Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xsrdx
"Holy cow, I almost found myself agreeing with you there. But wait...

I wouldn't trade either for an AR-15 or anything similar. Not ever.

And then you go and display your true agenda.




Nope. What I said is that I would not trade my scoped .30-06 and Mossberg for an AR-15. Not in a million years. The two firearms I have are useful today and would be useful in the unlikely event that I had to repel some sort of invader on a broader basis than just my home.

Demonstrate to me how an AR-15 would be more useful to me than the two weapons I mentioned. I do not think you can do that.

In the unlikely event of a revolution or an invasion of foreign troops, I will be far more effective with either of those two weapons than I would be with an AR-15 or its equivalent.

No agenda. Just practical thinking.
558 posted on 03/02/2004 12:48:48 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies ]


To: MineralMan; Eaker; Travis McGee; Squantos; B4Ranch; Pete-R-Bilt; AAABEST; blackie; harpseal; ...
Demonstrate to me how an AR-15 would be more useful to me than the two weapons I mentioned. I do not think you can do that.

that I can agree with.

573 posted on 03/02/2004 12:58:53 PM PST by glock rocks (molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies ]

To: MineralMan
Demonstrate to me how an AR-15 would be more useful to me than the two weapons I mentioned. I do not think you can do that.

Oh, I think I could, but this is one of those, "if you have to ask, you just wouldn't understand" questions, so I won't bother trying. Let your wealth of combat experience be your guide.

If you have concluded that ugly semiauto rifles have no place in your two-gun arsenal, that's fine... but

That conclusion has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the AWB or the 2nd Amendment, and certainly nothing to do with anyone else's right to own ugly semiauto rifles.

577 posted on 03/02/2004 1:04:41 PM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies ]

To: MineralMan
Demonstrate to me how an AR-15 would be more useful to me than the two weapons I mentioned. I do not think you can do that.

This is one of those, "if you have to ask, you just wouldn't understand" questions, so I won't bother trying. Let your wealth of combat experience be your guide.

If you have concluded that ugly semiauto rifles have no place in your two-gun arsenal, that's fine... but

That conclusion has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the AWB or the 2nd Amendment, and certainly nothing to do with anyone else's right to own ugly semiauto rifles, shotguns with pistol grips, or pistols that hold 11 rounds.

580 posted on 03/02/2004 1:06:09 PM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies ]

To: MineralMan
"Demonstrate to me how an AR-15 would be more useful to me than the two weapons I mentioned. I do not think you can do that."

Perhaps I can. The first advantage of an AR-15 is that you would have one weapon that could fill both roles. I just finished an 20" barrel AR-15 for a friend of mine, using Bushmaster and Rock River components. With a 1/7" twist barrel using 77gr Black Hills .223 ammunition, this rifle readily prints groups of 5" at 400 meters. We plan in testing 85gr VLDs in it soon, out to 600 meters. The more common 62gr ammo does less well, but you'd want to use heavier bullets at longer ranges anyway in order to increase terminal ballistics. Granted, this is not as heavy a hitter as your .30 caliber. Depends what you're shooting at.

Close range, this rifle is as easy to move about in close quarters as a 12-gauge, and offers 30 rounds as fast as you care to pull the trigger. These rounds are more controllable than a shotgun pattern, and have the advantage of being able to penetrate body armor, which shotgun pellets cannot. That's a large consideration. If you're using slugs in this role, then body armor is no longer an issue, but now you are subject to the single-projectile limitations of a rifle in any case, with less available rounds and more difficult reloadability inherent in a shotgun.

Food for thought.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

611 posted on 03/02/2004 1:36:23 PM PST by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies ]

To: MineralMan
You asked Glock Rocks to demonstrate how an AR 15 would be more useful than a scoped .30-06 and a 13 guage in the event of foreign invasion. Well I can not say it would be more useful for you but I can say that for many it would be a more useful rifle because of the light weight of 200 rounds as a carry load, the rapid rate of fire with the AR 15. The ability to generate some suppressive fire and the availablity of replensih ment from military stocks.

Similar considerations might apply to others. Within an Eastern urban or sububrab envirornment it is probably the ideal rifle for an infantry carry. The ranges are not long. The penetration is sufficient to deal with some body armor unlike the shotgun and it is accurate. If you prefer the .30-06 it is hardly reasonable to criticse that choice but others may have different needs.
653 posted on 03/02/2004 2:31:00 PM PST by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies ]

To: MineralMan
"Demonstrate to me how an AR-15 would be more useful to me than the two weapons I mentioned. I do not think you can do that."

Well, it's a horrific example, but do you remember when Baruch Goldstein entered an Israeli mosque and with a semi-automatic Galil, killed almost 100 praying Muslims?

THAT is an example of the effectiveness of aimed, semi-auto fire.

Ed
661 posted on 03/02/2004 2:45:12 PM PST by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies ]

To: MineralMan
In the unlikely event of a revolution or an invasion of foreign troops, I will be far more effective with either of those two weapons than I would be with an AR-15 or its equivalent.

I expect that in either event, the most useful weapons that will do the yeoman's share of work under such conditions will be the 12-gauge shotgun and the cutdown .22 semiauto rifle.

But those using such equipment will very quickly be replacing those weapons with those they recover from enemy dead, or will have no further worry for the woes of this world.

Nevertheless, the incrementalism creeping toward those shotguns and rifles needs to be halted now.

And if that were not reason enough, remember that there are thousands of veterans of military service who might also fing common purpose alongside you, but who have no particular skill with either your boltgun or Mossberg, having been trained on the M16/M16A1/M16A2/M4 since 1967. I don't partricularly intend to so use my own AR15 variant, but in such circumstances figure I'd run into a deserving pal right soon enough.

716 posted on 03/02/2004 7:30:11 PM PST by archy (Concrete shoes, cyanide, TNT! Done dirt cheap! Neckties, contracts, high voltage...Done dirt cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies ]

To: MineralMan
I personally stand by your ability to "choose" which works best for you.............if the AR was something I went thru the service with and understand it's operation and maintenance would you not agree that in a semi auto configuration that rifle would or should be my choice ? The AR is not my choice but the AWB is cosmetic at best. Shallow POS law......

Stay Safe !

735 posted on 03/02/2004 10:20:12 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson