Suppressive fire and the 5.56 for civilian defense

Completely pointless waste of time to argue about the two.

For defensive purposes:

1) have a gun
2) know how to use it
3) if possible, have a long gun

Tactics and marksmanship are far more important to the outcome than any difference in the terminal ballistics of one rifle caliber versus another.
 
Sorry, but I just fail to see the need for lots of civilians in the USA to learn military battlefield tactics for their personal defense.
Click to expand...
If we could be certain that those who direct the military, i.e. the federal government, were 100% guaranteed to always be good people and never threatening to us and/or our liberty, I would agree. However such is not reality.
 
Finally, the success of the 5.56 as a modern infantry cartridge relies heavily on the presence of heavier support weapons, which, again, are unlikely to be present in any civilian scenario. Civilians aren't going to have access to M2BHs, Mk 19s, M240B/G, M203s, or to Strikers and Cobra gunships
Click to expand...


uh...........darn........


wish I had known that sooner.

anybody want to buy any Strikers or a Cobra gunship?
 
I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...
Well, having taught tactics in the military, LE, and civilian realms, I would think I have a fairly good handle on the issue. Of course, I may be mistaken, so please feel free to discuss how things like bounding overwatch, suppressive fire, squad movement and support, and other military battlefield tactics work for personal self defense.

If we could be certain that those who direct the military, i.e. the federal government, were 100% guaranteed to always be good people and never threatening to us and/or our liberty, I would agree. However such is not reality.
Click to expand...
Should that occur I would think that we are no longer in the arena commonly considered for self defense.
 
If we could be certain that those who direct the military, i.e. the federal government, were 100% guaranteed to always be good people and never threatening to us and/or our liberty, I would agree. However such is not reality.
Click to expand...

Considering that the current crop of soldiers are the finest in the world, I'd say you'd have to wait until they're all or mostly gone and replaced by evil doers. That gives us a good 30 years of not having to worry about such things.
 
7.62?

quote:

Heck, things THAT bad, probably hard to beat a nice pistol.

Yah, this has 10mm written all over it. swat snipers will tell you, 90% or more of your shots in an urban setting are under 100yds. Who needs the bulk of a rifle when the G-20 will do every thing you need out past what will most likely be needed. 5.56... pasha, MOMMA, GET THE GLOCK!
 
I have no doubt that AR-15s and the various other popular 5.56mm semi-automatic rifles out there are adequate for most self-defense applications and that much worse choices can be made. I have no problem with this as long as tactics are modified to fit what is prudent to the job at hand. Just too many people I've met seem to think that military tactics and training are necessarily applicable to civilian self-defense, and I disagree.

Things like suppressive fire and ammunition weight don't matter as much to civilian defense. Faster follow up shots are nice. But I've never found controlling an M1A to be all that difficult. It definitely isn't ideal for close action drills, so if all you care about are failure drills at 7 to 25 yards, then you can probably find better tools for the job. I'd choose my AK.

I am well aware of the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC, and I am a big advocate of both as both military and civilian defense rounds. I briefly considered a 6.5mm but couldn't find rifles so chambered that interested me, nor did I like the (lack of) ammunition availability, even with the Wolf rounds being available over the internet, and the complete lack of integrated optics. As a round, the 6.5 has a lot of potential. As a weapon system, it fails to meet this potential by a significant margin compared to more popular systems. I like the option of being able to put a TA11E on a FAL carbine or Mk 14 and have that quality of an optic providing battery free reticle illumination, range finding, and BDC capabilities. It enhances effectiveness under stress compared to less precise Kentucky windage, or with systems that require you to calculate and compute range then compensate with the elevation knobs. Mildot systems work great for sniper rifles, less so for battle rifles. No one wants to do math while being shot at. Being able to integrate optics and ammunition into a weapon system gives the 7.62 and the 5.56 considerable advantages over the 6.5 and the 6.8 right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top