If you had to choose a rifle and a handgun to go into a battle/armed conflict ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ever served in a forward area? Ever asked a man to put his life in your hands? Ever placed your life in another mans hands? We follow orders or people die. Are we clear?
Click to expand...

That is done every day by many people and not in a combat situation and with very limited firepower and little body armor here in good old America. Body armor does save some lives in combat but very few people that take a direct shot or a direct hit with shrapnel while wearing body armor get away without major injuries.
 
Last edited:
City streets: AK or any comparable 7.62mm, and XD.45
Open country: Any 30-06, and XD.45
(this opinion is based solely on what I currently own and could just grab and go)
 
don't remember if I posted here since this is an old topic, but I have since added to my collection, and my two choices would be my Glock 17 and my Middie AR. I would also bring my AK if a third weapon were allowed.

and yea, the body armor we have is rated to stop any conventional bullet, but usually only once, but it does not absorb the power of its impact being imparted into the person wearing it. Even a glancing shot is gonna put you on your butt, and stun and scare the crap out of you. A direct hit is going to cause severe damage to the vest, and impart a lot of concussive trauma into the flesh behind it.
 
As a combat veteran of the war on terror there is no other weapon frame I would rather go into battle with than the M-4. I would however want it chambered in the hard to find 6mm varients like the 6.8mm panther and about four inches longer on the barrel. I'm going to get flack for opting away from the 5.56 but I have personally seen it in action and I would prefer something with a little more punch without the weight of something like a .308 (just try humping that stuff up a mountain!) The four to six inches would allow for increased accuracy in todays battle field which is vastly more open (desert and mountain) than the battle field we were fighting in when the M4 was first designed. These additions would make it a serious punch for an assault rifle that is compact but still lethal out to a phenominal range for a contemporary assault rifle.

For a sidearm I stand by and old adage........If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And therefore the 1911 design would be my first and probably only choice, possibly with a little trigger work.

FOR EVERYONE THAT SAID AN AK-47 WOULD BE THERE FIRST CHOICE YOU'VE OBVIOSLY NEVER BEEN SHOT AT BY ONE. WE DIDN'T CONSIDER THEM AN ACCURATE THREAT BEYOND ABOUT 150 METERS. JUST TRY SHIFTING FROM POSITION TO POSITION FROM ANYTHING CLOSER THAN 300-450 METERS WHEN YOUR IN THE CROSS HAIRS OF AN M4......IT WOULD PROBABLY BE YOUR LAST
 
Your question was posed very badly. The gun you cho0se would have a lot to do with who you are. If you have no time to clean it, and have no sophisticated logistics network; you want a belted M60. Its the only gun that will survive in the desert, unsupported, for any length of time. Second choice, would be an AK 47 pattern rifle, with a glock for backup.
If you are a US soldier, or a contractor with enough time and space to clean it frequently, with a good logistics systems in place, you want an M 16 pattern rifle, with a 1911 backup.
If you are a civilian with no time, rest, or space, with no logistical backup. You want 1903 bolt action rifle. Snipe off whoever you meet, and take what they have.
 
kw11b2p said:
As a combat veteran of the war on terror there is no other weapon frame I would rather go into battle with than the M-4. I would however want it chambered in the hard to find 6mm varients like the 6.8mm panther and about four inches longer on the barrel. I'm going to get flack for opting away from the 5.56 but I have personally seen it in action and I would prefer something with a little more punch without the weight of something like a .308 (just try humping that stuff up a mountain!) The four to six inches would allow for increased accuracy in todays battle field which is vastly more open (desert and mountain) than the battle field we were fighting in when the M4 was first designed. These additions would make it a serious punch for an assault rifle that is compact but still lethal out to a phenominal range for a contemporary assault rifle.

For a sidearm I stand by and old adage........If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And therefore the 1911 design would be my first and probably only choice, possibly with a little trigger work.

FOR EVERYONE THAT SAID AN AK-47 WOULD BE THERE FIRST CHOICE YOU'VE OBVIOSLY NEVER BEEN SHOT AT BY ONE. WE DIDN'T CONSIDER THEM AN ACCURATE THREAT BEYOND ABOUT 150 METERS. JUST TRY SHIFTING FROM POSITION TO POSITION FROM ANYTHING CLOSER THAN 300-450 METERS WHEN YOUR IN THE CROSS HAIRS OF AN M4......IT WOULD PROBABLY BE YOUR LAST
Click to expand...
I would have to agree that yes, the AK is not known for long range, or even mid range accuracy. But I will say that my Saiga AK 308 is accurate out to 200 yards.
The AK in the 7.62x39 is a spray and pray gun.
 
I like the AR platform and 5.56, generally speaking. But, I want something with a bigger bang for my buck if it's my life (or my family), and I have a CHOICE.

For a sidearm, give me a 1911 in .45ACP with a half dozen or so spare mags. I don't need a tack driver as sidearms are not intended to engage targets at distances, that's what a rifle is for. I need something with a BIG thump and a whack when it hits at close range (you got to love those scientific terms). The 1911 and .45 have been around almost a century because they WORK.

The rifle is a bit more difficult. I think either a Springfield SOCOM, Springfield Tanker, or a variation of the FN-FAL in .308 (ok, ok 7.62 for the purists) would be my choice. I'd probably go with a Paratrooper (shorter) version of the FAL. The M1A platform is a proven design, but the FAL has a longer track record than the SOCOM or Tanker as compared with their full size M1A counterpart. Think South Africa, Angola, the Congo, ect. (hell, the ENTIRE Continent of Africa during the 60's, 70's, and 80's).

Agree or disagree, those are MY choices, and they're probably not for everyone. But that's ok too.
 
Last edited:
Since I want maximum firepower, only one caliber ammo, interchangable magazines, and portabality, I would go with my Marlin Camp .45 carbine and my 1911A1 in .45ACP. Takes care of the up close work and anything out to 100 yards. Most fire fights don't occur beyond those ranges.
 
I would use an MP5 for my "rifle"
if your gonna compaine about it i know its not a rifle but i rather it for urban combat, if thats not good enough for some of you i would use my .270 bolt for my rifle.

For my sidearm i would use a 1911 .45 acp.
 
AK or AR and a 9mm Barretta. It would be easiest to find ammo for them, and I know I could pick up a mag off the ground if I run out of ammo. If I could get a SAW or minimi instead of the AR, I would be happier. It is amazing what one man can do with a sustained, accurate, aimed, and high rate of fire.
 
Well from what I own and where I usually hang out:
I'll take either my Mosin M-38 or 91/30 and my Pa-63.

It's what I have and it's what I know.
Plus I can't seem to break any of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
If you had to choose one...
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
3K
bri
B
D
  • Locked
Have you ever had to use it?
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
trooper
T
D
  • Locked
Close-Quarter Battle: Handguns Still Rule
Replies
4
Views
1K
Spark
S
Joshua M. Smith
  • Locked
Alternate History...
Replies
2
Views
415
ARKIESTEEL
A
T
  • Locked
Arm Thy Neighbor
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
8K
wgaynor
W
Back
Top