It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My Scary Gun Weighs a Ton

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder
rception most have on AR style vs bolt-a/lever rifles. I had a tricked out AR style 10/22 with a 100 rnd clip that looked more deadly to most than a .700 nitro express elephant gun. So I do understand were your coming from in that respect. Cheers


Thanks you for your compliment and participation. I think you get the premise of the thread completely.




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: neversaynever
I have a fully dolled up 10/22,with a huge scope and 50 rounder on it,with a tripod! Really scary looking!



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
My Scary Gun Weighs a Ton.

I live in calif and i still have a battle rifle.
I have a mint condition M1 Garand that i have converted to a M1 Garand scout rifle. my M1 was a unissued Springfield armory(US goverment armory) made in Oct 1944
img.photobucket.com...

i don't take my AR15 out very often because people don't like black guns.

but i can take my M1 Garand scout rifle out and no one gives it a thought. my M1 Garand scout rifle weighs a lot more them even a fully moded and loaded AR.
And will out shoot it to.
.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED
i don't take my AR15 out very often because people don't like black guns.


Do not let people's fear-influenced opinions drive your decision making process. Take it out and enjoy ownership.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
a reply to: mtnshredder

The advantage in the war theater of a .223, is that it can, more often than not, cause severe injury without killing the target. For some enemies, this means you take multiple opponents out of the field by injuring one because it takes a few more to render aid. It depends on the mentality of who you are fighting. Some won't give a second thought to trying to rescue their own.


Oh, I do remember when...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: SM2
That is wildly innaccurate, if it takes the same time to fire 10 aimed shots from a semi as it does to chamber 1 round in a lever or bolt action, then the person with the lever/bolt action needs to just go the other way. Spray and pray is popular method of "marksmenship" i see heh
So again, I would say, use a semi auto .308.


But you were talking about bolt actions so I commented on that. I was not talking of spray and pray anyways. And if you say then go semi auto .308, wouldnt this cancel the whole discussion because you made your comparision in the OP with those two? So what´s the point ...



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   


This gun is creepy too, old school tactical nastiness converted to a long barrel, locked stock SPORTING RIFLE.
SPORTING RIFLE-SPORTING RIFLE-SPORTING RIFLE.
Not sub-machine gun.

Already had a problem with the neighbors freaking out when they saw the thing.

Time to move....



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Elton
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well pardon my mistake, sir.

If we are having some sort of extreme range conflict you are probably correct, but to disregard the speed at which you can fire and reload the weapon while talking about lethal seems to be ignoring a lot.

Military does not go for lever action carbines, I suspect the Rate of Fire is important to them in determining how lethal a weapon is.


I'm fairly certain that the Vietnam War does not count as an "extreme range conflict" by any standards. Though I stand to be corrected, I seem to recall the average contact distance was less that 100m?

Rate of Fire does not correlate as directly with lethality as you seem to think. Even with the capacity for automatic fire, the key factor is single aimed shots. In fact, when you're carrying your ammunition with you, high rates of unaimed or poorly aimed fire are probably best avoided. Where is it still counted is with squad automatic weapons - the people with the actual machine guns. Funnily enough, they're not normally used for their lethal ability, but their ability to lay down suppressing fire to enable other fire teams to move into position.

So, to contradict your claim, high rates of fire are actually more important for firearms that are not being used primarily for their lethality...



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: waltwillis

originally posted by: neversaynever


I read somewhere that a study was done in the vietnam war and it was found that for automatic weapons only 1 kill was registered for every 9400 rounds fired in the war. In comparison for snipers it was something like 2.3 rounds per killl. a reply to: Elton




Vietnam and a host of other dirty bush wars introduced the ambush concept of very high rates of fire, light ammunition and firepower.



The number of rounds per kill tripled from WWII levels to a staggering 50,000 rounds for each kill.

In Vietnam, the light and deadly M-16 became the overwhelming choice of ground troops. 1.33 rounds per sniper kill...


Enemy Casualties caused by US soldiers

-----------------------------------------------
WW I -- 7,000 rounds/casualty
WW II -- 25,000 rounds/casualty
Korea -- 50,000 rounds/casualty
Vietnam -- 200,000-400,000 rounds/casualty



These numbers are very misleading.
In WW1 you had bolt action rifles and few aircraft.

In WW2 you had M1s and a lot of aircraft
90% of rounds were fired from and at aircraft, Many as antiaircraft from ships and air to air from bombers.

Korea you had few enemy aircraft but a lot more light and heavy machine guns.

Then you come to Vietnam.
A lot of rounds were use as air to ground. AC-47 Spooky ("Puff, the Magic Dragon)" and AC130H Spectre.
plus large numbers of helicopter gunships like the huey gun ships with miniguns and other helicopter gunships.
about 85% of rounds fired were air to ground.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner


This gun is creepy too, old school tactical nastiness converted to a long barrel, locked stock SPORTING RIFLE.
SPORTING RIFLE-SPORTING RIFLE-SPORTING RIFLE.
Not sub-machine gun.

Already had a problem with the neighbors freaking out when they saw the thing.

Time to move....


I was given a 45 cal. weapon like this for me to test fire back in the late 60's.
You could see the bullets in flight as they were very close to on another in the air.
It felt like I was shooting a lead grease gun.
30 rounds in a split second.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED

originally posted by: waltwillis

originally posted by: neversaynever


I read somewhere that a study was done in the vietnam war and it was found that for automatic weapons only 1 kill was registered for every 9400 rounds fired in the war. In comparison for snipers it was something like 2.3 rounds per killl. a reply to: Elton




Vietnam and a host of other dirty bush wars introduced the ambush concept of very high rates of fire, light ammunition and firepower.



The number of rounds per kill tripled from WWII levels to a staggering 50,000 rounds for each kill.

In Vietnam, the light and deadly M-16 became the overwhelming choice of ground troops. 1.33 rounds per sniper kill...


Enemy Casualties caused by US soldiers

-----------------------------------------------
WW I -- 7,000 rounds/casualty
WW II -- 25,000 rounds/casualty
Korea -- 50,000 rounds/casualty
Vietnam -- 200,000-400,000 rounds/casualty



These numbers are very misleading.
In WW1 you had bolt action rifles and few aircraft.

In WW2 you had M1s and a lot of aircraft
90% of rounds were fired from and at aircraft, Many as antiaircraft from ships and air to air from bombers.

Korea you had few enemy aircraft but a lot more light and heavy machine guns.

Then you come to Vietnam.
A lot of rounds were use as air to ground. AC-47 Spooky ("Puff, the Magic Dragon)" and AC130H Spectre.
plus large numbers of helicopter gunships like the huey gun ships with miniguns and other helicopter gunships.
about 85% of rounds fired were air to ground.



OK, so what's your point?
I think that is just what I said...
Spray and pray to hose down the air Vs. one shot and one kill!
A hunter is a sniper that hunts things with four legs, and a sniper hunts for two legs.
Just take some time to count the number of hunters in this country and do the math.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
For shots over 300 yards...I would prefer the 308 over the 5.56x45.

But for CQB, I would prefer the 5.56x45 over the 308 --- because recoil is harder to control [in a semi/full auto mode] with a 308 rifle; compared to the 5.56x45.

Two shots in 1.5 seconds into center mass [holes touching each other] is effective, but six shots in 1.5 seconds spread all over the center mass human torso --- Both methods are effective, but obviously...one is a lot more efficient.


edit on 1-7-2014 by Erno86 because: added text

edit on 1-7-2014 by Erno86 because: typo



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

This is a great thread and I enjoy your op, but I would consider the range for the .308 round to be closer to 1,000 yards rather than 500.

In fact there are reports in the military where soldiers are tagging enemies from even further!



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArnoldNonymous
This is a great thread and I enjoy your op, but I would consider the range for the .308 round to be closer to 1,000 yards rather than 500.
In fact there are reports in the military where soldiers are tagging enemies from even further!


Thank you. I just wanted to err on the side on conservancy, I fully believe you are correct with the range capabilities of jacketed .308 ammunition.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm trying to talk the ole lady into buying a S&W m&p 15. She got over the "scary" factor.
Now it's just the cost, which isn't bad.

We don't "need" it she says. I beg to differ.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
I'm trying to talk the ole lady into buying a S&W m&p 15. She got over the "scary" factor.
Now it's just the cost, which isn't bad.
We don't "need" it she says. I beg to differ.


My trick was we went down to the range when my buddy was there and used his. She said, 'Damn, why don't you get one of these.'

I did the smart thing and avoided telling her that I had mentioned I wanted to get one several times.

A wise man once said to me about marriage, 'Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?'



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah I pretty much gave her a choice in the matter. lol... I can get the S&W or start a drag car project. lol

$650 vs. thousands of $ and a never ending budget of gas and car parts. I am pretty sure the S&W it will be. I have learned a few things over the years.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
The mind set of owning modern blacked out weapons like the AR is very militaristic... thus makes the AR more dangerous.

It's not the size of the bullet that is dangerous, it's the mind set of the gun owner.


Excuse me, but in this country, I'm free to have my own thoughts. I don't think my thoughts are "dangerous", but that's not yours or the government's business. It's the current trend to punish thoughts that I regard as dangerous.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
My Henry lever action 30-30 deer rifle weighs a ton but the effectiveness of the 170 grain shot is immediate. I've never fired a second round.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join