|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-02-25, 08:57 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
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)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-02-25, 10:42 by Woodsman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
AK all the way , or a p90 or F2000
P90 an F2000 I can shoot without getting the empty bullets in my face .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
shambler
|
The L85A1 and L85A2 are really terrible weapons. And thats coming from a brit (a welsh one mind)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
well thats why the S.A.S uses M16s. Who dares wins  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-02-25, 15:03 by Woodsman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
bleh screw the oicw.. i want the G36 ..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dicion
|
sorta starship troopers looking if ya ask me
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
dont forget expansive , and I dont want to run out of batterys for that gun .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
no the nice thing about the AK is it cost about 150 bucks a copy. 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? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-02-25, 21:47 by Woodsman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Yet another piece of interesting news, and more marks for the Ak-47.Subject: U.S. Troops PREFER AK-47s -
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:05:12 -0600
Middle East - AP
U.S. Troops Use Confiscated Iraqi AK-47s
Sun Aug 24, 2:15 PM ET
By ANDREW ENGLAND, Associated Press Writer
BAQOUBA, Iraq - An American soldier stands at the side of an Iraqi highway,
puts his AK-47 on fully automatic and pulls the trigger.
Within seconds the assault rifle has blasted out 30 rounds. Puffs of dust
dance in the air as the bullets smack into the scrubland dirt. Test fire
complete.
U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites) may not have found weapons of mass
destruction, but they're certainly getting their hands on the country's
stock of Kalashnikovs - and, they say, they need them.
"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in
certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to
demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to
use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th
Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.
In Humvees, on tanks - but never openly on base - U.S. soldiers are
carrying the Cold War-era weapon, first developed in the Soviet Union but
now mass produced around the world.
The AK is favored by many of the world's fighters, from child soldiers in
Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable
and known to jam less frequently.
Now U.S. troops who have picked up AKs on raids or confiscated them at
checkpoints are putting the rifles to use - and they like what they see.
Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily
in Iraq's dusty environment. Many say the AK has better "knockdown" power
and can kill with fewer shots.
"The kind of war we are in now ... you want to be able to stop the enemy
quick," said Sgt. 1st Class Tracy S. McCarson of Newport News, Va., an army
scout, who carries an AK in his Humvee.
Some troops say the AK is easier to maintain and a better close-quarters
weapon. Also, it has "some psychological affect on the enemy when you fire
back on them with their own weapons," McCarson said.
Most U.S. soldiers agree the M16 and the M4 - a newer, shorter version of
the M16 that has been used by American troops since the 1960s - is better
for long distance, precision shooting.
Two weeks ago, Sgt. Sam Bailey of Cedar Falls, Iowa, was in a Humvee when a
patrol came under rocket-propelled grenade and heavy machine gun fire. It
was dark, the road narrow. On one side, there was a mud wall and palms
trees, on the other a canal surrounded by tall grass.
Bailey, who couldn't see who was firing, had an AK-47 on his lap and his M4
up front. The choice was simple.
"I put the AK on auto and started spraying," Bailey said.
Some soldiers also say it's easier to get ammo for the AK - they can pick
it up on any raid or from any confiscated weapon.
"It's plentiful," said Sgt. Eric Harmon, a tanker who has a full 75-round
drum, five 30-round magazines, plus 200-300 rounds in boxes for his AK. He
has about 120 rounds for his M16.
Young doesn't carry an AK but has fired one. He's considered banning his
troops from carrying AKs, but hasn't yet because "if I take the AK away
from some of the soldiers, then they will not have a rifle to carry with
them."
Staff Sgt. Michael Perez, a tanker, said he would take anything over his
standard issue 9mm pistol when he's out of his tank.
And the AK's durability has impressed him.
"They say you can probably drop this in the water and leave it overnight,
pull it out in the morning, put in a magazine and it will work," Perez
said. Another Vietnam, eh? Well in one way that seems to be true.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
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..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woolie Wool
|
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) 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. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-11-01, 17:43 by Woolie Wool »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
