[Guest]

experienced combat vets said that out to about 75m, the .30 Carbine, even with ball ammo, did ok. In fact, many of them preferred the .30C to the Garand, even against dug in, battle hardened Germans, defending their homelands, who had belt feds, mortars, and long range Mauser bolt actions. They found that the 15 rd box mag, and the lw of the Carbine and its ammo, meant more than the "range, penetration, and power" of the Garand.

Gentlemen, the military is not going to change rifles or rds because we say so. So all we can reasonably concern ourselves with is what rifle WE keep ready, for shtf. We can use good softpoint ammo in our 223's, and if we do so, we have a round that has twice the effectiveness of the 30 C ball rd. If we scope even a "shorty" AR 15, we have twice the effective range of a .30 Carbine and iron sights.

We do not face the Wehrmacht, and we do not have to take or hold any ground. So the 223 suffices just fine, and it offers us considerable advantages over the 308. There's the .22 lr conversion unit, for building real speed of hitting, from either shoulder, and for quiet foraging for food, if need be. There are the short, already threaded (for a "flashhider") barrels, which make it pretty simple to install a sound suppressor. A truly effective suppressor for a 308, using full charge ammo and rapidfire, is so large and heavy that it ruins the rifle for speed work. Such an effective "can" for a 223 leaves the rifle still "handy". Not having any "flash" at night, and not betraying your presence to every enemy within a 2 mile radius, is a very nice thing, if shtf and you have to shoot to survive.

 

[Richard Jefferies]

FWIW, I would love to see someone come out with a true assault rifle chambered for .243 Win. or something ballistically equivalent. 6mm with 100 gr. bullets seems to me to be a good killer of deer-sized animals out to 300 yds.

Which would you rather be hit by, a 63 gr. .22 at approximately 2800fps, or a 100 gr. .24 at the same velocity?

 

[LIProgun]

NYPD made out pretty well with .30M1 Carbine soft point loads, according to what I've read from Jim Cirillo, and comments from Pat Rogers. I'd still prefer M193 Ball, but would not feel too bad about using a carbine in good condition with SP loads at short range.

Richard, you are essentially describing the 6.8mm Rem SPC cartridge, which Remington has launching 115 grain bullets at a nominal 2800 fps. Complete uppers, parts kits and barrels in this caliber are already being sold by Model-1 Sales (and soon by others, I'm sure). Remington is cataloging several loads in 2004, and Midway expects to start shipping it shortly. I think Robinson Arms also has carbines in this caliber on the market. So what you want is a reality, or will be soon, when the ammo makes it to dealers.

 

[Guest]

u dont understand the realities of military

combat. The rifle accounts for less than 10% of casulties on the modern battlefield, and it hasn't done so since before WW1. Accidents, "friendly" fire and disease account for far more of the casulties. The troops miss with thousands of rounds for each chest hit that they get. Most hits are poor ones, and a poor hit with a 243 or 308 is not a lick more effective than with a 223, and a head or neck hit with 223 certainly suffices.

We have to haul many billions of rounds into a combat zone, and watch 99.9%+ of them never hit a thing. The weight and bulk of the rifle and its rounds are HUGE issues, and not just to the guy who has to lug them around on his back.

For the civilian survivalist, the loss of the efficient use of a .22lr conversion unit is adequate reason to not want to give up the 223.
"wanting" more power and range and penetration is pointless, when you give up more than you get.

 

[Nemo]

Which would you rather be hit by, a 63 gr. .22 at approximately 2800fps, or a 100 gr. .24 at the same velocity?

Richard,

Is none of the above a good enough answer?

You have a blessed day too brother!

 

[lace]

"The rifle accounts for less than 10% of casulties on the modern battlefield, and it hasn't done so since before WW1. Accidents, "friendly" fire and disease account for far more of the casulties."

Whereas, I believe at least the first portion of the quote above, I'd really like to see the stats/source on the second sentence.

 

[csmkersh]

Lace, last time I checked, artillary was still the queen of battle. But you still need a PFC Snuffy standing there with a rifle in his hand before you own an inch of the battlefield.

 

[SpecialEd]

In the American Civil War and the Napoleonic wars, sure disease killed many more soldiers than actual battle. But in those days the average soldier never left his local holler before going to war and had never been exposed to much in the way of disease.

We've come along way since then and technicall speaking deaths from disease don't usually happen on the "battlefield."

Ed

 

[Guest]

in the law, if something results in your

death, "one year and a day" after the incident, it's treated the same as if you died on the spot. You are REALLY wrong about this, even today. Back in the time period you speak of, disease killed about HALF of the guys. Today, it's "only" about 10% of the casulties, for UNITED STATES troops, but we are NOT the only people in battle. in most thirdworld fights, disease is still killing FAR more guys than are killed by the rifle.

The reality of combat, since WW1 and a bit before, is that the rifle only accounts for 10% of the casulties, at most. In the Gulf war, it accounted for almost none, dispite hundreds of thousands of deaths. That makes the rifle well under 1% "effective".

 

[lace]

You are REALLY wrong about this, even today

I didn't doubt the effectiveness of the rifle in current combat scenarios. I personally believe that we have far more sophisticated artillery causing far greater damage. What I doubted was the cause(s) of casualties. You have now provided some allleged statistics, but no sources to back up your claim. So I remain cynical.

 

[Guest]

we OWNED Kuwait, when the fuel air bombs

massacred Hussein's Guard on the main highway. No infantrymen were needed at all. You need to get your head out and join the 21st Century. You don't gain crap by having a PFC standing there. He just has to be supplied by 10 other guys, and he's just a target for car bombs, mines, and snipers. All you have to do is ask the guys in Kuwait about that.

It's been well established for decades that the average guy can't bring himself to fire on another man, face to face without suffering severe psychological damage, and a great many of those who can do so, you don't want running around loose after the war is over. The emotional detachment necessary to kill like that usually indicates a pathology that, sooner rather than later, manifests itself in criminal acts. Like McVeigh's

 

[Tim Burke]

And we owned Horoshima on August 7, 1945?
No, I'm pretty sure that there are enough bright boys in the Pentagon that if we didn't need the Infantry they would have figured it out by now.
I wasn't aware that fuel-air bombs were responsible for the carnage on the Highway of Death (Highway 6?). I thought that was achieved mostly A-10s, and I didn't know that they carried fuel-air bombs. I've seen pictures of the destruction, and greenery just 20 yards off the road seemed unaffected.
SLA Marshall's research has been addressed by others; I wouldn't take it at face value. The work of anyone who does take it at face value is somewhat suspect, too, although Grossman's book is currently very popular.