nikto

are waf and that a bolt is all you need for fightin. We GOTTA advocate AR's as hunting guns, make them as innocuous and ubuitious as a 30-30, or SA revolver. Having them be so commonplace, low cost, accepted as hunting guns, etc, is essential to keep them from being banned.

with an uncanned 223, I was able to react to a buddy's firing of his SMLE, and get 6 hits on the A zone at 25 yds, before he could fire again, and he MISSED. :-) he practiced a lot with it, too. not much live, but he'd done plenty of drycycling of the bolt. I"d watched him practice. Those who don't know what speed shooting iS "think" that the Enfield is "fast". It' actualy pathetically slow. Just cause it's faster than other, molasses-slow bolt actions does NOT make it an effective combat rifle, and it has not been so since the advent of the garand. 75 years is a REALLY long time to not get the word!

nikto

and besides, the AR IS by far the most versatile/useful longarm ever built.

Terry G

Man. I sure don't want a felon advocating anything about guns. Wouldn't the antis love to get a hold of a nutcase felon like John as a poster boy.

gripper

I prefer autos. I also enjoy shooting my Mosin Nagants. And if cash is spendable and a private sale/FTF opportunity presents itself; I'll enjoy having another Security Six or a Redhawk back in the toolbox.
Or maybe I'll be able to spend it on nothing except the rent.

nikto

if things are THAT tight, i'd not have money tied up in multiple clunkers. can't afford to shoot them anyway.

gripper

Oh,I'm good on the ammunition department. But,one thing at a time.

John in AR

"so far..."

At various points in time, that statement was equally true of the matchlock, the 1860 Henry, and the 1892 Winchester. Time marches on, and in time, the AR will also be hugely eclipsed.

For that matter, if speaking strictly of performance, the 5.56 AR has already been eclipsed by the same gun in .300 Blackout. I'm not abandoning the 5.56/.223 in AR's, but objectively speaking, the .300 can do everything that the 5.56 can do (even if you do have a rimfire conversion kit), and can do a lot that the 5.56 simply can't come close to.

I only have one .300 BK (well, two; but one's a single-shot), but the ability to instantly swap between full-power loads and pellet-gun quiet loads with no adapters or parts change-out is a huge step forward over the AR's original caliber. With the .300BK I can't shoot rimfires, but I can shoot ammo that's quieter than normal rimfire rounds, and still delivers over 400 ft/lbs at 200 yards. As much as I like the 223/5.56, it simply can't match that.

Yes, I lose the military-caliber advantage, however important that is (or isn't). And I lose the lighter weight of the .22 rimfire ammo. But if (as is so often claimed) there's no need to carry "tons of loaded mags" or sit on a "stash of stockpiled ammo like King Midas", both of those factors shrink greatly in significance.

The AR is still my favorite platform and the .223/5.56 is still my most-used AR caliber. But to speak objectively and honestly, I have to admit that the 5.56 AR is simply not as capable as a .300BK AR is; just not even close.

Fwiw nikto, the above isn't speculation, it's first-hand - hands on - experience. I have AR's in both calibers, I have the .22LR AR adapter, I shoot all combinations of them suppressed and unsuppressed, I have a chronograph, a dB meter, and a 265-yard range.

The only objective arguments against the .300BK are ammo cost (roughly double that of .223), and heavier weight of the subsonic ammunition. If I were a slave to "must have the absolute, objective best" in my AR carbines & rifles, logic and intellectual honesty would dictate that I abandon the .223 and convert wholly to the .300BK. But I'm sticking with the .223 as primary simply out of personal comfort zone, depth & breadth of investment already made, and frankly partly just laziness to a degree. I'm honest enough to admit that to myself.

Garand

I've never have said that AR's don't have their places, as do all other firearms used within their limitations.

nikto

300 is critically deficient in several areas. It requires a larger ID hole in the baffles, so it won't suppress the .22 unit, when move the 300 can to the 223 barrel. it can't fire the ammo which stuffs the military arsenals, a critical failure if shtf. The slight increase in power means little or nothing. the subsonic 300 still can't be relied upon to drop a man with a chest hit. if you hit the brain, the 223 or 22lr subsonic is still enough, the 22 to 50 yds (Aquila 60 gr) or the 100 gr 223 to 100+ yds.

nothing is going to surpass the shorty AR. there's just no demand for such. soldiers are cheap, making them a bit more survival-capable is a very low priority. so there will never be enough demand to pay for developing a pulse rifle, etc. Individual weapons have come as far as they are ever going to go, in the rifle direction. Now, my 20 mm grenade launcher, that does enough more to make it saleable.

giving up the .22lr practice would be stupid, which is why you wont do it.

John in AR

Yes, it will. It does so just fine. A sub-caliber projectile thru a suppressor has the potential to be unduly loud, but doesn’t have to be. I use a .35-caliber titanium suppressor on my .22LR rifle all the time. It’s quieter than my pellet gun. I didn’t expect it to work well, but it objectively, measurably does. There are several multi-caliber suppressors on the market now, that really do effectively suppress various calibers. I’m not up to speed on current suppressor models, but the Omega and the Mystic-X are the first to come to mind.

Yes, I know you’ll say “it’s impossible; they can’t”. They do. Check out their specs & videos.

Also, one of my main points is that you don't need the .22 unit. There's no need for any 'kits', 'units', 'conversions', 'adapters', etc with the AAC round. You just swap magazines.



You yourself have repeatedly said there’s no need for much ammunition. It’s one of your most-oft recurring themes:
By your own words, the maximum number of centerfire rifle rounds even possibly needed, varies from 200 to 840 rounds; depending on which post of yours we're reading. So if I’m willing to buy that 200-840 rounds – again, by your own words – whatever kind of ammo “stuffs the military arsenals” is irrelevant simply because I'd be long dead before needing it. By your definitions, if I put back a single case of the “main” ammo, I’ve got from 120% to 500% of a lifetime supply.

Your words, not mine.



“Slight” increase? More than 400% increase at the muzzle, and even greater disparity the farther out it goes. That’s hardly slight. Laws of physics and mathematics are clear and indisputable.



Never said replace the AR. I said that the supersonic .300 can do everything the .223 can do, and the subsonic .300 can do everything the subsonic .22LR can do.

That last sentence is really the distilled essence of my point: "the supersonic .300 can do everything the .223 can do, and the subsonic .300 can do everything the subsonic .22LR can do". What is incorrect in that sentence?



Who said anything about pulse rifles or the expense of training recruits? I’m talking about ballistics in existing, current-production, civilian firearms.



Spoken like Ellsworth Twohey in The Fountainhead. “All the best designs have already been created.” It’s a stupid assumption regarding architectural design, and it’s a stupid assumption regarding mechanical devices as well.



Step away from the oxycontin bottle. Nobody’s talking about grenade launchers; the discussion is about (once again) ballistics in existing, current-production, civilian firearms.



I just yesterday said that I pretty much have given it up. I can shoot my 9mm for right at the same money, as I specifically explained at the same time. I like .22’s, but for real training, real drills, and real practice, a non-novice is better-served with real service weapons.
I’ve gone thru more than 800 rounds of 9mm in the past month. I’m signed up for one of Rob Pincus’ Combat Focus courses next month; which includes 700-800 pistol rounds and 600-700 rifle rounds.
Some of us actually do stuff, rather than merely sitting on the PC regurgitating 1970’s platitudes.

If the .223 shorty is your favorite, then so be it, and to each his own. But “measurably better” is still measurably better, whether either one of us likes it or not.

nikto

EYE dont need it, that's true but nearly everyone else here does. 300 ammo remains a LOT heavier bulkier than .22lr ammo john, and wastefully powerful on small critters, on top of being ridiculously expensive for such use. I'm aware of what can makers get away with, on claims vs sound reduction, too. Your pellet gun must be noisy. If you lock the breech shut and use subsonic 22's, you should hear the bullet click thru a paper target at 50 yds.

If the service weapon is a suppressed .223, the novice is very well served with 22 training (without the can in place) You've said so yourself, in years past and the experienced shooter will be well served, too, for snapshooting practice to 75 yds. There's just no effective difference in the difficulty of shooting the suppressed 223 AR and the unsuppressed .22 unit. When wifey works up to 223, she'll be using a friend's suppressor. There's very little need to work with the 223, just a bit of longer range stuff.

John in AR

The novice is well-served with .22 rimfire adapters. There's no hypocrisy on my end about that; I've said it as recently as this week. As for hunting, I hunt with my AR's and think I'm as capable as most with my AR's, but I don't snap-shoot when hunting; especially at that distance. For reference, that video I posted a week or two ago, was a 12x20 target at a little over 100 feet. You're talking about more than twice that distance, on a game animal with a good target zone about one-third that size or so; basically making it a target one-sixth the effective size as on that video. I'm personally not snap-shooting in those circumstances when hunting.


For defensive rifle drills where an imperfect fast hit can be better than a perfect slow hit, sure. But for hunting, the time-pressure is much lower, and I prefer to risk losing the shot over fatally wounding but losing the animal due to a poor hit.


There's a big difference in fast, close-in shooting with the suppressed .223 and the unsuppressed 22 unit. I don't do the 22 much anymore, but I've done thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of rounds thru my guns both ways. Even with a lightweight suppressor the weight is all leveraged out at the far end of the muzzle, which amplifies its weight. And making the muzzle a pound or so heavier, makes a big difference in shooting fast. One thing you neglect to mention is the increased gas blowback with suppressor use on centerfire AR's. The more effective a suppressor is, the more pronounced this increased back-pressure is. It's a very real issue, and is why there's an entire industry of 'gasbuster' style charging handles to block & divert that gas away from your face as much as possible. With the .22 unit in place, it handles like a .22 rimfire, because that's what it is. With the 223 and suppressor in place, it's not much different for slow fire, but for fast stuff, there's a very substantial difference. Not so much in recovery times, but in transition speeds and chamber gasses back in your face.

And again, this isn't theory - it's physics and personal experience that's both long-term and recent.

John in AR

Lock the breech how?

John in AR

Missed this part initially...
So are you agreeing that for "nearly everyone else", my statements are correct?

Terry G

How in the world would you know how much skill any other poster here has? Are you hiding somewhere on my range? Were you at the LESB qualification where I hit 44 out of 44, twice? Once with a CZ 75 9MM and once with a Glock 21 .45ACP? How could you have any skills left after not firing a handgun since 1985?

Garand

Melvin, where did you get all this practical experience with the .300 Blackout, it has only been out since Jan 2011? Or is this all the gun magazine stuff you have read?