Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/8/07 03:13 PM, BigScizot wrote: I heard they were going to be replacing them with these.

I heard they were going to be replacing them with these.

, cellardoor6:

I just read all your posts and i completely agree. Training with the current rifles has proven great, i expect to be deployed in a few months.

At 6/9/07 12:42 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: That must be why the 7.62x39mm is relegated to the poorest militaries in the world while every advanced military uses the 5.56 or a similar round made to duplicate its effects.

And yet look at the tactical success they have had with it: Vietnam, Somalia, Aghanistan...

Because it was designed to equip hordes of illiterate Russia peasant farmers who couldn't be counter on to maintain their weapon properly. Meanwhile, the AK-47 design is much less accurate, especially when coupled with the 7.62x39mm. The 7.62x39 has one of the worst ballistic coefficients out of any rifle round.

Ummm...so I guess it would be the hordes of illiterate American peasant farmers in Vietnam who couldn't be counted on to maintain their weapon properly that the M-16 was a failure? I know there was other factors such as Army corruption (buying bullets with the wrong type of powder to appease a contractor...which fouled up the gas tube), but whenever I get the class on field stripping my weapon I wonder why the hell we are given something that is so complex. Sometimes simplicity is better...

As for accuracy, we are talking at long range. I gave you that. However, who cares? I'm not a sniper. Nor is the average infantryman. That is why we went to an intermediate calibur bullet because we do not engage at 1000yds anymore.

Um... no. That must be why the Russians specifically developed the AK-74 and the 5.45x39 round after studying the effects the 5.56 and the M16 had against the Viet Cong and NVA during Vietnam. The M16 is a much more effective assault rifle, and the 5.56 is a much more effective assault rifle round.

1) The M-16 is not a much more effective assault rifle...it is the biggest piece of crap the US military has been saddled with, second only to the French Cho-cho (sp?) of WWI infamy. The AK-47 is the superior design. The M-16 is an exquisitely designed engineering masterpiece; while the AK is a true warfighter's gun!
2) I think the type of round that is better is dependant upon tactical situation. Afterall, we were hitting the 'skinnies' 5-6 times with our 5.56 and they were still not wounded enough to stop fighting. However they were taking our guys out of the fight much quicker with less rounds with the 7.62...

The Sino (Chinese) developed their own 5.8mm round. I don't even think they ever used the 5.45

They may have, but I don't think they fielded it. The same thinking of having a standardizied round in NATO exists in the (ex-)communist world.

Meanwhile... the only countries that still use the AK-47 and the 7.62x39 happen to be the poorest countries who can't afford to procure higher quality rifles, and can't afford to train soldiers to maintain a better assault rifle and exploit the advantages in accuracy that a round like the 5.56 gives over the 7.62x39.

Again, I'm not impressed by what you term quality. You're talking about engineering...not quality. Something that is rugged and simple in certain situations (such as...umm I dunno...WAR) is better than something that is technologically advanced.

Furthermore, I can train anyone to maintain a M-16 to US military standards in a day. I can train them on the AK-47 much faster. Why do you think it is so damn advantagous to have a persian kitty that requires so much time and care to maintain by a soldier in the field? Especially in a desert or jungle environment? Complication is not a good thing when you're in the shit...

Secondly, have you ever visited a US military armory? Our guns get the shit kicked out of them and abused just slightly less than those "illeterate peasant farmers" you keep refering to. Rugged and being able to take abuse is just as important in an advanced infantry than in a poor infantry.

Finally, why all this talk about accuracy? I'm more accurate with an AK-47 than an M-16 (I've put more rounds through AKs than M-16) and I've heard others in my unit complain about the peep sights of the M-16 and prefer the rifle sights of the AK. The accuracy you refer to is only really practical in sniping and competition shooting...something the average infantryman is not concerned with.

Have you thought about changing your NG ID to McNamara? I mean really your talking about advantages that simply are not utilizied in a battlefield condition at the expense of principles that have been proven time and again to work. Your thinking is indicative of the this notion that a weapon system has to be accuarate at ten million yards and highly engineered to be of 'quality' rather than something that will actually work in combat and meet the needs of the war-fighter.

It is this attitude that keeps the US military from getting a good gun.

were you intentionally baiting me?

Cellar, how long have you 'known' me? I know I can't change your views on the M-16/AK-47 debate...and you can't change mine. That doesn't mean I don't respect you.

And yes...yes I was! :-)

At 6/9/07 12:50 AM, AdamRice wrote: Here's an interesting concept.

Why not use our the United States' budget on something other then financing weapons?

Actually Adam even with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the Defense Dept takes up a relatively small share of the US budget.

In fact 51% of our federal budget goes to the BIG entitlement programs to fight the war on poverty. (Social Security, Medicare and I forget the other two that make up this 51%.)

At 6/9/07 01:24 AM, SolInvictus wrote: but when fighting not standard, zealous armies wouldn't killing be better?

That is true, enemies such as the VietCong and the Somalis do not place the same value on human life that we do. Merely wounding the enemy in some conflicts is like masturbation...feels like your doing something but in the end your just a guy with a gun in your hand that you can't shoot!

That's why they need to replace the M-9 with .45s. Oh wait...the USAF is getting ready to do this! (Yay Air Force!)

Wow, thanks for all the info cellar.

anything that fires depleted uranium is better

At 6/10/07 01:07 PM, TomsPulp wrote: prolly not, like that one dude said, the m-16 is still a good gun and that was made in like 1960!

Actually the M-16 was developed in the 1950s, but wasn't fielded until the mid-1960s (the USAF was initially more interested in the rifle than the Army or Marines).

It is a good gun, but there are reliability issues and it has to CONSTANTLY be kept clean which adds a burden to the soldier in the field. Whereas the AK-47 can withstand much more dirty conditions.

Secondly the M-16 is a bitch to clean and you have to dissassemble it further than the AK-47 has to be. This means that now you have all these small parts that you have to keep track of, which is fine if you're in an armory or anywhere other than in the field.

The M-16 is a fine gun, but I don't want to take it into combat...but unfortunately that is the weapon the DoD issues...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

I heard they were replacing them with these.

At 6/10/07 01:27 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Tavors are pretty awesome. But anyone would be hard pressed trying to persuade our military to adopt a bullpup-style rifle.

That's true. Perhaps with the Iraq situation, or maybe after it, they'll learn how to adapt weapons for urban combat better.

and like the XM8, it is constructed from mostly plastics and polymers that are susceptible to melting, breaking etc..

I certainly can see that point, but I would ask: Why would a polymer or polycarbonate weapon be more succeptible to breakage?

I do think the Tavors are sweet rifles, but you have to understand the effect it would have on the military as a whole.

Makes sense, makes sense. If the US military wants the '16, then they should keep it. But they should evaluate other weapons fairly, and not just go with the American one because it's American, among other things. I dunno – I'm not in the military (naturally), and all that I know comes from books.

At 6/10/07 03:12 PM, TheMason wrote:

The M-16 is a fine gun, but I don't want to take it into combat...but unfortunately that is the weapon the DoD issues...

Speaking of which, the Coast Guard is getting rid of the M9 for the .40 caliber Sig P226. More stopping power? I'm still not clear on why besides breakage issues.

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link _id=18394

Anybody heard of these? It would be awesome that same company started making an assault rifle.

Metal Storm is cool, yeah. They have an AR already (a prototype, though): http://www.metalstorm.com/index.php?src=photo &srctype=lister&album=Advanced%20Individual%2 0Combat%20Weapon%20%28AICW%29&submenu=Graphic s&albumpos=0,1000000,3&category=Photos

Quite cool.

Damn, that Metal Storm company kicks so much ass its not even funny.

At 6/10/07 09:20 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/9/07 12:42 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: That must be why the 7.62x39mm is relegated to the poorest militaries in the world while every advanced military uses the 5.56 or a similar round made to duplicate its effects.

And yet look at the tactical success they have had with it: Vietnam, Somalia, Aghanistan...

The only one of those that was a tactical success was Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded, but it wasn't because of the AK-47, it was because of the stinger missiles and intelligence that the Mujahadeen were provided. Meanwhile. the 5.45x39 that the Soviets were using with their AK-74s actually proved its effectiveness, but that didn't offset all their other failures.

Vietnam and Somalia weren't tactical successes at all, they were political successes. If you look at the casualty rates you'll understand, 10 North Vietnamese soldiers/ Viet Cong for every US soldier killed... the US didn't lose a single engagement the entire war.

The 5.56 outperformed the 7.62x39 in Vietnam, that is why the Soviets developed the 5.45x39 to imitate the 5.56. That is why THEY, the ones who developed the 7.62x39, decided that it was obsolete in modern warfare. And today the only countries that use the 7.62x39mm and the AK-47 extensively are third world countries that can't afford better rifles and can't afford the extra training it requires to have soldiers properly use and maintain better rifles coupled with better ( and more expensive) ammunition.

Ummm...so I guess it would be the hordes of illiterate American peasant farmers in Vietnam who couldn't be counted on to maintain their weapon properly that the M-16 was a failure?

The initial problems the M16 had that cause the myths of horrible unreliability even today came from the time in Vietnam when soldiers weren't even taught that they NEEDED to clean their rifles at all. The M16 was originally marketed as a self-cleaning rifle, no cleaning kits were issued, and when the M16 first came into service it was replacing the M14 in-field, without proper training to buffer the transition to a less reliable weapon. The initial problems with the M16 were due to bureaucracy, not the rifle. And the ammo it used back then was nasty, corrosive shit that caused fouling.

As for accuracy, we are talking at long range. I gave you that. However, who cares? I'm not a sniper. Nor is the average infantryman. That is why we went to an intermediate calibur bullet because we do not engage at 1000yds anymore.

Yeah, but we DO engage at 500yds, and the military does require it to be very accurate in the ranges between. And a rifle with a rainbow-like trajectory like the AK-47 and its x39 round doesn't cut it. Also, it's not just accuracy, the 5.56x45 can penetrate body armor out to its maximum effective range, making it more effective against an advanced foe. The 7.62x39 can't, hell it can't even penetrate the 3mm steel reactive targets I shoot at 100-200yds. The 5.56 goes through that shit like a knife through butter, probably out to 500yds (though I haven't tried at that range).

I usually buy British surplus of SS109, it's not even as hot as the current US issue M855, but it still just rapes steel targets that the 7.62x39 would bounce off of (or miss).

1) The M-16 is not a much more effective assault rifle...

Yeah it is. It's more accurate, more ergonomically sound, lighter, more modifiable, and when maintained properly it is reliable.

it is the biggest piece of crap the US military has been saddled with, second only to the French Cho-cho (sp?) of WWI infamy.

It's spelled Chau Chat and yes it was a disaster. But no, the M-16 is the standard modern assault rifle in the world that all others are compared to, there are some that are more reliable. But the M-16 is highly effective.

The AK-47 is the superior design. The M-16 is an exquisitely designed engineering masterpiece; while the AK is a true warfighter's gun!

Hahaha the AK-47 is better suited for, as I said, illiterate peasant conscripts who aren't trained enough to be able to exploit the benefits of a more accurate rifle and also can't be trained enough to maintain a rifle that is too complex. It is cheap and reliable, that is ALL it has going for it. That is why the only countries to keep it are ones with poorly trained, poorly funded, and poorly equipped military forces.

2) I think the type of round that is better is dependant upon tactical situation. Afterall, we were hitting the 'skinnies' 5-6 times with our 5.56 and they were still not wounded enough to stop fighting.

There were also documented cases of the Somalis getting hit with multiple full-powered 7.62x51mm rounds from M14s and still weren't dropping. No round short of a 120mm cannon round is going to reliably drop an enemy all the time.

Plus, the Somalis were jacked up on a drug called Khat that made them immune to pain. A 7.62x39 wouldn't have worked either. And actually, the 7.62x39 doesn't even really have more stopping power over the 5.56x45 at the effective ranges of an AK-47. Take a look at ballistics gel tests.

Regardless, the way you incapacitate an enemy is to damage their central nervous system (brain or spine), cause them to bleed to death, or inflict enough pain that they can't physically or mentally keep fighting. Sometimes enemies stop from pain, but they certainly aren't going to be stopped by pain when they are tweaking on drugs. That is why the 5.56x45 APPEARED to not perform well in Somalia, and why much larger rounds didn't have full effect either.

The Sino (Chinese) developed their own 5.8mm round.

They may have, but I don't think they fielded it.

They fielded it 10 years ago, in their QBZ 95 (Type 95) rifle.

Again, I'm not impressed by what you term quality.

Something that is more accurate, more modifiable, more ergonomically sound etc.. The M16 is by far a more advanced rifle, the 5.56 is by far a more tactically, logistically, and strategically sound cartridge in the whole scheme of war, this has been proven. The AR design is only less reliable in some conditions because it is more complex, however, this isn't a contributing factor when the soldiers using it are trained enough to properly maintain it. It's lesser reliability is NO WHERE NEAR as unreliable as AK fans suggest.

Furthermore, I can train anyone to maintain a M-16 to US military standards in a day. I can train them on the AK-47 much faster.

And that is why illiterate peasant farmers and poorly funded militaries love it. Meanwhile, people who have the time, resources, money, and wherewithal to train their men with a better rifle and better cartridge do so.

Secondly, have you ever visited a US military armory?

That is my line of work, my friend. I sometimes refurbish surplus rifles that we get from Fort Lewis. But the rifles that are messed up are usually 20-30 years old. The newer models don't require a full overhaul.

Finally, why all this talk about accuracy? I'm more accurate with an AK-47 than an M-16 (I've put more rounds through AKs than M-16) and I've heard others in my unit complain about the peep sights of the M-16 and prefer the rifle sights of the AK.

I honestly can't believe that at all. The sights on the AK are HORRIBLE, like BB gun sights. Nor is the AK more accurate, that just makes me laugh.

The accuracy you refer to is only really practical in sniping and competition shooting...something the average infantryman is not concerned with.'

Absolutely no. It is more practical in an actual engagement. I can reliably hit targets from 50-400yds in rapid succession with a single sight adjustment and practically no hold-over (I usually use the USMC 300m battle zero). That is a huge practical advantage for an infantry engagement. The accuracy and flat-shooting is a HUGE advantage. You cannot do that with an AK-47, which is a huge disadvantage

At 6/10/07 09:15 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Vietnam and Somalia...the US didn't lose a single engagement the entire war [Vietnam].

True, and we didn't do too badly in the Battle of Mogadishu, considering the odds.

The initial problems with the M16 were due to [McNamara], not the rifle.

Fixed for great justice.

Yeah, but we DO engage at 500yds

Statistically speaking, how much do we engage at the 500 yard range? Most of the time, or so I've read, soldiers in Iraq are engaging at less than 300. If we adopted more small unit marksmen with the, say, the Mk12 SPR, or, even better, a scoped M14.

Also, it's not just accuracy, the 5.56x45 can penetrate body armor out to its maximum effective range, making it more effective against an advanced foe.

Operative phrase: advanced foe. How many terrorists are going to be wearing body armor? Even then, I have little doubt that a steel core AK round wouldn't penetrate. Mind you, I'm all for a better penetrative power round, but we're talking bullet on flesh, here, not bullet on Kevlar and ceramic. And even in a worst case, the standard that we should worry about is CRISAT, and the 4.7mm HK7 can beat that.

Yeah it is. It's more accurate, more ergonomically sound, lighter, more modifiable, and when maintained properly it is reliable.

The AK is great, and the M-16 is excellent too, but something with more penetration, better moddability and weight would be something like the Barret 6.8 SPC, or the Tavor or the M8 (both the Tavor and M8 wouldn't be for penetration, just for the others).

At 6/10/07 09:26 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/10/07 09:15 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yeah, but we DO engage at 500yds

Statistically speaking, how much do we engage at the 500 yard range? Most of the time, or so I've read, soldiers in Iraq are engaging at less than 300.

Well you are right about that. But the Marine Corps especially requires accurate fire at 500yds. And more, out to 800yds (for designated Marksmen). And Marines outgunning enemy due to being better long range marksmen DOES happen a lot.

If we adopted more small unit marksmen with the, say, the Mk12 SPR, or, even better, a scoped M14.

It's still a highly emphasized capability for each rifleman to be an excellent marksman. The "designated Marksman" concept is already in practice, but just one per squad isn't enough. And even then, the AK-47 is NOT more effective at average combat ranges anyway. It allegedly has more stopping power (though this is highly reputable), but as I've said before, killing power isn't the only thing that matters in a fire fight, otherwise each soldier would be packing a rocket launcher only.

The M16 and the 5.56 allows a much higher and sustainable rate of accurate fire than an AK-47, this is better regardless of what range you're engaging the enemy at. It has been proven that a smaller amount of men armed with M16/M4s can out gun a similarly skilled, but larger amount of men armed with AK-47s.

The 5.56 causes the enemy to be overwhelmed and suppressed by accurate, high rates of fire so that friendly forces can maneuver, flank and destroy them. That is what you do in war, you don't just shoot stay in place and shoot at each other. The best method to destroy an enemy in an infantry engagement is the 4 F's: Fire, Fix (hold in place by suppressing), Flank, Finish. The M16 and the 5.56 allows men to do this WAY better than the AK-47 could. This has been proven, even countries who once used the 7.62x39 and the AK-47 switched to either 5.56-firing rifles, or the newer Russian-developed 5.45x39 which is designed to duplicate the strengths of the 5.56.

If the 7.62x39 and AK-47 are better, why did the Russians themselves stop using both as their standard round and rifle?

Also, it's not just accuracy, the 5.56x45 can penetrate body armor out to its maximum effective range, making it more effective against an advanced foe.

Operative phrase: advanced foe. How many terrorists are going to be wearing body armor? Even then, I have little doubt that a steel core AK round wouldn't penetrate.

First of all, armor piercing 7.62x39 rounds are still incredibly inaccurate, and rare. Secondly, they still don't perform as well as the STANDARD ISSUE M855 5.56x45 rounds against body armor.

Thirdly, the US military is still designed to fight a highly advanced opposing enemy. It would be ridiculous to reorganize our military to such a degree while sacrificing our ability to counter other threads. All while keeping the M16 and the 5.56 doesn't sacrifice our ability to counter terrorists.

Anyway, the AK-47 isn't even more effective anyway, so it would be ridiculous to swap. It would be counterproductive.

Yeah it is. It's more accurate, more ergonomically sound, lighter, more modifiable, and when maintained properly it is reliable.

The AK is great, and the M-16 is excellent too, but something with more penetration, better moddability and weight would be something like the Barret 6.8 SPC, or the Tavor or the M8 (both the Tavor and M8 wouldn't be for penetration, just for the others).

The 6.8 hasn't been proven to penetrate better. In fact... the 5.56 actually penetrates better than the 7.62x51 against steel helmets and ceramic plate body armor..

A larger, more powerful round would sacrifice portability of ammunition, logistical efficiency, it would increase recoil which would lessen the suppressive capability of a squad. Men wouldn't be able to carry as much ammo, they would lose their fire superiority etc..

You're thinking very nearsightedly.

Apparently the special forces have already started production on the FN-SCAR to replace the m4. It seems like a good weapon, but its pretty freakin ugly (not that that matters)

I thought that it was being replaced by the FN SCAR.

1.The OICW is too friggin bulky to be an effective assault rifle.

2. The L82/L85 have several problems and they can't be used by left handers.

3. The Tavor has a bul-pup design. For some reason, the US army frowns upon this.

I want to address penetration capabilities alone, at this point, if that's ok.

According to a graph from the Federation of American Scientists (they're legitimate), the penetration of the M855 ball 5.56 round is 3mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor. The 7.62mm M80 ball is 4mm of RHA (same site, different graphic). The 7.62x51 is "our" 7.62, the AK-47 one is 7.62x39 IIRC.

Here's a better standard. It's called CRISAT, and "our" 7.62 and the 5.56 both make it. Presumably the AK-47 does too. IDK.

So, when we consider penetration, they all do pretty well. Even things like the 4.7mm beat CRISAT. From this standpoint, we should probably look at range, accuracy and the like.

Range is one other aspect that should be addressed with numbers, namely what percentage of engagements occur in the >500 meter, >200, >100 etc.

At 6/9/07 12:05 AM, TheMason wrote: I think we should start cranking out American AK-47s.

AK-47's? Those are way too old! How about something new... like, the AK-108!

I dont think that we should use Ak-47s because than we would rely on the russians to build us these guns. If we depended on russia we would be screwed if we went to a war with them because than were cut off on supplies.

At 6/10/07 08:28 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Metal Storm is cool, yeah. They have an AR already (a prototype, though): http://www.metalstorm.com/index.php?src=photo &srctype=lister&album=Advanced%20Individual%2 0Combat%20Weapon%20%28AICW%29&submenu=Graphic s&albumpos=0,1000000,3&category=Photos

Quite cool.

they're not going for the barrel stacked rounds for the assault rifle version? i assume the rounds don't have shell casings.

At 6/12/07 03:08 PM, GeneralFox7 wrote: I dont think that we should use Ak-47s because than we would rely on the russians to build us these guns. If we depended on russia we would be screwed if we went to a war with them because than were cut off on supplies.

Not true at all my friend. The AK-47 was not initially patented and was disseminated to allies of the USSR and anyone who was friendly with Moscow. There are even some companies making the AK-47 based upon Bulganian plans right here in the US.

So we would not need to rely upon the Russians for supplies.

Cellar:

As for your comment about not believing what I said about accuracy: the most accurate gun in the world is dependant upon the person shooting it. Re-read what I said, which in a nutshell was: "I am more accurate with the AK-47 over the M-16." The reason is I have put way more bullets through my personally owned AKs than through the M-16. I prefer the sights on the AK to the M-16 peep sights. I feel more comfortable with the AK and like how it handles better than the M-16. You can argue the technical aspects of the M-16 until you are blue in the face, and vice versa for me. However, that will not change what either one of us is comfortable or impressed with. Both weapons have things that make them good and bad.

But as for accuracy I took my ex-wife's 86yo grandmother shooting and she put shot after shot through the bullseye with my AK...and it was the first time in decades (if not her life) that she had fired a gun...

Cellar,

Check out the reply I made on Dodo's gun control topic...

At 6/12/07 05:19 PM, TheMason wrote: Cellar:

As for your comment about not believing what I said about accuracy: the most accurate gun in the world is dependant upon the person shooting it.

Within the confines of reason...

But, a skilled shooter is going to be better with a more accurate rifle if they are equally skilled with both rifles being compared.

I can shoot an AK-47 very well within it's envelope of accuracy. I have AK-47's mind you, I shoot them just as often as I do other guns. But since I can exploit more accuracy, I much prefer an AR15 because I am equally skilled with both, but the AR is much more accurate. The ballistics of the 5.56 are much better, allowing greater range, and less difference in bullet-drop, and therefore; less sight adjustment and/or hold-over at basically all ranges.

Re-read what I said, which in a nutshell was: "I am more accurate with the AK-47 over the M-16." The reason is I have put way more bullets through my personally owned AKs than through the M-16.

See, I still have a slight problem with that. Because that must mean you are either bad with an AR, or you have a magical AK-47 that is fires magical x39 rounds that make them magically more accurate than the typical AR/5.56 set up.

I have put probably 15,000 rounds or more with an AR in my lifetime. But if I picked up an Accuracy International rifle in .308 or .338 Lapua, I would be more accurate with it. It would take make 10 minutes to adjust myself to it.

An accurate rifle doesn't make a good shooter. But a good shooter is better with a more accurate rifle, or should be at least.

So maybe you are more accurate with an AK-47 than with an AR-15 within the AK's envelope of accuracy. But to me, that just means you're not skilled enough to exploit the greater accuracy the AR has.

I prefer the sights on the AK to the M-16 peep sights.

You know.. sights aren't aways just a matter of personal taste. It is a fact that the standard peep sight system on an AR is more accurate, and is better for precise work. It has more accurate adjustments and is more accurately installed into the rifle. The AK-47 notch sights have ridiculously loose tolerances, and the measurements don't correspond with the ballistics of the 7.62 as well as the AR peep sights are dialed into the the 5.56 ballistics.

But as for accuracy I took my ex-wife's 86yo grandmother shooting and she put shot after shot through the bullseye with my AK...and it was the first time in decades (if not her life) that she had fired a gun...

Depends on the range.

See, I think most people are used to short ranges so such a feat might seem remarkable. But I'd probably go into shock if I ever saw someone do what I can do with an AR, with their AK-47.

With my Bushmaster XM15 (16-inch barrel, M4 style), with milsurp ammo, I can get 25/25 on steel silhouettes at varying ranges between 50-400 yds in rapid succession with no sight alternate adjustment, and minimal hold-over.

I use the Marine Corps 300 meter battle-zero when i use iron sights, which allows you to be accurate at all those ranges. The flat trajectory and accuracy allow this to be SIMPLE. I can aim center-mass at the silhoutes out to about 350 yds, then aim at the head at 400, and the top of the head at 500.

I could put on a scope with a ballistic compensator with reticles for 100,200,300,400,500,800 yds and be positive that if I zero it correctly, I can use those reticles perfectly, eliminating the need for guess work or further adjustment.

If someone could duplicate that with an AK-47, it would basically be a miracle. It's not because I am more comfortable or proficient with an AR, it's because the AR is vastly more accurate and the 5.56 round has vastly better ballistics.

If you took out ALL variables of shooter error, wind, etc.. amd put an AK-47 with milsurp ammo in a vice and dialed it in to be zeroed at 400yds, you'd miss a human torso-sized target more often than hitting it. If you did the same with an AR, you could reliably hit a torso sized target 10/10 at probably 800yds.

So you are more comfortable and more accurate with an AK, well that's your personal take. Because the fact is that the AR is more accurate when all matters of personal taste and comfort are taken out.

At 6/8/07 03:02 PM, GeneralFox7 wrote: The army has been thinking about changing the main battle rifle (M4) because the M4 made by colt has had a lot of jams and has been around for a while there thinking of maybe replacing it with the M8. I want your views on this.

*bangs his head on the wall because of the posters idiocy*
m16a4 is the main assault rifle used by the army. The m4 is a carbine developed for people who are in tanks and helicopters and so on because they needed a light, but strong, way to defend themselves if involved in an infantry fight.

So, get your facts straight before posting.

At 6/10/07 09:20 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/9/07 12:42 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: That must be why the 7.62x39mm is relegated to the poorest militaries in the world while every advanced military uses the 5.56 or a similar round made to duplicate its effects.

And yet look at the tactical success they have had with it: Vietnam, Somalia, Aghanistan...

Because it was designed to equip hordes of illiterate Russia peasant farmers who couldn't be counter on to maintain their weapon properly. Meanwhile, the AK-47 design is much less accurate, especially when coupled with the 7.62x39mm. The 7.62x39 has one of the worst ballistic coefficients out of any rifle round.

Ummm...so I guess it would be the hordes of illiterate American peasant farmers in Vietnam who couldn't be counted on to maintain their weapon properly that the M-16 was a failure? I know there was other factors such as Army corruption (buying bullets with the wrong type of powder to appease a contractor...which fouled up the gas tube), but whenever I get the class on field stripping my weapon I wonder why the hell we are given something that is so complex. Sometimes simplicity is better...

As for accuracy, we are talking at long range. I gave you that. However, who cares? I'm not a sniper. Nor is the average infantryman. That is why we went to an intermediate calibur bullet because we do not engage at 1000yds anymore.

Um... no. That must be why the Russians specifically developed the AK-74 and the 5.45x39 round after studying the effects the 5.56 and the M16 had against the Viet Cong and NVA during Vietnam. The M16 is a much more effective assault rifle, and the 5.56 is a much more effective assault rifle round.

1) The M-16 is not a much more effective assault rifle...it is the biggest piece of crap the US military has been saddled with, second only to the French Cho-cho (sp?) of WWI infamy. The AK-47 is the superior design. The M-16 is an exquisitely designed engineering masterpiece; while the AK is a true warfighter's gun!
2) I think the type of round that is better is dependant upon tactical situation. Afterall, we were hitting the 'skinnies' 5-6 times with our 5.56 and they were still not wounded enough to stop fighting. However they were taking our guys out of the fight much quicker with less rounds with the 7.62...

The Sino (Chinese) developed their own 5.8mm round. I don't even think they ever used the 5.45

They may have, but I don't think they fielded it. The same thinking of having a standardizied round in NATO exists in the (ex-)communist world.

Meanwhile... the only countries that still use the AK-47 and the 7.62x39 happen to be the poorest countries who can't afford to procure higher quality rifles, and can't afford to train soldiers to maintain a better assault rifle and exploit the advantages in accuracy that a round like the 5.56 gives over the 7.62x39.

Again, I'm not impressed by what you term quality. You're talking about engineering...not quality. Something that is rugged and simple in certain situations (such as...umm I dunno...WAR) is better than something that is technologically advanced.

Furthermore, I can train anyone to maintain a M-16 to US military standards in a day. I can train them on the AK-47 much faster. Why do you think it is so damn advantagous to have a persian kitty that requires so much time and care to maintain by a soldier in the field? Especially in a desert or jungle environment? Complication is not a good thing when you're in the shit...

Secondly, have you ever visited a US military armory? Our guns get the shit kicked out of them and abused just slightly less than those "illeterate peasant farmers" you keep refering to. Rugged and being able to take abuse is just as important in an advanced infantry than in a poor infantry.

Finally, why all this talk about accuracy? I'm more accurate with an AK-47 than an M-16 (I've put more rounds through AKs than M-16) and I've heard others in my unit complain about the peep sights of the M-16 and prefer the rifle sights of the AK. The accuracy you refer to is only really practical in sniping and competition shooting...something the average infantryman is not concerned with.

Have you thought about changing your NG ID to McNamara? I mean really your talking about advantages that simply are not utilizied in a battlefield condition at the expense of principles that have been proven time and again to work. Your thinking is indicative of the this notion that a weapon system has to be accuarate at ten million yards and highly engineered to be of 'quality' rather than something that will actually work in combat and meet the needs of the war-fighter.

It is this attitude that keeps the US military from getting a good gun.

were you intentionally baiting me?

Cellar, how long have you 'known' me? I know I can't change your views on the M-16/AK-47 debate...and you can't change mine. That doesn't mean I don't respect you.

And yes...yes I was! :-)

Vietnam=only sucesess they had, if you can call it that. We still owned the shit out of them, its just the American public (rightly so) got pissed and called the war off.

As for you statement, I honestly disagree, but understand with your viewpoint. The AK-47 is a good weapon no doubt, otherwise it wouldnt survive for this long. Easy to maintain, easy to fire, and easy to use overall make it a strong weapon. I have fired it, and I can tell you right now I like the weapon as it is. It also has a big 7.62 round that makes me feel like rambo when going full auto.
As for the M16, it strikes a better tone with me. It is more accurate to the untrained hand, (im not a firearms freak, just happened to pump a few rounds into targets), I personally like the sights better, and recoil isnt as big as the AK47. It's still fairly effective, but, as myths say, doesnt jam as easily as some would believe. Even if it is, its not hard to devote 20 minutes after a meal or before you hit the sack to cleaning it out.

But, i guess its all about prefrence. Some like the ak47s ease of use, while others like the m16 for its accuracy and other traits.
so bleh :P

At 6/12/07 11:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I can shoot an AK-47 very well within it's envelope of accuracy.

When are our soldiers dealing with ranges outside the accuracy envelope, except for designated marksmen...?

We should be going to larger rounds for some soldiers and start adopting things like the MP7 too.

you know whats a good oldie? da m14, even though it has a powerful recoil, and small ammo capacity, its still a good body shredder