Socom M1A?


PDA






Archangel14
July 30, 2012, 12:50 AM
My next purchase was going to be an AK based rifle. To be used as a SHTF weapon. The reliability and price (rifle and ammo) are attractive.

But I got to thinking, why not a Springfield SOCOM 16 inch (.308 caliber). It's a very reliable rifle by all accounts, balls accurate, and the .308 round is an ass-kicker. I remember a buddy telling me that if you get into a gun fight, be sure to bring enough gun. So, I want your learned opinion. But here's the groundwork, so we don't get off base:

1. Price of the firearm and ammo IS NOT an issue (I'm well heeled, so to speak),
2. This will be a SHTF rifle,
3. I live in an arid, windy, desert, suburban environment. But I'm surrounded by some large open, desert areas.

What should I get, the Springfield SOCOM or a quality AK47? Thanks!

If you enjoyed reading about "Socom M1A?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gunnutery
July 30, 2012, 10:00 AM
You may need to change the SHTF concept (or at least on paper) as such threads don't get very far with that labeling.

If you're talking SD/HD, both rifles have roughly the same effective range. The Socom16 I believe has potential for more range but the front sight post is too large and covers the target at longer distances. But as far as effective range is concerned, either will get the job done at ranges we should defending ourselves (100 yds and under most likely). If you're looking at HD, do you have neighbors or lots of people living with you that over penetration is an issue?

I've always liked the Socom 16 and had hopes to put one on patrol with me, but my dept. wants to stick with .223.

Archangel14
July 30, 2012, 11:44 AM
Okay, good advice. But here's my thinking: if I need a HD weapon, there's nothing better than a 12 gauge. I guess I'd be using the rifle mostly within 25to 75 yards, if I ever had to use it (God forbid). That presents an over-penetration problem. But I have to think that if I'm forced to pull out a .308 rifle in an urban/suburban setting, it's because S*#T has indeed hit the fan and I'm slugging it out with government people and/or an unruly mob of citizens. At that point, I would think that the issue of over-penetration is, in fact, a non-issue.

I can see myself well equipped with a shotgun and a relaible sidearm for most problems. But if things get hairy with the govt'/mob, wouldn't it be better to have a serious, high power, proven instrument on hand? Short range or not?

jonnyc
July 30, 2012, 11:57 AM
It's an M1 (one) A.

JDMorris
July 30, 2012, 12:05 PM
This thread will be locked pretty soon...

If you want a good .308 rifle that's very capable of hitting your targets from 25-100 meters, just say that, if you would like 20 round mags, just say that..

There is absolutely NO NEED to talk about "slugging it out with government people" which you would not survive, because if that were ever to happen the National Guard would rip you to pieces.

If you want a shorter barrel length, specify that.

This is not a SHTF forum, if you want to go and fantasize about how you're going to kill people in the future, go to WhenSHTF.com

If things get "hairy" with the Government, you will not make it. Sorry, unless you have some well armed well trained group of people, you will not survive a firefight with the Feds.

The Government is going to be on our side if things ever get rough, it's not like one day there's going to be some Nazi / Communist / Anti-Democratic Government.

If you want a good rifle with short barrel length, an AR15 is a good option because it's chambered in the NATO round, it holds 30 rounds, mags are pretty cheap, and they're pretty easy to maintain, unlike an M1A, which is much more complicated.

henschman
July 30, 2012, 02:26 PM
Why is there so much opposition, on a gun forum, to people discussing the merits of various rifles for the main purpose behind the Second Amendment?

There is definitely a major difference between what you would want to defend yourself from small-time criminals (i.e. home invaders) versus what you would want to defend yourself against the really bad criminals (i.e. the types who have committed all the worst crimes in history and rack up 7 or 8 digit body counts).

I think there is a lot to be said for a good battle rifle in 7.62 NATO for this role. Indeed, barrier penetration would be a positive, not a negative, in a 2nd Amendment situation. "Turning cover into concealment," so to speak. But the SOCOM wouldn't be my first choice. They are generally less reliable than a full sized M-14, and use proprietary parts that you can only get from Springfield. They also suffer a loss of velocity from their short barrel, and as was mentioned, the sight radius is not great. They do not have a chrome-lined or nitrided barrel, as most modern serious-use rifles do. They are also not the easiest platform to mount optics on (that goes for all versions of the M-14). Basically you get a rifle that is not effective at any greater range than an intermediate-powered rifle like an AR, but without any of the advantages of an intermediate power rifle (lighter weight, less recoil, lighter/smaller ammo, higher capacity). It's only advantage is that it has better barrier penetration.

I am a big fan of the M1A. My own main go-to rifle is a standard M1A with a 1-4x scope. I am highly familiar with it and am not planning on getting rid of it. But if I had it all to do again, I would probably go with an Armalite AR-10A4 for that role these days. I would get a sturdy, high-quality optic such as an ACOG or a good 1-(n) power variable scope, some backup iron sights, plenty of mags, and most of all, some good training.

An Appleseed is a good place to start, and then maybe a carbine course. Maybe go to some "run and guns" if you have anything like that where you are. The training part is the most important. When you actually have to run yourself and your gear hard, like you would in real life, it gives you a very different perspective on these things. It will likely change your ideas quite a bit when it comes to equipment, and what you actually will need if that day ever comes. Also you must realize that carrying a rifle is only one way to resist tyranny, and certainly not the most effective for every situation. It would pay to study up on some real resistance movements and insurgencies in recent history... Ireland in the 1920s, the Winter War in Finland, all the various resistance movements in WWII (French, Yugoslav, Norwegian, Polish, etc.), Indochina/Vietnam, and the people who are resisting our military's current police actions, to name a few. There are lots of lessons to be learned from all, and suffice to say that the way things work out in real life are very different from how most "armchair commandos" picture it unfolding. As they say, the fight will not be what you want it to be... the fight will be the fight. You have to adapt. The Swiss Army manual "Total Resistance" is a good read. The Swiss certainly don't shy away from discussing the main political function of an armed citizenry. ;)

JDMorris
July 30, 2012, 02:34 PM
Because we don't do SHTF here because it always escalates to something stupid.

If S does in fact HTF.

All these idots talking about fighting the feds are going to get killed.

Some people are going to "bug out" and may or may not arrive to their destination safely.

And some people are going to just stay home and be reasonable not trying to kill everyone that drives by.

SharpsDressedMan
July 30, 2012, 03:04 PM
"Oh, Socom Mia!" I couldn't resist. :D

WardenWolf
July 30, 2012, 03:07 PM
You could compromise and get a Saiga .308, or a VEPR in .308. That'll give you what you want. These rifles are very accurate, often 1.5 or better MOA, which is about as good as a stock M1A. Since you're wanting a .308, that would be my choice. I'd go with the VEPR.

http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F1VEPR3081602&name=Russian+VEPR+.308+16.5%22+V2+Rifle&groupid=11

henschman
July 30, 2012, 03:10 PM
Because we don't do SHTF here because it always escalates to something stupid.

If S does in face HTF.

All these idots talking about fighting the feds are going to get killed.

Some people are going to "bug out" and may or may not arrive to their destination safely.

And some people are going to just stay home and be reasonable not trying to kill everyone that drives by.

I don't know who "we" is, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I realize that there are some who think the rationale behind the Second Amendment is outdated. While I would certainly take issue with that, this is not the place for such discussions, nor is it what the OP asked about. Please try to keep the commentary on point. If all you have to contribute is "your whole purpose for buying a gun is idiotic," you probably shouldn't post in the thread in the first place.

snakeman
July 30, 2012, 03:25 PM
Personally, I would get the ak and and stock up on accessories and ammo. I would look into the m10 ak from m&m. Spare parts, mags, and ammo stored away would be plentiful and practice would be cheap. The m10 can be upgraded with optics via the side rail and is supposedly accurate enough for your intended purposes. A good set of tech sights and a red dot would be a welcome addition. As would a folding stock and a tennis racket bag for discreet transport. I shot my first deer with an ak when I was seven years old, with the stock iron sights at 117 yards, heart shot. They'll do good enough for survival.

JDMorris
July 30, 2012, 03:28 PM
Every SHTF thread on this forum gets out of hand, and it's clear that THR is not a SHTF discussion board.

That is not all I had to contribute, so let's not take my words and make what you want of them.

rcmodel
July 30, 2012, 03:31 PM
Personally if I wanted an M1A and .308 performance, I would buy a 20" M1A.

An overweight 16" .308 SOCOM just makes my ringing ears ring louder just thinking about it!

rc

taliv
July 30, 2012, 03:34 PM
"Why is there so much opposition, on a gun forum, to people discussing the merits of various rifles for the main purpose behind the Second Amendment?"

rational, realistic scenarios are encouraged. hollywood fantasy not so much. the term "shtf" is too often immediately followed by hollywood fantasy, and is thus not done here.

It's a very reliable rifle by all accounts, balls accurate, and the .308 round is an ass-kicker.

not by this account. i don't think it's any of the above.

Welding Rod
July 30, 2012, 03:44 PM
I would instead go for a full-size M14 clone with a GI or medium contour barrel, in a GI fiberglass stock.

I have both right now and if I could I would trade the SOCOM for another fullsize like that.

NoirFan
July 30, 2012, 04:18 PM
I would steer you toward the M1A Scout model. It balances well, about the same as the socom, and the front sight is a more precise.

Why is there so much opposition, on a gun forum, to people discussing the merits of various rifles for the main purpose behind the Second Amendment?

Because none of them have much merit. We are currently fighting two wars of occupation in countries where military rifles are as common as grains of sand, but what is actually killing US troops? Hint: it's not bullets by a long shot. If Americans ever decide to rise up against a tyrannical (whatever that means) government, all our military-style rifles will be about as useless as those sabers and bowie knives abandoned on the roadside during the Civil War. If you really want to talk insurgency, look at how the real pros do it, the people who have fought American soldiers for near on a decade now. Including a rifle in this discussion is almost pure fantasy.

It would pay to study up on some real resistance movements and insurgencies in recent history..

I completely agree with you on this point, but one should pick examples very carefully.

SharpsDressedMan
July 30, 2012, 05:09 PM
Yet the most effective tool against insurgents is our snipers. Hmmm, wonder what they use?

Robert
July 30, 2012, 06:21 PM
I don't know who "we" is, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
"We" is THR and JD Morris is 100% correct. THR is not a SHTF forum. If you want to talk about the pros and cons of various firearms in a self defense situation go right ahead. Want to fantasize about hordes of blue helmets coming over the ridge while clutching a 91/30 then there are other forums that are better suited for that.

Personally, I'd rather have a FAL than a SOCOM. But that is just me. I like the M1A but I find the ergos on the FAL to be much better for me.

Archangel14
July 30, 2012, 06:41 PM
HEY JD MORRIS: I'm the original poster. Thanks for your limited, unasked for insight. No conspiracies here. Just thought that if things went crazy in society, I might want to be armed as well as possible. Thus my inquiry from the very knowledgeable contributors to this site. You have a problem with people bringing up "break down of society" possibilities?, then keep it to yourself...that's not what I asked about. Oh, and don't think crazy stuff can't happen in civilized, democratic societies? Look back to Nazi Germany or the way our very government treated African-Americans just a few decades ago, or a hundred other recent examples.

Let me break it down so as not to excite your frail emotions: what is better in a BAD situation where we must rely on ourselves, an AK variant or an M1A? That was the question. Don't have a positive contribution, then go cry to yourself.

Fishbed77
July 30, 2012, 06:41 PM
I guess I'd be using the rifle mostly within 25to 75 yards, if I ever had to use it (God forbid).

If you are shooting someone at 75 yards, it will most likely be considered to be murder, not self-defense.

Just saying.

henschman
July 30, 2012, 06:43 PM
Because none of them have much merit. We are currently fighting two wars of occupation in countries where military rifles are as common as grains of sand, but what is actually killing US troops? Hint: it's not bullets by a long shot. If Americans ever decide to rise up against a tyrannical (whatever that means) government, all our military-style rifles will be about as useless as those sabers and bowie knives abandoned on the roadside during the Civil War. If you really want to talk insurgency, look at how the real pros do it, the people who have fought American soldiers for near on a decade now. Including a rifle in this discussion is almost pure fantasy.

But American soldiers are such a small part of the picture. The insurgents kill PLENTY of the Afghan police with rifles... to the point that the Afghan government is virtually non-existent in many parts of the country. Our military may win every engagement it is involved in, but if the government we are trying to prop up cannot establish a foothold in much of the country and has no one to enforce its laws in those areas, it is all for naught.

Likewise if something like the OP was talking about were to happen in the U.S., do you think the enemy would have troops stationed in every single little podunk town in the country, with APC's and attack helicopters on call? It would be absolutely impossible. To enforce it's will on the people, any government needs local authorities, who are, of necessity, much more "vulnerable." The bottom line is, all a resistance movement has to do in order to win is to make sure that those local authorities cannot effectively do their jobs.

Certainly there are many ways to accomplish this other than a rifle, many of which may be more effective the majority of the time... but that is not to say that the rifle does not have it's place. It is just one tool in the toolbox. It just so happens to be the type of tool this section of the forum is dedicated to, so there is certainly a "rational, realistic" purpose for discussing it here. Unless the main rationale behind the 2nd Amendment is no longer considered "realistic" by the moderators of this board.

But on the topic of rifles, I would say that a good long-range precision rifle (and the skills to put it to good use) would be another very valuable tool, that might actually be more useful for protecting liberty than a battle rifle would in many ways. I am a fan of having a variety of weapons for a variety of situations. I believe there is also a place for the anti-materiel rifle, the DMR rifle, the battle rifle, the carbine, the ultra-compact carbine, and even the handgun... Michael Collins' boys sure put them to effective use against the detectives of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police.

Archangel14
July 30, 2012, 06:44 PM
ROBERT: thank you....I'll avoid any reference to possible "end of the world" scenarios in the future. That was not the point of my post, but as a moderator I see your point and will respect your opinion and rules, henceforth.

Archangel14
July 30, 2012, 06:57 PM
TO ALL: let me say that when I made my initial posts, I was unaware that it is frowned upon to bring up "SHTF" scenarios. I offended some, and took it a step further by personally calling out and insulting JD MORRIS. I cannot say that was not my intent, it was....and it was VERY CHILDISH OF ME.

This is a great forum most contributors have a positive thing to say. I apologize to JD Morris and to the rest of you. I'll do my best to observe the written and unwritten rules/guidelines of this forum in the future.

One thing I will say (not in my defense...just something that is important to say). The second amendment allows us to lawfully defend ourselves from all types of criminals, whether they be of the doped-out street variety, or the criminal who acts under color of law. The Founders knew the danger of a government gone wild and they want us to protect ourselves from tyranny. Should that ever happen in the United States, as it has to many people already right here on US soil, we should be prepared. And by being prepared, I mean with the best equipment we can individually afford. Thus, an AK or an M1A? Thanks.

DefiantDad
July 30, 2012, 07:25 PM
My humble, newbie suggestion is to ask (in your proposed scenario): Which do you think is more reliable when you have no access to quality cleaning gear, gunsmiths, and have to rough it out for months and years? AK or M1A?

By the way, it is not necessarily true what you said about the 12 gauge shotgun being the perfect HD tool. If you miss on the first shot, how long will it take for you to reacquire the bad guy(s) who happened to duck around the corner just in time for you to miss? And how many times can you do this, while trying not get shot yourself from their night-vision carbines?

Archangel14
July 30, 2012, 07:44 PM
DefiantDad: I never thought of that. I have zero experience with the M1A. I was just assuming that it is a tried and tested rifle that performs well. I guess my biggest concern is reliability. It appears that the AK, being a reliable platform, is my ticket. Unless, of course, the M1A is as reliable. What is you opinion?

Thank you.

DefiantDad
July 30, 2012, 08:05 PM
Others with far far more knowledge about both platforms can give better input. But for what it's worth, I would go with the AK. Having said that, I am not (myself) going for an AK (at this time) simply because I reckon the .308 is more prevalent, being a hunting round, and I probably will get a bolt action .308 later so I just want to get one 30 caliber. For less power/range, I am going with the .223. For up close and personal and backup, either the 9mm or the .45 ACP. Again, all ammo choices made based on ease of acquisition and compatibility. I know the 7.62x39 is not exactly exotic, but I just figured I'd go 7.62 NATO if I was getting that size caliber. I could still end up getting an AK sooner or later (maybe AFTER getting a 12-gauge).

So you can actually see I am acquiring my firearms somewhat in a priority list, based generally around some of the "scenarios" you are also envisioning (maybe we differ a bit, as I am mostly looking at widespread unrest and desperation due to global financial collapse, but I think we both agree on the widespread unrest aspect).

Redlg155
July 30, 2012, 08:06 PM
I have the scout model M1a that I am very happy with. Socoms are nice, but it seem the extra 2 inches can make a big difference. 300 yards with open sights are no problem. Mine has been perfectly reliable and more accurate than any 7.62 Ak variant that I have ever owned. Aks are common at the range. You get a lot of smiles and admirers when the M1a comes out. Especially a Scout in walnut.

DefiantDad
July 30, 2012, 08:08 PM
Oh, I guess I unwittingly omitted a key point, which probably is a question you should have asked, and didn't, and an answer which I should have written, but didn't. :-)

I am looking at the HK91 (or PTR91) for my no-maintenance-available hard-core roughing-it-out .308

Only looking right now; not fully on board yet. The M1A Scout (and a quality bolt action) are on the list of possible alternatives.

JDMorris
July 30, 2012, 08:33 PM
Here's my take on it...

If you're going to need a .308 to "defend yourself" then it will be from a longer range to justify it. Unless you plan on shooting through vehicles and engine blocks, a carbine length AR will be your ticket.

If you still want a .308, invest in a good boltgun, they are extremely reliable, accurate, and will reach out and hit your target..

If you can only get ONE rifle, can an AR-10 platform rifle.

The AR platform will be more accurate than the M1A or AK47 platforms, optics will be easier to mount and it's easy to keep them running.

OhioChief
July 31, 2012, 01:55 AM
This has been entertaining, there are two completely different conversations going on in this thread. Love my LAR-8 by the way.

OhioChief
July 31, 2012, 01:57 AM
Not that I'm talking about that "other" topic..... but I did buy a SOCOM .458 upper that mounts on any AR lower, just so I could have a really big punch if I ever needed one. You know, like that extra thick target paper at the range.

ElToro
July 31, 2012, 02:03 AM
My semi auto rifle choice is m1a. Partly because I live in California and can use my legally owned 20 rounders. Cant do that with an AR in cali (easily). Partly because I've sold my soul to the 308 devil and that's my hunting rifle caliber precision rifle and other plinking bolt gun fr8. I have 2 bush rifles a socom and a full size standard m1a. If you change the suppressor you can get the 18 inch scout/bush about as short as a Socom and benefit from 2 more inches. 18 Inches is plenty for 308. The g3 is 17.9 and the Germans don't complain. I suggest you research a scout or bush rifle and be happy. That's what I did and I'm good to go if and when the ( insert your chosen form of apocalypse here ) happens. In the meantime it's a lot of fun to blast at the range and out in the public land shooting areas.

Prosser
July 31, 2012, 06:04 PM
The L.A. riots weren't that long ago. LEO and firefighters pulled out of areas,
because they were targets, easily hit, and were taking fire. A perimeter was established. Pretty much they let things go, since they couldn't control it.

My friends in the Pacific Palisades setup road blocks, armed citizens with a variety of rifles, and handguns. LEO presence in P.P. is pretty much on a
'we might get someone out today' basis. P.P. has no city police, and is a long way from central L.A., where the LEO come from. They had to be prepared for a possible invasion/firefight. Bad guys have cars, and, they would try and get into the rich hunting grounds of P.P.

Due to the considerable coordination of violence BEFORE the O.J. verdict, it has been speculated that the gangs of L.A. decided this was an excellent chance for a bit of wealth redistribution, and coordinated their violence to create a free crime zone. They succeeded.

Katrina comes to mind as well.

What gun would you have in such situations?
First off, the AK 47's are now the new FN FAL's, price wise. It's STILL
a junk action, designed to be stamped out of cheap metal, and work.
It does that. The guns do NOT justify their price, at least in my opinion.

I'm not sold on the AR platform for .308. But, if it works for you, go for it.

I would like someday to have a M1A. I don't really see the 16" barrel as a plus. I did some great shooting with a 20-22" M1A setups, and would probably go with the standard length.

So, while I don't see a Fan scenario against the government, we have had a couple disasters that clearly fit into a situation where a firearm such as you are considering would have been prudent.

As for accuracy: M1A's are incredibly accurate, more so then MOST bolt guns, provided you get a match grade barrel, and the other goodies that help.

In the L.A. riots stopping cars would have been a priority. With the news helicopters hanging like vultures, shooting a person to stop them would get you accused of murder. The Korean store owner who did that shooting from his rooftop learned the hard way.

Shooting from cover or concealment, tires and cars parts would have been the targets of choice at the barricades, to get the gang guys to abandon their attempts to enter and rob, steal, kill, or rape. .308 would be a decent choice for that.

In such situations being able to share ammunition is a consideration as well.

DeMilled
July 31, 2012, 06:44 PM
If you like the reliability of a Kalashnikov but want the harder hitting 308 round you may want to consider something like the SAIGA 308.

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storeproduct1187.aspx

The highest quality Kalashnikov rifles on the market are probably the Vepr.
Here is one in the very stout 7.62x54 caliber.
http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storeproduct1221.aspx


Magazines for either rifle are, for me, pretty spendy. You did say you're well heeled, so I figured I'd throw these two rifles out there as an option.

Jeeping
July 31, 2012, 07:09 PM
The Government is going to be on our side if things ever get rough, it's not like one day there's going to be some Nazi / Communist / Anti-Democratic Government.

I wonder if that what the Russians were saying in 1917, and Germans in 1934.

DeMilled
July 31, 2012, 07:16 PM
Yeah, I think we all know that if there is another LA riot situation we had best link up with our neighbors and keep the riot sort of trouble from coming into our neighborhoods.
This my "You are not coming any further down this road" rifle.

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/desertford/230.jpg

Prosser
July 31, 2012, 08:07 PM
The scary part of Katrina was the door to door home invasions by the government to take firearms out of the hands of legal owners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

"New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Police Superintendent P. Eddie Compass unleashed a wave of confiscations with these chilling words:
"No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.""

http://bobmccarty.com/2008/07/13/nra-the-untold-story-of-gun-grab-after-katrina/

Pretty much your choices in such situations aren't going to be solved with firearms.

The solution might be to leave everything, grab your stuff and get out before such government folks can get their squads in place to steal your guns.

I do wonder what would have happened if such a group of LEO had tried that during the L.A. riots in P.Palisades, or, if they in fact did.

We had a similar situation occur in Santa Cruz, in 1982? Massive rain storm cut power to the area for three days. We got all our guns, friends, dogs, and held up at a restaurant to protect it, and the money and valuables.

We had one confrontation/discussion with the police. Officer was investigating a few gunshots from across the creek. He said he was checking on us. His attitude was adjusted rather quickly by looking down and seeing an attack trained rottweiler, with no leash, and all you could see in the dark were the 4 canine teeth, and the size of the dogs head.

He was very respectful after that, mentioning that we looked like we had things in hand, and he departed. Our city did not have a mayor or police chief that presumed to trample on the right to bear arms.

Things might have been different if the storm lasted longer.

I brought that up because when all laws are out the window, sometimes fire power of different kinds might deter illegal actions by thug LEO's.

I wonder if in Katrina a few folks didn't hold up in mansions, well armed, and stay in their homes, and refuse entry to such gangs of LEO's. Seems like most of the filming is of people in the lower class, unable to mount a legal defense. Odd that they leave a minister alone. Much like robbers and bad guys, they picked easy targets, where they had the advantage of numbers, weapons, and position.

A defensible position, and a legal position might give pause to LEO's acting out illegal orders.

I wish I had more information on this. By what authority did the mayor/LEO chief confiscate guns in Katrina? Martial law provisions in the Louisiana Constitution?

What is clear in Katrina is LEO can be ordered to carry out later to be determined illegal actions, with little or no consequences.

Anybody have more on this subject?

It certainly gives new meaning to 'disaster planning', and how you would deal with such a major natural disaster.

In this case it's very clear the government was NOT on your side.

DefiantDad
July 31, 2012, 08:10 PM
The rich would have flown away from the disaster area ages ago, no?

By the way, there is also a problem of FAKE LEOs... the criminals play dress up after somehow getting their hands on LEO uniforms, etc.

Prosser
July 31, 2012, 08:14 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/five-years-later-no-accountability-for-post-katrina-gun-grab

No consequences.

It DID happen here, and not long ago.

Utah passed a law to stop such actions:
http://www.examiner.com/article/five-years-later-no-accountability-for-post-katrina-gun-grab

I guess that way the people of Utah will clearly know the LEO are acting illegally...

It gets better: A court order is required to get the LEO/Mayor to follow the law and return the guns they stole:

http://saf.org/legal.action/new.orleans.lawsuit/consent.order.final.pdf

http://www.examiner.com/article/feds-investigate-nopd-four-years-after-katrina-gun-seizures-should-play-into-case

Appears the mayor was going to do it again:

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=189

The more you dig, the better it gets:
Rich hire private security and stay:
http://www.tulanelink.com/stories/o%27dwyer_10a.htm

I guess if your an attorney, with a gun, protecting your property, here's what happens:
http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/hartley_box.htm

This last link is pretty terrifying: This attorney was kidnapped, beaten, pepper sprayed, and shot with shotgun, using bean bags.
It appears he's lost his law license, and the Federal system dismissed all charges against the people that did this to him:

http://www.tulanelink.com/stories/o%27dwyer_10a.htm

DefiantDad
July 31, 2012, 08:18 PM
Interesting.

Video here too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncq_Nu3dRSI&feature=related

Prosser
July 31, 2012, 08:54 PM
Appears that LEO turned New Orleans into a free steal zone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9JkSudCX4&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVyV9ojTA_I&feature=related

I wonder if the Supreme Court's ruling on Heller had a LOT to do with this disaster, and how the LEO/Political folks stomped on the Constitution.

Robert
July 31, 2012, 09:01 PM
Since this has drifted deep into shtf territory and has moved far away for actual talk about the M1A let's call it done.

If you enjoyed reading about "Socom M1A?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!