BATTLE RIFLE BOOK 10
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 )
*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/2DyXY6V . PA https://amzn.to/2DBDSJh . China invades Oz https://amzn.to/2NIFcid .
note: free books. Zombies https://amzn.to/2DyXY6V . PA https://amzn.to/2DBDSJh . China invades Oz https://amzn.to/2NIFcid .
*** 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
“and I outgrew my dependence of a sidearm as my primary weapon which can be a LEO faulty viewpoint”.ReplyDelete
If you can handle the recoil, I would suggest that you can make a compromise here. A .44 magnum handgun is an easy 100 yard gun.
You can pick up a rifle, as the one below for a reasonable price ($233.00) and easily reach out to 200 yards. If your range skills are already limited to around 100 or 200 yards, then this is plenty of gun for you. If you’d like to spend a little more, the same place in the link below has several lever action .44 magnum rifles for around $600. You also have the versatility of the interchangeable .44 special. Doesn’t seem like too bad of a way to go to me.
CVA Hunter Single Shot Break Action Rifle .44 Magnum 22" Barrel DuraSight Scope Rail Mount CrushZone Recoil Pad Synthetic Forend/Stock Matte Black Finish
I'm already planning on devolving into LESS recoil ( 357 to 38, 303 to 762x39 ). Not a bad concept, though, as it offers advantages ( rifle-ish punch with a concealed carry arm, lower reloading units ).Delete
The pistol would be a little harder to hang onto Jim, but the recoil from the rifle, as far as rifles go, probably wouldn’t be bad at all, and likely less than one of your .303’s. That rifle actually looks rather nice to me. I didn’t know that CVA made such weapons, having mostly made muzzleloaders in the past.Delete
Just to give you a frame of recoil reference on the .44 magnum handgun, a wimpy 10 year old can fire one. I know, because I was that 10 year old, and my father thought it would be cute to see if I could shoot it in front of a family friend. I held on with all my might, and after pulling the trigger, the barrel was pointing up at the zenith. But hang on to it I did. But 10 year olds were probably a little tougher in those days. An adult male could easily handle one though, but they do give you quite a jolt.
I can see why they would start there going modern. Lowest cost manufacturing and then you can charge extra because of the less covered calibers.Delete
Almost any quality handgun can make hits at 100 yards as long as you have the trigger control. I have done this with .22, .32, .380, 9mm, .38/357, .40, .45, and .44 magnum. No ridiculous amount of range estimation is needed. At worst, aim at the head of a combat target, and it'll hit in the body.
The .44 magnum is an inefficient combat pistol cartridge due to most of the energy being expended on the opposite side of the target, and slow followup shots due to recovery from the recoil process. In order to reduce the recoil properly, a 7.5" or longer barrel is recommended. The weight and size of the firearm make it burdensome for daily carry. The weight and cost of the cartridges are an additional burden. As we age, and get weak from hunger, illness, etc., the recoil becomes less and less tolerable, until you develop a flinch, and then the gun is nearly useless except at close range. There isn't anything in the greater Elko area that Jim could possibly encounter that would require a .44. Worst case wildlife scenario (unless a caravan of zoo animals crashes on I-80/Elko exit during an EMP :-) is maybe a mountain lion, maybe a scrawny black bear, maybe a grey wolf. All of these could be handled with the .357. Not trying to start a fight, just offering an opposing opinion. Thanks for the exposure to the CVA smokeless rifles, I wasn't aware they existed.
My thought exactly, even if the 44 is too Far Out, exposure to the new(ish) single shot was worth the effort/time. The 44 can certainly fit niche needs, just like that revolver with the 410 shotshells. Most suggestions can cater to some, if not all.Delete
Good stuff. I respect Peace Out’s opinion, because clearly he knows of what he speaks.Delete
I mentioned the .44 magnum, because this allows the same cartridge for both rifle and pistol. And I also recall that you yourself (Jim) having mentioned that you did not consider yourself to be a competent shooter much beyond a 100 yards.
The .44 magnum need not be overly expensive to reload. You can cast your own bullets, though you would want to use gas checks.
In later years, you can load the reduced recoil .44 specials. In fact, the .44 magnum loads that my father handloaded were already reduced loads. He did this because he said that the factory loads were so hot, that they actually loosened the gun up, necessitating having to go through the gun and tighten everything down again.
I would stick with the 357/38, even if I went with same caliber rifle, just because of my pistol/ammo on hand. Whether it be better or not than the 44. But Best Gun talk never gets old, does it? Recognizing my true shooting ability allows me to use the Less Than Perfect guns I have on hand. I'm confident at 100, and will try to not waste ammo at 300 yards.Delete
My idea of a good shootemupsky set-up is first a .22 rifle (the 10/22 is a good one) and some sort of .22 pistol, either a Ruger MkII or a .22 revolver, then for something bigger, a .38/.357 revolver and some sort of rifle that also shoots that.Delete
These are all things you can get fairly cheaply with tons of ammo floating around out there.
Then you branch out from there if desired.
Marlin 30-30 FTWDelete
Yup. Great round, and great gun. I only mentioned the .44 mag above because of dual versatility (Both pistol and rifle) and really, quad versatility if you count the .44 special/mag combo.Delete
The .357 is not a bad round at all Jim. It lacks the punch of a .44 mag, but is more than enough to take someone down (Just ask Claude Dallas). I’d imagine that you could reload it a lot cheaper than your .303, and brass is common.Delete
Here you go:
"....22 rifle (the 10/22 is a good one) and some sort of .22 pistol, either a Ruger MkII..."Delete
That right there is probably the best gun advice you'll receive any where. The early Ruger Marks (I and II) are the best because of less plastic in the manufacturing but they are also the rarest and most expensive. The Ruger 10/22 is nice because of the 10 rd box magazine that can be reloaded fast. You can carry 5 of those mags in a pocket easily. There are extended versions of the mag.
If I was starting from scratch that is what I would do, a 10/22 and a Mark I and 20k of ammo in various loads. Put a 4-10X scope on the 10/22 and a way to efficiently carry a bunch of mags for each and there ya are.
FWIW: An early Mark pistol is the primary frearm I am looking for right now but I have a problem paying $500 for it, and a used one may have the barrel shot out of it.
I know, i know, Semi. But, what about a 22 revolve? $200 new.Delete
Thought you might get a kick out of this Jim :DReplyDelete
Feminism with Bear Grylls Episode 1
That would probably be me, with the snake falling out of the tree nearby :)Delete
I think you guys may like this video. Don't be to quick to discount it just because your attention span is shot.ReplyDelete
Did this guy go to Forrest Trumps hair dresser? Seriously, I've written a note to watch later today during designated YouTube time. Thank you.Delete
I just watched it. Interesting video, that also confirms much of what you speak of here (Semi’s will soon run out of ammo, and more than a few people suggested, as have I, several times here before, that Flintlocks will be the last guns still working). It’s kind of interesting to see the educated professor type speaking on such topics, and throws you off a little, vs the stereotypical, Gung-ho macho types, that these survival videos usually feature. I subscribed.Delete