PDA

View Full Version : The IDF's take on the AK-47 vs M16 debate


Te Anau
December 15, 2004, 05:07 PM
I thought this was pretty interesting.
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m16vsak47.htm

abelew
December 15, 2004, 05:24 PM
Very true, however.........

Most people in the US who buy ak47 var. do so because they are more than 1/2 the cost. I would love to have an ar-15, but am looking at a ak because I can find a ak for around $300, and an ar for about $700. This price equates to less tax, and money that can be spent on other things. For my needs (plinking, fun) I am considering an ak, because of the $400 savings.

Te Anau
December 15, 2004, 05:27 PM
I totally agree.I just thought it was interesting.I also dont own an AR but do have 4 AK's in various calibers.Its hard to beat a Saiga!

FirstFreedom
December 15, 2004, 06:43 PM
Since modern armies clean their smallarms on a daily even during combat deployment this is a non-issue

Can any soldier or marine in a modern army, such as one of our boys in Iraq or Afghanistan, confirm or deny this allegation?

Cowled_Wolfe
December 15, 2004, 07:08 PM
Since modern armies clean their smallarms on a daily even during combat deployment this is a non-issue.
I'm not in the Army or any armed forces (yet), but in my opinion, it won't matter if you clean your rifle daily. If you clean in the morning, your gun has all day to get sand/mud/strange materials in its critical areas, which will NOT be good in a mid-day firefight... If you clean at the end of the day, you're going to be fighting (or taking cover with a jammed weapon) with all of last night and today's gunk.

With an AK... You can fight with just about any day's gunk, and maybe more.

Of course, I don't know anything... These are all just assumptions. :rolleyes:

MeekAndMild
December 15, 2004, 07:26 PM
One small question, for those who have been there and done that.

How do you lube an AR in the desert? Seems like any oil at all would attract dust and the dust would eat away at the alloys.

Greg Bell
December 15, 2004, 09:01 PM
The M16 is reliable "enough." :barf:


Umm, no thank you. I would like it to be a little more than just enough. Even the absurdly pro-AR writer of that article could not bring himself to say that the AR was really reliable. Only that, if you are lucky enough to have just cleaned it before the big party, you might have yourself a decent weapon. :barf:

I would take a modern AK to a M16/M4 any day. I can't be sure that I will be able to do battle in a clean room. :mad:

What a crappy choice. Commie designed crap that will actually work versus low-bid committee designed crap that will work as long as you have a pit crew with you. :barf:

thralduro
December 15, 2004, 09:25 PM
What do you guys think would be a good police carbine? AK or AR or Galil or what?

jaysouth
December 15, 2004, 09:25 PM
What's a TAVOR?

Does anyone know the cost of an M-4 procured by the Army?

Cost is not an issue with the AK-47 for the Israelis. They have hundreds of thousands them that were seldom fired and only thrown down once.

orangeamcs
December 15, 2004, 09:51 PM
My brother was at the range the other day for a marines for toys drive. He was shooting an m-16 that kept jamming after roughly 500 rounds. He went into his own gun tote and grabbed some Militec-1 for it. The gun stopped jamming and the soldiers were asking him what the hell he put on it. They could not believe it had 3000 rounds through it after that and didnt jam.

Deadman
December 16, 2004, 03:57 AM
As someone who has spent time conducting training exercises in mildly dusty conditions I can confirm that cleaning your rifle once a day (ie during 'morning routine') is not enough. It doesn't take that long for dust and debris to work it's way into a rifle especially if you're crawling around on the ground.
To counter this problem, one has to form a habit of quickly brushing out any dust from critical areas of a weapon whenever the chance arises.

swingset
December 16, 2004, 06:14 AM
To summarize, the IDF chose the M16 over the AK47/Gail because the M16 is the better assault rifle in all parameters that matter.

That pretty much sums it up. They had an AK variant, and it didn't cut the mustard. Not accurate enough, not adaptable enough, too damn heavy.

They chose, and seem to be mightly lethal, with the lowly, unreliable, jamming, sand-sucking, crap-where-you-eat M16/M4. It seems, oddly, that hitting what you aim at trumps reliably innacurate in modern battle. The body counts all over the war on terror pretty much prove that, no?

Cowled_Wolfe
December 16, 2004, 06:29 AM
That pretty much sums it up. They had an AK variant, and it didn't cut the mustard. Not accurate enough, not adaptable enough, too damn heavy.

When I had the opportunity to fire an M4gery, and AR15, and an AK, I found them all to be roughly as accurate as eachother (250 yds.). With regards to adaptability, I'm curious what you mean. What adaptations can be made to an M16/M4 that can't be made to an AK? Weight-wise, the AK loses out in most variants, however a synthetic stock AK will often come close. In fact, an AK-103 is lighter than an M16A2 simply because it has a synthetic stock instead of all that wood.

It seems, oddly, that hitting what you aim at trumps reliably innacurate in modern battle.
That, or better training, better tactics, and support from vehicles as well as aircraft.

Master Blaster
December 16, 2004, 09:29 AM
When I had the opportunity to fire an M4gery, and AR15, and an AK, I found them all to be roughly as accurate as eachother (250 yds.).

Must of been a hell of an AK, and really crappy ar-15/ M-4 you fired, cause I own several of both and the AR is much more accurate than the AK.

AK lucky if you can keep it it a 15" circle at 100 yards. AR easy to hit a target the size of a 50 cent piece every time.

If I were in battle I hope the enemy has the AK and I have the AR, cause one good hit beats 5 misses any day. It seems the Isrealis agree, and they would know from actual experience.

Quote from the article:

Those who are using the cost factor are simply unfamiliar with the IDF assault rifles history. Short review - up until the mid 1970's the IDF standard issue assault rifle was the FN FAL. At that time most of the Israeli elite units were using the AK47, which was considered to be much better then the FAL.

During the Israeli-Arab Yom Kippur War in 1973 the U.S. made a massive airlift to Israel containing large sums of brand new M16A1 and CAR15. However, shortly after the war the IDF had adopted the IMI Galil as its new standard issue assault rifle so most of the M16 remained in storage.

The Galil wasn't a big success to say the least. Most of the IDF elite units weren't impressed with the new weapon and remained with the AK47, which also had a deniability capability in covert deep insertions operations.

In the late 1970's few SF units tried out the CAR15 and were tremendously impressed. A decade later, by the late 1980's, almost all elite units were already armed with CAR15 which was gradually replacing the IMI Galil SAR and the AK47.

Note that this was years and years before the IDF officially adopted the M16 in the early 1990's. The IDF SF units that adopted the CAR15 didn't had any cost issue at mind. They could have used either the M16 or the Galil. It made no matter budget wise, since both weapons were already available in masses. The decision was purely quality based and no one told the units which weapon to use. More clearly - in some IDF elite units the Galil was simply never used and they always preferred the CAR15 over it.

Following the influence of the SF units, in the early 1990's the IDF had officially adopted the M16 family as its new standard issue assault rifle for all infantry oriented units, including both SF and conventional units. Today, the IMI Galil is only used by the Artillery Corps, Armor Crops, stationary elements in the Anti Aircraft Corps and rear line units.

Lets again review the situation in the early 1990's. The IDF had large sums of Galil variants it procured over the years, and it also had large sums of M16 it received in the 1973 war as well as in U.S. Army surpluses shipments over the years. Both weapons were available in masses and there wasn't any current or near future need to procure either weapon. The IDF also had thousands of AK47 that were captured over the years. So the IDF could use the AK47 free of charge over M16 or Galil.

Eventually, the IDF chose the M16, so again cost wasn't really an issue. Further more, even if there was such a cost factor, then the IDF could have simply supply all rear line troops with the cheaper M16 and issue the more expensive Galil to the front line troops. The fact that the exact opposite was done speaks for itself.

End Quote

CJNies
December 16, 2004, 10:21 AM
The AK is dependable, but I like control and on it’s best day an AK sucks for accuracy.
AR-15 and M16 variants are superior in accuracy to be sure but no amount of tweaking has taken all the bugs out yet. They are still a very finicky rifle.

Give me an old FN FAL any day I don’t mind the weight and I do like the 7.62
However the FN FNC IMHO is everything the M-16s should have been.
And don’t leave out the SiG 552 expensive but if you’re in S storm I want one!
HK made a G-41 that was a fantastic weapon but very cost prohibiting.

OBIWAN
December 16, 2004, 10:47 AM
The AK's ergonomics are far behind the AR platform

On the AR platform keeping your dust cover closed and a mag inserted avoids most problems.

Trusting your life to a weapons "reputation" is just silly.

Trusting your life to a poorly maintained weapon is real silly

Tamara
December 16, 2004, 10:55 AM
What a crappy choice. Commie designed crap that will actually work versus low-bid committee designed crap that will work as long as you have a pit crew with you. :barf:

There's a guy on this board whose screen name I can't remember ("Greg" something...) who's always launching into rants about folks who've received all their information from the Errornet nattering on about topics they have no real personal experience on. He has a real derogatory term for them, too; hopefully he'll never get hoisted by his own petard.

Personally? My HK's? Gone. AK's? Gone. Daewoo? Gone. FAL? Gone. Beretta AR-70? Gone. M14/M1A's? Gone. Still have an AR as my go-to gun, and in the build process on two more. Thankfully, my rifles can't access the Disinformation Cowpath, so they remain blissfully unaware of how they are supposed to (mal)function. Must be that awesome pit crew I keep on hand...

Gewehr98
December 16, 2004, 12:58 PM
Or buy a different variant of AK:

AK lucky if you can keep it it a 15" circle at 100 yards.

Damn! Tell me the target was moving in a serpentine fashion, at least!

My own AK collection does considerably better. ;)

http://mauser98.com/26sepaktarget.jpg

Handy
December 16, 2004, 02:42 PM
For all the ranting, opinions and the bleak combat conditions that exist around Tamara's home in TN :D , I think the basic facts of the article are pretty damning:

The Israelis, who have about the most practical military procurement system on earth, really do have a choice of FOUR proven rifle systems, and choose the M-16 anyway. That's a bit silly to argue with.

Either the gun works, or the Israelis have given over to some completely uncharateristic idiocy. Which is more likely?

shaggy
December 16, 2004, 03:01 PM
The Israelis, who have about the most practical military procurement system on earth, really do have a choice of FOUR proven rifle systems, and choose the M-16 anyway. That's a bit silly to argue with.


True, but in fairness you do have to consider the fact that the M16 comes at a much reduced cost due to US aid. Still, I have to agree that the M16 is a far more accurate weapon than an AK. I own several of both M16 and AK47 variants and were the S to HTF, I'd probably grab an M16 or M4 before an AK or RPK.

esldude
December 16, 2004, 03:43 PM
Have no experience in real combat with either. And maybe plenty of M16's cut it reliability wise. Have owned a couple of each, and witnessed a couple dozen of each in use. Well the semi-auto AR and Ak anyway.

Have never seen an AK jam or fail to function. I know it has to have happened, but I haven't seen it. And most are using whatever cheap ammo you can get.

More than half the AR's I have seen jam. Some quite often. Others only now and then. Main thing AR's have going for them are ergonomics. I don't think the accuracy difference is enough to matter in combat. 1 inch groups @100 yards, vs. 3 inch groups @100 yards. Neither of those were shot offhand or during a fire fight. In other words both are accurate enough for the job.

And nobody has seen a working AK that couldn't group better than 15 inches. If it was shooting that poorly something was wrong with it.

shaggy
December 16, 2004, 04:18 PM
More than half the AR's I have seen jam. Some quite often. Others only now and then.

Then either the people you hang with don't know how to maintain their weapons or they buy substandard equipment. I've fired tens of thousands of rounds from both AR15's and M16's in both semi-auto and full auto, and if the weapon is up to par (5.56 chamber, chrome lined barrel, good and aligned gas rings, etc.) the AR/M16 platform can be very reliable. Even with cheap ammo like Wolf. I've only rarely had a jam or malfunction and most of the time when I have encountered a problem, it was due to other factors (bolt bounce, worn out or broken parts, wrong parts for the intended barrel length/function, improper timing, etc.)

Greg Bell
December 16, 2004, 05:06 PM
What a crappy choice. Commie designed crap that will actually work versus low-bid committee designed crap that will work as long as you have a pit crew with you.

There's a guy on this board whose screen name I can't remember ("Greg" something...) who's always launching into rants about folks who've received all their information from the Errornet nattering on about topics they have no real personal experience on. He has a real derogatory term for them, too; hopefully he'll never get hoisted by his own petard.

Personally? My HK's? Gone. AK's? Gone. Daewoo? Gone. FAL? Gone. Beretta AR-70? Gone. M14/M1A's? Gone. Still have an AR as my go-to gun, and in the build process on two more. Thankfully, my rifles can't access the Disinformation Cowpath, so they remain blissfully unaware of how they are supposed to (mal)function. Must be that awesome pit crew I keep on hand...


There is a gal on this board :D, who is always pontificating about this or that gun being the best (which usually happens to be the gun she just became infatuated with). This person is clearly stalking me. If I go missing, look for my body near a mountaintop in Tennessee! :eek:

capnrik
December 16, 2004, 05:20 PM
More than half the AR's I have seen jam. Some quite often. Others only now and then.

I have owned 4, still have three. I had an Olympic Arms CAR 15 that I traded for a gun safe. Still have a Colt's SP1 carbine and a Colt's SP1 rifle, as well as a Colt's M4. All three guns are all Colt's parts. They have never jammed, failed to feed, or otherwise malfunctioned.

The Olympic Arms carbine never failed until I introduced it to a magazine made by a company called Triple K. With that magazine in that rifle, it would jam five times in thirty attempts.

Cabelas refunded the price of the magazine; I used mags by Bushmaster, Thermold, Colt's, Adventureline and others and never had a problem.

There are quite a few guns out there that were built at home by ordering parts from Model 1 Sales, or Rock River or who knows where. Were they headspaced properly? I don't know.

Are these guns being built to the same specifications as the weapons supplied to our military? Doubtful.

And the homebrew guys doing this; are they as well trained as a Marine armorer?

Hmmph.

So the Israeli IDF, the United States Army, and the United States Marine Corps have got it all wrong, and a few folks on the Internet have got it figured out. :rolleyes:

Dear Mom,

Today in marching practice, everyone was out of step except me.

Your loving son,


(sign here) :p

Boomhauer
December 16, 2004, 05:24 PM
So the Israeli IDF, the United States Army, and the United States Marine Corps have got it all wrong, and a few folks on the Internet have got it figured out.

I was always reminded that my rifle was made by the lowest bidder.
:)

Handy
December 16, 2004, 05:45 PM
Shaggy, the low price of the M-16 is immaterial when you have the other three guns in storage. They are essentially free.

Boomhauer,
When the lowest bidder are companies like FN and Colt, I'm not sure how bad off you are.


Aside from the US and Israel, the M-16 is the weapon of choice of the SAS, Canada (C7) and one of the Scandanavian countries (also a C7). Canada also employs a version with a heavy barrel as their LMG. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.


You know, I don't even like the AR15 - and sold mine. But the amount of foolishness surrounding this 40 year old weapon system is really astounding. I very much doubt this rather heavy duty Israeli example will slow down the "Yeah, but...", but some of you nay sayers should reflect a moment on whether your limited experience really trumps that of the many first-rate armies who prefer it.

Boomhauer
December 16, 2004, 06:07 PM
When the lowest bidder are companies like FN and Colt, I'm not sure how bad off you are.


I’ll take my trusty ole M14 any day over the M-16/AR-15.

From actual first hand experience as well as keeping in touch with friends, those who are presently in harms way, the consensus is still the same. If your issued an M-16 that works you are one lucky MF.

The replacement for this Byzantine POS will not come fast enough.

Handy
December 16, 2004, 06:18 PM
Yes, it will be a fine day when we get rid of the Mattel rifle for an XM-8, which is actually made entirely of plastic, like Barbie.

FirstFreedom
December 16, 2004, 06:33 PM
Wow, a plastic barrel, bolt, and everything eh, in the XM8? Man, that'd be light to carry around. IOW, whatchutalkinboutwillis?

Just an observation from listening to these debates for years - lots of accuracy snobs, who tend to be general gun snobs as well, seem to pontificate endlessly about how the AR is flawless, but these are doubtlessly the people who keep their weapons clean enough to eat off of, or they'll say the AR is flawless *IF* x, y, z, a, b, c are all present, and the moon and the north star are in line. If not, you'll get a few jams. But, OTOH, here you have people with actual real world experience saying the thing is a POS when the chips are down, dirt and dust are flying around, and they don't clean their weapon 3 times a day on the battlefield like they maybe oughtta (big surprise - like the Walgreen's commercials, the average soldier don't live in the place called "Perfect"). And so Handy, if the US Mil made the decision, it must be correct? Just like the decision not to field the BAR in WWI - instead making our boys use the Cheaucheat? If they feel they made the right decision with the M16 & M4, then why are they even considering the XM8 at all? Militaries and governments make the wrong decisions all the time, much to the chagrin of the grunts on the ground - but it certainly seems that the MAJORITY, and I daresay the significant majority (though not overwhelming majority) of those who have used the M16 in actual combat and training, and particularly in combat, don't like it (assuming they're telling the truth on the net about their experience), not for it's failure to incapacitate, but for it's unreliability. But I'm just observing - I too am an armchair quarterback. But, to imply that if countries x, y, and z chose it, it can't be wrong - that's absurd. The big dog (USA) could easily make a bad choice, and then inertia, economies of scale, etc, causes other countries to follow in our footsteps.

From actual first hand experience as well as keeping in touch with friends, those who are presently in harms way, the consensus is still the same. If your issued an M-16 that works you are one lucky MF.

Go back and re-read that and re-read that - assuming boomhauer is telling the truth, he's talking about himself and others who are *presently* in harm's way, and if the *consensus* is that it's a POS. (paraphrasing, emphasis mine).

Now, who do we have on the other side, at least in this thread: Extraordinarly knowlegeable gun people (Handy, Tamara), but with how many days on the battlefield? (I'm guessing 0), and they probably keep their ARs immaculately clean, or Handy surely did when he owned one, because that's the kind of gun enthusiasts they are, unlike the rank and file soldier, who either won't or doesn't have time to clean the damn thing all the time - that's just not practical when there's a lot of shiz going down. And obiwan, if it stays clean when the dust cover is closed and the mag is in, then how would you suggest that our boys kill the enemy, since the dust cover flies open and lets in dust when fired, and mag changes are going to require that the mag be out for a couple seconds each time? Gimme a VEPR baby!

AK103K
December 16, 2004, 06:43 PM
AK lucky if you can keep it it a 15" circle at 100 yards. AR easy to hit a target the size of a 50 cent piece every time.
I have more than a few of both AK's and AR's and my worst Ak will shoot 6" or so at 100 yards and my best about 2". My best AR will shoot them into one little hole, and my worst is about equal to my WASR10 at about 4". If you were shooting my Armalite M15A4(T) with a 1.5x5 scope on it, from a bipod, prone, I'd say you could hit that 50 cent piece evey time using my reloads that it likes and actually you could easily do it with a dime. Shoot the same gun with good USGI ammo and you wont. Best it seems to do with that is 2" or so. I've yet to see an issue M16 shoot into a 50 cent piece with GI ammo. Can you even see 50 cent piece at 100 yards with open sights? And if so, where do you aim? :)

Greg Bell
December 16, 2004, 07:16 PM
So the Israeli IDF, the United States Army, and the United States Marine Corps have got it all wrong, and a few folks on the Internet have got it figured out.

Actually, the U.S. military is looking for something to replace it (See XM8). It seems to me that it is actually some folks on the internet who see no problems with a deeply flawed weapon versus the military and all those troops who have died over the years a trying to clear their M-16s (I seem to remember a fairly famous incident just recently where EVERY M-16 jammed for one group of soldiers. Of course, the M16 crowd usually blames the troops.)

Between the two the AK wins hands down for their intended purpose: being an assault rifle. The AR, however, is a much better rifle for shooting paper at the range(and for playing dress-up) :D

Handy
December 16, 2004, 07:57 PM
FF,

The world consists of more than this thread. This forum alone also contains many combat veterens, like Blackhawk6, who would strongly disagree with Boomhauser.

I did a sorry job cleaning my AR. Have you owned one?

What I think you are missing here is that there is not such thing as a perfectly working machine in combat conditions, and soldiers will bash any piece of equipment that fails them, especially when they've been led to believe they were issued junk. But nearly zero Americans have ANY combat experience with AKs, which we all hold to be unstoppable. That is pure poppycock. No one on this board has the credentials to speak about the reliability of the AK in combat. How do you compare, with only half the data?


This thread was started by pointing out some facts that are incontrovertible: Israel, having it's choice of 'superior' weapons, leaves its AKs, FALs and Galils in storage, then buys M-16s. No one seems to have an answer to why the most paranoid military in existance does this (except for the obvious).

It doesn't matter what the agreeably foolish US procurement people do - in this instance they have some very good company.

Greg,(I seem to remember a fairly famous incident just recently where EVERY M-16 jammed for one group of soldiers. Of course, the M16 crowd usually blames the troops.) The "M16 crowd", and Congress, never blamed the troops. They blamed the Army for changing the propellent in the ammo. That's well documented history.

What combat experience do you have to judge the AK more reliable? How about your friends? Any of them serve in an AK carrying combat troop?

Boomhauer
December 16, 2004, 08:32 PM
I would prefer an M14 to an AK-47 any day and I’d prefer an AK-47 to any variant of the M-16.

I don’t need to go around bragging about my military exploits as many on the web do.

I personally have 0% combat experience with any type of AK; most of the AK’s I encountered in the field were in much, much worse condition than the oldest most beat up M-16 in any countries issue inventory.

Sand, time and the USAF tend to do that to weaponry.

Since we give Israel somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 billion dollars a year to subsidize their military one would be foolish to think that had zero to do with their choice regardless of what the arm chair commandos are saying.

No one led me to believe I was issued junk, except the junk itself. One poster reminded us about a highly publicized event which resulted in several dead or captured in which a great number of the M-16’s issued to those poor souls failed to function. Blame was laid everywhere except on the gun.

When the chips were down and I knew my @$$ was going into harms way I requested and was given a standard M14 as did many I walked into combat with.

nearly zero Americans have ANY combat experience with AKs, which we all hold to be unstoppable. That is pure poppycock. No one on this board has the credentials to speak about the reliability of the AK in combat. How do you compare, with only half the data?

That’s a pretty board statement you make, having no first hand knowledge yourself. How do you know me, who I am, what I have done in my past, or the guy lurking and smirking to him as he reads this post.


As I pointed out I have no first hand experience with the AK in combat but I do know many who do, it’s no big secret, our guys who are in the middle of it all right now, especially those who are working hand in hand with Iraqi regulars or the Iraqi Provincial Police are carrying AK’s, not just our A-types but the regular MP’s who are tasked with training the IPP and I guess those CIA types crawling all over Afghanistan carrying AK’s just don’t count, or do they just not exist?

Remember Johnny Micheal Spann?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-prison8dec08,0,6456252.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Handy
December 16, 2004, 08:39 PM
None of them are posting here, unfortunately. Browsing quite a few boards, I have yet to come across anyone who has actually used the AK in combat. It certainly has happened, but not by anyone who likes to state their opinion on the matter.

When Spec Ops guys wanted to be able to use local ammo and mags in Afganistan, some nut job at Knight went as far a redesigning an AR to take AK mags. These guns were bought at great expense and issued to the people that requested them. It seems that fools also pervade out Spec Ops communities as well.

Or does the smirking guy have experience with one of those, as well? :rolleyes:

abelew
December 16, 2004, 08:53 PM
I carried m16a2's and m4's for my entire 4 year enlistment. We all had failure to fire, failure to feed, and other various problems. My main beefs with the ar platform are (for civilian use) cost, difficulty to clean (its a pain to get that bore clean), and cost. Give me a quality ar15 for $350 and ill buy it, because for my needs it will work just fine. That said, the problems with the ar in vietnam were due to the powder used, in combination with the weapon (since it uses gasses directly from the barrel to cycle the action). It is easily dirtied up by dirt, etc, but every weapon used by infantry is subject to this problem. 90% of the time a weapon is not in operation, therefore the dust-cover and magazine suggestion is a good one, as it keeps stuff out of the gun for the ammount of time they are closed (most of the time). Maybe its not perfect, but it has its pros and cons over other designs. More accurate, lighter, but more touchy to debris.

Personally, for my needs, (less than 50 ft) I would pick an ak for sheer $ savings.

Handy
December 16, 2004, 09:09 PM
Abelew,

What leads you to believe that AKs are necessarily much cheaper than M-16s for a first world country? You can buy all the parts for a fine quality AR-15A2 for $500. The current retail cost of AKs reflects the economic state of the countries dumping them into the surplus market, and they're still less than $200 retail different.

The gov't. pays about $300 per FN M-16. With modern C&C machining, is a brand new AK really going to cost much less?

Jamie Young
December 16, 2004, 09:18 PM
I know you get can an AK in Iraq for less than $25 US dollars. And tha't an AK47 not an SAR I.

esldude
December 16, 2004, 10:45 PM
Guys I knew several of you would have AR's that never malfunctioned. And would talk about poor maintenance. I don't even disbelieve you or the comments.

But the AK47 will function without the maintenance.
It will function if built in Russia, China, Egypt, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria or anywhere I have seen them from. Yeah, magazines are important for proper function. But any cheap mag from all over the world seems to work in an AK. From all the above countries and more, places not much known for quality work in most cases.

The point being, I haven't seen AK's jam, and AR's will if you aren't careful. Lots of people seem to have grasped this idea. It even is predictable from the accuracy advantage of the AR. AR's take more looking after for reliability than AK's. They still may be reliable enough. But that reliability advantage seems pretty large in combat to me.

Imagine having to scrounge for weapons. You grab whatever AR is laying in the dirt. Did the other guy maintain it, or clean it? How much dirt got in it? What
magazine is it holding?

Then imagine grabbing an AK laying in the dirt. Much more likely that it will simply function than an AR I believe.

makarov man
December 16, 2004, 10:55 PM
AK lucky if you can keep it it a 15" circle at 100 yards. AR easy to hit a target the size of a 50 cent piece every time.


I will agree that with a AR15 you can probably hit a 50 cent peice about every time at 100 yards.
I dont agree with your statement about the AK though. The worst I have ever seen was my brothers SAR1. Even it would still shoot every shot into 6" at 100 yards. His Arsenel SAM7 is good enough to hit a clay pigeon with every time at 100 yards and he had a vepr 223 that would shoot 10 shots into an inch and a half at 100 yards.
I still think it depends more on the shooter than the gun.

Tamara
December 16, 2004, 11:31 PM
The point being, I haven't seen AK's jam, and AR's will if you aren't careful.

You need to shoot both more.

I have, over the past fifteen years, owned (and shot extensively) examples from Eagle Arms, Norinco, Bushmaster, Polytech, Colt, Romarm, and Rock River. The failure rate has been pretty much the same amongst them all...

444
December 17, 2004, 12:30 AM
"some of you nay sayers should reflect a moment on whether your limited experience really trumps that of the many first-rate armies who prefer it."

Great statement. Wouldn't it be amazing if we someday found out that the civilians on the internet don't really know everything ? I know that they would never believe it themselves, but maybe the rest of us might. :rolleyes:
It is really a shame. Hundreds of thousands of those rifles used everyday, all over the world, for the last 40 years and the soldiers/police officers/terrorists/gamers/shooting schools.............. using them have it all wrong. They really should read the internet more and pay attention to personal experience less. Experience is highly over-rated. Everything you really need to know is right here as close as your monitor and you never have to leave the chair or put down your beer to learn it all.

"it certainly seems that the MAJORITY, and I daresay the significant majority (though not overwhelming majority) of those who have used the M16 in actual combat and training, and particularly in combat, don't like it (assuming they're telling the truth on the net about their experience),"

So, you are telling me that you have spoken to the majority of people who have used the M16 in combat (on the internet) ?
It couldn't have been a few ? And some of them were 15 year old kids that were stretching the truth a little bit by repeating what they read in a thread just like this in order to make themselves sound salty and a few more were adults who had never darkened the door of a military base but were repeating what they read in a thread like this in order to sound salty, and a few more actual military personel that had an axe to grind ?
No, of coruse not, the internet is nothing but factual information.

esldude
December 17, 2004, 02:34 AM
Tamara, I have shot both a good bit. And have shot AK's a tremendous amount. I also find Garands that aren't worn out extremely reliable. I have M1A's that have been fully reliable. The AR's are behind these other three for reliability. Yes, I know they can be made to work. And if all those brands are simply out of the box reliable why do I see so many other people have them fail to function flawlessly? Not necessarily jammo-matics, but now and again they will hiccup.

I know it isn't anything special, but I used to buy 7.62x39 in the big wooden cases. Not like I have only shot a few hundred rounds thru AK's.

I know people that have owned both, and much prefer the AR. And have AR's that work fine. But that isn't the point.

If I were in combat, and depended on a rifle, and had a choice: AK47, M14, M1 Garand, FAL, would all be my choice before an M16. But that isn't how things work in the military. You get what you get. We're all just wasting time on the topic anyway.

Handy
December 17, 2004, 03:28 AM
So why do you think the IDF disagrees with you?

esldude
December 17, 2004, 04:05 AM
I don't know why the IDF disagrees with me. Could be anything from they get them free from the USA to they think it really works. Why did the US military make the bone-headed mistakes when the M16 first went to Vietnam?

Hey the IDF is the outfit that handed out Ruger 10/22's to some troops to use as urban "non-lethal" sniping rifles. Worked well, other than it turned out to be fairly lethal. Much more lethal than they wanted. And these are the guys we should trust as being the most practical military?
Military decision makers that didn't think 22 LR could be lethal. Despite all the thousands that have been killed by the little 22.

Cowled_Wolfe
December 17, 2004, 06:56 AM
As a thought... Back in the Vietnam era and on, the world had plenty of M16s and AKs floating around... And which one did most of the world choose to clone?

Btw, with the plain iron sights, I think EITHER rifle would shoot better than the shooter at any signifigantly long range.

For the civilian AR shooters: Do you get as close to milspec as you can with regards to both ammo and rifle?

I ask that because our troops don't get to say "I want this brand of AR with this upper and this brand of magazines".

Tamara
December 17, 2004, 07:21 AM
... And which one did most of the world choose to clone?

The one that they had the industrial base to duplicate. You can't make an AR receiver in a Peshawar alley with some tin snips, a hammer and some corrugated roofing steel... ;)

IZinterrogator
December 17, 2004, 07:40 AM
Meekand Mild, in answer to your question, I started with Moly Lube, but that was not working out as well as I would have liked. An MP I work with was using graphite, same results. We found some Militec-1 and have been ecstatic ever since.

Cowled_Wolfe
December 17, 2004, 07:46 AM
The one that they had the industrial base to duplicate. You can't make an AR receiver in a Peshawar alley with some tin snips, a hammer and some corrugated roofing steel... ;)

I knew someone would say that... I just knew it! :mad:

Anyways, I still have to argue that a few synthetic stocks would put the AK back into place as the gun to have. Lighter, still accurate enough for combat, and still damned reliable when you compare militarily fielded versions to the militarily fielded M16s.

Adam Firestone
December 17, 2004, 07:58 AM
I'm going to kick myself for saying this, as I have an ongoing love affair with the Kalashnikov system and think that the basic design is capable of great and lofty things. . . . . . BUT

. . .having used M16's (M16A1, M16A2, M4) while in uniform, and owning several of the type, several of which I have mixed and matched uppers and lowers on for grins and chuckles, I have to say that none of them have ever failed to function.

But then, I also make a point of keeping the weapon clean (every time we'd halt for more than 15 minutes I had a standing SOP that all mounted crew served weapons and personal weapons were to be torn down, wiped down, and lubed if necessary), and lubed with the appropriate lubricants (FP-10, CLP, Militec, etc), dust covers closed.

Accuracy. . . the FNC and the M16 are neck and neck, with the 5.56mm AK variants a very close second - if and only if they have either improved iron sights or optics. Out of the box on iron sights the M16 has them all beat.

I just know I'm going to lose my membership in the He-Man AK Lovers Club for this.

abelew
December 17, 2004, 08:00 AM
I am not speaking about the cost of countries, armies, etc. I am talking about my cost. True, countries, etc can get different prices than I can. I would rather have an ar-15 because I know a lot about that platform, however it is cost prohibitive for me. The AK works for my situation (close quarters), as it is accurate enough for the 15-20 ft that I would need to be able to cover.

I do believe that the IDF choose the m4 based on its advantages over the AK platform. I do not doubt that they are right, as I have lots of respect for their fighting skill and wise choices. Is the ar system better than the ak? Depends on what you need. In a cqb situation, an ak would work just about as well as an ar (the only real diff is accuracy and recoil). The ar is more accurate, which only really helps in longer range combat. I am not proclaiming to be an expert here, and I may very well be wrong.

capnrik
December 17, 2004, 08:29 AM
Click this (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=88585)

K80Geoff
December 17, 2004, 09:00 AM
Some of you experts need to spend some time in the employ of Uncle, where you can discuss your opinions with your Drill Sergeant or DI. They of course are more than willing to lecture you on the merits of the M16 family :D

abelew
December 17, 2004, 11:14 AM
Was an air force security forces member for my entire 4 year elistment (minus basic and tech school). Im not saying the m16 dont have its merits, but its got probs too

Greg Bell
December 17, 2004, 11:52 AM
While I personally prefer the Ak-47 to the Ar-15 any day. I no longer own either. Why, because they don't serve any need I have. But if I had to chose between them, the AK-47 is the better of the two, only because it works as advertised. I have to confess, I have a fetish for reliability. When a gun does not work, all of its other qualities are unimportant to me.

The AR-15/M-16 has a 40 year history of reliability problems. The history of the gun will probably begin with the propellant problems and end with the problems they have had in Iraq. The military is not desperately looking for a replacement (in the same caliber) because it is reliable. :p In fact, the gun that they have been looking at seems to be, practically, no improvement except in reliability.

Once again, AR-15 for felt-lined case carry, target shooting (why? get a bolt) and pretending you are GIJoe (for now). The AK-47 is meant for battlefield use in unpredictable conditions by people who don't always have time to go by the gunshop to pick up some BreakFree.

Tamara
December 17, 2004, 12:20 PM
There are no magic swords. I like the AR types for their handling, ergos, and general shootability factors. After many years and many rifles, I settled on them as the choice to keep for using when I divested myself of my other EBR's in favor of expanding my milsurp collection. Folks can offer pontifications about pit crews and clean rooms 'til they're blue in the face, but all it does is flatly contradict my real world experiences of many, many years. This tells me more about the value of their opinions than it does about the actual firearms.

When an AK malfs, excuses are offered about "it must've been a bad mag" or "you do have to clean the gas piston every thousand rounds or so" or "that's a bad lot of Wolf ammo with hard primers." When an AR malfs, it's because it's a poorly designed jammomatic. Whatever...

I think I'll go into work early today and blow a few mags downrange through the M-635 and remind myself about the virtues of arguing on the internet...

Crosshair
December 17, 2004, 01:53 PM
I have never fired an AR, but I do own a Yugo SKS and would take it anywhere. I just want to give my $.02 on the 5.56 round.

I performed an experiment with 22 cal bullets. I loaded 20 rounds of 22-250 ammo. 10 with Hornady FMJ 55 grain bullets, and 10 with 55 grain Balistic Silvertips. Each one contained 38 grains of IMR 4320 powder that was measured by hand. I used my Savage 12 22-250 w/26" barrel to fire the rounds. I chronographed 4 of each type, then fired 10 rounds at 2 liter bottles filled to the top with water. I alternated each round to eliminate the effects of a heated barrel. I then chose the 2 bottles of each type with the most damage and then took this photograph of them in my kitchen. Look at the high res photo for better detail.

What I concluded is that a 22 cal service round could be effective, but was handicaped with the use of FMJ bullets. I know that I fired the bullets at speeds far higher than any M-16 could, but I was trying to get an idea of the maximum damage these bullets could perform. I believe softpoints would be a good comprimise between penitration and lethality as well as costing virtualy the same as FMJ bullets. (The balistic-tip bullets cost 2x as much as the FMJ)

In an unsientific experiment I fired FMJ and balistic tip bullets at a 3/4" steel plate I use as a target. Both didn't penitrate, but made an equal sized hole in the steel. The 62 grain service round would have done better against the steel, but probably worse in the bottle test.

http://gra.midco.net/5937/22-250,%20Balistic%20Tip%20vs%20FMJ-BT%20Small.jpg

Here is the original Full size image. (http://gra.midco.net/5937/22-250,%20Balistic%20Tip%20vs%20FMJ-BT%20Large.jpg)

Cowled_Wolfe
December 17, 2004, 01:54 PM
Let's get an AK, milspec to one country or another or at least like the ones in Iraq... Then let's get an AR, milspec... Then let's buy a whole buncha milspec ammo and/or whatever ammo is most commonly used in the middle eastern theatre of conflict. After we've got all that, let's get the same cleaning gear as used by both sides over in Iraq... Then, let's all spend a day at the range, and another day at a range with sand, and another day at a range with mud -- making sure to clean our weapons as much as an average day in Iraq... In fact, let's do this a couple times to iron out any one-day 'flukes'... Then let's spend a day doing simulated patrols, complete with gritty conditions, simulated engagements (look, down in that valley... Paper enemies!)... After all of that, let's get a few carcasses and some ballistics gel and some armor and some cover like that found in the Iraq conflict so we can test the downrange effect of our ammunition... Once that's all been done, let's look at the results in an unbiased way... Say, for instance, through a scoring system based on combat rounds fired vs. rounds hit and rounds hitting critical areas of the targets, accuracy in range conditions, rounds fired vs. rounds malfunctioned (including misfires, jams, faliures to cycle, etc), and what kind of wounding/kills would occur in average combat... Then let's argue about what happened!

Untill then, I'm dropping out of this debate... We all have our opinions, and all our opinions seem to be equally well founded. Some of us just give certain evidence more emphasis than other evidence.

(Then again, I'm an AK guy myself...) <<======= Hehehe. :D

AZ Jeff
December 17, 2004, 02:08 PM
Cowled_Wolf stated:

"As a thought... Back in the Vietnam era and on, the world had plenty of M16s and AKs floating around... And which one did most of the world choose to clone?"


This is a pretty ignorant statement, as it obviously reflects NO KNOWLEDGE of the politics of the era. It's time for a world history lesson.

Wanna know why so many AK's are floating around the world, compared to AR-15-type weapons?

It's 'cuz at one time, the USSR had a NUMBER of client states who were part of the Warsaw Pact, and they were all TOLD what rifle with which to equip their troops. This is what drove East Germany, Poland, Czechslovakia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Hungary to be equipped with AK's.

Add to that the fact that now-dead Soviet Union spent many rubles EXPORTING their communist doctrine to any corner of the globe that seemed a viable candidate. And part of that exportation was shipping the tool to help insure the communism would hold the day--the AK-47 rifle. This is how China, Mozambique, Cuba, Iraq, Egypt, North Korea, N. VietNam, Angola, Syria, Lybia, and a bunch of other places wound up with the AK.

AK's are prolific NOT because they are good, but because the Soviets did everything they could to put this weapon in the hands of every malcontent they could find, hoping to spread the ideas of Lenin and Marx in the process.

Greg Bell
December 17, 2004, 02:11 PM
AK's are prolific NOT becuase they are good

An interesting statement coming from someone calling another ignorant. :D

AZ Jeff
December 17, 2004, 02:15 PM
My point being is that the "goodness" of the rifle had VERY little bearing on its proliferation. The Soviets turned out weapons that are "adequate", but not necessarily the "BEST".

Cowled_Wolfe
December 17, 2004, 02:46 PM
Jeff, I'm not going to argue AK vs. AR anymore -- like I said, we need some actual data from the same conditions etc first. I will, however argue your point about more countries manufacturing AKs because of the soviets:

The US was doing the same thing as the USSR, albeit a bit less overtly. In fact, we were gifting out defense (both material, financial, and physical presence of forces) to most non-communist European countries to keep the border between East and West defended. What weapons did they build and use?

There's one other thing that I'm curious about, but I don't know any of it for sure: Who was allied with the USSR or the US in South America/Central America? What about the majority of Africa?

This is a pretty ignorant statement, as it obviously reflects NO KNOWLEDGE of the politics of the era.Was that meant as an 'in your face' insult? I'm hoping you're not dropping to that level, so I won't take it as one... But I must agree; I'm not the smartest cookie on political subjects, but I try to stay well informed. I'd definately agree with what Tamara had to say, though:
The one that they had the industrial base to duplicate. You can't make an AR receiver in a Peshawar alley with some tin snips, a hammer and some corrugated roofing steel... ;)

abelew
December 17, 2004, 04:02 PM
I would enjoy having a "discussion" with a Drill Sgt about this subject about as much as I would continue to argue a moot point on the same subject where people keep saying the same thing, nobody realizes that this is the United States, if you dont like an AR, get a different gun.

Cowled_Wolfe
December 17, 2004, 04:37 PM
Broken quotes are usually not as true as what they were taken from, but in this case......this is the United States, if you dont like an AR, get a different gun. Amen.

FirstFreedom
December 17, 2004, 06:32 PM
My point being is that the "goodness" of the rifle had VERY little bearing on its proliferation.

You ARE talking about the M16 there, right? :) Cuz if so, I think you're right!

Yes, a controlled, unbiased experiment would be nice, but that's quite a massive undertaking to hold it and to document it thoroughly to be able to prove later that it was indeed unbiased. Sure would be interesting though. I'm not a gambler in general, but I'd sure take some bets on that one from the AR-worshippers around here. ;)

I have to say that none of them have ever failed to function.

But then, I also make a point of keeping the weapon clean (every time we'd halt for more than 15 minutes I had a standing SOP that all mounted crew served weapons and personal weapons were to be torn down, wiped down, and lubed if necessary), and lubed with the appropriate lubricants (FP-10, CLP, Militec, etc), dust covers closed.

Uh-huh...now is it starting to make sense to some of you? The average grunt/unit ain't doin what Adam does, are they? In a battle zone? Yeah, they SHOULD, but in a perfect world, they wouldn't even be shot at to begin with - diplomacy would have handled the conflict.

Once again, AR-15 for felt-lined case carry, target shooting (why? get a bolt) and pretending you are GIJoe (for now). The AK-47 is meant for battlefield use in unpredictable conditions by people who don't always have time to go by the gunshop to pick up some BreakFree.

Exactamundo.

Lonestar.45
December 17, 2004, 06:39 PM
I can't speak with authority on the subject as I've never been in combat, with either rifle.

But I would hazard a guess that the soldiers in the Jessica Lynch convoy that were ambushed sure wished they had AK's. If you've ever read a detailed description of the battle, you'll understand why.

One battle doesn't mean anything, true, but in certain instances, where one is driving a truck through a sandstorm for 18 hours, an AK-type weapon may come in handy. Or something a little less dirt/sand sensitive.

The Mogadishu battle is another example of a time where I believe our soldiers would have been better served by a larger caliber weapon. Somalis hopped up on khat were taking a lot of hits and not going down. If you read accounts of that battle, and put yourself in those soldier's boots, you'd be wishing for something with a little more power. Just my 2cents.

Blackhawk6
December 17, 2004, 07:06 PM
My M-4 has never received more than 10-20 minutes of maintenance daily and has never failed me. The same was true of my M-16A2, when I carried one. That the AK is immune to reliability issues is a myth. It may tolerate abuse better, but not without consequence.

I believe reliability issues with the M-4 speak loudly about the operator and say little weapon system.

The M-4 may not be perfect, but it is certainly more than adequate for the job it is expected to do.

Handy
December 17, 2004, 07:20 PM
FF,

You might be interested to know that a trial of NATO Stanag rifles was held in Europe about a decade ago. This included anything that has the NATO standard mag well, and perhaps a couple others, like the AUG. Of the FMCs, FAMASs, CETMEs, L85s, etc. that were reviewed, the M-16 was the most reliable.

I read about this in a book, so I don't know if I'll be able to find a web reference, but I don't think M-16 performance is all smoke and mirrors.

SSgt Aston
December 17, 2004, 09:00 PM
abelew, I'm AF Security Forces right now, and I haven't seen any major problems with the M16/4. The biggest problems I've noticed seem to be bad magazines, which is the same problem the M9 has. You know how well Security Forces take care of their weapons (to those who don't know, most of us pretty much don't take care of them at all), and other than magazine related issues the only problems I've ever had with either the M16 or M9 was the bolt or slide not always going fully into battery. A brisk little tap on the forward assist or back of the slide generally takes care of that. On the other hand I've seen hundreds of magazine related problems, and it is my firm belief that the US military needs to invest a few more dollars in quality magazines.

Dead
December 17, 2004, 09:43 PM
I think that both the AK and the AR are good to go! I has used both plenty, though I was favor the 5.45x39 AK's over teh 7.62 ones any day of the week. The 5.45's are accurate more than enough, and have nothing in terms of recoil, not to metion being reliable.

The AR's I have shot have all been reliable and accurate as well.

capnrik
December 17, 2004, 09:51 PM
Then I will cut and paste for you. Here is a quote from Blackhawk6, a 30 year old Army Major preparing for his third tour in this war. He won a Bronze Star in Afghanistan. He is educated, eloquent, and very clearly a shooter. If you want the truth, read on. If you want to reach down and massage your ego, then please ignore the facts below:

Quote:
With the complaints of the M4 I wonder if the military will adopt something else for the soldiers behind the lines, maybe the FN P90 like the Saudi's have.



Domino,
Three quick points. One, there are no more lines and consequently no soldiers behind them. Two, having worked with the "best" the Saudi Military has to offer, I would not copy anything they do. If anything they serve as an example of what not to do. Three, while the FN P90 looks cool and scores well on the CDI index, it has very little to offer.


Quote:
Then again, that unit that was captured in Nasiriya had most of their rifles jam IIRC.



Mulliga,
Those issues existed with every weapon in the unit. See earlier comments regarding maintenance.


Quote:
The M4 is a pretty bad platform for long-range engagements using M855 ammunition. There are persistent complaints that it lacks stopping power at extended ranges. The 14.5" bbl limits the fragmentation range to under 100 yards or so.



Please forgive the rant.

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate all of the attention the M-4 is getting and the fact that many people want the military to have a more effective rifle. That said, there is a lot of speculation surrounding the performance of this weapon system, most of it founded on fiction rather than fact.

The notion that the M-4 is ineffective is false. I am not sure who the ballistician is that came up with the fragmentation theory, and it may have some merit on paper. The fact is that complaints about the M-4's inability to instantly incapacitate are being reported at all ranges. The most credible reports (read: those from highly-trained special operations personnel) are being reported at much shorter ranges, 25 meters or less. That there is an issue at extended range (in excess of 300 meters) is valid and the Mk262 rounds were developed to correct that short-coming, specifically for the SPR. That the Mk262 performs at least as well and probably better than M855 is fact. That there is room for improvement with regard to the terminal performance of the M-855 is also fact.

Here are a few more facts:
1. The overwhelming majority of the U.S. special operations community uses the M-4, including those who have the latitude to use different weapon systems. Ditto most coalition special operations units.

2. The overwhelming majority of private contractors, the overwhelming majority of whom are former SOF personnel, are using M-4's despite having no tie to the U.S. military.

3. Many SOF units are going to shorter barrels on their rifles.

4. No bullet guarantees instant incapacitation. None. There are a few credible reports of enemy personnel staying in the fight, albeit briefly, after being hit by .50 BMG.

With that out of the way, here are my opinions on the matter:

1. Much of the poor reputation that the M-16A2/M-4 family enjoys is a by-product of the Vietnam War. A combination of M-14 champions and arm-chair commando's have kept the controversy alive. Before a Vietnam Veteran comes and flames me, let me say I am in no position to comment on the M-16 and its performance in Vietnam. If you don't tell me how bad the M-4 is in Iraq and Afghanistan, I won't tell you how good the M-16 was in Vietnam.

2. I love our soldiers. I have spent my entire adult life in their company. To put it kindly, they are prone to exaggeration. "I emptied an entire magazine into him, center mass, and he kept coming," can often be translated into "I fired eight rounds and hit him in the foot once."

3. The majority of soldiers are great people but they are not weapons experts and many have difficulty qualifying with their weapons. Ego, especially when it comes to marksmanship, is alive and well. A number of reported, ineffective hits were probably misses. Question:What does a soldier see when he hits someone at 150 meters and it has no effect? Answer:The same thing he sees when he misses. Who decides whether it was a hit or miss?

(Curiously, the Army and I apparently agree on the last two points.)

4. Prior to 9/11 the population in the Army of people who had actually engaged in close combat was relatively small, to include our special operations units. While we had a number of combat veterans, very few had actually shot a person and witnessed the effects. Very few of our soldiers have shot anything, to include deer. Consequently, hollywood has shaped our perception of how a shot person reacts. Most people understand that bullets do not blow people through walls, but they do not understand much beyond that. Comments like "A .45 will knock a man down," or "Even if you miss with a .50 cal, the bullet passing by can rip a man's arm off," are not uncommon. As a result, when they center punch a person with a 5.56mm at 10 meters and he stands there for five seconds before falling down, they get upset. Time tends to get distorted when your life is threatened and five seconds becomes a minute. I think you all get the idea.

5. I am not a ballistics expert, but my high school biology background and a little reading lead me to believe that the three mechanism for incapacitation would be a CNS hit, loss of blood and shock. Shock is highly dependant on the individual and can not be counted on. That leaves a CNS hit and loss of blood. A bullet to the heart is a bullet to the heart. If you placed your shot correctly, as everyone apparently has, even if it went right through the body the operation of the heart has been disrupted. If you hit something in the heart, it takes time for it to die. If you want it to fall down immediately, you have to hit the CNS and that is hard. Talk to a deer hunter and when you do keep in mind that the deer is not a fanatic bent on killing you.

6. I find it interesting that much of the criticism levied against the M-4 and M-16A2 is not levied against the M-249. It has comparable barrel lengths and fires the same round. I have yet to hear anyone say that the para-SAW sucks beyond a 150 meters despite its short barrel length. Why is that?

Let me reiterate. I do believe there is room for improvement with regard to the terminal performance of the M-4/M-855. It is just not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Hopefuly, the XM-8 makes progress in this regard. I appreciate the concern shown on this and other forums, and I look forward to the day that I am issued a rifle that disintegrates the target with a marginal hit.

Thank you for tolerating my rant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Blackhawk 6 : June 29th, 2004 at 02:58 PM.

Chindo18Z
December 17, 2004, 10:22 PM
The only times I puposely carried an AK were in the days when we trained to play WWIII against the Soviets. Assuming we ever even got to where we needed to be, it only made sense to carry a Warsaw Pact weapon. There would be no resupply, no real hope of exfil, and a slim chance of settling down to life in a nuclear-blasted Eurasian landscape with 6 goats, an ox, a yurt, and a Slavic common-law wife. At that time, we carried, jumped, qualified, and trained with AKs (to the exclusion of our M16A1s/CAR-15s).

That was then, this is now.

AZ Jeff is correct: AKs are ubiquitous courtesy of the State Factories and Foreign Export Policies of our erstwhile Combloc competitors...

I have seen good quality military AKs (Russian, Romanian, E. German, North Korean, Chinese, Bulgarian, et al) jam, rust, break, and malfunction.

Blackhawk6 nailed it...I am in 100% agreement with his post. I have never had reliability issues with my (or my team-mates) M4A1s.

In Afghanistan I never saw a single instance of a US or Allied SOF soldier carrying an AK (of any variant). I had ample and close-up opportunity to see what everyone (including our allies) carried. That includes any exotic/non-existant units/organizations you care to name. For almost all, it was M4A1 all the way. It didn't EVEN occur to us to go with Kalashnikovs (and the landscape was awash with AKs). We might plant a couple extra AKs around various defensive positions as "back-up" firepower. Didn't see anyone carrying a 7.62 "Battle Rifle" either (except for a few scoped M14s doing yeoman duty for the M21s/M24s that some infantry units didn't have).

Afghanistan remains a petting zoo for exotic weaponry (open up Janes at random and I could pull almost any described weapon out of some cache or buy it). If you were willing to hump it, you could carry pretty much whatever caught your fancy. I knew a guy who lovingly clutched an immaculate M1A1 Thompson throughout his tour and a even coupla guys w/ SIG 550s. Another friend insisted on restoring a 1906 Maxim water-cooled machinegun to full function and actual employment... I have seen grandpas carrying SMLEs and one great-grandpa carrying a Tower Musket (he was too old to actually leave the village on patrol).

In my experience, there are only three reasons to go AK:

1. You need to look and sound like the other side (pre-planned TTP)
2. 5.56 resupply is non-existant and combat load is "winchester"
3. You are trying to set a "lead from the front example" to your trained indig (and usually not even then).

Even with sanctioned opportunity, we don't carry AKs...Why is that?

BTW, that's a rhetorical question. ;)

abelew
December 17, 2004, 10:39 PM
God, I would love to get my hands on a sig sg550, thats one sexy mama :D

Crosshair
December 17, 2004, 11:02 PM
Chindo18Z
Even with sanctioned opportunity, we don't carry AKs...Why is that?

It probably has something to do with weapon familiarity. I know my weapons quirks and how to solve them. I have never been in the military but I think this applies to everyone. This is with my SKS and the 2 major problems I encounter.

1. Gun fires, bolt doesn't cycle = Stuck shell, put butt of rifle on ground, kick bolt open and eject shell. Continue shooting.

2. Smokestack Jam = Take trigger hand, slap bolt back, ensure ejection, continue shooting.

When cleaning I know what must be cleaned to ensure reliable operation. Yes idealy you clean the whole weapon, but if you are short on time you only do the esentials. On an SKS that means cleaning the inside of the reciever and magazene well. Time = 5 min with rag and the gun doesn't even need to be striped.(aside from dropping the magazine floor) Next on the list would be the gas piston and last would be the barrel. I can do all of this in the field.

Yes I know that an SKS wouldn't be used in a modern battlefield, let me live with my fantasy. :p

If you where to hand me an AR, aside from pulling the trigger, I wouldn't know how to use it. :confused: Same could be said about someone who has never handled an AK or an SKS. I would rather have a weapon that I knew all the quirks to, than have a better weapon that I didn't know a thing about.

If you trained a squad of troops with only AK's, I am sure they would be reluctant to pick up an "enemy" M-16, simply because they are more familiar with the AK.

Tamara
December 17, 2004, 11:20 PM
Untill then, I'm dropping out of this debate... We all have our opinions, and all our opinions seem to be equally well founded.

No, our opinions are not "equally well founded".

For instance, I have owned a dozen or so AK's and AR's and fired them under all manner of environmental conditions for longer than you have been alive. You, on the other hand, are a high school student.

Cowled_Wolfe
December 18, 2004, 12:03 AM
'I'm sensing a bad vibe'...

I mainly speak of those who've shot AKs and ARs. Besides, everyone I've seen has been stating a first-hand account, or describing what people with first-hand accounts have told them. That's where I drew my statement from... Untill we all start using information on the rifles in question (milspec M16, AK average for Iraq) which was derived in a quantifiably measured environment simulating or better yet, recreating combat conditions, I don't see how anyone's first hand account is any more valid than anothers, the exception being the accounts of military personel who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike us, they were using their firearms in combat conditions -- and as I recall having said before, in the military your M16 or M4 won't have a reciever, or a bolt, or magazines, or [name parts here] of your choice, so you can't exactly pick the brands that seem to work best. The same goes for ammo.

As for your remark about me being a highschool student... I'm not sure if I should take that as a personal insult or not... Simply put, we're both people who have shot ARs and AKs -- though I doubt any were close to milspec or average for the theatre in question, and I also doubt you were in a combat environment (I sure wasn't).

Tamara
December 18, 2004, 12:23 AM
As for your remark about me being a highschool student... I'm not sure if I should take that as a personal insult or not...

You should simply take it as a statement of fact, which it is.

You had stated that, quote, "our opinions seem to be equally well founded." This is incorrect. Our opinions are not "equally well founded." I purchased my first AK-type weapon some eighteen years ago (a Polytech underfolder,) and my first AR (a Colt carbine) some two years after that. In the intervening years, I have owned several more of each type. I have worked for FFL's in a full- or part-time basis since 1993. I have shot both semi- and full-auto examples of both weapon systems, some belonging to me, and some being customer's weapons, in rain, snow, mud, sand, and dark of night, both for business and pleasure, in that length of time. To be perfectly blunt about it, your opinion of them is not as equally well-founded as mine. Mine, in turn, is not as equally well-founded as that of others who have more experience than I. Although the Disinformation Cowpath, with its screening of the identities of posters, would have one think so, all opinions expressed herein are not created equal. If one can remember that, one may learn something...

Cowled_Wolfe
December 18, 2004, 12:44 AM
Appologies on my response to the 'highschool student' remark -- I must have blundered in picking up a tone that wasn't there.

With regards to experience and knowledge of the arms in question, I'm going to conceed... Your opinion is a bit more authoratative. I simply wasn't going to admit that untill I had better knowledge of your experience as opposed to mine.

(Note: Another error on my part, I missed you saying "I have, over the past fifteen years, owned (and shot extensively) examples from Eagle Arms, Norinco, Bushmaster, Polytech, Colt, Romarm, and Rock River. The failure rate has been pretty much the same amongst them all...")

Handy
December 18, 2004, 12:46 AM
Hey Tam, does the young man remind you of anyone? ;)



Well, I like him, anyway. :) Good grammar, at the very least.

Tamara
December 18, 2004, 12:53 AM
He likes to shoot and stays awake in English classes. I'm truthfully feeling slightly better about the future. :)

esldude
December 18, 2004, 12:53 AM
So if you automatically disparage other's opinions and their worth, what basis do you have to decide what is worth anything here Tamara? Or do you post here assuming you have it down, and any who disagrees must not know anything of worth?

For instance, other than your say so, I know nothing of you. You could be BS'ing completely. I have no way of knowing.

I try to give one the benefit of the doubt. Trust them at their word. Within reason it works okay.

You stated earlier in the thread:
"Folks can offer pontifications about pit crews and clean rooms 'til they're blue in the face, but all it does is flatly contradict my real world experiences of many, many years. This tells me more about the value of their opinions than it does about the actual firearms."

For now I am willing to assume you are honest about that. But whether I have quite the volume of experience you have with these two rifles, I have some. And my own experience which I know for a certainty to be true, is diametrically opposed to yours. How do you explain that? And more importantly how do you become so hard line on your opinions and seem to take them so very personally if we are both honestly telling what we have seen.

It is hard to ignore one's own experience, and you shouldn't usually. But sometimes you see a divergence of experience in places like this. And anyone, myself included, probably needs to back off just a bit. And see the issue isn't so very clear. Rarely are things that clear. Sometimes you see claims that one can just call them for what they are fabrications. I don't think this AR vs. AK deal is one of them.

Cowled_Wolfe
December 18, 2004, 12:59 AM
... And before that I wasn't counting.

As for 9th grade, towards the end of the year, I recall having been half-concious a few times. Literally.

Anyways, as of current, I'm doing As in English, and I've mastered the art of being awake when dead tired...

Btw, I have to say this for the record... It wasn't school that showed me how to speak proper. It was my mom and chatrooms. *Frowns at evil yucky school.*

Tamara
December 18, 2004, 01:00 AM
For now I am willing to assume you are honest about that. But whether I have quite the volume of experience you have with these two rifles, I have some. And my own experience which I know for a certainty to be true, is diametrically opposed to yours.

Then you shouldn't believe me, esldude. The only experience you should trust is that which you have accumulated yourself, and that of people who you have thoroughly vetted and trust explicitly. If I am saying something that flatly contradicts your real life experiences, then you should assume I am full of it, and go with what you have proved by experiment.

There are no magic swords.

It's a free country.

Go with what you know.

Don't believe everything you read. :)

For instance, other than your say so, I know nothing of you. You could be BS'ing completely. I have no way of knowing.

You could check my references. I'm available at Coal Creek Armory, 865.966.4545, every weekday from 1330ish to 2100, and most weekends. :)

And more importantly how do you become so hard line on your opinions and seem to take them so very personally

I'm not "hard line" on anything, nor am I taking anything "so very personally." However, folks have made positively inane claims in this thread about A) the ultimate tactical unjammable uberreliability of the AK, and B) the insane, only-run-in-a-clean-room finickiness of the AR. Both opinions are as factual as, say, "The sky is plaid," or "Fish are made of rock." When I hear this, I kinda feel like chiming in.

Greg Bell
December 18, 2004, 01:18 AM
follow this link to the Coal Creek Armory "fan club."


http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=128&t=262803


It may give you an idea about the various things that form people's opinions of weapons. :D

Tamara
December 18, 2004, 01:24 AM
Gosh, I'm all wounded.

I'd tell some lawyer jokes, but my momma raised me better. :D

Cowled_Wolfe
December 18, 2004, 01:25 AM
Dude... *Catches his breath after laughing.*

Greenfurniture
December 18, 2004, 09:37 AM
I love that banner! I really do. I think of it as many of you might think of a warehouse full of SS109.

Te Anau
December 18, 2004, 11:01 AM
WOW-I just posted this link because I thought it was interesting.I didnt know it would get everybody all riled up!

Tamara
December 18, 2004, 11:13 AM
FWIW, the link's been posted before. Putting "AK v. AR" in a thread title is guaranteed to drag the one-true-sworders and speculators out of the ether. ;)

Chindo18Z
December 18, 2004, 11:35 AM
Continuing the discussion, here are some random musings:

1. 7.62 x 39 is (statistically) slightly less lethal than 5.56 but a good hit with either round will be VERY BAD for the intended target. Neither is a death ray; either will do the job. I've seen torso hits from both...I'm a believer. This applies to most military caliber centerfire rifle rounds.

2. Re: 5.56 vs. 5.45...roughly same-same...it's a wash.

3. AK iron sight accuracy ranges from barely OK to adequate (out to 300 meters); AR accuracy ranges from adequate to good (out to 300 meters). A good shooter can wring out significantly more long range accuracy from the AR, especially with A2 configuration.

4. AK has abysmal ergonomics (poorly located magazine release, short sight radius, poor rear sight eye relief, adequate but not great trigger pull/break, and the world's worst positioned selector/safety). This REALLY comes into play when you are in the company of other like-equipped friends and in contact with the other side. Immediate action drills, weapon safe/clear drills, transitions during CQB, vehicular drills, and Individual Movement Techniques (IMT) all suffer with the AK. The gun is either hot (safety off) or its not (safety on). Manipulating between the two requires way more time and motion than with the AR. If you don't think this is hugely important, you are dreaming.

5. The AK selector design is one which provides for a high probability of fratricide or Accidental Discharge (AD) once friendlies start operating in close and heated proximity to one another. You can either opt to carry with the safety off (AD waiting to happen and dangerous even for a point man) or with the safety applied (requiring 2-3 seconds to disengage). With no hope of reacting to a close-in threat (the other guy is already inside your decision loop), you lose. Your only option is to forget the AK and seek cover (if you make it there before being hit). Show me an AK-equipped squad in contact and I'll show you SOMEONE flagging their buddy with their muzzle (safety off / finger on trigger at some point). Think it won't happen? Think again...

5. The AK was designed to support a discredited infantry doctrine which had Soviet troops advancing (during final assault) on line w/ everyone firing short suppressive bursts at the objective (as they did with SMGs). The initial movement of the AK selector to full-auto is insane and of no value. We (US Army) no longer doctrinally teach full-auto rifle fire except for certain IADs where supressive fire is desireable. Our guys practice aimed fire at distance and controlled pairs up close. The hits with hollywood full-auto just don't happen reliably enough.

6. AK with a folding stock carries nicely in a vehicle (better even than a collapsible stock M4). On the other hand, firing the damn thing without the stock unfolded is almost useless beyond me-to-you range. Watch any of the amateur-hour clowns who routinely macho-pose for the cameras on the nightly news from the Middle East. They run from the safety of a corner or alley, spray a few rounds down the block, and come back grinning. Kind of like firing a pistol gripped shotgun...impressive for the cameras but ineffective.

7. Despite its shortcomings, the AK is effective, reliable, and easier/cheaper to manufacture than the AR. It's also cheaper for the US civilian shooter to buy. In the "baby-needs-new-shoes vs. daddy-needs-new-toys" equation, a $300 SAR-1 delivers more bang for the buck than a new Bushmaster. Is the AR the better rifle...yes. Snob appeal aside, will the SAR-1 get the job done (SHTF, plinking, range fun, home defense)...yes. Would I equip a modern army with the AK (even the modern Russian versions)...no.

8. Crosshair brought up good points. Know your chosen weapon. Know its advantages and its limitations. More importantly, know your personal abilities and seek to utilize advantage / minimize limitations (regardless of the rifle in your hands).

9. BTW, I LOVE my SAR-1.

Greg Bell
December 18, 2004, 01:33 PM
That sums up the Ak's flaws nicely. Like someone said, hopefully the new rifle from H&K (or whatever the military adopts) will combine the strong points of the AR (great ergos, good accuracy) with the AK's (Bet your ass reliability). Like I said before, I no longer own either--but I am sure I would buy an XM8 (or whatever) just to play with for a while. :D

CJNies
December 18, 2004, 01:39 PM
I haven’t had any live fire experience with 16s since 1982 and a lot has been gun to the weapon since then. I had some issues with the rifle but I would still rather have a weapon that I could easily score with at over 300m then one I could drop in the mud but possibly not hit an ox at 150m.

The training given to US personal (or Israeli or Danish personal) is far superior then any given to soldiers or combatants that are commonly issued an AK. Therefore the M-16 or M-4 is a better weapon in trained hands. The knuckleheads that are issued or somehow procure an AK need an AK.

If I were forced to choose between the two I would take a 16 any day. I only wish we were able to carry M-4s but they weren’t around for another twenty years or so after I turned in my 16. At least we got the adjustable sight models.

Are there better rifles then the M-16? I think so.
Would I rather have an AK? No.
They haven’t manufactured the perfect assault rifle as of yet. They all have issues some greater then others.

444
December 18, 2004, 09:26 PM
based on civilain range use of a few rifles.
I shoot a monthly match with is fired with a semi-auto military rifle. The rifle cannot be currently issued by a first world military. For example, I shoot an M1. Guys in my group shot: HK G3, AK, FN FAL, M1A. Anyway, the match is divided into four stages with targets from about 150 yards out to 385 yards. Shooting positions vary from supported prone (not shooting is done from a bench, but usuallly the stage using the furthest target at 385 allows prone with a front end support like a rucksack or sandbag) sitting, and off-hand. The targets are steel plates of various sizes, with the biggest one being maybe 2 feet square.
Ok, let's get to the point: the AK has no problem at all hitting any of the targets including the one at almost 400 yards. If I am not mistaken, the guy that won today was shooting an SKS. I sometimes shoot a very similar match in Utah which goes out to 800 yards and guys regularly and consistantly hit that target with SKSs and AKs. It isn't the rifle, it is the shooter.
On the other hand, during this match (approx. 70-80 rounds), the AK in my group had three malfunctions.
So, based on one day at a civilian rifle range, this thread under rates the AK in terms of accuracy and over rates the AK in terms of reliability.

One of the reasons I mention this is that I don't have a lot of experience with the AK type rifles. Years ago (maybe 1986) I owned a Norinco AK clone. That is the lion's share of my AK experience. I bet I didn't fire 200 rounds out of that rifle because at the time, I couldn't afford to shoot it.

The AR is another story: I was issued an M16 in the Army (I spent my whole enlistment in the desert known as Ft. Bliss), I have owned well over a dozen civilian AR15s through which I have fired well over 20,000 rounds of ammo. I currently own somewhere around 10 AR15 rifles right now. I have taken a number of carbine classes at nationally known shooting schools with my AR15s and have fired as much as 1800 rounds in a five day class. During those classes I spoke with numerous folks who have used the M16/M4 in combat all over the world.

USMCbulletsponge
December 29, 2004, 02:23 PM
I am using a Colt M4 Carbine with Eotech 552 holosight. It has never jammed or malfunctioned in combat in any way, and has provided accurate, deadly fire at ranges up to 300m. also the selector switch is VERY fast. I frequently enter buildings with it on SAFE, as not to accidentally shoot my buddies. One's thumb will instinctively switch it to fire by the time the muzzle is pointed at the threat.
I was initially an M4 skeptic but she has proven me wrong. I place my life in her hands everday, and am glad to have such a reliable accurate weapon.
Sand has not proven to be a problem since we dont often bury ouselves under the sand. I have operated in very sandy places and find that simply having it in your hands keeps most of the sand out.

USMCbulletsponge
December 29, 2004, 02:37 PM
as far as the J. lynch issue, if that bitch had an AK or a mini-gun it wouldnt have mattered. You have to shoot that damned thing to begin with.
She got a freakin medal for curling up in a ball while under attack and crying.
geez. Those poor bastards just gave up. screw them. *******.

USMCbulletsponge
December 29, 2004, 02:39 PM
OH YEAH...Hey Jessica, hope you got your money for college!

Greg Bell
December 29, 2004, 09:03 PM
:rolleyes:

Chindo18Z
December 29, 2004, 09:21 PM
USMCbulletsponge's comments on the M4 are dead on target.

Regarding PFC Lynch (and to be honestly fair): She was unconscious and broken up like road kill during her short participation in that action. She was involved in a high speed collision with a truck. After she woke up, her first "rescuers" were the ambushers. She was Lucky...lucky to survive the contact, lucky to survive the capture, lucky to survive as a severely injured POW, and lucky to be rescued. She paid her dues (there's a lot that is not reported in the media)...I wish her well as a civilian.

The travesty of that whole incident is that Higher made her out to be a "hero" and barely mentioned the brave guys who effected her rescue (then let the media denigrate those same guys because they pulled it off without enemy opposition). For all that, she went downrange and did her job. Her element got waxed...sometimes the other side wins. ***t happens.

Semper Fi my Brother...and Good Hunting.

USMCbulletsponge
December 30, 2004, 07:06 AM
Okay, my apologies for the lack of tact. i hurt some peoples feelings, on the j. lynch issue. But still, how does an M16 "jam" without a shot being fired. I just wanted to know so that it doesn't happen to me next time I am ambushed by the muj. I ,personally, have great concern for my brother-in-arms, and take every precaution to ensure that I can provide for his security and mine, in just such a situation. I mean, a "condition 1" m16 doesn't require alot to put a round on target. All you have to do is pull the trigger. ooops. I forgot. It requires the WILL to kill your enemy. The operator must be determined to employ his/HER weapon against enemy forces. While I apologize for attacking my "sister service" I make no apologies for speaking the truth about Jessica Lynch. There is much that is not right about that situation. Not to mention she talked **** about the "sister service" who rescued hre non-shooting ass. I hope she does well in civilian life too, as a matter of fact she is on tour as a motivational speaker for $225.00 at the door. horse ****. i know far better men, shot in actual combat who most people wouldn't pay a dime to hear speak. ingorant misguided sheep.

FirstFreedom
December 30, 2004, 10:44 AM
Like someone said, hopefully the new rifle from H&K (or whatever the military adopts) will combine the strong points of the AR (great ergos, good accuracy) with the AK's (Bet your ass reliability).

That's what the XCR is supposed to do, and it's american made.

CJNies
December 30, 2004, 12:31 PM
The Israelis, who have about the most practical military procurement system on earth, really do have a choice of FOUR proven rifle systems, and choose the M-16 anyway. That's a bit silly to argue with.

I do not mean to sound disrespectful, but I have witnessed on more then one occasion where governments award contracts NOT to the most desireable weapon but the best deal to themselves. The fact that the Israelis turned down three other weapons does not in any way shape or form indicate that the one they chose was the best.

trapshooter
December 30, 2004, 12:54 PM
how does an M16 "jam" without a shot being fired

USMCbulletsponge ,

I think we both know the answer to that. ;). More than 'once an inspection' cleaning is probably a good thing, as even the folks in her unit who fought back discovered. The AR isn't a great single shot manually operated gun. But then, neither is an AK. And while I agree that the 'hero' business was way overdone, I also agree that at least she was there, not 'here'. I know what you are saying. She was 'cute', though, and it made good copy.

Having humped an AK a bit, I have to disagree with Chindo18Z in that taking 2-3 seconds to take the safety off an AK requires a level of stupidity or physical handicap way beyond that I anticipate in people who are serious about going into a fight. But thats probably just nitpicking. He made good comments, otherwise.

It (the AK) was handy in a vehicle. It's nice to have a cut-down gun in them, but that really short stuff loses it's utility exponentially with the range beyond 15-25 yards (once out of the IED magnet). I much preferred the M4, or even an MP5 for the car only stuff. The MP5 on open ground leaves one feeling somewhat inadequate, though, as I found out.

In the end, given a choice, I'd take the AR as the best all-around, any situation shooter, if I had to pick just one.

IZinterrogator
December 30, 2004, 01:31 PM
CJ, you're missing the point. Don't worry, a lot of people have. They already have all four. Bought, paid for, and sitting in the warehouse. It will not cost them more to use one instead of another, so they can pick a weapon based on combat virtues, not accounting virtues. They picked the M16. So back to the original question, why?

CJNies
December 30, 2004, 02:10 PM
To summarize, the IDF chose the M16 over the AK47/Gail because the M16 is the better assault rifle in all parameters that matter.

I’ve never doubted this for a second, I’ve fired the Galil and didn’t like it.

However, the catch is that most of this money must be spent in Dollars back in the U.S. Also, for several reasons most of the IDF orders are registered as U.S. Army orders.

This why they buy the US rifles it’s politics and economics, and you or I can read all the articles we want written by authors that agree with our position.
My position on this is yes, I prefer the 16 and it’s variants over the AK and it’s cousins, but given the choice I wouldn’t choose either one of them.

ETCss Phil McCrackin
December 30, 2004, 02:52 PM
Maaaan, Bulletsponge, don't hold back about Lynch, let us know how you REALLY feel....... Course, I don't disagree with you. The higher-ups in the chain of command were responsable for that travisty, dirty weapons aside, (which is a point I won't even begin to bi**h about!) the brass completely ignored the soldiers that continued to fight in the face of long odds, with single shot weapons!
Anyway, keeping with the topic, I concur with many here that the M16 series is a more effective weapon for trained troops than the Ak line. Just look at the many accounts of US troops engaging the enemy with single aimed shots and then look at the casualty rate of GG vs BG. The ability to accurately engage the enemy at distance is not only obviously unhealthy, but also a psycological victory as well. Clearly the M16 is a more appropriate platform for a well trained army.

USMCbulletsponge
December 30, 2004, 03:23 PM
lets just say i were going to walk out of camp today, and go hunt some badguys. at the foyer of my hooch there is an AK folder, and an M4. with all the ammo and accessories i could ever want. Which would i place my trust in? The M4. Why? I can carry more rounds of 5.56 than 7.62. I can easily attatch different optics or lights/lasers. Its fairly lightweight, and convenient to use. I prefer the surehandedness of its selector switch. The AK is a bit shakey on this ground, and the IDF are notorious for NDs. Maybe it is their lack of training, but even basic recruits don't have that many NDs. The M4's recoil is fairly controllable, allowing for very fast aqcuisition of your next target, or even the same target if the first one didnt drop him. And in a vehicle, its easy to get in and out. This WAS an issue when i was using the full sized M16. Also, she is very accurate. It often gives me the sensation of threading a needle.

Adam Firestone
December 30, 2004, 03:35 PM
Forgive me for playing devil's advocate for a moment.

So. . . .

a) If the AK was chambered for 5.56mm or 5.45mm; and
b) If the AK had a rail fore-end; and
c) If the AK had a thumb selector; and
d) If the AK had a folding or collapsible stock; and
e) If the AK had better iron sights conducive to better accuracy. . .

Then all other things being equal, it seems like it's a wash, based on your analysis.

USMCbulletsponge
December 30, 2004, 03:41 PM
a) If the AK was chambered for 5.56mm or 5.45mm; and
b) If the AK had a rail fore-end; and
c) If the AK had a thumb selector; and
d) If the AK had a folding or collapsible stock; and
e) If the AK had better iron sights conducive to better accuracy. . .

Then all other things being equal, it seems like it's a wash, based on your analysis.
hmmm. then you'd have an M4!!!!! hahaha.
ok, seriously, sure, if an AK had the features i trust, why not. the thing that the AK has going for it is its guts. the are hardy and reliable. an AK will operate with garbage inside its action. this is true. if you could magically put an AK bolt into an M4 and get that kind of no nonsense reliability, hey! that would be sweet. Why don't we make one and get really really rich, and attend presidential dinners, together.

USMCbulletsponge
December 30, 2004, 03:42 PM
if i could have anything at all it would be an M4 bullpup type carbine. even shorter, but same barrel length.
I would love to fieldtest FN's P90. i saw some italians carrying them the other day. neat weapon.

Adam Firestone
December 30, 2004, 06:13 PM
Somebody already makes THAT gun!

Krebs Custom, Inc. makes something called the KTR-03 that has all the features mentioned. Mine has a side folding stock like a Galil, and it's 5.56mm. It's also as or more accurate than five (or was it six) service grade AR-15's and M4-gerys that I've compared it to.

But that's beside the point. I thank you for your frankness, you've given me a better insight into the whole AR v. AK debate.

FirstFreedom
December 30, 2004, 06:24 PM
The KTR03 has a thumb selector? It looks to me like the regular AK selector:

http://www.krebscustom.com/KalashnikovRifles.html

What gives?

ETCss Phil McCrackin
December 30, 2004, 06:46 PM
If you read the write up beneath the pic on the Kreb's site, you'll see that it's a thumb safety like the one on the Galil.

bad_dad_brad
December 30, 2004, 07:12 PM
Gosh did this thread go off the deep end into the typical AR vs AK abyss.

I have an AR-15 Bushy shorty, a SAR-1 AK, and a Mini-14.

I like them all but:

The most accurate by far is the AR-15.

The AR-15 given good magazines and proper maintenance is pretty much as reliable as auto-loaders get. The ergos are outstanding. First class.

The AK is very crude and not all that accurate. Despite legend, it will jam on occasion. Good for home defense. Just so damned crude! Ugly too.

The Mini-14 might be the compromise that the casual home defense afficionado is looking for in an auto-loading rifle. Very reliable. Accurate enough. The stainless version with plastic furniture is indestructible. And it is sort of pretty too.

For well trained combat troops I have to think the AR-15 system is the best.

For skinny's in Somalia, the AK-47 does the job.

For everyday home defense I would say the Mini-14 is the way to go.