My Scary Gun Weighs a Ton

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
If that were strictly the case why does the M-16 have a 3 burst select-fire to limit the amount of ammunition used?

If you read my original statement I said ROF is important, hence the ability to change the weapons ROF.

In close combat you are free to think a sniper or lever action is best. But I do disagree.

a reply to: Elton

The ability to put more lead on your target in less time would make the AR-15 more dangerous than a bolt-action I would think. Size of projectile notwithstanding. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't know about that...

No steel full metal jacket. I was in the army shoot with both rifles. a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Elton

The ability to put more lead on your target in less time would make the AR-15 more dangerous than a bolt-action I would think. Size of projectile notwithstanding. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't know about that...

Nice video, but I feel I have a better chance to defend myself with a semi-auto or shotgun rather than a lever action.

originally posted by: Elton
If you read my original statement I said ROF is important, hence the ability to change the weapons ROF.

I could accurately empty both weapons in about 6-7 seconds. Giving a rate of fire (for me) of double for the semi-automatic. This is not being disputed. The rationale is that I will most likely not kill every target with a full body mass shot with the AR-15 but I am fairly certain I will flat blast every last person with the big Winchester.

In close combat you are free to think a sniper or lever action is best. But I do disagree.

I never mentioned close, medium or long distance combat, only overall effective lethality based on accuracy and ammunition.

Short range like in a house or yard yes then the auto should be more fun. a reply to: Elton

originally posted by: neversaynever
You said that better than could have done. It seem people care more about the wrapping paper then what is inside. I bet you you can take a .22 dress it as a military style weapon and put a 308 or 338 hunting rifle next to it and they will tell you the .22 is evil. Same with calibre a .22 round in the head is much more effective than a 50 cal in the leg. The later you will need a leg the former you need a new life.

This is because people are stupid. They do it with guns, global warming, terrorism, you name it. The American public are well-conditioned sheep ready for slaughter.

Alternative weapons? how about the elastic band machine gun? yes, they do exists, just wished I'd archived the picture when I came across it!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I never mentioned close, medium or long distance combat, only overall effective lethality based on accuracy and ammunition.

Exactly, and I am thinking of close combat you seem to be talking extreme range.

Rate of fire only plays a role if you missed the target. Then again in a shootout that would most probably leave you dead and no matter what you have the 1 proper shot from the other side will be enough. Even if you have a full auto shotgun.

originally posted by: neversaynever
No steel full metal jacket. I was in the army shoot with both rifles.

This is more a by product of velocity and not a very good determiner of lethality.

I would prefer not to derail the thread with ballistics effects on hard targets as this is not what it was about. Thank you.

originally posted by: Elton
Exactly, and I am thinking of close combat you seem to be talking extreme range.

No, I am not talking about any specific range. Only that the Winchester is more lethal, shot for shot, than the Smith and Wesson. You may die if hit by the .223, you will die if hit by the .308.

a reply to: Elton

Nice video, but I feel I have a better chance to defend myself with a semi-auto or shotgun rather than a lever action

Of course there are some drawbacks with a .308 and a shotgun is better for close in, but with the .308 you can get them before they have a chance to that close.

I guess it comes down to personal preference as to what you like and what you would use if needed.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well apparently I missed the point of your thread. It seems we are discussing the ammo rather then the gun.

Of course a larger projectile travelling faster (it has more powder, don't have time to look up velocity right now getting ready for work) is more lethal shot for shot assuming we are 100% accurate.

I want a chain gun and a rocket launcher. I will most probably die 1 st but at least i would have enjoyed myself. a reply to: tsurfer2000h

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Ya, I generally think of home protection where things start close range and quickly.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Elton
The ability to put more lead on your target in less time would make the AR-15 more dangerous than a bolt-action I would think. Size of projectile notwithstanding.

Is that so? The effective killing range for the .223 is 300 yards, the .308 is 500 yards. The soft point ammunition will kill you, the full jacketed ammunition may not.

Oh, by the way, it is a lever-action, not a bolt action, as I stated in the Original Post.

An M 16 will kill out to 500 yards. Most .308's to at least 750 yards, with the rifle worked up and "quality" rounds maybe longer.

It's the 1st round that will make all the difference with a lever action rifle. It's takes a lot of fortitude (or maybe stupidity) to fire aimed rounds when rounds are impacting around you.

Frankly I'd rather be better marksman. And lucky!

a reply to: neversaynever

I want a chain gun and a rocket launcher.

Not to sure about a rocket launcher, as they are a bit expensive when you need ammo, but the chaingun...



Who doesn't want one ....

My bad that is a minigun...here is the chaingun...



And still who doesn't want one...

Well to answer your question...this one is the best...and weighs a ton and a half (bout 15lbs)
POF 308 (Piston driven AR in .308)

I think the point has been missed a bit in this argument. I don't deny that big gun + skilled person = more dangerous than little gun + unskilled person but...

You quote effective killing range of 500 yards vs 300 yards. When was the time a mass shooting occurred from those distances? Most of the time it's close range, by unskilled or semi-skilled shooters. In that scenario the ability to let 30 rounds go in a short amount of time is way more dangerous than the ability to hit someone from 500 yards. At close quarters with an automatic accuracy becomes less of an issue because you're likely going to be in the middle of a group of people that have limited escape paths and are likely to be less than 100 yards away. Most of these mass shooters seem to plan to get killed during the event so the ability to carry as much ammo as you can and get off as many rounds as possible becomes more important than one shot one kill.