AK/AR, and a whole load of questions.

[currahee]

I'm a big believer in "it's indian not the arrow" It really doesn't make a diff. I would rather see parts and ammo availability/compatibility than pick a particular rifle. The AR has that, in spades, in the US.

That being said the AR has the AK beaten hands down in accuracy and ergonomics, the AK has the AR beaten in simplicity. Ergonomics can be trained around, I can teach any illiterate to use and maintain an AK in 1/2 hour- high end performance, blindfolded mag changes and such are going to take a lot longer with an AK.

[eddiewouldclearhot]

May 14, 2014 16:46:04 GMT -5 currahee said:

I'm a big believer in "it's indian not the arrow" It really doesn't make a diff. I would rather see parts and ammo availability/compatibility than pick a particular rifle. The AR has that, in spades, in the US.

This is what I was trying to say earlier, Currahee said it better.

Someone once told me: "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics." I think that is a very applicable paradigm when thinking about this stuff in the context of WROL/SHTF.

[USMC0331]

Logistics without trained Indians equals a lot of gear queers.

If you go look at most posts at other forums you will find that logistics make up 90% of the conversations and training is limited to a SQ range mentality, tactics are not considered, let alone tested.

I'd say the saying is ass backwards. Professionals study tactics, armatures worry about what tools (logistics) they will carry them out with.


Spell checked by iPhone

[currahee]

May 14, 2014 19:52:37 GMT -5 USMC0331 said:

Logistics without trained Indians equals a lot of gear queers.

If you go look at most posts at other forums you will find that logistics make up 90% of the conversations and training is limited to a SQ range mentality, tactics are not considered, let alone tested.

I'd say the saying is ass backwards. Professionals study tactics, armatures worry about what tools (logistics) they will carry them out with.


Spell checked by iPhone

I am one of the biggest proponents of training vs gear queering on the internet. So, let me qualify the statement "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics," because that statement is very very true. Wars, at least every war we have ever won, are won by logistics. Logistics is the sustainability of the fight, not this rifle or that rifle (or this armor plate or that armor plate from a recent one.) Gear queering is a different matter all together. Gear queering is having a $300 helmet without enough food in your house to last a week without going to Wal-Mart. Gear queering is having 10 different "clone" ARs that don't have 200 rounds through them. Geer queering can also suggest a lack of training, but they don't necessarily go hand in hand.

The arrow not the indian? Alvin York was trained with an M1903 Springfield, he was handed an m1917 Enfield when he got to France. He was stone deadly either way. The internet would have debated endlessly about which one was best. The best one was the one all of his mates had so he could empty the dead guys bandoleers and shoot Germans.

[Erick]

I think in traditional conflicts where the various forces are assumed to all have at least a modiucm of tactical competence "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" is a true statement.

But in the case of civilian self defenders we cannot use this dictum since the environment is different.
Tactical competence is lacking but logistics ( gear) is plentiful because its fun to buy stuff.

[USMC0331]

Bluez gets my point. For a war machine it's a truth, for the average joe or "prepper" or "militia" it doesn't track.


Spell checked by iPhone

[eddiewouldclearhot]

I disagree. Doesn't matter what kind of weapon you have, it will not work without ammo. Commonality, for me anyway, is a huge consideration.

I think you kind of missed my point. Gear-queer-ery has nothing to do with it. Logistics isn't hardware, its sustainment of operations. two very different things. When given a choice, I will choose platform that I can keep sustained, then work to become proficient at it, whatever it is. In this context, ammunition, magazines, and spare parts for the AR/M4 are the easiest to come by in the US. In a situation where resupply isnt available, I want the highest chances of finding compatible ammunition and spare parts. I argue that that is the AR.

[USMC0331]

@eddie,
Hardware IS logistics. You are sustaining the troops with exactly that. We don't supply "good feelings" to the troops to sustain them.

I think you kinda missed my point which was that no one ever "arrives" at a level of proficiency that causes them to consider logistics (supply of hardware, or sustainment thereof if you wish) more important than tactics. Which jives with Currahee's comment that it's the "Indian" not the arrow that counts.

My point also is that there are a lot of guys that have done very little tactics (self included) and even less shooting of arrows but have a ton of bows in their tee-pee which I refer to as "gear-queers" because they put the hardware above training proficiency and tactics.

I would also point out that being .mil does not NECESSARILY make you a professional, even if you have been in a firefight in the sandbox anymore than having survived a defensive shooting makes you one.

[panzer0170]

@all: Sidetracked, completely, however I shall input;

Logistics is the MOVING of equipment, EQUIPMENT is the 'hardware'. For someone already trained, logistics is important.

An 'Indian' without an Arrow is going in at a MASSIVE disadvantage to the 'Indian' WITH arrows. Logistics is vital, though I do agree a lot of people focus too narrowly in their USE of logistics (Pure weaponry/LBE, rather than food, ammo, water etc...)

@usmc: 18" Barrel on a Tavor = still a shorter rifle than a 16" AR. Also; Logistics without trained 'Indians'? The Afghans, Terrorists worldwide, and Freedom fighters have been doing that since forever - And they've won some pretty big 'battles'.

@all again: 200fps = 136MPH. If a car hits you at 40mph, there's an 80% chance you'll die, if a car hits you at 30MPH, there's a 80% chance you'll live. Now granted a car is the minimum of a few hundred kilos, but 140mph extra at the muzzle DOES have an effect, maybe not in all situations and that's where we need to balance how long a barrel we require, but the question was specific to the Tavor, which is already short as hell.

@the fall guy, to get this a little bit back on topic; Flatter trajectory. Deal. And a bayonet lug. Because I am a firm believer in bayonets.

[Diz]

Back to the OP, we can, and have, chased this topic out into the weeds. I will say that within the context of a prepared citizen getting ready for come-what-may, the AR makes the most sense in this country. If you are in the Ukraine, things might be different. All weapons mentioned would make excellent choices. But take the purely technical out of it. Insert the reality of the situation. The AR platform will be the most viable choice, in terms of availability, cost, and logistic support. Not to mention battlefield pick-up.

The problem, as I see it, is we have WAY to many choices here. Usually these things are limited to what's on hand and you don't have so much choice to muddy the waters.

[panzer0170]

I am swayed towards the AR, the more I hear sensible arguments for an against, though I must admit Hawkeye and others points about my familiarity with bullpup make me consider the Tavor (seriously, I think AR ergo is WIERD, but 99.95% of my rifle experience is bullpup, and the more I think about it, this seems like a VERY key point.) And everything I do is geared towards that, and heavily influenced by the British mindset. I think perhaps changing TOO much at once is more like a step backwards. Lots to consider!

[thefallguy]

I tend to agree with the indian vs. arrow line of thinking; I would much rather have a Navy Seal armed with a 1903 at my side than a novice with an M4, in most situations. One can argue that any reliable weapon can get the job done, given the use of good tactics/strategy. However, the characteristics of an individual type of rifle still have a significant impact on the circumstances in which it can be used effectively. This is why the performance characteristics of a given weapon platform are an important consideration, at least in relevance to the needs/requirements of the user.

I think familiarity with the manual of arms, the rifle's ergonomics, the user's physical capabilities, the user's prior experience, spare parts availability/commonality (along with the tools and the ability to inspect and replace said parts), ammunition availability, ballistic performance (against both barriers and bad guys), and the most probable circumstances in which it will likely be required all need to be carefully considered when deciding on a defensive rifle.

All of those considerations lead me to settle on a 16" AR-15 and a Glock 17 as my "minuteman" firearms. They made the most sense when I finally got to the point where I put what I believe was needed above what I thought was fun or cool.

panzer0170,
I am also a firm believer in bayonets. I'm surprised how many people believe they are obsolete. Thrusting weapons are very difficult to defend against and take minimal training to be fairly effective with. I'm not saying that a bayonet is a preferred means to protect yourself against an armed attack if you have better choices, but completely disregarding such a capable tool/weapon is borderline neglectful.

[panzer0170]

Agreed. Has been used several times by the British in the last few years, and while I don't beleive in relying on psychological reasons (racking shotguns, etc) Bayonets DO have that effect, and have been proven to work. When you're ALL out, at least you have something more than your bare hands. They're usually pretty crappy as knives, but if I'm going to close to within feet of someone in a firefight (assuming I make that decision, rather than withdraw) and I have no access to grenades? I want a bayonet.

[Hawkeye]

My focused wooden nickle's worth, specifically for you Panzer, if you were here in the US, would be between a good 16" midlength AR, or a Tavor. Those would honestly be my two choices for you hands down. They would both be equal, with the AR having better parts availability, etc..., but, your long time experience with a bullpup being an equal counterweight in favor of the Tavor.

[USMC0331]

@panzer, for bull pup I would get the extra length barrel, I was referring to a standard AR. The extra length shows up as a pain quickly for house and vehicle ops. My SBR (13" OAL barrel length) is much handier as a house gun than the 16" and you can still open inward swinging doors one handed with it.


Spell checked by iPhone