BATTLE RIFLE BOOK 6 continued
WHICH ROUND? Chapter Continued
The simple fact of the matter is that it is hard enough to hit your target. This is one of the reasons semi-auto is so popular ( even though, counter-intuitively, the design and function make it far less accurate ). In theory you have the opportunity to keep trying to hit him a lot quicker. I have nothing against this theory, as I’ll be one of the schmucks in the line of fire out there. The problem for the Apocalypse is that the more you try to hit the enemy the faster you run out of ammunition.
Which is a very big reason that I don’t wish to discount the carbine round. You get twice as many for the same price. This has nothing to do with how many rounds you can battle carry. It has to do with the size of your stockpile. The more ammunition you have, the better ( although don’t take that too far. Steel cased ammo that hits nothing is a waste of money unless you are under fifty yards consistently ). All that you have is all that you will ever have. Post-apocalyptic trade fairs and reloading are mostly fantasy. Almost all the ammo will be used up very quickly, and that leaves none for trade if anybody has half a brain. Reloading is so rare that what damn fool would want to trade away that limited non-replenish resource?
Again, I don’t dislike the full size thirty caliber round. I don’t use it for distance because I simply am NOT a marksman. I don’t plan on much past 100 yards with 200 being about max. I use them because that is what the Lee-Enfield used and as a bonus I don’t have to worry about the very windy conditions locally ( you don’t even notice the wind here, but only when it ISN’T windy ). But I don’t use the criteria of it being a beefy heavy hard hitting round. That is just a bonus. I worry more about the weapon I use being super reliable and about the cost of my ammunition stockpile.
That is really a discussion for another time, but in short if I had discovered the carbine round workaround earlier most of my stockpile would be for 7.62x39 rather than the full powered 303 British. I simple don’t place as much importance in the power of the round compared to if I have enough rounds at all. And if I could keep firing the rifle. The 7.62x39 round alleviates a lot of the issue of deflection, compared to the 223, and under 250 yards the round is a pitbull. Small and ugly but ferocious. It should be noted that the Soviets devoted more time and attention to the round than the rifle. The Enfield itself is no tack driver, but far more reliable than any other bolt action rifle of the era ( but I’ll get into that in another chapter-my point here is that I picked it for its action, not the round it fired ).
By focusing on weapons rather than ammunition, primarily, you are concentrating on the far more important aspect of logistics anyway. Ammunition quantity is by far a much more important component than the weapon firing it or its quality. Most guns are 125 year old technology ( only advanced as far as tweaking the metal and furniture incrementally ), but non corrosive modern ammunition is only about half as old. It is far more advanced and hence far more easily disrupted as our system degrades. By ignoring the 9vs 45 or the 223 verses 308 argument, you can focus on how deep your larder is. THAT is the primary importance.
Stop worrying about battlefield incapacity and instead change your tactics to reduce the importance of instant lethality. You are going to have to adapt this mindset anyway, sooner or later, as all your primary weapons become useless from lack of ammunition and you are forced to relying on your Forever Gun.
Your number one consideration is if your weapon is capable of firing. This includes your need to worry about having the ammunition for it. Of course, yes, I said in the introduction that if you are poor and already armed you must be content with just focusing on ammunition. If your firearm is a piece of crap you just need to deal with that and carry on as best you can. I am assuming throughout this book, however, that you are making a choice in order to purchase. That you have the means financially of choosing. I just assume that almost everyone has a limited budget and since that is the case you are going to choose the cheaper carbine rounds to get enough fodder to keep your weapon running as long as possible.
Again, I love the CONCEPT of the full round thirty caliber rifle. I own one and consider myself fortunate. But when considering a limited budget they might be out of reach for you. Both the amount of rounds and the price of the gun itself. Even without considering the One Is None aspect, one rifle and one thousand rounds and just ten magazines have a huge cost differential. The AVERAGE costs are illustrative. The bigger bore system costs you $2400 and the carbine arsenal only $1200. Half the cost. This is no small consideration. Especially since you need more than one gun and more than a mere one thousand rounds ( and that few mags is problematic also ).
So that covers logistics. Now how about performance? All machismo posturing aside, a lower recoil system improves your chances of hitting something. Again, some folks are so darn good this isn’t a factor. But the average shooter is not all that good. And hence low recoil increases the odds of a hit. Which itself conserves ammunition. Note that I do NOT speak here of modern gunfights or modern battlefields. I speak of post-apocalypse conditions. In a current modern gunfight, you might be forced to remain close enough to strangers that round incapacitation is paramount. On the modern battlefield resupply is a given. These are not considerations that occur after the collapse, at least not to the same degree.
Even with a semi-auto, it is far more important to hit your target more often with fewer rounds, post-apocalypse. Less recoil helps the AVERAGE shooter do this. If you are super stud survivalist, it matters less. If you are average, it matters far more. I’m simply going to hit more with my rimfire than my Enfield, at the same ranges. The rimfire has no recoil and I’m just better with it. That doesn’t mean I want to use it instead of the full powered rifle, it is just to illustrate a point. The thing with carbine rounds is that they are the Goldilocks Just Right compromise between reducing the recoil yet not as much the stopping power/range. The 30 full bore will work so much better at stopping power, but you don’t hit as much with it. If you are AVERAGE. The carbine rounds were designed for the AVERAGE soldier.
The thing to remember is that the full thirty was designed to stop horses. I’ll cover that later, and just note here that the infantry has always had a fear of cavalry, and designed weapons for that problem as much for if not more so other infantrymen. That issue colored WWI weapons design as well as influenced the battle rifles that followed. The assault rifle was really the first weapon that escaped that design flaw. It won’t stop a horse. But it doesn’t have to. And most soldiers will run out of carbine ammo long before the horse returns to the battlefield. It is a better round for penetration, for distance and for stopping power. But if you can’t afford those designs, a carbine will do, round wise.
( .Y. )
( today's related link https://amzn.to/2KFCMui )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
note: free books. Zombies https://amzn.to/2MEfaIu & road trip https://amzn.to/2MjJkUd & hey why not yet more zombies https://amzn.to/2B5o28C
note: free books. Zombies https://amzn.to/2MEfaIu & road trip https://amzn.to/2MjJkUd & hey why not yet more zombies https://amzn.to/2B5o28C
*** 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: email@example.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.
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there
From a recent headline:ReplyDelete
“Eleven children between the ages of 1 and 15 were found in the compound and taken into state custody. The children were living in filthy conditions without running water or electricity, were wearing rags, and were all malnourished.”
The part that I wanted to highlight was:
“without running water or electricity”
Sounds like something that you would not want to try in today’s political climate.
Oh well. If you don’t already have children, I can’t in good conscientiousness recommend that you would be doing them any favors by bringing them up in today’s world regardless, so you might as well save them, as well as yourself, the pain.
Electricity is one solar panel away, and water can be a small twenty gallon RV tank set up in the rafters for gravity feed. Only idiots can't do this affordable fix.Delete
Sorry Jim but your idea doesn't work with the presupposed agenda. I agree with your premise but I'm different that way. Not necessarily about your recommendation but that I am pretty much anti-gov't drone on all aspects. If you'tr not paying dearly to the local electricity establishment you simply are not taking care of your kids properly and therefore the village must step in. For the children of course. I didn't read the article so there may indeed be a problem but is that what the gov't is for? I think not. The media likes to throw that "malnourished" word around. Compared to kids of today, kids in the 50's and 60's normally looked malnourished. See how things have twisted 180 degrees in half a century of communist influence?Delete
"running water" and "electricity" have little to do with the fact that clean water (hot & cold) comes out of kitchen and bath faucets, or that 120v/60Hz reliably comes out of duplex jacks around the house. The Point&Click social-services-investigator does a search of the local utility companies for an account at that address and discovers none: living in the stone age = terrorists abusing children, molding young Manchurian Candidates, indoctrinating jihadi suicide bombers, and generally not living the American Dream (which, BTW, is "getting enough to eat every day", not the post-war "2 cars, 2500 square foot ranch house, College Education For Everyone, and a Guaranteed Job where only showing up is required (FDR's *Four Freedoms*)". Oh, then someone says "David Koresh" under their breath...Delete
Idiocy is pretty much the standard. Idiots breed just fine when provided with food, comfy cages, and access to the opposite sex.
Okay, I got ya guys. There is no fix, because there isn't meant to be. It is Minority Report enforcement. Rather than trying to conform, better to keep your kids off the radar. Sometimes I get too logical and should be more paranoid. Thank goodness the kid issue is long ago resolved for me.Delete
Yeah, I have and love me my 30 caliber battle rifles. BUT! For their capability attributes there is deficiencies to consider. The manipulation in tight confines, humping the weapon and ammo load with other gear over distances, armory servicing or repairs may be more complex. Carbines of the ar15/ak47 types are the best compromises and have globally proved themselves to get the job done. I would even recommend minions incur some small debt if necessary to stock up the ammo, like right now quick like. There is two election cycles on top of other black flag ops that can jam up the supply. Plan accordingly.ReplyDelete
The warning signal to buy ammo NOW, is the fact that it is so cheap. If it is too good to be true...Yes, a small amount of debt isn't THAT terrible. Payments on a piece of junk land, or 5k of ammo, while not great are better than the alternatives.Delete
I bought an inexpensive bolt action Savage Axis in .308 with a bull barrel and scope already mounted ($350). It has the "kick like a mule" problem you mentioned so, even though the RIFLE is accurate the SHOOTER (me) is not. I found a muzzle brake online from Witt Machine that cut the recoil in half. Now it's no more punishing than an AR 15. It cost nearly $100 but you can make a cheap bold action rifle soo much more comfortable (an hence, more accurate) with this little beauty. Something to considerReplyDelete
I've heard great things about Savage. And that seems a reasonable price given the resulting savings and increased accuracy.Delete
Fitting a rifle to your body shape is a worthwhile thing, if you were not born Medium-Regular in all ways.Delete
Muzzle brake can do several things (not all at once, with trade-offs) including reduce flash, reduce felt recoil, be a tool or tool-holder, direct noise/blast to the left-right-up around the shooter, among other things.
The weight and shape of the stock can make a big difference in felt recoil. Super-light carries easier (skeleton titanium hurts more)! Heavy reduces the recoil to your shoulder, which is technique-dependent. A gel-filled shotgun shoulder pad might help if you insist on wearing a t-shirt instead of a proper shooting jacket.
Inexpensive appropriate (mil-surp fmj cartridges? you don't need Hensoldt optics, more like Redfield.Nikon.Bushnell) optic on top of the rifle with good mount/rings and perhaps a bi-pod will help the average shooter with older eyes and not a lifetime of shooting breath-control (or high-mountain yoga mastery).
I never could understand the drive towards lighter rifles, past a point. It works for some, but inappropriate in many circumstances. Too much One Size Fits All.Delete
I like the Butler Creek folding stocks. Because not only is it sturdy, it adds mass to the butt of the gun improving balance. Tough enuff to use as a club too !Delete
Have it on both 10/22's and the Mini 14.
I always assumed a folding stock was inherantly weak-but I have no experience.Delete
The problem with a lot of these discussion is people conflate issues and solutions. If you are an attacker and I wing you at 25+ meters your fight is over if you can find cover and/or concealment. It doesn’t matter what caliber I hit you with. Double tapping, which is NOT spray and pray by the way, is for CQB. In a close fight you double tap, regardless of the stopping power of your weapon, because you are trying to quickly eliminate threats, move past them without fear and avoid grappling. Once again I refer to my friends, the Chechen rebels, who put many a Russian out of the fight using .22 rifles with cheap scopes at ranges of 100m or less.ReplyDelete
Good point on winging and caliber. You have to admire the Chechens with their odds, as well as the Russians for their solution.Delete
Indeed, if ever the need came to be that I'd have to sling BOB on my back. No doubt that I'd take my 10/22 and 22/45. Along with a thousand freaking rounds of ammo. Try packing 1k of 223 or .308, not going to happen.Delete
Your forever gun should have a PRIORITY of being lightweight. By the time you're toting that around, you'll be depleted of just about every asset you'd accumulated before the event, including food. Don't forget about the Donner Party tragedy from the 1800's. The survivors who were trying to hike out for help saw a deer, but nobody was strong enough to lift their rifle to shoot it. In my own experience, on week-long fasts for health/cleansing, by day three without food, I was too weak for normal levels of exertion.ReplyDelete
The Forever Gun concept merely presupposes regular ammo running out, not the need for bugging out per se. It is light weight just because of the necessary small caliber.Delete
I have to agree - the 7.62x39 has a lot of practical uses in the real world. If you are down to selecting only one round - this one is serious contender.ReplyDelete
“I never could understand the drive towards lighter rifles”ReplyDelete
I can think of one advantage. There is a certain accessory item that you commonly advocate, called the bayonet.
“The Throw Point: If armed with a lightweight carbine (e.g. M-16) it may be possible to use the one handed throw point method.”
“If armed with a heavier rifle (.e.g. M-1 or M-14) keep both hands on the rifle (awkward, and the one handed thrust puts more distance between yourself and your adversary, and offers up less of a target. Also keep in mind Peace Out's Donner example above)”.
Chapter 8, Bayonet fighting - P.128-129 of The Military Manual of Self Defense: Anthony B. Herbert
I prefer having both hands securing the weapon, and mass behind the sharp point.Delete
Poole suggests concussion grenades and the bayonet.Delete