OT: What Handgun and Rifle combo would you pair up with your Khukuri?

Munk,

I like the .30 cal projectile too. The Hornady TAP round in 7.62 NATO is awesome! I have not tried the DSA OWS baby FAL yet for entries.

As far as dum-dums are concerned, terrorists don't fall under the Geneva Convention as combatants. I'll use whatever I can to neutralize a specific threat. :)
 
I've never owned a FN/fal, but I've fired that and the HK91. We've just about listed all the cult weapons, haven't we? The M1A balances right for me, and the round is desirable. The FN was too large and bulky, the HK well engineered but not the right fit.
I notice people are beginning to pay attention to the accuracy potential of the FN.

I think maybe a light bolt action rifle in .308 would be better than all these assault configurations. Why? Because in end of world scenerios the individual is already outgunned, particularly if there is some governmental or UN type force around...so you can't match firepower, but you can have accuracy without the extra weight of a semi auto.

The AR can shoot target hits at 500 yards and beyond, and area hits to 800 and beyond. That is with the standard military issue. Even an accurized AK could not reach that. It aint in the round.
 
61 posts with no real pics? its nice to tell but better to show...Big Gorkha Villager by Kumar and Sher (from Uncles post) and Kimber compact aluminum .45
sweet-236.jpg

Microtech Kestrel austomatic and custom by Joe Walters
 
1. Combat environment.

Hmmm. As a member of a squad or by myself? As a serious Army vet, I've got a lot of respect for the M16A2. If I was in a squad of US Army soldiers properly trained on that rifle, I would be content. If it is something more grab ass than that and I'm more an individual then 7.62 NATO sounds good to me. And that means FN FAL all the way. The M14 just doesn't do it for me. It's a bastard. If I have to have that design, I would rather go with history and have the Garand. The M14 was just an effort to modernize the Garand but that effort didn't go far enough to make it into a "modern rifle." (The box magazine is about the only change that mattered.) I love shooting a nice Match grade M1A1 at the range but I'm not convinced it is a better battle rifle than a FAL. And neither were the 80 countries who purchased or produced the FAL. (And I own a CETME as well and it can't compare either.)

Handgun: if in a squad with M16's, a Glock 17 in 9mm will suit me fine. A Browning HP would be the appropriate gun historically to use with the FAL but I'm one of the rare gun people who doesn't really bond with the BHP. I like them but I don't _love_ them! What would be perfect is a gun that doesn't exist. Like many others, I want Glock to make a single stack .45 with a full size slide. (Hopefully more narrow than the one on the Model 21. Sort of a big Model 36.) If they ever make such a gun, why not also make it in 10mm? And that would be my choice. I love the .41 Magnum and that would give it to me in a compact, flat autoloader that doesn't care how dirty it gets. (And there wouldn't be anything wrong with a basic 1911A1 either!)

2. Survival.

This is kind of two different things as well. Some people say "survival" and really mean living off the land because they are lost in the deep woods. But others say "survival" and mean SHTF scenarios. For the former, a Springfield Armory M6 in .22 LR and .410 would be great. You could hunt just about anything and have food. And it folds down into a compact package that can be part of your survival gear. (Yes, I have one.) For SHTF... hard to argue with an AK. I've got a SAR 2 that doesn't seem to care what you do to it; it just goes bang and chambers the next round. And I love that little Russian .22 round.

Handgun for the first scenario: I would like to try one of those S&W Ultralightweight versions of the Kit Gun. A .22 LR that weights 11 ounces is just what you need when you are lost. For SHTF, got to go Glock. And ammo needs to be as light as possible and available. That means 9mm to me. Sounds like the Glock 17.

3. Sailing.

I don't sail either. Are we trying to shoot sharks or defend against borders? Needs to be compact and rust proof. We will have our ammo right there and won't have other sources so you could use any caliber. Might want to engage at a distance and penetration of water or some hard materials would be a plus. OK, I'm going to cheat!! I'll take an AR-15 in the M4 configuration for close and dirty problems. And I'll have a spare upper receiver sitting in the case. It will be a Serbu bolt action in .50 BMG. Pull the .223 upper off the AR and slide on the .50 BMG. Now I can engage a hostile ship/boat out to at least a mile. And it will penetrate whatever it hits. Handgun: the Tennifer finish and general toughness mean the Glock wins again. How about the full size Model 20 in 10mm? That would give me a pistol with some decent range, good knockdown power, and excellent penetration. (And this is the one scenario that calls out for a shotgun. One of those new Chinese M97 Trench guns would suit me. Got to get one of those!)
 
On Bastards and Bullets:

For some reason, in certain circles amongst gunnies, there are those who must hate one weapon or cartridge while carressing another. We have 44 mag fans who detest the 41, AR fans who hate the AK, and visa versa. I've never understood that.

Amongst the HK91, the Galil, the Daewoo, FN/FAL, AR15 clan, and M14/1A there are no losers. Not one of these weapons I would be unhappy with if my life depended upon it. I would have personal preferences only. They are wonderful rifles. Hell, add the Garand to this list too. (edit, I see late last night I forgot the AK, well, it's on the list and proves more money does not a better rifle make)

The M14 was more than a box mag improvement over the Garand. It eliminated small moving parts, streamlined the action to one rod and a rotating bolt, had improved sights, gas cutoff and adjust. It weighed less, and less than the FN and HK firing the same Nato cartridge, itself an improvement over the Garand's 06 for military purposes in an automatic rifle. It held all the long range records until the improved and tricked out AR arrived only recently. Its accuracy is so well established that today the conversation is not on that but on hope the FN can be made to compete to that level. (and I happen to think it can.)

The M14 was expensive to produce. The FN was a superior manufacturing process. In a world where there are trillions of Big Macs sold, that does not make McDonalds the best burger. There are other reasons for weapon sales and production. Makers of the M14 couldn't fill the US contracts as expected, they sure as heck couldn't fill 80 nations more. The Isralis used the FN only briefly, wanting something better imediately.

The Marines still miss the M14, and those that used them in Nam remember its reliability. I am not saying the M14 better than the many fine rifles I've listed, but it is a bastard to none.


munk
 
I've been away today so just read this...

I referred to the M14 as "a bastard" not in the "expletative deleted" way but in the literal way. She was born of a rifle design of the 1930's. That design is wonderful but the world had changed a lot by the 1950's. And yet the Not Invented Here people wanted a US weapon. So they tried to "marry that old design to the new ideas." It was a "bastard offspring." That's the way the word is supposed to be used. It was neither fish nor fowl. It wasn't the old Garand anymore but it wasn't an up to date design either.

And that's without even getting into the whole disaster of the US forcing 7.62 NATO down NATO's throat when they would have been MUCH better off going with a short .30 (or less) like the Soviets or late war Germans with the STG44. One of the advantages of the M14 over the Garand was _supposed_ to be full automatic fire. That didn't work out. Not just with the M14 but the FAL and anything else. It was too much power and recoil for a standard size infantry rifle.

The FN FAL beat the M14 in the US Army weapons trials. The US Army was ready to adopt it. And then the US Ordanance people convinced Congress that the M14 was a better choice because the old Garand tooling could be used to make it. Then, after the decision was made, it turned out the tooling was worn out and too many things were different for it to work anyway!

The M1A1 is a fine rifle for civilian use. It is highly accurate although it needs regular work to maintain that accuracy. It is reliable. But the design was already way behind the curve by the 50's. The Soviets were arming the Warsaw Pact with AK's. Most of the Free World was going with the FAL. The CETME was in use and the G3 was on the way. Somehow the disaster of the early M16 days have obscured our own history with the M14. Congress was calling for investigations into why it was adopted and why it cost so much to make. It was becoming harder and harder to explain why the major Western power had adopted what was essentially a product improved 1930's design when everybody else was racing to improve their designs. But then the early M16's had their giant problems in the field and suddenly the M14 was the wonder weapon. Plus people in the civilian world were winning with them on the rifle ranges.

Just because something is still good today on the civilian rifle range doesn't mean it was the proper rifle and cartridge for the US Army to adopt as their main rifle in the 50's. They screwed up.

And it isn't right to say nobody adopted the M14 because we didn't want to sell it. Other countries said the design didn't meet the bare minimums of their trials and they weren't even tested. The countries that did test them discovered they got much better results with troops using FAL's or G3's. So those rifle sold all over the Free World while the M14 remained almost exclusivly an American weapon.

I love the M1A1 even today. I would love to have a top of the line Springfield Armory. I would shoot it often and enjoy it. But the US screwed up when they picked it in the 1950's!
 
IIRC, the SEAL teams use the M14 (depending on mission). Seems like a fairly strong endorsement to me.

In the end, the pros and cons of the AK, AR, M14, FAL, etc. are largely academic. Any one of them will kill you quite dead assuming the shooter knows how to shoot. Another $.02 worth. :D
 
I remember the hope the Garand tooling could be used. And that by the time the 14 was here, it was obsolete. Its main weakness is in the exposed action arm, though it is protected. How exactly it lost to the FN I would have to research. Army weapons trials are controversial and very political. Many feel the Berreta should not be our sidearm, but that we needed cruise missle bases in Italy. Your orginal post said nothing of this, only that it was a bastard, you didn't like it, it was no improvement except with the box magazine, and that you'd even prefer the Garand. You can understand why I wrote what I did. I am glad to see there was more behind your opinion, though you have yet to offer anything substanitive about why the design would not suit you in a combat situation. If anything, in the current desert situation, it should be superior in reliability to the AR, and have extended reach over large spaces. Your inference is that it is OK in civilian hands, but not in yours. Many combat veterans feel differently than you.

It's fine with me you wouldn't pick it, but it belongs in the above mentioned group. The Israli's found the FN to be robust, reliable, accurate, and unable to deliver quick fire with any accuracy. This is also true of the M14, I would add, but the 14 weighs less and is easier to carry.

I actually think the HK superior in being front heavy, though do not know how it made out in any trials. If the 14 is a bastard, then so is every weapon created, with the exception of certain John M Browning orginal patents, because they all build on what has gone before.

I am a student of the gun. In my approach to the aftermentioned weapons, I did not find it neccesary to refer derogatorally to any of them. That you did is your right, but seems cowboyish. I picked the M14 when I had my choice of all of them, because it fit me well, one of the single most important reasons to pick any firearm.

I am actually surprised no one but myself has mentioned the Daewoo. Many weapons experts believe it was among if not the best design, when they're not slobbering over the Galil, another no-show here.

If you want to return to what I love, a free exchange of joyful data about ballistics and weapons, that would be great.

I think the FN is a wonderful machine, btw. Just didn't fit me as well. But it is solid. It generates confidence. Why do you like your FN better than the Cetme?

Tusamal, have you ever noticed one of the chief complaints of the Garand was the weight? Yet nearly all the wonder weapons designed to replace it weigh the same, more, or only slightly less.


EDIT; I said there was no way we could have supplied 80 nations with the M14. I also wonder how much the 14 cost then compared to the FN, a metal machine that countries eventually were able to manufacture. Cost is a hell of a reason not to go to trial, especially if you'd never be licensed or capable of making your own.

munk
 
Munk,

Got to love a reasoned post! I think we would get along in real life and probably be talking about guns long after just about everybody else had wandered off.

though you have yet to offer anything substanitive about why the design would not suit you in a combat situation. If anything, in the current desert situation, it should be superior in reliability to the AR, and have extended reach over large spaces. Your inference is that it is OK in civilian hands, but not in yours. Many combat veterans feel differently than you.
Click to expand...

I could live with an M14 for just myself although I prefer the FAL. I appreciate being able to "shotgun" the FAL open, slide out the bolt carrier, and quickly clean the barrel from the chamber end. I like the fact that the FAL in that shotgunned condition doesn't have any small parts to misplace or drop in the sand. The lower stays in place, the springs all stay in their operating position. But my dislike/distrust of the M14 for the US Army goes beyond me. I'm not a "normal draftee." I have a huge amount of experience shooting and teaching others to shoot when I was a Drill Sergeant in the US Army. I had enough trouble teaching non-shooters how to qualify with the M16. It scares me to think of the smaller framed men and women with no shoooting experience trying to use the M14. I see it as more of a specialist's gun. If you need that extra little bit of accuracy, it will do it.

How exactly it lost to the FN I would have to research. Army weapons trials are controversial and very political.
Click to expand...

The FAL came out on top because it was more reliable. Hard and fast numbers. But you are right, the trials were political. But the politics was all about keeping a US made weapon and against buying a "foreign design." In a totally unbiased test conducted by space aliens, the FAL would have won.

I actually think the HK superior in being front heavy, though do not know how it made out in any trials. If the 14 is a bastard, then so is every weapon created, with the exception of certain John M Browning orginal patents, because they all build on what has gone before.
Click to expand...

The CETME was certainly orginal. And the German design finally came home and became the G3. The original AK-47 was seriously original. You can say the Russians learned about that type of gun from fighting against Germans with STG44's but the AK is a different design. The FAL is based on the tilting block ideas that were used in the FN49. That design was actually nearly complete until the Nazis invaded Belgium and it was hidden away. The FN49 is certainly "the father" of the FAL but that design is "newer" than the Garand. And then there is the MAS 49/56! What a sweetie! And they even used a lower power round that 7.62 NATO so it is even easier to shoot. I love mine and every time I look at it I wonder what French genius was so far ahead of his time that he came up with the direct gas system that the M16 would eventually use. And speaking of "revolutionary" instead of "evolutionary," what about the M16? It was an orginal idea just about everywhere. Nobody else was using a rifle like that!

I think the FN is a wonderful machine, btw. Just didn't fit me as well. But it is solid. It generates confidence. Why do you like your FN better than the Cetme?
Click to expand...

I really hate the disassembly of the CETME/G3. It bugs me to have to get out a hammer and a punch to drive out the two pins to get things started. And I know, you are supposed to be able to use a loaded round but what do you hit it with? That is a live primer. And you might drive the bullet partly into the case. The number one thing I don't like is how dirty it gets. The whole inside gets filthy. I agree the rifle doesn't seem like it cares but I don't like owning a rifle that never seems to really be clean! All that folded sheet metal from top to bottom gets dirty. Reliability can't be beat. Accuracy is good enough but is affected by the worst trigger of any of the mentioned rifles. I know it can be slicked up but we are talking about the rifles the soldiers actually received and used. And what Spanish/German genius thought up the selector lever on the CETME? (They fixed this on the G3/HK91/93, etc.) Who makes a thumb selector for the right hand and then makes it move "UP" for Fire?! The result is you can't easily make the rifle ready to fire without moving your firing hand. I usually just use my left hand to thumb it off. (I'm not thrilled with the sight adjustments either.)

Tusamal, have you ever noticed one of the chief complaints of the Garand was the weight? Yet nearly all the wonder weapons designed to replace it weigh the same, more, or only slightly less.
Click to expand...

First, I agree. The Garand is too darn heavy. How those grunts drug them all over Europe, I'll never know! Just carrying it for two or three hours around my 90 acres makes me long for my AR-15!

I think your point about successor weapons happened for two reasons:

1) We only reduced the velocity of the .30 bullet by 150 fps when we went from 30/06 to 7.62 NATO. We ignored all the experts who said we were picking a cartridge that was too powerful. If you use that big a round, you get recoil. If you have excessive recoil you have to make heavier parts both for durability and operator useability. If we had picked a short 7mm, we could have had lighter rifles.

2) All the successor weapons had full automatic fire. It turned out to be useless with all the 7.62 NATO weapons but that's what everybody wanted. In a effort to have that feature and make it usable, the designers made heavier rifles. But unless they went all the way up to 12-14 pounds, it still wasn't enough. And if you get that heavy you are basically making a squad support weapon (like the heavy barrel FAL with heavy bipod).

The AK-47 used a smaller round with less recoil and avoided this problem. The French used the 7.5 French round and didn't add full auto (to the MAS 49/56) so it was a lighter weapon as well. It is a handy little rifle. Short and light. I can see why the Vietnamese liked them. (And couldn't use the M14 at all.)
 
I started to research the M14, typed in M14, and came to this site, firearms_e@guns.ru -if I've typed that right here. What this site said, was that both the FN and the M14 scored EQUALLY high in the US trials, (caps Mine) but that the M14 was picked because it was American and looked American. If you think of the progression from the 'O3 this makes sense. The site also said the weapon was obsolete before completion. I agree this is just one site- one opinion.
Frankly, Back in those days we'd have never picked a foriegn weapon. MHO, and from what I've read of the US Army, can easily believe buying using the Garand's old dies.

The AK also borrowed from the SKS, largely ignored by historians, i don't know why. He rotated the bolt. Brilliant. Even the History Channel left out the SKS in Tales of the Gun.

I could be wrong about this, but don't think the military dropped the velocity of the 30.06 down 150 fps to the .308; I think you've confused the original speed of the military O6. (or I have) The .308 matched what they were using. The military adjusted the O6 speed at some point, probably for the Garand. I could go look up and see what CE Harris had to say.

anecdotal story, San Bernardino Sheriffs Dept: The military came out for a weapons seminar for Sheriffs officers. One man grabbed the M14, ignoring the cries from the Field Officers to start with something smaller. "Let me alone," He said, "I used to use this in Nam."
"At least don't fire it full auto!" An Instructor yelled. The officer looked with contempt at the instructor, shouldered the weapon, and sprayed a magazine towards the horizon, perferating the water tower to the nearby jail with bullets. Oops. A very sheepish sheriff put down the rifle.

I don't like the idea of being stuck with an intermediate range round. It makes sense for the Chinese when they can field 10 mil soldiers. Seems like a 6mm would have been good.

I almost bought a MAS but was talked out of it. A sweetie? From the French? I wish I had now. I've heard the story of FN hiding the 49 from the Germans. Decades after Browning's death workers still referred to him as the Master.

I managed a gun store for awhile, working my way up from counter and becoming a reloading nut. Firearms changed my life and my politics. I really am a student of the gun. I love learning about them. When I think I know too much I call one of my friends up who can recite every make and model for a hundred years.

munk
 
I see my link didn't work. I'm not good with computers. Just found out- don't use that link or write back, unless you wish to subscribe to their on line military weapon encyclopedia.

munk
 
Just remember that the 7.62x51 NATO version of the FN50 series was itself a bastardized form of the original, which was developed to fire an intermediate caliber, until we forced NATO to use the shortened 30-06 ( 308 in commercial form ) .

The FN49 was meanwhile made in 30-06, 7x57, and others including the 8mm mauser. But like the Garand it was a 30's and 40's era design that like the M14 was obsolete before it was ever made. The Thompson was another obsolescent design. Maybe the above were over the hill before they were made, but I for one consider them to be the high water marks of machining, craftsmanship, and beauty.

The FN-LAR and M14, may be the exception, but should probably count with the Cetme's, H&K's, AK's, AR's etc. as a different generation, and are for me difficult to love.
 
Munk,

I was going to try to answer those points one at a time but in reality I don't think we are far apart. I would like to suggest a book to you though. "The Great Rifle Controversy," by the master, Edward Clinton Ezell. The book covers the history of the M1, the various programs and tests that led to the M14, and then all the programs that led to the M16. Then all the problems the M16 had, why, and how they were fixed. It is a truly outstanding and authoritative book. And it is a good read! I just sat here paging through 75 pages of material and it was dragging me inside!

It is one of my all time favorite "gun history" books.

Rusty, I know what you mean. I mainly collect WWI and WWII military rifles. They have a lot more "soul" than something like an H&K 93. Or the Steyr AUG I once owned. I really love the design of the Garand. It is one of my all time favorites. Beautiful sights, great trigger, interesting clip design. I find I do like my Austrian FAL (STG58) a lot. It is so ergonomic and sort of graceful in appearance compared to an AK or M60. Maybe I just feel that way because I helped build it but I seem to like most FAL's if they aren't straight Century models. And the ones with wood stocks are even nicer even if it isn't as practical.

The one "real modern rifle" that I have special feelings for is the AR15/M16. And that may just be because I carried one all over the Pacific Basin (25th ID). It was my constant companion for quite a few miserable outdoor experiences. It just "feels right" in my hands. No matter how high the stress level, I have 100% confidence that I will operate it flawlessly. But I guess it is true that those feelings are just toward the design in general and not toward any one particular example. One Bushmaster is pretty much like another. Or Rock River Arms (my usual). They don't have the individual personalities that I feel in WWII and earlier guns.

I never feel "lightly armed" when I have an AR in my hands. Even if it is "only a .22!"
 
high water marks of machining, craftsmanship, and beauty.
Click to expand...

= SVT 40 :D

i figure the reason why Galils and Daewoos are "forgotten" is because folks just dont see'em all that much here in the US.. or atleast i havent.. i like to talk about things i know :)
 
Is that the one Empire Arms was asking $300+ for just the magazine to?

Far as favorites go, I'm easy. Mine's the FN49 cause mine's in 7x57 and doesn't kick much. You're entitled to your opinion. Like the song says "it's a difference of opinion that makes horse races,".
 
ya, original mags for SVT 40s are awful pricey.. like $100+ each
but you can get repos for around $50 which still anit all that great a price for a mag... but the action is open so you can load with stripper clips if you want :)

all in all SVTs sure anit the cheapist rifles around.. or the most robust for that matter either.. but they sure are Purdy! :D
 
Plinker, I wondered where the hell you were. what should be my next surplus purchase, the swiss model 31, the spanish .308 carbine, or the lovely persian mauser? - now that Kismet and tulsamal and others have sparked my disease.

For me, the M1A is the last version of elegance, and it points, holds, and shoots well. I'm not ready to put it next to the toilet with a roll of tissue around the barrel as a dispenser. just kidding.

The funny thing about Garands is every time I refinish one and sell it I miss it. I've had four.


munk
 
Tulsamal;

more about that site; apparently it is online text of Max Popenker's Modern Firearms Assault Rifles. I've written him asking about the original US trials.

I am not familiar with this writer. My hero is Ian Hogg.



munk
 
I thought you were the 98 plinker?

Sold a few, never owned a single 303


munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top