AK-47 'War-master' & the History of 'Cheap War' [Archive]

Marshal Murat

11-26-2006, 18:19

I'm sure any, if not all posters are knowladgeable about the AK-47. I was inspired by an NPR program on it, and have decided to post an entire thread on the AK-47. I have dubbed it the 'War-master' just because I can.

AK-47
A-Avtomat
K-Kalashnikova
19'47'

History
During World War 1, trench warfare covered northern and western France. The infantry man who could deal one shot, one death with his portable rifle. Then there was the machine-gun, dealing the firepower of hundreds of infantry. The trenches were opened up later by the Germans, with storm-troopers. Wielding semi-portable machine-guns, flame-throwers, and grenades, these soldiers cleared entire sections of trench, leaving it open for those that who followed.
In response, nations began the creation of machine-guns or machine-pistols. Rapid firing, compact weapondry, they were designed to 'sweep trenches clean' with fire.
However, the war ended before then. During the inter-war years, the Germans perfected 'blitzkrieg' and the sudden shock of a armored attack, dealing fire-power and destruction, ripping the enemy apart. The war was characterized by the two opposite ends. The heavy support machine-guns (Bren, BAR), light rifles (M1A1 Carbine), rifles (Kar, Mosin-Nagant, Lee-Enfield), and light machine guns (Thompson, MP40, PPSH). The rifles and support weapons had the range, the light weapons the firepower. A sythensis of the two was achieved by the Germans with the StG-44. Anyone who has played CoD knows what I'm talking about.

After WW2, the Cold War began. The Russians and Americans needed the sythensis. The StG-44 was the answer. Deemed an 'assault rifle', it combined the magazine size and firepower of a machine gun with a range of about 300 meters, better than many machine guns.

Specifications
Weight:3.8kg unloaded, 4.3kg loaded
Length:870mm
Barrel Length:415mm
Cartridge:7.62 by 39mm
Action:Gas-operated rotating bolt
Rate of Fire:600 rounds a minute
Muzzle Velocity:710 m/s
Effective Range:300 meter
Feed:30 round banana cartridge or 75 round drum
Sighting:Iron sights

The AK-47 in Current Conflict
The AK-47 is the creator of 'Cheap War' as I like to term it. No war is cheap, and Human Lives are precious creation of God.
The AK-47 is often used by fighters, militia, and third-world armies for some basic reasons.
The AK-47 is reliable, simple to manufacture, easy to clean, and long-lasting. The rounds never jam in the chamber, and chromium plating improve the ruggedness of the weapon. Simple iron sights.
The AK-47 however doesn't have accuracy and penetration at ranges that the American M-16, or modern first-world weapondry.

The AK-47 allows a man, with a couple dollars or equivalent to purchase safety. The AK-47, since it is cheap to produce and available across the world, can provide rebels, insurgents, patriots, militia, pirates, and private security forces with firepower. The UN actually watches the black market on AK-47s, for when the price goes up, war is approaching.
The AK-47 allows men to enforce their will, intimidate, defend, and attack with ease. If something doesn't go your way, buy an AK-47 and force it to go that way.
The AK-47 has often been bought by rebels, who hope to guerilla their way into power and prominence. Many nations have produced variants, identical to the Soviet design.
Albania, Bulgaria, Germany, Egypt, Hungary, Iraq, North Korea, China, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia.

The United States, China, and Russia often provided client states, rebels, and others with an AK-47 and ammunition, training and repair kits for the AK-47. The AK-47 has provided men with the cheap and deadly weapondry that few could really afford before.

Mozambique has an AK-47 on their flag, Hezbollah has one on their flag, and Kalash has been used for African boys names.
The AK-47 has provided the means for cheap, reliable, and rugged firepower. It has lasted, and will contiune to last until it becomes useless.
In Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove, the South Africans actually provide the south with AK-47s for the war.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

yesdachi

11-26-2006, 18:52

The military channels show, Top Ten: Combat Rifles (http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/rifles/slideshow/slideshow_10.html)listed the AK-47 as their #1 and I couldn’t agree more.

Randarkmaan

11-26-2006, 19:03

I think the AK-47 is built on the principle that in a REAL war you won't necessarily have the time or the resources to train the soldiers how to clean and maintain their weapons. Also it may also be based upon a theory the Russians had before and during and after WWII that (again) in a REAL war you will have to be able to re-produce your arsenal many times over in a short time.

KrooK

11-26-2006, 20:57

According to my information PPSH was just bad russian version of finnish machine pistol Suomi.

And I can't agree with theory that M16 is better than Kalashnikov.
1)If you throw M16 into sand, it rather stop working. Kalashnikov will be working well.
2)You can shot both in Desert and Noth Pole.
3)Some years ago I was into Central Police Lab and they told us that normal
bulletproof vest won't help against Kalashikov.
4)Kalashikov is better for non-trained soldiers. They can easy learn how to care about their gun and there is no risk that they gun stop working, cause they cleared it bad.
5)Notice that happy customers prefer Kalashikov than M16.

It's just like Dragunov - American keep telling that US sniper guns is better, but despite that CIA gave 10.000.000$ for each Dragunov. :)

Kääpäkorven Konsuli

11-26-2006, 22:44

If Kalashnikova would have born in west, he would have been a millionaire.

Marshal Murat

11-26-2006, 22:53

Randarkmaan

11-26-2006, 22:53

According to my information PPSH was just bad russian version of finnish machine pistol Suomi.

The PPSh was an easy to produce version of the Finnish Suomi SMG, it also had a higher rate of fire and was as said really easy to manufacture, it could be made quicker than the Sten gun. Also a very large number of German soldiers on the eastern front looted PPSh's from dead Russians (whole batallions of soldiers were armed with them in the Red Army) as it supposedly never jammed and was a hell of a lot better in most respects when compared to the German MP40.

If you want to compared the Suomi to the PPSh, then I have a book from the time I was really interested in WWII armies...

Konepistooli M31 'Suomi'
Type: Submachine gun
Calibre: 9mm Parabellum
Length: 87 cm
Length of barrel: 31,75 cm
Weight: 4,86kg (without magazine)
Muzzle velocity: 400m per second
Feed: 20-, 50-, and 71-round box or drum magazine
Rate of Fire: 450 rounds per minute

Pistolet-Pulemet Schpagina obrazets 1941 'PPSh41'
Type: Submachine gun
Calibre: 7,62mm
Length: 84 cm
Lenght of barrel: 26,9 cm
Weight: 3,5kg
Muzzle velocity: 490m per second
Feed: 35-round box or 71-drum
Rate of Fire: 900-1000 rounds per minute

The M-16, and most modern Army arsenal weapons are for the highly-trained, modern American soldier. One shot, one kill. Every bullet is used for a purpose. While it will jam (from what I've heard, quite often), you can hit a soldier 500 meters away, while the AK-47 can get a good shot at 300 meters, if he doesn't spray the weapon.
Kalashnikov is a cheap, effective, rugged weapon that is meant for irregular, low-tech, inexperianced soldiers.
M-16 is for the high-tech, first world soldier.

The AK-47s have many times been used by professional well-trained soldiers... Israeli special forces for an example continued to use AKs rather than the new Galils and the M16s, though some use them. And I don't think I would call the Soviet army an inexperienced irregular army. Also think about it, in a real slugging match between two roughly equal armies the ability to equip soldiers with a weapon that they are able to use with very little training is priceless. Though now in modern times what matters more is your ability to just carpet-bomb the enemy position with planes and missiles, rather than shooting him with a rifle.

Sarmatian

11-26-2006, 23:13

I also heard that M-16 didn't respond very well to humidity, and that american soldiers in vietnam often discarded their weapons for AK-47's.
Number #1 rifle of all times, IMHO.

AggonyDuck

11-27-2006, 00:14

To counter the American M-16, Kalashnikov created his AK-47.

I don't think this is true, especially when the AK-47 predates the M16.

KrooK

11-27-2006, 00:42

Actually I don't think that you can shot M16 and hit target from 500 metres in normal conditions without scope :) Same with AK-47.
Let's compare typical situations:)
We shouldn't compare that guns into perfect situation because on war situation is hardly any perfect.

BTW there is a joke about American army basic training.
"Our instructors were telling us into USA that M16 is 10 times better than AK47. Then they went to Iraq to check if they are right. When they got back, they learnt how to spell Kalashnikov.

Marshal Murat

11-27-2006, 01:39

Ah, AK-47 was created because Kalashnikov knew what the Americans were making!

Also, the Suomi had 9mm so that you could use pistol ammunition in them (that's what i've heard)

Beirut

11-27-2006, 01:44

The M-16, and most modern Army arsenal weapons are for the highly-trained, modern American soldier. One shot, one kill. Every bullet is used for a purpose. While it will jam (from what I've heard, quite often), you can hit a soldier 500 meters away, while the AK-47 can get a good shot at 300 meters, if he doesn't spray the weapon.
Kalashnikov is a cheap, effective, rugged weapon that is meant for irregular, low-tech, inexperianced soldiers.
M-16 is for the high-tech, first world soldier.

Debatable, sir.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target, under stress, at 500 yards with a single shot from an iron sighted M16 (I assume you refer to at least the A2 version), is not a regular soldier. He's an irregularly fine shot. If not outstandingly fine.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target at 500 meters, under stress, with a single shot from 4x scope mounted M16A2 is still an irregularly fine shot.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target ay 500 meters, under stress, with a single round from any version of the M16A3 model with the short barrel is probably owed a favour from the Almighty.

There is no more likelihood of spraying with an AK-47 than there is with any model of the M16. The weapon operator either choses to fire full auto or he does not.

In modern urban combat, in the hands of a highly trained soldier, there is truly not a big difference between the two weapons.

Marshal Murat

11-27-2006, 02:13

Ah well, never mind. Its history. If you got more information, add it. I'm sorry about any personal injection of opinion.

Julian the apostate

11-27-2006, 02:29

what about the rest of the list, remarkably large number of regular rifles and nothing outside of the Stegyr that has been created anywhere near recently.
i think the G-11 is more recent as are some other prototypes but nothing really has the cost efficency the m16 and AK do. I'm glad the M-14 got put on the list though brilliant weapon:2thumbsup: in my humble humble humble opinion

Beirut

11-27-2006, 05:06

Ah well, never mind. Its history. If you got more information, add it. I'm sorry about any personal injection of opinion.

Not at all. Personal injection of opinion is what makes these forums colourful.

I was merely responding to a debatable point with my own injection of personal opinion, I was certainly not trashing you personally. :bow:

Del Arroyo

11-27-2006, 05:51

Debatable, sir.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target, under stress, at 500 yards with a single shot from an iron sighted M16 (I assume you refer to at least the A2 version), is not a regular soldier. He's an irregularly fine shot. If not outstandingly fine.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target at 500 meters, under stress, with a single shot from 4x scope mounted M16A2 is still an irregularly fine shot.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target ay 500 meters, under stress, with a single round from any version of the M16A3 model with the short barrel is probably owed a favour from the Almighty.

There is no more likelihood of spraying with an AK-47 than there is with any model of the M16. The weapon operator either choses to fire full auto or he does not.

In modern urban combat, in the hands of a highly trained soldier, there is truly not a big difference between the two weapons.

Not necessarily true. The leaf sights on the AK-47 and the lower quality of the parts mean that it is not a very accurate weapon beyond 100 meters or so, at least not nearly as accurate as the M-16 or the M-4. The "max effective range" of 300 meters can be interpreted the same way as the "max effective range" of 450-550 meters on the M-16/M-4 family-- it takes an uncommonly good/lucky shot to hit something out that far.

While I am sure that an AK-47 in the hands of a trained and skilled soldier is an effective weapon, there is no comparison between it an the M-4. US soldiers in Vietnam sometimes opted for AKs out of frustration with the especially malfunction-prone early versions of the M-16. The clearest evidence possible is that the best trained and most deadly Special Forces in the world, those of the USA, use M-4s.

Watchman

11-27-2006, 09:33

The clearest evidence possible is that the best trained and most deadly Special Forces in the world, those of the USA...Bet you this one is debatable. Not that "deadliness" was really the point of SpecOps anyway (they're not line combat troops, after all), but rather being able to handle demanding special missions that are too much for common soldiery to handle.

Anyway, unless the Kalashnikov copy our army uses is considerably more accurate than the original design (AFAIK the main difference is the wooden furniture having been replaced with metal and plastic) the thing is accurate enough as far as a soldier can now be realistically expected to even be able to see his target properly, by what I know of witness statements of its performance. Probably goes for any long-arm that doesn't have genuine design flaws in that regard, really.

However, one constantly reads and hears all kinds of endemic whinage about the M-16. "Unreliable", "not enough stopping power" (although given that I've never heard of for example the French, Brits and Israelis having this issue with their 5.56s I'm guessing this is a "problem between the ears", as they say in our army), and the recoil spring that telescopes into the stock is apparently a bit of a pain in some regards. In comparision the Kalashnikov, originally introduced soon after the damn World War Two (one look at the German StG44 gives a major hint of its immediate ancestry), has rendered lethal and reliable service in just about every conceivable condition since then and so far as I know the -74 updated version is even better.

The M-4 kinda sucks really, AFAIK. Sure it's handy, but with a munition whose terminal effectiveness is very much dependent upon high muzzle velocity cutting down the barrel is sort of shooting yourself in the leg isn't it ? One local military magazine (done by active military personnel) here recently discussed in an article the pros and cons of SMGs and assault rifle carbines for police use, and commented on the latter something of a "risk of being left holding a macho looking varmint rifle in a tight spot" due to this velocity drop-off...

Also given the amount of tinkering that seems to be constantly going on around the M-16 lineage to rectify assorted problems one cannot but wonder if the whole thing just plain wasn't badly designed compared to rather a few other 5.56mm NATO ARs (FA-MAS, Galil, Sig-Sauer...), many of which also see regular active use apparently without a hitch, to begin with ?

Beirut

11-27-2006, 12:53

Not necessarily true. The leaf sights on the AK-47 and the lower quality of the parts mean that it is not a very accurate weapon beyond 100 meters or so...

I would hesitate to say that the AK-47 has "lower quality parts". I would wager that there are more twenty and thirty year old AKs floating around in service then M-16s. Durability is a tangible quality and the AK has it in spades. A 1970 Chevy pickup with a V8 might be made of "lower quality parts" than a Porshe, but we all know which one lasts longer, can handle a beating, and can often be fixed just by kicking it hard enough. We're not talking fighter planes with ground crews and sophisticated technology - we're talking battle rifles that get handled very roughly in severe environments and more often than not are used at far less than maximum range.

Also, if we are going to discuss the newer A2 and M4 versions of the M16, then we should not be comparing them to the AK47 but to the AK74, AK100, and the other, newer offspring of the original design.

Pannonian

11-27-2006, 14:05

I would hesitate to say that the AK-47 has "lower quality parts". I would wager that there are more twenty and thirty year old AKs floating around in service then M-16s. Durability is a tangible quality and the AK has it in spades. A 1970 Chevy pickup with a V8 might be made of "lower quality parts" than a Porshe, but we all know which one lasts longer, can handle a beating, and can often be fixed just by kicking it hard enough. We're not talking fighter planes with ground crews and sophisticated technology - we're talking battle rifles that get handled very roughly in severe environments and more often than not are used at far less than maximum range.

I've heard one of the plus ploints about the AK is that it can be effectively used as a club, whereas on the other end of the scale an SA-80 breaks if you look at it the wrong way. So it has both great killing power and non-lethal power for when you need to deliver a lesson but don't want to kill the victim.

Del Arroyo

11-27-2006, 14:23

The higher manufacturing tolerances on the AK47 mean that it has lower accuracy, period. It is a trade-off for durability. The leaf sights are un-zeroable and less effective for long-range fire, period.

I was not trying to say that the M16 was superior to other weapons of its type, or that it was even necessarily superior to the AK47. My aim was to refute the misguided assertion that the AK47 is practically as effective as the M16 in all ways, which is simply not true. Yes, the M16 jams like a mother*, but if you aim it properly it will hit that 300 meter target every single time. The same applies out to 500 meters, I am told, though I have personally never shot that far.

The Soviet line of weapons is more durable and perhaps more practical, but bottom line, if you want to make one shot, one kill, they are insufficient.

And yes, SF's primary mission is not direct action, but CAG's is, and they do make use of M4s (as well as a variety of other weapons).

..

Also, it is good to keep in mind that the M16/M4 series weapons that most people have had experience with have seen very heavy use in training, combined with insufficient maintanence, and use very old, worn out magazines. I am told that a fresher, properly maintained weapon using new magazines is much more reliable. In short, modern M16 family weapons, in actual practice, do not live up their bad reputation.

Randarkmaan

11-27-2006, 16:02

Also, the Suomi had 9mm so that you could use pistol ammunition in them (that's what i've heard)

You could do the same with the PPSh as the pistol calibre in most Red army pistols in this time was 7,62mm (very unusual for a pistol I've heard) and this was the same bullet used in the PPSh. The Germans even reconfigured some of the PPSh's that they captured so they could fire the 9mm magazines made for the MP40, this spared them the difficulty of looting clips of the battlefield.

Anyway it is true that the AKs focus on durability does reduce it accuracy, but this is mostly because of increased recoil and it being heavy, when firing one shot in normal combat circumstances it shouldn't really matter much if you were armed with an M16 or an AK47, though the M16 generally is more accurate and it's also lighter, but what makes the AK47 great is it's simplicity, durability and general effectiveness. The AK-74 is basically (so I've heard) the AK-47 reconfigured to fire a different calibre (5,45mm similar to the NATO 5,65mm) though with some other configurations. Many of the newer AK variants, are not as simple as the original weapons and have not been put into heavy use yet because of this.

Spino

11-27-2006, 16:48

Little known fact about the AK-47 is that there are tons of cheap copies or 'knockoffs' on the market that don't possess the ruggedness, reliability or accuracy of the original. There is a thriving small arms knockoff industry in the towns of western Pakistan that has been around since the Soviet Afghan war. They produce knockoff versions of just about every modern assault rifle and machine gun you can think of; AK-47, M-16, PKM, Uzi, etc. I'd hate to be the poor sap who buys one of those thinking it's the real deal.

You could do the same with the PPSh as the pistol calibre in most Red army pistols in this time was 7,62mm (very unusual for a pistol I've heard) and this was the same bullet used in the PPSh. The Germans even reconfigured some of the PPSh's that they captured so they could fire the 9mm magazines made for the MP40, this spared them the difficulty of looting clips of the battlefield.

One of the biggest drawbacks to the MP-40 was the fact that you couldn't fire it from a prone position (this proved to be a huge headache for German troops in Stalingrad). Accuracy, reliability and penetrating power aside one of the great things about the PPSh was that thanks to its standard rifle stock, barrel hand grip and drum magazine the user could fire it from a prone position without a problem.

Beirut

11-27-2006, 16:53

A vibrant gun debate. Love it.

The higher manufacturing tolerances on the AK47 mean that it has lower accuracy, period. It is a trade-off for durability. The leaf sights are un-zeroable and less effective for long-range fire, period.

The AK-47 was not designed for long range fire so it's not really fair that it be accused of not being able to handle it.

Yes, the M16 jams like a mother*, but if you aim it properly it will hit that 300 meter target every single time. The same applies out to 500 meters, I am told, though I have personally never shot that far.

Sure, if you're a good shot, and you're benchresting a custom heavy barrel M16 rifle, and are using match ammo on a calm day, and have a clear line of sight through a scope, you just might hit a 500 yard target every time. But you'd do better with a 50year-old bolt action 30-06 than an M16.

I've shot a fair bit at 350 measured yards (max clear distance at the sandpit) with a McMillan M86 .300 Winchester Magnum using Federal Premium ammo and could cut 3" groups, but my rifle had a 24" heavy match grade barrel, a Leupold Tactical 3.5-10X scope, a premium trigger and action, and a Parker-Hale bipod. I shot prone and took my time. Anyone who could cut a group three times that size, offhand, with an iron sighted M16 is a superb marksman, not a regular soldier.

Any rifle that holds one minute of accuracy at 100 yards is a very good rifle. A standard issue M16 of any make will not hold to one minute of accuracy. Therefore, at best, locked in a vice, an M16 will shoot 5+ inch groups (probably 10"+) at 500 yards. Add the stress of combat, the often unstable shooting positions, the less than match grade FMJ ammo, the inherent drop and wind drift associated with a .223 bullet over 500 yards, and you have a situation where hitting a man sized target at 500 yards every shot is an illusion.

Avicenna

11-27-2006, 17:34

Time to be really annoying and picky. You refer to the Kalahsnikov as if it were a 3rd world country. However, "3rd world" is an outdated term which doesn't fit a Russian weapon. A 3rd world country is one that was not aligned to either the USA or the USSR during the cold war. Of course, the Kalashnikov was a Soviet gun, so that term is invalid.

AggonyDuck

11-27-2006, 18:55

Ah, AK-47 was created because Kalashnikov knew what the Americans were making!

Well the American contemporary for the AK-47 would be the M14, not the M16.

KrooK

11-27-2006, 19:21

As someon reminded earlier, we shouldn't compare AK47 (early version) with M16 last version. Let's compare AK 47 early version with first version of M16.
Latest version of M16 should be compared with latest version of Kalashnikov (if I'm sure its AK47 2 - Specnaz Edition) or with modified versions (like polish Beryl). There is absolutely no difference.
According to theory that American special forces are best in the world, please check what Americans were telling about polish special forces after mission on Haiti :) American Delta Force is quite big and good, but there is many units that can be compare with it like GROM, SAS, GSG 9 and maybe with Commando Alfa (but this very brave unit sucked into some missions).

Marshal Murat

11-27-2006, 22:29

Beirut

11-27-2006, 23:33

The modern American rifleman is supposed to be a average to superb marksman. The Afghani who wields an AK-47 can hit something, but doesn't have the range of the M-16. If you could pick off maybe two guys before he can shoot you with a degree of accuracy, then I would say go with the M-16.
AK-47 is a great weapon if you want to mass-equip and irregular, un-trained to average army. The US Army relies on good marksmen and support.

T'would be a mistake to question the marksmanship of the Afghanis. Back when the USSR was in Afghanistan, the Afghanis taught a Soviets a very nasty lesson with decades old Lee-Enfields.

Also, there is the story of the British parachutists (the Blue Devils, I think) who, in the last stages of WWII, were taken on in the woods of Germany by over-aged professional hunters armed with old hunting rifles. The British were shot to pieces.

The point being that it is far less the weapon that wins the fight - it is he who wields it.

As for the statement "... to mass equip an irregular, un-trained and irregular to average army", it is worth considering that some of the toughest armies in the world either fielded the "original" AK series or variants thereof. Israel and South Africa to name just two. I believe only the FN-FAL saw as much service for as long a time.

Regarding the US soldier's marksmanship, doubtlessly many are excellent shots. Also, many are not. But the scope of urban battle does not often allow for a one shot one kill scenario in either case. As for Afghanistan and wide open distances, I would refer you to my previous post about the accuracy of the .223 bullet at long range in combat situations.

If you look at the rounds fired per kill statistics from Vietnam to Iraq, it is probably, on average, in the thousands to one range. When a US soldier empties six magazines in a firefight, it is doubtful he has hit 180 enemy soldiers.

Sorry to constantly argue, but I was a serious gun collector for twenty years and I've read a huge amount about these things.

Del Arroyo

11-28-2006, 00:16

The AK-47 was not designed for long range fire so it's not really fair that it be accused of not being able to handle it.

Quite true, my friend, but I am not trying to be fair. War is not fair. I merely wished to point out that there are distinct advantages to the M16 family of weapons which continue to make them preferred weapons for some of the most feared fighting men in the world.

If you want a real test, talk to some infantrymen who've done a tour or two in Iraq or Afganistan, and I bet I can tell you what you'll hear-- some praise for the AK, some gripes about sand and malfunctions, but not one soul who would rather change out his M16 for anything fielded by the opposition.

IrishArmenian

11-28-2006, 01:44

I have one in the room, believe it or not. It is in the closet, no but a meter away.
One has to be awed by all the deviations on it. They have made submachine guns, light machine guns and my baby... the Dragunov SVd.

Beirut

11-28-2006, 02:11

Quite true, my friend, but I am not trying to be fair. War is not fair. I merely wished to point out that there are distinct advantages to the M16 family of weapons which continue to make them preferred weapons for some of the most feared fighting men in the world.

If you want a real test, talk to some infantrymen who've done a tour or two in Iraq or Afganistan, and I bet I can tell you what you'll hear-- some praise for the AK, some gripes about sand and malfunctions, but not one soul who would rather change out his M16 for anything fielded by the opposition.

I'm not trashing the M16, per say, just saying that the M16 is not The Right Hand of Allah as far as guns go. Is it a good gun? Sure it is. Is it the best gun? Probably not. But then the criteria is so wide and diverse, it's difficult to say what's what.

For my part, I'd like to ask some of those guys in Afghanistan who are shooting over long distances if they would rather have a real battle rifle shooting a full power cartridge instead of their issue gopher gun.

It's fair to mention that the M16 was not based in any way on a one shot -one kill ideology. It was shoved down NATO's throat by the US who saw massive amounts of rapid fire as being the answer to the question. The antithesis to one shot - one kill. Keep in mind the rifle the the M16 replaced was used afterwards, still is in some US forces, as the one shot - one kill rifle.

Here in Canada, the masses screamed bloody murder when our soldiers were forced to give up their .308 FN-FALs and go with the M16. It was pure politics from start to finish. We should have gone over to the G3 if anything. Now that's a rifle.

DemonArchangel

11-28-2006, 02:49

.....

For my part, I'd like to ask some of those guys in Afghanistan who are shooting over long distances if they would rather have a real battle rifle shooting a full power cartridge instead of their issue gopher gun.

It's fair to mention that the M16 was not based in any way on a one shot -one kill ideology. It was shoved down NATO's throat by the US who saw massive amounts of rapid fire as being the answer to the question. The antithesis to one shot - one kill. Keep in mind the rifle the the M16 replaced was used afterwards, still is in some US forces, as the one shot - one kill rifle.

Here in Canada, the masses screamed bloody murder when our soldiers were forced to give up their .308 FN-FALs and go with the M16. It was pure politics from start to finish. We should have gone over to the G3 if anything. Now that's a rifle.

Just one quick note Beirut: Most infantrymen can't really hit anything beyond 300m anyway. On the long plains and mountain valleys of Afghanistan, it's best to let platoon and company level machine guns fire at any target beyond 300 meters. It saves your average rifleman's ammunition and the MGs are far more accurate than any infantryman's rifle over long range.

The M16 is not a bad weapon. Definitely not the world's most reliable weapon, but recoil is very controllable, allowing for quick follow up shots and target reacquisition. That, not sheer accuracy is what wins firefights. An M16 might not be able to hit a target at 500m consistently, but you can try another shot quicker than you can with another rifle. More lead in the air is more chance for a hit, simple as that.

About the AK-47, all I can do is agree with David H. Hackworth when wrote this:

"One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. "Watch this, guys," I said, "and I'll show you how a real infantry weapon works." I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds — the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M16."

Samurai Waki

11-28-2006, 04:06

The M16 was designed during the Korean War (but wasn't actually put into service until Vietnam) under the US Army's Doctrine of Superior Firepower, which compromises of Squad, Platoon, and Company Sized Infantry Groups, that could hold back much larger Sized Infantry Groups. The M16 does it's job well, in the right tactical conditions, but not so well against Irregulars, and Geurilla Type Forces, mostly because the Superior Firepower Doctrine (which is still technically used by the US Army today) is aimed against much larger forces...such as the Soviet Union or China. The M16 is not to blame, yes it does jam...frequently, but in an American Sized Squad, they are used to Support with much Greater Accuracy, the SAW249 and Previous to that the .50 Cals. Which unfortunately, do not work well against an enemy that likes to take potshots, and sets up ambushes.

Superior Firepower, works well against Regular Armies, In Desert Storm I and the Initial phases of DSII, we flat put the spank on the Iraqis, because they were facing us with well drilled, and orderly military forces.

We need to change our Tactics, not the Gun.

Beirut

11-28-2006, 04:10

Just one quick note Beirut: Most infantrymen can't really hit anything beyond 300m anyway. On the long plains and mountain valleys of Afghanistan, it's best to let platoon and company level machine guns fire at any target beyond 300 meters. It saves your average rifleman's ammunition and the MGs are far more accurate than any infantryman's rifle over long range.

I've been saying that repeatedly in several posts.

Mind you, the MGs are not more accurate, they are less so, but they can afford to miss more due a larger ammo supply. The Browning M2HBs are surprisingly accurate, though, and have been used as single shot sniper weapons with scopes attached. (Carlos Hathcock shooting the VC off the bicycle at 1500 yards for example.) The ballistic coefficient of the .50 is about as perfect as any bullet can be. No surprise the Bell X-1 which first broke the sound barrier was shaped like a .50 caliber bullet.

I've read that the M2HBs, on occasion, have to be deliberately made less accurate to be more effective in their role as an area suppression weapon.

Redleg

11-28-2006, 04:34

I've been saying that repeatedly in several posts.

Mind you, the MGs are not more accurate, they are less so, but they can afford to miss more due a larger ammo supply. The Browning M2HBs are surprisingly accurate, though, and have been used as single shot sniper weapons with scopes attached. (Carlos Hathcock shooting the VC off the bicycle at 1500 yards for example.) The ballistic coefficient of the .50 is about as perfect as any bullet can be. No surprise the Bell X-1 which first broke the sound barrier was shaped like a .50 caliber bullet.

I've read that the M2HBs, on occasion, have to be deliberately made less accurate to be more effective in their role as an area suppression weapon.

THe superiority of the Maw Duece design is the heavy construction of the weapon itself followed up with the low profile, and very heavy tripod. The Tripod design is one of the components that enable the M2 to be as accurate as it is. Along with the deflection and elevation device that allows the gun to remain locked into its firing postion.

While conducting weapons training with my Battery - after all my gunners were qualified on the weapon, the 1SG allowed me to become qualified with the M2. (and I do say he the 1SG allowed me - since it was his qualification Range.)

You sight the weapon in by eye with and lock it in your tripod. If one has braced the Tripod correct, one can accurate adjust the elevation and deflection of the weapon so that each and every round will strike the target within a 2 inch circle, be it fired single shot or as designed in 3 to 5 round bursts.

A truely beautiful weapon to behold. Simple design, durable construction, and most important is its ability to be fired accurately when its needed.

When placing the scope on the M2 - it becomes even more accurate because of the ability to refine the aim without firing the weapon first.

BTW I qualified expert on the weapon on the 2nd Attempt - first attempt I only qualified. But learned some valuable aiming techinques from my 1SG.

Beirut

11-28-2006, 13:10

When placing the scope on the M2 - it becomes even more accurate because of the ability to refine the aim without firing the weapon first.

.

You mean by boresighting the scope? If not, what method are you using to zero the scope without firing the weapon?

Grey_Fox

11-28-2006, 13:13

Superior Firepower, works well against Regular Armies, In Desert Storm I and the Initial phases of DSII, we flat put the spank on the Iraqis, because they were facing us with well drilled, and orderly military forces.

50% of Iraqi forces deserted prior to Desert Storm and were outnumbered 4:3. Not detratcing from the skill of the western troops that fought there, but the Iraqis were not well drilled or orderly by the time ground troops got involved.

Also, the 'left hook' into the Iraqi's flank was far too slow. The whole plan was fundamentally flawed. But that's for another topic.

Redleg

11-28-2006, 14:39

You mean by boresighting the scope? If not, what method are you using to zero the scope without firing the weapon?

Correct. However there are better sniper systems today utilizing the .50 caliber ammunitin then the M2.

Fragony

11-28-2006, 14:46

The military channels show, Top Ten: Combat Rifles (http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/rifles/slideshow/slideshow_10.html)listed the AK-47 as their #1 and I couldn’t agree more.

http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/rifles/slideshow/gallery/01_ak47_hzoom.jpg

Isn't this an AK74 he is holding?

The Wizard

11-28-2006, 15:09

Now that's a gun I'd love to have. ~:pimp:

yesdachi

11-28-2006, 15:25

http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/rifles/slideshow/gallery/01_ak47_hzoom.jpg

Isn't this an AK74 he is holding?
The caption from the photo indicates that it may be. :bow:

Russian designer Mikhail Kalashnikov, the creator of the world's most famous assault rifle, the AK-47, aims a current version of his weapon design at a shooting range outside the Russian city of Izhevsk in December 2003.

Fragony

11-28-2006, 15:38

That would be pretty sloppy, AK74 fires a different round, not the same weapon then.

Lorenzo_H

11-28-2006, 16:06

A lot of the worlds violence would be solved if we didn't have AK-47 so widely availible.

yesdachi

11-28-2006, 16:29

A lot of the worlds violence would be solved if we didn't have AK-47 so widely availible.
That’s debatable.

DemonArchangel

11-28-2006, 16:44

Nah, it's not about hardware. They'd go at it with machetes if they didn't have guns.

Oleander Ardens

11-28-2006, 19:26

How will increasing effectiveness of body armor influence the assault rifles? Dragonskin is supposed to stop the current military standard ammunition with relative ease --> http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin.php

Are we back to the Medieval in terms of effectiveness?

Watchman

11-29-2006, 09:34

More likely more solid penetrators with more energy and so on. Although, given that apparently one reason for the griping about the lack of stopping power with the M-16 one reads of is the use of a standard-issue round originally designed to defeat Soviet body armour which duly over-penetrates against "soft" targets... :dizzy2:

Seamus Fermanagh

11-30-2006, 04:28

....ah a classic argument:

AK-47

Advantages: durability, ease of operation, good stopping power, cheap

Disadvantages: somewhat heavy compared to M16, ammo heavier

M-16

Advantages: can carry lots more ammo per pound, slightly better effective range than AK-47

Disadvantages: more prone to jamming (especially older models), rounds have little stopping power

Assault rifles are designed to combine the advantages of the machine pistol and the rifle for:

normal infantry engagement ranges, as in <150m -- if you're reliably hitting things at 400m with the basic version of either one, you'll find yourself equipped with a different weapon soon, you're wasted on an assault rifle

hosing lots of bullets down range -- make 'em duck so that you can advance while they're not shooting. The vast majority of bullets are mever intended to hit. (By the way, I would venture to say that both rifles will make you duck if they're hosing bullets more or less your way)

working in combo with other weapons as a fire team -- Bolt or semis for ranged work and MG/GL stuff for dishing out hurt

Side Note: Ma Deuce rules. Browning was a genius.

Beirut

11-30-2006, 12:41

Browning was a genius.

The truest statement yet made in this thread.

Not many people know it was John Moses Browning who invented the Colt .45 auto and the Winchester Model 94, along with many other legendary guns.

My first rifle was a Browning. The BL-22, a great little lever action .22 caliber rifle. Got it for Christmas when I was 14. Still have it.

Redleg

11-30-2006, 15:46

The truest statement yet made in this thread.

Not many people know it was John Moses Browning who invented the Colt .45 auto and the Winchester Model 94, along with many other legendary guns.

My first rifle was a Browning. The BL-22, a great little lever action .22 caliber rifle. Got it for Christmas when I was 14. Still have it.

Ah Browning - not many people know where he lived either.

DemonArchangel

11-30-2006, 18:20

What you all might want to know is that the M16 has better ergonomics than the AK-47 as well, but the thing is, if a round jams while extracting, with the AK, you can just stick the gun muzzle first into the ground and stomp on the charging handle until either the gun breaks or the round feeds. Knowing you could do that somehow makes me feel more comfortable inside than just tapping the forward assist.

Beirut

11-30-2006, 22:14

Kagemusha

11-30-2006, 23:04

Del Arroyo

11-30-2006, 23:40

Beirut

12-01-2006, 01:01

If you want high end product that is made after AK-47 i recommended RK-95.Take a look at this baby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_95_TP

https://img489.imageshack.us/img489/9203/1113200271img7465rt1.jpg

I had a .223 Finnsh version of an AK. It was a valmet M77. 24" heavy barrel with a built in bipod. Very well made rifle. It's function would have been along the lines of a Bren gun or BAR, but with the .223 round, it was a bit light in firepower. It took a thirty round mag, but only came with one. Hard to find more. Galil .223 mags worked, but they were very tight fitting and were prone to jams.

