Your chosen 'MinuteMan' rifle....

Horse Soldier said:

In what way is an overweight, slower handling weapon with overweight ammunition and a small practical basic load superior to an AK or M4? Target acquisition and successful engagements on the battlefield are pretty much just statistical static past 300 meters on real battlefields (they seem to be much easier shots in Militia fantasies for some reason), so what purpose does a weapon firing a round that compromises <300 meter performance to get longer range performance really serve?

Click to expand...

Better cover penetration, more immediate incapacitation, versatility of range, better for hunting if necessary...and battlefields have indeed changed. If for whatever some fantasy siege of whatever entity was attacking, it may happen in an urban environment with lots of cover, cars, light buildings, etc. - think Iraq. Even rurally there is plenty to hide behind. And a .223 just doesn't cut it in a lot of cases.

Bottom line, it's harder to hide from a .308 than a .223. Those "overweight, slower handling weapons" such as the FAL seem to be just fine for the over 90 countries that have employed them as their main service rifle.

Mossberg ATR-100 (.30-06)... never jams, never will.
Remington 870 - 12 gauge.

What would be the benefits of carrying .223 or 5.45x39? In a SHTF scenario you could carry alot of ammunition compared to a gun that shoots the heavier 7.62x51, or even 7.62x39.

Better cover penetration, more immediate incapacitation, versatility of range, better for hunting if necessary...and battlefields have indeed changed. If for whatever some fantasy siege of whatever entity was attacking, it may happen in an urban environment with lots of cover, cars, light buildings, etc. - think Iraq. Even rurally there is plenty to hide behind. And a .223 just doesn't cut it in a lot of cases.

Click to expand...

So your logic is to spend the maybe 100 round basic load you've got shooting blind into cover without positively identifying or locating your target . . .

And you're wanting to do this on a battlefield that will likely have non-combatants who are your friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens on it.

Bottom line, it's harder to hide from a .308 than a .223. Those "overweight, slower handling weapons" such as the FAL seem to be just fine for the over 90 countries that have employed them as their main service rifle.

Click to expand...

Smoothbore muskets were just fine for the multitude of nations that employed them as well, but no one is advocating their use. The magazine fed, bolt action rifle turned the world of military weapons on its ear, as well, but no one would feel well armed on a modern battlefield with a SMLE or M1903.

I like the FAL enough that I own two of them, but it's a decidedly inferior fighting rifle, due to the caliber, alongside weapons firing rounds like 5.56mm or 7.62x39. Proof of this would be well provided by the fact that almost none of the 90 nations that adopted that rifle in the 50s and 60s still use it today -- having replaced it with rifles chambered for true intermediate calibers. The only people still using it are too poor to lay hands on an assault rifle.

Just wait, a bunch of people will show up saying they'd rather have the bolt action.

Horse Soldier said:

So your logic is to spend the maybe 100 round basic load you've got shooting blind into cover without positively identifying or locating your target . . .

And you're wanting to do this on a battlefield that will likely have non-combatants who are your friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens on it.

Click to expand...

No...no, that's not my prerogative. You do have to use intelligence when handling a firearm and aiming at a target. If I have to describe it in detail so you don't get outlandish ideas, then I suppose I will have to. Sigh...

If 3 guys are firing at you and taking cover behind a car at 30 yards, you may not be able to successfully hit them when they pop up if you're pinned down; and on the same token, may not be able to penetrate the body of the car to hit them to stop the fight. God, I hate having to have even typed out that scenario to explain it.

We are not talking about firing blindly into houses in suburbia to hit an enemy. We're talking about cover penetration once the target(s) have been identified and we're sure of what's behind it. Like I said, you have to use intelligence and judgement.

Now let's get back on topic, lest the mods smite us.

It has been my experience with modern automobiles that, unless you are hiding directly behind the engine block, they are piss-poor cover. Even handgun rounds will shoot through them.
Where you live may be different, but around here there are surprisingly few fortresses. The somewhat better penetration offered by 7.62 NATO and equivalent cartridges isn't as valuable to me as a greater ammo load with intermediate cartridges.
I also figure that civilization isn't going to collapse permanently and I'll quite likely have to answer for anybody I shot; either deliberately or due to over penetration.

Mine would either be my M44 or my K31, but I'm leaning towards the M44

This:

or this:

or this even, depending on the situation

AMP, I'm sorry to saythis and no offense to you or your views, but I don't like that Garand repro much.

But that's just coming from someone who is a traditionalist/purist.

I see where Clint is a "Minute Man," ... well, in an old-school 30.06 sorta of way ...

If 3 guys are firing at you and taking cover behind a car at 30 yards, you may not be able to successfully hit them when they pop up if you're pinned down; and on the same token, may not be able to penetrate the body of the car to hit them to stop the fight. God, I hate having to have even typed out that scenario to explain it.

Click to expand...

I don't know how many cars you've shot, but the ones I've shot were mostly concealment, not cover, from 5.56mm as well as 7.62x51 (and 7.62x39 for that matter). Like Joe Demko noted, I wouldn't take my chances on a car effectively stopping handgun rounds, much less anything coming out of a rifle unless it was deliberately built to be much more frangible than an FMJ 5.56mm round.

For that matter, have you ever tried having a buddy put witness panels of some sort behind cover or concealment and seeing if you can reliably score hits on targets you can't see but sort of know where they might be? Make it real interesting and put a couple bad guys in place and a good guy target further behind them and see how many times you kill a little old lady caught in the crossfire while probing for the bad guys. A lot of this Minuteman Militia discussion, especially the "militia need an MBR" stuff is just fantasy and repetition of poorly thought out dogma.

If any of this stuff made sense in the real world it would seem like we could point out this or that guerrilla group who preferred battle rifles sometime in the last 50 years but universally the preference seems to be for some sort of assault rifle if there is a choice. Now maybe this is because guys who've been fighting for their entire adult lives in obscure corners of the 3rd World don't know as much about combat and what works on the battlefield as middle class Americans who get out to shoot from the bench at their local range a few times a year, but it is possible they know a thing or two about the exact sort of scenario we're describing and draw very different conclusions from their first hand experience.

All I'm saying is my preference is a .308. It's what I'm comfortable with. The AR type rifle is handy dandy, it's just not my thing. I wouldn't sneeze at one if it were my only choice, and I'm not out to change your mind...it's just my preference.

That's all.

Calico M951S. You can store the loaded mags indefinitely

to all you 30cal guys,how much ammo do you think you can carry,I've got 500rds of 7.62x39 in a can,and i tell you, your not going to lug that around very far, a gun without ammo is a club..........5.56 is accurate out to 600 yards..and what rifle would I take.IIIii just pick up what ever lying around

What's with all this theoretical ammo humping? Do working vehicles all of a sudden stop working in this fantasy? Do you plan on marching across the country?

Unless you go intentionally looking for a fight, 120 rounds should be more than sufficient in most cases on foot...and if you're expecting that much trouble, like I said, you better bring a lot more ammo in some way like a vehicle, or not go there at all.

i can see it now Dday drives up to the front rolls down the window shoots needs to reload so he takes a time out wile he go's to his trunk to reload lol ps 120 rounds in a fire fight,really

The front? Fire fight? You planning to go to war, or what? My priority would be to avoid confrontation unless I had allies with me. You can have a 1,000 rounds of ammo, but if you're outnumbered, all the ammo in the worldn't isn't gonna save you.

I'd grab this my Dragunov Tigr 7.62x54r:


seeing as it's either that or my Rem 597 .22lr.

And I'd grab some of this:






Then I'd run into the bush and eat grass, soil, pinecones and stuff. Living off the land, Mmm yum.

Indoors close range, my Browning HP 9mm.
In the open, my SKS type 56.

well doesn't look like i posted here thought i did but i guess not.

my rifle of choice is my springfield standard M1A with a ultimak M8 rail and 2x aimpoint on it and 10 20rd mags

my pistol would have to be my kimber Tle/Rl2 with 6 10rd mags

my shotgun would have to be my mossberg 930spx

and last but not least for those reach out and touch some one moments i would pick my savage model 12Bvss in its choate ultimate sniper stock and 16x super sniper scope in leopold mounts

agtman, that pic should say, "Get off my lawn."

I don't know if I posted here, but I would take my 1911 and a 3030(cause its my only centerfire) If I had an AR I would take that.
I do think the 223/308 argument is silly. Unless we would be going on some huge patrol the ammo weight would be bearable, remember we don't have all the armor and other gear that soilders have to carry. Plus since we're most likley using semis 150-200 rds should be more then enough.
I personally have carried 120rds 3030 in addition to a 40lb pack and it was doable. Again though I would choose the AR cause more bullets are never a bad thing

My choice is personally my highly customized M&P 5.56 but hell you cant argue with the venerable 06' round fired from a Garand. Would love to have one but I keep all weapons in my stable 1 of 4 calibers for ease of ammunition storage.
scott

If any of this stuff made sense in the real world it would seem like we could point out this or that guerrilla group who preferred battle rifles sometime in the last 50 years but universally the preference seems to be for some sort of assault rifle if there is a choice. Now maybe this is because guys who've been fighting for their entire adult lives in obscure corners of the 3rd World don't know as much about combat and what works on the battlefiel

Click to expand...

This is to totally ignore the fact that the vast majority of these so-called guerrilla groups were financed and supplied by other governments, who did it for there own politically expedient reasons. Since, by definition they were expendable, these guerrillas were not supplied with "the very best equipment regardless of cost." To use this as a basis for choosing say an AK is to try to make a virtue out of a necessity.

Having said that I think one could make a case for the AR as a good minuteman rifle. But the success of the original minutemen, and the possible success of the contemporary equivalent would be predicated on aimed fire. One can not rely on simple fire superiority, like the regular army, which might justify the AR and a higher combat load of total rounds. For that reason, I'd stick with the M14 (LRB Tanker in my case). 7.62 is more versatile than 5.56, and is still in the NATO and USArmy pipeline. The unorganized militia isn't going to win a stand and slug it out firefight, so accuracy, distance and penetration is more important, than simple rounds-down-range IMO.