|
Post by grozny on Dec 9, 2009 16:04:59 GMT -6
There is some guy charging people thousands of dollars to teach them how to use their AR-15 at ranges between 900 and 1200 yards. I think this is ridiculous.What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Dec 9, 2009 22:16:48 GMT -6
GPS's course will be a hit with the walter mittys and wannabe commandos. Though it does look like from the photos they've convinced some Army types into taking their course.
That said, SFC's analysis seems to be spot on. The AR-15 is worthless at 1200 yds.
|
|
|
Post by joe 6pack on Dec 10, 2009 11:52:26 GMT -6
I can hit a metal target the size of a football 700 yards all day long with my AR-15 .223 with no wind.
I dont think its the distance that matters, I think its the wind.
In a controlled environment with a good scope, I dont see why 900-1200 would be a problem.
My friend can hit anything with his SKS and AK-47 at about 600 yards with no scope. and Ive scene him hit targets even 1000 yards away no problem, however that bullet is much heavier.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 10, 2009 17:09:37 GMT -6
My friend can hit anything with his SKS and AK-47 at about 600 yards with no scope. How big a target can he hit with an AK-47 at 600 yards without a scope?
|
|
|
Post by joe 6pack on Dec 10, 2009 20:36:18 GMT -6
My friend can hit anything with his SKS and AK-47 at about 600 yards with no scope. How big a target can he hit with an AK-47 at 600 yards without a scope? We were using balloons about the size of a garbage can lid, I guess about 2.5 feet in dia. they looked smaller than a human head at 600 yards. With those rounds you dont have to worry about wind, but you do have to take drop into account.
|
|
|
Post by joe 6pack on Dec 10, 2009 20:39:18 GMT -6
I guess I should also say that my friend is 35 and his dad is a gunsmith and taught him to shoot from about the age of 5, so maybe it's unfair to use him as a model here.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 10, 2009 22:48:16 GMT -6
We were using balloons about the size of a garbage can lid, I guess about 2.5 feet in dia. they looked smaller than a human head at 600 yards. That sounds like some real good shooting to me. I'm not sure I could even see the balloons.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Dec 11, 2009 0:44:25 GMT -6
Joe
GPS is selling a course AR-15 as sniper class rifle at 1000 yds which is just wrong on so many levels. The round just can't do it and given that there better calibers like the 30-06, .308 or .338 Lapua there's no reason for this course outside of ripping off unsuspecting people.
BTW are you using a stock AR-15 and factory loads and iron sights, also are you doing freehand or using a bench rest?
Lastly your friend must be a masterr level shooter to pull off hitting human sized targets with stock Russian assault rifles at the ranges you gave. Given that both were designed for sub 400 meter ranges, especially the AK-47 which is really a sub 200 meter rifle.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 11, 2009 3:52:59 GMT -6
There is some guy charging people thousands of dollars to teach them how to use their AR-15 at ranges between 900 and 1200 yards. I think this is ridiculous.What do you guys think? I think I missed the whole point of your question. Is this ridiculous? Absolutely. For starters, is there a real large market for snipers--especially for those using the relatively small caliber .223 of the AR-15? Not likely. Maybe for wannabe Blackwater recruits. But even then, a "professional" sniper would likely use a larger caliber bullet.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 12, 2009 12:55:14 GMT -6
While we're on the subject, I found an article that discusses something I'd been wondering about--whether the US military's basic combat rifle is the best one available. Many believe that the AK-47 is superior, due to it's durability and reliability. It's also cheaper and easier to make, and more reliable under adverse conditions.
Below is an excerpt from an article that suggests that AR-4/M-4s and AR-15/M16s, used by the US military, are not the best rifles available.PATHETIC M-4 & M-16's Jamming in Firefights against AK-47's !!!www.startribune.com/63958382.html?elr=KArksDyycyUtyycyUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU" WASHINGTON – In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.
When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, 9 U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.
Which raises the question: 8 years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?
Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.
A week ago, 8 U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war....
Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren't new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.
The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle troops on the front lines trust with their lives.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.
U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.
"The M4 has served us well but it's not as good as it needs to be," Coburn said.
Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90% of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.
Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.
The study by Douglas Cubbison of the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., hasn't been publicly released. Copies of the study have been leaked to news organizations and are circulating on the Internet.
Cubbison's study is based on an earlier Army investigation and interviews with soldiers who survived the attack at Wanat. He describes a well-coordinated attack by a highly skilled enemy that unleashed a withering barrage with AK-47 automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.
The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute.
The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about 2 dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.
Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire 1/2 a dozen rounds and then drop back down.
On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.
"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a 1/2 hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."
The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute.
Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.
Bogar was killed during the firefight, but no one saw how he died, according to the report." www.startribune.com/63958382.html?elr=KArksDyycyUtyycyUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Dec 12, 2009 14:26:33 GMT -6
I used an M-16 when I was drafted into the Army back in 1970. It constantly jammed. The small tube that returned air pressure to the firing mechanism always clogged with carbon. I had to clean out this tube often inorder to keep the M-16 operational. I used an M-14 while performing my duties as part of the firing squad on the burial detail. The M-14 never jammed. The M-14 was a heavy rifle while the M-16 was very light and a portion was actually made by Mattel Toys, but that portion never gave me a problem.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Dec 12, 2009 17:00:38 GMT -6
The AK-47, M-14 or even the M-1 Garand is a better rifle than those Colt toys we give the troops today. And the M-4's performance as described in the article puts it in the crap category that will kill its user if they are put in a overrun situation. Overheats and jams after putting 360 rounds through in a 1/2 hour, no well designed and tested rifle would ever have that problem. The M249 fared even worse, firing only 600 rds before the POS overheated and jammed. Sounds to me those buggers were designed only for occasional bursts not sustained use. We'd be better off using a Vickers. Oh if you want to see another POS we're giving the troops, take a look at this Walter Mitty special. Link: www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/02/m26-modular-accessory-shotgun-system-photos-and-video/
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 15, 2009 12:13:16 GMT -6
The AK-47, M-14 or even the M-1 Garand is a better rifle than those Colt toys we give the troops today. I'm only minimally knowledgeable about firearms. But I've read a lot of opinions and seen a lot of performance comparisons between the M-16/AR-15 and the AK-47. With the exception of accuracy, the overwhelming majority favor the AK-47. How much money would be saved, and how many American soldiers lives would be saved, if the military switched from the AR-15 to the AK-47? If nothing else, it'd allow us to use most of the rifle ammunition captured from the people we're fighting.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 15, 2009 13:40:09 GMT -6
considering the blackwater contractees might have some freedom of choice in their artillery- i wonder what they choose. (and it must be said, the ak-47 is popular for a reason)
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 15, 2009 18:54:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 23, 2010 15:18:44 GMT -6
There seems to be a popular myth that only conservatives support gun rights. This most certainly is not true. Many of us so-called "lefties" also support gun rights, and even encourage gun ownership. To paraphrase an old statement relating to guns, people, and government: 'Unarmed people are subjects.' 'Armed people are citizens.' And a related corollary from Thomas Jefferson:
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jan 23, 2010 16:26:06 GMT -6
Some Lefties indeed support the 2nd Amendment, the problem is, is that a very vociferous and well funded minority overshadows them.
Though I think the political labels of Left and Right are becoming quite obsolete. They made sense 50 years ago. Today the elite of both parties share almost a identical economic and foreign policy agendas.
So all you have today is two gangs who rotate in and out of power and keep the status quo.
Which should scare the shift out of folks but doesn't even cause a rise in folks period.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jan 24, 2010 11:15:58 GMT -6
Its all how you define left and right. Left does not necessarily equate liberal nor conservative equate right. Too often left and right are used as synonyms for conservative and liberal.
Look at guns or abortion for that matter, taking an anti gun or choice position may not be liberal but it certainly could be leftist - in its economic sense. Many of the economic populists while supporting leftist stances on economic regulation nevertheless have not so liberal positions on guns or abortion. Likewise many of the liberals including Dodd, Barney Frank, Obama etc. have very rightist position in regards to economic reforms.
But then there is Vermont who has the most liberal or is it conservative gun laws in the country. And lets not forget the great Russ Feingold who broke party lines over taking guns across state lines.
I think what many liberals do not understand is that gun ownership has as much to do with class identification as guns themselves. If one was going to be fair one would regulate burglar alarms, security guards, dogs in much the same way one regulates guns.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jan 24, 2010 14:03:20 GMT -6
It doesn't matter what you or I think what is Left or Right given that both parties are doing their best to redefine those labels to cover up their ownership by big business and wealthy special interests. The same thing with the labels "Liberal" and "Conservative". Ultimately the parties and the MSM have the final say on their definitions.
Take the label "Conservative" used in politics today, it bears almost no resemblance to what it was in Eisenhower's time(hell Ike isn't even viewed by Rethugs as a Conservative but as a Leftist). The same thing with "Liberal", it had a much different meaning when the Democratic party was still populist/pro-working class under FDR.
Oddly enough the only politician that fits the label old school Democratic and Liberal label is Bernie Sanders and he is considered a Socialist. If anything this shift points to our decline as a Republic and descent into a oligarchy.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 8, 2010 1:45:31 GMT -6
An update
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 8, 2010 1:58:15 GMT -6
We were using balloons about the size of a garbage can lid, I guess about 2.5 feet in dia. they looked smaller than a human head at 600 yards. That sounds like some real good shooting to me. I'm not sure I could even see the balloons. I just wanted to update this. Having gone to a range and shot at objects 200 yards away, it's tough to even see an object the size of a bowling pin using iron sites only. At Burro's Range in Azusa (CA), the max distance on the rifle range is a little over 200 yards. Without a scope, it's nearly impossible for me to see a bowling pin at 200 yards, unless it has a fluorescent orange covering. It takes me 10-20 rounds to hit a fluorescent orange bowling pin at 200 yards with a 7.62 x 39 bullet. Hitting something at 600 yards with out a scope using an AK-47 (or anything else, for that matter), seems damn near impossible. If nothing else, it's just too hard to see the target.
|
|