On 9/1/14 6:26 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
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.

Source? I am not referring to an AK. I am referring to those in
Afghanistan that are shooting older Mauser's, old M1 and the heavier 30
caliber rounds. And those military of ours are not shooting heavy barrel
AR's. They are shooting M4 carbines. Short barrel, light weight. Those
fighters have been fighting us, Russians, and themselves for as long as
anyone can remember. Get ambushed by some dudes at 600 yards, and which
round works better? Those Rag Heads do know war.


Uh-huh. 1800 foot shooters...the enemy ranks are full of them.

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 6:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:47:55 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

variants of the AKs. Indeed,
those rifles fire a heavier round but they are less accurate over long
distances than the M16.

That really depends a lot on which variant of the AK you are talking
about but I agree the 7.62x39 is inferior to the 7.62x51 500 yards
down range.
The russian round is closer to a 30-30 and the NATO round is more like
a 30-06


What percentage of fire fights in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria do you
think takes place at anywhere near 500 yards?

Here's a graphic comparing the AR and the AK...you might find it interesting:

http://tacticalgear.com/ak-47-vs-ar-15

Lots of the shooting is at those distances. The Afghans know their
limitations, and the effective range of the M4.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/05/...d-afghanistan/
Sounds like a cover your ass piece.

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 6:26 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
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.

Source? I am not referring to an AK. I am referring to those in
Afghanistan that are shooting older Mauser's, old M1 and the heavier 30
caliber rounds. And those military of ours are not shooting heavy barrel
AR's. They are shooting M4 carbines. Short barrel, light weight. Those
fighters have been fighting us, Russians, and themselves for as long as
anyone can remember. Get ambushed by some dudes at 600 yards, and which
round works better? Those Rag Heads do know war.


Uh-huh. 1800 foot shooters...the enemy ranks are full of them.

But with a light weight bullet. Wind affected, and when it gets 600 yards,
has lost a huge amount of energy.
http://www.snipercentral.com/223.htm. Look at the energy at 600 yards.
Look at the bullet drift in a 10 mph wind at 600 yards.

On 9/1/14 6:39 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 6:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:47:55 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

variants of the AKs. Indeed,
those rifles fire a heavier round but they are less accurate over long
distances than the M16.

That really depends a lot on which variant of the AK you are talking
about but I agree the 7.62x39 is inferior to the 7.62x51 500 yards
down range.
The russian round is closer to a 30-30 and the NATO round is more like
a 30-06


What percentage of fire fights in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria do you
think takes place at anywhere near 500 yards?

Here's a graphic comparing the AR and the AK...you might find it interesting:

http://tacticalgear.com/ak-47-vs-ar-15

Lots of the shooting is at those distances. The Afghans know their
limitations, and the effective range of the M4.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/05/...d-afghanistan/
Sounds like a cover your ass piece.



That's a great answer, Bilious "Lots." Got data?

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 6:39 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 6:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:47:55 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

variants of the AKs. Indeed,
those rifles fire a heavier round but they are less accurate over long
distances than the M16.

That really depends a lot on which variant of the AK you are talking
about but I agree the 7.62x39 is inferior to the 7.62x51 500 yards
down range.
The russian round is closer to a 30-30 and the NATO round is more like
a 30-06


What percentage of fire fights in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria do you
think takes place at anywhere near 500 yards?

Here's a graphic comparing the AR and the AK...you might find it interesting:

http://tacticalgear.com/ak-47-vs-ar-15

Lots of the shooting is at those distances. The Afghans know their
limitations, and the effective range of the M4.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/05/...d-afghanistan/
Sounds like a cover your ass piece.



That's a great answer, Bilious "Lots." Got data?

And your chart shows popularity. Nothing about ballistics. Got data?

On 9/1/14 6:49 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 6:26 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
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.

Source? I am not referring to an AK. I am referring to those in
Afghanistan that are shooting older Mauser's, old M1 and the heavier 30
caliber rounds. And those military of ours are not shooting heavy barrel
AR's. They are shooting M4 carbines. Short barrel, light weight. Those
fighters have been fighting us, Russians, and themselves for as long as
anyone can remember. Get ambushed by some dudes at 600 yards, and which
round works better? Those Rag Heads do know war.


Uh-huh. 1800 foot shooters...the enemy ranks are full of them.

But with a light weight bullet. Wind affected, and when it gets 600 yards,
has lost a huge amount of energy.
http://www.snipercentral.com/223.htm. Look at the energy at 600 yards.
Look at the bullet drift in a 10 mph wind at 600 yards.



You seem to think an awful lot of shooting takes place at 600 yard
distances. On what are you basing that assumption?

On 9/1/14 6:53 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 6:39 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 6:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:47:55 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

variants of the AKs. Indeed,
those rifles fire a heavier round but they are less accurate over long
distances than the M16.

That really depends a lot on which variant of the AK you are talking
about but I agree the 7.62x39 is inferior to the 7.62x51 500 yards
down range.
The russian round is closer to a 30-30 and the NATO round is more like
a 30-06


What percentage of fire fights in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria do you
think takes place at anywhere near 500 yards?

Here's a graphic comparing the AR and the AK...you might find it interesting:

http://tacticalgear.com/ak-47-vs-ar-15

Lots of the shooting is at those distances. The Afghans know their
limitations, and the effective range of the M4.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/05/...d-afghanistan/
Sounds like a cover your ass piece.



That's a great answer, Bilious "Lots." Got data?

And your chart shows popularity. Nothing about ballistics. Got data?


I'm not trying to make a point about ballistics. I'm saying you have no
data indicating what percentage of the warfare in which we are engaged
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria is being conducted by troops equipped
with small arms shooting at each other at 500-600 yards.

Try sticking to the subject, eh, and keep your ADD from kicking in.

On 9/1/14 8:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:17:27 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

What percentage of fire fights in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria do you
think takes place at anywhere near 500 yards?

A lot of the shots in Afghanistan were taken at 500 yards or even
farther, usually with an M40 or a Barrett .50 cal.



What percentage of fire fights in those three countries took place at
anywhere near 500 yards?

On 9/1/14 8:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:36:38 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Uh-huh. 1800 foot shooters...the enemy ranks are full of them.

I think that is the point. We want to shoot them while we are still
out of range of their muddy AK


Uh-huh. And our side is just packed with guys who can kill an enemy
soldier at 600 yards.

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 8:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:36:38 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Uh-huh. 1800 foot shooters...the enemy ranks are full of them.

I think that is the point. We want to shoot them while we are still
out of range of their muddy AK


Uh-huh. And our side is just packed with guys who can kill an enemy soldier at 600 yards.

Not with an M4, are they going to kill the enemy soldier at 600 yards
consistently. The opposition knows to shoot from a mountain redoubt these
days. Most of the battles are not in an urban setting!