AK-47 'War-master' & the History of 'Cheap War'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

.....

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."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

The military channels show, Top Ten: Combat Rifles listed the AK-47 as their #1 and I couldn’t agree more.

---

http://military.discovery.com/conver...ak47_hzoom.jpg

Isn't this an AK74 he is holding?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

http://military.discovery.com/conver...ak47_hzoom.jpg

Isn't this an AK74 he is holding?

---

The caption from the photo indicates that it may be. :bow:

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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

---

That’s debatable.

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

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?

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:

....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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

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.

---

Better ergonomics?

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

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/...img7465rt1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

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.

---

The forward assist is used to seat a live round in the chamber, it will not help with a non-ejected round. For nasty jams the final, end-all tool is the leatherman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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/...img7465rt1.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/v...sass/galil.jpg

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 &#215; 39mm bullet and clips are for 30 ammo.Only import versions come with different calibers,all military versions use the AK bullet.

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.

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."

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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?