[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
John Cooper’s solution[/quote]
Are you calling him “John” because you knew him? Is it the Marine thing? Just wondering.
John Dean Cooper, Lt. Colonel U.S. Marines ret. is usually ID’d as Jeff Cooper or Colonel Cooper in every reference I have seen. Hell, the books I have of his use Jeff Cooper.
As for the solution. I believe it was to target the clear violent instigators who where pushing the crowd towards violence. Sort of a preemptive action before a bunch of blood gets shed. Cooper had experience/communications with a lot of people dealing with civil unrest on a huge scale, like Rhodesia. It is an interesting thought exercise, but I think it is at serious odds with our constitution. I also think that it would ultimately put the police in a bad position.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
No, I wrote it on a crappy autocorrect screen and slapped the wrong name and now I look like teh jackass.
Edit to add: John Cooper did have a fun little car named after him though. Also, there’s probably a lesson here about the tool you carry not being as good for the job as the one you go get. Still, interwebzfail.
[quote]Robert A wrote:
Shotguns have major advantages in cost and availability.
$500 will get a truly first rate pump gun, 870P or 590. $250-300 will get a completely serviceable gun (870 express or regular 500). If there is a used rack in the gun store less than $200 dollars can get you armed.
Online decent off-brand AR’s cost $800. In a gun shop most are north of $1000.
If you need to arm more than one person the cost difference is magnified. Even if there is money for an AR the cost advantage of the shotgun can be used for more practice ammo or professional training.
Shotguns can be found in many stores that don’t sell evil black rifles.
It is easy to buy buckshot or slugs for a 12 gauge. Either are very effective at close range on non armored people. It is very difficult to find any of the “approved” ammo in 5.56 locally.
The shotgun may also shine in two situational areas (may or may not apply):
1.) Ammo flexibility: If you need something to defend against dangerous animals slugs work quite well. I would not want an AR against a bear or bobcat. Birdshot can dispatch small/nuisance animals. Buckshot is great out to 20 yards or so. Slugs do better against car bodies/windshields than most every .233/5.56 load.
2.)Familiarity: If someone grew up running a pump gun it is quite possible that they are far better armed with a 12 gauge than an AR-15.
That said a carbine, such as an AR-15, is going to have massive advantages in capacity, recoil, range, etc.
Regards,
Robert A
[/quote]
Oh, I meant semi auto shotguns (saiga for example as a relatively cheap one that seems to work well, but you get plenty of others of course) vs. pump action, not shotguns in general vs. assault rifles.
Good points though!
I did not know that ammo which meets the FBI standards is difficult to come by locally in the U.S. for the 556, that sort of surprises me… Seems that if they did their marketing right, companies could sell a good amount as self-defense loads and then go with the cheaper stuff as training ammo…
[/quote]
couple other reasons.
First is that in the event of a jam, or a failure to fire, it is much easier, quicker, and more natural to re-rack a pump than a semi auto. It may not be more likely that a semi-auto fails, but for many failures, a pump is quicker and easier to deal with when it does.
Second, whether it makes a real difference or not, is that people buy the pump for the sound it makes. Thinking that racking the pump shotgun in the dark will make any would be attacker high tail it out of there.[/quote]
Makes sense.
So it’s mostly familiarity (whether actual or through the media) + pricing and ease of use.
[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
C_C - There are several reasons pump guns are used by US police. At first they were getting them from the military as surplus, it was a cost issue. A used Mossberg 500 cost them about 10% of what a new semi-auto would, by the crate and direct from the government. Then, as shotguns became common, specialty rounds such as beanbags and CS Gas were developed, and many of these rounds won’t feed in a semi-auto (the reason the USMC, who went to the Benelli M4, kept Mossbergs for their MP’s). The Mossberg and the Remington 870 are the two common pump guns, generally because they are fairly reliable, cheap, and marketed well by their respective companies.
The Saiga might work well, but there are no companies bidding to supply 500+ of them on contract that are able and willing to meet all the testing requirements that inevitably come with such contracts. Benelli might be able to, but their guns are more expensive than many departments are willing to pony up, and any imported gun has to fight the “our weapons have to be made here” mentality that prevails in most departments.
Finally there is the perception, if not the reality, that pump guns are more reliable. In my armory experience the gas system is no more likely to fail than the pump system, or at least not so much more that anyone would notice, so this is more of a myth than a fact. I only have experience with the Benelli M4’s, Remington 870’s, and Mossberg 500’s though, so it may be that high-end gas systems fail less but that cheap semi-autos break more frequently than cheap pump guns.
Edit: I re-read that, and you asked about home defense. I think it’s generally familiarity and cost, and maybe the perception that the pump gun is more reliable. I like the M4, but the 870 is almost as fast on follow-up with practice and I find that I can hot-load it faster than the M4 (again, not by much).[/quote]
Thanks, I didn’t even consider the specialty LE ammo… Sometimes I forget that you don’t always want to kill them…
If I may ask, you ever use a bean bag on someone or see it happen?
I’ve seen people completely fail to notice eventually fatal hits from 7.62N as well as WP, I’d be scared of having to rely on bean bags… How’s that work on guys on drugs or just axe-crazy?
[/quote]
We weren’t issued beanbags, so I’ve never seen one firsthand. The police department near where I grew up used them on suicide threats on the bridge out of town, but as I understand them the primary purpose is riot use. A line of cops fires beanbags into a crowd from behind a shield line, suddenly no one wants to be there anymore and you don’t have nearly as many bodies to explain on the news as you would if they used 00 buck. I prefer John Cooper’s solution: a suppressed .22 shot to the lungs of whomever is inciting rioters. No one knows what happened, he just finds it very hard to yell all of a sudden. Not sure how well it actually works, but I like the concept. Maybe just use a .308 and get it over with?
[/quote] He’d likely be incapacitated from blood loss much faster with the 308, and I’m not so sure that their demagogue collapsing would necessarily have a calming effect on a crowd… If a crowd has been assembled and people got there angry in the first place (even just a few willing to turn violent), can you really defuse it before anything starts? Or does it mostly hinge on the people that make up the mob in question?
Around me the big box stores only sell the “hunting” calibers in any quantity. 30-30 and 30-06 are easy to come by, as is low-grade .308, but some areas are shotgun-only for hunters and their stores reflect that. 5.56/.223 Rem can be had, but with two wars going on the majority of it was overpriced. Lake City can sell their cheap stuff to the government for more than any of us is willing to pay even for Black Hills Gold.
I’ve never been a reloader, but I may get into it if ammo prices get much worse. It used to be about $0.85/shot for factory match ammo, now it’s more like $1.25 and rising. And I don’t shoot the exotics, the strangest caliber I’ve even considered is .260 Remington (Now up to $1.75/shot using the Black Hills Gold 120 gr Hornady GMX, a little less for the 129 gr Remington Cor-bon performance).
[/quote]
Well, someday your ammo prices will catch up to our petrol prices and then you’re truly screwed hahaha
How about cheap wolf stuff for training? Not every western gun runs it well though…
Thoughts on AR development these days?
Gotten a chance to shoot them (scar 16/17, IAR, 416/417, all those 6.8 guns and uppers, acr and so on) yet?
Prefer any of the newer ones over the m4/m16 variants? Why/Why not?
What do y’all look for in a…
-pistol (open or concealed, duty or self defense)
-long gun for duty or self defense
As in, if you can/could pick what to carry, what sort of things factor in for you? Considering or ignoring availability and cost is up to you, or do one for both (realistic and fantasy).
Thoughts on other nations AR’s? (also their police force armament, if you’re LE and want to talk about that).
In LE, weapons classes you may have attended by the likes of Vickers tactical and such, or in the military branches… Did they teach you about terminal ballistics, and if so, what?
Our local police knows zip in that regard, they think you shoot a guy with your duty pistol and he falls over.
Not all of course, but most… Their marksmanship and weapon handling/caring skills are also virtually nonexistent except for the specialized units.
Bundeswehr I’m not sure nowadays on the terminal ballistics front, but 10 years ago there was nothing going on in that regard. Marksmanship is still bad for most.
Much of the marksmanship training they do have does not translate well into actual combat situations in my opinion.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Something else to discuss…
Thoughts on AR development these days?
Gotten a chance to shoot them (scar 16/17, IAR, 416/417, all those 6.8 guns and uppers, acr and so on) yet?
Prefer any of the newer ones over the m4/m16 variants? Why/Why not?
[/quote]
Meh. There are so many AR makers out there these days it’s getting hard to even keep track of who has a good reputation, let alone know someone who has fired even a good number of them. I can verify that I’ve seen excellent quality from Stag Arms and Rock River Arms, as well as the usual suspects Armalite, DPMS, and Bushmaster (although I’ve heard anecdotal evidence of Bushmaster quality problems I haven’t actually run into anyone who had a bad rifle from them).
I think the 6.8 would have been great if the US military had adopted it instead of the 5.56. I don’t see it offering enough of an advantage to spend extra money on it over the ubiquitous 5.56 though, and I think a lot of what is driving 6.8 sales is wannabe spec-ops types buying whatever they saw in the latest Modern Warfare game. A marginal improvement is still an improvement, but I don’t have supply chain limitations or a massive number of 5.56 rifles to convert, and those were two of the major design considerations when this one was cooked up.
I liked the concept of the SCAR (one rifle, 3-4 calibers with just a bolt and barrel swap). On the civilian market I don’t think they’ve release any of the caliber-swapping that made it significantly nicer to have than an AR though. The piston system is probably sound, but I don’t know enough about it to know whether it affects recoil, reliability, or accuracy. Even if it does affect all three (and I think at least some recoil and accuracy effects are a given just based on the design), it’s nice to have a rifle that doesn’t shit where it eats. I actually prefer the 416/417. I am slightly H&K biased, but their rifle actions have been in general military use for a very long time, so I think they at least have the reliability part down. I’m a huge H&K 91 fan, the delayed roller block is a great design I feel like it is one of the better general service rifles ever made for maintaining accuracy and reliability under harsh conditions.
Still, the first rifle I learned to shoot and work on was the M16. The AR15/AR10 platform is one of the easiest to get parts for, to modify, and to find information on. You can turn it into a true competition tack driver, given enough money and motivation. And as long as you clean the damn thing regularly and aren’t using a suppressor the carbon fouling really isn’t that big an issue. If someone wanted to stick with an AR15 in 5.56 I don’t think I’d try to argue him out of it, I’d just make sure he had access to the heavier Lake City XM855 62 gr rounds and had the faster barrel twist to take advantage of them.
I’m glad that people are innovating on the AR, and I like that companies like DPMS are trying new calibers in it. I’m considering an AR in a 6.5mm caliber, probably 260 Remington, and I like that the market for things like this seems to be expanding. Even if it takes getting the tacti-cool crowd interested to sell these improvements they are improvements none the less, and there’s no law that says you have to hang 20 lbs of gear off your front end rail once you buy one.
Pistol - I use a single stack 1911 in .45. Dream gun if money, availability, and recoil were no object is the 1911 in 10mm. I prefer the feel of a metal frame, so I immediately gravitate towards the 1911, H&K Mk 23, and CZ75 over other options. Glock grip angles are all wrong, and my bad experiences with issued Barettas have soured me on all of their pistols (their shotguns I am willing to consider separately).
Shotgun - For home defense or duty, I love the Benelli M4. An excellent design that almost never breaks and fits me perfectly. The Remington 870 is also a perfectly acceptable gun for half the price, and has the advantage of having a huge aftermarket for parts and accessories. 12 Ga or it doesn’t count.
Rifle - I’m leaning towards the 6.5mm-class calibers as the best all-around general purpose rifle calibers. Heavier than a 5.56, better ballistics than a 7.62, weight in between the two, and many can be made to fire from an AR10 mag. In a bolt action I dream of having an Accuracy International AX in .338 Lapua, but I can’t imagine ever actually needing one. If I did ever need a bolt action rifle for home defense you’re going to see it on the news, or there will be zombies walking past your door.
As I said above, I think the Germans generally get great stuff from H&K. If I had to pick one winner, that would be it. Also, the PSG-1 may be the best semi-auto rifle ever built.
I’m not a fan of bull pup designs for general issue rifles (ie the Steyr AUG), try doing a magazine exchange in the prone position with one and you’ll see why. Hell, try shooting from prone at all. They’re great little guns for house clearing and police carbines though. Not sure how many countries use them, but I think they’re fairly common.
The AK 47 is great if you’ve got millions of untrained peasants you want firing in the same general direction and need an unbreakable gun because you don’t want to bother training them how to take care of it. Otherwise, pass.
[quote]4) In LE, weapons classes you may have attended by the likes of Vickers tactical and such, or in the military branches… Did they teach you about terminal ballistics, and if so, what?
Our local police knows zip in that regard, they think you shoot a guy with your duty pistol and he falls over.
Not all of course, but most… Their marksmanship and weapon handling/caring skills are also virtually nonexistent except for the specialized units.
Bundeswehr I’m not sure nowadays on the terminal ballistics front, but 10 years ago there was nothing going on in that regard. Marksmanship is still bad for most.
Much of the marksmanship training they do have does not translate well into actual combat situations in my opinion. [/quote]
We didn’t learn terminal ballistics per se in either the Marine Corps or at FLETC, however the shooting drills for both were designed with effect on target in mind. Yeah, the USMC qualifies on a 500m known distance course, but they also have added the table 2 tactical close range course with head and pelvis shots to the rifle qualification. I think it’s great, most new shooters have no idea what a great target the pelvic girdle is or how much easier to hit it can be than the head until they run this course. The USMC’s pre-deployment MOUT course is also awesome these days. I’m not going to say much about it, other than that they’ve been listening to the guys who have been in the shit and are trying to prepare the ones going into it with that knowledge.
FLETC pistol training is great, very real world applicable. From the first day on the line trainees are shooting from the holster, performing timed reloads, and switching hands. Again I don’t want to go into too much detail about it, but the trainees there almost need to have their pistols re-barreled on their way out the door because of how many rounds they fire. I feel that the carbine training and shotgun training were not nearly up to the same standards, but that reflects the realities of the job. All of them will have a pistol on their hip every day, not all of them are going to check out a longarm and have it with them when the shit hits the fan. I disagree with that mindset but I understand that schedules and budgets aren’t limitless and I’m glad they at least get world-class tactical pistol training. The ongoing quarterly coaching and qualification are likewise pistol focused, and the coaches I worked with were generally very good at teaching both shooting and tactics.
[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
John Cooper’s solution[/quote]
Are you calling him “John” because you knew him? Is it the Marine thing? Just wondering.
John Dean Cooper, Lt. Colonel U.S. Marines ret. is usually ID’d as Jeff Cooper or Colonel Cooper in every reference I have seen. Hell, the books I have of his use Jeff Cooper.
As for the solution. I believe it was to target the clear violent instigators who where pushing the crowd towards violence. Sort of a preemptive action before a bunch of blood gets shed. Cooper had experience/communications with a lot of people dealing with civil unrest on a huge scale, like Rhodesia. It is an interesting thought exercise, but I think it is at serious odds with our constitution. I also think that it would ultimately put the police in a bad position.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
No, I wrote it on a crappy autocorrect screen and slapped the wrong name and now I look like teh jackass.
Edit to add: John Cooper did have a fun little car named after him though. Also, there’s probably a lesson here about the tool you carry not being as good for the job as the one you go get. Still, interwebzfail.[/quote]
You could have sold me that it was an “in” thing and I wouldn’t understand.
I don’t think explaining/owning up to something makes anyone a jackass.
Cooper’s book “Principles of Personal Defense” is still my go to text whenever anyone asks me about “self-defense”/guns for protection. I seem to always buy and gift at least one copy of it a year.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Something else to discuss…
Thoughts on AR development these days?
Gotten a chance to shoot them (scar 16/17, IAR, 416/417, all those 6.8 guns and uppers, acr and so on) yet?
Prefer any of the newer ones over the m4/m16 variants? Why/Why not?
[/quote]
I assume AR means assault rifle and is not AR-15 family.
I think that better optics are going to be the real big things for rifles. Dot sights (Aimpoint or EoTech) make using the rifle much easier. Even more so under stress and from awkward positions. They also limit the need for getting a consistant cheek weld/mount/eye relief and as such give a huge improvement to less trained shooters.
The next big tech jump is not going to be a polymer rifle or mult caliber guns, but a true variable dot sight. Something that is NV compatible and goes from a true 1.0 mag to at least 4X (ACOG territory) or better and functions like an Aimpoint or EoTech recticle instead of a scope. That would do the most to improve the capability of the rifleman as far as gear goes.
6.8 or the 6.5 Grendel should be the NATO standard. In fact it was almost so, but the US fucked it up. The FAL was supposed to be .280 and would have made the NATO standard a useable intermediate cartridge. The US went hard for 7.62 because of designs in .308Win and then fielded the M-14, gorgeous gun that is what the Garand could have/was supposed to be (The US military actually scrubbed the detachable mag from the Garand because they felt soldiers couldn’t be trusted with them, enter the en bloc clip aka the dumbest thing ever.). Then the US went for something lighter and pushed the 5.56.
External and terminal ballistics are better with either over the 5.56, but cost and availability means I am shooting .223/5.56 for the near future.
The disclosure is I am pretty new to AR’s for rifles and suck at using them.
Note: I am neither military, nor a sworn officer. My uses for handguns are either defensive or recreational.
Pistols or long guns both need to be reliable and of a caliber appropriate for serious social use.
Handguns-I would prefer 9mm, .40, .45acp(ideal).
Long guns- 12 gauge, 5.56, etc.
After reliability and launching appropriate things I look for
-trigger: has to be useable and better is ALWAYS better. A great trigger makes me look like a better shooter
-sights: These need to be rugged and clear. I prefer tritium for pistols. I am not totally sold on lasers/RMR’s for handguns but understand the value. I have Trijicon’s on my Glocks. The work pretty well over all, but the white dot on the front sight of my 17 has sort of yellowed/faded and is making it hard to use all that well. I may re-paint or black it out with model paint.
For rifles I am in favor of optics, either dot sight or magnification depending on use. I need to get better with irons, but if it matters I would rather cheat.
With shotguns; I really like the ghost rings on my Mossberg. A high visibility bead is also fine if the gun will be used mostly for buckshot.
For longarms I consider a white light and the ability to use a sling a must.
After those considerations we get into the nebulous “ergonomics” and shit about weight vs. capacity vs does it match my shoes and all the other crap that people tend to use to make their decisions.
If concealment is seriously driving the issue I do not discount the value of a .380 or a .38 provided that dress truly limits what can be carried. My position is that if the gun is going into a dedicated inside or outside the waistband holster than there are better options. There is a world of difference between being in circumstances where untucked shirts and overshirts are acceptable and dockers vs slacks or not wearing a tie are considered dressing down. Sometimes compromises are needed. If the gun is going to live in the house I want something with a stock.
While anything is better than fingernails and bad language with the mouseguns my cut off is the question “Am I better armed with this, or a knife of a similar size?” I have seen people making 10 inch groups offhand, slow fire, at 7 yards or outright missing on a one way range when they are trying to go fast at 5 yards and this is with guns they refer to as their “carry guns”. If I shoot a gun so poorly that that is my level of accuracy when no one is trying to kill me, I know I am better of with a sharp length of steel. Your milage may vary.
Not qualified to talk about that other than as a leftie I hate most gun designs.
[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
Meh. There are so many AR makers out there these days it’s getting hard to even keep track of who has a good reputation, let alone know someone who has fired even a good number of them. I can verify that I’ve seen excellent quality from Stag Arms and Rock River Arms, as well as the usual suspects Armalite, DPMS, and Bushmaster (although I’ve heard anecdotal evidence of Bushmaster quality problems I haven’t actually run into anyone who had a bad rifle from them).
I think the 6.8 would have been great if the US military had adopted it instead of the 5.56. I don’t see it offering enough of an advantage to spend extra money on it over the ubiquitous 5.56 though, and I think a lot of what is driving 6.8 sales is wannabe spec-ops types buying whatever they saw in the latest Modern Warfare game. A marginal improvement is still an improvement, but I don’t have supply chain limitations or a massive number of 5.56 rifles to convert, and those were two of the major design considerations when this one was cooked up.
I liked the concept of the SCAR (one rifle, 3-4 calibers with just a bolt and barrel swap). On the civilian market I don’t think they’ve release any of the caliber-swapping that made it significantly nicer to have than an AR though. The piston system is probably sound, but I don’t know enough about it to know whether it affects recoil, reliability, or accuracy. Even if it does affect all three (and I think at least some recoil and accuracy effects are a given just based on the design), it’s nice to have a rifle that doesn’t shit where it eats. I actually prefer the 416/417. I am slightly H&K biased, but their rifle actions have been in general military use for a very long time, so I think they at least have the reliability part down. I’m a huge H&K 91 fan, the delayed roller block is a great design I feel like it is one of the better general service rifles ever made for maintaining accuracy and reliability under harsh conditions.
Still, the first rifle I learned to shoot and work on was the M16. The AR15/AR10 platform is one of the easiest to get parts for, to modify, and to find information on. You can turn it into a true competition tack driver, given enough money and motivation. And as long as you clean the damn thing regularly and aren’t using a suppressor the carbon fouling really isn’t that big an issue. If someone wanted to stick with an AR15 in 5.56 I don’t think I’d try to argue him out of it, I’d just make sure he had access to the heavier Lake City XM855 62 gr rounds and had the faster barrel twist to take advantage of them.
I’m glad that people are innovating on the AR, and I like that companies like DPMS are trying new calibers in it. I’m considering an AR in a 6.5mm caliber, probably 260 Remington, and I like that the market for things like this seems to be expanding. Even if it takes getting the tacti-cool crowd interested to sell these improvements they are improvements none the less, and there’s no law that says you have to hang 20 lbs of gear off your front end rail once you buy one.
[/quote] Get with the times grandpa, if you lift enough in the gym, you too can be the proud owner of a beer bottle opener shaped bayonet and an underslung quad barrel grenade launcher with added disco light…
Can’t say I’ve ever had any use for anything but various optics, and usually that means a reflex or holo sight on the long gun, and maybe a 4x/red dot scope if longer distances are anticipated… One of 'em canted if necessary (awkward to be honest, but I’ve taught myself to be pretty good with that setup as I like it better than switching them out completely and losing zero or just not having the time to switch when it would be handy… Overall a bit tacticool I guess, but whatever) Those things (the decent ones) were a huge improvement over irons for me… Especially since most Irons are fucking terrible for shots where you don’t want half your FOV blocked with a moving target that might just shoot back. Thank god for reflex sights and better attachable non-standard irons…
Ok, for LE flashlights make sense too, and grenadiers are a different story for obvious reasons…
Oh, some pistol lasers seemed kind of neat on the range, but I have no idea how useful they are in LE action. Or a shotgun with a laser maybe… Ever tried? Thoughts?
Never had much reason to pimp out the sidearm tbh.
Anyway… Someday someone is going to create a rifle which looks as cool as a G36C or Aug A3 but actually performs well all-around.
In 7x46
Yeah, right.
[quote]
Pistol - I use a single stack 1911 in .45. Dream gun if money, availability, and recoil were no object is the 1911 in 10mm. I prefer the feel of a metal frame, so I immediately gravitate towards the 1911, H&K Mk 23, and CZ75 over other options. Glock grip angles are all wrong, and my bad experiences with issued Barettas have soured me on all of their pistols (their shotguns I am willing to consider separately).
[/quote] Glock huh… So many people love 'em, and they’re as fast to use as possible… But I don’t like them either.
10mm? Now there’s a caliber you don’t see mentioned often anymore… Don’t think I’ve fired more than a few rounds ages ago, or maybe I’m remembering that wrong… I didn’t like the pistol I got to try it out with though, it was that FBI thing I think?.. Whatever the name was.
1911 is nice in most aspects (how easy is it to keep it running as an armorer compared to glocks and such? I’ve heard that that is one of it’s weaknesses, but I’m no armorer and I don’t fire enough rounds through my pistols between maintenance to worry about it), but as I said, 8 rounds is too few for comfort for me in a really bad situation where everyone is constantly dodging around and ducking for cover, getting off quick snap shots one-handed and so on… And even if you do hit center mass every time… Against a threat who has already engaged you and is motivated to fight…
Unfortunately I have little girl hands, so the 45’s allowing for enough (for me) rounds in their standard length mags are out due to the thickness of the grip… Extended mags just get in the way, whether it be CCW or open carry in my case… Never liked any .40 I tried… So 9 it is for me, loses out on performance vs. intermediate barriers but that’s about it for the downsides nowadays. The wound channels they make vs. 45 are visually nearly impossible to tell apart, not much difference esp. as the wound diameter ends up being less than the bullet diameter with pistol rounds… And intermediate barriers are more of a concern for LE anyway, I never had to engage a threat behind glass or something with my sidearm…
[quote]
Shotgun - For home defense or duty, I love the Benelli M4. An excellent design that almost never breaks and fits me perfectly. The Remington 870 is also a perfectly acceptable gun for half the price, and has the advantage of having a huge aftermarket for parts and accessories. 12 Ga or it doesn’t count.
[/quote] CAWS all the way!
Just kidding. That thing sure looked unwieldy… Never got to fire one and now they’re canned… Interesting ammo. Well, you know I’m not too experienced with shotguns, so it’s interesting to hear how 2 models pretty much seem to rule the US LE market.
[quote]
Rifle - I’m leaning towards the 6.5mm-class calibers as the best all-around general purpose rifle calibers. [/quote]
Hmmm. General Purpose I’d have to go with 7… Sure you can pack less, but the terminal ballistics are better and that is very important in both LE and military action… The 6.5 maybe as a designated marksman caliber… 6.8 is pretty much it for CQB imo, nicer ballistics than current 6.5, capacity and also decent range. But it seems that as long as the intermediate calibers are made with the existing AR platform/mags in mind, we won’t be seeing the best all purpose cartridge until that constraint is gone.
Still, 6.5 beats 5.56 and has fantastic accuracy and range for GP use… But if we’re all going to switch to a new GP caliber, then I’d go with a bit more oomph personally…
[quote]
Heavier than a 5.56, better ballistics than a 7.62, weight in between the two, and many can be made to fire from an AR10 mag. In a bolt action I dream of having an Accuracy International AX in .338 Lapua, but I can’t imagine ever actually needing one. If I did ever need a bolt action rifle for home defense you’re going to see it on the news, or there will be zombies walking past your door.
As I said above, I think the Germans generally get great stuff from H&K. If I had to pick one winner, that would be it. Also, the PSG-1 may be the best semi-auto rifle ever built.
[/quote] I have some very extensive experience with HK products… And I’m not all that enthusiastic about them to be honest. The PSG-1 seems to get rave reviews from the designated marksmen and snipers I know who have used it, but I have little experience with anything beyond Battle Rifles, AR’s and some PDW’s/SMG’s. (G3, G36, 416/417, MP-5, MP-7)
Carried the G3 a good bit. Was ok, nothing I’d want to have to use today though. Old 7.62 are too bad with recoil and ergonomics compared to the newest offerings IMO. Also heavier than they should be. Nice for hobbyists/self defense on a budget though I guess, but then there’s ammo cost… Not at all a suitable battle rifle for a modern army involved in CQB, urban combat and so on… Also not really that great over distance. You can make it accurate, but follow up shots take too long to set up properly.
The MP5 was great once upon a time compared to most other available SMG’s, though the iron sights are bleh for CQB, the ergonomics aren’t too great, and it’s only true lasting advantage
(MP5SD, you know what I mean) is about to bite the dust due to 300blk… Biggest issue is the same as all SMG’s, they fire pistol calibers from still fairly short barrels and that means no real temporary cavity… Wors alright against unsuspecting guys/people you surprise… Someone already engaging you with murder in the name of Allah in their mind will likely need a CNS hit to be put down immediately, no amount of bleeding is going to do it fast enough to avoid them getting off shots of their own.
They’re being replaced/have been largely replaced for a reason… And of course parts availability and the price etc (same for all HK stuff apart from maybe the 416) are a major issue. RIP old idol, but much of it’s fame came from movies and such… Possibly one of the most overhyped guns ever, but it was certainly not bad and did it’s job well, with the SD extending it’s lifespan a good bit.
The G36 has some real issues in sustained firefights… Not as much as the m4 or anything, but… I don’t know if they fixed the issue yet, but I haven’t heard anything… Basically… German soldiers tend to be fairly happy with it (well, not like they ever get a chance to compare it to anything else, other than maybe an older 7.62 G3… And the standard dual optics, while basically crap by comparison, help the common inexperienced soldier a great deal) unless they end up in long fights where they have to fire a lot of rounds… And then end up with a target and find themselves unable to hit it despite all the optics… You get a nice zero shift after heating it up, and the mags are not very robust… Oh, and the clipping-the-mags-together thing pretty much means dropping ammo whenever you aren’t standing still. I wonder if HK only test basic reliability and bench marksmanship with too few rounds fired and that’s it or something… So much wasted potential… I do not want to be caught in a long firefight with this thing… And who the heck thought a non-adjustabable stock was a good idea!? I don’t care if I can fold it and still shoot, no one does that! But maybe my arms aren’t the same length as the design engineers?
They fixed that at least with some specific new version… Ergonomics still suck for many people. Looks better than it is imo.
416 does a lot better than the M4 in terms of surviving sustained firefights without jamming or barrel issues and such… IMO it was a great upgrade to the AR due to the cold hammer forged barrel, the different system and so on. While the AR is realiable if you keep cleaning it properly all the damn time, I find that it is simply too easy to affect via a little dust and such… And fuck those barrels. No reason to keep them with the newer stuff available.
Ultimately, long sustained fire is not a strength of the AR, and constant cleaning is not always an option.
I have heard some disturbing stories of 416 uppers blowing up after ~5000 rounds without being serviced by a HK armorer or something, but I cannot verify that… Did not happen to me and all I got is a story.
As for the 417, I like it better than the older 7.62 rifles, but the Scar 17 beats it in some aspects that I find important. Still decent. 7.62 is not my go-to caliber though… Not the supply chain works perfectly, and it never does in the places where it needs to.
All comes down to surviving long, sustained fights again… Even if they rarely happen, when they happen they really show you the inadequacies of the regular AR platform as well as the issues with 7.62… You can’t carry enough of it, and targeted shots on a visible threat are a luxury, so suppressive fire it is and tons of misses are a given.
Has nice range though.
But I think 6.8 SPC (or hopefully 7 at some point or a better 6.5 vairant, both with a new rifle) makes for a better AR caliber with our current available AR’s considering the current issues on the battlefield. Great terminal ballistics compared to 5.56/5.45/223/6.5, you can carry more of it than 7.62, use it with current guns via new uppers… Better against intermediate barriers than 5.56 etc too…
7.62N is nice in terms of range and performance against barriers but I think the negatives outweigh the positives in regards to our current combat situation for all but designated marksmen/snipers and machinegun use.
Now, the MP-7 and every tiny caliber “armor piercing” pistol round firing POS out there…
Looks great, it’s tiny, high ROF… Great movie prop and that’s it.
It does so little tissue damage that dropping them via circulatory system collapse is just not in the cards in a reasonable timeframe usually… I don’t ever want to carry that again. I think it’s useless as a PDW too, frankly. A terrible idea, HK should have noticed that the p90’s were phased out by most agencies originally endorsing them for good reasons.
Just an all-around bad idea. If they’d made it a rifle cartridge (what they had for the G11 maybe, except without the caseless part?, maybe it would have been less of a catastrophe…
Anyway… More on HK in another post.
They ruin your ears good…
France, Britain, and I think China now and some others use 'em as standard AR’s…
The older models are all inferior and have been from the start… Never fired the IMI, Valmet bullpup and the Groza (I think that was the name) though, I’d really like to try them out some day.
[quote]
The AK 47 is great if you’ve got millions of untrained peasants you want firing in the same general direction and need an unbreakable gun because you don’t want to bother training them how to take care of it. Otherwise, pass.
[/quote] It does have one big advantage: Long sustained firefights don’t bother it much…
Then again, once you actually see something human to aim at, the lack of accuracy might just come back to bite you.
You can make them really damn accurate if you want to… With the right tools and parts… Of course not an option for the military, but still. I think newer guns do well enough in terms of reliability to pretty much kill it’s advantage though.
Now the Galil… That is one very solid rifle… Could not get enough time on it to really make up my mind, but it seems to have a lot of potential.
[quote]
We didn’t learn terminal ballistics per se in either the Marine Corps or at FLETC, however the shooting drills for both were designed with effect on target in mind. Yeah, the USMC qualifies on a 500m known distance course, but they also have added the table 2 tactical close range course with head and pelvis shots to the rifle qualification. I think it’s great, most new shooters have no idea what a great target the pelvic girdle is or how much easier to hit it can be than the head until they run this course.
[/quote] Interesting. Fackler wrote this about it (though he’s focusing on LE with pistols here… The temporary cavity from rifle calibers might cause much greater damage here, I’m not sure):
Thoughts?
[quote]
The USMC’s pre-deployment MOUT course is also awesome these days. I’m not going to say much about it, other than that they’ve been listening to the guys who have been in the shit and are trying to prepare the ones going into it with that knowledge.
FLETC pistol training is great, very real world applicable. From the first day on the line trainees are shooting from the holster, performing timed reloads, and switching hands. Again I don’t want to go into too much detail about it, but the trainees there almost need to have their pistols re-barreled on their way out the door because of how many rounds they fire. I feel that the carbine training and shotgun training were not nearly up to the same standards, but that reflects the realities of the job. All of them will have a pistol on their hip every day, not all of them are going to check out a longarm and have it with them when the shit hits the fan. I disagree with that mindset
[/quote] But… But… Militarization of the police! Those black SS uniforms! And all those pockets! Terrible! They’re supposed to be Peace Officers, which means… Friendly, and helpful and wearing overly stiff blue uniforms so they can’t run properly and revolvers so they’ll be even worse in a gunfight!
Back in the day it was all better!
Yeah… How do people convince themselves to believe such nonsense… I guess as much as the U.S. influences the European way of life, so does European uber-PC and over-the-top liberalism influence the U.S. to a degree…
[quote]
but I understand that schedules and budgets aren’t limitless and I’m glad they at least get world-class tactical pistol training. The ongoing quarterly coaching and qualification are likewise pistol focused, and the coaches I worked with were generally very good at teaching both shooting and tactics.[/quote]
How difficult is it for you to keep your pistol skills where you want them? My pistol performance goes way down very fast if I don’t train it at least once or twice a week (which is a luxury I rarely have, as I needed and still need to focus on the long gun first and then time constraints/access). I never really had to use my sidearm though… At least not nearly to the degree LE would, and never in a truly messy situation.
That being said, I’ve occasionally not fired a shot from my long gun for months and was still pretty much at the top of my game afterwards.
Long post now with all the quotes, I hope I didn’t mess them up… Got another one coming on HK/AR development later.
First edit did not go through, post reverted back… In the second edit I forgot some quote or whatever… Man. I wish the advanced/edit post window would color code quotes or check if every quote had a /quote at the end or something.
There is a huge difference between what an intermediate cartridge(5.56, 7.62 x 39, etc.) or slug will do to a pelvis and what a handgun will do. If we are talking about a main battle rifle cartridge it is even more pronounced.
The general rule I have read in pathology texts and been told is that rounds traveling at greater than 2000 ft/sec. are considered high velocity and tissue stretch can be considered a “significant” mechanism of injury when discussing them. This is not a clear threshold though. So rounds impacting at 1900 ft/sec are not suddenly going to have not damage via stretch.
Also some tissues handle stretching better than others. Muscle is very elastic. Liver and spleen on the other hand are known to rupture and tear from mechanical stretch or compression and can be expected to exhibit greater wounding via stretch/temporary cavity. If the round fragments, than the passing of even small fragments through the tissue that is being stretched magnifies the damage. Finally, higher velocity rounds have more spectacular effects inside the cranial vault. The anatomy of the skull and the fragile nature of non preserved brain tissue allow for this. The old cadaver studies that selected the .45 ACP noted that 9mm was superior with headwounds.
Final thought on Fackler’s quote; I don’t think Fackler was a fighter. He was an intellect, a consummate authority on wounding and the treatment of gun shot wounds, and pioneer of scientific wound study. I do believe he downplays the importance of damage/pain when someone is trying to kill you. If you are choosing to target my pelvis instead of my torso it is likely because my torso is armored and you cannot make a headshot. In this case, doing some damage is better than none. Even if a shot to my pelvis doesn’t instantly incapacitate me, it may make me stop or slow down due to pain or mechanical damage enough for you to hit a more effective target. The choice isn’t headshot, heartshot, or shoot him in the nuts. It is nuts or nothing. If I mean you harm you want to deal with a me that has as many extra holes in my anatomy as can be provided.
Now a question for C_C:
Is 300BLK doing something in Germany? Because for the life of me I don’t see the attraction. It is a western 7.62x39 with all the known issues and faults in trajectory. If the big draw is to run it silenced, than it appeals to anyone who has looked at a 147 grain 9mm, a 180 grain .40, or a 230 grain .45 and said “If only I could make the bullet narrower so it leaves a smaller hole, THAN it will be tits!” At subsonic velocities are there any expanding 7.62 cartridges?
Ok, no idea where the pic came from and what the story was exactly… Must have been a slow one though…
.300 blk is not anything special, but does fill some niche roles where there isn’t much else available.
I’m not a can guy, but the performance (supersonic I mean) out of a 12 inch barrel or less vs. 308 (i.e. don’t do it haha) coupled with much less muzzle flash and noise (308 out of very short barrels like 10 or less only works for species without ears and eyes if you ask me. Might as hold a flashbang in front of you while it blows up) is what I like about it. It beats 5.56 in many ways there too (need longer barrels for 5.56 too imo, 12.5 and up at least) in terms of terminal ballistics.
The subsonic stuff well… I think the main issue is that the right factory loaded ammo is not yet available, remember that this thing is still very young…
It does still offer some advantages: An organization does not need to keep and maintain mp5sd’s on top of their carbines if they have need for both a maximally quiet gun and a regular assault rifle.
The subsonic 300 blk also supposedly does very well against intermediate barrierscompared to 9 mil. Also bone. Important for LE.
But as I said, I’m no can man… The can community seems to like it though. Has a lot of potential, and really, smg’s have run their course for serious military or LE use for the most part it seems. Considering that the most widely used ones were HK and anything HK means terrible costumer support and no parts availability coupled with absurd prices outside of Germany (well, I wouldn’t say they’re doing that much better here either), I think the 300blk stuff is needed.
Of course 6.8SPC is likely a more well-rounded alternative for guys like me, but it doesn’t hurt to have a few competitors for CQB SBR use. Will hopefully drive manufacturers to come up with better and better factory loads.
I see 300 blk as a potentially great LE option for all their suppressed and patrol carbine (no real need for medium to long barrels here, right? Might as well cut down and then 300 does sort of shine) and SBR/entry gun needs. Can be made to work with the AR family, no need to keep completely different guns from different manufacturers for suppressed vs. general use, supersonic does great in the terminal ballistics department for the ranges usually encountered in LE…
A nice one-size-fits-all for everything but snipers, and that means less costs and manufacturer issues (coughHKcough), less different stuff in the armory, better parts commonality… Though a bit more kick than the 5.56.
Don’t know if it will ever really happen of course, but maybe over time and if the 300 blk becomes cheaper and more available…
Another potentially nice thing is that as 5.56 and 7.62 (well, 7.62 for LE SBR/carbine/suppressed use is not really an option anyway is it) costs rise and availability of good loads drops due to the wars (and who thinks those are going to stop anytime soon), .300blk may really become a more economic and available alternative eventually.
It doesn’t really fit military requirements considering it’s none too great for longer ranges and you ideally don’t want to have too many calibers… Which is both good (Mil won’t hog all of it, ever… Probably…) but also bad (with little interest from mil, .300blk breaking through into the mainstream is a lot less likely to happen… At least not if LE doesn’t become very, very interested and they do have funding issues).
Jim, thoughts? You are LE now, right? Plus an armorer…
There is a huge difference between what an intermediate cartridge(5.56, 7.62 x 39, etc.) or slug will do to a pelvis and what a handgun will do. If we are talking about a main battle rifle cartridge it is even more pronounced.
The general rule I have read in pathology texts and been told is that rounds traveling at greater than 2000 ft/sec. are considered high velocity and tissue stretch can be considered a “significant” mechanism of injury when discussing them. This is not a clear threshold though. So rounds impacting at 1900 ft/sec are not suddenly going to have not damage via stretch.
Also some tissues handle stretching better than others. Muscle is very elastic. Liver and spleen on the other hand are known to rupture and tear from mechanical stretch or compression and can be expected to exhibit greater wounding via stretch/temporary cavity. If the round fragments, than the passing of even small fragments through the tissue that is being stretched magnifies the damage. Finally, higher velocity rounds have more spectacular effects inside the cranial vault. The anatomy of the skull and the fragile nature of non preserved brain tissue allow for this. The old cadaver studies that selected the .45 ACP noted that 9mm was superior with headwounds.
Final thought on Fackler’s quote; I don’t think Fackler was a fighter. He was an intellect, a consummate authority on wounding and the treatment of gun shot wounds, and pioneer of scientific wound study. I do believe he downplays the importance of damage/pain when someone is trying to kill you. If you are choosing to target my pelvis instead of my torso it is likely because my torso is armored and you cannot make a headshot. In this case, doing some damage is better than none. Even if a shot to my pelvis doesn’t instantly incapacitate me, it may make me stop or slow down due to pain or mechanical damage enough for you to hit a more effective target. The choice isn’t headshot, heartshot, or shoot him in the nuts. It is nuts or nothing. If I mean you harm you want to deal with a me that has as many extra holes in my anatomy as can be provided.
[/quote]
I agree with this mostly.
However, relying on pain is in my opinion a bad idea. If the target is overwhelmed/surprised, not ready to fight (wasn’t even thinking about it before), likely doesn’t know you’re there or whatever, wasn’t already engaging you… Then yeah, pain and thus psychological stops are likely to happen it seems.
But in actual CQB you can take out somebodies’ heart and they may well not give a damn or even notice. Spray them full of lead and they may not care or notice and still continue to engage you. A guy spraying the place while falling down doesn’t really help either.
So that’s why I’m not really sold on pelvis shots either unless it’s the easiest target in the situation you find yourself in. Barring a CNS hit, I’d prefer the fastest possible bleeding (well, actually a psychological stop would be nice, but yeah).
The torso is a good area for that, while also giving you the chance of a spine hit for example (also consider that with a nice temp channel from various rifle calibers, you may not need to actually hit the upper spine directly as opposed to a pistol hit).
Also… There is the chance of hitting the solar plexus as well I suppose… But again, whether that will cause a psych stop is not something to rely on.
Basically how I feel in a nutshell: In the most dangerous, fast-paced situations where you need to take the threat down as fast as possible and you and your squatmates as well as possible civilians in the area are in the highest degree of danger… Those are also usually the situations where the pelvis is comparatively easy to hit… BUT pain is the least likely to stop the threat fast.
And even if you cause the guy to fall down via shattered femur or enough trauma to the pelvic region… That is not stopping the threat! Unless he does faint from pain (which as I said is not too likely in such situations). Bleeding from the hit(s) there is not likely to incapacitate fast enough by itself.
Worst case is that the guy just suddenly dropped to the ground and is either still shooting or re-engaging without feeling any pain yet or ignoring what he feels. And you are probably still aiming at the spot where his pelvis used to be before he fell.
I assume AR means assault rifle and is not AR-15 family.
[/quote] Yes, that was what I originally meant sorry… Though both work in this case.
[quote]
I think that better optics are going to be the real big things for rifles. Dot sights (Aimpoint or EoTech) make using the rifle much easier. Even more so under stress and from awkward positions. They also limit the need for getting a consistant cheek weld/mount/eye relief and as such give a huge improvement to less trained shooters.
[/quote] Not just the less trained ones. A good reflex, holo, dot sight which does not obscure much of your vision drastically improves target acquisition time, switching targets, lining up follow-up shots etc in general… And make the weapons so much less awkward to use as you said.
Our shoothouse performances have gone way up several times… At first when the switch from 7.62N to 5.56 was made, then with optics becoming common as well as shorter barrels.
[quote]
The next big tech jump is not going to be a polymer rifle or mult caliber guns, but a true variable dot sight. Something that is NV compatible and goes from a true 1.0 mag to at least 4X (ACOG territory) or better and functions like an Aimpoint or EoTech recticle instead of a scope. That would do the most to improve the capability of the rifleman as far as gear goes.
[/quote] That would be great, though I’m not sure if it’s possible to do that without reducing effectiveness at short ranges due to a larger/longer attachment and thus obscuring FOV more etc.
But yeah… I do think you are on the right track with this. Optics can really help the average soldier (who no matter which army just isn’t that much of a marksman esp. outside the range) [quote]
6.8 or the 6.5 Grendel should be the NATO standard.
[/quote] If we want compatability with the current guns, then yeah. Though imo 6.5 Grendel only really offers advantages over 6.8 at long ranges, and that’s mostly for designated marksmen, snipers, MG’s and such and I feel that you may as well go with a different cartridge then.
6.8 for shorter distances definitely…
But my hope is that a true general purpose cartridge will be developed that isn’t being limited by the current AR constraints (mags etc). Of course costs probably make any switch here impossible. We’ll have energy weapons in common use before then it seems
[quote]
In fact it was almost so, but the US fucked it up. The FAL was supposed to be .280 and would have made the NATO standard a useable intermediate cartridge. The US went hard for 7.62 because of designs in .308Win and then fielded the M-14, gorgeous gun that is what the Garand could have/was supposed to be (The US military actually scrubbed the detachable mag from the Garand because they felt soldiers couldn’t be trusted with them, enter the en bloc clip aka the dumbest thing ever.). Then the US went for something lighter and pushed the 5.56.
[/quote] Yeah, what a bunch of blunders, huh? To think we could all be shooting a 7 now at low cost now…
[quote]
External and terminal ballistics are better with either over the 5.56, but cost and availability means I am shooting .223/5.56 for the near future.
The disclosure is I am pretty new to AR’s for rifles and suck at using them.
Note: I am neither military, nor a sworn officer. My uses for handguns are either defensive or recreational.
[/quote] That’s fine man, I’m interested in a variety of opinions. [quote]
Pistols or long guns both need to be reliable and of a caliber appropriate for serious social use.
Handguns-I would prefer 9mm, .40, .45acp(ideal).
Long guns- 12 gauge, 5.56, etc.
After reliability and launching appropriate things I look for
-trigger: has to be useable and better is ALWAYS better. A great trigger makes me look like a better shooter
[/quote] Ha, be glad you (likely) never had to deal with some of the HK triggers I’ve been forced to use in the past.
[quote]
-sights: These need to be rugged and clear. I prefer tritium for pistols. I am not totally sold on lasers/RMR’s for handguns but understand the value. I have Trijicon’s on my Glocks. The work pretty well over all, but the white dot on the front sight of my 17 has sort of yellowed/faded and is making it hard to use all that well. I may re-paint or black it out with model paint.
For rifles I am in favor of optics, either dot sight or magnification depending on use. I need to get better with irons, but if it matters I would rather cheat.
[/quote] Just line up a reflex sight or something with your back up irons if you can… Does defeat one of the advantages of short range optics (i.e. not obscuring your FOV nearly as much as irons… Well, if the optics are good I mean… Plenty of stuff out there that makes you wonder why it was produced in the first place… coughoriginalg36opticscough).
I did best with reflex/holo sights on shotguns tbh. At close ranges I don’t want to have to mess with Iron sights. Makes all the difference in the world for me. May need to fiddle around with where exactly you place them though.
[quote]
For longarms I consider a white light and the ability to use a sling a must.
After those considerations we get into the nebulous “ergonomics” and shit about weight vs. capacity vs does it match my shoes and all the other crap that people tend to use to make their decisions.
[/quote] Well, ergonomics are somewhat important to make the gun easy to wield as well as how much you still like it after a drawn out firefight
Considering that even supposedly high end (or at least high profile) manufacturers like HK manage to build butt stocks that cannot be adjusted into a primary assault rifle line… Yeah, ergonomics do matter imo…
[quote]
If concealment is seriously driving the issue I do not discount the value of a .380 or a .38 provided that dress truly limits what can be carried. My position is that if the gun is going into a dedicated inside or outside the waistband holster than there are better options. There is a world of difference between being in circumstances where untucked shirts and overshirts are acceptable and dockers vs slacks or not wearing a tie are considered dressing down. Sometimes compromises are needed. If the gun is going to live in the house I want something with a stock.
While anything is better than fingernails and bad language with the mouseguns my cut off is the question “Am I better armed with this, or a knife of a similar size?” I have seen people making 10 inch groups offhand, slow fire, at 7 yards or outright missing on a one way range when they are trying to go fast at 5 yards and this is with guns they refer to as their “carry guns”. If I shoot a gun so poorly that that is my level of accuracy when no one is trying to kill me, I know I am better of with a sharp length of steel. Your milage may vary.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
Hmmm, I’m not too fond of the tiny, no sights/super-short-sight-range, low capacity, tiny caliber purse guns either. My knife fighting skills are unfortunately nothing to write home about though…
I’ve often heard or seen it mentioned that guys like these dinky things for their wives…
Only if you want to get rid of your wife without a divorce imo, hahaha
The USMC knows that you’re using 5.56 ammo, and this training is specific to urban and CQC ranges (typically 50 meters or less). The 5.56 hardball is still doing at least 2800 fps even from a short carbine at that range, which without consulting a ballistics charge to get the energy on target seems to be enough to shatter the femur/pelvis for a mobility kill. Also, the military doesn’t mind wounding in all cases, sometimes it’s even good tactics to wound him and either capture him or make two of his buddies stop shooting to carry him.
The other reasoning for pelvic shots is that your primary target is center mass, but if that is not working (likely due to armor) the pelvis is a larger, less mobile secondary target than the head. The shot that hits is always more effective than the shot that misses.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Of course 6.8SPC is likely a more well-rounded alternative for guys like me, but it doesn’t hurt to have a few competitors for CQB SBR use. Will hopefully drive manufacturers to come up with better and better factory loads.
I see 300 blk as a potentially great LE option for all their suppressed and patrol carbine (no real need for medium to long barrels here, right? Might as well cut down and then 300 does sort of shine) and SBR/entry gun needs. Can be made to work with the AR family, no need to keep completely different guns from different manufacturers for suppressed vs. general use, supersonic does great in the terminal ballistics department for the ranges usually encountered in LE…
A nice one-size-fits-all for everything but snipers, and that means less costs and manufacturer issues (coughHKcough), less different stuff in the armory, better parts commonality… Though a bit more kick than the 5.56.
Don’t know if it will ever really happen of course, but maybe over time and if the 300 blk becomes cheaper and more available…
Another potentially nice thing is that as 5.56 and 7.62 (well, 7.62 for LE SBR/carbine/suppressed use is not really an option anyway is it) costs rise and availability of good loads drops due to the wars (and who thinks those are going to stop anytime soon), .300blk may really become a more economic and available alternative eventually.
It doesn’t really fit military requirements considering it’s none too great for longer ranges and you ideally don’t want to have too many calibers… Which is both good (Mil won’t hog all of it, ever… Probably…) but also bad (with little interest from mil, .300blk breaking through into the mainstream is a lot less likely to happen… At least not if LE doesn’t become very, very interested and they do have funding issues).
Jim, thoughts? You are LE now, right? Plus an armorer…
[/quote]
I’m actually not on duty anymore, turned in the hardware to go back to school for my law degree. I think US law enforcement will largely stick with US military calibers. They hire a lot of cops out of the military (so training is easier), using military gear usually lowers prices, surplus parts are often available, and they don’t have to do their own equipment trials. Ammo may fluctuate depending on wars, but the data is well know and published, and every ammo maker knows there will always be a market for whatever the US issues to its fighting men so a lot more are willing to re-tool to produce it. A few organizations with big budgets special needs like LAPD’s SWAT, FBI’s HRT, and Border Patrol’s BORTAC may want to look at .300 BLK, but they’re going to do a full trial to see if it meets their needs. I would want to see it against things like the .450 Bushmaster, .458 SOCOM, .50 Action Express, and .50 Beowulf, all of which will function in a modified AR-15 as well. The .300 BLK may be a better supersoinc round than those heavier options, but as a replacement for suppressed SMG’s the bigger heavier rounds may work better at subsonic. I’d also look at the .300 Whisper, which seems to take the same concept a little further. All of these are serious gun-geek rare calibers right now, but the 5.56 was an exotic until the Air Force bought it (and just ask any Marine if he wants the Air Force choosing his guns ever again).
Sights:
I am totally for putting a holo or reflex sight on any long gun that will take it. My reason for not making it a must with shotguns is that it blows up the “cost” advantage. Same reason I may never own a Beneli. If I am going to spend that kind of money, the semi auto shotgun is going against semi auto carbines, w/ optics. I like Mossberg 590’s and 870P’s for the $1000 gets you a gun, a light, and some training.
Ergos/Funny:
I don’t mean to dismiss ergonomics/feel. I just know that multiple times I have done better with a gun that felt “wrong”/awkward but had good trigger and sights than the reverse. As for HK, they move in mysterious ways. On one hand they will almost jump the shark to Berreta levels with putting controls in bad places, and on the other the P30 with the LEM trigger basically is “ergonomics”. Blast from the past HK, because you suck and they hate you :
Pelvis Shots:
Jim covered some of this in his post, and I may not be articulating it well. I am not stating that using a pelvic target is better than more vital areas, or that pain is to be “relied” on to stop someone.
I am just not dismissing using the pelvis/lower abdomen/thighs as a target. I suppose this puts me in disagreement with Fackler and Roberts to an extent, but here are my thoughts. I am arguing for putting holes in meat. I want the holes to be in the most vital areas POSSIBLE, but circumstance may make the head/upper torso targets unlikely/not beneficial. I am not making a head shot reliably on a fast moving target, at range, with a handgun. Vests are getting common. If torso shots are not being effective, aim low. The other time a “pelvic” shot makes a ton of sense is at very close range/scrape the guy off you distance. Again only because a higher/better target may be less available due to his position, your position, or the fact you may have parts of your anatomy in the way.
I agree that a “downed” enemy is not necessarily a “non-threat”. I am simply of the mind that regardless of how “still a threat” the downed guy is, he was more of a threat before. Even if he doesn’t fall down, I would rather deal with him as he deals with pain/bleeding/mechanical damage. Doing some/any/the most I can manage right now levels of injury is a time honored method of dealing with someone that is trying to kill you.
I am not advocating headshot = heartshot = nut shot. I am saying nutshot > no shot.
300 Blackout:
My issue is the bullets. I am a native of PA. In this particular state the 30-30 caliber is damn near a religion. To the point I have heard the phrase AAR, Apalachian(mountain range that is ridge runner/hill jack/hill billy central) Assualt Rifle, used to describe lever actions in this caliber. I LOVE the idea of a semi-auto 30-30 and the 300 Blackout basically is that.
My problem is that the bullets that are being used/are available are designed for much higher velocities. Taking bullets designed for a specific velocity range and using them at lower velocities is going to nix the terminal performance advantages. I have seen decent gel test for the supersonic loads, but the range where expansion/fragmentation can be relied on is still shortened and the trajectory is more of an arc when compared to 6.5 or 6.8. So we are dealing with a harder to use at range rifle.
At subsonic velocities I absolutely do not believe the hype. If we hold that at sub-sonic velocities temporary stretch/cavitation is not a significant mechanism of wounding and that only crush matters than any whiz-bang ammo should be seeking to maximize said tissue crushing. A pointed rifle bullet does the opposite of this. At subsonic velocities there is going to be no wounding by fragmentation and no rifle bullets that I know of will expand. Even if they did, the cartridges expand to smaller diameters than 9mm let alone .45. I don’t know if the profile gives a better performance against soft ballistic armor, but at subsonic velocities I kind of doubt it. Also, if we are willing to completely forgo terminal ballistics for penetration than the comparison needs to done with subsonic 300 Blackout vs. the 9mm AP/metal piercing rounds that are illegal here vs. the micro PDW calibers 5.7 and whatever HK’s is.
I especially like that he emphasizes training, reliability, and durability before ammo selection. AKA the worst effect on target is always via a miss or failure to fire.
I had no idea they had studied the 6.8 this extensively with regards to terminal ballistics. I like it more than I used to now. While I think I still prefer the 260 Rem, I’m also using my rife for target shooting, and as an individual I don’t have most of the problems the military does with a .308 based system. The call at the end to stop following the 1899 Hague treaty should be the first item on every General’s wish list for the next President to do, it solves a lot of problems and also means we need a whole new round of tests for non-FMJ ammo (although I would think the 6. would still do very well).
I especially like that he emphasizes training, reliability, and durability before ammo selection. AKA the worst effect on target is always via a miss or failure to fire.
I had no idea they had studied the 6.8 this extensively with regards to terminal ballistics. I like it more than I used to now. While I think I still prefer the 260 Rem, I’m also using my rife for target shooting, and as an individual I don’t have most of the problems the military does with a .308 based system. The call at the end to stop following the 1899 Hague treaty should be the first item on every General’s wish list for the next President to do, it solves a lot of problems and also means we need a whole new round of tests for non-FMJ ammo (although I would think the 6. would still do very well).[/quote]
No, no, no. We MUST continue to hamstring our troops by following a convention that we did not even sign. That way they get points for degree of difficulty.
I am joking, but I swear some people are of that mind set. I do the same kind of WTF when I hear “militarization of police”. I always wind up disagreeing. I have a vested interest in LE having every advantage in putting the bullets where they want to. I have no intention of ever being shot AT by the police. I may however be a “backstop” at some point so anything with a stock and a dot sight to cut down on misses is fine with me.
Oh, and I am in possible joke overload for Marine/Cop/Lawyer/Student.
FWIW, this may have gotten lost in the shuffle: I fully agree that hitting the target anywhere is better than not hitting it at all (especially considering that a psych stop may happen no matter where you hit and how much actual damage you do). If the pelvis is your best/most practical target in a specific situation you find yourself in, go for it. (Fackler also basically agreed with that, no?)
.300BLK, yes, we need better subsonic bullet design for it. Hell, if it were possible to make a proper .300blk which behaves like the subsonic freak in the picture I posted AND feeds properly in anything that isn’t a bolt action… That should suffice, no?
I’ve never shot subsonic .458 or .50beowulf… I’ve shot supersonic beowulf with an AR though… Not something I’d want to have to use as a primary carbine caliber, thank you very much…
Part of why I think the 300 blk may not be so bad for LE is that you can use the same guns pretty much for both supressed entry and unsupressed patrol/general use… But there’s no way a .50 beowulf would make a half decent unsupressed carbine as far as I can tell… And for military use it’s just plain crap…
.458 I dunno. Supersonic seems to have way too much kick too in an carbine format. Subsonic I have no idea.
Is there any SMG available in .50AE? Any good subonic .50AE loads? TBH you mentioning that one surprised me Jim, I never even considered it… Is that even a viable option for serious use? Seems like you’ve given that a lot more thought than I have.
