Article of interest to levergunners

[TxBaylea]

I just read Mike Venturino's Down Range article in the July issue of Rifle Magazine.
Levergunners will enjoy this but it might upset a few "black rifle" owners.

Vernon

[crabo]

What did it say?

[TxBaylea]

Basically his message was that a levergunner who knew his rifle would far out do the "spray and hope" tendencies of many black rifle owners.

Vernon

[Four Fingers of Death]

One thing I have picked up from the other side of the world is that you had better tread carefully if you are a gun scribe and critisise the black stick crowd.

[runfiverun]

he didn't just dis them he had pics showing what he meant.
i have shown the "cowboy assault rifle" theory to several friends over the last few years.
standing there hitting man sized targets to 300+ yds with a 357/44 mag or 45 colt lever gun.
keeping it topped off as you go along kinda gives them the willies,havent figured out how to go full auto on one yet though.

[nighthunter]

I think Chuck Conner from The Rifleman just about had the lever action full auto figured out when I was kid.

[45nut]

John Browning figured out the auto with a lever.

[James C. Snodgrass]

It seems that the more I shoot lever guns the more I like em' . I haven't bought a AR yet and kinda doubt I will . I think that alot of us just don't get off on the plastic stocked things even though they shoot well now these days . I sure hope MLV didn't p.... off the folks to much that worship Gene Stoner's toy . James[smilie=1:

[45nut]

http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/R%20245%20Partial%20.pdf

Mike, I just read that article and you are spot on. Great job.

Even Forrest Gump knew pretty is what pretty does. Look at the old garbage shrimper he was in after the hurricane, that old scow made him a fortune and saved his bacon besides, just being in the right place with a tool you are familiar with.
Understand,
If you are superbly trained with a levergun and going up against a buffoon with a M-4, then unless you are just unlicky, you will soon be the owner of both.

The reverse is also true, that is his point in my view.

[btroj]

I agree with 45nut. It's not the weapon, it's the operator.

My read on the article was not so much that "black rifles" are the problem as much as it's the mindset of people who buy a "tactical" weapon and believe it makes them a tactical guy.

It's the ability of the shooter that matters.

Brad

[crabo]

Thanks for the link. Good article.

[rhbrink]

Great read thanks.

[thebigmac]

great story, and good reading!!! As a naval rifle instructor for my unit, i stood next to another chief and told him to go full auto on his target. I went to semi auto and the difference in scores was tremendous. We were using m-14's, and as i recovered from recoil i just tapped the triger every time the target came into my view. I later tought police the same thing. To keep a sniper away from a window so more troops could enter the building and take him out...

[mike in co]

right...sorry its comparing apples to oranges.

no truth to comparing a trained lever gun shooter to an untrained ar shooter......

one can always write "facts" to justify any position....for one article.

i shoot both styles of rifles.........
i'll take an a2 over most any lever gun.......my thirty AIMED shots are gonna hit something while you are reloading...and i can reload quicker.

this is the same track as the one where a guy was claiming a lever gun is what we should arm the army with today.

the m4 is the first modern application of civilian version of a rifle used by the mil....right down to adding optics to issue rifles.

and even with its weight..i'd take an ar10 over a lever gun.....


all the training in the world will not make a lever gun shooter "better" than a properly trained ar shooter.

mike in co

[imashooter2]

Basically his message was that a levergunner who knew his rifle would far out do the "spray and hope" tendencies of many black rifle owners.

Vernon

And a black rifle owner that knows his rifle will far out do many lever rifle owners. So?

[mike in co]

I just read Mike Venturino's Down Range article in the July issue of Rifle Magazine.
Levergunners will enjoy this but it might upset a few "black rifle" owners.

Vernon


it has another title.......
GUN RAG FODER

[mike in co]

AND A GUY WITH A SW MOD 10 38 SPECIAL WILL OUT SHOOT A GUY WIHT A BERRETTA 92......


and on and on and on....

[mike in co]

one of the things i have liked about this site, was the lack of gun rag "article" discussions.
i certainly hope this does not continue.

mike in co

[hammerhead357]

Well I own both levers and ar's and like both they have their places but I think the gun grabbers will go after the ar's and such before they go after the lever actions. Also the lever actions don't ruffle as many feathers as the ar's do. JM2CW.
I also like the idea of interchangable ammo with a rifle and handgun. I think the lever action combined with a double action hand gun and a single action handgun has the best of everything. IMHO.....Wes

[RugerFan]

....I think the gun grabbers will go after the ar's and such before they go after the lever actions.

I don't think it's that simple. A lever action is still a self loader that holds too many rounds in the mag (by gun grabber standards). Just ask Australians.

[oldhickory]

right...sorry its comparing apples to oranges.

no truth to comparing a trained lever gun shooter to an untrained ar shooter......

one can always write "facts" to justify any position....for one article.

i shoot both styles of rifles.........
i'll take an a2 over most any lever gun.......my thirty AIMED shots are gonna hit something while you are reloading...and i can reload quicker.

this is the same track as the one where a guy was claiming a lever gun is what we should arm the army with today.

the m4 is the first modern application of civilian version of a rifle used by the mil....right down to adding optics to issue rifles.

and even with its weight..i'd take an ar10 over a lever gun.....


all the training in the world will not make a lever gun shooter "better" than a properly trained ar shooter.

mike in co

I have to agree with Mike here, I own both and if the shtf, I'm picking up my AR15 and combat harness, leaving the old Winchesters in the safe. It's like comparing a Krag to a Mauser...And we all know how that turned out.

I don't think Mike V. ever intended to belittle any AR shooters, he and the instructor simply wanted to point out that a man armed with what he knows CAN put up one heck of a fight AND come out on top against someone who "sprays and prays"...Or at the very least, let em know they were in fight!

[missionary5155]

John Browning figured out the auto with a lever.

American Rifleman ran a small corner insert about 15 years in a John Browning write-up concerning the Colt "Potato Masher" machine gun.
Seems Mr Browning adapted a lever system to the 1982 and fired off 10 rounds in under 3 seconds full auto. Shortly after he had the prototype full auto machine gun spitting out the back test bench downrange. All well documented with drawings and specifics if you do some reserch.

[imashooter2]

Well I own both levers and ar's and like both they have their places but I think the gun grabbers will go after the ar's and such before they go after the lever actions. Also the lever actions don't ruffle as many feathers as the ar's do. JM2CW.


Yes, but just as sure as the sun rises in the East, they WILL go after the lever rifles eventually.

[Bret4207]

one of the things i have liked about this site, was the lack of gun rag "article" discussions.
i certainly hope this does not continue.

mike in co

Someone twisting your arm and forcing you to read this?

[MtGun44]

Interesting.

You ought to read the article before commenting, it seems.

Mike was defending the black rifles against a idiot woman by pointing out that they
are not dramatically more dangerous than rifles that she is comfortable with,
lever action rifles from the cowboy era. I think that his point is well taken.

Basically, any fast firing rifle with moderate recoil can be very effective. The ultimate
result is based on the skills of the user.

I, too, have been amazed a how fast you can hit with a lever gun once you get
practiced up in the operation, so that it is done without conciously thinking about
running the lever.

Note that the woman that is behind all the UN efforts to take away guns around the
world has said that she is OK with hunters --- but of course, a single shot rifle with
a maximum effective range of 100 yds is all she is OK with. Anything else is an evil
military sniper rifle or assault weapon or some other bad name.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment was not about hunting and if ANY guns are protected,
it should be military type weapons, since they were talking about militia service in
addition to self protection. Muskets were the "assault weapons" of the day, made
for fast reloading, and they had to sacrifice accuracy for rapid reloading, and did it
gladly. These were the militia arms of the day.

The one real world disadvantage to leverguns with tube mags exposed under the bbl
is damage to the mag tube is far too likely than is OK in severe military service.

In any case, Mike says at the end that we shooters need to all get along and not judge
each other by the type of gun we are holding at that particular moment. I, too, shoot
everything from muzzle loaders (pistol and rifle), bolt guns, revolvers and semi-auto
pistols, and semi-auto rifles and leverguns, too. The effectiveness is more in the
user than the gun, which I agree with Mike on.

Bill

[Leadforbrains]

MTGUN44 voiced my own thoughts exactly.

[looseprojectile]

I love em. But they don't and never will have the mechanical accuracy of even the least expensive AR. And Clint Smith probably doesn't see one in a hundred students in his classes that can shoot any rifle as well as some of us here can.
While most of my shooting is from a rest mainly to test the accuracy of my loads I can shoot my AR into one third the size of groups that I can with my leverguns, from any position.
I think Clint was right to have Mike show the troops what can be done with those old antiques. They aren't different enough at one hundred yards to make much difference when the target is the size of a deer. Measure the groups with a caliper, different story. If I were to go to war I would take the AR, the G 3 or the Garand, in that order. A 10 22 Ruger is a fun gun though not any more accurate than a levergun.
I know two people that are elite hunters that don't look with favor at the new breed of war rifles and I have tried to reason with them to no avail. Two out of twenty or so ain't a bad average. I can probably out shoot them also. With their own guns.

Life is good

[Bret4207]

I love em. But they don't and never will have the mechanical accuracy of even the least expensive AR.



Okay, I don't own any "black rifles" so my experience is limited to the M16A1's I used in the Corps and few aftermarket brands I've shot over the years. 3" groups at 100 yards was considered good with all of them. I wouldn't and don't accept that as good accuracy and all my lever guns do better. Maybe the new AR platforms shoot better than the older ones, but blanket statements tend to get arguments here.

[btroj]

I'll say it again. I don't think it was as much an article on the guns as it was the ability of the shooter. Clint wanted to show that a person who knows how to shoot an older rifle can possibly outshoot a guy with the "newest, greatest tactical" rifle.
I saw many guys at highpower matches shooting good AR's that where capable of shooting into an inch or better at 100 yards. Too bad the shooter made them into 5 inch rifles at 100 yards.
Stop the equipment race and start learning what YOU are doing. shooter will almost always be the weakest link.

[2muchstuf]

There's an old saying in our camp.

Beware of the man with only one gun, for he most likely knows how to use it!

I don't fall into this category, but I agree.

2

[mike in co]

Okay, I don't own any "black rifles" so my experience is limited to the M16A1's I used in the Corps and few aftermarket brands I've shot over the years. 3" groups at 100 yards was considered good with all of them. I wouldn't and don't accept that as good accuracy and all my lever guns do better. Maybe the new AR platforms shoot better than the older ones, but blanket statements tend to get arguments here.

bret,
i think that is not the norm. the biggest issue i have seen is the large variation in quality of ar's on the market.....the lowest cost rifles claiming 1moa or less from thier rifles......
i'm guessing you were shooting 55fmj and i believe 2" was more like normal, better rifles shooting better. with the newer 55fmjbt with cannalure it can do 1". the bullet is longer and shoots better in the faster twist.

most mil spec bbls are chrome lined...not ideal for accuracy, only some of the aftermarket is chrome lined. the non-lined, if of better quality/chamber, have the abillity to shoot moa. the mil is testing a 77otm (open tip match) load for designated marksmen with scoped ar's.
if any of my SEVEN ar15's shot much more than moa i would find the issue and correct it. i have a 17.5" carbine that with mixed brass and 55fmjbt's shoots about 1.25......good for the 300yd matches it is shot in.

mike in co

[Leadforbrains]

I have 2 Armalite rifles in 5.56mm, and I have an Armalite AR10 carbine in 7.62 Nato. I have a few Leveraction rifles. If I knew ahead of time that I was going to be in a fight my leverguns would not be my first pick.
That spray and pray argument is a new spin on an old argument that was started back in the civil war when certain members of the Union Army wanted to procure repeating rifles (leveractions) to replace their singleshot rifles. They were turned down on the argument that a repeating rifle would be wasteful of ammunition.
I served in the Marine Corps as well, and it was beat into our brain housing group that the deadliest thing on the battlefield was one well aimed round. I have the potential to launch 20 to 30 well aimed rounds versus 7 to 10 before having to reload.

[wallenba]

I read the article, though I personally have no interest in "black rifles", I think they do have a place, especially with law enforcement, as the need for high power was demonstrated in L.A. a few years back. Those that like them, and like loading and shooting them are no different than someone like me who prefers a bolt action. The exception being is that rare individual who might think it makes a fine home defense weapon. Not next door to me thank you.

[Dan Cash]

Okay, I don't own any "black rifles" so my experience is limited to the M16A1's I used in the Corps and few aftermarket brands I've shot over the years. 3" groups at 100 yards was considered good with all of them. I wouldn't and don't accept that as good accuracy and all my lever guns do better. Maybe the new AR platforms shoot better than the older ones, but blanket statements tend to get arguments here.

Bret, The M16s you and I shot back in the day were pretty well worn. My basic training rifle would not achieve a zero. The DI raised cain with me about it and snatched it away to demonstrate his proficiency and my ineptitude. He let go with three quick shots at 25 meters and got one hit on the target which showed the side profile of the bullet. He told me that is the way the gun was supposed to shoot. Bottom line, my training rifle had been shot so much it had 3 inches or so freebore. A new M16A1 with good ammo will give 1.5 inch or so groups at 100 meters. With a good rifle, good ammo is the key and open base, FMJ is not conducive to accuracy.

[jack19512]

I had a Armalite M15A2 that I bought new. I liked it but for some reason I just didn't enjoy shooting it as much as I do my lever guns and bolt guns. I sold it to finance other projects and/or purchases.

I will probably miss it I don't know but it was plenty accurate enough that I would not feel out classed in a gun fight. The spray and pray logic didn't apply to me simply because If I am not mistaken I think that referred to fully automatic and not to semi-automatic fire selection to begin with.

Anyway, I don't know what all of the fuss is about. :)

[fordwannabe]

Well I liked the article(and damn near everything else I have read from MLV over the last 2o years) my take on it was about the womans stupid reaction to the look of a gun, AND to never feel "untacticle" even with my 336 in 35 remmy, if you know how to use it. I do own ar's, and a M14, and a Garand, an AK and 7 leverguns so I think I have room to make educated decisions. If I knew trouble was coming no I would not pick a levergun, but if trouble found me holding my 1886 or 1894 I would feel I at least had a chance. Thanks Mike for years of enjoyment and a bunch of knowledge. Tom(formerly of Deer Lodge, MT)

[Echo]

Dang good article, but what else would we expect? And the truism is 'Don't go by how people (or guns) look - go by how they act'. We have seen beautiful women, and we married guys all married beautiful women, but - just because a woman is attractive to look at doesn't mean that they are useful around the house. Maybe on someone's arm, but not necessarily useful in practical ways. In Management, we call it the Halo Effect. The Halo Effect says that if someone is good at one thing, they must be good at other things. It illustrates the shallowness of the anti-gunner's position regarding (Big Quote!) Assault Rifles.

I see guys at the range where I volunteer that bring in their black rifles, and shoot at 25/50 yards, and are happy to keep the rounds on the target. I really don't snicker (at least not in front of them), but it is tempting to ask some questions re the accuracy they are experiencing &cetera.

[Beekeeper]

I do not know how old Brett is but my take on the M16A1 is about the same as his .
I carried one.
I had a cleaning rod taped to it to punch out hang fires which happened about ever 10 to 15 rounds.
The one I was issued was crap.
No matter how much time you spent cleaning it it was crap.
When clean it wouldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside.
It was a total spray and pray gun.

I have been told on several occasions here on the forum that the M16 in use today isn't that way.Maybe so, maybe not.
I have had the chance to talk to some young Marines who have been issued the M4, Their reaction is can I have my M16 back, apparently the M4 is having problems similar to what I had with the M16.

I believe the lever gun even for its age with a few modifications is still the best gun on the market today..

That said I do not now own one and haven't shot one in a long time as my interest has turned to the old antique specimens.
But I am fast coming up on getting a lever gun in .45 colt that a friend knows about so maybe soon I will be able to find out.

It is still each persons preference and I guess each has its niche but I will never own a black rifle in any caliber,I guess i'm an old wood lover
Probably my $10.00 worth


beekeeper

[sundog]

I was introduced to the matty mattel plastic gun in 68. I didn't like it then nor for the next 26 years. Even after retiring, I still do not like it.

[Bret4207]

I'm sure a brandy spankin new $1500.00 AR will shoot decent. I'm still wondering about the mechanical accuracy statement. I don't see where the AR with it's 2 piece frame and separate buttstock, etc is some how inherently more accurate than a decent lever gun. I've seen the bragging groups in the Predator Hunter mags and Shooting Times, G+A, etc. I've also seen lever guns shooting major caliber rounds do about as well and for one heck of lot less money. Just wondering what I'm missing.

[btroj]

I own a couple of custom match AR's and a few levers. They each have a place.
My levers are not even close to as accurate as the AR's. Go to a highpower match with a few good shooters and see the groups they can shoot on a reduced 200 yard slow prone target. My lever can't shoot 20 rounds into under 2 inches at 200 yards.
The lever however is a much handier, lighter rifle. I far prefer to shoot them.
Each has their place. The levers are my chosen hunting guns. Work every time.
Would I compare a rack grade military M16 to a match grade AR? Never. But I also would not expect my lever guns to shoot sub 2moa groups everytime at 600 yards, but the AR's better or they get a new barrel.
Apple to oranges here.
The real point is- know the gun, learn it, and use it for it's designated purpose and all is well.

[cajun shooter]

Mike in Co, Mike Venturino is a member on this forum. He is one of the most honest and down to earth person you will meet. He would in no way ever write any false hoods to sell his articles. He has done a lot to help the shooting factions through out his life. Maybe you should read the article first. I went into the army in 1965. We trained with the m-14 in basic and were not given a shot with the m-16 until AIT. Like every one else the one That I qualified with had gone through hell. It saw a lot of problems that had to do with ammo and bullet weight and twist. A well put together AR system will perform wonders there is no doubt. Just watch David Tubbs shoot and you will see of what I speak. I will go along with the others on Mike's meaning of his article. If you want to put him down then send him a pm. I have a black rifle that is meant for one thing and that is to put enough lead down range to where the ass is to keep him from firing back so that my family will be safe. I also was an instructor that trained police officers with the 16 for swat team use. The 16 was to put down cover fire until our two sniper squads could get into position with the 308 McMillians.

[Bret4207]

I own a couple of custom match AR's and a few levers. They each have a place.
My levers are not even close to as accurate as the AR's. Go to a highpower match with a few good shooters and see the groups they can shoot on a reduced 200 yard slow prone target. My lever can't shoot 20 rounds into under 2 inches at 200 yards.
The lever however is a much handier, lighter rifle. I far prefer to shoot them.
Each has their place. The levers are my chosen hunting guns. Work every time.
Would I compare a rack grade military M16 to a match grade AR? Never. But I also would not expect my lever guns to shoot sub 2moa groups everytime at 600 yards, but the AR's better or they get a new barrel.
Apple to oranges here.
The real point is- know the gun, learn it, and use it for it's designated purpose and all is well.

Maybe someone needs to build a match grade lever and compare them then. Wish I had the bucks for both.

[looseprojectile]

This has gotten to be a spitting match between leverguns and ARs.
I have had some experience with both. I have had leverguns that were spooky accurate, the pistol caliber ones. If your AR don't shoot half inch groups at a hundred yards you might consider selling it and get one that does. I know what Clint Smith says about them. He has no respect for their accuracy as he sees his students try to spray and pray all the time. With good ammo, not GI surp. an AR can be very accurate, to the point of boring. Clint or Mike have not seen me or a couple of my cronies shoot and probably never will. They are talking about the average shooter that have little interest in achieving the supreme accuracy from their hardware. That Thunder Ranch thing would go banko if they depended on people like me to finance them. I sometimes think that I should persue some more education in the tactical arena but I am satisfied that I can hold my own as it stands.
The reason I have owned so many guns is that I won't keep one that doesn't show me that it is more accurate than I can hold. Am I weird?

Life is good

[mike in co]

Maybe someone needs to build a match grade lever and compare them then. Wish I had the bucks for both.


Bret,
i think even if it was done , it would never make the quanity of rifles with the ease of build that the ar platform can do. the cost of the lever is gonna exceed the cost of the ar in competitive form.
remmeber the ar is a spec'd SYSTEM. they are built of components, built by subcontractors. some specialize in a single component.
and then the way it is assembled, the ar has a advantage in design.
as an example, bbls can be had new from about $150 thru about $600 for a custome krieger...and they all are essentially a bolt in replacement.

some one brought up home defense...i would use my 44 mag lever gun over my ar if i KNEW it was only one or two perps......shotgun being first choice, and an ar way down the line. heck my 9mm camp 9 over an ar in the house.

mike in co

[StarMetal]

Mike in Co,

Leave out the cost, the lever is NEVER going to match the accuracy of the AR platform. Bret the separate upper and lower receivers (not frames) have little to do with the AR's accuracy. Neither does the butt stock. In fact the buttstock has the least to do with it's accuracy. Your statement can be said about the 303 SMLE too, throw in the 1911 45 acp's too. Reckon you've never seen any of those two are accurate. Would you expect an old worn out NYC taxi to out perform a race car? No, then how do you expect an off the rack well used M16 to out perform the new models you down grade? They've nudged into the bolt action accuracy area.


Joe

[Bret4207]

My question was regarding the mechanical accuracy standard someone mention. It would be interesting to build both platforms to the same standard in the same caliber and see what the results are.

[StarMetal]

Now for your mechanical accuracy test Layne Simpson from Shooting Times sort of done that. He called Marlin and asked some questions about the production phases of their 336 in 30-30 caliber. He found out the barrel blank was quite fat before they contoured it. So he asked them if he could have one with the uncontoured barrle and they said, well, you can't attach a forearm or magazine tube to it then. He said ok and that he knew that. Shorty it arrived and he put some special loads together and took it out to the bench. There he found out it would shoot some 1/2 very tight groups. Don't get big headed over that because some pretty standard modern AR's will do that much farther then 100 yards. By standard modern AR's I mean a flattop. Rememeber the flattop is merely a regular upper receiver with the carrying handle milled off and scope rail milled in...no special tuning or anything else. See Bret, on the AR the bolt locks into the barrel extension, which all this is assembled on the upper receiver. The lower receiver is merely a vehicle to carry the firing mechanism, the magazine, and join the upper receiver, lower receiver, and buttstock together. There is some constroversy over whether any looseness between the upper and lower receiver affects the accuracy...just as there is with the same issue with a loose and tight slide fit on a 1911.

I knew some guys in Nam and there was this one Sgt that was said to be a really good shot with his M16. One day on patrol they spotted a lone "enemy" way out in a field. The guys urgerd the Sgt to take a shot at him, but at first he wouldn't, then eventually did. First was a shot at sight setting he had, then after he dialed up the sight and hit the soldier. He went down, not dead at that moment, but by the time the crew got him he was. The shot was 820 meters. Believe it or not I don't care. The M16 can be accurate and the 5.56 can be pretty lethal.

Regards
Joe

[Uncle R.]

Bret:
I used to shoot in bowling pin matches in the '80s that required rifle, pistol, and shotgun shooters in three-man teams. This at a club in Wisconsin. The rifle pins were at 200 yards and you shot prone - the most challenging part of the course for most teams. Speed was essential, and rifle accuracy needed to be close to MOA or you simply could not win.
In the early days of the matches the HK 91s and 93s ruled the range - even with their awful triggers - because they were accurate and reliable. Over a couple of years in the proving ground of fierce competition the matches gradually morphed into an AR contest. I watched a lot of shooters try other platforms over several years. For a time I was a formidable contestant with my National Match M1A - but the recoil of the .308 put me at a disadvantage vs. the 223s. I owned no "black rifle" at that time - didn't like 'em, didn't like the ergonomics, thought their owners were "GI-Joe wanna-bes." Still, I liked to win and eventually I gave in and bought an HBAR because you simply could not win with anything else.
If you could not take out those 8 pins @ 200 yards in ten seconds or less you weren't going to win. This wasn't "spray & pray" - this was precision shooting with speed.
Yes - I saw scoped lever guns tried, and they were not even close to being competitive. I saw mini-14s used many times, and they were a poor second at best to the ARs for accuracy or reliability. I saw lots of shooters try lots of things - Garands and 742s and 760s with extended mags and custom bull-barreled AKs and SKS rifles too. I tried a lot of things myself, and learned the hard way that for laying down fast accurate fire the AR is one heck of a platform.
I own lotsa levers - I like 'em, I shoot 'em, I sometimes hunt with 'em. They're fun, they're nostalgic, they can be very effective - but I harbor no delusions as to their superiority over other actions.
Uncle R.

[Old Ironsights]

IMy question was regarding the mechanical accuracy standard someone mention. It would be interesting to build both platforms to the same standard in the same caliber and see what the results are.

Easy enough comaprison... BLR .308 or Sako Finnwolf .308 vs AR-10... (or FN/Fal, Galiel, etc.) hmmmm ... [smilie=1:

[StarMetal]

Bret:
I used to shoot in bowling pin matches in the '80s that required rifle, pistol, and shotgun shooters in three-man teams. This at a club in Wisconsin. The rifle pins were at 200 yards and you shot prone - the most challenging part of the course for most teams. Speed was essential, and rifle accuracy needed to be close to MOA or you simply could not win.
In the early days of the matches the HK 91s and 93s ruled the range - even with their awful triggers - because they were accurate and reliable. Over a couple of years in the proving ground of fierce competition the matches gradually morphed into an AR contest. I watched a lot of shooters try other platforms over several years. For a time I was a formidable contestant with my National Match M1A - but the recoil of the .308 put me at a disadvantage vs. the 223s. I owned no "black rifle" at that time - didn't like 'em, didn't like the ergonomics, thought their owners were "GI-Joe wanna-bes." Still, I liked to win and eventually I gave in and bought an HBAR because you simply could not win with anything else.
If you could not take out those 8 pins @ 200 yards in ten seconds or less you weren't going to win. This wasn't "spray & pray" - this was precision shooting with speed.
Yes - I saw scoped lever guns tried, and they were not even close to being competitive. I saw mini-14s used many times, and they were a poor second at best to the ARs for accuracy or reliability. I saw lots of shooters try lots of things - Garands and 742s and 760s with extended mags and custom bull-barreled AKs and SKS rifles too. I tried a lot of things myself, and learned the hard way that for laying down fast accurate fire the AR is one heck of a platform.
I own lotsa levers - I like 'em, I shoot 'em, I sometimes hunt with 'em. They're fun, they're nostalgic, they can be very effective - but I harbor no delusions as to their superiority over other actions.
Uncle R.

Very well put Uncle R. After my wife and lived out a PA for quite some time we decided to move back. I met a real good shooting hunting friend while working at Corning Glass. His name was Jack and he'd passed on and I really miss him. Anyways he loved guns, reloading, shooting, and hunting......but he hated my AR15 Colt HBAR. He fell in with the political gang calling them "Assault Guns" and run them down in other manners such as a pip squeak caliber. One day I took the AR with on a friend farm to hunt groundhogs to just prove something to Jack. We were up on our hill and I said I had something for him and pulled the AR out of the truck. He started his ranting. Well he spotted a hog and I slinged up, but he said wait and gave me his cross sticks and said take as good steady you can. I shot the hog and it went down. I turned to him and his eyes were wide open. I said, "well Jack, what do you think?" He said he couldn't believe it. He said first the bullet arrived to the target (which by the way was just a little over 225 yards) so fast and how loud the rifle was....and accurate. I said, "what did you think the 223/5.56 was, a rimfire?" He said well yeah. As we were packing up to leave I asked him what he thought about "assualt rifles" now and he said....Well Joe, you changed my thinking, I will never vote for their ban and they do have a sporting use.

Joe

[robertbank]

Folks we all have our opinions and they are just as valid as the next BUT we don't need the, in your face nonsense. Get along or move along.

Take Care

Bob

[Old Ironsights]

Frankly, the reason I got rid of my M4gery was it was boringly accurate and I didn't have anything to shoot with it but paper.

.223 is too expensive for that.

I have no beef with the AR platform per se (though I dislike the gas impingement system and much prefer pistons), but, in general and in practice - i.e. how I have structured my "arsenal" - a pistol caliber Lever Carbine has several tactical and Social advantages for a civillian over a Main Battle Rifle.

Would I intentionally carry my Rossi into combat? Only as a means to aquire an MBR. But for about everything else, I'll take the "low profile" option of a 200+yd (human targets) rifle that uses the same ammo as my pistol.

[45 2.1]

Folks we all have our opinions and they are just as valid as the next BUT we don't need the, in your face nonsense. Get along or move along.

Take Care

Bob

What Joe said about ARs was the truth, which you can find on many forums. I've noticed several "in your face" deals from you bashing the USA, Robert, especially since you've become a Moderator. A little of "take your own advice" is warranted here.

[fishhawk]

ok enough is enough