Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So you want to buy an AR-15, huh?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I feel compelled to re-state an earlier point. In response to FormerNOPD's assessment that I "made his point," and that I "contradicted myself," I want to clarify the issue. It has most likely become muddled.

    A 9mm full-length rifle with mere Semi-Auto capability, is NOT an acceptable alternative to a 5.56NATO caliber rifle for taking out threats. It is the same weight, same length, and same size as the 5.56 version, but does NOT disable a threat nearly as well as 5.56. Although the bullets do cost less, that is not one of the criterion I look at when choosing a combat arm.

    A sub-machinegun chambered in 9mm, however, WOULD be an acceptable firearm for taking into harm's way. HOWEVER, it is a NICHE gun, and NOT a suitable alternative to a rifle for general patrol use. I further stated a short-barreled 9mm rifle with a suppressor would ALSO be an acceptable firearm for taking into harm's way, as it ALSO fills a niche that a rifle cannot. HOWEVER, just as the SMG, it is not a suitable alternative to a rifle.

    I stated the following in response to the comment by FormerNOPD that adding a suppressor to a 9mm SBR would be "Dynomite":

    Originally posted by jwise
    I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY agree. A short-barreld 9mm upper with a suppressor is a FANTASTIC weapon, as it gives the user a significant tactical advantage.

    I personally would like a 9mm upper [in SBR configuration], as it would be cheaper to shoot, still produces SOME recoil (which, let's face it, that's what makes it fun!), and is still an acceptable self-defense round, especially out of a longer barrel. [longer than a pistol barrel]

    I just have a REALLY hard time justifying such an expense, as it does NOT give me any benefit over what I've already got.

    Is it fun? Yeah! Do you HAVE to justify a firearm purchase as a "tactical weapon", No! It's legal, it's fun, so if you want one, get it! Variety is the spice of life.
    And I will end with this reminder:

    Originally posted by jwise
    But this is a buyer's guide, and I don't intend to advise ANYONE to buy a pistol caliber rifle in lieu of the "real thing."
    J. Wise

    AR-15 - AK-47 - NFA Trusts - My Pick - Carry Guns - 1911s

    "Some say you can tell how the world stands by the prices of AK-47s...." Chit2001

    Any comments contained herein regarding the legality of firearms, or the application of law, are strictly applicable to Texas. If you live in CA, NY, IL, MA, D.C., etc., the above comments will probably shock you, and should be read for educational purposes only. Most likely nothing I write will apply to you.

    sigpic

    Comment


    • Originally posted by js308 View Post
      I'm a little confused about the gas systems. I plan on getting the LMT Monolithic Rail Platform. There are 2 gas systems offered. Carbine and Rifle but both offer muliple barrel sizes from 10.5 inches to 18 inches. I thought carbine gas systems were for short barrels. If I plan on running a 14.5 or 16 inch barrel, which Monolithic Platform would be best between the carbine and rifle? Is there an advantage having the rifle over the carbine?

      Here is a link to the LMT page I was looking at:
      http://www.lewismachine.net/store.php?cid=8

      Thanks for the help!!!!
      Sorry, it looks like your post got ignored there for a bit.

      You are comparing two MRPs, one with a longer "forearm" than the other. The gas system on the MRP is actually an integrated part of the barrel. Each barrel you buy comes with its own gas tube. That is how they are able to make them "quick change."

      Since the gas tubes (gas systems) are individual to the barrels, they could ALL be carbine length, and would ALL fit under even the short forearm of the MRP CQB.

      Does this make sense?
      J. Wise

      AR-15 - AK-47 - NFA Trusts - My Pick - Carry Guns - 1911s

      "Some say you can tell how the world stands by the prices of AK-47s...." Chit2001

      Any comments contained herein regarding the legality of firearms, or the application of law, are strictly applicable to Texas. If you live in CA, NY, IL, MA, D.C., etc., the above comments will probably shock you, and should be read for educational purposes only. Most likely nothing I write will apply to you.

      sigpic

      Comment


      • Yeah that makes sense. When changing the barrel each barrel comes with it's own gas tube. So basically the two MRP sizes (carbine and rifle) are just to different length rails, right? Do you like this system? Which would you choose?


        Thanks for your answering all my questions, ive learned quite a bit!
        Last edited by js308; 02-24-2008, 05:40 PM.

        Comment


        • The longer forearm will allow you to mount the front sight further out, which will give you a longer sight radius (inherently more accurate.)

          However, it comes with a price, and that is weight (and about $200 if I remember correctly.)
          J. Wise

          AR-15 - AK-47 - NFA Trusts - My Pick - Carry Guns - 1911s

          "Some say you can tell how the world stands by the prices of AK-47s...." Chit2001

          Any comments contained herein regarding the legality of firearms, or the application of law, are strictly applicable to Texas. If you live in CA, NY, IL, MA, D.C., etc., the above comments will probably shock you, and should be read for educational purposes only. Most likely nothing I write will apply to you.

          sigpic

          Comment


          • Awesome post. I'll probably be sending you a PM shortly.
            Complete write up of the process with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) - http://forums.officer.com/t187923/

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GLOCKMASTER View Post
              I don't know what guides your opinion or knowledge, but pistol caliber carbines tend to have more penetration than carbines chambered in .223. Heck even most LE duty pistol ammo fired out of the service pistol has more penetration that a .223 carbine.This sounds like some answer I would expect from some misinformed police administrator.

              Post your source then. I've yet to see any pistol caliber carbine out penetrate a .223 round.

              A 55gr FMJ will penetrate 1/2" of a piece of railroad track out of a 16" barrel at 100 yards. A 9mm 115gr FMJ will barely do half that out of the same length barrel at the same distance. Also the rounds for 9mm normally carried on patrol are HPs, not FMJs. I fail to see your reasoning here.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by justhomp View Post
                Then why aren't they using the 9mm carbine??

                I understand what you're trying to do, but there's a reason why the 9mm carbine is in a 'niche' and not the mainstream.

                Personally I would never use a 9mm carbine for anything but training.
                There are some departments out there that will not allow the .223 carbine, nor will they splurge for a Post Sample full auto SMG in 9mm. Their only option for a patrol carbine in many instances is the pistol caliber carbine. That is part of the reason why ruger built the PC9 and 40.

                I understand your personal preference, that's your perogative.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by krinkbusta View Post
                  I understand special units use various SMG's in 9mm (like the MP5) for certian missions and I understand that a given patrol officer may have been given approval to carry a 9mm or .40 caliber carbine (like the Storm). What I want to know is who/what units are being issued a 9mm CARBINE?

                  Not trying to stir the pot I am just curious who is using them and what mods they are using.
                  I think a lot of it is up to individual officers who don't have the ability to get a .223 due to regulations. One of the SO's I worked for in NM was this way.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jwise View Post
                    FormerNOPD- I like you, and I was NOT trying to **** you off. I'm sorry if my post sounded "big shot," to you.

                    You stated I contradicted myself, and I might have in your perspective. What I was ATTEMPTING to communicate, is that while I LIKE 9mm rifles, and even WANT a 9mm rifle, I can't come up with ANY tactical reason to have one, as a 5.56 augmented with a 22lr kit serves both roles for less (service and training.)

                    It is difficult to be precise, when in CERTAIN configurations, it is a good choice (SMG), but not in other configs (full length, SA rifle.)

                    If you want one, cool. If you want to carry one on duty, fine. If you want to equip every officer in your department with one, go for it. But it IS NOT an "acceptable" alternative to a 5.56 rifle for general patrol. This is of course "your" opinion, and I disagree based off my experiances with 9mm SMGs, Carbines and M4/M16 series weapons in 5.56mm.

                    My department allows us to carry any pistol we want for duty, as long as it is approved by our Range Officer, and we can carry ANY backup we want as well. While we have officers who carry good duty weapons, and good backups, we also have officers who carry NO backups, or only "mouse guns" as backups. FINE. Their call, their life. But that doesn't mean I would ADVISE someone to carry either none, or an itty bitty mouse gun. I advise each officer to carry a subcompact Glock in the same caliber as their duty Glock. That's it. That's my recommendation. I don't recommend revolvers and I don't recommend 1911s (they both are "low-capacity.") Are you the firearms expert for your PD? I would advise any officer to carry what they are most comfortable with, can qualify and shoot the best with and add in that they use good quality ammo regardless of type of weapon. To simply write off revolvers or 1911s because they are "low capacity" is ignorant in my opinion.

                    This is my buyer's guide, and I don't feel the need to change my opinion. I'm not asking you to, just adding in that your opinion is not completely agreed with by me. It's not a personal attack, as I know you are a very intellegent fellow and you have taken the time to write a very informative and lengthly guide. I just don't agree with all your points.


                    Sure I like 1911s, Sig 220s, Kahrs, and wheelguns, but I don't believe they offer the same benefits as a pair of Glocks. I prefer glocks myself, but the type/brand of gun is less important than the person's ability to perform with said weapon.

                    I don't think one would be "stupid" to carry a 9mm AR on duty. I just think it would be ill-advised. You are giving up much, for little [no] benefit. Some officers don't have the choice. I don't see it as giving up much since most shootings occur at such a short distance. And if you are shooting at a vehicle, do some shooting at one with both .223 and 9mm and I think you may be a bit surprised on how well the 9 will perform against the .223.

                    In addition, if you choose to carry a 9mm rifle, you should be aware of its limitations. This applies as well to the .223. Any weapon for that matter - pretty much common sense.

                    When my department started issuing rifles, they put the SWAT team members with individually assigned MP5s in the back of the line. They had to wait a while before enough rifles were available to get theirs. The ones who knew the difference were upset, because they rightfully knew that an MP5 is NO substitute for a rifle. Some don't care, and they have enough trigger time on an MP5 that they are more comfortable with it, and deploy it instead of the rifle to this day. Fine. I don't care. But they should not be SADDLED with only the 9mm, and denied the more effective tool. Yes, this is a choice for the departments to decide as well as the individual officers. Personally I'd choose the MP5 anyday over an M4 for SWAT/SOD type operations, it's more efficient.

                    I would never SUGGEST a pistol caliber rifle to a new officer, and would think it irresponsible to do so. Depends on the varibles affecting that new officer. Where does he work? Wide open west texas? NY City? Terrain/geography can play into what weapon/ammo type will be most effective and will cause the least amount of collateral damage.

                    And for what it's worth, I would love to have a .308, or even a 6.8, but my department won't allow it. So I load my 5.56 with the best ammo possible, and carry on. I would not suggest you do anything less. I worked hard to try to get my old department to let me carry the FAL in .308 for a patrol rifle. Some of the areas I patrolled by myself were 1 hour away in the mountains from back up with wide open spaces.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jwise View Post
                      If it's not better, and is only a niche tool, why would you recommend one? Cheaper ammo? I spend $1/round on my duty ammo, because it is better than the $.50 stuff. I don't mind the cost, if there is a benefit. I believe there is.

                      One of my favorite quotes is this, "if you are armed with a handgun [pistol caliber firearm], you are armed with an inherently weak weapon."

                      If you don't know about the hydrostatic effect of rifles, then read up. I am completely aware of hydrostatic effects of ammo. I also am aware of penetration issues of rifle rounds versus pistol rounds, as well as bullet design that affects terminal ballistics. I have read up on it. It's been part of my job for the last 20 years.



                      I didnt MISS the point, I DISmissed it. 9mm isn't BETTER than 5.56, and I have no desire to carry "adequate" arms. I want the best. That's why I went out and bought a .45acp to carry on duty, instead of carrying the issued pistol. Sure you missed the point. You compare .22 to 9mm, no one would use a .22 as a patrol carbine, however some DO use the 9mm. Simple concept.



                      So if I've never shot one, I must be completely ignorant about them, eh? No. I did my homework, which I believe is evident. But you have not shot one or owned one? How can you make an unbiased assumption without having used/tested the two? That's very unscientific, and a disservice to those who will make a purchase decision based off of your knowledge (or lack therof in this case).



                      Again, I did my homework. I don't use hobby-guns as fighting arms. Sorry.
                      Hobby guns? LOL. Ok, I guess if it does not meet your paticular brand needs it must be a hobby gun...lol. Olympic as around long before any of the other brands other than Colt and have produced good products for many years. I know a number of patrolmen on the west coast that were armed with Oly arms carbines for a number of years long before the high speed newbies showed up on scene. Here again, you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of their product or it's history.



                      At that particular point in my post, I was discussing the merits of using them as training tools. I believe I made the distinction elsewhere. You need to be more specific and take the time to gain the knowledge, not just peruse arfcom and take what is said there as the gospel. Again, this is my opinion.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by jwise View Post
                        I feel compelled to re-state an earlier point. In response to FormerNOPD's assessment that I "made his point," and that I "contradicted myself," I want to clarify the issue. It has most likely become muddled.

                        A 9mm full-length rifle with mere Semi-Auto capability, is NOT an acceptable alternative to a 5.56NATO caliber rifle for taking out threats. Terminal ballistics from shootings seem to contradict this point.


                        It is the same weight, same length, and same size as the 5.56 version, but does NOT disable a threat nearly as well as 5.56. Depends on the range, size and shot placement of the shooter on the target. A very generalised comment at best. Shot placement is the MOST critical function of a shooter, not the size of the round he's shooting.


                        Although the bullets do cost less, that is not one of the criterion I look at when choosing a combat arm. Are you going into combat? Heck, last time I checked most police officers are enforcing the law. The carbine is just an extension of firepower to provide a bit more range and firepower than the duty sidearm. You can accomplish this with either weapon - M4 or 9mm carbine.

                        A sub-machinegun chambered in 9mm, however, WOULD be an acceptable firearm for taking into harm's way. Other than firing fully auto, what's the differance? A 9mm carbine can be SBR'd if you don't want the length of the M4 and it will weigh less, carry more ammo and store easier than the M4. Taking a M4 down to a 10" barrel defeats the purpose ballistically of the .223.

                        HOWEVER, it is a NICHE gun, and NOT a suitable alternative to a rifle for general patrol use. I along with many PDs out there disagree.


                        I further stated a short-barreled 9mm rifle with a suppressor would ALSO be an acceptable firearm for taking into harm's way, as it ALSO fills a niche that a rifle cannot. HOWEVER, just as the SMG, it is not a suitable alternative to a rifle. Why?

                        I stated the following in response to the comment by FormerNOPD that adding a suppressor to a 9mm SBR would be "Dynomite":



                        And I will end with this reminder:

                        This is jwise's buying guide, and take it with a grain of salt, he has not done all his homework. Get out there and get other opinions as well.

                        Comment


                        • I will weigh in here, but as always....opinions are like ******

                          A 9mm Patrol Carbine is better than a handgun. That is about all it's better than.

                          A .223 patrol rifle has BOTH greater penetration and less depending on what you feed it. I have yet to see a 9mm with more penetration than M855 ball. Just about any acceptable load for the .223 will defeat all soft body armor. There aren't too many 9mm loads that will reliably do so even out of a 16" barrel.

                          A 9mm SMG may have some application for a tactical team. In suppressed form they are excellent clandestine operations weapons. IMHO they are a very poor choice for a street officer.

                          Most of the reluctance to adopt a rifle caliber patrol carbine comes from administrators who fear their officers judgment or do not want to spend the money to properly train them.

                          I can think of many times when I would have rather had my rifle than my handgun. I can't think of a single time when I thought I would rather be armed with pistol caliber carbine. There is simply nothing to gain from it. I would lose range, accuracy and the ability to engage hardened targets.

                          I have not read through all 6 pages of this topic. I keep telling myself I will at some point, so I will refrain from commenting on brand recommendations and soforth for fear of simply restating what jwise has already posted.

                          One of these days I am going to get a weapons specific website up so I can simply post links to answers for all of these topics.
                          "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
                          8541tactical.com - Ammo Wallets

                          Comment


                          • This is jwise's buying guide, and take it with a grain of salt, he has not done all his homework. Get out there and get other opinions as well.
                            I'm thinking instead of the off-target arguing, you should maybe start your own thread on the subject. As you said, this is Jwise's buying guide, not the pistol caliber carbine buying guide. Just saying.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ThursCo View Post
                              I'm thinking instead of the off-target arguing, you should maybe start your own thread on the subject. As you said, this is Jwise's buying guide, not the pistol caliber carbine buying guide. Just saying.
                              It's not off target, go back and read the comments and decide for yourself. Also it's a disagreement, not an arguement. I could start another thread, but it would not be as beneficial, as the points in contention here are on this thread and they would not recieve exposure on another separate thread. I'm not bashing Jwise, he's an outstanding guy, I am simply pointing out a few misconceptions here about the 9mm rifle/carbine.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Blackdog F4i View Post
                                I will weigh in here, but as always....opinions are like ******

                                A 9mm Patrol Carbine is better than a handgun. That is about all it's better than.

                                A .223 patrol rifle has BOTH greater penetration and less depending on what you feed it. I have yet to see a 9mm with more penetration than M855 ball. Just about any acceptable load for the .223 will defeat all soft body armor. There aren't too many 9mm loads that will reliably do so even out of a 16" barrel. I agree completely.

                                A 9mm SMG may have some application for a tactical team. In suppressed form they are excellent clandestine operations weapons. IMHO they are a very poor choice for a street officer. Compared to what? You have to qualify the statement first. I am not saying they are better than a .223, yet I would never dismiss them all the way around.

                                Most of the reluctance to adopt a rifle caliber patrol carbine comes from administrators who fear their officers judgment or do not want to spend the money to properly train them. This may be partially true, it could also stem from cost factors as well. Less expensive ammo means more training time on the range. For some departments this is a consideration.

                                I can think of many times when I would have rather had my rifle than my handgun. I can't think of a single time when I thought I would rather be armed with pistol caliber carbine. What if you're not allowed to have a .223 caliber weapon? Would you rather have a carbine in the same caliber as your sidearm with better ballistics and superior range to your handgun or just stick it out with a pistol?


                                There is simply nothing to gain from it. I would lose range, accuracy and the ability to engage hardened targets. Um, NO, you would not. You can engage a hardened target still, you just have to be a good shot and take the head shot. Out of a 9mm carbine, you could easily do it under stress. With a pistol that shot would be much harder. You would only lose range if you're comparing it to a M4 and like I said earlier, most engagements occur at short ranges, so range really is not that much of a factor.

                                I have not read through all 6 pages of this topic. I keep telling myself I will at some point, so I will refrain from commenting on brand recommendations and soforth for fear of simply restating what jwise has already posted. You should read it all. I did, and like I said, overall it's pretty good. I had a few comments, and in particular my only disagreements were over the dismissal of the 9mm carbine, the "proper staking methods of a gas key" and the brand recommendations or dismissal altogether of particular brands.

                                One of these days I am going to get a weapons specific website up so I can simply post links to answers for all of these topics. There already are such websites abound. www.falfiles.com, www.arfiles.com, www.ar15.com... the list goes on and on. Frankly speaking many of these websites have far better information than O.com does concerning weapons. Most of the information I have seen here has not been nearly as accurate or as informative. Not to say that people here don't know what they're talking about or anything, as many here are well informed. It just seems to me that many of the topics are very basic firearms information wise.

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 10997 users online. 432 members and 10565 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X