Advice for buying a rifle

nobody but a few twits are talking about the 6.8 as a general issue military rd, the 223 will be "it" for the next decade, at least, and probably forever.
 
we aint gonna be fighting anyone with armor, and most of the time, the hits are random accidents. Intelligent enemies use cover, so all you get is a head/shoulder shot anyway.
 
Pericles said:
For the rest of the AK / AR debate crowd, a repost from late 2010:

Taking the guys out for a couple of exercises got the com bloc weapons fans educated on our style of warfare.

Exercise 1: Convoy ambush consisting of 5 vehicles with 4 riders each (20 targets represented by 20 balloons of 6 inch diameter representing the kill zone of a head shot). Task is for a squad to hit all 20 in less than 15 seconds. A squad with ARs could perform the task easily, the squad with the com bloc weapons could not. When the com bloc weapons were replaced with ARs, the same guys could cut 40% off of their time.

Exercise 2: A squad defends against an attacking platoon, again represented by 6 inch diameter balloons. The 100% AR squad could accomplish the task in 90 seconds, the squad with com bloc weapons needed almost 150 seconds.

If your goal is accurate and rapid fire, the com bloc semi autos don't do the job as well as the AR platform, and we have all of our guys with com bloc weapons looking to unload them - and are buying AR parts. Seeing is believing when it comes to the relationship between tactics and weapons.

We train on rapid and accurate fire for the following reasons:

(A) Most effective in stopping the threat.
(B) Causes minimal damage to the equipment to be captured
(C) Minimizes the amount of time your opponent has to react and maneuver against you.
(D) Minimizes ammunition expenditure - the engagements are over before anybody goes through half of a 30 round magazine.


There are guys at Camp Mackall who can walk in to the weapons room, and use anything they want for their tasks, you see guys walk out with FAL varients, M16 varients, and the occasional special purpose tool, but never an AK. For an individual fighter, the ergonomics of the AK suck. Two motions to eject and two motions to insert magazine. Have to take weapon off target or off trigger to load, and the bolt does not lock to the rear when magazine empty, so a magazine change requires four motions, and taking the weapon off target to load.

Not to mention that no major military in the world uses the 7.62 x 39 round anymore. It is now utilized by 3rd class military organizations that could not afford new weapons at anytime in the last 20 years, armed mobs trying to take over somewhere, and US militia ninjas.
Click to expand...

This is what I said as an advantage of the 5.56, as it has lesser recoil, and faster 2nd shot placement. And I agree 100%. If I'm going to see how fast I can shoot a bunch of stationary ballons, I want the weapon with very minimal recoil as well to allow for fast accuracy shooting. However, when those ballons start moving and using that vehicle for cover so they can shoot back, then the conditions of your scaenario have changed. Once that vehicle becomes cover, I don't care about minimal vehicle damage, and that heavier round becomes a bit more important. This is also why I prefer an AK semi-auto, being as long as the operator can half way shoot, he will hit what he aims for.

Also, Russia is already considering going back to the 7.62x39mm.

It boils down to I live in the south, and my two main eviorments are urban and woodlands. For both, a heavier round is preferrable. This is the reason my pistol is a .45 and not a 9mm, same logic.

And again, you all keep taking the points away from the most important one. When you compare all the factors assault rifles are designed for, the AK design wins out. No, it's not top of the list in all categories, but it is on the most important ones....it WILL fire. I keep seeing arguments about reliability of the AR, when they are STILL having jam issues due to the sand on the M4 as we speak. The tolerances being looser on the AK platform allow it to be a true all weather and terrain weapon. This is a fact, and the main thing I keep harping on. If a weapon doesn't fire, everyting else goes out the window.
 
twisted said:
frankly, you are full of it if you "think" that a 30AK rd to the trauma plate will do more than make him blink. Guys take .44 mag's to the chest on soft body armor, and immediately return fire, it;'s the same momentum. Rich Davis and Alex Jason, of second chance, proved this many times.
Click to expand...

