Looking for a high caliber semi auto rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: totegoat
I was referring to the suggestion of a SCAR 17 for the OP. Some understood, obviously not all.


This is an actual, not replica, infantry weapon. Pretty is as pretty does...




7.5mm Swiss, built to a standard of 4cm accuracy at 300m. Bayonet lug. Straight pull bolt for rapid-fire compared with a turn bolt. Standard GP-11 ammo is a 174g boat tail at 2650 FPS...more than enough for deer, or elk. Holds six in the magazine.

Supremely accurate. Mahogany stock. Shoots great.

But it is an infantry weapon...
 
I think one of the points being made here, is the fact most ALL infantry weapons prior to the M-16's introduction in the late 50's, were all made from blued or Parkerized steel and Walnut. (Or else some other type of wood). Today that conception has been lost. Everything is Aluminum, plastic, and or Polymer. And is assembled to look as futuristic as possible. For many of the people in the millennial age group, it's all they've ever seen in regards to battle weapons. The fact is both World Wars, as well as the Korean Conflict were all fought with steel and wood infantry weapons.
 
They were made of wood and steel because that's what they had. Every soldier in WWI, WWII, and Korea would rather have had a 2015 weapon had those been available.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Every soldier in WWI, WWII, and Korea would rather have had a 2015 weapon had those been available.


There are many men today who would choose an M1-A or M-14 over a plastic and Aluminum .22. They're on the battlefield in Afghanistan right now. "Newer" doesn't always automatically translate into "better".
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: hatt
Every soldier in WWI, WWII, and Korea would rather have had a 2015 weapon had those been available.


There are many men today who would choose an M1-A or M-14 over a plastic and Aluminum .22. They're on the battlefield in Afghanistan right now. "Newer" doesn't always automatically translate into "better".

Soldiers carry what someone tells them to carry. If soldiers got to pick weapons from stacks of M4, M16, SCAR, AUG, Tavor, M14, etc the stack of unwanted M14s would remain large.
 
I took it to mean what I hear all too much from a certain crowd of politicized sportsmen when they say "Ya don't need an AR/UZI/AK to hunt". They don't think you should own a rifle if it isn't made for hunting.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
I took it to mean what I hear all too much from a certain crowd of politicized sportsmen when they say "Ya don't need an AR/UZI/AK to hunt". They don't think you should own a rifle if it isn't made for hunting.
I've never understood how the 2nd got associated with hunting. FUDDs are our worst enemy.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: hatt
If soldiers got to pick weapons from stacks of M4, M16, SCAR, AUG, Tavor, M14, etc the stack of unwanted M14s would remain large.


Stop talking like a fool. Why do you think M-14's were reintroduced into the battlefield, in places like Afghanistan? Because soldiers didn't like them, and the Army was trying to pi$$ them off?

http://www.guns.com/2012/09/17/us-army-issue-m14-ebr-m14ebr-ri/

http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/u-s-m14-battle-rifle/
Your links showing highly modified M14s with aluminum and polymer only confirm my posts. And the soldiers still were not given a choice of modern 7.62 guns.

Quote:
For a time the Army re-issued standard M14 rifles but their fixed wooden stocks and lacking optics options made them a poor fit for modern soldiers.


Quote:
The M14EBR-RI weighs about 11.5 pounds unloaded and measures in at 40 inches long. That being said, they’re also soft-shooting and effective well beyond 800 meters with glass.
Yes, soldiers are signing up in droves to lump that all day. They're intended for very specific roles.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
I took it to mean what I hear all too much from a certain crowd of politicized sportsmen when they say "Ya don't need an AR/UZI/AK to hunt". They don't think you should own a rifle if it isn't made for hunting.
I've never understood how the 2nd got associated with hunting. FUDDs are our worst enemy.


Good 1, I had to look up FUDDS. Got my first M1 Carbine in 1964. How long have you owned a genuine war surplus weapon?
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
And the soldiers still were not given a choice of modern 7.62 guns.


Who said anything about "choices"? I said they were being reissued. Again, there is a reason for that. It isn't to put our men at a disadvantage. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You just want to argue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, highly modified.

WWII and Korea


Current M14, with plastic and aluminum everywhere made to look as futuristic as possible.
 
The M14 was not adopted until May of 57. Korea ended in 53.


Personally if I wanted to resurrect an old design from the past....probably be the Stoner 62/63
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
The M14 was not adopted until May of 57. Korea ended in 53.


Personally if I wanted to resurrect an old design from the past....probably be the Stoner 62/63
Yep. I mix the M14 into the Korean war from time to time for some reason. The poor thing really doesn't have a war to call it's own.

I guess .mil wants to figure out something to do with all those pretty much new M14 sitting around. I wonder what the costs are to modify those old rifles. Know .gov it would have been cheaper to buy new modern guns.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
The M14 was not adopted until May of 57. Korea ended in 53.


Like I said, he doesn't have a clue.
Another post not addressing the subject matter. Looks like you'd post links showing all of the soldiers demanding 11+ lb rifles to lug around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top