I'm not sure this is the best place to make this thread so I apologize ahead of time if it isn't. I am curious to find out what you guys think about what is the better weapon between the two. I think at first it makes sense to choose the carbine but consider that it is notorious for jamming and low stopping power because of it's short 10 inch barrel and 5.56 mm ammunition. This is compared to the katana which is reliable and extremely powerful. Obvously it has the disadvantage of a short range though. Please keep it civil, I am hoping to get some good discussions out of this.
CAR-15 vs Katana
- Thread starter AMBlue80
- Start date
- Status
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
I think the fact that militaries worldwide choose to equip their elite soldiers with carbines instead of katanas pretty much renders any discussion moot.
MachIVshooter
Member
As long as ammo is available, I'll take the rifle.
That said, if I were expecting a fight, my cold steel 9" san mai III tanto would accompany my AR-10 and S&W 1006. A good long knife/short sword has plenty of uses.
That said, if I were expecting a fight, my cold steel 9" san mai III tanto would accompany my AR-10 and S&W 1006. A good long knife/short sword has plenty of uses.
chevyforlife21
Member
a suzuki katana might be better in a fight you could just outrun them. i realy doubt anyone would rather have a sword against a gun thats accurate to hundreds of yards
General Geoff
Member
At a distance of 10 paces from an angry man bent on killing you, which would you rather he be armed with: a katana, or a CAR-15?
Yeah, I think you answered your own question.
I think we should also consider the Tueller drill which states that someone with an edged weapon would be able get to a target 21 feet away before the target was able engage them with a firearm. Even if you're able to strike them in time with the CAR-15, the 5.56 mm rounds isn't necessarily going stop them especially if they're wearing thick clothing or body armor. I think the central nervous system is a difficult target to consistantly hit on a target moving quickly towards you. Also, there's a possibility the weapon could jam.
Gato Montés
Member
I'll still take the rifle.
Gunfighter123
Member
NEVER bring a knife {even a BIG one} to a GUN FIGHT !!
General Geoff
Member
5.56mm slices through thick clothing and (most) body armor like a hot knife through butter. And with 30 rounds at his disposal, the odds are tilted very highly in favour of the combatant with the rifle.
I am at odds with this topic/find it silly and ridiculous, but I would just like to chime in and let you know that you're wrong about that; the force of impact on even a wearer of harder armor is gonna still be nothing to take lightly. Also, the carbine is a lot more reliable than what you're presuming of it. This is not really a fair fight on any level.
I think at first it makes sense to choose the carbine but consider that it is notorious for jamming and low stopping power because of it's short 10 inch barrel and 5.56 mm ammunition.
I've used various AR platforms since 1968. They don't have a reputation for jamming when I am taking care of them. A 1968 XM177 did have a jamming problems but I doubt you're going to see any of these around. MV with a 10in barrel is about 2600 fps, still enough to cause fragmentation.
I think your assessment of the CAR15 is based on Internet chatter and not experience.
I'll pick the rifle (even a 1968 version) any day.
I've used various AR platforms since 1968. They don't have a reputation for jamming when I am taking care of them. A 1968 XM177 did have a jamming problems but I doubt you're going to see any of these around. MV with a 10in barrel is about 2600 fps, still enough to cause fragmentation.
I think your assessment of the CAR15 is based on Internet chatter and not experience.
I'll pick the rifle (even a 1968 version) any day.
Ltp0wer
Member
Rifle, obviously.
Also, this is a firearms forum (FYI), so I think we all know what is going to win the poll.
Also, this is a firearms forum (FYI), so I think we all know what is going to win the poll.
General Geoff
Member
As an aside, I think the odds are almost even (only slightly in favour of the rifleman) if you begin the fight at contact distance, and both combatants are physically fit. But as distance increases, the rifleman gains advantage by leaps and bounds.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
The Tueller drill involves a holstered handgun. Kind of hard to compare the speeds at which one can bring a sheathed Katana or a low ready carbine into action by discussing a drill involving a holstered handgun. I'm afraid I don't know of any studies invovling a Tueller drill style attack with either a carbine or sword.
Can you provide any evidence that a katana is more likely to get a first slice-stop than a carbine will get a first-shot stop?
Thick clothing? Really? Come on, we aren't buying that.
How does the slashing cut of a katana do against the same body armor? Regardless, getting shot, even while heavy clothing or body armor, tends to slow one down.
How is that katana for getting a central nervous system hit on a target moving quickly toward you?
There's a possibility your tsuba could catch on your obi.
I'm not sure why you joined a firearm forum just to try to convince us that a sword would be a better choice.
A lot gang members from Mexico coming across the border are wearing soft body armor. I think that the 5.56 mm round might be able to penetrate the body armor at close range but won't really have enough power to do any damage. The katana can easily cut through soft body armor and thick clothing, although it's not very effective at longer range. I remember hearing a story, I'll try to find more details about a soldier in Iraq who shot this insurgent multiple times with a M249 SAW, which has a barrel 11 inches longer than the CAR-15 but it still didn't put him down. He had to use a knife to eventually kill the insurgent.
The 5.56 mm is better than nothing out of an M-16 rifle because of it's barrel length but I don't believe it is very effective out of the CAR-15. The 5.56 mm round was developed as a way to reduce the number of enemy combatants killed in battle. The US was receiving too much critiscism from countries in Europe about the number of enemy soldiers being killed by the 7.62 mm round. There's a reason why Jeff Cooper called the M16 a poodle shooter.
The CAR-15 has a slight advantage over the katana at a distance but at close range the katana is far more effective. I've heard of a lot more about people shot multiple times with 5.56 mm rounds but I've never heard of someone surviving a slash from a katana.
The 5.56 mm is better than nothing out of an M-16 rifle because of it's barrel length but I don't believe it is very effective out of the CAR-15. The 5.56 mm round was developed as a way to reduce the number of enemy combatants killed in battle. The US was receiving too much critiscism from countries in Europe about the number of enemy soldiers being killed by the 7.62 mm round. There's a reason why Jeff Cooper called the M16 a poodle shooter.
The CAR-15 has a slight advantage over the katana at a distance but at close range the katana is far more effective. I've heard of a lot more about people shot multiple times with 5.56 mm rounds but I've never heard of someone surviving a slash from a katana.
Ok, you've given us the reasons why a firearm, specifically the CAR-15, "might" not work. Apply the same Tueller Drill logic if armed with a katana. Think you can reach, deploy, engage the "enemy", and successfully fend off the SAME knife wielding attacker? I think not, and I'm guessing you wouldn't bet your life on it either. Like someone else said, you've got at least one shot, make it count.
At 21 feet or less, I don't think the 10" barrel is going to be a handicap. How many self-defense handguns do you see with a 10" barrel? The Military may be limited to FMJ ammunition, but as a civilian, you are NOT. That "tiny" 5.56mm bullet travelling at high velocity (JHP or JSP) is not going to be pretty on impact. Please note, I DID NOT say it was the standard by which all rifle calibers should be judged, because it isn't. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of it. But, you asked about a 5.56mm vs. a sword. I'll take the rifle anyday.
There is a very good reason we "upgraded" from edged knives, swords, spears, and arrows. And that was when BOTH sides were equally armed. If an enemy is close enough for me to engage him with a bayonet, he's too damned close. Same logic applies here. For me to "defend" myself with a katana, he's too damned close. SHOOT HIS ASS. Repeatedly if necessarry.
Sure the rifle might jam, then you have a club. But hey, the sword might break or be dull
. That's why you practice and keep your firearms in the best condition you can, so it will work when called upon.
At 21 feet or less, I don't think the 10" barrel is going to be a handicap. How many self-defense handguns do you see with a 10" barrel? The Military may be limited to FMJ ammunition, but as a civilian, you are NOT. That "tiny" 5.56mm bullet travelling at high velocity (JHP or JSP) is not going to be pretty on impact. Please note, I DID NOT say it was the standard by which all rifle calibers should be judged, because it isn't. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of it. But, you asked about a 5.56mm vs. a sword. I'll take the rifle anyday.
There is a very good reason we "upgraded" from edged knives, swords, spears, and arrows. And that was when BOTH sides were equally armed. If an enemy is close enough for me to engage him with a bayonet, he's too damned close. Same logic applies here. For me to "defend" myself with a katana, he's too damned close. SHOOT HIS ASS. Repeatedly if necessarry.
Sure the rifle might jam, then you have a club. But hey, the sword might break or be dull
. That's why you practice and keep your firearms in the best condition you can, so it will work when called upon.Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
I'm sorry, but this statement is beyond asinine. Slight advantage? If you consider that being able to engage a target more than 5 feet away is a "slight advantage" as distance, nothing is going to convince you that your samurai sword isn't the best defense against Mexican gangs in soft body armor.
General Geoff
Member
Level IIIA body armor vs various calibers
5.56/.223 goes through it like a hot knife through butter.
edit;
Really? I heard it was because intermediate cartridge-chambered rifles are easier to control during burst fire. And ammunition weighs substantially less per round vs full power cartridges, thus enabling an average infantryman to carry more in a standard loadout.
I'll still take the rifle every time. I believe that I could put multiple rounds on target while retreating, keeping a sword pretty much out of range of a strike. Even 5.56 thru a shorty will penetrate body armor. I don't think my Colt has ever malfunctioned with factory ammo, and I've owned it since '92 and shot it a ton.
-Mark.
-Mark.
Gato Montés
Member
I always though one reason the 5.56 was adopted because it allowed for more rounds to be carried into battle. Plus, whose going to complain that too many of the enemy had died due to the ammo used?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked