Suppressive fire and the 5.56 for civilian defense - Page 2

Brian Pfleuger · January 8, 2009, 02:02 PM

Quote:

If we could be certain that those who direct the military, i.e. the federal government, were 100% guaranteed to always be good people and never threatening to us and/or our liberty, I would agree. However such is not reality.

Considering that the current crop of soldiers are the finest in the world, I'd say you'd have to wait until they're all or mostly gone and replaced by evil doers. That gives us a good 30 years of not having to worry about such things.

G-man 26 · January 8, 2009, 03:58 PM

quote:

Heck, things THAT bad, probably hard to beat a nice pistol.

Yah, this has 10mm written all over it. swat snipers will tell you, 90% or more of your shots in an urban setting are under 100yds. Who needs the bulk of a rifle when the G-20 will do every thing you need out past what will most likely be needed. 5.56... pasha, MOMMA, GET THE GLOCK!

MTMilitiaman · January 8, 2009, 07:57 PM

I have no doubt that AR-15s and the various other popular 5.56mm semi-automatic rifles out there are adequate for most self-defense applications and that much worse choices can be made. I have no problem with this as long as tactics are modified to fit what is prudent to the job at hand. Just too many people I've met seem to think that military tactics and training are necessarily applicable to civilian self-defense, and I disagree.

Things like suppressive fire and ammunition weight don't matter as much to civilian defense. Faster follow up shots are nice. But I've never found controlling an M1A to be all that difficult. It definitely isn't ideal for close action drills, so if all you care about are failure drills at 7 to 25 yards, then you can probably find better tools for the job. I'd choose my AK.

I am well aware of the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC, and I am a big advocate of both as both military and civilian defense rounds. I briefly considered a 6.5mm but couldn't find rifles so chambered that interested me, nor did I like the (lack of) ammunition availability, even with the Wolf rounds being available over the internet, and the complete lack of integrated optics. As a round, the 6.5 has a lot of potential. As a weapon system, it fails to meet this potential by a significant margin compared to more popular systems. I like the option of being able to put a TA11E on a FAL carbine or Mk 14 and have that quality of an optic providing battery free reticle illumination, range finding, and BDC capabilities. It enhances effectiveness under stress compared to less precise Kentucky windage, or with systems that require you to calculate and compute range then compensate with the elevation knobs. Mildot systems work great for sniper rifles, less so for battle rifles. No one wants to do math while being shot at. Being able to integrate optics and ammunition into a weapon system gives the 7.62 and the 5.56 considerable advantages over the 6.5 and the 6.8 right now.

January 8, 2009, 03:58 PM	#27
G-man 26 Senior Member Join Date: November 30, 2008 Location: southern, CA Posts: 212	7.62? quote: Heck, things THAT bad, probably hard to beat a nice pistol. Yah, this has 10mm written all over it. swat snipers will tell you, 90% or more of your shots in an urban setting are under 100yds. Who needs the bulk of a rifle when the G-20 will do every thing you need out past what will most likely be needed. 5.56... pasha, MOMMA, GET THE GLOCK!

January 8, 2009, 07:57 PM	#28
MTMilitiaman Senior Member Join Date: October 14, 2004 Location: NW Montana Posts: 1,875	I have no doubt that AR-15s and the various other popular 5.56mm semi-automatic rifles out there are adequate for most self-defense applications and that much worse choices can be made. I have no problem with this as long as tactics are modified to fit what is prudent to the job at hand. Just too many people I've met seem to think that military tactics and training are necessarily applicable to civilian self-defense, and I disagree. Things like suppressive fire and ammunition weight don't matter as much to civilian defense. Faster follow up shots are nice. But I've never found controlling an M1A to be all that difficult. It definitely isn't ideal for close action drills, so if all you care about are failure drills at 7 to 25 yards, then you can probably find better tools for the job. I'd choose my AK. I am well aware of the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC, and I am a big advocate of both as both military and civilian defense rounds. I briefly considered a 6.5mm but couldn't find rifles so chambered that interested me, nor did I like the (lack of) ammunition availability, even with the Wolf rounds being available over the internet, and the complete lack of integrated optics. As a round, the 6.5 has a lot of potential. As a weapon system, it fails to meet this potential by a significant margin compared to more popular systems. I like the option of being able to put a TA11E on a FAL carbine or Mk 14 and have that quality of an optic providing battery free reticle illumination, range finding, and BDC capabilities. It enhances effectiveness under stress compared to less precise Kentucky windage, or with systems that require you to calculate and compute range then compensate with the elevation knobs. Mildot systems work great for sniper rifles, less so for battle rifles. No one wants to do math while being shot at. Being able to integrate optics and ammunition into a weapon system gives the 7.62 and the 5.56 considerable advantages over the 6.5 and the 6.8 right now. __________________ "...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK." ~Dave R.