Boston T. Party's Battle Rifle

[Chuck R.]

Lethality:

It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm (M855) is more a matter of perception rather than fact, but there were some exceptions. The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced or desired “better knock-down power” or a larger caliber bullet did not have actual close engagements. Those that had close engagements and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) – controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and head and good shot placement, defeated the target without issue. Most that had to engage a target repeatedly remarked that they hit the target in non-vital areas such as the extremities. Some targets were reportedly hit in the chest numerous times, but required at least one shot to the head to defeat it. No lethality issues were voiced with targets engaged at 200 meters and beyond. It is apparent that with proper shot placement and marksmanship training, the M855 ammunition is lethal in close and long range.

http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm

Infantry Magazine had an article a few months ago that pretty much said the same thing.

Chuck

 

[budney]

I DO think that if your getting in shorter distance engagements (under 200 yards), that 5.56 will do you just fine if you use a proper fragmenting type ammo.

Could be (I have no idea). But Boston's working scenario is an insurgency against a tyrannical administration. If you're engaging US forces at under 200 yards, you're toast. Insurgents will shoot from >500 yards, and then scoot.

--Len.

 

[lamazza]

Thank you for jumping in Boston. I respect your opnion and your books are excellent!

 

[Boston T. Party]

from P99guy:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2730125&postcount=12
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2728978&postcount=14

While aircraft have made great strides and advances in 100 years..a sopwith Camel wouldnt have much of a chance against an F16, Firearms have not enjoyed that leap...a man with a WW1 vintage springfield 1903 can very easily kill a modern soldier...

I thought this sounded familiar, and it was.
In Boston's Gun Bible on page 7/3 I quoted its original author:

The World War I pilot in his biplane would be no match for the F-18 pilot, but the Pattern 14 Enfield-equipped soldier may very well easily kill the soldier of the late 1990s armed with an M16A2 rifle....
-- Timothy J. Mullin; Testing the War Weapons, p.419

P99guy, if you're going to paraphrase somebody's prose so, why
not just quote them directly? It's fair to the author, and they
usually write better. Changing F-18 to F-16 and P14 to 03
doesn't transform the thought as your own--it's just bad plagiarism.

Boston T Party and the late Mel Tappen, have a lot in common.....they could have written books on potted plants , or monkeys in the rain forest, or Bently automobiles, or the Space shuttle just as easy. As they use journalistic methods of gleaning the information from other sources, and listning to others war stories..then sitting down and writing the book.
...I have never wasted a dollar on anything he wrote (because he is basically getting it from the same books and sources, magazines, you/we all do. Its not from any personal experiance as a Merc,cop, big game hunter, Jurassic park tour guide ect.)

Please Do add "Testing the war weapons" By Timothy J. Mullins to your personal library as it covers most all of what we are able to purchase in hands on tests..a decent read written with the idividual gun owner in mind .

Indeed, it's a unique book written by a firearms scholar and historian.
Thus, I was honored that he wrote such a nice Foreword to...Boston's Gun Bible.

One of you has a flair for irony...

I have met "Boston"...I cannot tell you enough that I was not impressed with him.

But you do remember me.
Conversely, I cannot recall having met you.


____________________
from http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm:

Some targets were reportedly hit [with .223] in the chest numerous times, but required at least one shot to the head to defeat it.

Well, yeah, a head shot from about any caliber will defeat the target.

Notice that you don't hear of numerous chest hits from a .308 failing to kill.
The issue of .223 vs. .308 is similar to that of:

9x19 vs. .45ACP
.375 vs. .416 Rigby (for Cape buffalo and other DG)

The dissatisfaction with .223, 9mm, and .375 is
widespread and persistent. It's led me to conclude
that these calibers, though often effective with the
optimal bullet precisely placed on average quarry,
offer terminal ballistics barely at that critical boundary of lethality.

When conditions are perfect they will do.
But conditions are not always perfect.

Nobody complains about the .308 or .45 or .416 Rigby.
If you can shoot them well, then why compromise yourself
with lesser calibers too frequently shown to be marginal?


__________
from budney:

But Boston's working scenario is an insurgency against a tyrannical administration. If you're engaging US forces at under 200 yards, you're toast. Insurgents will shoot from >500 yards, and then scoot.

Yes, precisely.
It's not an assured scenario, but seems more likely than not.

Boston
http://www.javelinpress.com (Boston's books)
http://www.freestatewyoming.org (FSW website)
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php (FSW forum open to all)

 

[Browning]

Add one more vote for the FAL if you can't afford the M1A.

The FAL is Ken Royce's (author of The Boston Gun Bible) 2nd choice for battle rifle. After that I guess would come the JLD PTR-91 which is a quality copy of the H&K 91, the H&K 91 is his third choice for a .308 Win battle rifle.

After that would be the M1 Garand in .308 Win. Of course, when the TBGB was written (2002), .308 surplus was pretty cheap and 30-06 surplus ammo was not. Now that situation has reversed itself, 30-06 surplus is cheaper than .308 surplus ammo is right now. So maybe it would be better to keep or get an M1 Garand in 30-06 instead of .308 Win that he said to if you chose that as the rifle you're thinking about getting.

If it's a battle carbine you're after, he gave generally pretty good reviews to the AK-74 in 5.45X39 and the AR-15A3 in 5.56X45 if you keep the fact that they both fire a round that isn't quite as powerful as the .308 Win is at extended range.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Notice that you don't hear of numerous chest hits from a .308 failing to kill.

First, I don't think the discussion is about killing as much as stopping the threat immediately. People who are shot multiple times in the chest with .223 are going to die in the very near future absent some really impressive medical care. The problem is that they may not stop their threatening behavior immediately despite their impending death.

Second, the book Blackhawk Down discusses making numerous torso hits on a Somalian with an M60 and not getting a stop. Pat Rogers, who teaches carbine courses and writes for SWAT magazine has mentioned several times that he required multiple hits from an M14 to put an enemy soldier down in Vietnam. I'd say the main reason you don't hear about .308 failing to stop people is because it doesn't receive anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny as .223 does.

.308 certainly has better terminal ballistics, but it also has drawbacks like weight, cost, and recoil. It also isn't a guarantee of effectiveness. There is no round out there big enough to compensate for bad shot placement. The website Dehogger shows a 100lb feral pig shot with a .50 BMG from less than 100yds. The pig runs after being hit. When they do find it, it has most of its intestines hanging out the exit wound; but it still managed to cover some decent distance. If a .50BMG won't compensate for bad shot placement on a 100lb pig, a .308 isn't going to do it on a 200lb mammal.

 

[meef]

I have met "Boston"...I cannot tell you enough that I was not impressed with him.

But you do remember me.
Conversely, I cannot recall having met you.

Now that has got to be one of the funniest, most cutting comebacks I can recall having read in a long, long time.

Touche!

 

[Fingolfin]

Buying the rifle is one thing, but hell who can afford to shoot it right now?

 

[Boston T. Party]

from Browning:

Now that situation has reversed itself, 30-06 surplus is cheaper than .308 surplus ammo is right now.

Didn't see that coming!

If it's a battle carbine you're after, he gave generally pretty good reviews to the AK-74 in 5.45X39...

Not so much for the caliber, but for the carbine (tarted up a bit).
I sold the 5.45 and bought a 5.56.
I think 5.45 will soon be difficult to acquire, due to insufficient demand.

The M1A and FAL are so close (3%) in ranking that it's basically a draw.
Of the two, choose whichever one you hit better with.

The HK91 (and quality clones) I can't help but like, as they're so reliable
and rugged. Accurate, too, once you discover its ammo preference.

In the end, your competence will matter more than which of the above you chose.
Thus, any rankings should be kept in that perspective.


___________
from Bartholomew Roberts:

First, I don't think the discussion is about killing as much as stopping the threat immediately.

That's true.

I'd say the main reason you don't hear about .308 failing to stop people is because it doesn't receive anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny as .223 does.

Thus, if the .308 had similar scrutiny its failures to stop would
be roughly equal? C'mon, you can't really believe that.

Think of it this way: 7.62x51 has 90% the kinetic energy of
the WW1/WW2/Korea .30-06 (of which there is ample battlefield
history), and using nearly an identical FMJ bullet (150gr vs. 147gr).
A 147-150gr .30 bullet with MV of 2700-2900fps is a proven stopper,
and usually with only one center hit. The .223 is not.

Sure, there are exceptions, but they are generally exceptions
which prove the rule.

Retired Arizona police officer Jack McLamb told me about
a guy shot in the abdomen with a 12ga 00 buck--putting a hole
through him that could be seen through (as in a cartoon).
The guy walked downstairs and across the street before collapsing.

.308 certainly has better terminal ballistics, but it also has drawbacks like weight, cost, and recoil.

TANSTAAFL.
Of military issue calibers today, the 7.62x51 is the most efficient.

It also isn't a guarantee of effectiveness.

True, but there are no guarantees, anyway. Only probabilities.

One center hit with 7.62x51 will most probably stop a Bad Guy, even
if wearing web gear and other de facto armor. There is good
reason why SEALs, USMC DMRs, and others operators in the sandbox are
clamoring for M14s. Ron Smith told me that his Crazy Horse rifle is
routinely making kills past 600m.

The same cannot be said about 5.56 with such assurance, especially
at distances beyond its bullet's propensity to fragment. The 77gr
bullet significantly improves terminal ballistics, but it's no 7.62.

The touted advantage of 5.56's low recoil/quick follow-up shots
makes me grin. Follow-up shots are usually needed with 5.56.
Thus more ammo... Or, shall we reverse the "logic" and thus field
with the .22LR, which has basically no recoil or muzzle rise, and can
enjoy a 100rd mag?

The 5.56 does have its limited place, but don't bet the rifle ranch on it.

Remember, the main reason that the 5.56 was chosen was for its
full-auto controlability. Select-fire was deemed necessary because
aimed fire was no longer a sufficiently common soldiering skill
(assuming it ever was). Marksmanship is not a commodity to
be issued in boot camp, but an art to be cultivated by civilians
during their years in the citizen militia (ala Switzerland).

Select-fire 5.56 was the 1960s "answer" to the loss of riflery.
(The 3-rd burst HK G11, for example, was more of that same "answer.")

It's not our answer, however. Riflery is, coupled with more capable guns.

The Redcoats used mass fire of smoothbores for target area
saturation. The militia used rifled-barrel long guns, i.e., aimed fire.
Superior skill at arms and weaponry mattered then, and still does today.

History may not repeat itself, but it's likely to rhyme.

There is no round out there big enough to compensate for bad shot placement.

No doubt.
You'll never hear me claim the contrary.


_____________
from Fingolfin:

Buying the rifle is one thing, but hell who can afford to shoot it right now?

I realize how poignant the price echo feels in the head:
Clean milspec surplus at 15¢/rd? Yep, those were the days.
Prices have basically doubled. Ouch!
Yet, 30-40¢/rd is still a bargain. Remember my tag line:

Ammo turns money into skill.

Skills are priceless, especially self-defensive ones.
Keep buying ammo; keep training.

btw, I've screaming in print since 2000 to stock up on FMJ,
because low prices & easy availability wouldn't last. (I probably
used my "journalistic methods of gleaning the information from
other sources"...)


____________
from meef:

Now that has got to be one of the funniest, most cutting comebacks I can recall having read in a long, long time.

Touche!

Boston

http://www.javelinpress.com (Boston's books)
http://www.freestatewyoming.org (FSW website)
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php (FSW forum open to all)

 

[funfaler]

As one looks to a rifle/carbine selection, assuming that they are not looking for a "specialty" tool. The average guy will find more utillity in a 308 battle rifle over a battle carbine.

Remember, we are discussing a "tool" selection here. The average shooter can more easily/effectively engage targets out to 500 yards with a battle rifle, and yet is not sacrificing, grossly, in the shorter ranges. Only at the very close ranges (inside of 50 yards or so) are you going to notice a vast difference on individual performance due to the difference in calibers.

So, in an effort to have one tool to do most of the jobs that one might encounter, a battle rifle is a better general tool.

That being said, I see no reason to limit one's tool box to just one tool. I prefer to have them all and not need them, than not have them and need them.

I find the M1a and FAL both to be very capable out to 500+ yards, with iron sights. Would I prefer to have glass at that range? Sure, but the irons will get the job done, if the shooter can.

If all this talk of shooting out past 300 yards makes you think it is an impossible task, Psssst.....I have a secret formula that will allow the average shooter to learn how to put lead on the target at 500 yards, with standard rifle, surplus ammo, and iron sights....It is proven, it is cheap and coming to a range near you. Feel free to PM me for the details, if you care to gain this kind of skill Testimonials can be supplied and I make no $$ off of this offer, and it is not a pyramid scheme.

 

[Chuck R.]

The 5.56 effectiveness was studied by agencies within the
Army, Navy, and Department of Homeland Security; medical
doctors, wound ballisticians, physicists, engineers from both the
government and private sector; and user representatives from the
Army, U.S. Marines Corps, and U.S. Special Operations
Command after reports came out of OEF and OIF.

Here’s a couple cuts from Infantry Magazine SEPT-OCT 06:

1. No commercially available alternatives perform measurably better than existing ammunition at close quarters battle ranges for exposed frontal targets. Based on current analysis through the static/dynamic framework, all of the rounds assessed performed similarly at the ranges of 0-50 meters. Though there might be differences for a single given shot, the tradeoffs of delivery accuracy, penetration, fragmentation and wound damage behavior, and speed and efficiency of energy deposit all serve to render differences between rounds minimal. The following chart (Figure 3) shows the rounds of interest plotted together. The specific values of the chart are not meaningful; what is meaningful is the fact that all of the rounds act in the same band of performance. Interestingly, the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation, the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close quarters range.

2. Shot placement trumps all other variables; expectation management is key. Though this should produce a “well, duh!” response from the experienced warfighter, it cannot be emphasized enough. We try hard to inculcate a “one-shot, one-kill” mentality into Soldiers. When they go to the qualification range, if they hit the target anywhere on the E-type silhouette, the target drops. The reality is that all hits are not created equal — 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. While projectile design can make a good hit more effective, a hit to a critical area is still required; this fact is borne out by the Medal of Honor citations of numerous American Soldiers who continued to fight despite being hit by German 7.92mm, Japanese 6.5mm and 7.7mm, or Chinese or Vietnamese 7.62mm rounds. A more realistic mantra might be “One well-placed shot, one-kill.”

I own a DSA SA58 Para-FAL and a Colt 6920, so I’ve got both the 5.56 and 7.62 sides covered. I guess it depends really on what you’re preparing for. I lean more towards the natural disaster/civil unrest than I do the “overthrow tyrannical government" type scenarios. Having spent most of my adult life in the military I have no desire to be on the receiving end of it.

I’ve done quite a bit of shooting with both 5.56 and 7.62 and after having spent 26 years in the Army, I’ll take the 5.56. I also compete regularly in silhouette matches at 200-500 meters and take in an occasional 800-1000 yard match. I don’t believe that those kind of long range shots are going to be the norm, 25meters to 300meters is more likely, with under 100 probably being the average.

I just think the advantages of the lighter weight weapon, faster follow up shots for multiple targets, and lighter weight ammo outweigh the extra energy the 7.62 offers, sort of the same decision the military came to like 40 years ago.

Chuck

 

[Willard]

Boston says:
"The Redcoats used mass fire of smoothbores for target area
saturation. The militia used rifled-barrel long guns, i.e., aimed fire.
Superior skill at arms and weaponry mattered then, and still does today"

BTP, I love you, man, I really do. But that is not exactly correct. The Revolution was won by the Continental Line, trained in Europen warfare, fighting on line and in ranks, with smoothbore muskets. You are very correct in that they did aim the generally sightless smoothbore weapons, and were, on an individual level more effective than Tommy Atkins wearing the wrong color. But the real rifleman of the time were generally relegated to small units who would, in the linear combat of the day, fire one or two volleys and then fall back to positions behind the Continental Line ( I would refer you to the battle of King's Mountain). The Rev War Rifleman lacked two things that were of tantamount importance for that era's warfare-a rate of fire (perhaps one shot per 45 seconds to one minute at best) and provision for a bayonet (plug bayonets notwithstanding). (A steel or iron ramrod would have helped, too). Now the effectiveness of the rifleman, in both the practical aspect of laying effective fire on officers and NCO's and the psychological one of striking fear into the enemy, is not to be dismissed. We had units that dressed as rifleman but who were armed with muskets just for this purpose- the Brits (and Hessians) were reluctant to close to within 300 yards of them due to their fear of - and the effectiveness of- aimed rifle fire.

As far as Lexington and Concord, the Militia of that era and location were generally armed with smoothbore fowling pieces that followed the general pattern of the Brown Bess (although they were variants, they all being essentially hand made). In British drill aiming consisted of pointing the weapon in the general area of the enemy and firing-the sheer volume of fire due to the relatively high rate fo fire the well trained Redcoats could produce-4-5 shots a minute per man. That little protusion near the muzzle of a Brown Bess is not a front sight, it is a bayonet stud.

The American, on the other hand, did aim their muskets, as near as on can. Something akin to shooting round balls from a smoothbore 12 gauge with no sights, or a bead front sight. Not precision, but better than the "point and click" method of the Regulars.

Pardon me for a long winded response to your statement that was mostly correct! But it drives me crazy that so many gun folks think that Joe Frontiersman with his Kentucky Rifle was the prototypical American Revolutionary Warfighter, and that is simply not the case.

PS I did buy a G-19, based partially on your recomendation. I still prefer my 1911's, though!

 

[HorseSoldier]

First, I don't think the discussion is about killing as much as stopping the threat immediately. People who are shot multiple times in the chest with .223 are going to die in the very near future absent some really impressive medical care. The problem is that they may not stop their threatening behavior immediately despite their impending death.

DC Snipers were what? Ten for 13 on fatalities and the three survivors were all incapacitated, on the ground, and required surgical intervention to survive?

And that was in a major American city with access to EMS and emergency room surgical teams that probably see as many gunshot wounds as anyone in the United States.

Admittedly, I don't believe they were using green tip ball ammo in their attacks, but then that is not really a relevant issue in these "overthrow the gubmint" kind of discussions, since insurgents can, presumably, carry what they want.

Second, the book Blackhawk Down discusses making numerous torso hits on a Somalian with an M60 and not getting a stop. Pat Rogers, who teaches carbine courses and writes for SWAT magazine has mentioned several times that he required multiple hits from an M14 to put an enemy soldier down in Vietnam. I'd say the main reason you don't hear about .308 failing to stop people is because it doesn't receive anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny as .223 does.

Bing West, in No True Glory makes reference to a marine sniper who put a .308 round into an insurgent's head without killing him or even producing an immediate stop (apparently shattered his jaw, but guy kept moving, if I recall correctly).

There are no silver bullets.

But personally I like having 200-300 regular bullets more than 100 regular bullets in my basic load, all things being equal.

A 147-150gr .30 bullet with MV of 2700-2900fps is a proven stopper,
and usually with only one center hit. The .223 is not.

One through the sternum with either round will put a guy on the ground, dying, without any fuss or debate.

Remember, we are discussing a "tool" selection here. The average shooter can more easily/effectively engage targets out to 500 yards with a battle rifle, and yet is not sacrificing, grossly, in the shorter ranges.

Half the ammo load is a critical and crippling liability in a real combat arm. 5.56mm has plenty of legs to reach out to 500 meter for mythical and imaginary combat engagements (especially with 77 grain and other high weight rounds), as well as being decidedly superior for how real combat happens. 7.62x51's failings as a general service round are amply illustrated by the simple fact that everyone has ditched it in military service, and its service life tended to be shortest among those militaries that had the most real combat experience (i.e. US, Israel).

If all this talk of shooting out past 300 yards makes you think it is an impossible task, Psssst.....I have a secret formula that will allow the average shooter to learn how to put lead on the target at 500 yards, with standard rifle, surplus ammo, and iron sights....It is proven, it is cheap and coming to a range near you.

Shooting paper at 500 doesn't have anything to do with combat shooting at 500.

 

[The-Fly]

I do agree if your looking for a round for the 300-500 (or farther) range, 7.62 is FAR better then 5.56. I personally believe I am much more likely to need my rifle for urban work due to where I live, and decided that 200 yards or closer is the most likely engagement scenario for me.

And I'm not going to even touch the 9mm vs 45acp arguement

 

[DogBonz]

This is Why I Loves Me Grendel

Here I go again. I’m about to start foaming at the mouth and jibbering and waxing technical.

Boston- I have not yet read your book, but it is on my “to read list”, so if I’m not on target here (pun intended) I don’t mean to offend. The way that I see it, the 6.5 Grendel is the best of show here. The only draw back is that if the S hit the F right now, ammo availability would be a major issue, and I am well aware that a rifle without ammo is just an expensive paper weight. But, if you look at the numbers, it seems that the Grendel gives you the best of both worlds. At the muzzle, the 7.62x51 is clocking around 2750FPS for about 2475fpe with a 150gr bullet, while the Grendel is clocking 2650FPS for about 1920fpe with a 123gr bullet. Now that is a big difference at the muzzle, but that gap narrows quickly, and at the 500 yard mark that everyone has been throwing around, the 7.62x51 has dropped to 1700fps and about 960fpe, while the Grendel is still at about 1900fps and is still over 1000fpe (although no much), but the 7.62 has dropped 6” more.

In recent tests the 123 Lapua 6.5 bullet penetrated light armor better than the 5.56, 6.8, or 7.62 non AP rounds. While heavier that the 5.56 and the 6.8, a “combat load” of 6.5 Grendel is still much lighter than the same in 7.62. The same goes for recoil. While recoil is heavier than the 5.56, it is about on par with the 6.8 and a good deal lighter than the 7.62.

Should the Grendel catch on in a bigger way than it has already, it will prove, IMHO, to be the best all around battle rifle cartridge around.

So, ammo availability aside, what do you think?

 

[Boston T. Party]

from Willard:

Pardon me for a long winded response to your statement that was mostly correct! But it drives me crazy that so many gun folks think that Joe Frontiersman with his Kentucky Rifle was the prototypical American Revolutionary Warfighter, and that is simply not the case.

Point taken, thanks! (Perhaps I've watched The Patriot too often. )
Would you agree, though, that we proportionally fielded many more
rifles than smoothbores compared to the British?


_____________
from Chuck R.:

Interestingly, the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation, the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close quarters range.

OK,...at close quarters range.
However, the primary reason I promote arming oneself with the 7.62
is to have better long range effectiveness, especially beyond the
50-250yd marksmanship of uniformed aggressors.

I just think the advantages of the lighter weight weapon, faster follow up shots for multiple targets, and lighter weight ammo outweigh the extra energy the 7.62 offers, sort of the same decision the military came to like 40 years ago.

I understand your point, though I disagree
that the military's rationale should be ours.

Also, armies have grenades, rockets, .50BMGs, etc. to engage barricaded
targets. A civilian counter-insurgency force does not. Thus, our need
for the 7.62. From page 9/7 of Boston's Gun Bible, the 5.56 vs. 7.62
effectiveness on cover:

concrete @ 100yds: 1.4" vs. 4"

0.25" boiler plate steel: 100yds vs. 300yds

door of '68 Dodge: 300yds (barely) vs. 400yds (easily)


The 5.56 incapcitates and kills--I'm not disputing that.
But it does not do so with the probability of the 7.62,
and it's much less effective in perforating cover. Thus, I see
many more compelling reasons to choose the 7.62 over 5.56.

Some in the military are rediscovering the 7.62, hence the
resurging popularity of the M14 system.

And with all the stuff today hung on the AR15, it's heavier than
yesteryear's M14 (or even M1!), so its "lightweight" advantage is gone.

I like my rifles to be simple and powerful. YMMV.


_______________
from DogBonz:

The way that I see it, the 6.5 Grendel is the best of show here.

Should the Grendel catch on in a bigger way than it has already, it will prove, IMHO, to be the best all around battle rifle cartridge around.

I generally agree.
I have to, because I envisioned basically the same new caliber
(the ".264 Boston") back in 1998 in Boston on Guns & Courage.

For our purposes, however, the round really is too luxurious for the $.
Even if the random fellow could afford to train/stock it, he'd likely
be caliber-alone amongst his buddies.

Boston

http://www.javelinpress.com (Boston's books)
http://www.freestatewyoming.org (FSW website)
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php (FSW forum open to all)

 

[HorseSoldier]

Point taken, thanks! (Perhaps I've watched The Patriot too often. )
Would you agree, though, that we proportionally fielded many more
rifles than smoothbores compared to the British?

The British had a lot of German-speaking guys on the payroll who were armed with Jaeger rifles they put to good use in the Colonies during the war. Hard to justifiably claim that the American rebels were doing anything the British could not do as well.

OK,...at close quarters range.
However, the primary reason I promote arming oneself with the 7.62
is to have better long range effectiveness, especially beyond the
50-250yd marksmanship of uniformed aggressors.

What people seem delusional about here is that where militaries fail to engage effectively beyond 300 meters or so, Billy Bob the Militiaman can somehow do so.

I again will point out the obvious -- the Marines train every Marine to shoot to 500 and make them do it regularly to remain Marines. In combat they are not making a whole lot of 500 meter kills shots for a whole slew of reasons ranging from target acquisition, exposure times, human physiology, etc. But somehow, Billy Bob the recreational shooter who's a stone killer of paper bullseyes will magically overcome the limitations the real guys in the real arena can't shake off (and not just this generation -- same phenomena has been observed with repetitive regularity since about 1916 or so) and boldly vanquish an organized military opponent (who, presumably, will be obliging enough to stand in open order at 500 meters and take the slow aimed fire of his "innovative" militia opponnets).

This is what I will charitably call male fantasy. If the country is ever invaded by Zulu impis armed with spears and cowhide shields, it's a winning strategy. Otherwise, it's drawing the wrong conclusions, or just plain holding your hands over your ears and humming loudly to block out any inconvenient facts that have been on record for about a century.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Thus, if the .308 had similar scrutiny its failures to stop would
be roughly equal? C'mon, you can't really believe that.

I think that is part of the problem - nobody can say (at least openly) with any kind of scientific accuracy how similar the comparison would be. Mostly because it is so difficult to measure. I think that in all likelihood they would be within fractions of a point of each other since I suspect at least some "failures to stop" are due to misses, not terminal ballistics.

True, but there are no guarantees, anyway. Only probabilities.

Except that a probability that nobody can quantify isn't really a probability, it is just a gut feeling and has about as much worth as any other instictual, faith-based assumption.

There is good reason why SEALs, USMC DMRs, and others operators in the sandbox are clamoring for M14s.

Hmmm, the Marines and few SEALs I knew aren't clamoring for them. The SEALs use them because in over the beach stuff they have less problems than the M16. Beyond that, it is about like every other rifle debate - some like them, some hate them.

The 77gr bullet significantly improves terminal ballistics, but it's no 7.62.

Well it isn't 7.62x51 for sure. It is superior to M80 Ball ammo in wound ballistics at ranges under 200yds (where most modern infantry engagements and all defensive shootings occur) and inferior to fragmenting .308 rounds.

The touted advantage of 5.56's low recoil/quick follow-up shots
makes me grin. Follow-up shots are usually needed with 5.56.
Thus more ammo... Or, shall we reverse the "logic" and thus field
with the .22LR, which has basically no recoil or muzzle rise, and can
enjoy a 100rd mag?

I tell you what, I wouldn't want to be in range of a .22LR with a 100rd mag if all I had was 20 rounds of 7.62x51. In my limited force-on-force experience, multiple shots are frequently needed in a dynamic environment where you are moving (because you don't want to be shot) and the target is moving (because he doesn't want to be shot). Even when you do get hits, follow up shots are a smart idea regardless of caliber because you may not have scored a nice, marksman-like bullseye and you leaned out from behind cover to pop off three shots at a running target 15 yards away that was shooting back.

Two things I dislike about 7.62x51 is that it slows me down slightly in making multiple shots like that and that I have less overall ammo and less rounds per magazine. One plus it does have is that it shoots through things nicely.

Remember, the main reason that the 5.56 was chosen was for its
full-auto controlability. Select-fire was deemed necessary because
aimed fire was no longer a sufficiently common soldiering skill
(assuming it ever was). Marksmanship is not a commodity to
be issued in boot camp, but an art to be cultivated by civilians
during their years in the citizen militia (ala Switzerland).

Marksmanship is a single element of fighting with a firearm and not the most important element at that. Whenever somebody uses that word, I always tend to think of how it is applied in competitive matches. I don't think that concept of marksmanship much relation to the skills needed to make hits in a more dynamic environment.

I can certainly see lots of valid reasons to use a 7.62 rifle, particularly in a scenario where you are all on your lonesome. On the other hand, I can see lots of good reasons for 5.56mm too. The choice of caliber is basically insignificant in importance compared to how much actual training you do with it (though cheaper ammo means more training).

 

[Willard]

Boston,

We most certainly did field more rifles than the Brits. I hope my missive didn't come across as too critical! If so I apologize. I have most of your books and recomend them highly! Hologram of Liberty, in particular, is thought provoking and insightful.

The rifle did play an important part in the Rev War, disproportional to it's numbers. I guess the point I was beating to death was that most guys used muskets. Just from a logistical standpoint supplying musket balls of the correct diameter was difficult enough, never mind the large variety of calibers that would have been represented by adding rifles to the mix.

The Brits had a few jaeger units with the Hessians, notably, and not much else. Although they did use Baker rifles later, I haven't explored if that was inspired by their experiences in the colonies or if it was technology driven. Probably mostly technological.

(ETA I can see I was beaten to the punch re: Jaegers while I was typing. The Ferguson Rifle had some real potential, but it is only a footnote in history, now. )

Indeed, the rifle and rifleman in both the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War gave birth to the nearly mythological figure of the American as a Rifleman-an American icon equal to that of the Cowboy (who were, of course, all Riflemen!).

Regarding the movie "The Patriot", you would have been far more likely to find rifles in the kit of self armed militia in the mid-Atlantic and the South than in New England.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

The choice of caliber is basically insignificant in importance compared to how much actual training you do with it (though cheaper ammo means more training).

Agreed. That's where I am coming from.

Training is far more important than caliber, I don't think anyone will dispute that.

My biggest issue with the 7.62x51 is that I can't seem to find one that is comparable to the AR15 in ergos, accuracy, reliability, and ease in mounting optics... Most of the AR10's seem to have more issues than the AR15's... My AR15's work very well and I am accurate with them.

I really like the FAL, but it's missing one thing... an easy way to scope it... but I still may go that way for a battle rifle in the long run, AGAIN! It's an endless debate for me. In the meantime, I just keep training with my AR15's...

I will admit that I am a Boston fan. I bought my first firearm (Glock 27) based on his books and my brother's recommendations...

I respect Boston's opinion tremendously, in many areas... I believe he is a very experienced and knowledgeable person when it comes to firearms.

 

[DogBonz]

I'm a bit of a history buff

Indeed, the rifle and rifleman in both the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War gave birth to the nearly mythological figure of the American as a Rifleman-an American icon equal to that of the Cowboy (who were, of course, all Riflemen!).

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

 

[rosco22]

Quote:
I have met "Boston"...I cannot tell you enough that I was not impressed with him.
But you do remember me.
Conversely, I cannot recall having met you.

I bet he tried to sell ya something .....for cash .

"Free State Wyoming " Bostons cash cow ......................

 

[Chuck R.]

I really like the FAL, but it's missing one thing... an easy way to scope it... but I still may go that way for a battle rifle in the long run, AGAIN! It's an endless debate for me. In the meantime, I just keep training with my AR15's...

Try the DSA scope mount/top cover. It’s first class and makes a stable mounting platform for optics.

Boston,

I hear you about the “stuff” that hangs on ARs, but the extras are combat multipliers that really allow the system to be effective. My 6920 with optics, light, and 30rd mag is still lighter than my DSA FAL with its lightweight lower.

empty stock weights:

7.62 DSA 8.6lbs
5.56 6920 5.95lbs

That gives me 2.5Lbs of stuff to hang off that enhances the weapon's capability before I exceed the weight of my FAL, which BTW is lighter than a standard M1A.

Chuck

 

[bailer]

All alone I'd be tempted to leave my AR and M1 and bring my Savage 99 and Glock 20.

 

[cvb]

Rifle

Get an AK to back up whatever you get; no make that 2 AKs.
Survival/ SHTF-dont pay attention to the in depth scholarly
discussions that we shooters tend to indulge in. get your rifle
and shoot.