Boston T. Party's Battle Rifle

The whole "stand-off" rationale for the .308 self-loader being a viable insurgency weapon is GIGO.

The presumption seems to be predicated on standing off at 500+ meters against small units armed with the M-16 pattern rifle supposedly unable to hit with lethality beyond three-hundred meters, which is a ludicrous presumption.

If a sizeable chunk of the military turned on these self-styled militia forces, and the latter tried to stand off the former at 500 meters in "shoot and scoot," these M1A fans are dead men scooting.

The heroic rifleman scenario requires the "enemy" to drop their entire combined arms doctrine and get themselves picked off. Yeah, that's likely.

What to do about getting chain gunned by air assets? Arty? An M-1 Abrams? An M242 on a Bradley? A Ma Deuce on a Humvee?

One freakin' M252 mortar crew can bang away from about 80-5600 meters--from complete cover.

This is not even to mention that whomever you face will likely be better organized and have better comms, no matter how much better motivated or rifle equipped you feel.

A "modern" insurgency isn't going to play "patrol and ambush" with the US Armed Forces, or factions of it, and long survive as an effective force. A successful insurgency makes itself so much a part of the civilian community that no one can be trusted and a climate of paranoia exists in the oppressor's forces. Culturally, we might not go for the suicide bomber, but a potent insurgency, far from a rifleman's fantasy, is going to be long on pistols to the head, up-close urban assassination, car bombs and the like, not romantic shoot-outs with the jackboots in the open countryside like a Civil War reenactment.

Might as well pick which MBR is best for zombies as select one for facing off with rogue combined arms units.

In an insurgency, the best weapons you can have are the ones the OPFOR never sees except for in their lethal effects on randomly selected establishment supporters dumped in alleys and rivers. Fear, political instability, and sapping the will of the oppressor to wage war are the key goals of an outgunned force, not putting a 308 through a guy's vest before being burned alive by napalm dropped by CAS.

Like it or not, the DC snipers were closer to the probable reality of an anti-governmental insurgency than is any scenario in which an MBR has any true advantage.

Garbage In Garbage Out. A semi-auto .308 is a great range toy, but that is all it really is anymore absent a total, post apocalyptic, dog eat dog on the individual level type of SHTF. Anything featuring tyrannical government, you might be better served spending a grand on a private purchased Rohrbaugh than on a battle rifle predicated on a fantasy.

History likes to rhyme? The pre-Tet Vietcong and the various Iraqi insurgencies are the blueprints, and they didn't and don't prominently feature battle rifles.

*yawn*


I have to agree with Bartholomew on just about all of his points. He's essentially providing the Pat Rogers school of though, which I believe is 100% spot on. Sorry, but in this situation I have to make an appeal to authority. And those with real combat experience, those who have actually killed people, those who train, teach and dedicated their lives to this stuff have my vote of confidence. Aside from all of that, when I apply my common sense and reasoning to their ideas vs. the ideas of others - the Pat Rogers school of thought comes out on top. I'd also like to add, that teachers like him aren't teaching people to fight the government. If you asked him what he would want, he probably say tanks, B-52's etc...not running and gunning with small arms. That brings up the point that classical gunfighting is basically obsolete against modern forces such as the US military or even modern law enforcement which has become militarized in many ways. Now, if the discussion is held strictly to SHTF or self-defense, say disasters or social chaos, which implies the small arms will be used against largely unarmored people, like gangs or mobs who are unorganized enough (no central communications or tactics) - then the 5.56 wins out in many aspects. I believe the AR in 5.56 is the superior weapon for slugging it out with other armed civilians or people in urban, suburban or even rural areas.


If you think that you will go head to head with the government, you're crazy. The idea that you can gain a range advantage because the average soldier is trained to shoot out to 200m and has weapons geared for that, while you have marksmanship skills and a .308 is absurd. It doesn't reflect reality. If your average gen-X soldier can't make a hit over 200m (which is false, but let's assume it is true) it doesn't mean that is his only tactic for turning you into fertilizer. When discussing the whole fight the government/freedom fighting subject, the discussion on small arms becomes almost irrelevant. Going to a .308 does absolutely nothing to change anything of significance.


You don't have to listen to me. Research what is happening in Iraq and see for yourselves. There is absolutely no winning against the US military in head to head confrontations. Not at 50 yards, not at 500. Head to head means you are making some sort of effort to engage. Even shoot and scoot is head to head, because their ability to detect you at great range gives you no range advantage whatsoever. They have superior numbers, equipment, communications, training, tactics and basically everything. The Iraqis are using RPGs, fully automatic rifles of all kinds, and explosives. They have belt fed 7.62x54R machine guns. And that is not enough.


The only ways to fight the US military/government is to plant a bomb on the road and to kill soldiers in route to some destination. The other way is to use sniper tactics.


Not the kind of sniper tactics most internet wannabes dream of. Ironically, the true insurgent/freedom fighter sniper tactics are the very vilified and condemned tactics of Malvo and Mohamed. The tactics that were seen as evil and cowardly by many Americans who subscribe to this whole "battle rifle" nonsense.

That's exactly what the insurgents are using. Cutting a little hole in a trunk with a driver and shooter, as well as adding sound proofing to the vehicle and/or homemade suppressors. Getting within 150m, usually 50-75m. Taking a shot and disappearing. They, using .308's, 7.62x54R AP and other such cartridges are still having poor success rates due to body armor. They use the cover of densely populated urban areas to get ONE shot off and then leave. There is no confrontation, there is no battle. Using those tactics, caliber is irrelevant. You'd be better served with an accurate .223 and a quality scope to make facial shots or surgical shots on stationary targets (guards, people on patrol) to get around the body armor. And that is quite a daunting task in itself. Or better to choose based on any of the following such as armor piercing capabilities, lower noise, accuracy, compactness, availability etc... That's about the only engagement you will ever be able to make against the government, whether it be military or law enforcement. That and setting up mines or bombs.


I dunno. The idea is a romantic idea. The American rifleman, with his .308 "battle rifle" using his marksmanship skills to make hits, out-ranging his opponents because he learned marksmanship and they learned to spray - raining down bullets from 500 yards is just BS. It's fairy tale stuff.


There's a market for that belief. There are quite a few people who cling on to these notions and if you champion these ideas, you will have a following. Just look on every internet forum. There's the .308 battle rifle gang that thinks that caliber actually makes a difference. There are plenty of people who will pay for literature that reinforces these romanticized notions which they agree with, but which military research, experts and combat has proven to be largely false.


A true freedom rifle is probably a compact, accurate rifle, either semi-auto or bolt action, with quality optics that you can use to essentially assassinate members of the opposition - at work or at home, in and around society. A Mosin-Nagant is probably more practical than an M1A. The Mosin, to use as a crude example to make my point, with the correct tactics can possibly lead to you having a longer and more successful "freedom fighter" career with more kills etc..the M1A, if you actually had to use the specific features which makes it useful means you got into a gun battle or serious engagement. Which means that at the end of the day, your family will have to do a closed casket funeral for you.


Don't mistake my post as hatred of the .308 or the M1A. Quite the opposite, I like them a lot. But to put the .308, or even the AR with .223 to use, or use its usefulness means it is your last stand. If you need an autoloader and 30rd magz - it's your last stand. For that, yeah - definitely get one. At least take as many of them with you as you can. If you can wield the .308 as well as a .223 (highly unlikely, as even someone good with a .308 will still be better with a .223) go for it. Use it and do whatever damage you can. I just don't think it is likely that you will be able to choose the time and place of your last stand.


It's a free country (I think... ) use whatever you want. Heck, I think the "battle rifle" crowd has a good use. They'll patriotically and gloriously go head to head and get massacred. Martyrs are a huge part of gaining and winning popular support. That's assuming they're not the first ones to turn in their rifles.....

I think it's sad that so many of the posters here argue that because their rifle of choice won't reach out and kill someone at 500 meters, there's no reason to plan for shooting at that distance because "you can't fight off an army."

Maybe not. If the First Armored Division rolls in with air support and mortars, your choices are few, and unpleasant. You can run, surrender, hide, or harass them a little bit and expect to die in the process.

But what if the adversary is something else? Say, a platoon of National Guard gone rogue. Or a group of Blackwater-trained mercenaries bent on taking what they want and burning what they don't. Or members of a street gang who enlisted in the army and deserted, taking their M-16s with them. Or any number of lesser threats.

Face it, we can certainly see people at 500 meters and identify them from that distance as friend or foe. Being able to hit them before they can hit you is part of a winning strategy. And at lesser distances that the 5.56 can reach, such as 300 meters, the 7.62 still shoots straighter and hits harder.

All other things being equal, if all the enemy has is a 5.56 rifle, I'd feel better if I was the only one with the big gun.

I think it's sad that so many of the posters here argue that because their rifle of choice won't reach out and kill someone at 500 meters,

Click to expand...

I don't know what rifle of choice you're referring to, but if you're referring to the 5.56 - it reaches out and kills to 500 meters quite easily. No one is saying the 5.56 doesn't perform except those clamoring on about how you're undergunned unless you have the mighty .308.

It reminds me of the 9mm vs. .45acp debates. As if a mugger will shake off the 9mm and then proceed to attack you, but with a .45acp hit, fly back 10ft and die instantly.

We're talking about serious rifle cartridges here. Not BB guns.

Yes, the .308 can do everything the .223 can do and more. But the question here is what is enough? A lot of people, including many nations and militaries agree that .223 is enough - especially when it offers a great increase in capacity and speed. No, not speed and capacity so you can keep shooting and hitting the same target because the cartridge is impotent (another absurd argument made earlier in this thread). The speed and capacity to engage a greater number of different targets.

Face it, we can certainly see people at 500 meters and identify them from that distance as friend or foe.

Click to expand...

That's true. However, I bet most people here cannot. I've brought this up many times in past threads. If most people download and install Google Earth, use the measuring line tool set on meters or yards, find their locale and start drawing lines of sight - throughout their area and even beyond. Most will find that a shot greater than 300m rarely exists. Unless of course you live in the country. If you plan on making a shot in the country - you're on a suicide mission, because that greater range in the country also gives the opponent an easier ability to isolate your location. You don't have the cover of a dense urban area to confuse your enemy.

Being able to hit them before they can hit you is part of a winning strategy.

Click to expand...

BINGO! Except that statement is not a measure of distance - but TIME. The faster hit wins. Distance is irrelevant with modern arms. Boats said it better than I did, it is a ludicrous presumption to think that because the badguys might be armed with M16's and 5.56 that their lethal range or ability is limited to 300m and you can trump that with a .308 and the tactic of engaging at 500m.

All other things being equal, if all the enemy has is a 5.56 rifle, I'd feel better if I was the only one with the big gun.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the size of the gun isn't going to dictate the outcome of the gun battle. If anything, the heavier, lesser capacity, slower to use rifle can be a liability rather than an advantage.

I don't know. I'm not the type that thinks the US military and all the combat researchers are stupid to go with 5.56 and an M16, while I'm the smarty-pants traditionalist who uses a .308 and an M1A.


Despite what certain people have said in this thread, the government did not "downgrade" effectiveness for any reason. Not because the youth can't shoot anymore, not because the military believes in spray and pray, not for any of these BS reasons that are cited.

BTP: Any testing done with the PTR91 since your book came out? Is it a viable substitute for a "real" HK91?

But what if the adversary is something else? Say, a platoon of National Guard gone rogue. Or a group of Blackwater-trained mercenaries bent on taking what they want and burning what they don't. Or members of a street gang who enlisted in the army and deserted, taking their M-16s with them. Or any number of lesser threats.

Face it, we can certainly see people at 500 meters and identify them from that distance as friend or foe. Being able to hit them before they can hit you is part of a winning strategy. And at lesser distances that the 5.56 can reach, such as 300 meters, the 7.62 still shoots straighter and hits harder.

Click to expand...

In your "minor revolt" scenario, at 500 meters how do you tell a friendly member of the US military from a rogue member of the US military or an evil "Blackwater mercenary" rolleyes: )? I'm quite certain that if you start taking 500 meter potshots at the good guys due to inability to discriminate friend from foe, then they'll stop being the "good guys" as far as you, personally, are concerned for the remainder of however much living you've got left to you.

That said, I'll ask again -- if 7.62x51 is such a good long range cartridge, why do 5.56mm ARs beat it with predictable regularity in service rifle competitions? As for 7.62mm shooting "straighter" inside 300 meters . . . um, no. One reason 5.56mm replaced .308 was the flatter trajectory making it more accurate under real combat circumstances.

All other things being equal, if all the enemy has is a 5.56 rifle, I'd feel better if I was the only one with the big gun.

Click to expand...

Assuming I'm one of the soldiers you are up against in your "overthrow the gubmint" scenario, I'd feel better with you being stuck with a 308 long gun, too.

After reading through all 4 long pages of this thread including Boston's responses I've decided to take a look at this book for myself and picked it up off of Amazon. Between the discussion here and the reviews on Amazon it seems like a book for every shooter's bookshelf. I guess I'll come back with comments after I read it.

We all should be out for a run. Fat guys behind computers cannot shoot and scoot, bigger slower targets. LOL Bil

And let me tell you, the Militias were not like that.

If you read any of the correspondence between our officers, you will quickly shed any romantic views of the militias. To paraphrase (I don’t have my books with me) what Washington said in a letter to the Continental Congress, he said that they were always drunk, dirty, undisciplined with behavioral problems, and completely necessary to the success of the campaign.

More like Frat boys or tailgating Raider's Fans than John Wayne

Click to expand...

1776 by David McCullough is a good book to see what the Militias were really like.

— there is a very narrow area where the human body is vulnerable to a single shot if immediate incapacitation is expected. Hits to the center mass of the torso may eventually cause incapacitation as the target bleeds out, but this process takes time, during which a motivated target will continue to fight.

Click to expand...

I meant to ask this yesterday and it's grown like a weed. Could someone tell me where the "narrow area" is exactly in this quote provided by Chuck R.

Hey, what about the "very narrow area where the human body is vulnerable to a single shot if immediate incapacitation is expected."? What exactly is it?

A successful insurgency makes itself so much a part of the civilian community that no one can be trusted and a climate of paranoia exists in the oppressor's forces.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely true. And if "American Revolution II" ever breaks out, that's exactly what we'll have: an entire population fed up with oppression and sympathizing with or actively helping the insurgents. Iraq is actually a pretty realistic model illustrating how things would probably go.

--Len.

Hey, what about the "very narrow area where the human body is vulnerable to a single shot if immediate incapacitation is expected."? What exactly is it?

Click to expand...

Different ways of depicting it, and different criteria for what counts, but the "bowling pin" running from around the base of the sternum to the forehead is a common take on it. Still no guarantee, but the best places to produce rapid or instant incapacitation of a human aggressor.

Hey, what about the "very narrow area where the human body is vulnerable to a single shot if immediate incapacitation is expected."? What exactly is it?

Click to expand...

HorseSoldier's on it, it's generally considered to be the immediate area of the central nervous system.

Anything else and the target will have to bleed out and all the vaiables kick in.

Chuck

Boston:

In your book, you mentioned that you hadn't yet had the opportunity to try out an Armalite AR-180b. Have you had a chance in the meantime to give it a proper review?

I'd love to hear your opinion on that rifle.

(See, I'm not a caliber chauvinist).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the mere premise of this thread was an exercise in surrealist absurdity when it was started nearly a year ago. That hasn't changed.

I hereby nominate this thread for a sticky. It should serve quite nicely as an archetype for any "X vs Y" thread to ever follow hereafter. Posters in the various "1911 vs XD vs Glock" or "9mm vs .45" or "AR vs FAL vs HK vs M1A" threads could come here to study at the foot of all that their respective threads embody.

It's like a train wreck. I just...can't look away.

Hey Boston:
You stole that comeback from Pirates of the Caribbean!
"You are undoubtedly the WORST pirate I have ever heard of!"
"But You HAVE heard of me!"

5.56... I don't give a Rats AZZ WHAT the study's say. I believe my own eyes. Therefore I do not consider 5.56 to be an adequate manstoper.
For the same reason I consider the .308 to do a much better job.

As to 'Riflemen' not being able to 'shoot and scoot'... why is a Chnechian (SP?) with a 7.62x54 the most worried about enemy combatant
on the battlefield?
-Chnechians are European, and understand AIMING... among the Marines and Army dogs I met... they were the ones we worried about.
-As to the shooter not being able to get away... most of the time they DO!

My M1A scout is within a pound of a M16A2.

FAL is easy to scope, just use a Railed topcover.

Revolutionary war: I'm no history teacher, but IIRC Washington's 'conventional' troops lost almost all the 'conventional' battles
they fought in. (With the exception of a few critical ones like the battle of Yorktown... 'towards the end.'

Ever heard of the Swamp Fox?
Sir Francis Marian... People don't fight good when they are harassed, have no food or ammo.
It was MOST CERTAINLY the unconventional forces and tactics that won the Revolutionary war.
(As I said, I am no historian, correct me if I'm drastically wrong, and tell me what details I might of missed.)

.308 will do what 5.56 will do. The reverse is not true.
I hope when/IF the time comes you have the right tool for the job.

Hey Boston... I'm gonna go flip through the Gun Bible this discussion has made me want to reread a couple things.
-Any updates of the Privacy book...(Don't have it within grasp for the title) it's got some good stuff, but needs to be updated methinks.

I will +1 two statements made earlier:

Proficiency is more important than caliber. ( the last RWVA shoot I attended, I scored a 49-xxxx on my last 5 round 400 meter group on my FAL ... I think I got that covered )

PT is about as important as proficiency. ( which is where I fail ... I can shoot just fine ... but if I can't escape and evade because I'm a fat-arsed computer nerd, I should probably consider a position of cook rather than rifleman )

I think we should all consider getting away from the PC and getting some exercise. I think I'll take a walk now.

BTP: Besides, even at 1000 Members (which we don't yet have),
$25,000 gross from 500 hours/year is $5/hour--less than minimum wage.

So much for your "cash cow" theory.

Click to expand...

Boston, I'm a fan and thoroughly enjoy your books and your writing.

However, unless I'm doing something wrong here - those numbers look more like $50/hour.

BTP: Thanks for the PTR91 reply!!

The .308 is a more versatile cartridge than the .223. As someone said in a movie "Doing want I can with what I got!". You can do more with the .308, just ask any experienced reloader. In the Random Walk of Life, there is no way to know what self-defense scenario you might face and it's probably a waste of time putting too much thought into specific scenarios. You have to prepare as much as you can for any scenario. Versatility and adaptability are the keys.

Well, looking over all of the posts, it is clear that many think that the 5.56 is capable out to 500 yards, we know that the 308 is. Also, there are many here that think that the average American shooter can not be effective out to that range, regardless of rifle.

I am here to say that YOU CAN SHOOT OUT TO 500 YARDS, ACCURATELY!!!

You can do it with a 308 or 5.56, I have done it and seen it done, very often. I have seen many folks aquire such skills in a relatively short period of time.

You can do it too!!! it is Cheap and fun to gain the skills.

PM me, I will hook you up with the best way that I know of to get it done. It has been proven very effective and is coming to a range near you!

It seems all here agree that you should learn to utilize your rifle out to it's maximum effective range, this is a way to learn how to do it, "and the phone call is free"

You can do it with a 308 or 5.56, I have done it and seen it done, very often. I have seen many folks aquire such skills in a relatively short period of time.

Click to expand...

+ 1

While I am not a 500 yard shooter yet I now feel that I have the tools to become one, just need some practice. Just by concentrating on a few of these fundamentals I feel like I can make shots that I had no chance to make before.