Pick Your Battle Rifle Poll
- Thread starter sigbear
- Start date
- Status
I would have to go with what I've got handy and have adequate ammo to support.
M1a, PTR 91, M700 LTR .223
M1a, PTR 91, M700 LTR .223
If around here, I'd take what ever i had some ammo for that could penetrate a car (engine bay not included) and normal walls- Sheetrock, 2X4s and brick.
That said, 762X39 and .223 arent going to cut it reliably.
Who cares about modern soliders not being able to shoot to 800 yards? I know I'd want to be able to properly swiss cheese any standard cover around.
Gimme a M1A/FAL
That said, 762X39 and .223 arent going to cut it reliably.
Who cares about modern soliders not being able to shoot to 800 yards? I know I'd want to be able to properly swiss cheese any standard cover around.
Gimme a M1A/FAL
Much that you don't understand, dom. Of course the AR calibers will get the job done. There are too many bodies in the ground to deny that...but there are other targets besides human in a battlefield situation. The other side's war materiel can be damaged or destroyed with the extra punch afforded by the full power cartridge...not to mention the extra range with residual killing power. Like the speed afforded by a Corvette. Not often needed...but nice to have in case it is.
Allow me to point to the Winchester 70/Remington 700/Ruger 77 "sporting" rifles chambered for military cartridges in civilian guise. (.30-06 Springfield and .308 Winchester) that have been used to take all manner of large game...often at distances that would fairly boggle the mind.
The change came about largely due to the fact that personal combat didn't normally take place at distances greater than 300 yards...and most often at 100 or less. Additionally, it was found that a good many infantrymen wouldn't take deliberate aim at an enemy soldier until that enemy was almost on top of him...leaving little time to aim. In that scenario, a high rate of fire was/is more important than precise shooting.
In WW1, the infantry still used mass area fire at extremely long distances...aka "Plunging Fire" in the attempt to break up enemy concentrations or hopefully be able to reach him in the far trenches. The original .30-06 cartridge...designated Caliber .30 Ball M1...was loaded with a heavier 175 grain bullet that was conducive to effectiveness at extreme range. The switch to M2 Ball with its 152-grain bullet was easier on Garand op rods and produced less recoil...and was better suited to the mobile battlefield of WW2. Still a reliable killer out to 500 yards, but even that was no longer necessary due to more accurate artillery, air support, and armor...long-range area fire by riflemen became an obsolete tactic.
In the hands of a civilian, operating alone...a rifle chambered for the MBR class cartridge may be of more use than one might suspect. Distance is your friend. More than that...the full-powered cartridge can stop a man...or a truck dead in its tracks with a well-placed shot at pretty extreme ranges. For those reasons alone, I opted for the 03-A3 Springfield. "It encourages aimed fire...thus conserving ammunition...and it discourages becoming involved in a firefight...thus conserving life and limb."
As a final point...The term "Gun Nuts" is used all too frequently by those who would take all our firearms away and leave us in the role of the king's subjects. This notion of "need" as a requirement or a justification for ownership should be stricken from all discussions. Need has nothing to do with it.
If I want it...my reasons are mine alone, and that is justification enough for my having it.
Remember the fallout generated by Jim Zumbo's statement concerning "Assault Rifles. That works in both directions. I have no personal need for an AR15 or an AK47...but if somebody else wants one...I'm behind that 100% and would never make disparaging or derogatory remarks as to that choice.
When I described it as a hobbyist's term, that was not meant disparagingly; only that military organizations don't use the term. Different groups have their own jargons.
.223 and 7.62x39 will go through cars, 2x4s, and sheetrock/drywall very reliably. I've shot through them all. As for brick, I'm really not certain. I'd place my money on the 7.62x39 for that, though.
7.62x39 will, indeed, go thru a vehicle. I know from personal experience. And if any of the rounds had been aimed about 8 inches farther right they would have gone thru me, too. 
I still believe the best SHTF weapon would be an AK in 5.56. The AK action provides unsurpassed reliability and 5.56 will be easier to find in a worst case scenario. I prefer a bigger round, personally, however. So I always ensure I have at least 1000 rounds in the closet.
I still believe the best SHTF weapon would be an AK in 5.56. The AK action provides unsurpassed reliability and 5.56 will be easier to find in a worst case scenario. I prefer a bigger round, personally, however. So I always ensure I have at least 1000 rounds in the closet.
FAL
And the nice thing is I have a custom mauser chambered in 308 to go right along with it.
Same reason why I would like to add a Highpoint Carbine or similar to go with my 92FS.
And the nice thing is I have a custom mauser chambered in 308 to go right along with it.
Same reason why I would like to add a Highpoint Carbine or similar to go with my 92FS.
I know. It proably is mainly a hobbyist's term, though there are some serious trainers, etal who use it in order to differentiate between full power rifles and reduced power assault rifles. Chuck Taylor is one such, but there are others. Probably because it's quicker and easier than using a complete description every time it comes up. Kinda like calling any 1911 pistol lacking a Series 80 firing pin safety as a "Series 70." More of a convenient catch phrase than a technically correct term.
I was referring to the "Gun Nut/Big Boomer/Need" terminology. Going further, I don't have a personal need for a .600 Nitro Express double rifle, either...but if I want one...and go buy one...why should it mark me as somehow odd or unstable? Indeed! Who "needs" a Barret .50 caliber rifle?
"Need" doesn't really need to be questioned. I want it. That's all the need I need.
well, if I'm not allowed to have a GE M134, then I guess i'd take either an M-14 or a FAL, or M1, or G3/CETME, or PSL, or no losing either way, theyre all reliable and get the job done
in the UK in shtf it would be an L85a2 or an GPMG (fn mag m240)
how
brother has keys to the armoury
how
brother has keys to the armoury
As to the OP, I own two "battle rifles": my M1 Garand and my M1A. From everything I've read, the only real difference between a Springfield M1A and a M14 is the selector switch. That and my M1A is a National Match, so it's more accurate
I'd take my M1A over the Garand, but if I was going into a war zone for real I'd take neither; I'd take the Sig 556 I just picked up yesterday. It doesn't have a wood stock so no wandering zeros due to humidity and what not. It'd be more weather resistant and rugged. That and I've been on foot for a few miles with a rifle, ammo, first aid kit, water, food, a radio, antenna, small pack, etc. before. Having a lighter rifle with lighter ammo is a big plus.
From my reading of history, the big reason the military went with the 5.56 NATO and the AR was because of lighter ammo (allowing the average foot soldier to lug around a good deal more rounds for the same weight), lessoned recoil (I've heard the M14 is all but uncontrollable on auto), and that the rifle itself weighs a few pounds less. Even the AR can be tricky on auto though. It tends to climb up and to the right (due to the rifling twist, I believe). You can't fire more than 3 or 4 rounds at a man size target at 25m before you're off target, and that was from a foxhole with a sandbag rest.
I'd take my M1A over the Garand, but if I was going into a war zone for real I'd take neither; I'd take the Sig 556 I just picked up yesterday. It doesn't have a wood stock so no wandering zeros due to humidity and what not. It'd be more weather resistant and rugged. That and I've been on foot for a few miles with a rifle, ammo, first aid kit, water, food, a radio, antenna, small pack, etc. before. Having a lighter rifle with lighter ammo is a big plus.
From my reading of history, the big reason the military went with the 5.56 NATO and the AR was because of lighter ammo (allowing the average foot soldier to lug around a good deal more rounds for the same weight), lessoned recoil (I've heard the M14 is all but uncontrollable on auto), and that the rifle itself weighs a few pounds less. Even the AR can be tricky on auto though. It tends to climb up and to the right (due to the rifling twist, I believe). You can't fire more than 3 or 4 rounds at a man size target at 25m before you're off target, and that was from a foxhole with a sandbag rest.
Just to document the exchange above about the definition of "battle rifle" - coincidently I was reading an old Chuck Taylor article on Garands a few days ago. It is from 1982.
It is interesting as he does go into some of what differentiates "assault rifles" from "battle rifles" - generally volume-of-fire squad tactics, etc. I have no bone about this discussion, but thought some folks might find the article interesting. The article overall is somewhat of a debate along the lines of 1903 vs. Garand vs. M16 - very much in line with this thread. His opinions are of course, his - I just thought some references might be interesting for this thread.
The C. Taylor article starts 1/2 way down the web page. The first 1/2 is extracts from a US Army publication - though it is also highly interesting - it is an official US Army take on what is relevant in the development of the "Military Rifle" - circa 1966!
http://www.pattonhq.com/garand.html
It is interesting as he does go into some of what differentiates "assault rifles" from "battle rifles" - generally volume-of-fire squad tactics, etc. I have no bone about this discussion, but thought some folks might find the article interesting. The article overall is somewhat of a debate along the lines of 1903 vs. Garand vs. M16 - very much in line with this thread. His opinions are of course, his - I just thought some references might be interesting for this thread.
The C. Taylor article starts 1/2 way down the web page. The first 1/2 is extracts from a US Army publication - though it is also highly interesting - it is an official US Army take on what is relevant in the development of the "Military Rifle" - circa 1966!
http://www.pattonhq.com/garand.html
I would take the PTR 91 and my AR 15,and of course the 1911 on the hip. I also need someone to carry ammo!
It would be a M4 or M16A4 because that is issued to me when I go to battle.
If I have a choice? It would still be the M4 or M16A4(depending on mission) or a derivative of said rifles.
If I have a choice? It would still be the M4 or M16A4(depending on mission) or a derivative of said rifles.
1911Tuner--thank you for them great & many words:
i read from page 1 and kept nodding and muttering 'yup.....yup'
the term MBR-- i remember my dad [pacific theater]& his army buddy's use that term, though they never abbreviated it. i never had reason to wonder about it. anyways--as to what i want to have:
i would much rather a m96 or k31 and keep the BG's at 500+ yards with accurate and 'heavy' precision fire than engage them at under 200 yards with spray & pray or selective aimed slow fire from a m-16 [ar].
defense in a environment of buildings & close spaced homes-- m-16 [ar-15]
in an open environment-- garand, k-31 & m-96 [in order of power though i shoot best the 6.5 x 55 at 3-500 yards]
i read from page 1 and kept nodding and muttering 'yup.....yup'
the term MBR-- i remember my dad [pacific theater]& his army buddy's use that term, though they never abbreviated it. i never had reason to wonder about it. anyways--as to what i want to have:
i would much rather a m96 or k31 and keep the BG's at 500+ yards with accurate and 'heavy' precision fire than engage them at under 200 yards with spray & pray or selective aimed slow fire from a m-16 [ar].
defense in a environment of buildings & close spaced homes-- m-16 [ar-15]
in an open environment-- garand, k-31 & m-96 [in order of power though i shoot best the 6.5 x 55 at 3-500 yards]
Last edited:
My Colt AR15. Good enough for the American Military man, good enough for me.. Oh, well I was an American Military man, so I'm biased. But hell, it's tried and true. If someone's 800 yards away, I don't need to shoot at them anyway. If they're between 50 and 300, it's a whole lot of hurt fast. I'll take it. Hey, we get a side arm too don't we? I'll take my Sig 226 .40 (because it works and it's what I have).
Let me keep my M-1 Garand and I would be a happy camper. George Patton-"The M-1 is the gratest battle implement ever invented"
- Status
