PDA

View Full Version : a little experience with the m16


pvtmcd
August 30, 2006, 11:06 PM
I am an old member with a new name.
I joined the army and went through basic and AIT with the M16.
I am back and I am not pleased with my experience with the M16.
Both of the M16A2s that I have been issued have had many failures to operate.
I would not trust them in battle regardless of how clean they are.
This is not a M16 bashing thread.
My question is...
What is so great about them?

Maser
August 31, 2006, 01:33 AM
What is so great about them?


Who knows? I don't see what's so hot about AR15/M16/M4s. All I know is my experience with them has been horrible. Everyone likes to tell me how great they are, but I have yet to fire a decent one. I'll take an AK anyday over an AR.

Big Mac
August 31, 2006, 01:40 AM
Amen Maser. When I went through basic, all of the DSes said they'd take an AK if they had a choice. These were men who had up to 20 years of combat experience. Seeing as we have people here who love AR's and hate AK's, vice versa and none of the above, this thread is bound to start a flame war.

I just find the AK is better suited for the kind of combat we have these days, namely urban combat. Not to mention which rifle has better knock down capability? AK, hands down. The AK is a simple, rugged, reliable, and effective weapon that doesn't need too many extra add-ons like the AR. The reason (this is just my opinion!)? Kalashinov got it right the first time.

BlueTrain
August 31, 2006, 05:43 AM
Not an M16 bashing thread, eh?

I went through basic training with an M14, was issued with an M14 when I got to a regular unit and in three years in the army I never saw an M16. Later, I was in the D.C. National Guard and was issued an M16. Never fired it. Even later, however, I owned a Colt AR15 and also a Rumaniun AK in 5.45mm. I liked both. But I have no combat experience, so can't comment either way. However, no one ever complains about the accuracy of an M16 or the weight, nor the reliability or ruggedness of an AK, though there are many different AK's, and they are not all necessarily the same. It is a pity that the best qualities of each could not be combined.

Personally, I don't think either one has the genius and quality of the M1 and M14. I suppose that reflects what I was trained with. The AK has some of the straight forward operation of the M14 with none of the fine tolerances required by the M15's action. You would think the Mini-14 would be a wonderful thing but not from reading the posts here. Whatever else you might say about the AK, I think they have awful stocks. The overall finish is irrelevant (same with the M16) but I like the magazines for the AK, especially the ones for the 5.45. By no means is it necessary to tart up either one with add-ons, though that is very common at present in the US Army. The cat is out of the bag, however, and I doubt anyone would give up their optical sights they have.

Another interesting thing is that they have both been around for a long time, the AK being only about ten years the senior. The AR-15 (pre-M-16) could actually claim to being in combat sooner and I think the British can make that claim in SE Asia in Malaysia. Both have been used by several armies under just about every condition.

Here is something that will really make the pot boil: what's so great about the FAL? I used to want one and nearly bought one. But after examining one (didn't shoot it) I decided it was too long, too heavy, and too complicated--compared with an M14. But I don't have an M14 either!

mikel_holt
August 31, 2006, 07:15 AM
From Murphy's Law of Combat: Always remember, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

BlueTrain
August 31, 2006, 08:08 AM
Oh, they don't do it that way anymore.

gdm
August 31, 2006, 03:18 PM
LOL. I hated mine also.It certainly wasnt new.To qualify as expert,we only had to hit the black,which was about 6" in diameter,from a mere 50 yards.Stoppages were common and accuracy was all over the place.It probably had changed hands all year with no cleaning or maintence.The rifling looked like it was nearly done for.After figuring out where this thing was hitting,I managed to hit the black,got my expert and had a laugh all the way back to base from the range.The DI kept glaring at me and put me on gun cleaning duty for being such a smart butt.The m60 machinegun was kinda interesting.Parts everywhere and no idea where it all goes.:D I learned quickly that afternoon.

I got home from basic and fired my new ar15 that I had bought from the bonus money before basic. It was much better.No stoppages,accuracy right where it should be.It wasnt worn out and this one works.

As far as the Automat Klashnikov, it does what its supposed to do with minimal maintence.I like the gun but dislike the stock.None of the ones I have shot fit right.They are either too short or slide all over the place.

BUSTER51
August 31, 2006, 03:46 PM
The M16 they issued me in 1971 never gave me any problems and preformed in the wet muck with out a hicup.we would get them so hot you would burn yourself if you ever touched the barrel, maybe they dont like the conditions in the sand box.all the AR's I have now all function perfectly too .maybe a new weapon is in order or a redesign to improve function in a desert environment .our soldiers should have the best equptment we can get whatever it cost .:D

Esquire M Busterbury
August 31, 2006, 03:59 PM
From what i've been hearing, the m16s available are old and well past their prime. I feel bad for my buddy, he's been issued a pos while back at home I've got a brand new bushie (with aimpoint)...good thing he's using a computer more than his rifle.

joshua
August 31, 2006, 04:03 PM
A lot of the M16s the military has are used and abused. I own 2 AK type (MAK90 and 91), but I love my ARs more than my AKs. I have a DPMS 16" and a Colt HBar Sporter Match. Both of my ARs will outshoot my AKs any time of the year. My HBar will often do 1 moa or less with 77grn SMKs. I have never experienced a jam with the Colt nor the DPMS when the ammo is up to spec. One thing I will agree with you guys is that the M16 will not be as reliable as the AK when it is all dirty with sand/dirt/fouling. If you I have a choice on what to pick for combat I'd pick the M16 anytime. AR15s have won national matches and the AK has not. The AR has been know to fire moa groups out to 600 yards and the AK is not know for precision accuracy. The ergonomic of the AR fits me better and the AKs don't. The AKs have terrible iron sight, but my AR has target grade sights straight from the box. I can shoot my AR a lot better than the AKs, so in battle/competition, he who puts his bullets where it counts wins. I don't hate my AKs in fact I love the MAK91 for smoking the hills when the 75 round drum mag is loaded. :D josh

Dirty_Harry
August 31, 2006, 07:42 PM
It always seems to me that the people who do not like the American made products, are the only ones who have problems with them. (AR-15 vs AK, Chevy vs Honda......goes on)

I have never had a hiccup out of my AR-15, and there is no question to what rifle I would pick in SHTF, my AR-15. We are just repeating ourselves. The strengths of the AK are as follows: RELIABLE, cheap, good stopping power, simple to use.

The strengths of the AR are as follows: Accurate, reliable (IMO, and obviously the government thinks so too!) rail system, light weight, and low recoil.

In my eyes the AR-15 wins anyday. (my eyes cant use the AK sights very well either)

Hkmp5sd
August 31, 2006, 08:04 PM
I was trained on the M16A1 in the military and liked it so much, I went and bought one on the civilian market. Pretty, ain't it! :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/Hkmp5sd/M16A1.jpg

If you keep it relatively clean and lubed, it will function flawlesslessy. Of course, it needs decent ammunition to eat and the magazines must work properly. Not that hard to do. What's a few thousand dollars to be able to Rock & Roll?

pvtmcd
August 31, 2006, 08:26 PM
Thanks for the input.
I guess this topic has been exhausted several times over.
I just wanted to say something now that I have some real experiece with the M16.
The M16s that I have used were clean. But they were also abused and a bit old.
I wish I had some experience with the M17, the FAMAS G2, and the STEYR AUG A3.

Northern Sod Breaker
August 31, 2006, 11:04 PM
Darn good marketing by Colt firearms. That all it is. Soliders in uniform have been killed just to line pockets.:mad:

Esquire M Busterbury
August 31, 2006, 11:07 PM
Shotgun minister, not to disagree with your statement, but what would you have issued to our boys?

DonR101395
August 31, 2006, 11:17 PM
Until two weeks ago my issue weapon was a mid 70's manufacture GAU5, it functioned flawlessly for me for 8 years. It was replaced with an M4. So far it's g2g. I've only got about 1000 rounds through it, but it looks like it's going to be a workhorse.

PVT, the weapons you used at basic and AIT are clean, but they are also very used and abused. Probably more than any other weapon you will ever get your hands on. Think about the number of trainees hands they've been through. My initial M16 training, was much like yours, but after I got my issued weapon that was maintained by someone who knew my life depended on his work it's been smooth sailing.

STLRN
September 1, 2006, 12:23 AM
My M4 worked just fine.

The majority of failures for the M16 series are magazine induced. If you have crap magazines you will have many, many failures in you weapon.

A large portion of the magazines in the US military are unserviceable. The unfortunate fact is that even if they are unserviceable and are easy to replaced, a magazine whether serviceable or not is an a check in the block on an inventory. Also many people who hold the purse strings don't understand why it is important to replace mags when they go down.

threegun
September 1, 2006, 05:16 AM
So there you have it, the M16 systems being used for training are abused and unmaintained (besides cleaning) junk.

What is so great about the M16/AR15? Meet me at the next action rifle match with your AK and I'll show you. The AK simply cannot keep up. All of my AR's are 100 percent reliable. My AK's are jealous because they don't get fondled anymore.

As for "knockdown power"..........dead is dead. The 5.56mm/223 will kill you deader than a door nail. Recent failures have been attributed to the heavier bullets fired thru the shorter M-4 barrels not allowing the bullet to reach 2900 fps, a critical velocity for extracting 100 percent of the 223's potential. At 2900fps or higher it is vicious, below it is an ice pick (albeit a long ice pick).

bigdave
September 1, 2006, 06:40 AM
"Shotgun minister, not to disagree with your statement, but what would you have issued to our boys?"

take a hint from the australian army and start issuing Steyr AUGS :D . nah just kidding , but i love the Steyr AUG i was issued , tough as hell and really good standard issue optics. but seriously , they were on the right track when with the XM8 trials (BTW the XM8 was always pretty much a G36 with a different frame , among a few small changes)

as for the M16 vs AK debate... my opinions on the M16 have changed due to recent experience. M16 defeats it in majority situations. AK's may be fearfully reliable but they will jam eventually , all firearms do.

JR47
September 1, 2006, 07:50 AM
My brother loaned me a recent article in Jane's Small Arms that detailed the problems encountered in the M4/M4A1, with both reliability and ammunition problems, to include the 77 gr. round. Unfortunately, the article is in Maryland, and I'm in Georgia. Those of you with access can reveiw it. It dealt with the M4 and the M14. He has no dog in the fight, considering anything less than 5"/54 cal. to be unworthy of attention.

A new, MilSpec M4 or M16A3 is reliable and accurate for several thousands of rounds. It may not be as sand-tolerant as other weapons, but it'll work. The problem occurs after the weapon begins to wear. None of us have micrometer calibrated eyes, and the early signs of failure can be attributed to any number of external factors. The usual result is a jamming problem at the odd, usually worst, time.

As for the AK, I'd like to point out that these weapons, in many cases, have been in use for decades. They were new in the 1970s and 1980s. That they are still capable of function, and hits, is a testimony to Kalashnikov's genius. I'd like to say that most of these beat-up old soldiers are still capable of minute-of-soldier after many thousands of rounds. A 30-40 year-old M16, with the maintenance given the AKs we encounter, would have reduced itself to splinters long ago.

I'll point out that the weapons issued to trainees are clean, and are given inspections by the armorers between classes. Any badly worn parts, including the barrels are replaced. I spoke to the armorers at Parris Island when my daughter graduated from USMC Boot Camp just over a year ago. :)

STLRN
September 1, 2006, 10:45 AM
JR47

The weapons at the depots are all on their last legs, that is often where the weapons in the fleet go when they are replaced with newer ones. Beyond that they get almost daily abuse of the recruits and unfortunately allot of unauthorized maintenance. You don't know how many times they are scrubbed with some really abrasive cleaner to ensure that there is no carbon in them for the final inspection.

The inspection that they get from the 2111s is a function check, drop gauge of the barrel and checking tightness of the pistol grip. If the weapon fails than it is sent to one of the depots, Albany or Barstow, were they are normally de-miled and DRMOed.

The Marine Corps has A4s, the A3 is extremely rare.

joshua
September 1, 2006, 11:25 AM
In the Air Force the M16s that are in our Combat Arms Training may be clean but they sure as heck worn where it counts, the barrel. These guns may go 100 rounds 5 days a week, but the worst thing that happens to it is during cleaning. The Air Force issues Break Free, cotton patches, brass scrubber, steel jags and a parkerized 5 section steel cleaning rod. What's wrong with that you ask? They did not issue a bore guide nor cleaning instructions. There are bent cleaning rods and jags being pushed in and out of those barrels almost everyday. Sure they are clean, but are the barrels free from bore damage? I don't think the military has done any research on how the rifles are being cleaned. If I'm depending on the rifle to save my buddies' lives and mine, I'd sure as hell will give some deep thoughts in preserving the accuracy of my rifle.

A 30-40 year-old M16, with the maintenance given the AKs we encounter, would have reduced itself to splinters long ago.
And why would a 30-40 year old M16 become like that? If you say the plastic will crack then I say the wood stock would rott first before plastic. The article you're referring to is where/what issue of Jane's? I'd like to see it if the article states that the M4 is inferior over the AK. I agree that the M-16 will burn out it's barrel faster than an AK-47 because it's a higher pressure round, but compared to the AK-74 barrel life will be about the same. As I stated I own two AK type rifles and two AR type rifles, IMHO the AR wins in 3 gun matches and long range shooting. That's all I have to read and see to make me a believer. You can't tell me that the AK will eat sand/dirt/mud and keep on going without any added excessive wear on it's factory 3" moa accuracy. Go to the matches and see what's winning. If the M16/AR15 were so terrible in their reliability it wouldn't be the prime pick of top shooters in Camp Perry, USPSA and 3 gun Matches. josh

josh

Big Mac
September 1, 2006, 11:42 AM
Matches are nowhere like combat. The guns they use, I wouldn't bring into combat. Maybe the AK isn't as accurate but it can take more than the M-16 anyday. And bring up the matches all you want, but that doesn't mean squat to actual fighting. An AK is in a sandstorm, she'll be up and running after a little bit of shaking. The M-16 is hopeless in that. Accuracy is great but what good is your gun if it requires constant maintenance like some trophy wife?

threegun
September 1, 2006, 12:17 PM
As for the AK, I'd like to point out that these weapons, in many cases, have been in use for decades. They were new in the 1970s and 1980s. That they are still capable of function, and hits, is a testimony to Kalashnikov's genius. I'd like to say that most of these beat-up old soldiers are still capable of minute-of-soldier after many thousands of rounds. A 30-40 year-old M16, with the maintenance given the AKs we encounter, would have reduced itself to splinters long ago.


The U.S. military goes through more ammo training its soldiers than almost every other country. The average AK-47 isn't going to get the mileage (shooting wise) as the average M-16 is going to get. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that the M-16 is as reliable and durable as the AK, it is certainly reliable enough that military and police units around the world use it in life and death situations. Thats proof enough for me.

BigMac,

Matches are nowhere like combat. The guns they use, I wouldn't bring into combat.

Several of the finest militaries in the world disagree with you. They take the m16/AR15 platform into battle everyday.

An AK is in a sandstorm, she'll be up and running after a little bit of shaking. The M-16 is hopeless in that.

You live in the dessert? How about a third world country? Me neither.

The only sandstorm condition my AR has ever experienced was ironically at a three gun match. We had frontal conditions here in Florida, blowing sand in 30 plus MPH winds. It felt like being sand blasted and even worst when your round impacted, popping up sand to be grabbed by the wind. My AR sounded horrible while loading from all the sand build up but she functioned fine as did every other AR in my group. I would tell you how the AK's performed in this storm except you already know...........knowbody uses them ha ha ha. Us an AK and lose with an AK LOL.

Scorch
September 1, 2006, 12:34 PM
pvtmcd-
You say you now have a little experience with an M16. So do a lot of people. And I do mean a lot. I have 10 years in the Corps myself, never had a reason to dislike my rifle. If AKs were intrinsically better, they would be used for match guns. They aren't.

One thing to remember about the AK, which you may or may not learn during your time in service. The AK has a very distinctive profile. We were taught that when we saw people carrying AKs, to open fire.

Gewehr98
September 1, 2006, 12:47 PM
What is so great about the M16/AR15? Meet me at the next action rifle match with your AK and I'll show you. The AK simply cannot keep up. All of my AR's are 100 percent reliable. My AK's are jealous because they don't get fondled anymore.


One of the moderators here and at THR is a dedicated 3-gun competitor, and finishes quite well in the matches, often first, while using an AK variant. Hint - sometimes it's not the gun in the match...

Myself, after 20+ years in the military, am glad I don't have to deal with the M16 anymore. My AR-15s see more safe time now that I'm not qualifying with the M16, and my Kalashnikovs are the ones that go to the range more often. One of the ARs is disassembled currently, waiting on the gas piston retrofit kit.

Joshua, roger that on beat-up CATM M16 rifles! Last time I qualified, I was aghast to see how much of the barrel throat was gone in my issued specimen. But it did say Colt AR-15 on the slick-sided lower receiver, with an FN-made M16A2 upper and burst lockwork - a composite training hack if ever there was. :(

HorseSoldier
September 1, 2006, 12:51 PM
There are those lurking on the internet who claim some or all of the below:

a) The AR-15 is not reliable
b) The AR-15 is maintenance intensive to keep it running
c) The AR-15/5.56mm package lacks lethality.

Hearing anyone say any of the above is, 99.9% of the time, a huge red flag that one is corresponding with either a Vietnam era former action guy who had a bad experience a lifetime ago in Southeast Asia or with an armchair commando who has zero idea what they are talking about.

The reality is that the AR platform works, does not require any remarkable excess of time to keep it running, and shuffles bad guys off this mortal coil with impressive efficiency. Do some clapped out rifles get used in training, especially basic training? Yes. But the weapon in credible mechanical working order does its job very well -- so well that the AR is an industry standard and the weapon of choice for a rather stellar range of folks who could use other weapons if they wanted to (i.e. CAG, DEVGRU, the UK SAS, the Aussie SASR, the NZSAS, private military corporation types from Blackwater and Triple Canopy, etc etc etc.).

My brother loaned me a recent article in Jane's Small Arms that detailed the problems encountered in the M4/M4A1, with both reliability and ammunition problems, to include the 77 gr. round.

Written by Charles Cutshaw by any chance? If it's the article I'm thinking of it's a puff piece promoting HK's 416 upper, with their apparent M.O. of exagerations and misinformation about the M4/M16 as a marketing device (they did the same thing when the XM8 was on the table).

Any ammo problems are particularly exagerated and overblown. For proof look no further than the fact that the special operations community is basically abandoning "underperforming" 14.5" barrel uppers . . . in favor of uppers with barrels of less than 12" (various models in service, including the HK 416s). If 14.5" was not getting the job done, it is quite hard to fathom why guys who can use alternate kit would opt for an even shorter barrel length.

Esquire M Busterbury
September 1, 2006, 12:59 PM
Because it's cooooler! Everyone knows that in wartime, the cool factor is second to none...I mean, c'mon. Say terrorist 'Bob' is about to shoot when he sees that you're not just packing an m4/m16 like every other schmoe, but you've got a 11.5' commando barrel. He stops for a mili-second while his brain registers "Cool, commando barrel" giving one of our guys that much more time to poke some holes in him. Totally worth it if you ask me...

threegun
September 1, 2006, 01:06 PM
Gewehr98,
One of the moderators here and at THR is a dedicated 3-gun competitor, and finishes quite well in the matches, often first, while using an AK variant. Hint - sometimes it's not the gun in the match...


How does he do with the AR? If he is as good as you say with the AK he would be even better with the AR. Still I would bet he couldn't beat me with it and I'm not dedicated. I beat guys that are dedicated using the AR at every match. At no match have I ever been beaten by someone shooting a different platform including M-1,M-14,SKS,AK47, and even a guy with a lever rifle once. In three gun they have the best change because they could be brilliant with the shotgun and pistol which would pad their rifle times. I have had many occasions where my pistol was lacking but my rifle bailed me out shotgun being neutral for me (fast as most with it). My point is while the shooters skills are important so is the platform. Two shooters with equal skills going head to head with the AR vs AK and I would bet the farm on the AR. I bet you wouldn't bet on the AK guy would you?

Gewehr98
September 1, 2006, 01:50 PM
I bet you wouldn't bet on the AK guy would you?

Then I bought a Bulgarian Milled SLR-95, an honest-to-gawd 2 MOA rifle, and it's slicker than owl $hit on a brass doorknob. I realized right then and there that the AR-15/M16 is not the be-all, end-all of issued rifles or carbines, just the platform the U.S. DoD was heavily invested in and entrenched with for the next bazillion years. The whole MacNamara, Whiz Kids, and Lowest Bidder thing does indeed come to mind.

As for how a person could have the audacity to use an AK variant in 3-Gun, why don't you ask him yourself? His name is Larry Correia, he's a moderator at THR, match director of the local 3-gun range (http://www.udpl.net), and also owner of one darned nice gun store:

http://www.fbmginc.com

As stated earlier, so many people have bought into the notion that AK's are inherently inaccurate, and while a $400 AK-47 is not going to outshoot a $2500 heavily modified AR-15 with all the high-speed/low-drag crap hung on it, you'd be darned surprised at how a good AK and some practice will do in competition. After I deburred and slicked up my SAR-1 with a Tapco G2 trigger group, it became my SHTF nightstand gun. The Colt and Olympic Arms take up space in my safes now.

JR47
September 1, 2006, 02:11 PM
HorseSoldier. It was an article by the staff, not Charlie Cutshaw, and had no mention of any competitor of the current M4/M16. Not a cut-job on the rifle. It simply mentions the problems that have been documented by the AMU.

Yes, I was one of those who suffered a bad experience a "lifetime ago". However, I'm not bashing your toy. I simply mentioned some facts that a respected and acknowledged expert on this forum brought out about the current M16 platform in a thread not too long ago.

I also submit that the SF troops using the short barreled variants are more concerned with CQB than with 300+ meter engagements. The 12" barrel M4A1, and others even shorter, reduce the velocity of the 5.56 precipitously, and the weapons are being configured for the SMG role, replacing the pistol caliber rounds.

I would also broach the subject that the men and women of this forum are far and away more experienced with weapons than the average soldier. That someone would even think of the throat-wear of an issue arm is remarkable in and of itself. While Boot Camp trainees are given to think that EVERY failure encountered is somehow their fault, the M16 rifles that they use are quite typical of what many units are furnished with. Not everyone gets new pieces.It's a simple engineering fact that the tighter the tolerances, the more wear affects the operation. The M16 was developed to be a precision weapon, and to make use of smaller projectiles. Wear in one of them will be more serious in compromising the reliability than in weapons with larger tolerances by design. It's neither good nor bad, but it really exists, and it rears it's ugly head often enough to become a factor in combat.:)

STLRN
September 1, 2006, 02:28 PM
I trained IA forces in the AK EMP (enhanced marksmanship course) course and the AKs poor ergonomic made it a second rate weapon when it came to that type of shooting. Even when we took their rifles and did some shooting with them we found them terrible inaccurate (good enough for a high volume of fire) and not well suited to clearing structures.

STLRN
September 1, 2006, 02:35 PM
I also submit that the SF troops using the short barreled variants are more concerned with CQB than with 300+ meter engagements.


I think it has more to the with the realities of war. The simple fact 300 meter plus engagements are rare. In both operational regions in Centcom, most engagement still occur under 100 meters.

The Marine Corps has been doing a lot of debating on the subject on why that is and whether our approaching to marksmanship training makes sense.

threegun
September 1, 2006, 04:35 PM
Gewehr, Listen I own 2 MAK-90's and love them. They won't shoot like your Bulgarian but for three gun I can hit the plates required with them at 200 yards. The problem is with the time between shots. The heavier recoil makes quick long range shooting impossible (when compared to the AR that is) due to the muzzle rise and then the need to re find the target. The next problem is reloading during fast paced events. You simply cannot reload an AK as fast. Despite much training with both systems I'm a superior goblin killer with the AR.......by far.

As beloved as the AK is surely some would have figure out that the Bulgarian is plenty accurate and use it in competition more often. I have seen but a handful in a decade of shootin.......and they got whupt bad.

pvtmcd
September 1, 2006, 05:32 PM
This is not an AR VS AK thread.
I do not expect a $400 gun to be as accurate as a $1000 gun.
What makes the M16 better than other $1000 assault rifles?

STLRN
September 1, 2006, 05:51 PM
The M16 is not a 1000 dollar assault rifle, USGIs ones are only something like 500 dollars without the MWS attached.

What drives up the cost is all the accessories in the MWS, the optic in the case of the RCO is worth more than the rifle.

threegun
September 1, 2006, 07:15 PM
What makes the M16 better than other $1000 assault rifles?


Who says its better than other assault rifles?

Northern Sod Breaker
September 1, 2006, 07:54 PM
Shotgun minister, not to disagree with your statement, but what would you have issued to our boys?


I would have stayed with the semi-auto m14 and the M3 Grease Gun when the situation required. Now that was then. On today's battle field I would issue full auto SMGs in place of select fire M-16s.

Big Mac
September 2, 2006, 12:53 AM
Nothing wrong with the M-14. Now that was a rifle! My friend purchased an M1A a while back at a gun show and when we went plinking with it (not to mention it is a match one) we were incredibly impressed. Now our little shooting group is planning to make it the gun to go practice with. Too bad it costs a little bit more, though I admit it is worth it.

Eh, this AK vs. AR debate will go on and on and on and on and on. Both rifles have their stronger point over the other. I personally think the AR has sheer superiority in top-notch accessories compared to the AK but the AK was built to be the guerrilla, Red Soldier, and the Freedom Fighters gun. It's good to have a weapon you don't have to worry too much about when you are an irregular soldier doing several jobs at once. I didn't mean by my last statements that you have to clean the AR so regularly that it's worthless, but it's nowhere near as reliable as the AK. Just as the AK is not as accurate, but then again, it was never designed that way. I'd grab my AK anyday over my non-existent AR if I wanna kill goblins.

By the way, what is this business about Goblins anyway?

joshua
September 2, 2006, 03:02 AM
I'm not the best 3 gun shooter, but I know for a fact that if I use my MAK-90 or 91 in a 3 gun match that my scores will suffer big time. The safety is in a bad place to where I cannot manipulate it fast enough without shifting my grip. If the MAK-90 have a comp and a red dot sight it still won't tame recoil like my 16" DPMS w/ a Vandenberg comp and Tasco PDPIII.

My 16" DPMS may not be what is being issued to our front line troops, but it sure as heck very close. Mine is mil spec in every except for the barrel contour and matched upper/lower receiver. Now my Colt Sporter Match HBar is as mil spec as it can be except for the missing bayo lug. Now I do look at the top dogs at the Nationals and I don't see any AK variants in their equipment list.

On today's battle field I would issue full auto SMGs in place of select fire M-16s Huh?! Excuse the expression, but I can only imagine all of our troops toting MP5s or Uzis. Now if you would've said the P90 was issued then I can agree to that. josh

Crosshair
September 2, 2006, 03:19 AM
One thing to remember about the AK, which you may or may not learn during your time in service. The AK has a very distinctive profile. We were taught that when we saw people carrying AKs, to open fire.

You are joking, right? AK = Bad guy??? I may have opinions on the AK/AR, but that is the most idiotic statement I have heard for awhile. You are esentialy saying that you are too stupid to determine if someone is a friend or foe and just to look at the weapon they are carrying to determine if you should blow them away.:barf: So if you saw some Al Qaeda carrying M-16s you would be OK and not ask any questions? That must have been some training you got if that is what they taught you.

Big Mac
September 2, 2006, 03:49 AM
You know in a lot of nasty places, regular civilians lug AK-47's around as everyday business. Living in a jungle like that, you have to pack fangs to survive. Also, what if your buddy loses his weapon and picks up an AK temporarily? Do you automatically fill him with lead?

4719
September 2, 2006, 04:18 AM
My only experience with the AR15 is with law enforcement. I've put thousands of rounds down range and have instructed officers putting tens of thousands of rounds down range. I can count on one hand the amount of jams that I have seen.

Out of that hand full of jams, one third were caused by riding the charging handle, one third were caused by being very dirty, and a third were caused by junk magazines. You can take care of 2 out of the 3 by training and discipline. The last I took care of by purchasing better magazines.

As for "knock down power" or the lack of it -

I would never want to be hit by one of these things. We have to be honest with ourselves and remember that there is no "magic bullet" out there. You must rely on sound tactics and repeated accurate hits.

From a LE perspective, the AR platform is still the best thing out there in my opinion.

joshua
September 2, 2006, 06:15 AM
One thing to remember about the AK, which you may or may not learn during your time in service. The AK has a very distinctive profile. We were taught that when we saw people carrying AKs, to open fire.

You are joking, right? AK = Bad guy??? I may have opinions on the AK/AR, but that is the most idiotic statement I have heard for awhile. You are esentialy saying that you are too stupid to determine if someone is a friend or foe and just to look at the weapon they are carrying to determine if you should blow them away.

The person stating that they were taught to open fire on AK toting peeps was probably a Vietnam vet. The mentality and training of our military now have drastically improved. Vietnam was an era were the enemy knew when our fighter bombers/bombers were coming because of our lack of OPSEC and we kept happy hour as scheduled. Even though you highly disagree with what they were taught they still deserve the utmost respect because they fought for your rights to call them stupid over the internet. josh

Scorch
September 2, 2006, 12:15 PM
Actually it was Grenada. And I like to think the training I got was first rate (USMC). I'm here to tell about how it works.
You try to figure out who someone is in the middle of the night in the jungle.

44 AMP
September 2, 2006, 04:00 PM
Lots of us were taught that during the 60's and 70's. The only people in the world who had AKs were communist troops, or communist supplied. To us, that meant ENEMY! And it is encouraged to shoot them.

One of the most common mistakes made is to apply today's standards to yesterday.

Implying someone is an idiot for telling you how things were when they were there does not reflect well on your creditability.

grow up

Esquire M Busterbury
September 2, 2006, 04:10 PM
Reminds me of 'Gunny' on Mail Call.

"This is the preferred weapon of our enemy, the AK-47...Now lets see how well it works on these unsuspecting watermelons."

Crosshair
September 2, 2006, 10:15 PM
Seems like I am catching alot of flack for that post of mine.

One of the most common mistakes made is to apply today's standards to yesterday.

Implying someone is an idiot for telling you how things were when they were there does not reflect well on your creditability.
Even though you highly disagree with what they were taught they still deserve the utmost respect because they fought for your rights to call them stupid over the internet. josh

It is one thing to be taught it in the military in the 1960-70's.(Shouldn't have been taught then either, but you can't change that.) It is another thing to use it as a reason against the AK in todays world. I probably should have worded it better to reflect upon the person training those soldier rather than make it seem like the soldier was the dumb one. OK, my bad. I'll admit when I screwed up and should have worded my post a little better. Sometimes I make myself look like an idiot, that post was one of those times.

Veterans are people, yes they put their butts on the line. I even tried to join the military. (Won't take me because of uncorrectable eyesight problems.) Most are good people, some are real jerks and use the word "veteran" as a get out of jail free card. I have even ****** a few off when I called them on stuff that was blatently wrong. "The Geneva Convention doesn't let us use hollowpoints" is one that I correct quite often. I have politely corrected several veterans about that legality. Most listen intently, eager to learn something new. It then usualy goes into a polite debate about different policies, weapons, and tactics used in the past and present. I get to hear good stories and life experiences from them. Some, on the other hand, act as if I just punched their mother. How DARE I try and correct them. They're a VETERAN and apparently that means they can't be wrong. Fortunately they are few and far between.

flip180
September 2, 2006, 10:59 PM
I had much the same negative experiences with my M16A2/M203's in the infantry a few years back. At the time, other than military experience/training, I didn't know enough about guns to know as to why some worked and some didn't. I kept my rifle Q-tip clean yet at times it woundn't make it through a 40 round weapons qualification with out jamming. Now that I'm more experienced with the in's and out's of what makes weapons tick, I realized that most of the problems with those guns were most likely magazine related. I hated M-16's at the time and carried an M249 SAW by choice in Korea while running counter infiltration patrols in the DMZ while attached to UNCSB-JSA. Now that I know what AR's like and don't like, I want to get an AR and will probably build one in the next year or so. Will I trust it like my recently sold SAR-1? I feel that time will tell on that one. I bet it will be a good companion to my M1A black synthetic Scout.

Flip.

JIH
September 3, 2006, 09:32 AM
I would never want to be hit by one of these things.
Dude, I would never want to be hit by a cell phone thrown by a mad ex-wife.

JR47
September 3, 2006, 10:38 AM
Crosshair, in the 1960's and 1970's, there were no other soldiers running around with an AK47. Civilians didn't own them. Night-vision wasn't available to the individual on the line, either. The idea of a flash picture was all that many of the older, and still alive, non-coms could give the prospective combat vet. It may not have been politically correct to those who have never fought in those conditions, but it worked. Who are you to decide what should and shouldn't have been taught under those conditions? We also shot at anyone with a bolt-action rifle. Many VC used the Model 53 or 1944 Mosin-Nagant, as well as the SKS, Mat49, and so on. In CQB, the person attacking you was safely considered the enemy. :)

As for the Geneva Convention, it wasn't taught in any training, except maybe to JAG. Nor were the Hague Accords. Common useage by the MSM, and many other uninformed sources, led the average person, and does so even today, to the idea that the rules of warfare are regulated by the Geneva Convention. As you said, Vets are people, and many people don't react well to a stranger correcting them. It has nothing to do with their status as veterans. They may also be teachers, or reps of the MSM. :confused: