If you didn't have to get out immediately, a molotov cocktail might be better.
Agreed. Both logistically and tactically. Also, it takes a lower level of technology to make molotovs, meaning if you had access to alcohol, or even rudimentary distilling equipment and a way to procure containers (glass blowing might get interesting, but it's easier than trying to make a machine shop from scratch), you could theoretically resupply forever.
This kind of sustainability in a ZPAW will go the farthest.
I had heard good things about the gun, but the opinion was pretty prevalent that they wouldn't use it in an SHTF situation, partially for lack of replacement parts, and partially for the amount of polymer.
I talked to George about replacement parts. They're available if anyone wants to buy them. I told him I'd be making a "repair kit purchase" sometime this year. He seemed a bit confused as to why I'd want them, considering the guns are lifetime warranteed, and I told him that I thought he'd deliberately designed his rifles for survival purposes considering all the features he put on them, and thus, most survivalist types tend to prefer their own local supply lines.
I don't remember his answer to that.
It's funny, we all know that polymers can be ridiculously strong, especially for their weight, but some part of us still wants the old-fashioned durability of metal and wood.
Having broken a wooden stock in my time, I can tell you from first hand experience that some woods are more durable than others. Surprising, actually, which woods and which buttstocks are actually durable and others you'd expect to be...aren't.
The folding bipod is good, though I wonder how steady it would be.
I like it. It's steady enough for me to tighten my groupings at 100m.
I forgot to mention that the SU-16 series ALSO has the built in (as in, molded into the receiver itself) scope rail. And the bipod? It's actually the handguards, so that's built-in as well.
It really is a well-thought-out firearm, incorporating accessories that most people would want in a rifle as DESIGN features.
And the last thing we all have to consider when considering the logistics is cost. And you're right, the SU-16 gives pretty much all other .223 rifles a run for their money in that department, even with the price increases across the board.
At least some designs also mount back on the gun, using some space by the end of the barrel as well as the standard baffles, minimizing the extra space it takes.
Look carefully at the specs on those types of suppressors. That's all I'm going to say as I am not going to bad-mouth any manufacturers today.
For me, the idea would be making sure as few others as possible hear the sounds of gunshots. 27-30 decibels of noise drop is making it one ninth or one tenth the volume. Still going to be decently loud, but better than unsuppressed.
A decent point, to which I must counterpoint that most rifle cartridges are supersonic, with the crack of the bullet breaking the sound barrier being almost as loud as the muzzle blast, so suppressing a supersonic round is...well...not particularly effective. Second, depending upon the suppressor, there will be a change in point of impact of the projectile because of the way the muzzle gases are handled. The change is directly dependent both upon the design/manufacture of the suppressor itself, and the quality control of that manufacturer and the tolerances thereof.
Just adds another variable as a potential to degrade accuracy, which, in a life-or-death situation, is not generally a good idea. This is why I stressed "as a toy."
I don't think the velocity would be an issue out to longer ranges than I would expect the gun to be capable of getting reliable headshots, though.
A general rule of thumb with decently made rifles is "the rifle is more accurate than you are." So we're talking more about practical accuracy than mechanical, but what good is a rifle that could drive tacks one on top of the other if in a benchrest vise, that can't be duplicated by the rifle's user?
Practical accuracy has to come into factor here. Velocity affects practical accuracy by the fact that projectiles don't travel straight -- they travel in an arc. A rifleman is simply a more precise "archer" in that he should know where his projectile is going to hit relative to his sight picture at any given range. This is what separates a mere marksman from an expert or sniper. A marksman puts his sight picture on the target, aims dead center, and expects his projectiles to hit where he aims. If they don't, he adjusts the sights till they do (This is also known as BSZ, or Battle Sight Zero). An expert does this (for the .223 and the .308) at 25 yards, then verifies zero at 250 yards, as well. Because at 25 yards the projectile hits to point of aim on the UPWARD part of the arc, and at 250 yards on the DOWNWARD part of the arc, with 100 yards having a point of impact a couple of inches ABOVE point of aim. Then the expert "dopes" the shot, by which I mean he measures the ambient temperature, wind direction and speed, and other atmospheric factors that CAN (but not necessarily do) affect shot placement, and fires his course of fire. He does this again, and again, and again, under different conditions each time, until he has a "rifle card" of information he can use to deduce how MUCH those factors affect his points of impact.
Honestly, though. Most soldiers can't hit Jack past 300 meters. Headshots at anything past 100 is something that requires practice and/or a benchrest at the very least. Shooting ain't easy.
But it IS possible. Just remember that it is ONLY possible if you put the time AND effort in, and THEN keep those skills honed.
Those skills CAN transition to a different platform, but adjustments will have to be made from one to the other in the finer points of the technique (which requires time and bullets downrange when careful analysis can be done, not the heat of combat) so that one can shoot the second platform as well as the first.
Time, and effort. Determination and self-control.
I know people who can take consistent headshots offhand at 100 meters. I can count them on one hand, and I know a LOT of people. I myself am not one who can; I need a benchrest for consistent headshots at 100m and beyond.
I was thinking a 180B for .223, though I could be biased because of how much I love the looks of that gun.
Yeah, I had a crush on the AR-18 since the 70's, and in many ways it is a superior design to the AR-15. I won't go into the history on this now (you all can breathe a sigh of relief), but what I will say is that while I like the AR-18/AR-180/AR-180B, they still all fall into the "toy" category mostly because of parts availability and weight. (Parts availability you did mention, kudos.)
I suppose it would depend on whether I stocked up on spare parts, and had them with me as to whether that would be a good choice.
Absolutely correct, and along with those spare parts, the ability to replace them correctly. I do. I carry a near full set of spare parts for the AR-15 as a matter of course. In the "Things you may not know about me" thread, I mention that I build rifles as a hobby. AR-15's to be exact, and I start with a bare receiver. So not only do I HAVE the spare parts, I know how to install and replace them, becuase it's something I already do.
Glocks are also reasonably simple to work on as far as basic parts replacement. A single tool is used for almost every armorer's operation. Another consideration I made when I chose the Glock -- How quickly could I learn how to fix it myself? Answer: About three hours with some guidance and two full detail-strips of similar models.
Very true, and bonus points for referencing the late Col. Cooper.
I was curious if you would catch that. Good. We are on the same page, or at least in the same book.
Don't know what an FATS is, though.
Fire Arms Training Simulator. Basically, a video-based shoot-don't shoot scenario system, similar to a video game, but using real firearms either with live ammo or simunitions, depending upon the application. It provides as close to real-world decision-making scenarios as you can get without shooting real people. It involves proficiency with your equipment (like your holster and magazines), your firearm (how well you shoot) and your ability to percieve what is going on and make good judgment calls with deadly force (your OODA loop, basically).
Absolutely essential if you're planning on saving your butt with a firearm in my opinion. Against anyONE or anyTHING.
but I just get annoyed by the "No automatic period" rule people quote constantly.
Sure, I do too, because I can tell they're just parroting what some "expert" told them without knowing the WHY behind it.
We know the why. So we also know when the "no cyclic fire" rule CAN and SHOULD be broken.
Not as bad as when people say you want a bolt action, so you don't spray and pray, but still pretty annoying.
Someone who uses that logic is unwittingly indicating his own lack of fire discipline. The part that's annoying is when they project that lack of discipline to others as justification for making a rule, when every person is different and many folks DO have decent fire discipline and need no arbitrary rules to conduct themselves efficiently in the art of ass-saving through superior firepower.
"Least common denominator" bullshit chafes my ass probably as much as it does you; Again, I've experienced much of that firsthand in my life. I am better than a good portion of the population at what I do, both because of the diversity of my skillset and the amount of time, effort, and discipline I've put into them and the knowledge and experience that surrounds it.
I assumed you weren't referring to me with the hollywood bit, but it still came across pretty arrogant. Apologies if that isn't how you intended it to sound, text-based conversation is a fickle mistress.
Oh, no, I intended it to sound arrogant as hell, because I HAVE put the time and effort into it and do this sort of thing for real, not just talk about it on teh intarweb.
As I said before, I really didn't mean to hijack this thread with my 20+ year experiences with reality, but sometimes the stuff gets so deep ya GOTTA pull it back into some semblance of reason.
And I can see that a good portion of the poor folks reading this thread are getting quickly fed up with all the tech talk -- one of the reasons why I truncated my first post so abruptly. I apologize for the length and technical depth of this post (and honestly, it ISN'T very deep, and far shallower than I could go if given enough time and sufficient visual aids), but if you're gonna plan for a Zombopocalypse, at LEAST have your facts straight so that when and if you go back and think about stupid stuff you read on the internet that you recall in times of crisis in order to pull a MacGyver type maneuver to save your life...
...I can only hope that one or more of my posts with the straight dope helps you do the right thing.
And now, we return to the regularly scheduled hilarity...because I actually kinda hate talking shop here. This is my playtime. I may have mentioned this before.
I always thought for a gun agains zombies a 7.62 would be better than a 5.56 due to the damage it does on a cadaver, smaller bullet just goes straight through causing less damage but a 7.62 will fuck shit up alot more and depending on location bullits might be easier to come by.
See, it's this kind of half-assed reasoning that makes me pull my hair out. Trouble is, I can't tell if he's serious or just fucking with me.
I've read through this thread, but i'm still confused what type of zombies we are being overrun with here?
I'm thinking the sentient, diseased "I am Legend" types, as opposed to the classic shamblers of the "Dawn of the Dead" movies.
please don't start discussing spread, or weight or gage because, you know something? Its utterly and completly dull.
Not to mention utterly useless unless you need it, at which point it becomes pretty damn important. But I agree -- most folks do not, nor will they ever, need to know this kind of information. However, if a situation arises where they DO need to know it, and they don't, their survivability chances plummet.
But you're right. I'm going to try to stop being dull and go back to being delightfully creepy.
Not being able to get out of the city i'm in with my car - Sioux Falls is not yet restructured for it's population and can get very congested during rush hours
You're in the Dakotas? In many ways I envy you; I know what's up there.
What if the zombies are arching their backs?
Uhhh...get a necrophile to sneak up behind them and do the nasty with them from behind so you can run away?
*shrug*
End of GREAT WALL O'TEXT.
With apologies.
S