Intoxiklown
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,670
Over the past few years, I've seen some things said here that I agree with, some tings that set off a light bulb in my head, and some things that made me understand false net info and herd mentality. I always try to point out if my understanding and knowledge of something is weak on some subjects, and some times make it clear I know exactly what I am talking about. Hence, this post.
I want to talk about what I know a fact, and some things I understand as fact. I am then hoping others will expand on some things, explain why some are wrong, or even if I ( or others) are right for the wrong reasons. This stems from my wife (she likes to log my account and just read ) making an observation that never occurred to me. To paraphrase, "With all the different branches of military, hunters, and long time shooters on your forums, you all are sure all over the map about firearms.". Basically, experience molds opinion, yet opinion seems to really dominate here.
Also, I am home alone, buzzing on Community coffee, and feel chatty...even if it's with myself.....=)
Let's start with a huge misconception I have seen:
AK(M)47s
This is a hugely misunderstood rifle. I am not an "AK fanboy", but I do own one. I also own ARs, both in .223 and .308, direct impengement and piston. No rifle is better than the other, but they all separate themselves in different needs.
1) "The AK is not accurate". Horse shit. I can hit targets at 300 yards with my AK. The accuracy myth is two fold. First being the obvious, knowledge of the weapon. Second being, and most importantly, LACK of knowledge regarding how heat affects a rifle barrel. I can take an AK, and a 30 round mag, and light a 300 yard target up. After that, due to the way the barrel flexes (as designed) along with the heat generated to the barrel, there is drift. All rifles do this, but the AK design suffers the worst effects.
which leads to #2
2) "AKs pale to other rifles in a firefight". Define firefight. If we are in an open area, and you have an AR15, and me an AK.....I am going to do my best to suppress and fall back. I am not going to have that fight if I can help it. Long range fighting an AR with an AK is both foolish, and most likely not going to end well. However, those same rifles in heavily wooded areas, and the advantages change. The smaller .223 allows greater long range accuracy, but woods / jungle vegetation takes that advantage away. Both to greater options for cover from the .223, as well as the tumble design of the round giving issue when encountering someting as simple as a tree twig in the flight path of the round. The heavier 7.62x39 does not have these issues. In other words, your location has a lot to do with solving the "AR vs AK" debate in your choice of these two fine weapons.
I would go into field reliability, but if this is an argument for someone, they need to consider they are being an "AR fanboy" because that is what they own. Personally, I prefer the AR platform, but I also fully acknowledge that fighting in adverse condittions, or prolonged encounters, the AK stands above the rest.
Pistols:
Excluding "man rounds" like the .44 and up, people really should read and understand kinetic energy when looking at pistol calibers. A slower large caliber, like the .45 ACP, is going to dissipate a lot of it's energy on contact. Meaning, clothes and skin. These types of rounds also perform more poorly (hate to say poorly, but for lack of a better word) when encountering body armor. The more energy you can get transferred inside the target, the larger the temporal cavity. Now, while I am in no way dismissing a large permanent cavity, many people underestimate what kind of damage to organs the temporal cavity imparts. That force can lead to organs rupturing from pressure, and the shock itself can even cause a heart attack (I love that, get shot in the ribcage, and die of a heart attack).
This is why out of all the pistols I own, in all their various calibers, I carry and prefer the .357 magnum. Ballistically, it gives a solid sized round at a very high velocity. Data shows there have been more one shot kills with the .357 than any other round, with .40 being a fairly close second. The issue with a weapon like the .40 cal is shared by it's cousins, the .357 sig and the 10mm. All three are hard hitting rounds, and are moving their butt off when leaving the barrel....BUT. They achieve this by being high compression rounds. And while that works, and they will definitely "turn that light switch off", they have two failings. Actually, not failings, but unique issues due to their load outs. First, being high compression rounds designed for semi-automatic pistols, you get what I call "snappy shots", meaning muzzle climb. I am not saying it's horrible, or something that can't be worked with, but compared to other calibers in semi-auto, there is an obvious difference. Second being, and why I personally don't own any, is that high compression rounds cause much greater wear and tear on these firearms. You will not find a pistol in these calibers with 50k+ rounds through them, that haven't had to be re-tooled and/or machine repaired. I'm not knocking the effectiveness of these rounds, but they do exact a price. This is why I encourage people wanting higher capacity pistols to look into 9mm, as round and powder advances have made it an extremely effective round, without the long term damage to the pistol itself.
A couple of side notes on aforementioned body armor:
1) Yes, it can be really nice to have if someone is shooting at you. But it can also be your worst enemy. If you're decked out like Iron Man, while bullets may lesser of an enemy, dehydration and exhaustion can and will drop you just as fast. Anyone who has done 18 to 20 mile movement can tell you, it doesn't take very long before the smallest thing on you becomes something you desperately want to drop.
Also, body armor doesn't give you "god mode". Broken ribs, bruised sternum, and other blunt force trauma injuries are a lot more common than you might think. Less talked about is bullet fragment deflection, which is when a round is stopped by armor, and fragments from the round take a little bounce. Sometimes into a chin, or a hand, ect. The round doesn't have to penetrate you to stop your ability to fight. Ask anyone whose just suffered a hair line crack on a rib, much less a break, how good they'd be in a fight suffering from those.
2) If you did encounter, and had to fight, an opponent wearing body armor, your aim point is the groin area. This is the area of best probable success. Femoral artery, testicles, colon, sheer musculature volume.....a hit in these areas can cause massive trauma, and incapacitate. You'll also force one to two of their numbers to deal with, and extract him.
Just a few thoughts. And, again, I'm not really attacking a weapon or caliber. But, it's good to get past misconceptions, and understand the intended application, as well as drawbacks, to things.
I want to talk about what I know a fact, and some things I understand as fact. I am then hoping others will expand on some things, explain why some are wrong, or even if I ( or others) are right for the wrong reasons. This stems from my wife (she likes to log my account and just read ) making an observation that never occurred to me. To paraphrase, "With all the different branches of military, hunters, and long time shooters on your forums, you all are sure all over the map about firearms.". Basically, experience molds opinion, yet opinion seems to really dominate here.
Also, I am home alone, buzzing on Community coffee, and feel chatty...even if it's with myself.....=)
Let's start with a huge misconception I have seen:
AK(M)47s
This is a hugely misunderstood rifle. I am not an "AK fanboy", but I do own one. I also own ARs, both in .223 and .308, direct impengement and piston. No rifle is better than the other, but they all separate themselves in different needs.
1) "The AK is not accurate". Horse shit. I can hit targets at 300 yards with my AK. The accuracy myth is two fold. First being the obvious, knowledge of the weapon. Second being, and most importantly, LACK of knowledge regarding how heat affects a rifle barrel. I can take an AK, and a 30 round mag, and light a 300 yard target up. After that, due to the way the barrel flexes (as designed) along with the heat generated to the barrel, there is drift. All rifles do this, but the AK design suffers the worst effects.
which leads to #2
2) "AKs pale to other rifles in a firefight". Define firefight. If we are in an open area, and you have an AR15, and me an AK.....I am going to do my best to suppress and fall back. I am not going to have that fight if I can help it. Long range fighting an AR with an AK is both foolish, and most likely not going to end well. However, those same rifles in heavily wooded areas, and the advantages change. The smaller .223 allows greater long range accuracy, but woods / jungle vegetation takes that advantage away. Both to greater options for cover from the .223, as well as the tumble design of the round giving issue when encountering someting as simple as a tree twig in the flight path of the round. The heavier 7.62x39 does not have these issues. In other words, your location has a lot to do with solving the "AR vs AK" debate in your choice of these two fine weapons.
I would go into field reliability, but if this is an argument for someone, they need to consider they are being an "AR fanboy" because that is what they own. Personally, I prefer the AR platform, but I also fully acknowledge that fighting in adverse condittions, or prolonged encounters, the AK stands above the rest.
Pistols:
Excluding "man rounds" like the .44 and up, people really should read and understand kinetic energy when looking at pistol calibers. A slower large caliber, like the .45 ACP, is going to dissipate a lot of it's energy on contact. Meaning, clothes and skin. These types of rounds also perform more poorly (hate to say poorly, but for lack of a better word) when encountering body armor. The more energy you can get transferred inside the target, the larger the temporal cavity. Now, while I am in no way dismissing a large permanent cavity, many people underestimate what kind of damage to organs the temporal cavity imparts. That force can lead to organs rupturing from pressure, and the shock itself can even cause a heart attack (I love that, get shot in the ribcage, and die of a heart attack).
This is why out of all the pistols I own, in all their various calibers, I carry and prefer the .357 magnum. Ballistically, it gives a solid sized round at a very high velocity. Data shows there have been more one shot kills with the .357 than any other round, with .40 being a fairly close second. The issue with a weapon like the .40 cal is shared by it's cousins, the .357 sig and the 10mm. All three are hard hitting rounds, and are moving their butt off when leaving the barrel....BUT. They achieve this by being high compression rounds. And while that works, and they will definitely "turn that light switch off", they have two failings. Actually, not failings, but unique issues due to their load outs. First, being high compression rounds designed for semi-automatic pistols, you get what I call "snappy shots", meaning muzzle climb. I am not saying it's horrible, or something that can't be worked with, but compared to other calibers in semi-auto, there is an obvious difference. Second being, and why I personally don't own any, is that high compression rounds cause much greater wear and tear on these firearms. You will not find a pistol in these calibers with 50k+ rounds through them, that haven't had to be re-tooled and/or machine repaired. I'm not knocking the effectiveness of these rounds, but they do exact a price. This is why I encourage people wanting higher capacity pistols to look into 9mm, as round and powder advances have made it an extremely effective round, without the long term damage to the pistol itself.
A couple of side notes on aforementioned body armor:
1) Yes, it can be really nice to have if someone is shooting at you. But it can also be your worst enemy. If you're decked out like Iron Man, while bullets may lesser of an enemy, dehydration and exhaustion can and will drop you just as fast. Anyone who has done 18 to 20 mile movement can tell you, it doesn't take very long before the smallest thing on you becomes something you desperately want to drop.
Also, body armor doesn't give you "god mode". Broken ribs, bruised sternum, and other blunt force trauma injuries are a lot more common than you might think. Less talked about is bullet fragment deflection, which is when a round is stopped by armor, and fragments from the round take a little bounce. Sometimes into a chin, or a hand, ect. The round doesn't have to penetrate you to stop your ability to fight. Ask anyone whose just suffered a hair line crack on a rib, much less a break, how good they'd be in a fight suffering from those.
2) If you did encounter, and had to fight, an opponent wearing body armor, your aim point is the groin area. This is the area of best probable success. Femoral artery, testicles, colon, sheer musculature volume.....a hit in these areas can cause massive trauma, and incapacitate. You'll also force one to two of their numbers to deal with, and extract him.
Just a few thoughts. And, again, I'm not really attacking a weapon or caliber. But, it's good to get past misconceptions, and understand the intended application, as well as drawbacks, to things.
