whats your favorite battle weapon?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll join the other poster in expressing my confusion over this thread.

If you're a civilian, what "battles" are you going to get yourself into that requires an M1 or M14 or some other 308 Winchester or 30-06 Springfield rifle? Either would make a fine hunting rifle though there are lighter weight rifles that are more appropriate for that purpose.

I can understand collectors value or having a fun range toy, but beyond that, what "battle rifle" does a civilian need?
 
Perhaps it's spoken less from a "gun control" perspective, than a "I'm LEO/Military and I like to impress upon you that I know more than you". :rolleyes:
 
Why, that would the the LGM-118A Peacekeeper at Warren AFB, WY. I was stationed there when they were deployed.

Here are some pics:
 

Attachments

  • lgm-118-dvic439.jpg
    lgm-118-dvic439.jpg
    51.6 KB · Views: 14
  • mx-Slide93.jpg
    mx-Slide93.jpg
    23.6 KB · Views: 16
If you're a civilian, what "battles" are you going to get yourself into that requires an M1 or M14 or some other 308 Winchester or 30-06 Springfield rifle? ... there are lighter weight rifles that are more appropriate for that purpose.
Click to expand...

No, not really.

Lighter weight rifles may be fine for the military because they can call up bigger guns and air support... civilians don't have that option.
 
My preferred battle weapon is a large quantity of Marines, but if you mean what rifle I would choose to go to war with if I had to, there are several I would be happy to carry, despite the weight -- just about any FN FAL or M-14/M1A variant would be fine. If I have to shoot somebody who wants to shoot me (the purpose of a battle rifle) I'd prefer a caliber than makes it less likely said enemy is going to get up again once hit, so 7.62x51 NATO or similar is my caliber of choice. A Garand would also be fine, or any good bolt-action battle rifle in pinch.
 
I'm simply saying that I don't see why a civilian would choose a 308 Win or 30-06 for defense given that these cartridges are full power rifle cartridges. It would be irresponsible to fire one off in a populated area because it has a high potential to enter a neighbor's house and kill innocent people. An intermediate rifle cartridge is more appropriate, but it still has the potential to enter a neighbor's house unintentionally.

If you downloaded a 308 Win or 30-06 to the same pressure as a 7.62x39mm Russian that would be more appropriate. You would have an oversized intermediate rifle cartridge.

I don't support gun control. I believe it's perfectly okay to own a full power rifle and no new laws are necessary. We already have laws in place if you negligently discharge a full power rifle cartridge and kill a neighbor.

I don't wish to use inflammatory language such as "mall ninja" or "gun nut." However, people (mostly civilians) who are preparing for a "battle" and have never seen combat or deployed to places like Iraq or Afghanistan strike me as childish.
 
H2O Man, why did you quote me and edit my post to change it's meaning?

I said:

If you're a civilian, what "battles" are you going to get yourself into that requires an M1 or M14 or some other 308 Winchester or 30-06 Springfield rifle? Either would make a fine hunting rifle though there are lighter weight rifles that are more appropriate for that purpose.
Click to expand...

You edited it to say:

If you're a civilian, what "battles" are you going to get yourself into that requires an M1 or M14 or some other 308 Winchester or 30-06 Springfield rifle? ... there are lighter weight rifles that are more appropriate for that purpose.
Click to expand...

As you can plainly see, I was referring to a lighter weight rifle being more appropriate for the purpose of hunting than an M1 or M14.

If you want to lug around an M1 or M14 to kill a deer rather than a light weight sporter, be my guest :D
 
It would be wrong of you to assume that most civilians owning larger caliber weapons live in populated areas.

Also, if you don't wish to use inflammatory language, I suggest that you don't.

BTW, what happens to you if you negligently discharge your small or intermediate rifle cartridge and kill your neighbor?
 
Easy, I would go to jail, the family of the victim would sue me, or both.

A small or intermediate cartridge is less likely to enter a neighbor's home. Of course, it can still happen. Hopefully you're not making the connection that an intermediate cartridge could enter a neighbor's home, thus you might as well use a full power cartridge. That full power cartridge is more likely to enter a neighbor's home. The Garand is the rifle that "turned cover into concealment" after all.

You can drive a nail with a sledge hammer, but you'll probably do some damage doing it that way.

While some people don't, a lot of people do live in populated areas. For those that don't, a full power rifle cartridge could be used for home defense. However, home defense isn't the point of this thread is it?

What battle is a civilian going to get himself into besides defending the home?
 
Evidently at some point in time, our government believed citizens did in fact have a need for a battle rifle and the training to use it. Believed it so much the Civilian Marksmanship Programs was started and citizens participating in the program were given the opportunity to purchase battle rifles direct from the government at a very reasonable price.

That opportunity still exist. www.odcmp.com
 
Joseph85, if I had to deal with a hostile intruder, I wouldn't use any rifle--at least not by choice. I'd offer a 12-gauge load of #9 Skeet or use a handgun.

If, for some reason, I had to deal with some sort of admittedly low odds SHTF involving protection of my property against violent burglary or arson, I'd use whatever seemed reasonable, up to and including a full-blown battle rifle.

The most highly unlikely of all needs would be in the event of taking up arms against the established government. However, that's the sole purpose for the Second Amendment, as shown by the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Not only does the Second Amendment not speak of hunting; it speaks not of self defense against burglars, either. "...to prevent abuse of power by the State..."

And that gets us to battle rifles and IEDs and suchlike.

However, at my age and decrepitude, I wouldn't bother with a battle rifle. I'd seek employment in a mess hall or within a cafeteria for elected officials and use poison.
 
well since i can't have an m14 if i was to run out the door to go to battle it'd be my m1a all the way I can/could shoot that gun like no other i own right out of the box
 
Favorite Battle "Weapon?"...

A-10%20Warthog.jpg


A-10 "Warthog"

An airplane built AROUND a gun. A 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun. PLEASE NOTE - THAT'S 30MM, not 30 "caliber". It fires large depleted uranium armor-piercing shells at a rate of 3,900 rounds per minute.

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 53 ft 4 in (16.26 m)
Wingspan: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
Wing area: 506 ft² (47.0 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 6716 root, NACA 6713 tip
Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
Loaded weight:

Standard: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)
On CAS mission: 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)
On anti-armor mission: 42,071 lb (19,083 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (23,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric TF34-GE-100A turbofans, 9,065 lbf (40.32 kN) each

Performance

Never exceed speed: 450 knots (518 mph, 833 km/h)
Maximum speed: 450 knots (518 mph, 833 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 Mk 82 bombs[31]
Cruise speed: 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)
Stall speed: 120 knots (220 km/h) [32]
Combat radius:

On CAS mission: 250 nmi (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour single-engine loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat
On anti-armor mission: 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 40 nm (45 mi, 75 km) sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat
Ferry range: 2,240 nmi (2,580 mi, 4,150 km) with 50 knot (55 mph, 90 km/h) headwinds, 20 minutes reserve
Service ceiling 45,000 ft (13,700 m)
Rate of climb: 6,000 ft/min (30 m/s)
Wing loading: 99 lb/ft² (482 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.36
Armament

Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger gatling gun with 1174 rounds
Hardpoints: 8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations holding up to 16,000 lb (7,200 kg) and accommodating:
Mark 82, Mark 83, and Mark 84 general-purpose bombs or
Mk 77 incendiary bombs or
BLU-1, BLU-27/B Rockeye II, Mk20, BL-755[33] and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs or
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (A-10C) or
GBU-10 Paveway II, GBU-12 Paveway II, GBU-16 Paveway II and GBU-24 Paveway III laser-guided bombs or
Joint Direct Attack Munition (A-10C)[34] or
AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles and AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles or
LAU-68 Hydra 70 mm (2.76 in) and 127 mm (5.0 in) rocket pods or
Illumination flares, ECM and chaff pods or
ALQ-131/ALQ-184 ECM pod or
LITENING AT/Sniper XR targeting pods (A-10C)

:)
 
I'll join the other poster in expressing my confusion over this thread.

If you're a civilian, what "battles" are you going to get yourself into that requires an M1 or M14 or some other 308 Winchester or 30-06 Springfield rifle? Either would make a fine hunting rifle though there are lighter weight rifles that are more appropriate for that purpose.

I can understand collectors value or having a fun range toy, but beyond that, what "battle rifle" does a civilian need?
Click to expand...

If you're a "civilian" in the USA, you also have a responsibility to be a member of the "militia". Terms vary, but we are all called upon under our Constitution to protect our country and to be "well regulated". Which means we should be ready to fight.

Regardless of one's interpretation of a pretty simple, basic principal of defending one's homeland, I can think of a LOT of scenarios where a band of "civilians" armed with effective weapons like a good .308 or 30-06 battle rifle would be very useful in defending and maintaining our liberties from tyrants.

We are living in a Golden Age.

I pray it will last, but history shows that periods of government protection from non-aggression do not last. If you think that you, your children, your grandchildren, and the rest of your posterity are immune from well-armed aggression, you are wrong. We need to maintain the pride and responsibility of firearms ownership alive through our children and their children. If we can't do that...we will lose and the tyrants will eventually win.

Ownership and experience with a good battle rifle are protection against well-armed foes both from the outside and inside of our Government. We NEED to protect that right.

My vote is for the M1 Garand. The M1A a close, but spendy, second-place.

Lighter hunting rifles are certainly useful, but not as robust when you are shooting more than 50 rounds at a time such as in a high-power rifle match or in a life/death situation.

Simple answer to your question...Looking at the US Bill of Rights, Who are you...or anyone else... to define what a "civilian" needs? IMHO, we need enough to defend ourselves and our country against a well-armed invader.
 
A remote possibility that wont happen in my lifetime nor my children's, but fair enough. However, who's going to attack us? Canada? Mexico? From within?

In recent times we've been attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor and by terrorists. Japan used fighters and bombers and the terrorists have been using bombs, or in the case of 9/11, airliners as flying bombs. No battle rifle could have protected us though a handgun on Flight 11, Flight 175, Flight 77, or Flight 93 might have. God bless the people aboard Flight 93 who used what they could to protect us from another attack.

I suppose I could see drug runners crossing the Mexican border and civilians shooting at them to protect our homeland. There's a lot of open country out there, so a full power rifle cartridge would make sense. However, if you mistake a truck carrying illegals for a truck carrying drugs, you might shoot people who don't deserve to die.

During the civil rights movement, there was violence. Firearms offered African Americans an effective defense at the time though the peaceful movement advocated by Martin Luther King Jr. was far more effective towards change.

An unlikely scenario is that a socialist or statist government took power in the United States. If civilians or the people let this happen by voter apathy or poor education, how many of the people will be left that will care enough to take up arms and fight in a revolution? How are civilians with battle rifles going to fight against a government with tanks, fighter aircraft, bomber aircraft, an advanced surveillance technology?

More importantly, how will the future revolutionaries fight against a government that controls the education system and main stream media? The greatest battle is the battle to win hearts and minds.

I'll probably buy a M14 or something like it one of these days. But I'm not buying one because I'm preparing for a battle. I'm buying it because I enjoy collecting interesting firearms.

I'm not questioning the "need" in a legal sense, but the "need" in a practical sense.
 
Joseph85

I'll probably buy a M14 or something like it one of these days.
But I'm not buying one because I'm preparing for a battle.
I'm buying it because I enjoy collecting interesting firearms.
Click to expand...

I'll drink to that :cool:
 
Joseph85:
A remote possibility that wont happen in my lifetime nor my children's, but fair enough. However, who's going to attack us? Canada? Mexico? From within?

In recent times we've been attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor and by terrorists. Japan used fighters and bombers and the terrorists have been using bombs, or in the case of 9/11, airliners as flying bombs. No battle rifle could have protected us though a handgun on Flight 11, Flight 175, Flight 77, or Flight 93 might have. God bless the people aboard Flight 93 who used what they could to protect us from another attack.

I suppose I could see drug runners crossing the Mexican border and civilians shooting at them to protect our homeland. There's a lot of open country out there, so a full power rifle cartridge would make sense. However, if you mistake a truck carrying illegals for a truck carrying drugs, you might shoot people who don't deserve to die.

During the civil rights movement, there was violence. Firearms offered African Americans an effective defense at the time though the peaceful movement advocated by Martin Luther King Jr. was far more effective towards change.

An unlikely scenario is that a socialist or statist government took power in the United States. If civilians or the people let this happen by voter apathy or poor education, how many of the people will be left that will care enough to take up arms and fight in a revolution? How are civilians with battle rifles going to fight against a government with tanks, fighter aircraft, bomber aircraft, an advanced surveillance technology?

More importantly, how will the future revolutionaries fight against a government that controls the education system and main stream media? The greatest battle is the battle to win hearts and minds.

I'll probably buy a M14 or something like it one of these days. But I'm not buying one because I'm preparing for a battle. I'm buying it because I enjoy collecting interesting firearms.

I'm not questioning the "need" in a legal sense, but the "need" in a practical sense
Click to expand...

Well in response to civilians against a government with tanks, fighters, bombers, etc... Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq all testify to the resilience of guerilla fighters who believe in what they're fighting for.

Not to mention if we could occupy/defeat a country with just those tanks, fighter jets, etc. we wouldn't send in ground troops. A ground troop presence is needed to fully defeat an enemy and that is where battle rifles are meant to be used(against ground troops). Our government would have to occupy the revolting areas the same as we do with the countries we invade.
 
Last edited:
Joseph85:
How are civilians with battle rifles going to fight against a government with tanks, fighter aircraft, bomber aircraft, an advanced surveillance technology?

I dunno, why don't you ask those pesky folks in Iraq or Afghanistan?

EDIT: By the way, I guess my favorite battle rifle would be the AK that will be mine in about a week!
 
Joseph85:
How are civilians with battle rifles going to fight against a government with tanks, fighter aircraft, bomber aircraft, an advanced surveillance technology?
Click to expand...

The important question is how many of the government forces will refuse to obey if something were to occur?

If those who took the oath to "defend the Constitution" actually follow through with their oath it's conceivable that a good percentage would refuse to obey unlawful orders.

In that case they would be augmented by civilians with battle rifles, adding to the force strength.

In the case of armed invasion or insurgency the same thing applies; augmentation of existing forces.

There is no downside to civilians having these kinds of weapons, and plenty of upside.

That's been proven over and over through history.

You should consider maybe reading a history book.
 
Battle Rifles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) FN FAL
2) M14
3) HK91
4) AK47

JMHO
Click to expand...

Exactly the guns I'd pick and exactly in that same order. I just shoot better with the FAL, even though the M1A is more accurate. NO RAILS on any of them though. I dispise the way they feel and they're just a place to hang garbage that does nothing but make the gun heavier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
Favorite Modern Battle Rifle: Beside AR or AK
2 3 4 5
Replies
117
Views
6K
d2wing
d2wing
G
  • Locked
Favorite Semi-Auto Lube
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
armabill
A
R
  • Locked
AK questions
Replies
15
Views
647
wally
wally
38-45 Special
  • Locked
What's your favorite lever action rifle?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
157
Views
8K
samtron
S
B
  • Locked
What would YOU carry into battle?
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
4K
smokemaker
S
Back
Top