Frankly, you need to learn how to read. I didn't say anything like this in my life. We were talking about "soft armor", the area NOT protected by a trauma plate.
 
Here are a few suggestions, my favorites:

Mossburg 930SPX Tactical (Pistol-grip Auto-loading 8-rounds) 12GA Shotgun: http://www.mossberg.com/images/Mossberg_Guns/930/NEW/85370.jpg

DPMS/Panther Arms LRT-SASS .308 Rifle: http://www.webarms.com/Gun Suppliers/dpms/dpms LRT SASS.htm

Henry Big Boy Lever-action .44/.45/.357 Octagon Barrel: http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-big-boy.cfm


And of course, let us not forget about close quarter combat:

Beretta PX4 Storm .40 (other models available): http://www.berettausa.com/products/px4-storm-full-size-40sandw/

Smith & Wesson M&P .40 VTAC (other models available): http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57955_757781_757781_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
 
Last edited:
There is lots of advise on the topic, and many gun owners enjoy providing it.

My only advise, in addition to some of the other good advise that you're bound to get, is that you not try to search for that magic "unicorn" rifle. The gun that does everything you want, and will be the only one you own, forever and ever... This is, in my experience, the common approach for most prospecting gun owners I've known.

If you're lucky, you're life will be long, and you're likely to own more than 1 gun. Every one of the dozens of new gun owners I've taken to the range, has always enjoyed shooting. They've gone on to buy multiple guns. So dont set any limits on trying to find the perfect gun. Start out with a purpose, and get something affordable, but know that you can always buy another gun later. My advise is to plan on owning one gun of each major type, over the next 18 - 24 months. Perhaps even sooner. i.e. 1 shotgun, 1 handgun, 1 rifle.

Perhaps you will never want a shotgun, or a handgun, but my point is that there are benefits and compromises to any gun. You may find yourself putting a lot of thought into having the do all gun, just to get another gun you want later.

That's my .2 (-9% per year) - for what that may be worth to you.

Enjoy!
 
ASAP, get an M4, with a ciener .22lr conversion unit (not from Ciener, he's been indicted for fraud) a RRA trigger job drop in unit, a scope. Get the removable carryying handle. ASAP, get night goggles and a target designatore, and a scope for precision work. It will reliably hit men at 1/4 mile, with match bthp ammo, a free float handguard, scope, and bipod. Also ASAP, get the SureFire "snap on" variant of their sound suppressor, which adds only 7.5" to the OAL. That makes the gun audible to at most 1/2 mile, instead of to 2 miles, and if you use the 127 gr subsonic ammo, inaudible at 50 yds. :-) The 60 gr subsonic .22lr Aquila ammo makes the .22lr conversion unit uniquely versatile, and it saves you 20c per shot or more, for the thousands of rds you need to fire in training, mostly from the weak side shoulder. You don't get to choose which side of most cover you have to fire around, guys, and Murphy says that it will be the "wrong" side, too! :-) You need to learn to use either eye with your rifle. Firing right handed around the left side of cover forces you to expose your entire torso to enemy fire, a super bad idea! Having noise and muzzle flash, to blind you and make you flinch, and "guide in" enemy fire to your body, is a far worse idea.

It's night, or dark indoors, in thick forest, in storm drains, etc, at LEAST half the time, so not having night goggles is just stupid. Without the target designator, you have focus the goggles either on your sights (can't see the target) or on the target (can't see your sights).
 
Last edited:
u need a pocket 9mm, but you don't need any other guns, just the M4. The rest are for fun of one sort or another. sport hunting, plinking, collecting, match competion, etc. The only NEED is for defense, and shtf foraging (ie, POACHING) When you use bait, snares, jacklighting, etc, the 223-22 combo is capable of taking anything. even elephant. Short of tuskers, a 223 sp to the skull will blow the critters eyeballs out of their sockets, no kidding. For tuskers, get within 30m or so, fire several very fast shots at the 3 ft diameter lung, and run like hell. Tuskers aint that fast, and the blood filled lung won't let him chase you very far. Wait 24 hours, look for circling buzzards, go get your elephant.
 
That is what happens when people modify a semi-auto to full auto and don't know what they're doing. Would you like to see video after video of the AR blowing up? IN the HK 416 demo video, they put it and the M4 through different enviorment tests, and the M4s were steadily blowing up.

American M16 vs. Russian AK-47:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuwR4LLvoc4&feature=related


HK416 vs. M4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMH94PuT_I



And again, they are still having issues with the AR platform in the Middle East. The tolerances are so tight on this platform, it does not stand up to enviorment as well as the AK platform, with its looser tolerances. There is no debating this. Some people are trying to argue they have never had a jam on their AR, but they aren't taking in the fact they haven't taken their AR out in the woods for 30+ days and using it while it's steadily exposed to te elements.
 
Last edited:
Demigod said:
I was trained with an AK-47 when I was a conscript and I simply like an assault rifle even if does not have the automatic option.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own question.

Demigod said:
The rifle of course has to be be semi-automatic and should not cost more than 1000-1200 dollars.It is for home defense.
Click to expand...

If that's your price range you can buy an decent AK, a few extra mags, a red dot scope and a couple thousand rounds of ammo... and that's here in the US. I don't know where you are so prices may vary accordingly.

Eh, never mind. Just read your post about what your local cops said.
 
Last edited:
Intoxiklown said:
That is what happens when people modify a semi-auto to full auto and don't know what they're doing. Would you like to see video after video of the AR blowing up? IN the HK 416 demo video, they put it and the M4 through different enviorment tests, and the M4s were steadily blowing up.

American M16 vs. Russian AK-47:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuwR4LLvoc4&feature=related


HK416 vs. M4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMH94PuT_I



And again, they are still having issues with the AR platform in the Middle East. The tolerances are so tight on this platform, it does not stand up to enviorment as well as the AK platform, with its looser tolerances. There is no debating this. Some people are trying to argue they have never had a jam on their AR, but they aren't taking in the fact they haven't taken their AR out in the woods for 30+ days and using it while it's steadily exposed to te elements.
Click to expand...

dig the music in the second video.. lol
 
Intoxiklown said:
That is what happens when people modify a semi-auto to full auto and don't know what they're doing. Would you like to see video after video of the AR blowing up? IN the HK 416 demo video, they put it and the M4 through different enviorment tests, and the M4s were steadily blowing up.

American M16 vs. Russian AK-47:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuwR4LLvoc4&feature=related


HK416 vs. M4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMH94PuT_I



And again, they are still having issues with the AR platform in the Middle East. The tolerances are so tight on this platform, it does not stand up to enviorment as well as the AK platform, with its looser tolerances. There is no debating this. Some people are trying to argue they have never had a jam on their AR, but they aren't taking in the fact they haven't taken their AR out in the woods for 30+ days and using it while it's steadily exposed to te elements.
Click to expand...

If you can't tell the difference between a real AK-47 and a semi modified to fire auto, you might want to head back to your gamin board mentioned in your sig line.

Any kind of vids can be posted showing failures, some more of the AR vs. AK silliness




 
Pericles said:
If you can't tell the difference between a real AK-47 and a semi modified to fire auto, you might want to head back to your gamin board mentioned in your sig line.
Click to expand...

That weapon blowing up was caused by an OOB. Semi-auto AKs don't have an ani-bounce device on them since they are semi and not full auto. Also, a real AK-47 has an extra lever just forward of the hammer that holds the hammer back until the bolt is fully closed and locked. It also prevents the hammer from falling unless the round is fully seated in the chamber. The smei-auto version does not have this lever. That is why when people convert them to full withot knowing what the are doing, you get that. The auto/safety sear is the first "line of defense" against OOB fire. The second line od defense is the tail on the carrier (which is primarily there to reduce the amount of force required to start the hammer moving backward) which also prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin until the bolt is locked. In other words, due to the design of the AK platform (the action is not "timed"), that is a semi auto converted to full. You might want to be sure you know what you're talking about before you try that smart ass shit with me.


But fine, let's go this route. Does the AR have better accuracy, both in one shot semi and in grouping at full auto? Of course it does. I have said thgis mulitple times. Does the AR allow for faster 2nd shot placement target acquisition due to the lesser recoil? Of course it does, and again, I've said this. But, for anyone to say that the AR is just as reliable in the field as the AK platform is just plain fucking stupid. This is not debatable. Everyone knows this. The AR platform is very tight with it's tolerances, which means any fucking dirt in there will cause weapon jams and failures to feed. The AK platform is built with much looser tolerances to get around this problem. And while the AR will have greater "power" at distances of 400+ yards due to the speed of the projectile, the AK has MUCH superior knock down power and penetration within 300 yards. Again, this is not debatable, and anyone that tries to say differently is fucking stupid.

Both weapons have their pros and cons, and I chose the AK because the pros it offers outweight the cons of the AR platform for me. Not only that, but I don't have to spend hundreds of dollars on after market kits trying to compensate for the platform design weaknesses. I can totally understand people saying they prefer the AR for it's accuracy at range, as well as it's lower recoil for fast target acquisition. But dont' sit here and try to piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
 
Last edited:
What soldiers have to say about the M-4/M-16 (AR platform):

3rd ID soldier: “I know it fires very well and accurate [when] clean. But sometimes it needs to fire dirty well too.”

25th Infantry Division soldier: “The M4 Weapon in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan was quick to malfunction when a little sand got in the weapon. Trying to keep it clean, sand free was impossible while on patrols or firefights.”

82nd Airborne Division soldier: “The M4 is overall an excellent weapon, however the flaw of its sensitivity to dirt and powder residue needs to be corrected. True to fact, cleaning will help. Daily assigned tasks, and nonregular hours in tactical situations do not always warrant the necessary time required for effective cleaning.”

75th Ranger Regiment member, SOCOM: “Even with the dust cover closed and magazine in the well, sand gets all inside; on and around the bolt. It still fires, but after a while the sand works its way all through the gun and jams start.”

The 507th Maintenance Company, ambushed outside Nasariyah in 2003 during the opening days of the ground invasion of Iraq, might concur with all of the above. The post-incident report released by the US Army had this to say:

“Dusty, desert conditions do require vigilance in weapons maintenance… However, it is imperative to remember that at the time of the attack, the 507th had spent more than two days on the move, with little rest and time to conduct vehicle repair and recovery operations.”

The last word will be left to SOCOM’s Major Chaz Bowser:

“We buy new laptop computers every few years across the gamut, so couldn’t we do the same with our single most important piece of military equipment? …. Waiting for a leap-ahead technology based on a kinetic energy weapon platform is a waste of time and money, so we need to look at what is out there now…. What the Army needs is a weapon that is now ready for prime-time and not a developmental system…. The requirement comes from the field, not from an office in some garrison activity, not from some consultant and definitely not from a vendor.

Let’s do this quickly without all the bureaucracy typically associated with change. Find someone in our ranks who can make a decision – who hasn’t floated a retirement resume with a gun company – and make the decision now. Just look how fast we were all issued the ‘highly coveted’ black beret or the digital uniform. Find that recipe card, change out the word ‘Velcro’ with ‘battle rifle’ and that may be a start to finding a solution [DID: which, he acknowledges, could be Colt's M4 if that's what the competition shows]. Our men and women deserve much better than we are giving them, and shame on us.“
 
Strangely enough, Marine units are even more mobile, and aren't complaining about dirty rifles. Sounds like a training issue to me.

I for one hate the M4, the length of the barrel makes it underpowered with the 5.56 NATO except for CQB. If every target you are engaging is within 50 yards, then and only then is the AK a better choice.

