All-purpose Assault Rifle

A good AR15 is very reliable as long as you take care of it. Keep it lubed and clean it once in a while and you'll be fine. If you shoot 500 rounds through it and put it away dirty, you might have problems the next time you go out. Every service member who has been in the sandbox on this board, including myself, will tell you the M16 works well if you take care of it. They are great rifles and you shouldnt be turned off because of what you hear on the internet.

But as you say it will also be a hunting rifle, I would go with an M1A. My uncle uses one as his hog gun on his ranch and he says it works wonderfully. He was using a .444 (something) and he wasnt getting good clean kills on the pigs so he switched and hasnt looked back.

Plus if you use the Hornady 110 grn TAP rounds for home defense, it should reduce over penetration significantly.

what defines an "assault rifle"

Click to expand...

Intermediate Power cartridge, magazine fed, with full Auto capability.

Rather simple, actually.

Some folks would argue that leaves out the AR family. You would have to increase the power of the 5.56 NATO family of cartridges UP to intermediate power.

Go figure.

Fred

I'll avoid the semantic debate etc that bogs down the original question; doesn't accomplish much in the scheme of things.

One gun that does everything you're asking doesn't exist. One that is match accurate (when matches are won by 5.56mm ARs, not .308s, in the vast majority of places these days), that is reliable (yet remains accurate enough for target shoooting) and easy to dissassemble in the event of a jam, and is compact enough to use as a home defense gun.

But we're not done, you also want one light enough to put a night vision scope on, and that remains a $1200 rifle. And an incredibly bulky one at that. You're talking 4 pounds additional (plus large amount of bulk) for a PVS-4 (and $3500-4500 for the scope) or 6 pounds and a crapshoot roll on the tube/performance on a PVS-2. We'll ignore the imported junk, because well, what you get is generally just that.

How often are you realistically going to use the night vision? I ask this because most people don't do much but look out the window once when they get it, and unless in rural areas the opportunity for use is extremely limited. Without practice, it's not something that you want to be fumbling with SHTF time. I also comment on it as an owner of one, I have a PVS-2 I was able to inspect before purchase, and am extremely happy with its performance, but weight on a 308 is *obscene*. I originally put it on a FAL. Can you say 16 pound rifle that's the size of of a polearm? I bet you can. Carried it around doing some night shooting practice (legal and safe and all that here), put it on an AR the literal minute I got home. It also wasn't complete without buying a supressor (where legal) for it, adding even more to the package price and weight.

.308 indoors is a loud, ugly, mean thing. My ready-to-use Vector V51 sbr with a 8.5" barrel (which costs well over your requirements with tax stamp, and will fail on the 'match accurate' demand since it's a 1.5-2.5 MOA gun) is louder than sin indoors. It is literally in the 'would be deaf almost immediately' category, with what I'd wager would be a near 100% chance of permanent hearing loss. I keep a HVT suppressor (add another 4 figures for can, stamp, and threading) on it praying to never have to use it indoors even with the can, and it's still a near-full-sized battle rifle that's not particularly handy to use with it attached.

That said, what I'm suggesting here is that you seriously, seriously rethink your wants with your needs and what you can afford.

Mk14 Ebr

Westley *** is THAT?

Click to expand...

18.0" 7.62 x 51 NATO M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle.

A 25 round mag is as much as you would want to stick in the mag well.

You want high capacity, buy 20 Mosins and keep them all loaded!

Robinson XCR in 7.62 X 39 should be just about what most shooters need in about 99.99% of the time.

Why do people keep insisting that .308 rifles are assault rifles or semi-auto cousins of assault rifles?
AR-10s, FALs, M14s, G3s, etc. are all NOT assault rifles, even in fully auto form.
They are battle rifles, in classic '50s form.
Now, calling a semi-auto clone of an assault rifle is silly, but it, in the end, makes little difference. They're the same platform as assault rifles, merely without the fun switch.
As for a specific name for said rifles? Carbines. Battle rifles. Evil Black Rifles.
I always thought the "SUR" names and stuff like that were silly. But I can't criticize a lot because I myself can't come up with anything better. However, I still think they miss the point of those rifles.

"assault rifle" pffft!

Westley said:

assault rifle
–noun 1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.


When I said Assault Rifle, I didn't mean I actually wanted full-auto, just that I wanted an Assault Rifle that would be a compact accurate, all-purpose semi-automatic that I could further mod later. How often do AR-15's jam?

Click to expand...

wrong!

"Assault rifle" is a misleading term used by the biased anti-gun media as a slanderous representation of any evil black rifle that uses a detatchable magazine.

AR-15's don't jam when they're suitably maintained.

Is it some kind of internet rule that we must flog and trounce anyone who uses a term incorrectly?

Geez guys, just help the guy out.

IMHO, what you are looking for is an M1A Scout or SOCOM.

My set up is this. I'm in an urban environment with more rural area all around me. It's not inconceivable that I might have to survive in both.

I own an M1A standard for any distance work and am searching for an AR or Sig 556 for the urban scenario.

I'm not worried about zombies or an invasion from Russia. I'm thinking more aobut protecting myself and family in the event of an Earthquake or other natural disaster where societal norms go by the wayside and the usual band of idiots sees opportunity.

Honestly, if there were a lot more ammo, I'd say something in 6.5 Grendel or even 6.8 SPC would do you well.
A cartridge intermediate between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO hits this nice sweet spot of capability.

The 6.5 Grendel or even 6.8 SPC are OK, but supply sucks!

Stick with the standards.

Self defense and hunting? Ok...SKS for street zombies, Mossberg for home defense, and a bolt gun in 7.62 for hunting. Save $600.00 for ammo!!

Buy an AK.

Chances are it shoots better than you anyway.

M1a

FN-FAL

Saiga in .308... if you wanna save some of that $ for ammo and accessories.

M1A Scout or Socom II or 16. Handy, reliable, powerful, easy to take apart and clear a malfunction or replace broken parts.

AR-15's don't jam when they're suitably maintained.

Click to expand...

I know a bunch of guys who died and were wounded with clean AR type rifles. What would you call that. Bad luck?

Part I
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html

Part II
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html

Read ALL of these two articles written by Col Culver. I got to the 3rdMarDiv and was attached to 3rd Marines near the end of his tour. I concur with his article totally.

Read about what the AR really did by a guy that was there, and not some after action study or investigation that is/was done to cover some brass hat a$$.

This is about facts. Not the Kool Aid that the AR system still needs to be sold to a whole new generation as a viable system. Even with today's studies (within the last two years) that show/prove how unreliable the system is, and how the cartridge needs all the help it can get, the Army still clings to its clearly religious belief in a rifle no military would CHOOSE to use. Even with it's low count for maintenance.

I don't know of any other rifle/carbine system that needs major maintenance at 6500 rounds. That makes the AR system awfully expensive to maintain. Or as often the case the rifle doesn't get properly PM's by depot. Just guess what the ultimate result of that is. Yup, even an additional reason for the rifle/carbine to jam.

What we need is a more reliable rifle, with a more robust round. We presently have two to choose from, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel. I don't believe there is enough data to make a final choice, but it appears the 6.8 is edging the 6.5 at this point.

Please read ALL of this article http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

Real science and experience, not kool aid. Our troops need and deserve the best fighting rifle/carbine and cartridge we can get them, not that DAMN widowmaker. :banghead:

Go figure.

Fred

That was the M16 in Vietnam. Things have changed since then. Plenty of soldiers use it on an everyday basis and are still alive. 86% of soldiers expressed confidence in the M4A1 platform in a recent military survey.

Also, there is ZERO, I repeat, ZERO reason that a civilian member of this board shouldn't be able to keep up an AR-15 in perfect shape. NONE. Odds are VERY good that a member here (a civilian member) will not drag an AR-15 through the mud, dust, and slush. Even if they do, again, good maintenance will keep the rifle running. Comparing the modern M16A2 based AR-15 to the M16 of the Vietnam War is like comparing a recently- made Chevrolet (which are a good quality car, if you haven't heard) to a Yugo. It makes no sense to do so.

Fun stuff, HDRs, my favorites. For me, it kind of bugs me if the rifle is limited to 20 round mags when 30 is so available for certain other rifles. Better yet, I like to have the ability to supply a Beta-C 100 round twin snails drum, or at least a single snail.

Why limit yourself to one all-around rifle though? I understand the thoughtfulness, and I have my one all-around rifle myself, but it's among other potential HDRs that I also have. I pick my AR as the go-to out of the collection because I feel it just shoots the most reliably for me, and accurately, and I am readily prepared with 300 rounds that are good to go. I always wanted an HK91 or clone, but ended up with a L1A1 sporterized Canadian rifle which was a pretty good deal at the time I found it. There's something awkward about that thing, so I'd like another 308 some day, but it seems to function fine.

That was the M16 in Vietnam. Things have changed since then. Plenty of soldiers use it on an everyday basis and are still alive. 86% of soldiers expressed confidence in the M4A1 platform in a recent military survey.

Click to expand...

Things have changed. The carbine in it's newest version, the M4 is more unreliable than the "rifle" version. And the most dramatic failure of the rifle was when Jessica Lynch's unit was essentially wiped out and captured aided and abetted by the NEW M16 failing when another GI needed his/her rifle most. Nothing new here. By the way that was 2003, 35 years AFTER I saw the first M16 jam in combat. At least they are consistent.

By the way, that leaves 14% that are not happy. Many complaining of the rifle failing during firefights. Not a quick clear jam, there more than plenty of them, but unable to continue the action. I guess that is okay with you. I fought the M14, and the M16. I also did my initial infantry training with the M1 Garand.

My M14 never jammed. I am sure some did, I never saw one jam though. Now I only did two 13 month tours in Vietnam with 3rdMarDiv. I am sure you have a lot more combat time than I did.

Also, there is ZERO, I repeat, ZERO reason that a civilian member of this board shouldn't be able to keep up an AR-15 in perfect shape. NONE. Odds are VERY good that a member here (a civilian member) will not drag an AR-15 through the mud, dust, and slush. Even if they do, again, good maintenance will keep the rifle running. Comparing the modern M16A2 based AR-15 to the M16 of the Vietnam War is like comparing a recently- made Chevrolet (which are a good quality car, if you haven't heard) to a Yugo. It makes no sense to do so.

Click to expand...

Fact is in most Tactical shooting schools, they have a lot of problems with civilian AR systems, to this day. That is a norm, not an exception. Fact is that quality and maintenance are still major issues with civilian rifles/carbines as soon as they are pushed. I would agree with you, if all one did with their rifle was sit under a covered range and shoot at static paper targets from a static position.

Nope that auto analogy is apples and oranges. Compare the Chevrolet that they built back then, and are still building today. They are not. Why, because what they do today is "BETTER" different and improved than the stuff used back then. In fact you might not be able to tell that the two are related. That sure didn't happen with the M16 family. It is not THAT much better than the rifles we were issued back then, and they certainly aren't that different, are they? THEY HAVEN'T REALLY IMPROVED IT. ALL THEY DID WAS PUT LIPSTICK ON IT! In fact the Corps originally refused the M4 because IIRC they had 3 or 4 times more FTF than the Rifle, during stress tests of the two systems. (rifle M16 vs Carbine M4)

Per you title kcmarine, I presume you are a juggy too. How many of your buddies in your outfit need to be killed or wounded directly because of a weapons failure before you would not trust a weapons system??? Even 40 years later, when American troops are still being captured, killed, and wounded because of weapons failures OF THE SAME RIFLE. Even if it has been patched together, or upgraded to continue to stumble on. I believe it has happened because we haven't been in heavy and intense infantry based action until this present war.

Some things never change. But the kool aid continues to flow.

Go figure.

Fred

FnFAL

Having taken a few of these training classes...

Without fail every malfunction I've witnessed with the AR that is not ammo or magazine related has been due to tinkering or poor quality parts (often aftermarket). This is not an indicator of design issues with the firearm but knowledgebase issues with the end user.

I'm not military, or even prior military, but the guys I know that are and that have their heads screwed on straight don't have any complaints with the M4/A4.

My experience with the causes of malfunctions in non-military users makes me wonder if the same can't be said for the military users.

That was the M16 in Vietnam. Things have changed since then. Plenty of soldiers use it on an everyday basis and are still alive. 86% of soldiers expressed confidence in the M4A1 platform in a recent military survey.

Click to expand...

I don't want to get between two marines here - as I'm a civvie with no combat experience - but please read the entire presentation that he linked to. It is a great read and I think the story needs to get out broadly.

IMHO, the only countries that have adopted the M16 type platform either get them free from us (Israel) or wanted to have their army be similar to ours and maybe also got coerced (Canada, a few others).

The AR/M16 isn't awful, but it's dated and far better designs are available. Most of them are also cheaper to build. They may not be cheaper to US civvies due to our gun laws and the competition effect of perhaps 100 different AR-15 makers.

Now, I have a few civvie AR's and they are reliable in my experience - unless the mag is bad or isn't seated right, in which case there is an instant jam, usually a double feed. Not a huge deal, but not good. Unseated mag is a user error, but a fairly easy one to make in many cases.

I agree that a civvie can easily keep an AR clean. My AR's usually go from safe to range, shoot 20-50 rds, get cleaned thoroughly, and back in the safe. Not exactly hard duty for them.

For comparison, my Ruger P-series pistols won't jam unless I go to great efforts to induce a jam, and even then only sometimes. They usually get shot several 100 times in a practice session. I have very limited Saiga/AK time but so far they are flawless, despite clearly being built to a lower standard than a typical AR in nearly all ways.

My 3 cents.

i prefer a shotgun for home defense....

Those malfunction issues with M-16s were ironed-out 40 years ago...Weak argument.

I stand behind my comment that "AR's don't jam when suitably maintained." Does anyone seriously believe that the US Armed Forces would continue to issue an inherently jam-prone weapon?
That's a load of rubbish

I didn't even bother to read the links. That's your koolaid.

chieftain said:

Things have changed. The carbine in it's newest version, the M4 is more unreliable than the "rifle" version. And the most dramatic failure of the rifle was when Jessica Lynch's unit was essentially wiped out and captured aided and abetted by the NEW M16 failing when another GI needed his/her rifle most. Nothing new here. By the way that was 2003, 35 years AFTER I saw the first M16 jam in combat. At least they are consistent

Click to expand...

And wasn't the main reason behind Jessica Lynch's weapon malfunction due to improper lube [CLP] and poor weapon maintenance? That's an argument for another thread.

In my personal experience using a DPMS M-15 [M4 clone] and Rock River NM, i've yet to experience a single malfunction in either rifle using every brand and bullet weight of ammunition, and THOUSANDS of rounds downrange.
No Wolf ammo in a match chamber, either...

We're talking about HOME DEFENSE here, not jungle warfare or desert warfare. Does your AR properly function and is accurate with your chosen defense load? Yes? Then consider yourself well-armed and go to sleep well. Everything else is conjecture and personal opinion.

Homeland Defense Weapons

chieftain

My M14 never jammed. I am sure some did, I never saw one jam though.
Now I only did two 13 month tours in Vietnam with 3rdMarDiv.

Click to expand...

It's testimonials like this that make me proud to have a nice selection of modernized M14 and AK HDWs at my disposal.





Thank you for your service chieftain