On 9/1/14 1:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 1:20 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 8/31/14 12:26 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 8/31/14 3:28 AM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:46:34 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 8/30/14 1:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 12:00:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:
Another of our weird regs concerns AR-15s. If you buy one fully
assembled, it has to be one of only a couple of HBAR models. You can,
however, buy a fully assembled lower.
I guess I just never had the "black gun" thing.
I like wood and full power 30 cal if I am buying a center fire rifle.
I understand the attraction for the military but I am not packing 600
rounds into a fire fight, nor is my intent to inflict grievous wounds
Right, because everyone knows a 30-30 or .308 won't inflict grievous
wounds. I like the AR platform because the rifles are easy to customize
and maintain, and, for me, at least, they are accurate enough and, of
course, I only inflict "grievous wounds" on plastic and aluminum bottles
and cans and paper target. Besides, .308 ammo, American-made in brass
casings, is twice as expensive or more than brass-cased U.S.-made .223
REM ammo, and 30-30 Win is even more expensive.
You brought up 30-30 but 308/30-06 is the round of choice for snipers
who want one shot one kill. The 5.56 is designed to take the guy out
of the fight but make him a casualty who needs 2 guys to care for him.
(western European thinking)
That worked until we started fighting people who didn't give a ****
about a wounded soldier.
Price? I can get 7,.65-51 for about the same price as 5,56
The m16 was for close in work, lighter to carry, and did not climb in auto
fire. Not worth **** in open area battles. Need that 308/30.06 range and
power there.
You base this on what, your extensive experience as a Usenet Commando,
like the other mustered out soldiers here?
You never even served, and you have knowledge?
If you believe that the M16 was "not worth ****" in open area battles,
then you either read that, saw a movie about it, or were told that. Your
opinion isn't based upon experience.
Bull****. The bullet is small and lightweight. Afghanistan is long range
shooting. Is why the military is breaking out the 'm14's. Open areas not
being an opening in the wild jungle or the urban jungle. The fact the
Taliban shooter is shooting an older 30 caliber, 180 grain round at 2800
fps muzzle velocity vs. a 56 grain bullet at 3200 FPS. The Taliban shooter
is out ranging the US shooter. Shooting at 500 meters plus. An M4
carbine, just does not cut long range shooting.
Bull****? I wrote that you have no experience in open battle areas, and
that your opinion was based upon what you read, or saw a movie aboutl or
were told. Once again, Bilious, you demonstrate your inability to read for content.
You seem to think going to school for a Liberal Arts degree, let's you know
all. You have no experience in most of life, except screwing creditors,
etc. I can see he problems with a light weight round in long distance
battles. I have shot the M16 via the military. You?
No, Bilious, I did not say that having liberal arts degrees "let's you
know all (sic)." What I said was that you have problems reading for
content, as evidenced by the example you provided and upon which I
commented.
Your firing an M16 "via the military" doesn't tell you anything about
having to use a light assault rifle in an "open battle area." I have a
heavy barrel Colt AR-15, and other than not having an "auto fire
capability," it is pretty much the same as the M16. Further, most of the
"enemies" our soldiers might meet on the battlefield these days are
armed with rifles we left behind *or* with variants of the AKs. Indeed,
those rifles fire a heavier round but they are less accurate over long
distances than the M16.