See www.robarm.com for the Robinson Armament Company 556 carbine. You will not be disappointed.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
selecting a battle rifle
- Thread starter Runs With Scissors
- Start date
They are, and it is not a surprise -- most everyone else got out of the business years ago and H&K can rest on their laurels. Dave
Thank you, Dave, I hadn't thought about it like that, but you're right. All I can think of are relatively cheap blowback (?) designs like the AP Nine.
I just get weary of hearing HK mentioned in breathless tones.
>>>>>>>
I realize the AR is a carbine or 'AW" and not a true 'battle rifle'. But- we left the 'battle rifle's' behind 30 years ago. Well, except I guess special forces still use them.
munk
Thank you, Dave, I hadn't thought about it like that, but you're right. All I can think of are relatively cheap blowback (?) designs like the AP Nine.
I just get weary of hearing HK mentioned in breathless tones.
>>>>>>>
I realize the AR is a carbine or 'AW" and not a true 'battle rifle'. But- we left the 'battle rifle's' behind 30 years ago. Well, except I guess special forces still use them.
munk
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1998
- Messages
- 4,331
Heh. Not much. (IOW, in a little over a month here, I've seen nothing other than M4s, many with 11.5" barrels, M16s, and the occasional MP-5 carried.) They probably have a few M14s and FALs in the armory, but I've never seen one carried.
I'd love to be able to produce a little semiauto carbine in 7.62x25mm, 9x19mm, and 9x23mm. And a little bolt-action in .357, .44 Mag, and .45 Colt.
John
I'd love to be able to produce a little semiauto carbine in 7.62x25mm, 9x19mm, and 9x23mm. And a little bolt-action in .357, .44 Mag, and .45 Colt.
John
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2006
- Messages
- 280
Oh no, regular infantry still use 7.62Nato rifles. Just about every platoon in my battalion had about two or three M-14's. The Army also just commissioned a new semi-auto sniper system. It's pretty much a beefed up AR-10. Granted they aren't used on the same scale as the M-4/M-16, but they are still definitely in use.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1,499
Man, this thread has gotten me to salivating again. I'm thinking I might have to start saving up to get a tack driver of some sort this summer! Those Rock River Varmint A4's do look pretty cool. .75"MOA at 100 yards guarantee? Man, that's pretty awesome for a rifle with a 16" barrel! My only concern is that I shoot left-handed. I don't think that'd be much of an issue, but those hogue grip on that thing might be righty. I'd have to check.
Chris
Chris
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,173
I liked the looks of that Robinson Armament XCR's also. And you can get it in 7.62x39. I like that round a lot. I've never liked anything about the performance of .223. But 7.62 I can get into. Anyone have any good insights that I might be missing on why .223 is the round of choice for so many? Besides that the soldiers can carry a lot more of it? Are there other reasons that its the go to round of choice? It seems like a lame round to me, but I don't now a lot about a lot.
That's cool to know that the gov. agencies like the DEA would take on the Rock River. Did you see that photo of the empty shells ejecting forward and away from the shooter? That's a slick feature. Great looking rifle. I want to go back and read more about it's performance.
That's cool to know that the gov. agencies like the DEA would take on the Rock River. Did you see that photo of the empty shells ejecting forward and away from the shooter? That's a slick feature. Great looking rifle. I want to go back and read more about it's performance.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 1,065
Because the paper targets I shoot at let out the same piercing scream when they're shot by either .308 or .223 
.
Here's a quick look at the cost of ammo.
Some prices from midway
Black Hills .308 168 Grain Match HP case of 500
Retail Price: $449.99
Black Hills Ammunition 223 Remington 68 Grain Match HP case of 1000
Retail Price: $572.99
.Here's a quick look at the cost of ammo.
Some prices from midway
Black Hills .308 168 Grain Match HP case of 500
Retail Price: $449.99
Black Hills Ammunition 223 Remington 68 Grain Match HP case of 1000
Retail Price: $572.99
Nordic Viking
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2000
- Messages
- 11,379
With the introduction of Assault rifles, they needed a lighter caliber that was easy to fire rapidly for cover fire (since most firefights took place within 500 meters).
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,173
Oh. Good lord that's expensive. I always buy Wolf's cases of 7.62x39 for $180 per 1000 at my local pawn shop. Now I remember why I don't buy the match grade. My SKS can't tell the difference. It eats them all and asks for more.
Not for nothing, but it looks like on the Rock River website like you can buy all the parts for their A4's, uppers complete, and lowers, barrels and all without FFL's if you buy it all separate. Am I missing something? Can you really get a whole rifle that way? What's the deal with that?
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 1,065
The lower receiver is the part that's considered a firearm, you would have to go to an FFL for that. But you could buy everything else yourself.
Ihatehippies;
I only meant we no longer make 'battle rifles' for regular troops. I realize M14's are still in commission. I know a soldier won a Congressional medal of honor with one in Mogadishu (sic)
We have left the 'battle rifle' concept behind. An A4 is not a 'battle rifle'.
If it's true we still issue them to regular troops, that is something I'm not familiar with. I don't recall that since Vietnam.
thanks,
munk
I only meant we no longer make 'battle rifles' for regular troops. I realize M14's are still in commission. I know a soldier won a Congressional medal of honor with one in Mogadishu (sic)
We have left the 'battle rifle' concept behind. An A4 is not a 'battle rifle'.
If it's true we still issue them to regular troops, that is something I'm not familiar with. I don't recall that since Vietnam.
thanks,
munk
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,178
Oh, hell. Am I going to going to have to hate on the M14 again?
It was a great rifle for WWII; unfortunately, it missed that war. It was adequate for Korea. It was superseded shortly thereafter. I say this as a former instructor, RSO, and armorer who dealt with M14's on a daily basis.
Okay, I'll be optimistic for once. It's a great rifle if everything is going well and you're taking care of it. If not, and you're not, well...it's not. There are things that can go wrong with any rifle. There are more that can go wrong with the M14 than the M16. That's why it left service with most units. Those that still use it either don't deserve something better, or have the technical ability and unique requirements that make it a better choice. (And it's not that it's the best choice, it's more that it's a less expensive choice than anything else with the same capabilities. Such are the advantages of "obsolete" weapons still in the depots.)
For a civilian it's a great choice. For the military it was the state of the art in 1945; unfortunately, it wasn't actually made until some time later, and by then it was obsolete.
We often hear about Vietnam vets criticizing the M16 and praising the M14. I won't argue that. Keep in mind, though, that at the time, the M14 was essentially a 30-year-old weapon system that was highly matured, while the M16 was The New Thing. Today most shooters who've used both in service prefer the M16, never mind its youth relative to the M14. Both weapons are now mature. Which sees the most use, and which was given away to Lithuania?
I learned how to shoot on the M14. I like both, but I make no bones about the reality of the situation.
It was a great rifle for WWII; unfortunately, it missed that war. It was adequate for Korea. It was superseded shortly thereafter. I say this as a former instructor, RSO, and armorer who dealt with M14's on a daily basis.
Okay, I'll be optimistic for once. It's a great rifle if everything is going well and you're taking care of it. If not, and you're not, well...it's not. There are things that can go wrong with any rifle. There are more that can go wrong with the M14 than the M16. That's why it left service with most units. Those that still use it either don't deserve something better, or have the technical ability and unique requirements that make it a better choice. (And it's not that it's the best choice, it's more that it's a less expensive choice than anything else with the same capabilities. Such are the advantages of "obsolete" weapons still in the depots.)
For a civilian it's a great choice. For the military it was the state of the art in 1945; unfortunately, it wasn't actually made until some time later, and by then it was obsolete.
We often hear about Vietnam vets criticizing the M16 and praising the M14. I won't argue that. Keep in mind, though, that at the time, the M14 was essentially a 30-year-old weapon system that was highly matured, while the M16 was The New Thing. Today most shooters who've used both in service prefer the M16, never mind its youth relative to the M14. Both weapons are now mature. Which sees the most use, and which was given away to Lithuania?
I learned how to shoot on the M14. I like both, but I make no bones about the reality of the situation.
I wasn't aware a single M14 made it to Korea? Thought it came out afterwards?
I can't argue with you, Dave. I don't have your background. It would be pointless. I hear about more stoppages with the AR than the M14. I hear about more stoppages in the desert with the AR than the M14. Hell, I think the Ruger mini 14, not a true '14' is more reliable in desert than the AR. I believe I could find many armorers who would agree.
I would rather have an FN/FAL than a AR if I only had one rifle.
They did not put a forward assist on the AR for nothing. It was needed.
As much as I respect and like you, you are one armorer to me. Armorers are like all gunnies; they have their own opinions.
I know smiths who think the Remington Bolt is tops; I know others who complain the action is not rigid enough for larger cartridges. There are people who worship pre 64 Win. There are those who do not. At any rate, comparing the modern assault carbine, to an old battle rifle, is apples and oranges.
BTW- Wikipedia list M14 service as being from 1957, not developed until 1954. It says it was not produced until 1959. Ceasefire in Korea was in 1953.
munk
I can't argue with you, Dave. I don't have your background. It would be pointless. I hear about more stoppages with the AR than the M14. I hear about more stoppages in the desert with the AR than the M14. Hell, I think the Ruger mini 14, not a true '14' is more reliable in desert than the AR. I believe I could find many armorers who would agree.
I would rather have an FN/FAL than a AR if I only had one rifle.
They did not put a forward assist on the AR for nothing. It was needed.
As much as I respect and like you, you are one armorer to me. Armorers are like all gunnies; they have their own opinions.
I know smiths who think the Remington Bolt is tops; I know others who complain the action is not rigid enough for larger cartridges. There are people who worship pre 64 Win. There are those who do not. At any rate, comparing the modern assault carbine, to an old battle rifle, is apples and oranges.
BTW- Wikipedia list M14 service as being from 1957, not developed until 1954. It says it was not produced until 1959. Ceasefire in Korea was in 1953.
munk
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 1,065
I have both and like em both. But in my personal experience my M1A has been more reliable.
Usually if I see someone at the range futzing with a malfunction odds are it's an AR. While I rarely see an m14 clone with a serious malfunction. It could be explained by the popularity of the AR over the m14 clones. More of them out there more chances of one having a malfunction. But I'm in CA so the AR to M1A ratio isn't as high as in other states.
Usually if I see someone at the range futzing with a malfunction odds are it's an AR. While I rarely see an m14 clone with a serious malfunction. It could be explained by the popularity of the AR over the m14 clones. More of them out there more chances of one having a malfunction. But I'm in CA so the AR to M1A ratio isn't as high as in other states.
And Dave? I do appreciate that you like the M14. I can't reconcile your opinions to any source material for that rifle. Words like reliable and accurate are ALWAYS mentioned. Reliable is not always mentioned for the AR series, regardless of era.
I think we can agree for a civilian it remains a good choice. My own AR's never let me down, but are not as satisfactory to me. And I know many shooters who have had their AR's jam and stop.
In the Southern Calif gun store, both retail and wholsale that I managed, I saw lots of field use for all the semi autos. People in the high desert of Calif used to go through cases of ammo on a single outing.
It was a great golden age for pre ban semi autos.
munk
And folks? Dave has been very kind to me- I have a fiberglass stock for my M!A from him. So I do not mean to sound like I'm being a 'hostile debater".
In a way, one does not convince Galil or HK owners that FN is as good...so I geuss there is no 'firearm' absolute.
I think we can agree for a civilian it remains a good choice. My own AR's never let me down, but are not as satisfactory to me. And I know many shooters who have had their AR's jam and stop.
In the Southern Calif gun store, both retail and wholsale that I managed, I saw lots of field use for all the semi autos. People in the high desert of Calif used to go through cases of ammo on a single outing.
It was a great golden age for pre ban semi autos.
munk
And folks? Dave has been very kind to me- I have a fiberglass stock for my M!A from him. So I do not mean to sound like I'm being a 'hostile debater".
In a way, one does not convince Galil or HK owners that FN is as good...so I geuss there is no 'firearm' absolute.
Chickenfried:
One thing about comparing stoppages or other malfunction with the AR vs the various 308 'battle rifles', is that the AR is expected to digest more rounds, albeit with less force and combustion event. So, how do we compare that? Do a 1000 308 rounds compare to 5,000 556?
I dunno.
munk
One thing about comparing stoppages or other malfunction with the AR vs the various 308 'battle rifles', is that the AR is expected to digest more rounds, albeit with less force and combustion event. So, how do we compare that? Do a 1000 308 rounds compare to 5,000 556?
I dunno.
munk
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,178
No. It missed Korea. That was part of the point of my little diatribe up there. The rifle was already out of date for the war it missed, and it was two wars out of date for the one that it made it to. Kalashnikov actually made it obsolete in 1947 but the Soviets were being bastards and didn't tell anyone, so it took us another 20 years to figure it out. Just be glad that we figured it out before the rest of the free world did. (See The End of the FAL for more details. Everyone got burnt on this one.)
Never base your opinions on the rantings of one man. He is wrong. (Especially if he's me, but I'll always claim that I'm right.)
EDIT: Everyone got burnt on this one...except the Russians, who actually paid attention to what went on during WWII. To be fair, they got burnt during and just after the Vietnam War, when they realized that the Germans hadn't gone small enough in caliber. They've been behind the power curve ever since.
Dave, speaking of rants, I've an idea we should not replace the AR system for our troops until a true logistical step forward is reached.
You said it yourself- we perfected it. I'm very wary retooling the whole shebang for a new delivery system that is not new, is not a cost effective measure. I'm a little worried about it. I'm afraid the military is like any other bunch and gets woozy about 'new'. I could see the 6.8 round... but the HK carbine?
Anyway, see our friend Dave trapped into Devils Advocate against a rifle he actually is fond of...the M14 Funny!
munk
You said it yourself- we perfected it. I'm very wary retooling the whole shebang for a new delivery system that is not new, is not a cost effective measure. I'm a little worried about it. I'm afraid the military is like any other bunch and gets woozy about 'new'. I could see the 6.8 round... but the HK carbine?
Anyway, see our friend Dave trapped into Devils Advocate against a rifle he actually is fond of...the M14 Funny!
munk