TheArmedFarmer wrote:BobCat wrote:What new firearms designs might come about in consequence of new "bans" that "they" enact? For a while you could not buy a new AR-15 in CA; then the "compliant" stocks and "fixed" magazines came along and now there are AR-15s that are not "assault weapons" in CA.
High capacity detachable magazines and auto/semi-auto features are not the most important aspect to the rifleman. Sure, those features would be valuable in a zombie outbreak, but in a military-style engagement of a hostile enemy, good sights and accurate shot placement are infinitely more important. Surprise, good cover and shot placement trump everything.
So all those guys in Iraq can give up their 30 round magazines and go for a California legal, top-loading AR with a fixed 10 round magazine? What you're saying may be true when all the bad guys are armed with sling shots and bows and arrows; but when they are not, I believe in peace through superior firepower.
There is something to be said for all those kills racked up with a Mosin Nagant 91/30 bolt action rifle. You take a shot and run to the next position, always keeping on the move so the enemy doesn't know where you are.
At least, these are some things I've read in my reading. I hope to never have to put them into practice!
Yes, there is something to be said for it, which is why scout-snipers employ bolt action rifles, but not everyone can be a scout sniper. And if what you're after is a fireball and boom followed by a small mushroom cloud that will let your enemy know 3 counties over that you're within his artillery range, the Mosin Nagant is a superb choice. That being said, if that were
all there were to it, the Rooskies would still be issuing Mosin Nagant's to the general infrantry. They' are not. There must be a reason. And even scout snipers carry a backup weapon with a higher rate of fire for when the pre-fossilized coprolites hit the oscillating ventilation device.
The M1 Garand was a superior battle rifle to every other nation's battle rifles of the day for basically ONE reason: It was semi-automatic, and could sustain a rate of fire that could not be matched by a rifleman armed with a Mauser, Enfield, or Mosin Nagant - all of which were passably good battle rifles, but not good enough. The .30-06 cartridge fired by the Garand was not so significantly superior to either the 8mm Mauser, .303 British, or 7.62x54mm Russian cartridges that caliber made the big difference. It was all about rate of fire, and even a confirmed Tank guy like Patton pronounced the Garand "the greatest implement of battle ever devised."
I like a bolt rifle as much as any man here. I own a very nice and accurate
Remington 700 VSF in .308, and as much as I enjoy my 2 ARs, I
prefer shooting my Remington. That being said, a Remington 700 is not the best tool available for home defense (unless you're covering the entrances to your property 1,000 yards away). It is not the best weapon for a "run and gun" offense. Every tool has its proper application. Most military rifle engagements take place at distances that are
well within the effective range of an AR, or AK type of weapon without any loss of accuracy. At those distances, a bolt rifle can actually become an impediment.
Besides, an AR can be just as much fun, and just as challenging to shoot well as a bolt rifle. I have a Bushmaster Varminter that will shoot .5" groups. My son has a Rock River Arms Varminter that has put two bullets into one hole on several occasions. So, a well setup AR should be just as interesting to a rifleman as any bolt rifle. Whoever it was who said "only accurate rifles are interesting" would understand the charm of a tack driving AR15.
...I'm just sayin'....
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
...Very Clever!!
