It's all personal preference Chris. Some like chrome, some don't. Some bolt groups are designed for one type of action, others a different type. There is semi gas, gas, gas-piston. Different manufacturers do different things trying to attract buyers, but when the brass meets the bolt face, there isn't much difference except of course for the piston operation in the Ruger. The gas port on the bolt is solid in that one.

Knowing there are so many choices and having competed against so many different options, I never try to convince anyone that one is better than the other. Everyone has to make their own choice and very often that is determined by brand. Do you like Colt, Ruger, Windham Arms, Bushmaster, Springfield, Smith & Wesson...........? Most manufacturers have a specific finish or type of treatment that is always better than the competitor. On a lot of AR 15 types the uppers and lowers are even interchangeable.

Would you like a chrome bumper, a powder coated bumper, a parkerized, or diamond plate bumper? One outfit is even making a "pink" finish for the women. People will argue that a Daniel Defense is better than a Windham or a Colt or Ruger ?????? But, you have people who will argue a GM over a Ford.

If I make a 10X shot at 600 yards with a 5.56 do I demonstrate the same skill set as I would with a 7.62 at 600 yards or a Barrett .50 BMG? Personally, I'm not all that excited about a 16" barrel. The SR 762 doesn't come with any other option, (16.12 @ 1:10)so that is what I got. The Smith & Wesson M&P 10 has an 18" barrel with the "5R" 1:10 twist. For longer barrels there is the M1A Springfield or M1 Garand. In bolt action there are the "Scout" or "Patrol" rifles.

 

Cannot speak to the AR-15. Am "old school" in that I am able to reach for my M-14!

 

I was wondering more along the lines of the black evil rifles with a pistol grip.

For some unknown reason, the M14 wasn't an evil rifle even though it packed a bigger punch out further than the evil ones do. Even Bill Ruger was able to get around the assualt weapons ban with his Mini 14 because, for some reason they're just not as evil as the M16 variety.

Perhaps it's because it felt like a real weapon instead of a hunk of plastic that you became married to?

 

The M14 is classified as a machine gun even if it has been "de-militarized". The civilian look a like, the M1A in any of its configurations is classified as an assault rifle. Sorry.

The original Mini 14 is in fact an assault rifle. Ruger got around it with the Ranch Rifle Mini 14 by excluding the flash suppressor on the ban and post ban civilian models. Law Enforcement models still had the flash suppressor.

Not an assault rifle although now they are trying to rewrite the definitions in some states to include it as one by calling the vented top barrel guard a "shroud".
#ad



This is an Assault Rifle. Only difference? The Flash Suppressor.
#ad


A 10-22 Ruger can be an assault weapon...
One of these stocks on the 10-22 Ruger, arguably the most popular .22 long rifle in the world, would make it an "assault" weapon. Many, Many "thumbhole", adjustable stock competition rifles would also fall under that.
https://www.stockysstocks.com/ruger...10-22-eliminator-and-micro-groove-barrel.html

This is current California Code, but it was almost a carbon copy of the Federal Definition. They had to rewrite the definitions because the original definition applied strictly to selective fire weapons.

1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
2. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
3. A thumbhole stock.
4. A folding or telescoping stock.
5. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
6. A flash suppressor.
7. A forward pistol grip.
8. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
9. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
10. A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
11. A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
12. (B) A second handgrip.
13. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
14. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

• A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

• A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

1. A folding or telescoping stock.
2. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

• A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

• Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

1. "Assault weapon" does not include any antique firearm.
2. The following definitions shall apply under this section:
   1. "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
   2. "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
   3. "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.
3. This section shall become operative January 1, 2000.

http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2053/2103029/Documents_Library/brady.htm

Anyway, the "evil" black gun is a common misnomer. "Assault" weapon will sneak up and surprise you with how much and how wide of an array of firearms it covers.

 

Mini-14s are nice..............but accuracy is lacking (I know, I have had a few)
My next Mini-14 is going to be a "Mini-30' in 7.62 x39mm Soviet............5.56x45mm is kinda lacking in a "brush gun".

 

Dropped the flash suppressor and sold his soul to the devil by some accounts.

I think evil black gun is acceptable. Luckily the M-14 wasn't typically black, and looked much more like a regular rifle with a wood stock.

I really have no interest in what commiefornia describes as an assault rifle. I'm also not surprised that the federal government follows suit in said description.

The mini 30 looks intriguing, but the lack of accuracy in the 14 has me worried about the old "hitting the broad side of the barn" thing. If you get one, report back on how it shoots. Ruger does seem to be selling some fine quality firearms these days.

 

Pretty close, but you have it backwards. Feds did it first and Kalifornicators copied and modified.

 

Our forgotten wars in Afghanistan, where the Taliban have retaken 1/3rd of the country, and Iraq.

one of my alma mater (is that the right grammar?):
#ad


the new F35-C onboard (wings folded). I hope these new warplanes succeed in multi-mission role
#ad

ATLANTIC OCEAN (Oct. 2, 2015) An F-35C Lightning II carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter from the Pax River Integrated Test Force conducts its first arrested landing aboard the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69). Two F-35Cs from the Salty Dogs of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 are conducted follow-on developmental test (DT-II) sea trials aboard the Eisenhower.



#ad



#ad


From a few years ago:


#ad


we've got to fight smarter, not more expensive
#ad

only 2001 to 2012
#ad



and because it's cute:
#ad

 

BIO - John Fogerty:
He joined an Army Reserve unit. He served at Fort Bragg, Fort Knox, and Fort Lee. Fogerty was discharged from the Army in July 1967. In the same year, the band changed its name to Creedence Clearwater Revival.
~ I bet nobody knew that

 

Everything I've read is they only succeed in following some REMF's dream. All the head to head tests against 40+ year old planes the F35 has lost. Sometimes one size doesn't fit all. That's just the way it goes.

 

That's what i read too, until last month. 'They' are continually working on these F-35s:


Older Fighters Can’t Match Stealth F-35: Former F-16 Pilot, General . Jan 5, 2017
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/01/05/general-older-fighters-cant-match-f-35/

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Military.com) -- Older fighter jets such as the F-16 and F/A-18 will never match the F-35, an Air Force general said. Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus, a former F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot who directs the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program’s integration office, said even upgraded versions of the older fourth-generation fighters simply can’t compete against the newer aircraft’s stealth superiority.
(the article goes on)

But the F-35 can't carry as much ordnance as the F-18, or provide the close ground support like the A-10, and has a shorter range. We're betting it all on stealth.

 

The F-35 will have to have escorting F-15s and F-22s just to survive, if the opposition is competent and fields MiG-29s/Su-27/35s in response.
And there is NO way it can survive going down and dirty on the deck as a tank-killer............ground fire that the A-10 shrugs off or doesn't even notice will put this fragile, unreliable bird at the bottom of a big crater.
Stealth don't mean you are invisible............
Restart the F-22s last half of the contract, then you will have enough escorts to keep this hanger queen alive.

 

We are not even keeping the F-18's flying.

Two-thirds of Navy F-18 strike fighter jets can't fly for lack of parts Feb 10, 2017
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/us-navy-planes-grounded/index.html

 

I guess I can try to keep an open mind for a while, but my experience has been that most of the Be My Little Generals have turned politician by the time they get stars and don't always tell the side of the story the Military would prefer to tell.

Not all, but most.

 

I'm hoping for the best because a lot of money was and will be invested in it. It's likely to be a very good stealth fighter/bomber but not as capable in each area as the several acft it's meant to replace. Allies have already bought in - don't want us all to be disappointed.

Does that BMLG opinion of the generals come from knowing many?