Remington Enters the AR-15 Market

[H2Andy]

To say it was a bit uncontrollable on full auto is understatement.

exactly my point

But at 500-600 yards on semi-auto, I'll take the M-14 any day.

i'll have to take your word for it... because ... ah ....

i've never fired anything at 500-600 yards

 

[DennisS]

LOL! I have to wonder how many of us here have ever fired the M-14 on full auto. My buddy and I converted ours in RVN to full auto, but that was rare, few had access to the selectors to replace the fixed (whatever it was called) gizmo pinned in place on the majority of rifles. To say it was a bit uncontrollable on full auto is understatement. It could be controlled if you had one of the nifty M-15 bipods that screwed on at the gas piston, and fired prone. Of course, ya couldn't see squat from all the dust kicked up, but no matter, ya could keep the muzzle on target.

If you put it on your shoulder full auto you were shooting at airplanes on your third shot. When it comes to John Wayne hip shooting, that's what the sling was for. The sling was attached to the butt with an open hook. You could unhook the sling and stand on the end to control muzzle rise. Nothing like burning up cans of government ammo.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

I got the opportunity to shoot an M14A1 once. With that particular configuration prone on a bipod with lots of sling pressure you could almost control it full auto. The same day I got to shoot a full auto FAL in the Isralie configuration and it was in the same marginally controllable category.

 

[Lopaka]

i'll have to take your word for it... because ... ah ....

i've never fired anything at 500-600 yards

500 meters. slow fire, prone, 10 rounds. Last stage of rifle qual for Marines circa 1965.

The heavy bullet 5.56mm crowd claim that the new AR-15 variant do much better than the old Mattel version. No experience with that.

 

[Tom Smedley]

With a bipod if you dig in your toes and push forward hard it is a doable thing. The trick is to get just the jerk on the trigger that produces a three-round burst.

Even though I love my Mini-14 and my Sako .222 I never cared for the M-16. My favorite was the HK MP-5. What a sweet weapon.

Especially for desert warfare the U.S. definitely needs to go with a 7.62 weapon.

 

[Tom Winters]

That little Remington was pretty cute and would generate all sorts of ooohs-and-aaaahs at the range.
But just think about the first time you showed up at the range, cracked open the case, unlimbered this .50 cal BMG and started dialing in from a couple of klicks away... Priceless...
Classic Arms Inc.
And don't get tempted to buy any of that Wolf Russian 7.62 stuff. Russkie junk.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Sadly, (as a former M14 fan and NM shooter) a match tuned AR-15 with the current 68-75 grain bullets available will do a much better job on the national match course than an M1A/M14 and the M14 is in effect a dinosaur for competetive shooting.

If I were shooting people at 600-800 yards, the 7.62mm Nato would be the round of choice and for anything other than a dedicated sniper rifle, a match grade M14 would be a serious contender (along with a well tuned G3 or HK91) as te 5.56mm just does not have enough temrinal performance beyond 250-300 yards.

I will argue that the US does not need the 7.62mm NATO in a desert environment. The average boot can not shoot it worth a damn at ranges beyond those where the 5.56mm NATO is effective enough to do the job and there are some advantages to having more rounds in the basic combat load. It makes a good round for a designated marksman rifle, but is not ideal for general issue given the general decline in pre-military service shooting experience and skill and given the near total ineffectivness of a select fire weapon in full auto mode with a full sized battle rifle cartridge.

What is needed is a good solid intermediate round like the original .280 British, the .280/30 or a newer variant on the theme like the 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm SPC that will allow a soldier to have an effective and controllable select fire weapon with more effective range and stopping power than the 5.56mm.

 

[H2Andy]

I will argue that the US does not need the 7.62mm NATO in a desert environment. The average boot can not shoot it worth a damn at ranges beyond those where the 5.56mm NATO is effective enough to do the job and there are some advantages to having more rounds in the basic combat load. It makes a good round for a designated marksman rifle, but is not ideal for general issue given the general decline in pre-military service shooting experience and skill and given the near total ineffectivness of a select fire weapon in full auto mode with a full sized battle rifle cartridge.

+1


bugger character minimum

 

[H2Andy]

But just think about the first time you showed up at the range, cracked open the case, unlimbered this .50 cal BMG and started dialing in from a couple of klicks away... Priceless...

buggers won't let you shoot that at my local club ... probably pansies the lot of them

And don't get tempted to buy any of that Wolf Russian 7.62 stuff. Russkie junk.

oh wow... i like the Wolf ammo ... cheap, and you can hit a target the size of a human head at 200 yards every time with a Bulgarian AK with iron sights ... not even close to tight grouping, no ... but heck ... it's a head shot

 

[jeraldjcook]

I will argue that the US does not need the 7.62mm NATO in a desert environment. The average boot can not shoot it worth a damn at ranges beyond those where the 5.56mm NATO is effective enough to do the job and there are some advantages to having more rounds in the basic combat load.

Accuracy is one thing and I agree with your rationale, but what about penetrating power and the ability to hit targets behind cover?