JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
The increased flames and noise might be a disadvantage ... I don't actually know ...

True, but with a proper "blast can" at the business end of the short barrel, most of the sound and flames will be direct at the bad guys/gals. ;)

1567301561831.png
 
I had never heard of an AR15 "pistol". Very useful.
Had one. Tons o' fun. Loud as hellsinki with its eleven-inch barrel. The ATF says it's a handgun because it has no provision for a permanent buttstock; that's why it can have a barrel of less than sixteen inches. The buffer tube it uses does not have the indexing system for the purposes of locating the stock in a rearward position for the user. There's also a statute for the overall length, but it escapes me at this time. Something to do with twenty-six inches; I can't remember the rest.

Creates quite the fireball at the muzzle. Notice the shallow angle of the forward grippin' thang. It has to be shallow, else the ATF says it's a "vertical grip." It's illegal to have a "vertical forward grip" on a handgun. I had to be very careful when I built this to make sure I violated no laws-- even the ones about which I knew nothing. I spent about $1300 on this little dude. Its looks are guaranteed to make a liberal soil his BVDs. And that's always a good thing...

AR-15 handgun - small.JPG
 
Last Edited:
I would not rely on a Pistol in 5.56 to do the Job, a Buddy of mine was issued an XM177 (14") in Vietnam shot an Enemy crossing in front of him 3 times and he kept going! I would Recommend a barrel of at least 18" for knockdown reliability in battle. Was not an issue with the M16A2 with 20 inch barrel but became one with the M4 at 16"
 
Buddy of mine was issued an XM177 (14") in Vietnam; shot an Enemy crossing in front of him 3 times and he kept going!
I got muzzle velocities of around 2500 fps with my eleven-inch barrel. It may have come in several variants, but I sort o' remember the 177 being issued with a ten-inch barrel and an over-diameter muzzle device that moderated the extreme muzzle blast. The device reduced the noise such that Jimmy Carter outlawed them for civilian sale.
 
Still failed to drop the target (Enemy) He Said his was 12 to 14 inches but did not do the job. A skilled shooter might make up fo the lack of knock down but in normal combat conditions Might will end up getting you killed. The thread was about arming novices for a "Mad Max" type event not practiced marksmen.
 
Seems Canadians can buy 177s with short barrels and the muzzle device. No restrictions on the length of the barrels up there. So why are we so restricted?


Here's a picture of the real thing. Notice the barrel just past the sight base and the size of the muzzle device.

Colt XM-177.JPG
 
Last Edited:
Had problems with the CAR 16's when we switched to M-855 ammo, many tangos ( enemy) were simply IcePicked and kept on going!
When I carried an M-21, that didn't happen any more!
As a civilian, that replica CAR 16 I use with good ammo makes it much more effective then the Mil with ball!
 
Had problems with the CAR 16's when we switched to M-855 ammo, many tangos ( enemy) were simply IcePicked and kept on going!
When I carried an M-21, that didn't happen any more!
As a civilian, that replica CAR 16 I use with good ammo makes it much more effective then the Mil with ball!
Yeah never figured out why they went with the "penetrator" M885 round and then cut 4 inches off the barrel better wounding with the M193 55 grainers? Just never got why A/P ammo for infantry? Me I mostly used an M21 myself but different job that strait leg grunt. But again Arming novices go with the 18" to 20" barrel and the 64 grain FBI Loads you will be golden.
 
That's why I carry the full size FAL, never need worry about anything with that in my hands! Best all round load seems to be 150 gr Winchester PowerPoints, with Fed Premium 156 Gr Softpoints for longer range work!
Bonus is the FAL is super easy to convert to a DMR in the field, making short work of most needs!
 
Whoa.... what an educational thread this is! I've learned several new concepts and 23 new acronyms. They won't be of much use where I live, where a benevolent government makes it almost impossible to own a gun.

Although come to think of it, maybe this new knowledge will be useful. The next time I'm at a polite English dinner party where people don't know me, and the conversation comes round to mass shootings in America, as it always does, and after they all weigh in with what crazy people these Americans are, why don't they just ban guns like the sensible English have done ... ... and then turn to me, expecting me to validate their opinions about my countrymen and their obsession with guns.... I'll be able to say,

"Well, actually, my only quarrel with American gun laws is that if I want to own an XM177 with an eleven-inch barrel, I can't add a muzzle device, to moderate the sound, like the Canadians can, and although the muzzle velocity is 2500 fps, I might have to use M885 penetrator rounds to make sure of a kill."

That will bring conversation to a dead halt. On the other hand, I won't be invited back again, so maybe I'll just do what I really usually do, and mumble something about "different cultures" (when what I really mean is ,"different demographics", while I'm thinking "...although you're working hard here to make yours more like ours and if you really succeed you might wish you had had our gun laws rather than yours").

While we're on short barrels, or tricks for having a long barrel that looks short, does anyone have any comments on the "bullpup" design, which is what the SA80, the British military assault rifle, is based on. I had never heard of this, but I recall that when they went over to the SA80 there were a lot of complaint about it from the guys who actually had to use it.
 
While we're on short barrels, or tricks for having a long barrel that looks short, does anyone have any comments on the "bullpup" design, which is what the SA80, the British military assault rifle, is based on. I had never heard of this, but I recall that when they went over to the SA80 there were a lot of complaint about it from the guys who actually had to use it.
About all I know of the SA80 is that it did have reliability issues. When a military designs and tests a weapon in low humidity and comfortable tempertaures-- then takes it to the last place on Earth anyone wants to be-- there will most likely be problems.

The M-16 was originally fitted with a 1:14 barrel. The Viet Cong were deathly afraid of it. I have read that bullets impacting the calf would rip their way through Victor Charles' body and exit the side of the neck, destroying everything along the way. It was a very quick and very painful way to die; you knew you were dead. The only question was how painful it was going to be. The 1:14 twist of the barrel made the bullet just barely stable enough to fly through the heavy, humid air of South Vietnam. As soon as the bullet hit anything in its path, it would tumble. When the rifle was taken to the Arctic for testing in the cold and dry air up there, the 1:14 twist rate would not stabilize the bullet. The riflings had to be tightened to 1:12. When those 1:12 barrels went to Vietnam, they were over-stabilized and the bullets would zip right through the bodies of the enemy. This is more than likely about what Member RetiredArmy is talking.

Somewhere along the way, we went from 55-grain FMJ bullets to 62-grainers with depleted uranium cores, and tightened the rifling to 1:7. The 62-grainers are better penetrators; I've read they can defeat a steel helmet at something like 800 yards. I'd have to look that up to be sure; just remembering from reading it years ago. I have a friend who was in AFG and IRQ in 2003. He killed plenty of those opposed to America and to our Right to Individual Liberty. He says the bullet wounds from an issue 5.56mm NATO round are quite ghastly. He was an Army Ranger, and they know how to kill. An IED blew him up pretty badly, so he's out of the game these days. He's an extraordinarily fine man. He's quiet, gentle, friendly and soft-spoken. Suffers from PTSD so badly, he stutters like I did when I was just a bald-faced boy. Having been a stutterer myself, I fully understand him when he speaks. It's like the two of us speak perfect English when we converse.
 
Last Edited:
About all I know of the SA80 is that it did have reliability issues. When a military designs and tests a weapon in low humidity and comfortable tempertaures-- then takes it to the last place on Earth anyone wants to be-- there will most likely be problems.

The M-16 was originally fitted with a 1:14 barrel. The Viet Cong were deathly afraid of it. I have read that bullets impacting the calf would rip their way through Victor Charles' body and exit the side of the neck, destroying everything along the way. It was a very quick and very painful way to die; you knew you were dead. The only question was how painful it was going to be. The 1:14 twist of the barrel made the bullet just barely stable enough to fly through the heavy, humid air of South Vietnam. As soon as the bullet hit anything in its path, it would tumble. When the rifle was taken to the Arctic for testing in the cold and dry air up there, the 1:14 twist rate would not stabilize the bullet. The riflings had to be tightened to 1:12. When those 1:12 barrels went to Vietnam, they were over-stabilized and the bullets would zip right through the bodies of the enemy. This is more than likely about what Member RetiredArmy is talking.

Somewhere along the way, we went from 55-grain FMJ bullets to 62-grainers with depleted uranium cores, and tightened the rifling to 1:7. The 62-grainers are better penetrators; I've read they can defeat a steel helmet at something like 800 yards. I'd have to look that up to be sure; just remembering from reading it years ago. I have a friend who was in AFG and IRQ in 2003. He killed plenty of those opposed to America and to our Right to Individual Liberty. He says the bullet wounds from an issue 5.56mm NATO round are quite ghastly. He was an Army Ranger, and they know how to kill. An IED blew him up pretty badly, so he's out of the game these days. He's an extraordinarily fine man. He's quiet, gentle, friendly and soft-spoken. Suffers from PTSD so badly, he stutters like I did when I was just a bald-faced boy. Having been a stutterer myself, I fully understand him when he speaks. It's like the two of us speak perfect English when we converse.
When I read about your friend ... I have to count to ten ... but that's another question ... our wars now and when we should fight on the ground and when we should carpet bomb the place and when we should just let it fester ...but not for this thread.

On the original M16 -- our drill sergeants told us at Tigerland in 1967 that the VC called it 'the Black Monster' and that there was a captured order telling them to immediately break off engagement with any Americans carrying it. But I reckon it wasn't true.

I tutor kids in physics, among other subjects, and I bet I could make a hell of an interesting set of lessons on kinetic energy, momentum, fluid flow, trajectories, conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy and back again when you hit the target, acoustics, thermodynamics .... based only on the ballistics of small arms, at least for the boys, especially if we could do some practicals. But of course their mothers would probably object.
 
While we're on short barrels, or tricks for having a long barrel that looks short, does anyone have any comments on the "bullpup" design,

I like the Steyr AUG, a 16" barrel in a 28" total package which makes it highly manoeuvrable. It's cost however is way out of your "neighborhood self-defense" parameters. Below is a picture of the licensed Australian version of the AUG.

1567360965345.png

For the weakest members of your posse, you may also consider arming them with a Pistol Caliber Carbines based on the AR-15 platform and available in 9 mm para to .45 calibers. They are lightweight and have a very light recoil. They come in various barrel length. The picture below is only for illustrative purposes. There are many reputable manufacturers.

1567361269016.png
 
Do they come in pink? (If not, there may be a market niche to be exploited.)

It's very frustrating seeing all this beautiful hardware. I see a photo and my brain screams, "I want one! I want one!" and then another part says, "You're not allowed..."
 
To the original issues with the M-16/M-4 the wounding vs kill ratio was super high, and in the jungles, any one hit was a dead man sooner or later with out medical care! My time in the deserts almost mirrored those experiences, hits other then cranial would rarely stop a fight in it's tracks, and several hits were needed to put a tango on the ground! When I carried the M-21, a single hit out past 800 meters was enough to not only stop a tango, likely a kill, but all his other tango buddies would change their minds about wanting to fight us, that big 7.62X51 is pretty much a sure stopper! When we finally got the M-10/SR 25 ( AR-10) Mod III, we really had a fine system, all the advantages of the M-21 with out the super finicky optics mounts and ammo issues!
Saw a tango take a hit in his foot from a 7.62X51, round went clear up his leg, blew out his knee, kept going where it blew through his hip, and finally exited though his shoulder after shattering all the bones in it!
And then there was the Mighty M-40 MK-VIII .300 Win Mag, that sucker takes Tangos apart!

Point is, after WW-II, small arms changes were not always the best for America, while the M-14 was a stunning performer, it was NOT a good system to try and take to the future, ( Until Now Days) as there just wasn't the technology and development available for it to make it what it could have been! Then there was the Political maneuvering that Killed the FN/FAL which at the time was the best battle rifle in the world bar none, and remained in that slot until just yesterday when production finally stopped! When American first adopted the M-16, it was initially supposed to be AirForce and Air Crews issued it, and special operations units, ( Remember, the SEAL's didn't even exist yet) and the ARMY/MARINES didn't want it in the worst possible way, and fought tooth and nail to keep from having it issued! Again, political maneuvering got it rammed down our throats, and were still stuck with it today! There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with the AR platform, its the chambering that makes is suck as a Mil issued weapon ( and all other weapons chambered in it) but there have always been better weapons available to us, and it was all politics that kept us running the M-4 and it's replacement, the SCAR, which is also a good rifle, but made poor by it's chambering!
I keep saying, bring the 7.62X51 back to regular line issue, stop complaining about the recoil, and ammo load outs, train to use it and to be RIFLEMEN, and un stick your selves from these stupid fights were we always end up at a disadvantage!
 
Do they come in pink? (If not, there may be a market niche to be exploited.)

:) The short answer is yes, of course, they do come in pink.

The real question is what shade of pink do you prefer?

Cerakote offers at least three choices of pink:

"Cerakote is a ceramic based finish that can be applied to metals, plastics, polymers and wood. The unique formulation used for Cerakote ceramic coating enhances a number of physical performance properties including abrasion/wear resistance, corrosion resistance, chemical resistance, impact strength, and hardness."

They have been so successful that they caused Robar to go belly up. :oops:
 
To the original issues with the M-16/M-4 the wounding vs kill ratio was super high, and in the jungles, any one hit was a dead man sooner or later with out medical care! My time in the deserts almost mirrored those experiences, hits other then cranial would rarely stop a fight in it's tracks, and several hits were needed to put a tango on the ground! When I carried the M-21, a single hit out past 800 meters was enough to not only stop a tango, likely a kill, but all his other tango buddies would change their minds about wanting to fight us, that big 7.62X51 is pretty much a sure stopper! When we finally got the M-10/SR 25 ( AR-10) Mod III, we really had a fine system, all the advantages of the M-21 with out the super finicky optics mounts and ammo issues!
Saw a tango take a hit in his foot from a 7.62X51, round went clear up his leg, blew out his knee, kept going where it blew through his hip, and finally exited though his shoulder after shattering all the bones in it!
And then there was the Mighty M-40 MK-VIII .300 Win Mag, that sucker takes Tangos apart!

Point is, after WW-II, small arms changes were not always the best for America, while the M-14 was a stunning performer, it was NOT a good system to try and take to the future, ( Until Now Days) as there just wasn't the technology and development available for it to make it what it could have been! Then there was the Political maneuvering that Killed the FN/FAL which at the time was the best battle rifle in the world bar none, and remained in that slot until just yesterday when production finally stopped! When American first adopted the M-16, it was initially supposed to be AirForce and Air Crews issued it, and special operations units, ( Remember, the SEAL's didn't even exist yet) and the ARMY/MARINES didn't want it in the worst possible way, and fought tooth and nail to keep from having it issued! Again, political maneuvering got it rammed down our throats, and were still stuck with it today! There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with the AR platform, its the chambering that makes is suck as a Mil issued weapon ( and all other weapons chambered in it) but there have always been better weapons available to us, and it was all politics that kept us running the M-4 and it's replacement, the SCAR, which is also a good rifle, but made poor by it's chambering!
I keep saying, bring the 7.62X51 back to regular line issue, stop complaining about the recoil, and ammo load outs, train to use it and to be RIFLEMEN, and un stick your selves from these stupid fights were we always end up at a disadvantage!
In a sense, this is an example of the problems you get when the government decides on the product instead of the customer. The military should be told, "here's your budget, buy what you think is best". But there are probably all kinds of other considerations, like saving American jobs -- not that this is a bad thing, but where the military is concerned, combat effeciency should not only be the first consideration, it should be the only consideration.
 
:) The short answer is yes, of course, they do come in pink.

The real question is what shade of pink do you prefer?

Cerakote offers at least three choices of pink:



They have been so successful that they caused Robar to go belly up. :oops:
The Thursday Morning Ladies' Bridge Club shall be informed. Everyone being able to have their own special and differen color for their weapon might be a real advantage -- you know how embarrassing it is when two women turn up at a party wearing the same dress....
 
The idea behind the 5.56mm cartridge was to wound the enemy soldier, not to kill him. A wounded soldier requires two, three or four of his buddies to run out there and drag him back to safety. The rescuing soldiers cannot be firing at you if they're carrying a comrade. The reduction in fire may allow our boys to gain some ground or a higher point for attack. The wounded soldier has to be taken to a field hospital, which is really a drain on the resources of the enemy. The wounded soldier eventually recovers and may be sent home where his compatriots will see his wounds and maybe think twice about wanting to go to war with the United States or her allies. Maybe not because those who would go to war with us do not consider the sentiments of the population. Imagine a fanatical dictator listening to the concerns of his countrymen about going or not going to war with the US. Most likely not going to happen...
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Crossroads of the West Gun Show
Las Vegas, NV

New Resource Reviews

Back Top