Steve Smith
New member
Art, your data suggests that with an amry of willing participants, a full-powered semi-auto rifle is better than an assault rifle.
The AR15 insult Rifle.. Part Three!
- Thread starter MAD DOG
- Start date
- Status
Charmedlyfe
Moderator
Sounds to me like you guys are all trying to do a hammer's job with a shovel. The AR-15 and the 'battle rifles' were designed for two different things.
Also, I built my AR on a preban ArmaLite. 100% function after over 2000 rounds and the same care I give my FAL and my Mauser. Junk in=junk out. Use top-shelf components, get a reliable rifle. Not all AR parts work well together, and the skill of the armourer is critical.
Also, I built my AR on a preban ArmaLite. 100% function after over 2000 rounds and the same care I give my FAL and my Mauser. Junk in=junk out. Use top-shelf components, get a reliable rifle. Not all AR parts work well together, and the skill of the armourer is critical.
EchoFiveMike
New member
BAck when God & I were a good bit younger, S.L.A. Marshal did a study of Infantrymen and how many shot or did not shoot while in combat. The numbers were rather alarming as to the percentage who kept their heads down.
SLA Marshall was a liar and a BS artist and his words weren't worth the paper they were printed on! That said, I don't seem to have any problem with my issued M16A2's or the AR's I've had built from good parts by competant gunsmithes. If you are using a mish-mash of Olympic and foreign crap, then your gun doesn't deserve to work. Oh and that AK. Let me know about the first time the gun goes click because you thought the bolt would lock open when it's empty, cause it doesn't happen. And the selector lever is a joke. Haven't played with the FAL enought to have an opinion. Somebody want to send me one for testing? Semper Fidelis...Ken
SLA Marshall was a liar and a BS artist and his words weren't worth the paper they were printed on! That said, I don't seem to have any problem with my issued M16A2's or the AR's I've had built from good parts by competant gunsmithes. If you are using a mish-mash of Olympic and foreign crap, then your gun doesn't deserve to work. Oh and that AK. Let me know about the first time the gun goes click because you thought the bolt would lock open when it's empty, cause it doesn't happen. And the selector lever is a joke. Haven't played with the FAL enought to have an opinion. Somebody want to send me one for testing? Semper Fidelis...Ken
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Thanks for that non answer.
We seem to agree that most, and it has been proven, that a vast majority of your
infantry battles will develope within 300 yds.. Well within range for the 5.56 and
the 7.62 NATO or the 7.62x39. All of these rounds will wound or kill at these ranges.
In an enviroment that has others shooting at you, it is pretty important to hit as many targets as quickly as possible.The 5.56 will allow for faster shot recovery, and a flatter trajectory than the other two calibers.
Two very important aspects in a target rich enviroment.Plus, as already stated you can carry quite alot more ammo for the AR platform than the other two weapons in the 7.62 NATO or the 7.63x39. Also a very nice
benefit. As to the lack of reliability in the
AR, I have seen pictures of AR's with the finish wore off them from the number of years of use and service that they have provided for the people who carry them and which thier
life depends on the weapons they carry.
It is to bad that many people have had AR's that were cobbeled together by people who do not have the talent to make such a rifle run as it was intended to.
[This message has been edited by markmcj (edited November 09, 2000).]
infantry battles will develope within 300 yds.. Well within range for the 5.56 and
the 7.62 NATO or the 7.62x39. All of these rounds will wound or kill at these ranges.
In an enviroment that has others shooting at you, it is pretty important to hit as many targets as quickly as possible.The 5.56 will allow for faster shot recovery, and a flatter trajectory than the other two calibers.
Two very important aspects in a target rich enviroment.Plus, as already stated you can carry quite alot more ammo for the AR platform than the other two weapons in the 7.62 NATO or the 7.63x39. Also a very nice
benefit. As to the lack of reliability in the
AR, I have seen pictures of AR's with the finish wore off them from the number of years of use and service that they have provided for the people who carry them and which thier
life depends on the weapons they carry.
It is to bad that many people have had AR's that were cobbeled together by people who do not have the talent to make such a rifle run as it was intended to.
[This message has been edited by markmcj (edited November 09, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Art Eatman:
The politics of Olin industries to supply ammo with a ball-type powder, instead of the designed-for IMR-type powder, has been well documented. Among other sources, Soldier of Fortune magazine had an excellent series on this.
[/quote]
Art, I do believe Ball Powder has been modified since the early days
Olin still uses it and I buy 748 in 8lb kegs to run thru my Dillon 650 to feed my AR's. Never had a gas tube close up from calcium carbonate or anything else for that matter.
The politics of Olin industries to supply ammo with a ball-type powder, instead of the designed-for IMR-type powder, has been well documented. Among other sources, Soldier of Fortune magazine had an excellent series on this.
[/quote]
Art, I do believe Ball Powder has been modified since the early days
Olin still uses it and I buy 748 in 8lb kegs to run thru my Dillon 650 to feed my AR's. Never had a gas tube close up from calcium carbonate or anything else for that matter.George Hill
Staff Alumnus
We are getting side tract by the caliber issue.
Its the rifle!
Quick - Name some rifles better than the AR!
(uh - all of them?)
Its the rifle!
Quick - Name some rifles better than the AR!
(uh - all of them?)
i Combat Soldier. not a SEAL or a Ranger or a Green Beret but a COMBAT SOLDIER, is not going to shot his Rifle more then 150-yards, that was fond out in Koreain War. now a 5.56mm will kill a man out to about 400-yards and if your going to shoot long then that i'd say use a .308 but U.S. Soldier's have use the M16 from the 1960s till today and it will be with us for a long time to com. and for you MAD DOG and for all of you that don't like the M16 then i say so be it for you, but for me and a lot of guys out ther we like it and thats that 
------------------
Technical Sergeant Andrew Robert Smith
CO LRRP Team
of the Second Ranger Battalion Charlie Company in WW2 Online.
------------------
Technical Sergeant Andrew Robert Smith
CO LRRP Team
of the Second Ranger Battalion Charlie Company in WW2 Online.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by George Hill:
Thanks for that non answer.[/quote]
It's your opinion that it's a non-answer. Basically, you disagree for reasons having to do with your experiences so nothing I say will be accepted by you as proof. I also disagree with you for reasons based on MY personal experiences, so you aren't likely to change my mind either.
Thanks for that non answer.[/quote]
It's your opinion that it's a non-answer. Basically, you disagree for reasons having to do with your experiences so nothing I say will be accepted by you as proof. I also disagree with you for reasons based on MY personal experiences, so you aren't likely to change my mind either.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by George Hill:
We are getting side tract by the caliber issue.
Its the rifle!
Quick - Name some rifles better than the AR!
(uh - all of them?)[/quote]
No. I really don't think ANY are better to such a significant degree as to warrant the replacement of the M16 system. The Galil is probably almost as accurate and more reliable, but it's much heavier, not as versatile and even the Israelis are going away from it. No other modern assault rifle is as good.
On a civilian level, it's even more so. No other rifle design is as accurate, reliable, affordable and has as many spare parts and accessories readily available.
We are getting side tract by the caliber issue.
Its the rifle!
Quick - Name some rifles better than the AR!
(uh - all of them?)[/quote]
No. I really don't think ANY are better to such a significant degree as to warrant the replacement of the M16 system. The Galil is probably almost as accurate and more reliable, but it's much heavier, not as versatile and even the Israelis are going away from it. No other modern assault rifle is as good.
On a civilian level, it's even more so. No other rifle design is as accurate, reliable, affordable and has as many spare parts and accessories readily available.
It is fortunate for the AR and its fans that DUDE is not the sole respondant in favor of the weapon...
I have been in combat, and engaged targets with iron sights out to 300+ meters.
I used a .308 semi auto FAL for this.
Real men can control a .308 recoil, and make second shots in very good time. Even the top SOF three gun gamesmen are using FALs in favor of their flatter shooting and harder hitting at longer ranges.
An old Alaskan I know who was in Castner's Cut Throats shot several of the enemy at ranges exceeding 600 yards with a 1903-A3 in 30-06. It was equipped with iron sights as well.
150 yards may be the limit for DUDE, but the real world offers longer, more challenging shots than the WWII cybersimulator he is evidently stuck in.
Only a retar...er, ah... the intellectually challenged would actually believe that the .223 is ballistically superior to the .308 at any range. The .223 does not have so much "excess velocity" as they have been led to believe. Especially out of a 14.5-16 inch barrel. The amount of energy available from the pathetic little tweeker round diminishes rapidly with distance.
The .308 starts with more energy, and finishes with more at longer distances.
Despite the fact that South African big game hunting is primarily done at ranges of under 200 yards, you do NOT see the fellows there using .223s and their micro bullets on man sized game, despite the "horribly cavernous wounds" that they are purported (by DUDE and others as gullible) to produce.
They are using .308s as a MINIMUM round choice. They use them because they KILL MORE
EFFICIENTLY.
What next?
It seems these AR fans will try any ploy to attempt redemption of their questionable creed of crappy craftsmanship and corrupted calibers.
Remember, this is primarily about the crappy rifle design more than the moronic caliber choice (ARs in .308 suck too), but I guess that you can call it how you see it.
Battlewise, I see it as a crappy caliber in a crummy rifle.
[This message has been edited by MAD DOG (edited November 09, 2000).]
I have been in combat, and engaged targets with iron sights out to 300+ meters.
I used a .308 semi auto FAL for this.
Real men can control a .308 recoil, and make second shots in very good time. Even the top SOF three gun gamesmen are using FALs in favor of their flatter shooting and harder hitting at longer ranges.
An old Alaskan I know who was in Castner's Cut Throats shot several of the enemy at ranges exceeding 600 yards with a 1903-A3 in 30-06. It was equipped with iron sights as well.
150 yards may be the limit for DUDE, but the real world offers longer, more challenging shots than the WWII cybersimulator he is evidently stuck in.
Only a retar...er, ah... the intellectually challenged would actually believe that the .223 is ballistically superior to the .308 at any range. The .223 does not have so much "excess velocity" as they have been led to believe. Especially out of a 14.5-16 inch barrel. The amount of energy available from the pathetic little tweeker round diminishes rapidly with distance.
The .308 starts with more energy, and finishes with more at longer distances.
Despite the fact that South African big game hunting is primarily done at ranges of under 200 yards, you do NOT see the fellows there using .223s and their micro bullets on man sized game, despite the "horribly cavernous wounds" that they are purported (by DUDE and others as gullible) to produce.
They are using .308s as a MINIMUM round choice. They use them because they KILL MORE
EFFICIENTLY.
What next?
It seems these AR fans will try any ploy to attempt redemption of their questionable creed of crappy craftsmanship and corrupted calibers.
Remember, this is primarily about the crappy rifle design more than the moronic caliber choice (ARs in .308 suck too), but I guess that you can call it how you see it.
Battlewise, I see it as a crappy caliber in a crummy rifle.
[This message has been edited by MAD DOG (edited November 09, 2000).]
EchoFiveMike
New member
Unfortunately, Sgt M he quoted the soldiers after they where in action.************
I've read a little SLA Marshall, mostly portions taken for articles and I've read Grossman's "On Killing" and I'm trying to find "Closing with the Enemy" by Michael Doubler but local libraries don't carry it. Quite a few people believe that Marshall's numbers were exagerated, and I tend to side with them. The people I know who've been there and done that certainly didn't have any problems with pulling the trigger. And they got a nice clear view through a 10x Unertl. I'm a little premature, but "Happy birthday, sir" Semper Fidelis...Ken M
I've read a little SLA Marshall, mostly portions taken for articles and I've read Grossman's "On Killing" and I'm trying to find "Closing with the Enemy" by Michael Doubler but local libraries don't carry it. Quite a few people believe that Marshall's numbers were exagerated, and I tend to side with them. The people I know who've been there and done that certainly didn't have any problems with pulling the trigger. And they got a nice clear view through a 10x Unertl. I'm a little premature, but "Happy birthday, sir" Semper Fidelis...Ken M
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Frontsight!, I read recently that in Rhodesia, the Ian Smith government was so affected by the embargo that ammo became hard come by. The troops were told to use only semi-auto fire, unless absolutely necessary.
According to the article, there was no reduction in combat effectiveness.
Damfino, Art
(My Army time was occupation duty only. No combat. Note that I stay out of certain arguments.)
According to the article, there was no reduction in combat effectiveness.
Damfino, Art
(My Army time was occupation duty only. No combat. Note that I stay out of certain arguments.)
I have never fired a fullauto FAL; but I would imagine that its recoil makes fullauto useless for multiple hits on the same target (like you need them), or for suppression through hitting anywhere NEAR a group at any sort of range beyond hand to hand.
Is this report of semi only an exaggerration of the time around their ammo shortage? I mean, British Fals are semiauto only anyway, right?
Battler.
Is this report of semi only an exaggerration of the time around their ammo shortage? I mean, British Fals are semiauto only anyway, right?
Battler.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MAD DOG:
150 yards may be the limit for DUDE, but the real world offers longer, more challenging shots than the WWII cybersimulator he is evidently stuck in.
Hmmm...and you say you were in combat? Funny you would think that all but an incredibly small minority of firefights were at extended ranges then. I freely admit I was never in combat, but I was trained by and served with many who were, and I took advantage of that to ask as many questions as possible. And I never heard one tell me that range was an important factor in a combat rifle for them.
Only a retar...er, ah... the intellectually challenged would actually believe that the .223 is ballistically superior to the .308 at any range.
Ah, this sort of comment will most likely make anyone who disagrees with you ignore any evidence you might submit following it. A wise man doesn't resort to name-calling as he knows it will weaken his argument rather than enhance it.
The .223 does not have so much "excess velocity" as they have been led to believe. Especially out of a 14.5-16 inch barrel. The amount of energy available from the pathetic little tweeker round diminishes rapidly with distance.
The .308 starts with more energy, and finishes with more at longer distances.
Despite the fact that South African big game hunting is primarily done at ranges of under 200 yards, you do NOT see the fellows there using .223s and their micro bullets on man sized game, despite the "horribly cavernous wounds" that they are purported (by DUDE and others as gullible) to produce.
More ad hominem, but ignoring that bit of juvenile name-calling, animals aren't human. Animals have layers of muscle and harder hides, and animals also don't react the same to being shot. Most African game animals are also likely to be heavier than the average person, most of that weight in muscle.
They are using .308s as a MINIMUM round choice. They use them because they KILL MORE
EFFICIENTLY.
They do kill...ANIMALS...more efficiently. No one here was reccommending 223 as an all-around hunting caliber. Straw man argument.
What next?
It seems these AR fans will try any ploy to attempt redemption of their questionable creed of crappy craftsmanship and corrupted calibers.
Seems to me that the anti-AR people are the ones resorting to hyperbole and name-calling here.
Remember, this is primarily about the crappy rifle design more than the moronic caliber choice (ARs in .308 suck too), but I guess that you can call it how you see it.
Battlewise, I see it as a crappy caliber in a crummy rifle.
And others who are as knowledgable if not more knowledgable than yourself disagree. So perhaps you might open your mind to the possibility you're mistaken.
[This message has been edited by MAD DOG (edited November 09, 2000).][/B][/quote]
150 yards may be the limit for DUDE, but the real world offers longer, more challenging shots than the WWII cybersimulator he is evidently stuck in.
Hmmm...and you say you were in combat? Funny you would think that all but an incredibly small minority of firefights were at extended ranges then. I freely admit I was never in combat, but I was trained by and served with many who were, and I took advantage of that to ask as many questions as possible. And I never heard one tell me that range was an important factor in a combat rifle for them.
Only a retar...er, ah... the intellectually challenged would actually believe that the .223 is ballistically superior to the .308 at any range.
Ah, this sort of comment will most likely make anyone who disagrees with you ignore any evidence you might submit following it. A wise man doesn't resort to name-calling as he knows it will weaken his argument rather than enhance it.
The .223 does not have so much "excess velocity" as they have been led to believe. Especially out of a 14.5-16 inch barrel. The amount of energy available from the pathetic little tweeker round diminishes rapidly with distance.
The .308 starts with more energy, and finishes with more at longer distances.
Despite the fact that South African big game hunting is primarily done at ranges of under 200 yards, you do NOT see the fellows there using .223s and their micro bullets on man sized game, despite the "horribly cavernous wounds" that they are purported (by DUDE and others as gullible) to produce.
More ad hominem, but ignoring that bit of juvenile name-calling, animals aren't human. Animals have layers of muscle and harder hides, and animals also don't react the same to being shot. Most African game animals are also likely to be heavier than the average person, most of that weight in muscle.
They are using .308s as a MINIMUM round choice. They use them because they KILL MORE
EFFICIENTLY.
They do kill...ANIMALS...more efficiently. No one here was reccommending 223 as an all-around hunting caliber. Straw man argument.
What next?
It seems these AR fans will try any ploy to attempt redemption of their questionable creed of crappy craftsmanship and corrupted calibers.
Seems to me that the anti-AR people are the ones resorting to hyperbole and name-calling here.
Remember, this is primarily about the crappy rifle design more than the moronic caliber choice (ARs in .308 suck too), but I guess that you can call it how you see it.
Battlewise, I see it as a crappy caliber in a crummy rifle.
And others who are as knowledgable if not more knowledgable than yourself disagree. So perhaps you might open your mind to the possibility you're mistaken.
[This message has been edited by MAD DOG (edited November 09, 2000).][/B][/quote]
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
The FAL design was made semi auto.
Certain militaries insisted on Full Auto.
Certain militaries insisted on Full Auto.
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Due to the long load time - lets break for a part 4... If Mad Dog wants to open it.
To kick off that thread - I'll start the subject.
The Galil is only heavier when your compairing it to a regualar AR... the AR heavy barrels that are in vogue today are heavier than the galil. A HB AR-15 with a loaded mag and a scope... your looking at what 8 or 9 pounds? The HB carbines are less so - but still... you cant say that light weight is a factor that makes it better than the Galil.
Closing.
MAD DOG - Wanna open the part 4?
To kick off that thread - I'll start the subject.
The Galil is only heavier when your compairing it to a regualar AR... the AR heavy barrels that are in vogue today are heavier than the galil. A HB AR-15 with a loaded mag and a scope... your looking at what 8 or 9 pounds? The HB carbines are less so - but still... you cant say that light weight is a factor that makes it better than the Galil.
Closing.
MAD DOG - Wanna open the part 4?
- Status