Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/9/2003 6:22:06 PM EDT
I know I am going to hit alot of people deep with this statement, but hear me out first. I love the Ar-15. I own three of them, love shooting them and take great care and pride in them. However, the old debate always comes up around the gun buddies about the reliability, accuracy and design of military battle rifles since World War 2. We always end up arguing about the AR series of rifles. In my opinion, the AR series are nothing but, and always will be, SPORTING rifles. The shear design of them does not lend themselves to be classifed as battle rifles. For example: 1-The gun has to always be meticulously clean. 2-It has to generously oiled with a quality CLP. 3-It has too shoot CLEAN ammo in order to keep its delicate gas system from clogging up. 4-The catridge it fires depends almost solely on fragmentation to be effective. I am sure someone can name more. I am more of an AK/M14 fan. These rifles were designed on platforms that have been battle tested in the worst possibble conditions, with poor lubricants, dirty/corrosive ammo, in every harsh enviornment in the world. Then you take a rifle like an Ar which shares no similiarity to the battle rifles of old, and call it such. I know I am going to hear about the ball powder, no cleaning kits issued, the rifles did not need to be cleaned...yada, yada. Simple fact is, the Ar compared to a Garand, Ak-47, M-14, FAL, G3 does not hold water. It will never be able to withstand the abuse these rifles were designed to take. Example, with the exception of the G-3, just look at the gas systems of these rifles. They are big, robust and separated in their own subsystem in the rifle. Unlike the direct impingement system of the Ar which fires its gas right in to the heart of the rifle(bolt and feeding system) on every shot. They also fire a full size 7.62 caliber cartridge I also do not want to hear about how everyone on this board runs hundreds of rounds through their Ar's without problems. My Ar's run perfect too. But how many of you bring your Ar's out in the pouring rain, dirty with mud and grass in it, and not have been cleaned in a few days. Chances are if you are not in the military, you have not. I am rambling now. Feel free to comment or continue my rambling.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 6:27:02 PM EDT
From a former Marine, [:K]
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 6:27:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR-Lover-Hater: I know I am going to hit alot of people deep with this statement, but hear me out first. I love the Ar-15. I own three of them, love shooting them and take great care and pride in them. However, the old debate always comes up around the gun buddies about the reliability, accuracy and design of military battle rifles since World War 2. We always end up arguing about the AR series of rifles. In my opinion, the AR series are nothing but, and always will be, SPORTING rifles. The shear design of them does not lend themselves to be classifed as battle rifles. For example: 1-The gun has to always be meticulously clean. 2-It has to generously oiled with a quality CLP. 3-It has too shoot CLEAN ammo in order to keep its delicate gas system from clogging up. 4-The catridge it fires depends almost solely on fragmentation to be effective. I am sure someone can name more. I am more of an AK/M14 fan. These rifles were designed on platforms that have been battle tested in the worst possibble conditions, with poor lubricants, dirty/corrosive ammo, in every harsh enviornment in the world. Then you take a rifle like an Ar which shares no similiarity to the battle rifles of old, and call it such. I know I am going to hear about the ball powder, no cleaning kits issued, the rifles did not need to be cleaned...yada, yada. Simple fact is, the Ar compared to a Garand, Ak-47, M-14, FAL, G3 does not hold water. It will never be able to withstand the abuse these rifles were designed to take. Example, with the exception of the G-3, just look at the gas systems of these rifles. They are big, robust and separated in their own subsystem in the rifle. Unlike the direct impingement system of the Ar which fires its gas right in to the heart of the rifle(bolt and feeding system) on every shot. They also fire a full size 7.62 caliber cartridge I also do not want to hear about how everyone on this board runs hundreds of rounds through their Ar's without problems. My Ar's run perfect too. But how many of you bring your Ar's out in the pouring rain, dirty with mud and grass in it, and not have been cleaned in a few days. Chances are if you are not in the military, you have not. I am rambling now. Feel free to comment or continue my rambling.
View Quote
yad a yada yada
1-The gun has to always be meticulously clean.
View Quote
seyz you
2-It has to generously oiled with a quality CLP.
View Quote
BS
3-It has too shoot CLEAN ammo in order to keep its delicate gas system from clogging up.
View Quote
I don't shoot dirty ammo in any of my guns, it is not an issue
4-The catridge it fires depends almost solely on fragmentation to be effective
View Quote
shows you are a moron. inother words you are a troll. bye bye IBTL
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 6:30:16 PM EDT
It is an assault rifle, not a battle rifle. A battle rifle uses a full power cartridge, an assault rifle uses an intermediate power cartridge.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 6:30:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2003 6:33:01 PM EDT by Special-K]
I feel much the same way. I own and am quite fond of both an M1A and an AR-15. But I don't think the military classifies the M-16 as a "Battle Rifle", but rather as an "Assault Rifle". The emphasis is different between the two. So no, the M-16 is not a "Battle Rifle" as per its less powerful 5.56 round. Similarily, the M1A, FAL, G3, etc, are not "Assault Rifles" (Brady Bunch be damned) but rather "Battle Rifles" as a function of their full power 7.62 rounds. Two different animals even though both go bang.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 6:33:55 PM EDT
[:K]
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 6:36:00 PM EDT
Meh, whatever.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 6:49:58 PM EDT
Well, shit, don't tell us. Delta Force, SAS, and Israeli Special Forces all use them more than any other weapon. You better zap them an email and square them away. If you hurry before the whole Iraq thing is over they will probably make you an honorary member.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 6:53:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 6:53:48 PM EDT
What a moron. I dont think one person on this board would think the AR15 is a battle rifle. Its an assault rifle along the lines of the original sturmgewehr. An FAL or G3 would be a battle rifle. Tell us something we dont know.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 6:54:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR-Lover-Hater: I know I am going to hit alot of people deep with this statement, but hear me out first. I love the Ar-15. I own three of them, love shooting them and take great care and pride in them. However, the old debate always comes up around the gun buddies about the reliability, accuracy and design of military battle rifles since World War 2. We always end up arguing about the AR series of rifles. In my opinion, the AR series are nothing but, and always will be, SPORTING rifles. The shear design of them does not lend themselves to be classifed as battle rifles. [red]For example: 1-The gun has to always be meticulously clean. 2-It has to generously oiled with a quality CLP. 3-It has too shoot CLEAN ammo in order to keep its delicate gas system from clogging up. 4-The catridge it fires depends almost solely on fragmentation to be effective.[/red] I am sure someone can name more. I am more of an AK/M14 fan. These rifles were designed on platforms that have been battle tested in the worst possibble conditions, with poor lubricants, dirty/corrosive ammo, in every harsh enviornment in the world. Then you take a rifle like an Ar which shares no similiarity to the battle rifles of old, and call it such. I know I am going to hear about the ball powder, no cleaning kits issued, the rifles did not need to be cleaned...yada, yada. Simple fact is, the Ar compared to a Garand, Ak-47, M-14, FAL, G3 does not hold water. It will never be able to withstand the abuse these rifles were designed to take. Example, with the exception of the G-3, just look at the gas systems of these rifles. They are big, robust and separated in their own subsystem in the rifle. Unlike the direct impingement system of the Ar which fires its gas right in to the heart of the rifle(bolt and feeding system) on every shot. They also fire a full size 7.62 caliber cartridge I also do not want to hear about how everyone on this board runs hundreds of rounds through their Ar's without problems. My Ar's run perfect too. [red]But how many of you bring your Ar's out in the pouring rain, dirty with mud and grass in it, and not have been cleaned in a few days. Chances are if you are not in the military, you have not.[/red] I am rambling now. Feel free to comment or continue my rambling.
View Quote
From your statements, its obvious you have very little experience shooting AR's. FDCC has on average about 30 people each and every month who shoot AR's in every type of weather imaginable, and they do get dirty, year round. Your points are completely false.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:01:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARDOC: What a moron. I dont think one person on this board would think the AR15 is a battle rifle. Its an assault rifle along the lines of the original sturmgewehr. An FAL or G3 would be a battle rifle. Tell us something we dont know.
View Quote
A "battle rifle" is any rifle you take into battle, be it a M16, AK or M14. Other than a few gun nuts on the internet and a few gun mags, there is no such thing as a "battle rifle." It basically is a meaningless term.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:15:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN:
Originally Posted By ARDOC: What a moron. I dont think one person on this board would think the AR15 is a battle rifle. Its an assault rifle along the lines of the original sturmgewehr. An FAL or G3 would be a battle rifle. Tell us something we dont know.
View Quote
A "battle rifle" is any rifle you take into battle, be it a M16, AK or M14. Other than a few gun nuts on the internet and a few gun mags, there is no such thing as a "battle rifle." It basically is a meaningless term.
View Quote
So what would you classify an M14 as? What would you classify an M16 as?
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:24:30 PM EDT
The AR15/M16 weapons system can be a finicky animal at times, but it has been used in combat by several nations, ours included, since 1964. I think its 40 year service record speaks for itself. The one I carried in the army always went bang. The ones I own now shoot everything I feed them... with the possible exception of Wolf ammo. Panzer Out
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:26:58 PM EDT
I notice how you only list larger caliber rifles as comparisons to the "useless" AR/M16 .223 series. Do your dislike extend to all .223 systems, or just the AR/M16 system? Because you may perhaps have noticed how EVERY SINGLE ADVANCED WESTERN MILITARY has switched to a .223 system. Many militaries have switched from all of the rifles you mentioned to the verry M16 system that you claim is so useless. What vast experience with all of these weapons systems in adverse conditions do you base your opinion on?
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:28:32 PM EDT
Yeah, right. Our military issues SAFE QUEENS. Troll.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:29:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2003 7:36:00 PM EDT by Cato556]
Technically, the AR-15 is not a true Assault Rifle either because it is semi-auto only. Really, it’s just a semi-auto in the Black Rifle style; perhaps “Tactical rifle/carbine” would be the best way to put it. Also, the AK-47 is NOT a Battle Rifle because the 7.62x39 is considered an “intermediate-power” cartridge thus making the AK (in selective-fire models) an Assault Rifle. As the term is generally understood, “Battle Rifle” refers to any repeating military rifle chambered for a full-power 7.62-7.92mm cartridge. Admittedly, the Stoner operating system, even as it is now improved, is not as tolerant of abuse as the other rifles you mentioned. However, with proper maintenance, it has proven very reliable, which is why it has been adopted by so many countries and has not yet been replaced in the US.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:30:39 PM EDT
I can't believe anybody responded to this...
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:31:49 PM EDT
I have found that once I got the kinks ironed out of my AR it really works great. I think the rep they have as not dependable is wrong. It is a very simple design. And you alway hear that your AR needs a perfect mag, etc. But my AR eats up ammo from any mag, i don't clean it very often, and it just keeps going. Plus mine shoots less than 1/2" at 100 yards. My SKS will eat ammo all day long too, but it is heavy and will not shoot groups like that.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:34:58 PM EDT
Milsurp.......that you ?? [:K] [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:38:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: Milsurp.......that you ?? [:K] [rolleyes]
View Quote
Good question; newbie’s generally don't stir up this much trouble with their first post.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:38:27 PM EDT
AR Hater, Your statement does not "hit me deep" as you believe. I have learned to laugh at ignoramuses. You are dead wrong on every count. I own 3 ARs and I do not keep them meticulously clean yet they go bang EVERY time. Generous oiling causes more problems than it solves. You must use a moderate to small amount of "oiling". My gas system has never clogged and I don't need no stinkin' fragmentation , because a head shot thru my very accurate trijicon scoped AR will solve the problem. Remember shot placement is the most important thing in disabling an enemy.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:40:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SNorman: I can't believe anybody responded to this...
View Quote
In retrospect I can't believe I did. Oh no - I did it again!
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:44:25 PM EDT
not a battle rifle? nah, i still don't fucking care.
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 7:51:55 PM EDT
Everyone knows that assault rifles have pistol grips for deadly shooting from the hip, and battle rifles have clips. [peep] and they have to be black. +1
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 8:07:09 PM EDT
[beathorse] [beathorse] [beathorse]
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 8:09:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/9/2003 8:22:18 PM EDT
Come on. Everybody knows that the only true battle rifle is a 40 watt phased plasma rifle.
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 12:44:06 AM EDT
two things 1. what countries besides our "Buttbuddies" who recieve tons of free military aid use the m-16 ? not intended as a flame but most countries went first with FAL then to some bullpup or other config. 2. And this is a whopper! I like to compare m-16 vs. AK-47 arguement like the Luger p-08 vs the colt 1911 arguement! think about it! luger/m-16 = Great accuracy, fine workmanship, a cartridge that will outlast the gun itself, However extermely prone to seize up in adverse conditions which require that you clean it constantly and that big holster to protect it. but AK-47/colt 1911 = not that accurate, Cheaper to make , takes practice to learn how to hit anything with it BUT loose tolerences gives better reliability, not finicky with poor ammo, and a bigger caliber means better knock down power.
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 2:01:26 AM EDT
I dont get the meaning of your post?...[:D] +1
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 3:09:47 AM EDT
hum, I better tell my AR's they can't go out in the rain, snow, and mud anymore to hunt Coyotes. Close the dust cover, could it be thats what it's there for, to help keep stuff out so it will fire. Have you ever fired a M1 or M1A/M14 in the rain? You can't see after the first shot because of the water from thr top of the bolt goes right in your eye.
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 3:42:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SNorman: I can't believe anybody responded to this...
View Quote
I can't believe nobody has. So far the only replies (other than perhaps Hawkeye's) have been hysterical cries of "yer mom!" and nothing else. I guess when you can't formulate a valid reply or argument, you just holler out "troll" and hope everyone gets distracted.
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 3:51:11 AM EDT
Come on, boys. You'all know better than this. Don't feed the [:K].
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 4:00:23 AM EDT
My 2 cents. Anything that throws lead at high velocities in my opinion is a battle weapon, assault weapon, etc, etc. Don't tell me that in an offensive or defensive battle situation or whatever what you want to call it when your M16 in full-auto fails, and you just happen to find a AR-15 semi laying around or perhaps a 12 gauge shotgun, YOU will not use it ? I believe the AR-15 variant will hold up in battle situations, so therefore I consider it a battle capable weapon.BTH
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 4:04:29 AM EDT
One more Hummm, his first Post? Is he back?
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 4:05:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ar10er: So what would you classify an M14 as? What would you classify an M16 as?
View Quote
They are service rifles, the military recognises the term "assault rifles" but does not classify its weapons as them, it has never recognized the term battle or main battle rifle, those are gun rag terms.
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 4:07:30 AM EDT
Hey is this Bill O'reilly? Are you just mad because we all sent you mean emails? Why don't you go prep the next load of shit for your TeeVee show. ----This is a NO Troll zone----
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 4:09:34 AM EDT
Then this one time at band camp................
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 4:10:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TwoStage: One more Hummm, his first Post? Is he back?
View Quote
I did not realize it was his first post.What a way to enter the forum,gettin' under my skin.[;D]
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 5:17:32 AM EDT
i love when new guys use their first post to preach a bunch of shit we already know as if we are all going to bow to their awesome wisdom. what would we do if this guy had not come to enlighten us!!!!
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 6:07:44 AM EDT
who let the [:k]'s out you must be from one of the HK sites, right?
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 7:08:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2003 7:16:48 AM EDT by photoman]
Originally Posted By AR-Lover-Hater: I know I am going to hit alot of people deep with this statement, but hear me out first. I love the Ar-15. I own three of them, love shooting them and take great care and pride in them. However, the old debate always comes up around the gun buddies about the reliability, accuracy and design of military battle rifles since World War 2. We always end up arguing about the AR series of rifles. In my opinion, the AR series are nothing but, and always will be, SPORTING rifles. The shear design of them does not lend themselves to be classifed as battle rifles. For example: 1-The gun has to always be meticulously clean[BS]. 2-It has to generously oiled with a quality CLP[BS]. 3-It has too shoot CLEAN ammo in order to keep its delicate gas system from clogging up[BS]. 4-The catridge it fires depends almost solely on fragmentation to be effective. I am sure someone can name more. I am more of an AK/M14 fan. These rifles were designed on platforms that have been battle tested in the worst possibble conditions, with poor lubricants, dirty/corrosive ammo, in every harsh enviornment in the world. Then you take a rifle like an Ar which shares no similiarity to the battle rifles of old, and call it such. I know I am going to hear about the ball powder, no cleaning kits issued, the rifles did not need to be cleaned...yada, yada. Simple fact is, the Ar compared to a Garand, Ak-47, M-14, FAL, G3 does not hold water. It will never be able to withstand the abuse these rifles were designed to take. Example, with the exception of the G-3, just look at the gas systems of these rifles. They are big, robust and separated in their own subsystem in the rifle. Unlike the direct impingement system of the Ar which fires its gas right in to the heart of the rifle(bolt and feeding system) on every shot. They also fire a full size 7.62 caliber cartridge I also do not want to hear about how everyone on this board runs hundreds of rounds through their Ar's without problems. My Ar's run perfect too. But how many of you bring your Ar's out in the pouring rain, dirty with mud and grass in it, and not have been cleaned in a few days. Chances are if you are not in the military, you have not. I am rambling now. Feel free to comment or continue my rambling.
View Quote
The BS on point 1. The gun does not need to be meticulously clean to function properly. My AR is Dirty as shit, it is currently covered in mud, it has mud on the bolt carrier as well from shooting yesterday in the rain. I did not have any problems. If you'd like I'll go to the range after work today and throw it down in the mud put a mag in and than empty it and not have a problem. And I'll do that with the ejection port cover OPEN! The BS on #2 I use TWO drops of CLP on the bolt and carrier and spread it around. It has not had more added to it in a couple weeks and has eaten about 500 reounds since I last cleaned it. It goes about 1k between cleanings that consist of anything more than a boresnake being run through the barrel after a range session. The last problem I had with the gun was a failure to feed caused by worn feedlips on a orilite mag. I often run this gun almost dry, and in fact have run it dry with no problems. The BS on #3 Clean ammo! HAHAHAHAHAHA yah thats a good one. I don't know of to many ammos that are dirtier than burnaul and wolf and my AR eats that shit like a kid eats candy, all day everyday if it can. I bought 3k rounds of wolf 62gr FMJ, I shot it all without cleaning the gun over a two month period, the only cleaning was a boresnake after range sessions and one little drop of CLP after 1500 rounds. No malfuctions. I didn't call BS on number 4 simply because well it's partially true. However the fragmentation was not designed into the round as it's means of inflicting death it was a side effect, and a damn good one at that. Read the Ammo Oracle I do believe that it is mentioned in there. That and I'd rather have a round that fragments than one that simple goes 180 and exits assend first. The permenant wound cavity will be larger and tissue damage and the shock caused to the system will be greater. Penetration of the round is not as good as the .308 or the 7.62x39. Sure in the open that may not be good, but in an urban environment where you will be having to search buildings and fight in buildings, I wouldn't want to have to worry that a round I have to fire into/at a BG may overpenetrate a wall and take out one of my own people would you? It's a compramise round yes, but aless effective one, I don't think so. Most people seem to compare "battle rifles" based on the old battle field and doctrines of warfare, not the modern ones. Also why the hell is it that people bring up the M1A/M14 it was a main battle rifle for how long before it was replaced? yah not that long at all. There are a lot of people who want an AR because the design is good enough for uncle sam. Thats not why I picked it. I picked it because unlike the M1A/M14 it has some 40 years of de-buggin, improvments and aftermarket support to the system. The AR15/M16 family is not just a rifle. It's a weapon system. Something no other battle rifle was. How may other battle rifles can be altered by the end user for any type of situation they could run up against. How man main battle rifles can you pop two pins on and switch from a rifle cal to a pistol cal. How may other main battle rifles can you pop two pins on and change from it's main cal to a larger one like say .50BMG. I can't really think of anyother one. Also since when is the 7.62x39 considered a fullsize cartridge? As stated in the AK maual: "The AK47 is a short, compact, selective-fired weapon designed by the Soviets in 1946 which fires a cartridge intermidate in power between submachine gun an rifle cartridges" [url]http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/wagner/137/ak05.html[/url]
But how many of you bring your Ar's out in the pouring rain, dirty with mud and grass in it, and not have been cleaned in a few days. Chances are if you are not in the military, you have not.
View Quote
I do and I'm not in the military and as noted above I did it yesterday. I did it durring deer season and I'll do it again today if you'd like. The AR15/M16 is a better battle rifle than the M14, FAL, AK, and a host of others simply because of it's versitility and the fact that its modular and can be set up for a variety of situations and roles. Is it the best choice for all those roles no, but it can take and handle those roles. And with the newer ammos coming out such as the Black Hills 68 and up rounds the problems with the M4 and it's "fragmentation range" have been solved for the most part as those rounds will fragment more reliably at lower velocities thus extending the engagment ranges in which the rounds will kill. It is not the perfect weapon by a long shot, but it is, at least in my opinion, the best all around gun. It rides in the trunk of my car damn near everyday and it sits right next to my bed at night. I believe in the weapon and it's round so much that it is my first choice should I need to defend my life or the lives of my family. I don't play any "sports" with my guns. And as such I own no "sporting" firearms. I shoot the ocassional "match" to add a level of stress to the situation. I don't shoot them to be the best out there, I shoot them to learn. I shoot so I can learn to use my weapons better, to handle them better and manipulate them better. Every weapon has it's limits, you can either execpt those limits and work with in them and around them or you can bitch and choose not to use that particual weapon. I choose to work within and around those limits. --The term battle rifle is used for aguments sake even though the AR15/M16 is not a true battle rifle based on the cartridge it uses.--
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 7:12:42 AM EDT
Who the hell cares whether or not to call the AR-15 a "battle rifle"? My rifle does what it does. It performs the same way regardless of what I call it. I bought it because it is a good SHTF rifle, is more accurate than an AK, looks WAY more cool than an AK, works great, it is good enough for our military, and to help Bushmaster pay its legal bills. I could care less whether the words "assault" or "battle" should technically be used when referring to it. Now if we're talking about killer robots, that's a whole different story. I'll take "battle bots" over "assault bots" any day...
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 12:15:50 PM EDT
if we could vote to ban members...this tool-shed would win my vote ass-hat
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 12:20:32 PM EDT
Heeee's Baaaaack! Hi [b]MilSurp[/b][wave]
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 12:21:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Come on, boys. You'all know better than this. Don't feed the [:K].
View Quote
No kidding - I totally fell for it. [rolleyes] [red]AR-Lover-Hater Post 1 of 1[/red] He was never interested in a debate or learning, just wasting our time by getting us riled up and pressing our buttons.
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 12:27:52 PM EDT
WHOA!!! This a very FIREY board!! 45+ replies in less than 24 hrs!! I feel the passion in all your posts...including the insulting ones. I love it!!! You are my kinda people!!! Some great points were made, and obviously some not. Great pic of the Ar and M1-a!! I am not a newbie by any means and own all different styles and makes of firearms...I think I am up to about 35 different guns in my arsenal...with no closet queens. I did not reply sooner because I was up the new Cabelas store in Hamburg, Pa buying my NEW BUSHMASTER TARGET A-2!!!!!!!!!!!! Bash me all you like regarding AR's, I love them, Shoot them and collect them, so it doesn't bother me in the least. I find it comical in fact. Keep up the good posts, and shoot your Ar's until they catch fire, extinguish the flame, then load em up again. But I forgot, you guys don't shoot your AR's past two hundred rounds without a detail clean in between!!!!!! HAAAAAAAA!!! Got ya's again!! Take care and be safe!!
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 2:52:22 PM EDT
You say you are not a newbee by any means,duh if you weren't Mil-surp two posts would indeed make you a newbee! Bob [:D] [:K]
Top Top