Difficulty choosing...

Discussion in 'Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion' started by Nomad1776, Mar 5, 2010.

  1. Nomad1776

    Nomad1776 New Member

    So here is my question. When I come home in a few months I'm looking to buy some Rifles, and pistols for the wife and I. I think I'm solid on the pistols, but the rifles have me frustrated. Admittedly my knowledge base is very small as I never spent a lot of time with rifles or anything in my youth, and even though I've been in the military for almost ten years now I haven't been interested really in firearms until very recently. So you can see why I may need help:)

    So I'm obviously very comfortable with the M4 variety of rifles. And as far as the Army goes, I'm a good shot. However I am not sold on the 5.56 round. Don't get me wrong I love the range, speed accuracy of the round but it just seems so... weak? So I started looking a 7.62 M4 style rifles. I like the stopping power and penetrating power of the 7.62 but after a 200 meters the rounds seems worthless. So what should I do? Should I get an M4 style 5.56 or 7.62, should I get one of each? Should I be looking at an entirely different style of rifle?

    Basically I want something that my wife can use, and something that I can use. I want to use it for sport, and obviously for anything that could happen in the future, Always be prepared was what I was taught.

    I know a lot of questions, and I probably sound like an Idiot :) but I am genuinely curious as to opinions, and fact. I am a quick learner and very interested in learning all I can. Thanks Folks.

  2. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    well the 5.56 was originally designed to dispatch humans. for that job it does it exceedingly well. as a personal defense round its a very very good round.

    for hunting elephants... prolly not so good.

    its a great round and gun to start the wife on especially if it has a collapsable stock as most female body structure benefits from shorter stocks and less felt recoil. the .223 remington which is the twin of the 5.56 nato and shoots out of the same gun for the most part is an excellent target round.

    witht he ability of so many mod choices and upper add-ons and the CMMG conversion kit for .22LR you really cannot go wrong with a AR15 in 5.56/223 as a first rifle.

  3. canebrake

    canebrake New Member

    +1 Jon, and to add to that I would suggest that you build your first AR.

    To keep it simple I would buy a complete upper and save this part of the build for your second or third rifle down the road.

    You can pick up a stripped lower for <$100 or a billet for <$200 to get you started. Next would be a LPK and a stock kit and presto! you have your first AR.

    PLUS you know how it goes together and can fix it in a pinch.
  4. stalkingbear

    stalkingbear Well-Known Member

    Why don't you "split the difference" and get a 6.8SPC or a 6.5 Grendel? They (arguably) offer the best of both worlds combined. The 6.8 offers roughly twice the energy of the 5.56. They are available in the AR15 by several different manufacturers.
  5. Nomad1776

    Nomad1776 New Member

    I was thinking of going with a 6.8 or something similar, but i have heard that the ammunition is expensive, and not as readily available. is there any truth to that argument? Because when it is all said and done, I want a round that i can get almost anywhere. Also, I was just planning on going to the local gun shop, with my wife, and ordering the gun i ended up deciding on. The thought of building my own, had never occurred to me. How does one go about doing that?
  6. AARguy

    AARguy New Member

    What rifle?

    I share your concern about the 5.56. I've chosen the civilian version of M14, the M1A which is chambered in 7.62x51. It is a little on the heavy side, but I don't think I'll be doing much patrolling anymore. Just in case, though, I have a Saiga 308 which fires the same round. Saiga is essentially an AK without a pistol grip, which can be added if you wish. The Saiga 308 (7.62x51) is also available with a shortened (16") barrel. The decreased weight makes it ideal for carrying around and the shortened barrel allows easier maneuvering in any CQB scenarios. M1A is pricey, but a Saiga 308 can be found for under $500. In any case, I wouldn't recommend anything in 6.5 or 6.8. They have been rejected for anything but limited use in the military and their availability may someday come into question. 5.56 and 7.62x51 will remain NATO standard for some time and should be available as long as Soldiers and Marines keep the production lines pumping.
  7. Silvertip 44

    Silvertip 44 New Member

    Nomad, I would personally opt for the M1A for a rifle in 7.62. I have three of them and love them all. My .223 AR is just for a plinking rifle and it plinks real good too with the irons at 100 yds.
  8. Wambli

    Wambli Member

    There is a guy dancing with his 72 virgins that didn't get that bit of news...

    Once you get out of the military and are not limited to the FMJ world there are a bunch of bullet design options that make the 5.56/.223 and the .308 rather capable of just about anything you'd need them to do. Do your homework and learn all you can about bullet design and performance parameters and you'll avoid falling into the potholes of gun counter common wisdom...
  9. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    Way too much criticism is lumped on the .223 because of perceived shortcomings of 5.56mm ammo. These are two different calibers. There are far more bullet options in .223 that make it a great fight stopper. You are not in the military bound to international law pertaining to frangible ammo.

    I have yet to see the bad guy take a torso shot from a good soft point or hollow point .223 and still stand there for the follow up shot. For HD use, the .223 is perfectly adequate for the job. You can choose the ammo based on individual needs, balancing bullet weight, expansion and penetration. If you live in an apartment and need minimal penetration, a 40-45 gr HP or SP will stay in a bad guy plus not penetrate walls very well in the event of a miss.
  10. big shrek

    big shrek Well-Known Member

    Well, in Veitnam we found out that, yeah, .223 will drop a Veitcong with one torso shot....but you can bet yer bottom dollar that if it wasn't a Heart-shot, that lil dude was going to recover & start shooting back until he bled out or got shot a few more times.

    Mind you, the Veitnamese are MUCH smaller than the current enemy in Iraq/Afghanistan, and a tiny lil bullet just ain't gonna cut it. Why do you think the Marines snatched up every M-14 they could recall from LEO armouries and sent them to Iraq/Afghanistan?? They needed MORE POWER, so they got it.


    If you want a REALLY sweet rifle on the M-15/AR-15 platform, the ONLY decent option is the H&K 417 in .308/7.62 :D

    Has all the benefits of the AR platform, with the reliability & durability of an AK-47, these are M-16's that you CAN drop in the water/mud and fire afterwards!!!


    In fact, IMHO, the 416 & 417 make the M-16 and it's variants OBSOLETE!!!
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2010
  11. AARguy

    AARguy New Member


    I wouldn't give H&K the time of day. They ripped off the military with their totally failed XM 29/25/8 fiasco. The XM 29 was originally the OICW (Objective Infantry Combat Weapon) that fired a 25mm airburst-fused grenade and a something-between 5.56 and 308 round. Millions were spent in development and testing. Then it was too heavy, so they went to 5.56. More millions spent in development and testing. Then it was STILL too heavy so they went to a 20mm grenade. More millions in development and testing. Well, the grenade's fuse was so complex and that it took up most of the space in the 20mm round and there wasn't much left for the bang part. More millions in development and testing. Then, again, it was too heavy. So the program broke down into two separate weapons, the XM25 for the grenade launcher and the XM8 for the 5.56 bullet launcher. More millions for development and test. And of course the separation of the bullet launcher and the grenade launcher loused up the basic requirement for ONE weapon to perform both functions. We were back to the Vietnam-era problem of M79 versus M16 which gave birth to the whole idea of an OICW. But H&K hucksters ("lobbyists") kept the program alive, even to the point of breaking ground for a huge factory in Columbus, GA outside of Ft Benning. H&K kept the money pit alive even as the program swirled in the bowl. It was despicable. The program finally died and it was back to the drawing boiards for a Future Force Warrior "lethality module".

    One would think that the millions of dollars H&K wasted might have at least been used to learn lessons or develop some technologies that might have been used in follow up programs to the benefit of the US military. But when the SCAR (Special Operaions Combat Assault Rifle) program was announced and competed, H&K didn't even bother to bid. FN won the program for 50,000 rifles. The millions spent on H&K remain wasted.

    As an American, I have nothing for H&K but a hard time.