I would think the US military would have developed by now a way to call in an artillery or mortar round almost immediately. Something you point at a target and pull the trigger, which then sends a signal to an automated artillery or mortar that figures out where you want the round to land and fires a round at your target.

Carpet bomb the hills, advantage US military.

Gleeman: Merkin For The Weekend: muck4doo: M-1 Garand. It was good enough to kill Nazis, so it should work on Talibanees too.

/Is that a godwin?

The problem with the M1 Garand-

BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. Ping!

I see you have the rifle that goes PING!

IRT article:

The problem is obvious!

... The rifle needs to fire batteries?
Would that make it a battery assault rifle, or an assault, battery rifle, maybe assault, rifle, battery?

I had a thought, putting those attached snipers in some sort of blimp way outside the range of the enemy's AK variants. Plus Sniper Blimp sounds like a sweet band name.

/And now, opening for Metallica... SNIPER BLIIIIIIMP!

Befuddled: I would think the US military would have developed by now a way to call in an artillery or mortar round almost immediately. Something you point at a target and pull the trigger, which then sends a signal to an automated artillery or mortar that figures out where you want the round to land and fires a round at your target.

They can use a laser designator to mark a target. However to get air or fire support under the Obama administrations new rules of engagement require double and triple authorization from military higher-ups to prevent civilian casualties. It now takes hours to get fire support or air support in many situations. Only the heavy machineguns or mortars within the actual unit engaged are available in most circumstances.

It's simple physics - you can either have large, heavy and long range or small, light and a faster rate of fire (or some compromise between the two). There's no such thing as a free lunch or a gun that works well in all combat situations.

Jormungandr: Gleeman: Merkin For The Weekend: muck4doo: M-1 Garand. It was good enough to kill Nazis, so it should work on Talibanees too.

/Is that a godwin?

The problem with the M1 Garand-

BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. Ping!

I see you have the rifle that goes PING!

IRT article:

The problem is obvious!

... The rifle needs to fire batteries?
Would that make it a battery assault rifle, or an assault, battery rifle, maybe assault, rifle, battery?

I had a thought, putting those attached snipers in some sort of blimp way outside the range of the enemy's AK variants. Plus Sniper Blimp sounds like a sweet band name.

/And now, opening for Metallica... SNIPER BLIIIIIIMP!

Doesn't measure up to Vomit Slug, 13 Barrels Of Blood, or any of the other braincomputer farts from your various Dorf Forts.

Also, please, it would be an assault-with-battery rifle.

Sgt Otter: I posted to clarify that we couldn't stand this guy, and the command section frequently sent him on snipe hunts and dog & pony shows to keep him out of our hair, and he basically just regurgitated whatever the officers thought he wanted to hear. Real slobbery-knob shiat.

Crap that reeks. Sorry you had to deal with the nitwit and his posse. Life has enough bullshiat without those specialists running around.

/I'm hoping that the ineptitude didn't get anybody hurt.
//thanks for serving

Glass Joe: Here's your old reliable Chauchat. You're welcome.

Reliable?

The Southern Dandy: Glass Joe: Here's your old reliable Chauchat. You're welcome.

Reliable?

DATS DA JOKE

You all forget about this little guy:

I bought one a few months back. IT'S AWESOME!!!!

There is a guy in WI who makes hand-loads that will go straight through a 350 engine block.
YAY!!!!

S10Calade: You all forget about this little guy:

I bought one a few months back. IT'S AWESOME!!!!

There is a guy in WI who makes hand-loads that will go straight through a 350 engine block.
YAY!!!!




What a .458 SOCOM round may look like... HOLY FRAK THAT AWESOME

Oznog: Here's an obscure one:



The Barrett 50-cal M82A2, 1987.
Note there are two different configs here: the upper shows an over-the-shoulder with the mag and shoulder pad integrated, for use while moving. Or, I guess, a sitting position. The lower is more conventional, and while less front-heavy than an M82A1, it'd still generally require bipod support from a fixed object.

Not sure why this didn't catch on. Well, the Barrett 50-cal is not a high rate of fire weapon, it relies on accurately placed rounds. So walking around like it's an assault rifle will discard its long-range accuracy, so you've just got an absurdly low-rate-of-fire carbine with absurdly high penetration. Which doesn't fit the bill.

But it's still AWESOME, in the way that Schwarzenegger carrying around a minigun is awesome.

The bipod config, now that's interesting. I couldn't go much through the subtle pros and cons of the bullpup, but I gotta note it's probably mostly the same weight, just shorter. And it won't accommodate left-handed shooters, they'd get blinded by a blast of hot gas and brass in the face. The hot brass might land on your arm. Actually, this means the spotter can't be on the right either. Not unless it was taken out of semi-auto and the bolt were manually operated so it wouldn't open the breech immediately after firing. That's probably what killed it.

archichris: Couple of things.

I am told that the .50 is a bad sniper round. Barrett was building a proof of concept gun. Concept proven. Now it seems like they have designed new sniper rounds and have launched a new weapons platform for the new rounds.

Also I am told by a sniper that they love the Barrett for certain things but no one likes humping the ammo boxes around.

But the Barrett is a BIG GUN. Like anime-gun big. That's where it gets the love.

I feel like I'm gonna BREAK this thing!

Oznog: I am told that the .50 is a bad sniper round. Barrett was building a proof of concept gun. Concept proven. Now it seems like they have designed new sniper rounds and have launched a new weapons platform for the new rounds.

Also I am told by a sniper that they love the Barrett for certain things but no one likes humping the ammo boxes around.

But the Barrett is a BIG GUN. Like anime-gun big. That's where it gets the love.

Anyone know what came of the Barrett .416 sniper rifle? it was a smaller round, designed more for anti-personnel than anti-armor, and had insane ballistics (we are talking 1 foot of drop @ 1.4 miles.. seems like that would quickly become a favorite among our service men and women trained in the art of ass-kickery-at-a-distance (sniping)

Wow, its almost like the armed forced should have a range of weapons to choose form, and re-equip as deployment and needs change...

Why bring a package optimized for urban/short range engagements to the steppes of Asia? And conversely the M-14 or any other 7.62-based weapon seems completely inappropriate for house-to-house fighting.

\blinded by Tom Selleck awesomeness

mdking09: S10Calade: You all forget about this little guy:

I bought one a few months back. IT'S AWESOME!!!!

There is a guy in WI who makes hand-loads that will go straight through a 350 engine block.
YAY!!!!

What a .458 SOCOM round may look like... HOLY FRAK THAT AWESOME


Glad you like!
If you ever make it out to Holland MI, I will let you shoot it.

Sgt Otter: battle-buddy

WARRIOR COMPANION. SAY IT!

Herbie555: Wow, its almost like the armed forced should have a range of weapons to choose form, and re-equip as deployment and needs change...

Why bring a package optimized for urban/short range engagements to the steppes of Asia? And conversely the M-14 or any other 7.62-based weapon seems completely inappropriate for house-to-house fighting.

I was unaware that when speaking of guns "too big" was ever a problem, though I can understand too much penetration... (I was at your moms house)

sorry couldn't resist

mdking09: I was unaware that when speaking of guns "too big" was ever a problem,

It is for the guys who have to carry the ammo.

One of the reasons for the change from M-14 to M-16, as I understand, is that the much smaller (lighter) cartridges allow you to carry more rounds for the same weight (or less weight for the same # of rounds). From the patrol rigs I've seen, some guys with the M-4 are still carrying like 20+ lbs of ammo. The same # of rounds in 7.62 would be cripplingly heavy.

Weight aside, the carbine-length does offer advantages when mobility and close- or semi-close quarters are a factor. Swinging a full-length M-14 around the door frame of an unknown Iraqi house wouldn't be my first choice.

Like I said, pick the right tool for the job.

Herbie555: mdking09: I was unaware that when speaking of guns "too big" was ever a problem,

It is for the guys who have to carry the ammo.

One of the reasons for the change from M-14 to M-16, as I understand, is that the much smaller (lighter) cartridges allow you to carry more rounds for the same weight (or less weight for the same # of rounds). From the patrol rigs I've seen, some guys with the M-4 are still carrying like 20+ lbs of ammo. The same # of rounds in 7.62 would be cripplingly heavy.

Weight aside, the carbine-length does offer advantages when mobility and close- or semi-close quarters are a factor. Swinging a full-length M-14 around the door frame of an unknown Iraqi house wouldn't be my first choice.

Like I said, pick the right tool for the job.

yeah I can definitely see the advantage... conversely though with those smaller calibers it can take more rounds to put down an enemy, so you may not need as many rounds to do the same job with the 7.62 size... but yeah the mobility aspect of a carbine is well worth all the other shiat that comes with it

Herbie555: mdking09: I was unaware that when speaking of guns "too big" was ever a problem,

It is for the guys who have to carry the ammo.

One of the reasons for the change from M-14 to M-16, as I understand, is that the much smaller (lighter) cartridges allow you to carry more rounds for the same weight (or less weight for the same # of rounds). From the patrol rigs I've seen, some guys with the M-4 are still carrying like 20+ lbs of ammo. The same # of rounds in 7.62 would be cripplingly heavy.

Weight aside, the carbine-length does offer advantages when mobility and close- or semi-close quarters are a factor. Swinging a full-length M-14 around the door frame of an unknown Iraqi house wouldn't be my first choice.

Like I said, pick the right tool for the job.

If I recall correctly, one argument in favor of a smaller round was to create non-lethal injuries so as to overwhelm the enemy's emergency medical system and to force him to consume supplies on troops who aren't capable of fighting.

It is interesting to me to see a third choice with the 458 SOCOM. If your troops are inserted and extracted quickly, you can arm them with heavier rounds that are more lethal and versatile.

globalwarmingpraiser: EmployeeOfTheMinute: globalwarmingpraiser: CAme here to say this. On my wishlist. BP is going to wind up buyng it for me.

The DPMS LR-308. Very accurate. Only criticism: DPMS had a quality control issue with their magazines. I got 2 bad magazines with mine. Also, I am not convinced that the AR-10 is a better gun than the M14

No retraaining needed. It is the same rifle with longer ranged round.

/ If you need an automatic rifle, you can't shoot.

IMO, if you're going to go through the chore of replacing the main infantry weapon of the US military, at least go with something that doesn't use a direct gas impingement system. It was an interesting concept that saves a LITTLE weight for the cost of sustained fire reliability and overheating.

CleverGuy81

Isn't it a little risky making your gun collections visible to the U.S. Government? I mean, they could collect all kinds of data so that the President could come to your homes and take away your 2nd Amendment rights.

1. that is only a SMALL part of my collection.
2. I will fight to my last drop of blood to defend it.

to all other comments: no I was fortunate enough to NOT get spit on.

/if you want to spit on some one, spit on Obama the puppet and the current political state of affairs.

/NRA member

TheShavingofOccam123: If I recall correctly, one argument in favor of a smaller round was to create non-lethal injuries so as to overwhelm the enemy's emergency medical system and to force him to consume supplies on troops who aren't capable of fighting.

I have heard this argument as well something like "1 wounded soldier takes 3 healthy ones of the field" or something, which is a great idea in a Blitzkrieg style war that will be over quickly. but in a war that is going to last for years those wounded enemy can heal and go back out and kill more of our men and women.

\if you 'aint going to do it right the first time, don't pull the trigger

mdking09: Oznog: I am told that the .50 is a bad sniper round. Barrett was building a proof of concept gun. Concept proven. Now it seems like they have designed new sniper rounds and have launched a new weapons platform for the new rounds.

Also I am told by a sniper that they love the Barrett for certain things but no one likes humping the ammo boxes around.

But the Barrett is a BIG GUN. Like anime-gun big. That's where it gets the love.

Anyone know what came of the Barrett .416 sniper rifle? it was a smaller round, designed more for anti-personnel than anti-armor, and had insane ballistics (we are talking 1 foot of drop @ 1.4 miles.. seems like that would quickly become a favorite among our service men and women trained in the art of ass-kickery-at-a-distance (sniping)

12" drop at 2,500 yards? That'd be insane. You'd have to AVERAGE about 30,000 FPS to do that.

According to Barrett themselves, a 395 gr bullet out of a 32" barrel at 1,500 yards it has a drop of 549", but is still hauling along at 1500 FPS and over 2000 ft/lb of energy. Which is still pretty damn impressive.

http://www.barrett.net/ammunition/416barrett

Nearly 400 comments and nobody pointed this shiat out?

The gun had too much recoil to be controllable during automatic firing and was considered too unwieldily for close-quarter jungle warfare. The M-16 replaced it in the mid-1960s.

English, motherfarker, do you speak it?

I have to go now. I need to orientate myself so that I can go to the gym in 26 minutes. On top of that, water is condensating everywhere on my cold energy drink!

Lairn to speel, moranz.

Guysmiley: According to Barrett themselves, a 395 gr bullet out of a 32" barrel at 1,500 yards it has a drop of 549", but is still hauling along at 1500 FPS and over 2000 ft/lb of energy.

A 400gn bullet.
At a mile away.
Still supersonic.

GULP

FlashHarry: hey, where'd you get that picture of me?

With those sexy whiskers of your, just about every gentlewoman's boudoir from Shanghai to New Orleans.

I am sorry but when you really want to put the hurt on...

The AA-12 is a one man squad.



Can't get at them with slugs or shot? Why not poke 'em with 32 fin guided frags in 11 seconds? Range - 175 meters.

I'm not sure about the actual distance, i know it was around a mile but it is essentially a .50 caliber cartridge necked down to a .416 bullet...it holds several ballistics records I believe

Gunther: The M16 is a perfectly fine weapon. It has an effective range of around 600 yards, more than enough for any non-sniping purpose. Yeah, the crappy carbine-length barrels halve that, but they shouldn't be issuing carbines for front line troops in the first place.

If you read TFA you would find that is exactly the problem. They are having to engage enemy out past 800 yards and farther. Bayond the range of the M-16.

Cheops: GranoblasticMan:Also a great weapon to let your enemy know when you need to reload.

"Ejection of an empty clip created a distinctive metallic "pinging" sound. In World War II, reports arose in which German and Japanese infantry were making use of this noise in combat to alert them to an empty M1 rifle in order to 'get the drop' on their American enemies." ( ^ )

"assan! With our advanced remote microphones we have detected that one of the infidel's weapons has pinged and is in need of a reload! Even though none of his other squad mates have stopped firing, now is the time for us to get from behind cover, and charge the 400 meters to their position while completely exposed! Surely the garand cannot be quickly reloaded!"

Or, you know, they could simply make a magazine-fed weapon that fires the .30-06. Either way, you're completely overstating the Garand's insignificant shortcomings.

Good to see someone else took a crack at that old wives tail. Nobody got killed because of the "ping" the clip makes. Yea, Ed may be empty, but John has 6 more, Lary has two, and Al just reloaded with a full set of 8. Loading a new clip in a garand only takes a few seconds so unless you're 3' away, the ping won't do you any good.

You're also not going to hear the ping during the din of combat.

Crosshair: You're also not going to hear the ping during the din of combat.

However, if you hear it after shot #9 of a 10-shot rapid fire string, it's the loudest sound in the world...

Guysmiley: According to Barrett themselves, a 395 gr bullet out of a 32" barrel at 1,500 yards it has a drop of 549", but is still hauling along at 1500 FPS and over 2000 ft/lb of energy. Which is still pretty damn impressive.

you are correct, I got my misconception from Future Weapons where he describes the 1' discrepancy between where he was aiming and where the bullet hit @ 2500 yards... still, 1.5 miles.. frak me that's impressive, and its still supersonic at that range

phartman: The M4 is fine for what it is designed for. The M14 was a better long-range rifle but otherwise the M4 is fine. The big problem is that American troops can't shoot well anymore, coupled with the Aimpoint-style sights. They just aren't as good as the good old front and rear sight setup.

The Kalashnikov is a POS. It's reliable, but inaccurate. Even the famed Dragunov is a POS. The AUG 77 is a POS. Couldn't hit squat with any of them and with my Tanner standard I can shoot a 2-inch group at 300 meters prone without a rest. For longer range work the Remington 600 is good.

OK, I can tell right away that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

1. Optics beat Irons, PERIOD. If you're relying on Irons, you're putting yourself at a serious disadvantage. The only reason to use Irons is because your scope broke or the gun you have doesn't have provisions for optics. (Like my Mini-14 factory folder.)

2. AKs are plenty accurate. Quit repeating another wives tail. All 3 of my AKs will shoot 2.5 MOA or better with decent ammo, which is on par for a rack grade AR. The open sights on an AK are better for close in shooting where the AR sights are more for longer range shooting. The sights are what limited the AK for shooting long range. Optics resolve that problem.

3. US troops can still shoot plenty well, though training is still not where it should be.

buffalosoldier: Can someone please tell me what happened to the XM-8 I heard so much about when I was in?

The XM-8 was nothing except a repackaged G-36 that tended to melt under sustained fire. I'm no fan of the AR series, but the XM-8 was not the right tool for the job.

Bah... give me a Mosin Nagant 91/30 any day. She's got the range and the punch.

jitm045: Bah... give me a Mosin Nagant 91/30 any day. She's got the range and the punch.

yup and BONUS: if you ever need to sight 'er in you just take a hammer to them iron-sights and your good to go

zato_ichi: Cool, gun thread.

I was wondering if any of you farkers could recommend a good entry level semi-auto or bolt action rifle for a left-handed shooter? It would be mainly for target practice, possibly deer hunting. I haven't shot a gun since Boy Scouts, but I got a friend who's trying to pull me in with him.

Not bolt-action, but check out a lever-action Marlin Model 1894. Shoots pistol ammo and comes in several calibers, comes in .357 and .44 magnum. I've got a .357 version that is hella fun to shoot, easy to clean, and I can drive friggin nails with that thing with good ammo. Shoots generic reload .38 specials pretty decently too.

Here's the one I have: http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/1894centerfire/1894C.asp

It's my favorite gun for the range.

dittybopper: RsquaredW: zato_ichi: Cool, gun thread.

I was wondering if any of you farkers could recommend a good entry level semi-auto or bolt action rifle for a left-handed shooter? It would be mainly for target practice, possibly deer hunting. I haven't shot a gun since Boy Scouts, but I got a friend who's trying to pull me in with him.

Mini-14 variants are very popular 'first guns' - they're cheap, accurate, and you can get one in lefty. .223 isn't expensive ammo, either.

// and it's based on the civilian version of the M14 everyone in this thread is creaming over

Errrm, if they are that accurate, why is this diagnostic target funny?




As a Mini-14'er I have to say they're not THAT bad...but that's pretty funny nonetheless.

Shocktopus: zato_ichi: Cool, gun thread.

I was wondering if any of you farkers could recommend a good entry level semi-auto or bolt action rifle for a left-handed shooter? It would be mainly for target practice, possibly deer hunting. I haven't shot a gun since Boy Scouts, but I got a friend who's trying to pull me in with him.

Not bolt-action, but check out a lever-action Marlin Model 1894. Shoots pistol ammo and comes in several calibers, comes in .357 and .44 magnum. I've got a .357 version that is hella fun to shoot, easy to clean, and I can drive friggin nails with that thing with good ammo. Shoots generic reload .38 specials pretty decently too.

Here's the one I have: http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/1894centerfire/1894C.asp

It's my favorite gun for the range.


I would actually respectfully disagree. While a lever action rifle is an awesomely fun gun to shoot and makes a good saddle gun, varmint gun, brush hunting gun, or plinker, I would not not recommend one as a 'first gun' or an all around deer rifle due to their propensity to jam, and the more complex workings of chambering the mechanism if you ever need to take it apart.

A bolt action is the most simple, easy, accurate, and forgiving gun to shoot and take apart if you are inexperienced with using and maintaining firearms. I would recommend a Remington .270 or .243 or 7mm as a great all around gun that you can hunt deer with. (.243 is the smallest caliber you can legally hunt deer with in my home state of Wa, I don't know about elsewhere)Browning also makes great deer rifles.

Magorn: mdking09: S10Calade: You all forget about this little guy:

I bought one a few months back. IT'S AWESOME!!!!

There is a guy in WI who makes hand-loads that will go straight through a 350 engine block.
YAY!!!!

What a .458 SOCOM round may look like... HOLY FRAK THAT AWESOME


Holy hell, that looks like the bastard stepchild of one of these


600 nitro express?

OregonVet 2010-05-21 03:19:39 PM
Am I the only gun owner that doesn't take a bunch of pictures of my guns for Innertubing?

No

This makes two of us.

I'm sure this was covered up top, but still, it isn't the rifle, it's the ammunition. Intermediate rounds will always be that, intermediate. You don't use a 9x19 or .45ACP round to reach out and touch someone at 100 yards, so why would you insist on using an intermediate 5.56 to try and combat enemies at full-sized cartridge range?

That said, 91/30 Mosin Nagants can be had for as little as $50 over here and I guarantee you that 7.62x54R will reach out and touch someone at 500 yards no problem.