Choose a rifle and go!

Choose a rifle and go!

  • AR

    Votes: 87 26.3%

  • AK

    Votes: 42 12.7%

  • FAL

    Votes: 71 21.5%

  • M1A

    Votes: 68 20.5%

  • SKS

    Votes: 10 3.0%

  • MINI 14

    Votes: 7 2.1%

  • OTHER

    Votes: 46 13.9%
  • Total voters
    331
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rebel Gunman HK

member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
258
Location
Las Cruces, NM
Say you have your pick of a rifle to go at the enemy with. You know nothing of the terrain- enviroment you'll be in, the strength of the enemy, or at which distance youll be able to engage them. What rifle would you like to take your chances with?
 
I voted AK because I pretty much know it will work when I pick it up. If I determine that I need a different weapon once there I figure I can battlefield pick up something that will work better.
 
No 4 Mk II Lee Enfield. Followed by whatever the BG's were using, so I can mooch their ammo & mags.
 
to vote click circle next to your choice and then mouse click the vote button

I voted FAL especially after seein the Ole Dirty
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68486&highlight=Ol+dirty
attachment.php
 
Kind of a toss-up between AR and "other".

What I'd like:

An AR-like rifle, but with a true gas-piston a-la the AR18/180 or the DR200, chambered in a 100gr 6mm intermediate round like the 6mm SAW or 6mm PPC, with an adjustable gas regulator like the FAL for fine tuning/reliability, AR style mag well, but using British SA-80 steel mags for reliability/durability.

I'd like to use an ACOG or ELCAN style optic on a QD mount, low 3-4x magnification with wide field of view. Backup iron would be A2 style adjustable and quickly deployable.

But overall it would be AR in configuration, controls, sights, weight, and ergonomics so I chose AR over "other" since my other dosen't exist.
 
Personally, I would opt for an M-14; all the advantages of an M-1A, plus the option of fully automatic fire.
 
Since I own one of most of those, I'd choose either my FAL or Garand because of range accuracy and hitting power. Right now the Garand's in the shop though so I guess it's FAL.

If I knew the conflict was going to be under 200 yards, I'd choose my Norinco SKS due to it being lighter, handier and less recoil. I could put down a higher rate of effective fire with the SKS, but only at closer ranges.
 
It's interesting how most people stated they'd pick an AR, but not one person stated why they'd pick it. :confused:

(Well, except for Andrew, but he actually would prefer something else)
 
I voted AR - AR10, that is. If I had to engage, I'd want some punch at longer range to hold em off long enough to bug out.

M1A/M14 or FAL would work too.
 
I would assume that as you chose, you'd have to think about another unknown variable...ammo supply. what will you be able to get when you get there?

I think that 7.62x39 would probably be the easiest to scrounge up, so I'd have to go with AK.
 
Personally, assuming the invasion scenario, I wouldn't want any of what's listed. An untrained (or long ago trained) civilian won't do much against a squad or more of trained soldiers in a firefight (heck even two or three would have the advantage against a like, or even somewhat greater, number of us due to training or at least more recent training). I would want to avoid going head to head with them in close quarters battle as much as possible.

My choice would be a nice bolt rifle in a caliber that can put a man down at distance yet not recoil too harshly (6.5x55. .243, .308). I think your best bet would be to try to shoot from a distance and move out of the area before they sent out patrols to get you (and hope in the initial flurry of fire they didn't get a lucky shot). For the most part the only armies that would be able to really effectively defend against this (i.e. they are better equiped than what you can buy at the sporting goods store) are us and countries we are allied with and thus don't have anything to fear from (UK, Israel, Germany). If you are envisioning one of those US gov't turns against its people scenarios you are basically screwed regardless.

Barring a "reach out and touch you" rifle I'd go with a scoped .22lr bolt rifle. It is just quiet enough that you might be able to get off pot shots at closer distances without them knowing until someone went down and then they would have some trouble figuring out the exact location of the shot (especially in an urban environment).

Given only your choices and scenario (you have no choice where you will be engaging them) I picked the M1A though a FAL would work just as well. It is very accurate, it is in .308 so it has "reach out and touch someone" capabilities and it has a removable mag for quick mag changes in a close quarters combat situation.
 
I voted for the AR, for reasons which include:
  • I'm intimately familiar with it, and can clear malfunctions without thinking.
  • I'm comfortable with its performance inside of 200m (20" barrel), which is where most fights seem to take place.
  • Ammo capacity is important -- if you're going to live against this hypothetical enemy, it's because you're part of a team, and a big part of "team tactics" is going to be suppressing fire. 2 ammo pouches and a mag in the weapon result in 210 rounds for the AR, versus 100 for the M1A/FAL crowd. Double up on the pouches and you're seeing 390 rounds versus 180. You see where this is going.
  • Resupply. AR's are everywhere, as are mags, ammo, and parts. It ain't that way for the .308 rifles.
  • Easy shooting -- I can hand my Aimpoint/AR combo to a non-shooting neighbor and know they'll be able to do reasonably well with it. If I hand them an M1A we've got the issue of using a peep sight to deal with, on top of issues like recoil and water flying into your eyes with every shot (assuming it's raining).
Now limiting yourself to ARs really limits your ability to engage at longer ranges, but I'd argue that a bolt action .308/30-06/7mm Mag would be better at those ranges anyway, especially with any reasonable quality 3-9 scope...
 
I voted AR

With the criteria given I might prefer the M1A after I got there.
But i am infinitely more familier with the AR. I want what I know.
 
M1A. I'd prefer a military M14. Not because of the FA, but because of the quality of the receiver. I'd take it over an FAL, but not by much. And it's a close call between them and a good bolt-action (Lee-Enfield, Mosin Nagant, Savage 110, '03A3 etc). Slower rate of fire, but more reliable. And ammo in stripper clips is lighter than ammo in mags.

I suppose a good suppressed .22 would be ideal, if you initiated the action. One could scavenge a rifle from the corpse of one's enemies. Of course, a suppressed pistol (or a knife, garrote, hammer, pipe, hatchet, screw driver or any other "discreet" weapon) might be even better, since they could be concealed easier.

[Dons Nomex suit] I'd take almost ANY rifle, including WWII mil-surps, over the AR. IMO, it is flawed by design. It is simply too finicky. Maybe an AR style weapon with a different gas system, but it'd still be at the bottom of my list. I'd recommend the following site to see what I mean about the design. http://www.madogre.com/Interviews/Hate_the_AR15.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
low intensity conflict: 5.56x45mm vs 7.62x39mm
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
7K
Vern Humphrey
V
B
  • Locked
  • Poll
The Best Miltary Sniper rifle (for it's time)
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
blackops
B
Bobson
  • Locked
  • Poll
Suppose you were going to war...
Replies
20
Views
597
JShirley
JShirley
E
  • Locked
Let's discuss the marksman rifle doctrine.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
U.S.SFC_RET
U
D
  • Locked
Hearing Protection?
Replies
15
Views
682
hps1
hps1
Back
Top