Battle Rifle

Discussion in 'Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion' started by M500, Oct 28, 2007.

  1. M500

    M500 New Member

    7
    0
    0
    A lot of people are very attached to the "AR Platform"; some people (mostly oldtimers) swear by the M14; the 7.62x39 imports are widely regarded as low-budget better-than-nothing.
    I have the impression that a person's preference is often based on what weapon they were first trained on!
    The AR enthusiasts point to three things as being advantages: the ammo is light, so one can carry more; the charging handle is on the "right" side; in a domestic civil conflict or breakdown of civilization one can resupply from battlefield pickups.
    Deer hunters generally evaluate the 5.56NATO as lacking stopping power, which is echoed in some after-action reports from Afghanistan. That sort of constrains the operator to use multiple rounds per target, and encourages high - volume suppressive fire. What's your tactic for when a half-way competent opponent hunkers down, speads out, and starts picking shots?
    Comrade Kalishnikov put the charging handle on the support-hand side, and the user can keep a grip on the "go" button while changing mags...
    Now consider the source of those battlefield pickups. Are you going to shoot a Guardsman?! Or a cop?!! And if you do, how long are you going to stick around? :eek:
    The AR operating system blows products of combustion into the guts of the feed system, and requires more cleaning and maintenance than anything else out there. Furthermore, after you pay a price with a comma in it for the basic weapon, you still have to upgrade with wedge-thingies, rails, stocks/grips, and other reliability and accuracy doohickies.
    The civilian M14 is a bit pricey also, but you get value for the money. They're not available through CMP - why? - because the military is sending every one it can clean up over to the G-WOT!
    The Ruger Mini-14 (&Mini-30) was a great idea - M14 operating system for the 5.56NATO round - but it doesn't seem to have panned out. I've never owned one - I'd like to hear from those of you who have...
    Now - just to stir you up a little more - look at the lineup of offerings by Remington. Many LEOs and rabbit hunters are comfortable with the 870 pump 12gauge "trench broom" ( a WW I reference). The 7400 (now remodelled as the 750) handles the same, has the same controls, looks less "politically incorrect", operates by a rod not by gas impingement, comes in a wide variety of chamberings including good-old .308, the-standard-by-which-others-are-measured 30-06, and the flat-shooting .270Win. One nuisance is that it's REEALLY hard to find a mag larger than 10 rounds. But if you just can't get over that high-volume-of-fire mindset, look at the 7615 (7615LE): chambered in .223Rem, runs on AR mags, pump action reliability, handles like an 870, affordable, and looks pretty. Yes you can get a black plastic one if you must. You can also get a barrel long enough to let the cartridge do its job.
    I believe in Democracy, which is, The Wisdom of Consensus. Therefore, I believe that I have just as much right to have a stupid idea as the next person, and the the next person has the right to tell me why my idea is so dumb. Enjoy the debate!
     
  2. Bidah

    Bidah New Member

    212
    0
    0
    Well if you want some discussion, then let us start one.

    Battle Rifle vs. Battle Carbine. I do not lump them into the same thing. 5.56 and 7.62x39 are Carbine rounds. To get to Rifle territory you have to get up to 6.5 and up.

    As for what platform you prefer to shoot your Carbine or Rifle round from, that is a lot of personal opinion. If you have not seriously used a certain platform, then don't keep passing around what you believe to be true. Get one, use it a lot, and then pass judgment on to other. For instance, if you don't like the conventional Stoner design in an AR, then maybe a gas piston upper will suit you better. Oh, and that Mini-14.. yes I owned 2 and put them through a lot of rounds. Not one failure, and each rifle had at least 10K through it. I drug them through muck, 500+ round count days, Wolf ammo. I have also taken deer with .223, zero problems, the farthest went 20 feet. Shot placement and bullet make a big difference. I hunted Elk with a .243, and yep, all of them have gone down right where I shot them. Well, there was one that went 30 yards... The neighbor girl (14) borrowed the rifle since she could not shoot the .270 that her dad got her 2 years ago. So far, 4 deer, 2 Antelope, and 2 Elk.

    I cannot and will not comment on the AK series. I have never owned one, much less shot one.

    In the Rifle class, there is the Garand, M1A, FAL, Cetme, HK91, AR-10, and others. Each one has it's up's and downs. The reason that the CMP has not sold M14's is that the receivers are Full Auto capable. They do know how to render the receiver so that it cannot be converted, but at this time they won't do that. Of course there being a war on now and them bringing the stocks back out doesn't help much.

    So what was it you wanted to discuss?

    -Bidah
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2007

  3. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    I'm only 30, so I don't have extensive training on the M14. It is a proven platform, firing a proven round. The issue of ammo weigh is just BS. A soldier will carry what he needs to survive. I've humped 60s and SAWs and was usually comforted by the fact that I had the extra ammo, even though it was breaking my back.

    By going to a light, much less lethal round, the military assured that the 'spray and pray' technique would be used in combat. However, there have been recent stories of Marine and Army scout units equipped with M14 DMRs that were able to engage an AK equipped enemy at 800 to 1200 yards. They were able to eliminate the threat at 3 to 4 times the effective range of the AKs that the enemy forces had.

    The M14s are becoming popular with USASOC snipers in current combat areas. They're willing to sacrifice a few hundred yards worth of shot distance for quick follow up and full auto operation if necessary.

    Keep in mind, that should a DM/sniper's rifle fail to operate, they may not live to tell about it, so that is a testament to how much faith these guys are willing to put into a 40+ year old rifle. The SEALS are digging up all of the M14s that they can find for the NAVSPECWAR Mk14 Mod0 EBR project.

    The M14 was an outstanding rifle that was killed off by politics. It's good to see that the military has realized the error of it's ways and is now trying to bring them back into service. It's a shame that the numbers aren't high enough to equip more soldiers with them.

    I've had a Springfield Armory M1A Scout Squad on order for about 6 months now. I wish it would hurry up and get here. Once Fulton Armory can get their M14 receivers back in stock, I'm going to order one of them also and begin construction on a Krieger heavy barreled, McMillan stocked pillar bedded bad ***.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2007
  4. vegasjeepguy

    vegasjeepguy New Member

    67
    0
    0
    I seem to remember a study done years ago that found an "unbelievable" number of soldiers (infantry types, not REMFs) never fired their weapons in combat and I believe it was during the Vietnam era. This gave more credence to moving away from the M14 and toward the M16. Since soldiers were not engaging in "aimed" fire then "spray and pray" worked well with the M16. I have killed my fair share of cans with both weapons and prefer my M1A by a wide margin. The only thing that would compel me to pick up an AR (to supplement my M1A) would be the availability of mags and ammo (savanged from the "battlefield").
     
  5. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    The term "Battle rifle" refers to FULL power rifles, IMHO. The 7.62 X 51/ .308 is the minimum caliber for consideration in that category (I know, the FN-49 in 7 X 57). I have an HK-91 and CETME, both in 7.62 X 51. I also have a Remington 7400 carbine in .30-06. I have lots of 10 round mags and like it alot.
    The M-16 and AK-47 (both in selective fire) are "Assault Rifles", not battle rifles. The semi-auto versions of these two are good weapons (I have 2 of each). They fill a different place in the arsenal.
    I do not have an M-14/M-1A or an FN. I do not have anything against them except the gas systems that will foul much faster than the delayed blowback operation of the HK/CETME system.
    I say, get what you can afford/are familiar with and practice.:)
     
  6. henryk

    henryk New Member

    72
    0
    0
    During my time in the USMC (1964-1968) I had the pleasure of firing both the M-14 and the M-16. Probably more than I wanted too but thats another issue all together. I qualified with the M-14 and to this day still like it better than the M-16. Maybe it is because I was trained with it? Maybe it was because I could actually hit what I was aiming at? lol Anyway, I do not feel that the M-14 and the M-16 are in the same catagory. But thats probably just me. :)
     
  7. Rich5711

    Rich5711 New Member

    6
    0
    0
    I had no problems qualifying with the M16 at thr 500 yard line in Parris Island, in the fleet we actually took some shots from around 600 yards and with nothing but the stock sights. No problem hitting the man sized target from that distance.

    I don't have any trigger time on the M14 or any other older rifle but I'm sure they aren't bad either.
     
  8. Gunnutz13

    Gunnutz13 New Member

    34
    0
    0
    My Battle Weapons

    Yugoslavian M70AB2 UF AK-47

    Olympic Arms M4 AR-15

    Springfield Armory M1 Garand

    Mossberg 500 Cruiser
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Dec 5, 2007
  9. fluffo63

    fluffo63 New Member

    184
    0
    0
    ..nice pictures..

    ,,them be some nice battle armory..:cool:
     
  10. Samhain

    Samhain New Member

    183
    0
    0
    nice pictures thanks, I never get tired of seeing the guns everyone has.
     
  11. deputy dow

    deputy dow New Member

    17
    0
    0
    battle guns

    I believe the garand, m 14, FnFal are true battle guns. I have shot m-14s, and Fn fal(L1A1) both are very accurate, and all be it heavy battle guns. The Fn Fal had adjustable gas, and you can operate like a bolt action if you wish.(1 round manually at a time) The AR-15 is a little more accurate than a mini-14. (I have both) Ar is 16 inch bbl and Mini 18.5 inch bbl. The mini is the newer model that Ruger just came out with. I would not hesitate to have any of the above guns in a dire situation. I have carried all of the above guns in "gun call" situations (except for the mini- I just got it last fall- and its my personal gun)
     
  12. Recon 173

    Recon 173 New Member

    191
    0
    0
    Okay... I have shot the M-14, M-16, XM-21 sniper rifles, AK-47s, SAR-1 rifles, M-4 rifles, Mini-14s, M-1 .30 caliber carbines, various submachineguns, SMLEs in .303 caliber, 8 mm Mausers and just about everything else except for a Mosin-Nagant. For some reason I have not shot a MN rifle in 7.62 X 54R. I was first trained on an M-14, then M-16 and then an XM-21 in Viet Nam. The other rifles I got to shoot when I was either with a SF operational detachment or as a deputy sheriff. Out of all of them, my most favorite is the M-14 family of rifles which include the M-14, the XM-21, M-21 and M-1A rifles in 7.62 NATO. Trouble with the M-14 type rifles is that you can not carry as much ammo as you can with an AK-47 type rifle or M-16/M-4 type carbine. The most fun to shoot is the M-1 .30 caliber carbine. The most accurate is the M-1A. The most relibale rifles are the AK-47, FN/FAL and the M-1A rifles. Out of the 3, the AK is probably the most dependable of all 3 of them. So, what dictates which rifle I would use in a bad situation? Two things: the general terrain and tactics I'll be using.

    If I were to be fighting in a built up area, I would like to have an AK type rifle to use. Shooting distances in a city, town or village are generally short... say well under 200 yards in most cases... and you need a decent round to sometimes punch through a little wood or plaster board. The 7.62 X 39 has the punch needed to get the job done. It was designed for built-up area combat.

    If I were going to fight over a long distance area like some plains or steppes of Russia, I would want either a scoped M-1A/AR-10 in 7.62 NATO/.308 or a scoped M-16 type rifle. I would be looking at shooting long distances for some of my shots so I would want good accuracy.

    If I were going to be working in the mountains of eastern Tennessee or in the Rockies I would probably want a quality FN/FAL rifle with a scope of some sort mounted on it.

    In a desert environment, I would probably want an M-1A with a scope on it. If I have to move around a whole lot, then I would probably wish for a scoped M-16 rifle in spite of the wimp factor of the .223/5.56 bullet. Knowing what I know about the different rifles, I understand that I might have to go to head shots with the .223/5.56 rifle at distances under 150 yards or so in order to stay alive.

    To me, rifles are tools that one uses to do a job. You need the right rifle for the right job. Sure, I know that some people will disagree with my choices for the different jobs but those are MY choices based on what I've trained to do and have experienced. So, explain to me what your choices are....
     
  13. RL357Mag

    RL357Mag New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    The "wimp" factor you cite in the 5.56 is due to the fact that the Military doesn't use HP ammo. I am not limited by the Geneva Convention! My 69gr. Sierra HPBT Matchking's will group into 1/2" at 100 yds. and will kill somebody out to 500 yds. because they fragment on impact due in part to the velocity that the AK can never achieve. Someone mentioned that the .223 is not a good deer round, that's true, deer are much harder to put down than people. Additionally, the AR is a good general purpose arm because it can be fielded at short range as well as extreme range - the AK is useless beyond 200 m. in terms of accuracy, and it's knock-down power is much less than even a 30-30. I have DPMS AR in .308also, but it is too damned heavy to carry around, and is probably over-kill in most cases.
     
  14. Boris

    Boris New Member

    441
    0
    0
    I wouldn't put my life on the line with assumption that the AK 7.62x39 round is 'useless' beyond 200 metres, I think you will find it will do what it say's on the tin, up to 450 metres...... I think you over state the ability of the .223 it will ricochet all over the place.........:eek:
     
  15. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    When I was searching for a main battle rifle, it came down to either a Springfield M1A or a DSArms FAL. I wound up going with a FAL carbine. So far, I've been very happy with my decision.
     
  16. Righteous

    Righteous New Member

    573
    0
    0
    mine list would be in this order
    AK47
    M1 Garand
    AR15
     
  17. pioneer461

    pioneer461 New Member

    938
    0
    0
    If I were to be made King of America, I would re-equip my armed forces with M-14, M-1a or SOCOM, long range people stoppers. Sidearms of course would be 1911a1's. :cool:
     
  18. john2

    john2 New Member

    3
    0
    0
    The problem with the M14 was that the ...average...soldier could not handle it in full auto. Garands were fine because they were semi-auto. Get a Beretta M-59 as a full auto Garand...and you are back to handling problems. My F/A M14 is a two shot burst weapon for me. Beyond two, it becomes a bird gun. Great for "whithering field of fire" if you don't have a BAR, but an ammo waster in the hands of the average grunt. The M-16 in Vietnam was able to lay down thousands of "spray and pray" rounds for every enemy killed. You see footage of our grunts holding their M16 over the brim and dumping a mag in the general direction of the enemy. Wasted alot of ammo, but couldn't do the same with the M14 (except waste ammo). Today the M14 is where it should be...Spec Ops. In the hands of a few highly trained individuals who can use it to best advantage. F/A is probably used only when the SHTF and suppressing fire is called for.:eek:
     
  19. RONSERESURPLUS

    RONSERESURPLUS New Member

    662
    0
    0
    Hello all

    Ron L here = SERESURPLUS


    Now, this is really gonna Take the room by Suprise? I Have Qualified on the M-14, the AR/M-16 Family of Weapons, as well as the AK, I'd say thier is NO ONE ANWSER! I'd say some Units would be better suited with a Full Rifle like M-14/M1A, others the M-16/Ar Series, yet others would be better suited with the AK? SF units do that sort of thing all the time and it works fine? It's called "Mission Specific" pick of weapons? Now, admit it, ya all thought Iwas gonna say AK all the way, right?

    Thier are just many places for different units to use different weapons! Thgats just fact, I like a weapons Mix, Rifles, Shotguns and carbines, I feel each has it's place and each has it's use? Just my opinion, I know what works?