Posted on 12/07/2016 4:54:38 PM PST by PROCON
In my Basic at FLW in ‘70 they had us shooting M-14s the two times we went to the range and shot 350 Yds and up.
I was only so-so with either. Vision issues that I didn’t figure out for another decade. I was pretty good with snap shot “quick-kill” with the BB Gun though...LOL
I think a lot of folks forget that.
That 600 yard silhouette pop-up sure did look small through that little ring, didn't it?
Nevertheless, I never shot less than Expert with it, or with the 1911.
You're correct...it's the shooter, not the weapon.
Bump, thanks.
It sure did. But the USMC knows how to teach marksmanship. That’s for sure.
L
“M-16 Rifle M16 Training Film: Rifle XM16E1 Operation & Cycle of Functioning pt1-2 1966 US Army 15min “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKKQcJnMEOo
DSA FAL Para and yes this is how FN made some FALs:
My first Army rifle was the M14 which was just as accurate but better than the M1, no more smashed thumbs for me.
I carried one of these for the majority of my four years (68-72) in the USAF working as a Security Policeman. Same as pictured, flash suppressor and all except we had early models without forward assist feature and were trained to load 18 rounds only in the mags to prevent jamming although they finally realized it was a gunpowder problem, not magazines. Got promoted to the armory while in Korea where I had access to all weapons whenever I wanted and succeeded in making the barrel of one of the rifles on the end of the rack look like a shotgun by the time I left. Loved shooting full auto! I always shot expert marksman but we never shot over 200 yards. Our SAT (Security Alert Team) had M-16’s with XM-148 grenade launchers and M-60 machine gun, extra barrel with asbestos gloves and 7.62 ammo in case something came up. I built an M-4 last year to deal with potential civil disturbances.
Never fired a FAL, but concur about the G3. Had a HK-91 with polygonal rifling, and that thing astounded me with the harsh recoil. I was used to the M-14, a far more mild recoil impulse.
The AR-10/-LR-308 platform is downright gentle, especially if you have an adjustable gas block to tune it.
The G3 system is 'roller-delayed blowback' operated, as you know. It's not very *much* delayed, only barely enough to get the pressure in the chamber down to marginally safe levels before unlocking the bolt head, while the bolt carrier actually accelerates backwards even faster separately from the bolt head. As a result, there's not exactly a lot of mass in the operating mechanism to suck up the recoil, nor is there gas redirection to reduce recoil and the bolt starts its cycle the millisecond the round fires.
The FAL on the other hand uses a gas piston system and a tilting bolt, which makes for a very interesting felt recoil reducer and doesn't allow the bolt to start cycling until the bullet passes the gas tap towards the end of the barrel, so the recoil impulse has to try to move the entire mass of the rifle for quite a while. FALs are heavier than their G3 counterparts, too.
Will this one build up carbon and dirt quickly and jam like the original? Will the .223 round bounce off a padded coat at distance? I never liked that weapon, and as to field stripping and cleaning an ak takes about a minute in capable hands.
Yep - the difference between my 6" barrel handgun with .357 rounds and my 16" barbell carbine with same rounds is from 1280fps to 1640 fps - close to 30% more "get there quicker". I wonder what the gain on this is.
The Garand was designed to be a ten-shot 6.5mm, I believe.
This was changed to 30-06 and eight shots due among other reasons to massive stores of that ammo.
We missed a golden opportunity switch to the “just right” caliber.
(Wiki)
Twenty gas-operated .276 T3E2 Garands were made and competed with T1 Pedersen rifles in early 1931. The .276 Garand was the clear winner of these trials. The .30 caliber Garand was also tested, in the form of a single T1E1, but was withdrawn with a cracked bolt on 9 October 1931. A 4 January 1932 meeting recommended adoption of the .276 caliber and production of approximately 125 T3E2s. Meanwhile, Garand redesigned his bolt and his improved T1E2 rifle was retested. The day after the successful conclusion of this test, Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur personally disapproved any caliber change, in part because there were extensive existing stocks of .30 M1 ball ammunition.[14] On 25 February 1932, Adjutant General John B. Shuman, speaking for the secretary of war, ordered work on the rifles and ammunition in .276 caliber cease immediately and completely and all resources be directed toward identification and correction of deficiencies in the Garand .30 caliber.[12]:111
yup, friend of mine has one
Probably so as it’s an exact replica. It doesn’t even have the later post-M4 feed ramps. This is an expensive piece of fanboy bait.
The first AR I ever owned that I felt I could trust was my piston-driven Ruger SR556. Piston drive solves *so* many problems that the platform has.
Muzzle velocities:
M4, 14.5” barrel: 880 meters per second, 2900fps
M16A1 20” barrel: 948 meters per second, 3110fps
With loaded AR’s built on great lowers running $600-$800 these days, NOT EVEN A TINY CHANCE I’M SPENDING $2500!!!
Thanks - looks like a modest, but useful increase in velocity and probably a decent increase in accuracy.
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.