Posted on 03/08/2011 11:47:32 AM PST by King_Corey
Also, the Garand is very particular about the powder type and load. Powder that is too slow or fast or too much powder and you can damage your op rod.
I was being a little bit facetious about using the 1903 Springfield.
On the other hand, I am totally serious about having a fair number of scoped bolt action rifles made up for accuracy. Maybe a mixture of half using them and the others using whatever else is issued.
Actually the Springfield might not be as ridiculous as one might think.
Maybe 30 years ago, I had a 1909 Argentine Mauser. It was almost unbelievably well made by Deutsch Waffen Und Munitionsfabriken, of Berlin. My Nephew and I were just plinking with it when we decided to shoot at an old tar bucket. I would guess it was maybe 16X20 inches and still had a bunch of tar and then dirt in it.
To make a long story short, it was fairly easy to hit at a measured quarter mile. This was with open sights and surplus FN 7.65 ammo. The fact that the sights were dead on at that distance helped a lot. It shot very high at 100 yards.
In short if the Springfield had the O3A3 peep sights it just might be effective at 500 yards.
Have one, but never fired it. It’s a “Big Iron” piece’ ammo not readily available.
Interesting. The Garand does have a rather long, slender rod, as opposed to the very short, beefy piston of the M-14.
Only experience with the Garand was ITR at Pendleton. Suppose they gave us beat up, worn out rifles so we could flop in the mud and such. Mine had a rod so worn at the piston, it was effectively a single shot. Would rarely cycle. A good slathering of Lubriplate would maybe get me through a clip. Borrowed a buddy's rifle for the move and shoot stuff............
Thanks. I had heard of the L1A1 variant.
I never heard of “The Pig.” Essentially a shortened FN-FAL with 30 rounds of 7.62 versus 20 rounds and selective fire? I want one. Three words “rock and roll.”
Meanwhile, McNamara was handing out M-16s that would jam at the worst possible time in the hands of kids who just got off the plane. Very sad.
I am sure LBJ got a piece of that contract.
How about a modified M1 with a magazine and a 30-06 round?................................. I had the M1 as an EM, the 8 rounds may have been 16-24 if they adapted it to a magazine. The M-14 had a different receiver. It was gas operated too. The Italians found a way to convert the M-1 to carry more ammo. We could have saved a bundle on R&D. I only disassembled a M-14, I went through OCS with a M-1. The next rifle I saw the M-16 that was still around in 92’when I left. They still had M-1 carbines when I was in.
Where are expected engagement ranges for your use of the weapon?
Far as I know, the BAR was the only rifle that had a magazine that took the 30-06. Funny, same as I posted earlier about worn out M-1 Garands, we familiarized with the BAR. Learned fast to find the magazines with firm springs, the sloppy ones would not feed.
What most people don't realize is that this is the golden age of the M14, and the 7.62mm NATO round in general. There are specialized gunsmiths that transform every lowly M14 the government can find into match-grade rifles with all kinds of specialized optics and furniture on it.
The M16-type 5.56mm carbine has been a world-wide success story for most soldiers. Accurate, easy to learn, easy to maintain, and very shooter-friendly, but not perfect for every job. Nobody will ever design a rifle like that. But for a unit's "designated marksman", a rebuilt M14 or new AR10-type is great for filling the gap out to about 500m where the real snipers and rifles take over. The 7.62 round is easily lethal to 1000m, but the challenge is on the shooter, and not the weapon.
And there are times when you want good things in small packages. That's why I put my SOCOM-16 into this Troy Industries all-aluminum chassis and added a folding stock.
It even has the luxury of accessory storage in the pistol grip and cheekpiece pad. This ain't your daddy's M14, but I'm sure he'd appreciate what can be done with it.
The M-16/AR platform is not limited to .223/5.56. An AR in .308 is lighter, more accurate, and more dependable than a M1.
This depends AR15 for CQB and built up areas is a good choice. Ammo is lighter and length is short for confined spaces.
AR10 is Closer to Stoners original design, better build quality less mass produced. Longer weapon, longer range, bigger bullet more damage more ability to overcome cover.
If you live in very urban areas with limited distant shots then AR15.
If you live in rural area with long sightlines go AR10
And speaking as one who has built many AR 15s, do not entrust your life to a homebuild. There are too many variables, and flawless performance on the range does not guarantee that the gun won't fail in a SHTF situation where you are gunning and running and feeding it all kinds of crap ammo and mud and dirt. I love ARs, but I keep a bone stock Chinese AK around for the Zombie War.
That is simply not true. The gun was designed around a 5.56 made with extruded powder. This burns hotter but there isn’t as much fouling. The military then started production of ammo with ball powder against the objection of the designers. Then the military deployed the rifle without cleaning kits of any kind. The situation this put our soldiers in was a damn shame...but it wasn’t a design flaw of the rifle.
Agreed.
Our government and the BATFE have driven American designers out of the market.
New firearms, like the Magpul/Bushmaster ACR, are the exception. Only after the AWB ended did they start working on new firearms. We started seeing SIG offer the 556 (bleh) and more .308 on the AR platform.
Military contracts are tough, and nobody is going to risk a design that they can’t sell on they civvy market if a DOD contract never appears.
Reload.
Much cheaper.
Oh, you won’t “save” any money, but you’ll shoot A LOT more :)
>> . . . but not perfect for every job. Nobody will ever design a rifle like that.
On that note, an historical observation.
In WWII, the Army seemed to realize that One Size Does Not Fit All. You’d have guys with Garands, M-1 Carbines, Thompson SMGs, maybe even the odd ‘03 sniper rifle, down to a fairly low level (platoon, squad).
Up until Afghanistan, the Army seemed Hell-bent on jamming the square peg M16/M4 into every hole of every shape. Whether this was for ease of procurement, training, logistics, all of the above, some of the above, other, it doesn’t matter.
Afghanistan really showed the idiocy of the “one size fits all” approach, and we’re finally remembering institutionally what it seems we knew quite well in WWII, which is still in living (though long-retired) memory.
Did this happen because of too much small arms doctrine by the desk bound?
Partly.
The original M-16 cartridge spec called for stick powder, which burns much more cleanly. And, the original spec had a chromed chamber.
McNamara noticed that the US was sitting on a large quantity of surplus ball powder, which burns much more dirty. He also eliminated the chrome chamber as another cost-saving measure.
Those two, combined with a no-clean attitued, caused the initial problems.
Both of those were finally corrected and the M-16/M-4/AR is now a terriffic platform. I’d wager money that 99% of all stoppages are due to cheap magazines. A good, TESTED magazine will make them run like a sewing machine. And I use modern W748 ball powder as my primary because it meters so well. No problems with dirt.
Wow, I think I’m doing what you’re doing except the SS barrel (cost) with maybe a couple other goodies such as adj. stock, flash suppressor, etc. and my quote is twice your $600 figure.
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.