My favorite AK actioned rifle was my old Galil .308. That!, was a rifle. Built like a tank, twenty-five round mags, tritium sights, integral bipod, side grooved for a QD scope mount, and it fired real ammo. Not that gopher gun stuff.

Now this is a rifle!
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/galil.jpg

Kagemusha

12-01-2006, 01:09

You knew that the original Galil was made after blueprints of RK-62?Ofcourse to me its not RK if it doesnt shoot 7,62 × 39mm bullet and clips are for 30 ammo.Only import versions come with different calibers,all military versions use the AK bullet.

Beirut

12-01-2006, 01:18

If memory serves, the Galil barrels were made by Valmet and the receivers were made by Colt. The folding stock is a copied from the FN. It was all put together in Israel. That might have only been the first few years of production, though.

Could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure.

Kagemusha

12-01-2006, 01:26

Quote from here: http://world.guns.ru/assault/as23-e.htm

"After the end of this war IDF decided to develop a new assault rifle, which will eventually replace the FN FAL battle rifles and some of the UZI submachine guns. It was also decided that the new assault rifle should be built around the new American low-impulse cartridge, known as 5.56x45mm. During the late 1960s the IDF tested two rival designs, one of the Uziel Gal, and the other of the Israel Galili. The latter design, based on the Finnish Valmet Rk.62 assault rifle (a license-built AK-47 clone), eventually won the competition and was selected as a new IDF assault rifle in the 1973, but its actual adoption was delayed by the next Israeli-Arab Yom Kippur war of the 1973. The machinery and documentation package was bought from Valmet and transferred to the state owned Israel Military Industries (IMI) company. There are some rumors that the first production Galil rifles were built on the Valmet-made receivers."

Beirut

12-01-2006, 03:00

Ahhh, thanks.

So the receivers were made by Valmet. That makes much more sense. That means the barrels were probably from Colt.

(In retrospect, I'm surprised I even though Colt had made the receivers. What a dummy.)

DemonArchangel

12-01-2006, 09:13

Better ergonomics?

Any expandification y'all would like to makeify on that?

Charging handle on M16 is in a slightly more convenient position, and magazine release is quicker, as well, the M16 is lighter.

And yes, the Galil is made of win Beirut. Just that the recoil on that thing's gonna be a little harsh... and is the bipod, is that really necessary on your average infantryman's rifle?

Beirut

12-01-2006, 12:42

Charging handle on M16 is in a slightly more convenient position, and magazine release is quicker, as well, the M16 is lighter.

I think the AK/Galil charging handle is fine, but I do see your point. Yes, the mag release is quicker on the M16. On the other hand, the AK/Galil mag release feels much more solid, though the rocking motion of mag insertion is slower than a sraight up push.

And yes, the Galil is made of win Beirut. Just that the recoil on that thing's gonna be a little harsh... and is the bipod, is that really necessary on your average infantryman's rifle?

Sorry, not sure what your first sentence means.

I never found the recoil on the Galil harsh. The rifle isn't a lightweight, no, but the weight and gas action do soak up a lot of the recoil.

As for the bipod, perhaps it is a bit surperfluous when moving around a lot, but if you're maintaning a prone position it allows you a much steadier shooting position, the ability to keep the rifle in a firing postion for longer times without fatigue, as well as keeping it in a firing position while you are distracted with other things like eating, drinking, or any number of things a soldier might do while laying prone for an hour (or a day) covering an area of fire.

The Galil bipod folds back into the foregrip and is unobstrusive. I never noticed it unless I was using it. The carrying handle, on the other hand, could be removed anytime.

Finally found a pic of my old Valmet M78. (I could have sworn it was a M77 that's why I couldn't find a pic - but I sold that thing at least ten years ago, my memory must be going.) This was an extremelly well built rifle, but as I said, I had trouble finding spare mags, and the gun was very heavy for a .223. Lots of fun to shoot, though!

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/valmet78.jpg

Now here's a good rifle - the AR10.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/Ar-10.jpg

The US should have adopted these instead of the gopher gun M16. Took me a while to find one (mail order, gotta love that), and the one I did find was in very used condition, but it shouldered well, felt right, and fired a full power cartridge. The magazines were pretty flimsy though, thin aluminum, and it only came with one. The model I bought was converted from a full-auto to semi. I can't magine hanging on to this thing in full auto. It would be completely useless.

I don't remember mine having holes in the foregrip, though, but again, this was another gun I bought and sold ten or fifteen years ago.

Kagemusha

12-01-2006, 19:42

Nice looking gun there Beirut.Altough it looks very AK´ish even compared to RK-62.The wooden parts have that effect and The rear sight is placed just like in AK-47 and the barrel is different then RK-62. Was the clip made from plastic?Like normal RK clips are. Here is is picture of the modern standard RK-62:

https://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6216/1113200146img7345sk8.jpg

Beirut

12-01-2006, 21:23

Was the clip made from plastic?Like normal RK clips are.

No, steel. Very solid. As I mentioned, .223 Galil clips could work, but the fit was too tight, you really had to force it into the receiver, and the one I had was prone to jams. The clip that came with the Valmet worked fine.

No question, though, a very high degree of workmanship on the Valmet.

Kagemusha

12-01-2006, 21:36

The plastic clips that we had in the army for 7.62mm were pretty loose.When you were aiming from lying(spelling) position you could twist the rifle and feel how the clip moved a little bit sideways when the other end of it was stuck on the ground.But then i cant say how close your gun was to the military version since i have never tryed M78. Was the machinery like this?:

https://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3500/1113200186img7350ar8.jpg

Beirut

12-02-2006, 00:16

I don't remember anything about loose magazine movement. I only remember that the magazine that game with the rifle, and the rifle itself, functioned very well.

Wish I still had it...

Vladimir

12-04-2006, 21:27

https://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3500/1113200186img7350ar8.jpg

Ouch, nasty flash suppresser. One of the faults of early M-16s.

IrishArmenian

12-05-2006, 00:49

From what I've read, early M-16's, CAR-15's, etc, were very unreliable and more expensive to manufacture.
From experience the AK-47 and its variations are relatively simple, low maintenance, and relatively cheap because Russia produced so many during the Cold War to combat capitalism.

Kagemusha

12-05-2006, 02:19

Ouch, nasty flash suppresser. One of the faults of early M-16s.

Well that is the RK-62 model.From 60´s.The flash supressor is old type.As you can see from the latest RK-95 changes have been made:

https://img489.imageshack.us/img489/9203/1113200271img7465rt1.jpg

Vladimir

12-05-2006, 14:18

Much better. :2thumbsup: It does look like it would be difficult to fire in the prone position however. I suppose that if it's a good quality weapon you won't get jams from using the magazine to support it.

Oleander Ardens

12-05-2006, 21:53

What to do guys think about an .308 assault rifle with a sound suppressor?
A good one is almost as efficient in reducing recoil as a good muzzle break and makes shooting easy on your ears. And this beside all the tactical advantages...

Watchman

12-05-2006, 23:08

Vladimir

12-06-2006, 15:32

Doesn't getting reduced to subsonic tend to kind of screw up the normally supersonic bullets ? Granted it's not as bad as with 5.56mm's ("...the risk of being left with a macho looking varmint rifle in a tight spot" as a local military mag put it) but still.

