30-30 vs AR15

[Otto]

I suspect, can't be sure of course, there are good reasons the military are not equipped with with lever action 30-30s

recoil shy girly men ?????

The AR in .223 or 5.56 has way less recoil than a Winchester 94 in .30-30. I gave mine away because I couldn't take the recoil (yes, as a matter of fact, I AM a girly man).

I am secure in my manhood.

[dbateman]

I suspect, can't be sure of course, there are good reasons the military are not equipped with with lever action 30-30s

recoil shy girly men ?????

Larger cap mag, ammo is lighter, rate of fire is faster, and it is difficult to throw a lever quickly when in the prone trying to stay behind a rock the size of your head when you are being shot at.

yeah i no iv impersonated a rock a few times

[BigSky56]

Sad day when the army got rid of the 30 cal battle rifle. The college boys that pushed that junk on us changed the IMR powder to ball powder to up the velocity, the m16 gas system was not designed for ball powder thus the jams and frequent cleaning like after you dumped your basic load or it would jam, try that when charlie is humping you. That guns tolerances are to tight for a battle rifle. I threw mine away and used a 9mm SMG.
The 223's ok for open country but not worth squat in the jungle. It was interesting to see what the MACVSOG boys carried when they went into injun country. Griff your right a 30 hurts! danny

[shdwlkr]

First get some water down that AR barrel and watch the fun. Second get some sand in that AR and tell me how good it works. Check out the rebuilds on them and the Beretta 9mm the military are using in the sand box right now.
Third if you have a choice the M14 or m1 will walk over that stupid AR every time if the guy behind them knows how to shoot. When I could see I used to shoot a M14 well past 600 meters against new graduate Snipers and it reallly screwed them up knowing that you don't need a scope to hit a distant target just plain good eyesight and a steady hand neither of which I have anymore.
Fourth if you think that the number of rounds in a mag or tube makes a real difference you haven't been shot at plain and simple you can spray and pray or you can make your rounds count.
Fifth the reason the military uses what it does is because of rate of fire they have decided that is needed to control a fire fight. They are looking to wound not kill that is why we have the M16 it is to wound with the idea that the enemy will need to use 2-4 of their guys to take the wounded off the field of battle.
What you are talking about is being the guy who goes home after the shooting two different situations. If you really think being shot at is fun then you are just plain nuts and don't understand how easy it is to end up dead in a fire fight. Also something to think about the 55 grain bullet used in most AR's is just a wood chuck round designed for a 10-30 pound animal that can't shoot back. When you take on something bigger like a human it can take up to 23 of those rounds to stop them if you don' get lucky with the first 3 with a heart or head shot. Now how many of you can hit the head of a human every time at say 100-150 yards? Think of those small watermelons you see in the grocery store.
Get real a black powder firearm will drop another person if you hit them in a vital area. There is nothing mystical about an AR expect it makes the holder feel like a big jock because he has something that looks like what the military plays with. If I had my choice I would take a Ma Deuce to the party every time. With a range of 1 1/2 miles you are not going to get very close and do much even if you do get closer as when that 750 grain round hits you are not going get up again.

[Otto]

First get some water down that AR barrel and watch the fun.

That is a bad idea for any firearm. One must take basic precautions to keep ANY firearm free of foreign matter.

Second get some sand in that AR and tell me how good it works.

That is a bad idea for any firearm. One must take basic precautions to keep ANY firearm free of foreign matter.

Third if you have a choice the M14 or m1 will walk over that stupid AR every time if the guy behind them knows how to shoot.

The reverse is also true. A competent shooter always has an advantage over an inexperienced shooter, regardless of their respective arms.

When I could see I used to shoot a M14 well past 600 meters against new graduate Snipers and it reallly screwed them up knowing that you don't need a scope to hit a distant target just plain good eyesight and a steady hand neither of which I have anymore.

The M16 will also make hits at 600 yards or more. The effectiveness of a 22-caliber projectile at that range may be disputed, which I said earlier.

Fourth if you think that the number of rounds in a mag or tube makes a real difference you haven't been shot at plain and simple you can spray and pray or you can make your rounds count.

There is a huge difference between spray-and-pray, and the ability to make a large number of aimed shots without the time delay required for reloading. Regardless of the rifle in question, aimed fire is important. AR's do have sights on them.

They are looking to wound not kill that is why we have the M16 it is to wound

Baloney.

If you really think being shot at is fun then you are just plain nuts and don't understand how easy it is to end up dead in a fire fight.

I can't find anywhere in this thread where anybody said or implied any such thing. I know I didn't.

Also something to think about the 55 grain bullet used in most AR's is just a wood chuck round designed for a 10-30 pound animal that can't shoot back.

I have already said that effectiveness of the 22-caliber projectile is debatable. To be fair, though, there are alot of guys who can no longer dispute the point.

When you take on something bigger like a human it can take up to 23 of those rounds to stop them if you don' get lucky with the first 3 with a heart or head shot.

The same can be said of almost any cartridge. there have been lots of examples of this over the years. Shot placement is important, regardless of the cartridge.

Get real a black powder firearm will drop another person if you hit them in a vital area.

So should any cartridge, and it has nothing to do with the choice of propellant.

There is nothing mystical about an AR ...

I never said there was. I'm just saying it's not the worthless piece of stuff that so many seem to think it is, based on forty-year-old information. Would you refuse to buy a modern Japanese car, based on the reputation of Japanese industry circa 1968?

... it makes the holder feel like a big jock because he has something that looks like what the military plays with.

That is, unfortunately, true of alot of idiots, and I suspect that is where a great deal of the disdain for EBR's is rooted. But don't paint us all with that brush. I don't assume people want to be Jesse James or Billy the Kid, just because they like leverguns or single-action revolvers. In fact, I own quite a few revolvers. Maybe I should change my screen name to The Mall Ninja Kid.

Besides, I know I'm not a "big jock" as I already admitted I can't take the recoil of a winchester 94 .30-30:

The AR in .223 or 5.56 has way less recoil than a Winchester 94 in .30-30. I gave mine away because I couldn't take the recoil (yes, as a matter of fact, I AM a girly man).

If I had my choice I would take a Ma Deuce to the party every time. With a range of 1 1/2 miles you are not going to get very close and do much even if you do get closer as when that 750 grain round hits you are not going get up again.

That is a completely different kind of weapon intended for a completely different application. A .30-30, or AK, or AR, is a shoulder-fired weapon, intended to be carried and fired by individuals. I'd like to see someone do that with an M-2.

I don't want to get bogged down in a protracted argument, so let me just repeat this point:

I never said there was anything mystical about the AR, or that it's the greatest firearm ever devised by mortal men. I'm just saying it's not the worthless piece of stuff that so many seem to think it is, based on forty-year-old information.

[Bear 45/70]

I'm way biased by personal experience with M-16 failure to function too many times. Haven't even picked one up since early 1967 and it took me until 1992 to even get a 223 caliber weapon. I just don't trust the plastic thing designed by a nobody (at the time) who made his bones the Ralph Nader way, with a lie. A battle rifle "first and foremost MUST function, always and ever regardless of conditions" and the M-16 and all it variants just does not meet that criteria. Hell Sec.of Defense McNamara forced it on the military after they did everything in the power to refuse it.

The AR is completely reliable as long as it is kept properly lubed.Contrary to popular belief, it does not have to be kept surgically clean. One can dispute the effectiveness of the 22-caliber projectile in military rifles, but the reasons behind the initial reliability problems for the rifle itself are well-documented. It is worth noting that, while the Army was poo-pooing the M16, lots of HSLD-types were "acquiring" CAR's and other variants of the design. I also must point out that there were elements within the military establishment who embraced the AR.

I have an AK variant, which design is famous for its reliability, that absolutely will not fire more than three rounds without misfeeding. Clearly that disproves all the hype about how reliable AK's are.

What is the lie to which you refer?

Your first statement flies in the face of the #1 requirement for a battle rifle to function regardless of conditions and that thinking has killed countless American GIs.

Your AK feed problem are caused by your mags. Get some good ones and the problem will disappear.

[Otto]

I'm way biased by personal experience with M-16 failure to function too many times. Haven't even picked one up since early 1967 and it took me until 1992 to even get a 223 caliber weapon. I just don't trust the plastic thing designed by a nobody (at the time) who made his bones the Ralph Nader way, with a lie. A battle rifle "first and foremost MUST function, always and ever regardless of conditions" and the M-16 and all it variants just does not meet that criteria. Hell Sec.of Defense McNamara forced it on the military after they did everything in the power to refuse it.

The AR is completely reliable as long as it is kept properly lubed.Contrary to popular belief, it does not have to be kept surgically clean. One can dispute the effectiveness of the 22-caliber projectile in military rifles, but the reasons behind the initial reliability problems for the rifle itself are well-documented. It is worth noting that, while the Army was poo-pooing the M16, lots of HSLD-types were "acquiring" CAR's and other variants of the design. I also must point out that there were elements within the military establishment who embraced the AR.

I have an AK variant, which design is famous for its reliability, that absolutely will not fire more than three rounds without misfeeding. Clearly that disproves all the hype about how reliable AK's are.

What is the lie to which you refer?

Your first statement flies in the face of the #1 requirement for a battle rifle to function regardless of conditions

There is no mechanical device that can fulfill that requirement. Everything requires some level of basic maintenance to function properly. If you don't want to maintain your equipment , don't expect it to work. EDIT I don't mean "you" personally. I should say "If one doesn't want to maintain..."

that thinking has killed countless American GIs.

The word "countless" implies a very large number, perhaps thousands. There is no evidence to support that assertion.

Your AK feed problem are caused by your mags. Get some good ones and the problem will disappear.

I think you missed my point: Just because I have problems with my one rifle, doesn't mean the design itself is flawed.

You do touch upon an important subject, though. The vast majority of problems with modern AR's can be traced directly to either lack of lubrication, or more likely, worn-out magazines that don't feed well.


What is the lie to which you referred?

[Combat Diver]

I'll take the AR over the .30-30 lever gun, Why because that's what I'm trained the most on, familiar with and trust. I've had my Marlin 1894S in .41 mag lock up on me last year as the carrier locked up. Also had numberous indig troops have trouble with AKs malfunctioning. Not all engagments happen standing up in the street in day light at 20 yds. I've been engage from behind at night, from the side from near and far when in turrets with a MG. You never know from were. The AR gives you the best to equip your rifle with an optic (magnification or red dot), IR/visible laser, white light then does the lever gun. Granted you can put a optic on a lever gun or tape a flashlight between the mag tube (if long enough) and barrel, but the ergomonics are not there.

My son and I have been over there too many times equipped with muptiply arms. We'll both take the AR for most work.


What ever you choose become proficient with, familiar with and have faith in your ability then train some more. Also be familiar with your enemies for you may loss yours and have to use his.

CD

[Griff]

There is no mechanical device that can fulfill that requirement. Everything requires some level of basic maintenance to function properly. If you don't want to maintain your equipment , don't expect it to work. EDIT I don't mean "you" personally. I should say "If one doesn't want to maintain..."

Oh? I don't know, my M-1 Garand hasn't been cleaned in going on 30 years, I've never disassembled it beyond the trigger group, and have only run a bore bursh thru it with a bit of a rag after... It has NEVER failed to feed, fire and extract; in that order. Oh yea, it left the armory in 1951, then it's history is unknown, but I came into its possession in 1978. I trust it implicitly, with my life. In direct comparision, I was given a M-16 upon being deployed to VN the very 1st time... after test firing a few times, I gave it back and carried a Thompson. I'm here along with others in my last fire-fight, due simply to the fact that NONE of us carried an M-16.

I agree, it ain't the worst thing ever designed... but neither is it what I consider a true soldier-friendly weapon. As in hunting, during combat I cannot recall EVER feeling any recoil what-so-ever! Similar to drills on board ship... during practice drills, our times were barely passing... yet when general quarters sounded with the words, "THIS IS NOT A DRILL" following, times were halved!

Success in a fire-fight is not 100% dependent on the weaponry; but, IMO, it is 100% dependent on the mental status of the combatant and in large part that is about his confidence in his weaponry. Therefore, we will NOT agree on this point. I've tested weaponry in live fire exercises, to be coy about it... the M-16 didn't measure up... the Tommygun did. In the intervening years, I've found no reason to distrust my Mdl 94 .30-30, my M-1 Garand, Mdl 870 or any double shotgun, my S&W DA and Colt SA wheelguns. I HAVE, on the other hand, watched AR-type weapons FAIL the operator in their basic, most simplistic functions. Therefore, it's pretty simply logic on my part to chose my weaponry when my life may depend on same.

YMMV; we ain't arguin' 'bout it anymore!

[Bear 45/70]

I know a guy that was gonna shoot his chinese SKS until it quit functioning. 12,000 rounds later and still working and the AK is better designed for this kind of abuse. The idea of even a 100 rounds thru an M-16 or any of it's variants is laughable at best and criminal if nothing else.

Anyone that has never done jungle warfare with an M-16 should shut up about that GI killing thing!

[familyman357]

Some of the anti-M16/AR15 assertions are literally laughable and I think Otto has done a nice job of pointing out their absurdity.

In no way do I discount the experiences of people. If I had one of the early M16's (non-chromed chamber, dirty powder, no cleaning gear at all), I too would think it was a huge thing. However, today's family of M16/AR15 weapons is not the same as it was 40 years ago. I realize that those who formed their opinion 40 years ago aren't likely to change their mind (a saying about an old dog and new tricks comes to mind), but please realize that those experiences with the platform do not reflect current reality. Yes, the M16/AR15 likes lubrication. That's its most legitimate requirement for reliable operation. However, it doesn't have to be fancy; if worse comes to worst, even urine can serve (for a little while anyway... lol).
Some of the current ammunition development is turning the .223 cartridge into a legitimate deer round, too.

Keep in mind that I'm NOT saying that the AR15 is the "best" weapon. Heck, I'm not sure that it's even the best weapon for me. I just get tired of seeing the same old bad information getting recycled. It's intellectually dishonest.

Leverguns aren't perfect either, people. Try levering a round into the chamber when the rifle is on its side.

As a related aside, for those of us enamored with .30 caliber cartridges (and most of us are; it's as American as baseball, mom, and apple pie), way back in the 1930's John Garand himself saw the utility of a smaller, lighter cartridge. He proposed that his design, which eventually became the M1, be chambered to use the .276 Pedersen, which would have given a capacity of 10 rounds in the magazine. It is ONLY because of the supply logistics of the time that it was chambered in .30-06.

Anyway, each has strengths that the other doesn't and each has weaknesses that the other doesn't. I wouldn't denigrate anybody's choice as long as he/she has really thought through his/her own requirements. Sometimes the more you learn the less you "know". No blanket statements can be made. The only statement you can make is for yourself.

For myself, I'm still deciding.

[familyman357]

I know a guy that was gonna shoot his chinese SKS until it quit functioning. 12,000 rounds later and still working and the AK is better designed for this kind of abuse. The idea of even a 100 rounds thru an M-16 or any of it's variants is laughable at best and criminal if nothing else.

Anyone that has never done jungle warfare with an M-16 should shut up about that GI killing thing!

Absolutely ludicrous.

[Bear 45/70]

Some of the anti-M16/AR15 assertions are literally laughable and I think Otto has done a nice job of pointing out their absurdity.

In no way do I discount the experiences of people. If I had one of the early M16's (non-chromed chamber, dirty powder, no cleaning gear at all), I too would think it was a huge thing. However, today's family of M16/AR15 weapons is not the same as it was 40 years ago. I realize that those who formed their opinion 40 years ago aren't likely to change their mind (a saying about an old dog and new tricks comes to mind), but please realize that those experiences with the platform do not reflect current reality. Yes, the M16/AR15 likes lubrication. That's its most legitimate requirement for reliable operation. However, it doesn't have to be fancy; if worse comes to worst, even urine can serve (for a little while anyway... lol).
Some of the current ammunition development is turning the .223 cartridge into a legitimate deer round, too.

Keep in mind that I'm NOT saying that the AR15 is the "best" weapon. Heck, I'm not sure that it's even the best weapon for me. I just get tired of seeing the same old bad information getting recycled. It's intellectually dishonest.

Leverguns aren't perfect either, people. Try levering a round into the chamber when the rifle is on its side.

As a related aside, for those of us enamored with .30 caliber cartridges (and most of us are; it's as American as baseball, mom, and apple pie), way back in the 1930's John Garand himself saw the utility of a smaller, lighter cartridge. He proposed that his design, which eventually became the M1, be chambered to use the .276 Pedersen, which would have given a capacity of 10 rounds in the magazine. It is ONLY because of the supply logistics of the time that it was chambered in .30-06.

Anyway, each has strengths that the other doesn't and each has weaknesses that the other doesn't. I wouldn't denigrate anybody's choice as long as he/she has really thought through his/her own requirements. Sometimes the more you learn the less you "know". No blanket statements can be made. The only statement you can make is for yourself.

For myself, I'm still deciding.

Your tone would change real fast abot the plastic rifle when in the middle of a battle the thing quit functioning on you! You guys are the ones who are laughable and wouldn't last long in a real shooting enviorment with your attitude.

[familyman357]

Your tone would change real fast abot the plastic rifle when in the middle of a battle the thing quit functioning on you! You guys are the ones who are laughable and wouldn't last long in a real shooting enviorment with your attitude.

Sir, you presume too much. For the Marine Corps, armed conflict didn't end with Vietnam.
What is this "attitude" of which you speak?

[Griff]

Gentlemen, there need be no persomal attacks. Wait till Hobie gets back, then pick on the Army!

[Bear 45/70]

Your tone would change real fast abot the plastic rifle when in the middle of a battle the thing quit functioning on you! You guys are the ones who are laughable and wouldn't last long in a real shooting enviorment with your attitude.

Sir, you presume too much. For the Marine Corps, armed conflict didn't end with Vietnam.
What is this "attitude" of which you speak?

The attitude that "A battle rifle is OK, if it will function with tender loving care." Too many people have died because of that kind of thinking.

[familyman357]

Your tone would change real fast abot the plastic rifle when in the middle of a battle the thing quit functioning on you! You guys are the ones who are laughable and wouldn't last long in a real shooting enviorment with your attitude.

Sir, you presume too much. For the Marine Corps, armed conflict didn't end with Vietnam.
What is this "attitude" of which you speak?

The attitude that "A battle rifle is OK, if it will function with tender loving care." Too many people have died because of that kind of thinking.

Ah. I see. While I agree with that, I don't consider just keeping the bolt carrier group lubricated a hardship, certainly not "tender loving care" (if I did, I wouldn't still have an AR). If you do, I can see why the M16/AR15 isn't for you. No problem. I've had my Mariln 336 and Marlin 1894C both lock up on me, but I don't rail about how they're thing'es that will get you killed and that anyone who prefers a lever action is "laughable". I just figure that they've weighed the pros and cons of a lever and have made the best selection for themselves.
I'm still not sure that my levers are as reliable as my AR. More shooting will tell the tale.
For what it's worth, the two most reliable rifles I've ever owned have been a Chinese SKS and a Ruger Mini-14.
Unfortunately, that Mini-14 shot what could best be described as patterns and is long gone. I still have the SKS, but I prefer something a little more "All-American".

[rhead]

Are you talking about 10 30 30's against 10 M16? My money would be on the M16 team. 1 30 30 against 1 M16 the weapon would probably not figure into the outcome as much as the terrain. In a one one one the looser will probably never get off a shot. The m16 would not be at a disadvantage but its advantages do not really come to the front in a one on one situation. Both do what they were designed to do quite well.

[Bear 45/70]

Your tone would change real fast abot the plastic rifle when in the middle of a battle the thing quit functioning on you! You guys are the ones who are laughable and wouldn't last long in a real shooting enviorment with your attitude.

Sir, you presume too much. For the Marine Corps, armed conflict didn't end with Vietnam.
What is this "attitude" of which you speak?

The attitude that "A battle rifle is OK, if it will function with tender loving care." Too many people have died because of that kind of thinking.

Ah. I see. While I agree with that, I don't consider just keeping the bolt carrier group lubricated a hardship, certainly not "tender loving care" (if I did, I wouldn't still have an AR). If you do, I can see why the M16/AR15 isn't for you. No problem. I've had my Mariln 336 and Marlin 1894C both lock up on me, but I don't rail about how they're thing'es that will get you killed and that anyone who prefers a lever action is "laughable". I just figure that they've weighed the pros and cons of a lever and have made the best selection for themselves.
I'm still not sure that my levers are as reliable as my AR. More shooting will tell the tale.
For what it's worth, the two most reliable rifles I've ever owned have been a Chinese SKS and a Ruger Mini-14.
Unfortunately, that Mini-14 shot what could best be described as patterns and is long gone. I still have the SKS, but I prefer something a little more "All-American".

Your 336 and 1894 are not billed as "Battle Rifles" either so the comparison is irrelevant and to expect them to meet that battle rifle criteria is ludicrous. You guys use non-logic to prove your point because there is no excuse for a battle rifle to not function under any and all conditions. Combat is not a bench rest shooting match, which the AR/M-16 platform was basically designed for.

[familyman357]

Your 336 and 1894 are not billed as "Battle Rifles" either so the comparison is irrelevant and to expect them to meet that battle rifle criteria is ludicrous. You guys use non-logic to prove your point because there is no excuse for a battle rifle to not function under any and all conditions. Combat is not a bench rest shooting match, which the AR/M-16 platform was basically designed for.

The topic of this thread is "30-30 vs AR15". That's what I'm addressing.
Nobody here has called a lever a "battle rifle".

Reading is fundamental.

[Combat Diver]

Bear 45/70

I understand your fustration with the M16 due to your experinces, and I thank you for your sacrifice. Mistakes were made and lessons learned on that rifle and changes were made. The M16 family is the second most distributed battle rifle used by nations today. I've used it in salt water, tropics, Savanha Africa, Middle East, and winter warfare/skiing in the Alps during the last 24 years. Its worked in temps up to 140 to low -20 degrees so trust those that now use the rifle to have an opinon based on our experince. (I've got 5 tours in Iraq with the M16 family)

CD

[Tennessee Hayre]

WoW, did not know this thread would get so many hits. I like both weapon. It's just I always aim before I pull the trigger and that could just be me getting old and slow, But It would be interesting to see a bush fight take place one side banging away with the old 30-30 lever Marlin and the other side the AR15.

[DBW]

I'm not sure whether I'll use one of my two Marlin .30-30's, or my Marlin .44Rem Mag... or my Puma 92 .357. I likes them all and am going to do my best to avoid those guberment troops intent on taking away my Liberty. Hopefully true patriots serving beside those traitors will have offed them before I ever have to see them.

BTW... closest I got to being shot was when my ex-wife cleaned her S&W .38 then reloaded it... and fired it in the house. I was sitting at a 45° to her about three feet away. The bullet ripped through the side of the coffee table and imbedded itself about six inches into the photo albums. After my ears stopped ringing I had to sit and comfort her for a bit as tears streamed down her face.

[jeepnik]

Some of the anti-M16/AR15 assertions are literally laughable and I think Otto has done a nice job of pointing out their absurdity.

In no way do I discount the experiences of people. If I had one of the early M16's (non-chromed chamber, dirty powder, no cleaning gear at all), I too would think it was a huge thing. However, today's family of M16/AR15 weapons is not the same as it was 40 years ago. I realize that those who formed their opinion 40 years ago aren't likely to change their mind (a saying about an old dog and new tricks comes to mind), but please realize that those experiences with the platform do not reflect current reality. Yes, the M16/AR15 likes lubrication. That's its most legitimate requirement for reliable operation. However, it doesn't have to be fancy; if worse comes to worst, even urine can serve (for a little while anyway... lol).
Some of the current ammunition development is turning the .223 cartridge into a legitimate deer round, too.

Keep in mind that I'm NOT saying that the AR15 is the "best" weapon. Heck, I'm not sure that it's even the best weapon for me. I just get tired of seeing the same old bad information getting recycled. It's intellectually dishonest.

Leverguns aren't perfect either, people. Try levering a round into the chamber when the rifle is on its side.

As a related aside, for those of us enamored with .30 caliber cartridges (and most of us are; it's as American as baseball, mom, and apple pie), way back in the 1930's John Garand himself saw the utility of a smaller, lighter cartridge. He proposed that his design, which eventually became the M1, be chambered to use the .276 Pedersen, which would have given a capacity of 10 rounds in the magazine. It is ONLY because of the supply logistics of the time that it was chambered in .30-06.

Anyway, each has strengths that the other doesn't and each has weaknesses that the other doesn't. I wouldn't denigrate anybody's choice as long as he/she has really thought through his/her own requirements. Sometimes the more you learn the less you "know". No blanket statements can be made. The only statement you can make is for yourself.

For myself, I'm still deciding.

Your tone would change real fast abot the plastic rifle when in the middle of a battle the thing quit functioning on you! You guys are the ones who are laughable and wouldn't last long in a real shooting enviorment with your attitude.

Yep, have the case head tear off the body when you really need the rifle, and you'd have a different point of view. Both of my boys had troubles with the M-4 during their various tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The original M-16 didn't like the jungle, and the m-4 hates sand. But the M-14 has worked well in both. If they'd get smart and come use something like springfield arms scout model, the average GI would be better off.

[Griff]

Bear 45/70

I understand your fustration with the M16 due to your experinces, and I thank you for your sacrifice. Mistakes were made and lessons learned on that rifle and changes were made. The M16 family is the second most distributed battle rifle used by nations today. I've used it in salt water, tropics, Savanha Africa, Middle East, and winter warfare/skiing in the Alps during the last 24 years. Its worked in temps up to 140 to low -20 degrees so trust those that now use the rifle to have an opinon based on our experince. (I've got 5 tours in Iraq with the M16 family)
CD

Thank you for YOUR service; and for sharing your view of the AR family.

[Blaine]

Never had a lever that NEEDED a forward assist

Under ideal conditions (qual. day at the range, clean inspected weapons, no dust or dirt) the M16s I had were usually jamming enough to be annoying. The couple times in Korea when it was sub-freezing, they were even worse with that CLP stuff they wanted us to use. I could shoot the M16 expert everytime, but it was not, IME, reliable. These are probably much older rifles than what the current crop is talking about. I retired in '92 and never got hands on with the improved A2 setup. I've heard a lot of firsthand sandbox stories about sand gumming up the works.

Oh....Just around the house, etc, the lever will do just fine. At my age, I doubt I'll be in a foxhole. If I am, a properly functioning, mag. fed .223 will do just fine as long as I'm not stuck with that nasty, dirty GI fmj. I have a nice, Russian made SKS, so that's my preference, but not the choice this thread gave us

[Otto]

... my M-1 Garand hasn't been cleaned in going on 30 years, I've never disassembled it beyond the trigger group, and have only run a bore bursh thru it with a bit of a rag after...

I'll let that statement speak for itself.

I know a guy that was gonna shoot his chinese SKS until it quit functioning. 12,000 rounds later and still working and the AK is better designed for this kind of abuse. The idea of even a 100 rounds thru an M-16 or any of it's variants is laughable at best and criminal if nothing else.

People routinely put hundreds, even thousands, of rounds through both civilian and military versions of the AR, without failures. I have done it myself.
The Army has done extensive testing, especially recently, because of the very claims made here. The AR fares as well as any rifle it is pitted against.

Anyone that has never done jungle warfare with an M-16 should shut up about that GI killing thing!

Here we go. "My war was a real war, not that nonsense you're involved in."

Your tone would change real fast abot the plastic rifle when in the middle of a battle the thing quit functioning on you!

What about the tens of thousands of Soldiers and Marines who've never had a problem? Are they doing something wrong?

You guys are the ones who are laughable and wouldn't last long in a real shooting enviorment with your attitude.

How many times must one get shot at, before it is deemed to be a REAL shooting environment?

By our attitude, do you mean the fact that we disagree with you, or the fact that we have faith in one of the most extensively-tested rifles in history?

You guys use non-logic to prove your point because there is no excuse for a battle rifle to not function under any and all conditions.

Point out where we are not being logical. I would suggest that you are more guilty than we.

Combat is not a bench rest shooting match, which the AR/M-16 platform was basically designed for.

The AR-15 was conceived and designed, from the beginning, as a general-issue military rifle.

The attitude that "A battle rifle is OK, if it will function with tender loving care." Too many people have died because of that kind of
thinking.

I believe "stopping to clean your rifle every 4 hours" better qualifies as tender loving care, than an occasional squirt of oil.

[Otto]

Never had a lever that NEEDED a forward assist

Under ideal conditions (qual. day at the range, clean inspected weapons, no dust or dirt) the M16s I had were usually jamming enough to be annoying. The couple times in Korea when it was sub-freezing, they were even worse with that CLP stuff they wanted us to use. I could shoot the M16 expert everytime, but it was not, IME, reliable. These are probably much older rifles than what the current crop is talking about. I retired in '92 and never got hands on with the improved A2 setup. I've heard a lot of firsthand sandbox stories about sand gumming up the works.

Oh....Just around the house, etc, the lever will do just fine. At my age, I doubt I'll be in a foxhole. If I am, a properly functioning, mag. fed .223 will do just fine as long as I'm not stuck with that nasty, dirty GI fmj. I have a nice, Russian made SKS, so that's my preference, but not the choice this thread gave us

The forward assist is not needed if, again, the rifle is maintained. In fact, Eugene Stoner resisted adding it to the design.

[Bear 45/70]

Some of the anti-M16/AR15 assertions are literally laughable and I think Otto has done a nice job of pointing out their absurdity.

In no way do I discount the experiences of people. If I had one of the early M16's (non-chromed chamber, dirty powder, no cleaning gear at all), I too would think it was a huge thing. However, today's family of M16/AR15 weapons is not the same as it was 40 years ago. I realize that those who formed their opinion 40 years ago aren't likely to change their mind (a saying about an old dog and new tricks comes to mind), but please realize that those experiences with the platform do not reflect current reality. Yes, the M16/AR15 likes lubrication. That's its most legitimate requirement for reliable operation. However, it doesn't have to be fancy; if worse comes to worst, even urine can serve (for a little while anyway... lol).
Some of the current ammunition development is turning the .223 cartridge into a legitimate deer round, too.

Keep in mind that I'm NOT saying that the AR15 is the "best" weapon. Heck, I'm not sure that it's even the best weapon for me. I just get tired of seeing the same old bad information getting recycled. It's intellectually dishonest.

Leverguns aren't perfect either, people. Try levering a round into the chamber when the rifle is on its side.

As a related aside, for those of us enamored with .30 caliber cartridges (and most of us are; it's as American as baseball, mom, and apple pie), way back in the 1930's John Garand himself saw the utility of a smaller, lighter cartridge. He proposed that his design, which eventually became the M1, be chambered to use the .276 Pedersen, which would have given a capacity of 10 rounds in the magazine. It is ONLY because of the supply logistics of the time that it was chambered in .30-06.

Anyway, each has strengths that the other doesn't and each has weaknesses that the other doesn't. I wouldn't denigrate anybody's choice as long as he/she has really thought through his/her own requirements. Sometimes the more you learn the less you "know". No blanket statements can be made. The only statement you can make is for yourself.

For myself, I'm still deciding.

Your tone would change real fast abot the plastic rifle when in the middle of a battle the thing quit functioning on you! You guys are the ones who are laughable and wouldn't last long in a real shooting enviorment with your attitude.

Yep, have the case head tear off the body when you really need the rifle, and you'd have a different point of view. Both of my boys had troubles with the M-4 during their various tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The original M-16 didn't like the jungle, and the m-4 hates sand. But the M-14 has worked well in both. If they'd get smart and come use something like springfield arms scout model, the average GI would be better off.

Never had it happen but I did have a broken shell removal tool. But I wasn't a full auto fanatic either.

[Otto]

I guess I should point out that the quality of the M16 improved greatly, after Mattel lost the contract.

[BlueStateSaint]

To get back to the premise of the OP, I think that the guy whoever gets off the first well-aimed shot is going to win. Both rounds are worthy; there's been a lot of people killed with the .30-30 in the last 115 years, just as there's been a lot of people killed with the 5.56x45 round since its' inception. Several posters have mentioned the importance of shot placement. That's it in a nutshell. Guy #1 hits Guy #2 in the foot with a .30-30 and Guy #2 puts a 5.56x45 round into Guy #1's chest, guess who's gonna win? Probably not the guy with the collapsed lung. Conversely, if Guy #2 grazes Guy #1 with that 5.56x45 round, and Guy #1 then puts a .30-30 into Guy #2's skull, . . . well, . . . you know the rest.

It all comes down to getting the first well-aimed shot.

Which would I prefer? I carried an AR for some of the time I was an Army officer, and I've got a pre-64 Model 94. I'd probably want the .30-30, just because I have one at the moment. If I had an AR and not a 94, I'd probably want the AR. If I had both . . . God only knows.

[BigSky56]

You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear, the m16 has been a problem child since the 60's current military report from returning troops 18 to 20 % failure for the m4 current tests by military showed jams at 68 rounds . Read the report. danny
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... rsy-03289/

[BobM]

I'm an armorer for a PD that fields around a dozen ARs, a mix of Colt, S&W, and Bushmaster. They get used hard without much cleaning during the week or so that we spend qualifying and they keep running. Granted, the environment we're in in no way compares to a jungle but they get pretty dirty.

Right now, to answer the OP's question I'd choose the AR since I've got a lot more time on it than any levergun. However, I've got a Winchester 94 Trapper in .357 that is handier to carrier and points well, and post-retirement I might choose that. (Although I think Sixgun made a lot of sense in his response that it's the shooter and not the gun used that's the bigger factor.)

If I can come up with enough .357 ammo I might try to run some drills with both and see how they compare.

[Old Ironsights]

You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear, the m16 has been a problem child since the 60's current military report from returning troops 18 to 20 % failure for the m4 current tests by military showed jams at 68 rounds . Read the report. danny
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... rsy-03289/

You most certainly can... for about $400 RETAIL.

Dump the stupid Gas Impingement system and replace it with a Gas Piston mod. Cheap and effective... and it WORKS.

Here is the ENTIRE gas Piston retrofit:



http://www.defensereview.com/modules.ph ... e&sid=1081
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.ph ... e&sid=1068

Our troops are burdened with basic weapons that are subject to chronic reliability issues in the “sandbox,” but the fixes are simple, available now and relatively inexpensive when compared to buying an entirely new small arms family.

As a matter of fact, they also mention pistons in the article you linked to:

In response, H&K replaced Colt’s “gas-tube” system with a short-stroke piston system that eliminates carbon blow-back into the chamber, and also reduces the heat problem created by the super-hot gases used to cycle the M4. Other changes were made to the magazine, barrel, et. al. ... In exhaustive tests with the help of Delta Force, the upgraded weapon was subjected to mud and dust without maintenance, and fired day after day. Despite this treatment, the rifle showed problems in only 1 of 15,000 rounds – fully 3 times the reliability shown by the M4 in US Army studies.

That's the difference a Piston vs Gas impingement system.

I still like my .357 M92, but there's nothing wrong with the M16/M4 platform that a unit armorer can't fix with a cheap upgrade...

[BigSky56]

OI, After 40+ years the military still hasnt fixed the problem with this rifle and its been causing deaths the whole time. Kinda like gas engines in APC's after a few tuned into fire balls they went to diesel. A "battle rifle" should not stop cause of carbon buildup,one grain of sand or dirt keeping the bolt from closing. The only good thing I remember was that the 3 pronged flash suppressor was good for breaking the bands on the c-ration cases, you had to be careful though cause you could bend or tear the barrel out of the aluminum receiver. danny

[Combat Diver]

The HK416 is having its own problems right now. I've tested the XM8 and SCAR Mk16, didn't like the XM8 and it can melt, on the SCAR Mk16 that I tested I could replicate a failure to cycle everytime in a certain position (hope they got it fixed). Question was which would you prefer in a fight AR or 30-30. Both can due the job effectively. Shooters preference.

CD

[BuckBall]

Having used both, I'd go with the .30-30 hands down. A couple years ago me and a friend who was on leave from the Marines, went to the shooting range to burn a couple hundred rounds. He had his Olympic M4 and I had my Marlin 336. We decided to have a little shooting match and the first match was speed. Bart put on his LBE and loaded his pouches (gung ho hoopla). I had rounds in my front pocket. As we are shooting and loading, I could cap off my rifle FASTER than Bart could load his weapon. How so? It's like this, while you're dinking around with dropping the mag, reaching for the pouch, pulling out mag, inserting mag, racking slide...I was capping and shooting before he could even get on target. Of course I am limited to 6 rounds and it's not a real fair comparison. I could also make accurate on target in the center shots while he was TRYING to be precise and do the same...but in all honesty the lever action does have the AR beat in SOME aspects. Now I know the lever action is not a combat weapon like that of the AR, but the lever IS considered the original Assault Weapon. Both have their place, and both will take down a human.

But as one said in a previous post...if you know your weapon, truly know it, you can make that weapon perform just as grand as the AR, but you need to do your part. Frankly, if push comes to shove and I'm in a situation where combat is needed, I will eliminate the threat immediately and that will be the man carrying the AR or other assault weapon. I'll never be the target for the weapon I carry.

[jd45]

Otto, you CAN'T be a girly man, cause girly men are AFRAID of guns! (grin) jd45

[Idahoser]

Byron, if Davy and the boys had had 94 30-30s at the Alamo, Santa Ana never would have taken them.

What if Santa Ana had ARs?

[Old Ironsights]

Byron, if Davy and the boys had had 94 30-30s at the Alamo, Santa Ana never would have taken them.

What if Santa Ana had ARs?

But But... They had a Davey Crocket at the alamo... those things have a plenty large enough yeild to turn SantaAna's boys to crispy critters...

[Streetstar]

wow-- what a heated thread

My military experiences do not quite rival Combat Divers i suspect. I left after 5 years after all, but in those years, i carried it in Jungle and desert campaigns, as well as extensive arctic training -------- i wont say i never had a stoppage or an FTF, i did, which was usually magazine related, --- but 2 or 3 stoppages over the course of several years and over 20,000 rounds is acceptable.

In my Army, i was taught to take care of my rifle and it was ingrained behavior. It was checked every 2 days whether it had been used or not

Some of the Vietnam era worst case scenarios happened wwhen young men failed to perform basic maintenance after 2-3-4-5 weeks of mindless patrolling in a nasty humid environment, and the time they needed it, the lack of attention sadly bit them in the rear. Your squad leader is not going to remind you to check your weapon every couple of days, you have to remember to do it on your own.

This would apply whether the person was carrying an AR, a G3, Fal, M14, etc.

There are also more appropriate devices to open your ration tins than your rifle's flash hider

[Blaine]

Your squad leader is not going to remind you to check your weapon every couple of days, you have to remember to do it on your own.

He darn sure better be.....as well as every other single thing. It's the only job the Squad Leader has: Taking care of his soldier's every need while in the field.

[JustaJeepGuy]

Your squad leader is not going to remind you to check your weapon every couple of days, you have to remember to do it on your own.

He darn sure better be.....as well as every other single thing. It's the only job the Squad Leader has: Taking care of his soldier's every need while in the field.

...in order that the squad might save his bacon should the need arise...(and he would do the same for the squad, too, let us not forget)

[Blaine]

Your squad leader is not going to remind you to check your weapon every couple of days, you have to remember to do it on your own.

He darn sure better be.....as well as every other single thing. It's the only job the Squad Leader has: Taking care of his soldier's every need while in the field.

...in order that the squad might save his bacon should the need arise...(and he would do the same for the squad, too, let us not forget)

I ran across more SadSack junior and senior NCOs in the Seventies and Eighties. Sorry clowns that made fast rank in Nam and stayed around. The NCOs I had in Basic Training were spot on, but after getting out in the field, to say they were sorry would be an understatement. I wish I had a dollar everytime our unit was sent out on training or a mission without basics provided, then see the Seniors or even the CO munching on a meal and you have to scrounge for a couple bucks for a sammich (take a deep breath )

[Streetstar]

Your squad leader is not going to remind you to check your weapon every couple of days, you have to remember to do it on your own.

He darn sure better be.....as well as every other single thing. It's the only job the Squad Leader has: Taking care of his soldier's every need while in the field.

some things shouldn't have to be said --- especially when they concern your tools of operation. Tons of privates are more concerned with smoking and bs'ing when they get a few hours downtime though

[jeepnik]

Yep, have the case head tear off the body when you really need the rifle, and you'd have a different point of view. Both of my boys had troubles with the M-4 during their various tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The original M-16 didn't like the jungle, and the m-4 hates sand. But the M-14 has worked well in both. If they'd get smart and come use something like springfield arms scout model, the average GI would be better off.

Never had it happen but I did have a broken shell removal tool. But I wasn't a full auto fanatic either.[/quote]

There wasn't exactly time to take the darned thing apart at the moment. I just picked up another. There always seems to be spares.

[Bear 45/70]

Yep, have the case head tear off the body when you really need the rifle, and you'd have a different point of view. Both of my boys had troubles with the M-4 during their various tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The original M-16 didn't like the jungle, and the m-4 hates sand. But the M-14 has worked well in both. If they'd get smart and come use something like springfield arms scout model, the average GI would be better off.

Never had it happen but I did have a broken shell removal tool. But I wasn't a full auto fanatic either.

There wasn't exactly time to take the darned thing apart at the moment. I just picked up another. There always seems to be spares.[/quote]

That's for sure. The countrys side seemed to be littered with them. But I always preferred my personal pet AK.

[CEMENTHEAD]

Pick whichever weapon suits you at the time. 90% is the operator's mindset. I've had the priveledge of being side by side around some of our nation's finest military. These guys, I believe, would complete the mission with sharpened sticks with no problems.

My .02$. Thanks, Tom

[Bear 45/70]

You guys do realize that the this whole thing is an apples and oranges comparison?

Which car would you like to drive, a Corvette or a Jeep?

[JustaJeepGuy]

A JEEP!