the500kid
Regular Member
imported post
My comments in Red. For the record I think Veritas is well thought out on this I just disagree with him.
Veritas
Regular Member
Joined:
Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 wrote:
I hear you on the drawbacks, but I believe it's easier to get a milsurp AR/M4 or AK (chambered in 5.56 and 7.62, respectively). With this in mind, I'm considering the likelihood that I'll have to mix and match between consumer ammo and milspec ammo. In a 5.56 chamber, I can take 5.56 OR .223... but in a 7.62 chamber, I can ONLY take milspec. In other words, .308 in a milsurp AK is bad news... but .223 AND 5.56 is fine in a milsurp AR/M4. I get more options with an AR/M4.
I suppose the other option here is to search around for an AK chambered in .308 your not going to find a AK in .308, .308 is 7.62x51 NATO and will not cross under any circumstances with 7.62x39 shortrussian.so that I can fire both 7.62 and .308... but this leads me to the next two issues: Weight and popularity. 5.56/.223 is lighter... meaning more can be carried which means you have to shoot the guy more times. Also, most American LEO's and military use 5.56/.223 battle feild pickups are free up to and includeing rifles... said ammo could be easier to come by longer term. .308 winchester (7.62x51 NATO) is actually the more popular round in the US with civilians and LEO the military just has there head up their ass.
Stopping power? Not my primary issue. I know it sounds stupid... but it's really not. Your call but I like stoping power. I mean, it's not like we're talking about .22 versus .357 or anything. I chalk up the difference between 5.56/.223 vs 7.62/.308 as being similar to 9mm vs .40 inour world with ammo choices it doesn't matter in the military world wereball ammo is the only choice give me a .40that one IS stronger than the other, but both will get the job done in most circumstances.One is stronger than the other and if you read the reports form the feild military ball ammo doesn't work that well. The best documention i think is the book Black Hawk down. Several comments were made in the after action of the faliure of the military ball ammo. and current reports from the feild are the same. the only thing it does well sometimes is punch through body armour.
The final determination is that I just feel more comfortable with an AR platform; being ex-military. Quite literally, I can bust one down and put it back together with my eyes closed and I wouldn't have to think twice about what to do in the event of a jam. Can't knock that reason becuase I can do the same but I still think its a piece of crap rifle with better 5.56 options out there
I like M4's a whole lot... I really do. But I think the AR is just a tad more versatile. The extra 2" on the barrel, I think, is more important in improving accuracy than it is detrimental to the maneuverability of the weapon itself. They both shoot out to 500 yds. just fine with iron sites and with an ACOG even better.
As for the Garand... I think I'd rather have a WWII model. Not sure it'd be something I'd really fire... it's more or less something I'd like to have "just 'cause". And Character in a gun wins the day again.
I'm very much open to suggestions if anyone can find fault in my logic. Basically, I'm just looking for a good all-purpose defensive weapon where finding and carrying ammo won't be an issue longer-term.
As for shotguns, my mind is open to suggestions there as well. So far, my heart is set on the Benelli M4. But as someone pointed out, the Mossberg 930 SPX may be a contender. One thing is for certain: I want semi-auto. Stock pistol grip isn't a dealbreaker, as I can always install an after-market one later. I'd prefer 12-gauge too. The M4 is really nice I'm not shure how the civlian version is but the military takes down and goes together really quick. I'd stick with that if your dead set on a semi-auto. Personally I'd go with a 870, M4, and than Mossberg 500 that order all in 12 ga.
Location:
PDinDetroit wrote: [/b]
But, realistically, I don't anticipate needing anything longer than this. I'm adding to this my arsenal as a home defense weapon to protect against the threat of multiple targets. I don't plan on every having to fire it anything more than 75 to 100 yards away; at most. Average Iraqi sniper shot on US personal is 36yds. urban enviroments are a B*tch.
A Mosin-Nagant 91/30 is pretty inexpensive. I'm kicking around the idea of buying one to cover longer-range needs "just in case". Why!, every thing is so thought out andat least reasonable even if idon't agree with you until here. Were do you think your going to get a steady supply of 7.62x54R. Get a $300 remington 700 when they go on sale this fall at Gander Mtn. and get itchambered in .30-06 if you want to shoot long range. .30-06 ammo isstilla popular round at there has tobe huge stashes of the stuff out there still. Or just use a Garand some still contendits the finest battle rifle ever made.But as I said before, my goal is to try to limit the number of weapons I own to just the bare essentials. Assault rifle, shotgun, and pistols... limited to two calibers (.40 cal for pistols, .223/5.56 for rifle). I'm only one man... I don't want to have lug around an entire arsenal if I ever gotta head for the hills.
You know were i stand on the 5.56 (go 7.62x51-.308) why .40 your trying to go readily avalible ammo that means either .45 ACP or 9mm. .40 S&W is a fine round but its following is to small to really make it viable. I like .45 ACP myself.
Who else has opinions I know were notthe only two that think this way.
My comments in Red. For the record I think Veritas is well thought out on this I just disagree with him.
Veritas
Regular Member
Joined:
Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 wrote:
I hear you on the drawbacks, but I believe it's easier to get a milsurp AR/M4 or AK (chambered in 5.56 and 7.62, respectively). With this in mind, I'm considering the likelihood that I'll have to mix and match between consumer ammo and milspec ammo. In a 5.56 chamber, I can take 5.56 OR .223... but in a 7.62 chamber, I can ONLY take milspec. In other words, .308 in a milsurp AK is bad news... but .223 AND 5.56 is fine in a milsurp AR/M4. I get more options with an AR/M4.
I suppose the other option here is to search around for an AK chambered in .308 your not going to find a AK in .308, .308 is 7.62x51 NATO and will not cross under any circumstances with 7.62x39 shortrussian.so that I can fire both 7.62 and .308... but this leads me to the next two issues: Weight and popularity. 5.56/.223 is lighter... meaning more can be carried which means you have to shoot the guy more times. Also, most American LEO's and military use 5.56/.223 battle feild pickups are free up to and includeing rifles... said ammo could be easier to come by longer term. .308 winchester (7.62x51 NATO) is actually the more popular round in the US with civilians and LEO the military just has there head up their ass.
Stopping power? Not my primary issue. I know it sounds stupid... but it's really not. Your call but I like stoping power. I mean, it's not like we're talking about .22 versus .357 or anything. I chalk up the difference between 5.56/.223 vs 7.62/.308 as being similar to 9mm vs .40 inour world with ammo choices it doesn't matter in the military world wereball ammo is the only choice give me a .40that one IS stronger than the other, but both will get the job done in most circumstances.One is stronger than the other and if you read the reports form the feild military ball ammo doesn't work that well. The best documention i think is the book Black Hawk down. Several comments were made in the after action of the faliure of the military ball ammo. and current reports from the feild are the same. the only thing it does well sometimes is punch through body armour.
The final determination is that I just feel more comfortable with an AR platform; being ex-military. Quite literally, I can bust one down and put it back together with my eyes closed and I wouldn't have to think twice about what to do in the event of a jam. Can't knock that reason becuase I can do the same but I still think its a piece of crap rifle with better 5.56 options out there
I like M4's a whole lot... I really do. But I think the AR is just a tad more versatile. The extra 2" on the barrel, I think, is more important in improving accuracy than it is detrimental to the maneuverability of the weapon itself. They both shoot out to 500 yds. just fine with iron sites and with an ACOG even better.
As for the Garand... I think I'd rather have a WWII model. Not sure it'd be something I'd really fire... it's more or less something I'd like to have "just 'cause". And Character in a gun wins the day again.
I'm very much open to suggestions if anyone can find fault in my logic. Basically, I'm just looking for a good all-purpose defensive weapon where finding and carrying ammo won't be an issue longer-term.
As for shotguns, my mind is open to suggestions there as well. So far, my heart is set on the Benelli M4. But as someone pointed out, the Mossberg 930 SPX may be a contender. One thing is for certain: I want semi-auto. Stock pistol grip isn't a dealbreaker, as I can always install an after-market one later. I'd prefer 12-gauge too. The M4 is really nice I'm not shure how the civlian version is but the military takes down and goes together really quick. I'd stick with that if your dead set on a semi-auto. Personally I'd go with a 870, M4, and than Mossberg 500 that order all in 12 ga.
Location:
PDinDetroit wrote: [/b]
You're right... I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote 800. I believe the actual MER is in the ballpark of 500; but anything past 300 being pretty subjective. In the service, we trained out to 300 yards with them and even then, the arc was pretty steep. The Corps takes it out to 500 no problems and with a scope theres civlians that shoot 600 and a 1000 no problem. I shure wouldn't want to take it that far thought.
But, realistically, I don't anticipate needing anything longer than this. I'm adding to this my arsenal as a home defense weapon to protect against the threat of multiple targets. I don't plan on every having to fire it anything more than 75 to 100 yards away; at most. Average Iraqi sniper shot on US personal is 36yds. urban enviroments are a B*tch.
A Mosin-Nagant 91/30 is pretty inexpensive. I'm kicking around the idea of buying one to cover longer-range needs "just in case". Why!, every thing is so thought out andat least reasonable even if idon't agree with you until here. Were do you think your going to get a steady supply of 7.62x54R. Get a $300 remington 700 when they go on sale this fall at Gander Mtn. and get itchambered in .30-06 if you want to shoot long range. .30-06 ammo isstilla popular round at there has tobe huge stashes of the stuff out there still. Or just use a Garand some still contendits the finest battle rifle ever made.But as I said before, my goal is to try to limit the number of weapons I own to just the bare essentials. Assault rifle, shotgun, and pistols... limited to two calibers (.40 cal for pistols, .223/5.56 for rifle). I'm only one man... I don't want to have lug around an entire arsenal if I ever gotta head for the hills.
You know were i stand on the 5.56 (go 7.62x51-.308) why .40 your trying to go readily avalible ammo that means either .45 ACP or 9mm. .40 S&W is a fine round but its following is to small to really make it viable. I like .45 ACP myself. Who else has opinions I know were notthe only two that think this way.
