario in at least three places that I am aware- two podcasts and a blog post.  Given he has the ear of some of the best combat instructors in the business I imagine there is some basis for his suggestions.

My difficulty is walking through the various aspects.

 Some aspects seem to be based on the current legal State of The Union (it is verboten to carry an actual loaded rifle in your car) and other aspects seem to ignore that exact same legal State of The Union (do not leave the scene of a collision even if you are about to be murdered, but definitely fire long range cartridges in all directions to pacify the crowd)

In sum, yes, I believe for this specific instance a pistol or short barreled shotgun would be a superior choice and yes, any thing a person says or does or does not say or does not do is likely to become fodder for the New York Times front page. The good news, no one really reads that paper anymore, especially the ruling class.

Pathfinder

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6428
  • DRTV Ranger -- NRA Life Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 84
Re: Question about Battle Rifles
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2007, 12:10:28 PM »
Mr. Bane,
   In your podcast you juxtaposed car carry of a battle rife*hi tech carbine* with the recent Juneteeth mob homicide of a passenger in a vehicle related
injury of a child. 

While I frequently carry a car rifle ranging from a 30-30 lever action to sporterized beater Enfield bolt action I could not run the scenario you proposed
through my head without stumbling on issues such as overpenetration or weapon retention. 

It would seem to me in this scenario a pistol would be as effective if not superior to a underfolder AK 47.

Short of absolute Apocalypse even a pistol caliber carbine would be as much a liability as an aid in an urban riot assault on an individual in a vehicle.

Other scenarios, vehicle to vehicle, or cross country off road travel an Ak 47 maybe more useful but still not as useful overall as an accurate 300-500 yard .308.

Please correct my misperception at your earliest convenience. Many thanks.

A few thoughts from a former urban dweller.

Weapon: I think MB is right, although the issue in my mind is more one of capacity and cover than over-penetration. IF you use a shotgun, even with an extended ammo tube, you are limited to 8 or 9 rounds, at which point the bad guys will be on you. And, at the ranges we are discussing, each round will drop 1 person due to lack of effective spread. A second person may be slowed or incapacitated if they are close enough, reasonable in a crowd situation.

Lever action rifle? Even worse, as there is time between shots - most of us are not SASS champions able to lever out 9 rounds in 2 seconds.

Handgun? Worse yet. Once you empty the 5 rounds from The Judge (.410/45LC) what do you do? Ask the crowd to wait while you reload?

So the small hi-tech carbine with multiple 30-round capacity magazines seems reasonable for some of the urban confrontations. It is also reasonable that you will be arrested and sued if your ball ammo goes through the bad guys who you target and starts hitting non-targets beyond the attacking crowd.

Interesting question - would it change anything to use frangible ammo in the car magazines to limit the over-penetration issue?

Michael keeps quoting someone who says the only reason to own a handgun is to allow him to get to his rifle. Seems like MB's solutions - carbine behind passenger seat, loaded magazines in driver's door pouch - is reasonable in light of this as well.

Threats: As the crowd moves in, and you start shooting at the closest/highest risk targets, MOST of the crowd will start screaming and running away. A few will increase their threat by coming after you quickly and seriously, perhaps even drawing their own weapons. If you are alone and out of the vehicle, you are dead the moment you fire the first shot, as you cannot cover 360 degrees effectively. If you have someone to cover your 6, both of you have a chance at survival.

M25 is right in that it is best not to be where bad things start to happen, or to try to get away if they are already happening. I personally do not know why this driver and passenger were where they were. In Chicago, where Junteenth riots happen every year it seems, and always in public Forest Preserves, maybe you are where you are trying to enjoy the limited outdoor space provided to the citizens of Daley's Hell. It does not matter WHY you are there, only that you ARE there when bad things start going down. Of course, if you're in Daley's Hell, you can't even own a hi-tech rifle, or a handgun for that matter. Daley's laws seem to have stopped the gang bangers' shootings though /sarcasm-off

It is better to have a weapon and not need it, than to need it and not to have it. These are tough times, and getting tougher. So if you already carry a wheel gun or 1911 as a car gun, carrying a carbine in the car seems a mild escalation in response to the realities of the day.

This thread is impetus to me getting my Mini-14 either a folding stock or that bullpup stock I've been eyeballing.
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do this to others and I require the same from them"

J.B. Books

m25operator

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2628
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Question about Battle Rifles
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2007, 08:57:38 PM »
This is to johnjacobh more than anyone else, my previous post shows my position, but luckily in the great State of Texas, there are no laws concerning the transportation of long guns, no law to break, unless you brandish it. Loaded, unloaded it's legal, as of september 1st 07, the same is true about handguns, unless you belong to a gang or are doing something illegal, but not a traffic violation.

But I would like to turn this post away from armament to a not what would you do, to a what could you have done scenario. Best case, Worst case, of course do to the outcome, We know the worst case or close to it, only one of them died. Regardless of your ability to respond, what would come next?

I invite MB, WALT RAUCH, hell even John Farnham to give this a look, I wish uncle Jeff was around to view it too.

On a lighter note. This is the Kobioshi Maru, the unwinnable scenario, it would be live or die, kill or be killed, and how many go with you. There is no winner. Only survivors.
" The Pact, to defend, if not TO AVENGE '  Tarna the Tarachian.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk