.308 AR vs. M-14


PDA






Dragonboy
June 10, 2008, 01:15 AM
any thoughts here?

If you enjoyed reading about ".308 AR vs. M-14" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Deer Hunter
June 10, 2008, 01:16 AM
For?

Dragonboy
June 10, 2008, 01:22 AM
read the title. I'm looking at an AR-series rifle chambered in .308 or an M-14, and am looking for anybody with experience with either one.

Deer Hunter
June 10, 2008, 01:23 AM
Again, what is it going to be used for? What is your fiscal limit? Accuracy Expectations? Aftermarket parts? Want to scope it or not?

Dragonboy
June 10, 2008, 01:28 AM
oh, (bad word). sorry. I totally misunderstood you. I be looking at a survival rifle, something that you'd grab if the world as we know it was ending and you could only take one gun with you.

Deer Hunter
June 10, 2008, 01:31 AM
Either would work. People will tell you that the AR will be more finicky with ammo. If I were you, between the choices, I would find the cheapest M1A you could find. A used one even.

Dragonboy
June 10, 2008, 01:32 AM
'k. what's it going to take to mount a scope on it?

mljdeckard
June 10, 2008, 01:37 AM
The problem I had with the M1A was that even though the mount went straight on, it was so high, I couldn't get a comfortable shooting position. I had to lean way into it, and it kept banging me over the eyebrow. (Only fun the first few times.) I did a little digging, and realized that to really use it as intended, I would have to get a different stock, with a raised or adjustable comb. This changed the budget of the project significantly.

Also, the sight picture was actually obscured by the mount. The whole point of trying the project was that I could still use the iron sights, but when I had to move up the rear to zero, I ran out of space. I wound up selling the project to someone more serious than me, and getting another Remington. If I were to try it again, I would probably look at the AR-10. I checked in Impact a few years ago, they had a DPMS that started at $800 something.

Dragonboy
June 10, 2008, 01:46 AM
maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place, but the M1A seems to be considerably more expensive than the AR-10. is there a really really really good reason to fork over the extra dough?

Joe Demko
June 10, 2008, 02:41 AM
I've owned an M-14 clone and a PTR-91. For the usage you describe, I can't get too excited about any .308 autoloader. Most of their (supposed) benefits pertain to use in pitched firefights with the spikey-haired mutants and their trained attack bears.

Dragonboy
June 10, 2008, 02:47 AM
well, what would you get excited about?

Joe Demko
June 10, 2008, 03:02 AM
Something lighter that fires a smaller, lighter round of which I can carry more. If we are going to play the tired, old something that you'd grab if the world as we know it was ending and you could only take one gun with yougame, then let's play it right.
Ain't going to be no resupply getting airdropped, nor any trips to Wally World either for ammo or anything else. Therefore, the more you can carry, the better off you are. Since you are also going to need to carry food, water, medical supplies, etc. etc. etc. A large heavy gun that uses large heavy ammo is a serious disadvantage. Every ounce of gun or ammo you load yourself up with is an ounce of something else you won't be able to carry.
How delightfully the .308 penetrates barricades and such isn't important if you aren't fool enough to try acting like a soldier when you should be acting like a survivalist ( a real one, not one from the stroke books). You should be doing your best to avoid contact with strangers and avoid firefights with anyone. Ammo you expend is gone. You'll be attracting attention from all sorts of scavengers. Any wound you take is potentially fatal due to possibility of infection and lack of hygiene and medical help.
Nope. .308 autoloaders don't send me as survival rifles.

RonE
June 10, 2008, 03:41 AM
I would choose the M1A (M14) or even the M1 Garand over the .308 on an AR frame. I had a DPMS LR308 (I think that is what it was) and it had the bull barrel which was unwieldly, and heavy. That gun was designed to be shot from a bench or a bipod. The M1 and the M14 were designed to be shot from any position. I think that with .308 ammo, the M1A and with 30-06 ammo the M1 will hold up better and longer than the AR style rifle. If you don't want something with as much wood as a military rifle and want a simi auto, look at Remington and Browning sporting rifles.

Jacka L Ope
June 10, 2008, 04:45 AM
Considered the AR platform in 5.56mm?

H2O MAN
June 10, 2008, 07:47 AM
I had a real nice ArmaLite AR-10 A4 SPR plus a carbine upper.
As much as I tried to love it, I ended up selling it in favor of another M14.
It was an easy decision because the AR-10 was no lighter or accurate than my M14s.
I no longer have any AR type rifles.

sacp81170a
June 10, 2008, 07:59 AM
I have an M1A loaded and a flattop AR10C. The AR10C wins hands down for several reasons:

Better ergonomics, lighter, handier package, I'm already familiar with care and maintenance (think big, beefy AR15. If you know that platform, you know this one.), and surprisingly enough, it's slightly more accurate than my M1A unless I spend extra dough to further accurize the M1A. The Picatinny rail is already there, most optics mount with no special modifications, the cheekweld is in the correct place for me already without having to build up the stock and it was cheaper than my M1A. If it were a "run for the hills" situation, I'd grab the AR10 before the M1A.

I'm not selling my M1A yet, but if it came down to a choice the AR would stay, the M1A would regretfully go.

Dragonboy
June 10, 2008, 10:23 AM
will 5.56 really work for anything bigger than a groundhog?

what about a shotgun? or are we again getting too heavy?

TIMC
June 10, 2008, 10:46 AM
I really wonder if anyone will really survive an end of the world senario well enough to matter what you have to defend yourself. With a decent quality of life gone what is really the point? Most of us live a spoiled pampered lifestyle so we have no idea how to really rough it, Weekends at deer camp with your RV and satelite TV doesn't count for roughing it, not to mention getting old. I think 99% wouldn't make it more than a few months to a year at most. Most would be better off just to own a pistol with 1 round for themselves.

I have a Bushmaster AR-10 and and Springfield M-21. Both are deadly accurate but out of the 2 I have I would say I much prefer the AR-10 for running around in the woods. The AR-10 is lighter, easier to load mags and easier to move around in tight places.

Organdonor
June 10, 2008, 11:00 AM
I have a Bushmaster AR-10 and and Springfield M-21. Both are deadly accurate but out of the 2 I have I would say I much prefer the AR-10 for running around in the woods. The AR-10 is lighter, easier to load mags and easier to move around in tight places.

I also have a Bushmaster BAR-10, and love it. I also have an AR-15, Mini-14, Mini-30, and some .22LRs.

Anti-personel, I'd grab the Mini-30. For hunting large game, I'd go with my AR-10.

possum
June 10, 2008, 12:19 PM
op didn't give much info to work with. i love the m1a platform and i love the ar platform. i am better and more familiar with the ar platform so therefor i would probally go with the ar just because i know it so good. but i tell you the allure of he m1a is unbearable for sure and t would be a hard choice.

Tarvis
June 10, 2008, 12:38 PM
I really wonder if anyone will really survive an end of the world senario well enough to matter what you have to defend yourself. With a decent quality of life gone what is really the point? Most of us live a spoiled pampered lifestyle so we have no idea how to really rough it, Weekends at deer camp with your RV and satelite TV doesn't count for roughing it, not to mention getting old. I think 99% wouldn't make it more than a few months to a year at most. Most would be better off just to own a pistol with 1 round for themselves.
My life isn't exactly pampered, and I don't know if I would mind roughing it or not. Besides, due to my location, I would more likely bug-in as opposed to heading for the hills, in which case a heavy 308 doesn't sound like a bad idea, considering my house would be more like a pill box.

That being said, what about an intermediate cartridge like 6.8spc, 6.5 grendel, even 300 whisper? More energy and lighter weight, makes a good trade off if you ask me. Get one of each if you can't decide.

FWIW: My buddy's socom 16 is comfy shooting from standing unsupported with iron sights, as well as having a forward optics mount that yearns for an aimpoint, even an EER scope with quick detach mounts. I have no experience with the AR10.

Edit: Also, the 5.56 round was designed to shoot a 70's grain bullet in a 1-12 (i think) twist so the marginally stabilized bullet would travel 3 inches into whatever you were shooting before it tumbled, making serious wounds. The lethality was destroyed when the army went to a 1-7 twist, which indeed made it more accurate, but not without a trade off.

glockman19
June 10, 2008, 01:02 PM
I would and did get a M1A before I got my AR's. I have 2 AR's and one M1A.

I would and will get another M1A, a Scout to go along with my Loaded model, before getting an AR in the .308 caliber.

In a SHTF situation I would grab the M1A before the AR.

M1A might even be a lettle less expensive too.

DevilDog0402
June 10, 2008, 01:28 PM
How about one of the shorter M1As like the SOCOM 16?

jackdanson
June 10, 2008, 01:37 PM
will 5.56 really work for anything bigger than a groundhog?

People are bigger than groudhog. You could take deer in a survival situ, but I wouldn't go around hunting w/ .223. That kid that died in the alaska outback had successfully hunted large elk (I believe) with a .22 rimfire. Shot placement/multiple shots goes a long way. Still wouldn't ever reccomend for a rec hunter though.

Get a saiga in .308 if you really want a .308. I got mine for $350 a few months ago and it is invincible.

Vityaz
June 11, 2008, 02:27 PM
I'd go with the M1A.
I've heard quite a bit about 308 ARs having reliability problems.

Tarvis
June 11, 2008, 02:59 PM
A wise choice, young padawan ;)

Bill2e
June 11, 2008, 04:26 PM
What is it with all these "what gun for the end of the world threads"

Seriously, if the ***** does realy hit the fan you are gonna look like a fool in you cammo carrying battle pack and an AR10 or M1A. EVERYONE WILL Notice & you will be harrased.

Stay home, keep the Gun in the Closet. The 9mm or 357mag on the hip will be more usefull to you if you have to move. You will need more stuff than a big gun. Besides, what the heck good will a 7.62x51 do for you that a .357mag won't? It is not like you will be sitting in a tree taking out ZOMBIES @ 400 yards.

Think simple, think realistic. How much food do you have in reserve? Probably more important than a 1000 rounds of NATO 7.62x51.

Just my thoughts, do what you must, I just don't think the end of the world is a reason to choose one gun over another. Buy somthing you'll use & enjoy now. If in fact the SHTF I'm sure I'll be good with a 12 gauge or .30-06 or evan an AR-15, .22lr, 9mm, .357mag, .30-30 ect or any gun out there including a pellet gun.

Hopefully which ever you buy you will enjoy and the SHTF days never come.

lmccrock
June 11, 2008, 04:57 PM
I'd go with the M1A.
I've heard quite a bit about 308 ARs having reliability problems.
Well, some of us have heard of M1a rifles having reliability problems as well (i.e., Springfield has issues sometimes). Best advice was, if you want a scope, get an AR10 (or equivalent DPMS or Rock River or whatever) flattop. Of course, I consider the AR ergonomics to be superior to the M1 (which the M1A/M14 are like). But that is me.

Lee

Tarvis
June 11, 2008, 05:20 PM
What is it with all these "what gun for the end of the world threads"
Well, actually it was a "which rifle" thread with some undertones of SHTF application, but the rest of your post opened up an entirely different discussion. With a rifle you can "commandeer" food, trade ammo for supplies and defend your home from vandals. If you seriously think a pistol is better than a long arm in a shoot out, good luck to you.

Bowfishrp
June 11, 2008, 05:26 PM
I believe it also has something to do with the SERIOUS anti-gun democrat candidate that looks like he is going to be in the White House soon.

I love my DPMS LR308AP4...shorter than a M1 and I personally think it shoots better. However, if it really were a SHTF situation I would be glad to have my AR15 too. My AP4 is still very accurate for anything that I can shoot, no I have not shot it over 200 yards yet. But that 308 ammo does get heavy really quickly!

Bill2e
June 11, 2008, 05:37 PM
Tarvis

With a rifle you can "commandeer" food, trade ammo for supplies and defend your home from vandals. If you seriously think a pistol is better than a long arm in a shoot out, good luck to you.


I agree 100%, that a rifle is much better than a pistol in a shoot out. However the real world implications of a disaster situation is that a pistol/revolver can be with you at all times. After the Hurricanes of 2004 I spent a lot of time out in the yard fixing things, prepping for the next storm, going for suppies ect. (we got hit with 3 hurricanes in 5 weaks)

Much easer to work with the pistol on the hip. If you have to evacuate on fot how much 7.62 can you really carry?

Of course you'll want the rifle close by, but the pistol can be with you always.

Now as far as fear of the next gun ban, hey get want you want before you can't (and all the mags you'll ever need)

Truthfully I don't see another ban coming any time soon, but that is just me and I could be wrong.

austin360
June 11, 2008, 05:43 PM
Just get a SOCOM 16!

jaytex1969
June 11, 2008, 05:44 PM
"Most would be better off just to own a pistol with 1 round for themselves."

Man, I can sell all this stuff and get a MUCH smaller safe. The wife will be thrilled...

:neener::neener::neener:

Bartholomew Roberts
June 11, 2008, 05:48 PM
Edit: Also, the 5.56 round was designed to shoot a 70's grain bullet in a 1-12 (i think) twist so the marginally stabilized bullet would travel 3 inches into whatever you were shooting before it tumbled, making serious wounds.

1-12 is not enough to stabilize 62gr ammunition, let alone 70gr ammunition (unless that 70gr ammo is uncommonly short and dense). You'll get keyholes at 50yds.

The lethality was destroyed when the army went to a 1-7 twist, which indeed made it more accurate, but not without a trade off.

All spitzer shaped bullets yaw when they hit a mostly liquid medium like a person or an animal (though WHERE they yaw is a big issue). The switch to 1:7 twist has no effect on whether the bullet yaws or not - in order to spin-stabilize a bullet so that it did not yaw in water, you would have to have a much faster twist (think machine screw) than 1:7.

MTMilitiaman
June 11, 2008, 06:21 PM
I guess I am going to be in the minority opinion here, but I suggest you go with the M1A over the AR, and go with the 7.62x51 over the 5.56x45.

The 5.56 NATO is effective in combat because it is typically employed in fire teams and squads, with M249s providing a base of fire. Furthermore, there will almost always be M203s with 40mm HEDP, an AT4 or a SMAW, to take out the armored or dug in threats. Then there is the vehicle mounted M240, M2, and Mk 19s, and a radio to call in Cobras or A10s to rain down cannon fire and rockets. Mostly though, it is just the tactics. With one fire team providing a base of fire, the other fire team can "...close with and destroy" the enemy from a flank.

These are all advantages you're not likely to have in an end of the world scenario, at least not from the on set. My goal would be to rendezvous with my family in a particular spot we know to be defensible and self-sustaining. My entire family knows how to use a rifle, and most of the males were infantry at one point. It would take relatively little work to turn our place into a fortress. Until then, I would be 4x4ing back country roads with my pack, my M1A, with all 10 or 11 of the 20 round mags I have for it loaded, and as much ammo as I could find and fit in the truck.

I would choose a 7.62mm rifle over a poodle shooter because I recognize it is as much firepower as I can carry. It offers a considerable advantage in range, power, and penetration. Whoever says these advantages won't be needed isn't accepting reality. In reality, you don't always get to choose your battles. You might have to engage someone behind cover. And the 7.62 will do what it does best in this situation--turn cover into concealment. No, you can't carry as much ammo, but that is the point. You don't need as much ammo because a) each round of 7.62 does more, and b) you aren't concerned about mass fire. You don't have a belt fed weapon putting out 100 rounds per minute of sustained automatic fire. You don't have 8 to 10 more guys laying down fire on contact, then maneuvering to flank the enemy. You aren't going to be able to put out that kind of fire, and thusly, you are going to have to rely on aimed rifle fire. And if I am putting out aimed and somewhat accurate fire at specific targets, I'd rather have a 7.62mm than a 5.56mm, and a M1A than an AR.

The AR just never inspired my confidence. I can use it, I can keep it running, I know the immediate and remedial action drills for it, how to keep it clean, and all that jazz, but I just prefer the feel, balance, ergonomics, and general shooting characteristics of the M1A.

Besides, what the heck good will a 7.62x51 do for you that a .357mag won't?

If you seriously have to ask that question, then I am guessing you have very little understanding of the capabilities of either.

Just as it is common sense to not take a knife to a gunfight, it is also common sense to not take a handgun to a long gun fight. Specifically, don't take a knife to a handgun fight, a handgun to a shotgun fight, or a shotgun to a rifle fight. A rifle is generally going to have greater range, accuracy, power, and capacity than a handgun. The .357 Magnum is considered relatively powerful for a handgun, especially as a defensive handgun. But the 7.62x51 is vastly more capable.

You'd like to think that you'll never need the rifle's range, power, capacity, or penetration--that you'd never have to engage someone from more than 50 yards away, that nobody shooting at you would ever have body armor, be behind cover, or have a rifle themselves. You might like to think that you will always be able to just tuck tail and run, and avoid any conflict you didn't plan on or which doesn't meet favorable conditions for you. But an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and prudence dictates that it is better to have the rifle and not need it than to need it and not have it.

After all, what good is all that food and supplies if a small roving gang armed with rifles and shotguns can force you to relocate and leave it behind? Even a relatively inaccurate rifle like an AK is capable of vastly outperforming any handgun, and most people shoot them more accurately than a handgun. An inexperienced shooter can still put rounds out with decent accuracy from such a rifle out to 150 yards if they simply use the sights, and the 7.62x39 has the mass, momentum, velocity, and energy the .357 Magnum has at the muzzle at twice that distance. Now get one or two people with hunting rifles, MBRs of their own, deciding they aren't going to let you pass through "their" hood, and you might find yourself wishing that shooting back was at least an option for you.

H2O MAN
June 11, 2008, 06:23 PM
MTMilitiaman I guess I am going to be in the minority opinion here,
but I suggest you go with the M1A over the AR, and go with the 7.62x51 over the 5.56x45.

+1 That's what I suggested and that's what I have done.

frankd4
June 11, 2008, 06:31 PM
Just price the mags for an AR in 308 you will buy an M1A1(m14).

GunTech
June 11, 2008, 06:56 PM
I've owned ad shot just about every 7.62x51mm self loader sold in the US. In particular, I built a number of FALs, and shot several dozen AR-10 variants, FALs and M1a/M14 semis. Here's my short take:

The AR platform wins the accuracy race hands down. The Ar-10 and similar rifles are easy to scope, can be fitted with very good triggers, and with quality barrels are capable of shooting right up there with most bolt guns - 1/2 MOA or better day in and day out.

The downside is that they can be finicky and are far less tolerant of neglect than any other military type self loader. Given the history of the M16/AR-15 that's not too surprising.

The FAL is a decent rifle, but it's accuracy is less than stellar, after market parts are more limited and people who know how to make them shoot well are rare. The trigger is hard to work on, and try and find a match grade barrel. There are scope mounts, but like the M1A, the rifle was not esigned with optics in mind and you will probably need some kind of modified stock or cheek piece to get a decent weld.

Pricewise, the FAL is very competitive - helped by the fact that almost every FAL has some percentage of surplus parts in it and that brings prices down.

The big downside is accuracy. It's serviceable, so if 2-4 MOA is all you need, it an excellent choice.

The HK G3 copies like the Original HK 91 and newer copies like the PTR91 have merely adequate barrels, horrible triggers and are hard to work on and repair. They tend to be very reliable, thanks to delayed blow back operation, and ejection is 'vigorous'. Original HK models are very expensive. PTR rifles are similar in price to the FAL. I haven;t had a chance to ry the new PTRs so can't give a review on accuracy or ergonomics, but the older models were merely adequate, and ergonomics were much inferior to the FAL.

Finally, the M1a/M14 semi-autos.

There are a few manufacturers, but Springfield Armory is by far the most common, with over 90% of the market. These rifles tend to be more expensive by several hundred dollars over the basic HK clone or FAL. Because this rifle has a long history of use as a service match rifle, there are lots of accessories, match barrels and smiths who know how to tune this rifle to give repeatable 1 MOA performance. Don;t expect that from a basic rifle, or even the 'loaded' model, which at around $1700 is still the best deal in an M1A - giving you a medium weight match barrel, match trigger and NM sights. Iron sights on the M1A, BTW, are easily the best of any rifle mentioned so far.

Scoping the M1A is challenging, and a good scope mount is going to be expensive. You want a Brookfield type: Smith enterprise or Sadlak are my choice, although there are other options that are also very good. The M1A has a well deserved reputation for being hard on mounts and scopes, so you won't want to scrimp.

The basic M1A has a conventional stock that many people, used to hunting rifles, prefer. If you want a pistol grip option, there are several. Again, none of the good ones are cheap.

The M1A isn't as reliable as the AK, but it is very tolerant of neglect - far more so than the AR-10 and about equal to the FAL and HK It can certainly stand far more abuse than the alloy and stamped assault rifles that now abound and makes a superior club should it come to that.

The biggest con to the M1a is money. The basic rifle is around $1500. Every accessory that's worth a darn seems to be expensive. Tricking one out as a full match rifle can easily more than double the price. Magazines are expensive, particularly when compared to the FAL's common and cheap magazines.

If I were picking between an AR-10 and an M1a for a survival rifle, I would and did choose the latter without hesitation, primarily for the fact that the M1A is just a more rugged, reliable and robust rifle. The M1A really is the 'jack of all trades, master of none' battle rifle. Several rifles are better than it in one area. But the M1A is very good in almost every criteria, from ruggedness, to accuracy to reliability.

YMMV.

Tarvis
June 11, 2008, 06:58 PM
The switch to 1:7 twist has no effect on whether the bullet yaws or not
I understand, and you're right. What I was reading had diagrams of what a wound cavity would look like with 308, 7.62x39 and 5.56, of which the 5.56 with a slow twist and a marginally stabilized bullet would yaw after 3 inches and create a much bigger cavity when the bullet came apart, which apparently it did in the test.

I think these are the websites I was reading:
http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm
http://www.bobtuley.com/stoner.htm

I don't know, I'm sure I read somewhere that a marginally stabilized bullet will yaw sooner than a perfectly stabilized bullet, increasing the lethality. On paper it looks good, but I suppose there is no exchange for a good thumping from a 308. The idea of the marginally stabilized bullet for increased wound chamber did have it's accuracy trade off as well. That's what I was getting at, not necessarily that a tumbling bullet striking a target sideways is good, more that the original design was more lethal than the ball ammo in a 1-7 barrel.

but I just prefer the feel, balance, ergonomics, and general shooting characteristics of the M1A.
I feel the same way, but I suppose it depends on the end user.

H2O MAN
June 11, 2008, 06:59 PM
GunTech

If I were picking between an AR-10 and an M1a for a survival rifle, I would and did choose the latter without hesitation,
primarily for the fact that the M1A is just a more rugged, reliable and robust rifle.
The M1A really is the 'jack of all trades, master of none' battle rifle. Several rifles are better than it in one area.
But the M1A is very good in almost every criteria, from ruggedness, to accuracy to reliability.



Well said!

The M14 platform is all that and more :cool:

GunTech
June 11, 2008, 07:08 PM
Tarvis,

Bob Tuley really need to give credit to the diagrams posted. They are from a paper by Dr. Martin Fackler - "Wounding Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets." International Defense Review, 59-64, 1/1989.

You can see the originals diagrams here:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

with proper credit to Dr. Fackler

Bill2e
June 11, 2008, 07:10 PM
Quote:
Besides, what the heck good will a 7.62x51 do for you that a .357mag won't?

If you seriously have to ask that question, then I am guessing you have very little understanding of the capabilities of either.



Yeah I phrased that one wrong, point taken.

GunTech
June 11, 2008, 07:12 PM
With regard to stability, stability in air has little to do with stability in tissue. They are different media. The likelihood of upset is a function of the center of drag vs the center of aerodynamic pressure. Almost all modern spitzer type bullets will turn over and travel tail first when they encounter tissue. What made the M193 and M855 lethal was the fact that once the bullet began to rotate, it would fracture at the canneleur line and create submissiles, rather than holding together and exiting base first like most other modern military rounds.

As a side note, older round nose bullets will typically drill straight through without inverting, making a straight through and through wound.

Joe Demko
June 12, 2008, 01:14 AM
I would choose a 7.62mm rifle over a poodle shooter because I recognize it is as much firepower as I can carry. It offers a considerable advantage in range, power, and penetration. Whoever says these advantages won't be needed isn't accepting reality. In reality, you don't always get to choose your battles. You might have to engage someone behind cover. And the 7.62 will do what it does best in this situation--turn cover into concealment. No, you can't carry as much ammo, but that is the point. You don't need as much ammo because a) each round of 7.62 does more, and b) you aren't concerned about mass fire. You don't have a belt fed weapon putting out 100 rounds per minute of sustained automatic fire. You don't have 8 to 10 more guys laying down fire on contact, then maneuvering to flank the enemy. You aren't going to be able to put out that kind of fire, and thusly, you are going to have to rely on aimed rifle fire. And if I am putting out aimed and somewhat accurate fire at specific targets, I'd rather have a 7.62mm than a 5.56mm, and a M1A than an AR.

The USMC, or someone, has it that firepower means hitting your target. Carrying fewer rounds means fewer opportunities to do that.
Concealment is still concealment and the M1A is still a rifle, not an area weapon; every one of those heavy rounds that you send whizzing through concealment that doesn't connect with the intended target is still gone. Then, too, what if your targets are inconsiderate enough to be shooting back which might ruin your aim? What if they are so rude as to use such things as concealment, cover, and movement, too? You can't always choose your battles, it's true. You can't always choose targets that are considerate enough to bumble about in the open so you can make the best possible use of your .30 caliber killing machine, either.
None of the lighter calibers are perfect individual combat rounds. They are, however, good enough and they are lighter. The OP's idea was that this is the one gun he could take and run with during The Collapse of Society. So, once again, let me remind you that the gun and ammo isn't all he's going to have to carry. 100 rounds of 7.62 x 51 military ammo weighs 5.6 pounds. The same quantity of 5.56 ammo weighs 2.6 pounds. So, for the same weight penalty he could carry nearly twice as much ammo. For the same round count, he could carry 3 pounds of something else.
There is an upper limit on how much a person can practically and safely carry, too. Especially when you're supposedly going to be carrying it during The Great Crash and Burn...at night quite possibly, trying to be reasonably stealthy, maybe unexpectedly running into hostiles, etc. A twisted ankle or stress fractures in your feet doesn't mean the end of a summer hiking trip under those circumstances. It means the end of your life. Please, BTW, don't quote me how much a Ranger or Marine is expected to hump. Those are young men in top physical condition who do that kind of stuff for a living. Chances are you aren't. Chances are the OP isn't. I know I'm not.
Let's see, 100 rounds of "good enough" ammo would let me carry 3 extra pounds of water. If I have a lightweight carbine to use that ammo, there's some additional weight to devote to something else or not have to hump at all.
To each his own, I say, especially with regards to discussion of a situation that is vanishingly unlikely to occur. The OP has a hankering for a .30 caliber autorifle and has started a bunch of threads trying to justify to somebody (himself?) why he needs it. If he has the money and wants it, then wanting it should be reason enough.

kimberfan
June 12, 2008, 02:21 AM
ok here

first whats your plan?

do you live in the city?

or

do you live in the country?

if your staying put when the SHTF then go for a M1A put a ultimak rail on it and add a 2x aimpoint

if your gonna bug out then a lighter weight weapon would be a bit better but i would sacrifice some weight for better range (IMO range>>weight)

there for a 18 inch M1A in a fiberglass stock would be about perfect

and if your gonna bug out, before it all goes down go scout a nice area in the hills and make sure you can get your car there, then when the SHTF you can load down your car with all the stuff you need and park it there (make sure you have a camo net to put over the car).

kimberfan
June 12, 2008, 02:28 AM
guntech

the basic M1A is $1350 (yes i found mine for that)

you can get Taiwan type-57 mags (most reliable next to USGI) for $12.99 at midway when they go on sale.

so its not that much more then a nice FAL.

MTMilitiaman
June 12, 2008, 03:54 AM
The USMC, or someone, has it that firepower means hitting your target. Carrying fewer rounds means fewer opportunities to do that.

Well, every Marine is a rifleman, as they say. And it is a lot easier to say "firepower is hitting your target" when you have 800 rpm from an automatic rifleman to keep their heads down.

I also remember them telling me that the mission of the Marine Corp rifleman was to engage specific targets with aimed rifle fire.

I am a firm believer that volume is fine, but accuracy is final. I have been trained in the tactics, I understand them, and can implement them. But again, fire and movement doesn't apply here, because you don't have the manpower or really the equipment to make it effective. Suppressive fire only works if you have another fire team or squad to flank the enemy position. If you don't, then you can suppress them, but there is a good chance this merely results in a stalemate, because all he has to do is wait for you to move--either to flank him or to break contact--you can't cover yourself effectively and move at the same time. You need at least three or four people to make it work--one or two to cover the position, and at least two to flank it. One person is tactically ineffective. Two is one, one is none.

So once again, military infantry doctrine most likely doesn't apply here, because nobody here is likely to have the manpower and equipment to make it work. That leaves only conventional aimed rifle fire, and I still hold that an aimed 7.62mm is always going to be more effective than an aimed 5.56mm. So I would rather be limited to ~120 rounds of 7.62 M80 ball than twice that many 5.56mm M855 ball rounds.

Call it old school or whatever you want. My grandpa wasn't taught hammer pairs and failure drills. Why? Because it wasn't necessary when he was thumping Chinamen in the chest with M2 ball from an M1 Garand. I've spent my entire life improving my skill with a rifle so that when it counts, I can put fast, effective aimed fire out at unknown ranges from field positions. I rock the M1A, or maybe in the future, a FAL. That's my story and I am sticking to it. Ya'll can do whatever you want.

paochow
June 12, 2008, 06:55 PM
Just price the mags for an AR in 308 you will buy an M1A1(m14).

I've actually paid less for DPMS AR10 mags ($26) than M1A mags($30), granted the M1A mags are 25rd and hold an extra 6 rounds over the DPMS.

TIMC
June 12, 2008, 07:24 PM
Just price the mags for an AR in 308 you will buy an M1A1(m14).

I guess that would be true if I bought about 200 mags.
10 brand new mags for my Bushmaster AR-10 were only $80.

ar10
June 12, 2008, 07:37 PM
I started with the M1 which was replaced by the M14 and finally the M16. For a battle rifle the M1 is it, it doesn't jamb, works in cold/hot/humid weather, extremely accurate and deadly, and is pretty easy to strip and clean. I own one now and shoot it on occasion.
I have an AR10B and that's what I shoot 99% of the time. I like more than my M1. I've never had a jamb and I've dumped thousands of rounds through it, most of it in 150 gr factory loads. I just started reloading my own and so far it's done perfectly. I don't belive in SHFT nor would I really want to be a survior. I do know I my AR is accurate at 75 as well as 300yds.

benEzra
June 12, 2008, 09:14 PM
With a rifle you can "commandeer" food, trade ammo for supplies and defend your home from vandals. If you seriously think a pistol is better than a long arm in a shoot out, good luck to you.
I hope this isn't what you're saying (and please correct me if I somehow read this wrong), but if you are even remotely considering trying to "commandeer" (i.e., steal at gunpoint) food from other families who prepared better than you did in a disaster, then please get a Daisy Red Ryder and some BB's instead. And please wear a black shirt with a big skull and crossbones on it so I know who you are when you try to raid my house.

Someone with that mentality in a Katrina type situation would really worry me. Those are the thugs that neighborhoods banded together against post-Katrina, the predators that people kept their guns loaded to defend against.

If you are talking about scavenging for abandoned supplies in the flooded-out Rite Aid, you don't need a rifle for that, unless you are carrying a small rifle slung in case you are assaulted, if the situation allows for open carry of long arms.

Tarvis
June 13, 2008, 12:37 AM
The point was that if and when you needed to use a weapon to get supplies or whatever and ended up in a shoot out, a pistol is hardly ideal, especially a revolver.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not planning on being a pirate. At the same time, if I need supplies to feed the group I would be with, I'm going to get them one way or another and most likely I won't be the only one looking. I'm not going to commit to thuggery, such as raiding houses, but I won't starve either.

If you are talking about scavenging for abandoned supplies in the flooded-out Rite Aid, you don't need a rifle for that, unless you are carrying a small rifle slung in case you are assaulted, if the situation allows for open carry of long arms.
You do if someone is there and plans on taking everything for themselves.

But I am taking the thread further off topic, sorry.

wally
June 13, 2008, 09:41 AM
game, then let's play it right.
Ain't going to be no resupply getting airdropped, nor any trips to Wally World either for ammo or anything else. Therefore, the more you can carry, the better off you are. Since you are also going to need to carry food, water, medical supplies, etc. etc. etc. A large heavy gun that uses large heavy ammo is a serious disadvantage. Every ounce of gun or ammo you load yourself up with is an ounce of something else you won't be able to carry.


Your SHTF game has you on the move, mine would be defending our resources from the bulk of society who has failed to plan.

--wally.

Tarvis
June 13, 2008, 06:39 PM
Wally brought his thinking cap.

Old School
June 14, 2008, 08:50 PM
I don't think you can have this discussion without talking about your emergency strategies. One is inseperably tied to the other. Obviously if you are gonna go mobile, your choices may be different from a dig in scenario. If you are in a situation where you have to be ready for either strategy and can only keep one weapon, that may even inspire a different choice. You also have to consider stealth vs. deterent strategy depending on the situation.

I personally spend more time considering food and supplies than anything. Non parishables, medical kits and such are my first consideration. The weapons aspect mostly comes into play around protecting and procuring the previously mentioned items.

I personally have a great deal of confidence in my nhm-91 and my Winchester 1894 30-30 for either situation. In a dig in scenario, the M1A is very appealing, but I don't think I would enjoy lugging that big dog around for miles upon miles. Throw in a good handgun and field knife and the rest of my concern is on being careful and staying healthy.

MTMilitiaman
June 15, 2008, 12:30 AM
I agree.

My strategy is to get to family property located about 80 miles away. I only have to be mobile until I get there.

Getting there would be the hard part. I would probably take back country roads and avoid the freeway and major highways. Once I am there, I am digging in and waiting it out.

On this property, we have solar power and two generators, irrigation for crops, a clean well, an orchard, wild game and chickens for meat, plenty of lumber...

However, even if I was required to go a good distance on foot, I'd still have the M1A. We'd probably end up patrolling the flat frequently, and I would still have the M1A. I've been a SAW gunner before. And then as well as now, I'd much rather pack a 12 pound 7.62mm than a 17 pound 5.56mm. The fact that I don't have to deal with 30 pounds of body armor before I even start adding ammo and water to my load out, is just icing on the cake.

brooks
June 15, 2008, 08:27 AM
I own neither a M1A or a AR 10 BUT;

The military, in their wisdom after testing is replacing the M24 and M40 bolt sniper rifles with the Knight S25 .308 (certainly tuned) because of comparable accuracy and increased fire power and speed of follow up shots. Mack on the Weaponology show did a segment on this topic.

I would put my money on a free floated AR 10 in a shoot out with a M1A. The optic mount is an issue too.

GunTech
June 15, 2008, 11:03 AM
Brooks, keep in mind the Army wanted a sniper rifle, not an all pupose infantry rifle. As I noted, the AR-10 type rifle can be made more accurate and wil shoot rings around the M1a, so if accuracy is your only criteria, the AR-10 wins.

If you add things like ruggedness, reliability and the ability to function in spite of neglect, the AR is not you best choice.

As far as the M1a versus the AR, choosing the latter because the military uses it leaves out a couple of important considerations. Military and police units almost never operate as single individuals. The AR is a 300m or less weapon, and you can rely on backup or fire support. The lone survivor doesn't have that. He has to provide his own fire support, whether against vehicles or longer range targets. He has no GPMG or DMR to deal with ranged attacks.

YMMV

SammyIamToday
June 15, 2008, 12:18 PM
I have a DPMS LRT-SASS. It's an awesome rifle. I held the AP4 as well before I bought. Both of them imo have superiour ergonomics than the M1A. Easier to mount a scope on (and keep it zeroed).

My SASS shoots sub-moa groups all day. I've only seen a few M1A's shoot sub-moa, but they all had extensive work done to them. Although in the situation you're talking about, that's probably not really a factor.

It has also been 100% on reliability after the first 25 rounds or so. The rest of the barrel break-in went really well.

Really for SHTF, it's probably six one way and half a dozen the other. Just pick which one feels better in your hands. Then buy a lot of ammo and practice with it.

glockman19
June 15, 2008, 01:06 PM
GunTech,

nice analysis.

Joe Demko
June 16, 2008, 06:58 PM
Not my SHTF plan. The OP's. All this is about the question he asked. To me, this whole entire thread is one long discussion of how many angels can pass through the eye of a needle.

H2O MAN
June 16, 2008, 07:44 PM
GunTech


As I noted, the AR-10 type rifle can be made more accurate and wil shoot rings around the M1a, so if accuracy is your only criteria, the AR-10 wins.
The M14 can also be made more accurate and it will shoot rings around the AR-10.

GunTech: If you add things like ruggedness, reliability and the ability to function in spite of neglect, the AR is not you best choice.
Agreed!

A modernized M14 is accurate, rugged and reliable, the M14 wins.

Eb1
June 16, 2008, 07:55 PM
will 5.56 really work for anything bigger than a groundhog?


Here is a picture of a 150 pound deer hit with a .223 55 grain black hills soft point.

marineman
June 16, 2008, 08:18 PM
It seems like a number of people have complaints about the M14/M1A. I thought it was supposed to be a hardy platform. I would go with a .308 AR at least until things start looking better for the M14/M1A.

hoji
June 16, 2008, 08:27 PM
I have a DPMS LR 308. I chose it for animal management{hogs and deer} I have had no problems with it and have shot many critters at ranges out to 275 yards. I went with this platform over the M1A because of the ease of mounting optics.

KC&97TA
June 17, 2008, 02:01 AM
I own neither a M1A or a AR 10 BUT;

The military, in their wisdom after testing is replacing the M24 and M40 bolt sniper rifles with the Knight S25 .308 (certainly tuned) because of comparable accuracy and increased fire power and speed of follow up shots. Mack on the Weaponology show did a segment on this topic.

I would put my money on a free floated AR 10 in a shoot out with a M1A. The optic mount is an issue too.

The SR25 or More Commonly now the MK11 (there are differences), is not replaceing the M40A3 in the Marine Corps anyway, it has been purchased to add to the abilitys of a sniper team by filling the void of not being able to suppy enough DMR's, which is a need for a semi auto .308 rifle, but there is no replacement for a hand build bolt sniper rifle. The "XM3", is also adding to the bold action sniper rilfe platform in the Marine Corps.

I have pictures of myself and both weapons on my "myspace page" :neener:

After 3 pages, I'm suprised to not see BUY BOTH !

I'm building a DPMS .308 on a Fulton lower and DPMS everthing else, TAC-20 upper reciever. I'll probly buy an M1A1 next fall. They're both great rifles, I chose to do the AR sooner than latter with the elections comeing. The 19 round AR mags cost $70 for 2, not cheap but not that bad. Either way the draw back of both of them, they're Heavy...

Personally if the SHTF and the end of the world as we know it comes... I'm going with the M4-Gery, I don't have a problem with the little 5.56mm, I have a small cache of M885 and a lot of training behind the little mouse gun.

I think too many people are stuck on grandpa's stories of WWII and Korea, hearing how a .308 or .45acp would take a man off thier feet and stop the tank behind them as well... I know how stories get better as some of mine have too ;)

squinty
June 17, 2008, 04:39 AM
So, what can be done to increase the durability and reliability of the AR platform?

What if I wanted a SHTF/"battle" rifle that I could also justify as a deer gun/hunting weapon? Which would you rather hunt with?

As to increasing the accuracy of an M1a, here's a good article...

http://www.chuckhawks.com/affordable_accuracy.htm

brooks
June 17, 2008, 10:07 AM
The guy next to me, shooting a Springfield M1A, last week had some serious malfunction problem with his rifle which was in it's second season (Minnesota). The op rod piston was carboned up and needed to be pulled. Probably for most, that's an armorers job. The M1A can have problems too.

If you have a few moments here is the clip from the military channel re: Knight and the M110.

http://splodetv.com/video/m110-semi-automatic-sniper-rifle-part-1

H2O MAN
June 17, 2008, 11:07 AM
marineman It seems like a number of people have complaints about the M14/M1A. I thought it was supposed to be a hardy platform. I would go with a .308 AR at least until things start looking better for the M14/M1A.

brooks The guy next to me, shooting a Springfield M1A, last week had some serious malfunction problem with his rifle which was in it's second season (Minnesota). The op rod piston was carboned up and needed to be pulled. Probably for most, that's an armorers job. The M1A can have problems too.

I would say that most of the complaints and problems are with the Springfield Armory, Inc. M1A.
Reproduction parts, poor quality control and poor owner maintenance all contribute to the issues we read about.
SAI makes a nice rifle, but they have been known to be temperamental.

On the other hand, my Smith Enterprise, Inc. built M14s have exhibited zero problems and require less maintenance.

GunTech
June 17, 2008, 12:58 PM
You also have to do routine maintenance. An MIa is not an AK. Anyone who think you don't have to clean it is asking for trouble - and it still beats the AR.

One of the things I've discovered is that a large number of M1a owners don't seem to know how to properly clean and lube the M1a.

And H2Oman, as usual when it comes to his favorite rifle, is dead on. Springfield has a history of having out of spec rifles. Usually it's not enough to matter, but there are lemons, and since SA makes more M1As than all the others makers combined - and then some - they have a higher number of problem guns.

There are a couple of things you can do to you M1a to help things along. Get rid of the crappy mainspring guide and replace it with one from Badger or Sadlak as a good start. If you have a good M15 mechanic, have him mod the receiver so you can field strip like a GI M14. I don't know why SA hasn't fixed this after years of being in production.

I like the Sadlak TiN piston, although I don't know if it really makes all that much difference to reliability or not. It certainly cleans up a little easier.

Get the Sadlak drill set for cleaning the piston.

Finally, the M14 specified grease for lubrication in some areas. BreakFree is not the same thing.

If I had money to burn, I would start with a GI parts kit - TRW - and have an M14/M1a built on an LRB forged receiver. That's not a rifle you are going to pay $1500 for however.

I currently have all SA M1As, and so far I've been fortunate to have no problems other than the disassembly issue. It run my rifles hard, but I pay attention to PMC.

Some reading material:

http://www.zediker.com/articles/m14_1.1.pdf
http://www.zediker.com/articles/m14_2.1.pdf
http://www.zediker.com/articles/m14_3.1.pdf

GunTech
June 17, 2008, 12:59 PM
The op rod piston was carboned up and needed to be pulled. Probably for most, that's an armorers job.

That should be part of routine cleaning.

SN13
June 17, 2008, 03:23 PM
I know it's not an M1 or an AR10, BUT, my Saiga .308 eats everything and with decent surplus ammo (Lithuanian GGG 7.62x51mm) I get 1.5-2" 8rd (Full mag) groups at 100yrds. Is it a tack driver? No.

Am I worried that I can't hit what I'm aiming at? No.

Am I worried about reliability? Heck NO! It's an AK.

The only downfall is that the High-Caps are more expensive. But 8 25rd mags is a Battle-pack of ammo. 200rds weighs a good amount, I don't see a need for 20 mags.

1200 meters
June 17, 2008, 07:55 PM
Both are .308, both are magizine fed.
I have always prefered a semi-auto to a bolt gun. The accuracy difference is not that critical. I shot an M-21 foe about 14 years and though I love it, I must say the ARs are the better choice, (recoil) Dave

Don357
June 18, 2008, 12:09 AM
Please forgive me, but have you considered a Ruger Mini 30? A miniature version of the M-14 available in 7.62x39. With so many "enemy" factions using the Russian/Chicom round, in a SHTF situation, ammo should be plentiful, and there are lots of "goodies" available for the rifle. About the same power as a .30-30, good out to about 125-150 yds. Powerful enough for hunting and managable enough for self defence.
I personally have a 7.62x51 CETMEand a .308Win Stevens bolt action,(just love that 7.62x51/.308 round) to go along with an assortment of 9mm, .45acp, .357 mag, .22LR, and 12GA .
If I were to buy another SHTF weapon it would be an AK variant. They keep on firing no matter what the conditions or how dirty they get.

Joe Demko
June 18, 2008, 12:18 PM
Gentlemen, please try to stay on task and answer the OP's question. What you use in your mountaintop fortress isn't germane. He wants one rifle he can grab and run with during Armageddon.

H2O MAN
June 18, 2008, 12:35 PM
Joe Demko: He wants one rifle he can grab and run with during Armageddon.

And that one rifle is the M14 :cool:


Join Date: 12-16-07
Posts: 666 :evil:

Ash
June 18, 2008, 12:54 PM
Accuracy is irrelevant between the two platforms, because you aren't going to be shooting pistols out of bad guys hands. You are going to be hitting man-sized targets. Arguing which is sub MOA is drifting in the weeds. With that in mind, the M14 platform will work well. But, then, so will the AR-10 style platform.

Having gone through SHTF, I do find these kind of talks interesting and sometimes amusing. I was prepared, had plenty of food, and then commenced to cleaning up following Katrina. Fortunately, my small Mississippi town did not descend into chaos (the northwest eyewall passed directly over us).

Of course, had I been in New Orleans with a super-fancy M14 copy, my precious Smith customized Norinco would have been confiscated and would have ended up rusting in the trailer.

In any case, I probably would use, of these examples, the M14 in standard furniture. I actually have a Mini-14GB and an FAL for that reason. But, in the end, a full tank of gas and 8 filled 6 gallon cans were far more valuable than any firearm I owned. As I choose to live in a more civilized area of the country, death squads or looters trying to take my stuff was not a problem.

Ash

Coronach
June 18, 2008, 12:55 PM
Your SHTF game has you on the move, mine would be defending our resources from the bulk of society who has failed to plan.I absolutely agree that everyone needs a longer TSHTF list than

_x_ Gun
_x_ Ammo

and that preparedness is a darned good thing, but sometimes you SHTF plan to bug-in will not work, because the place you decided to make a bunker has been wiped off of the face of the earth by a natural disaster, or otherwise made uninhabitable. So, make sure you have a plan to bug OUT as well.

As to weapons, we do this same old thing every few months.

1. Handguns are more useful than long guns in many situations, so making sure you have both is key.

2. If you have to move on foot, having a long gun you can carry without lookng like a long gun is nice. I've seen some pretty creative things done with folding-stock weapons and tennis racket bags.

3. DO NOT get something with oddball ammo. Your chances of needing resupply are pretty small (even in Katrina I doubt you could have shot yourself dry if you practiced any sort of ammo management/conservation and conflict avoidance), and your chances of getting resupply are even smaller, but if it came down to it, would you want to be scrounging for .308 or .300 Whisper?

4. Platform. No clear answer. .223 allows you to carry a lot of ammo. .308 allows you to carry less, but it can shoot through light cover and tends to inflict more debilitating wounds (though .223, especially in better loadings, does just fine). It's the oldest argument in the book. We've been doing it since the invention of the firearm, and no side has won yet. Reliability and durability are probably bigger issues.

Of those two in the OP? I'd pick an M14 clone. If I could add another, I'd take the FAL.

Mike

H2O MAN
June 18, 2008, 01:00 PM
Ash

Of course, had I been in New Orleans with a super-fancy M14 copy, my precious Smith customized Norinco would have been confiscated and would have ended up rusting in the trailer.

LOL !!

I just can't picture you with a super-fancy M14 of any kind, but I'll loan you one of mine if you are ever in my area :)

Ash
June 18, 2008, 01:25 PM
Yeah, that was tongue-in-cheek. It's a shame so many firearms rusted to death in New Orleans.

Ash

Water-Man
June 18, 2008, 01:35 PM
Of the two I prefer the M1A type. But nowadays I'd choose a 6.8 rifle.

SN13
June 18, 2008, 01:56 PM
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=35

9.3lbs w/empty mag.

VS.

http://www.raacfirearms.com/Saiga_308.htm

8.5lbs (But that might be the 22" w/wood weight. Trying to get a confirmation on actual weight of 16" synthetic Version)


In a SHTF situation, do you want a gun that can or cannot shoot any .308 ammo you find? If you come accross 1000rds of Wolf Steel-Case, are you confident the AR or M14 will function with it?

Remember, in a SHTF situation, you won't be able to pick and choose the ammo you scrounge. Some might be 50 years old and sketchy. If I had to use it, I'd feel more confident with the Saiga than the M14 or AR

Don357
June 19, 2008, 09:11 PM
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=35

9.3lbs w/empty mag.

VS.

http://www.raacfirearms.com/Saiga_308.htm

8.5lbs (But that might be the 22" w/wood weight. Trying to get a confirmation on actual weight of 16" synthetic Version)


In a SHTF situation, do you want a gun that can or cannot shoot any .308 ammo you find? If you come accross 1000rds of Wolf Steel-Case, are you confident the AR or M14 will function with it?

Remember, in a SHTF situation, you won't be able to pick and choose the ammo you scrounge. Some might be 50 years old and sketchy. If I had to use it, I'd feel more confident with the Saiga than the M14 or AR

This at least is a more reliable platform than any AR. Seriously, it probably would also need less maintenance than an M1A/M14. But I would still reconsider the caliber. I love the .308/7.62x51 as much as the next guy, but I believe that 7.62x39 will be more plentiful for scrounging.

lamazza
June 19, 2008, 09:41 PM
AR10 is simply not dependable enough-picky with what it eats and if it doesn't like what you are feeding it - it will let you know with a nice jam.

van163
June 19, 2008, 11:37 PM
OK guys, as a combat vet, retired LE Officer and owner of 6 AR platform rifles including a Bushmaster BAR-10, an HK-91 and a Springfield M1-A I would consider the following.

1. In a combat situation the abilithy to shoot and move is critical!
2. 5.56 vs 7.62 you can carry many more rounds to continue the fight with the same weight.
3. Only hits count! With lighter recoil the 5.56 rifle can transit from target to target more quickly.
4. While the 7.62 round is indisputabely more effective, the 69/75 & 77 gr JHP rounds in the 5.56 will do the job with good shot
placement. A 1/7 or 1/8 rifiling twist rate will help in this regard.
5. While my HK-91, M1-A, and BAR-10are accuate, reliable and just a hoot to shoot - I shoot competitevly in major 3-gun matches. My Bushmaster AR is the one I would take in extrimis.

ttinlv
June 20, 2008, 03:46 AM
Survival.....total? (against people and for food)

Just the two choices, I myself would grab the M14. It's battle "proven". While the AR platform is also battle proven, just not really in 7.62NATO.

Off-topic;
While I'm not really keen on the general "quality", for survival, I would not pass up an AK47 7.62x39 as practically an absolute first choice of survival weapon, if only one is you have opportunity to hold on to. Decent hunting round, ammunition world wide (well less so in the US).

I tend to think for a total survival arsenal;
Rifles: M24, AR15/M16, AK47, 10/22
Hanguns: 357mag wheel, 9mm, 40SW, 45ACP, .41/.44mag wheel
Knifes: 9" serrated fixed, 3"/4"/6" tactical serrated folders, Stainless Steel chef and boning knives

lamazza
June 20, 2008, 10:00 PM
Rifles: M24, AR15/M16, AK47, 10/22
Hanguns: 357mag wheel, 9mm, 40SW, 45ACP, .41/.44mag wheel

Nice choices, but...
Thats alot of different calibers of ammo to worry about in survival mode.

JWarren
June 21, 2008, 12:12 AM
Nice choices, but...
Thats alot of different calibers of ammo to worry about in survival mode.


I came to that conclusion in my own collection not too long ago.

I've simplified to:

M4:5.56
LR-308: .308 Winchester
10/22: .22 long rifle
Remington 870: 12 gauge
Glock 19: 9mm
1911A1: .45ACP

I sort of wish that I kept my handguns in the same caliber, but they really do serve difference uses. My wife prefers the Glock, and on occassion, I find it easier to carry than the 1911A1. Even so, I choose to carry the .45ACP when I can.

For the 12 Gauge, I stock #6 Shot, 00 Buckshot, and Slugs.

All of my stockpile of ammuntion in rifle calibers are expanding point and/or heavy grain suitable for hunting.


There are a couple odd-ball calibers I may add to the collection if I ever get the urge and all my other bases are covered.

I have considered adding a 6.8 Remington SPC, a .300 Winchester Magnum, and a .17 HRM to the rifle mix, and I've considered adding a .357 Magnum Revolver to my handguns. I used to have a .357 and I still miss it. While I prefer semi-autos, there are times when a revolver is more flexible (shotshells for snakes, for instance.)

I'd rather have a few calibers with more interchange between firearms in common calibers than a number of calibers to stockpile.

However, one thing to remember-- While it is good to have a very common caliber for ease of procuring additional ammunition, don't count on being able to do so.

One of the first things that the Governments did during Katrina's aftermath was to suspend the sell of ammunition and firearms. I wanted to add a bit more to my stores, but there was NONE to be found anywhere.

If you don't already have the ammuntion in a SHTF, you aren't getting any.


-- John

meef
June 21, 2008, 12:22 AM
Saiga .308.

Forget the rest.

:cool:

JWarren
June 21, 2008, 11:11 AM
Saiga .308.

Forget the rest.


The Saiga 308 is a great firearm, but there were some limitations to the platform that prompted me to do another direction and sell mine.


-- John

squinty
June 22, 2008, 03:42 AM
JWarren, what were those limitations to the Saiga platform, and in what direction did you eventually go after selling it?

MTMilitiaman
June 22, 2008, 03:59 AM
It's not as popular as the competition, which isn't a major concern, except spare parts for .308 chambered AKs aren't as commonly available, nor are mags.

I don't know how easy they are to scope. Normal AKs aren't that difficult, but require either proprietary side rail mounts, or Ultimaks and similar mounts. Very few over-receiver mounts exist as compared to FALs, G3s, or even M1As. That could be a concern as well.

JWarren
June 22, 2008, 08:58 AM
JWarren, what were those limitations to the Saiga platform, and in what direction did you eventually go after selling it?


MTMilitiaman hit the high points.

Please understand that I am not disparaging the Saiga. I love them and consider them one of the best AK manufacturers out there.

And that in itself is one of its limitations-- and strengths. It's an AK.


As a strength, it will run. It will run all day, and will do so with reasonable accuracy. In fact, I was able to get 1.5 MOA groups at 100 yards with mine using quality factory loads.

As one limitation, I could not squeeze the accuracy that I wanted out of the platform.

As I searched for alternatives, I came to the decision that I would gain much better capability using an AR platform and opted for the LR-308.


My major issue with the Saiga (and any AK platform for that matter) is optics.

Mounting optics is possible, but not as easy as others. My most glaring complaint of it was that the optics are mounted off-set to the left side of the receiver. This makes it impossible to aim and fire left-handed. Because I am a hunter, I often had to take the shot left-handed and can do so as easily as I can right-handed. The Saiga and optics set-up made that impossible for me.

There may be other optics mounts that allow for the scope to sit directly over the bore, but I was not really in the mood to start buying more parts and being the test case.

I found that my Saiga would start stringing shots after a few shots. While this is no big deal for a hunter-- who makes one shot at a time-- I wanted more consistency. In defense, stringing can-- and will-- occur with practically any out of the box sporting rifle as well. Its just physics.



I should say this. The limitations are really more of limitations with ME than the platform. It couldn't meet my ideals and could not fit into the nuances of my uses.

Like other firearms I have owned, I found myself making allowances, seeking workable solutions, and modifying my behaviors. I don't want to have to do that.

I got ruined by the HK PSG1 back in the 80's. Oh, it didn't live up to its marketing, but I was intrigued with the idea of a highly accurate semi-auto. I had an HK-91 and began working to make a "clone." At the time, however, there just wasn't the aftermarket parts available. I had to have a lot of custom work done-- and that is hard to do for a High School kid. I ended up with a pretty decent and accurate rifle that I ended up selling like an idiot when I was in college.

Today, the AR platform has higher potential to meet the ideals that the HK PSG1 instilled in me. The vast amount of aftermarket parts, manufacturers, etc. have offered much more to the platform.

You see, an AK is a "built" firearm. You often have to work with what you have. As I view it, an AR is an "assembled" firearm. It's a true "Lego" gun. It is simply too easy to work it into what you want it to be.

Want a match trigger? Well, if you have a Saiga, you are practically out of luck. If you have an LR-308, order that Giselle DMR trigger, and you can install it while watching re-runs of the Sapranos.

Match barrel? Well, have fun on any AK. Pressing barrel pins is not a fun day. With the AR, you can do it with a vise, and a couple tools. Next thing you know, you have a Novoske barrel on that puppy.


Wanting to reach out long distance? This again points to optics. While you can get a weaver or picatinny base, it will take some doing to get something like a canted 22 MOA base on an AK. Its just a phone call to Badger Ordanace for the AR.


Do you see a pattern here? Yep. Its with me. For the uses that I have in .308 caliber, accuracy becomes my primary concern. There are simply better options in that area than a Saiga -- If you are interesting in reaching a high standard in semi-autos.

Again, I am not bashing Saigas. I'm not convinced that the HK platform or the FAL platform was as ideal for this goal, either. So its not in bad company.


The AK is a robust plaform, and the Saiga squeezes the absolute most potential out of its design. It, like all firearms, is not however a "One-Size-Fits-All firearm.

If you find yourself needing to make significant customizations to the firearm in order to meet your needs or expectations, the AK may not be your best choice.

If you are looking for a reasonably accurate MBR platform, the Saiga is the best bang for the buck, and I would consider it far more dependable than most others in the MBR class.



I hope that helps explain my statement. For many, the limitations I mentioned are not a consideration, so they should not be applied across the board.



-- John

W.E.G.
June 22, 2008, 11:33 AM
If I had to lug it around all day, I think I would rather have either of these than a big ol' M14 or one of the AR-based .308 guns.

Neither one of these will shoot the whiskers off a gnat at 400 yards.
But, you wouldn't want to be 400 yards away from somebody shooting one of these either.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/rifle%20pics/FAL/FALcomparedtoAK.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/rifle%20pics/FAL/FALcomparedtoAK2.jpg

JWarren
June 22, 2008, 11:46 AM
WEG wrote:

If I had to lug it around all day, I think I would rather have either of these than a big ol' M14 or one of the AR-based .308 guns.


True. Very True. My LR-308 ain't a "toting" rifle.

But I built up a M4-gery for that.


-- John

W.E.G.
June 22, 2008, 12:00 PM
But I built up a M4-gery for that.

Yeah, I don't think the .223 caliber is a very good "battle cartridge."

But, if I got shot in the head with one, I might change my mind.

Old School
June 22, 2008, 12:12 PM
Just out of curiosity I weighed my Winnie 1894. 6 1/2 pounds. It is also compact and obviously "lower profile" than my military style peices. I really think I might choose that over the others in a going mobile natural disaster scenario.

no_problem
June 22, 2008, 12:22 PM
((I be looking at a survival rifle, something that you'd grab if the world as we know it was ending and you could only take one gun with you.))

In tha case, it would be a choice between a Garand or an AK for the following reasons:

RELIABILITY: A proven track record that it can shoot thousands upon thousands of rounds (rapidly if necessary) without major parts failure

AMMO PERFORMANCE: Either the AK or the Garand shoots a 30 caliber, which is sufficient for this scenario. There are multiple target opportunities in this case from man size to maybe bigger four legged predators. I would not feel that a 22 cal round would be sufficient for either of these jobs.

Eb1
June 22, 2008, 12:55 PM
no_problem, I am a huge .30 cal admirer, but have you seen what a soft point .223 does to man and medium sized game?

Also given the fact that there are no dangerous animals except for the zoo around where I live. I think that the 5.56 platform would be a good choice. Backed up by my Enfield or Marlin lever guns.

But that negates the one gun for all doesn't it.

JWarren
June 22, 2008, 01:14 PM
WEG wrote:

Yeah, I don't think the .223 caliber is a very good "battle cartridge."

But, if I got shot in the head with one, I might change my mind.


Well, perhaps. I see it as good enough. I built mine with a 1:7 twist to stabalize heavier grain bullets in consideration of that.


But I do want to point out this. Nothing is perfect. And nothing absolutely sucks.

I left the AK platform and went to the AR platform for inhanced accuracy potential in both my .308 and 5.56/7.62x39 platforms.

Even with a lighter bullet, a well placed shot on game will make the kill. I figure a well placed lighter grain bullet is still preferable than a miss with a heavier grain bullet. In terms of game, I KNOW the limitations of the 5.56 and would operate within them.

My opinion was changed on the 5.56 after seeing some stellar results by some hunters around here using both .223 and 22-250 at acceptable ranges with proper aim.

As far as defense, I can only say this-- and I will not elaborate into the details. My experience with looters during Katrina was that it really didn't matter about the caliber. A looter isn't going to stop and ask you what caliber is getting shot at them. They will run like hell-- if you missed.

Even getting hit with a .22 rimfire will surely ruin your day.


Old School wrote:

I really think I might choose that over the others in a going mobile natural disaster scenario.

Going mobile is the choice when I have absolutely no other choice. It will take quite a bit of natural disaster to get me uprooted. Katrina couldn't do it.


-- John

MTMilitiaman
June 22, 2008, 03:45 PM
no_problem, I am a huge .30 cal admirer, but have you seen what a soft point .223 does to man and medium sized game?

Actually, yes. I killed my first deer with a Mini-14 and a 55 gr JSP at a range of about 40 yards. I don't know what all the hoopla is about, because nobody was impressed, including the deer. The bullet entered the front of the chest, penetrated nearly lengthwise through the right lung, went through the diaphragm, the liver, stomach, and small intestine, then exited in front of the left hind leg. The deer non-nonchalantly walked behind a tree and started at me. I've shot deer with M67 pattern 7.62x39 FMJ from an SKS and got better results, actually. And that is why I remain a .30 caliber fan.

Joe Demko
June 22, 2008, 04:40 PM
I killed my first deer with a Mini-14 and a 55 gr JSP at a range of about 40 yards...

I have seen deer run when hit with all manner of cartridges, including the .308. I've likewise seen them drop where they stood. Historical reading indicates that humans also have a distressing tendency to not reliably fall down when shot with anything man-portable.
But remember, we're playing The All Things Have Gone To Smash game in this thread. In that situation, I doubt there'll be much deer hunting getting done by our intrepid OP, or anyone else for that matter. There won't be any deer to hunt relatively quickly and firing a gun will attract all sorts of unwanted attention from other "dangerous wildlife" in the area. Their plans may include backshooting you for your gun and other belongings, if not just for the deer if you were actually lucky enough to bag one. It's a great survival enhancer in such a situation to simply go unnoticed.
The gun, therefore, is primarily for defending himself against other humans. If he's smart, our OP will feed himself from small creatures that can be trapped, dug, snared, or otherwise harvested with as little noise and fuss as possible. That includes insects. This is pretty basic survival/evasion stuff like they teach in the military.
Since the gun isn't going to be used to down a moose, it doesn't matter whether it can do so with one, clean sporting shot. What matters is whether it is reliable and accurate enough to let him effectively defend himself against hostile people. It's already been wisely and accurately stated upthread that looters and other predators generally don't take the time to ask what cartridge you are shooting, they move on to easier targets. That's one more reason why neither of the OP's choices impress me. A large rifle that weighs over 10 pounds and that uses ammo where 200 rounds will weigh an equal amount more is like tying an anvil around your neck as you try to move quietly and unobtrusively to some supposedly better, safer place.

ttinlv
June 24, 2008, 03:42 PM
I did list a lot of different calibers......and in all of that I forgot the trusty 12ga shotgun.

My list was an ideal list to keep in a survival "hut". If I had to run out the door forever, I'd be taking the 12ga and if possible a 22LR handgun. A little more seconds to escape I'd also grab an AK47 with as many magazine that would still fit in my ammo pouch filled with 12ga shells and 22LR birck.

I also tend to think that if it all came down to that drastic living, I'd be rigging my "hut" for explosive destruction right upon exiting, to keep that stash from being used by the invader(s).

BigGunsMoreFun
June 25, 2008, 08:04 PM
I completely agree with everything MTMilitiaman said in his post on this thread. There's not really much to add to that. He and his family will be the survivors along with me and mine. The rest of you carry them little popgun pistols and poodle shooter rifles all you want. :scrutiny:

Molon Labe,
Joe
:D

BigGunsMoreFun
June 25, 2008, 08:06 PM
I'll take an M14 / M1A over an AR anything. ;)

Molon Labe,
Joe
:D

MTMilitiaman
June 25, 2008, 09:01 PM
I have seen deer run when hit with all manner of cartridges, including the .308.

So have I. But I've never seen an animal seemingly unaffected by a gunshot. I've shot deer with a FMJ from an SKS. It did more damage than the .223 JSP, and the deer at least knew something bad had happened. Even deer shot with arrows run, and arrows typically create larger permanent wound channels than the .223 caliber JSP.

Another difference is that larger calibers with expanding ammunition leave blood trails.

I've never seen a deer so seemingly unphased. I didn't know if I had even hit it until it finally dropped its head and started coughing up blood. Then it stumbled out from behind the tree, collapsed, and slid down the hill a little ways. I've seen a lot of deer shot with .30-06s and several of them shot with my 7 Mag, and every one of them has left enough of an impression on the animal that it at least tried to run away.

Other people can have their poodle shooters. I've seen enough stuff shot with them and larger cals to know there is a difference, and even disregarding differences in the platforms, I trust the 7.62 a lot more.

I did list a lot of different calibers......and in all of that I forgot the trusty 12ga shotgun.

All the people complaining about ammo weight for the 7.62 and someone wants to carry a weapon with heavier ammunition but less range and utility?

Joe Demko
June 25, 2008, 09:52 PM
He and his family will be the survivors along with me and mine. The rest of you carry them little popgun pistols and poodle shooter rifles all you want.

I'll chalk this up to an attempt at humor or, perhaps, simple hyperbole. I truly hope that you are not so ill-advised as to believe that surviving even a transient crisis hinges on caliber choice.

Joe Demko
June 25, 2008, 09:57 PM
But I've never seen an animal seemingly unaffected by a gunshot.

One data point does not establish a trend.

I once saw a deer get shot 5 times, all of the wounds non-survivable, with a variety of rounds in the .308 or better class. I was one of the drivers who pushed it into the shooters. I still had to track it, and when I found it, it was still kicking trying to get to its feet and run some more. I finished it with a head shot from a .38. It was so shot up that I had to force one of the shooters to tag it and take it home. What does the incident prove? Not much, same as your anecdote.

Eb1
June 25, 2008, 11:42 PM
ut I've never seen an animal seemingly unaffected by a gunshot. I've shot deer with a FMJ from an SKS. It did more damage than the .223 JSP, and the deer at least knew something bad had happened

Are you referring to one of my post? Did I post a link to the pics of a .223 55 grain SP on a deer shot quartering? If not. Here it is again.


http://homepage.mac.com/jeremy16/deer_hunting/December2007/Photos.html

oh. and this deer knew he was shot.

MTMilitiaman
June 26, 2008, 01:06 AM
Are you referring to one of my post?

No.

Eb1
June 26, 2008, 01:13 AM
okay.

i was just wondering. Because as you can see a .223 SP does A LOT of damage to tissue, and has plenty of penetration and bone breaking potential.

If your FMJ did that much damage you must have had a yaw or a fragmentation of the bullet.

MTMilitiaman
June 26, 2008, 02:45 AM
If your FMJ did that much damage you must have had a yaw or a fragmentation of the bullet.

Yes. Wolf FMJ performs like the Yugo M67 pattern ball round and yaws within the first 4 to 6 inches of tissue.

JWarren
June 26, 2008, 09:56 AM
Guys,


This thread is drifting far from its original question and developing into another caliber thread.

I am partially to blame for daring to mention that I have an M4-gery that I carry when I don't feel like carrying my LR-308. Gasp... I also have a 10/22 that I carry sometimes as well.


As mentioned earlier in this thread, one data point does not develop an accurate picture.

If so, we are in a world of hurt. As much as it disturbs me, .22 rimfire has taken more deer that any of us would be comfortable with.


While caliber is something to consider, the man is far more important than the tool. This thread has elements of SHTF and "survival" in it. Guys, SHTF isn't about being perfect. It is about working with what you have. The MAN makes the tool work.

After all, at some time man somehow managed to take down medium-sized game with a stick that has a sharp rock tied to it.

I'm certain that Cro-magon man didn't sit around the fire discussing the ballistics, wound channel, and terminal performance of their little sharp stick. No. They cooked the meat.


Our desire for absolute perfection is overkill.

My grandfather always stated that 30-30 probably has taken more deer than any other round in the US. I'd wager that this is still the case. And yet, it is not my favorite caliber.


Years ago, people around here would scoff at using a .243 Winchester for taking deer. Yet, every year, I am seeing more and more people using it as their primary rifle. And every year, I am seeing good results with it.

As I've mentioned earlier, we have some around here using both .223 and 22-250 with good results on deer. We have to remember that we are not talking about using FMJ rounds on deer. Not only is it illegal here, but it would not be a fair evaluation. The fact is that a 80 grain .223 with expanding bullet is NOT the same as a 55 grain FMJ.


So am I advocating a smaller caliber over a 30 caliber round? Not at all. I have both.

We have to remember that all "mid-sized" game is not created equally. A Michigan Whitetail looks like something on steriods. A Florida deer looks like a small dog. Both are "Mid-Sized" game. Here in MS, ours are somewhere in the middle of those. While some could use something like 300 Win. Magnum on a deer, doing so around here would destroy too much meat.

Part of being the "man" effectively is knowing and understanding the capabilities of and limitations of a particular "tool."


Even so, there are no guarantees. I personally have never had a deer run in 30 years of hunting whitetails. I consider this somewhat of a combination of skill and luck. At the same time, I've had to track MANY deer with vitals hits using a 30-06 for friends and family members.

This past year, my father LOST a deer he shot with a 30-06 broad-side at 65 yards using 180 grain Remington Cor-Loct. The deer hit water and we lost the trail. Nothing is quite as fun as wading through a swamp at 10:00 PM hoping to find a blood trail exiting a Slue.


Years back, I had to follow a blood trail for 1.5 miles on an eight-point shot by my mother. When we got to the deer, it was a solid shoulder hit and both lungs were hit as well as the heart.


So, you just don't know.


I'll end with this...



He and his family will be the survivors along with me and mine. The rest of you carry them little popgun pistols and poodle shooter rifles all you want.


If this isn't a joke, it is the most asinine statement ever made on a "SHTF-leaning" thread.

I could explain it, but I (and others) have done so several times before. Besides, it would take charts and graphs to fully appreciate.


I'll take a potable water suppy over choice of caliber any day.



-- John

H2O MAN
June 26, 2008, 10:50 AM
Get the M14 :evil:

ar10
June 26, 2008, 10:53 AM
I'm certain that Cro-magon man didn't sit around the fire discussing the ballistics, wound channel, and terminal performance of their little sharp stick. No. They cooked the meat.

Unfortunately Cro Magnon man became extinct being replaced by Neanderthal man because they worked in groups with better sticks. Plus they were more attractive to the opposite sex. :uhoh:

It really doesn't matter what you protect yourself with. Pointy sticks, arrows, rocks, fists, all work. I really don't buy into SHTF philosophy simply because anything could happen at anytime w/o warning. You could have all sorts of guns, ammo, or food stocked in a place you think is "safe". But if it suddenly fall off the face of the earth it does no good. Besides, I don't think I would be that interested in being survivor either. :(

Joe Demko
June 26, 2008, 10:59 AM
Unfortunately Cro Magnon man became extinct being replaced by Neanderthal man because they worked in groups with better sticks. Plus they were more attractive to the opposite sex.

You got virtually none of that right.

Art Eatman
June 26, 2008, 11:25 AM
Cro-magnon succeeded. Neanderthal didn't.

This thread is showing a notable lack of success as well. :D

Enuf.

If you enjoyed reading about ".308 AR vs. M-14" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!