Category Killers

[Guest EasilyObsessed]

What makes the SKS a category killer?

[The Rabbi]

What makes the SKS a category killer?

Nothing that I can think of. It is a great rifle and widely used. But that isn't enough. There isn't an application where someone would say, "almost everyone uses an SKS for this and they've sold boatloads of the gun just for that purpose."

[molonlabetn]

The SKS is a great survival rifle, to be stowed away in quantities with bulk ammo for whatever one's definition of SHTF might be.

[The Rabbi]

True. But there are lots of guns like that.

I personally have considered being buried with an AK, some spare parts and magazines, and a spam can of ammo.

When the resurrection comes I know there'll be more than a few SOBs who'll need to be taken out.

[Guest tdillehay]

Rabbi i'am after your chain don't forget that battle rifle requirements have changed to closer tighter combat making the ar better suited but in a more open area M1 M14 hands down the winner

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi i'am after your chain don't forget that battle rifle requirements have changed to closer tighter combat making the ar better suited but in a more open area M1 M14 hands down the winner

Funny you say that.

In about 1963 the Army (or some gov.ag.) commissioned a study of battle rifles. They discovered that most encounters occurred at 300 yards and less, and that most wounds were not the result of aimed fire. Thus the move to a smaller, lighter cartridge coupled with a high rpm rifle, the AR series. The doctrine of "the rifleman" just didn't stand up. It remains an enduring myth of the military, much as the cavalry charge was up to WWI.

Out in the open I'll opt for Cobras, napalm, arty and anything else that can be called in.

[Guest Cap and Ball]

Funny you say that.

In about 1963 the Army (or some gov.ag.) commissioned a study of battle rifles. They discovered that most encounters occurred at 300 yards and less, and that most wounds were not the result of aimed fire. Thus the move to a smaller, lighter cartridge coupled with a high rpm rifle, the AR series. The doctrine of "the rifleman" just didn't stand up. It remains an enduring myth of the military, much as the cavalry charge was up to WWI.

Out in the open I'll opt for Cobras, napalm, arty and anything else that can be called in.

I have a couple good freinds who are in Iraq or have been there , all of them except one says they would lay there issued rifle down to pick up a AK in a minute, and they all said they have requested a M-14. Just because the top Brass says the AR type rifles are a good combat rifle doesn't make it so.

The .223 is fine for ground hog ,but should not be in combat. I have no experince with combat so this is only my opinion.

[LA_357SIG]

......For its intended purpose there is really nothing better. Any attempt to make it better only takes away something else......What other guns out there are "category killers" where any attempt to improve on it only introduces other problems?.....Others?

a little off target but...

Airweight magnum revolvers. They were originally built heavy for a reason. (like S&W really discovered scandium and titainium)

The DPMS AP-4 in .308. Granted I've never shot one in 16" or shorter, but it does seem like it would cause more problems than it "solves".

Final contribution...

My Mossberg 500 "Cruiser" before the M4 stock. I think (way back when I bought it for "condo" protection) it was perfect for HD. Until I moved up to 00Buck and magnum loads, the pistol grip w/o shoulder stock filled the role perfectly for close quarter shooting.

[towerclimber37]

Funny you say that.

In about 1963 the Army (or some gov.ag.) commissioned a study of battle rifles. They discovered that most encounters occurred at 300 yards and less, and that most wounds were not the result of aimed fire. Thus the move to a smaller, lighter cartridge coupled with a high rpm rifle, the AR series. The doctrine of "the rifleman" just didn't stand up. It remains an enduring myth of the military, much as the cavalry charge was up to WWI.

Out in the open I'll opt for Cobras, napalm, arty and anything else that can be called in.

I never really used the burst on my rifle except for suppression.

when I wanted to kill someone, I always flipped to semi and took careful aim.

battlefields change, studies get out of date..

In a mout environment, like in the cities of Iraq and Afghanistan, you need a well rounded rifle that can both be wielded effectively in cqb conditions and reach out to a reasonable range (300m-500m) to hit someone. From time to time, a squads' duty will be overwatch...thats when you want the longest range you can get...yes, even in mout environments (thats urban warfare for you older gents...stands for Military Operations in Urban Terrain). Usually though, thats a crew served or vehicle mounted weapon like the M2 .50 ...designed by John MOSES Browning. (that was for rabbi and all those lovers of Gaston's Frankenstein) with better optics...but even the M4 has optics for longer range shots...that tells you something.

The ar platform fits that bill pretty well.

and don't believe the hype... a .223 round will do the job, though at longer ranges, I'd rather have a .308.

I carried an ak when I was in the desert...for about a week.. It sucked! mag change took allot longer than the AR platform,the rounds weren't as reliable as the American rounds and it was heavier.

If I wanted to use it as a club? yep..thats my weapon! If I wanted to clear a building, I'd take half a dozen m67 baseball grenades, 6 mags ready for my m4 and make sure the rest of my squad was suitably outfitted. For distance shooting? yep..I'd take an m4 any day...but then again, I'm a coward...I figured the farther away I shot someone, the better off I was.

[Marswolf]

I always think it's funny how the people who hate the AR series rifles seldom have personal combat experience with it but always know of a serviceman who hates it.

I've seen a lot of combat - and I like the AR, largely for the reasons Tower mentioned. One one occasion, I did carry an AK in a serious situation. But I made sure I only did it once.

Oh, I do have one friend in Iraq who would gladly exchange his M4 for another rifle. He says that anything less than 50 caliber is worthless.

[The Rabbi]

One of my customers has 30 years in the Army and getting ready to go again. He loves the M4.

There is a reason it has been the basic rifle of choice for 40 years, longer than any other.

[Guest gcrookston]

ok, I'll jump in here again. The M-4 is a pretty good weapon, when properly cared for. My brother and friends carried them throughout desert storm and desert shield and into the jungles of central and south america. My son carried one on two tours of Iraq. They are light, reliable and deadly. A good combination. But they must be kept clean.

Show me a dirty rifle, no matter what it is, and I'll show you a failure ready to happen.