Yeah, but I can't imagine a shtf scenario involving being teleported to the Middle East.
But 7.62x39 is a nice chamber to have anyway. Cheap ammo.
Yeah, but I can't imagine a shtf scenario involving being teleported to the Middle East.
But 7.62x39 is a nice chamber to have anyway. Cheap ammo.
I found it interesting that the army is replacing sniper bolt guns for auto feed.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bearin...rmy-picks-another-semi-auto-sniper-rifle/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bearin...rmy-picks-another-semi-auto-sniper-rifle/amp/
That caught my attention.... Glad to see that it is for Infantry units (DMR) and the such. Being a DMR is a whole lot different than a dedicated Sniper Rifle. The loss of bolt action and the associated performance (or lack of performance) issues related to processes associated therein, would in fact reduce the viability of a Dedicated Marksman on the team. The need for sniper activities still requires the "long shot" capability and as such this rifle does not fit the bill. The article states this gun is "designed to be used by sharpshooters within infantry platoons and squads, to provide accurate, longer-ranged aimed fires than are possible with the current generation of intermediate-caliber assault rifles." Good on them for that, there is a need for these types of rifles. There is also a need for the .338 Lapua and the such for actual Sniper type Activities.
Great read Rooster, Thank You!!
Whut?????
I'm guessing he meant 7.62x39
Can hits on a human sized target be made with a rack grade AR at 1000 yds?
Absolutely. Is it lethal. Possibly in the right spot.
http://looserounds.com/2013/06/10/a...rack-grade-ar15-and-m855-make-1000-yard-hits/
1,000 Yard Shots With A Stock AR-15, With Military Ball Ammo (M855) With Iron Sights?
Most impressive to me is that Shawn was able to do this with military ball ammo (M855) after he did it with the heavier, MK262 (77gr OTM) designed for long distance.
Heck, I’m impressed that he could even see 1,000 yards!
Even though we’re only talking about being able to make these hits, I’m sure someone will point out that the 5.56 is ineffective at stopping a threat at really far ranges.
To that, I think Shawn has a great point, “The terminal effects of the round at these ranges is another matter and gives people an excuse to not practice. The thing is, a hit is a hit. Kills at 800 yards have been made with the MK12, so that should tell you something. Even if it takes 3 hits to put some one down at 900 yards with your 5.56 carbine, they are still down at 900 yards. I would gladly use up three rounds than have to deal with a bad guy at 50 yards. Ten rounds needed to stopping a target 900 yards away is worth more then 100 rounds when the bad guy is with 50 as far as I am concerned. Work with your weapon, learn it and don’t let the gun rag writers and forum experts make you lose confidence in your tool. The AR15 and the 5.56 work. Don’t listen to the fluff used to sell new platforms/calibers.”
And that makes a LOT of sense don’t you think?
You can read about his first shots at 1,000yds using the standard 20″ barrel AR-15 (basically a clone of the M16A2) here.
Later, he did the same thing with an M4A1 upper which means the barrel length is only 14.5 inches long. Incredibly, he outperformed the longer-barreled 20″ rifle with the M4! He also shot a target a 800yds with a 16″ barreled rifle equipped with an aimpoint red dot optic because that’s what many people use. Click here to read that.
Clearly, if you’re skilled enough, the AR-15 can be shot out to 1000 yards with some degree of accuracy!
http://preparedgunowners.com/2016/06/07/how-far-can-you-shoot-your-ar-15-500-800-1000-yards/
I was at our range today shooting 100 rounds of .223 55 grain sp, and 40 rounds of 130 grain .270. Ringing some AR-500 steel at 300 yards gets boring.
The Army is not going away from the M-16/M4 or 5.56 anytime soon.
Lots of rehashed rumors in the OP article. The initiative in question is exploratory in nature, not a full blown procure and replace program.
Anything they come up with is going to have to offer measurable and substantial improvement over the current service rifle/caliber in order to justify the fiscally stifling cost of replacement across the force.
Lots of rehashed rumors in the OP article. The initiative in question is exploratory in nature, not a full blown procure and replace program.
Anything they come up with is going to have to offer measurable and substantial improvement over the current service rifle/caliber in order to justify the fiscally stifling cost of replacement across the force.
Similar threads
