Single point sling leaves your rifle open for optics
Rifle Carry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ibrf11F-qc
I was considering a carry handle for my Bushmaster AR 15 after watching this video any thoughts?
I was considering a carry handle for my Bushmaster AR 15 after watching this video any thoughts?
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
My only problem with a sling is that I use mine mainly for home defense and when things go bump in the night I don't want to get tangled up in a sling.Single point sling leaves your rifle open for optics
Then you don't need a carry handle at all.
And who uses a ar15 inside a house?
And who uses a ar15 inside a house?
I do I use PDX1 hollow points inside the house they don't go far when they hit besides it's an excellent home defense gun...probably the best.Then you don't need a carry handle at all.
And who uses a ar15 inside a house?
But ya maybe I don't need the handle, I thought it would be nice to grab there when it's in the corner or carry when I throw it in my Jeep.
AR15 self defense ammo such as varmint bullets penetrate the same as a 9mm, .40, or .45 but lose effectiveness when they lose velocity going through walls. Short barrel AR15's are replacing 9mm SMG's in a lot of LE and military groups due to it not doing as much damage after losing its velocity. they will be significantly louder than a pistol though. I keep one handy myself.Then you don't need a carry handle at all.
And who uses a ar15 inside a house?
You know it bud, I watched how the police prefer the semi auto 223 over everything because the shotgun 00 buck shot doesn't all hit the target and is ineffective at distance and they like the way the rifle points fast and accurate at close range over a handgun.AR15 self defense ammo such as varmint bullets penetrate the same as a 9mm, .40, or .45 but lose effectiveness when they lose velocity going through walls. Short barrel AR15's are replacing 9mm SMG's in a lot of LE and military groups due to it not doing as much damage after losing its velocity. they will be significantly louder than a pistol though. I keep one handy myself.
I like an AR with a 30 rd mag because there's no such thing as to much ammunition if some creeps come into your castle in the middle of the night.
I had to much ammunition.....no one ever said!!
I had to much ammunition.....no one ever said!!
You don't use a handle for self defense. You should have the rifle at the ready.My only problem with a sling is that I use mine mainly for home defense and when things go bump in the night I don't want to get tangled up in a sling.
45acp (depending on the bullet) is not a great penetrator. We tested the heck out of it and 9mm is a lot worse, so is .223 depending on the ammo and construction of the building. Fine in earthquake spec'ed housing in CA. not great for flimsier housing in the east.AR15 self defense ammo such as varmint bullets penetrate the same as a 9mm, .40, or .45 but lose effectiveness when they lose velocity going through walls. Short barrel AR15's are replacing 9mm SMG's in a lot of LE and military groups due to it not doing as much damage after losing its velocity. they will be significantly louder than a pistol though. I keep one handy myself.
I don't know about that grabbing for the gun in the dark.. it might not be such a bad thing.You don't use a handle for self defense. You should have the rifle at the ready.
With a small house and kids, I'll stick to a handgun. Not to spin up the old argument of what's best for self defense in a house.I do I use PDX1 hollow points inside the house they don't go far when they hit besides it's an excellent home defense gun...probably the best.
But ya maybe I don't need the handle, I thought it would be nice to grab there when it's in the corner or carry when I throw it in my Jeep.
In my neighborhood at night heroin addicts will occasionally wonder through my yard like some kind of zombie apocalypse. I want the best possible weapon I can get, there's a good reason why the M4 is heavily used by the United States Armed Forces and the police.With a small house and kids, I'll stick to a handgun. Not to spin up the old argument of what's best for self defense in a house.
Don't know if I'd want to live in that neighborhood !In my neighborhood at night heroin addicts will occasionally wonder through my yard like some kind of zombie apocalypse. I want the best possible weapon I can get, there's a good reason why the M4 is heavily used by the United States Armed Forces and the police.
All I have wandering through my yard are foxes and snowshoe hares. But I do keep one of my Mini-30's handy, as it would take a deputy a good half hour to 45 minutes to respond in this 90 mile long county.
The reason the 5.56mm NATO round is so widely used is because the Congress never put forth the money to design and field a new weapon when the M-16 was found to be not what combat soldiers wanted or needed to kill the enemy. The M-16 entered the battlefield about 1964 or 1965. That is the very same period during which LBJ began spending umpteen billions on welfare. To LBJ, the votes of those on welfare in the States were more important than the lives of our young men in Vietnam. Now fifty-some years on, it's far too expensive to bring forth a new weapon that would have essentially zero parts interface with the M-16.. . . there's a good reason why the M4 is heavily used by the United States Armed Forces and the police.
A better M-16 would have a bigger bullet, like a .243" or a .257" bullet; maybe even a .270" bullet. That would require a different lower receiver, a different bolt-carrier group and a different barrel. The government has multiple companies that manufacture these items. To retool would cost bazillions. We're $20 trillion in debt-- we don't have the money. I forgot: We'd have to come-up with a new case having a larger head so as to provide more powder space for the bigger bullet. More money...
Here is what you're talking about...The reason the 5.56mm NATO round is so widely used is because the Congress never put forth the money to design and field a new weapon when the M-16 was found to be not what combat soldiers wanted or needed to kill the enemy. The M-16 entered the battlefield about 1964 or 1965. That is the very same period during which LBJ began spending umpteen billions on welfare. To LBJ, the votes of those on welfare in the States were more important than the lives of our young men in Vietnam. Now fifty-some years on, it's far too expensive to bring forth a new weapon that would have essentially zero parts interface with the M-16.
A better M-16 would have a bigger bullet, like a .243" or a .257" bullet; maybe even a .270" bullet. That would require a different lower receiver, a different bolt-carrier group and a different barrel. The government has multiple companies that manufacture these items. To retool would cost bazillions. We're $20 trillion in debt-- we don't have the money. I forgot: We'd have to come-up with a new case having a larger head so as to provide more powder space for the bigger bullet. More money...
https://www.lwrci.com/p-480-six8-a5.aspx
They made them from the demand of a foreign country wanting something similar to an AR15 in size and weight but slightly scaled up and built around a cartridge and magazine that delivers more downrange lethality. The 6.8x43mm SPC2. These rifles share only a few parts with an AR15. Such as the buffer tube, maybe the buffer/spring, the trigger components, and maybe a few other small things. If you ever get o put your hands on one, you will notice that it is not an AR15 or an AR10, but a rifle completely designed from the ground up to be something different. It also operates on an adjustable gas piston system that is very durable.
They make good medium game rifles here in the states and the only issue is finding the proprietary magazines for a good price. Magpul makes the only magazines currently available.
Our military should go after these rifles. To offset the cost, current M-4 and M-16 rifles could be sold to the American People for a small premium above the price the government paid for the original rifle. There are 100 million Americans who own guns. If just two or three percent of those wanted an M-16, the new rifles would be paid for before they were even issued...They [LWRC] made them from the demand of a foreign country wanting something similar to an AR15 in size and weight but slightly scaled-up and built around a cartridge and magazine that delivers more downrange lethality.
They wouldn't allow that though, even if they De-milled them and made them semi auto only again somehow. People just wouldn't stand for it. The liberals would have a fit. They would rather waste the money and scrap all of the metal than put another gun into a law abiding citizens hands. it would be nice and makes sense every which way but through the emotion of fear, it won't happen.Our military should go after these rifles. To offset the cost, current M-4 and M-16 rifles could be sold to the American People for a small premium above the price the government paid for the original rifle. There are 100 million Americans who own guns. If just two or three percent of those wanted an M-16, the new rifles would be paid for before they were even issued...
I think they have bigger with the SCAR 17 H and it's not all that heavy. I think the deal with the M4 is that it's light, dependable, and you can carry a lot of 5.56 rounds on you and still run. That makes it the best battle rifle and why you see the Navy Seals using them I think they even killed Osama with one.The reason the 5.56mm NATO round is so widely used is because the Congress never put forth the money to design and field a new weapon when the M-16 was found to be not what combat soldiers wanted or needed to kill the enemy. The M-16 entered the battlefield about 1964 or 1965. That is the very same period during which LBJ began spending umpteen billions on welfare. To LBJ, the votes of those on welfare in the States were more important than the lives of our young men in Vietnam. Now fifty-some years on, it's far too expensive to bring forth a new weapon that would have essentially zero parts interface with the M-16.
A better M-16 would have a bigger bullet, like a .243" or a .257" bullet; maybe even a .270" bullet. That would require a different lower receiver, a different bolt-carrier group and a different barrel. The government has multiple companies that manufacture these items. To retool would cost bazillions. We're $20 trillion in debt-- we don't have the money. I forgot: We'd have to come-up with a new case having a larger head so as to provide more powder space for the bigger bullet. More money...
Osama was supposedly killed with an H&K M416 which is actually a different type of proprietary system. It's based on the 5.56 cartridge but utilizes a short stroke piston system and a few other modifications. It shares almost no parts with an AR15, M4, or M16.I think they have bigger with the SCAR 17 H and it's not all that heavy. I think the deal with the M4 is that it's light, dependable, and you can carry a lot of 5.56 rounds on you and still run. That makes it the best battle rifle and why you see the Navy Seals using them I think they even killed Osama with one.
The SCAR17 is a nice rifle but has some minor things I personaly don't like about it and the thing with weight isn't really the rifle, it's the ammo. 7.62x51 weighs considerably more than a 5.56x45. But the 6.8x43 does not weigh much more than a 5.56x45. The 6.8x43 rifle also weighs only 1 or 2 more Ounces than a 5.56x45 rifle.
You can carry more 5.56x45 or 6.8x43 ammo than you could 7.62x51.
Here is the civilian legal version of the H&K 416 but it does actually share more parts with the M4/M16 platform than the real HK M416.
http://hk-usa.com/hk-models/mr556a1/
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Shooters Forum
A forum community dedicated to Sport shooters, owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hand casting bullets, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
