all you morons who CLAIM a short barreled 223 "might as well be a .22 mag rimfire".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z95A_eW0PMs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z95A_eW0PMs
match this with .22 mag rimfire.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
NOTICE that it's suppressed? that's supposed to hurt accuracy. 
5" groups at 300 yds. right in your fat kisser, actually.
If you know to zero the gun at 200 yds with the iron sights and 60 gr partitions, using the "long range" wing of the peep, zero the scope at 300 yds, with 69 gr Sierra bthp match ammo., and have a range finder, guess what? yeah, you get hit at 400 yds, quite reliably. and the gun CAN be concealed in an attache case, when taken down and the "regular range" wing of the peep sight, by dint of the V notch, epoxy and filing, can be zeroed at 50 yds with the 60 gr Aquila .22 subsonic ammo. This gun, if it's properly set up, is the king of versatility. i"d never put such a big, heavy scope on such a small, lw rifle, tho.
5" groups at 300 yds. right in your fat kisser, actually.If you know to zero the gun at 200 yds with the iron sights and 60 gr partitions, using the "long range" wing of the peep, zero the scope at 300 yds, with 69 gr Sierra bthp match ammo., and have a range finder, guess what? yeah, you get hit at 400 yds, quite reliably. and the gun CAN be concealed in an attache case, when taken down and the "regular range" wing of the peep sight, by dint of the V notch, epoxy and filing, can be zeroed at 50 yds with the 60 gr Aquila .22 subsonic ammo. This gun, if it's properly set up, is the king of versatility. i"d never put such a big, heavy scope on such a small, lw rifle, tho.
Joined
·
2,927 Posts
I'm fairly certain the only people who believe that suppressors negatively affect accuracy are video game developers and fudds, both of which probably reference the days of wipes and a lack of engineers who understood fluid dynamics.
Maxim derived something valid, and it took decades for developers to understand why and how on behalf of insufficient resources and human capital (even when .gov money was thrown at the problem in piles once every 15 years or so).
The only time in recent memory suppressors have hurt accuracy is with early commercial monocore designs which massively exacerbated early external ballistics ills, facilitating instability.
Maxim derived something valid, and it took decades for developers to understand why and how on behalf of insufficient resources and human capital (even when .gov money was thrown at the problem in piles once every 15 years or so).
The only time in recent memory suppressors have hurt accuracy is with early commercial monocore designs which massively exacerbated early external ballistics ills, facilitating instability.
a punk gets lucky ONE time and right away he's CERTAIN that he can do it any time. An experienced man knows that he can always shoot worse, in any match, than his worst day in practice.
only a moron claims that a full length rifle is comparable to a concealable rifle for tactical uses, or that a noisy gun, with lots of flash at night, is preferable to one that's quiet and has no flash, other than what escapes at the ejection port. People with their heads up their asses, like garand. Go play tiddlywinks, kid.
A man who's had some confrontation experience knows that when it's for real, you mostly miss men, with a rifle, at 50 yds, much less 500 yds, cause it's at night, or they are using cover, and firing BACK.
A man who has any ability to THINK will realize that ammo won't be replacable, probably not for decades, if EVER again, once shtf. He will also realize that any sort of bullet wound will probably be fatal, and that avoiding conflict is the only realistic answer to hostilities. The only kind of "fight" you ever want to be in, is a silenced ambush of the enemy that wipes-out whatever size "group" of them you are facing. Even then, you have the horror of burying the bodies, before the stink attracts dog packs, crows, buzzards and enemies.
Only the ignorant and willfully stupid, like garand, overlook all these facts. Only a ****ing punk "thinks" he can shoot as well, without ear protection, while being shot-at, as he can in a match, or that dangerous people just stand around, out in the open, letting themselves be shot-at. People who are that dumb are no threat to you, unless, like garand, you are even dumber than they are. Why start anything when there's no threat to you? Why be in open country in daylight? Why be above ground in daylight? Cause you're stupid and lazy, that's why.
only a moron claims that a full length rifle is comparable to a concealable rifle for tactical uses, or that a noisy gun, with lots of flash at night, is preferable to one that's quiet and has no flash, other than what escapes at the ejection port. People with their heads up their asses, like garand. Go play tiddlywinks, kid.
A man who's had some confrontation experience knows that when it's for real, you mostly miss men, with a rifle, at 50 yds, much less 500 yds, cause it's at night, or they are using cover, and firing BACK.
A man who has any ability to THINK will realize that ammo won't be replacable, probably not for decades, if EVER again, once shtf. He will also realize that any sort of bullet wound will probably be fatal, and that avoiding conflict is the only realistic answer to hostilities. The only kind of "fight" you ever want to be in, is a silenced ambush of the enemy that wipes-out whatever size "group" of them you are facing. Even then, you have the horror of burying the bodies, before the stink attracts dog packs, crows, buzzards and enemies.
Only the ignorant and willfully stupid, like garand, overlook all these facts. Only a ****ing punk "thinks" he can shoot as well, without ear protection, while being shot-at, as he can in a match, or that dangerous people just stand around, out in the open, letting themselves be shot-at. People who are that dumb are no threat to you, unless, like garand, you are even dumber than they are. Why start anything when there's no threat to you? Why be in open country in daylight? Why be above ground in daylight? Cause you're stupid and lazy, that's why.
Joined
·
5,164 Posts
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
Just stumbled across this thread for the first time. I've got no problem believing an SBR AR can shoot like that; that's nearly 2 MOA. Good, but not match-winning good in most places. Not meant as an insult to it, because I can't shoot most of my own guns any better than that.
One thing that unfortunately hasn't been mentioned is the weight of that monstrosity; because the scope isn't the only ridiculously-heavy thing there.
I'm familiar with the Atlas bipod and the G5 suppressor, and looked up the XTR-II scope and PRS stock. Just those things alone - scope, suppressor, bipod, and rear stock - weigh 5 1/2 pounds; as much as some complete AR's do. And other than the very-heavy rear stock (a full pound heavier than a lot of standard stocks :unhappy: ), that 5 1/2 pounds doesn't include any part of "the gun" itself.
Add in the upper & lower receivers, bolt carrier group, scope mount, magazine & ammo, what looks like an HBAR profile barrel, and I bet we're looking at an 11-lb gun there. That's goofy for even a normal 20" AR, and borderline insane for an SBR'ed version.
One thing that unfortunately hasn't been mentioned is the weight of that monstrosity; because the scope isn't the only ridiculously-heavy thing there.
I'm familiar with the Atlas bipod and the G5 suppressor, and looked up the XTR-II scope and PRS stock. Just those things alone - scope, suppressor, bipod, and rear stock - weigh 5 1/2 pounds; as much as some complete AR's do. And other than the very-heavy rear stock (a full pound heavier than a lot of standard stocks :unhappy: ), that 5 1/2 pounds doesn't include any part of "the gun" itself.
Add in the upper & lower receivers, bolt carrier group, scope mount, magazine & ammo, what looks like an HBAR profile barrel, and I bet we're looking at an 11-lb gun there. That's goofy for even a normal 20" AR, and borderline insane for an SBR'ed version.
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
"borderline insane" explains somethings
just showing the potential of the short barrel, which a lot of fools have denigrated. You know I favor a 4 lb AR and don't gaf about hitting more than 1/4 mile away. If I had to settle for "only" 300m of ability to hit a 12"x 24" mark, or a head at 150 yds, I'd be fine with that.
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
If that's all we're talking about, I suspect a .22wmr could match it. It obviously wouldn't come close to matching it for energy, but for accuracy I suspect that 1.7MOA isn't unknown for the caliber. In fact, I know it isn't; I used to have a .22magnum that would shoot less than 2MOA even in my hands, and I'm no Matthew Quigley by any stretch.
On hitting 12"x24" at 300, (unless I'm having a senior moment) that's only 4MOA; which should be doable for most carbines, including a lot of pistol-caliber carbines. I've seen even Krinkovs shoot 6MOA.
On hitting 12"x24" at 300, (unless I'm having a senior moment) that's only 4MOA; which should be doable for most carbines, including a lot of pistol-caliber carbines. I've seen even Krinkovs shoot 6MOA.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!