LDS Freedom Forum

Actually, both! I had no idea. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle. GI Joe.

Folks, please understand, I’m not defending our government/armed forces for adopting the M-16 over the M-14. As a home defense weapon, I simply prefer my .223. In fact I was shocked that the USMC adopted the M-16, which happened after my separation from the USAF. The M-14 is a superior battle weapon. I have fired many rounds through both. But then I know how to shoot, and it made no difference to me what I was shooting, as long as I knew what it was I was shooting at.

I didn’t read the Shotgun News story, but in 1963 when the USAF started buying the M-16, we were a long ways away from women being in combat.

Body armor was being upgraded throughout the world, and the USAF use of the M-2 carbine with it’s small bullet and a muzzle speed of 1900 fps wasn’t cutting the mustard. Air force mp’s and AF people with jobs like mine were told we were getting the new weapons. But they were about a year off. I normally carried a .45 acp, mine was built by Springfield Arms, was very tight and accurate. My people were pretty much not interested in a M-2 Carbine slung over our shoulder, what with all we were required to do, so we picked the .45’s

I entered the USAF in June of 1960. Therefore I was involved in a lot of Vietnam pre-staging. At the time I was fully invested in what the government was doing, I followed orders, received some great training in arms, munitions and explosives (I loved blowing things up). Also I had a T.S. clearance and knew something of every weapon in AF inventory, though my specialty was “special weapons,” big ones, that cause a lot of damage.

I found the Church while on Okinawa, and decided that military life wasn’t my thing, so after four years, in 1964, I left the USAF spent some time at home and went on a mission to Central America. It was while in Central America I started seeing and hearing things that just didn’t make sense.

My mission president knew I was former military, so he didn’t say much about my keeping track of the war effort. But stories I was reading from U.S. News and World Report were not making sense to me. I knew what weapons we had, such as TV guided bombs, yet we were flying groups of F 105 Thunderchiefs in WW II formations with full bomb loads over targets that should have required a single TV guided bomb, in the process we were losing planes and pilots, pilots I knew personally, for what I considered very stupid reasons. I become pretty upset. My mission president helped me a lot, pointing out passages in the scripture that helped me understand the whys and wherefores of warfare! He also counseled me to work harder to understand the complete truths of Salvation, and learn to more fully trust the Lord! I did so, I owe him a lot.

My C.O. on Okinawa had retired to Utah while I was in Central America, upon completing my mission I returned home, called him, and went to visit him at his home. After normal pleasantries, I ask him about what was happening in Vietnam, reminding him of what we both knew to be true about our military weapons capabilities, and ask why those weapons were not being used in Vietnam.---I received a revelation!

Vietnam was being used as a weapons system test bed, old weapons being re-evaluated and new weapons systems being brought on line also being evaluated in combat conditions. My Col. informed me we could easily end the war in one day, using only conventional weapons we already had in inventory. We could easily close the Ho Chi Ming trail by bombing one bridge over a deep chasm, We could bomb one single dam that would wash out the trail and make it impassable for at least a year.

Because he was the commander of a munitions squadron, he received evaluation reports of munitions used in combat, and was required to keep a close accounting of munitions in inventory. It didn’t take him long to realize what was happening. Men were being lost, good men, and he couldn’t stomach it anymore, and since he could do nothing about it, he retired.

Now we’re in another period of war. Our troops being trained in “urban” combat, why? Weapons are again being evaluated. We didn’t stop North Vietnam from supplying their troops in the South, Now we can’t seem to be able to stop outside influences from supporting Iraqi insurgence. Same ol crap! But now I understand the complete truths of Salvation, now I understand why things are happening the way they are. Now I have complete trust in the Lord, and know he’ll handle it. And I even know how!

Bob

Simply stated war is largely for profiteering.

Which rifle is better? Which rifle would you choose? It is hard to answer such questions without running the risk of offending someone. We become very attached to our hardware sometimes, and that attachment increases with the dollar value we place on it.

However, to not look at this question, would be shirking responsibility to those who have asked me. I want to begin by saying I have no axe to grind with any weapon system. A gun is like a tool to me, not an heirloom. If it does not do the job it was intended for well, it is useless to me. Similarly, if there is a better tool that does the same job, I am not attached to any system irrevocably.

Lets look at what these rifles were intended for. First and foremost, they are bred for fighting. They were not designed for sport, nor hunting, nor anything else other than fighting. The concept began in WW2 with the German designed StG-44. Called the “Sturm Gewehr”, or storm gun, the StG-44 was years ahead of its time, and was battle proven in the crucible of the Eastern Front.

There were those who went against established doctrine and knew that the future of combat lay not in the long range engagements of WW1, but rather in close range fights as had been seen at the conclusion of the war in the European Theatre. These forward thinkers knew infantry engagements happened inside of 100 yards, and sought to provide weapons that provided the features needed to prevail in those environments. Namely light weight, capacity for high volume of fire, and an intermediate cartridge.

In the west, the Garand was exchanged for the M-14, and the FAL, both in 7.62x51. Weapons with characteristics similar to the Storm Gun, but firing a full size cartridge. On the other side of the world, Mikhail Kalashnikov developed the AK-47 series of rifles. To make a long story short, the nations of the west saw a need to embrace the Storm gun concept and an air crew survival rifle designed by Gene Stoner, called the Armalite AR-15, was adopted for use as a first line fighting rifle.

Today, partly due to marketing, and partly due to the demise of the liberal’s “Assault Weapon Ban”, we have two very prominent weapon systems available to the American public. On the one end, we have the AR-15/M4 rifles which have undergone a great deal of evolution since their first appearance. And on the other end, we have a plethora of Kalashnikov rifles made up here in the US by firms such as Arsenal, or put together by AK-smiths from US receivers and imported parts.

A head to head comparison is difficult because the weapons represent different fighting philosophies from two different nations. The M4 is an engineering marvel. It is precise as a stiletto. The Kalashnikov has been called a simpleton’s rifle more analogous to a tomahawk than a stiletto. But the question is which rifle will accomplish the mission better.
I am looking at the mission from the eyes of a private citizen. Both the AK and the AR have been proven on the battlefield, so the issue of whether they can serve a modern soldier well enough has been answered.

The private citizen will need a rifle for survival and defense in remote areas of the back country. Recently a student of mine who is also a miner related how his AK rifle had discouraged a group of illegal aliens from robbing him. Similarly a rifle will enhance the survivability in extreme situations such as riots (Los Angeles Korea Town), or during natural disasters (Katrina).

The private citizen needs a super reliable rifle that is not finicky about weather conditions, compact enough to go unseen by gun-grabbing authorities, carries enough ammo to make resupply a moot point, and is not disabled by rough handling. The cartridge should be able to have terminal effects on targets within reasonable distances and behind light cover. It should be able to punch through light cover such as automobiles.

So lets look at these points from the basis of the AR and AK.

Reliability under adverse weather conditions – The gas system of the AK is legendary, and sets the standard for reliability. The same cannot be said about the AR. We can debate how a particular AR may work without fail, but if we were to take a case of ammo and go off into the desert or swamp to shoot, and never clean the rifles, the AK would out distance the AR by a considerable margin. Will you be able to clean your rifle? I hope so. The main problem with the AR system is direct gas feed into the bolt carrier assembly causing greater degree of fouling. Will this be an issue if you can clean the rifle? I don’t think so, but theoretically the AK is more reliable with this.

Compact enough to hide – By now the excesses of certain law enforcement officers during the Katrina disaster have been well discussed. Suffice to say that in my opinion a private citizen now has to watch out for not only looters and criminals, but also for those “Us versus Them” types. The AK can be had in a variety of folding stock configurations where the total length of the folded stock rifle is approximately 25-26 inches. Such a rifle can be carried, “Cocked and Locked” so to speak, stock folded, in a camp Chair bag, or a similar sized container. Such a rifle is ready to use in an eye blink, yet concealed from view. The AR can be had with a collapsible stock, but excluding SBRs (short barreled rifles), it is considerably longer than the comparably folded AK. The AR can be broken down into two pieces to form a very compact package, but it is still just as long as the folded AK stock weapons, and now is not in a ready to use mode. If we can use such a word in regards to rifles, the AK is much more concealable than the AR.

I suppose my problem is I'm simply not going to spend $1500 to $2500 on the next generation NATO rifle. What I have is sufficient. I have fired the FAL, very nice, but somebody would have to "give" me one. I really would like to shoot the M-4, have heard a lot of good about that weapon. However, I'm simply not in the market for another weapon.---- Although, my Winchester pump kicks pretty hard when I fire slugs, and my shoulder aint what it used to be, thinking about purchasing a semi auto----but then I have my .45--- reload my own slugs, reloads don't work well in a semi-auto---hmmm, can't decide-------

I think that hunting will be doomed, even if you shot a large game animal, you'd still have to get it home-- past a lot of other hunters who "just might" be willing to let you pass with your meat, whatta ya think---

I think when all hell breaks loose, I'm staying out of the mountains. Make the bad guys come to me, like Captain Moroni did!

Bob

Full Auto Shotgun - Mil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. ... 272&page=4
__________________

.


For Whatever The Value

Wow! The only problem I see here is a 12 guage won't defeat body armor. That'd be fun to shoot!

The original post was on what to do if you can’t own a gun, live where gun laws are restrictive, or may have your guns confiscated. Bows and cross-bows ruled the battle field centuries ago and are stilled used to hunt today. You can always use them to surprise and take out a bad guy with a gun and use his. Home made guns are also an option (see my other post).
If you are allowed to own a gun I would first pick a good reliable 12 ga shotgun. They are cheaper than a rifle and pistol and can do a lot of damage with the added benefit of being very intimidating. If you scare the bad guys away that is better than resorting to killing. Some may deserve it but others may not. After a shotgun get a good hand gun. Easy to carry and will defend you and your family in a pinch. Shotguns and pistols are defined as defensive weapons (but can be used in an offensive situation) a rifle is defined as an offensive weapon (but also may be used to defend yourself).
There are as many opinions on which type of rifle to get as there are gun owners as you can see from the above posts. As for me I am a WWII history buff/war gamer, so I bought an M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and a 1911 45 cal pistol. My Garand is scoped for my long shots. I turned my Carbine into a “Scout Rifle” by having it chambered for the .45 Win Mag (300 gr HP 1800fps out the muzzle). It has an Eotech sight, & fiberglass stock. Very light but with a big punch. I also have a Rem 870 12 ga, folding stock, 8 round extended mag.
How long I will be able to keep my guns I don’t know. They could even be “stolen” from my home. Dang I hate it when that happens! I also have a couple of junk guns, just in case, when gun grabbers come by.

Dalton, we think a lot alike. In my past I have looked at a .45acp carbine, had the chance to purchase a Marlin Camp carbine in .45 acp, but turned it down. Now I'm kicking myself. My truck gun is a High Point .45 acp. I havent been able to understand why people dislike High Points, mine shoots just fine. However High Point is coming out with a carbine in .45acp, I'm going to look hard at that one.

Bob

Bob, I thought about buying a 45 Marlin Camp too, but having 2 carbines of differing ammo didn’t make sense. I’ve heard both pro and con on the Marlin and Hi-point carbines. In their favor, they are relatively inexpensive to buy and shoot, light and have good stopping power in the .45 cal. I remember doing research on the web and found a site that suggested improvements on the Marlin Camp to make it more reliable. I don’t remember where I found it though, sorry.

This is for those unfamiliar with guns:
There are two theories on stopping power. When I say stopping power I mean the bad guy falls down and doesn’t get up. As I understand it the energy of a bullet is derived from its speed and mass. The more energy of the bullet the more likely the bad guy stays down. In the good ol’ days of black powder they liked the big and slow projectiles. .60 cal 324 gr round balls travelling 1247 fps. Relatively slow compared to our modern ammunition. The big and slow philosophy became passé during the Viet Nam War when the M-16 came out with a .22 cal 55 gr bullet traveling 2,700 fps. Small and fast. These were designed to be lighter rounds so that more can be carried and thus more lead thrown at the bad guys. Also if a bad guy is killed his buddies would leave him until the action was over to recover his remains. If only wounded though his buddies will naturally desire to help him back to the rear and thus take three bad guys out of action instead of just one, the rest wanting revenge. The problem with small and fast type is that if a bone is not hit you get over penetration and the round continues down range and expends its energy beyond the target and not in it and hopefully not hitting one of the good guys. On the other hand if a bone is hit with the small and fast rounds then it will ricochet off of the bone, bounce around, and cause all sorts of mayhem within the bad guys. The big and slow rounds will hit the bad guys, make little holes in front and big holes in back and a big tunnel in between. Our Special Forces boys in Mogadishu were frustrated with the inability of the .223 to knock the crazy bad guys down so larger cal AR-15s and M4s were designed. There’s the .50 cal Beowolf firing a 400 gr soft point 1800 fps and the .458 SOCOM firing a 300 gr bullet at 1900 fps. Plenty enough to knock the bad guys down but very expensive to purchase and to fire with each round costing over a dollar each. That’s why I like my .45 Win Mag carbine. Small, light, but will make sure the bad guys don’t function after getting hit.

P.S. It goes without saying I don’t want to be hit by the 223. It’s just that I don’t know what the bad guy is going to do while he bleeds to death.
.

Dalton,

I have wondered why the military doesnt use .223 hollow points, keeping all that energy in the body is the key. I mentioned before that my boys and I use .308 130 grain hollow points on deer. When hit they're dead!

I like the .45acp. my favorite round. My number two son likes his .45 long colt, but he's into revolvers. I choose the acp because in a pinch I can quiet it down!

Bob

bobhenstra wrote:Dalton,

I have wondered why the military doesnt use .223 hollow points, keeping all that energy in the body is the key.

Bob

Maybe they would be less likely to pierce body armour. Just a guess. Or, it may be against Geneva Conventions. I am not sure, but I think I have heard something about that.

I know glass projectiles are not allowed. Our troop handlers told us in School of Infantry not to put glass beer bottles in front of Claymores, wink wink. I guess x-ray machines can't pick up the glass very well. If we end up fighting a guerrila war in the US, I think the Geneva Conventions won't mean a thing. I was also told that we never signed on to them, however we supposedly have respected them anyway. Like I said, I don't know that for a fact-it is just something I have heard.

They don't use anything but FMJ because the object isn't to kill, it is to wound. A wounded soldier takes himself and two medics out of action, instead of just himself if he is killed. Hence the retreat from the more powerful M-14 to the weaker M-16.

Hmmm, Ithink, have you been in the military? That's an old husbands tale. The object is to kill the enemy, not wound him. In a firefight you don't pass by wounded enemy, you make sure they are unable to shoot you in the back.

The Russians load their 7.62X39 in hollow points.

I'm pretty sure that "expanding" bullets are banned by some treaty, the Hague Convention I think. So, the traditional hollow points, designed to expand, are banned. However, the snipers use a 175 grain hollow point that is designed to maximize the ballistic coefficient, not expand, and that is apparently ok.

Not sure if the Russians follow the Hague Convention.

Expanding bullets greatly increase the terminal effects of a bullet. The internet wisdom says that .223 is a marginal round for deer hunting. But I've used .223 soft points, and they are very effective.

deleted.

Hey, Bob. As I understand it Hollow Points are not used in the military because they are against the Geneva Convention. They have some pretty weird rules. You can burn the enemy with napalm or shred them with a grenade but hollow points are bad.

Silence is Golden. I love my 1911.

jbalm, I just looked it up and you are correct. In the 1st Hague Convention of 1899 it prohibits the use of bullets designed to "flatten or fragment" when it hits the target. Even though the US is not a signatory to the treaty we still follow it's restrictions out of diplomatic courtesy. I still say dead is dead no matter by wich means. If we get a World Government I doubt that it will follow the Conventions.

jbalm wrote: The internet wisdom says that .223 is a marginal round for deer hunting. But I've used .223 soft points, and they are very effective.

It used to be illegal to hunt deer in Utah with .223, though I think it is legal now. They are probably alright for small Pacific coast deer and maybe thin skinned white tails. Someone once told me it was legal somewhere to hunt deer with .22lr. Must be small deer to be able to make a humane kill with .22lr. Sometimes I will score what I thought was a decent hit on a jackrabbit with .22lr and it doesn't even put it down with the first shot.

Really, I think varmint cartridges aught to be left for varmints. I like my 30-06 with 150g bullets for deer. Even 30 short would be better than .223 in my opinion. Boy, am I opening a can or worms here, or what?!?

Vincent, it's all in he who squeezes the trigger! The .223 is sufficient. At times we have used .22 LR's to clean the deer out of orchards. The critters can do a lot of damage, can destroy a whole crop of fruit just by nibbling off the buds. The Wildlife resources people used to furnish us with ammo because they didn't want to be bothered. Now, our little town is getting much bigger, and complaints have stopped us from shooting. So now we use crossbows.

bobhenstra wrote:it's all in he who squeezes the trigger! The .223 is sufficient. At times we have used .22 LR's to clean the deer out of orchards. The critters can do a lot of damage, can destroy a whole crop of fruit just by nibbling off the buds. The Wildlife resources people used to furnish us with ammo because they didn't want to be bothered. Now, our little town is getting much bigger, and complaints have stopped us from shooting. So now we use crossbows.

You are right, marksmanship has a lot to do with making a humane kill.

DWR used to give my grandad m-80s until the neighbors started to complain 8) . He had a basinji that took down one deer by clamping on its throat until it died. I know a deer can be killed with a .22lr. I have heard of Inuits using small calibers for taking caribou. However, I don't think most people who hunt once a year and sight in their rifle once a year before the hunt should use something so small. I think a lot of people are like that.

I suppose a .223 would have killed the deer I shot this year. My shot shattered it's neck vertebra and it fell in its tracks. It was standing toward me, looking at me through some trees and underbrush. I aimed for a neck shot to preserve its skull and antlers.

The silly thing could have run away because my first shot misfired, or rather failed to fire. It was a load I did with some Federal primers that seem to be too hard. I recocked the rifle and the cartridge fired the second time I squeezed the trigger. I'll have to save those primers for reloading for my surplus rifles with heavy primer springs.

Oh man, you fired that round?? Are you aware that you could have sent that round to the manufacture of the primer, they would have sent you a coupon for one thousand primers of your choice, we, my kids and I, have done that twice! But then you'd have probable missed the deer!

Well, the .223 works well on the Michigan white tails (the ones in southern Mich. eat corn and alfalfa all year long--best tasting venison ever). And, in Mich., you usually hunt in the woods, so you generally don't have long shots and its pretty easy to get a clean kill.

I don't suppose I'd use the .223 on a mule deer at 200 yds.

teen girl -on the AR-15- we need her

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A most unvelieveable video, this young girl field strips an AR 15 and puts it back together - with function check, in 53 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irykjLju ... r_embedded