As a former Marine rifle expert and certified gun nut, I wouldn't own an AK if someone paid me to take it.

My preferred weapon would be the LMT308MWS with a 20" barrel. Mind you that is out of my price range, but soldiers in the field would do much better with a carbine based off the AR10 rather than the AR15, with which they could at least engage targets out to 400 yards and know the weapon will work.

Particularly in a SHTF scenario, I don't want to be taking shots inside of 200 yards unless I absolutely must, which makes the AK a deal breaker for me. I have to know that I know that my rifle is capable of at LEAST 2 MOA which when added to the human error of another 2 MOA gives you a CEP of 20" at 500 yards.

There are plenty of weapons that are 2MOA out of the box, and the AK is not among them. It's nice that they look menacing in photographs, and it's nice that you can be lazy with your weapon's preventative maintenance, but if I have to whisper a prayer before each trigger pull in order to have any hope of hitting a target at 350 yards, then I just don't want it.
 
As to SOCOM rifles, they are currently deploying the SCAR-L and the SCAR-H which makes a lot of sense given SOCOM's mission. Major Bowser somehow seems to be unaware of the current ongoing SOCOM transition to the SCAR, which thing I don't really understand.
 
GunnyFreedom said:
Strangely enough, Marine units are even more mobile, and aren't complaining about dirty rifles. Sounds like a training issue to me.

I for one hate the M4, the length of the barrel makes it underpowered with the 5.56 NATO except for CQB. If every target you are engaging is within 50 yards, then and only then is the AK a better choice.

As a former Marine rifle expert and certified gun nut, I wouldn't own an AK if someone paid me to take it.

My preferred weapon would be the LMT308MWS with a 20" barrel. Mind you that is out of my price range, but soldiers in the field would do much better with a carbine based off the AR10 rather than the AR15, with which they could at least engage targets out to 400 yards and know the weapon will work.

Particularly in a SHTF scenario, I don't want to be taking shots inside of 200 yards unless I absolutely must, which makes the AK a deal breaker for me. I have to know that I know that my rifle is capable of at LEAST 2 MOA which when added to the human error of another 2 MOA gives you a CEP of 20" at 500 yards.

There are plenty of weapons that are 2MOA out of the box, and the AK is not among them. It's nice that they look menacing in photographs, and it's nice that you can be lazy with your weapon's preventative maintenance, but if I have to whisper a prayer before each trigger pull in order to have any hope of hitting a target at 350 yards, then I just don't want it.
Click to expand...

I fully understand, and agree with your points. Again, for me and where I live, my two predominant enviorments are urban and heavy woodland. So, the range advantage of the AR platform would be essentially wasted for me. The issue with the M4 is the way it is designed with it’s direct gas impingement system and extremely tight tolerances. Yes, it will function very well as long as it is properly maintained. But sometimes we dont' get to take the time to properly maintain it, and sometimes you might have to hit the mud with the rifle. The problems being reported aren't from lack of weapon maintenance, but rather from field enviorments. If I wind up having to crawl in a mud ditch in a SHTF scenario, I don't want to have to whisper a prayer that my weapon will fire if I have to fight my out. It's a trade off between the two platforms.

I readily agree with you about the AR10. It's a shame that US military didn't pursue that weapon.

I'm more excited about the HK416 though. As it seems they have taken the pros of the AR platform, and the pros of the AK platform, and combined them into a "bastard" child, and created a very nice weapon. I'm waiting to learn more about it, and would like to read more real world opinions on them, but am very much considering buying one. I don't mind paying for a nice weapon, so even it's it's a $2k weapon, I definitely will get one. I get lucky sometimes though. I just recently bought a Browning BAR .300 Magnum for $300 from a guy who was down on his luck. I felt ind of guilty taking advantage of his situation if you will, but realized that if I didn't buy it, someone else would have. However, I don't have a lot of experience with optics, and am researching the best option for optics for it. But the weapon itself is just wow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top