|
shambler
|
Nice gun ? shame about the moustache.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Makou
|
I see no real way to sight that thing if the scope breaks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you see a "Rona Altana" out there on the internet somewhere, that's probably me
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Makou
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you see a "Rona Altana" out there on the internet somewhere, that's probably me
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-11-02, 10:12 by Woodsman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
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.
n the 1974, Soviet Army officially adopted the 5.45mm ammunition and the appropriately chambered AK-74 assault rifle as its new standard shoulder arm. The AKM, however, was never officially removed from service, and is still in Russian army stocks. many non-infantry units of the Russian Army are still armed with 1960s vintage AKM assault rifles. There's also an increasing interest in the 7.62mm weapons since many troops were disappointed by the effectiveness of the 5.45mm ammo during the local conflicts in the 1990s. Some Russian special forces troops (mostly police and Internal Affairs Ministry), currently operating in Chechnya, are using the venerable 7.62mm AKM rifles. Linked from here.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. 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.htmhttp://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1463...h_M468,,00.htmlI'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] 
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-11-02, 12:12 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Woolie Wool
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
Im willing to bet if such a thing exists its for 7.62x39mm.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
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. 
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?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-11-07, 08:03 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
I think just using the AK would be enough 2 .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
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:
Caption: Nov. 8: A nightscope of U.S. forces storming the main city hospital in Fallujah, Iraq.
Caption: Nov. 8: A U.S. soldier blindfolding a man after troops stormed Fallujah?s main hospital.
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 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!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
shambler
|
I've seen the Aks on TV over here too. intresting.............
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
More unfavorable info in regards to the M-16/5.56mm weapon system:
The rather miserable penetrating power of the mouse gun was proven to me in spades during a rifle requalification firing session on Okinawa in 1973. CWO-4 Marine Gunner Dave Luke (a former U.S. Service Rifle Champion) was supervising the butt detail. The rifle range at Camp Hansen is built between two mountains along the long axis of what can only be termed a wind tunnel. The wind on the Rock would often come whistling down that cut in the mountains giving a headwind of 25 mph. So it was on the day in question. The Marine Corps, being frugal, does not use fresh targets for each day's firing, reserving the virgin targets for qualification day (usually Friday). As a result, we used multiple target faces (repair centers) on our targets during our practice sessions, held to the target with a rather disgusting paste of roughly the same consistency of flour and water. This stuff dries hard, and after several days, the thickness of repair centers becomes relatively thick. Since this was a Wednesday, we had a fair thickness of repair centers on the targets. I was stationed on the firing line when I got a call from Gunner Luke in the butts.
"Hey Major" said the Gunner, "I've got something down here you need to see!"
"What's that Gunner," I replied.
"Major, we've got bullets sticking in the target faces!" said Luke.
"The hell you say Gunner?" sez I, "wait one, I'll be right there!"
I called a cease fire and headed for the butts in the safety vehicle. When I got there I could hardly believe my eyes! Sure enough, there were a number of projectiles that hadn't completely penetrated the multiple target faces at 500 yards. For a moment, I considered that the Gunner might just be pulling my chain, and inserting spent projectiles in the bullet holes for a joke. Two things changed my mind. First, while Dave Luke has a sense of humor, it doesn't run to things like that, and secondly all the projectiles stuck in the target faces showed no evidence of having struck anything more solid than a thick piece of paper. Not only that, but Dave was a professional range officer and we were conducting practice for a Battalion requalification program. Any undue delays would have reflected unfavorably on Dave's ability and he was not one to have allowed anything to interfere with his duties unless he considered it extremely important.
While I had never been a proponent of the mouse gun's, even I would not have thought that the M16 was this underpowered! You can now understand why I am somewhat skeptical of the claims of an 800 yard maximum range for the new M16A2. An additional 8 grains of bullet weight is incapable of making a major difference in penetration, and at 800 yards - ? Right, and my name's Mickey Mouse! No wonder the folks developing the M16 wanted the maximum effective range reset to 300 yards! http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.htmlhttp://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.htmlhttp://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/summerof67.htmlAnd 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]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
your thinking of the XM8 and XM29
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Aye, hazards of being up so late and not being able to sleep. Tired talons lead to typos. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
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/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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
looks like the bird has forgotten to put his text back in yellow :p
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
