I'm SUPPOSED to be mucking out the camping gear room, but the doorway is right beside my workstation...<br><br>I dislike scopes on pistols. In the field I have not had any scope problems on rifles, despite some horrendous abuses. I have had a few crummy scopes but I figured out they were crummy before I left the target range with them... but my paranoia agrees with you; any serious rifle must also have reliable iron sights. Enough said.<br><br>We have a couple of RWS air rifles that I am very fond of. I've not been overjoyed with the practical field aspects of air rifle scopes on them, but they are a delight to shoot recreationally with the scopes. Both are fine with the provided iron sights, although one of these days I'm going to put an aperature rear sight on them - my eyes are not in love with the present arrangement anymore. If I had more time... the high-end model (disremember the model number) recently had an "accident" that really ticked me off: Nephew visiting from out of state was using it and I failed to notice that he was using the same amount of enthusiastic force to close the barrel as it took to cock the rifle - he BENT the barrel!!! I can straighten it the same way the factory guys will (they're only a couple of hours away in Montezuma, Iowa), but that should not have been so easy for a kid to bend. I am SERIOUSLY considering doing some MAJOR gunsmithing - if I screw it up hoplessly, the factory guys can just fit a couple of new parts. I'll post the results, but it's going to be some months before I have time to tackle it. Otherwise, these are a good value. Go see Beemans if cost is no object...<br><br>The M16A2? Huge improvement over all its predecessors. It's reliable - the testing has left no doubt about that. I know, it shouldn't be; it defies common sense, but it is. Except for the caliber, I feel it's one of the best battle rifles around these days - for present day operations involving large numbers of ground forces. Change the training, change the scenario (err, sorta like what's been going on in SW Asia lately), and it and all it's overseas bretheran are not so good. <shrug> I don't own one (commercial equivalent) and don't intend to - utterly no use for one in any situation I can think of. My brother, never in service, owns one. Go figure.<br><br>If you think the M16A2 is "bad" - take a look at the wierdo stuff on the table right now. Technology gone insane... it's even higher-tech than the Hollywood stuff seen in RAH's "Starship Troopers", and they've already prototyped it... somewhere, I hope, someone steps hard on the brakes and re-prioritizes things - more training and keep the Infantryman's primary tools lower tech. With apologies to former Marines, the USMC is not really any better off than the Army - I served with them in hostile places. Talk is cheap...<br><br>My main gripe is the caliber. Terminal effects, especially with the hot 69gr NATO spec ammo, are not so good in the real world unless the CNS is struck. <br><br>It's a pretty good caliber for varmint shooting with light bullets and I would not hesitate to take on a deer if I needed the meat, but it would not be something I'd care to do if I had other tools at my disposal. I'm no Elmer Keith or John Taylor - I'm very happy with 308 to 30-06 class ballistics for North America. (I have a 338, but it sees precious little use). IMHO, something very similar to the 6mm PPC - with a little bit more capacity and in 6.5mm with about a 120-130 gr pill - would be close to an ideal all-around caliber for a general use battle rifle and light MG. Would make a pretty dandy caliber for a light general purpose "survival" rifle, too - maybe built on a Mini-Mark X Mauser sized action or a re-designed carbine along the general lines of a Ruger Ranch mini-thirty (don't own one, but the size and form are nice). Of course, a lever gun in 30-30 with a 16" bbl is a readily available and cheap route that is probably quite effective enough for the Western Hemisphere...<br><br>I can't say that I carry enough ammo to care about the weight EXCEPT if I am on a long trip where I expect to have to take meat for the pot. Then I care - almost as much about bulk as weight.<br><br>Couldn't agree more about the pistola - big mistake, despite the political pressure from NATO. The pistol is HUGE for a 9mm - very reliable, I admit. First thing I did when I got in theater was go find some poor Navy guy and swap for his "obsolete" M1911A1 and two boxes of ammo... it was a good decision. Gee, I wonder why SF guys get .45ACP caliber pistols now????<br><br>Rants off and I'm gonna get a beating if I don't get back to my chores...<br><br>Tom

Tom and Presumed,<br><br><br>I agree with both of you. I disagree with both of you. I find fault, not with the weapons themselves (the M16A3, and ESPECIALLY the newer M-4 variant are excellent weapons; the Hockeystick..er, Beretta M-9 is good also), but with the currently issued ammuntion. Which is to say that the Geneva Convention(s) is screwing things up, as always. The M-16, with current ammo, is adequate---barely. The M-9, with current ammo, is not.<br><br>With appropriate ammuntion both weapons would not only be more effective, but would keep more with the spirit (although certainly not the letter) of the Geneva Convention(s). Think about it, standard .223 varmint ammo in the M16 would be both more accurate and more likely to stop a target. Note the word "stop;" for a long time now the goal has been to remove, rather than just kill, effectives from the battlefield. A wounded soldier generally requires help to evacuate the battlefield, thus removing more effectives from the frontline. Studies have shown that, encounter for encounter, FMJ ammo is more likely to kill than expanding; less likely to provide the one-shot stop that people like, but more likely to kill. The logic is this, if a FMJ round requires 2 or 3 or more rounds to provide a stop, there are that many more holes in him leaking blood, to be repaired. This generally leads to a greater chance of death than a one shot, one hole stop. The same applies to the 9mm round, only more so.<br><br>On the other hand, if the Geneva Convention(s) can't be ignored or somehow cicumvented, then I agree with you, our troops (myself included) need different weapons. Many think, as Tom does, that a 6-7mm round would be ideal and could provide the added benefit of ammo commonality between the service rifle and GPMG (General Purpose Machine Gun). I myself would be happy to return to the .308. I used the M-14 briefly in the Navy, and it took a long time to both get used to and trust the M-16 when we changed over. And I 100% agree with Tom that we need better training, not better gadgets. The OIWS (Objective Individual Weapon System) is supercool, but weighs a reported 21lbs and is dependent on batteries. Please, it was 5-10lbs extra (in batteries) per man in my squad just keep the radios, GPS, night vision and other gadgets working on lengthy missions.<br><br>As for civilian use...well that's another post.<br><br>That's my 2 cents.<br><br>Andy

Andy,<br><br>Sheesh! It's gonna take me a week to get the gear straightened out <grin>...<br><br>The fast twist used to stabilize the fairly long 69gr boattail bullet is not too conducive to accuracy with the 55gr formerly used. The 69gr bullet came into being for the benefit of the light machine gun formerly called the Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) - to give it (SAW) better effective range and terminal effects at range against body armor and thin-skinned vehicles. The A2 came about partially in order to better utilize the 69gr bullet... it's all about logistics. <br><br>Which is why just prior to WWII, Gen MacArthur nixed the ".276 Pederson" cartridge and kept the 30-06 - not a good time to switch calibers with large scale war looming. So we got the M1 Garand in 30-06 (it was tested in 276) and later, a slightly smaller equivalent, the 7.62mm aka 308 Win (technically not exactly the same, but close enuff for me) in the M14. They could have actually acomplished the same thing with the 300 Savage by then - I have no idea why the 7.62 was designed instead of using the 300 Savage. Both are capable of equaling the 150gr M2 30-06 load (and neither are as capable with heavier bullets, but that's another logistical story). Only VERY recently has there come a 308 bullet that stays supersonic to 1,000 yards fired from a gas operated gun at acceptable pressures.<br><br>I used an M14 enough to really like it - had one in my room for a few years. I like my Garands better for absolutely no good reason - I just do (and I SHOULD have them rebarreled to 308... oh, well). Since I HOPE to never hear or fire shots in anger again personally... at least, not as part of a military force - I can lug around whatever I like.<br><br>In a big war, there is strategic value to wounding rather than killing - assuming that your opponent is going to care for his wounded. If you are down at the scary place in any size war, all you want to do is keep the other soldier from doing whatever it is he is doing RIGHT NOW - the desired outcome is quite different when it's in your face. "Let's see, if I just wing him, I'll further the national objectives..." Not! LoL<br><br>I think that's the sort of effect I would prefer in a survival rifle - be it for stopping dangerous critters or harvesting meat. But when one tosses in the weight and bulk of large caliber ammo and the weapons that use it... there is a compromise to be made somewhere. A central - south American compromise would be lighter than a boreal Americas compromise which (may be) is lighter than an African or Asian compromise...<br><br>I understand and respect the criteria Col Cooper uses for his "Scout Rifle" concept - it practically dictates a 308 or first cousin 7mm-08. In my EXPERIENCE (not as extensive as his), the 308 does not have the penetetration with conventional off-the-shelf ammo to serve as well in a pinch on really big critters. I don't think he claims that it does; just that maybe my ideas run in a little different direction than his. BTW, notice that the Steyr Scout has the conventional 308 twist of 1-12" - I am mildly surprised that it does not have a 1-10" to better allow somewhat heavier bullets.<br><br>The 260 Remington is ALMOST interesting for this "universal survival rifle" application (we have one in a Rem M7). But... geometry makes it tough to use the full powder capacity of the case AND keep the overall length short enough to fit in a so-called "short action" when using bullets of 129gr and heavier, which is where the 6.5mms just start to get really interesting. Drove me nuts loading for that for potential use on elk... it can be done with 140 gr bullets of appropriate construction, but the bullet is pretty far into the case and that is less conducive for accuracy.<br><br>Obvoiusly, I am unconcerned about ammo commonality at this point in history and my life... heck, I haven't even owned a 308 for several years now. What I would like to tinker with is a short cartridge in 6.5mm that is very accurate with a 140 gr pill at ~2,700 - 2,900 fps and will also accurately shoot 160 gr round nose - from a short action. It's probably already been done, but the new short magnum cases - shortened up a bit - are tempting. I suspect that a slightly shortened 284 Winchester case might do the trick as well or even better, and someone has probably already done that.<br><br>For now I'll stick with my battered M77 30-06 because it gets the job done everytime. Funny how that works out, isn't it?<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom<br><br>

ARGH!!!! Someone said the name of the Dark ONe - OICW!<br><br>It's more than just heavy- it's unfeasable. The rounds have to be hand built, and that isnt likely to change for a while. So, they cost about a grand a pop, and they blow up IN THE GUN about .5% of the time. About half of the prototypes have been destroyed that way- fortunately, they were being fired from machine rests at the time. About another 10% of the round fail to fuse, and fragmentation is erratic.<br><br>The French Papon system is similiar, but it uses a larger, 30mm shell. And a real rifle. The fatter shell is as long, so there is more space available- I think it will work better than oops we're testing. The Soviets foudn that 30mm was about as small as you can make it if you want to have realistic frgementation when they were building thier AGS, and still have it be a reasonable length. Yes, 20 and 25mm can do fine on point targets, breaking armour and buildings, but to nail guys int he open, you need volume.<br><br>The Aussies are paper designing something that will use thier MetalStorm system, moutned on top of a modified AUG, in 23-25mm. But it is primarly intended for armour popping, though fragmentation loades are possible.<br><br>Besides, I'm hearing rumors through my friends and family members that are SOCCOM assets or Marines that it isn't exactly Marine/Ranger/Airbone/Green Beret/SEAL/PJ-proof. Until it is, leave it in Natick, with the people who say that a fork in an MRE is a no-no because it might rupture the packaging if the package is run over by an armoured vehicle. (I'm serious folks, there is a specification that the MRE must be anle to take being run over by a tank!!!! I wouldn't hungry after my lunch got squashed like that.)<br><br>I hate to say this, but at the end of the ACR trials, they might have been right when they said that there was nothing that really showed a marked improvement over the M-16A2/M-203 combo. Although, I'd like to see the Masterkey from Knight be made a standard issue item- shotguns are nice to have around, maybe issue them to the guy buddied with the fireteam leader?