Posted on 11/18/2017 6:57:29 AM PST by Simon Green
As soon as we finish building a 5.56 AR for Mrs. L I’m going to start playing with uppers in different calibers.
L
Because the deer are now carrying AK-47’s?
;^)
With my Remington 700 Short-Action .243, I can cycle the bolt and never lose my sight picture.
My son helped me build my first AR, a 6.5 Grendel, with a 24in barrel. I haven't hunted with it yet.
Wonder if a low tech bolt action is more reliable than a semiauto. Especially, in adverse environments. When accuracy and reliability are important, I’d choose a bolt action. Or a revolver, too. Same idea.
My favorite eye-rolling moment in any debate with an anti-gun activist in when they inevitably say something along the lines of “Besides, you czn’t hunt with an AR-15, there wouldn’t be anything left of the deer!”.
“Wonder if a low tech bolt action is more reliable than a semiauto.“
A Mosin Nagant is about as reliable as they come, and far more accurate than most believe.
L
The M16 is reliable. Yet for accuracy and reliability, simplicity is best IMO unless volume, lots of rounds,is important.
I do hate the use of acronyms presented without full use in the 1st mention within an article. Anybody care to enlighten me? I doubt if it is Main Stream Rifle, but I could be wrong.
The Test. Until lately, the Marines’ standard rifle was the 38-year-old war-tested Springfield, which was also the Army’s rifle until 1936. Since the Army adopted the Garand, the Marine Corps has been under pressure to do the same. The Army last week, had about as many Springfields as Garands in service, but was substituting Garands as fast as production (about 700 a day) permitted.
After boiling down results of all the tests for accuracy, ruggedness, general fitness for combat, the board rated the rifles: 1) Springfield; 2) Garand; 3) Johnson; 4) Winchester. Best that the board could say for the Garand was that it was “superior to the other semi-automatic rifles . . .”; “superior in the number of well-aimed shots that can be fired per minute”; could be quickly cleaned in the field. Sum & substance of the findings was that the Garand was a fair-weather rifle, excellent on the practice range but far from good enough for the Marines when the going got tough. The going in the test was very tough. Examples:
– The rifles were doused in mud “of light consistency.” Results: “The M-1903 [Springfield] rifle can be operated. However, the bolt became harder to operate as the test progressed. . . . The M-1 [Garand] rifles would not function and the longer an attempt was made to operate the bolt by hand the harder it became to open.”
– The board assumed “that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach.” The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired “in the normal manner.” But “the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles . . . failed this test.”
– The board assumed “that troops have landed through heavy surf sufficient to break completely over men and equipment, and immediately engage in combat on a sandy beach.” Results: both Garands failed to operate as semi-automatic rifles (i.e., reload automatically after each round). One failed completely and the firer had to hammer the bolt with a mallet; “the other operated by hand with extreme difficulty. …” The Springfields continued to work, with slight difficulty. On these salt water tests, the Garand was rated last, the Springfield first.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Carry in a pocket a few rifle rounds. A .223, a .30-06 and maybe a .300 win Mag. Ask them to pick out the AR round.
Modularity and the ability to customize to suit personal taste seems to be a strong selling point in pretty much anything.
Nice. Thanks.
No, they misspelled Mrs.
They were talking about a lineup of other peoples' wives.
The ones made by a reputable company are quite as good tools for hunters as they are defensive weapons.
I am in my sixties now, with a bunch of physical issues that are common to codgers. I used to prefer manually-operated long guns, but I will now occasionally bobble a stroke on a pump-action or hang up a lever-action... no biggie when out plinking, but not real nice if I would need that round real bad. Advantage: semiautomatics.
Most semi autos are now coming equipped with relatively painless ways to mount optics and lights, two more things I didn't need when I was in my twenties but appreciate now. Another semiautomatic advantage.
Mr. niteowl77
For us older ones, it may be a little different.
I’m too old to go big game hunting so don’t really need a super powerful rifle. I am on blood thinners and they now leave a big bruise on my shoulder that takes weeks to go away, and the possibility of a blood clot can kill you.
AR-15 or such type rifle is perfect. No bruising, the pistol grip is perfect for arthritic hands.
And it still makes the faint hearts lose bladder control to think I have one.
They probably made up MSR to mean Multi-Shot-Rifle, but so is a bolt-action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.