Printable View
And I took some pics.
Ill try and list everything in the pics.
Mine:
AR with Tan furniture
Stainless Steel Taurus PT100
Springfield XD 45
Friend #1
AK-47
Bolt Action .22 Savage
S&W Sigma .40 S&W
Friend #2
RPK (The big AK)
Remington 870
Friend #3
AR-15
Beretta 92
.22 Revolver
gunz
lets play a game we'll delete this thread and ill remake it with the same picture and see how long it takes homeland security to knock on my door
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by raghead
I should have wrapped a few lbs of flour in saran wrap and got some huge stacks of cash and said it was a mexican drug bust. lmao .
Homeland security would not bother with such a small weapons cache, I would bet they have seen it and saw no threat to national security.
There is just enough hardware there to have a good day at the range.
this photo needs more angry looking mexicans or blacks
Yeah, that is a decent collection of firepower but I used to take more to the range by myself. I always found it funny when the news would report a "large arsenal of assault weapons" seized by the police and saw pictures of a few bolt action rifles, an SKS and a couple pistols.Quote:
Originally Posted by smith357
I can imagine shooting a lot of ordnance through those was fun, I've changed quite a bit and prefer a single well-aimed shot, but used to love blowing through $100 or more of ammo (it was a lot cheaper then). If I could get the leather tabs on my AK sling smoking I knew I was doing something.
Too many Kalashnikov and AR style rifles. :(
No such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
I would never waste my money on an outdated and over priced AR-15 style weapon. There are much better rifles out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous D
Over priced? Maybe now with all the price gouging.
What's an example of a less expensive, less outdated rifle that is comparable to an AR-15 in function and role?
G36Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
SCAR
Tavor
XM8
416
L85
... shall I go on?
Hahahah! I hope you don't really think that ANY of those rifles are less expensive than a mid-range AR15. It's particularly hilarious that you listed the SCAR. In case you haven't checked recently, the 5.56mm SCAR has an MSRP of more than $2500. As opposed to about $900-1200 for a good AR. And you want to called the AR overpriced??Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
Besides, where do you even think you are going to get an XM8? It was a development program for the military that was canceled several years ago, it never progressed to the production stage. You sure can't buy one. And where do you think you'll get an a G36? The closest thing you will find on the US market is an SL8, which isn't the same thing at all (and which is much more expensive than an AR15 anyhow). And where are you going to get a Tavor? It's a foreign military assault rifle, and there are no sporterized imports or domestically produced semiauto versions. Same for the L85, I believe. The SCAR and the HK416 are the only weapons on your list that are even available to civilians, and they are definitely not cheaper than an AR.
So no, you don't need to go on. I asked you to give examples of comparable rifles that are less "overpriced" than an AR, and you proceeded to list a bunch of rifles that are as expensive or MORE expensive than an AR, and most of which aren't even available to US civilians anyhow. Great job.
EDIT: Anyhow, what makes you think an L85 is preferable to an AR15 in any way even if it was possible for US civilians to get a semiauto version?
lol every single one of those guns cost a shitload more than an AR.
Like he said, the SCAR and HK416 are the only ones you can even BUY. Have you price a either one lately?
The AR design is over forty-five years old, but it is the over-the-hill Hollywood star of weapons. Bad reference, I know, but every time it starts showing its age it gets another facelift. The HK 416 itself is based on an AR lower and the M4 of today shares few similarities with its AR-15 and M16 brother of the Vietnam era. While there are newer and arguably better weapons out there, the M16/M4 has served admirably for over forty years and through no fewer than five wars and invasions (Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, OIF/OEF). Of course, that does not count numerous police actions, black ops and more isolated battles such as Mogadishu. Many of the M4s detractors are those who have limited or no experience with the weapon in combat and while some criticism is based in fact I believe much of it is overblown by armchair commandos. I've never had a malfunction in an M4 or M16A2 or A4 that wasn't feed related (at least that I can recall at the moment, if I do remember any I will be sure to post them). These were mostly due to magazine problems though admittedly a few were due to abuse of the weapon (ie: rapid firing it without lube, after a couple hundred rounds it starts choking).
Eventually the US military will replace the Stoner based weapons. Even when we do I have few doubts that the new rifle will share more than a few traits with the M16/M4. There are few rifles that have the modularity and versatility of an M16/M4 MWS (Modular Weapon System) and many of the weapon's better features (basic magazine design, integrated rails) have been adapted for other weapons.
Isnt the HK 416 just an M16 with a gas piston system instead of the direct impingement gas operation? Similar to an AK-47?
Ive been thinking about getting a gas piston AR for my next one from www.adxtactical.com
This is a good point, too. The HK416 is basically a gas-piston AR (and not the only one, either... plenty of companies other than H&K offer gas-piston ARs or uppers). It doesn't make a lot of sense to shit-talk the AR design and then say that the HK416 is a superior design, when the HK416 itself is a member of the AR family. It's like saying "GM cars are crap... a Pontiac would be a better choice!" I assume Bowzer meant to direct his criticism at the DI gas system rather than at ARs in general; it should be borne in mind that the DI gas system is not an inseparable feature of all ARs, and that if you don't like DI gas systems, the versatility of the AR design makes it easy to get an AR rifle that doesn't have a DI gas system.Quote:
Originally Posted by fm2176
In fact, I think it could be argued that the existence of gas-piston ARs (such as the HK416) is a tribute to the modularity and adaptability of the AR design. If the AR design wasn't so adaptable (and successful), H&K wouldn't have made their own AR variant.
I want to build a .308 gas piston AR.
That would be the shit.
Umm... outdated..... Many of the finest firearms produced today are derived from 100 year old designs. I will take tried and true battle field tested firearms over new and improved, super wazooie wunder guns every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
I don't care for the AR an AKs because the M14 is better. (IMHO)
I don't like the semi-auto pistols because the 1899 S&W hand ejector is better. (IMHO)
The 1898 Mauser is the finest bolt action rifle ever invented. (IMHO)
I would never waste my money on one of dem thar newfangled hunks of junk. yada yada yada
Opinions are.... well.... you know the saying.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone makes a gas-oprod upper for an AR10 or .308 AR15 lower. Look around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous D
They have them. Ive seen them and they are kickass, but they cost some serious money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
^True dat.
POF's .308 is ~$2.5k. LWRC's SABR (to my knowledge) hasn't yet hit the market, but I remember seeing a pricetag of over $10k for it! I don't really know of any other GP AR-10 rifles. IMO, the .308 cartridge is a battle rifle round, and the decrease in accuracy in exchange for increased reliability isn't a good tradeoff in a battle rifle. A combat/sports-utility rifle is a whole 'nother ballgame.
IMO.
I doubt a properly designed gas-piston .308 AR would be less accurate than a direct-impingement .308 AR in any meaningful way. There might be enough of a difference to matter to a benchrest shooter, but definitely not enough to affect it's usefulness as a battle rifle. There are several .308 battle rifles that use a gas piston system and are as accurate as they need to be. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that a "battle rifle" needs accuracy more than a "combat rifle" (what's the difference, anyhow?)... any infantry rifle, whether you call it a "battle rifle" or an "assault rifle" or a "combat rifle" or whatever, just requires whatever level of accuracy is needed to reliably hit a man-sized target out to several hundred yards. This usually translates to about 2-4 MOA, maybe closer to 2 MOA if you're leaning towards the "battle rifle" end of the spectrum and your definition of "several hundred" yards is more like 600-700 yards instead of ~300. In any case, gas piston rifles are perfectly capable of delivering that performance even if they are theoretically less accurate than DI rifles.
$2,500 and up though... yikes. Just buy a FAL, I guess.
The AK design is somewhat older, and definitely more "tried and true" and "battlefield-tested", than the M14. Just sayin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by smith357
Ill take an L85A2 over a standard AR15 any day. Dont believe me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8045505AAJthpR
Oh, and how about the Steyr AUG? Theres another .223 better than the AR15.
What im trying to say is just that I would never spend $1500 on a shitty weapon system. But hey, to each their own.
@Syme: I didn't realize that the difference in accuracy was so negligible. Thanks for that info.
I'm using Tactical Response's Fighting Rifle DVDs as a source here. Combat rifle = intermediate cartridge. Battle rifle = full power cartridge. Full power cartridge > Intermediate cartridge > pistol cartridge. Full power cartridge = .308, .30-06, 7.62x54mm, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
@Bowzer: I've read a lot about the Steyr AUGs available to US civilians (MSAR STG-556, TPD AXR) and my conclusion is that they offer no really significant advantages over the AR-15 platform. Civilians don't need crazy reliability and other combat-oriented benefits to the same degree that military operators do. Civie AUGs are nice, to be sure, but to state that they're better than ARs like it's a fact seems hasty to me.
Also, US Army uses M16A4, according to wikipedia. Some branches of the armed forces use A3s (which have f.a capability). In my opinion, there's no need for a combat rifle to have f.a capacity if it's got burst. Soldiers like f.a, of course, but when you factor in controlability for covering fire and such, I think burst-fire setting has a clear advantage.
And Anony's AR is hardly standard.
I'm really struggling to think of a rifle out there that's better for his purposes than a good ol' AR-15. You can make the case for other guns if you don't factor in cost of ammo, magazines, customability, etc, but if you really take everything into account, in my opinion, AR platform comes out on top. Some newer gas-piston rifles like the XCR and piston AR-15s come close, but seriously, you're dropping more money for an increase in reliability that you may not every really feel. No, a good ol' DI AR with some goodies is the best weapon for Anony's purposes. Even if you disagree with me, calling the AR-15 a shitty weapon surely seems extreme, doesn't it?
Your source on the "superiority" of the SA80 is a Yahoo Answers page with anecdotal evidence in the form of some random guy saying "my M16 jammed but my L85 never did"? Nice try. Even setting that aside, most of what he says is either questionable (such as the part about the L85 being more accurate) or irrelevant to us (such as the fact that it has full-auto capability).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
Anyway, it's a moot point, because again, as a US civilian, you can't get a semiauto L85 (maybe there are a few out there, but if so, they are rare and not easily available.... and thus will be quite expensive, just like all the other expensive or unavailable guns you listed as alternatives to the "overpriced" AR). So it doesn't matter if the L85 really is a superior weapon. You can't have one.
And here we have yet ANOTHER rifle that's way more expensive than an AR. Have you looked at prices on civilian AUG clones recently? The MSAR is usually around $2000; maybe if you get a good deal you might go as low as $1600 or $1700, but that's about it. The same is true for the TPD AXR: $2000 or more (I believe MSRP for the basic 16"-barrel model is $2195). If you can point to a quality AUG clone that's around the same price as the average AR (about $1000), your argument here might have a bit of credibility. But until then, suggesting the AUG as a superior alternative to the "overpriced" AR is just as laughable as your previous suggestions of the SCAR and G36 and XM8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
That's not how much the average AR costs. Around $1000 is more realistic. First I asked you to list some rifles that are less "overpriced" than the AR and you listed a bunch of rifles that are MORE expensive than ARs, or are unavailable to the public, or both. Now you think that $1500 is a representative price for an AR. I'm beginning to think you just don't actually know anything about the price or availability of the guns you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
****
Hmm, I've never seen it broken down this way. I think these DVDs invented the "combat rifle" category themselves; the terms seems a bit broad (of course the same could be said of the term "battle rifle"). Virtually all military rifles chambering intermediate cartridges are designed as assault rifles, so I think the term "assault rifle" can be safely used to describe them as a class. That is interesting, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by crunker
Regarding the M16A3, no branch of the US armed forces uses them. They never saw widespread use even when they were first introduced in the 1980s, since they were intended only for specialized use by certain units. Only a small number were ever made. Nowadays they aren't really used at all. The SEALs, etc., probably still have a few lying around, but that's about it.
I've yet to see one. My understanding is that SOCOM purchased a few of them just before the M4 was adopted. The M4A1 then negated the need for a full auto "musket".Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
As for the bullpup carbines, I have little interest in them. Sure, they look cool and are great in concept but the fact I am a left handed firer negates any perceived advantage some may have. Something about an ejection port in my cheek isn't too appealing.
One last thing, from a practical standpoint, the rifle in my hands is a "combat rifle." I guess in a way terms such as those used by Tactical Response is a reason I all but stopped buying some of my former favorite magazines such as Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement. Leave it up to the "experts" to come up with still more terms to confuse the layman about what he is buying. Honestly, I often use the term battle rifle to describe my old Mausers and so on. That said, they are still combat capable as I am sure some in Third World countries would still attest to. I can see Joe from the street going into Tactical Bob's Combat World right now:
Joe: "I'm looking for an assault weapon."
Bob: "There's no such thing, the Liberals came up with that term, I do have a wide selection of state-of-the-art combat rifles over here, though."
Joe: "But I don't need a combat rifle. I just want something fun to shoot, like an AR-15 assault rifle."
Bob: "Sorry, I don't have any selective fire ARs."
Joe: "I didn't say I want selective fire, just a semiautomatic assault rifle."
Bob: "No such thing, now if you mean combat rifle..."
Joe: "Okay, okay, what kind of 'combat rifles' do you have."
Bob: " Well, got this AR-15 over here with EOTech, RIS and supertactical peanut dispenser."
Joe: "$2503.22 is a little too expensive for my tastes; whoa, they make a .308 AR combat rifle?"
Bob: "No, the AR-10 is not a combat rifle. It's a battle rifle. But yeah, they make it, and I have one with your name all over it."
Joe: "So, which battle was it in, looks new."
Bob: It wasn't in a battle, it is chambered for an intermediate full power cartridge, making it a battle rifle like the M14 instead of a combat rifle like the AR-15."
Joe: So, if I get into a firefight, it is considered combat or a battle? I really need to know because I don't want to have the wrong equipment."
Oh, and before someone catches onto the "intermediate full power cartridge" I was talking about, bear in mind that 7.62x51 NATO was originally designed by the US as an intermediate cartridge to be adopted over the .280 British. The Pentagon did not want to give up a full-sized cartridge but needed something better suited for automatic fire than the .30-06. Hence, the 7.62 round; shorter but containing similar ballistics to the .30-06. Ten years later it was replaced as the standard service round by the 5.56, a truly intermediate (at best) cartridge.
Good point. In terms of development history, the 7.62x51mm cartridge is actually analogous to the Soviet 7.62x39mm cartridge: A reduced-power round that was designed to supercede a larger full-power round (.30-06 for the US, 7.62X54mmR for the Soviets) for use in fully automatic rifles. So whether it's a "full power" or "intermediate power" round depends on whether you define such things by muzzle energy, or developmental origin.Quote:
Originally Posted by fm2176
According to this, a few M16A3s were purchased by the US Armed Forces, but if their usage is so limited that the average soldier isn't aware of them, I guess it's a moot point.
Bullpups are neat and all, but one thing I don't think is considered much is their ability to be deployed as a bludgeon. How are you supposed to strike someone with the butt or muzzle of your rifle if it's a bullpup? The ergonomics don't lend to that, in my opinion.
Tactical Response's DVDs don't display any select-fire rifles. That's why I didn't say "assault rifles". It defines combat rifles as was posted above. Battle rifles certainly have a combat purpose, but they're not really covered in the DVDs, since their purposes are slightly different than the purposes of a combat rifle, as defined by the DVD. Tactical Response's DVDs are about relatively close-range combat, or at least, that's the message I got. Emphasis is on acquiring and firing quickly, transitioning to back-up weapons and such. If they were to make DVDs on battle rifles, so to speak, I imagine more emphasis would be on setting up for long-range shots, and taking down multiple targets at long range in quick succession.
Ah, the muzzle punch. I love that technique. Rather effective to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by crunker
I used to love the specialized tactical weapons and training. Still do, but I realize my limitations when it comes to funding such passions. Granted, some weapons are ideally suited for room clearing and CQB, while others are less than ideal. That said, I've notionally cleared rooms with a bolt action Mauser in reenactments and done the real deal with both an M249 with standard length barrel and an M4/M203. The Mauser is far from ideal, but my Kameraden with MP40s had a weapon that was all but perfect. The M249 is not ideal either, but I am here to type this. Short of me joining a law enforcement agency that has specialized weaponry, or trying out for SFOD-D, I highly doubt I will ever use most of the weapons so-called "experts" recommend for operations in built-up areas. Today's average Infantry NCO has more experience in urban fighting than all but the most seasoned SWAT officer (who has combat experience himself). We lack the training, make do with M4s and still get the job done. While I still long for uber-tacti-cool weapons in my collection I realize that my AR carbine with a CCO is more than sufficient, and that in a pinch I can clear a room with a bolt action better than some can with a loaded MP5.
In short, combat rifles, assault rifles, battles rifles and any other term we use on this site are not worth getting worked up over. There are only a few of us here interested in weapons in the first place, no one (that I know of) in law enforcement, and definitely no one that needs specialized weapons or training for anything other than personal knowledge. Knowledge is power, but applied knowledge is where it is at.
When did I ever mention civilian in my post? Last I checked a few years ago, it was around 1500 for a decent one. Many of the weapons I mentioned also have integrated optics, thus raising their price.
Burst setting is quite possibly one of the dumbest things ever devised. It was most likely created by some bureaucrat with a pen who thought it would save ammo and money. The point of auto is to lay down some serious scunion towards the enemy so they keep their head down. Suppression fire is vital for every soldier to have available so they can support a flanking assault if need be. Burst fire only hinders that.Quote:
Originally Posted by crunker
Nope. It had its time during the 60s, 70s and 80s and there are now better weapons available for the US military.Quote:
Originally Posted by crunker
Seabees use A3s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
You came into a thread in which Anonymous D was showing pictures of the civilian sporting weapons he and his friends took to the range. You complained that there were too many ARs and AKs, and said that you would "never waste your money" on an AR. When you talk about what weapons YOU would buy with YOUR OWN money, the implication is that you are talking about weapons that are available to civilians, since those are obviously the only type of weapons that you are going to purchasing with your own money (if you do ever get your hands on an G36 or an XM8 or a L85, you sure won't have bought it for yourself). And when you criticize someone else's choice in civilian sporting arms, the implication is that the weapons you would recommend instead are also civilian sporting arms, rather than weapons that are unavailable to civilians. It doesn't make sense otherwise, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
Are you now trying to claim that, this whole time, you have been talking about what weapons you would choose if you were in charge of deciding what rifle will be issued to a group of soldiers? You certainly didn't say anything to that effect until now.
ARs have never been $1500 for a "decent one". $1500 for a high-end one, maybe, but never for a standard model from one of the major manufacturers like RRA, Stag, Bushmaster, and so on. When buying an AR from one of those manufacturers, you would have to pick a model with lots of extra bells and whistles (rail systems, match barrels, etc.) to push the price up to $1500. Again, $1000 is more like it for a standard model from a major manufacturer. Look around, you will see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
The ammunition wastage that occurred due to the M16A1's full-auto option was very well-documented by the US Army during Vietnam. It's not just some bureaucrat's idle supposition. Arguably the problem had a lot to do with training, but nevertheless, the decision to take full-auto away from the troops wasn't just based on bureaucratic stupidity. There were hard facts justifying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=123673525Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Wastage? I can give you hard facts of thousands of lives that were saved due to FIRE SUPERIORITY in Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Wow, and only $9000! Great find, definitely a better buy than one of those stupid overpriced ARs. Why would anyone waste their money on an AR when they could get one of these for only nine times as much money? The fact that it has no advantage over an AR except for a somewhat more reliable gas system (as well as having several disadvantages compared to an AR) definitely justifies the extra $8000 on the price tag. Especially since we all know how much time civilian rifle shooters spend in harsh, sandy combat environments!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
Give me a break. Yeah, I suppose it's not technically "impossible" for a civilian to get a semi-auto G36, because there are a small number of ultra-expensive NFA-regulated SL8 conversions floating around the market. I think I can still stand by my claim that a semi-auto G36 is not a reasonable alternative to the AR15, and is not available to the average civilian shooter (both because of price, and because of the very small number of these conversions that exist).
Also, this doesn't change the fact that some of the other weapons you listed--such as the XM8--really are completely unavailable to civilians (the XM8 isn't available to ANYONE, actually--the program was cancelled). So I say again: It doesn't make a lot of sense to tell a civilian sport shooter than the AR is a bad choice, and then say that a better choice would be a rifle that's completely unavailable to civilians.
Well yeah, we can all agree that "fire superiority" in general saves lives. That's obvious. The real question is whether the M16A1's full-auto setting, in and of itself, provided enough of a fire superiority advantage to offset the unfortunate fact that troops using it tended to rip through their entire magazine in a second and a half without hitting anything. If you have facts proving that the M16A1's full auto provided such a fire superiority advantage, then please, show them to me. Personally, I doubt such facts exist--because the Army reached exactly the opposite conclusion when it reviewed the lessons learned from Vietnam--but if you have these facts, then let's see them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
EDIT: Just out of curiosity, do you have any objections to the AR platform other than it's gas system? Because if not, you can easily get a gas-piston AR for a lot cheaper than a $2500 SCAR or a $9000 SL8 modification, or even a $2000 AUG sporter clone. And of course it will have much better aftermarket support in terms of parts, accessories, etc.
Suppression fire saves lives. The point of fire superiority and suppression fire is not necessarily to hit the enemy, but to deter them from aggression all together. A great deal of military doctrine is based upon this principal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
The feeding sucks and it jams all the time. I have frequently been failed during peak moments and firefights in training missions no matter how well my M16 was maintained. The worst part about is that there are much better weapons on the market using the same round and that would require little retraining for our military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
EDIT:
For further reading: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/1...sttest_071217/
I'm getting confused. Aren't we talking about the best guns for Am'rican CIVILIANS, not our Armed Forces?
Yeah, I know. Again: The question isn't whether fire superiority provides an advantage in a firefight. Obviously it does. The question is whether the fire-superiority advantage provided by giving every soldier a full-auto assault rifle is enough to offset the fact that it tends to result in them burning through their ammunition very quickly and wastefully. Getting the absolute greatest volume of suppressive fire out of each infantry squad is not the only imperative that drives infantry equipment design. There are countervailing factors to be considered too. You are over-simplifying the issue if you just say "Well the more suppressive fire the better, and suppressive fire comes from full-auto weapons, so every infantryman should have a full-auto weapon".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
It's instructive to note that today, even armies that do issue their troops with full-auto-capable rifles (such as the Brits) generally train them only to use that setting only when clearing rooms and trenches; suppressive fire is generally left to the machine-gunners, because if every infantryman uses his rifle to provide full-auto suppressive fire, they go through ammunition very quickly. This is stated by the guy in the Yahoo Answers page that you yourself linked to earlier, btw.
Most of the feed problems in military service are the fault of the STANAG magazines, not the rifle itself. As civilian AR shooters who use good magazines can tell you, the AR can feed extremely reliably when not used with shitty STANAG mags. As for jamming, what kind of jams are you talking about? Most of them would probably be addressed by a gas-piston AR design, so again, it makes no sense to condemn the AR and say we need a new rifle when all we really need to address your criticisms are gas-piston uppers for existing ARs. And again, you seem to be flip-flopping back and forth between talking about the AR15 as a civilian sporting rifle, and talking about the M16 as a military assault rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
I do know about the dust tests. Notice that at the end of the article, it mentions that surveys of troops in the field reveal that they are satisfied with the M4s performance.
I believe that every soldier's rifle should be capable of laying down aggressive, fully automatic suppressive fire. If the shit hits the fan any soldier needs to be able to lay down a good base of fire to make a withdrawal for themselves and their buddies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Infantrymen generally are outfitted with a double basic combat load. Using one or two mags to lay down suppressive fire to maneuver into position is nothing. And while automatic rifles and machine guns usually make up 70% of a unit's organic firepower, they may not always be available for hasty support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
When you do not know that there are much better weapon systems out there, you're probably not going to complain. Those who do have something to complain about are probably dead. 882 jams for 6000 rounds is completely unacceptable, especially when another weapon system only jammed 127 times in extreme dust conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Well, obviously we just disagree about the suppressive fire issue. I'll side with the Army's post-Vietnam conclusion, which was that while full-auto suppressive fire from every infantryman's rifle may be a nice thing to have in theory, the advantage it provides is less significant than the disadvantage caused by the fact that men with full-auto rifles tend to burn ammo too quickly. It's all very well to say that they would only use one or two magazines out of their combat load and only when truly necessary, but the facts learned in Vietnam say differently.
I'm also unclear on why rapidly squeezing off three-round bursts is an unacceptable alternative.
This strikes me as an attempt to evade the facts. The question put to combat troops wasn't "Can you think of a better rifle than the M4?", it was "Are you satisfied with the M4's performance?". You don't have to know that there are better rifles out there in order to decide whether you're satisfied with your existing one; if it had some feature that you found unsatisfactory, you would still find that feature unsatisfactory even if you didn't know about the SCAR or whatever. The Army's happy with the M4, the troops are happy with the M4; 882 stoppages per 6000 rounds in extreme dust conditions may seem unacceptable to you, but obviously to the combat troops and the decision-makers disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
And this "those who do have something to complain about are probably dead" nonsense is just silly. Please. You're seriously going to try to claim that troops are being killed off in large numbers because their M4s jammed on them, but no-one knows about it because they're dead, and everyone who's alive doesn't have any complaints about the issue? I think you and I both know that if an item of equipment is having problems (especially the kind of problems that get people killed), the fact will quickly become known to more than just the troops who are personally affected by (or killed because of) those problems.
Also, bear in mind that the previous dust test (summer of 2007) showed the M4 only having 307 stoppages per 6000 rounds, which is not that much more than the 200-some stoppages reported for the SCAR or HK416. The Army is still trying to figure out what they did differently between the two tests to cause the number of stoppages to increase to 882 in the more recent test (fall 2007). You should probably wait for that discrepancy to be resolved before trumpeting the 882 figure as evidence of the M4's drastic inferiority.
***
Anyhow, we've now gotten completely onto the topic of military rifles. Weren't we talking about civilian sporting rifles originally? As I recall, this all got started because you complained that Anonymous D and his range buddies had too many ARs/AKs, and stated that you would never waste your money on an "overpriced" AR (and would instead recommend a nice, affordable, non-overpriced $2500 SCAR or $2000 AUG sporter, or a nonexistant semi-auto XM8/L85/Tavor/etc.). Now somehow this discussion has veered into the merits of the M16/M4 as a combat rifle in a dusty environment, and the merits of having full-auto in an infantry rifle. That stuff's all irrelevant to civilian shooters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
SOCOM has pretty much had it with the M16 platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
Btw, what kind of military experience do you have?
I think you entirely missed the point of my previous post. Let's go over it again: You suggested that one the reasons the M4 is popular among the troops is that the people who die due to it's deficiencies aren't around to share their negative opinions of it. I responded that this is absurd because other soldiers notice when their buddies get killed due to the deficiencies of their weapons; it's not like that's something that's only noticed by the guy who actually gets killed. In fact, Sgt. Perales' quote supports this point; he saw his buddy get killed because of an M4 stoppage, and therefore has a negative opinion of it. So your "those who have something to complain about are probably dead" argument doesn't explain why surveys reveal that the M4 is popular among the troops. If lots of soldiers really were dying due to M4/M16 stoppages, the troops would notice and the surveys would reveal that many troops are unhappy with the weapon. Sgt. Perales' story is moving, but I hope you know enough to realize that solitary anecdotes don't prove anything one way or the other about the big picture.
I have no military experience. I don't think it's particularly relevant, since as we all know, military experience provides no immunity against being bone-headed, being obstinately wedded to baseless opinions, or just being plain dumb or uninformed.
EDIT: Speaking of special operations units and the weapons they use, the SAS has pretty much had it with the L85A2 which you praised earlier, and has switched to an AR platform (Diemacos). Same is true of other British special operations units like the SBS. And also, Delta Force is still using an AR platform, albeit one with a gas-piston upper.
I can tell you that the surveys are almost always guaranteed to be biased. US service members have the M16/M4 shoved down their throat and get almost no exposure to any other individual weapon systems. Yeah the M4 is the best rifle they have ever used... but the thing is they have never ever held another rifle. For instance, one of my buddies went to the Ukraine with his unit for training with the Ukrainian military. While he was over their, he was able to use a G36. His and his entire unit's opinion changed towards the M4 after using a G36.
By the way, an 18B is a special forces weapons sergeant if you didn't know. They are trained to be experts in using and maintaining a plethora of weapon systems, both foreign and domestic.
Disclaimer: I am just a lowly grunt with seven years experience in Infantry tactics, and no formal knowledge outside of my own experiences.
That out of the way, I have yet to place a weapon on burst outside of playing OPFOR. Every Infantry squad has two M249 Squad Automatic Weapons. Tactics used when the Army adopted the M14 and later the M16A1 were that two men per squad would act as automatic riflemen. In a firefight they would fire on auto while everyone else took aimed single shots. In practice, green Soldiers would panic, switch their weapons to auto and pray they hit something with all the noise they made. As a SAW gunner I carried either 100 or 200 rounds in my weapon. I was trained to conserve ammo and never fired cyclic or even rapid during my time in Iraq. I would fire sustained bursts as I was trained and eventually perfected. The average service rifle holds 30 rounds. It fires just about as quick as a SAW, lacks the control-ability, and is equipped with a thin permanently fixed barrel. Not everyone has the discipline I have learned, and I have seen plenty of weapons start smoking just being fired on burst rapidly.
The more expedient side of me says that we Infantry must work with what we have. That 18B that was shot in the face either wasn't behind cover or was nose-to-nose with the enemy. Me, I had a plan if my open-bolt SAW malfunctioned during room clearing, as Murphy's Law dictates any open-bolt weapon will do (which is why an ambush is never initiated by a belt-fed). If Haji came around a corner, I squeezed the trigger and heard "KERCHUNK", that M249 Squad Automatic Weapon was going to become its own projectile. I had a spare barrel, ASP and MKII knife that was a backup. Never could get the pistol I felt I should have had. :( We are already better trained and equipped than any enemy we currently have or will have in he foreseeable future. If we adopted a better service rifle, we might get penalized for cheating. :D
Yeah, I'm just not really convinced by this line of reasoning. I would agree that many soldiers are unaware that other rifles may be more reliable than the M4, not really having any experience with rifles outside of the Army, but I don't think that makes the surveys meaningless. If the M4 really did have a crippling deficiency that was getting soldiers killed all the time, as you claim, I think soldiers would be able to notice that problem even if they've never fired a SCAR or whatever; I think soldiers are capable of noticing crappy equipment even if they don't have first-hand experience with better equipment. Frequent jamming is not a problem that you need to have fired a G36 in order to notice. I think your dismissal of the surveys on this grounds is disingenuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
And by "shoved down their throats", do you mean... issued to them??
Yeah, I really don't give a shit what you think. I am telling you how it is and that the M16/M4 is an obsolete weapon system. Our military is not using the best equipment available and my life, the lives of my soldiers and fellow servicemen and women are at risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Consider the logistics of issuing only the best equipment to every one of the over one million members of the American armed forces...
You can't always have the best.
You phase it in. I have been issued a M16A1 and A2 before while most of the military uses M4s and M16A4s.Quote:
Originally Posted by crunker
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
i do hope you see the irony in this
(that was my contribution to this conversation)
Great argument, case closed! I wish I'd thought of using this one at the very beginning of the discussion, instead of foolishly trying to respond to the opposing arguments as if we were actually intelligent people having a debate. I guess when you finally can't intelligently respond to an opposing argument, we get to see the true face of the Bowzer Debate Technique.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
No, you're telling me how you think it is. You're offering your opinion (rudely, but still). If your attitude is "Well, I'm just right and I'll tell you how it is, end of story", then that's fine, but you shouldn't have come into a forum dedicated to discussion if that's the attitude you choose to take. Why even bother trying to discuss these issues in a forum if that's your attitude?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
So now that you've told us how you think it is, let me tell you how I think it is: Despite your attempts to act like your view of the M4/M16 platform is entirely justified by your military experience, it seems like that view is actually just another one of the vitriolic knee-jerk responses that all too many gun enthusiasts take on various divisive pet issues (direct impingement vs. oprod piston, 5.56mm vs. larger calibers, 9mm vs. .45, polymer vs. steel, etc. etc. etc.) based on little more than personal inclination. You are trying to use your enlistment and experience as a pretext to legitimize and justify that pre-established opinion, and as a hammer to smack down disagreement. You're just trying to fall back on the "I'm in the Army and you're a civilian so I automatically know best" crap; you're living proof of my earlier point that being in the military provides no guarantee against being dumb or obstinate. You're just another clown who thinks that having been through your training and run around with an M16 in drills means you're automatically the authority and can automatically overrule any civilian who notices that you're full of it.
Oh yeah, and you've managed to successfully derail the thread into a discussion of military assault rifles, steering it away from it's original topic of sporting rifles, and you're managed to avoid ever spending much time talking about your original contributions in this thread: Your claim that AR sporting rifles are "overpriced" at $1000 per rifle, and then your hilarious suggestion that a better choice would be any of various rifles costing $2000 to $9000 (or else being foreign military assault rifles that are totally unavailable, or failed development programs that never even made it into service). Care to talk about that some more? Let's get this thread back on topic. Please, defend your initial assertion that the AR is an overpriced piece of crap that you would never spend your money on.
Yes, I am telling you how I think it is. I am also telling you what the facts show and experts think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
And you're just another prick who thinks you know more than experts and those who have first hand experience. There is absolutely no reason the greatest military in the world who spends hundreds of billions more on defense than any other country should be using a second rate rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
I would rather have a top of the line superior, cutting edge, top of the line rifle than and outdated inferior rifle with major flaws. I, however, demand excellence in my equipment, especially when lives depend on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
And I never suggested that you, a civilian, should spend 9000 dollars on a weapon. I was just proving you wrong that you could indeed get a G36.
Are you seriously going to try and claim that your position is supported by the experts and by those with military experience, while mine isn't? My position is the one that is agreed with by the procurement and development decision-makers in the US Army; they have examined gas piston rifles such as the XM8, and found that while they may offer an incremental improvement over the M16, that improvement isn't significant enough to justify the cost and hassle of adopting a new service rifle. That's why they canceled the XM8 program, you know. Not enough of an improvement over the M16. I don't "think I know more than experts"--I'm taking my opinion on this from the experts.
And as for military experience, I know plenty of people who have a lot more military experience than you--including actual combat experience--and don't share your goofy anti-M16 rage. Fm2176 on this forum would be a good example. So please, don't insult our intelligence by trying to cast this debate as "clueless civilian vs. those with military experience". You may hate the M16, and you may have first-hand experience, but that definitely doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is claiming to know better than "those with first-hand experience" in general. Because there are plenty of people with first-hand experience who agree with me and disagree with you on this issue. In fact, as was pointed out earlier, most soldiers in the US Army agree with me on this. But oh yeah, I forgot: That inconvenient little fact doesn't count, because those surveys are biased and the troops are incapable of noticing problems with their rifles unless they've fired a G36 or SCAR.
Uhh... again, we're talking about civilian sporting rifles here, so lives don't really depend on it. Anyhow, it's all very well to demand the best, but one of your initial complaints against the AR was that it's too expensive. Now it sounds like you're trying to change your tune to "It doesn't matter how much it costs, I always must have for the best!" Which isn't at all what you said originally. You said the AR was too expensiveQuote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
But when I asked what rifles you would rather spend your money on instead of an AR, a G36 was one of the rifles you suggested. You DID tell us that a $9000 rifle was a better choice than a $1000 AR... right after you had criticized the AR as being overpriced! In fact my exact question was: "What's an example of a less expensive, less outdated rifle that is comparable to an AR-15 in function and role?" To which you replied:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
G36 ($9000 and ultra-rare instead of being totally unavailable, what an improvement!)
SCAR ($2600)
Tavor (unavailable)
XM8 (unavailable, the military doesn't even have them)
416 (not available yet, price will probably be $2000+ when they are available)
L85 (unavailable)
Bowzer you came into this thread not realizing you were going to be called out on what you said. When you realized you were fucked you changed your argument and continue to twist it. Give it up.
Pretty much...Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
Oh good, you're catching on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Actually, I said it was overpriced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
The G36 is a better rifle than the AR-15. And yes, $9000 is expensive for some people (although the price is quite inflated) but that still does not change the fact that it is a superior weapon system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
To add more to the list (btw, im only adding weapons in .223):Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Galil
Mini 14
and any AK chambered in 5.56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
What can I say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous D
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5...ssfultroll.jpg
Lol
dude i don't think you understand what trolling is.
if you say soQuote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling
the emphasis is mineQuote:
Originally Posted by urban dictionary
you weren't purposefully trying to antagonize anyone. you're entire method of arguing thus far is to realize (or not) that the previous position you stated is untenable, so your response is to change your position subtly, allowing you to say that you're right, but you're not really backing up what you're saying at all.
Calling yourself a troll is the internet acceptable way of trying to save face in a losing argument, but you weren't trying to do that since the beginning - anyone who reads this thread and looks at the tone and phrasing you use throughout all of your arguments can see that. No troll is that subtle, because there's no point in one being that subtle, and I certainly wouldn't ever accuse you of subtlety.
What tone and/or losing argument are you talking about? Give me some examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
"Yes, I am telling you how I think it is. I am also telling you what the facts show and experts think. "
this is baseless bragadoccio, where you simply spout something off to seem big, but provide no information or links/sources to back up your opinions. oh, except a yahoo! answers thread. very reputable
"Yeah, I really don't give a shit what you think. I am telling you how it is and that the M16/M4 is an obsolete weapon system. Our military is not using the best equipment available and my life, the lives of my soldiers and fellow servicemen and women are at risk."
this isn't even on track with the argument itself, and i don't have to prove the statement itself fallacious, because Syme did an excellent job of doing so already.
"SOCOM has pretty much had it with the M16 platform.
Btw, what kind of military experience do you have? "
ah yes, one incident of anecdotal evidence will certainly prove everything i've said to be correct
i mean this is all just off hand i am certainly not spending more than the three minutes i did making my point
Ah yes, all the sources I did not cite. Or are you talking about the sources I did cite and you failed to notice?Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
And the yahoo thing was to show other opinions. That was it.
Me niether. By the way, the quote button works wonders.Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
So let me just make sure I've got this totally straightened out here. I want to be sure what you mean. Earlier, you claimed that because you are in the military and have first-hand experience with the M4/M16, your opinion of it is therefore more valid and you are able to "tell it like it is" to us dumb civilians. But now, when all these other soldiers (who of course have military experience just like you do) say that they're happy with the M4/M16 in the surveys, you claim that their experience doesn't automatically make their opinions valid, and they are still capable of being wrong or deluded or ignorant in spite of their military experience. So when it comes to your opinions, military experience equals validity. But when it comes to the opinions of all the soldiers who disagree with you, military experience does not equal validity and is no protection against being wrong. Is that right? I just want to get this straight, because you've been really unclear about whether someone's opinion on the M16/M4 is or isn't validated by their military experience. It almost sounds like a double standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
These are somewhat more reasonable than your earlier suggestions in that they aren't several times more expensive than an AR, but the AR platform still has plenty to recommend it over any of these rifles. The Mini-14 is a handy little rifle, but it's pretty unremarkable in every way; it's generally not going to be a really tight-grouping target rifle in the way that the AR can be. Also, despite having an oprod gas piston system, it's really not that reliable. Read around and see. Good mags are also a bitch to find. Galil sporters are also kind of neat, but again, don't expect it to be as accurate as an AR. And the lower-priced Galil sporters (in the $700-800 range) are generally the Century ones, which are pretty well-known for having quality control and reliability problems. A really solid Galil sporter will cost as much or more than a good-quality AR ($1000 or more), and not really have any meaningful advantage over it. 5.56mm AKs are, yet again, neat rifles but they even come close to the accuracy of an AR unless you go for one of the top-of-the-line models, which are, again just as pricey as an AR or more so. Ergonomics also suck. And with all three of these rifles, they will never come anywhere close to the AR platform in terms of being able to configure the weapon how you want it. You can't put the stock you want on them. You can't put the grip you want on them. There aren't nearly as many aftermarket parts options for them. Optics mounting options are much more limited. And so on and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
I really don't understand why you are so opposed to the idea of the AR as a sporting rifle. I've already heard what you have to say about it's reliability in a dust storm or whatever, and that's all great, but my local range is usually not plagued by dust storms. Why do you feel so strongly that the DI gas system is inappropriate for a sporting rifle? It seems like you are willing to accept rifles that are inferior to the AR in accuracy, ergonomics, and adaptability as long as they don't have a DI gas system. Why do you feel that the gas system's resistance to dust and jamming is the absolute most important factor in a sporting rifle, and that all other factors are secondary to it? Why is it a terrible thing for a sporting rifle to have a DI gas system no matter how many other advantages it might have over other similarly-priced rifles?
A complete survey of this thread reveals that you have cited three sources. Okay, not bad; three sources is a reasonable number. But what were those sources? Well, one was essentially an anecdote (the story about the 18B getting shot); I'm not doubting the story's truth, but as we all know, anecdotes are totally useless for proving a point. The next one was an anecdote, AND it came from a Yahoo Answers page. Wow. And the last one was a valid study, but you failed to mention (or perhaps even realize) that it's results represent an unexplained statistical snafu that the guys doing the study haven't been able to figure out yey... and you cherry-picked the result that more strongly supports your case, while completely neglecting to mention the result that doesn't support your case as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/174/trollface.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Bowzer