PDA

View Full Version : Business Rifle: M1A vs AR 15


DanThaMan
October 18, 2009, 02:13 PM
Quite frankly I’m torn between buying a Springer M1A or dumping those funds into training with and optimizing my RRA AR 15. I am pursuing the best “business” rifle, because that simply sounds better than SHTF (which currently carries extremely negative connotations and alternative hoax meanings like “Stupid Homicidal Teen’s Fantasy”). I am not a soldier but I would like to address the possibility of having to use a rifle in a modern battle-field setting. I can’t justify using an M1A as home defense for obvious reasons, and although I will train with it at the range, its real purpose is a dormant one which will most likely never be fulfilled, however, should not be taboo on a forum which is dedicated to the exploration and discussion of the efficacy of arms.

I digress: I read more and more about people pursuing the best AR 15 for tactical purposes. I simply can’t get past the caliber’s shortcomings. Sure, .223 definitely has its strengths, if you want the rifle to be truly versatile you must have to carry a plethora of magazines labeled with different loads. 55 gr hollow points for close range, 69 gr hollow points for 100-200 yards, 74 gr HP BT for anything past that. I would like to be able to put anything in my gun, which will feed every time, and will effectively stop a threat. .308 seems to be a solution.

However, the ergonomics of the AR 15 are a beautiful thing which I don’t like sacrificing. Obviously, carrying more rounds is a definite plus as well.
I won’t even touch on reliability because everyone’s experiences are different. However, in general, my AR 15 jams more than I would be comfortable with if I was to invest my life in it.

So what route would you choose, invest in upgrading my AR 15 and training with it (more than usual, that is), or get the M1A and muster more funds to train with in the future?

Action_Can_Do
October 18, 2009, 02:25 PM
This is a question that only you can answer for yourself. I suspect that if you think about it, you have actually already made up your mind. Me, I would buy the second rifle, because I wouldn't want my AR to get lonely.;)

Jimro
October 18, 2009, 02:41 PM
Dantheman,

If you think you need a multitude of different magazines to carry three types of ammo for your RRA AR-15 then you shouldn't buy another rifle.

Using crappy 62 gr M885 you can engage targets from 0 to 600 meters without difficulty if you know what you are doing. Hollowtip match ammo 69 gr or higher will do the same.

Save your money, find ONE load that shoots tight in your rifle, and stick with it. I don't know what sights you are using, but the stock rear sight is calibrated for 62 gr ammo (unless you have a custom BDC).

It isn't about having a bullet that fragments completely at X range, it's about having a rifle/ammo combo that hits where it is aiming. If the first round hits right through a goblin SHOOT AGAIN. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. And a 223 will kill something just as dead as a 308.

Train, don't buy.

Jimro

mesabi
October 18, 2009, 03:00 PM
If you're AR15 is jamming more than you like then you need to spend some more time cleaning. I never had one jam the whole time through basic training except when they put blanks in our mags of real ammo. You only need what your rifle is zeroed in for. I miss is a miss and a hit is a hit.

If you want something with more power and reliability, then why not an ak? Less up front costs and will cost less to feed.

Willie Lowman
October 18, 2009, 03:09 PM
If it were me, I would spend the money ironing out the reliability problems with your AR. Use whatever is left on training.

I have two ARs and they are very reliable unless I put Russian ammo or a junk mag in them.


I want a M1A but the cost of ammo is what keeps me away from it.




...alternative hoax meanings... I like that. Thanks.

pvt.Long
October 18, 2009, 03:49 PM
I own an AR and an m14(M1a) The m1a is easyer to maintain, I shoot bulk mil surp amo so the price isnt to bad, unless I go hunting. The m1a is just more fun to shoot. The AK has a lot of limitations In range and accuracy.

zoomie
October 18, 2009, 04:16 PM
A new upper for your AR will give you the extra punch you're looking for without the cost of a whole new rifle. Of course if this is an excuse to buy another rifle, by all means, don't let me stand in the way! :D

A 6.8 or 6.5 or 243WSSM or x39 or (insert any of 1000 caliber options here) are all more powerful than .223 in the same AR-15 format you like.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 18, 2009, 05:14 PM
Reading your post, I'd go with whatever option will allow you to get some quality training; because it sounds like you've got some misconceptions about using the rifle.

L_Killkenny
October 18, 2009, 05:18 PM
No matter what you call it, "business" or SHTF it still means

“Stupid Homicidal Teen’s Fantasy”

Your words,
LK

NWPilgrim
October 18, 2009, 05:30 PM
Your AR15 is fine as a defensive weapon as is, even with iron sights. The jams can be resolved. Keep it clean as already mentioned.

You don't need a variety of ammo. Pick one that serves most of your purposes and get familiar with it. 55 gr is cheap to shoot and is generally effective for defense (excluding barriers) to 200 yds, especially with 20" barrels that give greater velocity. 62 gr FMJ is supposed to be the least effective due to the reduced velocity. 64 gr soft points could be a good all around defensive round. The 70 gr - 75 gr HP are supposed to be pretty good all around rounds, against barriers and effective at reduced velocities in short barrels.

ETA: If you like the AR platform then getting a second one in 6.8 or the other cartridges mentioned is a good idea. It would give you redundancy in lowers and commonality in handling and accessories. On the other hand the M1A is a fine rifle and as you said you don't have to be too picky about bullet weight to be effective.

Personally I would lean toward getting the M1A just because I like that platform and size cartridge so much, but also spend some time working out the kinks in your AR shooting (cleaning, settling on a single ammo type). The RRA is a quality rifle and should be able to run reliably.

Piper Cub
October 18, 2009, 06:10 PM
If you join the Army the training won't cost ya!:)

Tucker 1371
October 18, 2009, 07:01 PM
I would opt for the training as opposed to the M1A (even though I am dying to have one). Do the training then save a little and buy a 6.5 grendel upper from Alexander Arms. That's what I'd do.

Bigjim3
October 18, 2009, 07:51 PM
Buy them both and send me the one you dont like. Ill see if I cant make do:p

SR420
October 18, 2009, 07:58 PM
Get trained on the M1A.

mp25ds4
October 18, 2009, 08:04 PM
if you like the AR platform and the .308 id go with a dmps .308 AR or AR10

mesabi
October 18, 2009, 08:08 PM
Good call Piper Cub. In fact, the Army will pay you to get that training.

Edward429451
October 19, 2009, 12:30 AM
Get the AR for now and some training. Maybe a couple / few AR's and then get an M1A. Then train on the M1A. Friends. You need friends for business as you call it. I've heard it called a brick. You and a few buddies whom you can trust with, well, your life, trains together and prepares together. Then God forbid if the time comes you have a half assed organization which could be assimilated into a larger organization. BTW, the guys with the AR's are security and give the guy with the .308 time to work.

I took out a personal loan to get my M1A. I reload for it too.

I'm up way too late.

Skans
October 19, 2009, 07:40 AM
M1A.....all the way. Unless you plan on hiking great distances where a lighter weight rifle and ammo would be better than nothing, it's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

Art Eatman
October 19, 2009, 07:47 AM
Me,I'd stick with the AR. De-bug as necessary, and practice in shooting positions away from a benchrest. Ammo? Any old clean stuff for practice. For social work, I'd be just as happy with a good hunting load as anything else. Since a 55-grain HP creates a double-handful of mush inside a coyote, I figure it will do more than just tickle on a Bad Guy. And nowhere is it written that you just shoot once and then just stand there breathing through your mouth while you look to see if you did good.

Tomac
October 19, 2009, 07:55 AM
1) Shot placement trumps power. It's easier to make fast & accurate hits w/a .223 than a .308.
2) Less weight = less shooter fatigue = faster & more accurate hits. AR's generally weigh less than M1A's.
3) More ammo > less ammo. For the same weight you can carry more .223 than .308.
4) Training, training, training! I'd be far more worried about a Jeff Cooper w/a .22 than a noob w/a Barrett .50BMG.

With that being said I settled on the MSAR STG-556: Very short OAL while still maintaining 16" ballistics, fast-handling & manuverable in close quarters, runs clean, adjustable gas system, quick-change bbl (less than 10 seconds to completely swap out bbls), easy to strip/maintain, 42rd mag doesn't interfere w/any shooting position I've tried in a couple of carbine classes and it gives you 40% more ammo per mag before reloading.
Just MHO...
Tomac
STG-556 w/Trijicon RX30, Magpul MBUS, Fenix TK11 taclight & E4 optic rail:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Tomac/ResizeofTrijiconRX30002.jpg

SR420
October 19, 2009, 08:00 AM
Shot placement trumps power.
A well placed powerful shot trumps a well placed less powerful shot.

It's easier to make fast & accurate hits w/a .223 than a .308.
You may need fast multiple hits with .223, but just one hit of .308 may be all you need.


.

Tomac
October 19, 2009, 08:10 AM
A well placed powerful shot trumps a well placed less powerful shot.

Unless you're talking armored trooped in barricaded positions where brute penetration of obstacles is important then that's not accurate. Both well-placed shots would be equally effective (dead = dead regardless of caliber or bullet used).

You made need fast multiple hits with .223, when just one hit of .308 is all you need.

Again inaccurate. The .308 isn't a guaranteed "stopper" no matter what bullet is used. You can find numerous examples of *every* handgun/rifle caliber failing all the way up to 12ga slugs. Regardless, it's still easier to make that well-placed shot w/.223 than it is w/.308 (a well-placed hit w/.223 > a peripheral hit or miss w/.308) and if one or more followup shots are required then it's faster/easier to do w/.223 than .308.
I've trained w/both M14's & M16's when the M14 was still common in ship's armories for the Ship's Landing Force (for ships too small to rate a Marine detachment) and while .308 is my first choice for "reach out and touch someone" I'll take .223 for up-close and personal (YMMV).
Tomac

SR420
October 19, 2009, 09:22 AM
You misunderstood why I said the more powerful shot trumps the less powerful shot. Allow me to put it another way...

The more powerful shot is less likely to be deflected off course than a less powerful shot is as it travels to its intended target.



Sorry, but your understanding of the word "may" is also incorrect.

You may need fast multiple hits with .223, but just one hit of .308 may be all you need.

Skans
October 19, 2009, 01:05 PM
5.56 has a lot of value as a full-auto caliber, but not as a semi-auto caliber. The light rifles that fire .308 were really designed primarily for semi-auto type shooting, but some were given full-auto capability.

So, assuming you are looking at semi-auto only rifles, then it should be a no-brainer to choose .308 based rifle over a .223.

Tomac
October 19, 2009, 06:44 PM
Sorry, SR420, but you changed your own post. Here's what you originally posted as preserved in my quote from your post:
You made need fast multiple hits with .223, when just one hit of .308 is all you need.

You then changed it to:
You may need fast multiple hits with .223, but just one hit of .308 may be all you need.

My response was made to your original post, not the edited post w/the "mays" added. Adding "may" makes a big difference in how your post reads.
Tomac

csmsss
October 19, 2009, 06:58 PM
Get what you want, but...as for me, I'll take a .308/7.62x51 over a .223/5.56x45 every day of the week and twice on Sunday, and it's not even close. There is no such thing as a magical cartridge when it comes to terminal ballistics, and there are numerous documented instances of folks continuing to fight after being struck with solid shots from both the .223 and the .308, but when all things are taken into account it's difficult to argue against the terminal effectiveness of the .308 viz a viz the .223.

SR420
October 19, 2009, 07:26 PM
Tomac Sorry, SR420, but you changed your own post

Step away from the keyboard, your eyes are playing tricks on you.

gak
October 19, 2009, 07:26 PM
I realize ammo availability IS a factor, but otherwise the 6.8 makes IMO much of the rest of this discussion moot--whether as an add-on upper or from the get-go.

ronl
October 19, 2009, 07:47 PM
The real question here is how far out do you plan on realistically engaging your target. Under 400m I'd stick with the AR and iron out the bugs. Over 400m the .308 is a far better round, and an M-14 would make much more sense.

csmsss
October 19, 2009, 07:50 PM
The real question here is how far out do you plan on realistically engaging your target. Under 400m I'd stick with the AR and iron out the bugs. Over 400m the .308 is a far better round, and an M-14 would make much more sense.I don't understand this reasoning. The .308 is more effective at all distances than the .223 in terms of terminal ballistics. The range to the target is irrelevant when you're comparing these cartridges, because the 5.56 has no advantage over the .308 at any range to target.

crimsondave
October 19, 2009, 08:03 PM
.308 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .223


.223 is for prairie dogs.

Seriously, 5.56 is great for soldiers who need to walk for miles and carry lots of light weight ammo.

However, .308 is DEVASTATING as a man stopper, especially with non FMJ ammo. It's really a no brainer if you aren't hiking with the rifle.

csmsss, I agree with you 1000%.

I shoot my AR-15 for fun. If I needed to get down to "buisness," I'd grab my FAL and leave the AR in the corner.

mesabi
October 19, 2009, 08:51 PM
This post seems to come up every week.

A hit is a hit and a miss is a miss, no matter what you're using. I'll put the M-16's ability to carry more ammunition and quicker follow up shots over the assumption that the M-14 will be a guaranteed stopper. You guys seem to forget to take into account, the people using these rifles for "business" are being shot back at.

Arm chair commandos always argue about this with no experience. Let's use a real life experiment. Take your high powered iron sighted rifle, ammo, and water on a 10 mile hike through the woods. Lay your rifle down and do a few minutes of sprints back and forth. Then pick your rifle back up and squeeze off 5 shots at a target 100 meters away within the first minute of not sprinting. Post some results.

brmfan
October 19, 2009, 09:23 PM
Mesabi: What does physical stamina have to do with terminal ballistics??? :confused: With a good muzzle brake, accurate and rapid follow up shots are just as quick for a .308 carbine as a .223. As others have said, I'll take the .308 any day of the week.

And as for the load bearing issue, unless you plan on being in the field for days on end with no resupply, then is it really that much of an issue? If what the OP thinks might happen does come to pass, the reality is that 99.99% of folks will be holed up taking care of their own at home where food and ammo etc is already stockpiled... not creeping around the woods (or anyplace for that matter). The OP referenced a "modern battlefield setting" which most likely would mean the suburbs, the sticks, or the middle of a city. Regardless, I would assume if one were to 'engage' he/she would at least want the added insurance of superior barrier penetration (e.g., trees, brick walls, vehicles etc) of a 6.8 or .308.

You said it yourself: "You guys seem to forget to take into account, the people using these rifles for "business" are being shot back at." Does that mean the ones returning fire are standing up out in the open in plain view? I would think they would be firing back from behind some sort of cover. Thus, do you really expect the .223 to cover all contingencies?

crimsondave
October 19, 2009, 09:51 PM
I killed things with both .308 and .223

I don't care how far you hike through the woods, .308 is way more effective. There is no argument.

gngtools
October 19, 2009, 10:08 PM
I dont see this as much of a problem. Keep the AR and buy the M1A. That way you can pick and choose based on the necessary application.

5whiskey
October 19, 2009, 10:11 PM
While I won't dare make the argument that 5.56 is better than 7.62... it just aint. I will say that I've seen quiet a few men done in by 5.56 and they were dead as a hammer from the get go.

I've seen nasty things with 5.56. It's really a weird round. It'll do stupid things like enter straight on in your abdomen around your belly button, but come out darn close to your shoulder blade. Most exit wounds I've seen with xm855 were keyholed and obviously larger than the entrance wound.



At any rate, I'm not saying this because I'm trying to say it's better than 7.62. I do think it's more effective than many people realize.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 20, 2009, 08:49 AM
Discussions like this miss the important parts, like training. If you gave every single member of the Taliban an M-14 and all the logistical support they would need for an unending supply of 7.62x51 ammo, it wouldn't change that fight at all. Why? Because training is about 1,000 times more important than the size of the bullet or the specific type of bangstick.

Personally, I think most people would be better off with a formal training course or two every year and a .22 pistol with all the ammo they could shoot than they would be with the occasional "self-directed" training two-four times a year and the most uber-tactical evil black rifle in .338 Lapua Mag at $5 per shot.

Neither rifle will do you much good unless you learn to use it and both rifles are quite capable if you take the time to learn how to use them. All tools are trade-offs. The more you train the better you will be able to recognize what those trade offs are and which ones best suit your needs.

5whiskey
October 20, 2009, 06:29 PM
Discussions like this miss the important parts, like training. If you gave every single member of the Taliban an M-14 and all the logistical support they would need for an unending supply of 7.62x51 ammo, it wouldn't change that fight at all. Why? Because training is about 1,000 times more important than the size of the bullet or the specific type of bangstick.

Personally, I think most people would be better off with a formal training course or two every year and a .22 pistol with all the ammo they could shoot than they would be with the occasional "self-directed" training two-four times a year and the most uber-tactical evil black rifle in .338 Lapua Mag at $5 per shot.

Neither rifle will do you much good unless you learn to use it and both rifles are quite capable if you take the time to learn how to use them. All tools are trade-offs. The more you train the better you will be able to recognize what those trade offs are and which ones best suit your needs.

Well said and I agree completely. Amatuers talk equipment, pros talk tactics. A .22 and 1k rounds to train with is worth way more than an M1A or AR15 and 50 rounds for the game.

SR420
October 20, 2009, 07:40 PM
The more you train with your 7.62x51 M14 the better rifleman you become.

csmsss
October 20, 2009, 07:50 PM
Amatuers talk equipment, pros talk tactics.If you're going to lift a hoary old quote, at least get it right. The saying is: "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics."

5whiskey
October 20, 2009, 08:04 PM
If you're going to lift a hoary old quote, at least get it right. The saying is: "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics."

I never liked that quote. Logistics is something that must be understood... but the true unadultered study of logistics is a seperate job as opposed to using tactics. You will come across a whole lot of men who spend their military careers in support of logistics that will pee their pants when shot at (of course, to be fair, there are quiet a few "grunts" that do the same).

Yeah, the few, the proud, the dead on the beach wouldn't get too far without our beans, bullets, batteries, and band-aids. On the other hand, the fobbits wouldn't have a need to exist without us bullet sponges. I like my alteration of the hoary old quote, as it applies in this situation.

ssilicon
October 20, 2009, 08:26 PM
The M14 was used for combat troops. It was discontinued in favor of the M16 in large part because it was more expensive to make/buy. The fact that jungle warfare with limited engagement ranges was the scenario of the time, made an easy excuse to go to a cheaper platform. But the M14 is both a work of art and at the same time a tool of death unmatched by the M16.

In environments with longer ranges, the 7.62x51 is superior in almost every way to the 5.56, with carrying capacity as a notable exception. In fact, that is true at even the shorter ranges.

Yeah, you can be just as dead falling from 3 stories up as you can from 10, but more of the ones from 10 up end up dead than from 3.

mesabi
October 20, 2009, 08:43 PM
For a SHTF issue like the OP started on, why hinder yourself with more weight.

Physical stamina? I was getting more at increased heart rate and adrenaline. More power is meaningless if you can't hit a target.

Why hinder yourself with except equipment weight if you need to move from your hide. I come from a place where town was 30 miles away. Some equipment works best for camping out and other equipment works best for keeping your options open.

5whiskey
October 20, 2009, 08:45 PM
In environments with longer ranges, the 7.62x51 is superior in almost every way to the 5.56, with carrying capacity as a notable exception.

Don't forget rate of fire, weight of the rifle, and management of recoil.

dondavis3
October 20, 2009, 09:09 PM
As your not new to the AR15, it's a question that only you can answer for yourself.

You listed some of the stenghts and weakness' of the AR, so you know what they are.

All I can say is would you really like to leave this ???:eek:

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx67/dondavis3/Guns/DSC_0136.jpg?t=1256090897

Cool rifle man - cool rifle :cool:

ADB
October 20, 2009, 11:39 PM
I never liked that quote. Logistics is something that must be understood... but the true unadultered study of logistics is a seperate job as opposed to using tactics.

Look at it from a different perspective. Logistics doesn't replace tactics, but logistics are easier to screw up, and you can survive bad tactics more easily than you can survive bad logistics. You might have the most brilliant battle strategy ever devised; the fiercest and best trained troops ever fielded; and the best equipment ever constructed. But none of that matters one whit if you can't get the bullets for the guns, the gas for the vehicles, the food for the troops.

Anyway, I say go with the M1A. Not just because I've been drooling over them literally for years, but because it gives you far better range and stopping power.

Water-Man
October 21, 2009, 12:09 AM
Invest in a quality AR and train with it.

blhseawa
October 21, 2009, 12:33 AM
The M16/AR15 with a 20 inch barrel is a great weapon. M193 ball works great in this machine.

When the Army went to 62gr bullet and hacked 1/3 of the barrel off, they created the piece of junk I'll never own, called the M4! Always has been, always will be, ignore engineering principles and this is what you get. Junk from the Army! The problem is the .223 is not going to perform well with short barrels, was never intended too. Velocity was critical to achieving the tumbling on impact, which increase lethalness of the cartridge.

The problem is the fix cost more than the problem. The .308 works quite well in a 18 inch barrel, that is why various updated versions of the M1A/M14 exist today. The whole reason for the 6.8 SPC was to develop a lethal round that performed well in a 14 - 1/2 inch barrel.

If you insist on a short barreled rifle, than you need a new caliber. And that is and has been the problem facing the Army.

Frankly, I don't see the US Military machine fixing it any time soon either. Sure the 6.8 SPC might be a better caliber in a 14 inch barrel, I just don't seen the Army stepping up to yet another caliber.

And to me that is the bigger crime! Our politicians and Military commanders all need to rot in jail over this boondoggle.

That said, I would look at possible adding a 6.8 SPC 14-1/2 inch upper, and a M4 lower as the best choice. But that is just me. If I'm going short barreled then I would look at MP5/MP7 and weapons of the class first.

IMHO, just say no to M4!

BikerRN
October 21, 2009, 01:19 AM
I've never been a fan of the AR, both the platform and the caliber.

I've used an AR for work purposes over the past fifteen years. With that said, I am slowly changing my thinking on the AR and find it to be a viable home defense longarm with the appropriate load and sights/lights.

Granted the longer ranges will see the .308 caliber be more of a benefit, but even in a combat style situation the AR will do the job, just not as well. Where the AR shines, IMO is in it's versatility, ease of finding ammo and ability to find parts for since there are so many of them out there. This is something to keep in mind, IMO, as resupply is a necessary consideration. It's said that, "wars are won by logistics," and I happen to agree.

The AR can easily fit a small woman, up to and including a large man. Also, while I am a fan of the Guage, my spouse is not. She much prefers the minimal recoil of the AR to the .308 or the Guage. While I am confident in the 12 Guage out to 100 Yards with the appropriate slug loading, the 5.56mm round has more range. Yes, the range of the .308 is greater, but at what cost?

Our military, police and thousands upon thousands of people own an AR. That makes finding ammo easier than some esoteric caliber. Granted the .308 is not an esoteric caliber, but it isn't as common as 5.56/.223 either. Hey, if it's a real world situation I can raid my local National Guard Armory for ammo, or take ammo from the dead and dying. It's nice to have a weapon that shoots the same caliber as what is commonly carried by the troops on the battlefield. This also plays into finding spare parts, and makes it easier IMO.

Everything is a compromise. While I have not liked the AR until recently, I have come to accept that it just may be the best compromise out there for a battlefied rifle at this time. In twenty years or so that may change, if our military switches to another caliber.

Biker

Bartholomew Roberts
October 21, 2009, 07:42 AM
Re: the long range advantage of 7.62x51

Last time I looked, the Army studies of what distances combat occured at showed something like 90% of engagements began at less than 100m and 99% began at less than 300m. Now keep in mind, this is full-blown combat with support weapons and much more capable sensors (thermal sights on vehicles for example) involved.

Add in urban settings with shorter sightlines and more restrictive ROE, and even in combat, engagement ranges are likely to be well within the effective zone of either 5.56 or 7.62.

That leaves us with two advantages to 7.62x51:

1. Better barrier penetration
2. Better terminal ballistics

Except that M80 ball doesn't have better terminal ballistics than M855 or M193. It actually has pretty poor ballistics compared to those rounds, though if the military was able to use similarly constructed ammo in 7.62x51, then 7.62 would unquestionably have better ballistics.

So now we are down to:

1. Better barrier penetration

Which like many tools is a double-edged sword. The better penetration of 7.62x51 is great when you need it (stopping a vehicle at a check point for example) but not so great when you don't (fighting inside a urban structure with other friendlys present).

In addition, going to 7.62x51 gives up a third of your onboard ammo capacity and overall ammo capacity, as well as increases recoil. If you go down to the nice handy barrel sizes that 5.56 is popular in (14.5"/16"), you also get a lot of blast and muzzle flash in .308.

If you insist on a short barreled rifle, than you need a new caliber.

No, you just need a round loaded to optimize the shorter barrel. Check out "5.56mm SOST". One reason the military has been reluctant to go through the huge logistical nightmare of a caliber change is that companies like Federal/ATK have developed 5.56 rounds that can produce wound cavities in gel similar to 6.8. Though it does make you wonder what the same technology in a 7.62x51 would look like :eek:

GeauxTide
October 21, 2009, 07:46 AM
I was considering a more powerful companion to my SU-16. I did buy a 308, but it was a 700 VTR.

mapsjanhere
October 21, 2009, 07:56 AM
Well, for a SHTF situations, why would you think you need good long range capabilities? Unless you're living in open farmland, where your only SHFT is loss of NASCAR and NFL on TV, your enemies will probably have enough cover to approach you to 100 yards before you can effectively engage them. At this point, the ability to put multiple shots on multiple targets will greatly favor the AR type.
And if you're defending that quaint little Mad Max homestead, your enemies most likely have a 82 mm mortar from the next NG armory to clobber you from past rifle range.
As for the tactics vs. logistics debate, that stems from a time when you were moving half a million soldiers around a map, not when the supply of cold carbonated beverages in remote outposts was outsourced to KBR.

Magnum Wheel Man
October 21, 2009, 09:16 AM
I alway find these "discussions" interesting... everyone is "so" opinionated...

I do live in the "country"... I do have a Garand & an M1 ( traded off my AR variant quite a while ago... it was worth too much, & lacked the charictor of a wood stocked rifle ) also have an SKS, & one of the new CZ-52's, as well as a couple "other" semi autos...

... However for "business use" I'd be using something wholly different... I'm building a custom bolt rifle with a 1 in 9" twist 22 Hornet chamber on an all weather Ruger 77 - 22 Hornet... the rotary mags only hold 5 rounds, but are easily changed, & I'm setting up the rifle for custom 5 round stripper clips ( I've gotten very proficient with the old SKS, after I ditched the high cap mags & put the fatory 10 round fixed box back on, using stripper clips )...

I got a real eye opener, when I loaded up 50 rounds of 405 grain 45-70 for my Guide Gun, when I thought about how did soldiers & frontier people carry around ammo that heavy... it's easy to understand why the switch to 223, if you look at carrying enough firepower, & why the 5.7 X 28 will likely survive, if bullets can be designed to still do the damage needed with 1/2 the weight of a 223 bullet, & a fraction of what the 308 bullets weigh, coupled with physically smaller cases & lighter powder charges...

my fast twist Hornet expiriments have been very interesting, I find I can duplicate the 5.7 X 28 with an easier to reload cartridge & to some extent the 223 with a much more "efficient" cartridge, loaded with both light weight bullets, or just as easiy shoot spitzer BT solids, or hollow points, as well as several "hunting" bullets designed for bigger game than varmints... IMO, for the type of "business" you are talking about, short term, just about any commercial or milsurp semi auto, that you are proficient with, & that is reliable with the ammo available will cover the bases... but long term sustained "business" ( for me ) is getting maximum efficiency for the weight carried, being able to reload the brass ( means not thowing those valuable cases all over, & a revolver or bolt action rifle does a better job of allowing you to keep the brass )... I suspect there may be times ( & especially if you needed to take care of "business" in inner city, or during a "bug out" ) that you could really use that semi auto... ( but I'm already "bugged out" ), however bear in mind, that you'll need to carry ammo, & the more you may need to shoot, the more you'll need... & maybe a really long durations worth... size & weight will be a big factor when you have other things to carry

so of the rifles "you" are talking about, the AR type weapon is IMO, better suited to your "business" ( everyones circumstances will likely be different )

SR420
October 21, 2009, 10:02 AM
your enemies will probably have enough cover to approach you to 100 yards before you can effectively engage them.

If all you have is an AR then I agree, but if you have an M14 you can effectively
turn your enemies cover into concealment and stop them as they approach.

pvt.Long
October 21, 2009, 02:43 PM
If you want training join the marines they spend more quality time with the rifles then the army. Personaly haveing an old army ranger in the family has trained me on the m14 well. Able to field strip it and clean it at 6. Just recently bought my s&W m&p15.To me the m16 famaly is still a mate matel. I prefer the m14 accurate to futher range bigger bullet and looser tolerences. easy to clear a jam.

shennesy
October 21, 2009, 09:56 PM
hey my name is scott hennesy. im new to this site. i just got a dpms flat top .223 ar15. i need some tips on how to sight in my iron sights.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 22, 2009, 07:38 AM
If all you have is an AR then I agree, but if you have an M14 you can effectively
turn your enemies cover into concealment and stop them as they approach.

Assuming you can acquire and identify them before they reach that 100m mark and further assuming that they take cover behind something that will stop 5.56; but won't stop 7.62x51.

Take a look around your neighborhood and it should be pretty clear whether or not either of those is a feasible assumption.

Of course all of this presupposes the unlikely possibility that you can justifiably take shots at greater than 100m with no negative ramifications.

SR420
October 22, 2009, 07:49 AM
Of course all of this presupposes the unlikely possibility that you can justifiably take shots at greater than 100m with no negative ramifications.

Do you apply this same presupposition to the little 5.56?
Do all negative ramifications evaporate inside 100m?

mapsjanhere
October 22, 2009, 08:49 AM
He's probably referring to the fact that a lot of S must have hit a very big F to be able to shoot at anything that moves 100 yards out without having to worry about negative repercussions from society.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 22, 2009, 09:03 AM
mapsjanhere seems to have understood my point correctly.

SR420
October 22, 2009, 09:45 AM
mapsjanhere He's probably referring to the fact that a lot of S must have hit a very big F to be able to shoot at anything that moves 100 yards out without having to worry about negative repercussions from society.

Yeah, I'm sure the OP was thinking the same.

tirod
October 22, 2009, 10:32 AM
I have been a proponent of the .308 for a long time. When it came time to actually put money down, I bought a modern battle rifle - the HK91. That was in the '70's. I don't doubt the ability of a decent shooter to use one in defense of home, or out hunting. It knocks down game.

It's sized accordingly. Having shot the M1A, I can't say it improved on the negatives. .30 cal rifles are long, heavy, have signficant recoil, and are relatively more expensive to shoot, reload, and use. You can't carry as much ammunition, and the magazines are sized accordingly. Older designs dating from the .30's aren't efficient in packaging the components or offering inhererent accuracy - primarily because the receiver holds the barrel and bolt locking lugs. That makes them heavier regardless of the caliber.

The AR avoids that, as it is much more efficiently designed. The question is whether to stick with 5.56 because of doubts about it's power. I agree.

Therefore, keep the AR, fit it with a different caliber upper for hunting and home defense - which should be a cheaper solution. You also train on the same platform with cheap 5.56, or even a .22 conversion. Training will be more effective more quickly than dividing time between two different platforms.

The AR is more user friendly, offers better utility in real combat, and still reaches out effectively to the actual max range most combat takes place in urban and wooded situations, about 400 yards - what the German General Staff discovered in WWII. The US Army hasn't disputed those findings yet.

I sold my HK91, and I building an AR in 6.8SPC. A time proven platform in use over decades, and a caliber designed by battle veterans for shooters by marksmen - Special Forces and the AMU - to improve power, effectiveness, and still fit the envelope of the AR. It's the best of both.

mapsjanhere
October 22, 2009, 10:42 AM
I just know, even if the ShtF so no one cares about the dead bodies, some guy will come by, pull a BATF ID and ask if I had a tax stamp for that BAR...

Nick-Mc
October 22, 2009, 10:49 AM
If you want a new rifle then go ahead and buy one. The AR is quite fine for your purposes. As others have stated if you're using M855 Ball ammo, you're good out to around 600 meters with even you're irons (Provided you know how to zero your weapon correctly). You can even engage targets far out with 55gr M193 (doing even better if you have a 1 in 9 twist, which your RRA might have).
I know al the ARs and M-16s I have shot have been more accurate then me, with normal issue and surplus ammo. (and no, i'm not a terrible shot, although i'm far from the best).
If you think you need the extra power then buy the .308, but you'll have a heavier gun, more expensive ammo, and if you don't need it then why bother. Except the fact that they are fun!
It seems to me that a good AR will do everything you need it to. and Rock River ARs are pretty decent so I would work on you're reliability issues. It's a fussy platform so make sure you are cleaning it properly and make sure you hit the M-16 lube points.....she likes to run wet, just google the lube points. This could be your issue right there. Try out Pmags too.

If you want a new toy then get it.....but I can't tell you that you need it.