How many members would like a firearms discussion area

So having used an M14 in my past, how do you guys feel about the socom 16? I am debating if the price is worth the rifle. I would mainly used it for target practice and maybe light game hunting. And yes it would probably be stashed in my bedroom for home defense along with my shotgun.

 

The varients of, or offshoots of the parent M-14 are quite limited, if you really want one, have at it, for me, I prefer an AR-10, very aaptable.

 

does'nt cost a dime more to make one than to make an AR15, so why does it cost 3x as much? cause M14 guys are suckers, that's why.

 

I don't understand why the 8 members voted "no." If you don't want to participate in the sub forum if its ever created then don't. Don't deny us the fun.

 

Actually that is not true, an M-14 variant is far more costly to manufacture than an AR,
An AR is also easier to build and modify and accesorize and has more available options than does an M-14 variant.

 

When I was in Army Basic Training in the late 1960s, we were issued & trained on the M-14 as well as the M-16. I preferred the M-14 but much has changed over the decades rendering the ARs more reliable & versatile in many different configurations

The poster who wrote Comment #151 asked the suitability of an M-14 for small game hunting, target practice & home defense.
I assume both of you mean M1A as opposed to the select fire M-14. The M1A is ideal for hunting (where legal) & target practice but I would be reluctant to use a .308 round for home defense unless it was your only option.

I agree with your observation that the M1A / M-14 is costlier to manufacture than an AR & that the AR is easier to build and modify and accesorize and has more available options etc.

As far as a rifle / carbine for home defense, I would be much more comfortable with the .223 or AK in 7.62x39 however a HK45 with light & laser is what stays by my bedside table for things that go "bump" in the night.

To depart from this topic, I would strongly recommend getting an inexpensive ($30- for 5 years) C & R (Curio & Relic) License for anyone interested in collecting & target shooting older firearms such as the SKS, Mauser, Mosin Nagent etc & extensive list of other firearms including many fine semi-auto pistols.
Please be aware that once you get the bug, storage soon becomes an issue.

Thanks

 

I agree, the C&R license is a great idea, I have had one, and the money you save soon pays for the cost of the License.

I always say M-14 incorrectly since most people do not recognize the M1A1 as it is properly called.

I would use .308 frangible bullets.

 

I just discovered this section. As a 50 year shooter, RSO, and instructor, I will enjoy this section. Thanks, moderators.

 

What if you were attacked by just one person?

 

His opinion on those Firearms is not upheld by History, otherwise there wouldn't be any confidence in them, very good accuracy was possible with patched ball.

Gunsmiths made a handsome living in those days.

 

How many members were wealthy gun owners, who opposed Trump?

expressio unius est exclusio alterius

<Mod Edit- Rule 3/ inflammatory launguage>

 

Don't be incorrect. Tell people why the M1A1 is what it is.

They will understand.

We both know hearts can change.

 

Interesting point. I have wondered why early militias were armed with muskets rather than with bows and arrows. Several arrows can be fired during the time it takes to load a musket. Maybe muskets were more deadly when the enemy was far away and you had plenty of time to reload.

It also seems that guns of that day would have been virtually useless as personal self defense tools (because you likely wouldn't have enough time to load your gun if you caught an intruder in your home, for example). So it seems unlikely the Second Amendment was written specifically with the intent to protect the use of guns for personal self defense.

 

Training requirements, from what I've seen. Becoming an expert with the longbow took a lifetime; training farm boys and clerks to load and shoot a musket en masse took weeks or months.

Why do you use the word "specifically"?

 

Pray tell whom had sufficient experience with bows and arrows during the colonial era, that would allow for militia members to be properly and adequately educated in their use?

For what reason could someone not simply leave a firearm loaded during this period of time?

More accurately the second amendment was written with the intent to protect the use and ownership of firearms in general, without having to explicitly spell out each and every legal and legitimate use of firearms.

 

It would be kept loaded.

 

"The other day, I shot one of my friend's blackpowder match-lock muskets. The gun was slow to load, the powder and lit-match was dangerous to keep in large quantities and it fouls up the barrel after like 5 shots. Seriously guys, after 5 shots, you would've had to start cleaning out the gun. And in terms of accuracy, I could barely hit a man-sized target at 25 yards, and missed every shot but one at 50 yards. The burning match is a constant danger being so close to the powder. Worst of all, every shot produced a huge cloud of foul smoke, so that even if I had a second gun loaded and ready to fire, I would still have to wait like 10 seconds for the smoke to clear up and take aim. Overall, I think this weapon is a piece of crap.

"Now in comparison, my recurve bow seems almost magical. I can shoot off like 5 or 6 arrows a minute and have 3 or 4 hits on a man-sized target at 100 yds. The recurve bow is so less than 1/2 the weight of the musket and shorter as well. Additionally, carrying 20 arrows isn't exactly as dangerous as carrying a quarter pound of blackpowder and lead.

"So the question is, how the heck did this weapon over take the composite or long bow? An army of longbowmen or horse archers would've slaughtered an army musketmen. And you can't exactly shoot a musket from horseback. So how did this happen?"
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2089

I suspect such a weapon would be even less useful for personal self defense than for military purposes.

 

Other factors came into play, like tactics. Take a look at the American (Rebel) use of rifles, far slower than even muskets yet still effective in their role.

There was a certain "rhythm" reported in battle. Both sides closed and exchanged one or two shots, until their view was obscured due to powder smoke. Then they advanced using bayonets. Even at the time of the civil war, bayonets were surprisingly effective.

The benefits of long range fire and being able to see after a few shots weren't realized until smokeless powder came into widespread use.

 

Matchlock firearms predate the flintlock design which was common during the colonial era, by a period of several hundred years. Thus undermining your statement about how the life expectancy of a well maintained firearm was only a few years.

Beyond such, matchlock firearms were not common during the colonial era in the united states, as it had been replaced with a more modern, more reliable form of ignition.

 

Galileo simply contradicts every known fact about Firearms of that time.
Matchlock Firearms were of Course of a different era, Flintlocks were quite accurate, having built and fired many different types Personally, people tend to not understand the nuances involved with those Firearms.

 

Let's not split hairs. Guns of that time were not that effective for hunting either and were very expensive:

"In the Colonial period, the gun meant the musket, an imported item that cost the equivalent of two months pay for a skilled artisan.... The musket was not efficient for self-defense or hunting. It was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet (it had no sight, and soldiers were instructed not to aim, since volleys relied on mass impact). It frequently misfired and was cumbersome to reload, awkward qualities for individual self-defense; by the time you had put ball and powder back in, your foe would be upon you with knife, club or ax.....

"The same factors that made the musket ineffective for self-defense made it practically useless for hunting. Scare the rabbit with one inaccurate shot (which threw out dense smoke), and all game would be gone by the time you got out ball and powder and deployed them properly. Besides, most Americans were farmers, with no time to maintain expensive guns for hunting when domestic animals (chickens and pigs) were the easily available sources of protein. That is why no American factories were created to make guns."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/09/10/reviews/000910.10willot.html

 

Yale Law disagrees with the validity of your source.

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/review/fall-from-grace-arming-america-and-the-bellesiles-scandal

 

There were cheaper options, early on musket lock work was imported, but Americans quickly established the capability, and in comparison barrels, stocks, etc were easy.

Also, a musket could be used for hunting as a shotgun, and even with a ball-hitting near a small animal like a tree squirrel was often enough to bring them down. It would be used as a shotgun for running game. Something like buckshot also existed, and the range cited for hunting large game was 50-75 yards. More than adequate for the heavily wooded east coast.

 

Total bullshit. Factories of any kind weren't "invented" until the time of the Constitution. They certainly didn't exist in the New World, they barely existed in the old world.

 

Hunting and target rifles existed during the colonial era. Rifled barrels are not a recent invention.

Thus making it much like the shotgun of today, correct?

Buckshot existed during the colonial era.

Firearms were not manufactured by factories, but rather by individual smiths. they were also imported into the country. The article even says so in the opening paragraph.