Ar15 upgrade

[Ram619]

Based off his posts, I think I would rather have a platoon of Arcticdude like riflemen (i.e. "riflemen" definition per the late, great COL Jeff Copper) with bolt action 30-06 rifles whom have a 90% first hit rating than a platoon of yahoos with AR15s and a 1 in 10 hit rating post-SHTF.

I believe the AR platform is a pretty good one. The only problem is the anemic 5.56 round. Other than that it's extremely modular for different types of people as well as being able to add pretty much any accessories or optics that are needed. It breaks down very easily for cleaning as well as changing calibers.

I don't disagree with the whole 90% hit rate. But the military isn't going back to bolt guns. I know I wouldn't want to be clearing building while trying to run a bolt. The 30-06 would be nice though.

 

[Schattentarn]

I have been a long advocate of replacing the 5.56 while in the Marines, and even more so once I started shooting NRA High Power Rifle. It was not uncommon for those of us shooting factory match grade 168grn .30 rounds to shoot better scores at the 600yrd line then those shooting 5.56 handloads atop compressed charges and VLD bullets.

Saw the limits of the 5.56 in rural Afghanistan. There was a reason why the insurgents attacked from elevated positions, with PKMs, RPGs in the main effort, and AKs in the harassment/security role. They knew the limitations of the 5.56 round.
The M2 and MG240s (my personal favorite), got the most effective use. M16/M4 were just wasting ammo. You use a MG240 in the suppressive role while the riflemen advance with "I AM UP! THEY SEE ME! I AM DOWN!" advancement or flanking maneuvers.

The US Army spent a lot of money to over come all the deficiencies of 62grn "green tip" with the M855A1 EPR round. A lot of money. And, only to replace it with a better round in their next generation weapons systems. Again, according to the Defense Acquisition Cycle, the contract award goes to the candidate that met the most requirements, at the lowest cost.

Based off his posts, I think I would rather have a platoon of Arcticdude like riflemen (i.e. "riflemen" definition per the late, great COL Jeff Copper) with bolt action 30-06 rifles whom have a 90% first hit rating than a platoon of yahoos with AR15s and a 1 in 10 hit rating post-SHTF.

Such as this article

https://www.foxnews.com/world/long-...my-rethink-of-reliance-on-workhorse-m-4-rifle

 

[Schattentarn]

But on the other hand:

http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html
I think SHTF or Militia use will be more like Vietnam than the Near East. We needed a short M4 to clear buildings and for urban warfare. We needed an ACOG to use the same rifle and hit at 400 yards, returning fire from those Enfields the Afghans were using. There are a whole bunch of larger caliber rifles which we could use if that is the point. AR 10, Galil Ace Gen 2, and why not just use the AK 47 or AKM???

 

[MOS0231]

I believe the AR platform is a pretty good one. The only problem is the anemic 5.56 round. Other than that it's extremely modular for different types of people as well as being able to add pretty much any accessories or optics that are needed. It breaks down very easily for cleaning as well as changing calibers.

I don't disagree with the whole 90% hit rate. But the military isn't going back to bolt guns. I know I wouldn't want to be clearing building while trying to run a bolt. The 30-06 would be nice though.

At one time the VW Bug (the 1970s version) was popular, modular, lots of aftermarket products, easy to work on.
Same could be said about the Honda Civic.
But neither are a Mercedes-Benz.

While in Afghanistan a German allowed me to handle his HKG36 (the military version).
That felt like a Mercedes-Benz version of a rifle.
Side note: The German Personal Security Detachments (provided security for VIPs) had a few DMs using G3s topped with scopes.

No, the military is not going back to bolt rifles. But they also have the logistical train to provide the beans, band aids, and bullets.
SHTF, what ammunition you have is what ammunition you have. Every squeeze of that trigger is that much closer that rifle is to becoming a club.

 

[MOS0231]

But on the other hand:

http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html
I think SHTF or Militia use will be more like Vietnam than the Near East. We needed a short M4 to clear buildings and for urban warfare. We needed an ACOG to use the same rifle and hit at 400 yards, returning fire from those Enfields the Afghans were using. There are a whole bunch of larger caliber rifles which we could use if that is the point. AR 10, Galil Ace Gen 2, and why not just use the AK 47 or AKM???

Each should equip themselves with what is most likely in their particular situation.
I live in rural area. And I am NOT planning on any building clearing SHTF.
I need one rifle in a caliber that can do most of everything I need it to do. From small game (100grn RN), to medium-large game not only out to 400yrds but short range in heavy brush. Self-defense, and anti-material if need be.

I want to be the guy who can pick up any rifle, get familiar with the action and trigger, and hit what I am aiming at with iron sights, or scoped.

 

[Schattentarn]

I have no plans to hunt so my weapons are all for self defense. It seems to me close proximity is correlated with probability in self defense. Flexibility is important, though, so the Ultradyne irons give me the ability to hit an 18 inch target at 500 yards if I need to do so and can see it. I don't ever want to get lost in a scope.

 

[Proud Prepper]

I have no plans to hunt so my weapons are all for self defense. It seems to me close proximity is correlated with probability in self defense. Flexibility is important, though, so the Ultradyne irons give me the ability to hit an 18 inch target at 500 yards if I need to do so and can see it. I don't ever want to get lost in a scope.

I would always plan for everything feasable that's within your means to do so. Old Murphy will show up and say, "So you didn't plan on having to hunt?"

I would say versatility is important in how ever many weapons you have.

 

[Ram619]

At one time the VW Bug (the 1970s version) was popular, modular, lots of aftermarket products, easy to work on.
Same could be said about the Honda Civic.
But neither are a Mercedes-Benz.

While in Afghanistan a German allowed me to handle his HKG36 (the military version).
That felt like a Mercedes-Benz version of a rifle.
Side note: The German Personal Security Detachments (provided security for VIPs) had a few DMs using G3s topped with scopes.

No, the military is not going back to bolt rifles. But they also have the logistical train to provide the beans, band aids, and bullets.
SHTF, what ammunition you have is what ammunition you have. Every squeeze of that trigger is that much closer that rifle is to becoming a club.

But you can't pull 2 pins on a VW Bug and make it a Benz. You can pull 2 pins on an AR and make it a .50 Beowolf, 458 Socom, .308, 6.8 SPC, etc., etc., etc.

I'm not saying that the AR platform is the best weapon platform there is for all situations. But it would be hard to find a replacement that has the modularity that is needed by the military that the AR has.

I personally prefer bullpup's to AR style weapons for CQB, and bolt guns for long range. Just because a weapon platform is a good fit for the military who has to arm hundreds of thousands of troops doesn't mean that same platform is best for each individual person.

 

[Schattentarn]

But you can't pull 2 pins on a VW Bug and make it a Benz. You can pull 2 pins on an AR and make it a .50 Beowolf, 458 Socom, .308, 6.8 SPC, etc., etc., etc.

I'm not saying that the AR platform is the best weapon platform there is for all situations. But it would be hard to find a replacement that has the modularity that is needed by the military that the AR has.

I personally prefer bullpup's to AR style weapons for CQB, and bolt guns for long range. Just because a weapon platform is a good fit for the military who has to arm hundreds of thousands of troops doesn't mean that same platform is best for each individual person.

Comparing German and American weapons and especially Soviet weapons is worth considering. The Germans treat each weapon and each car as a technical work of art. They improve it while in manufacturing sequence. This means you order parts by identification number as new parts may not fit. It also means in the field, parts are not always interchangeable. The Soviets are the opposite. They design something which is first reliable and tough, then is cheap to produce and maybe almost as good as the best of other countries. Once they do this, they don't change a thing. Parts are interchangeable in the field. In WW2 notable examples were the Soviet heavy truck, the Soviet ground attack aircraft (Black Death) and the T-34 tank. For the money and effort the Soviets made thousands of times as many weapons as the Germans for the same cost. We all know which system won the war. As they say, quantity can be a qualitative advantage. The Americans are somewhere in between. An example is our F-22 vs the Russian stealth fighter. We will build hundreds. They will build thousands.

 

[bmwrickster]

 

[bmwrickster]

I also have a 100 round barrel clip

 

[bmwrickster]

I specialize in European import you are exactly correct 1 Mercedes year-to-year chassis numbers that are all different but they overshoot a lot of stuff as well

 

[Schattentarn]

View attachment 12784

Isn't that red dot on backwards?

 

[user 7000]

I also have a 100 round barrel clip

????

 

[Kevin L]

I sometimes wonder if my views and/or experience with guns is unusual or, possibly, atypical.

You guys always seem to talk about how the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO round is anemic and under-powered.

I was a paramedic for over a decade in gun-heavy South Florida, and I've treated any number of patients whom were shot with the "anemic" .223 round.

Guess what?

This round makes a nasty mess when it hits a human body. There are often severe internal injuries that are quite distant from the entrance wound. I've usually seen more severe wounds from a .223 than from a .308 or a 30-.06.

Granted the 30 caliber rounds are heavier and carry more kinetic energy . . . but when a human body is hit by the light, fast bullet of a .223, it seems like the bullet can richochet around inside the human body if it hits a boney surface, which makes the insides of a human body look like they were run through a Cuisinart with a set of dull blades.

The idea that a .223 does more damage than a .308 is counter-intuitive, but I'll ask you to consider the difference between a victim shot in the head with a .38 Special vs. a .25 ACP (a notoriously weak round).

Although the victim will usually die either way, the .25 ACP does more damage to the brain . . . as it has enough energy to penetrate the skull in the entrance wound, yet lack the energy to leave the skull through the opposite side of the head in an exit wound.

This means that the .25 ACP bullet can bounce around inside the skull several times, which turns the brain into macerated dog food . . . while the more powerful .38 Special goes in and comes out in a (more or less) straight line.

This is one of the reasons why many assassins and hit men often prefer underpowered, modest guns that launch small bullets.

I have an AR-15 A2 simple, full-sized rifle. Mine was made by Wyndam Arms.

If I decide to move up from the .223, then I have my Springfield Armory M1A, my PTR91, or my M1 Garand. I do plan to mount a telescopic sight on my M1A.

I believe that I'll need a good selection of weapons for different tasks, but I have no intention of engaging in guerrilla warfare . . . so I don't have 75 round drums, I don't have conversion kits to turn my guns into fully-automatic weapons, I don't have bolo shot shells, "dragon's breath" fireball cartridges, black-tipped armor-piercing rounds, cyanide-coated bullets, and so forth.

In keeping with this conversation, I've always wondered why--in the movies--we see people using an eye dropper to put mercury in a hollow-point round. Metallic mercury can be toxic, but not in the immediate short-term for use in a round. So, what is the reasoning behind this myth? (in Jaws, Chief Brody put mercury in his rounds before going after the shark).

Ultimately, I believe that caliber and bullet type mean next to nothing if you can place the bullet where you want it to go.

 

[Ram619]

I sometimes wonder if my views and/or experience with guns is unusual or, possibly, atypical.

You guys always seem to talk about how the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO round is anemic and under-powered.

I was a paramedic for over a decade in gun-heavy South Florida, and I've treated any number of patients whom were shot with the "anemic" .223 round.

Guess what?

This round makes a nasty mess when it hits a human body. There are often severe internal injuries that are quite distant from the entrance wound. I've usually seen more severe wounds from a .223 than from a .308 or a 30-.06.

Granted the 30 caliber rounds are heavier and carry more kinetic energy . . . but when a human body is hit by the light, fast bullet of a .223, it seems like the bullet can richochet around inside the human body if it hits a boney surface, which makes the insides of a human body look like they were run through a Cuisinart with a set of dull blades.

The idea that a .223 does more damage than a .308 is counter-intuitive, but I'll ask you to consider the difference between a victim shot in the head with a .38 Special vs. a .25 ACP (a notoriously weak round).

Although the victim will usually die either way, the .25 ACP does more damage to the brain . . . as it has enough energy to penetrate the skull in the entrance wound, yet lack the energy to leave the skull through the opposite side of the head in an exit wound.

This means that the .25 ACP bullet can bounce around inside the skull several times, which turns the brain into macerated dog food . . . while the more powerful .38 Special goes in and comes out in a (more or less) straight line.

This is one of the reasons why many assassins and hit men often prefer underpowered, modest guns that launch small bullets.

I have an AR-15 A2 simple, full-sized rifle. Mine was made by Wyndam Arms.

If I decide to move up from the .223, then I have my Springfield Armory M1A, my PTR91, or my M1 Garand. I do plan to mount a telescopic sight on my M1A.

I believe that I'll need a good selection of weapons for different tasks, but I have no intention of engaging in guerrilla warfare . . . so I don't have 75 round drums, I don't have conversion kits to turn my guns into fully-automatic weapons, I don't have bolo shot shells, "dragon's breath" fireball cartridges, black-tipped armor-piercing rounds, cyanide-coated bullets, and so forth.

In keeping with this conversation, I've always wondered why--in the movies--we see people using an eye dropper to put mercury in a hollow-point round. Metallic mercury can be toxic, but not in the immediate short-term for use in a round. So, what is the reasoning behind this myth? (in Jaws, Chief Brody put mercury in his rounds before going after the shark).

Ultimately, I believe that caliber and bullet type mean next to nothing if you can place the bullet where you want it to go.

Obviously the .223 round can be deadly. The US military (as well as many other countries around the world) have been using it to fight our wars since Vietnam.

That being said it is an underpowered round for many military uses, which is why they've been looking for something to replace it. Decades of fighting in the Middle East has shown that we need something that's more powerful at longer ranges and against barriers during CQB.

That doesn't mean that the .223 isn't a good round. Used the right way in the right conditions there's not to much that you can't accomplish with it.

I still own several rifles in .223/5.56. More than any that I own in any other caliber.

As far as mercury tipped bullets, it's the movies. Not meant to be an interpretation of real life.

 

[Mountain trapper]

I dont understand this fascination with military weapons and shooting people on a prepper site. I have an AR 15 and for me its a useless gun. The 5.56/223 is not a hunting round, which is why I'm selling the AR and the ammo for it. I've got a number of guns that are far more suited for putting food on the table than the AR. If I need to shoot a predator at long distance my 22-250 fitted with a Zeiss scope is a much better choice.
We aren't going to war and we're aren't going to start shooting the invaders from the south. If I lived in an urban area I might have a different opinion on these guns, but I doubt it.
For some I think they just like reliving their glory days in the military.

 

[Kevin L]

Obviously the .223 round can be deadly. The US military (as well as many other countries around the world) have been using it to fight our wars since Vietnam.

That being said it is an underpowered round for many military uses, which is why they've been looking for something to replace it. Decades of fighting in the Middle East has shown that we need something that's more powerful at longer ranges and against barriers during CQB.

That doesn't mean that the .223 isn't a good round. Used the right way in the right conditions there's not to much that you can't accomplish with it.

I still own several rifles in .223/5.56. More than any that I own in any other caliber.

As far as mercury tipped bullets, it's the movies. Not meant to be an interpretation of real life.

I wonder why the problem can't be solved by equipping some soldiers with a M16, and some soldiers with an M14.

In military units, some soldiers are machine gunners, some are equipped with a M203 grenade launcher, while others may be carrying other specific weapons that are needed for the mission.

Since this is the case, why is it such a problem for some infantry to carry an M16, and others (designated marksmen?) carry an M14?

We already have both styles of weapon in government storage.

I realize that there's a need for some uniformity with regards to weapons, as you may need to use your wounded buddy's rifle during an emergency, and confusing the controls while under fire seems likely . . . but a military unit has different weapons for different purposes anyway (as I indicated earlier).

 

[MOS0231]

I dont understand this fascination with military weapons and shooting people on a prepper site. I have an AR 15 and for me its a useless gun. The 5.56/223 is not a hunting round, which is why I'm selling the AR and the ammo for it. I've got a number of guns that are far more suited for putting food on the table than the AR. If I need to shoot a predator at long distance my 22-250 fitted with a Zeiss scope is a much better choice.
We aren't going to war and we're aren't going to start shooting the invaders from the south. If I lived in an urban area I might have a different opinion on these guns, but I doubt it.
For some I think they just like reliving their glory days in the military.

Seems to me some think in a SHTF situation, they think they will be fighting firefight like situations on a nearly daily basis.
Possible? Sure.
Likely? Magic 8-Ball says, "Future uncertain."

Had a co-worker hand me his brand new Spikes Tactical AR15, like he was presenting his new born son.
I immediately handed it back and said, "Meh, seen one, ya seen them all."

 

[Ram619]

Personally I love my AR's and other .223/5.56 rifles. Not because the military uses them or because I think I'm going to be fighting off hoards of people anytime soon. I just enjoy shooting them. I like practicing at the range and shooting in competition with them. Ammo is (well was) fairly cheap, and you can fire them all day long without being even the tiniest bit sore.

 

[Mountain trapper]

I do agree that the .223, in the right rifle and the right load, is a good varmint round. But I dont think the AR is a good varmint rifle. Target shooting and plinking is about all the good it is in my opinion.

 

[Schattentarn]

The AR in carbine form is light, short, accurate, the ammo is more available that for similar weapons, it is modular and easily fixed and ammo weight is less than other "weapons of war". I don't care what the military uses either but for me and my body build, philosophy and aptitude, the AR was the best rifle pick I do shoot targets, balloons, plastic bottles for moving targets, but this is purely a self defense, SHTF, militia item for me. I am not going to hunt. I can fish really well and can trade fish or firewood for meat with people who know how to hunt and process the meat.

Of course other rifles will work and maybe better for you.

 

[Bigfoot]

I had a 556 briefly.. I bought it for pig hunting but after shooting my first hog with it I decided to sell it. I hit a hog at 60 yards and the dang thing just kept on going and going and going. It was a perfect shot in the shoulder but didnt stop it. Never found the pig. That was when I decided I didnt have any use for a 556. I switched to the 6.8 and it definitely puts em down much faster and I feel more confident with this round for hunting.

 

[Acdoctor]

In my opinion a AR -15 is simply a fun gun to recreational shoot, 3gun comp or plinking and varmint hunting. If I need a gun to protect myself or family with then my 40 cal will do the work. in a shtf event I’m not going to let them get close enough to stink up my property, I will be using a long range rifle with a take no prisoners attitude. In that event I’m going to swear I call 811 before I dug the hole.

 

[Kevin L]

I only have an AR-15 so I can scavenge and/or trade for parts, springs, magazines, and ammo . . . and everybody and their mother owns AR-15's up here, so I'm concerned about the long term.

In fairness to a dissenting opinion from a close friend whom's judgment I trust--he pointed out that a cheaper AK-47 is less likely to need fixed.

Special Forces units in Afghanistan have captured AK-47 rifles that had been carried and used almost daily by Muslim tribesmen for over 35 years in the same extended family--and they still worked and functioned just fine.

In any case, I won't purchase an AK-47. I believe I'm in a good place with regards to guns, and I have been focusing on my nursing education and working out hard and--more or less--religiously in the gym.

I have been practicing how to make a bow-drill fire, and identifying edible wild plants in this area. We have prickly pear, fiddleheads, and cattails at the very least. The environment in the northern part of this state is quite different from further south, so I have had to adjust my prepping plans slightly.

 

[MOS0231]

I only have an AR-15 so I can scavenge and/or trade for parts, springs, magazines, and ammo . . . and everybody and their mother owns AR-15's up here, so I'm concerned about the long term.

In fairness to a dissenting opinion from a close friend whom's judgment I trust--he pointed out that a cheaper AK-47 is less likely to need fixed.

Special Forces units in Afghanistan have captured AK-47 rifles that had been carried and used almost daily by Muslim tribesmen for over 35 years in the same extended family--and they still worked and functioned just fine.

In any case, I won't purchase an AK-47. I believe I'm in a good place with regards to guns, and I have been focusing on my nursing education and working out hard and--more or less--religiously in the gym.

I have been practicing how to make a bow-drill fire, and identifying edible wild plants in this area. We have prickly pear, fiddleheads, and cattails at the very least. The environment in the northern part of this state is quite different from further south, so I have had to adjust my prepping plans slightly.

We had patrols who found weapons caches buried in the ground.
Get the sand and dirt out of the barrel, clear the action, the AK would fire.

 

[tmttactical]

Like any other tool, firearms will excel at certain tasks and have greatly reduced effectiveness at other tasks. I have a 9mm pistol for very close and personal distances. I have a 9 mm carbine for home defense. 2 AR15 (223 wylde & 7.62 x 39) for medium distances and as force multipliers. I have a PCP air rifle for quite small game hunting / pest control, out to about 50 yards. A suppressed 22lr, bolt action rifle for small game at 50+ yards. A 6.5 Creedmoor for long distance shooting. While any of these weapons can be lethal, each will excel at different tasks. The 22lr will not be effective at 1,000 yards, like the 6,5 Creedmoor but then again the 6.5 Creedmoor would completely destroy a squirrel --- no meat for the dinner table. There is no perfect weapon for all occasions. The right tool for the right task.

 

[MOS0231]

Like any other tool, firearms will excel at certain tasks and have greatly reduced effectiveness at other tasks. I have a 9mm pistol for very close and personal distances. I have a 9 mm carbine for home defense. 2 AR15 (223 wylde & 7.62 x 39) for medium distances and as force multipliers. I have a PCP air rifle for quite small game hunting / pest control, out to about 50 yards. A suppressed 22lr, bolt action rifle for small game at 50+ yards. A 6.5 Creedmoor for long distance shooting. While any of these weapons can be lethal, each will excel at different tasks. The 22lr will not be effective at 1,000 yards, like the 6,5 Creedmoor but then again the 6.5 Creedmoor would completely destroy a squirrel --- no meat for the dinner table. There is no perfect weapon for all occasions. The right tool for the right task.

Well said.

I would argue I can load a 100grn round nose with a reduced charge in .308WIN for squirrels, but I have yet to put that into practical application.