Silver stacking

butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Silver stacking

So, I started buying physical silver August of last year, 2013. I'm now up to about $7,500 using the current silver spot price (which is a lot compared to the amount of money I've saved so far ), primarily in American silver eagles, then Canadian maple leafs, Australian kookaburras, Austrian philharmonics, rounds - all 1 oz. 

From the beginning, my idea was to invest in something that I felt was logically required to appreciate in value, rather than looking at statistics, trends, etc. Eventually, I stumbled onto silver. Silver has a bewildering number of industrial applications and instrinsic value for being an outstanding electrical and thermal conductor, as well as being the most reflective metal. It's currently trading at the lowest price it's been since 2011. It's undervalued when its rate of natural occurence and our supply of it is compared to gold, even though gold has few industrial uses. To top it off, I don't trust the U.S. economy at all right now; both the stock market and real estate market look like they're bubbling again, even worse this time.

Wiki

Spot Price

But, at a certain point, I started feeling a little uneasy about my investment because too much confidence is often a bad thing. Yet, sifting through the Internet, I can't find a single good source or argument telling me that silver is NOT a good investment right now. Even when I ask people about it in real life, they're either completely ignorant (why would you buy that? silver jewelry is ugly) or they already agree with me, in which case they probably have silver too.

You guys are smart and knowledgeable (mostly), so someone here must have an informed opinion about this (I'm looking at you, Beyond Saving, lol). Does anyone here disagree with me? If so, convince me.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Oh boy, I hate giving

 Oh boy, I hate giving detailed advice in case you lose your money lol. Remeber that free advice is worth the price you paid- but here we go. First of all, the whole bit on industrial use maintaining demand and thus protecting silver prices- throw it out. I sounds logical, but doesn't match reality in the silver market. The thing is that the vast majority of silver isn't mined by companies looking to make profit on silver. Over 70% comes as a byproduct of other mining like copper, lead and zinc. The result is that silver is the icing on the cake, not their main profit, so mining companies are willing to separate with it for much lower prices than simple supply and demand economics might lead one the hypothesize. Industrial demand will ensure that it always has some value, but there is nothing preventing current prices from being cut in half and going back to an extended period of being under $10/oz like we saw throughout the 90's. All sorts of people will tell you otherwise, but IME most of them happen to be selling silver. Then you have one of the largest industrial uses of silver, solar panels, isn't exactly stable. We already saw in 2012 that it can, and will, move away from using silver if prices get too high. With new technology already in prototype stage that doesn't use any silver at all, it isn't something you want to hang your hat on. 

In my opinion, the main benefit from silver as an investment is that it is extremely volatile when currencies and stocks falter. For the short term, the immenent ending of quantitative easing should be great for silver. Even if the worst case scenarios don't happen, it is a safe bet that the immediate reaction is going to be a significant dip in stocks, which should bump silver. If you think that the bears are right and the stock market is going to see a signifcant and sustained fall, then silver should be good for the next five years or so. Potentially, extremely good. If the bears are wrong and the market continues growing without QE, then silver will see at most a short bump and if you miss jumping off, you will be stuck with a mediocre investment until the next crises.

So is it a good investment? Well the answer to that is when do you need your money back? If this is money that you are comfortable leaving sitting around for 10-15 years, I'd say you have very little risk. At some point in that period, we are going to have financial troubles. Dealing with the deflation from QE, rising interest rates and pretty much every time our great leaders decide to talk about our massive debt should provide an opportunity for a silver spike.

If you are looking at it as a short term investment of less than 5 years, it is quite riskiy. You have an opportunity to do well, but it could also fizzle and most of it will hinge on the strength of the dollar and the stock market- neither or which is particularly predictable. You are looking at a potential downside of losing maybe 50%ish if silver slumps and goes dormant for awhile, but the upside is potentially extremely high. I've read people predicting $100 an ounce, I think that is too bullish, but if the shit hits the fan, $70-$80 and ounce is certainly possible.

The thing with silver, is that when it spikes it tends to rise really rapidly, but it also falls rapidly. So it is one of those investments you need to keep your eye on and when it does spike, liquidate quickly.

What am I doing? I'm buying, but I'm not going out of my way to do so. I hold some certificates so I can enjoy my part of the upside if it comes, and I've always had the habit of having a bit of physical gold and silver but I don't look at that as an investment. But it isn't a significant portion so if silver mellows I'm not going to notice. It isn't a bad investment and it has the potential to be really great. As long as you realize that silver is extremely volatile and it isn't a secure investment the way say a blue chip dividend paying stock is. If you are willing to accept that risk, go for it. You're young, so if you can live without the cash and silver doesn't spike,  sooner or later those silver coins are going to spike again and you can go dust them off and sell.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Thanks BS.  Beyond Saving

Thanks BS. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
First of all, the whole bit on industrial use maintaining demand and thus protecting silver prices- throw it out. I sounds logical, but doesn't match reality in the silver market. The thing is that the vast majority of silver isn't mined by companies looking to make profit on silver. Over 70% comes as a byproduct of other mining like copper, lead and zinc. The result is that silver is the icing on the cake, not their main profit, so mining companies are willing to separate with it for much lower prices than simple supply and demand economics might lead one the hypothesize.

Let's see. I've heard the opposite argument that at its current price, (right now, about 17.50 oz) many miners cannot even make a profit on selling silver, so they will stop mining it completely, leading to a supply shortage.

So, you're saying that this isn't an issue; companies have already taken it out of the ground as a byproduct of other precious metals, so they will cut their losses and sell it for whatever they can get.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Industrial demand will ensure that it always has some value, but there is nothing preventing current prices from being cut in half and going back to an extended period of being under $10/oz like we saw throughout the 90's. All sorts of people will tell you otherwise, but IME most of them happen to be selling silver.

Mhmmmm.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Then you have one of the largest industrial uses of silver, solar panels, isn't exactly stable. We already saw in 2012 that it can, and will, move away from using silver if prices get too high. With new technology already in prototype stage that doesn't use any silver at all, it isn't something you want to hang your hat on.

I feel like the fact that companies have to look for alternatives to silver because it's too expensive shows how invaluable it is though i.e. before it went over $40 an ounce, it was the natural first choice. In the long term, I would expect silver to pop up again and again in developing technologies, for its unique properties, even while existing industries (cell phones, cars, photography, etc.) try to cut costs. I read somewhere that if silver were as cheap as copper, we'd probably all be using silver wiring instead of copper wiring.

Beyond Saving wrote:
So is it a good investment? Well the answer to that is when do you need your money back? If this is money that you are comfortable leaving sitting around for 10-15 years, I'd say you have very little risk. At some point in that period, we are going to have financial troubles. Dealing with the deflation from QE, rising interest rates and pretty much every time our great leaders decide to talk about our massive debt should provide an opportunity for a silver spike.

Sweet. I'm comfortable with sitting on this for decades if necessary. I'm single and in the military, so unlike the average consumer, I save a lot of money every month. 

Anyone else?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 I would rather invest in

 I would rather invest in porn or adult toys.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ha! i haven't paid a nickel

ha! i haven't paid a nickel for porn since i first stumbled on my dad's magazine stash at age 11.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've never paid for porn

I've never paid for porn either.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Investing in porn isn't

Investing in porn isn't meaning purchasing porn or adult toys but to start a business selling them, making them, etc.

Humans will always want to fuck long after the luster of gold and silver disappear.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Investing in porn is stupid,

Investing in porn is stupid, because no one pays for it. The few porn companies that have been publicly traded have all resulted in complete losses for their investors. FFN (owned penthouse) went to pennies within a year. Playboy never did shit and eventually collapsed, New Frontier (made all the old subscription porn on cable) didn't do anything until a brief spike before Hustler bought it. 

There are silver dildos (well silver and/or gold plated). Not sure if any of those companies are publicly traded. If they are, I haven't seen them. Victoria's Secret is public as L Brands Inc. and I actually own a bit. It has done very well post crash. But it really isn't different from any other major retail brand. The only real way to make money in porn is small scale and do it yourself.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Investing in porn is stupid, because no one pays for it. The few porn companies that have been publicly traded have all resulted in complete losses for their investors. FFN (owned penthouse) went to pennies within a year. Playboy never did shit and eventually collapsed, New Frontier (made all the old subscription porn on cable) didn't do anything until a brief spike before Hustler bought it. 

There are silver dildos (well silver and/or gold plated). Not sure if any of those companies are publicly traded. If they are, I haven't seen them. Victoria's Secret is public as L Brands Inc. and I actually own a bit. It has done very well post crash. But it really isn't different from any other major retail brand. The only real way to make money in porn is small scale and do it yourself.

 

That's what I meant. All the small companies I know, including one which was run out of there garage have done really well.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:All

digitalbeachbum wrote:
All the small companies I know, including one which was run out of there garage have done really well.




yeah, but it's kinda hard to go public with child porn.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I figure sex toys and shit

I figure sex toys and shit like that is a good business. There was a review of a small company in the UK which is wildly successful and it all started very small, with only a few items.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2589063/A-glimpse-working-life-inside-Britains-biggest-sex-toy-company.html


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Back at my main computer

 

Back at my main computer so here are a few links I have from my bookmarks you might find interesting/useful. They are all a bit dated since I haven't really researched silver seriously this year, but it should provide some good info and lead you to more current info. 

http://www.lbma.org.uk/assets/blog/alchemist_articles/Alch71Newman.pdf

I had found this article particularly interesting on industrial silver demand, but the lbma releases a journal quarterly available for free online so you might take a gander at the more recent issues. It covers all metals, but is a great resource to get an inside-industry perspective from people who aren't just trying to sell it to you. 

I don't know if you subscribe to any academic journal sites, but if not you should be able to find "Journal of International Money and Finance" at pretty much any library. It is a great journal to get theoretical and research articles on monetary systems and often have articles discussing the effects on precious metals and other commodities. I would particularly recommend

"The price of gold and the exchange rate" Volume 15, Issue 6 December 1996,

"Information transmission in informationally linked markets: Evidence from US and Chinese commodity futures markets"Volume 30, Issue 5, September 2011

"Foreign currency debt, financial crises and economic growth: A long-run view"Volume 29, Issue 4, June 2010

"Variable long-term trends in mineral prices: The ongoing tug-of-war between exploration, depletion, and technological change" Volume 42, April 2014- focuses on minerals as opposed to precious metals, but since most silver comes as a byproduct of mining other minerals, the prices of other minerals can effect the increase or decrease in the production of silver.

"Using common features to understand the behavior of metal-commodity prices and forecast them at different horizons" Volume 42, April 2014

but there are plenty of other articles that are relevent that I haven't read. 

 

You will also want to pay attention to http://www.pv-magazine.com/ since the PV market is the largest consumer of industrial silver. They often have articles discussing new PV technology and manufacturers opening or closing etc. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Baby, I believe. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Investing in porn isn't meaning purchasing porn or adult toys but to start a business selling them, making them, etc.

Humans will always want to fuck long after the luster of gold and silver disappear.

 

 

    If you want a sure fire, never goes away, always have a customer, ( regardless of the economy ) type of business then open up chain of funeral homes.  People never stop dying.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Investing in porn isn't meaning purchasing porn or adult toys but to start a business selling them, making them, etc.

Humans will always want to fuck long after the luster of gold and silver disappear.

 

 

    If you want a sure fire, never goes away, always have a customer, ( regardless of the economy ) type of business then open up chain of funeral homes.  People never stop dying.

I was listening to the local NPR yesterday and they said that by 2020 over 85% of all people dying in Florida will be cremated. The story was about how artists are using ashes to create things like jewlry and other stuff which are made of the ashes.

The other part of the story was about launching ashes in to space, using them for coral reefs, launching them by balloon (which was very interesting and fairly inexpensive), etc.

You are right. That is a good investment.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Investing in porn isn't meaning purchasing porn or adult toys but to start a business selling them, making them, etc.

Humans will always want to fuck long after the luster of gold and silver disappear.

 

 

    If you want a sure fire, never goes away, always have a customer, ( regardless of the economy ) type of business then open up chain of funeral homes.  People never stop dying.

They do however choose cremation in favor of caskets and fancy mausoleums are out of style. Profit margins are a lot smaller than they used to be. Gay divorce lawyers is where the money is going to be at.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The most profits will always

The most profits will always be in the war industry and related fields. Everything else is secondary at best.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The most

Vastet wrote:
The most profits will always be in the war industry and related fields. Everything else is secondary at best.

