The AR-15

[DARTH]

An AK is like a Scottish Broadsword compared to the ARs Rapier and I have always shot well with it when shooting at man size targets at ranges civilian trouble happens in or you can force it upon them. Put the front sight on it low and hold it right and double and triple tap. Nothing you want to stand in front of.

But an AR is a fucking laser gun, a plinker that kills when it's working right and fed right.

[johno]

Those of you concerned with penetration in your house/apartment should check out BB's link:
http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_D ... /index.htm

[milosz]

Darth, what's your opinion on this setup for home defense?

[Batboy2/75]

Those of you concerned with penetration in your house/apartment should check out BB's link:
http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_D ... /index.htm

This is the take away. IF your ammo does not fragment or the hollow poit or soft point does not expand; there will not be an energy dump, no stretch cavity etc. You're just drilling holes in your target.

Ammo selection is extremely important.

[Sua Sponte]

Green tip has always been a questionable choice. Designed to penetrate body armor, it punched right through the skinnys with oftentimes little effect. While a lot of noise has been made about the barrel twist (1:14, 1:12, 1:7) and its effect on terminal ballistics, I've never seen evidence that proves the effect of the increased twist does anything but improve stability in air. Not that it can't change terminal effects, it just seems that a bullet with a center gravity so well behind impact will tumble anyway. I still think that the 6.8mm Remington SPC is the best choice for the combination of close quarters, medium range, flatness in trajectory, and terminal ballistics.

[DARTH]

Darth, what's your opinion on this setup for home defense?

for the user.

[Batboy2/75]

Green tip has always been a questionable choice. Designed to penetrate body armor, it punched right through the skinnys with oftentimes little effect. While a lot of noise has been made about the barrel twist (1:14, 1:12, 1:7) and its effect on terminal ballistics, I've never seen evidence that proves the effect of the increased twist does anything but improve stability in air. Not that it can't change terminal effects, it just seems that a bullet with a center gravity so well behind impact will tumble anyway. I still think that the 6.8mm Remington SPC is the best choice for the combination of close quarters, medium range, flatness in trajectory, and terminal ballistics.

Barrel twist has no impact; other than what weight of bullet the respective barrels can stabilize. The move to 1-7 twist was to stabilize 5.56 tracer rounds initialy, but the real benefit was stabilizing heavier 77gr bullets; 77gr bullets are the max weight bullet that will fit in an AR platform magazine.

The Mk318 (62 gr) open tip round yaw consistantly and delivers the promised pounch of the M16 system is supposed to. This is what the DOD has been using for the last couple of years. Soon to be replaced by the new environmentally friendly 62gr round. Reports are that round (Copper construction with steel tip) is that it can both penetrate body armor and consitantly yaw in soft tissue.

Mk 262 is what special opperations has been using along with the Mk318 round. This round is getting rave reviews in the field for extending the rage of the 5.56 round (out of a designated riflemans 18inch barrel) up to 700 meters and delivering great stopping power. It has descreased body armor pentrating capabilities.

I'm a fan of 6.5 Grendel over the 6.8 SPC. Either way; both are too expensive to stock in major quanities. My Mad Max, Zombie, End of the World centerfire rifle horde is all 7.62 x 39, 5.56 and .308.

[Batboy2/75]

For those of you that wonder why some (me included) are into heavy .308 battle rifles. With the correct ammo this happpens:




^^^^^That there is caled stopping power and penetration!^^^^^^^^

Or in hunting parlance: Bang! flop!

[Batboy2/75]

Also, those of you extolling the benfits of the shotgun for home pertection. Yes, there is reduced chances of drilling your neighbor across the street. However, 00 Buck shot easily penetrates drywall and insulation. If you miss, you can still hit your loved ones in another room etc.

Even standard bird shot has enough energy to penatrate walls. Not to mention it has almost no stopping power and will most likely piss off the intruder.

[Sua Sponte]

Well, hey, the question was if the AR15 platform was the right choice or if it just needed a change of caliber. My vote was for change of caliber. If it's cost and availability, I'm pretty sure I could make due with my youngest son's Ruger 10/22 as a home defense gun.

Something in the vicinity of 7mm was decided upon in NATO tests in the '50s but we pushed the 7.62 on everybody then switched to 5.56. The M14 exists because of the 7.62mm choice and is the rifle that should have never been.

My only experiences with .308 (7.62 NATO) battle rifles were the M21s relegated to the line platoons after they were banged up in jumps and with the Australian SLR (FN-FAL) when going through their jungle warfare school. They're very accurate and effective but too much: too long, too heavy, too powerful, just too much. The idea that regular infantry will be successfully engaging combat targets regularly beyond 400m or so is wishful thinking. It's one thing to hit a perfectly silhouetted black-on-white E-type target, at known distance, known windage, with sights adjusted accordingly, using a loop sling, shooting jackets, gloves, matts and having 1 full minute to take the shot but it is not the same has having combat capability to 500 yds.

[Batboy2/75]

Well, hey, the question was if the AR15 platform was the right choice or if it just needed a change of caliber. My vote was for change of caliber. If it's cost and availability, I'm pretty sure I could make due with my youngest son's Ruger 10/22 as a home defense gun.

Something in the vicinity of 7mm was decided upon in NATO tests in the '50s but we pushed the 7.62 on everybody then switched to 5.56. The M14 exists because of the 7.62mm choice and is the rifle that should have never been.

My only experiences with .308 (7.62 NATO) battle rifles were the M21s relegated to the line platoons after they were banged up in jumps and with the Australian SLR (FN-FAL) when going through their jungle warfare school. They're very accurate and effective but too much: too long, too heavy, too powerful, just too much. The idea that regular infantry will be successfully engaging combat targets regularly beyond 400m or so is wishful thinking. It's one thing to hit a perfectly silhouetted black-on-white E-type target, at known distance, known windage, with sights adjusted accordingly, using a loop sling, shooting jackets, gloves, matts and having 1 full minute to take the shot but is not the same has having combat capability to 500 yds.

I agree, 7.62x51 battle rifles are heavy and wouldn't be my first choice in rifles. However, after humping the M60 and 240G, the M1A1, FAL, AR10, G3 etc they are child's play.

The Rhodesians had great success with the FAL in their brush war. The advantage in open terrain was being able to stand off a dink communists while staying out of effective range of the 7.62 combloc round. The M14 and other .308 battle rifles don't take a Camp perry competitor to take long shot on the battle field. However, once past 200-300 yards it does take some basic knowledge of ballistics to hit targets. Made even worse, because no one just stands around waiting to get shot.

IMO, the M14 exists because of (1) the American mythos of the rifleman. The fonteirsman taking the long shot with his Kentucky long rifle and dinking red coats (2) The DOD never really buying into the assualt rifle concept (3) love for the Garand. The M14 being an updated version of the Garand with a detachable magazine. Everyone was attached (and still is) to the rifle that helped bring down Hilter and the Japs.

To each their own. My answer to what ammo? Is owning platforms for the most common rounds. I shoot a lot, so ammo cost is very important to me. I mitigate a lot of the costs by having .22 versions of the AR15 and the AK47. Not to mention a .22lr horde that would make Smaug proud;approaching 50k in .22lr.

[Batboy2/75]

Selecting an AR15.

Under no circumstances should you ever buy a home assembled AR15. That is, unless you have more than a passing knowledge of AR15 manufacturers, AR15 suppliers, and the knowledge to assemble an AR15. You don't want to buy some dudes fucked up build. A novice buying a home assembled AR is a recipe for disaster.

Direct impingement or piston?

Direct Impindgement is more accurate. While some will claim DI is dirty and causes reliability issues; that is complete bll shit. An AR15 correctly maintained will run lik a top.

Piston system are clean. However, they cause several issues that the buyer should be aware of; the piston completely fuck with the buffer system. You definitely need to beef up the buffer weight and buffer spring tntion; pistons are not standard and vary from manufacture to manufacture; they do fuck up the accuracy.

What should you buy? Well I own both and both systems work fine for me. If you buy a piston system, buy the Ruger AR15. Ruger will be around to support your file and offer replacement parts.


Next up? Components and set up.....

[Texas Red]

The Rhodesians had great success with the FAL in their brush war.

I remember reading somewhere that a few of the RLI units reported kill ratios upward of 30 to 1, perhaps even 50 to 1.

[Batboy2/75]

The Rhodesians had great success with the FAL in their brush war.

I remember reading somewhere that a few of the RLI units reported kill ratios upward of 30 to 1, perhaps even 50 to 1.

Probably the Selous Scouts and or the Rhodesian SAS. Kill ratios like that are the result of indirect fire and or airpower.

This is probably what you read about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dingo

[Sua Sponte]

The Aussies did a right proper job in Vietnam with their SLRs as well. The 7.62 NATO round will turn what's cover into just concealment. I couldn't imagine, though, the way Ranger ops are being run in Afghanistan now, doing an offset infiltration,a 10-14 mile infiltration march, where target engagements can run into the hundreds of meters, to the assault on the objective in confined areas-I'd only want to have to clear a great big room, like a warehouse, with that SLR or M14/21. So my preference would still run to a M4 with 6.8mm or the 6.55m you suggested (never heard of that round before your post).

It's hard to tell if my fondness for the AR15 platform comes from a rational preference or just because I had tens of thousands of rounds during Bn time through it and it always feels like an old friend. Likewise, I have contempt for the AK47/74, not necessarily rationally, emphasizing its shortcomings, maybe only because it was the other guys' choice. What you know and and are comfortable with almost always trumps 'the best thing ever.' Likewise, I never warmed up to the issue Beretta after years and thousands of rounds with the M1911.

I shoot almost nothing but .22LR these days. I don't have the time to reload nor the desire to lay out the money for larger calibers. If just shooting for fun a .22LR is hard to beat. I don't need a .22 AR-platform because I don't own a center fire AR either. I fire enough .410 and .45LC through my Taurus Judge (home and brush/desert defense) to retain proficiency and that's about it for center fire. Cost of raising two boys trumps having money for bullets and the boys get out more with me with the .22LR anyway-a chance to bond, to have fun and tech them valuable skills.

Way back when, circa 1979/80, in B/1/75 we had a Sgt Kelso, later SGM Kelso, who had served in the RLI. They ran what he termed Fireforce missions, with the Selous Scouts lrrp'ing out targets, then calling in the RLI to take them down. They weren't a well equipped Army, lacking much rotary wing and oftentimes jumped onto target. They may well have had the highest total number of combat jumps of any unit in history. While I don't know about the several 10's to 1 kill ratio, they did a lot of their work with small arms, lacking much in the way of artillery and close air, even then having only a single mortar section. They were good and their enemy wasn't. They seemed to have operated, in a much less sophisticated way, the way Ranger platoons are operating in Afghanistan.

[Batboy2/75]

The Aussies did a right proper job in Vietnam with their SLRs as well. The 7.62 NATO round will turn what's cover into just concealment. I couldn't imagine, though, the way Ranger ops are being run in Afghanistan now, doing an offset infiltration,a 10-14 mile infiltration march, where target engagements can run into the hundreds of meters, to the assault on the objective in confined areas-I'd only want to have to clear a great big room, like a warehouse, with that SLR or M14/21. So my preference would still run to a M4 with 6.8mm or the 6.55m you suggested (never heard of that round before your post).

It's hard to tell if my fondness for the AR15 platform comes from a rational preference or just because I had tens of thousands of rounds during Bn time through it and it always feels like an old friend. Likewise, I have contempt for the AK47/74, not necessarily rationally, emphasizing its shortcomings, maybe only because it was the other guys' choice. What you know and and are comfortable with almost always trumps 'the best thing ever.' Likewise, I never warmed up to the issue Baretta after years and thousands of rounds with the M1911.

I shoot almost nothing but .22LR these days. I don't have the time to reload nor the desire to lay out the money for larger calibers. If just shooting for fun a .22LR is hard to beat. I don't need a .22 AR-platform because I don't own a center fire AR either. I fire enough .410 and .45LC through my Taurus Judge (home and brush/desert defense) to retain proficiency and that's about it for center fire. Cost of raising two boys trumps having money for bullets and the boys get out more with me with the .22LR-a chance to bond, to have fun and tech them valuable skills.

Way back when, circa 1979/80, in B/1/75 we had a Sgt Kelso, later SGM Kelso, who had served in the RLI. They ran what he termed Fireforce missions, with the Selous Scouts lrrp'ing out targets, then calling in the RLI to take them down. They weren't a well equipped Army, lacking rotary wing and oftentimes jumped onto target. They may well have had the highest total number of combat jumps of any unit in history. While I don't know about the several 10's to 1 kill ratio, they did a lot of their work with small arms, lacking much in the way of artillery and close air, even then having only a single mortar section. They were good and their enemy wasn't. They seemed to have operated, in a much less sophisticated way, the way Ranger platoons are operating in Afghanistan.

The Rhodesians took the play book from the Vietnan war, the lessons learned, mixed it with their own African experices and ran with it.

Read up (if you haven't already) on the 1980s counter insurgency campaign in Honduras. All run by former Vietnam guys that reigned down terror on their communist opponents. A lot of guys had to wait years for CIBs for all of the nasty stuff we ran in Central and South America. In 2nd Bn we had senior NCOs that had run patrols for the DEA and CIA in Peru against the Shining Path.

Back to the AR15: my love for it is the same as yours. Despite owning a few Aks. The AR15 is light, accurate, ergonomic and deadly with the correct ammo.

[Sua Sponte]

I know some of the Central/South American stuff but last I knew the details beyond what you mentioned are still not fodder for open conversation, so I'll refrain.

[Batboy2/75]

I know some of the Central/South American stuff but last I knew the details beyond what you mentioned are still not fodder for open conversation, so I'll refrain.

Yeah, I probably posted too much. That was a heavily edited post anyways; I deleted a lot of stuff that shoudln't see the light of day.

I wish I had been a bit older and served in BN during the early 1980s.

[Sua Sponte]

Not to worry. I remember when talking about something like little bird capability or how we got them in and out or how we used them, would get you handcuffed. Now it's all over the internet, pictures and all. Well, a lot of it anyway.

Other then the GWOT after 9/11, I do believe the golden years to be in Bn were the late 70's early 80's. Nobody cared it we were at or near 100% strength; we never were and DX'ing folks was easy (still attrition runs 80% or more overall but not as easy to do it from what I've heard). Our NCOs were almost all combat vets, coming from Ranger companies, SF A-Teams, a few SOG guys thrown in here and there, and to a lesser degree, infantry line platoons. They were the guys who stuck around not because they didn't have choices, but because they loved the Army and Rangers more. Classic tough love sorts of leadership. We had the BS high and tights and spit and polish for sure, but we were young and, in hind sight, it was good for us-but our NCOS also very well knew the parade ground stuff was a means to an end, not an end unto itself. We trained hard and were trained by guys who weren't reading it from a manual. Loved it when we live fired and they'd lock out Range Control and post a guy at the gate to make sure they stayed out. Realistic it was, even though we lost some guys doing it. I think some of that was lost in the much later 80s and 90s. Still, being a Ranger, no matter when you served, is like nothing on earth. I still tell folks MIT was a great education but Ranger'ing is where I learned most of what I know that's of intrinsic value.

[IronDog]

I like the AR platform generally. I do own a rather nice one and it is extremely accurate and with current set up would be a fine 300yd and in weapon as far as accuracy but 200 and in is prefferable due to some properties of the 5.56 round. That said looking at just the mechanical systems involved on the base line weapons the AK platform has the advantage in reliability. The disadvantage with the AK is ergonomics and some loss in accuracy relative to an AR. With some training those things could be overcome and for what it was designed for the AK is a fine weapon; simple to use reliable and 7.62X39 in a rather nasty round.

Generally speaking an AR is going to be more of a money pit, however it is more "customizable" The AK generally speaking is not going to need as much customization and you do not have to be "as" picky with ammo choice.

The AR due to the set up and everything being more in line with regards to recoil and a smaller round these things do contribute to the AR's accuracy. With the right 5.56 round the AR can be rather nasty but generally you want to keep it close most of the rounds I have seen do not fragment reliably after approximately 200-230 yards from a 20'' barrel.

The debate between which gun is better merely depends on what you are trying to do and the training of parties involved. Both weapons are good solid weapons.

Bear in mind this is my opinion after having owned and shot both weapons I like them both. I will say I have more experience with the AR platform and do prefer it to the AK but that's me. Of course I will say I prefer 8mm mauser to them both

[Batboy2/75]

Not to worry. I remember when talking about something like little bird capability or how we got them in and out or how we used them, would get you handcuffed. Now it's all over the internet, pictures and all. Well, a lot of it anyway.

Other then the GWOT after 9/11, I do believe the golden years to be in Bn were the late 70's early 80's. Nobody cared it we were at or near 100% strength; we never were and DX'ing folks was easy (still attrition runs 80% or more overall but not as easy to do it from what I've heard). Our NCOs were almost all combat vets, coming from Ranger companies, SF A-Teams, a few SOG guys thrown in here and there, and to a lesser degree, infantry line platoons. They were the guys who stuck around not because they didn't have choices, but because they loved the Army and Rangers more. Classic tough love sorts of leadership. We had the BS high and tights and spit and polish for sure, but we were young and, in hind sight, it was good for us-but our NCOS also very well knew the parade ground stuff was a means to an end, not an end unto itself. We trained hard and were trained by guys who weren't reading it from a manual. Loved it when we live fired and they'd lock out Range Control and post a guy at the gate to make sure they stayed out. Realistic it was, even though we lost some guys doing it. I think some of that was lost in the much later 80s and 90s. Still, being a Ranger, no matter when you served, is like nothing on earth. I still tell folks MIT was a great education but Ranger'ing is where I learned most of what I know that's of intrinsic value.

I remember when you couldn't tell anyone about fast roping.

Nothing changed training wise from your days to my days as a Ranger. WE never saw Range control when conducting live fires and we always lost a couple of Rangers each year to live fire accidents. We'd be IMTing across an objective and we'd be danger close to M-60 & 60mm mortars rounds. All it took was one little mistake and someone was dead. However, it's what made us different from the legs.

[johno]

This is the image I was referring to earlier, re: handgun vs. AR for in home use.

According to this, the 9mm gives greater penetration than the 5.56, although the 5.56 has greater lethality.
And look at the 12 ga. buckshot penetration.

[Batboy2/75]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYZ7sYAD_sM[/youtube]

Listed in the link is Speer Gold Dot 62 & 64gr SP. Perfect for 1-9 twist barrels.

[tripp221]

Can this dummy buttstock be removed??

Its a Stag-15

I know in doing so would probably make this an SBR, but having a stock to fit it "just in case" wouldn't be illegal, right???

][/url][/url]

[Batboy2/75]

Can this dummy buttstock be removed??

Its a Stag-15

I know in doing so would probably make this an SBR, but having a stock to fit it "just in case" wouldn't be illegal, right???

][/url][/url]

No, that is not a butt stock; it's the buffer tube and it is an essential part of the AR15 system. The buffer and buffer spring reside in the buffer tube.

The Stag-15 shown above is classified by the ATF as a pistol. If a butt stock is added to the that particular AR15 it is classified as a Short barreled rifle. You first need to apply for an ATF tax stamp for a Short barreled rifle and make sure SBR are legal in your state; before making the conversion.

Many of these AR15 pistols are nothing more than range toys or a poor mans SBR. However, if you recognise the limitations of the AR15 pistol and the availble tactics for using one, the AR15 pistol is an excellent 100 meters or less defensive weapons system.

Stay away from arm braces like this one:



IMO they are being abused and the ATF will soon step in and make them illegal. Retards are using them as butt stocks and not as they were designed.

Learn to properly use an AR15 pistol and all is good. Stick that buffer tube into your shoulder pocket and use just like a rifle. 5.56/.223 is low recoil, so you should be fine. You can buy pistol buffer tubes with foam if recoil is an issue. Te other method is to put the buffer tube up to your cheaek bone.

Do google search and you'll find some examples.

If you want a rifle caliber pistol with out the hassle of a buffer tube; buy a Keltec, Sig, Rock river etc.