Printable View
Leroy, the TTR is a piston gun like your Sig 556, but based on an AR type lower receiver. It stays clean and cool in the action. It has had raving reviews, but I have not talked to anyone who has shot or owned one firsthand. It also has a burly folding and collapsable stock since there is no buffer tube in the stock. I was going to get a Sig until I read about the Para TTR.
I did some checking. The SCAR is too pricey for me. The Bushmaster is in the similar price range I was thinking about. I will do some research on them. I also read that the TTR is NOT a piston type gun and gases still go into the receiver. Thanks for the other options
Yea, that looks like a nice AR.
I am curious to look at the internals. The DI system isnt the only flaw reliability wise with ARs, the standard AR has a sort of delicate bolt, small bolt lugs, small ejecter, lots of tight tolerances and small spaces around the bolt and chamber for crap to build up in. Things like the 556 of FAL have big simple bolt lugs, oversized ejectors, and lots of room for the crap to get pushed out of the way. The firing of a round and cycling of the action on these guns will actually clean up the crap in the reciever and push it out of the way.
I know its not a 223, but check out this shit http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showt...threadid=68486, over 15k rounds and the only cleaning is tossing it in a mud puddle.
So yea, I'd be curious to how they've redesigned things. Looks nice though, still has the huge gap between bore axis and sight axis, which is a little bad for cheek weld, but also increases the amount your zero will change with distance, especially up close.
The SCAR is way overpriced for kool aid. Most of that cost is from RnD for things the military wanted that civilians will never want or get their hands on. Modularity, interchangable barells, etc.
Someone told me they got a 556 for $1100 recently. That's a damn good deal.
Like I said though, there are LOTS of good 223s out there. Have you given any thought to a Daewoo? Gas piston, folding stock, actually pretty similar to that Para, takes AR mags too, they go for around $900 these days. Parts availiability might be an issue someday.
TNken
What and where do you recommend an m-1 carbine?
I will shoot it, but i want an original for values sake.
Those damned things have gone through the roof. Winchester "potbelly" if you can find one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
Search around pawn shops and gunshows. Read up then bring about $1,000 for a nice one.
www.gunbroker.com and www.gunsamerica.com
Another option is to go to the Civilian Marksmanship Program sales area. You have to find a gun club that is a participating member and will allow you to purchase.
http://www.thecmp.org/m1carbine.htm
On the auction site they have paratrooper models which are in a little better condition.
http://auction.odcmp.com/auctions/index.asp
These are "rack grade" which is explained. Unfortunately usually a mis-matched bunch of parts on the receiver.
AVOID the new Plainfield guns, as well as the new AutoOrdnance ones.
After finding out the Para TTR is a modified DI action, I read about the Bushmaster ACR enhanced rifle. There is a rumor that Bushmaster/Remington might offer a gun with an aluminum lower as opposed to the current polymer on. I am going to do a lot of research before I spend a bunch of money
Adiós Jer bear,
Censorship sucks
Keep saving the Critterz
No mas Jer?
Nope - still here.
Pipe-down young-un you're still in the dog house
Army Times article says they are enhancing more M14s for Afghaninstan and Iraq. The new M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) comes with loads of upgrades but weighs in at just under 15lbs and cost $3000 to build. The Army is taking old M14s out of moth balls and dumping $3000 into them? Fuck me, I just don't get it. I completely agree with the need for a SDMs to carry a 7.62 semi-auto but $3K poured into a 60 year old weapon system? wtf? I'm pretty sure they could get 7.62 ARs for about the same price and they would be lighter and far easier to clean. Go Army!
/end blog
They're really that heavy? My Ar-10 weighs about that much, but it's got a 24" bull barrel, big-ass scope and tripod. If I had to hump that bastard around day in and day out I'd at least lose the scope and cut the barrel down to 18". I wasn't keeping track, but I think it probably cost me about $2,700 to build it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loon
EBR specs according to the Army Times:
Weight unloaded: 14.9lbs
standard M14 barrel, receiver and trigger assembly
Sage International aluminum stock (collapsable with adjustable cheek pad, really slick, makes it easy to aquire the same sight picture every time in quick reaction situations, I think those things retail for $3k alone)
Leopold 3.5x10 scope
Harris bipod
not the EBR but pretty close
http://www.solucionesextreme.com/cat...ges/M14ebr.jpg
We do need a heavy hitter for the 300-800 meter range, but for $3k and 15lbs. There's gotta be a better way.
Bye the way Jer, welcome back
ok, lets break that down,Quote:
Originally Posted by Loon
Scope is probably at least $1500, remember they need absolutely accurate repeatable adjustments, and they need the optic to be very very durable, lotsa people wonder why their $300 hunting scope isnt good enough, well toss it out the 2nd story window a few times and see if it still holds zero. I think I remember seeing m14s with nightforce scopes worth around 2k retail.
The sight base and rings to mount the scope are also probably both very high dollar for what they are because accuracy and durability only come together at a very high price. Probably at least $300 army cost for the combo.
Thats a fancy ass stock, I think they sell retail for a bit under a grand, army price is probably at least $500.
Throw in a few mags, a sling, the mount and rings for the scope, and yea, 3k.
That really isnt shit. Standard issue M4s are sometimes issued with the IR illuminators that cost like 3k alone, not to mention the night vision to go with them. We have like 6000 M1 tanks just sitting in storage. The cost for new rifles is a drop in the bucket.
If your question was why spend all that on old guns, well, they work just fine. Clinton had a bunch destroyed under his watch, wish he hadnt done that now.
my main point is that the M14 is an old weapon system and there is better technology out there for the money, why are we dusting off old stuff when we could be issuing newer faster lighter stuff. I do believe the Army is already planning on contracting with Knight for their 7.62 ARs in the future anyways, but that maybe just a bs rumor I heard.
I think it is awesome that the old war horses are getting a second life. The scoped m14's should work just fine in semi-auto firing. I would have expected a heavy weight barrel for long range shooting though.
If it ain't broke dont fix it. Those knight AR's are more than 3k right? The M14s are plenty accurate, really not super heavy for an accurate 308 semi, and are definitely a more reliable and robust system than the AR platform, or most platforms for that matter, IMO its right up there with the AK for simple reliability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loon
Really the only thing WRONG with the m14s is the rock in mags instead of the straight in style of the AR and other more modern rifles. Big deal though really.
A lot of guys just LIKE the m14 too. I remember seeing a post on some gun board of some soldier in Iraq that was fucking STOKED to have dug an old m14 out of storage to use, even without a scope.
Really though our marksmanship training is subpar, most of the guys that know how to shoot will tell you it isnt the rifle that really matters. There has been a push recently to improve and overhaul the army's training for the first time in decades, IMO money directed towards that is far more important than new rifles, especially with m4s, m16s, m14s, some aks, m249s and the saws all currently availiable. Really anything any one of those cant do the others should be able to cover.
I think someone in the Army forgot about all the M16s in support units, training and storage.
They found the M14's, must have walked past the M16's to get there.
^^^ If you are implying that it would cost the same or less to convert the old M16A1 to a 7.62 weapon system with the reliability and accuracy that rivals the M14 you may have a valid argument. I don't think so though.
I think he was saying that by replacing the m4s with m16s as the standard longarm, combined with the m14 in the DMR role, you'd have long range dialed just fine, while maintaing close range volume of fire. He's got a point I guess, the longer barrell does extend practical range, a bit, but still doesnt gain any ability to shoot through walls like was needed in iraq, and is still a pain to get in and out of vehicles with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loon
I'm telling you guys though we just need better marksmanship training. There is no reason every one of our riflemen shouldnt be able to make hits out to 800-1000 yards. I have heard from a semi reliable source that it isnt even just the belt feds and mortars that are outranging our guys at 500+ yards, its the old guy with the bolt action at 700 that probably had plenty of practice on soviets and knows how to shoot.
Simo Hiya did it with an unscoped bolt action, as did his countrymen.
M-14 was a great platform. Based on the M-1 Garand design. Inherently reliable. Unfortunately heavy. Totally uncontrollable on full auto past the first shot.
I would think that the .308 line of AR's would be a much more suitable platform, due solely to the familiarity of our troops to the weapon platform.
And hitting a man sized target with a 5.56 round with a 62 grain bullet at 800-1000 yards with a semi/full auto rifle system with a 14.5" barrel is pure luck by any marksman.
Hell, the recent sniper shot with an Accuracy International rifle in .338 Lapua Magnum at over 1.5 miles was remarkable. And that was with a 250 grain projectile. The sniper said his scope wasn't sufficient to range, and he held 8' high and 6' left to shoot the hamburgers.
Talking about snipers and shots and really really bad marines, watch this series on Whitefeather, Carlos Hathcock.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNwzZtnM4Y&feature=related"]YouTube- Carlos Hathcock Interview - Part 1 of 3[/nomedia]
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vssuWmhC68M&feature=related"]YouTube- Carlos Hathcock Interview - Part 2 of 3[/nomedia]
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmg9VHjlx1M&feature=related"]YouTube- Carlos Hathcock Interview - Part 3 of 3[/nomedia]
Some of you may have already seen this floating around but if you haven't there's some interesting stuff in here.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
What I am wondering is why support guys who will probably never have to shoot past 200 yds get the m16s, and the infantry grunts get m4s for patrols where engagements are rarely under 200m. As for size, you don't get out of vehicals a lot on a foot patrol. Mounted units can still use M4s, that's what a carbine is for. Infantry needs a rifle though.
The 5.56 round is fine; the current ball sucks. A lightwieght LP cartridge would work fine. 5.56 can stop a guy, it just needs to be put in the right place.
Also consider the weight difference between 7.62 and 5.56. each guy can only carry so much.
The marksmanship training comment was dead on, very little training is done past 300 meters. This is fine for the M4, with the current 855 ball, that is about the limit. An m16 can go further.
7.62 is the shit, now I'd go to war with that.