|
Post by panzer0170 on Jul 3, 2015 9:53:14 GMT -5
Ok, I can't help but to chime go back in... I still don't get this enthusiasm for the 308 that been gaining traction again lately among people whose judgement I generally respect. yes its a great performing round that is still affordable (barely) but a fundamental truism in acquisition is to buy the lightest most affordable piece of kit that will do the job. (When you don't follow this truism you do whats called "gold plating") In other words you don't ask "whats the biggest bang I can afford and still carry in operational quantities?" but you ask "What is the cheapest/lightest caliber that can accomplish my mission?" . I think this point is fundamental and how you ask the question will lead you to the right answer. That's why its important to examine your Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and seperate the must-have capabilities, from the nice-to-haves. When engaging humans, not hunting game, this examination is straightforward: Effects: Humans are physically weak enough that even the healthy adult male (your greatest threat) is significantly affected/killed by 5.56 ........... and distances: Until afghanistan 90% (!) of Infantry Combat occured at less than 100 yards and if/when we fight in CONUS with our common woods and conurbanization It will be the same again... I really dont see a role for 308 as a standard combat rifle,outside of the desert west and perhaps those who live in the rural plains. Now when you have a squad size element should 2 guys maybe have a more powerful caliber to present yourself with extra capabilities and an opponent with an additional and distinct threat set? Absolutely.. but as standard rifle for the bulk of my team . no. (That's not even counting the fact that we all have to pay for our own training ammo.. training is critical some of us shoot 1000rds a month and 223/556 is half the price of 308) I get the point of 'What's the biggest bang/buck ratio' idea, and I definitely see where you're coming from. But then looking at any situation when anyone is in a fight ever, no one ever goes 'Well, I could have just had a section of rifles rather than use that GPMG.' or 'Well, we didn't really need air support, we could have just fought through the position'. Both of which would work. Your points about 7.62 and cost etc are valid, but about carrying loads of ammo I would disagree; If you feel the need to carry loads of ammo, why? You're not an infanteer surpressing someone. You can't afford to waste the ammo. Perhaps smarter training and that cost might make people train better, and conserve ammo. It might make them use what they have more effectively. It's a pretty given thing that if you have loads spare you will waste a lot because 'we have loads spare'. I know that's not what the article says, but it's just another viewpoint towards the why and wherefore of it. I myself would go 5.56 purely out of desire for a bullpup, and the fact that any of the not-ancient 7.62 rifles seem to be a bit 'mreh' when it comes to reliability. I dunno. I think if I was going to carry a 'full sized' rifle (standard config, 16 or so inch barrel) then I'd probably want it to have punch, too (in my experience, AR15 variants are lighter than bullpups, but feel heavier because of weight distribution). Naturally, if one of you is carrying one calibre why don't we all? Perhaps x39 IS the sweet middle ground... except if you're an 'AR Guy' you won't want to relearn a weapons system. No one way is right, or wrong. They just have difference focusses and features. Terrain is going to be key, and a lot of the guys talking about 7.62 are outdoorsy living folk, not urban/suburban dwellers. All things add up to an opinion one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by DeadeyeD on Jul 3, 2015 11:32:53 GMT -5
There's only one person I've seen advocate the ridiculous notion of arming the whole team with the 7.62N/308's in the Blogosphere. If we use a six man team (the NPT I teach) as an example, Commo has his own special load to deal with, and will carry 5.56, or 7.62S. The medic is in the same boat, and will carry an assault rifle, not a battle rifle. Leadership (TL, ATL) generally don't do as much shooting, and if they want to carry a 308 battle rifle, fine, but I would recommend an assault rifle. That leads us to the two men left. At least one should carry a 308 battle rifle, but in keeping with the buddy team mantra I recommend, I would say both, and each of the other team members would carry at least two spare mags for their 308 systems (should be the same system). I recommend the 308 more from a Survivalist standpoint, than a "militia" standpoint. It is an all around better cartridge for the tasks that it would be called upon in the scenarios that Survivalists would face.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Jul 3, 2015 11:43:41 GMT -5
See, in my head, about all you can garuantee is 2 peoples as a 'squad', so on that basis both of you having .308 is a better choice than one having 5.56 and the other .308. Everyone did fine when .308 was predominant: I don't think it's SO crazy for everyone to have .308. Especially as in more remote areas survivalism and militia activities have somewhat of an overlap potential.
I'd still probably wan't 5.56, because it's familiar.
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on Jul 3, 2015 11:56:26 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure nobody has said the whole group should have .308s, did I miss that part? Not sure what that statement has to do w/ my point or why you think I was responding to you. The OP started a discussion about a 7.62x52/308 as primary weapons system. That is what my reply was too. No reason to get defensive. Easy dude, nobody was getting defensive. My understanding of the thread topic was that one guy in the group carries a .308 in a heavier hitting role. Not that everyone carries a .308 unless everyone in the group agrees on it.
|
|
|
Post by DeadeyeD on Jul 3, 2015 14:17:46 GMT -5
The primary reason I teach more buddy team classes than any other, is due to my belief that that's probably all you have a guarantee of, is a buddy.
|
|
|
Post by DeadeyeD on Jul 3, 2015 20:50:31 GMT -5
BTW, Older folks, children, men of small stature, and most females carrying 5.56 or 7.62S, is in my mind, a no brainer. The 308/7.62N is a better overall survival cartridge, but you have to be able to carry, manipulate, and handle the recoil of the weapon you carry. If you can't, what's the point?
|
|
|
Post by hudson5969 on Jul 4, 2015 19:13:05 GMT -5
Though I would think that you'd pick the AK-74, if picking the lightest and cheapest was the way to go. The rifles weigh about the same, the magazine cost a bit more, but how many do you really need to buy before equaling out the cost of the rifles, and 7N6 is still available and cheaper by 5.56 by a good margin, and even a bit less than 7.62x39.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Jul 5, 2015 5:27:09 GMT -5
Though I would think that you'd pick the AK-74, if picking the lightest and cheapest was the way to go. The rifles weigh about the same, the magazine cost a bit more, but how many do you really need to buy before equaling out the cost of the rifles, and 7N6 is still available and cheaper by 5.56 by a good margin, and even a bit less than 7.62x39. I think perhaps the trick there, for a LOT of guys, is familiarity. Especially if you're coming to it mid-thirties with prior military service. Learn a whole new weapons system, or rock the AR-15? I'll be spending more than I have to, to get a Tavor/X95 (I fucking hope they make a non mil/LE sales version...) because standard configuration rifles feel all clusterfucky to me, whereas I can operate a bullpup eyes closed. Is it 100% cost effective and logical? No. But it's also hard as all hell to fight human nature and habit and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by hudson5969 on Jul 5, 2015 8:03:44 GMT -5
That's my point, when we really look at it, there's more to the equation than "cheapest and lightest."
|
|
|
Post by DeadeyeD on Jul 5, 2015 11:01:16 GMT -5
Although I understand the "Cheapest and lightest" mindset, I'm more about "Reliable and effective". The 5.56, especially in the 62gr. green tip, is not a very effective cartridge, especially against non body armor wearing enemy (look it up). I only use 55gr FMJ in my AR's (Yes, I have AR's for myself, my children and Girlfriend), and understand the original intent and "Design for effectiveness" that the AR15 was supposed to fit, and did have. Ask my friend Bergmann about the effectiveness of the 5.45, he used one to kill a charging grizzly. Personally, if your reason for using the AR is prior military training and familiarity, that's fine. But saying I'm going with the cheapest, and lightest (ammo) is ridiculous premise for something that is supposed to save your life, when you have no back up for resupply (you should want efficient effectiveness). Ammoman.com today has .223/5.56 on average of $.27 a rnd per thousand, the 7.62S is $.23 a rnd, and the 5.45 is $.25 a rnd (the .308 is usually twice the .223 cost). AR's are averaging $800 for a rifle. .30 cal AKM are averaging around $550, and Ak74 are averaging $600. Mags are averaging $8-25 for AR 30rnders, $7-20 for AKM's, and AK74's are $7-15 for 30 or 40 rnders. The AR is generally more ergonomic and accurate (not always) than the AK type rifle. The AK is, and always has been more reliable, and is less of a logistics "bitch" than the AR. Anyone that says the AR is as reliable as an AK is either ignorant of realistic facts and testing, or too much of an AR fanboy to admit their prejudice. I run AR's AK's and the M1A (SOCOM) interchangeably, but my "Go to" rifle is the SOCOM for the reasons listed in the article. Our purpose as Survivalists, isn't wounding the enemy (one of the original reasons the 5.56 was adopted), it is to efficiently (most bang for the buck, but more importantly, per shot) kill the bad guys trying to hurt those we Love. The .308 is a more effective killer than the 5.56, and simple ballistics tell us this. As far as what your ammo load/weight is, well, I carry one 50 rnd drum (ruck), and nine 20rnders in my gear for my M1A's. I have 150 rounds on strippers in my ruck, for a total of 400 rounds. I carry nine 30's and a 75 rnd drum (ruck) for my AKMS in my gear, and 200 rounds on strippers in my ruck, for a total of 500 rnds for the AK. I carry eleven 30's on my gear for the AR, and 140 rounds on strippers in my ruck, for a total of 500 rounds. Don't ask me what the weight difference is, because I don't know or care (I know the AK rig is the heaviest). I carry what I need to, to fit the situation/scenario I find myself in. If you can only have one rifle, there's nothing wrong with it being a 5.56 AR, but don't try to sugarcoat the facts of real effectiveness, versus implied savings and more ammo carrying potential (spray and pray ability). It's a "Dying" argument.
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Jul 5, 2015 12:09:38 GMT -5
Non-online availability is what spurred me to move away from the 5.45 AK. Yes, one could buy an s-ton of 7n6, and stockpile it and/or make caches, but 5.56 can be found just about anywhere firearms and ammo are sold in the US, not to mention the .gov and many local agencies making use of it. I'd also like a 7.62 AK, to maintain familiarity with the pattern of rifle, and some .308 semi-auto in the future, for the reasons DeadeyeD details, aside from me just wanting one period, but that's a distant future, and I had to prioritize better than I was before I got an 5.56 AR.
DeadeyeD, would an 18" M1A be a good "comprise" barrel length, if one would only be able to have one of the particular pattern of rifle for the foreseeable future?
Please, Bergmann, tell us the bear vs. 5.45 story?! (In another thread if you prefer.)
|
|
|
Post by DeadeyeD on Jul 5, 2015 16:12:12 GMT -5
Yup, Omnivorous, the 18" is the best compromise, but if I could only have one, it would be the full length rifle. I agree with the availability of 5.56 being optimal in the US for a "Go to", available assault rifle cartridge, that, and the logistics available, size, weight, and ergonomics are the reason I bought AR's for my kids (small of stature when I bought the rifles in '08) and Girlfriend, and own a few myself. As far as Bergmann's bear, click here and go a third of the way down. www.the-edelweiss-never-quits.net/
|
|
protus
Junior Member
Posts: 323
|
Post by protus on Jul 6, 2015 10:07:03 GMT -5
""" I carry what I need to, to fit the situation/scenario I find myself in........"""
I agree with ya on that..... But in the end we can only carry so much... Mission dictates load.
|
|
|
Post by DeadeyeD on Jul 6, 2015 18:34:37 GMT -5
I agree Protus, it does dictate, but at the same time, there are basic minimums (I'm not a "Minimalist" by anyone's stretch of the imagination, LOL). My rule of thumb is a minimum of three (prefer at least six) extra mags for my rifle, and for every hour driving time from home I am I add one (prefer two) mag. For a patrol scenario, I won't carry less than six, and usually settle on 8 extra mags for a 7.62N, or 10 with a 5.56.
|
|
protus
Junior Member
Posts: 323
|
Post by protus on Jul 7, 2015 4:25:54 GMT -5
Drive time kinda doesn't play an active role on my end(but nit something I've overlooked) . For me its 6 mags (4 on rig 2 on belt) with 3 more at minimum in the patrol pack.as a standard base. My days of lugging 8 x51 mags and a 12+lb mbr are over...could still do it but don't. That combo is regulated to static op/LP work.....
|
|