"Battle" rifle discussion ...

mc5aw

mc5aw

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,224
Reaction score
8,587
Location
The free state of PA
Some of us regulars down at the small town LGS were discussing long guns, and the topic of personal "battle rifle" came up. We were talking about scenarios of civil unrest, rioting, etc. and not zombies running amok. It was interesting to note that the military vets were to a man satisfied with the AR in 5.56, while several non-vets were adamant about not going below .308. A couple fellows are Mosin collectors, so they expressed their affinity for that vintage make. Myself, I'm of the opinion that in the face of any outbreak of widespread violence and criminality, a stout 12 gauge with as many slugs and buck as possible would suffice. However, my first choice would be my quality AK, followed by a mint SKS. I don't anticipate Black Ops troops rappelling out of copters anytime soon, but if the poop does hit the prop I'll err on the side of as much 7.62x39 as I can carry. I figure if that isn't enough, then things have advanced far past the point of no return. Obviously opinions will differ based on subjective preferences, as well as geography, etc. but it was enlightening to hear divergent ideas from fellows I know and respect as neighbors, family men and lawful gun owners, (NOT tin foil brigade members, survivalists, conspiracy theorists, etc.)

Thoughts?
 
Register to hide this ad
Muley Gil said:
I carried an M4 as a police advisor in Afghanistan. I would have rather have had my Springfield Armory SOCCOM.

Nothing wrong with an SKS either.
Click to expand...

I owned a SOCOM 16 and was very impressed with its quality and precision out of the box. I consolidated calibers and sold it, but I wouldn't hesitate to own another if funds and need called for it.

I have a beautiful Chicom SKS from the late '80s, and the spike bayonet would make a formidable up close and personal deterrent.
 
I'm kicking it old school with my .303 Enfields starting with my WWI version (No.1 Mk.III) and then moving up through my WWII Enfields (No.4 Mk. I) and finally my No.5 Mk.1 Jungle Carbine. Will be working on my "mad minute" skills... The old "smellies" are quite the battle rifle with a great pedigree.
 
ive never actually seen one but a saw m-249 seems like a good choice.
or m14 if you want me to be realistic:) ...BUT...
surplus sks are everywhere for about $220 a "sardine can" full of ammo for $150 and youll still have cash to pick up all the s&w trade ins that would be sure to happen during that crisis :)
 
I would be comfortable with the AR. Especially if i had to tote it. That M1 weighs 9lbs 6oz unloaded. The only advantage over a shotgun would be available ammo.
 
Anything in my hand that will put out bullets fast and accurately to about 150 yards. Most people can't hit anything accurately past that distance anyway. If I'm attacked by hordes of screaming MeeMees, I'll escape and evade to fight another day. If no escape, death rather than capture.

Charlie
 
This is one veteran (72-75) who doesn't have and wouldn't own an AR. We had the M-16A1 and it was the most unreliable piece of junk I ever tried to use. :mad:
Otherwise it would depend on how the situation was developing. If the fighting was up close and personal, I'd grab my M1 Carbine. If the need was for power and range, I'd go with the Socom 16.
 
kamloops67 said:
ive never actually seen one but a saw m-249 seems like a good choice.
or m14 if you want me to be realistic:) ...BUT...
surplus sks are everywhere for about $220 a "sardine can" full of ammo for $150 and youll still have cash to pick up all the s&w trade ins that would be sure to happen during that crisis :)
Click to expand...

I carried one for my 4 years. Very prone to jamming if it isn't oiled perfect in all the right places. Granted, it'll send 20 rounds before it jams, but the whole world knows you've got a machine gun when you pull the trigger.

In survival mode, not being seen is the key. A silenced pistol is better than a machine gun in battles less than 5 people. If the battle is more than 10, your chances are in a flip of a coin.

the original point and click interface, by Smith and Wesson
 
I'd take any good rifle over none. Shotguns are great, cheap, and plentiful/widely accessible. Ar-15s are great, light, and common. If shtf my first rifle in my hands today is an m1 garand. Then I'm driving real far out.

I'm currently building an s&w m&p10 though. Medium/long hunter or sniper.

the original point and click interface, by Smith and Wesson
 
12 gauge shotgun (Remington M870)
.223 rifle
.30 cal rifle
.22RF rifle
9mm pistol
38/.357 revolver
.45acp pistol
My choice would be 12 gauge / 9mm pistol / 223 rifle for the reason of ammo availability ?? At present I don't think .22Rf would be practical as I have not seen any .22 ammo for a long time.
 
I love my AKs. Both 7.62 x39 and 5.45 x39. I'm no sharp shooter but using my AKs and my VZ58 I can reach out and tag targets center mass at 300 + yards. That's good enough for me. Of course I'm not against other quality firearms. I have a Colt and trust it and any quality FAL or HK.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
ive never actually seen one but a saw m-249 seems like a good choice.
Click to expand...

I have one (well my shop owns it), and quite honestly I'm not punking that monster around as a battle rifle.
They're twice as heavy, eat up ammo at an ungodly rate, require links, and accuracy is not their strong suit.
I'll stick with my M1A.
Accurate out to 800m, a devastating anti personnel round, and just plain sexy to boot.
 
I'd probably choose the FN-FAL. The Springfield M-1A might be a better choice, as more parts for M-14's might be available.

My son knows more about modern battle rifles, being a vet of the Iraqi war, three tours and one as a security contractor. He saw a lot of small arms in use and personally killed a considerable number of the enemy. He couldn't walk up on and check some, as too many bullets were flying. But a lot were definitely dead. One shot with a Beretta 9mm was hit across a room. He went down at once and died within a minute or so. Those hit with rifles usually died immediately, but he found the M-4 carbine limited beyond 200 meters or so. As a contractor, he preferred a H-K G-3 for missions where longer ranges mght be involved. He once had a nasty time engaging an enemy sniper at about 200 meters. The guy was behind an oil drum and the M-4 wasn't penetrating it. An Armor Piercing round or three finally did the job, with finishing shots required after the wounded man fell out into the open. He mounted some fancy scope on the G-3, but I forget what. He knows optics pretty well, and uses a Zeiss 3X9 on his Winchester M-70 Fwt. hunting rifle. Does Accutron sound right for the battle scope? I need to ask again.

As a civilian now, he likes his FAL, an AK-of some sort, and had a match grade M-1A. I'm quite sure that he'd be deadly with any of these. He knows such arms well, and is a literal genius, with IQ scores on par with those of a brilliant man whose name I won't mention, as some wouldn't believe the claim! I'm not about to disagree with any of his choices. I used his AK one afternoon to cut down a small tree. It was fun, but I think I could have done the same faster with a .303 or my .270. Or a 7.62mm FAL. I personally don't find the AK comfortable to use, esp. those with folding stocks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top