Oh I don't know about that last one. Given a choice between an AR-15 and The MN. I'd take the Nagant. Honestly I trust the AR/M16/M4 so little my go to war choices would be. The M1 Garand. The M1903/03A3. The AK47. The SKS. Any Mauser, The MN 1891. A 19th century breach loader. A pointy stick with a rock tied on it. Almost anything else NOT designed by Eugene Stoner. AR-15's suck. ---Ray
I don't have an AR or an AK. I do have a Spanish Mauser in .308. Not because I don't like the AR or AK, but because I feel the need for a bolt action .308 more than a semi auto medium caliber rifle. My Mauser will be a deer rifle, and the other two guns would not serve that niche as well. But those other two guns have actually been field proven for decades. The AR 15 is the most popular platform sold in the United States today. There must be something about it that people find useful. Now, if you are going to reach out at 800-1000 meters and touch something, I myself would rather have the Mosin Nagant with a suitable scope. But anything from 400 meters in, the AR 15 is the better choice.
My wife has a Brazilian Mauser that was re-barrelled to .308 by either the Brazilian national guard or the Israelis. It still has the military stock, but she had the bolt forged down and had it drilled and tapped for a scope. It's fun to shoot.
I made the choice many years ago to train with and study in depth, "obsolete" military firearms , and there original support equipment. I was amazed at the time at how little the weapons differed. From the late 1890's until the end of WW2 all the "powers" developed and fielded weapons that were meant to "founder a horse" out to 1000 yards/meters. They all trained with and fielded bayonet systems to "enable the infantry to stab a man in the gut while he is on horse back". It is the reason that all army's fielded weapon/bayonet systems that equaled something right at 40 inches, until 1942 or '43. ALL of them used some variation on the stripper/en-block clip until the M1 carbine in 1942. SMG's have always seemed the most misunderstood by the public. (I blame the movies) As almost every army considered them PDW's for armored crews and NCO's(Yes even the Krauts).They were never "primary" issue weapons. Every army considered the primary weapon to be the MG. With everything else there to support it. Even though it is statistically, the weapon least likely to kill you, unless you participate in a BANZI!! attack. "Modern" weapons have changed in only minor ways. They are less powerful by design. With correspondingly shorter ranges, and far less lethality, than anything from WW1 or WW2. They are also smaller, more complex, less reliable and IMO for the most part butt ugly. One remarkable thing I discovered in my studies was that; ALL breach loading military firearms from the 1800's until now share something that has gone almost unnoticed by your average "Joe" shooter. They all have a recommended sustained rate of fire of 12 to 15 RPM. That is the actual SRF in every manual I have ever seen. English, French, Russian, US, Japanese, Spanish, Polish. I have them all (or translations) and they ALL say the same thing. Even my 1976 copy of FM-7-8 says "the recommended sustained rate of fire for the M-16A1 is 12 to 15 rounds per min. Higher SUSTAINED rates of fire may lead to weapons malfunction". This is almost word for word what my original 1917, "Rules for the management of the rifle Cal. .30 M-1903" says. Well its lunch time. More gun stuff later----Ray
Actually the stock on the AK/SKS has more to do with winter clothing than it does with anything else. Winter being the dominating fact of life across almost all of Eurasia. AK47 or AK74? Ether way it is far and away the best "assault rifle" class weapon ever made. --Ray
Oh I don't know about that last one. Given a choice between an AR-15 and The MN. I'd take the Nagant. Honestly I trust the AR/M16/M4 so little my go to war choices would be. The M1 Garand. The M1903/03A3. The AK47. The SKS. Any Mauser, The MN 1891. A 19th century breach loader. A pointy stick with a rock tied on it. Almost anything else NOT designed by Eugene Stoner. AR-15's suck. ---Ray
ReplyDeleteThere are far better bolt action war rifles, with the exception of the Carinco(even if it has one of the highest profile uses by a communist).
DeleteMy wife likes her Mausers.
I don't have an AR or an AK. I do have a Spanish Mauser in .308. Not because I don't like the AR or AK, but because I feel the need for a bolt action .308 more than a semi auto medium caliber rifle. My Mauser will be a deer rifle, and the other two guns would not serve that niche as well. But those other two guns have actually been field proven for decades. The AR 15 is the most popular platform sold in the United States today. There must be something about it that people find useful.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you are going to reach out at 800-1000 meters and touch something, I myself would rather have the Mosin Nagant with a suitable scope. But anything from 400 meters in, the AR 15 is the better choice.
My wife has a Brazilian Mauser that was re-barrelled to .308 by either the Brazilian national guard or the Israelis. It still has the military stock, but she had the bolt forged down and had it drilled and tapped for a scope. It's fun to shoot.
DeleteI made the choice many years ago to train with and study in depth, "obsolete" military firearms , and there original support equipment. I was amazed at the time at how little the weapons differed. From the late 1890's until the end of WW2 all the "powers" developed and fielded weapons that were meant to "founder a horse" out to 1000 yards/meters. They all trained with and fielded bayonet systems to "enable the infantry to stab a man in the gut while he is on horse back". It is the reason that all army's fielded weapon/bayonet systems that equaled something right at 40 inches, until 1942 or '43. ALL of them used some variation on the stripper/en-block clip until the M1 carbine in 1942. SMG's have always seemed the most misunderstood by the public. (I blame the movies) As almost every army considered them PDW's for armored crews and NCO's(Yes even the Krauts).They were never "primary" issue weapons. Every army considered the primary weapon to be the MG. With everything else there to support it. Even though it is statistically, the weapon least likely to kill you, unless you participate in a BANZI!! attack. "Modern" weapons have changed in only minor ways. They are less powerful by design. With correspondingly shorter ranges, and far less lethality, than anything from WW1 or WW2. They are also smaller, more complex, less reliable and IMO for the most part butt ugly. One remarkable thing I discovered in my studies was that; ALL breach loading military firearms from the 1800's until now share something that has gone almost unnoticed by your average "Joe" shooter. They all have a recommended sustained rate of fire of 12 to 15 RPM. That is the actual SRF in every manual I have ever seen. English, French, Russian, US, Japanese, Spanish, Polish. I have them all (or translations) and they ALL say the same thing. Even my 1976 copy of FM-7-8 says "the recommended sustained rate of fire for the M-16A1 is 12 to 15 rounds per min. Higher SUSTAINED rates of fire may lead to weapons malfunction". This is almost word for word what my original 1917, "Rules for the management of the rifle Cal. .30 M-1903" says. Well its lunch time. More gun stuff later----Ray
ReplyDeleteWell due to my wife's stature we got her an AK because it was made with malnourished communists in mind. :)
DeleteActually the stock on the AK/SKS has more to do with winter clothing than it does with anything else. Winter being the dominating fact of life across almost all of Eurasia. AK47 or AK74? Ether way it is far and away the best "assault rifle" class weapon ever made. --Ray
ReplyDeletePretty sure the “we need to talk” should be a blind fold and cigarette.
ReplyDeleteNo that's reserved for "THE LOOK".
Delete