Looking for a high caliber semi auto rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Another post not addressing the subject matter.


You need to stop reading gun magazines, and playing video games. And try picking up a history book. People would at least take you seriously if you had a clue of what you spoke of.
 
Which history book did you read that indicates current soldiers are wanting to carry wood and steel battle rifles?
 
LOL. Still no substance in any of your posts. I don't think you've ever supported one of you silly assertions since you've been on this site. This isn't the gun store counter where you get to spew nonsense all day. I beat on those clowns too whenever I walk into a gun store.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Still no substance in any of your posts.


That's because you don't understand the written word. And your comprehension is even worse. All I ever said is that the military is bringing the M-14 rifle back into service in Afghanistan. They are doing so because of the longer range it is capable of over .22's. The soldiers using it welcomed it with open arms. You're trying to make something out of what isn't there. You start talking about such silly nonsense as, "soldiers picking and choosing out of piles of rifles". Along with assorted other complete nonsense, about wooden stocks... The Korean War. And assorted other foolishness. All of which has nothing what so ever to do with what I posted. So... Just for you and your feeble little mind, I'll try this again.... Read slow, and pay attention. This will help bring both you, and this thread back on track... Ready?

1.) The M-14 is still in the militaries inventory because it serves a very useful purpose that the .22's can't. Namely longer range effectiveness.

2.) The military isn't running a gun shop that allows combatants to "shop for their guns".

3.) They provided the M-14 in Afghanistan because it was a superior weapon for the task at hand.

4.) As was pointed out to you, the Korean conflict ended in 1953, a full 4 years before the M-14 was put in service.

If you can manage to grasp just those 4 simple little items of fact, it will help you to comprehend what is going on in the thread. With me so far? You don't like the M-14. That in itself is meaningless to what was posted. It is still in service, and still has wide acceptance.... Because of it's range potential. Not because it better represents the guns you use when you play Call Of Duty.
 
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".



They were pressed into service as squad DMR's. This does not mean they are "better". This just means that until the CSASS and other previous submissions, they were what was in inventory, and they worked well enough. They had a completely different purpose than the M4. It is like you saying "Yeah, screw airplanes, those guys wanted an M1Abrams"...okay...but now let's talk about this submarine! Lol. All different tools.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: hatt
Still no substance in any of your posts.


That's because you don't understand the written word. And your comprehension is even worse. All I ever said is that the military is bringing the M-14 rifle back into service in Afghanistan. They are doing so because of the longer range it is capable of over .22's. The soldiers using it welcomed it with open arms. You're trying to make something out of what isn't there. You start talking about such silly nonsense as, "soldiers picking and choosing out of piles of rifles". Along with assorted other complete nonsense, about wooden stocks in the Korean War. All of which has nothing what so ever to do with what I posted. So... Just for you and your feeble little mind, I'll try this again.... Read slow, and pay attention. This will help bring both you, and this thread back on track... Ready?

1.) The M-14 is still in the militaries inventory because it serves a very useful purpose that the .22's can't. Namely longer range effectiveness.

2.) The military isn't running a gun shop that allows combatants to "shop for their guns".

3.) They provided the M-14 in Afghanistan because it was a superior weapon for the task at hand.

4.) As was pointed out to you, the Korean conflict ended in 1953, a full 4 years before the M-14 was put in service.

If you can manage to grasp just those 4 simple little items of fact, it will help you to comprehend what is going on in the thread. With me so far? You don't like the M-14. That in itself is meaningless to what was posted. It is still in service, and still has wide acceptance.... Because of it's range potential. Not because it better represents the guns you use when you play Call Of Duty.


Pretty much sums up my above post. That said, unless someone is needing to fulfill that type of task...the M4 is mo better.
 
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.


The same way "Fat" turned into "BBW". The same way "Retarded" got turned into "Special Needs". The same way "Died" turned into "Passed".

People have grown more and more needy of "softening" the world around them.

This is how "To kill people who try to oppress your Constitutional Rights in the form of despot's, and dictators, and unjustness" got turned into "To hunt deer with".
 
Originally Posted By: Ws6
....the M4 is mo better.


Not at longer ranges. If it was they wouldn't need the M-14, would they? Unless you want to argue a centerfire .22 varmint cartridge out of a short barrel is more effective on a man size target at 800 yards than a .308. Many engagements in the Afgan theater are in wide open country. Or across valleys. The M-4 with a 14" barrel is a poor choice under those conditions. Always was, regardless of how you dress it up.
 
Originally Posted By: totegoat
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: totegoat
The man wants a deer rifle, not some replica of an infantry weapon.



Those two are not mutually exclusive, and there is a plethora of examples out there that prove that.


I haven't hunted with any men I consider sportsman, that carry an infantry replica. Some even carry single shot rifles.


Guns are for uncouth "microwave generation" types. The kind that don't respect animals, or the land, and just want to kill something. A real sportsman uses a bow, or better, a spear, and stalks the prey. The best, simply use a knife. You, sir, are what's wrong with the youth of today!


Sorry, but that's how I read YOUR post, ROFL!
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ws6
....the M4 is mo better.


Not at longer ranges. If it was they wouldn't need the M-14, would they? Unless you want to argue a centerfire .22 varmint cartridge out of a short barrel is more effective on a man size target at 800 yards than a .308. Many engagements in the Afgan theater are in wide open country. Or across valleys. The M-4 with a 14" barrel is a poor choice under those conditions. Always was, regardless of how you dress it up.


The M4 is not meant for 800m engagements, although out to 4-600m, you will find MANY success stories. That said, it is much more in its element up close. For example, as a home defense weapon. It is much less likely to leave the structure vs. the 7.62x51, and is much more controllable,etc. when fast follow-up shots on multiple targets are needed. This especially comes into play in a military environment when multiple friendlies are inside a structure, and in a civilian environment where you don't want to punch through your neighbor's wall.
 
They used M14s because they had thousands in warehouses and needed something now. They're already in the process of replacing with other superior systems.


Quote:
Infantrymen give the EBR high marks for its accuracy out to 800 meters, but said its 15-pound unloaded weight is a burden. There’s also a concern that the enemy can easily spot designated marksmen carrying the EBR and target them.

The M110, made by Knight’s Armament Company, is also easy to recognize since it’s 46.5-inches with suppressor, more than 13 inches longer than the M4. But Knight’s also makes a carbine version of the M110 that’s very similar to the M4 and weighs just over eight pounds.


http://kitup.military.com/2012/04/army-short-m110-sass-squad-marksman.html

Quote:
A Ranger with the 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment takes aim with a MK17 SCAR-H during combat operations in Paktiya Province, Afghanistan, 2013.
The MK17 is a 7.62mmx51mm battle rifle that is a favorite among SOCOM forces.
It is both relatively lightweight and has comparatively low recoil for a 7.62mm weapon.


http://www.americanspecialops.com/photos/rangers/ranger-mk17-scar.php

Plastic and aluminum FTW. Complex, heavy, non-modular, hard to maintain rifles are out. Sorry.
 
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".

This is your original point. "Newer" doesn't always automatically translate into "better." Completely false. They wanted more reach, not necessarily an M14. An M14 was their only option so that's what they got.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
"Newer" doesn't always automatically translate into "better." Completely false.


Why? What makes you think an M-4 carbine is "better"? Because you happen to like it more? It is one of the most problem plagued, and controversial weapons ever introduced by the military. Right from it's introduction in the 60's in Vietnam, until today where it's under powered performance, along with assorted other failures in various theaters of battle has been highly criticized, and rightfully so. That hardly makes it "better". Especially when they have to substitute an almost 60 year old weapon to replace it, due to it's lack of performance and range where required. I would call that a lot of things. "Better" isn't one of them.

If the weapon, (M-14), has the range to outclass the gun it's replacing, (M-4). That alone makes it "better" for the task at hand. If it didn't, they wouldn't have used it.
 
The M14 is better than an M4 at 600+ meter engagements. The M4 was never intended for such a role. That doesn't mean the M14 is better than modern weapons that are designed for such things. Other rifles are chambered in 7.62. And there are other rounds that excel at range. M16s chambered in 6.5 Grendel would worked great and been more practical than M14s dug out of mothballs. The M14 was obsolete when it was introduced since the AR10 was already on the scene.

The M16's bad rep came from a bungled rollout in Vietnam. Soldiers that came along later in the war loved them. Than more nonsense later on using M855 in 14.5 inch barrels. With the introduction of MK262, MK318, M855A1 that problem is being fixed.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
The M14 is better than an M4 at 600+ meter engagements. The M4 was never intended for such a role. That doesn't mean the M14 is better than modern weapons that are designed for such things. Other rifles are chambered in 7.62. And there are other rounds that excel at range. M16s chambered in 6.5 Grendel would worked great and been more practical than M14s dug out of mothballs. The M14 was obsolete when it was introduced since the AR10 was already on the scene.

The M16's bad rep came from a bungled rollout in Vietnam. Soldiers that came along later in the war loved them. Than more nonsense later on using M855 in 14.5 inch barrels. With the introduction of MK262, MK318, M855A1 that problem is being fixed.


I'm surprised you would fall into such a blind hole, trying to defend weapons the way you are attempting. The M-4 is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not a wonder weapon. It is a tool like many. Would you argue a pitchfork is "better" than a shovel? You would have to be stupid. Yet you do much the same involving weapons. If the M-4 was so wonderful, why wasn't there a single one involved in the Bin Laden raid? All were carrying H&K 416's. These guys can have any weapon they want. They didn't choose M-4's for obvious reasons.

In recent years the AR platform has been transformed into everything except a kitchen appliance. All in an attempt to make it "better". None have worked out all that well. Aside from a bunch of tacticool accessories they've managed to hang all over it, it's not much different than the problem plagued original that was shoved down soldiers throats in Vietnam. They've sprayed different coatings on it. Chambered it in every round imaginable. Hung every optic and battle sight on it known to mankind. Bolted lasers and flashlights to it. Came up with 4,973 different butt stocks for it. Along with 5,971 different forends that will fit it. That, and another 2,671 different size and shaped pistol grips that will fit any size or shaped hand imaginable.

And when all is said and done, it's the same .22 varmint rifle Colt was trying to sell to the public back in 1969, in a full page ad in Field & Stream. Except now it costs more. And has wider acceptance, because a generation advertising can't be wrong. I own several. And they make terrific range toys. Which like you and everyone else, is what I use them for. But if I was going to depend on a rifle to "save my life", there are certainly far better ones to choose from, in much better calibers than what Prairie Dog shooters favor. As always YMMV.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: hatt
The M14 is better than an M4 at 600+ meter engagements. The M4 was never intended for such a role. That doesn't mean the M14 is better than modern weapons that are designed for such things. Other rifles are chambered in 7.62. And there are other rounds that excel at range. M16s chambered in 6.5 Grendel would worked great and been more practical than M14s dug out of mothballs. The M14 was obsolete when it was introduced since the AR10 was already on the scene.

The M16's bad rep came from a bungled rollout in Vietnam. Soldiers that came along later in the war loved them. Than more nonsense later on using M855 in 14.5 inch barrels. With the introduction of MK262, MK318, M855A1 that problem is being fixed.


I'm surprised you would fall into such a blind hole, trying to defend weapons the way you are attempting. The M-4 is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not a wonder weapon. It is a tool like many. Would you argue a pitchfork is "better" than a shovel? You would have to be stupid. Yet you do much the same involving weapons. If the M-4 was so wonderful, why wasn't there a single one involved in the Bin Laden raid? All were carrying H&K 416's. These guys can have any weapon they want. They didn't choose M-4's for obvious reasons.

In recent years the AR platform has been transformed into everything except a kitchen appliance. All in an attempt to make it "better". None have worked out all that well. Aside from a bunch of tacticool accessories they've managed to hang all over it, it's not much different than the problem plagued original that was shoved down soldiers throats in Vietnam. They've sprayed different coatings on it. Chambered it in every round imaginable. Hung every optic and battle sight on it known to mankind. Bolted lasers and flashlights to it. Came up with 4,973 different butt stocks for it. Along with 5,971 different forends that will fit it. That, and another 2,671 different size and shaped pistol grips that will fit any size or shaped hand imaginable.

And when all is said and done, it's the same .22 varmint rifle Colt was trying to sell to the public back in 1969, in a full page ad in Field & Stream. Except now it costs more. And has wider acceptance, because a generation advertising can't be wrong. I own several. And they make terrific range toys. Which like you and everyone else, is what I use them for. But if I was going to depend on a rifle to "save my life", there are certainly far better ones to choose from, in much better calibers than what Prairie Dog shooters favor. As always YMMV.
LOL. You do realize an HK 416 is essentially an updated M4/M16/AR15? You know, the same .22 varmint rifle Colt was trying to sell to the public in 69. They didn't chose M14s.

I'm also not a blind AR fanbot. Newer and better military platforms are out there. Not better enough to spend the money to replace them all however. Next major change should be a leap in tech. So we can avoid another M14 chapter of adopting an obsolete rifle to be replace in a few years.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
You do realize an HK 416 is essentially an updated M4/M16/AR15?


Exactly my point. So why didn't they use a standard issue M-4 if they're so wonderful? If it's good enough for everyone else, why not them? I will agree that the military is somewhat stuck with the M-4, due to the cost of replacing it. That in itself certainly doesn't justify it being "better". Back to my point of constantly trying to put lipstick on a pig, with all of these never ending "improvements". From 1936 to 1957 the M1 Garand served this nations military successfully with one basic modification. And that was a simple conversion to allow it to receive a box magazine. (M-14).

No matter what they do to the AR platform, it still is what it is, and what it's always been. A problem prone military weapon wrapped around a varmint cartridge. Which has led to far more criticism, than it has praise. It's a bit like being married to an fat, ugly woman you can't divorce. Simply because it would cost you too much. Certainly not a lot to be happy about to say the least.
 
Quote:
Exactly. So why didn't they use a standard issue M-4 if they're so wonderful? If it's good enough for everyone else, why not them?
Because special operations aren't everyone else. Why would they carry a general purpose weapon when they're doing a specific task? If they're planning an operation in the mountains that likely involves long ranges they probably don't have the suppressed 10 inch 416 they used to go through Binny's residence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top