Agreed. That’s always the problem when you rely on velocity. That’s why I prefer 45s. :2thumbsup: :rifle:

Oleander Ardens

12-06-2006, 18:07

I never said you should use it with subsonic ammo instead of the standard issue one. In fact sound suppressors with supersonic ammo retain a great deal of the tactical advantages, because the sounds emitted by the travelling bullet make it hard to detect the direction of the suppressed muzzlesound...

There is a wealth of information on the web, most interesting is the study done by the Finnish department of work security and health or something similar which caused the new, very liberal laws for sound suppressors. Just go into a shop and buy one for the hunting or shooting.

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

http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/summary.html
http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/trial1999.html
http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/measure.html
http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/impact.html

This way you get a more accurate assaultrifle which is easier to shoot and on your ears...

Cheers
OA

Watchman

12-07-2006, 01:15

Ah, you meant just suppressing the muzzle blast and so on.

Still, assault rifles aren't small to begin with in most cases and I'm under the impression the sort of suppresor that can dampen the muzzle blast of something of that calibre is going to be pretty large too. Won't that make the whole assembly rather unwieldily long and cumbersome ?

Ice

12-07-2006, 01:47

3)Some years ago I was into Central Police Lab and they told us that normal
bulletproof vest won't help against Kalashikov.

Well yeah, of course a standard police vest won't stop an AK round.

Armor Level Protects Against
Type I
(.22 LR; .380 ACP) This armor protects against .22 caliber Long Rifle Lead Round Nose (LR LRN) bullets, with nominal masses of 2.6 g (40 gr) at a reference velocity of 329 m/s (1080 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and .380 ACP Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 6.2 g (95 gr) at a reference velocity of 322 m/s (1055 ft/s ± 30 ft/s).

Type IIA
(9 mm; .40 S&W) This armor protects against 9 mm Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr) at a reference velocity of 341 m/s (1120 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and .40 S&W caliber Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets, with nominal masses of 11.7 g (180 gr) at a reference velocity of 322 m/s (1055 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Type I].

Type II
(9 mm; .357 Magnum) This armor protects against 9 mm Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr) at a reference velocity of 367 m/s (1205 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 357 Magnum Jacketed Soft Point (JSP) bullets, with nominal masses of 10.2 g (158 gr) at a reference velocity of 436 m/s (1430 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I and IIA].
Type IIIA
(High Velocity 9 mm; .44 Magnum) This armor protects against 9 mm Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr) at a reference velocity of 436 m/s (1430 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets, with nominal masses of 15.6 g (240 gr) at a reference velocity of 436 m/s (1430 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against most handgun threats, as well as the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, and II].

Type III
(Rifles) This armor protects against 7.62 mm Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets (U.S. Military designation M80), with nominal masses of 9.6 g (148 gr) at a reference velocity of 847 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, and IIIA].

Type IV
(Armor Piercing Rifle) This armor protects against .30 caliber armor piercing (AP) bullets (U.S. Military designation M2 AP), with nominal masses of 10.8 g (166 gr) at a reference velocity of 878 m/s (2880 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides at least single hit protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, IIIA, and III].

Regular officers would most likely wear II or IIA which aren't designed to stop rifle bullets. Soldiers, on the other hand, would probably wear type III or even type IV.

Kagemusha

12-07-2006, 05:46

In the case troopers are waring a west that can hold of 7.62 shot,thay will turn in to turtles tat will be very easy pickings to a snper that knows his job,

Papewaio

12-07-2006, 06:38

How many rooms measure 500m across?
How many streets are 500m wide?
How many streets are clear of cover for a distance of 500m (which includes junctions, alleys, doorways, windows)?

So pray tell what is the use of having range and accuracy to 500m within an urban environment.

I can understand having an accurate weapon of such a nature getting to a city. However once within, wouldn't it be better to use shotguns, CAWs and other weapons of a short range nature.

Watchman

12-07-2006, 13:26

In the case troopers are waring a west that can hold of 7.62 shot,thay will turn in to turtles tat will be very easy pickings to a snper that knows his job,
7.62mm reduced (as in AK-47) or full-power (as with the 7.62 NATO standard and whatever the Russkies feed the Dragunov with), incidentally ? You'd think the latter took a lot more stopping...

I've seen it mentioned that the more bleeding-edge modern body armour with all those weird additional chemical treatment thingies they've come up with thrown in can actually stop 7.62 NATOs pretty much cold from a reasonable range and just get dented in the process. And they're not excessively heavy either. 'Course, that stuff is bloody expensive, and there are nasty specialized AP rounds around that let even the humble AK-74 ventilate the side armour of the average APC when it comes to that...

Seamus Fermanagh

12-07-2006, 15:33

Armor versus Personal Weapons:

Bit of a rock, paper, scissors issue.

Armor gets better, so designers come up with more powerful penetrators.
Both are working up against the limits of mobility/total weight.

As armor tech improves, conventional chemical rounds may reach a point of ineffectiveness. So gunners will move on to some other personal combat weapon in a new category (directed energy, rail-gun) whatever.

DemonArchangel

12-07-2006, 17:44

Pape, you might want to take a look at the following page: http://www.savvysurvivor.com/survival_environment.htm

This photo taken during a "block battle" in Lebanon shows how this engagement was at a fairly long distance for what many would consider "urban". It is a common misconception that all urban engagements are at close distances that are sufficiently covered with pistols and submachineguns. Typically around 150 yards until one group or another attempted to assault and take over a building. This would then transition to brutal close combat. Interestingly, the individual who supplied this picture remarked about the relative inefficiency of handguns in this environment against well equipped shock troops. The main reason for this became the more common use of body armor by troops on all sides of the Lebanon conflict. Normal personal protection and security situations in lower threat level scenarios are probably sufficiently covered with shorter range weapons like pistols, shotguns and submachineguns because it is extremely difficult to determine hostile intent until an adversary is fairly close. While "flack jackets" would not protect much against full power rifles, they would protect fairly well against handguns and submachineguns. Even multiple hits from an assault rifle would not guarantee that a wounded and dying combatant would be unable to return fire before he succumbed to his wounds.

Oleander Ardens

12-07-2006, 20:02

As far as I know it is far more difficult to cover a lot of the torso with the armor plates needed to stop a 7.62x54 at point blank range than against the 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 which is also doable with thinner and lighter overlapping plates as done in the Dragonskin armor by Pinnacle. The .308 forces the enemy to wear heavier armor with fewer bodysurface covered.

On the other hand a assault rifle chambered for a powerful cartridge like the .308 is heavier, but fully controllable in auto. fire when well constructed and fitted with a sound suppressor. Certainly ideal as a supplement to the standard assaultrifles of a squad, well suited for LR engagements and more armored targets when used by a good marksman.

Still it is just one of the many ways one can kill and die in a "modern" conflict, which makes me think of all the vicitims and does cause me to make a posting break in this thread...

Cheers
OA

Vladimir

12-07-2006, 21:10

Something I was thinking about a while ago: I really have to hand it to the Fins for using their version of the AK. It really seems to fit their terrain, weather, and military much better than an M-16 type weapon. I don’t think they’ll have to change rifles for a long time.

Watchman

12-07-2006, 22:33

Well, the Soviet original already fit most of the required specs and reinventing the wheel is really a bit pointless with a little-country budget. The potential ability to use ammo looted from the only realistically likely invader was obviously a bonus...

