"Battle Rifle" still needed

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 12031
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: "Battle Rifle" still needed

Post by Grizz »

If I were a member of a unit that was tasked with the confiscation of firearms from US civilians, or with the subjugation of the US population
hope the promise keepers are flying the choppers on our side, cause ground pounders are defenseless against them.
MrMurphy
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1947
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:32 pm

Re: "Battle Rifle" still needed

Post by MrMurphy »

Going by feedback from friends in or recently back from Afghanistan, plus my own reading, insurgents rarely engage with rifles except at near point blank range, they can't hit a whole lot. They do understand our guys CAN hit out to extended distances, and usually commence an attack with either an IED against vehicles, or a PKM or rocket attack from long distance in the 'shoot and scoot' type of hit. Or hitting a FOB which can't dodge, hammering it with RPGs, rockets, mortars and MG fire from very long range.

I like the idea of the 6.5 Grendel, I know it's got quite a bit of power in a small package (former boss of mine dropped an elk at 400m with one, single shot) but I haven't shot one yet. The 6.8 SPC was intended to replace the 5.56 and pushed by some SOF guys.....again, lot of performance in a small package.

The 7.62 is excellent at what it does, I just don't think it's for everyone. With the range of sized people I had to deal with in my unit, all of whom at any time could be in a stack doing an entry with you (ranging from 4'9" and 4'10" females to a couple 6'6 and 6'8 males) the M4 was about the best compromise, especially as we were backed up by heavy weapons and vehicles. In our role a heavier rifle wouldn't have been a huge factor as we primarily drove everywhere, but recoil and overall weight factors would definitely make it less optimal. I can think of a couple 16" AR-10 carbines or a 18" FAL, that if with a collapsing stock, would have worked, but I'd still prefer the M4 (in 5.56 or better).


A trained single rifleman with a major caliber rifle who can hit at 300-500 yards will always be a serious threat. As I remember a Cold War joke going, if the Russians invaded, they could handle our regular forces and do okay. What really worried them was when one of their generals goes down with a headshot out of nowhere, and a quarter-mile away, Bobby Lee says past his binoculars "That was a dang fine shot, Jimmy, now get another one!"
Post Reply