Author Topic: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)  (Read 61828 times)

Michael Bane

  • Global Moderator
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Host & Editor-in-chief
    • michaelBane.tv
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #30 on: October 22, 2007, 10:11:58 PM »
The cool thing about my books is you can use them as TARGETS!

Am filled with gun envy!!!!

Michael B
Michael Bane, Majordomo @ MichaelBane.TV

Kettlebelly Slim

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2007, 04:27:48 AM »
DS Arms can whip up any configuration FAL you want.  My choice will be a shorty with dust-cover rail for optics, the extended safety and extended mag-release, folding stock (for shorter LOP), sand-cut bolt, non-folding op-handle, and an EOTech AA-battery sight.  A Krebs AK with a dot sight would probably cost about the same and do just as well at CQB distance - and might be more reliable and robust.

I've owned and used a classic Garand and an M-1A Scout, and I really like them.  Great triggers!  A Garand with a bayonet is a serious CQB tool (same size and weight as a Roman Pilum) - if your eyes are still young enough to use the iron sights.  No pistol-gripped rifle handles as well for pugil-stick/bayonet work.  But I have issues resolving their safety-manipulation with all the trigger-time I've invested on AR systems.  Too easy to mistake the trigger for the safety, with your eyes on the target and under stress.

The current AR-10 isn't proven yet as an MBR.  They're reverse-engineered from the AR-15, and not everything works exactly the same when you "supersize" it.   I think it'll be a while before all the bugs are worked out of the models commonly available. 

If I was considering an AR-10 as a precision rifle, I'd get the one from G.A. Precision.   They're my pick for any precision rifle.  See:  http://www.gaprecision.net/content/ar10.php 

-KBS


2HOW

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1861
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #32 on: October 23, 2007, 08:41:29 AM »


Soldiers Want a Bigger Bang

Nearly 80 percent of Soldiers said in a recent survey they are satisfied with their weapons, though almost half recommended a replacement for the standard-issued M9 pistol or ammunition with more stopping power.

Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.

"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.

The study was commissioned by the Army's Project Manager for Soldier Weapons to address concerns raised by Soldiers returning from combat about the dependability and effectiveness of their small arms.

Download the entire CNA report here (2MB pdf).

"This study assessed Soldier perspectives on the reliability and durability of their weapons systems in combat to aid in decisions regarding current and future small arms needs of the Army," said the study, which was obtained by Military.com.

CNA surveyors conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty, asking them a variety of questions about accessories, weapons training, maintenance and recommended changes to their small arms.

"The U.S. Army Infantry Center is conducting a study to refine the Army's Small Arms Strategy, which focuses on the employment of rifles, carbines, ammunition caliber, and future technologies," said Army spokesman, Lt. Col. William Wiggins, in a statement. "All Services are participating in this study, which is expected in the July/August 2007 timeframe."

The survey lends weight to Army claims that current-issued weapons are effective despite growing criticism from Soldiers and lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the service should re-assess the standard M4 - as well as the M9 pistol.

In April, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sent a letter to acting Army secretary Pete Geren taking issue with the service's sole-source contract to buy about 500,000 M4 carbines despite evidence that new rifle technologies could provide more reliable weapons.

The study found the most stoppage problems with the M249 machine gun and M9 pistol, with an average of about 30 percent of respondents saying they experienced stoppages with each weapon in firefights. About four in ten Soldiers who said they experienced jams during combat with their pistols or machine guns claimed it took them out of the fight.

Though vocal critics of the M4 say it's prone to jamming in the talcum-like sand environments of Iraq and Afghanistan, only 19 percent of M4 users said they experienced stoppages in combat.

But of those with malfunctioning M4s, nearly 20 percent said they were "unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage," the report said.

Soldiers who attach accessories to their weapons experienced a disproportionate number of malfunctions, with M249 users nine times more likely to experience a stoppage "if accessories were attached via zip cord, four times more likely if attached with duct tape and three times more likely if attached with dummy cords or rails."

"Accessory attachments had a significant impact on reported stoppages," the report said. "Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached."

The CNA surveyors also asked Soldiers for their opinions on possible improvements to their small arms. The top request from Soldiers was for more knock-down power, reigniting the debate over America's small arms caliber choices.

"When speaking to experts and Soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit," the report said.

A full 20 percent of M9 users said they wanted a new weapon, and "some were more specific and requested a return to the Colt .45 for standard issue pistols," including others who asked for hollow-point ammo.

Hollow point rounds have been deemed illegal for military use.

Additionally, M16 users were "consistent and adamant" in asking to be re-issued the more compact M4.



AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY

Rastus

  • Mindlessness Fuels Tyranny
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6798
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 585
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2007, 06:02:22 AM »
OK...I know the FN FAL is great and I've kicked around the idea of getting the M14 (which I eventually plan to get) and settled on the AR-10 (or an SR-25).  It seems easier for me to handle than the M14...especially with a few inches of can hanging off the end.  So why do ya'll not prefer an AR-10 or SR-25???  I'm wondering what the "poison pill" is for the gun that is not your favorite.

Also...I thought that Stoner made the AR-10 first...then followed up with the AR-15 and M-16?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)
                                                                                                                               Avoid subjugation, join the NRA!

kilopaparomeo

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 498
  • My own private purgatory...
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2007, 06:52:58 AM »
The two AR10s I've handled have both been unreliable.  Lots of FTF.

I'm "sure" they have that all worked out now....but in the mean time, I like the FAL. Lots of history, lots of variations, **almost** as good ergonomics as an AR, lots of aftermarket parts...and it is just plain old cool.

Here's a quote I made up...I might send it to Hallmark and see if they'll make a greeting card out of it

"Having an FAL means never having to explain your AR-10 isn't really a poodleshooter...no really...it isn't an AR15...really"
NRA Endowment Life Member
SAF Life Member
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
Ultima Ratio Civis - "The last method of a citizen"

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #35 on: Today at 11:46:23 AM »

Bidah

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 538
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #35 on: October 25, 2007, 02:25:35 PM »
OK...I know the FN FAL is great and I've kicked around the idea of getting the M14 (which I eventually plan to get) and settled on the AR-10 (or an SR-25).  It seems easier for me to handle than the M14...especially with a few inches of can hanging off the end.  So why do ya'll not prefer an AR-10 or SR-25???  I'm wondering what the "poison pill" is for the gun that is not your favorite.

Also...I thought that Stoner made the AR-10 first...then followed up with the AR-15 and M-16?

Yes, the AR-10 was first, and the M-16 is a down sized version of that.  They then took the improvements that have been made over the years and upsized it back to the AR-10.  Make sense.. :)  Now, I have had my AR-10 for a little over a month.  It has not made my "approved list" yet, but I have fired up to 100 rounds without a cleaning and it worked fine, zero trouble.  When I get to 500 rounds in one day with no trouble I will be happier, I just have not tried it yet.

I suppose that for the most part I don't like the M1A.  My main reason is that I have known personally 6 people that have them, and have had nothing but trouble.  These are all the newer ones.  It seems so far the only sure fix is to send it to Fulton and for a nice sum it can be fixed...  I know this is counter and heresay to the M1A folks, but hey, it is my opinion.. :)

I do really well with the HK91 series, I just don't own one, yet..

-Bidah
“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”  The Doctor

Rastus

  • Mindlessness Fuels Tyranny
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6798
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 585
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #36 on: October 26, 2007, 06:29:04 AM »
Thanks Bidah and Kilopaparomeo.  I had heard of some early problems with the AR-10's built in the last few years so it's good to know that, at least in Bidah's instance, the newer one is not giving problems right now.  Bidah, I'd appreciate a heads up when you get a few hundred rounds through it...I'm not buying one until '08 (Christmas and a trip to Disney is gonna flatten the wallet for now).   Poodleshooter, ha!  I like that...but I was planning on putting nightvision on the AR-10 (or whatever I get) for a nightime backup to my yote slayers Rem 700 (308) and CZ 550 (22-250)...guess whatever I get may end up being a "poodleshooter" anyway.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)
                                                                                                                               Avoid subjugation, join the NRA!

kilopaparomeo

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 498
  • My own private purgatory...
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #37 on: October 26, 2007, 07:20:43 AM »
I was just joshin' ya.  I wouldn't mind owning an AR10 at some point.
NRA Endowment Life Member
SAF Life Member
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
Ultima Ratio Civis - "The last method of a citizen"

Bidah

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 538
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #38 on: October 26, 2007, 12:19:56 PM »
Rastus,

Wander on over the 6.5G vs. 6.8SPC thread.  Maybe that would work for you.  :)

-Bidah
“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”  The Doctor

MacDooley

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #39 on: October 26, 2007, 10:58:48 PM »
I am getting a DPMS AP4 in 308  next payday. My husband was happy with an AR15 but I want more. I had been looking at a RRA  AR8 but I don't know when they'll get around to actually manufacturing them anytime soon. I also had a concern for reliability, it might have bugs to work out since it is so new.

MacDooley

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk