Wirehead Studios

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rongstad/w...viewed_2003.htm (http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rongstad/weapons/military/m-16_reviewed_2003.htm)

You know, this is why the Russians put folding stocks on some AK-47's.

ph34r!

Thats odd my brother's rifle never jammed on him during the entire war....of course he knew how to clean it.
 anyone who knew what they were talking about would have used the term "stoping power" and not "knock down power" which was a stupid argument since the M16 and AK rifles use pretty much the same round.

Uhhh.... no.  Actually the M-16 uses a .223 caliber, or 5.56x45mm NATO.  The Ak-47 uses a 7.62x39mm cartridge.  The AK-74 (that's seventy-four, and it's not a typo) uses a 5.54x39mm round.  Basically an AK-74 is identical to an AK-47 but shoots a smaller bullet.  THAT round is similar to the M-16's cartridge.  The Ak-47 shoots a heavier bullet, 122 grains for the 7.62 as opposed to 55 grains for the 5.56 round, and tends to be a bit nastier than the M-16 to be on the other end of, but the M-16 is more accurate at longer ranges.  The full-sized M-16 is better for more open combat, the AK-47 is superb for medium range to close-quarters dirty fighting.  Anything from 200 meters in and the AK will own it.  Past 300 it better be an elephant that you're shooting at, unless you've got a VERY good milled receiver AK like the Bulgarian models with the Styer barrels.  An AK was never meant to be a sniper rifle.  That's what a Dragunov is for.  The nice thing about the AK-47 is that you can drop it in the mud, roll over it with a tank, pick it up, and it will still shoot.

no the nice thing about the AK is it cost about 150 bucks a copy. There is also the fact that its so easy to modify which is why the Dragunov and even shotguns based on mikhail kalashnikov's original design exist. This simplicity of its design is also why its so durable.
 In the end the main reason so many countrys use the AK is because its cheap as hell if not free which is why guerilla groups and militias use them. You may notice well funded militarys tend to produde thier own rifles and the ones that dont like the brittish S.A.S and isreali army use the M16 for its superior range and accuracy  plastic or not. (i have to note most of the brittish military uses the L85A1 and L85A2 rifles only the S.A.S uses the M16)

AK all the way , or a p90 or F2000

P90 an F2000 I can shoot without getting the empty bullets in my face .

The L85A1 and L85A2 are really terrible weapons. And thats coming from a brit (a welsh one mind)

well thats why the S.A.S uses M16s. Who dares wins  :thumb:

bleh screw the oicw.. i want the G36 ..

These are the Rifles slated to replace the M16A2 and M4 carbine within  the next 10 years or so.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm)    XM8
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm)    XM29

sorta starship troopers looking if ya ask me

dont forget expansive , and I dont want to run out of batterys for that gun .

That depends on what kind of AK you're talking about.  Most of the stamped out patterns are dirt cheap like that, but they're not very accurate.  A quality, milled receiver semi-auto pattern in the US can run you $400 and up.  That's for the Arsenal rifles, which are as accurate as you can get for an AK.  A friend of mine has an SA-93 that he can break 4" clay targets repeatedly at 200 yards using iron sights.  That's 2 MOA or better with an AK carbine with a 9" sight plane.

Speaking of sights, the OIC is a nice weapon in theory, but from what I can see it's going to become an albatross around the soldier's neck.  That's a 12 lb weapon.  The M-16 weighs 7.5 lbs.  In practical battlefield application I don't see the OIC becoming a standard battle rifle.  It would have certain uses, don't get me wrong, but the weight and delicate nature of the design can make it a liability.  Any field-hardened grunt will tell you that optics break, stuff gets abused, and at the end of the day you better know how to use that iron on top of the gun.  I don't even see any provision for manual sighting on the OIC.  I see a lot of the same flaw in the XM8.  What are you going to do when your rifle goes in the mud, or gets knocked hard when you dive for cover and the optics take a beating?  AK-47's hold up superb in the desert, while M-16's need regular cleaning to keep from jamming.  What about these new rifles?  How are they going to hold up in a sandstorm?

The US may be able to out-maneuver most smaller enemies like Iraq by winning on the information side, but historically all the big wars has proven a consistant theme over and over:  simple works, rule the skies, and whoever can throw more metal at the other guy usually wins.  The US built better artillery in WWII than the Germans because German artillery had over 42 moving parts while US artillery had 5.  Now the trend is reversing, with the US building the fancy high-tech stuff.  Just look at recent events to see what works.  When guided munitions weren't doing enough in Afghanistan what did the US do?  They went back to using B-52's and high-altitude carpet bombing.  The US won in Afghanistan by air superiority - not by ground tactics - but still had to ditch the high-tech for the old-school scorched earth method.  The US military also let the Afghan militias do most of the ground work, mainly because of the lesson the Russians learned about Afghanistan, even though they were technologically superior than the locals.  Once the Afghanis started bringing down the Russian choppers with Stinger missiles and took the air advantage away from the Ruskies it was the Ruskies that started counting bodies.

Fancy high-tech weapons are great for peace-time, but when the proverbial fan is hit what's more important - having a gun that's high-tech and costs more than a typical automobile, or one that will work every time you pull the trigger?

for the record AKs do infact jam. My brother witnessed that sevral times in Iraq because people dont bother to do even the most basic care and maintenance on thier rifles because people keep spreading the myth that the AK is indestructable.
 where as his rifle NEVER jammed because he kept it clean.

Oh, you can jam any gun, and even AK's will go south if you don't take at least some basic care of them.  Being able to withstand abuse, and deliberately abusing something are very different things.  You want your weapon to do the former, but you should never do the latter to your weapon, no matter what you're using.  An M-16 is a very good weapon if properly maintained, otherwise it would not have seen service for so long.

  Yet another piece of interesting news, and more marks for the Ak-47.


Another Vietnam, eh?  Well in one way that seems to be true.

yes.. army brass will never get over their fascination with long range accurate weapons.. first they didnt want to get rid of the garand.. so they went to the m14.. full auto, but still long range.. then they came to the m16.. better.. but not quite.. blegh, when will they learn the average soldier doesnt shoot til about 150 yards out..

I don't often revisit old topics, but I read this tonight and it got me thinking about how many US casualties can be squarely blamed on having underpowered rifles.

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?ar...article_id=3780 (http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3780)

The British assault rifle (especially the SA-80 version) is such a piece of  shit that they ought to equip their entire armed forces with M-4s and M-16s. Anyway, the AK-47, whatever you guys say, is an inferior weapon. It is far less accurate, even in close quarters, has tremendous recoil due to its large round, and is much less ergonomic than the M-16 (as they say, when a shooter armed with an M-16 has trouble lining up the sights, you adjust the sights. With the AK, you adjust the shooter). Also, the AKs used by Iraqi insurgents and many other poorly funded and supplied forces are very badly made, and any inherent reliability advantages to the AK are nullified in these cases by shoddy workmanship. Ever wonder why you can get an AK in Baghdad for the equivalent of $5?

(Keep in mind that the ratio of insurgent to US casualties is something like 20 insurgents for every American)

What we need is an intermediate cartridge, perhaps 6.5x45mm.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm)

 I saw this rifle on mail call on the history channel and what i saw was pretty impressive. Very accurate even at fully automatic fire and tests indicate you can fire thousands of rounds without having to clean it ( but i wouldnt advise that personally with any rifle). I think the M16 can retire gracefully.

Nice gun ? shame about the moustache.

 :biggun:

I see no real way to sight that thing if the scope breaks.

Makou:  I'm with you.  Rifles get dropped, abused, hit by enemy fire, used to club people, and God knows what else in actual combat.  War is not a good place to be taking "delicate" weapons.

Woolie:  The insurgents are not well trained.  I've seen video of these guys shooting at people.  They basically point the rifle out at arms length and spray bullets in the general direction of where they think someone is.  Why do you think the only way they get any US Casualties is from roadside bombs and the occasional mortar or RPG hitting something?  US Troops are better trained and have armored vehicles, air support, and advanced communications.  This gives a serious advantage to the US troops.  They know how to fight a war and use their weapons properly, the insurgents don't.

As for the AK's quality, as I've said before it depends on what model and who made it.  Not all AK's are equal.  The Bulgarian and Russian AK's are very good rifles.  There ARE a lot of crap rifles out there, the Chinese MAK-90's come to mind.  Cheap stamped receiver AK's with shoddy barrels will hit all over the place.  At 100 yards you might get a 6" group with slow aimed fire.  Compare that to the AR-15 shooting 1" groups or less at that range.  The milled receiver AK's, and especially the Bulgarian patterns can shoot 2" groups or better at 100 yards.  When you consider the AK was designed for shooting man-sized targets out to 300 yards in semi-auto aimed fire it meets this purpose just fine.  If you can hit a dinner plate at 200 yards you can hit a person where it counts.  Up close the AK in full auto mode is more lethal than any pistol caliber submachinegun on the market, and unlike SMG's the AK-47's cartridge defeats body armor.  Kalashnikov designed the weapon to work in both the intermediate rifle and close-range SMG roles.  It does that very well.  As for the lethality of the 7.62x39 cartridge, I hate to sound cold but visit the Vietnam Memorial sometime.  As for recoil, the rifle does NOT have that much recoil.  I get tired of hearing this by people who have obviously never shot one.  What the AK-47 does have is a lot of muzzle jump, which can easily be corrected by installing a muzzle brake.  Go fire an AK sometime, then fire a .30-06 or 7mm magnum and I'll feel you're qualified to tell me what "heavy recoil" is.

The Russians also had a different philosophy in regards to the roll of marksmanship in combat.  Every squad had one man armed with the SVD Dragunov sniper rifle.  Most fighting historically took place at less than 300 yards (and still does), which is why the AK isn't required to be super accurate out to 600 yards.  If someone needed to hit something that far out they used the sniper for that.  My concern is not "which rifle is more accurate" but "which rifle fulfills its role".  The AK-47 does EXACTLY what it was designed to do provided the guy operating it has at least some rudimentary marksmanship training.  The M-16, in my opinion, is a nice target/varmint rifle.  Sure, it's accurate enough and it does kill what it hits, eventually, but it's not really durable enough for fielding in harsh conditions and does not have the knockdown power needed to stop threats quickly.

I think the US military needs a more effective assault rifle that has more knockdown power and is less prone to malfunction in the field.  I do think an intermediate cartridge like the 6.5x45mm could provide better results, but why not just go to an already proven cartridge like the larger 308 Winchester (7.62x51mm NATO)?  It packs a much bigger punch and is accurate enough to be used in the M24 Sniper Weapon System.  What I wish the military would do is use the lessons learned from the dismal performance of the 5.56x45mm round and the M-16/M4 weapon system to design an entirely new rifle based upon improving this system.  Use what works, and fix what doesn't.  Make the rifle more durable, less prone to jamming when not cleaned every few hundred shots, and couple it with a higher-power cartridge.  The XM8 is a nice concept, but is still using the underpowered 5.56x45mm cartridge, and from what I can tell from the information provided by Woodsman's link it completely lacks iron sights.  (This reminds me of when the F-4 Phantom was initially sent into combat without any kind of machinegun.)  I don't see this rifle solving the problems of the M16/M4 Carbine, I see a good possibility of it creating a whole host of NEW problems.  If adopted by the US military I do hope that I am wrong.  Soldiers need reliable weaponry that packs a punch and can withstand abuse.  That's all I'm asking for.

While I've never fired an AK-47, I can back up Phoenix's statements on the .30-06 -- I own one, and have fired it many times -- that shit has some kick on it. If it had a metal plate on the butt like my father's .300 Savage, it'd seriously hurt me.

Lets not assume right away that because a weapon is new that its not going to work. The XM8 is being produced by Heckler and Koch and they have a fine record when it comes to rifles and fire arms in general there is no cause to believe the XM8 is going to be unrealiable simply because its not primative and ungainly.  Contrary to popular belief  i do believe in the old  adage "if its not broke dont fix it" ( victory loves prudence) when it comes to weapons.My personal weapons assortment can back that up ( a KA-BAR and two Mosin Nagants) but i also believe in safeguarding against   being too conservative. If a new weapons system can give an army an edge it should be looked into. If the Spartans Germans and even the soviets hadnt been so conservative with thier miliary policys they might have faired better in the long run.
 As for the 5.56x45mm round if your looking for a large round with massive stopping power the assualt rifle might not be your weapon to begin with. You might want to go with somthing like the B.A.R (another tried and true weapon). The point of an assault rifle is to be mobile and controlable its not ment to be a shoulder fired howitzer. Also keep in mind the 7.62x39mm is not exactly a particualry massive round either ( if youve ever seen one in real life you know what im talking about) and one of the primary reasons the soviets changed the AK to fire the 5.45 round was because of the improved control and accurarcy that smaller rounds can allow you.Im also willing to bet the supposed superior "knock down power" has more to do with the fact that most M16s and M4s dont have fully automatic fire.  A 5.56x45mm  round is going to kill you just as dead as a 7.62x39 round if the soldier who fires it knows what hes doing.

As for reminders of the effectiveness of specific rounds the 2,000,000  vietnamese military deaths  might speak well for the effectiveness of the M16. At least as well as the 69,000 american deaths represented by the vietnam memorial.

Like I said, if the XM8 is going to be adopted by the US military I DO hope it works and works well!  There are some parts of the weapon I have serious reservations about, like the optics, and the additional fact that it is still being chambered in 5.56x45mm makes it VERY hard for me to get excited about it.

Yes I know the 5.56x45mm will kill people.  The problem isn't in killing, it's in how many rounds does it take to kill QUICKLY, as well as inferior material penetration.  The 7.62x39 is, like the 5.56, an intermediate power cartridge.  This I know, and am not disputing (yes I've seen many rounds of both, I have a gun-nut for a friend who owns a small arsenal, one of the very few who I trust enough to have met me in the feathers).  However the 7.62mm bullet IS larger, heavier, and leaves a bigger hole.  It's actually a .311 caliber bullet, not a true 7.62mm (anyone who reloads this cartridge will tell you this) so it's slightly larger in diameter than a .30 caliber round.  Compare .311 to .223 and that's a bullet that's nearly 40% bigger, so that's a 40% bigger hole it's going to leave in whatever it hits.  As for the Vietnam figures, I'm sure we both know a lot of those were the result of napalm, airstrikes, and machinegun fire in addition to those killed with M-16's.

The Russians adopted the 5.45mm round, this is true, however they're not entirely pleased with it.


Linked from here. (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as01-e.htm)

It's not really difficult physics, getting hit with a bigger round delivers more energy and damage than a smaller one.  I'm not asking for grunts to carry around shoulder howitzers, otherwise I'd advocate going back to the M1 Garand and it's .30-06' cartridge.  The 5.56x45mm is just too damned small.  The 7.62x51mm used in the M14 and currently used in just about every SWS in the US military certainly has enough knockdown power, but is a bit heavier and you can't carry as much.  As for the M14, it was never designed to be used as an assault rifle in the first place.  I like the killing power of the 7.62x51mm cartridge, but in further consideration perhaps it is just a little too big.

That brings me to a new contender, one I've not talked about yet, as I was actually hoping someone else would bring it up.  As an additional alternative to the M-16, and in direct competition with the XM8, Barrett has developed a 6.8 Remington SPC rifle, the M468. (http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles/rifles_m468.htm)  It can even be fitted to an existing AR lower receiver as a conversion kit.  Here's two links with some feedback in regards to the weapon:

http://www.gunblast.com/Barrett-M468.htm (http://www.gunblast.com/Barrett-M468.htm)
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1463...h_M468,,00.html (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html)

I've known about the M468 for a little while now, and to me it looks more promising than the XM8.  It's what the M16 SHOULD have been from the beginning, and for a "vs" fight the M468 has the AK patterns beat in just about every department except maybe "drive a tank over it and it still shoots".  I'm fairly impressed with the system so far, and that's saying a lot as I don't impress easily when it comes to new weapon designs.  Maybe with this ongoing war in Iraq the US military will use up enough of those millions of rounds of 5.56x45mm ammo to seriously consider upgrading to the 6.8 SPC.[/color]  :thumb:

If 7.62 really is superior, than we'll see a lot of it when the XM-8 is introduced, as a 7.62 adapter for the gun snaps right in.

That's interesting, considering caliber conversions almost always require changes in barrel, bolt, and magazine.  I didn't see mention of any kind of adapter on the page Woodsman linked from, and I'm rather curious as to how they've designed this.  Also, which 7.62... 7.62x39mm, or 7.62x51mm?

Im willing to bet if such a thing exists its for 7.62x39mm.

Well it would be logical, considering the changeover would be less difficult, it's more cost-effective to use captured enemy ammo if you have it, and most of the areas the US is likely to engage in military operations would be using rifles chambered in either 7.62x39mm or 5.54x39mm.  That is of course, unless the US invades France.  :D

Which brings me to an interesting point that's been at the back of my mind through all this.  I was watching some news earlier on TV (which I do from time to time) and they were showing film clips of US soldiers gearing up for operations in Fallujah.  One was operating a mortar, some others were holding drills, running into the backs of BFV's, but one clip that caught my eye was two US soldiers in full battle gear.  One was aiming what was obviously an AK-47 at something off screen, the other was standing with the rifle at waist level but slung over his shoulder.  (To their credit, they were both using milled-receiver AK's with quality stocks which appeared to be of Russian origin)

Now let's stop and think for a moment, and put arguments of weapon superiority aside.  I've heard reports of the US needing to contract out for 5.56x45mm ammo because they were running short, I've also heard the reports of problems with the M-16 and M4 carbine, as I've stated above.  I've also heard, as also stated before in this post, reports of US soldiers and marines using AK-47's in operations for various reasons.  Adding all these factors together, as a ground commander it would make perfect sense to equip some troops with confiscated weaponry.  The M-16 has certain things it's good at doing, and the AK-47 has certain things it's good at doing.  Both also have certain things they're NOT good at doing.  The M-16A2 is more accurate at longer ranges, and the grunts are trained very well in using it, however it's prone to malfunction in the sand without frequent maintenence and is too long for house-to-house close-quarters combat.  The M4, while better for CQC tends to have overheat problems.  The AK-47 is very robust, capable of full-auto fire (as opposed to the M-16A2's three-shot burst mode) and is excellent for close-range dirty fighting and medium-range rifle work, but is not accurate enough for long-range tactical engagement.  A smart ground commander would take advantage of the strengths of each weapon to offset the weaknesses of both.  As an added logistical bonus, the US forces could take full advantage of captured enemy weapon and ammunition to help solve a host of other logistical problems.  These would include:

Potential supply problems and possible shortages of the 5.56x45mm ammo.
Disposal of captured weapons and ordinance.
Maintenence turnaround for the M16/M4 due to the sandy environment.
Cost of waging war in relation to all of the above.

This gives the grunts plenty of ammo, maximized long-range and short-range firepower potential, and they can spend more time conducting operations and drills as opposed to cleaning their rifles.  Does anyone agree with me here that using both weapon systems to support each other is the optimal battlefield solution in Iraq?

I think just using the AK would be enough 2 .

Equiping reserveists and other non profession soldiers with AKs would be a good idea. It would be cost effective and you wouldnt have to worry about some weekend warrior being too stupid to clean his rifle. I would be even more behing this idea if some modernizations were to be made specificly to make the rifle more accurate at long range (which has always been my only real proublem with the weapon).

I know I mentioned this in the chat room, but they began the assault on Fallujah so far, and I found these pics rather interesting:

(http://www.foxnews.com/images/143864/48_21_fallujah_nov8.jpg)
Caption: Nov. 8: A nightscope of U.S. forces storming the main city hospital in Fallujah, Iraq.

(http://www.foxnews.com/images/143864/48_24_fallujah_nov8_4.jpg)
Caption:  Nov. 8: A U.S. soldier blindfolding a man after troops stormed Fallujah?s main hospital.

(http://www.foxnews.com/images/143864/48_25_fallujah_nov8_5.jpg)
Caption:  Nov. 8: U.S. soldiers walking down a corridor after storming Fallujah?s main hospital.

These photos are showing what are, according to the captions, US soldiers engaged in operations.  In each of these photos (available here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137843,00.html) by clicking on the thumbnails, requires javascript) the captions indicate they are US Soldiers, and in all of them they are showing them carrying AK-47's.  The last one I posted he's actually carrying an RPK with a 75 or 100 round drum (The RPK is basically a heavy-barrel mag-fed AK used by the Russians as a Squad Automatic Weapon to replace the older belt-fed RPD).  If this is so, and they didn't actually miscaption photos of Iraqi troops working with the US forces (like the news never screws up), then the US military is following the combat model I suggested above.  I find that possibility quite awesome myself!

I've seen the Aks on TV over here too. intresting.............

More unfavorable info in regards to the M-16/5.56mm weapon system:


http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html (http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html)
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html (http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html)
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/summerof67.html (http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/summerof67.html)

And they still want to retain this pathetic excuse for a cartridge for the XM-18 and XM-28 OICW?  I hope in God's name they adopt the M468 in 6.8SPC if for no other reason than to get rid of the damned 5.56 NATO round![/color]

your thinking of the XM8 and XM29

Aye, hazards of being up so late and not being able to sleep.  Tired talons lead to typos.  :doomed:

Oh, if anyone sees what looks like an M-16 with an AK-47 mag stuck out of it, your eyes aren't fooling you.

(http://quarterbore.com/images/kac-sr47-01.jpg)
http://quarterbore.com/kac/sr47.html (http://quarterbore.com/kac/sr47.html)

Used primarily by Special Ops for cave operations in Afghanistan.  There's only a few (officially) running around.  Good luck trying to find a conversion kit on the civilian market.

Ahh, here you go Woods.  An American-made accurized AK-pattern:

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_ri...avtomat_080304/ (http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/avtomat_080304/)


(http://www.krebscustom.com/RawPhotos/6-28-04/KTR-03SFinal.jpg)
(http://www.krebscustom.com/RawPhotos/10-25-04/ktr03svltor.jpg)
http://www.krebscustom.com/KalashnikovRifles.html (http://www.krebscustom.com/KalashnikovRifles.html)

Not any more expensive than most AR-15's, impressive accuracy coming from a 7.62x39mm, hits much harder than the 5.56mm, has all the bells and whistles of an AR but is over twice as reliable.  It takes standard double-stack AK mags AND has a top-mounted M1913 Picatinny rail AND the side-mounted SVD scope rail.  How can you beat that?  While I don't see the US military adopting it any time soon, it's a very nice piece of equipment.  Not for someone wanting a $250 Romanian throw-away gun for certain.  (Ok, I'll pick my tongue back up off the floor now.)[/color]  :smirk:

looks like the bird has forgotten to put his text back in yellow :p

My text is in yellow.  The only things not in yellow are the links, and the quoted text.

Pst...give me a BFG 9000....

*/genflags 29; /dmflags 112; /map_restart*

One thing I'd like to point out is that even if the US officially adopted a 7.62x39 or other larger cartridge weapon, you would still probably have some stories of "freak incidents" where threats take multiple hits and continue fighting. Incapacitation from gun fire tends to be very inconsistent. Even durring WWII where fighting was done mostly with heavy-caliber battle rifles, you still had incidents of people taking lots of rounds to the chest and fighting on. Incapacitation also seems to be as dependant on the phsychological state of the victim; crazed insurgents and drugged up criminals can often take many rounds to put down, while those who are scared, dejected, hopeless, etc may go down in one shot, even from a .22LR. Neither the .45 ACP, nor the 7.62x49, nor the 7.62x51 are going to score instant 1-shot kills all time. Nothing less than a direct hit to the head, heart, or spine, or a .50 BMG is absolutely certain to take down a person instantly.

I'm not saying the 5.56 doesn't seem to have problems, and more incidents of 'multi-shot kills' than other rounds, but I am saying you're going to hear freak stories which can be easily spun to denounce a weapon from any cartridge. War stories tend to be exagerated and sketchy. After all, in that one article, where "We were Soldiers Once....And Young" was quoted, the same soldier who claimed to see the VC survive several 5.56 rounds also claimed that the VC was "lifted off his feet" from his shotgun blast. Nothing you hear is 100% reliable. The only way to draw a conclusion is to look at the data and the trends that persist over time. In many situations where the 5.56 is tested and questions (for example, the case on the shooting range, where bullets were sticking IN the pasty paper targets) the 7.62x39 is not tested alongside the 5.56 (who's to say the 7.62 would not have stuck in those targets also)? Untill the 7.62x39 is put to the same tests, you can't just assume that it will automatically solve everything.

However, I do think the US military should definitely pursue testing of other cartridges. Just like they are testing the 5.56mm XM8, they should be doing tests with 7.62x49 weapons to find suitable options. Hopefully if US soldiers continue using AK's in Iraq, there will also be some hands-on combat experience/data to match all the info we allready have on hwo the M16 and M4 have performed in the field. Too bad it will only be with crappy Iraqi AKs and not  fully representative of what the US military could come up with if they used accurized/customized AKs, Russian models, or a new rifle designed around the 7.62x39 cartridge.

Well I'm not advocating the US military switch to the 7.62x39 specifically.  The round is a good round, but it's got the stigma of being a "Commie" cartridge and politics will always prevent its adoption as a result.  I know it'll shoot through 1/8" steel at 200 yards easily, and that's not even using AP rounds, I'm not sure what it would or would not go through at 500 yards.   It wasn't designed for long-range work, nor is it touted as a long-range cartridge.  That's what the 7.62x54 SVD is for. ;)

There will always be some variance in damage caused by any round, and no cartridge is a guaranteed one-shot kill unless it's a howitzer.  I'm not disputing that at all.  However, given both battlefield and street statistics, one basic rule is consistant:  The bigger the round, the more energy it delivers, the more likely the target is to go down on the first hit.  I've seen street stoppage statistics taken by police departments in relation to all sorts of pistol caliber rounds, and the pattern is the same.  If you exclude hollow-point rounds since they deform heavily, the basic rule is the bigger the gun, the harder it hits.  Throw hollow point rounds in, and you see a marked jump in effectiveness.  A .380 ACP with jacketed hollowpoints becames as effective as .45 ACP ball, and a .45 ACP JHP becomes as effective as a 12 gauge slug.  Why?  Larger hole = more damage.  The more trauma you inflict, the quicker you stop the attack.  The same is fairly true for rifles, hydrostatic shock not withstanding, and even that works better with larger rounds than it does smaller ones since you have to have some volumetric displacement to cause the shockwave in the first place.

It's not a matter of whether one shot will KILL the guy or not.  One shot from a .22 LR or even a pellet gun can kill someone if it hits in the right spot, it just will take a lot longer to die than getting clobbered with a .50 BMG.  I don't think in a combat situation anyone wants to wait for the other guy to bleed to death while he's shooting back though.  The goal is stopping the aggressor as quickly as possible, while keeping the weapon and ammunition of a reasonable size and weight, as well as keeping the weapon controllable at fully-automatic fire.  If power were the only concern everyone would still be toting around the BAR.  There has to be a balance between all these factors in an assault rifle.  The .308 is a bit too powerful, the .223 is a bit too weak.  The 7.62x39 is a .311 caliber bullet with a shorter case, it does the job it was designed to do and that's tear things up out to 300 yards.  The .223 M-16A2 is listed as having an effective range of 800 yards, which is ridiculous.  At 400 yards the .223 has no more energy than a .22LR, and a flak jacket will stop it at that distance.  I still think the 6.8 SPC should be looked at as an "inbetweener" - a slightly smaller round that's a bit faster than the 7.62, but packs much more punch than the .223.  I'd like to see some serious testing done with this round.

As for a 12 gauge lifting a guy off his feet, consider the size and weight of the Vietnamese.  If a 12 gauge slug can knock a 250lb deer off its feet I have no trouble believing this at all.  :smirk:

heh, yeah depending on what the shotgun was loaded with, shotgun shells usually fire a rifled cylinder, basically a 1/2 inch long peice of steel about the size of a .50 cal bullet in diameter, if not a little bigger, VERY VERY high velocity, but because the bullet is flat, it doesnt fly very far and generally just packs a very big wallop. what pho is advocating is knock down power,  and personally thats what i want to, if im shooting at someone, i dont want the fifth or sixth hit to incapacitate my enemy, i want the 1st or second shot to do it so i can manage the other 15 guys shooting at me. the 5.56 round just doesnt have the knock down power of the 7.62 round long range aside, generally soldiers dont fire until around 150-200 yards anyways, yeah its nice to be able to ping targets at 300 yards, but when combat effective range is only 150-200 yards anyways, whats the point.

Yeah, the military definitely doesn't seem to be putting enough priority on testing the 6.8 SPC. Compaired to the 6.8, the XM8 is just a waste of time and money. The main things it improves upon (modularity, reliability) are not really major deficiencies in our current weapons, and it totally ignores the main deficiency pegged on our current weapons. Yet the XM8 has gotten tons of attention, and it sounds like the government is doing tons of testing on it, when it's still going to be shooting the same cartridge people have been criticizing since the 60's.

I'm not the fervant 5.56 hater that other people are, but clearly at the very least there are some things about it that could be improved upon. For that matter, I think the 5.45x39 would probably be a significant improvement to what we have now, given that it actually tumbles the way it's supposed to, while the 5.56 doesn't even tumble at all till it exits the target, in most cases.

As for 12-gauges "picking people off their feet" nothing is going to forcibly knock or lift a target off their feet unless the recoil knocks the shooter off his feet as well. Bullets may drop people, but it's from nervous system damage/shock and the victim losing the ability to stand, not from the victim being knocked over like they got hit by a truck. I'm sure you guys know this, it's just a matter of the wording.

The fact is unless nato adopts the 6.8 the army is never going to use it. Its that simple. thats why were stuck with the 9mm pistol cartridge instead of the .45.Unless you can convince the european armys to use 6.8 instead of  5.56 this is all a moot point.

I think we should bring back the B.A.R.

Screw NATO.  The US does all the work anyway.

what work ?

Killing people and breaking stuff!  What kind of work do you think you do during wartime? :idiot:

That looks like an AKS-74U, which is a carbine that shoots 5.45mm ammo.

The BAR? The SAW is a far superior weapon to the BAR.

The .30-06' BAR shoots through solid brick walls, but has mule-kick recoil and a 20 round box magazine... and it's heavy.  The 5.56mm SAW doesn't, but you can tote around more bullets... and it's also heavy.  Remember, it's not just the gun, it's the ammo.  It all depends on what you want to do with your weapon.  You want a lot of "bee-stingers", or you want a few "pick-axes"?

Woolie: No way to tell exactly what rifle he's toting around, could be a 74 variant or a 47 variant.  All the more recent shots I've seen from Fallujah show M16-A2's and A4's (the ones with the protruding pistol grip that points down from the forward handguard - they shoot full auto as opposed to the A2's 3 shot burst) being used by Marines, and 2-3 guys per squad with light machineguns.  Either the guys in that shot were Iraqi troops, or the US only used AK variants on the initial assault to confuse the enemy since they'd think it was their own people shooting (AK's make a sound very different from an AR), or the imbedded press can't get pictures of US troops with AK's because the US wants to show only US equipment being toted around.  I have, however, seen some AK rifle butts sneak into the sideframe of some film footage from time to time where the rifles were held at the "ready" position, not slung over a grunt's back from a captured insurgent.

Really there's no way to know how much of what kind of weapons are actually being used where since you only get pictures from maybe 2 or 3 different squads.  This is actually a GOOD thing we don't have too many operational details since the enemy watches the news also.

The only AKS I know of is the 74U, which uses the midget cartridge. That weapon is DEFINITELY not an AK or PK weapon. It is way too short.

Also, for sure some soldiers may be using AKs. They might prefer an AK over an AR. Also, many of the "M-16" rifles shown are actually M-4s, which are shorter than the M-16 and have full-auto fire.