I am a bit of a rifle lover myself! I am also set apart from the crowd. I go for the long range target type rifles.My latest craze is in the short magnums from winchester. And guy's, the new 325 wsm.........lets just say it gets me there. I bought the 325wsm in the browning a bolt,stainless,composite stock.It is a beuty! A varixIII by leupold is mounted flat on top. A 1 inch MOA at 100yds aint shit for these short mags.You guys should try them out some time if you get the chance.
Keep in mind that if you go with a 5.56 MM version, that that is a .223 CAL. About the same size as a .22. If you are stuck on the AR-15 Checkout the following sites: www.tacticalcustoms.com/rifles.htm
If distance is your thing Barret makes a civilian version of their .50cal SF sniper rifle. They raffled one off at my gun club. I can’t even recall the sticker price, I believe it was well over 5G’s. The military version is an awesome weapon.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
If distance is your thing Barret makes a civilian version of their .50cal SF sniper rifle. They raffled one off at my gun club. I can’t even recall the sticker price, I believe it was well over 5G’s. The military version is an awesome weapon.[/quote]
My father has opened a gun shop near Dayton. They have a Barrett on their website, for around $8000 I think.
He recently got a fully automatic 12 ga shotgun also. It’s kind of weird seeing a shotgun with a drum underneath…
[quote]biscuite wrote:
I am a bit of a rifle lover myself! I am also set apart from the crowd. I go for the long range target type rifles.My latest craze is in the short magnums from winchester. And guy’s, the new 325 wsm…lets just say it gets me there. I bought the 325wsm in the browning a bolt,stainless,composite stock.It is a beuty! A varixIII by leupold is mounted flat on top. A 1 inch MOA at 100yds aint shit for these short mags.You guys should try them out some time if you get the chance.
Peace
biscuite[/quote]
This is the coolest fucking thred ever. I live to shoot guns. I do all of it, but my main gig is sniping. Im all about the long shots.
Biscuite: your right man those WSM are awesome I recentlly just picked up a .300 WSM with a NightForce scope that ran me about $2,000, and Im shooting a solid 1MOA @ 800yr with it. In the spring I will take over 1000yr.
As for the discution of AR vs mini 14, I my self am a big fan of the ARs. they are much more accurate than the mini-14 (which is only good for about a 3 MOA grouping at 100yr) Also because the AR modle is every where the mods you can do to these arms are endless. So if you got the extra coin get your self the AR over the mini-14.
Now for cal comparisons:
Yes the 5.56 is smaller than the 7.62, but there practical range is not that much different, and if your looking at tactical rifles your range will always be much less than what the cal can manage. for Tac situations the 7.62 does have more know down power but because of its extra force in the recoil it generaly is harder to reaquire target there for making you less accurate.
As with any CQ combat situation your only going to be as effective as your shot placement is. The 5.56mm is also cheaper to shot.
And really when I dropped a Bull Elk with one shot @ 235yr with my .223rem rifle, That told me they have plenty of power for any CQ tactical assult situation, its just all about shot placement.
No, my friends, my beef with the M16 is its cartridge. Who the fuck had the bright idea to equip American combat soldiers with a rifle firing a varmint round with which to kill their enemies? Must have been a European.
I think the idea is that the .556 is a “wounding” round as opposed to a “killing” round. High-powered and small, so it goes right through the target, knocking him down and requiring at least one other guy to help pull him out of the action.
Good thread,
Bob[/quote]
Yeah I heard that, more time and money spent to fix him up too and becuase given the same weight a troop can carry more ammo of a smaller caliber. Also in vietnam, I think they wanted to have full auto weapons and the m-14 was too hard to shoot from the shoulder on full auto for most soilders.
But the M-14 is a sweet weapon, basicly they took the Garand fixed it’s few problems like replaceing the fixed 8rd clip with a box mag, and rechambered it to 308. I think seals stiil use as well as Marine snipers.
For those of you checking into getting a tactical assult rifle be sure to check out Panther Arms. I have a couple of their products and just love them. Very durable, accurate, and not to expensive.
I think the idea is that the .556 is a “wounding” round as opposed to a “killing” round. High-powered and small, so it goes right through the target, knocking him down and requiring at least one other guy to help pull him out of the action.
[/quote]
That’s right, NB. The light bullet tumbles through muscle tissue, tearing it up rather than penetrating and shattering bone. You can survive a burst of 5.56 fire in the abdomen at medium range with emergency surgery. A single shot with a 7.62 and it’s “game over, man.”
Anyway, I thought the object was to “kill people and break things,” not “wound people and cause minor damage to things”. If I am firing my rifle at a deer, a boar, or an enemy soldier, I want the fucker dead, not thrashing around on the ground with a flesh wound.
…more time and money spent to fix him up too and becuase given the same weight a troop can carry more ammo of a smaller caliber. Also in vietnam, I think they wanted to have full auto weapons and the m-14 was too hard to shoot from the shoulder on full auto for most soilders. [/quote]
Well, lots of ammo is nice to have, no doubt about it. Especially if you plan to miss a lot. The problem with a fully automatic rifle is that, unless it’s mounted on a tripod or at least fired off a bipod from prone, you have a hell of a lot of wastage. Less-disciplined soldiers tend to use it like a garden hose.[quote]
I think seals stiil use as well as Marine snipers.[/quote]
And that is precisely my point. The ordinary troops have poodle-shooters so they can make a lot of scary noise and occasionally wound an enemy, while the real soldiers have the serious rifles to get the job done.
I have carried and M16A2, CAR15, MP5S, M249 SAW and an M60 and the 5.56 can hold its own. The M16A2 is fairly accurate and the round tends to tumble. That means that if it hits bone, it could come out anywhere. With a good shot the size of the round makes little difference. I’m into the sniper stuff too. Right now I’m putting together something close to an M24. I found s Remengton 700 that will fit, now I looking at stocks and I will make some modifications to the barrel. The pic is whats next.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Norwell Bob wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I think the idea is that the .556 is a “wounding” round as opposed to a “killing” round. High-powered and small, so it goes right through the target, knocking him down and requiring at least one other guy to help pull him out of the action.
That’s right, NB. The light bullet tumbles through muscle tissue, tearing it up rather than penetrating and shattering bone. You can survive a burst of 5.56 fire in the abdomen at medium range with emergency surgery. A single shot with a 7.62 and it’s “game over, man.”
Anyway, I thought the object was to “kill people and break things,” not “wound people and cause minor damage to things”. If I am firing my rifle at a deer, a boar, or an enemy soldier, I want the fucker dead, not thrashing around on the ground with a flesh wound.[/quote]
Or shooting back because you didn’t hit him with a big enough gun.
What “spray and pray” isn’t considered a viable tactic? LOL
Yeah, the smaller elite units tend to get the good stuff.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
CEZAR wrote:
Well, lots of ammo is nice to have, no doubt about it. Especially if you plan to miss a lot. The problem with a fully automatic rifle is that, unless it’s mounted on a tripod or at least fired off a bipod from prone, you have a hell of a lot of wastage. Less-disciplined
soldiers tend to use it like a garden hose.
I think seals stiil use as well as Marine snipers.
And that is precisely my point. The ordinary troops have poodle-shooters so they can make a lot of scary noise and occasionally wound an enemy, while the real soldiers have the serious rifles to get the job done.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
hedo wrote:
“Well, lots of ammo is nice to have, no doubt about it. Especially if you plan to miss a lot”
I know I will use that quote in the very near future. Since my buds don’t know you I will claim it as my own
I thought the motto was, “One shot, one kill”?[/quote]
Yes, Irish, but that motto doesn’t go all the way.
This is the rifleman’s ideal. It is what I expect of myself as a rifleman, and what I would expect of those who bear arms alongside me:
First-round hits, on appropriate targets, at unknown ranges, from improvised firing positions, against the clock.
Bear that always in mind, understand the capabilities and limitations of your rifle and train consistently, and you will be an exceedingly deadly weapon.
In general response concerning the 5.56’s tendency to only wound vs the 7.62’s kill.
One must look into the background of the creation of a smaller round, and the McNamarian economics behind them, with his usual lack of ‘moral concerns.’ The 5.56 round was created in a time period when the threat was the communist ‘hoardes.’ Much as with land mines, when outnumbered, it was better to wound many than kill a few.
The idea behind this and the tumbling 5.56 was to massively burden the REMFs, and overwhelm the medical facilites, transportation lines, production, etc., all because the enemy armies would have to care for the wounded, as opposed to just burying the dead.
Also having many wounded is highly demoralizing and a great ‘pain’ to all aspects of the enemy’s military machine. Compare the effort that goes into two different scenarios.
soldier gets hit and dies. (body disposed of, stuff given away, letter home, end of story) to
#2. soldier hit and wounded, has to be rescued, which takes other men off their combat duties and makes them targets also, getting him to hospital, using Dr.'s time and $, and it just goes on and on.
What must be clear however is that both rounds were intended to remove an enemy combatants ‘ability to fight.’ The 5.56 just was LESS likely to kill on single hits.
-k
If I am firing my rifle at a deer, a boar, or an enemy soldier, I want the fucker 