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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

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/v...s/valmet78.jpg


Now here's a good rifle - the AR10.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...sass/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.

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/...img7345sk8.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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.

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/...img7350ar8.jpg

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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/...img7465rt1.jpg

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.

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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:

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

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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,

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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...

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SavvySurvivor

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.

---

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

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/v...oreweopons.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

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