How accurate do you all think this info is?

[RCS]

http://billstclair.com/DoingFreedom/...02/brifle.html

I'm not trying to start a debate, this is the only website I've ever found like this, and I figured I'd share and start a discussion about it. I'd love to hear what you all have to say about this.

[HDR]

"A battle rifle is a potent and versatile tool with a primary purpose of allowing a single rifleman to engage and neutralize multiple human targets at ranges of up to 500 yards, even if they are behind light cover or armor."

He really narrowed it down when he added armor..

30 Cal AP penetrates .3" of armor at 600 yds. As armored vehicles usually carry a variety of belt feed MGs, well 500 isn't far enough..... lol

[Penguin]

The information seems a bit dated. Especially with regards to the AR-10. Lots of people are making them now and, they don't all take modified M-14 mags any more.

Further more I would say that the M1A has better sights than an AR-10 if we are talking about the iron sights. I will say though with a modern AR-10 it is much easier to scope than an M1A. I think that is the M1A's main draw back is that it is hard to scope.

From most the reports I have heard the average M1A is usally more acurate than your average FAL.

I also don't agree with his claim that 30-06 is hard to find. Now finding military 30-06 is probably harder to find than civilian hunting stuff. I would stick to the military stuff if posible. Though I think it is American Eagle is making 30-06 for M1's now but, it is about a buck a round when I have seen it.

I also doubt his claims on the HK-91 being the most relible. Dent the sheet metal reciver and yeah it is broken and jamming. I don't belive that rifle is as indestructable as he thinks.

I also question his battle rifle being nessassary asumption and the only way to go. It is probably the way I would go but I wouldn't say it is the only way. Especially with all the nice sights you can put on an AR. That makes hitting with one at longer ranges much easier than with iron sights. Only hits count for much.

I also think he is foolish to just throw out the 7.62x54R round and dismiss it. Granted it is harder to find a good rifle that meets his criteria.

I would say more than anything go with what you can shoot well. Only hits amount to much unless you just plan to keep the enemies head down. To that end practice. A good rifle can't make up for poor marksmanship. It can how ever help a good marksman. So practice with what you have.

I would also say buy as many spare mags as you realisticly can. I belive this is one area greatly neglected by many people If you are going with the M1 I would say it is absolotly esential as chances are slim you will be getting any of you clips back to use another day.

The same goes for ammo, get as much as you can.

One thing he completly neglected to mention is get load bearing gear to haul all your stuff. I hate to say it here is one area where the A-15 has the advantage. Lets face it most the gear these days weather it is mag pouches or sights are aimed at the AR market. If you are lucky a 7.62 NATO equvalant comes out later.

Practice, practice, practice, I can't say it enough. I think that will pay off more than anyhting else.

[El Jefe]

Um, while I can buy an AR-10 locally, I've never seen any of his top three offered. Obviously they could be ordered in, but these are rare animals here in Fumbuck.

Also what he says vis-a-vis 308 & 30-06, while 308 is pretty easy to find, you can buy 30-06 at the damned bait shop, It's more than common here in the hinter lands.

[old Grump]

Does anybody know if this guy has ever fired a gun, any gun?

[Penguin]

Oh yeah while I am thinking about it I forgot to throw in that 308 and 7.62 NATO aren't the same.

[El Jefe]

Does anybody know if this guy has ever fired a gun, any gun?

Not sure, but I did notice that not even once, does he mention avoiding the use of said battle rifle if you in anyway can. That leads me to believe he's perhaps seen one to many Rambo movies.

[mriddick]

I'd like to see an average FAL: delivering 1.5 MOA on average, I bet it's twice that at a minimum. The Rifleman just has an article of a $2000 FAL with all the bells and whistles that gave over 2.5MOA at best, and the average FAL has no where near the improvements that $2000 model does.

[hazmat]

My disagreement is with the whole 'battle rifle' concept as a whole. Almost all of the major militaries of the world have discarded the full size battle rifle (M14, FAL, G3, M1 Garand, etc) in favor of smaller, lighter, and more maneuverable firearms. The battle rifle concept finally died in the early 80's when the Brits ditched their L1A1s and went with the POS they're carrying now. About the only place you're going to see these firearms in action is in 3rd world shit holes where you'll find a FAL next to a G3 next to an AK.

Since WW1 military planners have known that most engagements happen at 300 yds or less. Hence the rush to production of the intermediate cartridge such as the 7.92x33 Kutz and the Soviet M43 7.62x39. It took the US another 20 years after WW2 to finally get their head around the intermediate cartridge concept and field the 5.56.

While most vets have a soft spot for their venerable battle rifle (M14, M1 Garand), try carrying a full battle load for said rifle. Give me an AK or M16 and a standard battle load for either one of them any day. 210 rds of 5.56 or 7.62x39 weighs a lot less than 200 rds of .308 or .30-06.

Besides the points above, cost has to be a factor. Not very many people can afford to go out and blow 2 large for a DSA StG58, SA M1A, or a PTR 91. What they can afford is the Lancaster/Century/Arsenal/Olympic/Bushmaster/Colt for 25 to 50% of the cost, with ammo being much more affordable. Think $250 for 1k rounds of 7.62x39 compared to the $400-$500+ cost of .308 mil-surp, when you can find it. And that's not including all the bullshit folks are hanging off their rifles nowadays.

Resupply is going to be a bigger bitch if the SHTF. Most everyone (.gov/LEO) is carrying 5.56, with very few carrying .308. And '06 and .303 Brit are virtually non-existent on the battlefield. The sheer availability of 7.62x39 will allow for resupply for a limited time, but those weapons would most likely be discarded as ammo supplies dry up and those who carry them would most likely pick up weapons that they can find ammo for easily.

But that's my take on the whole article.

Now, use of the battle rifle as a designated marksman weapon makes a whole lot more sense. Main battle rifle as a primary fighting weapon, not so much.

But that's just MHO.

[swampdragon]

I'll stick with an AK and a bolt action 308 in a drag bag.

[old Grump]

The guy you have to worry about is the sneaky old country boy in bib overalls and denim jacket with a 40 year old Marlin 60 full of bulk 22's. He will hide in the bushes and pick battle rifle guy off and be gone before hisr buddies can find where that little 22 pop came from. All those guys wandiering around lost in his back 40 will be sitting ducks in their heavy armor and 60 pounds of rattling, banging clanging gear because he doesn't know how to secure it and the panting pin points his position when he is sitting still and he can't see Denim jacket guy because of the sweat pouring into battle rifle guys eyes.

[mriddick]

Lets atleast give the good ol'boys a 336 in 30-30 caliber

[Bluedog]

If I had to take on and infantry squad in a SHTF scenario, I think the weapon in my battery best suited to the task is a Remington 700 in .243, with a 6.5-20X scope. The main purpose for me engaging said squad would be to keep them off my ass while I get the hell out of there.

The reason the Remington would work best is because I would want to engage them from beyond the effective range of their weapons. If things were really bad, you engage from outside the practical effective range of infantry weapons, but inside the minimum distance for artillery and air support. According to the US Army Special forces sniping manual, the ideal distance to keep between yourself and enemy infantry is 600 meters.

If you know that, it kind of makes you wonder why civilians preparing for SHTF are so fond of RDS carbines. Carbines have their place, but it is most likely for defending yourself against other civilians who are not as well prepared, and come to take your stuff. I sure as hell would not want to go toe to toe with professional soldiers. Even a bunch of UN European pussies.

[mriddick]

The problem with that train of thought is you're assuming a 243 with a scope in the field as a more effective range then some carbine. Most people I bet can't prove a 243 has a more effective range then a iron sighted AR at the range let alone in the field with all the issues you'd have there. Not as many people are as good at shooting over 200yds as you might think and once the range goes over 300 I bet the effectiveness of any shooter goes way down.

[O.S.O.K.]

If I had to take on and infantry squad in a SHTF scenario, I think the weapon in my battery best suited to the task is a Remington 700 in .243, with a 6.5-20X scope. The main purpose for me engaging said squad would be to keep them off my ass while I get the hell out of there.

The reason the Remington would work best is because I would want to engage them from beyond the effective range of their weapons. If things were really bad, you engage from outside the practical effective range of infantry weapons, but inside the minimum distance for artillery and air support. According to the US Army Special forces sniping manual, the ideal distance to keep between yourself and enemy infantry is 600 meters.

If you know that, it kind of makes you wonder why civilians preparing for SHTF are so fond of RDS carbines. Carbines have their place, but it is most likely for defending yourself against other civilians who are not as well prepared, and come to take your stuff. I sure as hell would not want to go toe to toe with professional soldiers. Even a bunch of UN European pussies.

I think I'd rather have a .338 Win mag and some A-Max loads.... or even 300 Magnum - same rifle/scope would be fine. Why .243?

[mriddick]

I think I'd rather have a .338 Win mag and some A-Max loads.... or even 300 Magnum - same rifle/scope would be fine. Why .243?

I'd say there's little a 338 Win mag would do against a human a 243 can't at less weight. To me the question is could the rifleman really use the range of either. How many people can accurately judge distance in the wild, shoot from improvised cover, know how to move after taking a shot at a target that has friends that will now be hunting you, etc...

I bet in a true SHTF situation a person is very unlikely to go marching around the countryside, and people are going to be very unlikely to shoot at any group of armed people.

[Bluedog]

Why .243?

'Cause that's what I have.

[Bluedog]

Not as many people are as good at shooting over 200yds as you might think and once the range goes over 300 I bet the effectiveness of any shooter goes way down.

I know all about those deer hunters that shoot one box of rounds per year, during deer season, but I'm not one of them. I have a nice collection of battle rifles, and two LaRue Stealths (5.56 and 6.5) but the MBRs are not as accurate as the remmington and weigh 2.5 to 3 times as much. That does not work well with my strategy of "run like hell."

[aliceinchains]

Oh yeah while I am thinking about it I forgot to throw in that 308 and 7.62 NATO aren't the same.

Head space and pressure are different.

[old Grump]

Lets atleast give the good ol'boys a 336 in 30-30 caliber

If they were storming the house and wearing armor and all I had was a 22 and a 30-30 the 30-30 would be putting those boys down or at a minimum raising some hellacious welts and bruises. Thing about ambush when you have the advantage of position and surprise is that a little 22 isn't going to crank up near as much instant excitement as a centerfire, any centerfire. With the tiny bit of recoil and ability to get back on target fast with pinpoint shots you can make enough wounded or dead with a minimum amount of expended ammo.

When people start falling there should be enough chaos to make up for your lack of range and fire power. While they are diving for cover you are backing out to your fall back position. This should work good on a pack of Boogermen but might not work so good if they were all marines or front line infantry with time underfire. In that case you might want to save the last bullet for yourself because those boys are gonna be on top of you tuit suite and they might be kind of mad.