battle rifle book 10

BATTLE RIFLE BOOK 10

THE AR-15

I’ve always disliked the M-16.  Not as much as the M-60, which really didn’t run at all, nor as much as the M-203, which was a clunky hunk of crap and was a sad and pathetic replacement of the M-79.  All my service time was prior to the Beretta ( not technically, but my last unit had sent back all of them for repair and re-issued the 45’s ).  And I didn’t hate the gun as much as the round.  At least with the initial teething problems troops didn’t die from them as they did with the M-16’s.  That I blame on Colt, not the M-16 design itself.

*

My problem with the M-16 was that I was issued the A1, and that bastard jammed in the field all day long.  It wasn’t the only piece of equipment the Army issued that was junk.  Most of it was, and probably still is.  And it wasn’t the only time the Army refused to admit a mistake which killed its members.  Gee, just the tribe I want to join!  The rifle was just so finicky that I never had any inclination to want to own one, regardless of price.  And as a survivalist weapon?  Hump you very much!  Alas, times change.  The gun has only improved marginally, but everything else has gotten either worse or far too expensive so I am forced to concede that the AR-15 has to be a viable choice.

*

Back in the 90’s when I first realized I needed a long arm as my previous fantasies of survivalism had been rendered obsolete by further study ( and I outgrew my dependence of a sidearm as my primary weapon which can be a LEO faulty viewpoint ), I didn’t know what I wanted.  I started out with an SKS, only because it was the cheapest but never used it and then sold it to finance our move the hell out of California.  Then I bought more of them, for the exact same reason, while doing no research.  I also started buying Lee-Enfields ( from an introduction from a friend ).

*

Eventually I realized the Chinese SKS’s were crap that couldn’t hit crap and so lost my love for them, keeping the Enfields.  Yet, those were the no.1 Enfields, the old World War One types.  I hated them as their sites blew rabid monkey testicles.  Only later did I learn that their construction was overly complicated and more fragile, and they were far less accurate.  The no.4’s from WWII were a vastly improved product ( but, again, not knowing that at the time, I just judged by the sites ).  Well, here is the thing I just recently realized.  I didn’t judge the Enfield by the older version, but the newer one.  Was it fair to judge the M-16 by its first model?

*

For someone adamantly opposed to the M-16 for thirty odd years, that is difficult for me to admit.  Yet, if you want to remain intellectually honest, you have to own your mistakes as much as your triumphs of deduction and reasoning.  I have to admit that most modern AR’s are nowhere near as crappy as the M-16A1, from reports from nearly everyone.  Do I still LIKE the gun?  No.  It is fragile and fires a crappy round.  BUT!  It will do, despite the things I still don’t care for.  I used to be able to dismiss it almost entirely due to its unreliability in the field.  Now that this objection is moot, I can’t honestly say that its other downsides are large enough to justify dismissing its utility.

*

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t actually think the M16 is a good assault carbine.  The AK is far better.  But the AK is a one pony trick.  It isn’t a generalist weapon, but rather a specialized one.  The M16 is far better at far more tasks, even though it doesn’t excel at any one.  While I used to think that ANY gun was better than the M-16, due to its jamming, now that it really doesn’t jam all the other weapons faults are far more pronounced and not as easily dismissed.

*

The AK was a great choice while its price was low.  The great thing about the AK isn’t JUST its reliability and robustness.  It was that these two things were offered in a package so inexpensive that poor rural tribesmen could afford to own them, while almost any other firearm still repairable ( remember, these are Turd World guys, they can’t mail order Numrich.  The weapons had to be new-ish and readily available.  Not arcane or obsolete ) was outside their price range of Dirt Cheap.

*

In exchange for Not So Good Accuracy, you had damn Skippy cheap and a weapon that would run your whole life through apocalypse conditions.  Well, almost everywhere, the AK is dirt cheap.  The collapse of the Soviet Union flooded the market ( at the beginning you could buy one in Romania for $10 US-but of course that was Fire Sale prices during THEIR collapse ).  And everyone is still churning them out in poor countries.  But in the Good ‘Ol USA, Home Of The Free?  Laws and regulations and restrictions jacked up the price astronomically.  Because, basically, we didn’t want all the screwed over poor folk well armed.

*

It is okay if Roger The Redneck is pissed at illegal Mexicans taking his job at the only factory in three counties up in the Appalachians, as long as he can only afford a 12 gauge shotgun only good for about twenty yards range.  You just don’t want him and all his kin armed with AK’s.  Not good for the Revenuers, or the Po-Po.  And while gangbangers armed with Uzi’s and Mac’s make scary headlines, they are hardly a threat to much past the siding of the house they just Drive-By’ed.  But giving them cheap AK’s?  Then there was California.  Some bright boy started arming the disarmed folks there with 80% AK’s built from $200 parts kits and $35 receiver blanks.  WHOA!  Who the hell let this loophole exist?  Right after that, AK’s got crazy expensive.

*

The SKS s a great $150-$200 gun.  The AK might be a great $250 gun.  Past that, not so much.  Just as the AR was NOT a great $1,000 gun ( you can buy from Good Enough to Expert AR’s, from $350 to $2k.  The important thing is you are allowed a choice.  This is VERY important ), making the Mini-14 and others a better option than they should have been, the AK is NOT a viable option at higher prices, IF you are poor.  The AK was designed and built as a cheap weapon.  Quantity over quality.  Once you make it expensive, it loses 90% of its utility.  Whereas the AR, by lowering the price, GAINS all kinds of utility.  Covered next time, as I continue.

( .Y. )

( today's related link https://amzn.to/2I8gD8n )

*
note: free books.  Zombies https://amzn.to/2DyXY6V .  PA https://amzn.to/2DBDSJh .  China invades Oz https://amzn.to/2NIFcid .  
*

Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page ( or from www.bisonbulk.blogspot.com ). Or PayPal www.paypal.me/jimd303 

*** Unless you are in extreme poverty, spend a buck a month here, by the above donation methods or mail me some cash/check/money order or buy a book. If you don't do Kindle books, send me the money and I'll e-mail it to you in a PDF file.  If you donated, you may request books no charge.  
*** My e-mail is: jimd303@reagan.com  My address is: James M Dakin, 181 W Bullion Rd #12, Elko NV 89801-4184 ***E-Mail me if you want your name added to the weekly e-newsletter subscriber list.

*** Pay your author-no one works for free.  I’m nice enough to publish for barely above Mere Book Money, so do your part.*** junk land under a grand *  Lord Bison* my bio & biblio*   my web site is www.bisonprepper.com *** Wal-Mart wheat***Amazon Author Page
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there