Lanceman_1
Active Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 525
The problem with true battle rifles is that they tend to be heavy. I'd personally lean towards something like the RFB simply for the weight savings, not to mention the smaller size.
you should plug up that hole on your boat.......or maybe this guy can help you with the hole on your boat. That way you stop losing your guns.
I have a strict, "Don't ask, don't tell, don't show me pictures from your department Christmas party" policy.
Having humped both a M60 and a M16A1 when I was in I would disagree with that sentiment.i just want to make a note on something.
do not fool yourself into getting tied up in numbers. the fact of the matter is that any good weapon is designed with a certain balance in mind, and when this is taken into consideration the dead weight of the platform is irreverent.
That ones that really goes 'it depends'. If you're looking at defeating certain types of barries then yes the 7.62 NATO is going to be a better option. If your plan may involve supressive fire (maybe your working with a partner) then you're going to find the lighter intermediate rounds will have a significant advantage.also to be considered when looking at the gross weight of ammo is the total effectiveness of the round(s) in question. you can do alot more with 280 rounds of 7.62 NATO than you can with 600 rounds of 5.56...quite frankly more ammo does not directly equate to more effectiveness.
Having humped both a M60 and a M16A1 when I was in I would disagree with that sentiment.
Again it's an easy thing to test run a day at a carbine class with a M1A run a qualification before class and after - check the scores.
Do the same with an AK or M4. I think you'll find after a day of carrying and shooting the lighter platform you will not be as tired and your scores will reflect that.
That ones that really goes 'it depends'. If you're looking at defeating certain types of barries then yes the 7.62 NATO is going to be a better option. If your plan may involve supressive fire (maybe your working with a partner) then you're going to find the lighter intermediate rounds will have a significant advantage.
I don't see a great love for the FAL or the M14
I'm sure the military tested them quite well. But these optics/rifles have been used and abused since 2004. So by the time we had them issued to us they were pretty rough. All that abuse adds up.
So who is going to grab me?
RattleSnake. oh wait, he already did
While the weight extream is up there - That tricked out M1A someone posted with the fancy stock is pretty darn close to M60 weight.comparing a M60 to a M16A1 is a far cry from fair...their not even in the same classification.
Because most people over estimate how much cover 7.62 NATO can really defeat.here is the snag up with suppressive fire, most barriers that one would take cover behind can be defeated by 7.62 NATO, so of what value does laying 100 rounds over their head play when you could place 10 into the car their hiding behind?
Potatoe/potato 'Battle Rifle' is term generated by enthusiasts to denote a subsection of weapons which lacked a Snazzy moniker (like 'Assault Rifle').not a light machine gun, not an assault rifle, nor even a combat rifle...we are talking about battle rifles, do not blur the lines that separate these.
i am not saying that rounds like 5.56 do not have their place.....
While the weight extream is up there - That tricked out M1A someone posted with the fancy stock is pretty darn close to M60 weight.
Even if you took a bone stock 10lbs M1A, that weight WILL be noticable after a day or two of carrying & using it. (again take both to a carbine class and compare).
Because most people over estimate how much cover 7.62 NATO can really defeat.
Car doors? Even 5.56 goes through without a problem.
Engine Blocks (the only true cover a car conveys) will easily stop 7.62 NATO just as it does 5.56.
7.62NATO is better at things like glass (especially safety glass) and hollow concrete blocks - when dealing with berms/sand, drums filled with water/sand, sandbags, typical concrete walls etc it's not much different than 5.56 at typical combat distances (see MCWP 3-35 pB4 to B-6 for details; the USMC manual on MOUT).
Potatoe/potato 'Battle Rifle' is term generated by enthusiasts to denote a subsection of weapons which lacked a Snazzy moniker (like 'Assault Rifle').
A rifle taken into battle is a "Battle Rifle" for the last 60+ years it's been the AK for Russia and for the US it's been the M16 system for the last 40+ years. If I had to pick up a rifle for 'real use' I don't care what name a hobbiest or gun rag might refer to it as, I just know the rifle I'm going to grab.
Yet another thread gone out of control. This one was bad from the start because the OP cites a rifle that is the civilian version of a light machinegun chambered in an intermediate caliber (762x39) that doesn't even qualify as what is generally accepted as the definition of a battle rifle.
I will preface this by saying that if you want to have the discussion, then you need to accept the fact that we are talking military weapons. You cannot default to "this is a discussion of civilian use of the weapon in a non-military situation" or "we are going to battle" which comes up often when those with weak arguments are trying to bolster their weak positions. The bottom line is that civilian use of military-inspired/driven kit (rifles, optics, accessories, and other gear) has exploded over the past 10 years for obvious reasons. It has spawned an avalanche of cheap imitations and the inevitable comparisons to the real thing by those that choose (by necessity or not) to buy something less. I fail to understand why folks who buy this stuff insist on trying to compare it to the real thing. This applies to everything, but especially rifles and optics. I am only saying this because this thread has this stuff "sprinkled" throughout.
Back to the point. We always end up in these debates about the effectiveness of intermediate cartridges vs. full power cartridges (usually 5.56 vs. .308). The bottom line is that the full power cartridge is not practical for general purpose use on the modern battlefield. Lots of smart people who've actually been in the fight (from Vietnam to present) have made this decision for good reason. Yet, we still have the Internet commando crowd that somehow knows better even though the majority have never been anywhere in harm's way.
The full power cartridge (.308 for this discussion) in a platform other than a crew-served weapon or sniper rifle does have a place on today's battlefield in the designated marksman role. A DM equipped with a platform in .308 bridges a gap. That gap does not apply to every rifleman. The 5.56 has gotten a bad rap IMO. It isn't the cartridge that has been less than effective, it is the projectile- M855. Our biggest problem is that we always want something, I don't care what it is, that does everything well. That is an unrealistic expectation. The key is understanding what you really need and then striking a balance with what is available.
Finally- if you don't have a pedigree in doctrine or tactics, don't try to talk it. I hope this all makes sense.
Well the source I have is the EBR is closer to 17lbs than it is 11.5 pounds. Heck a M1A with a heavy barrel and standard stock (no optics or bipod) is 11lbs.the M60 tips the scales at almost 25 pounds, the EBR tips in at 11.5 pounds...that is no where near close. it is best to check facts rather than make assumptions.
Would it make it better if I called them "Rifle" classes? I have seen people bring larger rifles to such classes. The name is not important, what is imporant is they are full days where you are carrying and shooting your longarm against targets at typical distances using standard shooting positions (meaning not from a bench or a foxhole with sandbags).bare in mind those classes are 'carbine' classes...
Not sure where you are going with this.the best rifle beyond a military assault rifle for this role would be a combat rifle, seeing as they are essentially the same platforms just semi.
I would disagree. "Battle" implies military use, the military does not use such designations. For example the US Military uses the terms:'battle rifle' is not just a token term, it is in the same regard as automobiles are classified as pick up trucks, SUVs, economy cars, sports cars, luxury cars, super cars, hyper cars, ect..
.The full power cartridge (.308 for this discussion) in a platform other than a crew-served weapon or sniper rifle does have a place on today's battlefield in the designated marksman role. A DM equipped with a platform in .308 bridges a gap. That gap does not apply to every rifleman. The 5.56 has gotten a bad rap IMO. It isn't the cartridge that has been less than effective, it is the projectile- M855. Our biggest problem is that we always want something, I don't care what it is, that does everything well. That is an unrealistic expectation. The key is understanding what you really need and then striking a balance with what is available.
..
I don't really get this. With respect to a civilian mil-spec AR15, aside from a few additional trigger group parts* (for FA), two extra holes in the lower (for FA) and POSSIBLY a shrouded carrier for FA (which many already have in their semi-autos) how are these rifles "cheap imitations?" Because they are not a Colt?I will preface this by saying that if you want to have the discussion, then you need to accept the fact that we are talking military weapons. You cannot default to "this is a discussion of civilian use of the weapon in a non-military situation" or "we are going to battle" which comes up often when those with weak arguments are trying to bolster their weak positions. The bottom line is that civilian use of military-inspired/driven kit (rifles, optics, accessories, and other gear) has exploded over the past 10 years for obvious reasons. It has spawned an avalanche of cheap imitations and the inevitable comparisons to the real thing by those that choose (by necessity or not) to buy something less. I fail to understand why folks who buy this stuff insist on trying to compare it to the real thing. This applies to everything, but especially rifles and optics. I am only saying this because this thread has this stuff "sprinkled" throughout.