While yeah, government contracts are cash cows. If you are Brightsource or Solyndra you can get billions  in "loans" without actually producing a thing. 100% profit for schmoozing. And I understand that having built nothing in the US they are now building nothing in China.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
lmao I especially like that

lmao

I especially like that jet fighter the US spent billions on that won't even fly in the rain. Oh to be a weapons contractor.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:lmao I

Vastet wrote:
lmao I especially like that jet fighter the US spent billions on that won't even fly in the rain. Oh to be a weapons contractor.

 

  India is the world's largest democracy and a US ally yet they purchase many types of military aircraft from Russia ( Sukhoi, Mig, Ilyushin ), as well as from Britain, France, etc.  Why should the U.S.  waste billions of dollars developing an aircraft from scratch when we could just buy other countries excellent weapon systems "off the shelf" ?

  The precedent has already been established as many of our small arms and crew served weapons in use with U.S. ground forces are already designed by foreign weapon makers such as FN ( Belgium ), Beretta ( Italy ), Saab Bofors ( Sweden ), Rheinmetall ( Germany ), etc.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I can only assume pride

I can only assume pride trumps everything. It's like how Microsoft jumped on the HDDVD bandwagon for no reason other than to spite Sony. Or how Nintendo insisted on keeping cartridges and expensive licence fees even though they knew with absolute certainty that Sony was going to compete with them using superior and cheaper CD's, and that Sony couldn't get anywhere in the industry with high priced licence fees out of the dock so obviously they were going to undercut Nintendo. Or how the M16 was adopted despite the Kalishnikov being infinitely better.

Yeah the M16 eventually became a good rifle, but only after years of being shit. And most gun experts I've talked to over the years would still take an AK-47 over a M16 any day.

It seems when you are filled with ridiculously high feelings of self importance, you must be the best (in everything), and money is no object. But time and time again, such a move usually fails to do anything more than waste money.

I can understand wanting a superior fighter plane, or a superior gun, or avoiding royalties; but in the end you aren't going to get there by simply throwing money at something or trying to have everything in one package.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I can only

Vastet wrote:
I can only assume pride trumps everything. It's like how Microsoft jumped on the HDDVD bandwagon for no reason other than to spite Sony. Or how Nintendo insisted on keeping cartridges and expensive licence fees even though they knew with absolute certainty that Sony was going to compete with them using superior and cheaper CD's, and that Sony couldn't get anywhere in the industry with high priced licence fees out of the dock so obviously they were going to undercut Nintendo. Or how the M16 was adopted despite the Kalishnikov being infinitely better. Yeah the M16 eventually became a good rifle, but only after years of being shit. And most gun experts I've talked to over the years would still take an AK-47 over a M16 any day. It seems when you are filled with ridiculously high feelings of self importance, you must be the best (in everything), and money is no object. But time and time again, such a move usually fails to do anything more than waste money. I can understand wanting a superior fighter plane, or a superior gun, or avoiding royalties; but in the end you aren't going to get there by simply throwing money at something or trying to have everything in one package.

 

   

      I think you hit the nail on the head.  Pride ( ie, nationalism ) is allowed to overtake logic instead of being held in check.  I agree with your assessment of AK vs M16, I own civilian versions of both types and even though the AK sacrifices some accuracy compared to the M16 / M4, the Russian design nevertheless maintains the mechanical reliability of a f**king hammer. When did you become so well versed on small arms, LOL ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not really. But the

I'm not really. But the M16's infamy is extreme. I think the entire US army, for 10+ years, was furious about it. A good number of people in that period probably left before they fixed the M16, so they never would have experienced it getting better. I wouldn't be surprised if it lasted long enough for in-jokes to pop up amongst the troops that still make the rounds today.

I especially remember talking to a couple Canadians who spent time in the US military decades ago. One of them was still furious about it. Face went all red and he said something about stealing an AK from dead a Korean or Vietnamese (I don't remember which it was) and using it instead until some prick higher in rank made him give it up.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Well with modern planes

 Well with modern planes being controllable remotely, I can see security issues with having them built overseas that you don't have with small arms. I have no idea how easy it would be, or how detectable it would be, but certainly many spy novels have suggested the premise of airplanes being hijacked remotely. It at least seems plausible on the surface.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I have a few

Vastet wrote:
I'm not really. But the M16's infamy is extreme. I think the entire US army, for 10+ years, was furious about it. A good number of people in that period probably left before they fixed the M16, so they never would have experienced it getting better. I wouldn't be surprised if it lasted long enough for in-jokes to pop up amongst the troops that still make the rounds today. I especially remember talking to a couple Canadians who spent time in the US military decades ago. One of them was still furious about it. Face went all red and he said something about stealing an AK from dead a Korean or Vietnamese (I don't remember which it was) and using it instead until some prick higher in rank made him give it up.

Marine aquaintences online and locally who say the same. One reason they wouldn't let US Marines use the AK is because of the sound. Being different then the M-16 you could draw fire to yourself from your own guys by useing it, being mistaken for a VC. BUT, they far preferred the AK and the 7.62 round over the M-16 and the .223. The USMC is toying with the idea presently, of going back to the .30 round. I have an SKS that I prefere far and away from any .223. Over-all--it's the M-14 for me. I don't have one but Emmy Gee my M-1 is still my baby. Special forces today still prefer the M-14, and still use it. The .223 is a good varmint round---but it won't do for me.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Marine

Old Seer wrote:

Marine aquaintences online and locally who say the same. One reason they wouldn't let US Marines use the AK is because of the sound. Being different then the M-16 you could draw fire to yourself from your own guys by useing it, being mistaken for a VC. BUT, they far preferred the AK and the 7.62 round over the M-16 and the .223. The USMC is toying with the idea presently, of going back to the .30 round. I have an SKS that I prefere far and away from any .223. Over-all--it's the M-14 for me. I don't have one but Emmy Gee my M-1 is still my baby. Special forces today still prefer the M-14, and still use it. The .223 is a good varmint round---but it won't do for me.

 I mostly used the M4 and never had any problems with it, all the time I spent "dying" in force on force exercises, I can't blame the gun even once. The M14 is a great weapon though and the MK14 EBR looks downright badass. However, for my choice, give me an M40, I much prefer killing targets before they see me, none of that heroic macho shit for me. Someone else can charge, my job was to haul ass to exfil or paint the target and hunker down til the fireworks started if any unplanned shitstorm came along. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Generally I prefer the M4

Generally I prefer the M4 over the AK in all the games that feature both, but I can't speak for how realistic a comparison it is. Guns never jam in video games. You never have to clean them either.

But I think I'd take an RPK over any of it, sniper rifle included.

Sniper rifles are great when you have a big field of view, you don't have a mob heading your way, and you have some cover, but they are limited otherwise. They also make you focus more, which makes it easier for someone to sneak up on you. With one eye closed and the other in the scope the only thing you have to defend yourself is your hearing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Generally I

Vastet wrote:
Generally I prefer the M4 over the AK in all the games that feature both, but I can't speak for how realistic a comparison it is. Guns never jam in video games. You never have to clean them either. But I think I'd take an RPK over any of it, sniper rifle included. Sniper rifles are great when you have a big field of view, you don't have a mob heading your way, and you have some cover, but they are limited otherwise. They also make you focus more, which makes it easier for someone to sneak up on you. With one eye closed and the other in the scope the only thing you have to defend yourself is your hearing.

If a mob is headed to your way, that is where the haul ass and run away part of the plan comes in. No gun is particularly useful if you are dramatically outnumbered, air support is. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i don't know. i imagine if

i don't know. i imagine if you got yourself dug into a really advantageous foxhole, preferably slightly uphill from the mob's approach, had plenty of ammo, kept calm, and squeezed off shots deliberately, you could hold them off and demoralize them pretty quickly, at least long enough to get away. assuming, that is, by "mob" we mean disorganized civilians with limited firepower at most, motivated by some sort of group frenzy. my favorite passage in "world war z" describes such a strategy used against zombie hordes. of course, it wasn't just a lone shooter then but at least a platoon i think, using a sort of circle the wagons approach on high ground. they had high-powered rifles with scopes and sipped from camel bladders. they even had military psychs there monitoring them. they were only supposed to squeeze off a shot every certain number of seconds (can't remember how many) and if they jumped the gun by even a couple seconds a psych immediately tapped them out and sent in a fresh man.


if such a strategy could hypothetically work against mindless automatons like zombies, i think a lone shooter could certainly use a similar strategy against human beings who can actually feel fear and uncertainty, provided he or she is trained, equipped, and has the advantage in terrain.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The problem with zombies is

The problem with zombies is they have no fear, they never stop coming, and their numbers grow constantly. Eventually you run out of ammo. If none of those initial conditions exist, then there's never an outbreak because they are easily contained.

But take down 5 or 6 people in a mob in two seconds, and they'll be climbing over each other to get away. They might occasionally try again, but every time they hear your RPK start up they'll shit themselves.

If it's a well organised force with good tech at their disposal, you're fucked no matter what you do. So you might as well take as many as you can before someone drops a bomb on your head.

I kind of look at a sniper rifle as the perfect troll weapon. Bunch of people wandering around, suddenly one drops. Noone knows where it's coming from. Another drops. They start to panic and seek cover. Another drops, one or two flip out and start to run. You take them at the knee. lulz
Until one very pissed off guy you missed slipping away comes up behind you and shoves a crow bar up your ass.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:   I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

 I mostly used the M4 and never had any problems with it, all the time I spent "dying" in force on force exercises, I can't blame the gun even once.

 

   Speaking as a dedicated ammosexual, I definitely like the AR / M4 series of rifles and personally own examples chambered in 5.56x45mm,  300 Blackout ( 7.62x35 ) and 7.62x51mm.  I love shooting them all.

  All that said, if I could choose any real assault rifle in the world to protect my life, it would be the Israeli Galil.  It fires the same ammunition as the M4 yet it maintains the rock solid reliabilty of an AK because it does not use the M4's direct impingement method but instead uses a long stroke piston / heavy bolt carrier assembly to work the action.  It comes in three barrel lengths and is also produced in a version that chambers the larger 7.62x51mm as well. 

  There are other good rifle choices out there but any rifle I would choose to defend my life would have to be piston driven ( or roller delayed blow back per HK design )

 

                                                            

 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:But I think I'd

Vastet wrote:
But I think I'd take an RPK over any of it, sniper rifle included.

 

     If you like Warsaw Pact weapons ( I do ) then step up to a Soviet designed PKM.   It fires a more powerful cartidge, is belt fed, and has a quick change barrel system, is relatively light weight for a GPMG and is utterly reliable. Bring a lot of gun food, though.

 

                         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_F-q7MNYBE

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I suppose it might work in

 I suppose it might work in theory, but you wouldn't be utilizing your weapons strengths. If for some reason you couldn't run away, it would be much smarter to constantly relocate and keep distance between you and the mob. Get concealed, fire a shot, wait an hour, fire again, and whenever they start getting warm, move. Psychologically, humans can deal with immediate threats that they can identify and can do something against, while an unseen and unpredictable threat that you feel powerless against is terrifying and absolutely draining, even if it kills fewer people overall.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I suppose it might work in theory, but you wouldn't be utilizing your weapons strengths. If for some reason you couldn't run away, it would be much smarter to constantly relocate and keep distance between you and the mob. Get concealed, fire a shot, wait an hour, fire again, and whenever they start getting warm, move. Psychologically, humans can deal with immediate threats that they can identify and can do something against, while an unseen and unpredictable threat that you feel powerless against is terrifying and absolutely draining, even if it kills fewer people overall.

 

                           "Kill one, terrify a thousand"  Sun Tzu "The Art Of War"

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well I can't speak for the

Well I can't speak for the group mentality, but personally if someone were sniping people in my group one at a time, I'd start hunting the fucker. Sooner or later he'd take a shot from a position I could identify and get to quickly, and then he'd be in for a world of pain.

But if someone was firing 10 rounds a second from a semi-fortified position, I'd get the hell out of there.

Now if the sniper had a buddy or two, that would be a different story. I'd be gone real fast.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Well I can't

Vastet wrote:
Well I can't speak for the group mentality, but personally if someone were sniping people in my group one at a time, I'd start hunting the fucker. Sooner or later he'd take a shot from a position I could identify and get to quickly, and then he'd be in for a world of pain.

Many have died trying to do just that. It is rather difficult to find someone who is skilled at concealment and could be anywhere out to almost a mile away and is regularly relocating.

 

Vastet wrote:

But if someone was firing 10 rounds a second from a semi-fortified position, I'd get the hell out of there. Now if the sniper had a buddy or two, that would be a different story. I'd be gone real fast.

If the idiot is burning ammo that fast, all you have to do is get your head down and wait. Most infantry rifles have a sustained fire rate of 12-15 rounds per minute. Blasting at full auto, their weapon will overheat and cease working in less than a minute (the metal literally melts and internals fuse together), at which point it will be just an awkwardly shaped club. Even firing semi-auto, you will overheat if you exceed the sustained rate and don't take breaks to allow it to cool. Even then, your gun will become increasingly less accurate. Another area where games and movies and terribly unrealistic. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm a natural when it comes

I'm a natural when it comes to concealment, and exceptionally observant to boot. It's possible the sniper would get me, but it's at least equally likely that I'd get him. I've spent my whole life practicing the art of concealment. I can't count the number of times people walked within a foot or two of me and never knew I was there. I can also be incredibly patient when I want to be.
Even if he did get me though, at least I'd be on the offensive and not cowering in a corner waiting for the end.

As for the auto fire, you can safely shoot bursts. I didn't mean an indefinite sustained rate of fire. Even I know that would be stupid. But you just try marching an army at me while I have a full auto or two and a good defensive position. They'll drop like flies and run for the hills.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm a natural

Vastet wrote:
I'm a natural when it comes to concealment, and exceptionally observant to boot. It's possible the sniper would get me, but it's at least equally likely that I'd get him. I've spent my whole life practicing the art of concealment. I can't count the number of times people walked within a foot or two of me and never knew I was there. I can also be incredibly patient when I want to be. Even if he did get me though, at least I'd be on the offensive and not cowering in a corner waiting for the end.

If you are the one doing counter sniper work, you can't be patient. The sniper has the luxury of controlling the flow of the engagement. You can be the sneakiest fucker in the universe, but unless you have identified where the sniper is, you have nothing to stalk. When you have identified where the sniper is, you have to close in fast, otherwise the sniper will be long gone before you get there. The sniper has the advantage of deciding when to fire, when to move and knowing/planning where the battle moves to next. The sniper can move agonizingly slowly, you have to move quickly. Even if you are more skilled, that fact will make you more visible. You are not going to sneak up on a trained sniper. 

Your best bet for counter sniper work is to have your own sniper, in which case it comes down to their respective skill levels and more than a little luck. Failing that, ideally you contain the sniper, either by surrounding him or by closing off a couple sides and flushing the sniper towards an area with less adequate concealment or perhaps your own ambush. However, any sniper is going to be familiar with such tactics and will work very hard to not go where you chase them. It is highly likely your guys will walk right past the sniper and he just holes up, remember he has the option to not shoot until he is a mile away again. Artillery or air support can greatly increase your odds, although even then most of the time you only succeed in encouraging the sniper to disengage and retreat. 

I've done counter-sniper training exercises, and even with the advantage of a well trained team it isn't anything I'd care to do for real. My strategy if I'm being attacked by a sniper is to pop smoke and haul ass to exfil. Come back later with air support, artillery and a couple sniper teams of my own. 

 

Vastet wrote:

As for the auto fire, you can safely shoot bursts. I didn't mean an indefinite sustained rate of fire. Even I know that would be stupid. But you just try marching an army at me while I have a full auto or two and a good defensive position. They'll drop like flies and run for the hills.

You greatly overestimate the benefits of full auto. There are many good reasons that full auto is virtually never used by well trained soldiers outside of mounted guns. It takes seconds to overheat your gun, it takes minutes for it to cool down enough to be confident with it. When an overwhelming force is headed towards you, a minute is forever. If I were on the assaulting team, I would be much more comfortable approaching a fortification firing rapid bursts than a fortification firing a single round every four seconds. The former is going to get a jam and is inaccurate. The latter indicates someone who knows what the hell they are doing and they are probably hitting my comrades. Someone who can maintain fire discipline against a larger force is very dangerous. But even then, assuming large enough numbers and a desire to do so, a single shooter in a fortification will be overran eventually.

If your sole goal is self preservation, you are better off staying mobile and only shooting when absolutely necessary. And if you can make that shooting happen at a great distance, so much the better.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:If you

Beyond Saving wrote:
If you are the one doing counter sniper work, you can't be patient. The sniper has the luxury of controlling the flow of the engagement.

That really depends on how valuable those being killed are to you. If they are extremely valuable, then you are right. But if you don't really need any of them, or if there's a LOT of them, then you can afford to be patient. Rushing a sniper without a crowd of people beside you is suicide. Better to lose a few people and get the sniper than get yourself killed and lose everyone.

Beyond Saving wrote:
You can be the sneakiest fucker in the universe, but unless you have identified where the sniper is, you have nothing to stalk. When you have identified where the sniper is, you have to close in fast, otherwise the sniper will be long gone before you get there. The sniper has the advantage of deciding when to fire, when to move and knowing/planning where the battle moves to next. The sniper can move agonizingly slowly, you have to move quickly.

That's exactly why patience wins. If you're constantly moving yourself, then you could find yourself always a step behind or ahead of where the sniper is. If you have to rush, you're dead. The sniper has to move, but he can't move quickly or everyone sees him.
If you sit and wait patiently, a pattern will emerge. A pattern MUST emerge. Maybe it will be as simple as average distance, or as convoluted as mathematic positioning, but it will emerge. Which allows you to narrow the playing field and increase the odds he'll take a shot near your position. And then you have him.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Even if you are more skilled, that fact will make you more visible. You are not going to sneak up on a trained sniper.

I disagree. It is easy to sneak up on a sniper unless you're making a racket or don't have the slightest idea where he is. The sniper is subjected to tunnel vision, and no amount of training can overcome biology.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Your best bet for counter sniper work is to have your own sniper, in which case it comes down to their respective skill levels and more than a little luck. Failing that, ideally you contain the sniper, either by surrounding him or by closing off a couple sides and flushing the sniper towards an area with less adequate concealment or perhaps your own ambush. However, any sniper is going to be familiar with such tactics and will work very hard to not go where you chase them. It is highly likely your guys will walk right past the sniper and he just holes up, remember he has the option to not shoot until he is a mile away again. Artillery or air support can greatly increase your odds, although even then most of the time you only succeed in encouraging the sniper to disengage and retreat. 

I've done counter-sniper training exercises, and even with the advantage of a well trained team it isn't anything I'd care to do for real. My strategy if I'm being attacked by a sniper is to pop smoke and haul ass to exfil. Come back later with air support, artillery and a couple sniper teams of my own. 

Granted. I'm assuming this isn't an option. My first choice would always be retreat.

Beyond Saving wrote:
You greatly overestimate the benefits of full auto. There are many good reasons that full auto is virtually never used by well trained soldiers outside of mounted guns.

Why can't I have a mounted gun? I'm holding a defensive position. Not running around willy nilly. If I'm moving, screw it and give me a pistol with a silencer.

Beyond Saving wrote:
It takes seconds to overheat your gun, it takes minutes for it to cool down enough to be confident with it. When an overwhelming force is headed towards you, a minute is forever. If I were on the assaulting team, I would be much more comfortable approaching a fortification firing rapid bursts than a fortification firing a single round every four seconds. The former is going to get a jam and is inaccurate. The latter indicates someone who knows what the hell they are doing and they are probably hitting my comrades. Someone who can maintain fire discipline against a larger force is very dangerous. But even then, assuming large enough numbers and a desire to do so, a single shooter in a fortification will be overran eventually.

Clearly you and I are envisioning different defensive installations and scenarios. I wouldn't need more than 2 or 3 rounds per burst when I'm controlling the approach. I'll have no problem letting the gun cool down. If the enemy isn't rushing me, then single shots are just fine. I'm talking about a massed rush, and accuracy/overheating are of little concern if you don't at least slow them down.
I haven't been talking about taking on a real, well trained and disciplined army. I'd never take on a real army unless I have absolutely no other option. In which case I figure I'm dead already, so I might as well take as many of them out as I can. An actual army isn't going to get scared off by anyone with any weapon. Even if they do retreat, they are going to come back. And when they do you don't have a chance in hell.

Beyond Saving wrote:
If your sole goal is self preservation, you are better off staying mobile and only shooting when absolutely necessary. And if you can make that shooting happen at a great distance, so much the better.

If my only goal is self preservation then I'm not there anymore. I'm not going to risk my life just to kill people. I'd rather be doing almost anything else.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.