Why is an AK-47 being offered as a promotion for buying a truck in Missouri?

[Ivan Seeking]

That's right, Missouri dealer Max Motors is offering buyers a voucher for an AK-47 when they buy a truck during the month of August...

http://trucks.about.com/b/2009/07/17/buy-a-truck-get-an-ak-47.htm

The anchor on CNN was funny. She said that she also grew up with guns but they didn't have semi-assault rifles in the house [as if there is such a thing]. Why AK47s, she asked? Well, actually, if they had guns for deer or other large game, she did have high-power rifles that are just as lethal as an AK47 [perhaps women weren't allowed to handle guns in her house]. Also, one wants a gun designed to kill people if they are using it for home defense - that is the point of having a weapon. Also, well-armed citizens are the last line of defense in the event of an invasion.

Just more of this lame notion that people only want guns to hunt, I suppose. If you are going to shoot someone like an intruder, you want something that will do the job. Personally, I tend to prefer a 12 gauge at close range.

 

[Evo]

http://trucks.about.com/b/2009/07/17/buy-a-truck-get-an-ak-47.htm

The anchor on CNN was funny. She said that she also grew up with guns but they didn't have semi-assault rifles in the house [as if there is such a thing]. Why AK47s, she asked? Well, actually, if they had guns for deer or other large game, she did have high-power rifles that are just as lethal as an AK47 [perhaps women weren't allowed to handle guns in her house]. Also, one wants a gun designed to kill people if they are using it for home defense - that is the point of having a weapon.

Just more of this lame notion that people only want guns to hunt, I suppose. If you are going to shoot someone like an intruder, you want something that will do the job. Personally, I tend to prefer a 12 gauge at close range.

Missouri allows concealed weapons, 'cause you never know when you might get mugged by a deer.

I didn't get any deadly weapons when I bought my car.

 

[tchitt]

How on Earth would you conceal/carry an AK-47? It's a freakin assault rifle. I would think walking down the street with an AK-47 in hand would draw some unwanted attention.

 

[turbo]

Unfortunately, the people who want to ban guns are the ones who are the most illiterate on the subject. You CAN own an AK-47 in the US, but you have to buy a permit from the ATF, inform them where will store it, and inform them when you intend to take it off-premises. Those are the rules for the possession of class III weapons, including machine guns like the AK. You can buy cheaply-made cosmetic copies of the AK, produced in China, and marketed by SKS. They are not assault rifles.

In fact, if you wanted to assault me, I would encourage you to use your SKS, and I will defend myself with my father's 40 year old Remington 742 semi-auto chambered for .30-06. It's a far more powerful and accurate weapon. The ban on "assault rifles" was certainly a misguided piece of legislation. It did not ban "assault rifles" at all - just semi-automatic look-alikes that had features like a baronet lug, flash suppressor, folding stock, etc. Stupid! Almost all of those guns are chambered for the wimpy .223 round.

 

[tchitt]

Unfortunately, the people who want to ban guns are the ones who are the most illiterate on the subject. You CAN own an AK-47 in the US, but you have to buy a permit from the ATF, inform them where will store it, and inform them when you intend to take it off-premises. Those are the rules for the possession of class III weapons, including machine guns like the AK. You can buy cheaply-made cosmetic copies of the AK, produced in China, and marketed by SKS. They are not assault rifles.

In fact, if you wanted to assault me, I would encourage you to use your SKS, and I will defend myself with my father's 40 year old Remington 742 semi-auto chambered for .30-06. It's a far more powerful and accurate weapon. The ban on "assault rifles" was certainly a misguided piece of legislation. It did not ban "assault rifles" at all - just semi-automatic look-alikes that had features like a baronet lug, flash suppressor, folding stock, etc. Stupid! Almost all of those guns are chambered for the wimpy .223 round.

I don't think you need an FFL to own an AK-47 in the US. The law varies from state to state as far as those permits go but I'm pretty sure the ATF license only applies if you're a dealer.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong and confusing myself. Maybe I'll just go look right now and wait to open my mouth next time.

Edit: Nah, I'm right. :p

 

[turbo]

I don't think you need an FFL to own an AK-47 in the US. The law varies from state to state as far as those permits go but I'm pretty sure the ATF license only applies if you're a dealer.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong and confusing myself. Maybe I'll just go look right now and wait to open my mouth next time.

Edit: Nah, I'm right. :p

No, you're not. An FFL is a license that all firearms dealers must have. That allows them to sell modern weapons, provided they keep their paperwork in order and do FBI checks on purchasers - which is why you have to fill out a form for every purchase. The FFL also allows the dealer to keep and sell Class III weapons - the only wrinkle is that the dealer has to pay the ATF an "occupational tax" of $500 every year. For you as an individual to own an AK-47, you not only have to buy it from a licensed FFL-holder who has paid the Class III occupational tax, but you also have to apply for and pay for a permit from the ATF. I guarantee you that this information is all accurate - I was in the business for a while.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I didn't get any deadly weapons when I bought my car.

Then you was robbed. I have failed to get truly comparable data, but I think these are close enough to make the conclusion that the car is more deadly than the assault rifle.

1. According to the FBI there were 14,831 homicides in 2007 in the US. This includes killing by means other than assault rifle, but does not include accidental assault rifle killings. Still I don't think there were 14,831 deaths by assault rifle in 2007. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html"

2. According to the National Safety Council, there were 39,800 motor vehicle related deaths in 2008 in the US (I told you the data were not truly comparable). I assume this includes accidents as well as murders, so can't be directly compared, but is almost triple the number of murders. http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/05/national-safety-council-says-2008-traffic-deaths-hit-record-low/"

 

[tchitt]

No, you're not. An FFL is a license that all firearms dealers must have. That allows them to sell modern weapons, provided they keep their paperwork in order and do FBI checks on purchasers - which is why you have to fill out a form for every purchase. The FFL also allows the dealer to keep and sell Class III weapons - the only wrinkle is that the dealer has to pay the ATF an "occupational tax" of $500 every year. For you as an individual to own an AK-47, you not only have to buy it from a licensed FFL-holder who has paid the Class III occupational tax, but you also have to apply for and pay for a permit from the ATF. I guarantee you that this information is all accurate - I was in the business for a while.

Well I'll say that you do seem more knowledgeable than I on the subject but I haven't been able to find the information for myself... probably because I'm not looking hard enough. Are you saying that the permit you buy from the ATF as an individual is something other than an FFL? I was under the impression that those permits were handled at the state level, as opposed to federal.

Is there such a thing as a demilitarized AK-47 or are all semi-automatic AK-47s just knock-offs that look like assault rifles? Maybe that's where I'm confused.

 

[turbo]

Well I'll say that you do seem more knowledgeable than I on the subject but I haven't been able to find the information for myself... probably because I'm not looking hard enough. Are you saying that the permit you buy from the ATF as an individual is something other than an FFL?

The permit that an individual must buy from the ATF licenses ONE Class III weapon. It is not a blanket permission to start collecting machine guns, nor is it an FFL. If you apply for an FFL, go through the background checks, site-visit, etc, and are granted an FFL, you have just become a firearms dealer. You must keep meticulous records, and log in every single gun you buy, and log out every gun that you sell, including the contact information of the buyer, and a confirmation code given to you by the FBI background-check agent. Often, you call, give the agent the code assigned to your FFL, give the personal information of the buyer, and get immediate confirmation. If the agent needs to do a deeper check, (s)he will place a "hold" on the transfer. The agent then has 3 days to call back and allow or deny the transfer, and if they don't call back in that period, the transaction is allowed automatically.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then you was robbed. I have failed to get truly comparable data, but I think these are close enough to make the conclusion that the car is more deadly than the assault rifle.

1. According to the FBI there were 14,831 homicides in 2007 in the US. This includes killing by means other than assault rifle, but does not include accidental assault rifle killings. Still I don't think there were 14,831 deaths by assault rifle in 2007. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html"

2. According to the National Safety Council, there were 39,800 motor vehicle related deaths in 2008 in the US (I told you the data were not truly comparable). I assume this includes accidents as well as murders, so can't be directly compared, but is almost triple the number of murders. http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/05/national-safety-council-says-2008-traffic-deaths-hit-record-low/"

It was interesting to note that in one of the countries with the lowest violent crime rates, Switzerland, people have "machine guns" [fully automatic weapons] in their homes. Is it any wonder that the crime rate is low?

 

[Evo]

Then you was robbed. I have failed to get truly comparable data, but I think these are close enough to make the conclusion that the car is more deadly than the assault rifle.

1. According to the FBI there were 14,831 homicides in 2007 in the US. This includes killing by means other than assault rifle, but does not include accidental assault rifle killings. Still I don't think there were 14,831 deaths by assault rifle in 2007. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html"

2. According to the National Safety Council, there were 39,800 motor vehicle related deaths in 2008 in the US (I told you the data were not truly comparable). I assume this includes accidents as well as murders, so can't be directly compared, but is almost triple the number of murders. http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/05/national-safety-council-says-2008-traffic-deaths-hit-record-low/"

I *was* robbed.

Ooh, but a truck AND an assault rifle...now you're talking.

 

[negitron]

Well I'll say that you do seem more knowledgeable than I on the subject but I haven't been able to find the information for myself... probably because I'm not looking hard enough. Are you saying that the permit you buy from the ATF as an individual is something other than an FFL?

Yes:

http://www.vtgunsmiths.com/arms/caniown.html

 

[tchitt]

Yeah, I got it. For some reason I just assumed that an FFL was all she wrote... I'm wondering why the federal government gets to decide who owns what where but I suppose that's the way everything is nowadays. Nothing like stomping all over the bill of rights by making owning a gun a pain in the neck.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I *was* robbed.

Ooh, but a truck AND an assault rifle...now you're talking.

That depends: Ford or Chevy?

Ford drivers use BB guns.

 

[turbo]

That depends: Ford or Chevy?

Ford drivers use BB guns.

With really small barrels.

 

[turbo]

And drivers of Ram-tough Dodges use Air-soft guns.

 

[Pupil]

Finally, a good reason why I live in Missouri! Om not takin' that there truck 'n gun deal 'till they bundle that with uh confederate flag ana case uh Bush beer! Yeehaw!

 

[junglebeast]

Unfortunately, the people who want to ban guns are the ones who are the most illiterate on the subject. You CAN own an AK-47 in the US, but you have to buy a permit from the ATF, inform them where will store it, and inform them when you intend to take it off-premises. Those are the rules for the possession of class III weapons, including machine guns like the AK. You can buy cheaply-made cosmetic copies of the AK, produced in China, and marketed by SKS. They are not assault rifles.

In fact, if you wanted to assault me, I would encourage you to use your SKS, and I will defend myself with my father's 40 year old Remington 742 semi-auto chambered for .30-06. It's a far more powerful and accurate weapon. The ban on "assault rifles" was certainly a misguided piece of legislation. It did not ban "assault rifles" at all - just semi-automatic look-alikes that had features like a baronet lug, flash suppressor, folding stock, etc. Stupid! Almost all of those guns are chambered for the wimpy .223 round.

turbo, this was an intelligent post until you referred to the .223 round as "wimpy." It is well known in the field of terminal ballistics that the low mass coupled with extremely high velocity of the .223 aka 5.56x45mm round makes it one of the most deadly rounds available due to its frangibility, which causes it to literally explode and create an 8-12 inch diameter hole in flesh. This gives it a very good chance of disrupting major organs and/or the CNS, much better than heftier rounds such as .5 or .3. The .5, in contrast, will simply bore a hole straight through, leaving you to bleed to death. The 7.62mm round is not frangible in it's modern form (although in the past, there used to be a similar round for AK's that was frangible), but even it tends to bore a larger hole than it's diameter would suggest because it tends to rotate 90 degrees after penetrating the flesh by about 2 inches.

In addition, the 5.56 is far more effective at puncturing body armor than larger caliber rounds because it concentrates the force into a much smaller area...it is pretty much impervious to anything other than class III body armor, and will go through typical police body armor like it was butter. It may not be frangible after penetrating the body armor, but nothing is...and it's far more deadly to penetrate than to dent.

Indeed, the only reason to choose a larger caliber round is to have increased momentum so as to be less susceptible to wind on longer shots. But the .223 is the most accurate round at ranges < 500m. The 6.8mm round is touted by some ballistic experts as being superior to 5.56 due to its slightly greater mass which makes it more accurate at ranges such as 800m+, but if you're talking sub 500m..you cannot beat the 5.56mm.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am sure that this offer for an AK-47 is only for semi-auto weapons, and not fully automatic weapons. The certificate was only worth $250.

 

[turbo]

turbo, this was an intelligent post until you referred to the .223 round as "wimpy."

For reference, I hunt big game with up-loaded .45-70s in a Ruger Model 1 single-shot. I have never shot a deer that took more than one or two steps (momentum, mostly). I would never hunt anything other than paper with a .223. It does not have the stopping power that I require to humanely kill an animal. The reason that the military standardized on the .223 is that troops could carry a LOT more rounds in the field than the heavier .308, partly on the "spray and pray" philosophy, AND the little guns were lots lighter. As you may know, troops in Viet Nam who had a choice (often point-men on patrol, like my cousin who got tapped for two tours on point) often opted for the BAR instead of the light .223s. Our European allies continue to use .308s (7.62) in the FN, H&K, etc.

 

[turbo]

BTW, for those not already bored to tears about ballistics, etc, why did the US military embrace the .308, when the .30-06 had performed most admirably for decades?

The reason was that you could get more rounds through an automatic weapon in a set amount of time because the .308 casing is significantly shorter than a .30-06 casing, enabling much shorter bolt-throw and faster cycling. The .30-06 is still revered as a "sniper" round, especially in Springfield bolt-actions with star-gauged barrels.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another factoid [since I happened to think of it]: The most accurate firearm is a bolt-action, 22 caliber rifle.

However, I maintain that at the proper range, a 12 gauge is the most accurate - because close is good enough.

 

[negitron]

The thing about factoids is they only resemble actual facts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The thing about factoids is they only resemble actual facts.

Do you actually have a point or are you just wasting text?

 

[turbo]

Another factoid [since I happened to think of it]: The most accurate firearm is a bolt-action, 22 caliber rifle.

In large part because this caliber has been chambered in some of the most wonderful target rifles, and because decades of research (actually, well over a century at this point) have been spent in determining the most advantageous rifling geometry, depths, finishes, and twist of the rifling for a given powder/bullet combination. There are more varieties of .22 target ammunition than I can count.

However, I maintain that at the proper range, a 12 gauge is the most accurate - because close is good enough.

At least a 12 gauge is directional (however indiscriminate), unlike a hand grenade. My home-defense gun is a Glock Model 20 in 10mm Auto. If you have ever fired a Colt .45 ACP (1911 variants are REAL popular), just imagine a much lighter gun with MUCH more punch. I have small hands, but superior hand-strength, so the M20 was a great match. This was the Glock that was touted to be the cops' answer to gang firepower. One little problem - lots of cops were used to wimpy 9mm guns and couldn't handle the 10mm Auto well enough to manage the accuracy required to qualify for their jobs.

One person that I know quite well, and is in a position to understand the legal implications (OK, that is his job, since he is a federal judge) told me that police departments and municipalities feared union-filed lawsuits if they standardized on the Glock M20 because it would wash out a lot of women (and some smaller men) disproportionately simply because they could not get used to the report and recoil of that very hot round and could not meet accuracy guidelines at the training range. Too bad. I hope there are exceptions for SWAT teams and other groups that have to put themselves at exceptional risk.

 

[negitron]

Of course I have a point. There is no "the" most accurate rifle. In general, yes, bolt-actions are more accurate than autos but there are a wide variety of caliber, load and weapon varieties which are all more or less similarly accurate over equal distances. I can find you .22s, .220s, .223s, and .30s ranging from the the .30-03 to the .308 which can all produce <1" groups at 100 yds.

Edit: Oh, and hey, turbo, I bought a Springfield XD .40 today. It's sort of like a Glock, only affordable.

 

[turbo]

Edit: Oh, and hey, turbo, I bought a Springfield XD .40 today. It's sort of like a Glock, only affordable.

I got my Glock M20 with a case, loading tool, 3 magazines, all paperwork, pristine and unfired. I traded a Winchester M94 rifle chambered for .38-55 for it. The gun had a short magazine (plus for collectors), but a mostly gray bbl and some prominent blood-stains eroded the bluing on the frame (big negative for collectors). I paid $300 for that rifle. I think I'm into my Glock pretty nicely.

 

[negitron]

I got a case, loader, 4 12-rd mags, molded double-mag pouch, underarm holster, 25 rds ball-nose FMJ and a nearly full box of 50 Federal Hydra-Shock. Used, but barely. $475

I think I did alright.

 

[turbo]

BTW, I am under no illusions regarding the M94. The guy who bought it looked it over really carefully. That gun is probably going to be (or has already been) shipped to a master restorer like Doug Turnbull, and is going to come back looking like a factory-fresh example. The most important thing to know about Doug is that he considers his work "restoration" and "repair", and if one of his customers later tries to pass off his masterful work as original factory production, he will freely discuss and identify guns that he has worked on. Pretty important, since his dad (another prince) taught Doug so well that he has taught himself to replicate the custom (often case-colored) finishes of Winchester and the old Parker shotguns that the guns look new when they come back.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Of course I have a point. There is no "the" most accurate rifle. In general, yes, bolt-actions are more accurate than autos but there are a wide variety of caliber, load and weapon varieties which are all more or less similarly accurate over equal distances. I can find you .22s, .220s, .223s, and .30s ranging from the the .30-03 to the .308 which can all produce <1" groups at 100 yds.

Edit: Oh, and hey, turbo, I bought a Springfield XD .40 today. It's sort of like a Glock, only affordable.

I think the laws of physics alone justify the statement that there is an optimum configuration for accuracy. For example, smaller bullets mean less wind resistance and therefore less turbulance given the optimum shape. A bolt action [a single-shot was actually specified] ensures that the chamber is as vibration-free as possible. But I will have to a little digging to find a source. It was stated as a fact wrt world-class competitive shooting.

 

[turbo]

I got a case, loader, 4 12-rd mags, molded double-mag pouch, underarm holster, 25 rds ball-nose FMJ and a nearly full box of 50 Federal Hydra-Shock. Used, but barely. $475

I think I did alright.

You did OK. I am a thief.

 

[negitron]

I think the laws of physics alone justify the statement that there is an optimum configuration for accuracy.

Not really, at least in practice. Accuracy is a fairly variable metric, because even subtle manufacturing differences in the weapon, variances in propellant composition, bullet construction and mass distribution and environmental factors, among others, can cause even otherwise identical weapons with identical loads to bench test significantly differently. You can probably find an optimum load/projectile combination for a given weapon, but for every one of those, you can likely find an optimum but different load/projectile combo for an entirely different caliber with equal performance.

 

[turbo]

I think the laws of physics alone justify the statement that there is an optimum configuration for accuracy. For example, smaller bullets mean less wind resistance and therefore less turbulance given the optimum shape. A bolt action [a single-shot was actually specified] ensures that the chamber is as vibration-free as possible. But I will have to a little digging to find a source. It was stated as a fact wrt world-class competitive shooting.

I don't know how much you'll have to dig. I talked to an officer at a local shooting club about joining and competing. I had a wonderful Stevens rifle with a Pope barrel and wanted to punch paper. When I asked about competitions, the guy told me that I could not enter any contests with a .22. When I asked why, he said that anybody could drop in with a Winchester M52 and wipe up. Of course, he didn't know that I had that pin-point Stevens at the time, but the point was made. .22s are really accurate at short ranges, or even at longer ranges if wind is not a factor.

 

[drankin]

BTW, for those not already bored to tears about ballistics, etc, why did the US military embrace the .308, when the .30-06 had performed most admirably for decades?

The reason was that you could get more rounds through an automatic weapon in a set amount of time because the .308 casing is significantly shorter than a .30-06 casing, enabling much shorter bolt-throw and faster cycling. The .30-06 is still revered as a "sniper" round, especially in Springfield bolt-actions with star-gauged barrels.

I believe they adopted the .308 because it is basically the 7.62x51mm NATO bullet common ammo of our allies. The 30-06 used in WWII is a great round but heavier. They wanted the lightest ammo that could get the job done.

I'll take a discount on a car purchase instead of one of those hideous rifles.

 

[turbo]

I believe they adopted the .308 because it is basically the 7.62x51mm NATO bullet common ammo of our allies. The 30-06 used in WWII is a great round but heavier. They wanted the lightest ammo that could get the job done.

I'll take a discount on a car purchase instead of one of those hideous rifles.

That may be a bit backward. Remember that when the Allies took Europe back from nationalistic Germany the US had already glommed onto .30 cal rounds, such as the .30-06, the .30 carbine and others. One of my favorite Nazi-proofed bolt-actions was a Mauser 8mm. Heavy, but a nice gun.

 

[negitron]

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aasttopriflecar.htm

The 6mm PPC is anything but cheap to shoot; last time I looked, cases were selling at 75 cents each, and they still had to be fine-tuned before being used. Even though Americans Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindell created the little cartridge, it is foreign to most American shooters. On top of all that, while the 6mm PPC has been around for over 20 years not a single American ammo manufacturer has chosen to load it. What the 6mm PPC has done and continues to do is break more world accuracy records in registered benchrest shooting than any other cartridge, and it shows no sign of slowing down. When firearms correspondents of the future write about such things, the 6mm PPC will be mentioned most often as the accuracy cartridge of the 20th century.

 

[junglebeast]

For reference, I hunt big game with up-loaded .45-70s in a Ruger Model 1 single-shot. I have never shot a deer that took more than one or two steps (momentum, mostly).

What does that have to do with the .223?

I would never hunt anything other than paper with a .223. It does not have the stopping power that I require to humanely kill an animal.

It sounds like you are concluding from the small diameter of hole that it puts in a piece of paper, that it will also put a small hole into an animal. For the reasons I have explained above, you are flat wrong. Perhaps you are mistaking the .223 = 5.56x45mm with the 22 LR or 22 short, or some older variant of the 223.

The fact is that the 5.56 which you referred to as weak has far better stopping power than your .45-70 within 500m range.

The 5.56 is not acceptable as a hunting round, especially not for big game, for several reasons. Primarily, you may want longer range and better wind resistance...and the 5.56 loses its accuracy and stopping power at longer ranges because it loses its frangibility below about 1700 fps. At ranges where it is still frangible, it is still not acceptable as a hunting round because nobody wants shrapnel in their carcass, nobody wants the back side of the pelt to have a gaping hole in it. This is considered inhumane among other things.

The reason that the military standardized on the .223 is that troops could carry a LOT more rounds in the field than the heavier .308, partly on the "spray and pray" philosophy, AND the little guns were lots lighter. As you may know, troops in Viet Nam who had a choice (often point-men on patrol, like my cousin who got tapped for two tours on point) often opted for the BAR instead of the light .223s. Our European allies continue to use .308s (7.62) in the FN, H&K, etc.

When looking at wound profiles it is important to note that the outer line represents the shock wave, and does not cause permanent damage or rupturing. The actual damage caused can be well approximated by integrating the volume of the actual wound cavity. Looking at the 22 LR, you can see it does nothing other than bore a pinprick hole:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/22LR%2037gr%20HP%20Wound%20Profile.jpg

The 7.62mm NATO round is slightly better, due to its slightly larger caliber and rotation..but still it is only immediately deadly if the CNS is hit. Otherwise it is just a bleed wound,

http://www.geocities.com/whiskey99a/image008.gif

Contrast this to the .223,

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg

 

[Huckleberry]

It was interesting to note that in one of the countries with the lowest violent crime rates, Switzerland, people have "machine guns" [fully automatic weapons] in their homes. Is it any wonder that the crime rate is low?

That's a terrible weapon for self-defense! "That's not a gun. This is a gun." More importantly to me is that they are all trained to use them and not to fear them.

As you may know, troops in Viet Nam who had a choice (often point-men on patrol, like my cousin who got tapped for two tours on point) often opted for the BAR instead of the light .223s. Our European allies continue to use .308s (7.62) in the FN, H&K, etc.

My uncle who served 2 tours in forced recon preferred the M14 over the M16. He said the reliability was better. He also said he liked to keep a LAW rocket. Now that would make for some interesting home defense.