SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    Rethinking M193 for personal defense
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Rethinking M193 for personal defense Login/Join 
My hypocrisy goes only so far
Picture of GrumpyBiker
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
quote:
Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
Recoil will walk the top round out of a magazine that is coupled to the one in the magazine well.


Hmm …. Useful information that I have never seen anyone report before. Many people are enamored with coupled magazines, but now I must wonder how many ever actually shoot their rifles with that setup.



I've seen it multiple times at 3-gun matches, and experienced it myself.

Usually the round will walk partially forward, and prevent insertion of the magazine until the offending top round is stripped away. Usually after two or three tries to seat the magazine with the cartridge in the way.


It might have differing rates of occurring depending on type of magazine.




This has happened to me when using Polymer mags & older metal USGI mags.
It stopped occurring on my 10.5" after I installed an ALG Single Chamber muzzle break.
But that's another can of worms for folks on here.









U.S.M.C.
VFW-8045
III

"He's a Mean Motor Scooter & a Bad Go Getter !"



 
Posts: 5328 | Location: Central,Ohio | Registered: December 28, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Be Well and Keep Your Rifle Clean
Picture of mrmn50
posted Hide Post
I have quite a bit Federal M193. Also in very good shape on various weights of Hornady TAP and a few hundred rounds of MK318.

2-M4 14,5"bbl 1/7
1-M4 16" bb/ 1/7
1-M4 10.5"bbl 1/7

I bought ammo based on what I read here on the Forum. Everything seems to work in the proper combos when testing.




"..AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC,...SO HELP ME GOD."


 
Posts: 20565 | Location: Czechtown,Minnesota | Registered: October 17, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
If you are actually running into Armored Threats you need to either use the proper ammo or the proper techniques (failure drill, head shots, torso shots, MOVE, etc.).

While M193 and M855 may penetrate certain types of armor under certain circumstances there is a reason the US ARMY doesn't label them as armor piercing and it keeps M995 Armor Piercing in inventory. Some folks might call that a clue.

If you are using M193 because it can penetrate AR500 level III armor at speed, what do you do if the bad guy paid the $30 extra for the level III+ or purchased level IV ceramic for $170 or he stole a set of USGI SAPI plates.
 
Posts: 3400 | Location: Where ever Uncle Sam Sends Me | Registered: March 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by CD228:

If you are using M193 because it can penetrate AR500 level III armor at speed, what do you do if the bad guy paid the $30 extra for the level III+ or purchased level IV ceramic for $170 or he stole a set of USGI SAPI plates.


I hear what you are saying. But for HD (not talking about Duty / Mil use...) is anybody seriously worrying about defeating intruders with Level IV ceramic plates??

I'll go out on a limb and say if that is the threat you are considering facing you have other security considerations you need to devote significant resources to.

And even then the HD answer is drop your point of aim 8 inches and go groin / pelvis / upper thighs. Terminal effect would be extremely devastating at 20'. Right there the abdominal aorta bifurcates into the iliac arteries and the blood pressure in those vessels is massive.

I will also say the M193 advocacy depends on 'true' M193 bullet design - not just any cheap 55 gr FMJ which may or may not perform as desired. With the correct bullet design and an impact velocity around 2900 fps I am confident in the results at close range.

For specific duty use then that is a whole other conversation.


----------------------------


Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
 
Posts: 5610 | Location: Eastern NC | Registered: September 20, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fuego220:

There are many great .223/5.56 loads out there, and they have been working so well that the 6.8 SPC project along with many of its variants designed to replace the 5.56 is dead. Naturally, these great 5.56 loads are not going to be as cheap as military surplus M193s or M855s.

I find Dr. Robert's research into it with the Naval Special Weapons Division to be the most concrete. There are several nice loads on this link:
https://pistol-forum.com/showt...4-5-56-mm-Duty-Loads


FYI they are looking at larger rounds for the new LSAT Weapons Systems.

Dr Roberts actually pointed out that 6.8mm rounds experience less fleet yaw and scored higher at the JSWB-IPT testing and claimed that 6.8mm was superior to the 5.56mm for CQB. Source
 
Posts: 3400 | Location: Where ever Uncle Sam Sends Me | Registered: March 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by CD228:
quote:
Originally posted by Fuego220:

There are many great .223/5.56 loads out there, and they have been working so well that the 6.8 SPC project along with many of its variants designed to replace the 5.56 is dead. Naturally, these great 5.56 loads are not going to be as cheap as military surplus M193s or M855s.

I find Dr. Robert's research into it with the Naval Special Weapons Division to be the most concrete. There are several nice loads on this link:
https://pistol-forum.com/showt...4-5-56-mm-Duty-Loads


FYI they are looking at larger rounds for the new LSAT Weapons Systems.

Dr Roberts actually pointed out that 6.8mm rounds experience less fleet yaw and scored higher at the JSWB-IPT testing and claimed that 6.8mm was superior to the 5.56mm for CQB. Source


I love these discussions. All that technical discussion is academic blah, blah, blah.

Because as an Infantryman - you have to understand the VAST majority of rounds are not striking a target. They are expended to suppress enemy for the movement of the maneuver element. The 'covering fire' you hear about.

So literally millions of rounds across combat / training fired to basically keep the enemy pinned down. You just don't need gee-whiz ammo to do that. No need for anything better as far as current technology ballistics is involved.

If we REALLY wanted to be more effective in combat - as an Infantry force - we would add (1) 7.62mm belt-fed machine gun per platoon - for a total of one per squad. Not too many people complain about the terminal effectiveness / range of the 7.62mm.

Infantry combat is not about super bullets - it is about achieving fire superiority and maneuver. A healthy dose of artillery / mortar fire is nice too.

Sorry for the thread drift.

----------------------------------


Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
 
Posts: 5610 | Location: Eastern NC | Registered: September 20, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sig209:
quote:
Originally posted by CD228:
quote:
Originally posted by Fuego220:

There are many great .223/5.56 loads out there, and they have been working so well that the 6.8 SPC project along with many of its variants designed to replace the 5.56 is dead. Naturally, these great 5.56 loads are not going to be as cheap as military surplus M193s or M855s.

I find Dr. Robert's research into it with the Naval Special Weapons Division to be the most concrete. There are several nice loads on this link:
https://pistol-forum.com/showt...4-5-56-mm-Duty-Loads


FYI they are looking at larger rounds for the new LSAT Weapons Systems.

Dr Roberts actually pointed out that 6.8mm rounds experience less fleet yaw and scored higher at the JSWB-IPT testing and claimed that 6.8mm was superior to the 5.56mm for CQB. Source


I love these discussions. All that technical discussion is academic blah, blah, blah.

Because as an Infantryman - you have to understand the VAST majority of rounds are not striking a target. They are expended to suppress enemy for the movement of the maneuver element. The 'covering fire' you hear about.

So literally millions of rounds across combat / training fired to basically keep the enemy pinned down. You just don't need gee-whiz ammo to do that. No need for anything better as far as current technology ballistics is involved.

If we REALLY wanted to be more effective in combat - as an Infantry force - we would add (1) 7.62mm belt-fed machine gun per platoon - for a total of one per squad. Not too many people complain about the terminal effectiveness / range of the 7.62mm.

Infantry combat is not about super bullets - it is about achieving fire superiority and maneuver. A healthy dose of artillery / mortar fire is nice too.

Sorry for the thread drift.

----------------------------------

I was an Infantryman. I got my Blue Cord at Benning in 2006. I went to Iraq and ASTAN with 3/187 Infantry. If you dig through my posts on the various new Army weapons you will see my comments on the lack of training and the results it has on battlefield lethality.

While covering fire was applicable in the early stages of the Iraq and Afghan invasions, it was of limited use in the Urban environments I dealt with in Iraq. It became relevant again in the open areas of ASTAN and the hills and mountains. Given the hybrid environment I am prepping for here in Europe there are a number of TTPs being evaluated.

However, We can improve training while simultaneously improving the weapons systems and the ammo.

I will also tell you to read the Somalia AARs where the M855 issue was clearly documented and if the SOF Soldiers writing the AARs are correct, then the bullet did play a role on the battlefield.

As for the effectiveness/efficiency of the 7.62mm NATO rounds in machine guns, why did Special Operations Command and the USMC looking for 5,000 .338 Norma Machine Guns. Hint: Its not for lawn furniture.
 
Posts: 3400 | Location: Where ever Uncle Sam Sends Me | Registered: March 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I appreciate your comments. I agree it is a challenge trying to find a 'one-size is best' cartridge. Not trying to pick an e-fight but a couple comments. Just my opinion of course.

Regarding the Somalia situation. Wrong ammo for the job. Shooting thin undernourished targets with 'light armor piercing' type ammo aka M885. No helmets or body armor on any of the enemy. M193 would have been a better choice. The lighter bullets 'LIKELY' would have upset more rapidly than the heavier 885. Plus reports many of them were high on a drug called Khat - a powerful stimulant.

Regarding the SOCOM looking for something else... they are ALWAYS looking for the next 'better' gadget. They have the budget and 'niche' to be able to procure items that the conventional can't / will never have. Had a friend that made a decent living off this outside of Ft Bragg. Don't know if it's better / worse. Just different and 'high speed'. They can buy a bunch of stuff to give it a try and kick it to the curb a few months later if they don't like it. Plus they have specialized requirements not commonly required of the massive conventional Army. Absolutely nothing wrong with the current generation medium machine gun in 7.62mm from everything I've read. (we had M60s when I was in and they were damn good when properly maintained).

The only 'advances' out there yet to justify a new acquisition goat rope is truly innovative cartridges. Like point detonating / explosive tip. Incendiary burst. Air burst above targets behind cover. Caseless. Target seeking. etc
Stuff we aren't even thinking about yet but need to.

Just saying there is another 'game changing' conventional brass-cased, FMJ-type small arm cartridge is BS. Nothing new under the sun. Saying we would be more operationally effective if we just improved our small arms cartridge for the average Joe is massively missing the forest for the trees IMO. Like I said - give each platoon another machine gun team.

The thing I like most about the 5.56mm is it is decently powered, you can carry a LOT of it, and it's relatively low recoil / muzzle blast. So its easy to train people how to shoot.

Nice discussion though. Our military (God Bless them) has certainly sent many extremists to the grave over the last 15 years using 5.56mm / 7.62mm.

-------------------------------------------


Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
 
Posts: 5610 | Location: Eastern NC | Registered: September 20, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sig209:

Regarding the Somalia situation. Wrong ammo for the job. Shooting thin undernourished targets with 'light armor piercing' type ammo aka M885. No helmets or body armor on any of the enemy. M193 would have been a better choice. The lighter bullets 'LIKELY' would have upset more rapidly than the heavier 885. Plus reports many of them were high on a drug called Khat - a powerful stimulant.


Funny, above you mentioned that and I quote "You just don't need gee-whiz ammo to do that. No need for anything better as far as current technology ballistics is involved." So what is it? Selecting the right round for the job, finding an improved or "covering fire"? I'll point out that the "All that technical discussion is academic" stuff that you poo pooed is what got the Army and Marines to move away from M855.

quote:
Originally posted by Sig209:
Regarding the SOCOM looking for something else... they are ALWAYS looking for the next 'better' gadget. They have the budget and 'niche' to be able to procure items that the conventional can't / will never have.


You mean like the PRC-117G, PRC-148, MK-48, M4A1, RDS, SPECTRE DR,MK 262, .300 WIN Mag, Carl Gustav, ETC. Oh wait, the General Purpose Forces got those because SOF R&Ded them and found them to be better than the standard issue. Interestingly enough the 6.8MM SPC was R7Ded by SOF as well.

quote:
Originally posted by Sig209:
Absolutely nothing wrong with the current generation medium machine gun in 7.62mm from everything I've read. (we had M60s when I was in and they were damn good when properly maintained).


Hump a 240 up and down the mountains of ASTAN or through the hills of Europe and you'll find plenty of issues. They invented the M240L for a reason. I'll also point out that the 7.62 NATO is a 1950s round based on a 1906 round. We can get better performance out of a lighter round.

quote:
Originally posted by Sig209:
The only 'advances' out there yet to justify a new acquisition goat rope is truly innovative cartridges. Like point detonating / explosive tip. Incendiary burst. Air burst above targets behind cover. Caseless. Target seeking. etc
Stuff we aren't even thinking about yet but need to.


The XM25 "Punisher" got removed from service a reason. The XM307 was still born for a reason. Both 25mm smart grenade launchers that do some of what you talk about. I suspect we will see smart grenades again in the future but they aren't effective now. Also check out the LSAT program. I'm lobbying for the LSAT rifle round to be 6mm+. Check out the new 40mm "Pike" missile from Raytheon and similar missiles.

quote:
Originally posted by Sig209:
Just saying there is another 'game changing' conventional brass-cased, FMJ-type small arm cartridge is BS. Nothing new under the sun. Saying we would be more operationally effective if we just improved our small arms cartridge for the average Joe is massively missing the forest for the trees IMO. Like I said - give each platoon another machine gun team.
[\QUOTE]

Check the new MTOES and the TPE down range. The weapons squad is up to it's eyeballs in stuff. But, a lot of that stuff stayed on the trucks and in the arms rooms down range due to weight vs. effectiveness. Also take a look at the reports on M855A1 and MK318.

I personally hate the phrase "Game Changer", it's way overused by pitchmen.

[Quote]Originally posted by Sig209:
The thing I like most about the 5.56mm is it is decently powered, you can carry a LOT of it, and it's relatively low recoil / muzzle blast. So its easy to train people how to shoot.

Nice discussion though. Our military (God Bless them) has certainly sent many extremists to the grave over the last 15 years using 5.56mm / 7.62mm.


I am in violent agreement on that comment. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be looking for ways to make the hits more effective.

Looking at your comments, I believe that we are disagreeing across generations. In the contemporary operating environment (Information Generation) which is very MOUT and COIN heavy, the Rifleman and Sniper(SKT) and aimed small arms fire have a high level of significance, the machine gunner less so. In some areas you cannot even employ Arty and air. In the Maneuver Generation of warfare the rifleman supports the machine gunners, tanks and arty. The heavy use of cover fire and maneuver you describe takes precedence over aimed rifle fire
. What I believe we are seeing/going to see in the future (Unified Land Operations, Hybrid Warfare, Next Generation Warfare, Mega City, ETC) will actual be a combination of both generations.

A most interesting discussion. If we were in the same location I'd buy you a beer and ask you a lot of questions about the "Old Army". I've been talking to a lot of "Cold Warriors" as of late to get better insight on dealing with the Russian threat.
 
Posts: 3400 | Location: Where ever Uncle Sam Sends Me | Registered: March 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sig209:
quote:
Originally posted by CD228:

If you are using M193 because it can penetrate AR500 level III armor at speed, what do you do if the bad guy paid the $30 extra for the level III+ or purchased level IV ceramic for $170 or he stole a set of USGI SAPI plates.


I hear what you are saying. But for HD (not talking about Duty / Mil use...) is anybody seriously worrying about defeating intruders with Level IV ceramic plates??

I'll go out on a limb and say if that is the threat you are considering facing you have other security considerations you need to devote significant resources to.

And even then the HD answer is drop your point of aim 8 inches and go groin / pelvis / upper thighs. Terminal effect would be extremely devastating at 20'. Right there the abdominal aorta bifurcates into the iliac arteries and the blood pressure in those vessels is massive.

I will also say the M193 advocacy depends on 'true' M193 bullet design - not just any cheap 55 gr FMJ which may or may not perform as desired. With the correct bullet design and an impact velocity around 2900 fps I am confident in the results at close range.

For specific duty use then that is a whole other conversation.


----------------------------

I think we are saying the same thing. M193 isn't really a viable anti armor round as you need a whole lot of things to go your way for it to penetrate. I definitely agree with you on the use of alternate aiming points on an armored threat, like when they took the legs out on the one North Hollywood shooter.

As for the level IV on bad guys, it's highly unlikely, but possible due to the number of cheap level IV plates marketed to civilians. I've also seen an annoyingly large amount of "surplus" SAPI plates for sale around Army bases.
 
Posts: 3400 | Location: Where ever Uncle Sam Sends Me | Registered: March 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Give me your opinion on this one:

We used to field M193. 'standard' barrel length was 20". So we had what IMO was a good combination- relatively high velocity and a relatively light projectile that achieves a lot of its terminal effect by yaw / tumbling / fragmentation.

But then we change to a 62 gr bullet at lower velocity and THEN later change the M16 to a markedly shorter barrel. Further lowering the velocity.

So in my mind we have taken steps backward because we got away from what made the 5.56mm effective in the first place: light bullet that upsets violently in soft tissue at relatively high velocity.

Its almost like the perfect rifle is a 20" AR on a collapsible lower. You get to adjust the stock but no sacrifice of velocity / barrel length.

I realize SWAT / Spec Ops who operate in hallways would want something else (shorter). But for the avg Joe grunt the 20" barrel would give them a bit more range / velocity.

What's old is new.

-------------------------------------------------


Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
 
Posts: 5610 | Location: Eastern NC | Registered: September 20, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sig209:
Give me your opinion on this one:

We used to field M193. 'standard' barrel length was 20". So we had what IMO was a good combination- relatively high velocity and a relatively light projectile that achieves a lot of its terminal effect by yaw / tumbling / fragmentation.

But then we change to a 62 gr bullet at lower velocity and THEN later change the M16 to a markedly shorter barrel. Further lowering the velocity.

So in my mind we have taken steps backward because we got away from what made the 5.56mm effective in the first place: light bullet that upsets violently in soft tissue at relatively high velocity.

Its almost like the perfect rifle is a 20" AR on a collapsible lower. You get to adjust the stock but no sacrifice of velocity / barrel length.

I realize SWAT / Spec Ops who operate in hallways would want something else (shorter). But for the avg Joe grunt the 20" barrel would give them a bit more range / velocity.

What's old is new.

-------------------------------------------------

What you are describing is the M16A5, or the Canadian C7A2, the Army experimented with an version as well and PM magazine actually had an NSN for a collapsible stock kit for the M16 . I'll also point out that the USMC held on to the M16A4 with ACOG until very recently.

I will also agree that the M193's primary wounding mechanism was fragmentation and that testing has shown that a relationship between velocity and fragmentation in the M193. A shorter barrel and thus lower velocity of the round will negatively effect it's terminal performance. So for a M193 that longer barrel is better.

I will also agree that putting an M855 in a short barrel really magnified it's issues.

Back in 2007 I actually came to the same conclusion that you are pointing to. That for a dismounted infantryman a 20" barrel, collapsible stock and an ACOG/RDS was an excellent combo for a dismounted Infantryman.

But then I deployed. I found that in Iraq, even the light Infantry was spending most of it's time in vehicles and buildings. We occasionally had insurgents shooting at us from across canals and scooting, but a lot of our work was in confined spaces. I had a memorable experience where my M16 got lodged in an NTV and I had to work to get it out. I really got to like the M4 carbine for those reasons.

But, the short barreled M4 and the M855 was a sub optimal combo. Once big Army realized that issue they went with the M855A1.

M855A1 is supposed to break the 3000FPS mark in a 14.5 carbine. There is a lot of strangeness with the M855A1 though so my jury is still out. But, from what I heard it's effective down range. My primary weapons system is now PowerPoint so I can't say first hand.

The Marines elected to go with the MK318 an open tipped 62 grain projectile with a velocity of 2900+ velocity. Here is a great interview with the "father" of MK 318.

With the new rounds we have good performance with the shorter barrel. Shorter barrel means less weight (until I bolt on all the extra goodies anyway), less weight is more better. Also, as I mentioned above, I believe future warfare will involve a lot of Urban warfare. So I personally would prefer the M4A1 or m27 fires with the M855A1 or MK318mood1.

Hmm, looking back on that answer you can definitely tell I'm an O and not an NCO.
 
Posts: 3400 | Location: Where ever Uncle Sam Sends Me | Registered: March 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
fugitive from reality
posted Hide Post
The single issue we're dealing with here is minimum fragmentation threshold. For M855 it's 2,700 FPS, and for M193 it's 2,600 FPS. Below those two numbers you have a less than 75% chance you will get the round to fragment in it's intended target. The debate over which round penetrates what type of hard armor is almost meaningless because in all cases you need to be within 30 meters to retain enough velocity for penetration. Outside of reliable fragmentation range you're shooting ice picks. Once you are down to poking holes the bigger hole usually does more damage, hence the desire for a larger round with better downrange performance.

Fragmentation ranges for M193 and M855.


Weapon M193 M855
20" Barrel 190-200M 140-150m
16" Barrel 150-150m 90-95m
14.5" Barrel 95-100m 45-50m
11.5" Barrel 40-50m 12-15m

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SgtGold,


_____________________________
'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'.

 
Posts: 5085 | Location: Newyorkistan | Registered: March 28, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SgtGold:
The single issue we're dealing with here is minimum fragmentation threshold. For M855 it's 2,700 FPS, and for M193 it's 2,600 FPS. Below those two numbers you have a less than 75% chance you will get the round to fragment in it's intended target. The debate over which round penetrates what type of hard armor is almost meaningless because in all cases you need to be within 30 meters to retain enough velocity for penetration. Outside of reliable fragmentation range you're shooting ice picks. Once you are down to poking holes the bigger hole usually does more damage, hence the desire for a larger round with better downrange performance.

Fragmentation ranges for M193 and M855.

Weapon M193 M855
20" Barrel 190-200M 140-150m
16" Barrel 150-150m 90-95m
14.5" Barrel 95-100m 45-50m
11.5" Barrel 40-50m 12-15m

Well said and concise. You can tell he is an NCO. Smile
 
Posts: 3400 | Location: Where ever Uncle Sam Sends Me | Registered: March 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
And we are mostly off thread anyway because we have been talking about military use when the thread title is clearly 'personal defense'. Cool

PD generally considered very close range like 10-25 feet. +/- Splitting hairs about differences at that range.

-------------------------------------------


Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
 
Posts: 5610 | Location: Eastern NC | Registered: September 20, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Telecom Ronin
Picture of dewhorse
posted Hide Post
Interesting turn of the discussion, it all comes down to purpose and platform. A one size fits all is very hard, the military is figuring that out....good.

Since I am no longer wearing a MICH for daily business I have to decide what works best for my stable of HD/PD long arms. Since all but one (HD is 11.5") I choose M193 to stock up on. But that does not mean I stick to it for.specialized uses. For the SBR I stock 55gr TSX, although I might change to 55gr Gold dots since it seems a bit hotter ( I have not chrono'ed it from the SBr yet). For my truck bag either 62gr GD or Fusion works since the platform is 16". For hunting with a AR platform I use a 6.8 16" upper (suppressed) and a 120gr SST as it shoots MOA out to 200yd, I might change that as I am looking at putting a 12.5" 5R barrel on it but without chrono'ing/accuracy testing ....who knows

For my fun kill it all rifle I chose a 416 Rigby....I sold.my 375 Ruger recently since I figured why go half way.on a big bore and with the right ammo/scope the Rigby is a viable 400yd rifle.....at least better than 458mag

I am looking at a bolt action.precision rifle and I have still not decided what I will go with....soft shooting distance 6mmsomething or a powerhouse 300-338 something.....or the tired (re: boring) and true 308/30.06....since it will be a 22" or less platform I am leaning towards 308 but I have not done.enough research yet to say for.sure

For general soldering I think the MK318 would be my choice and an SAW type weapon in 6mmsomething and a crew served weapon in at least 308....although a 338 variant would be VERY interesting.

And for a civilian there are so many GOOD or even GREAT choices.....it just depends on what you want it to do and what you are using to shoot it
 
Posts: 6178 | Location: DFW is home but currently in PHX | Registered: February 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    Rethinking M193 for personal defense

© SIGforum 2017