Originally Posted by shootistpd27
The 223 is good only as a plinking round, or for small varmints. I don't see why our military is still carrying the expensive colts. We can get AK's for about $250 each, vs the $1000 colt. You shoot a man with a 223 hitting him in the shoulder, and missing vital organs, he stays in the fight, you shoot the same man in the same spot with an AK, his lung gets deflated. AK's can work dirty, greasy, and bent and would shoot fire crackers if you load them, the M4 is picky about what it eats, has to keep a condom over the barrel and the dust cover shut when full battle rattle, hands down, the 223 is an inferior weapon. I think that the 308 is a great round, I just couldn't stand firing it over and over again in a firefight or plinking unless I shot from the hip, the 308 has terrible recoil. And the AR25 is one sexy rifle. Not to get too political, and bootboy understands this, the 223 is the 556 NATO because it adheres to the nomenclature of the Geneva Hague Convention which states that those nations that are apart of the Hague Convention, cannot use rounds that inflict too much damage, they are really only to wound, not kill. And when they wound, the wounded are able to heal, and not limp. Makes a whole lotta sense don't it? Just ask bootboy about the rules of engagement. Thank you bootboy for your two tours, I pray they were all you have to do...............which brings me to my quandry.........my brother is offering me a Colt AR15 for $550, I don't want it but it is such a good deal, I thought I could buy it and trade it for two Ak's.
|