- Location
- big sky country
CLP = Cleans Lubricates Protects.
Its great stuff.
Its great stuff.
The Mad Ogre: Why I Hate The AR15
- Thread starter Glenfilthie
- Start date
Funny all these cadet's cutting down all the couch commando's. How many C7 toting combat veterans does Canada really have? Not to many yet I'd bet.
For my little experience in the military, the average guy really didn't know that much about their rifles beyond field stripping, never mind combat small arms of other nations. Of course at the time young bucks think they do. Ever sat in front of one of these guys at theatre.
I recall spending a lot of time scraping and scrubbing carbon deposits, but most of this was caused by shooting filthy blanks with a bfa stuck on the end of the barrel.
Seems the MadOgre definately has some points. There's nothing perfect about any weapon.
For my little experience in the military, the average guy really didn't know that much about their rifles beyond field stripping, never mind combat small arms of other nations. Of course at the time young bucks think they do. Ever sat in front of one of these guys at theatre.
I recall spending a lot of time scraping and scrubbing carbon deposits, but most of this was caused by shooting filthy blanks with a bfa stuck on the end of the barrel.
Seems the MadOgre definately has some points. There's nothing perfect about any weapon.
I tried to say that it's all about practice, and that no system is perfect, and that every rifle has design flaws, and that personal choice is there...
But, yet again, I got slammed for being an AR nay-sayer, even though what I was trying to say in my first post (on page four, I think?) was "to each their own".
Oh well, I'm used to it(!)
Y'all have great day, 'cause I'm done here!
Cheers,
Neal
But, yet again, I got slammed for being an AR nay-sayer, even though what I was trying to say in my first post (on page four, I think?) was "to each their own".
Oh well, I'm used to it(!)
Y'all have great day, 'cause I'm done here!
Cheers,
Neal
What points of perfection of one modern mil rifle (SA80, AR15, etc.) makes it superior over another is like trying to debate the finer points of sandwiche making. It involves preferences, tastes, skill level and that certain x-factor! The facts are that each of these rifles has killed a lot of 'them bad guys', and I don't see or hear returning soldiers complaining, specifically, "the AR-15 is crap." Quite the opposite. Care, use and feeding of said rifles is outlined by the manufacturer who was given specs by the military. Particularly, using lubricants and solutions outside of specs is cause for alarm. Expect problems. My experience with the SA80 (or 90?) was that it was brand new, never fired and the Brit soldier next to me said I had to cycle the action 'many' times with no oil to begin to loosen the tolerances. In fact, I had quite a few jams using blank ammo until late on the exercise when it suddenly seemed to improve.
This doesn't mean mistakes or unforeseen circumstances will come up and corrections made, that's why we regularly get modifications and improvements to the rifles. One cannot manufacture a 'thing' to match every circumstance or use. I would be more concerned if the system did nothing about those identified situations.
Like the AK, the AR is a proven system, flexible, adaptable and battle-tested, probably moreso than the AK. Perhaps one can't drive a vehicle over a AR (don't know if it has been tried) but if a Canadian soldier left his firearm lying around for a LAV to drive over it, that soildier would likely get a new hoo-haw ripped somewhere. I don't see vehicles driving over rifles as a critical 'go/no-go' for a rifle in the modern battlefield, accuracy and reliability are. Personally, I don't believe AK accuracy is adequate from what I've seen. Of course, they need to be robust for extended field conditions, no doubt, and the AR has certainly proven its capability.
This doesn't mean mistakes or unforeseen circumstances will come up and corrections made, that's why we regularly get modifications and improvements to the rifles. One cannot manufacture a 'thing' to match every circumstance or use. I would be more concerned if the system did nothing about those identified situations.
Like the AK, the AR is a proven system, flexible, adaptable and battle-tested, probably moreso than the AK. Perhaps one can't drive a vehicle over a AR (don't know if it has been tried) but if a Canadian soldier left his firearm lying around for a LAV to drive over it, that soildier would likely get a new hoo-haw ripped somewhere. I don't see vehicles driving over rifles as a critical 'go/no-go' for a rifle in the modern battlefield, accuracy and reliability are. Personally, I don't believe AK accuracy is adequate from what I've seen. Of course, they need to be robust for extended field conditions, no doubt, and the AR has certainly proven its capability.
suprathepeg said:
I think I have already answered it. Troops have been using the rifle in austere conditions with limited support for over 30 days at a time with no problems. The is no weapon tech or parts bin out in the bush....so it is doing fine.
For the record....machine guns win battles....not rifles...they merely allow the machine guns to manoever!
If the enemy is evenly match in terms of weapon capablity...it becomes a question of how you use it. There are many instances in history where the two opposing armies have equal capability but one side has dominated based on training and discipline. This is the case even today. Our soldiers are doing extremely well, and in some cases better than our allies in some areas because of our training and experience. So as I mentioned before, the operator in most cases is more important than the weapon...
Jeff
Dosing said:
Shotguns have been on general issue for sometime. I am not sure what a shotgun would do for convoy ops as it does not "fit" into the firepower needs. For urban operations, it does have some benefits but the C8 and C7 cover off a lot more in terms of flexiblity. We will have formalized shotgun breaching doctrine and munitions in the next four months.
Another poster made a question about "combat vets" in the CF. I can say that we have about 1100 from the last tour and about the same in this tour following Op Medusa as a minimum. A number of others have been in engagements of various lengths.
I think from a corporate level, we have had a significant level of experience to fully validate the C7 and C8. We have some minor issues to tweek on fielding but we have enough data to make a good generalization of the performance.
I don't think Kevin or myself have stated that the AR series is the best...merely that it is doing exactly what we want it to do and has no problems in our employment concepts. I don't think we need to find the "perfect" rifle when we have one that is doing just fine. We have other things we need to perfect....but it is not the C7 or C8....
CHeers
Jeff
Shotguns are for breaching. They do NOT have the capacity or the range for anything else.
The M4A1 and 5.56mm issue was recently debunked as well -- The US Army now has NO intent on changing. I KNOW C77 and M855 work -- However I feel that Mk262 works better (but dead is still dead)
Secondly in combat shot placement is paramount -- WAY too many troops miss what they think they hit.
I never said the M16FOW was the end all be all -- its day will see and end -- SCAR - Mk16 and Mk17 may see that day sooner than later -- and the Hk417 and Hk416 may end it as well too.
I know a bunch of 1VP guys who have a lot of kills with the C8 and C7's -- but admitted way more LAV gunner got more kills with the 25mm and C6 COAX
The M4A1 and 5.56mm issue was recently debunked as well -- The US Army now has NO intent on changing. I KNOW C77 and M855 work -- However I feel that Mk262 works better (but dead is still dead)
Secondly in combat shot placement is paramount -- WAY too many troops miss what they think they hit.
I never said the M16FOW was the end all be all -- its day will see and end -- SCAR - Mk16 and Mk17 may see that day sooner than later -- and the Hk417 and Hk416 may end it as well too.
I know a bunch of 1VP guys who have a lot of kills with the C8 and C7's -- but admitted way more LAV gunner got more kills with the 25mm and C6 COAX
Morpheus32 said:
So true. I would add that I like the idea the marines have of adding 2 m14 toting sharp shooters per section. Likely to the 2 that they trust to actually take aimed shots at the enemy.
So so true. We really need to address the armour and air support issue . . .
As Kevin so correctly noted. The M14 was a short term issue while they sorted out the long term platform. In the months ahead, the big rage in the gun rags will be SR25/AR10 ish stuff as they become headliners overseas. The M14 is on the way out...for good......as much as I like the rifle, the new platforms are superior. We are using the AR10T and hopefully will be expanding its use and availablity....
Jeff
Jeff
suprathepeg said:
Marines are issued M16A4s with ACOGs. I don't think I've seen too many USMC carrying around M14s in theatre. Army, yes. And usually they have 2-5 mags for said weapon, zero training on it, let alone any sniper weapon system trg. Most of the guys I've seen with the M14 have been carrying it for LCF, not because they know what to do with it. The old M14s are less accurate than the M16A4, so it defeats the purpose of a DM arming him with one unless it's been accurized (most haven't).
WaltherP38 said:
BreakFree CLP is the popular brand (and the one carried by my local gun store). IIRC, there are other brands which conform to the CLP specs. That's about all I know
If you buy BreakFree, buy the spray can instead of the drip bottle. It's a PITA (and potentially harmful to your health) to rub it over the action with your fingers.
