Digging in for war?

Spark,

I agree with you on your comments about engagement ranges and things of that nature. Would an SKS or AK-47 fit the bill when you talk about lighter weight firearm and ammo? I know that I can jam 10 rounds into my SKS on a stripper clip fairly quickly, and have a carry vest with pouches that will allow me to lug around about 200 rounds. Was thinking about replacing the 10-round magazine with a 20-rounder, but decided against it since there really isn't any advantage when using strippers.

What are some opinions out there about the SKS and its real effective range? Not talking imaginary stuff (like the 1000m they have marked on the rear sights), but honest-to-goodness "you ought to be able to do THIS" type stuff.
 
The SKS works just dandy as a lightweight carbine. The AK, on the other hand.... especially the ones with the milled steel recievers are a bit too heavy IMHO.

The AK has proven itself over and over again. It may not be the most accurate, but it's very reliable, nobody is going to argue that. My concern lies with it's weight and availability of spare parts here in the US.

Since I don't own an AK or an SKS, I'm not going to say anything about how far you can hit with it...

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com
www.bladeforums.com
 
Spark were getting of the topic here if you want to continue that debate e-mail me and we can go on about the difference between a true rifleman/sniper and a high volume of fire. I enjoy a spirited argument.

Remember the US is mostly great tank country i.e. rolling hills flat plains and open forests. Not chopped up small fields like central Europe, rugged mountains like Korea, or jungles. Great open areas suitable for long range engagements. Cities are a very small part of the US land mass

now what’s wrong with the AR type rifles
1. .223 Cal (growing up the only things we hunted with a 22 cal were varmints, coyotes, and other small four leged types. Most states will not let you hunt deer with less than a .25 cal)

2. The ar is primarily constructed out aluminum and plastic not the hardiest of materials and both get very brittle in the cold temperatures that are possible in the upper half of the US.

3.The gas blow back system dumps the burnt powder gasses right in the one place you need to keep clean the bolt area. The systems used on the AK, M1 et al are better because the dump the gas some where else.

If I had my choice for an interurban weapon it would be a full auto thompson smg.
 
Alan B, you seem to be on my side and made many of the same points I made.

Sparky, I think we are talking Apples and Oranges. My first post was Militia vs Uniformed Army.

I agree, anyone looking forward to such a fight is a nut. I was in the Army for Seven years. I served in both Panama and the Persian gulf. I'm aware of the tools a Infantry Man has. I also know that little M-16 round starts dropping pretty fast past 400 meters.

My origanial post was directed towards those people who think their AR is going to be effective against an invading Army. I think we can agree such a thing is unlikly, but some members are convinced the UN is going to invade.

Anyway, in such an unlikly case, you would need as much stand off area as you could muster. Plus,as both Alan and me pointed out, body armor can be hard to penatrate at long distances.

This all points towards having a rifle with more muzzle energy and effective range than a AR-15 can muster with the small .223 Remington.

If your talking home defence, then yes the AR-15 will do, but a 12ga shotgun is even better.

------------------
The new guy.

"I'm totin, this pistol because my dang SKS won't fit in my holster"
 
Sorry guys, but we'll have to agree to disagree. MOUT is the most likely battlefield of the future, and if Somalia, Panama Chechnya, Bosnia, etc haven't taught you that, then there's there's going to be a big of learning curve for some of you. Cities may take up the least amount of land mass in the US, but that's where most of the population lives.

I'm not going to discuss an invasion by UN forces on rolling plains, purple mountain majesties, etc, as I just don't see everyone on TFL heading for the hills if someone invades. We're better off staying where we are and defending, as like I previously stated, in MOUT the defender has all the advantages. You want to talk about the effectiveness of the .223? Remember the .22LR pistols that were issued to the resistance during WWII? Proper shot placement works every time. Put a few rounds into anyone COM and if it doesn't kill them, it will give them pause.

Alan, your points may be right in theory but your analysis is flawed. The AR has been around for going on 35 years now using those fragile plastics and aluminums and it's done just fine. Heck, we launch those fragile plastics and aluminums into space and they do just fine there as well, despite how cold it gets.

I'll give you the gas system, but that's proper maintenance for you, you maintain your weapon and it'll do you just fine. Between you and me, I'd carry the HK G36 if it was widely available and there was a lot of parts in the system, but the AR is still king these days.

The main point you guys still seem to be missing is that modern warfare is typically fought at less than 300 meters. You can decry the 5.56mm's effectiveness past that all you want, but it's been proven to do just fine within that envelope. At further ranges, you aren't going for point targets, but area targets, and again, rifle fights aren't happening at 400 meter or longer ranges these days.

Only the hits count, remember? You have to get to the battle to fight in it. Yadda yadda yadda.

Maybe we are comparing apples to oranges. I'm talking about reality of home defense / MOUT / etc, not some "maybe whatif the Black Helicopters and the NWO invade our amber waves of grain and we have to fight them in Kansas!" hypothetical. SS-109 is good enough for the US Military, and I'll be willing to be that no matter who get's hit with it, they will be just as sorry.

As for preferring the 12 guage to the carbine for home defense, there's lots of argument on both sides. I've got both... though I'm starting to lean more towards my AR as there's less overpenetration worries, not to mention better accuracy and ammo considerations... but again, there's pluses and minuses for both.

It's been a fun debate...

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com
www.bladeforums.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top