Author Topic: WHATS YOUR PICK FOR A BATTLE RIFLE? (Read 19597 times)

Cheesehead · « **Reply #120 on:** May 14, 2008, 07:11:17 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on May 13, 2008, 06:18:22 AM

how soon you forget !
I won't make that mistake again !

Cheesehead · « **Reply #121 on:** May 14, 2008, 07:14:19 AM »

Quote from: Cheesehead on May 13, 2008, 06:19:39 AM

Yes ! you ! will !

Cheese !

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #122 on:** May 14, 2008, 07:16:36 AM »

Cheese you are hard ! but honest !

myronman3 · « **Reply #123 on:** May 14, 2008, 08:40:28 AM »

strickly for arguements sake, if the m1 is so superior to the m16, how long did the m1 have the role of issue battle rifle compared to the m16?

i say you should go shoot against sharon. like she said, bring cash.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #124 on:** May 14, 2008, 09:22:57 AM »

The org post was my choice and that is what i stated ! deal with it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How long , until the wizz kids got involved . Mainly to save cost ! How many Americans died due to rifle failure because of changing in a war ?
The pros and cons have been debated since the early 60's , now they are putting the M-14 back on the battle field , shame they destroyed so many ! And how many redesigns has the M-16 been thru. trying to make it suitable for battle ?
Maybe i have a hard time depending on a round that my state won't allow me to deer hunt with !
Since you insist on picking up where others left off and Cheesehead is watching me i will not reply to you anymore , the door is open - enjoy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you do choose to have the last word maybe you could explain the widespread use of a larger than .556 cal for most sniper rifles , the 308 being the bread and butter round . If the Ar is so much better then why not use the M-16 as a sniper weapon ? Yes they are trying to get the AR-10 on line but it has had alot of problems !!! Did you realize it came out before the M-16 and is still not 100% reliable . That's a confidence builder !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And why the reassure of the M-14 if the M-16 is equal ?

myronman3 · « **Reply #125 on:** May 15, 2008, 02:52:14 AM »

the m14 is not replacing the m16. since it was replaced, it has been issued here and there as a specialty weapon. you imply that it is the standard issue arm, which it is NOT. but, you love clouding the issue with non essential information, so i guess it is business as usual for you.

i have a really hard time taking anyone seriously who doesnt understand basic english grammer and punctuation. you might as well just use "all caps" because your posts are painful to read. i have tried subtle hints, blatant hints, and outright telling you but you! just! dont! listen!!!!

SharonAnne · « **Reply #126 on:** May 15, 2008, 07:17:35 PM »

my selection remains the rifle that cleans up ALL high power matches out to and including 600yds. the SWEET 16

SharonAnne · « **Reply #127 on:** May 15, 2008, 07:19:12 PM »

i have read reference to the 'rat tail' FAL being inferior to the 'Stoner' modification. can someone with direct knowledge educate me please.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #128 on:** May 15, 2008, 07:21:55 PM »

sorry for not including this in the prior entry. I had a 'rat-tail' L1A1 and had no problems. just an interesting aside: it was stamped "Singapore PD"

rzwieg · « **Reply #129 on:** May 15, 2008, 11:57:09 PM »

Gentlemen;

I think SharonAnne has a grasp of what she has posted, but like myself posts like she talks.

Intrinsically, the AR platform is more accurate than the Garand type arms. In .308 form, who knows? So for now I stick with an M1a ( I like it ) and really like the FAL. If nothing else they re fun

myronman3 · « **Reply #130 on:** May 16, 2008, 02:39:55 AM »

fact is they are all nice rifles and have all earned the reputations and love people feel for them. and all are great choices. i just dont like the put downs of other people's choices. it flat out aint necessary.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #131 on:** May 16, 2008, 03:37:18 AM »

Sorry Cheese ,
Don't confuse opinion with put downs !

Cheesehead · « **Reply #132 on:** May 16, 2008, 05:12:34 AM »

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #133 on:** May 16, 2008, 06:06:57 AM »

You said i would

teddy12b · « **Reply #134 on:** May 16, 2008, 09:37:22 AM »

I don't know how you're putting words in Cheese's mouth. If you look closely he only brought up some quotes. He didn't actually make any comments, just quoted a few. Let's not drag everyone into this little mines better than your flame war.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #135 on:** May 16, 2008, 09:58:47 AM »

i said i would not do it again ( make that mistake ) ), cheese said i would and i did ! all i did was admit he was right !
This is funny when you get cut down for admitting someone was right !
And check back you can read his post . He came in JUST LIKE YOU DID teddy12b !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #136 on:** May 16, 2008, 10:13:10 AM »

I have an L1A1 and an AR-15. Like both, but for different reasons. East of the Mississippi, the AR-15 would serve well enough for 98% of the time. Plains states or mountain states or the southwest, or some moose or bear areas in the extreme northeast (Maine) the L1A1 or M1A would be my choice for the distance and also larger heavier critters is some areas you might need to kill for food or defense. In a major emergency, SHTF situation, my wife would use the AR and I would use the L1A1. Just my opinion. I would love to have an M1A but I bought my L1A1 for $400 and for another $60, got 12 - 20 round mags for $5 each. Got plenty of AR mags for $10 each before prices went crazy.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #137 on:** May 17, 2008, 03:52:38 PM »

Dixie Dude. is your L1A1 a 'rat tail' or do you have the 'Stoner' modification?

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #138 on:** May 17, 2008, 03:55:47 PM »

I have the "rat-tail". Never heard of the Stoner modification. I assume it is a larger rod, or a spring like on the SKS?

SharonAnne · « **Reply #139 on:** May 17, 2008, 04:09:05 PM »

Dixie Dude, I have no idea. It is something I read somewhere and would like someone who knows to tell me about it.

AtlLaw · « **Reply #140 on:** May 18, 2008, 06:34:19 AM »

Quote from: SharonAnne on May 17, 2008, 04:09:05 PM

. It is something I read somewhere and would like someone who knows to tell me about it.

I never heard of it either. If you want you can go to the FAL Files forum at http://www.falfiles.com/index.php and ask there. Great forum and there isn't anything somebody doesn't know about FAL's. I spent a lot of time there when I was going through my FAL phase. Like I said earlier, I've got 3 ( keep thinking I've got 4

) and the L1A1 is my favorite. Must be a wood thing...

Chilachuck · « **Reply #141 on:** May 18, 2008, 08:02:26 AM »

Myron, about reply 123, which implies the question why the M-16 and it's variants have lasted so long in service.

The US fought only one war where the fighters spent a lot of time "in the mud" with the M-16, and that was in an area with a lot of short ranged shooting, where the M-16 does very well. Most of the reliability complaints also date from that theater.

Since then, we've been able to supply most of the fighters with a secure area for make and mend, and cleaning the M-16. The M-16 would have been replaced long ago had the troops been forced to use it some place like Korea where they had to stay out in the mud and shoot long distances. (If I recall correctly, those special forces that do spend a lot of time in the field generally do not use any of the M-16 family on their little camping trips.)

We have also replaced long range shooting with artillery, air support, and armed drones, and we had to do that because of both the M-16's range limitations and the lack of target spotting and shooting ability of recruits that did not hunt as children.

People ask "Why is the M-16 so popular with so many armies if it has so many problems?" Well, the US gave them away to all those countries, leaving the money they would normally have spent on rifles available for more important purposes, like booze, drugs, and whores for the people ruling those countries. Of course they like those free guns.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #142 on:** May 18, 2008, 08:17:55 PM »

I believe you will find the H&K 416 is of 'the M16 family'. it is a direct replacement top end and is an M16 with a piston rather than gastube recoil

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #143 on:** May 19, 2008, 01:44:52 AM »

CHILACHUCK .
NICE !

myronman3 · « **Reply #144 on:** May 19, 2008, 02:52:23 AM »

Quote from: Chilachuck on May 18, 2008, 08:02:26 AM

Myron, about reply 123, which implies the question why the M-16 and it's variants have lasted so long in service.

The US fought only one war where the fighters spent a lot of time "in the mud" with the M-16, and that was in an area with a lot of short ranged shooting, where the M-16 does very well. Most of the reliability complaints also date from that theater.

baloney. if you think mud is the only thing that causes havoc in a weapon system, evidently you havent dealt with sand, sea water, or frost. the m16 has been to every enviroment on the planet in many more missions than the public will ever know about.

Quote

Since then, we've been able to supply most of the fighters with a secure area for make and mend, and cleaning the M-16. The M-16 would have been replaced long ago had the troops been forced to use it some place like Korea where they had to stay out in the mud and shoot long distances. (If I recall correctly, those special forces that do spend a lot of time in the field generally do not use any of the M-16 family on their little camping trips.)

baloney. special forces use the m16, or one of it's variants as one of their primary weapon. it is blatantly obvious you are regurgatating what you have heard or read, get some first hand experience in the matter before you try to pass that garbage off on me. i have been there and done that, personally.

Quote

We have also replaced long range shooting with artillery, air support, and armed drones, and we had to do that because of both the M-16's range limitations and the lack of target spotting and shooting ability of recruits that did not hunt as children.

another b.s. flag needs to be thrown. if you are telling everyone that artillery air support and armed drones were devolped because of the 5.56 range you are smoking crack or you have absolutely no idea of facts, history, or weapon capability.; i got news for you hoss, artillery and air support were devoleped way before the m16 was even a sparkle in stoner's eye. and for your comment about "not hunted as children, some of the militarys best shooters were never exposed to shooting before the military got them; i.e. no bad habits.

Quote

People ask "Why is the M-16 so popular with so many armies if it has so many problems?" Well, the US gave them away to all those countries, leaving the money they would normally have spent on rifles available for more important purposes, like booze, drugs, and whores for the people ruling those countries. Of course they like those free guns.

a little bit of truth there, but not the whole story. it is a great weapon system for many reasons.

nice response, too bad it was a bunch of hooey. it just isnt true; but i bet it looked real good when you typed it out. what is really funny is shootall jumps on here and exclaims "what a great post". all that does is further expose his lack of actual first hand knowlege. it is obvious that he has read much, talked alot, but actually done very, very little firsthand. cheers.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #145 on:** May 19, 2008, 03:22:48 AM »

Now BS to you !
I looked it up in the BOOK and nice is not defined as " WHAT A GREAT POST " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The M-16 's use in the Arctic has been restricted in the past and supplemented with the M-14 . This was due to gloves and the M'14 having a more robust action and larger controls . Yes the bottom of the trigger guard drops for use with gloves on the M-16 but the M-14 is easier to operate in the hostile north , same reason the controls on the SKS and AK were built robust . Also the more powerful cart. can over come frosted parts .
You also talk about adverse conditions , The M-16 has doors to keep out trash , good to a point . But the M-16 action is harder to clean in a battle . the M-14 on the other hand is self cleaning with regard to trash in the action a fact learned with the M-1 , 30 cal. carbine and Ruger's line of rifles to name a few !
All should take time to review history . Why was the M-16 adopted ? Cheaper to build , easier for all sized troops to shoot , more ammo could be carried ( less effective ammo ) . Why the M1-A ? so the M-1 could shoot more than 8 times before reloading , so all troops could have the equal of a BAR if team leader felt the need . The M-1 stands on its record and the M-14 was an improvement . The M-16 is a medium power rifle at best and the M1-A is a high power rifle .
My choice is still the M1-A .
With the release of the scout and socom models of the M1-A I can't imagine anything a M-16 could do better !

Chilachuck · « **Reply #146 on:** May 19, 2008, 03:30:29 AM »

Myron, I was using "in the mud" meaning "out in the field, without a secure base". Anyone with a gas tube M-16 needs to take time out more often to clean the M-16.

Cleaning a rifle means you have disarmed yourself for the moment. That's okay if you have someone to cover you, and is willing to cover you, but the US does not spend months out away from base any more, except those special forces groups. Those groups have the additional discipline needed to cover each other, regulars do not.

And, yes, I only know what I've read about what they carry in the field. They do have options other than the M-16, right?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #147 on:** May 19, 2008, 04:02:44 AM »

I have read that in a long term , behind enemy lines special forces often carry the weapons of their foe making the resupply of ammo easier and harder for the other side to track them . I once read that they also wore the shoes and ate the food of the enemy in some cases to stay undetected . ( we owe these men a great deal ) . To be fair the choice in early VN was often a M2 carbine and later a gun similar to the size of the M-4 . They had missions that required the carrying of heavy loads of equipment and a small light gun worked good for them . I read one story where a group carried a 444 marlin to bust bunkers . Their weapons were most likely job specific then and now !
I have a friend that ran a boat on the rivers in VN ( i got to see his boat before 9/11 when access to the docking area was closed to boat traffic , the sides were marked with small arms fire so i tend to believe he did what he said )he picked up SF and seals from time to time . He said sometimes they would come back with a handgun , canteen and little else . I have to concede that in these cases a M1-A would not be the best choice unless a socom was used , then it would be an ammo debate . Maybe the mac-11 idea came from such missions ?

myronman3 · « **Reply #148 on:** May 19, 2008, 07:49:16 AM »

Quote

They do have options other than the M-16, right?

that depends largely on the unit they are in. in short, some do, some dont. they generally have a greater lattitude in choice, but sometimes not. the m16 is still a staple.
as far as cleaning in the field, no problemo. just as fast to do a m16 as a m14. now i am not going to sit here and say that the m16 will operate as dirty as a m14, but they do pretty good.

as far as your choice, shootall, i aint debating that. i am debating your stance on the m16/ar family. and, the only mission a mac11 would be good for would be a suicide mission.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #149 on:** May 19, 2008, 09:21:54 AM »

Aren't most ? Missions suicide .
Would my opinion be easier for you if I sugar coat it ? I sit up at night worrying about all my GB friends with AR's wishing they had M1-A's . I did leave off the !!!!!!!! to make an easy read for ya .