Ideal Survival Rifle

BTPost, we have got to come to a consensus on what long distance shooter means.
In "The Rattle Battle" folks started at the 600 yard line and worked thier way in to 100 yards.
The USMC still fires 10 slow prone at 500 yards,10 rapid prone-5 slow kneeling-5 slow sitting at 300, and 10 rapid sitting- 10 slow standing at 200 yards. This is just the basic rifle course. So does "Long Distance" start further away than say a 7.62 NATO M118LR can reach while still supersonic?
Perhaps folks need to just consider what distance standard service rifles have been shot at for basic marksmanship? As this would lend merit to what an "Ideal Survival Rifle" is quantifiable to accomplish as a minimum standard. JMHO.

 

Asking what rifle as a bases to is fraught with unsolvable issues. many would choose a weapon in 5.56, whilst others might want something in 7.62X51, and yet others might want a 7.62X63!!!!! And then we toss in the effective terminal range of each and further compound barrel length and twist rate! Enough to give a feller a serious migrain! LOL
Me thinkith that a "Minimum "Standard" is to take the average of each flavor and use that as a basis to build from!
To use Motomom34 as an example, her AR with 16in barrel, irons, and 1/9 twist can only be expected to be good to about 600 yards max! Where as My "Standard" M-1 Garand should be an easy 1600 yard rifle!!!
My point is, there are no hard and fast answers, each needs to decide the what and the how and if what they come up with is even capable of, or the shooter is capable of!!!!

 

I must disagree!
There are hard and fast answers, and they can only be answered on the "Battlefield" where it's just a success and failure grade.
So yes Motomom34 might feel secure in her day to day life being an expert marksman with a 16 inch barreled AR, but the reality is that with a simple Basic Mil-Dot reticle and even a 147 grain M-80 7.62 NATO load on a 1903 rifle with a "Battlefield Zero" is far beyond her best effort. So why are you predisposed to planning obvious "Battlefield" failures for those dependent on your foresight?

 

I am not disposed to condemn any one to failure, I was simply pointing out that no one can determine the best set up for others, it's up to each person to choose individually, and then to determine where he or she stands against the standards set for that caliber combo. To toss in all the variables Like a scope or ammo simply makes this ever more impossible to determine a best, especially as my example of Motomom34, she may not be physically capable of lugging around a big ass bolt action or withstanding the recoil!!!
Not to say Moto isn't capable, remember, she pets Momma Bears for fun!!!

 

A simple bolt action .308 Win or 7.62 NATO with an 18 inch barrel is mere ounces heavier for Moto , and a few protein laced meals away to defend all she holds nearest & dearest.
I'd rather do the calisthenics with her at my age than predetermine her failure based on my egotistical testosterone driven predisposition.I am of the opinion that you do her a disservice by placing your preconceived stereotypes against her will to survive and protect those that count on her to survive. Standards be Damned, the will to survive will drive those willing to achieve those standards. JMHO. I may be wrong....... But I've instilled this mentality into my own daughters........ What any man can do I can do....
And what any Man can do a Woman can do BETTER...... JMHO.

 

Me thinks you read far too much into my posts! As to my example of Moto, I was simply pointing out her first rifle based on several recommendations from many knowledgeable members here and another forum, and it is by no means a limitation on her or her capabilities with that rifle or any others! I bet she might surprise a lot of folks, whilst others would say I told you so!!!

 

Perhaps we are both hoping that time is on her side, irregardless of the recommendations of the many knowledgeable members here and on other forums. I am not nay saying her abilities (nor do I believe that you are) I'm only pointing out the weaknesses of the caliber of firearm that the knowledgeable members have saddled her with. As WE both KNOW, an extreme expert armed as she is has a very limited chance against defeating even an average shooter armed with a honest Battlefield Rifle. But as this is the "Ideal Survival Rifle" thread, perhaps it's time to just be brutally honest?

 

I see the AR as a starter rifle for those just starting out, but not yet ready to make the next step up the power and range scale. Learning, and training for a civilian isn't as fixed and easy as for those of us that served, and I am constantly reminding my self that it's not cheep or easy as a civilian to learn the arts of shooting a at distance. In this, the AR is just about perfect for training, especially for those who might move into a full pop battle rifle! Beyond that, any limits are based only on time, ammo, and the amount to quality training one can secure!

 

Understood. Although back in my day everyone had a 22 LR to start out on. So the basics where covered before you left the farm. That might have had something to do with all the available returning WWII GI's for the Baby Boomers. But I'd have never been able to afford the Training & ammunition that I got while sponsored by Uncle Sam.

 

Actually we started with a Red Ryder BB gun. All the kids and I can shoot the BB guns and pellet guns with accuracy. We then got a .22 lr both in rifle and handgun. Those are easy and cheap to shoot. Now we are onto the next step.

That is a huge issue, the cost of practicing a larger rifle. I was thrilled that I can put a .22 lr conversion into the AR but I know I need to practice with correct ammo.

Being an example and reading what people on the outside looking in see and think is very interesting. Appreciate it. Carry on.......

 

Conservatively, it's about .40 cents a round for 55 grain 5.56 and .76 cents a round for 147 grain 7.62 NATO. So you would only get about half as much practice if using Mil-surplus or Federal equivalents. Reloading would cut the difference significantly. JMHO.

 

Bear in mind also that, for some of us who live among millions of trees, etc, 600 yds is an absurdly long distance to shoot (hell, I'd have to clear a forest just about anywhere within 100 miles). This brings us back to the old "odds vs effect" determination basic to prepping. For you (or me) the odds of needing to take a 600 yard shot are minuscule.

People concerned with 1600 yards either live in the wide open spaces or are just among the "bigger has to be better" school of thought.

 

Folks that haven't been properly schooled on shots of such distance can't explain how the Japanese placed snipers up in trees in the dense jungles of the Pacific Islands. But if 600 yards is such an exceptional shot, why has the military been training for it since before the 1900's? Take a Barska deep sea monocular afield with you next time you rummage the impenetrable North American Woods, see how many treetops you can find from deep within the impenetrable Forrest. So "odds vs effect" odds are at 600 yards I'll hit a less than six inch target monotonously, the effect will be that basic preppers won't even have a clue or chance to eliminate an antique operator with an Honest "Battlefield Rifle". Perhaps the Red Ryder BB gun should be the "Battlefield Weapon" of choice in those dense forests? Please take a little time to study the History of Snipers within the Dense Triple Canopy Jungle of Nam prior to blowing the absurdity whistle. Thank You. (Bad advice may be free at the time it is given, but it has a tendency to cost twice as much to actually fix a problem. JMHO.)

 

Even over land, the 7.62X51 and it's larger cousins have their uses. We have them for high overlook static defense, though in most cases I still prefer to let a target know they are being observed when I have them surrounded from close range when possible (obviously not usually an option with an approach from the sea). However, if we are for some reason limited to one gun, I still believe that for most people (including myself, moto and quite a few others I know here) the advantages of the 5.56 on a day to day basis outweigh the longer range advantages of the bigger, heavier platforms.

But then I am still young

JMO/YMMV

 

Is there any particular reason that people ONLY seem to like "bolt actions with a few rounds" when outfitting a high powered rifle. Yes, I am aware of the accuracy advantages, but it always seems to be a weapon that has been nonoptimized as your first line weapon being used for it, when other options are available.
And, why so many people acknowledge that the high powered guns are so good, but they want nothing to do with them in a loadout?

 

I probably don't have that much time left, but would it be to much to ask what those supposed advantages of the 5.56 are?
(Side note, with the 100 rounds of 7.62 that I have a 1-1.1 ratio of securing 210 rounds of 5.56, which has a 35-1 ratio, I can't carry all the 5.56 ammo that's going to be available.)
If you are going to tell me that it is more controllable during the fully automatic fire that isn't available on your AR15, PLEASE DON"T. And if you want to tell me that you can carry more so that you make up for all the extra misses, once again PLEASE DON'T.

 

There are so many indoctrinated that it's all about how many you carry instead of how many you can eliminate with what you carry. In WWII you only had 8 rounds in a clip to make your presence known. The M14 gave you 20 rounds in a Mag to accomplish everything folks with 8 rounds in a clip needed to do. The M16 gave you the chance to fail (but still survive) in the short range situations of folks armed with 8 round clips, and still make it home. So children nowadays have no idea what it really takes to be a rifleman. About that accuracy, how many times do you have to miss a target to eliminate it????? So if you expend 210 rounds without eliminating your target, but I only expend one to eliminate the threat, perhaps I have 99 rounds left to eliminate the next target? Today's folks may have to carry another 210 rounds to fail to eliminate the next target. So which one of US is really carrying more useless ammunition?????????