Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - General purpose combat rifle (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/21/2010 6:23:19 AM EDT
|
Linky
Today we see a big emphasis on close quarters battle. Truly, it is what much of the fighting around the world, by US forces as well as other forces, is all about. I said much, but not all. There is a good bit of application in an area where CQB (close quarters battle) leaves off and long before the Sniper Application begins. A rifle chosen to cover this area should be capable of both close quarters battle (although not specifically designed for that) and sniping (although not specifically designed for that either). Such a rifle could be called a General Purpose Combat Rifle and must be, well, general purpose. It should do all things reasonably well. Except for the “combat” part, this is the same notion that led to Cooper’s Scout Rifle. The Scout Rifle, however a sacred cow it may be, was never meant for fighting specifically but for hunting. Few Scout shooters ever kept up with even an adequate semi auto shooter. Specially if the shooting test was not specifically set up to favor the Scout. So what do we need for a GPCR? 1). It must be in a military caliber capable of reaching out to distant targets to about 750 yards. The cartridge must be capable of penetrating brush and light cover, and possess wind resistance. The caliber must be easily found everywhere. That means that it should be available in military surplus form, and at common retail outlets. The concept needs will specifically exclude any assault rifle cartridges such as the 5.45x39, 7.62x39 and the 5.56x45. Sure…I know the DMR/SPR in 5.56 can achieve some fantastic accuracy but that is not the point. It needs to do something out there once it hits and the 5.56 is simply not capable of achieving what we need. Moreover, while the 6.5 Grendel, and the 6.8 SPS sound like fantastic calibers and could probably do well in this role, they are simply not available at the level that we need. The suitable calibers that fit our needs are the 7.62x51, the 7.62x54R, and maybe the 30-06 (although finding a rifle suitable for our mission will be difficult as you will see). 2). The rifle itself should be usable both at 500 yards and at 50 yards. Suitability for borderline sniping as well as house to house MOUT is essential. That will require a robust system that has seen military service. It will also require a detachable high capacity magazine to be capable in the close quarters envelope. This requirement immediately excludes bolt actions, or sporting style semi autos such as are found from Remington, and other built-for-civilian-hunters rifles. They may be great for hunting, but are simply not strong enough, reliable enough, nor capable of sustained fire as required for close in fighting. What is available today? Options include: The FAL. A short Congo-style rifle with a folding stock and a 17-18" barrel would be perfect. You can get high dollar FALs from DS Arms, or Jim Fuller. And you can get lower grade FALs from Century and other makers. Another very good option is the M1A. The M1A SOCOM, or any M1A style rifle with a shortened barrel will work great as long as they are not too Americanized with bells & whistles, but simply a basic rifle. One necessary addition here would be a pistol grip stock. A G3 clone, or CETME, or HK-91 suitably modified would do as well. The big issue here will be triggers but there are many sources that can fix an overly heavy trigger on these weapons as on the FALs. AR-10 style rifles will be great here as well as long as it has been built to be reliable and not just accurate. Many of the rifles I have seen in this weapons family seem more focused toward sniping and not so much to general purpose. Although the magazines are an issue and less desirable at only ten rounds, the PSL can be made into this....see the AK54. Same can be said about the Saiga 308. That rifle suitably arranged, and in the hands of a capable shooter, can hit at 1000 yards. The problem with the Saiga is a lack of military-grade magazines. 3). Weight: At the warriortalk forum the issue of weight was brought up. While weight should be A consideration, it cannot be the only consideration. Any of the military rifles we have discussed will weigh in at about ten pounds if the heavy bull barrels and uber-adjustable stocks are left off the weapon. The scout people made a big deal out of what a rifle weighs, but I think we must not be driven by weight alone. If the man cannot carry a ten pound rifle in the field then rather than do with a substandard weapon that is lighter, the better solution is to strengthen the man. I challenge the entire premise of weight. If a man cannot carry a proper combat rifle in the field then this is may not be the discipline for him. We will not dilute the concept because the physically undeveloped can't hang. 4). Optics: These rifles need some sort of Variable Power Optic. Part of the duties envisioned for this platform is use in close range combat out to 100 yards. Another part includes hitting the mid ranges between 100 yards and 300 yards. The final part, and where scoping has the most effects, are hitting targets beyond 300 yards. The goal is out to 500 yards…and maybe farther out. Red dot sights so popular in CQB are not adequate for this mission, nor are the super powerful dedicated sniper optics. On my rejuvenated FAL I added a Burris 3-9 as I intend it for the Guerrilla Sniper role and expect that 200-600 should be no issue for it. On the GPCR I think a more "flexible" optic would be better. An ACOG would be fine, as would a Leupold Mark 4 1.5x5. Scout scopes and extended eye relief scopes are fine for CQB but suck for everything else. The reason they are so popular on Garands and M1As is that scoping such a rifle that way is technically easier but you will not see any rifles set up for the mid to long range equipped with scout scopes. In the end what we end up with is a concept of a rifle that will do everything well, albeit not as well as weapons specifically designed for the task. The rifle will perform well inside a house, although not as well as a purpose-designed submachinegun. It will also perform at typical CQB ranges, although maybe not as well as an assault rifle. And it will reach out there and smack the crap out of an adversary across the canyon, although not as well as a sniper-grade bolt action rifle. The pessimist might say the rifle does nothing well, but I would say this rifle concept will do everything good enough. And that concept has been proven time and time again throughout history to be more than sufficient. |
|
Quoted:
[ If the man cannot carry a ten pound rifle in the field then rather than do with a substandard weapon that is lighter, the better solution is to strengthen the man. I challenge the entire premise of weight. If a man cannot carry a proper combat rifle in the field then this is may not be the discipline for him. We will not dilute the concept because the physically undeveloped can't hang. . you forgot the 70lbs of other shit, armor, comms, etc that general statement is fucked up on so many levels, and only someone who has not partaken in the current fight will even attempt to make that statement I wont comment on the other stupid shit in that post/article |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ If the man cannot carry a ten pound rifle in the field then rather than do with a substandard weapon that is lighter, the better solution is to strengthen the man. I challenge the entire premise of weight. If a man cannot carry a proper combat rifle in the field then this is may not be the discipline for him. We will not dilute the concept because the physically undeveloped can't hang. . you forgot the 70lbs of other shit, armor, comms, etc that general statement is fucked up on so many levels, and only someone who has not partaken in the current fight will even attempt to make that statement I wont comment on the other stupid shit in that post/article absolutely. that article is ridiculous. |
| The rifle is the last thing I notice as Im trudging along in the field. That being said, if you add another 7lbs to my load, its gonna suck. I would vote for the RFB. 308 that is short enough to be good in a building, but still with a long enough barrel to reach out and touch something from 3-500m |
|
Quoted: So I'm to assume 5.56 at 750 meters will basically just cease to exist, since it can't do anything and all? Pretty sure it's gonna hurt, like hell. Might even kill the guy.Linky It needs to do something out there once it hits and the 5.56 is simply not capable of achieving what we need. |
|
So the 5.56 which is available in quantity and is used by choice by SEAL teams is not up to snuff for general purpose. Gotcha.
