Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indeed, however, that is based on an ideal situation, where you spot him before he is in range of you, with his rifle. There is no guarantee that this will occur, there's a good reason a typical sniper team consists of a shooter and a spotter, the spotter doesn't just spot the target area, but also provides look out.
You're discussing averages and odds, of situations that in all likelihood are very remote probabilities at best, and then spending inordinate amounts of effort and time to develop skills that will be of minimal use in anything but those remote probabilities. So say increasing your probability from 50% to 60% in 0.01% or less of situations. Most 1k yard is 308, then 300 magnums, then 338 magnums, then 338LM up to 50BMG. Now if you want a BMG, that's fine, but there's no need to justify it by tying it back to SS&P I have one myself (not a Barrett, a McMillan), however IMHO it's use as a self defense weapon is severely limited, it was a very expensive piece of hardware, has a very expensive scope, has high use costs (even though I reload) and comparatively expensive maintenance costs when used, and it's general tactical applications are severely limited in defense except as a counter sniper tool.
Of course your example also ignores the possibility that the "zombie" approaching you is not a diversion to prevent you seeing the other guy(s) sneaking around to flank you. It's not the people you can see that you need to worry about most often, it's the one's you cannot see that you do.
Meanwhile the most effective means for defense in the situations mentioned is concealment, at 800 yards or more unless you're standing in the middle of a flat field in a red jumpsuit with 1/4 mile between you and anything to hide behind or making a huge amount of noise, you need not be located. Shooting someone eliminates that concealment, while the inexperienced may not know the precise location of the shooter, they will probably know the general direction, and they will certainly know that there is someone who has something to protect.
Unless there's an obvious attack until you get within speaking range, then it's difficult to figure out someone's intentions, people will not be walking around like Lord Humungous demanding you pay tribute. Any post collapse unethical people would most likely send in a Paula Dean look alike scout to figure out whether it's worth their time to even give it a shot.
You are making it sound like no "normal" person has any chance at all and that every bad guy used to be an army sniper. Maybe it's true. But if it is, there is really no point in having a firearm at all. Or any means of self-defense for that matter.
As for the paying tribute thing, we already do that (overtaxation). I have no reason to believe it won't happen after a fall. Only much worse, of course. Protection rackets have been around a long time.
You are making it sound like no "normal" person has any chance at all and that every bad guy used to be an army sniper. Maybe it's true. But if it is, there is really no point in having a firearm at all. Or any means of self-defense for that matter.
No I'm saying that overestimation of your opponents capabilities is a better and more successful strategy than underestimation. The examples of being defeated by a strategy that overestimates the strength, numbers or capabilities of your enemy are few, the examples of being defeated by underestimation are many.
If you assume that a bad guy that you see happened to be an army sniper and act accordingly, and it turns out he is not, well what have you lost? Except perhaps some time, and possibly looking like a jackass. If you act as though he is a complete idiot, and he turns out to be an army sniper, then what could you lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
As for the paying tribute thing, we already do that (overtaxation). I have no reason to believe it won't happen after a fall. Only much worse, of course. Protection rackets have been around a long time.
You miss the point, the point is not about "demanding tribute", its the mechanism used to initiate contact. If it all comes down and it's suddenly time that you need the skills you're discussing, and there are roving bands of bad guys, and they happen to cross your path, then in all probability those people have successfully taken what they needed for some time. Whoever is leading them is no idiot, they may not be the new MacArthur but they are no fool either. As a band they would have successfully taken what they needed (either by force or negotiation) for weeks, months, perhaps even years. This means they've already proven themselves capable. Most of the people in that band would have come under fire from someone at some point and survived, it's a job hazard. They're not going to come at you across some open area armed with an AK.
However a typical homesteader, in most probability this would be their first experience of this kind of event. While they may have some great tactics and plans they're untested and in most likelihood so are their defenders. If they saw some burly guy walking across an open area armed with an AK, they might be rightfully concerned, but they might be perhaps less concerned by a fourteen year old girl in the same area with an obviously twisted or broken ankle. If they're 800 yards away and they can make the shot, which one do they shoot? The Guy, the Girl, Both? Neither? Everyone? If they cannot answer that question, then there is no benefit in being able to make that shot.
At 300 yards I could out shoot my mini 14 with a scope on iron sights.
Ah, I think I see your problem. Based on a fair amount of personal experience and testing, and except for some of the very early versions (the 180- and 181- series), the Mini-14 is only capable of minute-of-barn-door accuracy at ranges beyond 100 yards.
In my experience, the Russian-made SKS carbines (7.62x39mm) are more accurate. Heck, my early-1945 Winchester M-1 carbine is more accurate.
This was a painful lesson for me, because for many years I absolutely loved the Mini-14. Now I don't even own one.
Very interesting reticle system they have. Unfortunately, their system seems a tad old. The ballistics they have listed on their site, which I assume matches the reticle, is kind of outdated....(by like a decade or more, perhaps). Can't really find a match for my Federal 190gr with Sierra MatchKing HPBT's. They use a hotter load now than they used to, I guess.
Still looks interesting, though. When I have some spare cash burning a hole in my pocket, I may check that out.
There's an old Russian proverb: "Better is the enemy of good-enough."
I use Federal Gold Medal Match ammo with the 168-grain or 172-grain Sierra MatchKing HPBT bullets. Alternately, I use Georgia Arms' 168/172-grain match ammo which also uses the MatchKing bullets. Once I've adjusted for the normal differences between batches, the Georgia Arms ammo performs exactly like the Federal match loads -- at a greatly-reduced price. (I don't yet load my own; that will come a bit later.)
I shoot out to 800 yards with no problem. Occasionally, as I've said before, I'll shoot out to 1,000 yards when the conditions are just right. For the up-to-800-yard ranges the 168-grain works great. For the 800+ - 1,000 yard ranges, I use the 172-grain.
Since my .308 Savage 10FP has a 24-inch barrel, and since Shepherd scopes are designed and calibrated to be used with the "standard" 20-inch barrel, I have to make some adjustments. At 750 yards, for example, I have to use the 700-yard reticle. At 1,000 yards I must use the 900-yard reticle and crank in a bit of Kentucky windage.
Heck, my early-1945 Winchester M-1 carbine is more accurate. Nighteyes
Love those rifles. Other than my .22 it's the one I like to shoot most. Too bad ammo is outrageous. But... I'm getting set up to reload.
Since the mini-14 topic is scattered through the thread and you brought up the M1 Carbine here, here is my take on it: I do like the mini-14 and for the longest time I've been planning on getting one. I still may. I've had an AR in the past and I have a cousin with an AK that I've messed with. I like the Mini-14 better than either. Personal preference. I see the Mini-14 as somewhat of a "workhorse" that is, in my opinion, more rugged and durable than the typical AR.
However, as I've thought about it over the months, I've come to the conclusion that buying a Mini-14 would be, in a way, redundant since I already own an M1 Carbine that will pretty much fill the same shoes as a Mini-14. Yes, the .223 cartridge can be used at longer yardage than the .30 carbine... but not so much through a Mini-14. My thought now is that my M1 Carbine can handle pretty much anything a Mini-14 can. As you said, it's probably even more accurate. And that round is certainly underrated, in my opinon. I think the only upside to the Mini-14 is cheaper ammo. And, I can't put a bunch of tactical crap on the carbine--but then that is my iron sights gun anyway, as would be a Mini-14. So, I may still get a Mini-14, but it won't be because it would do anything better than what I already own. In the whole scheme of things, I think my Ruger M-77GS .308 is probably my best all-around rifle--close shots, distant shots, open sights, scope, ammo reasonably cheap, handles whatever I am capable of making it do (I'm the weak link, not the rifle). But I do love the M1 Carbine.
Though I can go, and have gone, long-range with a .223/5.56mm NATO (up to about 600 yards), I'd much rather defer that task to the .308/7.62mm NATO. For anything at 300 yards or less, and particularly with iron sights, my guilty-pleasure rifle (so to speak) is the M-1 carbine. As an alternate, give me a Russian-made SKS carbine.
Remember the old Russian proverb, "Better is the enemy of good-enough."
A few of you have commented on the ethics of long-range hunting. I'll refrain from a general statement, but I'd just like to point out that it needn't be any more dramatic or the animal needn't suffer any more than with a 50 or 100 yard shot. It's simply a matter of the shooter's skill level being up to the task. Take a look at this video and especially the second hit. That's over 800 yards. If you've ever hunted deer or antelope (etc) much, you've probably seen way more drama than this. I know I have. I've seen some terrible shooting at even 50 yards. And I won't even go into archery hunting.
Okay... the guys are a bit too giddy and warm-n-fuzzy about it, but it's still some good shooting.
long range shooting is just a fantasy for shtf. Being in open country, in daylight, will be suicidal if shtf. So will firing unsuppressed firearms. The blasts will result in calling in your killers.
A few of you have commented on the ethics of long-range hunting. I'll refrain from a general statement, but I'd just like to point out that it needn't be any more dramatic or the animal needn't suffer any more than with a 50 or 100 yard shot. It's simply a matter of the shooter's skill level being up to the task.
Easy to say, my friend. The question is, can the shooter actually be "up to the task"? At ranges of 500 yards or less, my personal answer is an unequivocal "yes". At longer ranges my answer falls back to a "definite maybe..."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
