Which rifle survey...with a twist. ;-)

[CraigC]

Probably the SCAR or SIG 556.

 

[G27RR]

Heavy, heavier ammo, and the original question said 5.56 (I do love the OBR though, but mine is 5.56, I want the 7.62, too)

 

[Girodin]

It has never been the mission of THR to play fantasy or what if. If the question were to pertain to something that might actually happen then it would be a topic for S&T. But seeing as the topic is "What rifle would you use to go in to combat", which outside of the military has a near 0% chance of actually happening and oh by the way you can't use these rifles for some arbitrary reason, it has little to no bearing on the mission of THR. So while it may be fun to play fantasy, fantasy is not a THR mission. If there were some real planning and knowledge to be gained by playing along then sure. But playing pretend for the sake of playing pretend is not what THR exists for.

I quote below for you the boards stated mission:

It is the declared mission of this board to achieve and provide the highest quality of firearms discussion on the Internet

additionally the board is said to be dedicated to

. . . the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership

There is a difference between positing a hypothetical situation or discussion to allow a focal point for the discussion of what weapon systems are best suited to the rigors of combat and engaging in fantasy. A thought exercise is not the same things per se as fantasy.

The question at its core asks one to identify what the important attributes of a combat rifle are and then to name what weapons system widely available to a US civilian has those.

I do not see such a discussion as being particularly adverse to the stated mission of this board.

Further, I find it a bit ironic, to put it mildly, that anyone who purports to support the second amendment would trumpet the unlikelihood of needing a weapon for combat, or as you have in essence done, suggest that discussion of what is a viable combat weapon is not a worthy topic of responsible firearms ownership. My reading of history surrounding the founding and the second amendment leads me to believe it is as core a topic to the RKBA and responsible gun ownership in the US as any.


Please point to the rule that you believe the OP violates. I list them below for your review.

There are only a few house rules:

1. All topics and posts must be related to firearms or 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' (RKBA) issues.

2. Multiple user registrations are prohibited.

3. As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.

4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

5. You agree to respect the copyright of others. If you don't own the rights to something, you agree not to post it. Instead, link to it and provide a brief summary of the contents. This helps keep us all out of trouble.

6. We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say". Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be temporarily or permanently revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.


We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of politics, abortion, religion, and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".

*Note relating to your subsequent comments the strategies and tactics has its own guidelines specific to that forum that do not apply in this one.

I always love threads where the subject is something that will likely never actually happen to the original poster.

That would be the case for almost every thread that relates to the defensive use of firearms in anyway. It would be true of every thread that discusses that ones asks about the how and why of some technique or piece of equipment for defensive use. It is likely I will never need to illuminate a BG in my home. Should I not post to ask what flashlight forum members recommend I attach to my AR. I will very likely never have to perform an immediate action drill in a gun fight, is that a taboo topic for me to ask about? I'm unlikely to ever hunt an elephant but if I had some question about the relevant merits and attributes of guns for that task would I be wrong to make a post in the hunting forum and seek the wisdom of H&H hunter and others purely for informational purposes? Unlikely, even extremely unlikely might not be the best barometer for the value of posts.

 

[unwise11]

I would avoid said combat situation.
There is no gun I can think of I know how to manipulate in 5.56 better than an AR, and I wouldn't take a 5.56 in the first place if I could take a rifle in .308 or larger capable of 1 MOA or better with an optic.
Heck, a .308 with a good shooter behind it could pick off the "combatants".
Why get close?
If untrained Militiamen get agressive they will get picked off by riflemen capable.
1 hit from a boltgun is alot better than 20 misses from an SKS.
But I don't worry about it, I have guns and alot of ammo, I shoot for fun, hopefully not defence.

 

[Don357]

Well, since the Mini-14 is technically a M-1, and a SR556 is an AR, that leaves Ruger out, and really leaves only the FN SCAR "Light" but that's 5.56 NATO not .223, or the Sig 556 SWAT, but wait, that's a 5.56 NATO too, so I'll have to take what's left. the Benelli MR1 .223. http://www.benelliusa.com/rifles/benelli_mr1_self_defense_rifle.php

 

[Joe in fla]

You said:

Ok guys here's the deal.

Comment on this thread by telling me which rifle you would choose. If you had to pick one rifle to take into a combat situation then which would it be?

I would want to know more about what the situation was first. There's no ONE gun that I would pick for EVERY situation. What is the environment? If it were desert I'd lean toward an Uzi Or Galil since they have large clearances to expel sand. If it were arctic I'd something like an AK-47 with large controls that could be manipulated with gloves and a bolt that didn't lock open to keep snow and like out. If it were an urban environment or thick jungle I'd go with a medium power cartridge such as 7.62 x 39 or .223 and a LARGE magazine capacity. If it were a wide open environment with long range shots then I'd go with a high power cartridge such as .308 or 30-06 or even a .50 cal. Which brings up another point, a .50 cal Barrett would be great for FIXED defense or if you had mechanized transport but forget humping it in a thick jungle or mountainous terrain! I'd also want to know who or what I was facing and how many there are of them. As we learned in Korea, you can have great weapons but unless they have very high magazine capacity and FAST reloads you can simply be over run by swarms of the enemy. The Garand was a great weapon but troops armed with it were frequently over run by hordes of Chinese and N Korean troops. The M1 Carbine was also a great weapon but preformed poorly in cold weather and it's light bullet frequently failed to penetrate the heavy layered clothing worn by enemy troops in the cold conditions in Korea. OTOH the carbine preformed well in the jungles of the Pacific during WW II because the enemy was lightly dressed in the hot climate.

So what gun I'd choose would all depends on the circumstances. As for ammunition, the Geneva Conventions limit you to FMJ so there's not much to choose from except perhaps bullet weight.

Some people here have suggested odd guns such as AR-180s but I would choose a STANDARD, battle proven gun that I could get magazines and parts for even after the Fit hits the Shan. So that leaves out the Rugers, AR-180s, K-2s, Sig 556s, etc.

My all around choice would be a stock AR-15 or M-16 or a folding stock G-3 or FN FAL (.308) for a little more punch. I don't consider the AK-47 accurate enough or hard hitting enough to be an effective battle RIFLE. But if I was facing swarms of enemy at close range, and especially in harsh environment, it would probably be my gun of choice! It's an excellent sturmgewehr but it's not a BATTLE rifle!

 

[sappyg]

lovely thread actually. i still want a SCAR. i just can't afford one.

some would come to THR to escape and some come here to enjoy a common joy. we all come here to learn. "and gladly would he learn and gladly would he teach". (i first read that 25 years ago and it never fails to remind me of my goals great or small).

words mean so much these days and they are not lost on the deaf:
the word "combat" here is not welcome. i don't dissagree.
personally i despise the use of the word "weapon".
"assault rifle" sends me through the roof!

long and the short of it is we all need to choose our words wisely. not that we should offend others so much as we are teaching others that we may not be aware of.

 

[Hanzo581]

I would take the SIG 556. I figure if I paid for one, which I did, I dang sure would take one for free.

Oh and to this

Some people here have suggested odd guns such as AR-180s but I would choose a STANDARD, battle proven gun that I could get magazines and parts for even after the Fit hits the Shan. So that leaves out the Rugers, AR-180s, K-2s, Sig 556s, etc.

The SIG 556 take standard AR mags, and you should need many parts considering its AK like design.

 

[Girodin]

i despise the use of the word "weapon"

I take it you were never in the military. I seem to recall something to about "this is my weapon, this is my gun..."

I carry a pistol on my hip daily it is a weapon and meets the common definition of such, to wit: "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war". It is an instrument carried to be used in defense in combat or fighting (God forbid it needs to be). It is a weapon.

 

[BrocLuno]

I don't want to take 5.56/223 into any stressful situation. Been there, done that.

I'll take my bolt gun and head the other way - fast, with my wife and her bolt gun. See ya

 

[d2wing]

AR.

 

[sappyg]

I take it you were never in the military.

you would be correct.
yet i should not and would not be excluded from this discussion.

 

[MarkDozier]

I can't play, because my combat rifle nust be a 308.

 

[sappyg]

exactly my point:

(God forbid it needs to be). It is a weapon.

 

[Girodin]

yet i should not and would not be excluded from this discussion.

I was simply referencing using the word weapon versus gun to refer to a firearm and pointing out in some contexts the word weapon is in fact insisted upon as opposed to other seemingly apt terms. It was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment (hence the smiley face) with reference to an old military saying.

 

[sappyg]

my bad Girodon. i understand

 

[Girodin]

my bad Girodon. i understand

It's all to easy to misunderstand things in writing, its amazing how much humans rely on non verbal cues for context and meaning. I apologize for anything else I may have mistakenly conveyed that might have been avoided with better word choice and assure you it was not my intent.

 

[speaksoftly]

Good answers guys. Lots of SCAR fans here. I like the SCAR also and wish I could have spent more time with the one I sampled. Keep the ideas coming!

Also, I suppose it's just the nature of the beast but what are you really proving by coming to a "no AR's" thread and saying "AR"? Haha...facepalm.

 

[Magnuumpwr]

Steyr Aug, with an eclan specter IR thermal scope, 16" barrel with reflex suppressor. I am picking this rifle because it is exempt from your disqualifications and has a compactness along with a full length barrel. The eclan is not just a day time or night time only optic, and is not hindered by fog, dust clouds, or most other things that affect night vision or standard optics. My preferred ammo for this would be a 62 grain FMJ bullet with an empty cavity in the nose.

 

[Don357]

If I had a choice, I would NOT carry a .223/5.56x45 NATO into combat, regardless of terrain. For urban combat I would take 7.62x39 or the 6.8 rather than .223, if I couldn't take .308/7.62x51.

 

[Pronghorn]

Ill be using the SCAR because the safety on the 556 sucks (does anyone else think this?)

 

[Hanzo581]

Can you not reach it or something?

 

[Robert]

You are correct, no rule has been violated. And you are correct if the thread were to actually focus of some tangible aspect of a firearm, then I would be all for it. But this thread is nothing more than what gun for zombies, blue helmets, or any other of the myriad of fantasy issues that pop up here.

As to my support of the 2A, please do not presume to know anything about me, who I am or what I support. And as a History major I know full well what role firearms have or have not played in shaping, not only our country but the world as well. You may believe as you like, but few things are as important to me as our RKBA. So ya'll have fun playing pretend Army. I will leave you to it. I will not return to this thread.

 

[Hanzo581]

Lighten up Francis...

 

[CornCod]

My choice would be a Mini-14. Such a rifle would normally be a third-choice after the AK and AR. However, it would be mainly because I have, at least some experience with the platform from both a civilian and law-enforcement standpoint. The mini is a reasonable weapon, especially since thier accuracy has been improved in recent years.