The Ar-15/ M-16 The Good The Bad And The Ugly...in My Humble Openion.

I have often expressed my dislike for the 5.56 in an AR or AK for civilians use in a survival situation. It seems to be everyone's go to weapon when ever you mention survival or self defense. I don't think that many people know or understand the purpose or history of this weapon nor its use by military forces at the time the M-16 was introduced and how it is used now by military forces.

They went to the M-16 and the 5.56 during the Vietnam period. At that time we were basically changing our philosophy of war. Anyone that has studies that war and all the wars that we have been in you will note that we no longer try to kill the enemy in mass and by doing that force them to capitulate. We never bombed most of the targets in Vietnam that would have disabled their ability to continue the war. We surrounded Fallujah in Iraq and then let them escape rather than bomb the city. We now try to make war without killing any civilians and prefer to wound rather than kill even the soldiers on the theory that when the enemy reaches the point that it can't care for their casualties that the troops will lose heart and start to surrender. This has actually worked pretty well but then as soon as we pull back they start up again. Of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq the only one to have any lasting peace is Korea...that's because we have never left and are still there.

The other reason for the switch to the M-16 was that it was a jungle warfare. You didn't often have a clear target to shoot at and had to sort of spray and pray a lot of the time. In the jungle during WW2 the Thompson Sub-machine gun did well and was liked. The M-14 was a battle bifle and was great in more open warfare but lacked the available volume of fire needed and the ammo was heavy. The M-16 is a replacement for the Thompson not the M-14 to some extent.

The 5.56 in FMJ is the least deadly round ever carried into any war by any people. It is a 22 and is not generally considered to be a heavy enough round to humanely hunt deer ESPECIALLY in the FMJ military loading that the AR based rifles are designed for.

TV and movies have made the M-16 seem to be a never ending lead hose that can wipe out people by the hundreds. The fact is that since the M-16 was adopted the number of rounds fired in order to get a kill had gone through the roof and into outer space! The thing that people don't understand is that this is fine and part of the process that the military uses now.

The way a modern squad is organized is not like what you think based on TV. A squad in the perfict world is based on 12 men but more often ends up as 10. They are armed like this in laymans terms rather than trying to wade into all the military weapons classifications.

Squad leader- 12 ga pump shotgun and hand gun

Medic-may have handgun may not

Team leader of Attack team- M-16 and handgun

Rifleman 1- M-16

Rifleman 2- (Extra man) M-16

Grenadier – M-16 with grenade launcher

Heavy Rifleman- 338 or 30 caliber heavy rifle

Team leader of weapons team- Grenade launcher and handgun

Machine Gunner- SAW-LMG a 5.56 (Squad Automatic Weapon) (Light Machine gun)

Sharp Shooter- 338 or 30 caliber heavy rifle (Barrett semiautomatic with 10 rnd mag is popular)

Rocker or 2nd Machine gunner- Rocket launchers or a second SAW

Rifleman/ Ammo carrier (Extra man)- M-16

The purpose of the Riflemen is to put a lot of lead in the air and make the enemy get down while the Weapons team gets set. After that the weapons team will start killing the enemy. The sharp shooter will spot an individual and the next time he lifts up to shoot he is dead. The Grenadier will nail any clusters that are pinned down by the riflemen. The Machine gunner makes sure that the enemy can't make a mass charge or even a mass open retreat without paying a huge price. The Rocker handles any armor or heavily reinforced places from which the enemy may be firing. The Heavy Rifleman in the Attack team has a heavy semiautomatic that will poke a hole through light body armor that the 5.56 might not be able to take out and to make hiding behind light cover like a heavy door or car a losing idea.

The M-16 is a brilliant weapon as a part of an assault team. It puts a lot of lead in the air and makes the enemy get down and stay down. It also shines when you are not exactly sure of the location of the target. The light weight of the ammo is an advantage in this sort of thing because you can carry so much more ammo and shoot a lot more. In the end though the weapons squad does the killing and every one of their weapons is intended to be deadly.

As great as the M-16 is in this sort of thing in a survival situation when you want to kill your enemy before he can kill you and you don't have a team supporting you do you really want to bet your life on a stepped down version of a weapon that was never intended to be a killer to start with? Thew other problem with this is that for every guy you have in battle you have three or four times that many making sure that you are fed, resupplied and taken care of if you get hurt. A survivalist has none of this. The 5.56 will kill and is deadly but if you shoot an attacker he may still kill you or a loved one before laying it down and dying. For defensive purposes and assault rifle in a light caliber just doesn't get the job done.

I personally know a lot of people here in Texas that use AR-15 type weapons to shoot hogs that are bothering their deer feeders and feed plots. The reason it is such a favored weapon is simply that it doesn't drop them there so that you have to do something with the body. They run off and die someplace else. I know this is cruel but we have a monster problem with feral hogs here and they are considered a threat to a lot of things so we are encouraged to kill them on sight. The point is that the same things that make the 5.56 good for modern war and bad for defense is easily seen in this.

There is hardly any place on a human body that a hit from a 12 guage shotgun up close won't be a devastating wound that will stop your attacker. One round of #4 buck is 30 22 caliber pellets that will each tear into the body and rupture arteries and veins. The pellets are going to stay in the body rather than drill a smooth 22 caliber hole like a 5.56 FMJ is prone to do at close range.

I have owned and LOVED a 5.56 semiautomatic weapon. I will say that they are probably about the most fun to shoot of any weapon that I've ever owned. Their recoil is negligible almost like a 22lr but their effect in comparison to a 22lr is several orders above that. For hog hunting and armadillo hunting they are a blast. Actually anything that you want to kill but not eat is a good target for them. I just don't want to bet my, or the life of a loved one, on their ability to STOP an attacker before he can hurt me or mine.

Most of what I've mentioned up to this point is applicable to the 5.56 AR and AK rifles. Change that to a 30 caliber round, even the 7.62X39, and it becomes a better stopper. It, even in a 30 caliber has one problem to me. AR and AK rifles are ammo EATERS. It takes some serious discipline not to use two, three or even four rounds to do the job that one will do. I look at survival with the assumption that replacement ammo is going to be scarce and get even harder to find as time goes on. 30 caliber ammo is heavy and you can't carry as many rounds as the 5.56 allowed. It doesn't matter if you have a dinosaur killer rifle, when the ammo is gone it's a club.

The thing about survival as I've said before, it is more of an art than a science. My plan and general philosophy is more of a defensive sort. I am planning to stay in place but even before that was the plan I was always more defensive minded than offensive inclined. An assault weapon is just not going to be my first choice. If on the other hand you figure that you are going to be more mobile and likely getting into a lot of fights then maybe for you an assault weapon might be the best. If that is the case though I recommend the highest level of body armor that you can afford and get to go along with it. Since I am staying in place I will have reinforced fox holes and pill boxes. Don't worry though I will provide cover for any attackers... of course when they get in them I'm going to blow them up...

 

I went to the gun range today with my wife to do a little shooting. I watched a guy in the rifle range part of the range shooting some sort of AR. In a matter of a very few minutes, maybe 3, he went through about 6 magazines. Holy crap! He was all over the place on that target. All he was doing was making a ton of noise and not really improving his skill. He would have been a lot better out to do short three round runs into a small group over and over until it became muscle memory.

I know I'm just being picky and honestly I have done much the same thing to a lesser extent. A couple of mags. You just have a hard time resisting it when you have one of those guns in your hands.

 

I think what ever type of rifle/caliber combination you pick should be training with in depth.
Be it an AR in 9mm/556/6.5/308 or AK in 556/x39 or 5.45, FAL, G3......practice makes perfect.
However, the 1st rule of survival is conflict avoidance.

 

The only fight that you will always win is the one you don't have!

I have always liked the handy little m1 carbine. It is what it is and was made to be that way. To me it was a great answer to a light weapon that offered good volume of fire if needed and acceptable stopping power in close ranges. The AR in 5.56 offers better long range capability but at long ranges I would rather have a bolt action and bigger bullets. Up close the 5.56 just fails to make an immediate one round stopper. I really would rather have a shotgun up close especially something like the Mossberg 590 M. Even the old venerable Thompson submachine gun stepped down to semiautomatic was a much better weapon in close quarters.

The military AR platform is a well made idea it just isn't a defensive weapon as its general designation indicates it is an ASSAULT weapon and the civilian version isn't even that. A survivalist that spends much time assaulting people just isn't going to live long. I believe in a more defensive posture and so don't mess with the 5.56 anymore. I would rather have even a 9mm in a carbine. I'm even thinking about a hi-point carbine in a 45 ACP. If it is dependable it would be a great defensive weapon.

 

I could see where a pistol caliber carbine would be handy in certain situations. I wouldn't want to give up the penetration capability of a relatively high velocity, intermediate or larger, rifle round though.

I tested 9mm, 45, 357, 30tok and 556 against an 80s or 90s vintage flak and the only thing that penetrated both front and back was the 556. the 30tok penetrated the front but stopped in the back panel. I believe the 30tok goes a little slower than the 30 carbine so a flak would be no good and I doubt any soft body armor could stop the 30 carbine either. Still, I think you loose a lot of penetrative ability with the 30 carbine vs 556, x39.

In a survival situation I don't see where long range shots would ever be needed, aside from hunting food. If a threat is far enough away where you'd need a scoped bolt gun I think evasion would be more prudent. Today many modern semi auto rifles are capable of dependable shot placement out to 500 yards so even the faithful old bolt gun is losing some ground in the longer range arena .

To me shotguns have a very limited role, besides bird hunting and house clearing and other CQB scenarios, I'd feel at a disadvantage if that was all that I had.

 

Well, I understand this was your opinion, and everyone is free to have theirs, however I'm gonna have to disagree with a few things. First, I've never actually seen anywhere in any official capacity that the government was looking for a round to just wound the enemy. While searching for any parameter that the government was looking for a wounding round instead of one that "kills" all I could find was people giving that as on opinion. As a matter of fact, what I have found is pretty much the opposite. I found that when it was tested in Vietnam, the people who used it loved it and touted its killing power, possibly exaggerating it. The m14 was heavy, long and uncontrollable in full auto fire with rounds that were to heavy to carry a lot of. Not a good combination to carry through a dense jungle, especially when going against the AK-47. The 5.56/m-16 was chosen because it was light weight, very controllable in full auto, soldiers could carry lots of ammo, and from what they had been told/tested had good ballistic performance that could do what they needed at the ranges they needed to do it at, to try and match the AK. . If they wanted a "less lethal" rifle, they could have just used or greater developed the m2 carbine. At least that's my opinion. I would also disagree that the 5.56 is the least effective round ever carried into battle. I would say that the 45 acp (for long guns) or the 30 carbine would be the least effective rounds.

As far as the 5.56/ Ar-15 being a good survival or defensive weapon, that may come down to personal preference and needs. For basic defense, it is a great caliber/rifle. Even with run of the mill m855 or xm193, within its effective range, it has very good effect, and for basic defense, your not gonna get close to that range. Just like anything though, it's only as good as the ammo you put in it. With higher quality ammo, you can get better effect. I wouldn't say I shoot a lot of animals, but I have shot some critters with 5.56 xm193 ball at varying ranges, and if they do anything close in the human body that I've seen them do to animals, it seems very effective, and far more effective than any defensive caliber type handgun I've ever used with good defensive bullets on the same animals.

In my opinion however, the 5.56 is a 300 yard round max, Obviously you can hit targets at much further ranges, but bullet performance isn't there, but for me, and my needs 300 yards is fine. For other people, they may need more than that. As I said, it all boils down to what you personally want need. For a SHTF gun, I want 5.56 because I live in a suburban area. More than likely I will moving to another location, and I want to be a lot more mobile. I have a case of 5.56 and a half case of 308, and the case of 5.56 is far lighter than the half case of 308. I can stick the case of 5.56 in a backpack and easily carry it plus other items, I cant do that with the 308. Now, if I lived in a more remote area with longer lines of sight , and I was planning to stay in my location and not move very far from my home on a regular basis, I'd probably choose the 308 as I don't have to carry the ammo since I'm close to the supply.

Now, some people might decide to split the difference and go with something like the 7.62x39, and thats fine too and one that I might consider myself depending, but in my opinion performance wise, the tradeoffs between it and 5.56 make it so that one isn't really better than the other. 7.62x39 weighs more, doesn't shoot near as flat, has more recoil, and depending on ammo, gives up energy to the 5.56 after about 100 yards or so, with the upside being that it may penatrate a bit more, and leaves 2mm bigger holes. However, depending on needs this might be a decent trade off.

You say that the 5.56 is deadly, but that an attacker could still kill you before laying down and dying, but the same could be said for almost every round, not just the 5.56. There have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people hit with large caliber rounds that have lived to talk about it. That's why we talk about shot placement so much. Roy Benavidez was shot somewhere around 27 times with an Ak-47 and the like (I'm assuming since it was Vietnam) and still managed to Kill the enemy and make it out alive.

You also state that AR and AK Rifles are ammo eaters, but again, that is your opinion. My opinion is that it will come down to self control, not the round that's being fired. There's nothing that came with my AR-10 that says now that I'm firing a 308, I won't be an ammo waster, unless your implying that since I'm gonna be carrying less ammo I'm gonna be using less of it, which doesn't really help anything.



Anyhow, I could go on but this is already more long winded than I wanted, i just wanted to state my opinion that the 5.56 isn't really as bad as you stated, and that I've never seen any factual evidence that the 5. 56 was designed to wound and not kill.

 

Here we go again.

People are funny, they don't like being shot. To keep this from happening, they have a tendency to get behind things like walls and trucks. They also have a marked tendency to return fire from behind walls and trucks.

One therefore has to shoot through walls and trucks to make the enemy turn into something we call a "casualty". A true casualty stops shooting back. This is good.

Give me a cartridge whose bullet weighs over 100 grains with a good sectional density. A 6.5 mm to 7.0 mm bullet is just fine when launched at 25oo ft. / sec. or above.

Here are two cartridges that were excellent, yet highly underrated: 6.5 mm Swedish & the 7mm Mauser.

Dumpier cartridge cases with 6.5 mm or 7mm bullets can achieve plenty enough energy and can be fired using a short bolt / receiver. Even though it is falling out of favor, the 6.5 Grendel was OK.

Me, I like the .308 Win and .303 Brit. I used to be able to get inexpensive rifles and ammo in these calibers, so I did. I wish I'd bought a bunch of cheap carbines in 7.62 x 54R. I got to where I could accuratize these in a handy sporterized version (kicked like the dickens!). Now all the prices have gone through the ceiling.

 

Not arguing against bigger calibers, I like them just fine. However, I don't think, and there's no evidence to suggest that the government was looking for a round that would mearly wound and not kill. I was also stating that a 5.56 isn't a bad defensive round in the least and that it has a lot of value for that type of situation. Is it the best round, depends on the situation I suppose. I would prefer the 6.5 grendel personally, however it has some issues on the logistical side for me.

Indeed people don't like to be shot at and will take cover behind walls and trucks and things. Funny thing about that, a few years ago a few of my friends blew up a car with some tannerite. After we hit it with 5 pounds, (which blew the roof off and all the windows out and really messed up the interior) we shot it with all sorts of rounds 9mm, 40, 45, 5.56, 7.62x39, 308 etc, and the only round, to punch through both sides of the car in a straight line on a consistent basis was the 50 bmg. I would have imagined the 308 would do it every time too, but it didn't. Most of the rifle rounds punched through, they just deflected different ways.

Those cheap 7.62x54r rifles aren't so cheap these days. I remember when we were selling them for 70 bucks a rifle. Lol.

 

"I would have imagined the 308 would do it every time too, but it didn't."

Once a bullet yaws, the next thing it hits will catch all of its energy. If that is a human, that human better be right with God. Remember that the bullet is spinning at over 150,000 rpm, maybe 200K or above. Bullets go nuts, shed their jackets, all that.

A yawed bullet striking a distal door will, in all likelihood, be stopped.

 

Hey every Marine is a rifleman first and foremost. They don't do crap like this. they give you not a 5.56 or a .223 or any other form of a .22, but they give you a 7.62 and a .45 and a freakin big knife called the Ontario USMC Fighter. and that's for every single squad member. Occasionally a few will have some of the specialized weapons and always one or two will have a high-calibre rifle for long-range shots, but they all use a 7.62 M16 and a Colt m1911a1 .45 first and foremost. That's how a truly powerful military works.

 

Very true, however I didn't imagine the flimsy doors and cabin of a Nissan sentra would have upset the 308 so much, although they could have hit supports in the doors and what not.

 

Fairly certain the marines have used full sized m-16 rifles in 5.56 until just recently when they started getting some m4 rifles.

 

Talk about a time warp. The marines that you are talking about were last seen in Korea in the 1950s. In the 60s in Nam marines were issued M-16s and all M-i6s were 5.56. The 7.62 was used in the M14. Only officers were issued handguns but I knew several regulars back then that bought and carried their own. My big knife and most that were issued back then were Ka-Bars. The M-9 "Beretta" 9mm replaced the 1911 45 acp in 1990.

A 22LR can and does kill a lot of people every year. The problem with using a FMJ 22 bullet isn't that it won't kill a man the problem is that it doesn't have much knock down power. When I shoot someone I do it with one reason in my mind and that is to stop them from being a threat to me.

I'm sorry but the intention of war has been to make it less and less lethal for a long time. Why exactly do you think that all military ammo is by law in the Geneva convention FMJ? Everyone has gone away from the high powered battle rifles that were the norm in WW1 and WW2 The lighter rounds like the 45 in the thompson and the 30 cl M-1 carbine came into their own in the jungles of the pacific in WW2 and then even more so in Vietnam. When you are in a jungle you don't often have clean and clear targets so volume of fire becomes more important.

In the event of a domestic survival situation I have no interest in assaulting anyone. I will either be dealing with attackers up close or assassinating them from a safe distance. Inside of 50 yards I like a 12 ga shotgun and outside of 100 yards I want a 30 caliber in a scoped platform.

Most of the downsides of an AR-15 type weapon are minimised in the hands of a trained warrior. Unfortunately watching a Rambo marathon on TV and firing a couple hundred rounds doesn't make you "experienced." Most people that are buying these guns these days are far from trained. Even with training in Vietnam the first time a man came under fire he did well if he remembered to fire his weapon and then reload. These people are going to go through their ammo in a very short period of time.

I have spent most of my time over the years making my first shot count. When I use to run the combat shooting ally I used playing cards for my targets or swinging tennis balls. I want to make my hits one shot stoppers as much as possible. The 5.56 is deflected by all major bones and even minimal cover will stop them. Understand when you do make a hit you have poked a tiny .22" hole. An ice pick is deadly but if someone is attacking me I'll take a big Ka-Bar knife or machete over an ice pick every time. Size MATTERS. That is why hollow point handgun rounds are so much better than FMJ and why a 45ACP is generally a good stopper even though its basic numbers are rather unimpressive.

Survival is an art and when you are talking about an art it is a very personal thing. In the end if you make good use of whatever you have you stand a better chance of survival than a hundred people better armed and supplied that don't do the right things.

Basically my plan is to follow guidelines similar to the military. There will be light weapons to make attackers keep their heads down and then others that are snuffers that will kill with every pull of the trigger. I will set up my place with defined killing fields. Basically for suppressive fire I will have my people shooting 22LR out of Ruger 10-22s. My killers will all be shooting 7.62 rifles. The defence people will be shooting 12 ga at anyone that gets close or out in the open within 50 yards. We hope to add a Barrett 50 cal . We had one but someone offered more than could be turned down. A big 50 makes hiding behind cars a losing proposition.

I have several reloading presses and have made a living as a gunsmith. When I was younger and living in a place that I would have wanted to leave I liked the 5.56 for the many obvious reasons. My personal choice was the Mini 14 while my best friend was shooting an AR-15. We reloaded for them and neither ever gave us any problems. My needs now are defensive. I basically bugged out 25 years ago. My needs now are a lot different and my abilities are different as well both on the good and the bad side of things.

 

Replied inside the quote above by the ***.

 

I believe you are referring to Infantry Riflemen. That's different. If this is the case, then you are correct. However, they still have a large assortment or both 5.56/.223 and also 7.62, but the 7.62 is dying off. The large majority use 5.56 and I believe all of the overseas Marines use 5.56. However, every rifle at boot camp is basically an antique m16a4 7.62. And all Military Police use a Colt m1911a1. They have had a very large amount of 1911s stored for the last 70 years and have been using them lightly. They just released many of those for sale and have almost stopped all use of the 1911, but still a few MOS's use them. But if we're going with the majority, you are correct.

 

The M-16 was never chambered in 7.62. Maybe your referring to the m-14.

 

My mistake**let me clarify. I'm referring to a 7.62 rifle that has an m16-style build and the longer barrel style. And the m14 hasn't been used widely since 'Nam but in extremely rare cases they are used in combat situations.

 

however Navy SEALs (shouldve been named Marine SEALs in my opinion cuz they are mostly made up of Marines) but anyway the SEALs use m14s rather often

 

I guess maybe they have them on hand. Idk. I wouldn't want one at all. Lots of FAR better options.

 

Oh that's true for sure. I'm starting on a custom-machined AR-15 build in 5.56/.223 Winchester and a replaceable 7.62x39 barrel just in case ya know.

 

If your doing a custom build I'd make sure to put on an adjustable gas block on the 7.62x39 upper. The ones I've shot have all seemed to be very over gassed. May have just been the ones I was shooting though. If it were me however, I would probably just get a 300 black out upper and call it a day. Ammo is a little harder to find, however you can use the same bolt and usually magazines from the 5.56.
With the 7.62x39 upper on the gun, you'll have to use those goofy mags that have a checkered history, although maybe they have gotten better in the last few years. If I was to get an AR in 7.62x39, I'd probably spring for the cmmg mutant, that way it can feed out of standard AK-47 mags. Just my 2 cents though.

 

Ok, cool. I'll definitely look into that.

 

This is the rifle I'm using as a base

switching out the upper and barrel and handguard. gonna do a CQB length barrel with a long removable shroud just in case I need some extra length. of course the mag is gonna swapped with a 40 rnd
I've got a boatload of mods that'll go on it and it'll basically be a go-rifle so if i don't have access to my go-bag for some reason I've still got this

 

Why are you using a California gun as a base?

 

waddaya mean "California gun"?

 

because of the mag size?

 

No, because that's a "featureless" rifle. No pistol grip, threaded muzzle, no adjustable stock, no bayonet lug, etc. That's a Ban compliant weapon. Nobody outside Cali wants that.

 

I must correct you. This is a good rifle (which I have shot btw) and you're forgetting I said it's only a base. The entire upper and interiors and barrel are being switched. And the pistol grip, adjustable stock and bayonet lug aren't necessary. I just happen to prefer this type of handle instead of a pistol grip. That's just preferences. I'm going for affordable functionality and accuracy. Not unlimited cheesy looking extras that I'm never gonna need. There's a wonderful idea called "Minimalist Survivalism" where you only take exactly what you need and in as little space and weight as possible. No more, no less. That's the idea behind this gun. If you disagree, hey that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, I've done my research and it's a reliable Ruger rifle. If you think it'll be featureless by the time I'm done with it though, you're completely wrong. If you wanna talk over my end-goal designs, I'm totally up for that. But if your goal is just to view this with blinders on and just see the present design, then we're done here. However like I said, I'm willing to talk these over.

 

They sure can. More disturbing, a small limb the size of your little finger can throw-off the path of a .375 H&H Mag.

Gyroscopic precession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession

 

You can do whatever you like. It's your rifle and your money. However it seems like a complete waste of money to buy that rifle as a base, and then switch out all the things your planning to switch out. Hell, just switching out the barrel alone to a quality barrel is gonna run you around 250-300 dollars, that's 3/5ths the cost of the rifle (we sell the non-nuetered versions of that rifle for 499.99, not sure how much the neutered versions are, but I imagine they are around the same price). You said you were also going to switch the upper too, (which in my opinion would be pointless) that would also drive up the cost. You would be better served at that point to just build the rifle from scratch in my opinion. As for features, if you don't want them, I guess that is your choice, however I wouldn't want to use a gun I couldn't get a proper grip on, or adjust my LOP, or use a flash hider or other muzzle devices including a silencer. It has nothing to do with being a "minimalist" but about functionality to me, and the reason that, that gun is in the configuration that it's in is because they wanted to take away functionality from it. Matter of fact the standard version of the gun is more minimal than. That said, it's your money, your rifle, and you are free to do with it as you choose. If you have any questions, feel free to ask though.

 

Actually, you'll have to forgive me. I neglected to do proper research on these rifles, however I do still stand on my opinion that it is a good, solid rifle. I just did a bit of research on some of the more expensive parts of this rifle, and realized I could just build one from the ground up, like you said, with the mods I am wanting for even less than the rifle sells for. So, that being said I am completely open to some of the recommendations you may have regarding the upper, lower and barrel. If you could give me a couple affordable options, I'm also looking for a shorter barrel that can use the short Magpul handguard. CQB length I believe. Regarding the upper and lower, any receivers are fine as long as I can put alotta rounds through it multiple times a week and it still be like new or extremely close. If you can think of anything, I am open to your thoughts.

 

For cold hammer forged and chrome lined barrels I would use BCM, FNH, or spikes tactical. For nitride barrels, I like the POF. I'm sure there are other good barrels, but those are the ones I have experience with. To go shorter than 16 inches you would need to register the gun as an SBR with the ATF, but that is another can of worms. Upper and lower is up to you. As long as they are mill spec they are all the same, get which ever you like better or that's cheaper.

You may have to buy some tools to help assemble it though too, just so you're aware. A vice, receiver blocks, stock and barrel wrenches, punches, and go no-go gauges if you want to be thorough.

It may be more practical for you to buy a rifle. If that is the case, if your wanting to spend as little as possible and get a decent rifle for the money, I think the Smith and wesson m&p sport II is the better buy between that an the Ruger AR556. That said they are so close is personal preferance. If you want to spend a little more, the Windham Weaponry is a good buy in my opinion. I have one of the old Bushmaster rifles from before they were Windham and that rifle has over 25K rounds through it and still shoots great. That rifle now houses my fostech echo trigger, so it gets abused when it comes out of the safe, but still shoots true. Last time it came out, it was hitting 3 and 400 yard 66 percent ipsc targets.

If you want to get up to around the 1000-1500 mark, I like the POF renegade and the lmt MARS rifles. I own the renegade and will eventually own the LMT. The renegade can be found around 1100 or so, and the Lmt around 1500 or so. They are both awesome rifles. If I had to choose between them, I think the POF edges out the LMT slightly, but that could also be personal preferance. I just like the adjustable gas block and the E squared chamber in the POF. Plus the POF has a couple other small features that I like.

Those are my recommendations. Let me know if you have any other questions.

 

Speaking about the .308 Winmag, I believe Chris Kyle used that round exclusively from my reading.

I think in a survival situation a good assortment of hardware is a good thing. Few shotguns with various types of ammunition, a 30-06 or two, a few hand guns and add in an AR-15 or two.

IDK... I'm not on the up and up on guns, but I think diversification might be in order.

 

I don't think much of the AR Platform in a .223/5.56mm. I particularly don't think much of the FMJ ball

ammunition used by the military.

I prefer the Mini 14 to the AR platform in that military caliber.

I reload .223/5.56mm ammo and often with sporting type bullets.

Have .223 in a Savage heavy barreled bolt action and it is a shooter.

But overall...I prefer the SKS to the .223/5.56mm calibration...even prefer the .308 to the .223/5.56mm

And the .308 Winchester....for the reloader is a dream in the varieties of powder and bullets available in the marketplace for it. Same can be said for the 30.06 as it uses the same bullet selection as is found in most of the .308.

.243 is a nice caliber and merely a necked down .308 Winchester. I have formed my own .243 brass from .308 cases just to see how difficult it is to do..and it is relatively easy. The .243 is nothing more than a 6mm...in a necked down .308 case.


The thing with all those powerful cases ...like 30 Winchester Magnum...and others....338 Lapua Mag...is ammunition availability...or put simply..........Logistics.

You folks do your own thing ...I wont be telling you what calibers to buy.....

But I choose my calibers for their practicality ...usefulness and ammunition availability.

7.62 x 39mm can be bought in bulk. I can also reload for this caliber and have put back brass and bullets for it.

.308 and 30.06 can be found nationwide..coast to coast...just as can be found .38 special and .357 Magnum.

I can reload for all of these too.

Logistics...is the ammunition commonly available if you do not reload. Common Sense people.

You do not want some exotic caliber that is only made in a handful of places in the world and expensive to boot!!!

I don't care how powerful it is ...is it commonly available??

I stay away from stuff like .50 BMG. To expensive...to buy and also to reload. It just is not practical.

The only .50 I have is a Hawkin Rifle and a percussion Pistol....but don't kid yourself....

These big bore black powder rifles and pistols are a freight train close up. Don't ever get in front of one. They are quite powerful. They deliver a lot of energy close up. Ask any skilled deer hunter during primitive weapons season.

Anything exotic or not in the normal availability of calibers...you need to stock up or reload and keep the reloading components readily available.

This is the case with my guns in .41 Magnum and rifle in 7.7mm Japanese Arisaka. I roll my own ammunition for these two calibers in particular. I have also taught myself to convert .223 cases...necking them up to 7mm for a Thompson Contender in 7mm TCU caliber as this ammo is no longer manufactured or available.

But this is how I overcome or handle such logistical unavailability.

Point being you can do things to have ammunition availability if needed.....over come logistical problems.

But start with a sufficiently powerful and available caliber.

My .02,

Watcherchris

Not an Ishmaelite.

 

Ok, I think I'll be going with a short BCM barrel in 5.56. If I have any questions later in the process I'll be sure to ask!

 

The 7mm TCU in the Thompson Contender is a wildcat which is a predecessor to what has today become known as the .300 Blackout so popular today in the AR platforms.

People years and years ago recognized the potential of the 5.56mm/.223 case but bullet selection was limited....and sporting shooters were just not satisfied with military grade FMJ bullets for their purposes.

Wildcaters began experimenting with necking up the .223/5.56mm case to 6mm...6.5mm and 7mm calibers wanting to get better down range performance on steel plates and even game when hunting.

Also at those times/dates the other calibers had better sporting bullet selection than the FMJ so used by the military in .223/5.56mm calibrations.


I do not have a .300 Blackout but recognize and appreciate what they are trying to do with that calibration....particularly when using sporting type ammo.

For now I will stick with 7mm TCU in my Thompson Contender and have plenty of handloads for it.

Recoil is very manageable in a Contender pistol in 7mm TCU...same with 6mm TCU and also 6.5 mm TCU.

Things move slowly here..and I am in no hurry to update my AR Platform and am just now getting around to using a red dot sight and have no experience with such an red dot sighting system.

This red dot sighting system is mounted on a Thompson Contender barrel...14 inches in .35 Remington calibration. Hoping it survives the recoil. We shall soon enough find out.

I prefer the SKS in 7.62 x 39mm and the Mini 14 in .223/5.56mm.

Would like to have a bolt action in 7.62 x 39mm..but they are expensive and so I make do with the SKS rifle.


Thanks,
Watcherchris

Not an Ishmaelite

 

For my purposes a Mini 14 in 300 blackout would be close to a best all around rifle. If I'm going to use a 22 I'll use a 22 long rifle. If there is no medical attention available a 22lr will kill you just as dead as anything. It helps that I started stocking them over 20 years ago and bought a ton of them before 2000 just in case there was something to the Y2K thing. I actually knew a guy that made a thing that looked like a WW2 pompom gun that was made out of a pair of 10-22 frames that would virtually clear a forest of brush. Each gun had a 50 round snail drum and the rate of fire when you cranked that thing up was like a buzz saw. They also made a thing that went into the trigger housing that was legal and would fire at a rate that was insane. You wound it up and when you pushed the button it spun a star gear on the trigger. I had a crank for both the 10-22 and the Mini 14 that turned them into street sweepers off a bipod. I had a ton of fun with those things but I outgrew them. I got old and decided that I didn't want to go to war. I just wanted to survive and if you focussed on shooting up the world that became less and less likely.

I am ten time deadlier than I was back then. If I think you might be a threat to me I'm not going to fight with you. You probably will never see me. I'm just going to kill you. One bullet in your head eliminates the need for a big magazine. Attacking my place a couple weeks after things go south will be suicide. I could teach terrorists things about making improvised explosives. That is knowledge, it weighs nothing and is totally legal to possess. That also doesn't require much in the way of magazine capacity.

I did a lot of research and there has never been a 30 caliber M-16. If it was a 30 caliber it wouldn't be an M16. The only production 30 cal AR that I could find in the past was a cold civilian sportster and it wasn't very successful. An AR based weapon on an AR frame that used the only 7.62 round that the military is currently using would beat you to death. The 7.62X51 is nothing like the 7.62X39.

The US military is waking up though and opening bids for a 7.62 sized BATTLE rifle to replace the ASSAULT rifle. In Iraq and Afghanistan the 5.56 was nearly useless at long distance fighting. I consulted a friend who is a DAV Seal and he said that about all you could do with the M-16 at distance was scare them. It is a matter of physics. A 60 grain bullet just does not have the inertia of a 140 grain bullet. It is more affected by wind and rising heat waves and also slows down faster. It is an inverse square issue. If I throw a golf ball at you from very far away I don't care if you are a professional pitcher you can't throw a ping pong ball back at me hard enough to hurt me and if the distance is very far it won't even reach me.

Done...

 

Wow Texdanm,

You got me to researching on the web. I was not even aware that Ruger had entered the marketplace with their Mini 14 in .300 Blackout.

Man.....I gotta get out more!!!!


I'm sitting on about 2000 once fired Federal cases of .223 from a commercial power plant security individual.

Been reloading them mostly to 7mm TCU calibration.

Other than in my bolt action heavy barrel Savage in .223...the caliber does not interest me all that much ...even in the Mini 14...though I prefer the Mini 14 to t he AR platform.

Now in .300 black out in a Mini 14......that would be something.


Thanks,
Watcherchris

 

To each their own. I wasn't necessarily making a case specifically for the AR-15, just stating that it wasn't a bad choice. Neither is the mini-14, although personally I am not a fan of it, and in my opinion falls short of the AR platform in almost every respect. That said, I'm for people using whatever they feel more confident and comfortable with.

 

There have been a few 7.62x51 production offerings in the AR platform, although they obviously were not M-16 (although the POF revolution is pretty much the same exact size as the AR-15). The SR-25 was/is used by parts of the military, and there are a lot of civilian production rifles.

No, I don't believe the military is looking for anything outside DMR rifles in 7.62x51 (and even then, the only reason would be because they have stock piles of it) . The 7.62x51 won't be going into standard infantry rifles again, ever. If the military goes with a new round it will be somewhere in the 6mm area. I agree with the fact that the 5.56 isn't very good at long distance, which is to be expected from an M4s 14 inch barrel, with a round that developes its power from velocity. That's why the marines have had less issues with it than the Army, the marines are using 20 inch barreled guns. Also, 140 grain bullet doesn't necessarily slow down slower than a lighter bullet. There's a lot more to it than just weight. Hell, the drop on 7.62x51 and 5.56 are very comparable.

It would be nice to see the military go to something like the 6.5 grendel or something similar, but I doubt it will happen. There's really no need for it since the 5.56 is adequate enough for the job at hand right now.

 

You are correct Turbodc2...to each their own.

On my Ar 15 I enjoy switching out the factory upper with one of those stainless steel heavy barrels in 20 inch length and taking my time shooting handloads from the bench. Now this upper is accurate. This heavy stainless upper I got from another person needing some cash.
The factory upper is ok...but the heavy barreled stainless is noticeably different in results down range. Of course it has on it glass...and the stock does not.

The Mini 14 is not in that class....but I like the gas system much better than on the AR platform.

No ...for what it was designed and the manner in which it evolved since the 1960s ...the AR is not a bad choice.

I just am not that enamored of the .223/5.56mm cartridge. I pretty much prefer something close to a .30 cal.

Thanks,
Watcherhris
Not an Ishmaelite

 

I don't think they are making it. I just think that they SHOULD. I like the Mini 30 in the 7.62x39 but I don't like a lot of the available surplus ammo. The quality control in other places can be a hit and miss sort of thing and I just can't go for that. If I pull the trigger I want to know what is going to happen. In most AK set ups it doesn't matter all that much since they are poorly made and accuracy isn't a given to start out with. I DO know that isn't true of all of them but it is of a majority of the foreign made ones. Their case volumes aren't as consistent as they should be so there are pressure variations that mess up accuracy. Since I'm not a spray and pray sort of marksman that is a big no no to me.

My opinions of the effectiveness of the M-16 in Afghanistan and Iraq are not really mine. I didn't go there and I've admitted several times that the M-16 was a superior weapon in the jungles. It is when you try to move it to more open theaters that it comes up badly lacking. I have a lot of friends that are veterands of that sand box war over there and I have yet to have one of them tell me that they liked it. The Seal especially hates it. He was a team marksman and is the one that told me that all he could do with the 5.56 rifle he was issued was scare the enemy while they were blasting away from a distance that even with his scoped (3x9) rifle he just couldn't make hits. There was so much hell raised that they finally started reissuing M-14s to the marksmen.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/04/27/us-army-search-new-762mm-rifle.html

That is just one of many articles that I have recently read about the military wanting to return to a 7.62 battle rifle for at least part of their teams. There is also a lot of talk of more exotic calibers but you need to understand, this is the military and not just the American military is involved. NATO is the reason we had to go to the 9mm for our sidearms. There is a huge investment in the 9x19, 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51 based weapons. We might use different weapons but they are almost all in standard calibers for reasons of easy exchange in a time of war. To switch to a "new" caliber would be a massively expensive proposition and the bean counters would totally freak out.

None of this though is why I don't have much interest in the AR based weapons. I'm not in the military. I don't plan on ever being in the military or acting like the military in my survival aims. The military has very little interest in the individual survival of their troops. Decisions are made by people that are not there and based on objectives that may or may not be all that individually important. Many of the massive battles in WW2 were totally unnecessary. A lot of the islands in the pacific, once our navy had taken over the theater should have been passed by. Let the enemy sit there and rot as long as they couldn't get off that island they were no longer a threat. We just needed to cut off their supplies and forget them. Vietnam was an endless mess of battles where we were never sure who exactly we were fighting.

I'm interested in survival. That starts with me having no interest in assaulting ANYONE. I will explain it to you like I had to do a young man one time that was messing with me. I warned him that if he kept it up I was going to beat him half to death. He bowed up and told me that if I wanted to fight he was ready anytime. I shook my head. He didn't understand. I explained it to him that I had no intention of fighting with him. He was going to piss me off and I was going to come up behind him with a crow bar and beat him half to death. Fighting is for fools. It infers that I'm going to let you have a chance to hit me and that isn't what is going to happen. You know he was stupid but he evidently understood me. After that he kept a distance from me and stopped messing with me.

A model 70 winchester in 30-06 will kill you from 800 yards out and you will never see me. If I will cough up for another barrett you can move that out to 1500 yards. If you get within 50 yards I'll take a shotgun over anything. The new Mossberg 590M is looking awful good to me right now. I own 3 Mossberg 500s one of which had an 8 round capasity but I may have to try a magazine fed one.

I'm not bugging out so weight of the ammo or weapon is meaningless to me. Honestly if I decide that I just have to have an AR I suspect that after things go to crap my Deer rifle will get me all of them that I want. That leads me to the other thing that bothers me about the AR and AK weapons. They tend to make inexperienced people think that they are suddenly invincible warriors like they see in movies and are not going to be sneaky at all. They will be the fools walking right down the middle of the street like sheep coming to slaughter. My Seal buddy has a scoped M-14 and I have seen him nail down 6 hogs in like 4 or 5 seconds. Every shot a kill shot. If we decide we want different weapons we probably won't have much trouble finding them because there will be so many of them floating around in the hands of crazy thugs that we will just harvest.

 

As I've stated before, my intent wasn't to persuade anyone to use a 5.56/AR over XYZ caliber or gun for a go-to or shtf rifle, it was just to clear up misinformation about the AR-15, and the 5.56. There may be people reading here who are less experienced who are looking for a self defense rifle who may be dissuaded from using one, even though it may be the best tool for their needs based on some opinions expressed here, a lot of them, in my opinion, erroneous. Also, the link you posted pretty much says what I said. They are looking for a bigger round in a DMR rifle.


I am not arguing against the effectiveness of other calibers, especially because I do believe in the benefits of them, however I also see downsides of them as well, something that a lot of people gloss over when they are talking about them. Carrying 300+ rounds of heavy ammo in magazines on you or in your pack for miles is different then carrying them a few feet to the range. The same goes for making hits. Hitting what your shooting at is a lot harder when the range goes both ways, and I'm going to go ahead and assume that most shots aren't gonna be winners, and for me, I'd like to have more chances. To each their own though.

As for your navy seal friend only being able to scare people with his 5.56 rifle with a 3x9 on it, I can't comment on that. I don't know the particulars, etc and like I have said, I don't look at the 5.56 as a long range caliber. I will say that I can make fairly consistant hits with a 16 inch barreled POF renegade rifle shooting "junk" Tula 55 grain rounds with a vortex 1x8 optic on a 66% sized IPSC target at 540 yards. I would imagine that a navy seal, using a better optic than I'm using almost assuredly shooting better ammo than me (probably Mk262) would be able to at least match my distance and probably exceed it. Then again, things get harder when the range is two way so there's that...

You keep mentioning that what bothers you about AR and AK weapons is that you think they are gonna make less experienced people think they are invincible like Rambo and such. You actually think the weapon/caliber choice has any bearing on that? I'm here to tell it doesn't. There are people who buy a nice higher end bolt action or semi-auto "sniper/DMR" rifle and optic and think they are the next Chris Kyle and will be making 800 Yard hits on moving targets under stress. It's not limited to just certain guns .

 

To each their own. That is why I call survival an art.

 

That is very true. There are many ways to do things.

 

There is another issue with .223. The 5.56 fmj military ammunition is around 30% more powerful than .223 meaning that while .223 ammunition is can be used in a rifle chambered for 5.56 a rifle chambered for .223 won't necessarily be proofed for the higher powered 5.56.
In the UK .223 is available with expanding bullets designed for a clean kill while being used to cull small to medium sized animals cleanly and humanely, the lower velocity and expansion actually makes this round more effective.

 

True. I always reccomend trying to find rifles/barrels with the 5.56, or 223 wylde chambers unless your looking for or needing the bit of accuracy improvement. For survival it would be prudent to be able to use more types of ammo. The pressure difference between the 5.56 and 223 isn't anywhere near 30 percent though. It's closer to something like 5-6 percent, maybe more or less. About 3 or 4k PSI difference.

 

I don't think this is true...and certainly not 30% more powerful.

I think the opposite is true..

Sporting ammunition tends to be more powerful or hot than military ammunition.

I say this because for a rifle or handgun with a high cyclic rate...you would not want an overly powerful load out. You would tend to wear out the gun more rapidly. You want a cartridge sufficiently powerful to do the job...but not as powerful as is found in many sporting/hunting uses.

True... there are different and more efficient bullet designs ..even in military ammunition. I believe sniping ammunition in let us say.....308 caliber or 7/62 x 51m is going to be a bit more powerful and consistent than standard NATO .308...or what is also called 7.62 x 51.

Most sniping type rifles tend to not be high cyclic in nature...as well as bolt actions. Not all ..but most.

Sporting tools also tend to be bolt actions as well..not that many semi autos.

Also ..down range or long range accuracy is dependent on the twist rate of the rifling for a given weight of bullet. This is particularly telling in the .22 type cartridges with different bullet weights and different rates of rifling twist.

In 5.56mm/.223...the slower twists in rifling tend to shoot better the lighter bullets under 55 grain. The faster rifling rates...tend to shoot better the heavier bullets.

Overly hot or powerful military rounds in a semi auto or even a full auto rifle...will show up quickly on the life and maintenance records of the tool.

Also most sporting/hunting rifles/guns owned by individuals are not shot as often or regularly as military guns on training schedule and checked out by different people in training.


My .02,

Watcherchris

Not an Ishmaelite

 

I have read that its to do with a minute difference in the shape of the round, a .223 sporting round isn't fully in contact with the breech when loaded into either a .223 or 5.56 rifle whereas a 5.56 is fully in contact with the breech of a .223 rifle. This slightly longer leade combined with the steel case allowing higher internal pressure causes a some (not all) .223 breeches to fail.

 

This is one of the best studies of this question that I have read...

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/5-56-vs-223/