Weight v. punch scenario
I get asked this question by acquaintances a lot and don't have a ready answer. It probably falls into the realm of a SHTF or Zombie Apocalypse question so I didn't take it too seriously but now I am wondering. Here is the deal. Say an individual has to leave their residence during some sort of natural or man made disaster and there is a general break down of law and order. You're on your own in other words. Nothing new here, I know. You're not sure how long you will be afield and you have a choice between a rifle chambered for the .556 or one for the 7.62x51mm. With the .556, many more rounds can be carried due to weight differences. But, and I'm not an authority, those who claim to be say the 7.62 packs a better punch and is a more effective combat round. Essentially those who ask are trying to decide if weight differences is a wise trade off in going with, say, and AR15 instead of an AR10? Any comments?
0
-
Try humping an M1A, AR10 or FAL and several hundred rounds of 7.62x51 around for a couple days, while carrying water and food. You will quickly want the lighter AR-15 and 5.56.
Obviously, I like the M1A and 7.62x51 (for target shooting) but I will take the AR and the 5.56 for SHTF0 -
Is it aimed fire or spray and pray? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by NOTPARS
I get asked this question by acquaintances a lot and don't have a ready answer. It probably falls into the realm of a SHTF or Zombie Apocalypse question so I didn't take it too seriously but now I am wondering. Here is the deal. Say an individual has to leave their residence during some sort of natural or man made disaster and there is a general break down of law and order. You're on your own in other words. Nothing new here, I know. You're not sure how long you will be afield and you have a choice between a rifle chambered for the .556 or one for the 7.62x51mm. With the .556, many more rounds can be carried due to weight differences. But, and I'm not an authority, those who claim to be say the 7.62 packs a better punch and is a more effective combat round. Essentially those who ask are trying to decide if weight differences is a wise trade off in going with, say, and AR15 instead of an AR10? Any comments?
If you're worried about "Zombie apocalypse" you're a nutjob and you should worry about what thickness foil your aluminum hat is made from, rather than what caliber your rifle is chambered in.
If you're worried about a temporary breakdown in law and order after a natural disaster (a la Katrina) for a few days to weeks, that's a little bit of a more plausible situation, worthy of commentary.
My answer is that compared to your needs for water, food, shelter, fuel, clothes, medicine, batteries and other basic necessities, what kind of caliber your RIFLE is, is of negligible concern.
You're not going to war; at best you just need to protect yourself and family for a while, and *maybe* hunt for food.
You just want something that a. you're practiced using, b. Have a few clips of ammo for, and c. is reliable. More that than is mostly a matter of personal taste.
If you like your AR-15, that's fine. It has many advantages (weight, capacity, commonality of parts, etc), everyone is already familiar with. I'd say that all the many advantages probably do outweigh the one disadvantage of relatively low power. If you prefer a .308, that's OK too, again with the advantages/disadvantages everyone already knows.
A 7.62x39 gun like an SKS or AK could also be fine. A 30/30 lever rifle is actually an excellent survival gun too, with a reasonably powerful round in a highly reliable quick repeating platform. A 12 gauge pump shotgun with some slugs/buckshot/birdshot is also a highly versatile platform that's reliable. Its not optimal for an actual gunfight, but even a conventional bolt-action hunting rifle is a perfectly viable arm for survival in this sort of situation.
FWIW, my "go to" gun like this is a stock SKS. I keep it in my car with 3-4 charged stripper clips, one with soft-point ammo. If there is an emergency and I need to "get out of Dodge", I've already got it with me. Cheap. . .simple. . .reliable. . .effective.
I'd add that in a situation like this, having a sidearm (or more than one) for personal protection is also a pretty good idea. Its a lot more portable and concealable than a rifle, and you have the ability to pass it on to someone else for better coverage. Which one? Again, doesn't matter. . .so long as its a reliable medium or higher power centerfire cartridge, you know how to use it, and have ammo for it, it can work fine.
Lastly, if you really expect a prolonged breakdown of law and order (ie Mad Max scenario) then long term durability of your guns and availability of ammo become important concerns too. In that sort of situation you might consider a pistol-caliber longarm for ammo commonality with your sidearm (be it .357 magnum, .44 magnum, .45ACP, or 9mm luger).
Edit, responding to below:
quote:TSR1965
Did you not mean magazine, or were you in fact talking about clips, which to load magazines from?
I said "clips" on purpose just because my particular "go to" guns (SKS and Moisin) take them, and I wanted to expand the discussion outside of just AR-15 guns. Obviously, you should use whatever ammo carrying method is appropriate for whatever gun you have.
If your gun uses stripper clips (Mosin, Mauser, SKS, Garand, whatever) then carry a few clips. If your gun takes detachable magazines (AR platform guns, Kalashnikov, etc), then carry magazines, etc.
If your gun uses detachable magazines, AND said magazines can be loaded from pre-charged stripper clips, AND you happen to have some then I guess you could bring those too, since they're less bulky than magazines. To me, this sort of thing is peripheral. 80%+ of your energy and effort is going to be devoted to getting clean water, food, shelter, and fuel (in that order). What exact mechanism you use to load your gun (that you're probably not even going to need to fire once) is a third or fourth-order concern.
Again, note that this proverbial SHTF scenario is quite a different thing than going to war. You're probably NOT going to get in a prolonged firefight requiring you to burn up 200+ rounds of ammo at once, and therefore, you're probably NOT going to need (or want) to carry some heavy bulky chest rig with 7+ magazines in there. It certainly doesn't hurt to have tons of ammo and extra magazines in storage, *IF* you have the space and resources, but realistically, 2-3 magazines is probably the most you'd really need/want to carry on your person.
Between the choice of 10,000 rounds of ammo and 100 spare magazines, and only 200 rounds of ammo, with 2 magazines and a good water purification system, guess what. . .I'm going for the water system.
I would add, by the way, that all else being equal, your geographic location might play a role in what gun you choose. If you're in a highly populated/urban place, I think a lighter/less powerful gun can make sense, even a pistol caliber carbine, or maybe even JUST a handgun (with no longarm). In contrast, if you're in a remote/rural area where longer shots are more plausible, and you may need to hurt opportunistically, then a heavier caliber can make sense.
Edit #2:
In terms of caliber, the most important difference there is going to be effective range, not absolute power. You're not likely to make good hits at 400 yards with an SKS let alone a Kalasknikov, though that's entirely possible with an AR-10 in .308. I wouldn't want to shoot a moose with one, but even a "lowly" .223 packs more than enough energy to do what it needs to do as an anti-personnel round at 200 yards or less. (Whether or not its better or worse than a 7.62x39 is a whole other topic, I won't get into).
The flip side of this issue is that realistically you're probably not going to HAVE to take a shot past 200 yards, since virtually every defensive scenario is going to occur at a much shorter distance than that. If the main point of the gun is "defense" (rather than hunting or sniping) then you want something high capacity, fast-handling, and with either low or no magnification sights, and relatively low recoil. Meanwhile, setups designed for long range shooting typically employ slower handling heavier guns with long heavy barrels, high power magnification, and increased recoil. For hunting/sniping, a setup like that is optimal, but for most combat, probably not.
Relevant here, just because your GUN can hit things at 400+ yards, doesn't mean YOU can do so! There isn't much point to walking around with what amounts to an expensive tricked-out sniper system, unless you have the quite a bit of shooting experience necessary to take advantage of it. Bluntly, most people probably don't, so having the heavier, lower capacity, higher cost platform is mostly going to be wasted on them.
If the AR-10 platform gun is the best one for you, you probably don't even need to ask them question, because if it is, you'll already have the extensive shooting experience to know it!0 -
It all depends at the situation at hand, and are your zombies distant, or within a couple hundred yards. Precise shot placement, or spray and pray?
If under 200 yards/meter's, you are looking at the wrong weapon, and an SKS, or AK-47 clone would fit the bill better. Over 200 yards, and out to 600, the AR-15, loaded with the heavy bullets...69 grains to 77 grains, with the proper 1 in 7 twist. Over that, then it is a good AR-10 platform.
For most instances, the ease of portability, accuracy level(although a real good AR-10, will smoke a real good AR-15 in this venue), and amount of ammo to be able to carry, the AR-15, would be my choice. Since I am not in the military, and not regulated by the Geneva convention, I WILL BE shooting expanding type ammo...big difference, in effectiveness.
Beantown,
quote:You just want something that a. you're practiced using, b. Have a few clips of ammo for, and c. is reliable. More that than is mostly a matter of personal taste.
Did you not mean magazine, or were you in fact talking about clips, which to load magazines from?
Best0 -
A single round of .308Win weighs like, what? Almost what 2 .223's would weigh?
Sounds too easy; a double tap from a mousegun equals (more or less) the whallop from a Thutty cal.
So; by inference, double-blind testing, or focus group analysis; it seems that toting a hunnert rounds of .30 beats humping a load of 200 .223's.
'specially if you use 2 or more rounds from the aforementioned mousegun to dispatch each "zombie".0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
A single round of .308Win weighs like, what? Almost what 2 .223's would weigh?
Sounds too easy; a double tap from a mousegun equals (more or less) the whallop from a Thutty cal.
So; by inference, double-blind testing, or focus group analysis; it seems that toting a hunnert rounds of .30 beats humping a load of 200 .223's.
'specially if you use 2 or more rounds from the aforementioned mousegun to dispatch each "zombie".
You are forgetting about the weight of the gun itself, the weight of the magazines themselves, and the fact that a 5.56 mag holds more rounds than a .308 mag, thus giving more shots between reloads. Also, most load bearing equipment is made for carrying 5.56 mags, thus making it easier to carry multiple 5.56 mags. And a 16" AR-15 with collapsible stock is a lot easier to maneuver around in forests, vehicles, houses, etc than a long M1A, FAL, or AR-10. Been there, done that. You would also have to consider handing the gun off to a wife/child if you take a hit. Again, the lighter AR-15 and ammo and less recoil will be to their great advantage.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments