User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 2:10:33 PM EDT
[#1]
Get an AR15 A2 (preban).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 2:11:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Buy a GOOD DSA FAL.
You never go wrong buying the best. Most of the purchases I've regretted was because I settled for second (or worse) best. Buy the best .308. You never know, someday your life or your family's might depend on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 2:11:39 PM EDT
[#3]
Have you fired an FAL/variant yet? And not just the DSA rifles but any variant (L1A1, STG, preban, etc). I'm assuming you've already fired an AR.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 2:21:39 PM EDT
[#4]
The AR15 certainly meets the criteria specified in items 2-5 on your list, with #3 being based on what you want to hunt. However, there is something to be said about .308 power and range.
One things for sure: you can certainly lug around an AR with a lot of ammo a lot easier than you can a FAL or M1A, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 2:24:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Have you fired an FAL/variant yet? And not just the DSA rifles but any variant (L1A1, STG, preban, etc). I'm assuming you've already fired an AR. I have only shot in 308 a Remington 700 PSS ,AR-10, M-14 copy and a M1A. I have not shot any of the other ones but was told by the person who owned the M1a and Ar-10 that he loved the way his FAL or STG/variant shot. HUNTER223 I have the money for a pre-ban but thats it. I would have no money for mags and ammo. I also think pre-ban's are just for show other then a flash hider and a bayonet lug what do they have that a post-ban does not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 2:26:47 PM EDT
[#6]
Get both, that way you won't have any regrets. For me it's always a question of what I'm going to get right now, I will eventually have every gun I want, I just get to pick up 3 or 4 a year.
No one can tell you what to get, pick up and handle both and see which one feels better to you. My next decision is for a .308 between a FAL and a HK 91. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 2:28:11 PM EDT
[#7]
Between the two, I'd go with the AR 15 first.
After all this is AR 15.com[}:D] and the AR15 can be a much more diversified weapon. [i][b]"If you're not part of the Solution, you're part of the problem"[/b][/i] sgb [img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/M16.gif[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 2:30:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: My next decision is for a .308 between a FAL and a HK 91. The HK 91 (well it was the G3) and the STG58 where the two 308 that I choose from and had gone with the STG58 because of parts and mags being cheaper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 2:48:29 PM EDT
[#9]
btt
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 3:09:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Wait till the Sunday of Labor Day weekend. Get yourself over to Buffalo Rock Range in Ottawa. There ought to be plenty of all three types for you to try out (ARs, FALs, HK91s) in whatever flavor you can think of. Perhaps the proof will be in the pudding.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 3:30:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Tough call!!
If this is your first rifle of this design(the dreaded assualt rifle bugaboo!) I would recommend an AR15 variant. I think every able bodied , competent male adult should have an AR [:)] It will be a good rifle to get proficient with. The .223 is easy & cheap to shoot. I don't think you'd really be making a mistake with the FAL either though. Get an AR now & an FAL as soon as you can afford it!! If you think you'll get an FAL later buy up some cheap FAL magazines while you still can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 3:42:20 PM EDT
[#12]
If I were forced to give up either a good .308 Battle Rifle or a good .223 Battle Carbine, the .223 would go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 3:45:23 PM EDT
[#13]
This is a NO BRAINER ! Buy the one that you LOVE the most , get a second job , then buy the other. That sure was simple.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 6:39:06 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: This is a NO BRAINER ! Buy the one that you LOVE the most , get a second job , then buy the other. That sure was simple. Not when you putting in 96 hours a week at the place you work at now. Yes my job sucks and the pay does also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 6:55:06 PM EDT
[#15]
I've got some of each rifle - or should I say HAD some of each rifle [:)]?
The FAL fires the better hunting round, the magazines are a bit cheaper (but how many are you really going to buy beyond 10-12?) and can be had pretty cheap. Plinking with a .308 can get tiring. The FAL really isn't known as a target rifle - it will hit the target but not just as accurately as the AR (or even an M1A). The AR is the best urban battle rifle on the planet. The FAL is better in open country where you could make shots beyond say 300-400 yards. I wouldn't want to be having to make those shots with any rifle but if I had to a .308 would be the one to use (a bolt action if I could please). The FAL is meant to be held with the right hand and worked with just the left. I like that but don't like the tiny magazine release, the way the magazines go in in two movements and the tiny bolt release. May be I've had much more [;)] practice with the AR but the quick magazine changes, simple slam them home changing and easy to wack bolt release make me much faster with an AR. Both rifle's safeties are in good positions. The adjustable gas system of the FAL is pretty cool. Set it and forget it until things get dirty or wet - then crank it up a notch and keep going. The AR with a battle load of ammo is about half the weight as a FAL with the equal ammo as measured by my back. Not to bad mouth your buddies but they must not know a whole lot about balistics or terminal effects as the .223 is a wicked bad killer round. I've heard lots of first hand stories about the round and read plenty more. If anyone thinks a round this side of a .50 BMG is going to drop everyone it touches anywhere it touches them in an instant they've got another thing coming. You can put a 20 mm cannon round square though the center of someone's heart and their brain will have like 20 seconds of oxygen left to empty their Tec9 in your direction. A spinal base or brain shot will drop them pretty well. The .223 round will serve you well in battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 6:55:58 PM EDT
[#16]
PS:
[img]albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=992958&a=7491802&p=52550975[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 6:58:58 PM EDT
[#17]
I carried an M-16 in Vietnam and it would kill 'em deader than a doornail. By an AR-15, it is the only one that fits all your criteria, besides ammo is sooooo much cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 7:01:14 PM EDT
[#18]
The bitch of it is, you have to comprimise when going with either rifle.
How big of an issue is wieght of rifle and ammo? AR has the major advantage here. What is the terrain like around you, and how good of a shot are you at long ranges? The Fal will reach out there, but do you actually have the need for six or seven hundred yard shots? Though no matter what the range, .308 has more power. I've weighed the decision myself, with alot of the same criteria as you, and have found the AR to fit my needs the best. The weight of the ammo being a big factor, and that I think the .223 is an adequate. Also, the AR rifle fits me like a glove. It's like an extension of me. There's no other rifle that I've shot that I feel more comfortable with. It just feels right. That alone makes it the right choice. Shoot them both and choose the one that feels the best to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 7:04:32 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: I think every able bodied , competent male adult should have an AR [:)] I like that idea |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 7:22:36 PM EDT
[#20]
Paul they told me they liked the 308 because of a few reasons 1. Because of all the brush the 223 bullet would get knocked off course a lot of the time. 2. The 308 would take down the tree in front of you in about 20 rounds. A lot of the guys I talked to also used the M-60 Pig.
I have also talked to a few Grunts that where in the U.S.M.C and Army now and they told me they loved the M-14 that they got to shot with. Maybe it is because they where in the middle east when they got them and they had to take the long shot's I don't know. They also said they would take the M-60 over the S.A.W also.They said it was more effective on stopping cars and trucks then the S.A.W was.I know nothing of these two weapons then what I was told by people who used them in combat. Yes they did say the M-16 was lighter to carry and also was the ammo and it was a lot more friendly with the recoil on full auto (I don't know what 308 rifle they used that did have full auto but it was not the M-60.) The place where I live well I'm on the east end of town and about 3 miles away from me is at least 35 miles of corn fields running east and more then that running North and south. West of me is mostly urban for about I'm going to say 10 miles. Then it goes back to corn fields for I don't know how far. maybe that will help out a little. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 7:24:26 PM EDT
[#21]
I say AR for its versatility. I mean look at the multitude of uppers you can purchase. If i had my way I'd have:
16 inch Carbine 24 inch Kreiger Barreled space gun 50 BMG upper 458 Socom upper Then you would have an upper for just about any occasion. alphabeta121 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 7:32:14 PM EDT
[#22]
Tayous,
I was in the same boat as you a few years back. I initially purchased an L1A1 (British FAL - the Mag release is much better than the STG58). I liked the rifle alot but the weight was always bothersome. I went back to the rifle I knew the best (the AR system) and never regretted it. The FAL is a very good rifle, but it will never be a tack driver. The AR is cheaper to shoot, and with a .22 conversion kit its cheaper still (and you can practice on all indoor ranges). That being said if your not going to buy a Bushmaster, Armalite or Colt for an AR then go out and get the FAL. These are the only 3 I would consider reliable enough to trust them with my life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 7:35:21 PM EDT
[#23]
alphabeta121 I'm also looking at that just and that is one thing that I like about the Ar-15 next time I got to Alaska I can take my Ar-15 with the 458 Socom upper.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 7:38:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: That being said if your not going to buy a Bushmaster, Armalite or Colt for an AR then go out and get the FAL. These are the only 3 I would consider reliable enough to trust them with my life. I don't know about that I have only heard good things about the RRA rifles. The one I shot was just as good as the Armlite I also shot that day. I don't know if you have heard anything bad about them if so please tell me i'd like to know .Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 7:46:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Both should be on your list of must haves. The STG-58 is IMHO the best of the FAL variants out there. I have 4 FALs and 2 AR-15s and love them all.....more, more, I need more!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 8:16:28 PM EDT
[#26]
btt
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 9:47:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: I have 4 FALs and 2 AR-15s and love them all.....more, more, I need more!! I suffer from the same condition [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2001 10:54:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Buy both like me. But, since you want to know which ONE to buy, get The Right Arm Of The Free World first. Stock up on cheap mags and surplus ammo - based upon past history, they won't always be available at the same price. Then save up for the AR.
The argument against the FAL is almost entirely based on weight. Lug one around for a few weeks in the bush with your hunting gear and, if you're an average north american male, you'll soon lose enough weight to compensate. Big guns impress the womenz. Which is, oddly enough, precisely why I'm awake at 2AM...[:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2001 6:37:59 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: That being said if your not going to buy a Bushmaster, Armalite or Colt for an AR then go out and get the FAL. These are the only 3 I would consider reliable enough to trust them with my life. I don't know about that I have only heard good things about the RRA rifles. The one I shot was just as good as the Armlite I also shot that day. I don't know if you have heard anything bad about them if so please tell me i'd like to know .Thanks Rock River Rifles ARE [size=3]NICE LOOKING[/size=3] they work fine on the range. Very accurate, make great DCM rifles. But their NON-M16 chamber and lack of chrome lining (especially in the chamber) reduces the reliability, especially under poor condidtions. You do not want to be trusting your life to a rifle that is only reliable under 'range' conditions. (You did say you wanted if for Defense & as a 'Battle Rifle'). These things a pooh-poohed by guys who shoot on clean ranges. But at the tactical matches I shoot at these types of rifles are the first (and usually the only) ones to get screwed up when the round count starts getting high and the dust is blowing or the rain is falling. If all you want to do is plink or target shoot the RRA is fine, great fit & finish. But for a defensive weapon its FUNCTION over form, and you want reliability, RRA lacks the features the Military demands for a reliable rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2001 10:34:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Forest thanks for telling me that I never heard of that before.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2001 11:06:04 PM EDT
[#31]
I would avoid the AR15.
Reasons: They tend to experience extraction problems when the actions are extremely dirty or in subzero weather or when they are extremely hot from firing many rounds. They also have trouble being reliable in sandy environments (The US Army actually issued plastic bags to keep the M16's in during desert storm so the rifle wouldn't jam from sand getting into the action). (2.) Yeah..they can be a "tack" driver..but it doesn't really matter since at long ranges the bullet (even the 75 grain VLD's ) experiences a significant drop in velocity, that when (IF) it does enter a body..the bullet wound is small since the jacket will no longer separate from the core..Also they get blown all over the place in a good cross wind. (3.) PENETRATION: a 30 caliber 175 grain or 150 grain FMJ round will penetrate through cover that would DEFEAT a 62 or 55 grain FMJ round that the AR15 shoots. (4.) the M16 USGI Mags are Aluminum, the lips are easy to wear out or bend or break. Whereas the Mags for the FAL are made out of STEEL. (5.) A lot of talk is made by the AR15 gun lovers about the wounding potential made by the little .22 cal bullet. Well it just so happens that 7.62 NATO ammo made by HIRTENBERGER will create wound cavities that are 60% LARGER than those created by either M855 or M193 FMJ ammo. Also..once velocity drops below 2500 fps..the wounding potential of the little 22 cal round goes down. (6.) yeah..you can carry more 22 cal ammo (but so what ? you can carry more 22 L.R. ammo than .223..) It will take fewer 30 caliber bullets to drop a large animal than .223 bullets... As for 30 caliber rifles..I think you should take a hard look at the M1A as well as the FAL (heck for that matter..even the M1 Garand..the damn thing shoots 30-06!). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 4:09:03 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: (The US Army actually issued plastic bags to keep the M16's in during desert storm so the rifle wouldn't jam from sand getting into the action). The army also issued condoms to the D-Day invasion troops to keep water and mud out of the M-1. The put the condom over the muzzle. Big deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 7:37:30 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: I would avoid the AR15. Reasons: They tend to experience extraction problems when the actions are extremely dirty or in subzero weather or when they are extremely hot from firing many rounds. They also have trouble being reliable in sandy environments (The US Army actually issued plastic bags to keep the M16's in during desert storm so the rifle wouldn't jam from sand getting into the action). Yeah AR-15s are real bad, they have only been the choosen rifle of the US military for almost 40 years (longer than the M1 & M14 combined). They have been adpoted by more countries and spec-ops group than the M14. Yeah they are loser rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 8:44:06 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Yeah AR-15s are real bad, they have only been the choosen rifle of the US military for almost 40 years (longer than the M1 & M14 combined). They have been adpoted by more countries and spec-ops group than the M14. Yeah they are loser rifles. Tell us: Did the AR15 successfully compete over the M14 during Field Trials in the 60's ? Yes or No. If No, why was it adopted ? Did it compete against ANY other small caliber designs during field trials ? Why is it that the gas impingment system used by the AR15 (also used on the Lungjmen rifle) was later abandoned by Eugene Stoner in favor of a piston ? How is it that the shorter sight radius on the AR15 (and even shorter radius on the M4) better than the longer sight radius on the M14 ? Does the .223 round offer better penetration through cover than the .308 round ? Does it have less windrift and greater kinetic energy than the .308 ? Oh..but it is lighter and cheaper ? Well so is the .22 LR. So I guess being ARMED with a RUGER 10/22 MUST be better than being armed with an AR15..right ? Oh..but AR15A2 (or M16A2) is lighter..than a standard issue M14..(well ONLY by a HALF pound). But..the M16 has been adopted by a lot of different countries..(well so has the AK47). As for countries such as Israel the Galil is actually a BETTER rifle but it does have trouble competing against the M16 when Israel can get M16's virtually free from the United States. Sorry I don't buy your arguement. The AR15 was an experimental design. Eugene Stoner later came out with BETTER rifles such as the AR180 or the Stoner 63. However the later rifles were crippled by the same thing..the anemic .223 round. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 8:59:48 AM EDT
[#35]
Yep that sucky, anemic 5.56 really blows. That is why most countries are adopting it. the G36 is 5.56 and so is the galil, so what is the deal? and don't bring up that its a NATO round because so is 7.62.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 9:50:02 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: I would avoid the AR15. Reasons: They tend to experience extraction problems when the actions are extremely dirty or in subzero weather or when they are extremely hot from firing many rounds. They also have trouble being reliable in sandy environments (The US Army actually issued plastic bags to keep the M16's in during desert storm so the rifle wouldn't jam from sand getting into the action). If I was traveling through sand dunes, I'd want a plastic case for [i]any[/i] rifle, even an AK. The FAL, however, has a [i]real[/i] reputation for problems in the sand, which is why Israel dropped it. Quoted: (2.) Yeah..they can be a "tack" driver..but it doesn't really matter since at long ranges the bullet (even the 75 grain VLD's ) experiences a significant drop in velocity, that when (IF) it does enter a body..the bullet wound is small since the jacket will no longer separate from the core..Also they get blown all over the place in a good cross wind. Both the .30s and the .223s produce small wound channels at a distance. Both must intersect a vital structure to prove effective. A .223 75 gr HPBT (which is stabilized by a 1 in 9 twist, and fits in the magazine) catches less wind at 300 yards than .308 168gs bullets (fired from a gas gun). Quoted: (3.) PENETRATION: a 30 caliber 175 grain or 150 grain FMJ round will penetrate through cover that would DEFEAT a 62 or 55 grain FMJ round that the AR15 shoots. True. But it has been proven that small high vel bullets are better "brush busters" than bigger, slower ones. A more likely situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 9:51:52 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: (4.) the M16 USGI Mags are Aluminum, the lips are easy to wear out or bend or break. Whereas the Mags for the FAL are made out of STEEL. (5.) A lot of talk is made by the AR15 gun lovers about the wounding potential made by the little .22 cal bullet. Well it just so happens that 7.62 NATO ammo made by HIRTENBERGER will create wound cavities that are 60% LARGER than those created by either M855 or M193 FMJ ammo. Also..once velocity drops below 2500 fps..the wounding potential of the little 22 cal round goes down. True, but you have to get HIRTENBERGER. In 5.56, M193, M855, and civilian 69 gr police / target loads all have the same effect. It appears that the civilian 75 gr HPBTs have the same effect as well. And, the .30 cal stuff produces small wound channels when they loose velocity, as well. Quoted: (6.) yeah..you can carry more 22 cal ammo (but so what ? you can carry more 22 L.R. ammo than .223..) The difference is, .223 can do most of what .308 can do, while .22 lr can't. It is worth noting that as nations switch from .308 to .223, they have to make their long distance targets more difficult. Soldiers shoot better with .223 than .308, at least on average, even at distance. This means that [i]switching to .223 improves long range shooting![/i] Quoted: It will take fewer 30 caliber bullets to drop a large animal than .223 bullets... Well, I suppose so, in a statistical sense . . . The problem with .223 for big game hunting is the .223's lesser penetration in living tissue. What this means is that the guy with the .308 can take shots the guy with the .223 would have to pass up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 10:26:21 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: (The US Army actually issued plastic bags to keep the M16's in during desert storm so the rifle wouldn't jam from sand getting into the action). The army also issued condoms to the D-Day invasion troops to keep water and mud out of the M-1. The put the condom over the muzzle. Big deal. In fact, they issued complete plastic bags for the landing. Probably the first plastic of that type the men going ashore had ever seen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 10:36:07 AM EDT
[#39]
To answer the original poster's question:
[b]Get the AR first.[/b] Then find a local range that shoots NRA Highpower (or, what I like even better, reduced range Palma), and compete, compete, compete! Buy the FAL later. .308 has some definite advantages over .223, mostly for big game hunting. But the AR will make you a much better shot. For these reasons: 1) It's can be used in NRA Highpower matches. 2) It's more accurate. 3) Ammo, specially accurate ammo, is cheaper. 4) Less recoil = easier learning curve. The only reason for getting a .308 first is for hunting, however I assume that that is not your priority, given your choice of military type rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 11:01:11 AM EDT
[#40]
love them all.....more, more, I need more!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 11:13:51 AM EDT
[#41]
The reason why country's now adopt the 223 is because its the standard nato round and m16 mags are considered standard nato mags, so when your in nato, guess what caliber and mags your gun will take?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 11:29:49 AM EDT
[#42]
Tayous,
Have you decided what to get? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 11:47:20 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Tell us: Did the AR15 successfully compete over the M14 during Field Trials in the 60's ? Yes or No. If No, why was it adopted ? Did it compete against ANY other small caliber designs during field trials ? I am not away of any M14 vs M16 field trials. But I will bet if any took place they were rigged. The old timers in the Army were dead set against the small caliber weapon especially since it was not invented by them. During the field trials of the 70s The M16 competed against many different small caliber desins and it came out on top; with some mods to the sight system per the Marines request. Why is it that the gas impingment system used by the AR15 (also used on the Lungjmen rifle) was later abandoned by Eugene Stoner in favor of a piston ? The whole purpose of the AR system was to reduce weight that is why Stoner chose that system for the orginal AR-10 and it was copied in the AR-15. Stoner did keep the system when he worked on the Stoner SR-25 his last rifle design IIRC. How is it that the shorter sight radius on the AR15 (and even shorter radius on the M4) better than the longer sight radius on the M14 ? Never claimed it to be. But it doesn't seem to hurt them at Camp Perry where they routinely kick M14 A$$. ;) When the majority of your firefights are less than 100M (let alone 300M) extended sight radius really isn't needed. Does the .223 round offer better penetration through cover than the .308 round ? Through solid cover? No. But it does produce large wound at typical combat distances. And it does allow controllable full auto fire when the situation requires it (unlike the M14) Does it have less windrift and greater kinetic energy than the .308 ? At what ranges? At the closer ranges (realistic) ranges I'd bet its much higher velocity does hav less winddrift. Who care about Kinetic Energy? That doesn't kill - Wounds Kill - blood loss kills and the 5.56 will make larger wound then the FMJ 7.62 at typical combat distances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 11:47:50 AM EDT
[#44]
..Continued..
Oh..but it is lighter and cheaper ? Well so is the .22 LR. So I guess being ARMED with a RUGER 10/22 MUST be better than being armed with an AR15..right ? No body has claimed a .22LR with it limited range and wounding capability are military rounds. But I'd rather be able to carry 400 rounds of 5.56 than 200 rounds of 7.62 ANY DAY. Oh..but AR15A2 (or M16A2) is lighter..than a standard issue M14..(well ONLY by a HALF pound). Man what are you smoking?? Weight of an unloaded M16A2 is 7.5lbs, weight of an unloaded M14 is 9.2 lbs. That is almost 2 lbs of difference. So I can carry an M16A2 with a fully loaded 30 round magazine and it will more than HALF a pound lighter than an empty M1A. The M16A1 was even lighter. But..the M16 has been adopted by a lot of different countries..(well so has the AK47). As for countries such as Israel the Galil is actually a BETTER rifle but it does have trouble competing against the M16 when Israel can get M16's virtually free from the United States. The M16 has WON competative competitions to sell rifles to many of these countries (like Canada and several Eurpoean nations) where the AK was dictated to the Warsaw pact nations by the USSR. Sorry I don't buy your arguement. The AR15 was an experimental design. Eugene Stoner later came out with BETTER rifles such as the AR180 or the Stoner 63. Soory you have no proof to back up these statements. Neither rifle was sold in any number to foreign countries or US citizens. Where were these rifles in the 1970 trials to find a replacement for the M16A1? Where is you empiricle evidence to prove these rifles were superior? However the later rifles were crippled by the same thing..the anemic .223 round. Wimps use .223 I shoot 5.56. In any event Dr Fackler has show the round to be hardly anemic. Of course the soldiers from the 19th century who used .58 caliber muskets and .45-70 and .45-90 rifles probably consider the 30-06 and 7.62 NATO to be a bit anemic too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 11:50:55 AM EDT
[#45]
Half way there I found a nice rifle
$729.95 + 10.00 Shipping Takes : BUSHMASTER .223 Cal Rifle -20” HB Target -comes equipped with optional M16 Muzzle Break -mil-spec’d chrome lined bore, m16A2 rear sight, case deflector , bolt hold open on the last shot and comes in hard carrying case. -10 rnd mag included -2 extra 30 Round Israeli Orlite mags also included. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 11:54:14 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Half way there I found a nice rifle $729.95 + 10.00 Shipping Takes : BUSHMASTER .223 Cal Rifle -20” HB Target -comes equipped with optional M16 Muzzle Break -mil-spec’d chrome lined bore, m16A2 rear sight, case deflector , bolt hold open on the last shot and comes in hard carrying case. -10 rnd mag included -2 extra 30 Round Israeli Orlite mags also included. [size=4]Buy It![/size=4] Then ship the upper to Kurt's Kustom and for $55 he will profile the HBAR to a proper M16A2 barrel profile and remove that uneeded pound. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 12:11:40 PM EDT
[#47]
A2 are the ones that have the non-detachable carry handily right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 12:15:31 PM EDT
[#48]
Yes.
Most folks call the flattops w/removable carryhandles A3. (not technically correct, but commonly used) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 12:42:17 PM EDT
[#49]
I may not get that rifle if it does not have the flat top. I like the flat top ones do to that you can add longer and more stuff to it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2001 12:58:07 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: I may not get that rifle if it does not have the flat top. I like the flat top ones do to that you can add longer and more stuff to it. You wanted this as a defensive and SHTF type of rifle right?? FWIW then you want a carry handle. You need durable iron sights not detachable ones. The only 2 things people add on are red-dot sights (Aimpoint/Reflex) or scopes. Aimpoint, OKO, and Reflex all have mounts that work with the carryhandle and allow use of irons & the dot. Plus they move the dot out front where it is quicker to use. Trijicon and Colt make good scopes that are meant to be used on top of the carry handle (no extra mount required) and they still allow use of the iron sights when installed. They are also low enough to the line of sight that you don't need to crane your neck or get a Delta cheekpiece. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