Kraxis

12-07-2006, 23:11

Ahhh... The soon-to-be-ageold debate of AK-47 vs M-16.

It all coems down to philosophy... of engagements, troops and wars.

The US, and generally western philosophy is one of one-shot-one-kill, trained and wars to won by quick overpowering (so no need to replace weapons that fast). You can see that in the tanks and aircrafts as well.
I'll bet you that is either Russia or China held out for a couple months of intensive war against the west (at which point we must assume both sides has used up their initial stockpiles of tanks and planes) we would be in trouble as we couldn't produce our weaponry as fast at that point.

So the western rifleman (assault-rifleman if you like), is a trained individual who knows his weapon (at least that is what is assumed of him). He is expected to hit often and not spray. Hence the reason that most of the western assault rifles have the single-shot setting right after 'safe' (if they have it), and only then burst or auto. Meanwhile the eastern (since it is really that when you count in China and all the rogue states) rifles often have auto/burst before single-shot (again if they have it).

Eventhough the eastern weapons can hit at the shorter ranges, they are still not certain (unless we consider the more recent versions). Their barrelwobble is considerable, especially so for the venerable AK-47, and the recoil is more pronounced, so 'spray and pray' is needed. And that is another difference. The western soldier is 'priceless', so we want him to be able to hit where he aims to make sure he survives. Meaning, that he most certainly shouldn't die because his weapon misses, but rather because he does. I believe the M-16, is so accurate barrelwise that it should hit more than 1km away if there was no winds ect. Meanwhile the AK has barely any certainty above 100 meters.

As long as wars are as short as they have been, or small enough for the professional armies to deal with over time, then the western philosophy does itself justice.
But should we need to replace our troops rapidly, it might fail... Not a pretty picture.

Technically speaking the early M-16 is a better weapon than the AK-47, but is it more effective (much like the old Panther vs T-34 debate)? Well, that is up to the individual to find out. An since I haven't tried either, I will not go so far as to say which one is better.

Alexanderofmacedon

12-09-2006, 02:59

Talked to an Iraq vet for a while and many Iraqi insurgence are using old Kar98 mauser's from the WWII era. Iron sites and bolt action, the whole thing. It's crazy.

Marshal Murat

12-10-2006, 03:13

Seems like I said something like one-shot/one-kill before...

Vladimir

12-11-2006, 21:13

It may have something to do with the new emphasis on sniping. I hear CNN has some good footage of US soldiers sans cranium.

spmetla

12-12-2006, 03:17

Talked to an Iraq vet for a while and many Iraqi insurgence are using old Kar98 mauser's from the WWII era. Iron sites and bolt action, the whole thing. It's crazy.

Bolt actions aren't that common where I was (West of BIAP), the AK is definately prevalent. We did find an old Lee Enfield MkII or III that was stamped 1940, we assumed it was from when the Brits invaded Iraq to prevent the pro German coup from succeeding, only found a few Mausers though. From what I've seen people with the bolt actions are using them because its accuracy allows them to engage us from a bit farther off where we're less likely to spot them, that way they can pop off one or two shots and scramble.

There's been a few .22 rifles with scopes we've had to confinscate. We laughed about it at first until we realized that they could still kill us with those but because we wear earplugs we'd probably not hear where the shot came from.

For the most part the guys with AKs are bad shots so they try to use them like SMGs at close range. The trend toward accurate single shots or pairs of shots is only natural. How many guys need to get wasted by the US at clost range before they realize we're easier to get and get away from farther ranges. What would you guys do in their place, try to out gun the US or use snipers and IEDs to kill Americans while remaining safe. While not as "chivalrous" its the better tactic by far.

Here's a few of the weapons a nearby unit found:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Schpetzka/Moreweopons.jpg

Kraxis

12-13-2006, 14:30

It may have something to do with the new emphasis on sniping. I hear CNN has some good footage of US soldiers sans cranium.
Well, let's not take such into detail. This is about the weapons, not the gore they cause.

spmetla, that was pretty much the point I had.
The AK is a fine weapon, very good actually. But going up against professionals with weapons of the M-16 line is not good. He will use his weapon better and should in most cases come out on top, and he can engage the AK guy a bit further off with more certainty. But then again, this is a limited war.

I would hate to imagine the results if it was a total war where the M-16 guys were less well trained in handling their weapons.

Watchman

12-13-2006, 20:53

...or the AK wielders properly trained to begin with ?

spmetla

12-13-2006, 22:34

AK is a great weapon in the hands of anyone with knowledge of the basic fundamentals for shooting. Some Iraqi security guys are great shots while a lot of them can not hit the target at all, with these guys though they absolutely refuse to acknowledge that they are causing the misses and instead blame the gun. While the sight isn't as good for leading targets as the M16 style sights I can still hit what I'm shooting at up to 250 meters. Past that range the M16 is king.

I'm just glad the guys that were shooting as us were of the untrained variety.:2thumbsup:

Vladimir

12-14-2006, 18:06

...or the AK wielders properly trained to begin with ?

Pffft...You don't train people to use the AK, you tell them: Load magazine, pull trigger. ~;p

Kagemusha

12-14-2006, 18:23

Pffft...You don't train people to use the AK, you tell them: Load magazine, pull trigger. ~;p

I think Watchman included AK clones in his statement.After basic training, some 30% of Finnish conscripts can score 93 or more points with ten rounds at 150 m distance with target shooting on Rk 62, the bullseye (10 points) diameter being 100 mm.~;)

spmetla

12-14-2006, 18:43

Well you Finns are surrounded by Ruskies, Vikings, and those crazy Germans across the pond, shooting good is a life nessasity!

Watchman

12-14-2006, 22:58

Kraxis

12-15-2006, 04:10

You can get a bonus vacation slot if you score high enough in the army basic training, which I suspect has more to do with it. My brother would've gotten one once except his last round turned out to be a dud, which did not make him very happy.

And the only thing he had shot before the army were those assorted light-guns some arcade shooting games have... ~;p
Agreed... incentive to shoot well makes a whole world of a difference.
When I went throught the same with the G3, I told myself to do be the bloody best shot there was. Two days on the range and I was an inch from a badge. However it rained when we shot for badges, that is not good for accuracy when you have iron sights (having to blow out water and having it dropping on your face from the hood is rather disruptive for marksmanship).
But I considered it a good achievement for a beginner with perhaps 6 hours of shooting under his belt.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-15-2006, 05:20

I'm glad Spmetla was facing mostly religious shooters. That .22 thing is scary -- you made a chilling point.

Oleander Ardens

12-15-2006, 12:00

Even little training helps at getting good results in a one-way shooting, as I can attest. After around 7 hours of air gun pistol shooting over some weeks i scored 331 out of 400. The worldclass shooters get at best up to 390, according to my teacher - however the closer you come to 400 the harder it is to make progress, almost a logarithmical curve :inquisitive:

Bullseye (10) 11,5 mm, any ring adds 8mm...

The Pistol seems to more fitting for me than the rifle, because I'm according to my teacher a fast, impulsive shoother. Still I scored well over 310 out of 400 with it. The world record is 600/600 and 104.1/109. As I think of myself of a rifle shooter I will work on my position and calmness...:whip:

10=0,5mm 1ring=2,5mm

Anyway I think that we all agree that even little shooting training makes more than acceptable rifleman - on the training ground. Shooting on a battlefield is far different...

Cheers
OA