104 replies to this topic

[AllStarZ]

Flying Tigers, on 8 Dec 2006, 14:16, said:

I heard a story in vietnam once
The AK-47 didn't jamed easily by water and it still can fire, that's why sometimes vietcong keep their supply stash of AK-47 hidden underwater so it won't be find by the US easily

the m-16 bullets 5.56mm can't penetrate woods of the forest easily
but the 7,62mm can easily penetrate woods of the forest, hitting anyone hiding behind the trees

Even one american once say that it's better to use AK-47 than M-16 during the vietnam war (but I forgot who said that)

AK-47 is the KING

It depends on the conditions of your battlefield and the conditions of your army. In a close range environment where nature is a difficult obstacle, the AK-47 would prevail, simply because it is more durable and at these ranges both weapons are on a level par. But take a look at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The M16/M4 is going to be stuck on your arsenal for a long time, despite becoming rapidly obsolete. This is like the Brown Bess situation which Britain had. Brown Bess wasn't replaced for 140 years, mainly because the Red Coats were so well trained and drilled that their professional capacity enormously compensated the superior qualities of the weapons their enemies wielded at the time (The Charleville Musket and The Kentucky Rifle were enormously better designed weaponry, but those who could use it well were too few). Unless your enemies receive much better equipment or rearming costs are seen as worth it, the M16/M4 will be here to stay.

Edited by AllStarZ, 09 December 2006 - 05:06.

[MLRS]

The SCAR-H fires a huge bullet, with only a 20 round clip, think of it liek teh M8 sharpshooter, automatic sniper rifle. The SCAR-L is the standard one, think M8 regular.

[Eddy01741]

... can i say.... bad analogy? Why are you comparing two weapons that are basically (keyword BASICALLY) not even in service (yeah, the scar is in service, for lik e a couple months or something?). And the M-8 is frozen. And the Scar-H doesn't fire a huge bllet, it fires a normal 7.62x51mm NATO round which was used before the 5.56 NATO came into service. So it's not huge. And it's not exactly a sharpshooter, there is a sharpshooter varient as well as a CQC one. Also, the m-8 sharpshooter basically is just as powerful as the M-8 istself bt more accurate due to a longer barrel and it is made for longer ranged battles. Also, the Scar-L is no more regular than the Scar-H, they're both the same weapon, just using different nato rounds. Also, they both have CQC and sniper varients.

[AllStarZ]

If I wanted to go for the best weapon ever invented, I'd go take a hollow metal tube, block off one end, drill a small hole somewhere at the blocked end, and presto. Best gun ever. Because someone whose comtemporaries were so idiot that they thought the world was a square managed to think of this marvelously simple yet effective object.

No but seriously. Stop comparing weapons. Unless you manage to fire every single one and stop giving us the friend of a cousin's uncle's grandfather's son's word for it.

Edited by AllStarZ, 10 December 2006 - 04:34.

[LCPL Carrow]

Comparing an AK47 to an M16A1 (Vietnam M16), I will take the AK any and every day of the week. But there is no way in hell I would choose an AK over an M16A2 or M16A4. Yes, the 7.62mike-mike round of the AK has better penetrating power, but in order for it to penetrate anything, it has to hit it first. The AK's accuracy is only marginal even when fired single-shot from the prone supported position by a good marksman. The M16 is far more accurate, and the current versions are not only far easier to use than AKs, but more reliable too. You talk of AKs only being unreliable if they're made with subpar parts...but how many do you honestly think are made with anything but subpar parts?

I don't know who said this, but the M16's round doesn't tear you apart when it hits you. On the contrary, the M16 round won't even start gyrating until it passes through solid mass of a thickness greater than most humans. The AK on the other hand, starts tumbling almost immediately after hitting solid mass.


And I'm getting a Kar-98 for Christmas!

[AllStarZ]

LCPL Carrow, on 12 Dec 2006, 14:58, said:

Comparing an AK47 to an M16A1 (Vietnam M16), I will take the AK any and every day of the week. But there is no way in hell I would choose an AK over an M16A2 or M16A4. Yes, the 7.62mike-mike round of the AK has better penetrating power, but in order for it to penetrate anything, it has to hit it first. The AK's accuracy is only marginal even when fired single-shot from the prone supported position by a good marksman. The M16 is far more accurate, and the current versions are not only far easier to use than AKs, but more reliable too. You talk of AKs only being unreliable if they're made with subpar parts...but how many do you honestly think are made with anything but subpar parts?

Lets compare the 5.56 mm and the 7.62mm. The 7.62 mm bullet hits harder because its heavier and has therefore more energy over a longer distance, making it better against armor, but has the weakness of being heavy, thereby limiting its maximum effective range. The 5.56 mm is a lighter aerodynamic bullet capable of being fired at higher rates from an automatic weapon with less recoil, and is able to fly further, but the light bullet has little energy behind it, and contrary to what LCPL says, will actually yaw earlier than the 7.62 mm, and get stopped easier by virtue of its light weight.

The AK is very resistant to jamming by environmental and other obstacles because the internal mechanism is very spaced apart, and the gas port system is unusually wide. This comes at a cost of the decreased accuracy, and a lower firing rate. Ammunition can still jam, but its easier to clear a jam in an AK, and the AK is still virtually resistant to most obstacles.

And for the last fucking time, I've already stated my view on this. The AK is ideal for an all-out war and for the partisans it is often issued to. Its uncomplicated, cheap, reliable, durable, and doesn't really require much skill to use. And as for the jamming, describe how it jammed. Did the magazine fail to feed in the next bullet? Did the bullet fail to eject out of the chamber? Or did it get caught on the ejection port? Did the ammunition misfire? Those are all very common problems with any firearm: ammunition quality is important.

As for the M-16, it is a better weapon for professionals, who have an ability to maintain their weapons in all but the more inhospitable localities, who can clear a jam, and who have the ability to utilize the weapon's capabilities properly. However, the main fault with the M-16 is its ammunition. Its reliability may be questionable, but the main fault is the ammunition. 5.56 mm ammunition is okay for now, but in the future will become more quickly obsolete than the 7.62 mm round.

But my words are worth a hundredth of those of a man who actually fired them, and who can actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did.

Edited by AllStarZ, 12 December 2006 - 20:40.

[LCPL Carrow]

AllStarZ, since you seem to be getting pissed off about this point, let me clarify it for you: I'm not disputing that AKs are the better firearms for people who have no idea how to take care of assault rifles, you're absolutely right on that point and I agree with you 100% on that.

Ok, now that that's out of the way, let me explain how to clear one of those exceedingly rare jams from an M16. While I will grant that I have never fired an AK, I have fired the M16 before as one of my Delayed Entry Program functions, so I'm speaking from experience. Here's what you do:
(1) Make sure that the magazine is firmly and properly inserted. This takes about a quarter of a second because all you have to do is tap the bottom with your hand.
(2) Pull the charging handle back. This is easy to do, even with a jam. This takes about half a second.
(3) Tap the forward-assist to ensure that the round is properly seated in the chamber. This takes about a quarter of a second, because all you're doing is tapping a button lightly.
(4) Resume firing.

This is simple and easy to do. I did it the first time I ever held the M16. It took me longer than a second, but I did it without prior instruction and without help.

I have to go, but I will post more about the AK when I have time.

[AllStarZ]

Very well. But the gas tube system still requires regular maintenance too, something that may be impossible in more hardy conditions. This involves field stripping the entire rifle, if I'm correct.

[DerKrieger]

Yea...I own an AR-15 (semi-auto civilian version of the M-16), and though it's an extremely accurate and lightweight rifle, I would hate to clean it in a sandy or muddy foxhole. The thing craps where it eats, for lack of a better term. Billy, about the .223 round: "The M16's 5.56mm bullet spins so fast that when it hits you, it just rips you to shreds from the inside. Literally. It's nuts." If it does that, how come our guys have to shoot bad guys several times before they die? Many US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are using the old M-14 instead of the M-16/M-4(I hear that many British troops are using the old L1-A1 FAL copy instead of the L85 series rifle). I realise that amphetamine use is common in the Middle East, but...I seriously doubt that the .223 does that to a human body.

[AllStarZ]

The 7.62 mm can knock em over in one shot, while the 5.56 mm can cause fatal injuries when it enters the flesh, but otherwise requires more shots.

[LCPL Carrow]

The 5.56mike-mike round is smaller than the 7.62mike-mike one, so it does less damage. This was a trade-off that Stoner consciously made when he designed the M16. Damage/penetrating power in exchange for rate of fire and accuracy. Kalashnikov simply made the same trade-off in reverse.

[Moosy Crisp]

LCPL Carrow, on 12 Dec 2006, 13:58, said:

And I'm getting a Kar-98 for Christmas!

You are only gonna shoot that like 3 times and be sick of it. I borrowed my friend's Kar 98 for coyote hunting, and the fucker was so loud my head was ringing for 2 days straight . But it was very nice, very accurate and didn't break when I accidentaly dropped it, which is a plus. P.S. I'm getting a Mosin Nagant from my dad's friend for $80. Pretty good deal these days.

I've started to get a different opinion on the M16's. They may shoot very accurate, but they are just piles of junk. The ones I've seen looked like they would break if I sneezed on them ( especially the Bushmaster models; talk about cheezy ). A gun we should be using more in this day and age is that updated M1 Garand. That's a pretty slick rifle.

[Eddy01741]

Yeah, the Mosin-Nagant is real nice, I wish i could get an SMLE (British Bolt action, with a 10 bullet capacity), it'd be fun to be able to do the 'mad minute' (thirty shots, in one minute, and mind you it is a bolt action rifle, not an semi-auto). Anyways... It is true that insurgents use lots of drugs to make htem not feel the pain nearly as much, so when the 5.56 goes into their body, it goes out through the other side, a nice clean hole, it's enough to kill, but they will need to bleed to death to die, and with all those drugs they won't feel that much pain and they can continue attacking. THe 7.62 has more stopping power, it hits them harder (on impact it sorta knocks them back), so they feel the impact. Anyways, the 5.56mm round should be replaced, the only good things are that it's lighter, more rounds can be put into a magazine, and that it's more controllable on full auto (full auto isn't that useful anyways, it's a waste of bullets for all those that don't know how to burst fire, which is why we go burst fire for the trigger-hapy guys in war). Anyhow, the 5.56NATO should be replaed by either the ol' 7.62mm NATO round or the 6.8mm Grendel.

[AllStarZ]

LCPL Carrow, on 14 Dec 2006, 17:58, said:

The 5.56mike-mike round is smaller than the 7.62mike-mike one, so it does less damage. This was a trade-off that Stoner consciously made when he designed the M16. Damage/penetrating power in exchange for rate of fire and accuracy. Kalashnikov simply made the same trade-off in reverse.

But it means that the round will be less effective and adaptable to new technologies as time goes on, while the 7.62 mm requires minimal adaptation to the latest advancements in armor penetration/lethality.

[Whitey]

M-14 is the best gun, hands down.

[AllStarZ]

The M-14 is a good gun, but not the best. If I were talking about good automatic rifles, I'd go towards Finland, Switzerland or Belgium

Edited by AllStarZ, 15 December 2006 - 04:34.

[LCPL Carrow]

Naw, dude, I'd take the M14 over anything, except mabye the M16. Too heavy.

Yeah, Moisin-Nagants are pimp too. I might buy one of those myself, but for Christmas I'm getting a Kar98 and a .22 for target shooting.

[MLRS]

wasen't the M14 teh first automatic gun or something? a ton of recoil but pwnign power?

[AllStarZ]

No, the first automatic gun was the Maxim machine gun. The first semi-automatic rifle was Danish, and made in the late 1800s. The first assault and probably automatic rifle was the Federov Avtomat. The first famous automatic/assault rifle was the MP44. So depending on what you meant, you were wrong in either way.

[Eddy01741]

Also... Kalishkanov didn't trade off accuracy for power, at the time, guns like the M-14, FAL, or the G-3 didn't exist, and Kalishkanov purposely used a SMALLER round than all of those mentioned above (that i guess includes the 7.62x54R soviet round) to be more controllable, which is one of the reasosns that it was so revolutionary. Ayways, M-14 is good... bt G-3 is better imo, probably the FAL too.

[TehKiller]

nope.....he used something which was called "small rifle rounds" which was the 7.62

[Eddy01741]

No, actually he used hte 7.62 INTERMEDIATE round instead of the 7.62mmx54R that guns like the Dragunov used. Seriously, the .30-06 was used in WWII all the time, and so were some 7.62mm rounds as well as the german 7.92mm, the 7.62 was never new, only hte intermediate 7.62x39 was, I believe the round was first used in the SKS.Anyway you look at it, it's not nearly a rifle round compared to what the G-3, FAL, and M-14 used (even though they were designed after the AK-47 was)

[TehKiller]

well i said its a "small rifle round"....and yes u are right.....the AK was actually designed to be a automatic version of the SKS

[Areze]

I basiclly think it counts on the user and the current enviroment. Conscripts in the desert? I'd say the Ak-47. Professional temprate (like grasslands, pineforests, yada yada yada.) Army? 1-16a2 or a3 would be the good choice. But that is my opinion.

[Eddy01741]

... Desert is barren from any obstacles, making a more accurate gun great, as you can fire from far away, somewhere like pine forests, you might wanna have the extra penetrating power from a larger round.... so i don't really get what your trying to say