3 ms·

If you consider an AR-15 rifle to be high powered, let me introduce you to the AR-10, FAL, and SCAR.

by wl 7y ago

hunter-gatherer 7y ago
FN makes incredible weapons. I grew up shooting a FAL regularly and never had issues. And after four years in the Infantry I can attest to the quality of the 240B. Elegant engineering.
- kls 7y ago
  An interesting foot note of history, the FAL was nearly the US battle rifle: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-fn-fal-was-almost-americas-battle-rifle-5186bdbda998 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-fn-fal-was-almost-ameri...
thrower123 7y ago
Find a Remington 742 with a couple of the extended 10-round magazines. It's not too far off from an M1918 BAR. Great deer rifle, although if you're walking around lugging it, you'll get a workout.
simonh 7y ago
As my instructor in the TA here in the UK said, when a recruit asked if the 5.56 was weaker than the 7.62: "Maybe so son, but if you catch one in the arse it won't half make you're eyes water".
- wl 7y ago
  I wouldn't want to catch a .32 ACP or even a .22 LR in the ass. That doesn't make either round "high powered" though. Calling an AR-15 a "high power rifle" is simply wrong. As far as rifles are concerned, 5.56x45 NATO is on the weaker end of things. Such a term can only be reasonably applied to .50 BMG and the like, with rounds like .308 in between.
  - simonh 7y ago
    I think it depends on context. It's intended to kill people and clearly it's not a low power weapon. In the context of plinking and small game hunting versus military arms it's definitely on the serious end of the spectrum. However in the context of strictly military weapons, sure it's at the low to medium end of the range. Infantry weapons are 'small arms' in military terms. But if we're talking about civilian firearms, I think it's reasonable to put it, and anything else specifically designed to have the ability to reliably kill humans and bigger targets at long (rifle) range, up at the dangerous end of the spectrum.
    - javagram 7y ago
      > anything else specifically designed to have the ability to reliably kill humans and bigger targets at long (rifle) range, up at the dangerous end of the spectrum. So this would include all weapons intended for hunting anything bigger than a rabbit? Fair enough, but this isn’t typically the argument - usually it’s presented as the AR-15 being a “weapon of war” and not needed for hunting, eliding the fact that many common hunting rifles are more powerful.
      - simonh 7y ago
        No, as I said, human or larger. I think there's a fair argument that bolt action single shot is adequate for hunting.
        javagram 7y ago
        Deer weigh 150 lbs or more, same as humans. Logically a rifle sized to kill a deer or larger animal will also be excellent at killing humans. Most proposals for banning assault weapons exempt “hunting rifles”, but if your proposal is to ban all semi auto rifles larger than .22 caliber, it’s consistent although not what politicians are currently pushing on any side in the USA.
        kls 7y ago
        Not all hunting is the same, I would not use a bolt action single shot out duck hunting (I use a 10 gauge auto with 3 shot capacity) and I would not use an AR out hog hunting. But if my primary goal was vermin control like prairie dog hunting, Coyote hunting, etc. I would absolutely choose a AR (personally it would be an AK) with a high capacity mag. For hog hunting I use a Saga-12 with a 20 round drum with a mix of slug and buck shot, which is a hell of a lot of firepower far more than any of the school shooters has ever packed. A 3 inch 00 buck is 15 30 cal rounds in a single shot, that is 300 30 cal projectiles down range in 20 trigger pulls. This much firepower is absolutely necessary if you run into a pack of wild boar. All three of these are nuance species who populations have become out of control and need hunter eradication to keep them in check. In fact the only hunting I can think of where a bolt action suffices is stand hunting large herbivores such as deer, elk or moose. Which is exactly what most people think of when they think hunting. I certainly would not want to go into bear country with a single shot bolt action. Not that I would hunt bear, but I would certainly have a firearm for protection. I am not going to link to it as it may be sensitive viewing to some people but if you are not bothered by it, take a look at the YouTube videos, where ranchers are doing hog eradication via helicopter, they almost all exclusively use either the Saiga-12 or the AR-12 to do such eradication. It will give you a good perspective on how rapid the pace of eradication is and why such high capacity firepower is needed. Take a look at coyote and prairie dog eradication as well.

If you consider an AR-15 rifle to be high powered, let me introduce you to the AR-10, FAL, and SCAR.

by wl 7y ago

If you consider an AR-15 rifle to be high powered, let me introduce you to the AR-10, FAL, and SCAR.

FN makes incredible weapons. I grew up shooting a FAL regularly and never had issues. And after four years in the Infantry I can attest to the quality of the 240B. Elegant engineering.

kls 7y ago
An interesting foot note of history, the FAL was nearly the US battle rifle: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-fn-fal-was-almost-americas-battle-rifle-5186bdbda998 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-fn-fal-was-almost-ameri...

thrower123 7y ago

Find a Remington 742 with a couple of the extended 10-round magazines. It's not too far off from an M1918 BAR. Great deer rifle, although if you're walking around lugging it, you'll get a workout.

simonh 7y ago

As my instructor in the TA here in the UK said, when a recruit asked if the 5.56 was weaker than the 7.62: "Maybe so son, but if you catch one in the arse it won't half make you're eyes water".

wl 7y ago
I wouldn't want to catch a .32 ACP or even a .22 LR in the ass. That doesn't make either round "high powered" though. Calling an AR-15 a "high power rifle" is simply wrong. As far as rifles are concerned, 5.56x45 NATO is on the weaker end of things. Such a term can only be reasonably applied to .50 BMG and the like, with rounds like .308 in between.
- simonh 7y ago
  I think it depends on context. It's intended to kill people and clearly it's not a low power weapon. In the context of plinking and small game hunting versus military arms it's definitely on the serious end of the spectrum. However in the context of strictly military weapons, sure it's at the low to medium end of the range. Infantry weapons are 'small arms' in military terms. But if we're talking about civilian firearms, I think it's reasonable to put it, and anything else specifically designed to have the ability to reliably kill humans and bigger targets at long (rifle) range, up at the dangerous end of the spectrum.
  - javagram 7y ago
    > anything else specifically designed to have the ability to reliably kill humans and bigger targets at long (rifle) range, up at the dangerous end of the spectrum. So this would include all weapons intended for hunting anything bigger than a rabbit? Fair enough, but this isn’t typically the argument - usually it’s presented as the AR-15 being a “weapon of war” and not needed for hunting, eliding the fact that many common hunting rifles are more powerful.
    - simonh 7y ago
      No, as I said, human or larger. I think there's a fair argument that bolt action single shot is adequate for hunting.
      - javagram 7y ago
        Deer weigh 150 lbs or more, same as humans. Logically a rifle sized to kill a deer or larger animal will also be excellent at killing humans. Most proposals for banning assault weapons exempt “hunting rifles”, but if your proposal is to ban all semi auto rifles larger than .22 caliber, it’s consistent although not what politicians are currently pushing on any side in the USA.
      - kls 7y ago
        Not all hunting is the same, I would not use a bolt action single shot out duck hunting (I use a 10 gauge auto with 3 shot capacity) and I would not use an AR out hog hunting. But if my primary goal was vermin control like prairie dog hunting, Coyote hunting, etc. I would absolutely choose a AR (personally it would be an AK) with a high capacity mag. For hog hunting I use a Saga-12 with a 20 round drum with a mix of slug and buck shot, which is a hell of a lot of firepower far more than any of the school shooters has ever packed. A 3 inch 00 buck is 15 30 cal rounds in a single shot, that is 300 30 cal projectiles down range in 20 trigger pulls. This much firepower is absolutely necessary if you run into a pack of wild boar. All three of these are nuance species who populations have become out of control and need hunter eradication to keep them in check. In fact the only hunting I can think of where a bolt action suffices is stand hunting large herbivores such as deer, elk or moose. Which is exactly what most people think of when they think hunting. I certainly would not want to go into bear country with a single shot bolt action. Not that I would hunt bear, but I would certainly have a firearm for protection. I am not going to link to it as it may be sensitive viewing to some people but if you are not bothered by it, take a look at the YouTube videos, where ranchers are doing hog eradication via helicopter, they almost all exclusively use either the Saiga-12 or the AR-12 to do such eradication. It will give you a good perspective on how rapid the pace of eradication is and why such high capacity firepower is needed. Take a look at coyote and prairie dog eradication as well.