Author is looking to defend use of an outdated overly heavy weapons choice for all purposes. Even the SR25/AR10 pattern weapon which seems to be gaining in popularity and usefullness is disparaged in some form. Recommends the AK54 even though it hasn't had the most stellar reputation. As for the comment about a shooter needing to sack up and carry a heavier weapon... makes me wonder if he's ever needed to carry a weapon any distance. It can be done easily, but its not always prudent. I try to cut unneeded weight, not 'sack up and carry it' just because I can. He wants to defend his choice of an old school battle rifle. That's fine. In the end this whole one rifle to combat the undead/UN/JBT concept is mental masturbation at best. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I'm to assume 5.56 at 750 meters will basically just cease to exist, since it can't do anything and all? Pretty sure it's gonna hurt, like hell. Might even kill the guy.
Linky It needs to do something out there once it hits and the 5.56 is simply not capable of achieving what we need. Even if the bullet doesn't, sepsis and infection coupled with bleeding out may. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I'm to assume 5.56 at 750 meters will basically just cease to exist, since it can't do anything and all? Pretty sure it's gonna hurt, like hell. Might even kill the guy.
Linky It needs to do something out there once it hits and the 5.56 is simply not capable of achieving what we need. Even if the bullet doesn't, sepsis and infection coupled with bleeding out may. Assuming the enemy doesn't have medics or centers for treatment. |
|
Given the OP's requirements, how about a SCAR-H with that Leupold 1-8x? It is reasonably light for a 308 and the 1-8x should give you all the magnification you will ever need. Too bad it doesn't use SR25 mags.
Getting back to the barter/scrounge thing. I agree that it should in no way be your primary plan. Carry as much ammo as you can without sacrificing food, water, and other needed items. On the other hand, it would be nice if you could pick up ammo off the dead guy you just killed. To increase the odds of you having the same caliber as the newly departed, it would be best to have either 5.56, 7.62x39, or 7.62x51 as your rifle round. |
|
I think 750 yards is an unrealistic requirement. At that range, a 308 bullet is like 15 feet low. You are going to need an extremely accurate measure of the range, as well as very good read on elevation change and the wind. It is not easy to shoot that far with all of the right equipement except at the range on a perfect day. Good luck doing it under combat conditions with a 'general purpose' rifle.
And it is not like the 308 is so much more ballistically fantastic than a 223 at 750 yards. I have the balllistics for my 30-06 (180 gr Win PP) and AR-15 (75gr TAP) on my ipod, and there is very little difference in either the elevation or wind adjustments required at 750 yards. Both require a lot of adjustments at that range. I suppose I would rather get hit by the 223 than the 30-06 at 750 yards (this is true at any range, but the 223 does become much less effective past is fragmentation range), but either one is probably going to take me out of action. At that range the target just needs to be taken out of action, not instantly incapacitated. It seems sensible to me to orient your weapon towards the most likely encounter distances - which is probably going to be quite short. The nice thing about the AR that you can reach out much farther if you need to, if rather less effectively. Hitting a torso sized target with Irons or an Aimpoint AR at 500 yards is not too difficult. Realistically, if you see a threat 750 yards away you probably have the ability to avoid the threat rather than start banging away at it. If you are defending some sort of fixed position, you should have access to longer range weapons suitable to the tast at hand. The pessimist might say the rifle does nothing well, but I would say this rifle concept will do everything good enough. And that concept has been proven time and time again throughout history to be more than sufficient.
Every military on the planet has abandoned the concept. Military theorists pushed the concept for centuries, insisting on powerful rifles that could have some capability at extreme range. Eventually even the US Army realized that it makes sense to have a rifle that was oriented towards short and medium range. |
|
Quoted:
. The pessimist might say the rifle does nothing well, but I would say this rifle concept will do everything good enough. And that concept has been proven time and time again throughout history to be more than sufficient.
Every military on the planet has abandoned the concept. Military theorists pushed the concept for centuries, insisting on powerful rifles that could have some capability at extreme range. Eventually even the US Army realized that it makes sense to have a rifle that was oriented towards short and medium range. Thank you - I was thinking the same thing. This idea was tried and rejected. Too little ammo can be carried, slower to engage multiple targets close in (i.e. ranges you are more likely to engage combat in). The author IIRC was never a Soldier or Marine, so take what he has to say about combat rifles with a grain of salt. 750y requirement for a 'combat rifle'? Really? How many people get trained to shoot that far? (and believe me it takes training & lots of practice to read the wind, estimate range properly, and make hits at that kind of range). Looks like Gabe is trying to drum up business in another nitch market. |
|
Several points; if your are trying to defend a fixed position, like your home from a group of invaders, you better have more then a 308. In combat if you are not moving you are screwed. Patton said "dig a fox hole dig your grave." I have done anough backpacking to relize that 10 pounds can be alot of weight. 10 pounds is a starting point. Add ammo, mag, sling, and optics/mounts. That can easly add up to 15 pounds. You better do some extra hand-stand push-ups.
Navy SEALs found that the ideal length for house to house was 28''. The Israelis must of come to the same conclusion because they are adopting a light short bullpup chambered for 5.56. I love my FAL but try getting in and out of car with one, or in and out of a house. |
|
Quoted:
It needs to do something out there once it hits and the 5.56 is simply not capable of achieving what we need. Moreover, while the 6.5 Grendel, and the 6.8 SPS sound like fantastic calibers and could probably do well in this role, they are simply not available at the level that we need. I am not sure how quite accurate a statement that is, there are quite few dead Iraqis, Afghans and foreign fighters who have been killed at extended ranges by hits from Mk-12s in the hands of Marines and various special operations forces. What we found is not so much there is a lack of terminal effects at those ranges but a lack of hitting the targets |
|
Navy SEALs found that the ideal length for house to house was 28''. The Israelis must of come to the same conclusion because they are adopting a light short bullpup chambered for 5.56. I love my FAL but try getting in and out of car with one, or in and out of a house.
I'm amazed the OP didn't mention bullpups at all. You can still have long barrel performance in an overall short rifle. I'm amazed the hunting crowd hasn't warmed up to the idea of bullpups. For turkey or deer, a bullpup shotgun with a red dot would be perfect, especially in thick brush. |
|
Quoted:
Navy SEALs found that the ideal length for house to house was 28''. The Israelis must of come to the same conclusion because they are adopting a light short bullpup chambered for 5.56. I love my FAL but try getting in and out of car with one, or in and out of a house.
I'm amazed the OP didn't mention bullpups at all. You can still have long barrel performance in an overall short rifle. I'm amazed the hunting crowd hasn't warmed up to the idea of bullpups. For turkey or deer, a bullpup shotgun with a red dot would be perfect, especially in thick brush. A bullpup fits into the op requirement. Short over all length with a barrel long anough for longer range work. A bullpup would work better then a AR with a 10'' barrel. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Navy SEALs found that the ideal length for house to house was 28''. The Israelis must of come to the same conclusion because they are adopting a light short bullpup chambered for 5.56. I love my FAL but try getting in and out of car with one, or in and out of a house.
I'm amazed the OP didn't mention bullpups at all. You can still have long barrel performance in an overall short rifle. I'm amazed the hunting crowd hasn't warmed up to the idea of bullpups. For turkey or deer, a bullpup shotgun with a red dot would be perfect, especially in thick brush. A bullpup fits into the op requirement. Short over all length with a barrel long anough for longer range work. A bullpup would work better then a AR with a 10'' barrel. The problem with bullpups is the as-yet unresolved matter of triggers so sloppy as to defeat all other attempts at accurizing them. Otherwise, they offer highly desirable features. It would seemingly be a solvable design/engineering problem to develop a trigger system equal to the task of long-range accuracy, within a platform of reasonable overall length and weight. That this hasn't yet been done is probably more a matter of a lack of perceived demand for great precision from a general purpose rifle, i.e., nobody's tried to make a bullpup master the dual tasks of being a handy CQB rig, as well as a medium range tool. It wouldn't take much improvement in the AUG platform to greatly extend its range potential, and thus its versatility... |
|
I've never been in combat, but I have hunted deer and elk before....and I do "observe with tactical eyes" when I'm waltzing about in the city....
I have never, ever seen 750 yards in terms of shooting that far. (excepting when I'm looking down a long straight stretch of main road, or looking across a valley). Most contact ranges are less than 150 yards, most of those are less than 50 yards. An average America city street (sidewalk, lane, center lane, lane, sidewalk) is about 50 feet wide; if you shoot at about a 70^ angle you'll see a 50 yard distance....3rd world streets may be less. Seems to me 750 yards from a rifleman is excessive. Wouldn't arty be called in for that operation? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ If the man cannot carry a ten pound rifle in the field then rather than do with a substandard weapon that is lighter, the better solution is to strengthen the man. I challenge the entire premise of weight. If a man cannot carry a proper combat rifle in the field then this is may not be the discipline for him. We will not dilute the concept because the physically undeveloped can't hang. . you forgot the 70lbs of other shit, armor, comms, etc that general statement is fucked up on so many levels,.... I going to have to agree with TaylorWSO.... If all you were carrying was the rifle... I'm pretty sure anyone could "man up"... but it doesn't work that way... Don't get me wrong, I do think that the AR needs a larger caliber, or even a "Mid-Length/Size action...one that can allow (maybe , just thinkin' out loud) some kinda longer 5.56, that allows more velocity with the 77ish grain bullets... But as for going back to full sized MBRs... seems like a step back, both in size/bulk and "recoil".... we should be able to find a modern version of the 7.62x45, 7x45, or .277x45... there are tons of good examples. |
|
AR-10 style rifles will be great here as well as long as it has been built to be reliable and not just accurate. Many of the rifles I have seen in this weapons family seem more focused toward sniping and not so much to general purpose.
Oh, horse puckey. An AR10A2 or A4 rifle/carbine would be just fine for GP use. Course, there is nothing wrong with a 5.56 A2 or A4 either. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Navy SEALs found that the ideal length for house to house was 28''. The Israelis must of come to the same conclusion because they are adopting a light short bullpup chambered for 5.56. I love my FAL but try getting in and out of car with one, or in and out of a house.
I'm amazed the OP didn't mention bullpups at all. You can still have long barrel performance in an overall short rifle. I'm amazed the hunting crowd hasn't warmed up to the idea of bullpups. For turkey or deer, a bullpup shotgun with a red dot would be perfect, especially in thick brush. A bullpup fits into the op requirement. Short over all length with a barrel long anough for longer range work. A bullpup would work better then a AR with a 10'' barrel. The problem with bullpups is the as-yet unresolved matter of triggers so sloppy as to defeat all other attempts at accurizing them. Otherwise, they offer highly desirable features. It would seemingly be a solvable design/engineering problem to develop a trigger system equal to the task of long-range accuracy, within a platform of reasonable overall length and weight. That this hasn't yet been done is probably more a matter of a lack of perceived demand for great precision from a general purpose rifle, i.e., nobody's tried to make a bullpup master the dual tasks of being a handy CQB rig, as well as a medium range tool. It wouldn't take much improvement in the AUG platform to greatly extend its range potential, and thus its versatility... Desert Tactical Arms bullpup reportly has a great trigger and is capable of 700 yard shoots. Kel Tec RFB has a great trigger. My STG556's trigger is better than my AR15. Bullpups have there shortcommings, bad trigger is not necessarily one of them. Still better then a rifle with a 10'' barrel. |
|
Quoted:
I've never been in combat, but I have hunted deer and elk before....and I do "observe with tactical eyes" when I'm waltzing about in the city.... I have never, ever seen 750 yards in terms of shooting that far. (excepting when I'm looking down a long straight stretch of main road, or looking across a valley). Most contact ranges are less than 150 yards, most of those are less than 50 yards. An average America city street (sidewalk, lane, center lane, lane, sidewalk) is about 50 feet wide; if you shoot at about a 70^ angle you'll see a 50 yard distance....3rd world streets may be less. Seems to me 750 yards from a rifleman is excessive. Wouldn't arty be called in for that operation? Your points are all valid. Most combat occurs 300m or less, most riflemen cannot engage a target much further than 300m. Beyond 500m, you are definitely in precision rifle/sniper territory. A 750 yard capability for a GP rifle is silly. Again, an AR15 with an Aimpoint easily fills the role of a good GP rifle. That is why the Army uses that platform. Some people like to think the Aimpoint is a CQB sight. It is not. It enhances CQB capabilities, but is also capable of accurate shots out to 300m plus. |
|
Quoted:
Every military on the planet has abandoned the concept. Military theorists pushed the concept for centuries, insisting on powerful rifles that could have some capability at extreme range. Eventually even the US Army realized that it makes sense to have a rifle that was oriented towards short and medium range. That's because current doctrine says if the bad guy is more than 300 yards away, you don't shoot him, you shoot AT him and call the nice USAF guys to drop a 500 lb bomb on him from 30,000 ft. But... What happens when the political class decides it is no longer, ah, politically correct to carry out airstrikes against the bad guys? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Every military on the planet has abandoned the concept. Military theorists pushed the concept for centuries, insisting on powerful rifles that could have some capability at extreme range. Eventually even the US Army realized that it makes sense to have a rifle that was oriented towards short and medium range. That's because current doctrine says if the bad guy is more than 300 yards away, you don't shoot him, you shoot AT him and call the nice USAF guys to drop a 500 lb bomb on him from 30,000 ft. But... What happens when the political class decides it is no longer, ah, politically correct to carry out airstrikes against the bad guys? Political correctness has nothing to do with the realities of war; in a recent study done by the Center for Naval Analysis rifle fire accuracy in combat for US forces was around 12 percent and the the average engagement was around 110 meters. |
|
I was recently reading a report somewhere just talking about being able to see and distinguish a target past 300M. The gist was that being able to see a camoflaged human being past 300M who may not be standing straight up, may be actively seeking cover (i.e., moving) and may be shooting back at you makes the probability of a hit (especially without good glass) pretty low.
Sean |
|
Quoted: I was recently reading a report somewhere just talking about being able to see and distinguish a target past 300M. The gist was that being able to see a camoflaged human being past 300M who may not be standing straight up, may be actively seeking cover (i.e., moving) and may be shooting back at you makes the probability of a hit (especially without good glass) pretty low. Sean Thus there is no reason to wonder why the Marine Corps adopted a 4x ACOG for use on the M16A4. Hit probability and target identification at extended but realistic distances are what have increased the lethality of the rifleman. We do not field an army of snipers, but the legal and moral requirements of the modern battlefield simply dictate a higher degree of precision. |
|
Quoted: What, no love for Gabe Suarez here? Why should they? It's more fun to bash him for not being in the military, even though he's talking about a compromise do it all, you can only have one rifle for SHTF, rifle with regard to civilian defensive applications. Or to point out the fail of shooting at 750 yards even though there is zero mention of target engagement at 750 yards any where in the article. The only fail in this topic is reading comprehension. NOTICE: BEFORE REPLYING TO DISPUTE WHAT I HAVE SAID READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE AND MY POST CAREFULLY SO YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE A FULL FARKING RETARD. |
|
Quoted: It's more fun to bash him for not being in the military, even though he's talking about a compromise do it all, you can only have one rifle for SHTF, rifle with regard to civilian defensive applications. Where did he say a civilian defense applications, US Forces and Combat rifle makes it sound an awful lot like a military weapon to me. Truly, it is what much of the fighting around the world, by US forces as well as other forces, is all about. ... Such a rifle could be called a General Purpose Combat Rifle and must be, well, general purpose. In fact, nowhere in the article does he ever mention that it's for civilian defense applications.Quoted: It was his first point.Or to point out the fail of shooting at 750 yards even though there is zero mention of target engagement at 750 yards any where in the article. 1). It must be in a military caliber capable of reaching out to distant targets to about 750 yards. Quoted: The only fail in this topic is reading comprehension. NOTICE: BEFORE REPLYING TO DISPUTE WHAT I HAVE SAID READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE AND MY POST CAREFULLY SO YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE A FULL FARKING RETARD. I don't think it's my reading comprehension that's in question here. I did read the entire article, and your entire post, carefully. Pretty sure I don't look like a farking retard. ETA: The dislike for Saurez comes from some blowout several years ago. I don't know the details of it. |
|
Josh, with the utmost respect given, you have not read the article in full or do not comprehend the words written. I'm going to break the reply up into individual posts for clarity. Quoted: It's more fun to bash him for not being in the military, even though he's talking about a compromise do it all, you can only have one rifle for SHTF, rifle with regard to civilian defensive applications. Where did he say a civilian defense applications, US Forces and Combat rifle makes it sound an awful lot like a military weapon to me. Truly, it is what much of the fighting around the world, by US forces as well as other forces, is all about. ... Such a rifle could be called a General Purpose Combat Rifle and must be, well, general purpose. In fact, nowhere in the article does he ever mention that it's for civilian defense applications. _________________________________________________________________________ My response: Gabe's word's The Obviously if he were talking about anything other than civilian use, the availability of surplus and at common retail outlets would be moot. Clearly he is talking from acivilian standpoint.caliber must be easily found everywhere. That means that it should be available in military surplus form, and at common retail outlets. You have to read past the first paragraph to fully comprehend any article. Truly, it is what much of the fighting around the world, by US forces as well as other forces, is all about. ... Such a rifle could be called a General Purpose Combat Rifle and must be, well, general purpose. Your misunderstanding of this quote is that you are connecting the sentence with US forces to the wrong part. It is actually connected to the preceding sentence. In fact, nowhere in the article does he ever mention that it's for civilian defense applications. Nope he doesn't you have to figure that out for yourself, but do you really think he would write an article about picking from the FAL, G3/Cetme or Saiga if he was talking about the military? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: It was his first point.Or to point out the fail of shooting at 750 yards even though there is zero mention of target engagement at 750 yards any where in the article. 1). It must be in a military caliber capable of reaching out to distant targets to about 750 yards. Sorry but you missed the first point. 1). It [the cartridge] must be in a military caliber capable of reaching out to distant targets to about 750 yards. The cartridge must be capable of penetrating brush and light cover, and possess wind resistance. The caliber must be easily found everywhere. That means that it should be available in military surplus form, and at common retail outlets. The concept needs will specifically exclude any assault rifle cartridges such as the 5.45x39, 7.62x39 and the 5.56x45. Sure…I know the DMR/SPR in 5.56 can achieve some fantastic accuracy but that is not the point. It needs to do something out there once it hits and the 5.56 is simply not capable of achieving what we need. Moreover, while the 6.5 Grendel, and the 6.8 SPS sound like fantastic calibers and could probably do well in this role, they are simply not available at the level that we need. The suitable calibers that fit our needs are the 7.62x51, the 7.62x54R, and maybe the 30-06 (although finding a rifle suitable for our mission will be difficult as you will see). 2). The rifle itself should be usable both at 500 yards and at 50 yards. Suitability for borderline sniping as well as house to house MOUT is essential. That will require a robust system that has seen military service. It will also require a detachable high capacity magazine to be capable in the close quarters envelope. Taking point one individually it is easy to mistakenly believe that he is talking about 750 yard targets, but if you read on to the second point, you'll see there no mention of engagement past 500 yards. |
|
Quoted: ETA: The dislike for Saurez comes from some blowout several years ago. I don't know the details of it. Suarez plead guilty to workers comp fraud charges from the police department he worked for. Went to jail for seven months on the misdemeanor plea, and paid fines and restitution to the department. Then the real icing on the cake, he went on the 700 Club and discussed how he planned to go postal during the stress of the criminal ordeal until a friend intervened. |
|
