Went shooting yesterday....
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
lolOriginally 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.
Green is the new Red.
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.
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.
this photo needs more angry looking mexicans or blacks
Too many Kalashnikov and AR style rifles.
No such thing.Too many Kalashnikov and AR style rifles.
I would never waste my money on an outdated and over priced AR-15 style weapon. There are much better rifles out there.
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 outdated.....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.
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.
Green is the new Red.
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What's an example of a less expensive, less outdated rifle that is comparable to an AR-15 in function and role?
G36
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??
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?
Last edited by Syme; 03-06-2009 at 04:59 PM.
Ill take an L85A2 over a standard AR15 any day. Dont believe me?
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.
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).
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.
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.
****
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.
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.
Last edited by Syme; 03-08-2009 at 03:46 AM.
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".
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.
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.
Nope. It had its time during the 60s, 70s and 80s and there are now better weapons available for the US military.
Seabees use A3s.
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?
Last edited by Anonymous D; 03-06-2009 at 07:41 PM.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Syme; 03-06-2009 at 08:28 PM.
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
I want to build a .308 gas piston AR.
That would be the shit.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone makes a gas-oprod upper for an AR10 or .308 AR15 lower. Look around.
They have them. Ive seen them and they are kickass, but they cost some serious money.
^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'.
Last edited by Syme; 03-07-2009 at 05:04 PM.
@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.
@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?
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.
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.
I'm getting confused. Aren't we talking about the best guns for Am'rican CIVILIANS, not our Armed Forces?
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.
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...
Oh good, you're catching on.
Actually, I said it was overpriced.
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.
To add more to the list (btw, im only adding weapons in .223):
Galil
Mini 14
and any AK chambered in 5.56
What can I say?
Lol
Oh good, you're catching on.
Actually, I said it was overpriced.
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.
To add more to the list (btw, im only adding weapons in .223):
Galil
Mini 14
and any AK chambered in 5.56
What can I say?
Lol
dude i don't think you understand what trolling is.
if you say so
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling
the emphasis is mine
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks