mostly wt of gun and ammo, but also the better controlability of M16 on full auto. You CAN'T fix what's wrong with 308. It's heavy, bulky ammo, no .22 unit, no concealment, no 1 hand utility, scope base for M14 sucks, and it's not the GI rifle rd, doesn't use GI parts or mags. It's been history for 35 years now, let it go. The military gets to fly and haul stuff, you have to hoof it. They get to go to safe bases in between wars, you are stuck with where you are. you have to forage, they don't. 308's power is wasted on men, so why bother to lug it around? EFFECTIVE cans for 308 RUIN handling of the auto rifles. A 10" CAR-15, with an 8" can on it, is every bit as handy as the uncanned 30 Carbine ever was.
military shitcanned 308 for good reasons,
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Joined
·
1,815 Posts
Tim, et all, NUTTY HOGN keeps comparing everybody to himself. If he can't handle it, it's no good.
That is why the "TOUGH CON TARD" always flaps his lips together about a twenty-two conversion for the AR.
That is why the "TOUGH CON TARD" always flaps his lips together about a twenty-two conversion for the AR.
Joined
·
1,815 Posts
Tim, et all, NUTTY JOHN keeps comparing everybody to himself. If he can't handle it, it's no good.
That is why the "TOUGH CON TARD" always flaps his lips together about a twenty-two conversion for the AR.
That is why the "TOUGH CON TARD" always flaps his lips together about a twenty-two conversion for the AR.
M-14
Are these " new " or pulled from stock ? Who does the custom stocks and paint ? The M-14 we just got through a DOJ surplus program had the standard brown colored fiberglass stock and plain parkerized finish. Had to get the selector switch and 20 round mags through the civian market. Oh well, what did we expect for $ 45.00
Are these " new " or pulled from stock ? Who does the custom stocks and paint ? The M-14 we just got through a DOJ surplus program had the standard brown colored fiberglass stock and plain parkerized finish. Had to get the selector switch and 20 round mags through the civian market. Oh well, what did we expect for $ 45.00
Joined
·
2,927 Posts
Suppressed .308 Autoloaders Worse Off? w00t!?!?!?!
Andy:
EFFECTIVE cans for 308 RUIN handling of the auto rifles. A 10" CAR-15, with an 8" can on it, is every bit as handy as the uncanned 30 Carbine ever was.
---
I find that rather odd. Having delt a friend owning a Mil-Spec M21 with a suppressor, (please note that I am a civilian that competes in the Tactical Arena) we have as a group noted that the weapons produce more CONSISTENT accuracy when pairing the supressors with Federal Gold Match .308 Win Ammo (and yes I know M21s should truly only be used with 7.62x51 NATO, and yes there is a slight difference in Winchester and NATO spec). Note that this ammo is indeed supersonic and not designed for total silence. However, the suppressor was still quiet enough to render ear protection useless. The muzzle rise was unnoticeable due to the suppressor. And, if I need to prove to you the far superior numbers the 168 gr 7.62mm SMK put out in comparison to the undercut CAR-15 with a meesly 5.56 projectile, I will be happy to provide you with pictures of gelatin tests and calculable data. BTW, accuracy out of the suppressed M21 SWS came to about 1.25 MOA @ 100 and 3" @ 300 without a benchrest, friend was prone/bipod. I would like to see a CAR-15 in any configuration compete with that. If you have one that can, please send pictures, or at least a range contact/witness' email so I can hear the tale. Hope this clears up some major misconceptions you have about suppressed .30 autoloaders
.
Andy:
EFFECTIVE cans for 308 RUIN handling of the auto rifles. A 10" CAR-15, with an 8" can on it, is every bit as handy as the uncanned 30 Carbine ever was.
---
I find that rather odd. Having delt a friend owning a Mil-Spec M21 with a suppressor, (please note that I am a civilian that competes in the Tactical Arena) we have as a group noted that the weapons produce more CONSISTENT accuracy when pairing the supressors with Federal Gold Match .308 Win Ammo (and yes I know M21s should truly only be used with 7.62x51 NATO, and yes there is a slight difference in Winchester and NATO spec). Note that this ammo is indeed supersonic and not designed for total silence. However, the suppressor was still quiet enough to render ear protection useless. The muzzle rise was unnoticeable due to the suppressor. And, if I need to prove to you the far superior numbers the 168 gr 7.62mm SMK put out in comparison to the undercut CAR-15 with a meesly 5.56 projectile, I will be happy to provide you with pictures of gelatin tests and calculable data. BTW, accuracy out of the suppressed M21 SWS came to about 1.25 MOA @ 100 and 3" @ 300 without a benchrest, friend was prone/bipod. I would like to see a CAR-15 in any configuration compete with that. If you have one that can, please send pictures, or at least a range contact/witness' email so I can hear the tale. Hope this clears up some major misconceptions you have about suppressed .30 autoloaders
.
Joined
·
2,927 Posts
The data/gelatin pics I promised
I have gotten the gelatin pics from a slide demonstrationg the performance of the 6.8 SPC in comparison with the 7.62x51 and 5.56 NATO standard M855 loadings. However, it had great pics regarding the performance of the 5.56 NATO. The presentationis availible in its entierty here:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/dennison.ppt
The picture is on this slide:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/273,11,6.8mm Remington SPC Terminal Performance at 50 yds
The Tests were performed at 50 yards. Also, the 5.56 weapon was a std. M4 (14 in. Barrel), a CAR-15 has a shorter barrel and less performance (obviously)
I am having difficulty finding a pic I once saw of the 7.62x51 tested in the same setup, If you want to try the tests yourself go here:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number1/article412.htm
If you do try it please post pics, I would love to see some casual, non-gov affiliated research on these two rounds in a gel test.
And time for the calculable data:
Standard 5.56 M855 load shot sighted at 50 yards, with 1/4 MOA adjustments, at 1000 ft above sea level, in no wind, at 60 deg farenheit, (average measurements) with a 63 gr projectile discharged at 2611 fps out of a 1.5 in barrel (CAR-15). Please note that this is all calculations, I have not used a CAR-15/M177 before and probly never will:
the document with the calculations is 556_CAR15calc.doc
Now for the Standard 7.62x51 NATO loadings. To be fair, its sighted at 50 yards (it would never happen though), with 1/4 MOA adjustments, at 1000 feet above sea level, in no wind, at 60 deg farenheit, discharged at 2580 fps with a 173 gr projectile out of a 22 inch barrel (M21).
The 50 yrd zero is 308_M21calc.doc
the 300 yrd zero is 308_M21calc2.doc
The 5.56 gel test pic:
I have gotten the gelatin pics from a slide demonstrationg the performance of the 6.8 SPC in comparison with the 7.62x51 and 5.56 NATO standard M855 loadings. However, it had great pics regarding the performance of the 5.56 NATO. The presentationis availible in its entierty here:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/dennison.ppt
The picture is on this slide:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/273,11,6.8mm Remington SPC Terminal Performance at 50 yds
The Tests were performed at 50 yards. Also, the 5.56 weapon was a std. M4 (14 in. Barrel), a CAR-15 has a shorter barrel and less performance (obviously)
I am having difficulty finding a pic I once saw of the 7.62x51 tested in the same setup, If you want to try the tests yourself go here:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number1/article412.htm
If you do try it please post pics, I would love to see some casual, non-gov affiliated research on these two rounds in a gel test.
And time for the calculable data:
Standard 5.56 M855 load shot sighted at 50 yards, with 1/4 MOA adjustments, at 1000 ft above sea level, in no wind, at 60 deg farenheit, (average measurements) with a 63 gr projectile discharged at 2611 fps out of a 1.5 in barrel (CAR-15). Please note that this is all calculations, I have not used a CAR-15/M177 before and probly never will:
the document with the calculations is 556_CAR15calc.doc
Now for the Standard 7.62x51 NATO loadings. To be fair, its sighted at 50 yards (it would never happen though), with 1/4 MOA adjustments, at 1000 feet above sea level, in no wind, at 60 deg farenheit, discharged at 2580 fps with a 173 gr projectile out of a 22 inch barrel (M21).
The 50 yrd zero is 308_M21calc.doc
the 300 yrd zero is 308_M21calc2.doc
The 5.56 gel test pic:
Attachments
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!