Gun Gloat: My first AR-15 (also my first gun ever)

Gun Gloat: My first AR-15 (also my first gun ever)

Gambit
Gambit

October 27th, 2011, 12:53 am #1

Built it from parts, assembling the lower receiver is an enormous bitch. The muzzle brake is Troy Medieval.



So when a Canadian buys a gun and gets his selective service card, does that make him American?
Quote
Share

J. Cook
J. Cook

October 27th, 2011, 3:05 am #2

Assembling the lower receiver without instructions or some of the proper tools is a bitch.

I found the instructions on ar15.com to be pretty useful- I used those to assemble mine.

I did manage to smash up one of the roll pins, though. Oh well, still works fine.
Quote
Share

Dulie
Dulie

October 27th, 2011, 11:02 am #3

Built it from parts, assembling the lower receiver is an enormous bitch. The muzzle brake is Troy Medieval.



So when a Canadian buys a gun and gets his selective service card, does that make him American?
but you were already an "American" since you were from North America, right?

Does anyone from back home think we all corrupted you to influence your purchase?

I do believe that if you're not a citizen yet, you're well on your way.
Quote
Share

Ian
Ian

October 27th, 2011, 11:51 am #4

Built it from parts, assembling the lower receiver is an enormous bitch. The muzzle brake is Troy Medieval.



So when a Canadian buys a gun and gets his selective service card, does that make him American?
Now pick yourself up an SKS so you can appreciate how the other side is armed.

Having been qualified on the M16 since 1987, and buying myself an SKS, I have to wonder how we actually won any conflicts against guys armed with them. The .223 feels like a plinking target shooter weapon, while the 7.62 can chop down trees (proven, my Dad still is miffed at the oak stump in his firing range).
Quote
Share

That One Guy
That One Guy

October 27th, 2011, 3:22 pm #5

With close air support and artillery.

There are a lot of stories about just how terrible the first generation M-16s were, particularly for the environment they were first deployed in (Vietnam, heavy foliage, short LOS, lots of things to deflect lightweight 5.56 rounds off, and high humidity.), and how the troops almost universally preferred full-power .30 caliber weapons when they could get their hands on them.

On the other hand, interviews with former NVA soldiers and commanders have shed light on just how much they feared and respected our air power and artillery. Particularly our willingness to drop both so close to our own positions.
Quote
Share

attic rat
attic rat

October 28th, 2011, 12:54 am #6

Now pick yourself up an SKS so you can appreciate how the other side is armed.

Having been qualified on the M16 since 1987, and buying myself an SKS, I have to wonder how we actually won any conflicts against guys armed with them. The .223 feels like a plinking target shooter weapon, while the 7.62 can chop down trees (proven, my Dad still is miffed at the oak stump in his firing range).
In power, the 7.62x39 used in the SKS was about equal to the ancient 30-30 carbine. It was more powerful than the .223 but that isn't saying much. In ordinary military loads, the .223 will give you 957 foot/pounds of energy at 100 yards, while the 7.62 will give 1,075 foot/pounds and great-grand-dad's carbine will put out about 1,400.

For comparison, the 30-06 gives about 2,370 foot/pounds at 100 yards.

Yes, the SKS and similar weapons have a lot of good traits, but power isn't one of them.
Quote
Share

Deus Machina
Deus Machina

October 28th, 2011, 2:05 am #7

7.62x39 puts a bit more thump into your shoulder than .223, so it's a perception thing for a lot of people.

Outside that, it's that a .30 hole looks a lot bigger and tends to leak more than a .22 hole, especially if they both either tumble how they're expected to, or both fail to.

If I was forced to, I'd much rather take a .223 that stays stable all through than a x39. Neither would improve my day any.
Quote
Share

Tohri
Tohri

October 28th, 2011, 2:27 am #8

Noisy Tinnitus.
Quote
Share

Draken
Draken

October 28th, 2011, 8:17 am #9

7.62x25 is mostly pistol and sub gun, the 7.62x54R is what the mosin nagant is chambered in.
Quote
Share

upriver
upriver

October 28th, 2011, 4:08 pm #10

7.62x39 puts a bit more thump into your shoulder than .223, so it's a perception thing for a lot of people.

Outside that, it's that a .30 hole looks a lot bigger and tends to leak more than a .22 hole, especially if they both either tumble how they're expected to, or both fail to.

If I was forced to, I'd much rather take a .223 that stays stable all through than a x39. Neither would improve my day any.
although I am not an expert and don't have first hand experience... my understanding is that getting hit by a smaller high velocity bullet is worse than getting hit by a bigger slower moving one. Sure, neither situation is great but it's hard to argue with 1/2 mv^2.

from wikipedia... for what it is worth

The M16 rifle fires the 5.56x45mm cartridge and can produce massive wounding effects when the bullet impacts at high velocity and yaws in tissue leading to fragmentation and rapid transfer of energy.[35][36][37] This produces wounds that were so devastating that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)[38] and many countries (Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Romania, Samoa, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.)[39] considered the M16 to be an inhumane weapon.[40][41]




Quote
Share