Business Rifle: M1A vs AR 15

[csmsss]

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]

Tomac Sorry, SR420, but you changed your own post

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

[gak]

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]

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]

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]

.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]

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]

Mesabi: What does physical stamina have to do with terminal ballistics??? 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The more you train with your 7.62x51 M14 the better rifleman you become.

[csmsss]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ???



Cool rifle man - cool rifle

[ADB]

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]

Invest in a quality AR and train with it.

[blhseawa]

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]

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]

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