Quoted: My response: Gabe's word's The caliber must be easily found everywhere. That means that it should be available in military surplus form, and at common retail outlets. Obviously if he were talking about anything other than civilian use, the availability of surplus and at common retail outlets would be moot. Clearly he is talking from acivilian standpoint.Not necessarily. Indigenous forces, recon patrols that get cut off, WWZ, etc. You have to read past the first paragraph to fully comprehend any article. Truly, it is what much of the fighting around the world, by US forces as well as other forces, is all about. ... Such a rifle could be called a General Purpose Combat Rifle and must be, well, general purpose. Your misunderstanding of this quote is that you are connecting the sentence with US forces to the wrong part. It is actually connected to the preceding sentence. My misunderstanding and everyone elses apparently. Which means he needs to write in a more clear and concise manner so that we poor peons can understand exactly what he's trying to convey. Regardless of that, he is not talking about a civilian defense rifle. General Purpose Combat Rifle is for everyone, he says so in his further comments. Everyone includes the GI, who is going to be the most common user of the rifle. Quite simply, I don't want to be equipped with something that's mediocre at a lot things but not really good at anything. I'd rather specialize for the mission at hand. In fact, nowhere in the article does he ever mention that it's for civilian defense applications. Nope he doesn't you have to figure that out for yourself, but do you really think he would write an article about picking from the FAL, G3/Cetme or Saiga if he was talking about the military? He's talking about a rifle that is usable by the majority of people in the majority of situations, Military included. If he is in fact talking about only civilian defense, then his writing is ambiguous. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It was his first point.Or to point out the fail of shooting at 750 yards even though there is zero mention of target engagement at 750 yards any where in the article. 1). It must be in a military caliber capable of reaching out to distant targets to about 750 yards. Sorry but you missed the first point. 1). It [the cartridge] must be in a military caliber capable of reaching out to distant targets to about 750 yards. The cartridge must be capable of penetrating brush and light cover, and possess wind resistance. The caliber must be easily found everywhere. That means that it should be available in military surplus form, and at common retail outlets. The concept needs will specifically exclude any assault rifle cartridges such as the 5.45x39, 7.62x39 and the 5.56x45. Sure…I know the DMR/SPR in 5.56 can achieve some fantastic accuracy but that is not the point. It needs to do something out there once it hits and the 5.56 is simply not capable of achieving what we need. Moreover, while the 6.5 Grendel, and the 6.8 SPS sound like fantastic calibers and could probably do well in this role, they are simply not available at the level that we need. The suitable calibers that fit our needs are the 7.62x51, the 7.62x54R, and maybe the 30-06 (although finding a rifle suitable for our mission will be difficult as you will see). 2). The rifle itself should be usable both at 500 yards and at 50 yards. Suitability for borderline sniping as well as house to house MOUT is essential. That will require a robust system that has seen military service. It will also require a detachable high capacity magazine to be capable in the close quarters envelope. Taking point one individually it is easy to mistakenly believe that he is talking about 750 yard targets, but if you read on to the second point, you'll see there no mention of engagement past 500 yards. I don't mistakenly believe he's talking about engaging targets at 750 yards, he stated the cartridge had to be capable of it. There's no reason for the cartridge to be capable of reaching 150% past what you consider the maximum effective range. Requiring it to have the capability implies that you will use it for it if the situation arises. Regardless of the above, the concept in general is a poor one. On top of that the article is ambiguous and the author fails to clearly make his point. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's more fun to bash him for not being in the military, even though he's talking about a compromise do it all, you can only have one rifle for SHTF, rifle with regard to civilian defensive applications. Where did he say a civilian defense applications, US Forces and Combat rifle makes it sound an awful lot like a military weapon to me. Truly, it is what much of the fighting around the world, by US forces as well as other forces, is all about. ... Such a rifle could be called a General Purpose Combat Rifle and must be, well, general purpose.
In fact, nowhere in the article does he ever mention that it's for civilian defense applications.
Quoted:
It was his first point.
Or to point out the fail of shooting at 750 yards even though there is zero mention of target engagement at 750 yards any where in the article. 1). It must be in a military caliber capable of reaching out to distant targets to about 750 yards.
Quoted:
The only fail in this topic is reading comprehension. NOTICE: BEFORE REPLYING TO DISPUTE WHAT I HAVE SAID READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE AND MY POST CAREFULLY SO YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE A FULL FARKING RETARD. I don't think it's my reading comprehension that's in question here. I did read the entire article, and your entire post, carefully. Pretty sure I don't look like a farking retard. ETA: The dislike for Saurez comes from some blowout several years ago. I don't know the details of it. Justin-Kase really stepped on his own member with that one.  Apparently, he's the one with the reading comprehension problems.....despite how he's now trying to twist it. Funny how implying everyone else is retarded usually ends up with you looking silly. Oh well. Live and learn.....or pretend you didn't just stick your foot in your mouth and go on with multiple replies trying to cover up your obvious screw up. Kinda sad really.
Sean |
|
Wow! Personally, I don't think that he's suggesting that the military adopt this rifle. Most crap on that site is about the average joe using what they have or how to go about getting something (anything) one the cheap that's reasonably serviceable. If one were to take the idea that its for the military, what's the problem? Not being argumentative, but I'd like to see thoughts on the idea.
Biggest problem I have with the idea is that most average guys can't hit shit much past 100 yards much less 300. I've only seen one individual ever roll up to the 300 yard line and start ringing the gong. That and, yea, most people aren't going to walk a block with a 10lb rifle. I do agree, though, that that's a problem with the individual and resolution to the problem directed at the individual will pay one back in spades vs. just getting a lighter rifle. |
|
Josh, I'm sorry but the concept discussed in the article just has nothing to do with suggesting a rifle for military issue. The writing isn't ambiguous, Gabe's business is directed at civilians and so is the article. If you want to believe he is proposing something for military issue that is fine with me. If you choose to believe something that is not supported by the article feel free. If you choose to believe that the concept includes a requirement for 750 yard shots out of a rifle with an effective range of 500 yard, well be my guest to use whatever tortured logic you need to convince yourself of that. The goal is out to 500 yards…and maybe farther out. However, if you want to discuss the do-it-all rifle concept as described in the article. A rifle for a guy who buys his own gear, then I'm all ears. Otherwise I've got better things to do than explain water is wet. |
|
Quoted: Justin-Kase really stepped on his own member with that one. Apparently, he's the one with the reading comprehension problems.....despite how he's now trying to twist it. Funny how implying everyone else is retarded usually ends up with you looking silly. Oh well. Live and learn.....or pretend you didn't just stick your foot in your mouth and go on with multiple replies trying to cover up your obvious screw up. Kinda sad really. Sean Sean, you really should read and understand the article before before posting. Josh's take on it is not supported remotely by anything in the article. Or you could read the ~40 pages of discussion on the concept that prompted the article if you really want some insight. http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=75149 http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=75394 http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=75109 If after actually reading the material you still wish to believe that the concept is for a general issue military rifle well then I don't think I can help you. But if you just want to join in the GD pattern derision without understanding the topic have at it. |
|
It doesn't really matter if the author is talking about military use, or civilian. A rifle capable of 750 yd shots is not crucial to either the infantry, or to a civilian.
Infantry = call in arty or air Civilian = beat feet out of the area, or hold your fire until the subject gets within reasonable range (750 yds is not "reasonable"; very difficult to find that kind of distance) Most gunfights are at close- to near-close ranges. As said several times before, from point-blank to < 200 yds. A rifle carried by anyone needs to be accurate, reliable and fast––-at these ranges. .308, .30-06, 7.62x54R, etc are all overkill against humans. Yes, they work (and work very well), but the cost in terms of weight, recoil, muzzle report, etc all weigh against them. 5.56 and 7.62x39, as well as a host of regular hunting rounds, do very well. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ If the man cannot carry a ten pound rifle in the field then rather than do with a substandard weapon that is lighter, the better solution is to strengthen the man. I challenge the entire premise of weight. If a man cannot carry a proper combat rifle in the field then this is may not be the discipline for him. We will not dilute the concept because the physically undeveloped can't hang. . you forgot the 70lbs of other shit, armor, comms, etc that general statement is fucked up on so many levels, and only someone who has not partaken in the current fight will even attempt to make that statement I wont comment on the other stupid shit in that post/article Gabe "Prison Bitch" Suarez, may I suggest that until you have walked 12 fucking miles carrying 80 Pounds+ of shit, that you kindly shut the fuck up about shit which you have no fuckin clue about. Weight carried in the field being one of them. Edit to give credit where credit is due. |
|
Quoted: ProjectLongBow isn't the one saying that. He just copied and pasted the article that was written by Gabe Saurez. Unless he is Gabe Saurez. Regardless, the personal attacks aren't really necessary.Quoted: Quoted: [ If the man cannot carry a ten pound rifle in the field then rather than do with a substandard weapon that is lighter, the better solution is to strengthen the man. I challenge the entire premise of weight. If a man cannot carry a proper combat rifle in the field then this is may not be the discipline for him. We will not dilute the concept because the physically undeveloped can't hang. . you forgot the 70lbs of other shit, armor, comms, etc that general statement is fucked up on so many levels, and only someone who has not partaken in the current fight will even attempt to make that statement I wont comment on the other stupid shit in that post/article ProjectLongDong, may I suggest that until you have walked 12 fucking miles carrying 80 Pounds+ of shit, that you kindly shut the fuck up about shit which you have no fuckin clue about. Weight carried in the field being one of them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ If the man cannot carry a ten pound rifle in the field then rather than do with a substandard weapon that is lighter, the better solution is to strengthen the man. I challenge the entire premise of weight. If a man cannot carry a proper combat rifle in the field then this is may not be the discipline for him. We will not dilute the concept because the physically undeveloped can't hang. . you forgot the 70lbs of other shit, armor, comms, etc that general statement is fucked up on so many levels, and only someone who has not partaken in the current fight will even attempt to make that statement I wont comment on the other stupid shit in that post/article ProjectLongDong, may I suggest that until you have walked 12 fucking miles carrying 80 Pounds+ of shit, that you kindly shut the fuck up about shit which you have no fuckin clue about. Weight carried in the field being one of them. LOL R.I.F.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: ProjectLongBow isn't the one saying that. He just copied and pasted the article that was written by Gabe Saurez. Unless he is Gabe Saurez. Regardless, the personal attacks aren't really necessary.Quoted: Quoted: [ If the man cannot carry a ten pound rifle in the field then rather than do with a substandard weapon that is lighter, the better solution is to strengthen the man. I challenge the entire premise of weight. If a man cannot carry a proper combat rifle in the field then this is may not be the discipline for him. We will not dilute the concept because the physically undeveloped can't hang. . you forgot the 70lbs of other shit, armor, comms, etc that general statement is fucked up on so many levels, and only someone who has not partaken in the current fight will even attempt to make that statement I wont comment on the other stupid shit in that post/article ProjectLongDong, may I suggest that until you have walked 12 fucking miles carrying 80 Pounds+ of shit, that you kindly shut the fuck up about shit which you have no fuckin clue about. Weight carried in the field being one of them. Josh, This might have been what I was talking about in the first post. |
|
Quoted:
Linky Today we see a big emphasis on close quarters battle. Truly, it is what much of the fighting around the world, by US forces as well as other forces, is all about. I said much, but not all. There is a good bit of application in an area where CQB (close quarters battle) leaves off and long before the Sniper Application begins. A rifle chosen to cover this area should be capable of both close quarters battle (although not specifically designed for that) and sniping (although not specifically designed for that either). Such a rifle could be called a General Purpose Combat Rifle and must be, well, general purpose. It should do all things reasonably well. Except for the “combat” part, this is the same notion that led to Cooper’s Scout Rifle. The Scout Rifle, however a sacred cow it may be, was never meant for fighting specifically but for hunting. Few Scout shooters ever kept up with even an adequate semi auto shooter. Specially if the shooting test was not specifically set up to favor the Scout. So what do we need for a GPCR? 1). It must be in a military caliber capable of reaching out to distant targets to about 750 yards. The cartridge must be capable of penetrating brush and light cover, and possess wind resistance. The caliber must be easily found everywhere. That means that it should be available in military surplus form, and at common retail outlets. The concept needs will specifically exclude any assault rifle cartridges such as the 5.45x39, 7.62x39 and the 5.56x45. Sure…I know the DMR/SPR in 5.56 can achieve some fantastic accuracy but that is not the point. It needs to do something out there once it hits and the 5.56 is simply not capable of achieving what we need. Moreover, while the 6.5 Grendel, and the 6.8 SPS sound like fantastic calibers and could probably do well in this role, they are simply not available at the level that we need. The suitable calibers that fit our needs are the 7.62x51, the 7.62x54R, and maybe the 30-06 (although finding a rifle suitable for our mission will be difficult as you will see). 2). The rifle itself should be usable both at 500 yards and at 50 yards. Suitability for borderline sniping as well as house to house MOUT is essential. That will require a robust system that has seen military service. It will also require a detachable high capacity magazine to be capable in the close quarters envelope. This requirement immediately excludes bolt actions, or sporting style semi autos such as are found from Remington, and other built-for-civilian-hunters rifles. They may be great for hunting, but are simply not strong enough, reliable enough, nor capable of sustained fire as required for close in fighting. What is available today? Options include: The FAL. A short Congo-style rifle with a folding stock and a 17-18" barrel would be perfect. You can get high dollar FALs from DS Arms, or Jim Fuller. And you can get lower grade FALs from Century and other makers. Another very good option is the M1A. The M1A SOCOM, or any M1A style rifle with a shortened barrel will work great as long as they are not too Americanized with bells & whistles, but simply a basic rifle. One necessary addition here would be a pistol grip stock. A G3 clone, or CETME, or HK-91 suitably modified would do as well. The big issue here will be triggers but there are many sources that can fix an overly heavy trigger on these weapons as on the FALs. AR-10 style rifles will be great here as well as long as it has been built to be reliable and not just accurate. Many of the rifles I have seen in this weapons family seem more focused toward sniping and not so much to general purpose. Although the magazines are an issue and less desirable at only ten rounds, the PSL can be made into this....see the AK54. Same can be said about the Saiga 308. That rifle suitably arranged, and in the hands of a capable shooter, can hit at 1000 yards. The problem with the Saiga is a lack of military-grade magazines. 3). Weight: At the warriortalk forum the issue of weight was brought up. While weight should be A consideration, it cannot be the only consideration. Any of the military rifles we have discussed will weigh in at about ten pounds if the heavy bull barrels and uber-adjustable stocks are left off the weapon. The scout people made a big deal out of what a rifle weighs, but I think we must not be driven by weight alone. If the man cannot carry a ten pound rifle in the field then rather than do with a substandard weapon that is lighter, the better solution is to strengthen the man. I challenge the entire premise of weight. If a man cannot carry a proper combat rifle in the field then this is may not be the discipline for him. We will not dilute the concept because the physically undeveloped can't hang. 4). Optics: These rifles need some sort of Variable Power Optic. Part of the duties envisioned for this platform is use in close range combat out to 100 yards. Another part includes hitting the mid ranges between 100 yards and 300 yards. The final part, and where scoping has the most effects, are hitting targets beyond 300 yards. The goal is out to 500 yards…and maybe farther out. Red dot sights so popular in CQB are not adequate for this mission, nor are the super powerful dedicated sniper optics. On my rejuvenated FAL I added a Burris 3-9 as I intend it for the Guerrilla Sniper role and expect that 200-600 should be no issue for it. On the GPCR I think a more "flexible" optic would be better. An ACOG would be fine, as would a Leupold Mark 4 1.5x5. Scout scopes and extended eye relief scopes are fine for CQB but suck for everything else. The reason they are so popular on Garands and M1As is that scoping such a rifle that way is technically easier but you will not see any rifles set up for the mid to long range equipped with scout scopes. In the end what we end up with is a concept of a rifle that will do everything well, albeit not as well as weapons specifically designed for the task. The rifle will perform well inside a house, although not as well as a purpose-designed submachinegun. It will also perform at typical CQB ranges, although maybe not as well as an assault rifle. And it will reach out there and smack the crap out of an adversary across the canyon, although not as well as a sniper-grade bolt action rifle. The pessimist might say the rifle does nothing well, but I would say this rifle concept will do everything good enough. And that concept has been proven time and time again throughout history to be more than sufficient. Sounds like an attempt to justify clinging to "battle rifles" to me. This argument was settled a long time ago. About 65 years ago for the Soviets, unforetunately only about 45 years ago for us. Why require a 750 yard capable cartridge in a "General Purpose Combat Rifle" when nearly all combat occurs within 300 yards? If in fact you want to build a rifle more capable for doing work beyond 400-500 yards, then it is not truely a "General Purpose Combat Rifle"...it's more of a "Special Purpose Rifle", is it not?
I've agreed with your ideas on optics but it you can do anything you want to do with an AR-15 or AK-74. |
|
I look at his logic as flawed, especially for a civilian rifle.
1) Civilians do not engage in extended combat. That is the job of the military, who have other things like belt fed machine guns, mortars, rockets, rifled grenades etc for stuff outside the range of assualt rifles. 2) Civilians are rarely justified in shooting past 100m and usually allot closer. That's why shotguns are very effective weapons for civilians. 3) Hard to identify threats past 300m with the naked eye. If engaged at longer range targets go to ground and fire and manueveur on your fouth point of contact. 4) Assualt rifle cartridges are better for the senerios listed. ie 5.56x45, 5.45x39, 7.62x39 or 7.92x33, 6.8 SPC. 5) Defend yourself if need and then call the law. Sounds like he wants a militia rifle (ie civilians being the military), which is not a civilian self defense rifle but a carbon copy of a military service rifle. 6) He's also using military tactics in his criteria, not thinking like a civilian. Civilians need to break contact and get out of dodge (no body armor, maybe one or two family members but not other support, ie who's watching your flanks, rear and through the night?) CD (been there and seen the elephant) |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Linky Today we see a big emphasis on close quarters battle. Truly, it is what much of the fighting around the world, by US forces as well as other forces, is all about. I said much, but not all. There is a good bit of application in an area where CQB (close quarters battle) leaves off and long before the Sniper Application begins. A rifle chosen to cover this area should be capable of both close quarters battle (although not specifically designed for that) and sniping (although not specifically designed for that either). Such a rifle could be called a General Purpose Combat Rifle and must be, well, general purpose. It should do all things reasonably well. Except for the "combat” part, this is the same notion that led to Cooper’s Scout Rifle. The Scout Rifle, however a sacred cow it may be, was never meant for fighting specifically but for hunting. Few Scout shooters ever kept up with even an adequate semi auto shooter. Specially if the shooting test was not specifically set up to favor the Scout. So what do we need for a GPCR? 1). It must be in a military caliber capable of reaching out to distant targets to about 750 yards. The cartridge must be capable of penetrating brush and light cover, and possess wind resistance. The caliber must be easily found everywhere. That means that it should be available in military surplus form, and at common retail outlets. The concept needs will specifically exclude any assault rifle cartridges such as the 5.45x39, 7.62x39 and the 5.56x45. Sure…I know the DMR/SPR in 5.56 can achieve some fantastic accuracy but that is not the point. It needs to do something out there once it hits and the 5.56 is simply not capable of achieving what we need. Moreover, while the 6.5 Grendel, and the 6.8 SPS sound like fantastic calibers and could probably do well in this role, they are simply not available at the level that we need. The suitable calibers that fit our needs are the 7.62x51, the 7.62x54R, and maybe the 30-06 (although finding a rifle suitable for our mission will be difficult as you will see). 2). The rifle itself should be usable both at 500 yards and at 50 yards. Suitability for borderline sniping as well as house to house MOUT is essential. That will require a robust system that has seen military service. It will also require a detachable high capacity magazine to be capable in the close quarters envelope. This requirement immediately excludes bolt actions, or sporting style semi autos such as are found from Remington, and other built-for-civilian-hunters rifles. They may be great for hunting, but are simply not strong enough, reliable enough, nor capable of sustained fire as required for close in fighting. What is available today? Options include: The FAL. A short Congo-style rifle with a folding stock and a 17-18" barrel would be perfect. You can get high dollar FALs from DS Arms, or Jim Fuller. And you can get lower grade FALs from Century and other makers. Another very good option is the M1A. The M1A SOCOM, or any M1A style rifle with a shortened barrel will work great as long as they are not too Americanized with bells & whistles, but simply a basic rifle. One necessary addition here would be a pistol grip stock. A G3 clone, or CETME, or HK-91 suitably modified would do as well. The big issue here will be triggers but there are many sources that can fix an overly heavy trigger on these weapons as on the FALs. AR-10 style rifles will be great here as well as long as it has been built to be reliable and not just accurate. Many of the rifles I have seen in this weapons family seem more focused toward sniping and not so much to general purpose. Although the magazines are an issue and less desirable at only ten rounds, the PSL can be made into this....see the AK54. Same can be said about the Saiga 308. That rifle suitably arranged, and in the hands of a capable shooter, can hit at 1000 yards. The problem with the Saiga is a lack of military-grade magazines. 3). Weight: At the warriortalk forum the issue of weight was brought up. While weight should be A consideration, it cannot be the only consideration. Any of the military rifles we have discussed will weigh in at about ten pounds if the heavy bull barrels and uber-adjustable stocks are left off the weapon. The scout people made a big deal out of what a rifle weighs, but I think we must not be driven by weight alone. If the man cannot carry a ten pound rifle in the field then rather than do with a substandard weapon that is lighter, the better solution is to strengthen the man. I challenge the entire premise of weight. If a man cannot carry a proper combat rifle in the field then this is may not be the discipline for him. We will not dilute the concept because the physically undeveloped can't hang. 4). Optics: These rifles need some sort of Variable Power Optic. Part of the duties envisioned for this platform is use in close range combat out to 100 yards. Another part includes hitting the mid ranges between 100 yards and 300 yards. The final part, and where scoping has the most effects, are hitting targets beyond 300 yards. The goal is out to 500 yards…and maybe farther out. Red dot sights so popular in CQB are not adequate for this mission, nor are the super powerful dedicated sniper optics. On my rejuvenated FAL I added a Burris 3-9 as I intend it for the Guerrilla Sniper role and expect that 200-600 should be no issue for it. On the GPCR I think a more "flexible" optic would be better. An ACOG would be fine, as would a Leupold Mark 4 1.5x5. Scout scopes and extended eye relief scopes are fine for CQB but suck for everything else. The reason they are so popular on Garands and M1As is that scoping such a rifle that way is technically easier but you will not see any rifles set up for the mid to long range equipped with scout scopes. In the end what we end up with is a concept of a rifle that will do everything well, albeit not as well as weapons specifically designed for the task. The rifle will perform well inside a house, although not as well as a purpose-designed submachinegun. It will also perform at typical CQB ranges, although maybe not as well as an assault rifle. And it will reach out there and smack the crap out of an adversary across the canyon, although not as well as a sniper-grade bolt action rifle. The pessimist might say the rifle does nothing well, but I would say this rifle concept will do everything good enough. And that concept has been proven time and time again throughout history to be more than sufficient. Sounds like an attempt to justify clinging to "battle rifles" to me. [Yes and no, it's really just a variation of the monthly "if you could only have one rifle for SHTF" general discussion thread.] This argument was settled a long time ago. About 65 years ago for the Soviets, unforetunately only about 45 years ago for us. [For the military yes, the argument was settled. The author (or gatherer of the comments would be a better description) is a civilian trainer and regardless of the confusion the discussion is directed at civilian usage.] Why require a 750 yard capable cartridge in a "General Purpose Combat Rifle" when nearly all combat occurs within 300 yards? If in fact you want to build a rifle more capable for doing work beyond 400-500 yards, then it is not truely a "General Purpose Combat Rifle"...it's more of a "Special Purpose Rifle", is it not? [The idea is a do-it-all single rifle for when you have to deal with whatever shtf throws at you and you don't have a bunch of buddies with the big guns to call in. Makes sense when you understand that regardless of the mention of US Forces, the comments are for civilians not for government issue. The 750 yard comment imho has to do more with retained energy at distance than anything else. It would have read better if he had said the cartridge should retain a minimum "x" energy at "y" range.] I've agreed with your ideas on optics but it you can do anything you want to do with an AR-15 or AK-74. [The design yes, but the concept is for a harder hitting cartridge that can "do-it-all." According to Suarez, and it's hard to argue, the 5.56 and 5.45 don't have the retained energy at the distances he envisions, nor the ability to punch through intermediate barriers.] |
|
Quoted: I look at his logic as flawed, especially for a civilian rifle. 1) Civilians do not engage in extended combat. That is the job of the military, who have other things like belt fed machine guns, mortars, rockets, rifled grenades etc for stuff outside the range of assualt rifles. 2) Civilians are rarely justified in shooting past 100m and usually allot closer. That's why shotguns are very effective weapons for civilians. 3) Hard to identify threats past 300m with the naked eye. If engaged at longer range targets go to ground and fire and manueveur on your fouth point of contact. 4) Assualt rifle cartridges are better for the senerios listed. ie 5.56x45, 5.45x39, 7.62x39 or 7.92x33, 6.8 SPC. 5) Defend yourself if need and then call the law. Sounds like he wants a militia rifle (ie civilians being the military), which is not a civilian self defense rifle but a carbon copy of a military service rifle. 6) He's also using military tactics in his criteria, not thinking like a civilian. Civilians need to break contact and get out of dodge (no body armor, maybe one or two family members but not other support, ie who's watching your flanks, rear and through the night?) CD (been there and seen the elephant) I think you have a good take on it, and your BTDT experience is not in question. But the concept is more of a one gun and only one gun for SHTF/TEOTWAWKI where 911 is not an option. Yes he is looking at it from a martial point of view, and applying military tactics but that's reasonable if you accept that the premise is not for dealing with a crack head breaking into your house. I strongly agree with the second part of point 5, he is thinking more along the lines of the militia as envisioned in the 2nd. But I believe there is room to consider why a civilian with out access to the bigger infantry weapons might not want the same things that make the M4 a great general issue military weapon. For example if 5.56 isn't doing the job, the infantry has many tools to deal with the problem. A civilian with just one rifle might desire more flexibility in his only weapon. As far as breaking contact, couldn't agree more, for the civilian any time you don't have to get shot at is the better strategy. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - General purpose combat rifle (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor