If shooting at a deer in a non survival situation I would keep terminal velocity above 2000fps with BTHPs to get a least decent bullet performance.

Terminal velocity on this buck was down to 1800fps (16 inch barrel @ 500yds) and bullet performance was not very good. Got the job done but semi auto feature was needed.

Sorry for the safety.

Because they're an AR hipster.  

Noticing another trend here as well.  

Nah dude, they went back to smoke signals.  Damn commo hipsters.

Except for all the downsides that have already been mentioned.  You're not much for reading, are you?

They are using 855A1 now, so yes, they addressed the very shortcoming that you're whining about.

Easy rifle has an opportunity cost.

As long as you know your rifles limitations don't get caught in a situation where your rifle of choice will be a detriment to you.

If you have the 14.5" barrel you can ride in cars, bring rifles up to shoot faster and clear dwellings.

If you have a 20" rifle you can shoot further out and burn down dwellings to clear them.

It seems the person who is advocating 20" or 14.5" live different lives.

Someone who likes 20" will probably be a lone wolf, keep a long distance between you and your opponent. He will not clear dwellings and most often keeps to him self.

Someone who likes the 14.5" rifles used them in combat, it saved their skin so they associate their tours with SHTF and its experiences. It saved my life, why shouldn't it work?

For me? I would tend to stay as far away from people as I can. Proximity = death.

People suck anyway.

And those shortcomings were also seen in 20" guns

The military developed the 855a1 to improve performance while switching to a lead free bullet. The switch in barrel length of combat arms weapons is irrelevant.

Now change the Mausers to MP40s and its more comparable. (I understand it was a WW1 scenario but you're comparing scenario A to scenario C here.

How much farther does one expect to shoot with a 20" barrel vs. any other?

Are there distances like that where he is?

Has anyone shot "farther"? What are his come-ups at farther? If using iron sights, how far do they come up?

How are his wind calls being made at farther? Parameters for wind holds or adjustments? Follow-up shots are determined how?

How is his target detection and identification being done at farther?

Does a slightly longer barrel impart enough velocity to still have increased terminal effect at farther?

Rifle details please and I will forgive the safety.
My hiking rifle is a 16'' with a fluted wilson match barrel and I have wounded two coyotes at 400+ yards. At least they yelped and danced before disappearing.
Cheap ammo as I was still in break in mode.
Soon as my girl goes back into heat I will load up with 77gr IMI.
The wounding of the coyotes makes me wonder about barrel length on the deer.

It probably has more to do with shot placement. That's not a knock on you or the gun. Depending on the optic, a hit on a coyote at 400 yards is good in my book. Id have taken it with my 14.5" carbine.

I would need a really solid rest to shoot a deer a 400 yards with my heavy barreled .308 bolt with a 10x scope that puts 5 rounds inside .75" at a 100yards

this thread is full of


having an ar puts you way ahead of a lot of people. bbl length regardless.

20" with collapsible stock...

... is pure sex.   I have a UBR on my 20" and its pretty fucking awesome.

You realize I've been in the military, don't you? The little tank icon that most of us telling you that you're wrong have means we've served. You also realize the bullshit, illogical equipment procurement is what gave the military, and the Marines in particular, the A4 instead of the M4 in the first place, don't you? The M4 came after years of real world experience finally shut up the traditionalists that clung to the fantasy that a 20" is going to make "one shot one kill at 800 yards!" possible.

"I killed a bear once, I  know more about fighting than the DOD"

You're no where near as smart or as insightful as you think you are.



Of course it's time for that game. Got to bring out every asinine example to prove why my shitty choice is the best. Because, you know, we're the ones with a fantasy when they're the ones claiming they're going to blast through thousands of rounds of ammo, and have to scavenge Wolf and bottle caps.
Because M855 out of a 10.3" barrel hasn't killed anyone in the last 15 years they've been seeing service in the middle east.



You know the answer to that question.
Just wait until we get the guys that want to talk about how NVGs are a waste because a flashlight works just as well at night.


Let's be more serious than what I said last time.
I'll send you a Pmag if you can provide me a link to one of us seriously arguing on the carbine side saying that a shotgun won't kill someone with adequate ammunition, or is a totally ineffective "room clearing" weapon. The clear jokes and hyperbolic statments, (geesemen, screendoors, etc.) of course, don't count.

None of us have said the shotgun isn't capable of killing someone or clearing a room. What we have said repeatedly that the carbine is a more effective weapon due to its capacity, ease of use, and ease of making repeat shots. We've watched cops clear houses for decades, it's no secret that you can do it with a shotgun. The carbine is simply a more effective weapon in that position, and if you can use a more effective weapon, it's utterly stupid to not do so because you're clinging to an inferior design due to emotional attachment.


Either put up or stop repeating the "you're claiming a shotgun is a nerf bat" bullshit. You're making it up and wasting everyone's time here. Or, maybe you're incapable of telling jokes apart from real arguments, hell, I don't know.

True that you would be a target either way.  My point is the best way to survive SHTF is to BE the sniper.  Good luck shooting back if I am hunkered down in a forest in full hunting camo.  There are no good guys/bad guys in SHTF - only survival of the fittest.    

Perfect.

You just don't get it. 20 years after SHTF and hundreds of gunfights down the road you're going to feel really silly when you find that lone box of Wolf ammo under a dusty gas station counter. If only you'd thought ahead and grabbed your 20" A2 instead.

I may make an exception for a 1014 but just because of some miserable fucking nights

This is a dumb ass statement ... Not having a tank does not mean the person you are running your cake hole at did not serve. Nor does  having one makes you an expert on rifles , combat or anything else.

Of course I am waiting for you to start recanting  your many kills and recount your anecdotal evidence of the combat god you want people to believe you are or how the M4 was more deadly than an  M1 at twice the range.

If you honestly believe that 5.56 is good for dangerous game you are NOT an expert at anything.  

Fucking tank icon and DoD Expert.. . seriously?  

Im still waiting to hear about how your unit started to have trouble dropping the enemy after switching to m4s

Once again, you fail to address anything that has been posted and resort to mockery and attacks on the person posting.  Really helps cement your argument.  Keep on going AR hipster, keep on going.  

Me too, should be interesting.  Unless, of course, he doesn't actually have any experience or evidence to base his assertions off of and he's just pulling it all out of his ass.  

This thread makes me feel nostalgic for threads from when I first came here.

You keep throwing around terms like "kills", "deadly", "dangerous game".... These are indicators that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You clearly don't  know what dangerous game is Einstein.  Bears are absolutely considered dangerous game.   I don't give a shit what you think you know, please go on and tell me more.  

Oh by the way your sarcasm meter is broken .

How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears?  That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads.

True, I should be left out of this, particularly when the bear discussion references game.

Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's  


That pretty much covers it all.

So is mine, what have you been sarcastic about?

fwiw no one considers black bears dangerous game.

Too be fair when a bear is all up in your shit the SHTF.

Depending on your locale bears are statistically more likely to cause lethal confrontations than meth heads or zombies.

I have many personal friends who have been in gun fights with bears and in the same pool of friend none have been in gunfights with people in CONUS.

So, when comparing 20" barrels to shorter barrels, how does the difference in one's PBZ work out? Enough to miss a head shot at 100 yards or a torso shot at 300 yards when using shorter barrels? Mechanical offset issues at typical urban distances?

So what sort of problems did you and your unit have with m4s?

YOU absolutely dont know what you are talking about. Where did I say black bears even one time?  Show it to me

What do bears prefer, 16" or 20"?

If I was going on a big game/bear hunt, you would be one of the few people that I would consult.  (Seriously).

Seriously, WHO is saying shotguns aren't deadly? With the right load, shotguns will absolutely kill you dead.

The argument isn't that they're not deadly, it's that they're obsolete compared to the other options available. Obsolete does not mean not deadly. A Mauser from WWI is deadly. A Winchester from the 1870s is deadly. Kentucky rifle is deadly. A Brown Bess is deadly. A sword is deadly. A rock to the head is deadly. However, ALL of those are obsolete weapons in 2016.

If you have the option, why not pick the best weapon you can get your hands on?

True. Ive never unholstered/unslung a firearm because of people in CONUS but have in SE AK and wished for a gun bigger than a .270

There are definitely some US residents who can make a legit claim to need something bigger than an m4 but they also need something bigger than a 20" 556 too.

What about people that have been involved in close quarters firefights with M4's (not fully supported)?

Bears may very well be dangerous game... But that has about as much to do with what we're discussing in this thread as does cottage cheese.  

People, (lots of people, many of whose with much experience fighting with guns), KEEP telling you that the M16A4 and its 200 fps or so just isn't going to help you much.  Sight radius is a useless thing with optics, terminal effectiveness with all but the shittiest ammo is the same at both velocities, as is barrier penetration.  The added range from the velocity boost comes way out further than any realistic engagement range with a 5.56.

With the A4 you trade compactness and mobility for... Well, nothing really.

Actually I stand corrected:  if I was out of ammo and bayonet fighting, give me the A4 and the extra reach.

Didnt you accost the NM game wardens for going to 556? Or was that someone else

Wouldn't matter a whit unless you end up in physical contact, which seems to happen pretty regularly. At that point 4 extra inches of barrel is not going to be a plus.

CNS or bust, it's all about the ammo.

You literally made all of that up.  I haven't seen anyone claim anything you just posted.

If you're resorting to exaggerations to make your point, you've lost, just give it up already.

lulz

right tool for the job. where brown bears are I think a 45-70 guide gun or a Mini-G in 35 whelen would be fun.

mother effer. You edited. I was going to say after all the ammo ran out id rather use a 20"A2 to bayonet with

What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere.

Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did.  I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 .


Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days.  I  know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help.  In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc..  do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources?  


Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one.

If I was out of ammo, I'd rather have a halberd.

When you're fighting room to room, all that support (machine guns, snipers, artillery, mortars, aircraft) doesn't help much.  Quite a few service members and LEO's have been in that situation with M4's.  But all that is meaningless in this stupid discussion.  Bottom line, the AR with a 10 or 14" barrel is simply an effective personal defense weapon.  I would rather have that in order to deal with immediate problems than something that is more suited to long range engagements.  If SHTF and I am confronted with what I think is a long range engagement, I am going to egress.