[peoria46]

I must admit that I quickly scan the rifles forum for the odd, interesting topic, but rarely stop to read. The reason is that most topics are about the latest/greatest assault weapon, and which is the best choice for the inevitable apocalypse. None of which I find particularly interesting topics. My question is why the great interest in owning one of these assault weapons.

My version of the genesis and evolution of these weapons, which leads to my bemusement of this particular genre of weapon, is: The Wehrmacht has a problem with mass Soviet infantry attacks. The Mauser bolt action, deadly accurate with great range, is too slow. The submachine guns have ranges that don't really kill beyond hand grenade range. The solution is to find a weapon that rapidly fires a pint-sized rifle round to ranges beyond the hand grenade (veterans will remember that this is the difference between a near and far ambush--and affects the tactics one uses). The problem is that the designers can't go to Hitler and demonstrate their new handy little rifle "that keeps the Russians at a safe distance so that we can readily kill them as they are attacking." Too defeatist. Leads to the designers being shot for not having an appropriate level of National Socialist "can do" attitude. So, as so often happens in life, let's go for a name change. It's all in the marketing. We'll just say that it's what we need to attack the Russians. We'll call it a SturmGewehr. Yup, you got it. An Assault Rifle. It captures the right spirit. The name and (hopefully) the skill and ardor of the elite SturmTruppen of Great War fame will appeal to Hitler. It does. And a new type of weapon is born. Fast forward to early '60's Vietnam. Curtis Lemay has bought this nifty new carbine for his Security Police. Light and so hi-tech looking. Not just fighter pilots get the new toys. A few are swapped to local Green Berets, who find that they're just the ticket for the "little people" that they are "advising." If you've seen pictures of Vietnamese carrying M1 Garands and A6's, then you understand why the AR15's were coveted. Didn't do too bad either in killing the opposition's little people at typical rice paddy ranges. Eventually, more and more people wanted in on this easy-carrying weapon, and you can't deny those in combat and hope to keep your job. Westmoreland makes sure everyone gets the nifty little weapon. What had been an Air Force carbine and/or short-range "little people" assault weapon (of the German definition) became the Army's only (and, by default, Main Battle) rifle. The opposition's main backer, the Russians, had captured more than a few of the SturmGewehrs during the Great Patriotic War and liked what they saw. It solved a conundrum of theirs, as well. How to arm a conscript (2-year only) peasant army that has little institutional memory (no NCOs) in a country where the leadership has already gone to great lengths to ensure that there is no local militia because all the guns have been confiscated. The solution is their own assault weapon, for slightly different reasons than the Germans. Still have to get in close because we don't want to teach our folks more than rudimentary marksmanship—so make it fire-from-the-hip (so the troops can keep walking) and automatic (no aiming needed). If the peasants all fire on full automatic, at close range, then someone, somewhere, just might hit something; and allow the tanks to make their breakthrough. By the way, Soviet tank gunnery followed the same premise. A polite term is volley fire.

So now, we have my version of how the US Military got stuck with the M16 and why the Soviets chose the AK47. Back to my bemusement: why so many outside of those two groups like these things. I suppose that having and tricking one out fills a need similar to that which results in those tricked-out pickups that never see mud or dust. And the ammo is cheap. Or for marksmanship competitions where military-style rifles are mandated. Or for the SWAT teams who so dearly want to be SEALs or other operators--and just got to have the same toys. Interestingly enough, we have the SHTF crowd. They are choosing a weapon that was deliberately designed around a scaled-down rifle round and meant for not-quite-close-range high intensity combat. Unless that's what they think that they'll encounter in the impending apocalypse. This choice of round is diametrically opposite to the hand-gun crowd--always seeking the biggest and baddest round/weapon they can find--but probably not comfortably carry.

A final note. Please take this diatribe in the "tongue-in-cheek" manner that was intended. The season of goodwill is at hand, after all. If you think that you seriously need an assault weapon (the emsculated semi-automatic that it is) to fend of your enemies (real or imagined) and take my view with great umbrage, then apologies in advance. I was a fan of the M16 while at IOBC. Then I discovered that the 1911 was easier to carry. After all, the best killer was my real weapon--a PRC-77 linked to an artillery battalion.

[Spot77]

My question is why the great interest in owning one of these assault weapons.



Simple for me. I enjoy shooting my AR15. I could shoot 2000 rounds and not get tired of it. No kick, fairly cheap to feed, feels good in my hands, tons of accesories, I can shoot it fairly accurately.......

I don't care wht people call it....assault rifle, battle rifle, plinker....whatever. It's just plain fun :evil:

[ArmedBear]

Cheap, readily-available rounds.

Low recoil.

(Who needs an expensive, high-recoil round to shoot cans? My .30-06 walnut/rosewood scoped boltie is a nice, accurate hunting rifle, but that's really all it's good for.)

Good ergonomics.

High-quality action in the case of the AR.

Reliable action in the case of the AK.

Military collector appeal (same goes for old Mausers, muzzleloading Enfields, Brown Bess muskets, etc.). Lots of shooters are also history buffs.

[MDG1976]

peoria46- You obviuosly don't enjoy shooting guns. What are you doing here?

[ArmedBear]

...all of that said, as a SHTF rifle, I'm not sure either gun would be my first choice.

Maybe an AK. A Mini-14 would come before an AR if I really wanted .223, simply because it's more compact and has a reliable action. (Yes, I know, a properly-babied AR is at least as reliable as a muddy, fouled Mini-14, so you don't have to tell me about it.)

A Remington 7600 pump rifle in .308 or .30-06 would get very strong consideration. Proven game rifle, proven LE rifle, without the cleaning and reliability issues of a semiauto. The last thing you want to do in a tent is disassemble a semiauto, when you could just run a rod or boresnake through your 7600, drop in a tiny bit of oil, and be done with cleaning.

[odysseus]

I myself don't agree with the term Assault Rifle. The verb assault is an action, what you do with it. I feel it is a terrible way to describe semi-auto repeating rifles. It is used by the anti 2nd Amendment types to put fear and loathing into an object to misguide people.

Yeah, I know some will disagree with me, but that's my opinion.

[Spot77]

ak,s are junk. and please dont talk about the army or military ,because u dont know what your talking about


Well that just sums it all up, now doesn't it?

[browningguy]

I don't think people will take umbrage, just consider you a rabble rousing fool.

I simply found nothing accurate, or helpful, so suggest you find a hoibby you will actually enjoy.

Have a good holiday season, remember, Hanukkah starts on Christmas day this year.

[JShirley]

1. There is no established technical definition of "assault weapon"*, which you seem to use interchangeably with "assault rifle" which DOES have an established meaning.

2. The Russians did not make the first, but did in fact distribute an assault rifle before 1920, the 1916 Federov Avtomat.

3. Civilian-legal rifles firing intermediate power cartridges are useful for deer and smaller game, usually use ammunition less in cost, and are more comfortable to fire than arms firing more powerful rounds.

4. Some of the cartridges capable of being used in assault rifles and cosmetically similar civilian firearms are extremely accurate, including the .223, 6mm PPC, 6.5x39mm, .30 Whisper, etc.

Your deliberate sarcasm and foolish insults kinda shoot your lame "you're mentally challenged if you take umbrage" ending.

Merry Christmas,

John


*The US SMAW, an 83mm rocket, is described as an "assault weapon".

[benEzra]

If you think that you seriously need an assault weapon (the emsculated semi-automatic that it is) to fend of your enemies (real or imagined) and take my view with great umbrage, then apologies in advance.
The characteristic that makes something an assault rifle of military utility is really its capability of selective fire, not what it looks like. Permanently take away the selective-fire capability, and what you have left is a really reliable, durable, and neat-looking firearm that functions just like any other civilian self-loader.

AR-15's and civilian AK lookalikes have a lot of things going for them that have nothing to do with military purposes, or with fending off hordes of enemies real or imagined. For example, I own a SAR-1 (civvie AK lookalike, Romanian made), and here's what I like about it:

Low recoil/fun to shoot.

Aesthetics. I'm a Gen-X'er, and I think "AK's" are way better looking than more traditional-looking rifles.

Versatility. One gun that can be used for light hunting (up to deer), target shooting/plinking out to 200 yards or so, and defensive purposes. Neat.

Reliability. Civvie AK's share the same rotating bolt assembly and long-stroke gas piston design as real AK's, making them among the most reliable of all rifles. They are amazingly tolerant of crud in the action.

History. The AK-47 is an icon of 20th century history, for better or for worse. Since my wife and I have a very small collection of Russian-style firearms dating back to 1905 (the oldest bears the imperial crest of Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov, even), my AK lookalike fills a niche in that collection, even if it's not a real AK-47.

Economy. Very few other autoloading rifles this good can be had for $379, and ammunition is the cheapest of all centerfire rifle calibers ($1.75/20 rounds).

It's a freedom thing. Bill Bennett and Dianne Feinstein can splutter about it all they want, but that "AK" and SKS sitting in our gun safe are tangible reminders that my wife and I are free people. We don't own them at the favor of some elite power broker; we own them because, as law-abiding Americans, we have the right to choose to.

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_16765.jpg

I have a 4x scope for mine (shown), and the last time I went to the range, I with my "AK" was the only person shooting at 200 yards; the guys with the straight-wooden-stocked rifles were all shooting at 50 and 100. No, it's not match-grade, but it's plenty accurate for recreational shooting, for short-range hunting (cartridge is no good on deer past 125 yards or so anyway), and general defensive use.


My primary home-defense gun is a Smith & Wesson 3913 LadySmith, which I am licensed to carry, and that's the most likely gun that I would end up using defensively if, heaven forbid, it were ever necessary. But having said that, if I knew someone were breaking in and I had the time, I'd grab a rifle rather than a handgun.

Another thought--I own a Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle. Would you consider this an "assault weapon"? If not, why not?

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_2123.jpg

It's the same caliber as an AR-15, it fires the same ammunition at the same rate of fire, it's a gas-operated semiauto just like an AR-15, and it can even use some of the same magazines as an AR (I own some Ram-Line 30-round mags that will fit either gun). What's the difference, other than appearance? The mini-14 isn't a military weapon, and except for the A-team and a few police forces around the world, it's never seen military-type service.

I could put a black plastic stock on it:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_4275.jpg

I could put a stock that folds for storage on it:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_11270.jpg

But it's still the same old civilian Ranch Rifle, just better-looking. :)




Like it or not, modern-looking rifles like AR-15's and such are the future of civilian rifle aesthetics, as form and function win out over tradition. The reason AR's/AK's/FAL's/CETME's/M1A's dominate the rifle forum is that honestly, these are the types of guns that most rifle enthusiasts my age (35) and younger are drawn to. The older-fashioned guns based on the late-1800's Mauser pattern are neat in their own way, but I'm a Gen-Xer and just don't care for straight stocks, burnished walnut, checkering, and engraving.

[peoria46]

peoria46- You obviuosly don't enjoy shooting guns. What are you doing here?

Well, obviuosly (public school spelling?) I don't. Have you ever humped 95 pound joes for a 155? Not fun. I watched, never did. I admire the gun bunnies who do it. But, THOSE are guns. Individual weapons are pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. You remember the old jibe, "this is my rifle, this is my gun....". I enjoy shooting as well as the next guy, and probably no better or worse at it. Just because I'm amused by the never-ending search for the greatest civilianized "assault" weapon doesn't mean I'm anti-rifle, anti-hunting, or anti-shooting.

[ReadyontheRight]

Maybe 'cause you can carry more of the "anemic" ammo than larger calibers - yet still have enough range for hunting, offense and defense.

Plus the fact all us gun nuts think "Red Dawn" was a documentary. :D

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/53/133653.jpg

Merry Christmas!

[MDG1976]

Well, obviuosly (public school spelling?) I don't. Have you ever humped 95 pound joes for a 155? Not fun. I watched, never did. I admire the gun bunnies who do it. But, THOSE are guns.

Public school spelling?? Just as I thought, we have a snob on our hands.

My version of the genesis and evolution of these weapons, which leads to my bemusement of this particular genre of weapon, is: The Wehrmacht has a problem with mass Soviet infantry attacks

Them sure are some fancy words, mister. As for my spelling, believe me, you haven't seen the worst.

[Euclidean]

It's all what you like. I like a lot of military surplus rifles including the old bolt action Mausers, Mosins, Enfields etc. but the semiautomatic SKS, AK47, M1, etc. all appeal to me as well. I also have my fair share of "civilian" guns like Marlins, Mossbergs, etc.

Honestly, no single one of them is my universal "go to" rifle. My SHTF rifle is of all things a humble 1894 resting behind my truck seat. I can't think of anything two legged that it wouldn't take down, and in my locality it's quite adequate for anything 4 legged as well.

In cases of civic unrest I'd probably drag out something that is theoretically capable of greater firepower, but there you go.

[newfalguy101]

only three reasons really

1) CUZ I CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) The "cool factor" is pretty obvious.

3) I find it fascinating that early 1900's technology is still considered to be "top o' the heap" in the early part of the 2000's. Face it, the rifles we tend to drool over cuz they are the newest latest greatest thing are in reality a re-hash of the same guns built nearly 60 years ago, with better ergonomics (usually) and tighter (and REPEATABLE ) manufacturing specs.

Besides I just dont get the same warmnfuzzy feeling when shooting a bolt or pump gun

[Bullet Bob]

I shoot an AR 15 and mini-14 for the same reasons I shoot the other, varied, guns I own: For fun.

[Logan5]

It all comes down to taste, and there's no accounting for it. Some people here love pre-model number S&W revolvers, or 1911's, or broomhandle Mausers, and some like semi versions of military hardware. I like a little bit of everything, and the contents of my gun safe reflect that.

Twenty years ago, nobody really gave a damn about anything in (what was then called) the "Paramilitary" section in the back of Shooter's Bible. Most shooters I knew thought they were silly, except for match grade stuff from Colt or Springfield that you could take to big service rifle matches. (Never mind that you'd probably have to join the service to get onto a range in this state where you could shoot past 200 yards.)

Everyone was still crazy, they were just crazy about different guns. Take a flip through some old American Handgunner magazines and look at some pictures of 1980's "pin guns", or 1990's IPSC and Steel Challenge "race guns". Everybody wanted them, although few thought they'd really need them to topple bowling pins, real or imagined.

People like to buy rifles, pistols, and shotguns that they can endlessly fiddle with, have tuned, and hang accessories off of. Even the cowboy action shooters. So it really shouldn't come as a surprise that a lot of people like military style semiautos for many of the same reasons. Why is blowing $1300 or so on an AR15, an Eotech, mags, and all the rest any better or worse than spending the same ammount on a comped .38 super 1911 with an extended mag and a red dot, or an Italian SAA .38-40 with engraving, faux ivory grips, and a genuine reproduction antique finish?

There seems to be this notion that if you pick the creepy looking rifle and accessories, you're somehow some kind of creepy wierdo "wannabe". Yet if you dress up in cowboy costume and spend your time shooting at imaginary rustlers while seated on a rocking sawhorse, or shell out for the .38 super and spend your weekends shooting bowling pins(!) off a card table, there's nothing snicker worthy about that hobby. If I beggar myself to buy an olympic free pistol like the one someone used to take a few gold medals, no one's going to sneer at me as a ridiculous "wannabe" even if I can't hit a barn from the inside with the door closed. What's that about? (ETA: maybe it's about us not having won a medal since 1964? And no Gold since 1920?)

Ultimately, pretty much all hobbies have an element of the absurd to them. It's just part of the human condition. If there were such a sport as "Zombie Action Shooting", a lot of this particular board would be into it in a huge way, and no one would laugh.;) Much.

(Oh my God! We need to invent Zombie Action Shooting! Why has no one thought of this before?)

[NineseveN]

Not that we need a reason, cause you know, we have that Constitution thingie that says we can have them if we want them but...

I'll take exception to your "SHTF crowd" assumptions. The reason why those preparing for disaster would want a military firearm instead of, say a hunting rifle is, you guessed it, because it has been fielded by a military. But the deciding factors behind this are not what you might think; it's not because folks want to emulate the military or that they're mall ninjas. Military small arms:

1. Go through extremely rigorous tests before they are even considered as an issue weapon. This helps to give one confidence in the reliability and durability of the design when a military fields a certain small arm.

2. Get beat to death and back by soldiers using them in the worst of conditions. If it doesn't work there to acceptable levels, it won't last long in many militaries (M16 myths do not count).

3 Have more aftermarket parts and accessories prototyped due to the military market. If the US military owns 2 million samples of a certain rifle, Joe-accessorie manufacturer is going to be smart and prototype an advance to that particular family of models well before he prototypes one for a certain model of a non-military family that is only in say, 300,000 civilian hands. If his design pans out and is accepted, he has an order maybe in the millions, maybe only for half or 1/4 of the military rifles, but military contracts are a nice burst of cash, and due to the civilian market for military-style arms based on all of the above factors, Joe knows that even if he doesn't get the pot of gold of a US Mil contract, he can still sell the product to civilians with semi0auto copies at a lesser price than the design that the military does go with made by his competitor. This factor leads to more technological advances in all aspects of the rifle on a general scale.

4. Having a rifle in general use for 10-20 years ensures that there will be a steady supply of parts and rifles, more rifles in use, both by the military and civilians helps ensure that the market will not die out, further boosting the aftermarket potential.

This is all good for the civilian consumer, by buying a military copy of a rifle, they get a design that has been thoroughly tested to work in situations far worse than they will ever see both in testing and in field use, and they get access to more aftermarket accessories than any other arm. This is more true for rifles than handguns.

Now, the mall ninja factor works here as well, which boosts the aftermarket potential even further. How many well-made accessories are on the market for the Mini-14 or the SU-16? Compare that to what is available for the Ak-47, AR rifles, and FALs (the three most generally fielded military arms that I know of). Compare those further to that of what is available for HK rifles excluding the MP5-series as they do not see military issue like the big three (AR, AK and FAL) do. You can get more for AR's, AK's or FAL than you can for any other semi-auto rifle, including surplus ammunition, magazines, optics mounts, small parts, spare internals, specialized slings, barrels, trigger groups, furniture etc...

Of course, it's really only because we're all wannabees, right?

[_N4Z_]

Have you ever humped 95 pound joes for a 155? Not fun. I watched, never did.

Hmmmm... Then that would make you a wire rat? Ummmm... Surveyor? Perhaps the BC's driver? FDC flunky?

I watched

I know! ! ! A voyeur! :what: :D

[modifiedbrowning]

It's all about the Zombies, man.

[blackhawk2000]

Noobs are funny:neener:

[grimjaw]

I'm trying to find the bridge.

Isn't it more PC to say 'semi-automatic weapon modeled on an assault rifle'?

The bridge is here somewhere.

I bought an AK47 clone because it was less expensive than a newly manufactured, American-made, semi-automatic rifle. I just wanted to plink and target shoot with it, and it's easy to maintain.

I could have sworn there should have been a bridge here. The troll that lives under it started this thread.

jmm

[rfurtkamp]

If you think that you seriously need an assault weapon (the emsculated semi-automatic that it is) to fend of your enemies (real or imagined) and take my view with great umbrage, then apologies in advance.


I'm trying to figure out how my L1A1s are "emasculated", considering they were issued in semi.

Then I'll take umbrage. With extra fries.

[cz75bdneos22]

I myself don't agree with the term Assault Rifle. The verb assault is an action, what you do with it. I feel it is a terrible way to describe semi-auto repeating rifles. It is used by the anti 2nd Amendment types to put fear and loathing into an object to misguide people.

Yeah, I know some will disagree with me, but that's my opinion.

You got that right "assault" rifles are made to be displayed as pieces of art. Now, YMMV...;)

[ArmedBear]

It is true that military rifles have gone through extensive testing, etc. And it is also true that we, as civilians, can benefit from this by piggybacking on military specs.

WRT M16 myths, I just know what I have experienced and what I've seen at the range. And I'll use my stainless Ranch Rifle for a SHTF gun.

[zedheadmc]

I don't remember where I seen this but "remember that in 1774 the flintlock was an assault rifle" I like flinchlocks, and I carried an M16 (or variants) for 11 years. I like the M16 because I know what it will do, fun to shoot, good rifle. I don't mind a Russian AK either.

[1911 guy]

I can appreciate having more than ten rounds of ammo on tap, chambered in something stronger than a pistol caliber with a longer sight radius than a SMG, but really don't care for the "assault rifle" term. An assault weapon is any weapon you use to assault someone/something. That may be a rock, .22 bolt action or an M-16. Let's stick to terms that mean something, rather than feeding the anti's.

[adaman04]

The whole term "Assault Weapon" is a joke made up by politicians and the media to scare soccer moms in to voting anti-gun.

Assault is defined as:
Assault is a crime of violence against another person. In some jurisdictions, assault is used to refer to the actual violence, while in other jurisdictions assault refers only to the threat of violence, while the actual violence is battery. Simple assaults do not involve deadly weapons; aggravated assaults often do.

Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent. When assault is defined like this, exceptions are provided to cover such things as normal social behavior (for example, patting someone on the back).

Now because an AR has a a black stock and a pistol grip and holds 30 rounds in the magazine it is an "Assault Weapon" and is therefore a weapon designed to inflict bodily harm on someone? Don't try to hurt me or my family, and I promise it won't do you any bodily harm! That's why I savor my guns like a fine steak. There are rich people in office that spend their time and money to take our guns away. No thanks, I'm keeping mine.

[MechAg94]

I don't have to justify to why I like what I like especially to someone who can't get their facts straight anyway.

[Bigfoot]

Please, lets not turn THR into another arguement site. Thank you.

[Bullet]

peoria46 Quote – “My question is why the great interest in owning one of these assault weapons.”

The reason I have what you call assault weapons is because – At night when you’ve gone to bed and you haven’t fallen asleep yet and one of the other voices in your head is saying assault weapon, assault weapon, over and over until you finally fall asleep and you wake up the next day at 2:00 PM with a new rifle and your not sure where it came from. I just assume that the other guy bought it, don’t you?

Just kidding. The real answer to your question is - Why not?

[Phantom Warrior]

Hmmmm... Then that would make you a wire rat? Ummmm... Surveyor? Perhaps the BC's driver? FDC flunky?



I was a fan of the M16 while at IOBC.


Unless I'm completely off base, IOBC usually stands for Infantry Officer Basic Course. Call me crazy, but they don't usually make Infantry officers surveyors or drivers. Infantry joes maybe (I've laid carpet and painted too), but not officers.

(What units were you w/ peoria46?)



Having said that, now I'll say this...

A final note. Please take this diatribe in the "tongue-in-cheek" manner that was intended. The season of goodwill is at hand, after all. If you think that you seriously need an assault weapon (the emsculated semi-automatic that it is) to fend of your enemies (real or imagined) and take my view with great umbrage, then apologies in advance. I was a fan of the M16 while at IOBC. Then I discovered that the 1911 was easier to carry. After all, the best killer was my real weapon--a PRC-77 linked to an artillery battalion.


I don't take offense, but I will agree that perhaps "rabble rousing" isn't too far off base. A 1911 IS easier to carry, but an AR/M-16 beats it for range, power, and capacity any day. And 5.56 isn't exactly .300 Win Mag, but what would YOU suggest for a rifle you want to keep light, be easy and comfortable to shoot, and have a decent magazine capacity and yet still have acceptable power?

[lycanthrope]

My deer rifle is a 7mmSTW which runs 140gr bullets out at about 3450fps. That said, I have no qualms about my AR15's because I've seen what a good ballistic tip bullet does out of these guns. I'm in no way underpowered for defense and I can confirm the strikes in the optics I use.

I've had 2 that shoot under .5MOA and combining that with ammunition that is about as cheap as it gets and I end up shooting my AR's more than anything (well, except maybe my .40 STI). I put together my Clark Gator upper with a RRA lower and Jewell trigger for $1100 total. For the quality, that's hard to beat in any gun.

I liked my first AR so much I ended up with 3 more......

[MTMilitiaman]

People have already listed most of the reasons I love my AK clone. I like em if for no other reason than that my enemies don't. Which brings me to the topic at hand--to each his own. If you don't want a semi-automatic rifle such as mine, don't get one. It is as simple as that. It is a free country and as long as we can both agree that I deserve the choice as much as you do, it will remain so. But your personal preference ends where it infringes on my right to prefer. If you can agree to this, you are my friend. If, instead, you're one of those Elmer Fudds foolishly entertaining the notion that you can hide behind a "sporting purpose" clause with your trusty deer rifle and ignore the pleas of your fellow guns owners simply because you don't like their choice in armament, then you are a Benedict Arnold and the enemy of freedom and all who treasure it.

Simply put, you have your preferences and I have mine. Live and let live and we are cherry.

[cz75bdneos22]

Disclaimer:YMMV... A small percentage of us will find the kind of information in this post/posts of interest. Then again, some may even find it offensive. It is very clear to me that virtually nobody is going to be swayed from their misdirected opinions about (pick your) topic simply by reading these posts, as it often is. We tend to hold on to our opinions until some life changing situation forces us to change. So why even post?? YMMV, but that is the intended purpose of this community. To share knowledge, learn from each other's mistakes, get a chance to see the weakness in ourselves...afterall, we do make mistakes don't we, Y'all? what a better way to change and offer possible suggestions or even solutions to our neverending questions. why not utilize the vast knowledge of THR to better understand what is going on around us, at this time, in this great nation of ours. I mean, even when it may seem the end, and we may feel overwhelmed. Maybe going countercurrent to the "popular" train of tought regarding a particular post/topic...hey! looky here, in our sincere quest for change...then you know what! the seemingly minor but aggravating ruffled feathers/offenses we encounter along our path will be worth the challenges compared to the effort put forth...am i making sense, it's late. enjoy Christmas time, Y'all..Feliz Navidad y prospero ano nuevo...el rancherito.;)

[_N4Z_]

Unless I'm completely off base, IOBC usually stands for Infantry Officer Basic Course. Call me crazy, but they don't usually make Infantry officers surveyors or drivers. Infantry joes maybe (I've laid carpet and painted too), but not officers.


Ahhh, well having been gone from the military for a very long time now "IOBC" didn't ring a bell. Also, having been enlisted, and technically a redleg, "IOBC" again didn't ring a bell.

Thank you for explaining and defining. I stand corrected.

And the original posters thread about standing around watching makes much more sense now. Officers by and large never did "work" for a living in the military. :evil:

[mack7.62]

Have you ever humped 95 pound joes for a 155? Not fun. I watched, never did. I admire the gun bunnies who do it. But, THOSE are guns.

Excuse me, but those are howitzer's not guns, although since they started putting longer tubes on them with the M109A1's the line has blurred. The last gun (other than on tanks) was the the M107 175mm which is now out of service, superseced by the M110A3 8" howitzer. And they are called projos(short for projectile) not joes. You can read about it below. And yes I was a "FDC flunky" part of a team tasked with helping put "hot steel, on time, on target."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m107-175.htm

Mack

[Adirondack1]

I don't usually post on THR, I am usually content to lurk here and read other individuals opinions, however, here are my reasons for owning both military rifles, and civilian equivelents:

I choose to own all what I own just to piss off the liberal/socialist/eliteists that want to take away my right to do so. REASON1

I choose to own what I own to piss off those snobbish condecending shooters who think THEIR guns should be protected, but not MINE! REASON2

So you are:

A) A member of the first class...for REASON 1 who is trolling with your eloquent prose, condecending atitude and we can do without you.

Or

B) A member of the second class...For REASON 2 in this case, you are WORSE than the first class, and therefore should sell your precious Perazzi or Weatherby, and TAKE UP GOLF!
:neener:

[wickedsprint]

peoria46- You obviuosly don't enjoy shooting guns. What are you doing here?


Don't be so quick to point this out, he mentions he went to IOBC, that's the Army's Infantry Officer Basic Course.

I also fully understand where he is coming from, if you read half of the assualt rifle posts you have people that are worried about getting the perfect close quarters combat rifle when most of them likely have no formal firearms training let alone any in special tactics.

[Too Many Choices!?]

:uhoh: . Ain't first impressions(that alienate/denegrate the group you want to be accepted into) grand:p!

The same reason the military wants a reliable, upgradable, adaptable, and easy handling rifle, are the same reason I want one. It fills the niche I was intending to use it for, be it SHTF, TEOTWAWKI, or any other acronym you could come up with. Foresight is better than hindsight, as all things seen in hindsight are 20/20 :neener: .

[goon]

While not a true assault rifle, and really not even a true MBR anymore, I do love my FAL. I don't love it because it is black and scary and mean.
I love it because it is accurate, durable, made from steel, and it works.
I can't imagine doing close quarters fighting with it or any other rifle. Anyone who wants to fight up close is nuts IMO. If they are close to you, you are also close to them. It takes a half decent rifleman to kill you out there. Up close any moron can get lucky.
I don't own my FAL because I want to shoot at anyone with it. If I did have to ever use it for that though, I would be very fortunate to have it.

[Huntzman]

Back to my bemusement: why so many outside of those two groups like these things.

Fundamentally it comes down to choice. It’s the same principle that governs just about every aspect of our lives. If your question is academic, then the answer is simply human nature. It’s the same reason one person will choose to drive a Mustang, while another champions F150. Even my analogy will indicate that I prefer Ford’s over other manufacturers. Do we question the man who prefers blondes over brunettes? Ketchup or Mustard, Football or Soccer, White Castle or McDonalds (OK, for those of you who have eaten White Castle….. you have earned the right to look down upon other “burger” eaters !!!) :evil:

I have been shooting for over twenty-fie years. I started with a 1911 and an M-16 clone, although I was not in the service. My uncle was a weapons aficionado and inculcated me into the labyrinthine world of firearms. :banghead: I also carried for over twenty years. During that period of my life I was primarily interested in handguns, although I fired a wide variety of full-auto weapons. Only after retiring did I begin to resurrect my interest in long guns. I guess I could have opted for traditional rifles, maybe even long range weapons. But I have always been interested in military history, so I opted for that style of weapon. Because I now like shooting long arms, should my fraternity in the handgun community be revoked?

My point is we all choose what interests us. Shall we look down upon those who make a choice which does not concur with ours? Since semi-autos are the norm, shall we deem all wheel gun shooters as relics from a bygone era? Whom of us, armed with our trusty semi-auto, would have the stones to challenge Bill Jordan & his revolver to a draw? :what:

Would I like to have full-auto versions, sure? Would I make a habit of firing them that way? No, I would rather challenge myself for distance / precision. But just because I rarely speed, doesn’t mean I want the government passing legislation that would restrict all vehicles to a speed of 65. :cuss: I spent twenty-years watching politicians, who had no clue about crime and punishment, passing knee-jerk laws. They would pat themselves on the back for being pro-active on crime and pose for their photo ops with victims and walk away. The result, more laws that restricted law abiding citizens and ones criminals wouldn’t follow anymore than their predecessors.

If you don’t like hand guns, long guns, or machine guns that’s your choice, but don’t criticize me or anyone else for theirs. If you served, then you understand that you did so to protect our right to do that. SHTF, Doomsday, Apocalypse….. Who knows? I worked through the “good old days” in NYC. To most other civilized places, the S had HTF, doomsday was upon us and the apocalypse was only going to bring an improvement. I scoffed at everyone who bought “millenium masks”, the end of the world, but what if…. To each his own, I’ve got mag's to load !!!!!! :neener:

IMHO,
Andrew

[another okie]

Shooting is fun. I guess that about sums it up.

Three gun matches and marksmanship contests are both forms of competition in which ARs are highly useful.

As far as your historical analysis, it's generally correct,
but I would point out that:

1. Not all firearms were banned in the Soviet Union. Hunters could own and use rifles. Lee Harvey Oswald went hunting with his friends while he lived there.

2. In German nouns are capitalized, but the second noun in a compound noun is not, so SturmGewehr is wrong, Sturmgewehr is right.

3. "Wehrmacht" means the armed forces of Germany, not the army, which is the "Heer." Using "Wehrmacht" to mean "army" is the sign of someone who's watched the History Channel too much and read too little. There's no reason to use German words for these things in English anyway - just call it the German army. We don't use terms in foreign languages for the French or Russian armies. The use of "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe" are survivals of wartime propaganda designed to make them sound evil, sort of like the made-up term "assault weapon."

4. In the early days in Vietnam it was more common to issue Vietnamese troops the M-1 Carbine than the M-16 rifle, though the motivation of saving weight is correctly described.

[Mannlicher]

Please, dont feed the darn trolls
:neener: