Author Topic: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)  (Read 63088 times)

Hazcat

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10457
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2007, 10:10:17 PM »
SE Asia ruined my confidence in staking all my cookies on anything AR, regardless of calibre. I know they say that most of the problems have been "solved" or whatever, but I still just can't seem to take them seriously. Just are not in the same class as an AK, FAL, M1, M14, and I suppose SIG, & HK battle rifles.  In 0 to 600 yard terrain, a good AK would be hard to beat. If talking mountains or desert give me a FAL, M14, or M1 in that order.

I know how you feel.  Those of us that had them early will NEVER trust them.
All tipoes and misspelings are copi-righted.  Pleeze do not reuse without ritten persimmons  :D

USSA-1

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 202
    • US Shooting Academy
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #51 on: November 26, 2007, 08:31:01 AM »
Quote
In 0 to 600 yard terrain, a good AK would be hard to beat.

That might be a stretch for an AK.  The AK design was based on a massed firepower warfare doctrine.  Simple, rugged, easy to produce.  It was never designed for precision on any level.

The 7.62x39 cartridge was designed around the lessons the Soviets learned during urban warfare during WWII.  Most infantry engagements occurred within a 300 meter window.  The 7.62x39 was designed as a 300 meter round.  Plenty of power and accuracy in a compact design.

If you're talking about the AK-47 and you reduce your distance to 300 yards, then I'm with you...to a degree.

You can extend that envelope to 500 meters with the 5.45x39 round, but you're still at the mercy of the original design.  I've used an AK-74 on 500 meter, military ranges and had some good success, but after every 500 meter shot I always "hoped" for a hit.  With the AR, I "knew" as soon as I called my shot whether or not I hit the target.

The AK is an outstanding design, but it needs a major overhaul.

Erik
"Occupo Mens"
Win the Fight

Watch The Tactical Rifle Channel

Gunnutz13

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
  • DoD: Peace thru Superior Firepower
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #52 on: January 29, 2008, 01:40:13 PM »
My main Battle Rifle...  combat proven ...long range or CQB... and can be used as a club or spear if ya run out of ammo

     Springfield M1 Garand...dated November 1944...30.06 

 
    " The greatest battle implement ever devised "
                                General George S. Patton


Gunnutz13
<----------------------------------------------------->

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
                  -- Thomas Jefferson

warhawke

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 365
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #53 on: January 30, 2008, 12:21:25 AM »
My main Battle Rifle...  combat proven ...long range or CQB... and can be used as a club or spear if ya run out of ammo

     Springfield M1 Garand...dated November 1944...30.06 

 
    " The greatest battle implement ever devised "
                                General George S. Patton




A man after my own heart!

but not in a Navy sort of way
"Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem"
(The one hope of the doomed is not to hope for safety)
Virgil

Skorz

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #54 on: January 31, 2008, 12:13:10 PM »
M1A - with the VLTOR tele-stock and SOCOM barrel/flash hider. I have a Pentax 1.5-5X scope on mine, but I am thinking of maybe a Leupold MR/T (since I use the CQ/T on my M4 to great effect).  ;D

I love H&K for their MP5, but not the G3/HK91.  And I am not a fan of most FN products (except the GP35), including the FAL.  Their newest plastic toy is awful (although I admit to only handling it in the shop and not shooting it - the magazine stuck, the ergonomics were awful, and the sights were cheap).  Likewise, I haven't had the pleasure of shooting the Galil ARM in 7.62x51mm (.308 Winchester), but I think I might even prefer that over my M1A, if it's as impressive as it's smaller-caliber brethren.  Unfortunately, it's outlawed here in CT, but if I move to a more gun-friendly state (looking at Utah right now) I might pick one up.   :o
Skorz

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #55 on: Today at 04:03:29 PM »

canon6

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2008, 02:34:38 PM »
My new to me FN FAL    new to FAL I am still leaarning, but I do like this rifle. ;D  After a bunch of reaserch it is a inch pattern Aussie built in 68,so maybe in country at the same time I was,I took it out shooting today and what  weapon . ;D   Doug 
a armed man is his own master

Rastus

  • Mindlessness Fuels Tyranny
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6825
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 605
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #56 on: December 14, 2008, 06:56:13 AM »
OK...it's been a year.  FAL in hand (no rounds downrange yet) and AR-10 on backorder.  This was a great thread. 

Has the experience of a year changed any minds or provided new tips and tricks? 

OK...silly question, I'm sure no minds were changed....   :)


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!

warhawke

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 365
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #57 on: December 14, 2008, 12:18:46 PM »
Change my mind, no, but my situation has changed. I had to sell all my firearms but one (kept the FR-8 in 7.62 NATO). Now, hopefully (HOPEFULLY) I will be getting the cash soon to replace my main weapons soon. I plan to get a PSL in 7.62x54r for my main weapon and an AK-47 for the wife. The PSL is not a battle rifle but I don't plan on getting into too many battles. It is however very reliable and about as accurate as I can shoot it out to 600 meters and I don't think it's too shabby out to 1000, I ought to hit the guy at least once out of 10 rounds.

The two deciding factors for me are;

1) I can get the ammo relatively cheap, heck even the commercial stuff is slightly less than 7.62 NATO.

2) I can fix it and get the parts, at least those most likely to break like the FCG, firing pin, etc.

Getting parts for the H&K or FN is a lot bigger problem then it was just a few years ago and AR-10 parts, well let's just say I have not heard good things (just to add to the other problems with the AR's.
"Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem"
(The one hope of the doomed is not to hope for safety)
Virgil

Hazcat

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10457
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #58 on: December 14, 2008, 12:26:20 PM »
Warhawke,

PSL?  Deepwater has a Mosin in 7.62 x 54R, is the PSL similar?
All tipoes and misspelings are copi-righted.  Pleeze do not reuse without ritten persimmons  :D

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Battle rifles (223 need not apply)
« Reply #59 on: December 14, 2008, 12:32:03 PM »
PSL is similar to the Dragonov (SVD) sniper rifle, I'm not sure but I think it's made in Romania. Several countries have sniper or DM rifles loosely based on the AK or RPK action

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk