# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Security & Defense >  Battle Carbine or Battle Rifle

## mordechai

Hey, y'all.

I wondered what do y'all like as a weapon, battle carbine (light rifle in .223 or 7.62x39mm) or a battle rifle (7.62 NATO or larger).

I define both as a semi-auto rifle, in a military pattern. But one is light, and the other heavy, in terms of power.

Please explain.

----------


## noxagol

the only difference between a rifle and a carbine is barrel length. Carbines have short barrels, usually 16" or less, rifles have longer ones. I have a Mosin-Nagant 91/30 which is a rifle and there is the mosin-nagant m44 which is a carbine. the ONLY difference is the length of the barrel.

----------


## mordechai

I'm bringing in a conceptual difference. Technically, you are quite correct. However, I shifted definition to basically ask, you want a small gun or a big gun? (if we're talking relatively standard military calibers)

----------


## noxagol

Oh, well, go with a big gun. With the prevalance of body armor now, you need it to punch through.

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

I want to get the shortest carbine I can.  That way when I add a suppressor it still won't be very long.

Now, the big question is do I get a pistol caliber so I can use the same ammo as my handguns or go with a rifle caliber for more power?

----------


## SWATH

I'm a big fan of both, let the situation dictate the application.  However, for general purpose use the light and fast carbine fits most scenarios.  I'd go with an M4 pattern AR for carbine and something like an M1A or M1 Garand for battle rifle.

----------


## crashm1

> Oh, well, go with a big gun. With the prevalance of body armor now, you need it to punch through.


Headshots work well and makes most of the caliber questions moot. I have to also wonder how many home invaders are wearing body armor (excluding Chicago PD of course).

----------


## GoSlash27

Carbine. It'll reach out to any range you need, works better in-close, and you can carry more ammo for it. I consider rifles a niche weapon for specialists.

----------


## lucius

..

----------


## Dequeant

Don't limit yourself to certain calibers.

With that said, you definently do not want 5.56.  You cannot reliably hunt medium game (deer, etc etc) with 5.56.   You may not be a big hunter, but a gun is insurance, and if and when the dollar bursts, many people will find themselves hunting for food.

It is also not a good self defense round.  It has short range and absolutely zero knockdown.  If you have to reach out and touch something, at say 150 yards, the 5.56 is unreliable, and weak.  

Personally, i recommend either 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, or .308.  All great hunting long range bullets for medium or larger game, with lots of knockdown.  They also are available in AR-15 flavor, which is big for me.

----------


## crashm1

Dequeant,
 Strangely enough every time I shot the US Armys' qualification course there were targets well beyond 150 meters, I had no problem hitting them. I have shot a couple high power matches as well and had no problem hitting targets out to 600 yards with a bone stock Colt H-Bar, a rifle I could shoot quarter sized groups with at 100 yards with open sights and using cheap generic ammo. I do believe your hunting arguement does have merit. I know for myself that is one of the reasons I am thinking my next AR based rifle will probably be 6.8 or 7.62 I would prefer if I ever manage to go hunting deer that I make a clean kill, ideally I would like it to be dead before it even knows it was shot.

----------


## GoSlash27

Don't underestimate the wounding potential of the .223. Granted it's no .308 against medium and bigger game, but I wouldn't worry about my ability to drop a deer with one.
 We hunt deer in Iowa with .40 S&W handguns. If that round gets the job done, 223 REM should be cake.

BrassFetcher rocks!

----------


## Dequeant

> Dequeant,
> Strangely enough every time I shot the US Armys' qualification course there were targets well beyond 150 meters, I had no problem hitting them. I have shot a couple high power matches as well and had no problem hitting targets out to 600 yards with a bone stock Colt H-Bar, a rifle I could shoot quarter sized groups with at 100 yards with open sights and using cheap generic ammo. I do believe your hunting arguement does have merit. I know for myself that is one of the reasons I am thinking my next AR based rifle will probably be 6.8 or 7.62 I would prefer if I ever manage to go hunting deer that I make a clean kill, ideally I would like it to be dead before it even knows it was shot.


A valid argument, but similar to what you said....it has issues with actually killing anything larger than a varmint.  I mean, sure it's "effective point range" is something like 800 meters.  That only means you can HIT something at that range, but the likelihood of you doing substantial harm to it is low, especially if they have even the weakest of body armor.  Not to mention it's still 5.56.  I'm in the military as well m8.

A good reference for the respective ballistics.
http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf




> Don't underestimate the *wounding potential* of the .223. Granted it's no .308 against medium and bigger game, but I wouldn't worry about my ability to drop a deer with one.
> We hunt deer in Iowa with .40 S&W handguns. If that round gets the job done, 223 REM should be cake.


Exactly..... "wounding potential".  Not "killing potential".  That's the point i was making.  Heck, i could wound myself with a pellet gun.  Also....

The .40 S&W vs. 5.56 argument is really sort of ridiculous.  You can kill a man alot easier (granted, if shot in the head it wouldn't matter) close range with a .40 S&W than you can with 5.56.  It goes back to what i said before, at close range, the 5.56 will go right through without even expanding.  A .40 S&W is nearly twice the size of a .223, and has a far larger selection of rounds....from JHP to hyrda-shock.  

No matter how someone tries to spin it, even the military designed the 5.56 to wound, not kill.  They've come a long way with the introduction of the .77gr rounds, but even with it, your target probably wont even know they're hit unless it's a "frangible", which can only be using in training and by special forces anyway.

To the original poster.....

If you can, i'd suggest 6.5 Grendel.  If you shoot left handed, i'd suggest one of those sexy lefty stag AR's in 6.8 SPC.

----------


## mordechai

Yes, I've heard the theory that the newer 6.8 rounds are the .40 S&W of the rifle world.

----------


## steph3n

I like shooting my .223 but i use it for wild turkey

----------


## GoSlash27

> the 5.56 will go right through without even expanding


 Not true. The .223 does not expand, but it tumbles. That action makes it much more disruptive than a .40. Bigger temporary and permanant cavities, as well as enough kinetic energy to induce devastating hydrostatic shock.

 The .223 may look small, but it makes big damage. .223 being "too small for deer" is an old wives' tale fostered by those who haven't actually tried it. Plenty of deer taken over the years with this caliber.

----------


## Dequeant

> Not true. The .223 does not expand, but it tumbles. That action makes it much more disruptive than a .40. Bigger temporary and permanant cavities, as well as enough kinetic energy to induce hydrostatic shock.
> 
> The .223 may look small, but it makes big damage.


Except the part about .223 tumbling instead of expanding, nothing is correct.  A S&W .40 with over-the-counter rounds can and will remove bodyparts.  With hollow-points, you could watch TV through the cavities it can leave.  Also, of every single military "rifle" round out there, the 5.56 has the least kinetic energy.....bar none.

It's a pathetic rifle round, and it does pathetic damage, with nearly zero knockdown capability.  The only thing it was good for, was being able to fire 14,000 rounds to get a single kill back in vietnam.....they were lighter, so it was easy to carry a ton of them.

Just look at the problems we're having now, why do you think special forces are the ones complaining loudest about the inadequacies of the round?

----------


## GoSlash27

*sigh*...

 Look, it's a free country (hopefully soon to be much freer) and by all means shoot and recommend whatever you like, BUT:
 Everything you have posted above is complete nonsense. *The .40 does not remove body parts or leave gaping holes big enough to view a television through.* Frankly I'm astonished that anybody would think that they did.
 I like 'em. In fact it's my personal caliber of choice. But it doesn't do *that*.
 And I make no comparisons between the .223 and any other rifle round other than to point out that they're capable of taking deer and creating tremendous tissue damage.
 I make no claim other than to say that I would not allow the prospect of unsuccessful deer hunting negatively affect my choice to go with this caliber for a SHTF long arm. Note that my carbine is .40 S&W, not 5.56 Nato (not because I consider the .40 superior, but because it simplifies logistics to have ammo and magazines interchangeable between firearms).
 Our special forces are complaining about the round, first and foremost, because it has horrible _barrier penetration_ capability. They're really unhappy with the 9mm fmj they're forced to use, but that's a whole 'nother subject.

 Anybody reading this, I *strongly* urge you to not take my word for it or this guy's.
 The internet is your friend. Plenty of gel tests, reports from forensic pathologists, and even autopsy photos (if that's your thing) to form your own rational opinion on the matter.
A little light reading

----------


## mordechai

Wow folks. This went straight to the caliber thing.

I was making this proposal more as a mating of caliber _to_ rifle.

By the way, though, there is no comparison between any and all pistol rounds, and handgun rounds. Anything which imparts hydrostatic shock is superior to anything which does not. I've seen the effects (inside people's bodies) of getting hit with rifle rounds. I've also seen the effects of pistol rounds. No comparison.

Which is why I brought up rifles.

As far as the fact that at long ranges, rifles loose that ability, true, and a heavier bullet may be better for long ranges because of that, but a pistol round ain't gonna hit what you want @ 600.

But, more I was directed at rifles.

----------


## GoSlash27

mordechai,
 I'm with you on this. My apologies for leaving the door open for this to turn into  to a weird "caliber" thing. Wasn't my intention.

----------


## Dequeant

Same here, it was mostly my fault too.

6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC, you wont' be disappointed.  If you really have those ranges in mind, go with the 6.5 Grendel.

----------


## Derrrv

Hey guys,

I haven't touched a gun in 15 years. I have an interest in long range target shooting. I will be getting a bolt action (probably a Savage 10FP with a Falcon Menace scope) down the road, but I am way too obsessed with the M1A. My questions:

1. How does accuracy hold up with this rifle over time? Is maintenance going to be a pain?
2. I am most familiar with Springfield armory and am comfortable with their price points. Are there better options out there for M-14 clones for the price?
3. Walnut vs. Synthetic Stock: Aside from weight, is the difference purely aesthetic?

Thanks.

----------


## noxagol

> Hey guys,
> 
> I haven't touched a gun in 15 years. I have an interest in long range target shooting. I will be getting a bolt action (probably a Savage 10FP with a Falcon Menace scope) down the road, but I am way too obsessed with the M1A. My questions:
> 
> 1. How does accuracy hold up with this rifle over time? Is maintenance going to be a pain?
> 2. I am most familiar with Springfield armory and am comfortable with their price points. Are there better options out there for M-14 clones for the price?
> 3. Walnut vs. Synthetic Stock: Aside from weight, is the difference purely aesthetic?
> 
> Thanks.


Synthetics are not affected by humidity or temperature as much as wood is, especially humidity (synthetics are immune).

----------


## wil-c

> mordechai,
>  I'm with you on this. My apologies for leaving the door open for this to turn into  to a weird "caliber" thing. Wasn't my intention.


Actually there is a connection between what the original thread was about and what you were saying in regards to .223  Carbines vrs rifles is determined to an extent by barrel length, 14.5" barrel on an M4 carbine vrs the std 20" on an 
M16A2.
That to a large extent, based on what I understand from my own research, is the cause of the problems with the current rifle (M4) and the questions surrounding it's effectiveness. How so? The shorter  barrel gives up too much initial velocity on the current issue round, so it's going too slow to tumble/fragment but going fast enough to zip right through. That also due to the SS109 round being designed as a penetrator with a hardened insert. 
Std SS109 velocity from a 20" barrel is 3000fps, out of a 14.5 its about 26-2700. From what I've found, you need about 2600 fps minimum for the bullet to tumble & fragment.  Out of a short barrel you are barely above the minimum at muzzle velocity, by 100 yds you are well below that. 
(Hornady reloading manual 4th edition ballistics section, page 29, if you were wondering where I got some of this from)
Out of a 20" barrel, from what the reports the USMC are giving, it does work well (evidently they refused to give up thier A2's with the 20" barrel) along with that, the designated marksmen (army & marines)  are using 20" barrels as well as the M4 with the open-tip match bullets to good effect. 
The heavier bullets definitely help the M4 and the reports are out there with one-shot drops out to 600 yds with this combination (77gr sierra match otp match) on the longer barrels. 
I also spoke with a co-worker who was over there & asked him about his experiences, he said on the whole even the M4 with the std issue round will put a bad guy down with the first round, he saw a few times where someone took a few hits but they were the exception rather than the rule. 

I put this up not as a criticism of your concerns, I actually had the same concerns as you do, does the round work or not? I don't want to purchase a rifle & God forbid the day comes I need it and find out the bad guy takes a hit & keeps coming. So I researched as much as I could & I'm finding out a lot of whats been said isn't accurate. The std length barrel (20") does seem to be the better choice with no real trade-off in terms of handling, weight, etc. Although a carbine is not a horrible choice either. 
Also the original question about carbine vrs rifle does bear onto this owing to the effect of the carbine version vrs the std rifle. 


I guess, at least for myself, it comes down to what my purposes are. I prefer the std length as I really only want one rifle around to deal with. I don't want or need a whole bunch of rifles around, I prefer to keep it to one rifle & learn to use that as best I can. Spend what I would have on the others toward what I might need for that one as well as other things I might need (can't eat a rifle & it doesn't do very well for medical purposes). 

Hope this didn't hijack the thread........again.

----------


## Gunpartsguy

A single rifle of any caliber will do just so many things well. 

If you can only have 1 rifle:


First consideration- Budget
Second- Use. CQB, field, home defense, truck rifle, all around go to rifle etc....
Third- Ammo cost, availability and effectiveness on the targets and at the ranges expected to be used at. 

Luckily I have the luxury of choosing between many rifles close at hand. I prefer .308/7.62 NATO for power, penetration and range.  A FAL carbine is my first go to rifle. behind a 12gauge and one of my  45 ACPs. If I have to go for that FAL...all hell has broken loose!

5.56 won't punch through body armor except at the closest range. And then not reliably...This is talking about common hardball loads. YMWV depending on bullet choice. Multiple shots are the rule taking out haji's in the sandbox with M4's.. 

The new 6.5 & 6.8 loads are great rounds. But the ammo is expensive and not as readily available. 

7.62 x 39 is a great round for CQB. The rifles in that caliber are mostly suited for close in anyway. 

7.62 NATO/7.62x51/.308 Winchester ammo is still relatively cheap. Hard to beat the firepower, penetration and available loads. This is my caliber preference. But I have many rifles in the other calibers talked about in this thread.

The rifle you'd pick for home defense might not be as suitable for other activities. But is still a rifle and can be deadly in the right hands. 

This kind of discussion can go in many directions. If I expect to be on a battlefield... I might go for 5.56 because it may be the most common ammo on the battlefield to pick up. 7.62x39 might also be common depending on other factors. 

Do with what you can afford, can shoot well and fills your own expectation of what you want it to do. Most importantly.....Train with that rifle! Learn it inside and out! Be able to field strip and do minor repairs. Have spare parts and springs for the inevitable breaks during heavy use. And have lots, and lots of ammo and magazines for it!

It would be better to have a .22 with several bricks of ammo. Than a powerful battle rifle with only a few rounds. 

This covers so very little of this subject. But I hope to help point you in the direction that YOU want to go.

----------


## loupeznik

Historically a carbine was a long arm in a pistol caliber.  I understand that the definition has changed in modern times.  Don't overlook a shotgun.  There is nothing more versatile.  They don't overpenitrate in home defense.  I'd hate to kill the kid down the block while trying to defend my home.  You can effectively hunt squirrel, dear, bear, moose, turkey with it.

----------


## noxagol

> Historically a carbine was a long arm in a pistol caliber.  I understand that the definition has changed in modern times.  Don't overlook a shotgun.  There is nothing more versatile.  They don't overpenitrate in home defense.  I'd hate to kill the kid down the block while trying to defend my home.  You can effectively hunt squirrel, dear, bear, moose, turkey with it.


And a slug will $#@! a person up real bad.

----------


## Richard in Austin

Whatever you end up getting, make sure you include buying plenty of ammo,  magazines, and spare parts (if needed, some rifles are more prone to breakage than others) into your budget.

Get as much ammo as you can while it's still available.

----------


## Gunpartsguy

Some good places to go to get more info. The 5.56 vs 7.62 thing has been beat to death on most of these forums. Lot's of opinions and info:

http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/index.php

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/index.php

http://www.arfiles.com/

http://www.ar15.com/

These are a good start. Many others.

----------


## youngbuck

> I want to get the shortest carbine I can.  That way when I add a suppressor it still won't be very long.


Unless you have a Class III license, having a sound suppressor/silencer is highly illegal (akin to having a full auto).  Not that you didn't know that, just clarifying for others perhaps.

----------


## SWATH

> Unless you have a Class III license, having a sound suppressor/silencer is highly illegal (akin to having a full auto).  Not that you didn't know that, just clarifying for others perhaps.


You don't need a license, you just need to pay for the tax stamp and have the registered device transfered to your name or the name of your corporation, LLC, or trust. 

read up here:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=6&f=17

----------


## OddballAZ

I built an AR-15 in 6.8 SPC (16 inch barrel). I really like the round. However I would not recommend it if you are not into reloading your own ammo. It's quite expensive if you buy factory ammo, and chances are you will always be buying it over the internet, or at a gun show IF your lucky.

The good thing is, the brass seems to last forever. They don't "grow" nearly as fast as .223 does. In fact if you don't use the max charge they pretty much don't grow and they will last a very long time if you take good care of the brass. The bullets themselves are just .270 bullets, so they are easy to find, and can be easier to find than .223 since everyone and their mother buys .223 where as mostly hunters buy .270 and they don't buy as much.

6.5 Grendel is also good but I choose 6.8 because many companys make uppers for 6.8 where as only one company makes 6.5.  You can normally find someone at a guns show selling 6.8 uppers and mags. I haven't seen anything for 6.5 at a gun show. But if you really want to shoot long ranges (over 600 meters) then 6.5 would be better than 6.8.

But getting back to the original point of carbine vs battle rifle... With the 6.8 or 6.5 you get the good punch of a larger round with a good amount of the range of a battle rifle all in a carbine.

----------


## loupeznik

Odball and Swath.  All my old friends from AR-15.com

----------


## SWATH

> Odball and Swath. All my old friends from AR-15.com


It's a family reunion. Although we may be on the island of misfit toys.  Lots of fredheads over there.

----------


## M1A2 Tanker 4 Ron Paul

> Hey, y'all.
> 
> I wondered what do y'all like as a weapon, battle carbine (light rifle in .223 or 7.62x39mm) or a battle rifle (7.62 NATO or larger).
> 
> I define both as a semi-auto rifle, in a military pattern. But one is light, and the other heavy, in terms of power.
> 
> Please explain.


Hmmm.... One possibility could be an FN-FAL Congo.  Gas piston, .308, short-barreled; 20 round magazines are readily available and it is about the length 
of an AR15(.223 semiautomatic rifle that is an M16 copy).  The best of both rifle and carbine.  I believe DSA sells said rifle.

If you go AK, avoid Hesse, Joekken, Vulcan, and MISR90; they have wildly varying 
quality control. A Vector AK with synthetic stock, is about $500.00; it comes in 7.62x39mm and it has the muzzle brake already put in. pitbullfirearms.com sells the Vector AK, if you need an AK ready to go on getting it; go Vector.

If you're to pop for my some mods, a WASR10 is good, I own one and will mod it soon: 
Retaining plate
TAPCO handguard
KVAR heat shield
Krebs sight to replace ladder sight.
Front post sight painted flourescent green(accurize it).

----------


## LibertiORDeth

I want the automatic shotgun I saw on youtube.

----------


## loupeznik

I'm a big fan of the AR-10.  I hardly ever shoot my AR-15.  I suppose FAL's are cheaper though.

----------


## OddballAZ

> It's a family reunion. Although we may be on the island of misfit toys.  Lots of fredheads over there.


WAY to many Fredheads on ar15.com. Most of them claim gun rights are the most important issue to them. Then when you point out Fred does sometimes vote for gun control they shift to the war and claim we need to fight the war in Iraq to be "safe for terroirsts". Once you point out the border being wide open means we are not at all any safer they say "What does the border have to do with terrorists? You don't like free trade!"  I've never seen a group of such idiots in my life.

----------


## loupeznik

mordechai,  to ultimately answer your question we should know what you intend to do with rifle.

----------


## Malum Prohibitum

> WAY to many Fredheads on ar15.com. Most of them claim gun rights are the most important issue to them. Then when you point out Fred does sometimes vote for gun control they shift to the war and claim we need to fight the war in Iraq to be "safe for terroirsts". Once you point out the border being wide open means we are not at all any safer they say "What does the border have to do with terrorists? You don't like free trade!"  I've never seen a group of such idiots in my life.



You have just described my arguments with my entire family.   Its maddening.  At least when you argue with liberals, they can explain why they feel the way they do.  They think that humans suck, and government is the answer to all problems.  They are wrong, and you can just write them off as imbeciles. 

The typical Fredite or Chucklehead have the right instincts, but have been so badly misinformed that they really cant figure out WHY they feel the way they do, all they know is whatever is wrong, it must be the damn liberals' fault!  What drives me crazy is that they  just plain refuse to pull back the republican curtain to reveal the bull$#@! monarchist/corporatist/hamiltonian/NWOers behind the republican mantra of 'small government, individual liberty'.

----------


## tcindie

I'm very interested in picking up an AR-15.. anybody know what the ballpark cost is on one?  I think I'd prefer new, but a used one in great shape would be better if there's a significant cost difference.  I've never exercised my 2nd amendment right, so I'm pretty new to the gun industry, but I must say that I liked my M16 when I was in the Corps.. which is what really draws me to the AR15.

----------


## Paulbot_9876

> You don't need a license, you just need to pay for the tax stamp and have the registered device transfered to your name or the name of your corporation, LLC, or trust. 
> 
> read up here:
> http://www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=6&f=17


unless you know someone in new zealand..... they are sold over the counter there for like 3 to 400$ i have read......maybe time for a pen pal across the ocean.....

----------


## SWATH

> I'm very interested in picking up an AR-15.. anybody know what the ballpark cost is on one?  I think I'd prefer new, but a used one in great shape would be better if there's a significant cost difference.  I've never exercised my 2nd amendment right, so I'm pretty new to the gun industry, but I must say that I liked my M16 when I was in the Corps.. which is what really draws me to the AR15.


Ballpark price for a new AR15 is around $800-$850 or about an ounce of gold.

----------


## SWATH

> unless you know someone in new zealand..... they are sold over the counter there for like 3 to 400$ i have read......maybe time for a pen pal across the ocean.....


I'm sure you can get unregistered cans here too, but they will still be considered contraband, treated about like cocaine possession.  To be legal they have to be registered.

----------


## AzGundude

Entire books and countless magazine articles have been written on this subject, so just a mere thread on a forum (even with a lot of good contributions to the conversation) just ain't gonna come close to answering the matter definitively.

However, the thing to remember is that guns are *TOOLS*. And just as you have different tools for different tasks, you need different guns for different situations.

Now, yes, a screwdriver can do more than drive screws, and is perhaps the most *adaptable* hand tool in your pile of manly impliments, next to the hammer. And likewise, there are some guns which lend themselves to more than just a limited few applications. But just as no one should try to get through life with just a single screwdriver and hammer at their disposal, niether should you limit yourself to just a single or couple of guns. 

Yes, buying more than a few guns costs money. But, unlike your car or TV, any guns you buy will retain their value and not depreciate. They are like money in the bank. If you suddenly need to liquidate your property (and assuming you do so intelligently), your guns you paid good money for in years past should return an equal value to you later. So don't fret about the money you spend. It ain't gone. Just "transformed". 

Most of us gun guys refer to our "battery" of weapons. The MSM calls them "arsenals". There are any number of possible scenarios we envision where one particular weapon might be best suited to the task. Its an endless hobby of mind games we sometimes play with ourselves;...this one is for my daily carry, and this one is for when I need one to fit in my pocket, and this one is for if there's a riot, and this one is for if the Chinese invade, and this one is for if there are waves of reanimated undead zombies roaming the city, and this one,.... Yes, some of it is just excuses to be a hobbiest and have another shiny new whizbang. But a well-rounded battery arms not only *YOU*, but your friends and family as well,...if the situation is one of those society-disrupting events like Hurricane Katrina or the L.A. Riots. 

Here are some examples of semi-auto "assault carbines" and "battle rifles" and what they do better than each other:

*U.S. .30cal. M-1 Carbine*= An excellent choice for small people, whether they be women, children or southeast asian guerillas. This rifle is not as powerfull or effective as a .223 caliber weapon such as an AR-15, but is light, rugged, unintimidating to new users, has light recoil and fits smaller people well. While not as affordable as they once were, they are still cheaper than most AR-15s, and certainly cheaper than any .308 caliber weapon. This fills a unique roll as a rifle for that wife who wants to have something effective for herself, but isn't really hip to put in as much time shooting and skill-building as you are. Or for the teen who is old enough to accept a role of responsibility, but isn't fully grown. 

*AK47* = A lot has been written about it, but in a nutshell, its strengths are that it ALWAYS goes bang, has a round that perforates light cover better than .223 ammo, has many accessories and is cheap to acquire. But, it is not as accurate as most other designs, has bad ergonomics so it doesn't fit the shooter nicely, and is heavier than a rifle of that size should be (by modern standards). My chosen role for my AK is as a car gun. 7.62x39 penetrates into and through cars better than .223 does. With a side-folding stock, my AK fits up front with me, and I can wield it and bring it to bear on target while sitting in the driver's seat (with a little bit of training and care). Although I never hope to be in a rolling car battle, if I ever anticipate that I might be, this will be riding up front with me.

*M-1 Garand* = I have a shortened "tanker" version. While not the best choice for engaging in high-volume gun battles with numerous opposing soldiers of today, it is uniquely suited for the lone individual who needs power and compactness. When slung across my back, there is no M-14 magazine sticking out the bottom to dig into my back as I clamber over terrain or to snag on brush as I weave through dense foliage. Yet, chambered in .30-06, it is powerfull enough to deal with any animal on the North American continent. If I were living in Alaska, where I had to worry not only about bears but protecting my gold claim against jumpers as well, this would be a handy short rifle indeed.

I could go on and on. 

The point is that different tools fit different functions.

Determine what your goals are and what you feel you might need the weapon for. It may turn out you need 2 or 3 to cover all the angles. But in the end, if all you can afford is a beat up old surplus Mauser,...heck, that's better than nothing. Most people end up going with an AK47 for that reason;...it is the cheapest military-type rifle of modern design, and they can afford it. Nothing wrong with that. Just be aware of the limits of what you and your rifle can do.

----------


## Paulbot_9876

> I'm sure you can get unregistered cans here too, but they will still be considered contraband, treated about like cocaine possession.  To be legal they have to be registered.



yea, but your paying 800+ for a good one plus a 200$ for a tax on them..... they are in the class 2 licenses......but you can buy them here quite easy but lot more expensive......

----------


## OddballAZ

> I'm very interested in picking up an AR-15.. anybody know what the ballpark cost is on one?  I think I'd prefer new, but a used one in great shape would be better if there's a significant cost difference.  I've never exercised my 2nd amendment right, so I'm pretty new to the gun industry, but I must say that I liked my M16 when I was in the Corps.. which is what really draws me to the AR15.


You can build one yourself for pretty cheap. But I would recommend spending somewhere in the range of $800 to make sure you get good parts. Putting together the lower is very easy. If you've been in the Corps you probably know there isn't much to it. The lower receiver, the buttstock, and the lower parts kit (trigger and safety). The upper is a bit more complicated. You can either buy the upper already put together or in parts in a kit. Go to www.ar15.com. There is TONS of info there. You can get most of the parts over the internet. The lower receiver is the only part considered to be the firearm itself so that has to be bought through an FFL dealer. You can get a stripped lower (not put together) for anywhere from $90-$150 (depends on the brand). I bought mine from a dealer at a gun show. The rest I bought online.

You may want to consider different calibers also. I recently built an AR-15 in 6.8mm. Mostly because the brass seems to last forever as opposed to .223 brass. I handload my own ammo.

Check your states regulations. If you're in Commiefornia a normal AR-15 isn't possible. Some other states have some stupid regulations too but Commiefornia is one of the worst. Here in AZ just about everyone has an AR-15.

----------


## MAGICKAL

> Ballpark price for a new AR15 is around $800-$850 or about an ounce of gold.


I like that, just walk in to a gun shop, I'll trade ya this here ounce of gold for that thare rifle.



I have a question in general for anyone who knows, how does the AR-50 compare to the AR15?

I know it's a lot more money than a AR15, but anyone know it's advantages/disadvantages?

Let's say you had 2500.00 to 3k to spend, what would be your choices then?

----------


## Red Dingo

You guys have gone completely off topic!!!! 
I am sure that the creator of this thread, in their mind, was not referring to the real life guns that bare these names, but was ABSOLUTELY referring to the XBOX game, HALO, which, from the second installment of the game onwards, had two main rifles to use: the battle-rifle (weapon of choice) and the carbine (which, as we all know, was an alien rifle). Now I'm pretty good with both of those weapons in the cyber world of shooting aliens and enemies. HOWEVER, the creator of this thread forgot to mention that there is a super-weapon better than both the BR and the Carbine: the PISTOL from Halo 1. Now that was a weapon. Many aliens and E-enemies have met their death from my useage of this weapon. You need steady thumbs though and, as we in the gaming world like to say, noobs were easily pwnzed by a skilled user of the pistol. 
So in conclusion, and back on topic, I strongly suggest, with my deepest convictions and most humble resolve, that the PISTOL from Halo 1 beats the BR and Carbine hands down (and pants up!).

----------


## voortrekker

> Hey, y'all.
> 
> I wondered what do y'all like as a weapon, battle carbine (light rifle in .223 or 7.62x39mm) or a battle rifle (7.62 NATO or larger).
> 
> I define both as a semi-auto rifle, in a military pattern. But one is light, and the other heavy, in terms of power.
> 
> Please explain.


Mordechai,

Alot depends on the environment you are speaking to use a rifle towards defense.

Out to 300yds.  the AK variants are acceptable AND reliable.

If you are in a city, the AK variant, SKS, or AR-15 is a good choice.

The AR-15 is a very accurate rifle, and accurate well past 300 yards.  It is not as reliable as the AK variants nor the SKS.

Plus it is more expensive.

Now, if you are living in the rural areas, the best are a good deer rifle, M1A, FAL and then the AR-15.

The rural areas potentially have the descretion as to the distance they will shoot at a target.

This is where the .308 fits very nicely.

In rural areas, do not engage targets below 300 yards.

Instead, own the "rifleman's quarter mile", 300yds to 500yds, this can be done with iron sights and a rack grade riflle and ammo.

The .223 AR-15 platform can do this too.

NEVER, NEVER buy any AR-15 type platform rifle unless it shoots a STANDARD CURRENT military round, i.e. .233 or .308.

Why? you will always find ammo for it, and it will be alot cheaper.

In as far as pistols, stick with 9mm, .38, or .45.  Why? you will always find ammo for these calibers.

Good luck!

----------


## Fields

///

----------

