The Official 2nd Amendment Appreciation Thread

#1,851
#1,851
Grand Vol said:
There isn't a huge drop off in efficiency with a 16 like you would think. The Army's new compact sniper system calls for that length specifically. Long range accuracy is affected, but for most applications it's sufficient.

Knights, Larue and GAP all do a 16 with great effectiveness.
Click to expand...

It wasn't so much the barrel but the caliber in relation to that barrel. The -06 is slightly overbore as opposed to the .308. The .308 is a damned efficient cartridge with a case capacity to bore ratio of 751.6. The -06 is 915.4.

Again, not saying it doesn't "work" but really wonder what advantages (if not even disadvantages) there are to an -06 vs a .308 in a barrel that short.
 
#1,853
#1,853
hndog609 said:
It wasn't so much the barrel but the caliber in relation to that barrel. The -06 is slightly overbore as opposed to the .308. The .308 is a damned efficient cartridge with a case capacity to bore ratio of 751.6. The -06 is 915.4.

Again, not saying it doesn't "work" but really wonder what advantages (if not even disadvantages) there are to an -06 vs a .308 in a barrel that short.
Click to expand...

Geez, get all technical and stuff.

I understand your point. I would think it's more of the market trend towards shorter barrels more than anything.
 
#1,855
#1,855
Grand Vol said:
Geez, get all technical and stuff.

I understand your point. I would think it's more of the market trend towards shorter barrels more than anything.
Click to expand...

Just to make sure there's no confusion if by any chance you awake one day and think "I should buy hndog609 an HCAR." do not let the above ruminations about cartridge efficiency and barrel length dissuade you. :)
 
#1,858
#1,858
hndog609 said:
Eh, '06 isn't a huge step up from .308. Now, if you want to get serious...

The Biggest AR Ever: NEMO OMEN .458 Winchester Magnum | Petersen's Hunting
Click to expand...

Never understood using these cartridges for the AR platform. I think this is the same company that built an AR chambered in .300 Winchester Magnum. The AR was designed as an intermediate range fighting rifle, not a long range precision rifle. The AR-10 in 7.62x51mm is an unreliable piece of garbage. There's no need to "magnumize" the AR platform, imho.
 
#1,860
#1,860
Grand Vol said:
:blink:
Click to expand...

If you ever run the AR-10 the way it was designed (e.g., heavy use under stress), you'll see how bad they are. I discourage anyone wanting an AR to go with the AR-10. It'll do fine at your local range firing a couple of hundred rounds, but that's it. Put one of those through a torture test. You'll need to find an FAL before you have a reliable combat rifle chambered in 7.62x51.

If you must have a 30 caliber fighting rifle, go with your standard 7.62x39mm AK. Otherwise, stick with 5.45 and 5.56.
 
#1,861
#1,861
Gannon Goodson said:
If you ever run the AR-10 the way it was designed (e.g., heavy use under stress), you'll see how bad they are. I discourage anyone wanting an AR to go with the AR-10. It'll do fine at your local range firing a couple of hundred rounds, but that's it. Put one of those through a torture test. You'll need to find an FAL before you have a reliable combat rifle chambered in 7.62x51.

If you must have a 30 caliber fighting rifle, go with your standard 7.62x39mm AK. Otherwise, stick with 5.45 and 5.56.
Click to expand...

I'll disagree. When the AR-10 was built it wasn't designed for the heavy use firing like an AK or AR15. And the Belgians put them to pretty heavy use in the Congo. The biggest problem it had back then was it was competing with the FAL, G3 and M14. And was too revolutionary for the US.

But there is a reason the design never went away and the modern builds are acceptable for most social situations. But really none of the 7.62 NATO rifles were designed for high volume fire. It was a way different way of thinking when those were designed.
 
#1,862
#1,862
Grand Vol said:
I'll disagree. When the AR-10 was built it wasn't designed for the heavy use firing like an AK or AR15. And the Belgians put them to pretty heavy use in the Congo. The biggest problem it had back then was it was competing with the FAL, G3 and M14. And was too revolutionary for the US.

But there is a reason the design never went away and the modern builds are acceptable for most social situations. But really none of the 7.62 NATO rifles were designed for high volume fire. It was a way different way of thinking when those were designed.
Click to expand...

Couple of issues:

I never saw the point in getting a rifle chambered in 7.62x51 (.308) unless it's for long-range precision shooting (hunting and sniping). The days of needing a full-power cartridge for a piston or direct impingement gun are coming to an end unless it meets a specific niche in the military (trench warfare is long gone). The guys in Afghanistan had to dust some of the old M1s off because of the engagement distances -- and even then you still need precision shooting in the 500-800 meter range. What good is it to have a DI/piston/select-fire combat rifle at that range? You're just wasting ammo. You typically don't see the enemy past 300 meters anyway.

As for civilians, the cost is enough for me to stay away from .308 for "sporting" use. We're not shooting people at 700 meters in a self-defense situation. Over the past few years there's been a lot of wildcat cartridges introduced for the AR platform: 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 300 Blackout, .25-45 Sharps, 7.62x40 WT, .458 SOCOM. In reality, all you need is good 'ol fashioned 5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm, and 7.62x39mm. Those will take care of all your self-defense, fighting rifle needs. The rest are just marketing ploys.
 
#1,863
#1,863
Gannon Goodson said:
Couple of issues:

I never saw the point in getting a rifle chambered in 7.62x51 (.308) unless it's for long-range precision shooting (hunting and sniping). The days of needing a full-power cartridge for a piston or direct impingement gun are coming to an end unless it meets a specific niche in the military (trench warfare is long gone). The guys in Afghanistan had to dust some of the old M1s off because of the engagement distances -- and even then you still need precision shooting in the 500-800 meter range. What good is it to have a DI/piston/select-fire combat rifle at that range? You're just wasting ammo. You typically don't see the enemy past 300 meters anyway.

As for civilians, the cost is enough for me to stay away from .308 for "sporting" use. We're not shooting people at 700 meters in a self-defense situation. Over the past few years there's been a lot of wildcat cartridges introduced for the AR platform: 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 300 Blackout, .25-45 Sharps, 7.62x40 WT, .458 SOCOM. In reality, all you need is good 'ol fashioned 5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm, and 7.62x39mm. Those will take care of all your self-defense, fighting rifle needs. The rest are just marketing ploys.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. I think a 7.62 NATO/.308 fills a gap in a lot of arsenals when it comes to long range applications. Sure, the 6.5 can come close, but at the expense of limited ammo availability. You can walk into most any store that sells ammo and find a box or a hundred of .308. Try finding 6.5 without a hard internet search.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with an AR-10 carbine as a defensive rifle. And let's face it, if you need more than a hundred rounds of .308 to stop a threat that isn't the zombie apocalypse, you're doing something really, really, really wrong. Same could be said about any rifle for that matter.

But as a general rule, an AR-15 or AK variant will likely serve better in that capacity. But I wouldn't feel anyone was under or over equipped with a MBR or Carbine version of same.
 
#1,864
#1,864
Grand Vol said:
Agree to disagree. I think a 7.62 NATO/.308 fills a gap in a lot of arsenals when it comes to long range applications. Sure, the 6.5 can come close, but at the expense of limited ammo availability. You can walk into most any store that sells ammo and find a box or a hundred of .308. Try finding 6.5 without a hard internet search.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with an AR-10 carbine as a defensive rifle. And let's face it, if you need more than a hundred rounds of .308 to stop a threat that isn't the zombie apocalypse, you're doing something really, really, really wrong. Same could be said about any rifle for that matter.

But as a general rule, an AR-15 or AK variant will likely serve better in that capacity. But I wouldn't feel anyone was under or over equipped with a MBR or Carbine version of same.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that. In fact, that's my point. It is a long-range, full-power cartridge -- which is why you have reliability issues when you put that cartridge in an intermediate-range rifle. The AR is great in 5.56, but it's a middling rifle in 7.62. 5.56, 5.45, and 7.62x39 perform well in carbines. .308, .30-06, 7.62x54, 8mm Mauser, etc. do well in standard battle rifles (20-24" barrels, bolt-action guns, etc.).

I just don't see the need to put them, along with your hunting and magnum cartridges, in the AR platform. You don't need them in your up-close-and-personal, bad breath distance rifles. They're long-range, precision cartridges that belong in long-range rifles, not heavy-use, suppressive-fire cartridges that belong in carbines.

For an intermediate-range fighting rifle I recommend:
5.45x39mm
5.56x45mm
7.62x39mm

For long-range applications I recommend:
.308/7.62x51mm
.300 Winchester Magnum
.338 Lapua Magnum

Outside of a few popular hunting cartridges (.243, .270, .30-06), these should be all you'll ever need. It's why I've criticized the introduction of so many wildcats in the AR platform over the last few years. They don't offer any real advantages over the ones we're familiar with.
 
#1,865
#1,865
Anything long range can be used at shorter ranges as well. The problem with two of the three long range cartridges you mentioned is they are best suited with longer barrels and in bolt actions. The .308 has the capability to be in both auto or bolt and serves reliably in each. And with the large variety of rounds for the .308 today, you are pretty well set for just about any situation you could encounter.

I'm not sure which AR-10 platform you've played around with that's had issues with reliability, but my Armalite has done well. Provided I've never put it through the ringer with high round count classes, it serves a purpose by swapping uppers for me. I mainly use it for hunting with a 20 inch heavy barrel, but have the carbine upper zeroed in with 155 AMAX TAP for social work if I need it. My immediate go to is still my BCM, but I would feel the AR-10 perfectly fine if my life was on the line.

It's a matter of personal preference honestly and we'll agree to disagree. I will say the cartridges that have come out in the AR-15 FOW as of late, the 6.8 offers the greatest potential to stick around. The 6.5 is too barrel dependent and ammo is scarce. The .300 Blackout pretty much gives little more than .30-30 ballistics in an AR platform. The 6.8 offers a nice mix of range versus energy and is well suited to the 16 inch carbines mostly on the market today. I researched it pretty heavily before buying an upper in that caliber and the cartridge is mainstream enough for Wally World to carry it in many places.
 
#1,866
#1,866
Oh yeah Hog, here's the email you can reach me at:

Edited before LG gets any ideas.
 
Last edited:
#1,870
#1,870
Pop me an email and I can tell you what I can and can't do Hog. I have limited ability to what I can do to an AR-10.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top