The AR15 insult Rifle.. Part Three!

MAD DOG · November 9, 2000, 12:16 PM

Keep it roling, boys! We are gaining converts faster than I can sign them up!

Mad Dog

Art Eatman · November 9, 2000, 12:19 PM

Talk about folks with not a lot to do on a weekday! I'll lock my thread...

, Art

Spectre · November 9, 2000, 12:23 PM

WEll...After spending a fair amount of time on this and other forums, I let myself be convinced that I "needed" an AR. (Doom on you, Edmund Rowe and Don Rearic!

)

As far as ergonomics, size, reliability...bah. A few months ago, I was thinking (again)" I should have bought an M1 Carbine." Then I realized: I still can!

So, Edmund is buying that darn AR from me. Yeah, it's ergonomics aren't bad, but no better than my Carbine- which lives besides my bed. Right next to the .45-70.

Incidentally, I have had:
AK's
SKS's
Garands (M1 and M1A)
Mausers
Remington and Mossberg shotguns
And other shoulder arms, such as my Sub-9. I have fired other widespread arms, such as the UZI and Benelli, not to mention various Glocks, 1911's and other sidearms.

I trust my AR less than any of the other arms, except (perhaps) my Sub-9. (In fairness, my Sub-9's SN is less than 150. If it were a similarly numbered AR, I wouldn't expect it to work at all.

)

November 9, 2000, 12:30 PM

"Tellarites do not argue for reasons. They simply argue." - Sarek of Vulcan

RikWriter · November 9, 2000, 12:37 PM

George Hill said on the previous iteration:
>>What makes people think that "While a .308 may break bone, a .223 will shatter it and turn it into a grenade." Sounds scary. But what makes you think that a .308 wont do that too? I have seen devestating wounds that the .223 produces. I caused some of them - so I know how it all came about. Yeah - it can be a nasty wound. I also saw the wounds that were caused by a fellow grunt who had an M14... Those wounds were not only just as nasty - but even more so. I remember vividly seeing bone shards - so I would call that an explosive shatter if thats what you want to call it.<<

Go back and re-read what I said George...I was talking about 7.62x39, not 308. Although at close range, the 223 will cause worse wounds than a 308.

George Hill · November 9, 2000, 12:59 PM

No, it wont. Not at point blank. Not at 100 yards. Not at 600 yards. Not at 1000 yards.
My bad - 1000 yards is out of effective range for .223

A bigger bullet. A heavier bullet.
A bigger powder charge. A bigger ball of expanding hot gasses. More muzzle energy.
More momentum.
Police are using .223 because it has a much reduced risk of over penetration.
A .308 will blow a hole in and out the back big enough to toss a cat through. Okay - so it wont do that - but it will punch out the back side of the target with a nice gory mess - just about every time on a person sized target.

[This message has been edited by George Hill (edited November 09, 2000).]

JWR · November 9, 2000, 01:03 PM

Okay, I need some help understanding it all.
First, based on my limited military experience, the M16 probably isn't the world's best infantry rifle, but it beats the he!1 out of an M9 pistol if I need something to save my butt.
Second, if I WERE to want a high rate of fire (compared to a bolt gun) rifle in which to engage multiple soft targets at ranges out to 300 yards or so with excessive bullet energy on impact combined with good penetration of barrier material, why not a Remmington 7400 or 7600 in 308 or 30-06? Buy a used one, add a muzzle brake and a shoebox full of 10 rd magazines for a lot less than any AR or M1A. Judging from the shooting I've witnessed on the range, M1As and ARs aren't significantly more accurate or reliable than 7400-7600s. Am I way off base here? (B.T.W., I do not own an AR, M1A, SKS, AK, or a 7400/7600. Matter of fact, I don't own any type of semiauto or pump rifle. I've got to work on that.) I'm just tossing another idea out there to contribute to the discussion.

George Hill · November 9, 2000, 01:19 PM

JWR - No, your not off base. A Remington 7400 is a much better rifle than the M16/AR15. I bet you noticed the ARs jam several times when you just went on shooting.

Shazbat · November 9, 2000, 01:54 PM

Great point JWR, I've often thought that a semi Remington in .30-06 with 10rd mags would make a great inexpensive battle rifle.

krept · November 9, 2000, 02:06 PM

Uh oh... Ammo war!

It was my understanding that when the .223 hit bone, it would deflect and tumble more, not turn into the mythical grenade. Also, it is my understanding that a significant amount of damage from a rifle bullet is caused by the yawing once it hits soft tissue. The studies that many people like to quote show the 7.62x39 (not the .308 nato) steel core as having a tendancy to yaw well after it has exited the target but the lead core (called Yugoslav ammo by Fackler) had a larger wound channel than the .223 because of the same yaw.

Now, there are those who claim that the .223, when at the apex of the yaw, has the ability to split at the cannelure and detonate like a grenade. Ok.

.308 NATO is a whole different animal all together.
Back to the rifle issue... (we can start an "ammo choice" thread too)
If I could pick ANY rifle it would be a hard choice between the M1A and the G36. Given a choice between a G36 and an AR, HK all the way.

My thoughts on the AR: if it is such a bad design, I see no reason why our special forces, military, Israel's military etc. all use the design? I just have more fun shooting the AK, that's all.

Oleg Volk · November 9, 2000, 02:07 PM

That 30-06 Remington as as hard to clear as an AR15 in case of a jam.

My experience with two AR15s (BM) has been 100% positive. Zero FTF over about year and a half. Good ergonomics (magazine locking of AK types is atrocious), great accuracy and a flat trajectory. .308 would do more damage but .223 makes sense as a short-range self-defense rifle. I just wish that it came in 7.62x39 (it does but magazines for that might be hard to find) because the heavier round showed better penetration of cover in my informal tests.

El Rojo · November 9, 2000, 02:24 PM

The cool thing about that custom paint job was that it was really easy and only took like 45 mintues to do. And that is a long estimation. Anyone who does any sort of varmint hunting, should paint their whole rifles. What a difference it maks. Especially on my rem 700 VS. That matte black is hideous. Plus it was rusting too easily. Now it won't rust and the rifle looks stud. I will post that picture next, it just has this blotch on it and that is why I didn't scan it.

My thoughts, if it works, shoot it until it stops, then find another gun. If you are outnumbered and being pursued, run!

RikWriter · November 9, 2000, 03:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by George Hill:
No, it wont. Not at point blank. Not at 100 yards. Not at 600 yards. Not at 1000 yards.
My bad - 1000 yards is out of effective range for .223

A bigger bullet. A heavier bullet.
A bigger powder charge. A bigger ball of expanding hot gasses. More muzzle energy.
More momentum.
Police are using .223 because it has a much reduced risk of over penetration.
A .308 will blow a hole in and out the back big enough to toss a cat through. Okay - so it wont do that - but it will punch out the back side of the target with a nice gory mess - just about every time on a person sized target.

[This message has been edited by George Hill (edited November 09, 2000).][/quote]

Sorry George, yes it will. The 223 indeed WILL make more serious wounds at 100 yards than a 308, particularly if both rounds hit bone. Once you pass 100 yards, the 308 has the edge, but at under a hundred, the 223 has the edge.

RikWriter · November 9, 2000, 03:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by krept:

It was my understanding that when the .223 hit bone, it would deflect and tumble more, not turn into the mythical grenade.[/quote]

Your understanding is not correct then, nor did I or anyone say the 223 would turn into a grenade. I said the 223 would turn the BONE into a grenade. Seen pics of the aftereffects of same. The 223 will most certainly NOT deflect off of bone, not at any range under about 200 yards anyway. If it gets a solid hit on a major bone, it will shatter it and send the fragments every which way. I have seen a picture from a field hospital in VietNam of a VC who was shot in the shin with a 223: the bone fragments blew off the back of his calf. There was basically nothing left of his calf but a few scraps of skin holding it together and the whole lower leg had to be amputated.
Interestingly enough, the same article that had that pic had another of a NVA soldier who had been shot through the legs by an M60 round. The 308 round broke both his femurs, but there was not massive tissue damage and he was never in danger of losing his legs.

BigG · November 9, 2000, 04:01 PM

The real reason they went to 223 was ol Snuffy don't like the kick of a HP rifle. That and you can carry 3 rounds of 223 for every round of 308.

You can look it up.

------------------
o I raised my hand to eye level, like pointing a finger, and fired. Wild Bill Hickok

George Hill · November 9, 2000, 04:21 PM

Rik - explain to me in detail... show your math...
How .308 while better at plus 100 yards... is not better at ranges under 100 yards.
I dont understand this fuzzy logic.
You talking about Hydrostatic shock and temporary wound cavities?
How about doing a watermelon test:
Take and SKS and an M16 and fire it into a watermelon at your under100 favored range... say - 25 yards.
The effect will be a cracked mellon, a holed mellon with chunks blown out the far side.
Not bad.
Now try a .308 caliber rifle of your choice.
The results will be very messy and dramatic.

I have never seen a mellon hit by .223 that turned into a pink mist. .308 neither - but the .308 will break that melon up into lots of smaller chunks with good visual effect.

Dont give me any JFK magic bullet theories...

Art Eatman · November 9, 2000, 04:56 PM

BAck when God & I were a good bit younger, S.L.A. Marshal did a study of Infantrymen and how many shot or did not shoot while in combat. The numbers were rather alarming as to the percentage who kept their heads down.

In part, then, the concept of fire-suppresion and, "Call in the Arty!" entered into the picture. This was contributory, but not the entire reason for what we came to know as the M-16 with its .223 round. That is, a certain percentage of Infantry can be relied upon to fire full-auto at an enemy, while better communications allowed callup of artillery fire in a more accurate manner to allow control of a battlefield.

The politics of Olin industries to supply ammo with a ball-type powder, instead of the designed-for IMR-type powder, has been well documented. Among other sources, Soldier of Fortune magazine had an excellent series on this.

One thing I have seen, either personally or via sources such as TFL, is that during the last ten or so years, the AR-15 has been developed far beyond its original intent. The standards are now much higher than 35 years ago. In general, people are "pickier"--as shown by many of the posts in this tri-partite thread.

FWIW, Art

STLRN · November 9, 2000, 05:18 PM

Well I guess us Marines that haven't experiance all the jams, FTF or FTE that you guys are just lucky, I would really like to know what many of you are doing to your weapons to make them less reliable.

El Rojo · November 9, 2000, 05:27 PM

Am I the only one who has noticed that there is a picture of an AR dissipater on the home page of this particular website? I say we start boycotting TFL until the management gets that no good, worthless, mouse gun off of the home page and puts in a real manly weapon! What an insult to gun owners everywhere!

Who is with me? Who wants to end this farce and reestablish the God given testosterone that all good firearm owning men once possessed? This is the work of the devil! The devil has convinced you all that mouse guns, women in combat, and feelings are what's important. Hell no! What is important is a heavy, man sized rifle. The bigger the better. What is important is a big, heavy, man killing bullet. The bigger the better.

So you panty wastes quit wasting your manhood away on dem mouse guns. Get a real manly killing machine like I gots. That's right, 20mm. Shoots em big, and shoots em fast. Hell, take a look at dis here picture of me with a pig I shot with my manly gun to take home to my woman to have her cook it up for me. Makes me feel like a man.

Damn mouse guns. Boycott TFL! End the conspiracy!

STLRN · November 9, 2000, 05:58 PM

Got to agree with you on that, but in all honesty none of the mentioned rounds or weapon will fot the bill. If the bore isn't at least 120 mm it is a little less than manly, if you not throwing at least a 30 lb projos, you aren't getting the job done.

Steve Smith · November 9, 2000, 06:20 PM

Art, your data suggests that with an amry of willing participants, a full-powered semi-auto rifle is better than an assault rifle.

Charmedlyfe · November 9, 2000, 06:30 PM

Sounds to me like you guys are all trying to do a hammer's job with a shovel. The AR-15 and the 'battle rifles' were designed for two different things.
Also, I built my AR on a preban ArmaLite. 100% function after over 2000 rounds and the same care I give my FAL and my Mauser. Junk in=junk out. Use top-shelf components, get a reliable rifle. Not all AR parts work well together, and the skill of the armourer is critical.

EchoFiveMike · November 9, 2000, 07:08 PM

BAck when God & I were a good bit younger, S.L.A. Marshal did a study of Infantrymen and how many shot or did not shoot while in combat. The numbers were rather alarming as to the percentage who kept their heads down.

SLA Marshall was a liar and a BS artist and his words weren't worth the paper they were printed on! That said, I don't seem to have any problem with my issued M16A2's or the AR's I've had built from good parts by competant gunsmithes. If you are using a mish-mash of Olympic and foreign crap, then your gun doesn't deserve to work. Oh and that AK. Let me know about the first time the gun goes click because you thought the bolt would lock open when it's empty, cause it doesn't happen. And the selector lever is a joke. Haven't played with the FAL enought to have an opinion. Somebody want to send me one for testing? Semper Fidelis...Ken

STLRN · November 9, 2000, 07:22 PM

Unfortunately, Sgt M he quoted the soldiers after they where in action.

RikWriter · November 9, 2000, 07:42 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by George Hill:
Rik - explain to me in detail... show your math...

Talk to Fackler, not me. He can explain it a lot better than I can.

How .308 while better at plus 100 yards... is not better at ranges under 100 yards.

Has a lot to do with muzzle velocity, which the 223 needs to function well as an antipersonnel round, and which drops off more as distance increases.

I dont understand this fuzzy logic.
You talking about Hydrostatic shock and temporary wound cavities?

Both are very real when dealing with RIFLE calibers (though some people want to incorrectly use them with pistol calibers).

November 9, 2000, 12:16 PM	#1
MAD DOG Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: Arizona. Posts: 853	Keep it roling, boys! We are gaining converts faster than I can sign them up! Mad Dog

November 9, 2000, 12:19 PM	#2
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	Talk about folks with not a lot to do on a weekday! I'll lock my thread... , Art

November 9, 2000, 12:23 PM	#3
Spectre Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 23, 1998 Location: ATL Posts: 3,277	WEll...After spending a fair amount of time on this and other forums, I let myself be convinced that I "needed" an AR. (Doom on you, Edmund Rowe and Don Rearic! ) As far as ergonomics, size, reliability...bah. A few months ago, I was thinking (again)" I should have bought an M1 Carbine." Then I realized: I still can! So, Edmund is buying that darn AR from me. Yeah, it's ergonomics aren't bad, but no better than my Carbine- which lives besides my bed. Right next to the .45-70. Incidentally, I have had: AK's SKS's Garands (M1 and M1A) Mausers Remington and Mossberg shotguns And other shoulder arms, such as my Sub-9. I have fired other widespread arms, such as the UZI and Benelli, not to mention various Glocks, 1911's and other sidearms. I trust my AR less than any of the other arms, except (perhaps) my Sub-9. (In fairness, my Sub-9's SN is less than 150. If it were a similarly numbered AR, I wouldn't expect it to work at all. )

November 9, 2000, 12:30 PM	#4
Jeff, CA Guest Posts: n/a	"Tellarites do not argue for reasons. They simply argue." - Sarek of Vulcan

November 9, 2000, 12:37 PM	#5
RikWriter Senior Member Join Date: June 30, 1999 Posts: 2,104	George Hill said on the previous iteration: >>What makes people think that "While a .308 may break bone, a .223 will shatter it and turn it into a grenade." Sounds scary. But what makes you think that a .308 wont do that too? I have seen devestating wounds that the .223 produces. I caused some of them - so I know how it all came about. Yeah - it can be a nasty wound. I also saw the wounds that were caused by a fellow grunt who had an M14... Those wounds were not only just as nasty - but even more so. I remember vividly seeing bone shards - so I would call that an explosive shatter if thats what you want to call it.<< Go back and re-read what I said George...I was talking about 7.62x39, not 308. Although at close range, the 223 will cause worse wounds than a 308.

November 9, 2000, 12:59 PM	#6
George Hill Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 14, 1998 Location: North Carolina Posts: 11,546	No, it wont. Not at point blank. Not at 100 yards. Not at 600 yards. Not at 1000 yards. My bad - 1000 yards is out of effective range for .223 A bigger bullet. A heavier bullet. A bigger powder charge. A bigger ball of expanding hot gasses. More muzzle energy. More momentum. Police are using .223 because it has a much reduced risk of over penetration. A .308 will blow a hole in and out the back big enough to toss a cat through. Okay - so it wont do that - but it will punch out the back side of the target with a nice gory mess - just about every time on a person sized target. [This message has been edited by George Hill (edited November 09, 2000).]

November 9, 2000, 01:03 PM	#7
JWR Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2000 Posts: 180	Okay, I need some help understanding it all. First, based on my limited military experience, the M16 probably isn't the world's best infantry rifle, but it beats the he!1 out of an M9 pistol if I need something to save my butt. Second, if I WERE to want a high rate of fire (compared to a bolt gun) rifle in which to engage multiple soft targets at ranges out to 300 yards or so with excessive bullet energy on impact combined with good penetration of barrier material, why not a Remmington 7400 or 7600 in 308 or 30-06? Buy a used one, add a muzzle brake and a shoebox full of 10 rd magazines for a lot less than any AR or M1A. Judging from the shooting I've witnessed on the range, M1As and ARs aren't significantly more accurate or reliable than 7400-7600s. Am I way off base here? (B.T.W., I do not own an AR, M1A, SKS, AK, or a 7400/7600. Matter of fact, I don't own any type of semiauto or pump rifle. I've got to work on that.) I'm just tossing another idea out there to contribute to the discussion.

November 9, 2000, 01:19 PM	#8
George Hill Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 14, 1998 Location: North Carolina Posts: 11,546	JWR - No, your not off base. A Remington 7400 is a much better rifle than the M16/AR15. I bet you noticed the ARs jam several times when you just went on shooting.

November 9, 2000, 01:54 PM	#9
Shazbat Member Join Date: August 28, 2000 Posts: 46	Great point JWR, I've often thought that a semi Remington in .30-06 with 10rd mags would make a great inexpensive battle rifle.

November 9, 2000, 02:06 PM	#10
krept Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2000 Location: AZ Posts: 1,363	Uh oh... Ammo war! It was my understanding that when the .223 hit bone, it would deflect and tumble more, not turn into the mythical grenade. Also, it is my understanding that a significant amount of damage from a rifle bullet is caused by the yawing once it hits soft tissue. The studies that many people like to quote show the 7.62x39 (not the .308 nato) steel core as having a tendancy to yaw well after it has exited the target but the lead core (called Yugoslav ammo by Fackler) had a larger wound channel than the .223 because of the same yaw. Now, there are those who claim that the .223, when at the apex of the yaw, has the ability to split at the cannelure and detonate like a grenade. Ok. .308 NATO is a whole different animal all together. Back to the rifle issue... (we can start an "ammo choice" thread too) If I could pick ANY rifle it would be a hard choice between the M1A and the G36. Given a choice between a G36 and an AR, HK all the way. My thoughts on the AR: if it is such a bad design, I see no reason why our special forces, military, Israel's military etc. all use the design? I just have more fun shooting the AK, that's all.

November 9, 2000, 02:07 PM	#11
Oleg Volk Staff Alumnus Join Date: December 6, 1999 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 7,022	That 30-06 Remington as as hard to clear as an AR15 in case of a jam. My experience with two AR15s (BM) has been 100% positive. Zero FTF over about year and a half. Good ergonomics (magazine locking of AK types is atrocious), great accuracy and a flat trajectory. .308 would do more damage but .223 makes sense as a short-range self-defense rifle. I just wish that it came in 7.62x39 (it does but magazines for that might be hard to find) because the heavier round showed better penetration of cover in my informal tests.

November 9, 2000, 02:24 PM	#12
El Rojo Senior Member Join Date: February 4, 2000 Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 2,057	The cool thing about that custom paint job was that it was really easy and only took like 45 mintues to do. And that is a long estimation. Anyone who does any sort of varmint hunting, should paint their whole rifles. What a difference it maks. Especially on my rem 700 VS. That matte black is hideous. Plus it was rusting too easily. Now it won't rust and the rifle looks stud. I will post that picture next, it just has this blotch on it and that is why I didn't scan it. My thoughts, if it works, shoot it until it stops, then find another gun. If you are outnumbered and being pursued, run!

November 9, 2000, 03:13 PM	#13
RikWriter Senior Member Join Date: June 30, 1999 Posts: 2,104	<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by George Hill: No, it wont. Not at point blank. Not at 100 yards. Not at 600 yards. Not at 1000 yards. My bad - 1000 yards is out of effective range for .223 A bigger bullet. A heavier bullet. A bigger powder charge. A bigger ball of expanding hot gasses. More muzzle energy. More momentum. Police are using .223 because it has a much reduced risk of over penetration. A .308 will blow a hole in and out the back big enough to toss a cat through. Okay - so it wont do that - but it will punch out the back side of the target with a nice gory mess - just about every time on a person sized target. [This message has been edited by George Hill (edited November 09, 2000).][/quote] Sorry George, yes it will. The 223 indeed WILL make more serious wounds at 100 yards than a 308, particularly if both rounds hit bone. Once you pass 100 yards, the 308 has the edge, but at under a hundred, the 223 has the edge.

November 9, 2000, 03:19 PM	#14
RikWriter Senior Member Join Date: June 30, 1999 Posts: 2,104	<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by krept: It was my understanding that when the .223 hit bone, it would deflect and tumble more, not turn into the mythical grenade.[/quote] Your understanding is not correct then, nor did I or anyone say the 223 would turn into a grenade. I said the 223 would turn the BONE into a grenade. Seen pics of the aftereffects of same. The 223 will most certainly NOT deflect off of bone, not at any range under about 200 yards anyway. If it gets a solid hit on a major bone, it will shatter it and send the fragments every which way. I have seen a picture from a field hospital in VietNam of a VC who was shot in the shin with a 223: the bone fragments blew off the back of his calf. There was basically nothing left of his calf but a few scraps of skin holding it together and the whole lower leg had to be amputated. Interestingly enough, the same article that had that pic had another of a NVA soldier who had been shot through the legs by an M60 round. The 308 round broke both his femurs, but there was not massive tissue damage and he was never in danger of losing his legs.

November 9, 2000, 04:01 PM	#15
BigG Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 1999 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 4,334	The real reason they went to 223 was ol Snuffy don't like the kick of a HP rifle. That and you can carry 3 rounds of 223 for every round of 308. You can look it up. ------------------ o I raised my hand to eye level, like pointing a finger, and fired. Wild Bill Hickok

November 9, 2000, 04:21 PM	#16
George Hill Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 14, 1998 Location: North Carolina Posts: 11,546	Rik - explain to me in detail... show your math... How .308 while better at plus 100 yards... is not better at ranges under 100 yards. I dont understand this fuzzy logic. You talking about Hydrostatic shock and temporary wound cavities? How about doing a watermelon test: Take and SKS and an M16 and fire it into a watermelon at your under100 favored range... say - 25 yards. The effect will be a cracked mellon, a holed mellon with chunks blown out the far side. Not bad. Now try a .308 caliber rifle of your choice. The results will be very messy and dramatic. I have never seen a mellon hit by .223 that turned into a pink mist. .308 neither - but the .308 will break that melon up into lots of smaller chunks with good visual effect. Dont give me any JFK magic bullet theories...

November 9, 2000, 04:56 PM	#17
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	BAck when God & I were a good bit younger, S.L.A. Marshal did a study of Infantrymen and how many shot or did not shoot while in combat. The numbers were rather alarming as to the percentage who kept their heads down. In part, then, the concept of fire-suppresion and, "Call in the Arty!" entered into the picture. This was contributory, but not the entire reason for what we came to know as the M-16 with its .223 round. That is, a certain percentage of Infantry can be relied upon to fire full-auto at an enemy, while better communications allowed callup of artillery fire in a more accurate manner to allow control of a battlefield. The politics of Olin industries to supply ammo with a ball-type powder, instead of the designed-for IMR-type powder, has been well documented. Among other sources, Soldier of Fortune magazine had an excellent series on this. One thing I have seen, either personally or via sources such as TFL, is that during the last ten or so years, the AR-15 has been developed far beyond its original intent. The standards are now much higher than 35 years ago. In general, people are "pickier"--as shown by many of the posts in this tri-partite thread. FWIW, Art

November 9, 2000, 05:18 PM	#18
STLRN Senior Member Join Date: October 28, 1999 Location: USA Posts: 1,163	Well I guess us Marines that haven't experiance all the jams, FTF or FTE that you guys are just lucky, I would really like to know what many of you are doing to your weapons to make them less reliable.

November 9, 2000, 05:27 PM	#19
El Rojo Senior Member Join Date: February 4, 2000 Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 2,057	Am I the only one who has noticed that there is a picture of an AR dissipater on the home page of this particular website? I say we start boycotting TFL until the management gets that no good, worthless, mouse gun off of the home page and puts in a real manly weapon! What an insult to gun owners everywhere! Who is with me? Who wants to end this farce and reestablish the God given testosterone that all good firearm owning men once possessed? This is the work of the devil! The devil has convinced you all that mouse guns, women in combat, and feelings are what's important. Hell no! What is important is a heavy, man sized rifle. The bigger the better. What is important is a big, heavy, man killing bullet. The bigger the better. So you panty wastes quit wasting your manhood away on dem mouse guns. Get a real manly killing machine like I gots. That's right, 20mm. Shoots em big, and shoots em fast. Hell, take a look at dis here picture of me with a pig I shot with my manly gun to take home to my woman to have her cook it up for me. Makes me feel like a man. Damn mouse guns. Boycott TFL! End the conspiracy!

November 9, 2000, 05:58 PM	#20
STLRN Senior Member Join Date: October 28, 1999 Location: USA Posts: 1,163	Got to agree with you on that, but in all honesty none of the mentioned rounds or weapon will fot the bill. If the bore isn't at least 120 mm it is a little less than manly, if you not throwing at least a 30 lb projos, you aren't getting the job done.

November 9, 2000, 06:20 PM	#21
Steve Smith Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1999 Posts: 4,131	Art, your data suggests that with an amry of willing participants, a full-powered semi-auto rifle is better than an assault rifle.

November 9, 2000, 06:30 PM	#22
Charmedlyfe Junior member Join Date: October 11, 2000 Location: SC Posts: 799	Sounds to me like you guys are all trying to do a hammer's job with a shovel. The AR-15 and the 'battle rifles' were designed for two different things. Also, I built my AR on a preban ArmaLite. 100% function after over 2000 rounds and the same care I give my FAL and my Mauser. Junk in=junk out. Use top-shelf components, get a reliable rifle. Not all AR parts work well together, and the skill of the armourer is critical.

November 9, 2000, 07:08 PM	#23
EchoFiveMike Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2000 Posts: 416	BAck when God & I were a good bit younger, S.L.A. Marshal did a study of Infantrymen and how many shot or did not shoot while in combat. The numbers were rather alarming as to the percentage who kept their heads down. SLA Marshall was a liar and a BS artist and his words weren't worth the paper they were printed on! That said, I don't seem to have any problem with my issued M16A2's or the AR's I've had built from good parts by competant gunsmithes. If you are using a mish-mash of Olympic and foreign crap, then your gun doesn't deserve to work. Oh and that AK. Let me know about the first time the gun goes click because you thought the bolt would lock open when it's empty, cause it doesn't happen. And the selector lever is a joke. Haven't played with the FAL enought to have an opinion. Somebody want to send me one for testing? Semper Fidelis...Ken

November 9, 2000, 07:22 PM	#24
STLRN Senior Member Join Date: October 28, 1999 Location: USA Posts: 1,163	Unfortunately, Sgt M he quoted the soldiers after they where in action.

November 9, 2000, 07:42 PM	#25
RikWriter Senior Member Join Date: June 30, 1999 Posts: 2,104	[QUOTE]Originally posted by George Hill: Rik - explain to me in detail... show your math... Talk to Fackler, not me. He can explain it a lot better than I can. How .308 while better at plus 100 yards... is not better at ranges under 100 yards. Has a lot to do with muzzle velocity, which the 223 needs to function well as an antipersonnel round, and which drops off more as distance increases. I dont understand this fuzzy logic. You talking about Hydrostatic shock and temporary wound cavities? Both are very real when dealing with RIFLE calibers (though some people want to incorrectly use them with pistol calibers).