New Army Rifle (Page 3): Me too. I put a scope on my M1A. Civilian versions can not fire auto but again6 who wants to. Plus any auto rifle you have to have a special license which is...

Michael Sabetsky Loc: Rockledge, Florida

robertjerl wrote:

I got taught by WWII and Korean vets to use the M1... (show quote)

Me too. I put a scope on my M1A. Civilian versions can not fire auto but again6 who wants to. Plus any auto rifle you have to have a special license which is expensive. The 308 I use will do enough damage if I ever needed to use it. Right now just use it at the gun range.

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

It's very possible the army needs a new rifle BUT they don't need an $8000 rifle with its own unique cartridge. They could have done quite well with a 6.5 Creedmore or similar in a quality AR rifle for a fourth the price.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

TheShoe wrote:

All it takes to convert it to full automatic is to file down the sear. Then, the problem becomes one of magazine capacity.

Then it is full auto only and illegal as all hell.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Michael Sabetsky wrote:

Me too. I put a scope on my M1A. Civilian versions can not fire auto but again6 who wants to. Plus any auto rifle you have to have a special license which is expensive. The 308 I use will do enough damage if I ever needed to use it. Right now just use it at the gun range.

A good shot with an M1A and a good scope can start picking off bad guys/gang bangers with their illegal full autos out beyond their ability to reliably hit you in return except that lucky "Golden BB" in the middle of a storm of missed shots.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Quite a while ago R. Lee Ermey, on Mail Call, did a head-to-head comparison between the AK-47 (used by the NVA and VC) and the M16. They shot at logs which pretty much simulated NVA and VC bunker positions. The AK-47 tore the logs to shreds, the M16 barely dented them. He let us draw out own conclusions from the demonstration.

My M16s (Army 1972-75) were bears. In basic training they jammed constantly (from crawling around in the dirt); at permanent party they were just as bad; we had to clean them every couple of weeks even though we didn't use them all that often. People who don't serve in the military have the mistaken idea that people in the military "play soldier" every day. Nope; garrison duty was what we called "Mickey Mouse." A lot of crap served up to keep us "busy" when we weren't in the field "playing soldier."

pendennis

TheShoe wrote:

All it takes to convert it to full automatic is to file down the sear. Then, the problem becomes one of magazine capacity.

Neither the AR-15, nor the M-14 can be converted to full auto by filing down the sear. That story is a hangover, from when the M-1 Garand could go full auto with a filed sear. The firing mechanisms were modified on M-14's with selector switches, so they could not go full auto, and every AR-15 produced since 1986 has had a receiver which can't be modified.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

sb wrote:

I think the desire for the M-16 in the smaller caliber was because it was several pounds lighter than a similar weapon in the .308 caliber - and the ammunition was much lighter. The thought, from what I have read, was that if you are sending soldiers to slog around in the jungle for weeks at a time, you need a lightweight weapon and as many rounds of ammo as possible. The .308 causes far more damage with a hit than the smaller round, though.

I personally have Daniel Defense in .556 and .308. Very little difference in weight as they are very similar platforms. I also have a Wilson Combat .223 Wilde which will reach out a bit farther than my .556 but if you really want to touch something it’s still hard to beat a 300 WM or a .338 Lapua Mag which are in my quiver. I also have a couple of 6.5 Creedmoors which are sub MOA rifles.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

TheShoe wrote:

All it takes to convert it to full automatic is to file down the sear. Then, the problem becomes one of magazine capacity.

I am going to be subtle about this statement: Bullshit, filing the sear will any semi-auto firearm Very unreliable and unsafe, it can cause the firearm to continue to fire until the magazine is empty after the trigger is released, or to fire without touching the trigger when the safety is released, these are just a few of the problems that can happen when some body screws with something they know nothing about.
Over the years I have acquired a few rifles for next to nothing because of the above stated problems, replacing the sear and trigger fixed every one of them, today it is quite difficult to anyone but a lic. gunsmith to purchase these parts from the mfg.,mainly due to product liability is my guess.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

LDB415 wrote:

This is the shoulder fired weapon equivalent of the aircraft change from the A10 to the F35. The SIG is available in a public consumption semi-auto variation for $7,999. Compared to a high quality AR15 for $1200-1400. But hey, it's only taxpayer money.

"But hey, it's only taxpayer money." I'm sure those in the armed forces feel the same way when they are engaged in a firefight.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

josquin1 wrote:

Just what the public needs another automatic rifle to butcher people with!

"
When you address the problem with "people" you will be in a better situation regarding mass killings/shootings. There is never any discussion regarding the lack of a moral compass. We blame the weapon but never the criminal.

1963mca

My first issue weapon was the M1 Garand. Shortly after I was issued an M14. Still have and shoot my personally owned M1 and M1A, the non-auto version of the M14. Didn't have the M14 long as I was sent to OCS and eventually ended up with an M3 (grease gun) plus my 1911A1 sidearm while I had a 106mmRR platoon. I was never issued an M16A1, never even fired one while in the service.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

traderjohn wrote:

"
When you address the problem with "people" you will be in a better situation regarding mass killings/shootings. There is never any discussion regarding the lack of a moral compass. We blame the weapon but never the criminal.

Woodworm65 Loc: Lombard, IL

I am a gun collector and will probably catch a ton of crap for this comment but here goes, the civilian version of the AR15 should have never been produced and sold to the public it is a deadly weapon in the hands of the wrong people, it has caused more grief than any weapon sold I am also in favor of banning high capacity clips and auto switches and bump stocks, all these items have caused nothing but problems and have made all honest gun collectors look like monsters in many civilians eyes, I for one would like to see more stringent laws to own guns. I believe in the 2nd amendment but also believe we need to protect innocent people from getting gunned down it has become as big a problem as the pandemic and needs to be addressed we have reverted back to the 1800 and act like it’s the wild Wild West, and it needs to stop before more innocent people and children get shot and killed.

cincykid

This article may provide additional information on the subject.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/heres-everything-we-now-know-about-the-armys-new-squad-rifles?utm_source=War+Zone+Wire&utm_campaign=b1107bc00e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_01_26_08_22_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_51665f3aba-b1107bc00e-180346614

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

traderjohn wrote:

"But hey, it's only taxpayer money." I'm sure those in the armed forces feel the same way when they are engaged in a firefight.

Yes, and that is exactly why I'd rather give them a dozen A10s than a single F35 and give them 4 or 5 top quality 6.5mm ARs rather than one 6.8 whatever it is. Because our troops in the field need what's better for them, not what's better for some political leech making choices with no regard to financial responsibility, only what lines their pocket most.