SHTF Rifle conceptual fallacies? (long)

[JohnKSa]

In an armed encounter, guns are used for more than just killing people.

Once the rounds start flying, then you realize what you REALLY want your gun to do. You want it to keep the other guy from shooting at you. You can do that by putting a lot of rounds his way which makes him keep his head down.

See, when he puts his head up, you have CHANCE to kill him, but he also has a chance to kill you. Trust me when I say that unless you have an easy shot while he's not firing directly at you, you'll be MUCH happier denying him a chance to kill you than actually putting a round through him.

Ask the SEALS about aimed fire. They know the value of it, but they also know the value of overwhelming firepower. As in a ton of rounds generally heading in the direction of the people who a moment ago wanted to kill SEALS, but now, suddenly, simply want to survive.

 

[Boats]

Given that nearly all us mere civilians can only throw suppressive fire one round at a time we might as well do it with a Calico or something. Then again, suppressive fire has been accomplished with every non-single shot military rifle from the lever action Yellow Boy Henry going forward.

People who can't or won't operate at the battle hardened squad level are better served by avoidance, breaking contact and outshooting potential adversaries at distance, especially if they outrange the oppo assault rifles, or ambush where surprise does a lot to mitigate firepower.

 

[Handy]

Actually, if you ask Seals, they'll usually find "suppressive fire" distasteful. One of my Seal buddies was very critical of this Marine Corp. doctrine. Of course, he was speaking of unit tactics.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Suppressive fire is best left to belt fed machine guns, and even then firing in short bursts.

If you don't have a belt fed machine gun, you're much better off making your shots count.

 

[Ian]

I don't mean to join a flame brigade here, but suppressive fire is also only possible when you have a lot of ammo on hand, which would probably not be the case if TSHTF.

 

[JohnKSa]

I think it's easy to TALK about when or whether you should and shouldn't use suppressive fire or to make statements about it's effectiveness from a single rifle.

I think it's another thing entirely to be in the situation...

My guess is that any human who realizes that he can keep from being shot at by shooting a lot, will be shooting a lot as long as he can. My guess is also that any human getting shot at a lot is going to keep his head down as much as possible. The old survival instinct is pretty strong.

Making your shots count is a good solution. But not at the expense of taking a significant risk of getting shot while you're doing it. I think that in reality, the sentence "you're much better off..." should be finished with "You're much better off doing whatever it takes to survive." If that means using your gun/ammo to keep someone from getting a good shot at you, then I think that's an excellent tactic. If you can get a clear shot without taking a big risk of dying, then that's an excellent tactic too.

I'm not saying that aimed fire is worthless, that's obviously not true. I am saying that it's not the only important use for a firearm in an armed confrontation. We are talking about rifles here. If you really get into a situation where you need a RIFLE, it's reasonable to assume that you're not trading shots with someone while you both stand up and face each other. It's very likely that both of you will be employing cover. Which means that aimed fire isn't always an option.

So... if you really think a SHTF scenario requiring a rifle could happen, then plan for more than just the scenario which is easily ended with aimed fire. That CAN happen, but things are often much messier than that.

In fact, in the only real SHTF scenario that seems reasonably likely to repeat (LA riots), there were very few looters actually shot (don't know of any offhand). That means that pretty much all of the fire was "suppressive".

 

[Jon Coppenbarger]

to many varibles to talk about suppressive fire as if comes right back to why the hell would I want to exchange shots with any current military force in power if I'am the militia of one or a dozen.
it sounds not only stupid but down right I hope you do it real fast so we don't have to worry about you getting us killed as it seems from you the only good person is the one that stands in a line with the other 12 members of your team.

one or two folks here or there can do more harm to stop the invaders or keep their head down that a platoon or squad can ever hope to do.

I guess that the loser militia that only wants the ones that can hump like a mule and suck a@# from a book thats far out dated by some idiot that wants to play rambo and has lost touch with reality in the real world.

I have seen some of their sites and wow! I was impressed just like the ones that I met as I have never seen one that could really hit anything and its no wonder they need something like suppressive fire because thats the only way they could ever hit anything.

and just because the losers can not shoot past 25 yards and hope to hit anything and has to have a squad to do the job it would take one good marksman before that mig or f15 drops a bomb on your head.

I get to watch urban hero legends shoot their mouth off all the time and every time its like I do not do that because its not real world or why would I have that type of rifle when my team leaders book from my hero the other loser country bumkin told me that a junk norinco m1a is better than a ar15 or some other garbage like that.

I can see it just now that dumb militia squad doing their thing and from 1/3 mile away in the rain you pop him in the head and the rest of the idiots look to the sky and before they realize whats hitting them in the face they drown from the rain drops (lol) and the one's that don't drown are afraid to move because they just pissed their pant's and their idiot leader is dead.

lets see after I get rid of a few of my enemy I think I might now be in possesion of what ever weapon's they have if I really wanted them as some items will work nicely.

if its foriegn invades we would more than likely be far out numbered and one patriot's life is worth 100 or 1,000 of the enemy so standing toe to toe with them really would be stupid untill its a even game.
for example the isralies can not stop a person thats determined to sacrifice it all for the cause but its easy if you have a satelite that knows where your car is parked in trafic to hit you with a rocket from a apache.

now if its a enemy that looks just like you you can really make them pay in their own homes or on every crowded street corner.

 

[Handy]

If you want to be Mr. Suppresive Fire tactics, carry a cheap .22 autopistol and a good rifle. While you pin them down for a 1 cent per round, you can line up a good shot with the .308.

 

[444]

"My point about AR weight is how can such a light caliber rifle be getting so heavy? It has been getting heavier since its inception with some variants almost weighing as much as some MBRs."

Again, I have to disagree. Bushmaster makes far more AR15s than any other company. They offere a super lightweight configuration that was their big new item last year and this year they have announced that they have purchased the rights to the Carbon 15 carbine. They claim they are now producing a version of it that is reliable. In other words the biggest manufacturer of AR15s has been on a two year trend to produce AR15s that are lighter than any previously available.

"Even if all the accessories aren't on the rifle, they're still being humped with the rifle."

Obviously you can't just produce these items out of thin air; if you want them, you are going to have to carry them. But this isn't some defect in the weapon. If you choose not to use these items, there is no reason to have them. The point is that if you feel they are nessessary, they are available for you to use. If you feel you need a flashlight, you are going to have to carry it no matter what weapon you have. The difference is that with an AR, you can effectively mount it to the weapon when you need to use it.

Optics on firearms: It has long been known by hunters that optics make placing fast first round hits on targets at unknown ranges much easier, and much faster. That is why a very large number of hunting rifles wear a scope even though the vast majority of hunting is done well inside of 300 yards. Recently, the military has picked up on this and are equipping our troops with optics as fast as they can. According to the American Rifleman magazine June issue, the Army alone has purchased over 350,000 Aimpoint sights. They are also using many other types of optical sights in addition to the Aimpoint. Optics are faster, they allow you to shoot accurately in lower light, and they are more precise. You are only handicapping yourself by not using optics. Having a rifle equipped with only iron sigts is the same technology we were using in the 1700s. Really, there is a better way now a couple hundred years later. The iron sights are back up for an optic. Iron sights work, but they arn't the best option. It has been proven in combat all over the world that optics are rugged enough and reliable enough for a combat rifle in the 21st century.

 

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

What about full-power carbines like the MAS 49-56, or maybe a FAL sporter. You get light, (Lighter than a Garand, anywho.) handy, (The 49-56 is about 36" long, rather than the Garand's 40+") and powerful enough at .308. With a peep sight or a red-dot, these things are fast enough to get on target, but with an experienced shooter longer shots are not an issue, and you retain the power to chew on medium cover.

Particularly the 49-56 has no pistol grip, shallow swift-changing 10-round mags, an excellent fully adjustable peep-sight, a serious muzzle break to ease recoil, and reasonable weight. It also has wood furniture so it doesn't look like a black rifle.

Fal sporters I've seen are in a similar size and weight bracket, although I don't know about sights. Eh, that's what the red-dot's for. You lose the semi-civilian appearance, but you still get muzzle-breaked .308, plus bigger mags.

I dunno. Ammos's precious, so I don't want a gun that'll encourage spray and pray, and I want to be able to punch through tinfoil tanks. (Cars. Guns in North Hollywood shootout didn't go through cars very well.) Also house walls. Shooting from the cover of a window should not be safe. Dunno if medium rounds like .223 or 7.62 x 39 are good for walls, and I really think subgun rounds aren't gonna do it. (Unless it's 10mm or something. )

 

[Solinvictus70]

Or another full power carbine could be a .308 Siaga or VEPR with the Aimpoint optics.

 

[SodaPop]

Just dial 911 and wait for the police to arrive.

 

[ShaiVong]

HAW!

 

[Devonai]

Just dial 911 and wait for the police to arrive.

Half an hour later, I'll be waiting in my driveway with my LTC in hand and a hot rifle on the ground in front of me.

And if we're talking about a riot situation, I'll multipy that number by 12-24.

 

[Tommy Gunn]

You guys are making much ado about nothing.

A 12ga riotgun and .38 service revolver is good kit for any urban riot scenario.

Need some reach? Any deer rifle will do.

 

[Boats]

We frequent this board, in part, to make much ado about nothing. Your point?

 

[JohnKSa]

The wonderful thing about getting to make up scenarios is that you can only make up ones that favor your weapon of choice.

Sure, if your concept of SHTF is open country and you popping the "enemy" at a third of a mile or more from careful concealment then semi-autos and hi-capacity magazines are moot.

For the folks who live in the city, things might be a little different...

Also, I note that a number of people seem to think that in any SHTF scenario, they will completely control when and how they engage the "enemy". If that were true then, again, there's no need to shoot your way out of a bad situation--you just don't get into one in the first place since you hold all the cards.

In the real world, UAV surveillance (IR and visible) will make getting close to any well equipped enemy while remaining undetected virtually impossible. AND it will make it very easy for them to find you. Being out in the middle of nowhere (The Red Dawn Scenario) is going to be very uncomfortable and ultimately completely unviable since they're going to see you and catch you very rapidly unless you aren't close enough to be a threat. To survive, you're going to have to be where there are lots of other people who have a good reason to be there (the school of minnows approach). Now we're back to the city where encounters are likely to be difficult to control and will happen at close quarters. You know, back where light, high rate of fire weapons and lots of ammo make all the difference in the world...

 

[Art Eatman]

I knew guys back in the late 1970s for whom Utter Collapse was about an eleven--and that's on a scale of one to ten! Nuclear holocaust, or economic collapse...So, I gave some thought to it, which I guess is a natural thing when folks are nattering away on some subject.

I don't see much potential for umpteen hundred ICBMs heading toward us. A package nuke or a dirty bomb is still just a relatively small local deal, insofar as the entire country is concerned. Unless you're unlucky enough to be in the middle of the mess or the downwind drift, you're relatively unaffected. All you could do is study wind patterns (the "Wind Rose") for the nearest likely target city.

Economic problems? We had 25% unemployment in the 1930s, with negligible federal or state support programs in place. From the standpoint of assistance in the event of severe economic problems now, our present socialistic methods will be helpful in avoiding the stresses of "no money".

Which is why, generally, I have difficulty envisioning anything much worse than the LA riots.

, Art

 

[Boats]

GLobal contagion is probably the only semi-realistic scenario out there at the moment. SARS spread to three continents and is relatively hard to catch. Influenza killed 20 million worldwide in 1919. A super bug could devastate the entire world's human population and render governments powerless.

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, yeah, Boats. Once again, however, probabilities. Few, if any, of those now totally hostile to us have the capability for production of super bugs. Those who do have the capability--such as the U.S.--aren't likely to use them.

The big problem is the lack of selectivity. Air travel goes in many directions, I've noticed. Few want to succumb to their own weapons.

If you really want to envision miseries, consider some bug tailored to the DNA of a specific ethnic group. The obvious question is, who could do that?

, Art

 

[JShirley]

Well, I finally have a nice FAL after 17 years of lust. I love it.

I did, however, fire a FN-49 a couple of weeks ago. The predecessor to the FAL, the 49 is most often encountered in '06 or 8mm. The FN-49 has a limited mag capacity, and the mag is fixed.

And I still wouldn't feel underequipped if major bad juju went down, and the 49 was my armament. I think sometimes there's a magic type of rapport with some arms that transcends the paper "facts".

YMMV,

John

 

[RON in PA]

You'd be suprised as to how much damage one can do with the lowly .22 LR semiauto.

 

[AV1611]

While surplus Russian Mosin-Nagant bolt rifles are dirt cheap with dirt cheap ammo and hit like a .308/-06, there are a few problems.

#1: You have to take your own ammo with you. 7.62x54R isn't a particularly common round in the U.S.

#2: The carbines (M38/M44) kick like a mule. Don't plan on your 5' 3" 130 lb. wife shouldering an M44 with steel butt plate. Ouchy.

AV1611 out...

 

[Bostonterrier97]

from http://www.fcnl.org/issues/arm/sup/nuclear_weapons_overview.htm

January, 2001

The Danger of Accidental Nuclear War

January 25, 2001, marks the 6th Anniversary of a narrowly avoided nuclear war with Russia! On January 25, 1995, Russian radar misinterpreted a U.S. weather research rocket launched from Norway as an incoming U.S. nuclear strike. The U.S. had notified Russia of its plans to launch the research rocket, but the information had not reached the appropriate Russian officials. Current Russian policy is to launch retaliatory missiles upon the warning of a possible nuclear strike without taking time to determine the validity of the warning. Fortunately, President Yeltsin chose to ride out the crisis and not follow policy. The world narrowly avoided a nuclear holocaust.

 

[Solinvictus70]

AV- There were plenty of 4'9" to 5' women in the NVA, Viet Cong, or Viet Minh who carried full size Nagant, Arisaka, Garand, or MAS rifles. The determination to use them was the factor. I would vote readily for an M44 due to affordability of the weapon and ammo. When you can get 800 rounds for about $65, it makes it highly viable. You aren't exactly going to look for trouble in most scenarios and in the case of a riot or somesuch, one shot would deter the hoard.