I never met a gun I didn't like. Some are much better than others for a given task. Some are almost worthless for anything. I admire the engineering and manufacturing skills.
Ar15 upgrade
- Thread starter bmwrickster
- Start date
Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:
I'd be happy to take that ammo off your hands...
For reasons unknown to myself, the Army picked for their next generation weapons systems, the 6.8/.277 diameter.
IIRC, three different companies have submitted candidates. One is of the teleoscopic design, another a composite shell body with a metal head, and one metal body with a redesigned head, all are supposed to be lighter than current 5.56, more capable, more lethal and able to penetrate next gen body armor.
Semi-autos have their place.
But I would rather see emphasis on skill, marksmanship, first round hits than trying to use technology as a replacement.
I know more than a few guys with tricked out ARs that cannot miss fast enough. And that is not even under combat situations but shooting at the range.
Agreed.
But if you look at some of the older gun designs vs newer ones you can see where the end goal is more about how to make a firearm at the least cost, most volume, and sometimes it shows.
Vietnam era Marine Sniper Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock recommended the bolt action Winchester Model 70 for future sniper use (as well as the 30-06 round). But the Pentagon bean counters found they could buy one and a half Remington 700s for the price of one Winchester Model 70. It takes more time and effort for a 3-position bolt mounted safety vs a simple safe/fire safety. Same goes for a control feed vs push feed, fixed blade ejector vs a spring/plunge ejector.
Post WWII, the Pentagon looked for a new system for acquisitions of military gear, which would lead to the Defense Acquisition Cycle. I had to take a few courses (mandatory) from the Defense Acquisition University (yay). Hence, the saying, "The contract is awarded to the candidate who met the most requirements, at the lowest cost."
And in some cases, you can see/feel it.
Ram619
Active Member
The reason the military is changing cartridges is because the 5.56 just wasn't very effective in the Middle East. It doesn't have enough power at longer ranges like desert areas and in CQB scenarios it isn't very good against barriers. The 6.8 packs like 30%+ more power in a round that's not any bigger or heavier.
Semi/full auto's are needed in the military, mostly for suppressive fire. When the people shooting back at you are firing 600 rounds/min you have to be able to match it at the very least. Otherwise you'd be spending a lot of time with your head down in cover.
I know quite a few people that have lots of very nice guns and I agree most of them couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. The reason isn't the type of weapon they're using, it's because they never shoot them.
You know what you are talking about.
I have been a long advocate of replacing the 5.56 while in the Marines, and even more so once I started shooting NRA High Power Rifle. It was not uncommon for those of us shooting factory match grade 168grn .30 rounds to shoot better scores at the 600yrd line then those shooting 5.56 handloads atop compressed charges and VLD bullets.
Saw the limits of the 5.56 in rural Afghanistan. There was a reason why the insurgents attacked from elevated positions, with PKMs, RPGs in the main effort, and AKs in the harassment/security role. They knew the limitations of the 5.56 round.
The M2 and MG240s (my personal favorite), got the most effective use. M16/M4 were just wasting ammo. You use a MG240 in the suppressive role while the riflemen advance with "I AM UP! THEY SEE ME! I AM DOWN!" advancement or flanking maneuvers.
The US Army spent a lot of money to over come all the deficiencies of 62grn "green tip" with the M855A1 EPR round. A lot of money. And, only to replace it with a better round in their next generation weapons systems. Again, according to the Defense Acquisition Cycle, the contract award goes to the candidate that met the most requirements, at the lowest cost.
Based off his posts, I think I would rather have a platoon of Arcticdude like riflemen (i.e. "riflemen" definition per the late, great COL Jeff Copper) with bolt action 30-06 rifles whom have a 90% first hit rating than a platoon of yahoos with AR15s and a 1 in 10 hit rating post-SHTF.
Sir, I have been around.
Pop-culture reference: Days of Thunder.
The part where the Tom Cruise character admits he knows jack-sheeot about cars. He just drives them.
The Robert Duvall character/crew chief, puts different tires on the car and has Cruise do laps around the track to understand the car.
That is a similar analogy to those who have only shot one rifle and with no other experience. They automatically think that rifle is the best as that is all they know.
I knew more than a few Marines who fell into that mentality. They did not understand ballistics, FPS, Ft/lbs, SD, CO etc. as they were not informed. No fault of their own. It is not like we had access to that kind of knowledge or chronys in boot camp.
I will gladly admit it I was equally ignorant until I started handloading and shooting NRA High Power Rifle.
Then, I understood the need for not only the knowledge of ballistics, but and more importantly, the need for the mastery of the fundamentals of marksmenship, per COL Jeff Copper.
Arcticdude
Top Poster
I just made a deal to sell 4600 rounds. He's interested in taking some of my reloading equip too.
Ram619
Active Member
I believe the AR platform is a pretty good one. The only problem is the anemic 5.56 round. Other than that it's extremely modular for different types of people as well as being able to add pretty much any accessories or optics that are needed. It breaks down very easily for cleaning as well as changing calibers.
I don't disagree with the whole 90% hit rate. But the military isn't going back to bolt guns. I know I wouldn't want to be clearing building while trying to run a bolt. The 30-06 would be nice though.
Schattentarn
A True Doomsday Prepper
Schattentarn
A True Doomsday Prepper
But on the other hand:
http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html
I think SHTF or Militia use will be more like Vietnam than the Near East. We needed a short M4 to clear buildings and for urban warfare. We needed an ACOG to use the same rifle and hit at 400 yards, returning fire from those Enfields the Afghans were using. There are a whole bunch of larger caliber rifles which we could use if that is the point. AR 10, Galil Ace Gen 2, and why not just use the AK 47 or AKM???
http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html
I think SHTF or Militia use will be more like Vietnam than the Near East. We needed a short M4 to clear buildings and for urban warfare. We needed an ACOG to use the same rifle and hit at 400 yards, returning fire from those Enfields the Afghans were using. There are a whole bunch of larger caliber rifles which we could use if that is the point. AR 10, Galil Ace Gen 2, and why not just use the AK 47 or AKM???
At one time the VW Bug (the 1970s version) was popular, modular, lots of aftermarket products, easy to work on.
Same could be said about the Honda Civic.
But neither are a Mercedes-Benz.
While in Afghanistan a German allowed me to handle his HKG36 (the military version).
That felt like a Mercedes-Benz version of a rifle.
Side note: The German Personal Security Detachments (provided security for VIPs) had a few DMs using G3s topped with scopes.
No, the military is not going back to bolt rifles. But they also have the logistical train to provide the beans, band aids, and bullets.
SHTF, what ammunition you have is what ammunition you have. Every squeeze of that trigger is that much closer that rifle is to becoming a club.
Each should equip themselves with what is most likely in their particular situation.
I live in rural area. And I am NOT planning on any building clearing SHTF.
I need one rifle in a caliber that can do most of everything I need it to do. From small game (100grn RN), to medium-large game not only out to 400yrds but short range in heavy brush. Self-defense, and anti-material if need be.
I want to be the guy who can pick up any rifle, get familiar with the action and trigger, and hit what I am aiming at with iron sights, or scoped.
Schattentarn
A True Doomsday Prepper
I have no plans to hunt so my weapons are all for self defense. It seems to me close proximity is correlated with probability in self defense. Flexibility is important, though, so the Ultradyne irons give me the ability to hit an 18 inch target at 500 yards if I need to do so and can see it. I don't ever want to get lost in a scope.
I would always plan for everything feasable that's within your means to do so. Old Murphy will show up and say, "So you didn't plan on having to hunt?"
I would say versatility is important in how ever many weapons you have.
Ram619
Active Member
But you can't pull 2 pins on a VW Bug and make it a Benz. You can pull 2 pins on an AR and make it a .50 Beowolf, 458 Socom, .308, 6.8 SPC, etc., etc., etc.
I'm not saying that the AR platform is the best weapon platform there is for all situations. But it would be hard to find a replacement that has the modularity that is needed by the military that the AR has.
I personally prefer bullpup's to AR style weapons for CQB, and bolt guns for long range. Just because a weapon platform is a good fit for the military who has to arm hundreds of thousands of troops doesn't mean that same platform is best for each individual person.
Schattentarn
A True Doomsday Prepper
Comparing German and American weapons and especially Soviet weapons is worth considering. The Germans treat each weapon and each car as a technical work of art. They improve it while in manufacturing sequence. This means you order parts by identification number as new parts may not fit. It also means in the field, parts are not always interchangeable. The Soviets are the opposite. They design something which is first reliable and tough, then is cheap to produce and maybe almost as good as the best of other countries. Once they do this, they don't change a thing. Parts are interchangeable in the field. In WW2 notable examples were the Soviet heavy truck, the Soviet ground attack aircraft (Black Death) and the T-34 tank. For the money and effort the Soviets made thousands of times as many weapons as the Germans for the same cost. We all know which system won the war. As they say, quantity can be a qualitative advantage. The Americans are somewhere in between. An example is our F-22 vs the Russian stealth fighter. We will build hundreds. They will build thousands.
