What's the best Second Amendment purpose rifle/caliber?

[henschman]

When they ratified the BOR in 1791 they might have argued over Charleville versus the Brown Bess, but what shoulder arm do you think is the best choice for Second Amendment purposes these days?

If you don't know what the main purpose behind the Second Amendment is, or the primary political function of the right to bear arms, go read up on it and get back to us. This isn't a thread about vague, undefined "SHTF" scenarios, so don't try to make it about that. The Founders were quite clear about the main type of situation they were writing the 2nd about (resistance to state tyranny), so let's keep the discussion confined to that, in order to keep things from getting out of hand. I know there are other aspects to this question, but because of the subject matter of the sub-forum, try to keep the discussion limited to rifles.

In this forum we have argued plenty over what rifle/caliber is best suited for the military, but I thought it would be interesting to have the same type of discussion regarding the unorganized militia. I would say the calculus is a bit different when you take armor, artillery and air support out of the equation!

What do you think about caliber? The 5.56 works well for the military, but I tend to think the armed individual might benefit from a little greater effective range in an all-around 2A purpose rifle.

I used to be enamored with having rifles in common service calibers, but later on I started wondering if that consideration is all it's cracked up to be. It seems like if you're in a situation in which you actually need to use that sort of rifle for it's intended purpose, you will likely be limited to whatever you have on hand anyway; the scenario of sustained field use and re-supplying from the enemy seems unlikely. My current thinking is that a guy with a good stockpile of handloads is just about as well off as a guy with stacks of surplus. Then again, cheap off-the-shelf ammo is nice for training, when you want to go through 1000 rounds in a weekend and don't feel like spending all the hours it would take to hand load it all.

I don't necessarily mean for this to be a "if you could pick only one" question, either... I definitely believe in multiple weapons covering multiple roles for those who can afford it. Mostly I am just wanting your thoughts on how best to fulfill our duties as armed and free people who wish to stay that way -- at least as far as rifles go.

 

[GLOOB]

The best is 50BMG. Cuz any bigger isn't legal.

 

[Sport45]

M14 or M16 for long arm, M1911a1 or M9 for sidearm

 

[MachIVshooter]

America's Rifle

 

[jim243]

What do you think about caliber? The 5.56 works well for the military, but I tend to think the armed individual might benefit from a little greater effective range in an all-around 2A purpose rifle.

If you feel that the well regulated militia is to support the general armforces then using the same caliber weapon would make the most sense. It makes resupply easier for all involved.

Don't over estimate the range that will be needed to defend yor family and friends. If you feel a need for longer range snipping then a bolt acton rifle with scope in 308, 270 or 30-06 would be your best choice due to availability of ammo and replacement rifles.

Jim

 

[45lcshooter]

Nice bolt action 308 with medium power scope. And backup, AR15 with penatrator bullets and gernade launcher.

 

[1911 guy]

I had a well reasoned post all typed out last night. Then my server pooped the bed.

Anyway, I think it should be an autoloader available in a common caliber that you can afford to stock both ammunition and magazines for. Don't think it's going to be at wheatfield ranges, either. it's going to be going on at corner of Central and Main distances.

My own choie is an AR, but there are several equally viable calibers and platforms. Also, don't discount the use of the .22 long rifle by a few. Might be all they have and ambush is possible.

 

[Nico Testosteros]

7.62x39 is a true People's Army caliber.

 

[CraigC]

A well-regulated militia in the 1770's might need to do more than just shoot red coats. Just as a well-regulated militia in 2012 might need to do the same. So I may fore-go the AR-15 and choose a nice M1 Garand, M1A or AR-10.

 

[gp911]

I think in that sort of situation you would have a structure, a loosely arranged chain of command, etc. So no need to pick one gun as people would be using what they had and probably sharing their extra weaponry with other like-minded individuals. There would be people with scoped rifles, ARs, AKs, shotguns, you name it. Hurts to think about it though, as it's not some faceless horde you're fighting, it's your fellow Americans. Not just military folks, but "loyalists" and the like. I hope our society never collapses to that extent.

 

[morcey2]

One thing to remember about the time of the ratification of the second amendment. There were two categories of long guns used: High tech and low tech.

High tech: Kentucky rifle and other rifled-bore arms.

Low tech: Brown bess, charleville, and other smoothbore muskets.

Which one did the military generally use? Muskets. The reason? Rate of fire. They weren't nearly as accurate as the rifles, but they could be loaded and fired much more rapidly. The rifles at the time were significantly more accurate than any sighting system they had at the time and one of the minor inflection points of the revolutionary war was when the Americans started using the militia riflemen as something between sharpshooters and snipers effectively. (Hard to be a sniper with a big puff of smoke giving away your position on every shot. Not a job I would want.)

What are the analogs today? I'm not sure. I think on the brown-bess side, the AR and AK style platforms are the closest in terms of common usage. High rate of fire. Relatively accurate as compared to the common hunting rifles (which the AR is quickly becoming.) I think the original AK-47 is the best comparison. Cheap to produce, shoots a heavy pill w/ limited range, but effective within the common combat range.

On the Kentucky rifle side, what could be more American than the glorious 3-line model 1891 rifle from Mother Russia! Seriously though, I think the closest analog would be the 'deer rifle'. With a scope and a good round anywhere from 243 (or 6mm rem, a much gooder round) to 378 Weatherby, they have much extended and killing power while sacrificing rate of fire. I have friends who can shoot to 1000 yards+ accurately with their 30-06.

When you start thinking about it though, the common people in the colonies had 'modern weapons', why shouldn't we, as common people now, have the same capability?

Just my not-quite-awake-yet $0.02.

Matt

 

[7thGenAustinite]

M14 or M16 for long arm, M1911a1 or M9 for sidearm

this!

 

[HoosierQ]

It should be the best, most versatile, and most common rifle (by type) available to we Citizens of the USA...because that's what the Founding Fathers intended. As noted above, that would have been Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles (accuracy, light weight), Brown Bess Muskets (rate of fire and ease of maintenance) and Fowling Pieces which were much more common that we tend to think of.

So today that'd be, sticking with the key element...common, ARs, Bolts, Levers and pretty much all the common guns everybody's got now.

The Founding Fathers knew that weapons would progress. Many of them lived to see the Kentucky Rifle sort of merge with the Brown Bess in the form of the 1803 Harper's Ferry rifle (interchangeable parts, rifled barrel)...it was the most advanced rifle on the planet in 1803 and much advance over what was in common use in 1791. A few of them may have lived long enough to see the first percussion caps...but I'm not sure about that. That was a major advancement because it all but eliminated weather from the equation.

The best Second Amendment rifle is/are the rifles we citizens have right now!

 

[tyeo098]

AR-15 Homeland defense rifle.
Worked for the Koreans in '92

 

[tomrkba]

300WTF...er...Blackout
7.62x51mm (not 308 Winchester)
5.56x45mm

Yes, 5.56x45mm is weak, but it's highly available and can put idjits into the dirt. My thought that for general 2A purposes, 7.62x51mm is the way to go with the exception of cost (which takes us back to 5.56x45mm). Training is essential and you're better off with 5.56x45mm if you'll take it to training than a gun you are not skilled in using. If you can afford the ammunition, go with the heavier caliber.

300WTF is a good compromise round. Again, the cost of ammunition is a factor. I really like how you can suppress the gun and use subsonic ammo for a very quiet rifle round. Switch back to regular ammunition for regular use. You get the heavier bullet with intermediate level performance. It works with standard 5.56x45mm magazines, so you can just buy an upper and switch back to 5.56x45mm if necessary. I'm sure hunting ammo for 300WTF will come out and you can use it in that role too.

7.62x39mm is not on the list because quality brass cased ammunition is very expensive. I am not certain about Hornady's steel cased ammunition; it could be pretty good. Wolf is just awful at 300 yards; I can barely hear the hit on steel. I feel that quality ammunition is essential for 2A purposes and cheap steel cased ammunition does not perform up to my standards. It seems to artificially limit the gun to 150-200 yards.

 

[jakk280rem]

Anything that fires issued ammo, probably 5.56, out of a STANAG magazine.

 

[MachIVshooter]

7.62x39 is a true People's Army caliber

In communist and third world countries.

The round and it's platforms are fine, but do represent the antithesis of Amrican ideals.

 

[squarepants33889]

I would hate to be confused for arguing the effectiveness of the terminal ballistics, but my vote might go for the ubiquitous .22 long rifle. They are cheap easy for anyone to shoot, usually have high cap mags available. You can fit about 500 rounds in your pockets. ammo is available everywhere from big box stores to old abandoned barns. In a firefight, I would also like to have more hitting power, but maybe if 500,000 citizens showed up carrying 22's, a firefight might never occur in the first place.

 

[Kyle M.]

The best is 50BMG. Cuz any bigger isn't legal.

.700NE and 950JDJ are both larger and more powerful than the .50BMG and there legal. Provided you don't live in the peoples republic of kalifornistan. I'd have to go with either the M1 Garand or M16/AR-15 personally.

 

[mdauben]

I'd be very happy with a good 5.56mm AR and plenty of spare mags, backed up with a .308 Win. scoped bolt-action.

 

[USAF_Vet]

In a true 2nd Amendment purpose, I would like to think we would have some of the military at our sides, so common NATO calibers seems smartest (5.56x45, 7.62x51, 9x19, .45ACP). But I do have to agree with the .22 LR and wouldn't discount the 12 gauge with 00 buck and/ or slugs.

7.62x39 is a good round, but once your personal stockpile has dried up, result won't be easy. That goes for virtually any/ all non-service calibers.

As far as the platform, I'd be just as comfortable with my AR, or a supplied M-16 or M-4 as I would with a bolt gun chambered in .223 or .308.

 

[Cosmoline]

The reason? Rate of fire.

There were other considerations as well. The military muskets mounted bayonets, and for many in the Colonial command the bayonet was the most important weapon of the infantry. In their view, bullets were little more than a softening device for the real fight. Battles were won by cannon and the bayonet. Rifles didn't mount bayonets, and neither did the 20 ga scatterguns and barn guns common among colonials. Many owned firearms, but few owned actual military muskets. Those were huge weapons that ate a ton of expensive powder and lead. This is why there are so many sources complaining about militias being badly equipped and poorly armed. For an officer to have a bunch of soldiers standing out in the field with no shining steel blades on their firearms was like standing out in the field with no breeches on.

These days there are so many more firearms to choose from, and we're far wealthier than the Colonials. Any modern centerfire rifle will do in a pinch. Or even a good .22LR.

 

[fanchisimo]

In your situation of responding to tyranny, we would most likely be fighting organized troops and the weapons they use, IE M4/M16 so we would need a weapon that can reasonably compete with this. The only class is a semi-auto rifle with the capability to pierce body armor. Otherwise the militia would be outmatched by sheer volume of fire of the tyrannical forces. The AR is already at a disadvantage of being semi-auto only, but that would prolly only affect short range since accuracy is reduced. I am automatically inclined to say the AR 15 would be the ideal choice since ammo would most likely be reasonably available and can compete with the M16/M4. Deer rifles would be good for accuracy, but most can hold only 4+1 rounds usually, versus 30 rounds per mag on the M16/M4. A mini-14 might not be a bad option in there, too.

 

[NoirFan]

Any quiet caliber that comes in a small concealable pistol, like a 22LR. In a modern armed rebellion that pickup truck full of AR15-armed yahoos won't even get all the way out of the garage before it gets zapped by an aerial drone, or informed on by their neighbors. The only effective shooting that our hypothetical patriotic freedom fighters would be doing is executing and intimidating soft targets like civilian collaborators and the families of soldiers at close range.

Anyway, the resistance movements in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us that small arms are kid stuff. If you really wish to harm the government and your fellow Americans, stock up on fertilizer, bomb components and discreet torture implements like pliers, car batteries, etc.

 

[MachIVshooter]

In a modern armed rebellion that pickup truck full of AR15-armed yahoos won't even get all the way out of the garage before it gets zapped by an aerial drone

You've seen too many sci fi and action films.

No military in the world (including our own) has enough drones to commit them to taking out a "pickup truck full of AR15-armed yahoos" that comprises just a few of the 80 million gun owners they're up against.

There's also this perpetual illusion that our government could actually turn our troops on us. Some, sure, but the overwhelming majority simply won't do it. They're also sworn to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. A tyrannnical government is a domestic enemy. Any order they're given that violates the constitution is an invalid order, even if it comes from POTUS himself.