PDA

View Full Version : ak47 vs m16



Pages : [1] 2 3

maersk
31 May 04,, 17:35
m16 jams and overheats too much, while you can take an ak47 and dip it in mud and throw it down a cliff and it will still fire.

Lunatock
31 May 04,, 18:02
AK's aren't shit for accuracy after the first shot. And try comparing a Kalishnakrap to the M-14.

Aryan
31 May 04,, 18:34
Great. Another communist thread. I don't get why these guys love the Ak so much. I mean yea great you can dip it in mud and use it, but don't russians have anything better to do, like fight?

Sinfulcurves_AK
01 Jun 04,, 04:20
http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47vsM-16.htm

a tired, old topic already...They both have their advantages and dis-advantages. I guess it depends on the shooter.

Praxus
01 Jun 04,, 04:55
Well that site seems to say the M16 is supperior.

Bill
01 Jun 04,, 05:41
AKs suck.

Sinfulcurves_AK
01 Jun 04,, 12:05
AKs suck.

not really, but I've heard this 181989X already, so it doesn't really matter -- For a better, advanced presentation of Kalashnikov, check out the AK-107/108

edit: nevermind, I'm sure ya know about that already -- Again, this topic is pretty old and tiring, leave it at that...

Bill
01 Jun 04,, 15:55
"not really"

No, really.

berkut
01 Jun 04,, 18:41
Great. Another communist thread. I don't get why these guys love the Ak so much. I mean yea great you can dip it in mud and use it, but don't russians have anything better to do, like fight?

A pretty cocky comment, eh? AKs have seen a LOT more action then any other firearm in the world history, and they never betrayed their owners, unlike most others. And "commies" have never stood down from a fight. And a real fight at that, not that picture perfect scenareos with weekend-camping type of accomodations, and endless "order-by-phone" ressuplies.
Like I said before, AK is almost a 60 (!!!) year old veteran that is still very very competent compared to the newbies and keeps proving itself in every single conflict every day. Starting with WW2 it has allready been proven that in modern warfare accuracy beyond 150-200 meters falls behind importance in behind reliability, and in a large scale war behind its cost and time to produce. If you need accurate automatic fire at distances of several hundred meters you use your squad machine gun, if you need even more accuracy beyond that you have your squad snipers. Spend a few weeks in the rubble of cities, sand, and dirt. with no reinforcements, and no time to dust off your weapon after every magazine and you will see AK's advantage. One clear dissadvantage of M-16 series is that the gases from the barrel directly enter the locking mechanism of the chamber, so residue must always be kept at a minimum. Drag your M-16 in sand or mud and you better find time to clean it out in the middle of a fight.

Current Russian weapon is AN-94, however due to horrible financial situation in Russian military it cannot fully replace the AKs in service. But if you want to compare current weapons use it, and we'll see how all other weapons measure up to the AN.

P.S I dont see how some other members on this board can trash countries that produced such fine weapons while their own country of origin has not invented as much as its own muzzle loader.

Bill
01 Jun 04,, 19:15
If they've never 'betrayed' their owners please explain why so many AK users seem to find themselves dead when they face opponents with M-16s?

The AK fires everytime you pull the trigger, that's about all that can be said for it.

Bill
01 Jun 04,, 19:16
"P.S I dont see how some other members on this board can trash countries that produced such fine weapons while their own country of origin has not invented as much as its own muzzle loader."

You didn't just call the AK a 'fine weapon' did you?

LOL

What countries are you referring to?

berkut
01 Jun 04,, 19:34
If they've never 'betrayed' their owners please explain why so many AK users seem to find themselves dead when they face opponents with M-16s?

The AK fires everytime you pull the trigger, that's about all that can be said for it.


Hm, may be because even if you give a horde of cracked out monkeys that just got off the palm tree a plasma rifle they will loose against a civilized trained person armed with a nagant.
Also for those better trained and well disciplined primates it is hard to win when your enemy has advantages of air and aritllery support, mechanized armor, high precision weapons, personal armor, and other nice advantages of modern technology.

Bill
01 Jun 04,, 19:59
Berkut, if you look at the world's commando forces you will note that the AK is very, very far down on the list of preferred weaponry.

That really ought to tell you something bro.

berkut
01 Jun 04,, 20:39
Berkut, if you look at the world's commando forces you will note that the AK is very, very far down on the list of preferred weaponry.

That really ought to tell you something bro.

Given. M-16 is not the special forces choice either. Those that do use M-16 shorty have no more accuracy with the halved barrel the AK. AK was not designed as a special forces weapon, Russian special forces generally do not the general AK either.

Bill
01 Jun 04,, 20:42
The M-4 is pretty widely used by the worlds commandos(up to and including all US commandos and the legendary British SAS).

An M-4 has almost twice the effective range of an AK-47, btw.

I still prefer the M-14 over the M-16A2 anyway. The M-21 and M-25 are even better.

Lunatock
01 Jun 04,, 20:59
A pretty cocky comment, eh? AKs have seen a LOT more action then any other firearm in the world history, and they never betrayed their owners, unlike most others. And "commies" have never stood down from a fight. And a real fight at that, not that picture perfect scenareos with weekend-camping type of accomodations, and endless "order-by-phone" ressuplies.
Like I said before, AK is almost a 60 (!!!) year old veteran that is still very very competent compared to the newbies and keeps proving itself in every single conflict every day. Starting with WW2 it has allready been proven that in modern warfare accuracy beyond 150-200 meters falls behind importance in behind reliability, and in a large scale war behind its cost and time to produce. If you need accurate automatic fire at distances of several hundred meters you use your squad machine gun, if you need even more accuracy beyond that you have your squad snipers. Spend a few weeks in the rubble of cities, sand, and dirt. with no reinforcements, and no time to dust off your weapon after every magazine and you will see AK's advantage. One clear dissadvantage of M-16 series is that the gases from the barrel directly enter the locking mechanism of the chamber, so residue must always be kept at a minimum. Drag your M-16 in sand or mud and you better find time to clean it out in the middle of a fight.

Current Russian weapon is AN-94, however due to horrible financial situation in Russian military it cannot fully replace the AKs in service. But if you want to compare current weapons use it, and we'll see how all other weapons measure up to the AN.

P.S I dont see how some other members on this board can trash countries that produced such fine weapons while their own country of origin has not invented as much as its own muzzle loader.

Hey Snipe! Time to tell another comrade about how your old unit got thier call sign, The Polar Bears.

Russia never stood down from a fight? Care to give us eager listeners your version of Operation Jihad? The Chechen Rebels that swarmed Russian held Grozny armed with AK47's/74's, Krinkovs, and RPG's. And managed to over run and drive out Russian Soldiers that had the same hand held weapons, plus T-Series Tanks, SU-30's, and Hind Gunships at thier disposal.

Funny how nothing like that happened in Khandahar or Baghdad, where American Troops have M-16's, M203 Grenade Launchers, Apache's, Warthogs, and Abrams Tanks readily available.

Bill
01 Jun 04,, 21:41
My former unit earned the nickname Polar bears for it's actions in the port of ArkAngel in 1917-1918, where the 31st Infantry fought the Bolsheviks for almost 18 months until evacuated by sea(the ports had frozen over and left the 31st stranded there without supply or assistance for many months).

During WWII the 31st was assigned the defense of Bataan, and endured the legendary 'bataan death march'.

The 31st took Korea off, but was one of the most decorated Regiments in the Vietnam war.

During the 80s and early 90s the 31st was tasked to the USAFAC in Fort Sill, OK, prior to being stood up as a light infantry Regiment and subsequently assigned to the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, NY.

The 31st has since seen action in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Go Polar Bears!"

berkut
01 Jun 04,, 21:43
Hey Snipe! Time to tell another comrade about how your old unit got thier call sign, The Polar Bears.

Russia never stood down from a fight? Care to give us eager listeners your version of Operation Jihad? The 3000 Chechen Rebels that swarmed Russian held Grozny armed with AK47's/74's, Krinkovs, and RPG's. And managed to over run and drive out 300,000 Russian Soldiers that had the same hand held weapons, plus T-Series Tanks, SU-30's, and Hind Gunships at thier disposal.

Funny how nothing like that happened in Khandahar or Baghdad, where American Troops have M-16's, M203 Grenade Launchers, Apache's, Warthogs, and Abrams Tanks readily available.

Are you an actor? Because you play the role of the retard really well.
You dont know anything about what, why, and how something happened in Chechnya besides what first slogan that you saw on some Mujahepusy website.

For those that would like to know some details about Grozny ask me a more specific question and I will be glad to answer it.

Lunatock
01 Jun 04,, 22:10
Are you an actor? Because you play the role of the retard really well.
You dont know anything about what, why, and how something happened in Chechnya besides what first slogan that you saw on some Mujahepusy website.

For those that would like to know some details about Grozny ask me a more specific question and I will be glad to answer it.

LOL! You naturally agressive? Or is this just your wee hours of the morning vodka binge? This comes from two sources. Robert Young Pelton's Come Back Alive. http://www.comebackalive.com/ And The Oath. Khassan Baiev's book.

Though I'm sure there's plenty of reliable sources online & off that'll say the same thing. That The Russian Army lost Grozny, and that's what made them throw in the towel the first time around.

P.s. your outburst was so funny & so shows you lost already, that I won't bust you for insulting a moderator. Your welcome.

Sinfulcurves_AK
01 Jun 04,, 22:46
"not really"

No, really.

Thank you, teacher. :rolleyes:

Lunatock
02 Jun 04,, 00:52
Careful Snipe, she's a redhead. ;)

Bill
02 Jun 04,, 06:10
"Thank you, teacher."

Yeah, anytime grasshopper.

"Careful Snipe, she's a redhead."

Who?

Lunatock
02 Jun 04,, 15:42
Sinfulcurves_ak47.

Bill
02 Jun 04,, 16:43
She hot? ;)

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 02:43
Yep, she's hot.

Thanx for the pic luna. ;)

Lunatock
03 Jun 04,, 04:10
No problem. Bet she'd never have a pic taken of herself while she's at the firing line. ;)

Sinfulcurves_AK
03 Jun 04,, 05:30
No problem. Bet she'd never have a pic taken of herself while she's at the firing line. ;)

sharin' me piccie with out permission, I see... I'm glad I didn't show ya my nudies! ~hehe~ jus kiddin' :tongue:

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 05:57
Don't worry M'lady, your flowing red lockes were recieved well by yours truly. ;)

Officer of Engineers
03 Jun 04,, 06:15
You guys realized that there are Married with Children slouts here?

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 06:16
LOL

Sorry Colonel. ;)

Sinfulcurves_AK
03 Jun 04,, 08:29
sharin' me piccie with out permission, I see... I'm glad I didn't show ya my nudies! ~hehe~ jus kiddin' :tongue:

hehe, really -- glad ya liked.

PS: AK's still kick bootay -- and you know it!
:tongue:

Sinfulcurves_AK
03 Jun 04,, 08:31
~hehe~ Whoopsies, :eek: blame it on Lunatock! ;) -- the picture-posting wasn't my idea...

Lunatock
03 Jun 04,, 15:40
~hehe~ Whoopsies, :eek: blame it on Lunatock! ;) -- the picture-posting wasn't my idea...

Picture posting. Did I miss something that was already edited out? :frown:

:biggrin:

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 15:45
No, i still think AKs are pig-iron, but that does not change the fact that you miss, are a hottie. ;)

LOL

lurker
03 Jun 04,, 20:15
lol. One week missed checking this forum, and it's already turning into ... :biggrin:

ps. My opinion that M-16 is superior for:

One day short missions
Good visibility in all directions
No mud, dust of rain
etc... room conditions

If you are in the jungle, city, mountains, Europe (90% of the ranges are <500m) you know - AK is better, durable and cheaper.

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 20:40
The ONLY time the AK is better is when your army is composed of untrained undisciplined monkeys.

PS- you forgot the M-16A2s biggest advantadge- range.

In a city or mountainous region the M-16A2 is vastly superior to the AK.

lurker
03 Jun 04,, 20:53
PS- you forgot the M-16A2s biggest advantadge- range.

In a city or mountainous region the M-16A2 is vastly superior to the AK.

In all those situations I described - range plays no importance, except maybe mountains. Ok, remove mountains.

There was a photo from Iraq, showing US NG's (I think) with their M16s wrapped in plastic bags. Says much about M16s usefullness in those condiotions.

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 20:57
Have you ever stood on a roof in a city and estimated how far away you could shoot someone?

On a 5 story building your LOS will be about 2000 meters.

It only makes sense to protect your weapon from the elements. That's called training.

lurker
03 Jun 04,, 21:55
Have you ever stood on a roof in a city and estimated how far away you could shoot someone?

On a 5 story building your LOS will be about 2000 meters.


I'd better put MG or sniper at the roof, and all the guys with M16's on different floors etc.

I've seen cities with mutlistore buildings spaced each about 100 yards with no straight line of fire between them (correction: no line longer than 200-300 yards).


It only makes sense to protect your weapon from the elements. That's called training.

And Kalashnikov is known to make 40,000 shots with same barrel, with minor replacements of the mechanism, and only outside cleaning (just not to get dirty).

Bill
03 Jun 04,, 22:03
"I've seen cities with mutlistore buildings spaced each about 100 yards with no straight line of fire between them (correction: no line longer than 200-300 yards)."

OK, now go to the corner of the building(5 stories), and look down the streets. You can see for about 20 blocks(about 2000 meters) if there are no terrain elevation variances.

"And Kalashnikov is known to make 40,000 shots with same barrel, with minor replacements of the mechanism, and only outside cleaning (just not to get dirty).'

The reason for that is because the AK is machined with gigantic tolerance gaps(compared to western weapons). Greatly improves reliabilty for the cost of losing all semblence of long range capability.

That's why i said the AK is perfect for untrained armys. They don't have to clean it(or you as their leader don't have to worry about training them how to clean it or make sure they do), and they can't hit shit anyway, so there's no point in giving them a decent LR capable rifle.

In afghanistan US troops routinely drop 'Mujahamorons' at ranges of 500 meters with the M-16A2, and 400 meters with the M-4. The enemies only means of effective counter-fire is mortars. This has caused the interesting situation on a few occasions of US rifleman getting into firefights with enemy mortar teams. Afghanistans mountainous terrain is ideally suited to weapons with excellent LR capability.
In Iraq both during ODS, the initial invasion of OIF, and now during the insurgency, US troops have used the superior(OK, vastly superior) range of the M-16A2 and M-4A1 to great effect on many occasions.

lurker
03 Jun 04,, 22:15
OK, now go to the corner of the building(5 stories), and look down the streets. You can see for about 20 blocks(about 2000 meters) if there are no terrain elevation variances.


Sure, if there is a straight street, no fog etc. If buildiings are not in the line and street is just turning left and right, then ... - most of the old European cities are that way.
(An some of the new ones with huge appartment complexes).



The reason for that is because the AK is machined with gigantic tolerance gaps(compared to western weapons). Greatly improves reliabilty for the cost of losing all semblence of long range capability.


That is true.
AKs were made in the 50s for the massive war with the west. I.e. millions of troops, 90% of which are yesterdays civilians.
Of course it would be ideal for any kind of "militia".

But since then much more changed, AK in classic form can be found only in Africa, or Iraq, or some other s.thole.

New weapons of that line are much more complex, with better range, and known to hole modern armour vests and troop carriers. As you know, all the "AK" shells made in the Russia are "armour-piercing".

Praxus
03 Jun 04,, 22:50
Sure, if there is a straight street, no fog etc. If buildiings are not in the line and street is just turning left and right, then ... - most of the old European cities are that way.
(An some of the new ones with huge appartment complexes).


http://www.ini.unizh.ch/~kramer/london.gif

There are some pretty long stretches of straight roads in london and many other European cities.



New weapons of that line are much more complex, with better range, and known to hole modern armour vests and troop carriers. As you know, all the "AK" shells made in the Russia are "armour-piercing".

What do you mean by troop carriers?

lurker
03 Jun 04,, 23:04
What do you mean by troop carriers?

APCs

p.s. Method for supressing the fire from the buldings along the long streets is known for a long time. It's called "tank shell in every place you see firing alone the street".
It is known to be very effective :biggrin:

Praxus
03 Jun 04,, 23:45
APCs

p.s. Method for supressing the fire from the buldings along the long streets is known for a long time. It's called "tank shell in every place you see firing alone the street".
It is known to be very effective :biggrin:

An Ak round can not penetrate an APC, most APC's are protected up to 14.7 mm.


p.s. Method for supressing the fire from the buldings along the long streets is known for a long time. It's called "tank shell in every place you see firing alone the street".
It is known to be very effective

Yup try doing that when there are guys with Javalins and Predators, weapons that can actually take a tank out.

lurker
04 Jun 04,, 00:12
An Ak round can not penetrate an APC, most APC's are protected up to 14.7 mm.

Bullet PC-101 against 10mm steel, distance - 100m
Fired from AK-101 (AK with 5.56x45 NATO caliber)

http://club.guns.ru/images/barnaul/fig4.jpg

Bullet 7N13 from "SVD" (7.62x54) against the same armor, same distance

http://club.guns.ru/images/barnaul/fig8.jpg


Yup try doing that when there are guys with Javalins and Predators, weapons that can actually take a tank out.

Thats why it's called "war" and not a "porno contest". Guy with the longer or thicker gun not always wins. :)

Praxus
04 Jun 04,, 00:49
LOL, 5.56 x 45mm is not an original AK round and is not in widespread service in the Russian military and it is a NATO round and the SVD is not an AK.

lurker
04 Jun 04,, 01:42
LOL, 5.56 x 45mm is not an original AK round and is not in widespread service in the Russian military and it is a NATO round and the SVD is not an AK.
I was just too lazy to look for picrues ;)
5.46x45 is "export" round so there is a LOT of images about it.

"Standard" AKM 5,45x39 round is 7N6 (steel kernel) - penetrates only 5mm from 350m.
7N10 PP round (hardened steel kernel) - penetrates 16mm steel plate from 100m

Sinfulcurves_AK
04 Jun 04,, 02:39
"

In afghanistan US troops routinely drop 'Mujahamorons' at ranges of 500 meters with the M-16A2, and 400 meters with the M-4. The enemies only means of effective counter-fire is mortars. This has caused the interesting situation on a few occasions of US rifleman getting into firefights with enemy mortar teams. Afghanistans mountainous terrain is ideally suited to weapons with excellent LR capability.
In Iraq both during ODS, the initial invasion of OIF, and now during the insurgency, US troops have used the superior(OK, vastly superior) range of the M-16A2 and M-4A1 to great effect on many occasions.

Really? I had read someone that their weapon of choice were RPG-7's -- at least 50% of US soldiers have died from RPG attacks.

Bill
04 Jun 04,, 03:58
The RPG is a short ranged point defense anti-tank and anti-personnel weapon.

Ideal for ambushes(when it doesn't blow up in your hands, which the RPG-7 rocket has a tendency to do, they are quite old)

Since Luna has been tutoring you then i'm sure you're aware that almost all ambushes are short range affairs. They typicly happen at near point blank range.

An M-16A2 has about 2 to 2.5x the maximum effective range of the RPG-7(in the hands of the typical insurgent).

Bill
04 Jun 04,, 04:03
Lurker, the thinnest armor on an M-113(because it's typical of APCs so is a good example), is about 1" of hardened aluminum alloy. That's approx 23mm.

The tests all use NATO mild steel plate, which is not as resistant to gunfire as hardened aluminum alloy is.

There are a FEW spots on a -113 you can penetrate with 7.62x51mm SLAP ammunition, there are none you can penetrate with either US M855(green tip AP) 5.56x45, US 7.62 M118 Special match, US M80 7.62 ball, or any variety of 7.62x39 or 5.45x39..

An M-113's armor is designed to give protection all around from .30-06(which is far more powerful than 7.62x51 NATO) and frontal protection vs. .51(14.5mm) caliber HMGs.

A bradley or stryker are much more heavily armored than a M-113, btw.

Sinfulcurves_AK
04 Jun 04,, 07:54
The RPG is a short ranged point defense anti-tank and anti-personnel weapon.

Ideal for ambushes(when it doesn't blow up in your hands, which the RPG-7 rocket has a tendency to do, they are quite old)

Since Luna has been tutoring you then i'm sure you're aware that almost all ambushes are short range affairs. They typicly happen at near point blank range.

An M-16A2 has about 2 to 2.5x the maximum effective range of the RPG-7(in the hands of the typical insurgent).

Hehe, spanx for educating me on RPG's, sweetie: buuuut I actually know a li'l bit on 'em already :) (~AK+RPG~, whoohoo!) I know the RPG-7 is quite old (60's), but not the RPG-7V1 (90's) and the other variants: RPG-29, etc. I'm not really sure what kinda RPG's their using, could be the 'ol 7, but could also be the latest versions -- Also keep in mind the newest RPG-7V1 has deadlier rounds (like the ~TBG-7V thermobaric round~) ,

RUSKIE
22 Jun 04,, 10:36
All im gunna say all i need to day is

AK-47 Extremly better durability.
M-16 A-2, I assume, better accuracy.

Garry
22 Jun 04,, 15:13
well lets count on facts..... in the competition between the armore and the shelll the last wins... little evidence is bellow

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1115413/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1115413/posts

ps. just a short response to comment about brave american guys with M-16 in and stupid Russians with AK-47 in Grozniy....

RUSKIE
22 Jun 04,, 16:49
well lets count on facts..... in the competition between the armore and the shelll the last wins... little evidence is bellow

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1115413/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1115413/posts

ps. just a short response to comment about brave american guys with M-16 in and stupid Russians with AK-47 in Grozniy....



Aboot that last comment in, the M-16 blah blah blah, And the Stupid Russians, with AK-47, 1, Russia doesnt use the AK-47 any its all AK-74 and up,(but there still exists remanents of the 47 in some units) 2 of all, it takes alot more guts for Russian Soldiers into Chechnya than into Iraq ( if i had to say anything aboot them, the Russians would consider Iraq wayyy over Chechnya...

Lunatock
22 Jun 04,, 21:44
well lets count on facts..... in the competition between the armore and the shelll the last wins... little evidence is bellow

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1115413/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1115413/posts

ps. just a short response to comment about brave american guys with M-16 in and stupid Russians with AK-47 in Grozniy....

Where at in the thread?

Hmm...would things have been much different if America invaded Chechnya and Russia slugged it out with the Republican Guard & Fedayeen? Not to mention Russia being in a worse location for Jihadi's to start coming out of the woodwork.

CenterFire
23 Jun 04,, 05:17
A pretty cocky comment, eh? AKs have seen a LOT more action then any other firearm in the world history, and they never betrayed their owners, unlike most others. And "commies" have never stood down from a fight. And a real fight at that, not that picture perfect scenareos with weekend-camping type of accomodations, and endless "order-by-phone" ressuplies.
Like I said before, AK is almost a 60 (!!!) year old veteran that is still very very competent compared to the newbies and keeps proving itself in every single conflict every day. Starting with WW2 it has allready been proven that in modern warfare accuracy beyond 150-200 meters falls behind importance in behind reliability, and in a large scale war behind its cost and time to produce. If you need accurate automatic fire at distances of several hundred meters you use your squad machine gun, if you need even more accuracy beyond that you have your squad snipers. Spend a few weeks in the rubble of cities, sand, and dirt. with no reinforcements, and no time to dust off your weapon after every magazine and you will see AK's advantage. One clear dissadvantage of M-16 series is that the gases from the barrel directly enter the locking mechanism of the chamber, so residue must always be kept at a minimum. Drag your M-16 in sand or mud and you better find time to clean it out in the middle of a fight.

Current Russian weapon is AN-94, however due to horrible financial situation in Russian military it cannot fully replace the AKs in service. But if you want to compare current weapons use it, and we'll see how all other weapons measure up to the AN.

P.S I dont see how some other members on this board can trash countries that produced such fine weapons while their own country of origin has not invented as much as its own muzzle loader.


Golly whiz-- The folks in Ogden, Utah seem to think Browning was a US citizen. ;-)

Bill
24 Jun 04,, 17:51
I visited the Browning museum in Ogden, very nice displays.

John Moses Browning's father was also a world class gunsmith, and designed such weapons as the henry and sharps rifles of US Old west fame.

Both men were Americans.

Lunatock
24 Jun 04,, 18:01
The Brownings, The Winchesters. Any other American family that is responsible for inventing famous firearms, all have thier rightfull place under the feet of the Kalishnkov family. :rolleyes:

Praxus
24 Jun 04,, 18:58
For western armies the M16A2 is a better choice. You just have to clean it daily which is no problem.

Sniper
07 Jul 04,, 14:50
The M16 is way more accurate than the AK-47. If you can not hit the target than you fucked. Who cares if you can dip the AK-47 in mud. The AK-47 was made cheap and you get what you pay for. It is a very inaccurate peice of shit. The M16 is an accurate rifle. I do not know about anyone else but if I were going to war with a M16 I would feel save know that i could hit the target. If I had the AK-47 I would only hope that as the barrel is bouncing all over the place that it happens to end up in front of the target. It does not really matter if it can shoot it matters if you can hit the target. Oh yah and another thing just because it was used more does not mean shit. It only means that it was made to the old standards and with old technology. You only have to clean the M16 daily which I do not see a problem with. Another thing is since the the M16 is so light the soldiers do not have leave food behind just to have the same amount of ammo as a AK-47 user but Ak-47 users had to do that to keep up with M16 users.

Therefore M16's rule!!!!!

Officer of Engineers
07 Jul 04,, 14:55
Oh, come on. The AK series is bad but it's not that bad. The worst I've got is a 7.6 inch grouping at 100 metres. The best 4.2. On the C7, I get 3.4.

Mind you, on my Remington .30-06, 2.1 inch groups.

Bill
07 Jul 04,, 23:56
The best group i ever shot with my 'worn out' old M-21 was something like .6-.7" at 100 meters. :)

Officer of Engineers
08 Jul 04,, 03:01
My best shot ever was a heart shot at a moose 800 yards away with said .30-06. But I'm sure now you're going to put me to shame.

Alex
08 Jul 04,, 05:25
I'm not sure if I haven't said it before, but... I think it's very wrong to even try to compare M16 and AK-47...

1. Year of adoption by military. When every Russian soldier was armed with Ak-47, M16 hadn't existed at all. Why don't you try to compare M16 to Fedorov's assault rifle (1916) then?

2. Current mass infantry weapon. Ak-47 isn't widely used in Russian Army. Its manufacture was ceased long ago.
It's better to look at Ak-74 and later models.

3. Caliber. Excuse me, but to compare 7.62 to 5.56? 7.62 is too large for a hand gun and degrades accuracy, though contributes to power.
Let's look again at Ak-74, which caliber and power are closer to those of M-16.


Well, that' my 3 main points. I mentioned Ak74, but I didn't try to prove it's better or not worse than M-16. I just want to try to show better path for this discussion.

feynman
08 Jul 04,, 07:13
I'm not sure if I haven't said it before, but... I think it's very wrong to even try to compare M16 and AK-47...


The convo is just hypothetical. I don't see what's wrong with comparing X vs Y, no
matter what X and Y are (or even getting people's opinions on "should frogs wear
orange shoes when they swim?"). But certaintly you are entitled to your opinion ;)

I've really enjoyed the countless vs topics, no matter how "rediculous" they are. I
don't know much about military stuff, so it has been an entertaining way to learn lots
of new stuff.

Bill
08 Jul 04,, 09:35
Mine was a little farther sir.

(Never make a field grade look bad. Well- too bad, lol)

Fury
12 Jul 04,, 22:50
This is my first post to this forum, Hi everyone :biggrin: About the the topic, AK-47 vs M16, are they really comparable since the AK is ancient history and M16, I mean the first model used in vietnam isn't very state of the art either. I think a better comparison would be AK-74M vs M16A4 or why not AK-107/108 vs M16A4.
One thing about AK's accuracy, I know its not the best of its kind but when I was in the army I shot with Rk62 ( modification from AK47 ) up to 300 meters and hit a man sized target with fairly good chances, from 150 meters the grouping of ten shots wasn't any bigger than my left palm when I placed it on the center of the target. So thats my expririence with AK and Im looking forward to shoot with M16.

Fireworxx
14 Jul 04,, 08:41
well.... the ak series has more punch behind them... but the m-16 is more accurate, reliable etc...

Captain C
14 Jul 04,, 20:45
I think one thing that should be considered is where the weapon will be used. In the wet and muddy jungle, the AK-47 round will deflect less and the weapon may have less of a jamming problem. Anywhere else the M-16 is far more accurate and has other advantages such as: Lighter weight, quicker reaction/movement time (due to less weight to move) better sights, and less recoil allowing the operator to get back on target quicker.

One thing to consider is the M-16 is a 45 year old design in itself. Yes, modifications have been made to it over the years. Yes these modifications have by and large improved the weapon. Yes, the AK 47 has been improved as well (AK-74) The bottom line is, which weapon do you as an individual prefer for the situation you are going to be fighting in? Anywhere but very long engagement ranges and the jungle; I would choose the M16 A-4. Long ranges (to 800 yards) I would choose the M-14, jungle M-14 A-1...... :biggrin:

Bill
14 Jul 04,, 22:09
Just gimme an M-25 with dual optical/iron sights and you can call me a happy camper. :P

Fury
14 Jul 04,, 22:24
This a little off topic but here it goes...
Somewhere I heard that US marine corps is using Remington M40 sniper rifle, true of false?
Talking about good sniper rifles, long time ago I had a special opportunity to fire Sako TRG-42 which is chambered to .338 Lapua magnum round and I can tell its not to be taken lighty if you happen to be on the wrong end of barrel.

Praxus
15 Jul 04,, 01:02
The Marine Corps developed the M40, it is not built as an M40 by Remington. The M40 is a mix of parts from different weapons and custum parts. It's based mainly off of the Remington 700.

Bill
15 Jul 04,, 03:08
The Jarheads have been using the M-40 since Vietnam.
Tried and true weapon, and a very potent cartridge(7mm Rem Magnum).

The .338 Lapua is no joke either.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jul 04,, 03:25
7mm Rem Mag is a bit too much gun for me. How does the .338 Lapua compare? Been thinking should move off the .30-06 this year. It's a nice cartridge but been wanting some more punch and a flatter trajectory.

Praxus
15 Jul 04,, 03:45
I thought the M40 fired standered 7.62 x 51 mm NATO?

Bill
15 Jul 04,, 05:22
Some are.

Gunny hathcocks fired the Rem 7mm Magnum.

They are handbuilt custom rifles, i suppose one could probably use a wide variety of calibers as the basis if one so chose.

Captain C
15 Jul 04,, 23:23
I find a 16"/50 usually takes care of the long range sniping problem. Even if you miss you still hit!!!!! :biggrin:

Any caliber that starts with .338 is probably going to do more damage to your shoulder than a 7MM Mag...... Unless of course you have a proper muzzle brake on it. But a proper muzzle brake on a 7MM would only reduce it's kick by a similar margin......

Bill
16 Jul 04,, 00:46
Eh, i'm a .25-06 and SINCGARS radio kind of guy.

If the rifle can't handle it, the 155 mike mikes on the other end of the radio probably can, lol.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jul 04,, 00:57
Eh, i'm a .25-06 and SINCGARS radio kind of guy.

If the rifle can't handle it, the 155 mike mikes on the other end of the radio probably can, lol.


I want a leg of moose over my Christmas table, not hamburger.

Fury
16 Jul 04,, 17:55
Has anyone heard about a heavy sniper rifle called Gepard M6, I have seen pictures of it but dont remember the country of origin, Hungary I think but anyway. Gepard M6 fires 14.5x114mm catridge, its semiautomatic and the accuracy was something like 0.6-0.9 MOA at 1300 meters :) it falls into the same category with Croatian RT-20 sniper "rifle" and those things are more like cannons :biggrin:

Bill
16 Jul 04,, 18:57
Sounds like the east block version of the M-82A1.

I've never seen one.

Captain C
16 Jul 04,, 20:27
That one should debone your moose as well as butcher him for you at the same time..... Better odds than a Bowie vs. a Kodiak I guess

chinese boy
17 Jul 04,, 01:46
ak47 is obviously better than m16, but the problem with ak 47 that it's too traditional, it's a weapon designed for massive war, it's not designed for the special force.
the new ak 74 fixed all the problem with 47.

Fury
17 Jul 04,, 03:43
Oh get real! The AK-47 is a fossil and the 7.62x39 catridge is even older, Im amazed that FDF still uses that old M43 catridge, the 5.56mm bullet has more velocity, its generally more accurate and has more impact energy beyond 300 meters, at that range the old 7.62 round will lose most of its energy. If someone says that the 5.56mm/5.45mm round is strongly affected by wind then lets consider that for a while, the bullet flies like 950 meters per second, it takes less than half a second to reach optimum range 500 meters which I think is impossible to 7.62x39 or so I learned at FDF, the maximum effective range for 7.62 is 300 meters, beyond that its simple luck to hit a man size target. So how much wind really affects the flight pattern of 5.56 round, any experts out here who can tell? :cool:

Bill
17 Jul 04,, 09:16
Oh boy, another expert to tell us all how it is.

Welcome aboard Chinese boy...i think?

troung
17 Jul 04,, 23:35
Hmm…

Indonesia dropped with 7.62x51mm BM-59 (similar to M-14) for the 7.62x39mm AK-47 then dropped that for the 5.56x45mm M-16A1 and then for the FN-FNC/SS-1 of the same caliber. Just an example of a nation in combat getting what they think is best. The only people in Indonesia which use the AK-47 as a stanard rifle are naval special forces (divers who do not get into many shoot outs) and militia men who are around to shoot villagers. Even thier elite units (Kostrad for example) mostly use the FN-FNC and M-16A1 along with the M-249 for heavier support.

The only edge the AK-47 has seems in really rough handling. As a combat weapon the M-16 family seems to be the more popular around the world.

I personally figure the 5.56mm M-16s are more capable then the AK-47s in terms of accuracy and range as well as having less weight, which are things that matter in wartime.

Fury
18 Jul 04,, 00:01
As much as I loath the AK-47 I would still take it over M16 but only when I go to the rifle range, in combat situation my weapon is PKM mahcinegun since I was a squad mahcinegunner in army :biggrin:
The main reason I like AK more is the price, M16 costs about 1300-1900 euros depending on the variant while you can get an AK with just 250 euros in good working condition. Here in Finland the M16 along with H&K G3 is quite popular and most people ingore the high price but they must have some extra cash ;)

Bill
18 Jul 04,, 12:11
Machinegunners were among my favorite targets. :)

Fury
18 Jul 04,, 12:42
Obvious :biggrin:

s_qwert63
18 Jul 04,, 16:59
The only edge the AK-47 has seems in really rough handling. As a combat weapon the M-16 family seems to be the more popular around the world.


Really?
Is that why over 100 million AK's were made, as opposed to about 15 million M16's?
These simple facts prove you outright wrong.

s_qwert63
18 Jul 04,, 17:00
Machinegunners were among my favorite targets. :)


Have you ever shot any?
(Besides OPFOR in training)

Bill
19 Jul 04,, 02:50
I never engaged a uniformed target below the rank of Major, if you must know.

Obviously that means no, i've never shot a machinegunner. Wasted lots of them in various field problems though.

Order of targeting was as a general rule:

1) Ranking enemy officer
2) Any enemy officer
3) Anyone that looks like an enemy officer trying not to look at an enemy officer(binoculars, pistol, cleaner uniform than the others, map case, polished boots, soft cap instead of helmet, chinstrap unbuckled, etc, etc).
4) RTOs
5) NCOs
6) Machinegunners/HW troops(Dragon, AT-4, Grenadier, etc, etc)

As a general rule 'regular' riflemen were only engaged if we were supporting a friendly unit or operation. If left to our own devices, we generally didn't shoot at them at all. Wasn't worth giving up your position over.

Does that answer your question satisfactorally?

troung
19 Jul 04,, 04:17
“Is that why over 100 million AK's were made, as opposed to about 15 million M16's? These simple facts prove you outright wrong.”

Look at the end users.

Nations with money who know what they want seem to go towards the M-16 family rather then the AK-47. Even French Special Forces make use of the CAR-15/M-4 along with units from the UK, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and forces all over Asia and the Middle East along with South America.

Just becuase a gun is made in bigger numbers and exported for free to friends (Vietnam, China, Tanzania, North Korea, Warpac, Laos, Cambodia etc...) does not mean it is better.

The AK-47 is a nice combat weapon but in terms of important things such as accuracy and weight it comes up short. The M-16 is lighter and more accurate in battle conditions as well as being reliable.

French SF, Brunie SF, Kostrad trooper, ARVN paratrooper, Ecuadorian SF........

Officer of Engineers
19 Jul 04,, 18:45
I never engaged a uniformed target below the rank of Major, if you must know.

I don't know about the Brigadier but Thanks a lot. *** Cold hand just grab my spine ***

Bill
19 Jul 04,, 23:33
What can i say sir, i'm very selective about whom i shoot at. ;)

Carnage_59
24 Jul 04,, 00:16
AK's aren't shit for accuracy after the first shot. And try comparing a Kalishnakrap to the M-14.

I've heard about the accuracy issue time and time again. Beyond 150-200 yards, an AK loses accuarcy quickly. But the dadgum thing NEVER jam. Kalashnikov was interviewed by the History Channel about eight years ago... he designed it for RELIABILITY.

Now, if you want AK reliability and approach M-16 accuracy, try a VEPR.

If I was in a nasty situation, out in the mud, swamp, jungle, desert.... I'll take an AK any day.

Bill
24 Jul 04,, 00:26
You can have it, and someone like me will shoot you from a distance where you can't return fire. :biggrin:

Lunatock
24 Jul 04,, 01:11
I've heard about the accuracy issue time and time again. Beyond 150-200 yards, an AK loses accuarcy quickly. But the dadgum thing NEVER jam. Kalashnikov was interviewed by the History Channel about eight years ago... he designed it for RELIABILITY.

Now, if you want AK reliability and approach M-16 accuracy, try a VEPR.

If I was in a nasty situation, out in the mud, swamp, jungle, desert.... I'll take an AK any day.

Same thing for the M-14. They were preferred if not made for the swampy area's during Vietnam. Just as reliable as an AK, and chances are more accurate.

Bill
24 Jul 04,, 03:51
The M-14 is a damned accurate weapon to 500 meters with iron sights.

eMGee
24 Jul 04,, 13:41
Comparing the AK-47 with the M-16 is not fair. The AK-47 is a far older weapon, (late) post-WWII actualy, while there are many newer Kalashnikov models that are quite accurate and have very advanced recoil supression (dual gas-regulation pistons in opposite directions; such as on the AK-103, AK-105, AK-107 etc.)

Not to mention the AN-94 "Abakan", although no "Kalashinkov", which has (by now) become the standard issue rifle of the Spetsnaz and it was quoted to be one of the most advanced assault rifles in the world. (With it's impressive ~1800 RPM bursts).

s_qwert63
24 Jul 04,, 23:08
Look at the end users.
Even French Special Forces make use of the CAR-15/M-4 along with units from the UK, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and forces all over Asia and the Middle East along with South America.

This might have more to do with which camp the countries belonged to. All of the ones you mentioned leant more towards the Western camp.

However, even the Israeli Special Forces used the AK.


The AK-47 is a nice combat weapon but in terms of important things such as accuracy and weight it comes up short. The M-16 is lighter and more accurate in battle conditions as well as being reliable.


Reliable? Not as reliable as the AK!

Ever heard of the AKM?
There were no more AK47's produced in the USSR since 1959 FYI.
The AKM empty, weighed roughly as much as the M16. It has a compensator, and is far more robust and reliable than the AK47, while at the same time it was cheaper to manufacture.

Praxus
25 Jul 04,, 00:11
However, even the Israeli Special Forces used the AK.

Look at one their enemies use.

All IDF people I ahve talked to tell me the M16 is supperior.

troung
25 Jul 04,, 06:20
“However, even the Israeli Special Forces used the AK.”

And they replaced them with the CAR-15/M-4. They prefer the M-16 family. They used the AK-47/AKM rather then the FN-FAL. They then replaced the AKs with M-16 based firearms.

Same with the Indonesians who replaced AK-47/AKMs with the M-16 family.

“Reliable? Not as reliable as the AK!”

The people who find their M-16s unreliable happen to be too lazy to clean them. Troops in combat use M-16s daily all around the world so there is no reliability problem with the gun provided you have the brains to clean it. If you’re too lazy to clean your gun then you deserve to have it jam up on you.

Fury
25 Jul 04,, 08:53
“However, even the Israeli Special Forces used the AK.”

And they replaced them with the CAR-15/M-4. They prefer the M-16 family. They used the AK-47/AKM rather then the FN-FAL. They then replaced the AKs with M-16 based firearms.

Same with the Indonesians who replaced AK-47/AKMs with the M-16 family.

“Reliable? Not as reliable as the AK!”

The people who find their M-16s unreliable happen to be too lazy to clean them. Troops in combat use M-16s daily all around the world so there is no reliability problem with the gun provided you have the brains to clean it. If you’re too lazy to clean your gun then you deserve to have it jam up on you.

Good point :)

eMGee
25 Jul 04,, 10:28
I thought the Indonesians mainly used the FNC and Steyr AUG.

s_qwert63
25 Jul 04,, 13:40
And they replaced them with the CAR-15/M-4. They prefer the M-16 family. They used the AK-47/AKM rather then the FN-FAL. They then replaced the AKs with M-16 based firearms.

The replacement was mainly due to the proliferation of the M16 family in the western camp.
Also the Israeli's invented their own AK for the 5.56mm, the Galil, but the only reason why it is not used as widely as the M16 is because it would cost more to make Galils than to buy/get M16's from America.


Same with the Indonesians who replaced AK-47/AKMs with the M-16 family.

Same reason, they needed 5.56mm weapons.


The people who find their M-16s unreliable happen to be too lazy to clean them. Troops in combat use M-16s daily all around the world so there is no reliability problem with the gun provided you have the brains to clean it. If you’re too lazy to clean your gun then you deserve to have it jam up on you.

All that put to the side, the M16 is still nowhere nearby an AK when it comes to robustness and reliability.

Bill
25 Jul 04,, 19:54
A given, but an AK is nowhere near as accurate as an M-16.

Each has it's advantadges, but for a professional soldier who will keep his weapon clean the M-16A2 is the better choice.

eMGee
25 Jul 04,, 20:53
A given, but an AK is nowhere near as accurate as an M-16.


AK-107 is pretty accurate, I'm not sure what it's exact effective range is (and with which caliber the longest; 7.62 or 5.45), but it sure as hell is very accurate. Especially compared to the AK-47, AKM and AK-74.



Each has it's advantadges, but for a professional soldier who will keep his weapon clean the M-16A2 is the better choice.

The АН-94 "Абакан" (AN-94 "Abakan"), although no Kalashnikov derrivative, has an effective range of 700 meters, that's about ~250 more compared to the M-16 A2! Also, I don't see any AR-15/M-16 derrivative, and the M-16 A2 in particular (with it's single- and burst-fire trigger groups), being able to do ~1800 RPM bursts (http://club.guns.ru/images/video/an94.rm) ;)

To think of it, even the AK-74M has an effective range of 500m (unlike the rather tricky 400 of the AK-47 series). Which comes very close to the M-16's.

Fury
25 Jul 04,, 20:58
Those are just numbers on paper, when it comes to real combat situation the gun is as accurate as the soldier firing it, and if a soldier can't keep his/her nerves together under enemy fire then the effective range drops dramatically.

troung
25 Jul 04,, 21:02
“Also the Israeli's invented their own AK for the 5.56mm, the Galil, but the only reason why it is not used as widely as the M16 is because it would cost more to make Galils than to buy/get M16's from America.”

No they had a full stock of Galils. The M-16/M-4 replaced them. They had plenty of Galils to arm their combat and support units. They found the M-16 superior to both the Galil and AK-47/AKM.

“Same reason, they needed 5.56mm weapons.”

Hell even back when they were mostly supplied by the USSR they still preferred the AR-15 as opposed to the AK-47/AKM on cross border raids during the 1960s. They located all the AR-15s they could find (they had been issued to police units) and used them and not for deniability factors either (as Commonwealth forces did not use it at the time). The AR-15 was lighter and more accurate then the AK-47/AKMs they got from the USSR.

Of course I’m talking about professional soldiers here…

hey10103
26 Jul 04,, 02:03
Okay, listen up, im tired of the arguing and bickering...listen i consulted an EXPERT on guns which the people who think M16s are better then AK's are NOT....no offense, if you take offense it shows how much you care about your usless opinion....

PRO'S OF THE M16

inexpensive, you can buy them anywhere and low cost for ammo, small round means little kickback

CON'S OF THE M16 (these count for all M16s/AR's/ and M4's

because of the small rounds, the bullets, when shot, can be put off course by blades of grass and leaves THIS MEANS THEY ARE USLESS IN WAR PEOPLE, UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO STAND UP EACH TIME YOU FIRE!

small rounds mean little power, this means THEY ARE INNACURATE AT GREAT DISTANCES, THEY ARE NOT SNIPER RIFLE SUBS!!

alot of parts, this means it can JAM if little or ANY sand gets in the cracks, many soliders in the war accidentally brushed sand on their M16s when picking them up and they would NOT fire...OKAY THAT RENDERS THE M16 USLESS

oh and another thing, the M16 is going to be taken out of the assembally line for these reasons, plus it is gas powered...not GAS gas, but like compressed air and a bullet because it is so weak

now for the AK-47

PRO'S

Massive firepower
VERY POWERFUL,
almost never jams
made of wood and metal NOT PLASTIC LIKE THE M16
can reach great distances (this does not mean acurate)
ONE SHOT ONE KILL
can be bought anywhere
cheap
50 caliber bullets

CON'S

innacurate at great distances
expensive bullets
heavy
and has massive kick


WHO WINS...OVERALL THE AK-47, THATS THE END OF IT!!! suck it up all the M16 lovers, the M16 is going out of business

Praxus
26 Jul 04,, 02:05
Lololololololol

hey10103
26 Jul 04,, 02:13
ok, ive been requested to lay off the M16, ok, it is a gun used in the veitnam war, but many soliders had trouble with it and used the AK's from the Vietnames

Praxus
26 Jul 04,, 02:17
ok, ive been requested to lay off the M16, ok, it is a gun used in the veitnam war, but many soliders had trouble with it and used the AK's from the Vietnames

I'm no fan of the M16, but the AK-47 is incredibly inacurate.

hey10103
26 Jul 04,, 02:19
i know but in a firefight, whos aiming, would you rather take 4 shots to kill or 1-2 shots...if only the AK47 was more acurate, which is why they are making a sniper rifle version of it

eMGee
26 Jul 04,, 02:31
i know but in a firefight, whos aiming, would you rather take 4 shots to kill or 1-2 shots...if only the AK47 was more acurate, which is why they are making a sniper rifle version of it
And to what are you refering to?

Praxus
26 Jul 04,, 02:35
i know but in a firefight, whos aiming, would you rather take 4 shots to kill or 1-2 shots...if only the AK47 was more acurate, which is why they are making a sniper rifle version of it

It may take four shots to incapacitate the enemy, but it takes only 1 to kill an enemy.

The M14 is almost as reliable as the AK-47 and it is an extremely acurate weapon. The action created by Garand is one of the best if not the best ever designed as far as reliability and accuracy goes.

Officer of Engineers
26 Jul 04,, 02:41
I will settle this.

You get what the QM gives you and you will live with it and God help you if you bring it back in any condition other than perfect.

End of debate.

HawkEye
26 Jul 04,, 03:06
Don't like the M16? Think it doesnt kill fast enough?

Grab a M249.

Not enough stopping power with the M249 for your tastes?

Hump a M60.


One of the problems with having an enemy rifle is getting the ammo for it in a firefight.... what if there are no dead enemy close to you to pull ammo from?
What if there are dead troops you once called brothers in arms laying all around you.... but the ammo they have on their dead bodies does not fit your weapon of choice..... and even not being in a firefight with the chance to kill the enemy and take what ammo he does have means you will have to buy on the black market rounds for your enemy rifle.

AK47 is a very cheap weapon in the realm of todays Military Hardwear..... if it was all that Army Ordnance would be passing them out by the train car load IMO.

My father used the M14 in Vietnam he liked it, as did those around him.... there are many weapons to chose from now days though..... I like the SAW but if I was going to be shooting people in large numbers..... I'd much rather have a M60..... If I just needed something to have on the job.... I like the M9 9mm Pistol.



HawkEye

Bill
26 Jul 04,, 03:22
Hey007whatever your name is, thanx for taking this conversation to the point of ridiculousness.

Alex
26 Jul 04,, 03:55
Don't like the M16? Think it doesnt kill fast enough?

Grab a M249.

Not enough stopping power with the M249 for your tastes?

Hump a M60.


Hey, M249 and M60 aren't assault rifles. Don't like AK? Take PK. Not enough? Take Kord. Not enough? There're AGS :biggrin:

Bill
26 Jul 04,, 06:53
For the maximum in portable firepower, i reccomend this...

Fury
26 Jul 04,, 08:44
I guess that's something you use to call for airstrikes and artillery support :)
PK has enough firepower for my needs and for supporting squad advance, one time I tried the 12.7mm NSV on vechile mount but that wasn't so practical since the Sisu armored personnel carrier doesn't come up with a turret so I felt a little naked been partially outside the vechile. Those NSV gunners are snipers favorite targets :biggrin:

s_qwert63
26 Jul 04,, 10:38
but the AK-47 is incredibly inacurate.

The first 1 -2 rounds are accurate, the rest might spray, but will you exactly fire at full auto at long ranges?

Another advantage that no one mentioned about the AK is that it can go full auto, while the most common M16's (A2/A3's) only have a 3 round burst option. So at CQB, the AK will have a huge advantage over the M16, esp. because it is also smaller.

The AK's can have a folding stock, while the M16 series family cannot, only a somewhat collapsable stock on the M4 perhaps, however it is NOT a folding stock. Therefore this gives the AK another advantage, in CQB.

Any AK rifle can be transformed into an RPK LMG, just by changing the barrel and possibly the stock.

The AK can be fed by any 7.62x39mm/5.45x39mm ammunition.
WHile the M16 operates at different efficiencies with different types of ammunition, such as the SS109/NATO/M193, if I am not mistaken, a certain type of ammunition causes more jams than the others.

The Kalashnikov is cheaper and easier to mass produce.

s_qwert63
26 Jul 04,, 11:10
The M14 is almost as reliable as the AK-47 and it is an extremely acurate weapon. The action created by Garand is one of the best if not the best ever designed as far as reliability and accuracy goes.

However the M14 is almost uncontrollable at full auto, and it's accuracy at full auto is also about as bad as the AK's in the hands of a normal soldier. It is also heavier than the AK.

Fury
26 Jul 04,, 11:41
Then what about AR-10, its like M16 with .308win, I suppose its not much better in full auto than M14.

s_qwert63
26 Jul 04,, 13:40
Then what about AR-10, its like M16 with .308win, I suppose its not much better in full auto than M14.


I think the reason why the AR-10 wasn't adopted was because it was too light for it's caliber.

eMGee
26 Jul 04,, 13:42
The AK can be fed by any 7.62x39mm/5.45x39mm ammunition.

Hey, don't forget about .223 Remington (5.56x45mm NATO)! ;)


AK-47, AKS-47, AKM, AK-103 and AK-104 - 7.62x39mm
AK-74, AKS-74, AK-74M, AKS-74M, AKS-74U, AK-105, AK-107, AEK-971* and AN-94* - 5.45x39mm
AK-101, AK-102 and AK-108 - 5.56x45mm

(* No Kalashnikov derrivative)



Then what about AR-10, its like M16 with .308win, I suppose its not much better in full auto than M14.
I don't think the AR-10 was ever going to be succesful as a battle rifle. Only as a semi-automatic sniper rifle, in later Stoner & Knight Armament incarnations.

Which speaking of, I think the only nation in the world that was ever interested in adopting the AR-10 was the Netherlands :)

s_qwert63
26 Jul 04,, 13:48
Hey, don't forget about .223 Remington (5.56x45mm NATO)! ;)

Exactly, put ANY 5.56x45mm into an AK101/102/108 and it will still fire without jamming.



Which speaking of, I think the only nation in the world that was ever interested in adopting the AR-10 was the Netherlands :)

It was produced for 3 years by Artellerie Inrichtingen and was meant as a LMG/SAW if I am not mistaken.

Fury
26 Jul 04,, 14:38
Finnish defense forces tested the AR-10 in 7.62x39 caliber to be as a new standard infantry rifle. I think this was in the early 60's and the AR-10 was a candidate along with AK-47 to replace the aging Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle which was used to end of 60's and well into the 70's. The AK was chosen as the base for the Rk62 and Rk95.
If AR-10 would have been chosen we would be shooting with M16s now :)

Officer of Engineers
26 Jul 04,, 15:18
Exactly, put ANY 5.56x45mm into an AK101/102/108 and it will still fire without jamming.

And you will get 5 inch groups instead of the mandatory 3 inch groups.

eMGee
26 Jul 04,, 16:24
The recoil handling/supression is pretty adequate on the AK-100 series. Which is very apparant in this particular, AK-USA, demonstration video (http://www.ak-103.com/images/vid_selffire102.mpg) (select-fire AK-102, in 5.56x45mm NATO).

Here's another nice AK-USA video (http://www.ak-103.com/images/vid_selfire_hi.wmv), featuring several AK-100 serie select-fire rifles.

Fury
26 Jul 04,, 17:04
And you will get 5 inch groups instead of the mandatory 3 inch groups.
What does that mean? I hate to repeat myself but a weapon is as accurate as the person firing it.

Officer of Engineers
26 Jul 04,, 17:31
What does that mean? I hate to repeat myself but a weapon is as accurate as the person firing it.

It means that after a 500 rounds per recruit, he should be able to shoot gold eight times out of ten.

Fury
26 Jul 04,, 17:43
Allright then :) Perhaps I misunderstood the message.

hey10103
27 Jul 04,, 07:19
okay, im not saying that the M60 is bad, i think it is VERY good, i know there are alotta better guns then the AK47, but this was about M16 VS AK47, not "is the ak better then all guns", and besides, none of the statistics will help the fact that the army has completely rejected the M16, they arnt making it, oh and hey, you know they are making a AK47 sniper rifle, it will be alot more acurate and used the same 50 caliber round, not the weak round the M16 uses, which can be deflected by grass and leaves, try shooting someone through a wooden blockade with a M16, it wont go through, use an AK and it will, dont get me wrong, the AK is innacurate, aaaand there are alot better guns....and and just so you know, the OICW gun, i dont know if you had heard of it....i will include an image, but it was VERY good, it was gunna be the ultimate weapon, until it was cancelled, it failed in power and other things, too much went wrong and it isnt coming out...http://www.circlevision.org/alliantaction/atk/scoop/oicw/oicw033002bg.jpg

and hey, the OICW even had exploding rounds, like shooting grenades, NOT A GRENADE LAUNCHER, but it is sad, it would have been great to see it in action...


-the contriversial messages i give are only based on my opion(s)....the reaserch i find on subjects is proffessional and was not altered in any way, they are only the truth, i support it, you can argue, but when it comes down to it, things like guns being taken out of the assembly line cannot be changed by arguments, although i appreciate all your reply's

hey10103
27 Jul 04,, 07:30
oh and another good thing to mention is this, you will have to use your imagination...you are in war, you see an enemy, you pick up your gun, you take aim, you have a head shot, you pull the trigger, and....click, youve just realised that you brushed some sand on your M16 or whatever, and the enemy sees you, your dead, think about it, you could used an M16 substitue, such as a different gun which is acurate but not unrelyable.....just think....thats all....this has happened in war by the way...




-the opinions express in my replys are not those of this web site, and all my facts and proffessional, i cannot change facts and am only telling you them without making them sound nicer then they are....i appreciate your reply's, thank you

griftadan
27 Jul 04,, 08:28
thats why the us is swithcing to the xm 8, the same as an m16 with the reliability of an ak

griftadan
27 Jul 04,, 08:37
[QUOTE..not the weak round the M16 uses, which can be deflected by grass and leaves, try shooting someone through a wooden blockade with a M16, it wont go through, use an AK and it will..[/QUOTE]

i dont know if you realize that the m16 is actually more powerfull then the ak, because the m16 uses faster flying ammunition. the bullet of an m16 flies at about 2200 fps while the ak47 only goes about 1600. plus upon impact with the body, the bullet of an m16 tumbles and does a shit load of dammage, while the aks bullet will go strait through. and i odnt know why people are hung up on this jamming thing, vietnam ended 30 years ago. the new a2s and m4a1s are some of the most reiable guns in the world. and to further that, the new xm models are supposed to perform better than the m16 and be more reliable than the ak so we can finally end this damn argument

Bill
27 Jul 04,, 08:52
The M855 cartridge of the M-16A2 has a muzzle velocity of 2850fps, the AK-47s 139gr projectile attains a muzzle velocity of 2350fps.

Bill
27 Jul 04,, 08:56
"Exactly, put ANY 5.56x45mm into an AK101/102/108 and it will still fire without jamming."

And it will still be innacurate compared to an M-16A2.

eMGee
27 Jul 04,, 09:42
"Exactly, put ANY 5.56x45mm into an AK101/102/108 and it will still fire without jamming."

And it will still be innacurate compared to an M-16A2.

The effective range is 500 meters of the AK-107/108, that's about the same as the M-16 A2's. Plus it has BARS (Balanced Automatics Recoil System) :)

http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/firearms/assault/img/ak107.jpg
AK-107

s_qwert63
27 Jul 04,, 12:12
i dont know if you realize that the m16 is actually more powerfull then the ak, because the m16 uses faster flying ammunition. the bullet of an m16 flies at about 2200 fps while the ak47 only goes about 1600. plus upon impact with the body, the bullet of an m16 tumbles and does a shit load of dammage, while the aks bullet will go strait through. and i odnt know why people are hung up on this jamming thing, vietnam ended 30 years ago. the new a2s and m4a1s are some of the most reiable guns in the world. and to further that, the new xm models are supposed to perform better than the m16 and be more reliable than the ak so we can finally end this damn argument

You provided yourself with an answer there.
Of course an M16 round will penetrate a wooden wall for example, but because the round is unstable and tumbles, the chance of the round following the same straight trajectory is quite slim.
Same happens with the 5.45mm AK round.

Fury
27 Jul 04,, 12:49
I don't undestand how AK is inaccurate compared to M16A2, how many of you has actually fired AK-108. AKs with 7.62x39 catridge may be inaccurate but not with 5.56mm not mention the balanced recoil system which reduces muzzlejump when fired on fullauto. AK or M16 I dont like either of them, I like the M14, G3 or FN-FAL type weapons with full powered .308win rifle catridge.

eMGee
27 Jul 04,, 12:57
I don't undestand how AK is inaccurate compared to M16A2, how many of you has actually fired AK-108. AKs with 7.62x39 catridge may be inaccurate but not with 5.56mm not mention the balanced recoil system which reduces muzzlejump when fired on fullauto.

The facts don't lie, the effective ranges of the AK-100 series are well documented and there are quite some videos on the Internet, of which I posted some aswell (if you scroll up in this thread), which more or less prove it.


This was said earlier in the thread, I was meaning to reply to it but forgot it till I stumbled upon it again today.


Indonesia dropped with 7.62x51mm BM-59 (similar to M-14)
The BM-59 comes closer to the M1 Garand, which Italy adopted after WWII, than to the M-14. It's basically a rechambered Italian-made M1 Garand with detachable box magazine. My uncle has used it while he served the military in Italy ;)

Bill
27 Jul 04,, 16:38
Squirt, the M855 cartridge is a very stable round. The earlier M193 was the unstable round. The M855 does not tumble at all in hard mediums, but does 'yaw' in soft tissue.

Bill
27 Jul 04,, 16:39
The reason the AK is innaccurate is the same reason it is so reliable.

There are no free lunches in life....the AK is no exception.

Bill
27 Jul 04,, 16:40
An M-14 IS an M-1 garand. The actions are identical.

Fury
27 Jul 04,, 17:01
An M-14 IS an M-1 garand. The actions are identical.

That's something I didn't knew. That M14 would be worth trying unfortunately its hard to find one from around. My opinion: screw the M16s and AKs The FN-FAL is just for me along with H&K G3. Im somewhat familiar with the FN-FAL since I've fired couple of hundred rounds with it but that was few years back, it doesn't kick that much for .308 caliber although I don't know about the full auto I guess you really have to be superman for that :biggrin:

eMGee
27 Jul 04,, 19:01
The reason the AK is innaccurate is the same reason it is so reliable.

There are no free lunches in life....the AK is no exception.
You have clearly never fired an AK-100 series rifle in your life, not to mention AN-94 Abakan :biggrin:

(Why don't you at least look at some of the information and videos that I posted in my previously in this thread?)



An M-14 IS an M-1 garand. The actions are identical.
I thought there were some changes made on the action. So it's also practically a rechambered, select-fire, M1 Garand eh?

Bill
27 Jul 04,, 19:12
If they've closed the tolerances to make it more accurate it's going to cost some reliability, that's all there is to it.

As i said, there are no free lunches in life.

Fury
27 Jul 04,, 19:15
Only few people get the chance to fire AN-94 because atleast what I know it is intended for spetsnaz only, the AN-94 is no doubt a great weapon.

eMGee
27 Jul 04,, 19:25
Only few people get the chance to fire AN-94 because atleast what I know it is intended for spetsnaz only, the AN-94 is no doubt a great weapon.
It's not intended for the Spetsnaz only, they were simply adopted earlier by the Spetsnaz. The regular army will follow soon, at current they're still using the AKM, AK-74, AK-74M, AK-101 etc. mostly (which aren't bad at all either; also as far as accuracy goes).


What I'm also looking forward at is the new Dragunov SVDK in the new caliber 9.3x64mm :cool: Very little is still known about it yet, but here's a cool picture:

http://club.guns.ru/images/convention/3.jpg

Fury
27 Jul 04,, 19:50
About that picture, what's that green weapon in the upper left corner partially visible, SV-98 maybe :confused: It also looks like Sako TRG-42 but Im probably looking through blue white glasses :biggrin:

eMGee
27 Jul 04,, 20:07
About that picture, what's that green weapon in the upper left corner partially visible, SV-98 maybe :confused: It also looks like Sako TRG-42 but Im probably looking through blue white glasses :biggrin:
Yes, that's a SV-98. The action is very different (based on the "Record-1" target rifle), but the furniture did indeed remind me of the Sako TRG-type rifles.

It's an extremely accurate sniper rifle in both 7.62x54mmR (Dragunov SVD) and 7.62x51mm (Winchester-NATO). Regular barrels are 25" cold hammer forged, as opposed deep drilling in the past, match grade with four grooves. It's used for special purposes, like hostage/terrorist situations (when surgical precision is required).

Here's a nice picture of it:
http://club.guns.ru/images/sv98/sv98-6.jpg
(By the looks of it it's being fired by the same operator ;))

s_qwert63
27 Jul 04,, 20:10
That Dragunov looks awesome!

s_qwert63
27 Jul 04,, 20:10
(By the looks of it it's being fired by the same operator ;))

I have an exact same pattern camouflage jumpsuit for Spetsnaz :D

eMGee
27 Jul 04,, 20:23
That Dragunov looks awesome!
Yeah :)



I have an exact same pattern camouflage jumpsuit for Spetsnaz :D
Cool, where did you get it? Russia? ;)

Fury
27 Jul 04,, 20:24
9.3x64mm is used in hunting rifles to shoot down big bad beasts :) Doesn't that SV-98 come in that caliber too :confused: or is my memory totally failing me. That 9.3mm serves the same purpose as .338 "minicannon"

eMGee
27 Jul 04,, 20:29
9.3x64mm is used in hunting rifles to shoot down big bad beasts :) Doesn't that SV-98 come in that caliber too :confused: or is my memory totally failing me. That 9.3mm serves the same purpose as .338 "minicannon"
It's a few milimeters thicker and one milimeter longer than the .30-'06 (M1 Garand) cartridge.

As for the SV-98, I haven't heard of plans for making a 9.3x64mm version of it. They probably will, if the SVDK becomes a huge success. It's a new caliber you know :)

s_qwert63
27 Jul 04,, 20:49
Cool, where did you get it? Russia? ;)

Nah in Kazakhstan, for... err it was about 30 euros.

Fury
27 Jul 04,, 20:59
That Dragunov is a nice competitor for M21 ;)

troung
27 Jul 04,, 21:50
“The first 1 -2 rounds are accurate, the rest might spray, but will you exactly fire at full auto at long ranges?”

Under most cases full auto firing is silly. And Iraqi can bang away on full auto with his AKM but they seemed to get dropped by accurate M-16A2 fire.

“Another advantage that no one mentioned about the AK is that it can go full auto, while the most common M16's (A2/A3's) only have a 3 round burst option. So at CQB, the AK will have a huge advantage over the M16, esp. because it is also smaller.”

M-16A1s can go full auto along with the C-7/8, CAR-15s, M-4s and modified M-16A2s. But full auto firing mostly wastes ammo. Machine gunners fire short aimed bursts while riflemen kill the enemy with accurate fire.

“The AK's can have a folding stock, while the M16 series family cannot, only a somewhat collapsable stock on the M4 perhaps, however it is NOT a folding stock. Therefore this gives the AK another advantage, in CQB.”

M-4s and CAR-15s can get pretty damn short for CQB. And the regular M-16 has also proven itself for CQB or have you never heard of An Loc, Quang Tri, Saigon, Mogadishu or countless other battles the M-16 was used in during stiff urban combat.

“Any AK rifle can be transformed into an RPK LMG, just by changing the barrel and possibly the stock.”

So you can fit make an M-16 into a LSW with a bipod and heavier barrel. And the RPK blows as a machine gun compared to saw the M-249, Negev or even Ultimax-100. The RPK as a machine gun is about as useful as the British LSW albeit more reliable. Its not a good suppressive weapon like the M-249 which can do sustained fire.

“The AK can be fed by any 7.62x39mm/5.45x39mm ammunition.”

And an M-16A1 can use basically any 5.56x45mm.

“The Kalashnikov is cheaper and easier to mass produce”

The M-16 is pretty easy to build and very easy to mass produce. The Philippines license builds the M-16A1 and upgraded many with a heavier handgrip as seen on the M-16A2.

hey10103
27 Jul 04,, 21:55
yeah thats why they did a test on a cement block and shot it with an M16 and it hardly did anything, while the AK47 blew it apart, yeah, that reeeally shows that the M16 is more powerful...oh and hey, this is an army complaint form for the M16...

Name the different categories of malfunctions.
• Failure to feed, chamber or lock
• Failure to fire cartridge
• Failure to Extract
• Failure to Eject

now, that was with the M16, i will admit, the M16 does have its pros, but the cons far outweigh it, nothing you say will bring back the M16 into combat, face it, it is not a qualified weapon to use, and listen, i am NOT saying our army should go and use the AK47....i am only saying that the AK is better then the M16, as weve seen, the AK has very little problems shooting, and by the way, please look at these statistics, i will give you the site at the end:

What is the muzzle velocity of the M16/A2 Rifle?
3,100 feet per second

Describe the ranges for the M16 Rifle.
• Maximum Range - 3,600 meters
• Max Effective Range for a Point Target - 550 meters
• Max Effective Range for an Area Target - 800 meters



now this is the AK47

Caliber: 7.62 x 39 mm M1943 round

Length: 870 mm

Weight: 4900 grams

Magazine: 30 rounds (standard)

Muzzle Velocity: 4200 meters/s

Cyclic Fire Rate: 600 rounds/min

Max Effective Range: 1500 meters

and please, before you reply, keep in mind that the army is discountinuing the manufacture of the M16, how good could it be if they dont want it in their army, no matter how good the quality is....it just has too much problems.

s_qwert63
27 Jul 04,, 22:10
Under most cases full auto firing is silly. And Iraqi can bang away on full auto with his AKM but they seemed to get dropped by accurate M-16A2 fire.

I wasn't asking you, I was being sarcastic.


M-16A1s can go full auto along with the C-7/8, CAR-15s, M-4s and modified M-16A2s.

But still, the majority of M16's do not have that capability.


M-4s and CAR-15s can get pretty damn short for CQB.

Still not as short as AKS/AK-74S/AKS-74U's can get


And the regular M-16 has also proven itself for CQB or have you never heard of An Loc, Quang Tri, Saigon, Mogadishu or countless other battles the M-16 was used in during stiff urban combat.

Not to mention that the AK was present in all those battles and proven itself as well as the M16.


The RPK as a machine gun is about as useful as the British LSW albeit more reliable. Its not a good suppressive weapon like the M-249 which can do sustained fire.

SAW aren't meant for prolonged sustaine fire.
That is what PKM's(on tripod), DShK's and NSV's are for.


And an M-16A1 can use basically any 5.56x45mm.

However, it will attain better performance with certain rounds and a worse performance with others.

eMGee
27 Jul 04,, 23:19
Under most cases full auto firing is silly. And Iraqi can bang away on full auto with his AKM but they seemed to get dropped by accurate M-16A2 fire.

That has very little to do with the gun :rolleyes:

By the way, AKM? I see mostly AK-47's in Iraq.



M-4s and CAR-15s can get pretty damn short for CQB. And the regular M-16 has also proven itself for CQB or have you never heard of An Loc, Quang Tri, Saigon, Mogadishu or countless other battles the M-16 was used in during stiff urban combat.
Still, you wouldn't ever be able to fold the stock completely. The only AR-15 type rifle I could think of that can actually do that is the Z-M LR-300 carbine:

http://www.army.lt/guns/gallery/L11.jpg

But from what I heard it's quite expensive to produce and (due to that?) not common at all in the military.



The RPK as a machine gun is about as useful as the British LSW albeit more reliable. Its not a good suppressive weapon like the M-249 which can do sustained fire.
Fuck no! :redface:

http://club.guns.ru/images/specops/25.jpg

The modernized RPKS it's quite favored by Russian troops in Chechenya. One of it's huge advantages is that it's extremely light, for a LMG and it has one of those foldable polyamide enforced fibreglass "full-stocks." But then, like s_qwert already pointed out, there are more "dedicated" solutions available such as the modern incarnations of the PKM.

http://gungallery.euweb.cz/Pict/RPKS-74.jpg



The M-16 is pretty easy to build and very easy to mass produce. The Philippines license builds the M-16A1 and upgraded many with a heavier handgrip as seen on the M-16A2.
Very easy to mass produce? Let's hope they are doing a better job than the Chinese! :biggrin:

http://www.darkinternational.com/Catalogue/Rifles/tn/thn.RL_M311Q.jpg

http://www.fulton-armory.com/CQCloseup_50.jpg

Bill
28 Jul 04,, 01:46
It has been my experience that folding stocks suck.

The M-249 can be had with a folding stock(Para version). Know what advantadge that gives it?

None.

PS- linking the word sniper with the word dragunov is offensive, hehehehe. ;)

Officer of Engineers
28 Jul 04,, 03:27
hey10103,

I feel embarassed for you. You're speaking from a point of ignorance. The M16 series have proven its worth in several armies and in direct combat. I have had no problems with the weapon in combat.

Another thing, there are several former uniformed members here and at least one directly involved in the C7 project (the best thing about the C7 is the standard 4x low light scope) which improves accuracy tremendously over the standard iron sights of the AK series (can anyone tell me why no one went with a peep sight as a low tech sight on military rifles?).

We know very well the history of the M-16, please don't embarrass yourself any further.

Lunatock
28 Jul 04,, 04:04
hey10103,

I feel embarassed for you. You're speaking from a point of ignorance. The M16 series have proven its worth in several armies and in direct combat. I have had no problems with the weapon in combat.

Another thing, there are several former uniformed members here and at least one directly involved in the C7 project (the best thing about the C7 is the standard 4x low light scope) which improves accuracy tremendously over the standard iron sights of the AK series (can anyone tell me why no one went with a peep sight as a low tech sight on military rifles?).

We know very well the history of the M-16, please don't embarrass yourself any further.

Since this board was made it has started to slightly feel like more of a shame we never went to war against the soviets. What with hearing misguided claims like hundreds of Abrams being destroyed by Iraqi T-72's and M16 5.56 rounds not being strong enough to even go through blades of grass. :rolleyes:

Blademaster
28 Jul 04,, 04:19
Lunatock, now you are just talking out of your ass.

Yeah the western armies may have the technological edge, but that hardly matters when the Soviet has enough conventional bombs, weapons, and men to turn any battle into a meatgrinder. That's where technology edge disappears and the ability to withstand attrition comes into favor.

Officer of Engineers
28 Jul 04,, 04:43
Actually, neither the Warsaw Pact nor NATO was thinking in terms of attrition. I think we both would see alot of mushroom clouds before the full weight of either side can be brought to bear. Us with REFORGER and the Soviets with 450,000 men they had in Siberia.

While the Soviets was expecting to burn alot of men and machines to get at their objectives, their doctrines do not include killing each and everyone of us. They want to fix the main force in place while going after the strategic reserves (aka the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, aka my freaking ass). They'll throw the proverbial kitchen sink at any breakthrough but once through, they would not be doing a Genghis Khan.

There is a time limit to which they have to achieve their OPOBJs. Once REFORGER got underway, it would be damned hard for them to keep their momentum and God help them if we even kept our M60s/Centurians against their T-34 echelon. So, they wouldn't be wasting time in meatgrinders. They would have to destroy our abilities to act and react and that essentially mean the destruction of NATO's strategic reserves.

We, on the other hand, started thinking about throwing airborned battle groups and task forces at their 3rd and 4th echelon assembly points. Hit them before they're ready and deny them the ability to carry out their very well rehersed battle plan.

This being all said, for those of us at the Fulda Gap, I don't care what the doctrines of both sides say, it would have been a meatgrinder for each and everyone of us no matter which uniform we wore. Theory is all nice and dandy but when it's raining steel, you can't tell me that they don't want to turn me into hamburger.

troung
28 Jul 04,, 05:00
“ill not as short as AKS/AK-74S/AKS-74U's can get”

The stocks are there for carriage issues for tankers and paratroopers. If you want to spray blindly into a room you might as well save the ammo and throw in a grenade.

“But still, the majority of M16's do not have that capability.”

The majority of M-16s in USA service yes. Around the world the most common one is the M-16A1 which is fully automatic.

“Not to mention that the AK was present in all those battles and proven itself as well as the M16.”

Be that as it may it goes to show the M-16 is fully able to do CQB. You don’t find ARVN paratroopers at An Loc ditching their M-16A1s for the AKMS now do you?

“SAW aren't meant for prolonged sustaine fire. That is what PKM's(on tripod), DShK's and NSV's are for.”

But with changing barrels on the M-249 you can sustain fire. The RPK simply blows as a light machine gun.

“now, that was with the M16, i will admit, the M16 does have its pros, but the cons far outweigh it, nothing you say will bring back the M16 into combat, face it, it is not a qualified weapon to use, and listen, i am NOT saying our army should go and use the AK47....i am only saying that the AK is better then the M16, as weve seen”

So is accuracy, versatility and lightweight a con?

“Max Effective Range: 1500 meters”

Try 300 meters on a good day…

Lunatock
28 Jul 04,, 05:04
Lunatock, now you are just talking out of your ass.

Yeah the western armies may have the technological edge, but that hardly matters when the Soviet has enough conventional bombs, weapons, and men to turn any battle into a meatgrinder. That's where technology edge disappears and the ability to withstand attrition comes into favor.

Riiiiight. Note that those were quotes by someone OTHER than me.

We've already routed Russian armed & trained Iraqi forces. And if you want to talk about attrition there wass that one U.S. Army unit holed up at Archangel, holding thier position & holding off the Russians for at least a year.

Officer of Engineers
28 Jul 04,, 05:10
We've already routed Russian armed & trained Iraqi forces.

Whoa! And the US lost against the Soviet trained and armed North Vietnam Army (all right, we know the details but doesn't change the perception). I wouldn't use the Iraqis as a measure of Russian cbt effect.

Bill
28 Jul 04,, 05:29
Hey, i heard of that unit Luna!

What was their motto? ;)

A huge part of the NATO fight against the defunct Soviet Union in Europe would've rested on two things: The Air Force, and the US 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment.

If the Air Force won air superiority quickly, i don't care how many tanks the Reds had, at that point they're just targets.

If not, it gets ugly.

If the US 11th ACR manages to fight a succesful fighting withdrawal and keep the 1st Soviet Shock Army in front of them until the other primary NATO units in W. Germany were in sound defensive positions, then the NATO allies would have equal footing vs the Russian numerical advantadge(attacking into fortified defenses has traditionally called for a 4:1 numerical superiority. ODS was one of the very few exceptions to that rule).

If the US 11th ACR buckles, or does not maintain contact......it gets real ugly.

The US 11th ACR is as fine a mechanzied force as exists in the world, but it was a mighty tall order for one reinforced Bde to engage a whole Army in a running fight that would've covered about 30-40 kilometers. If anyone could've done it, it was the 11th Cav, but i don't know how much i'd have liked their chances.

Officer of Engineers
28 Jul 04,, 05:37
Well, Snipe, as you said before, it was the USN to the rescue. Even if the Soviets managed to get pass 11ACR, if REFORGER worked, the Soviets would have been out of steam and pitting T-34s against M1A1s. If the Soviets managed to stop REFORGER ... well, I tried extremely hard not to think what kind of fish was eating me.

Bill
28 Jul 04,, 08:49
Yeah, i agree with that. REFORGER would've put too much power into Europe for the Soviets to deal with, so i suppose in the end it really rested on the USN. Of course, at the time they had a 600 ship navy(USN alone).

The USNs plan was to invade the Kola with a couple MADs to shut down the Backfires and close the sub bases, not that many people knew that.

The USN ran a practice run of the Op in the late 80s. We had the Kitty Hawk battlegroup within 50 miles of the Soviet coastline up by the Kola for 3 days before they realized we were there.

I bet they shit a brick when they found out the Yankees were that close, hehehe.

Still, if the USAF won the airbattle quickly, or the Black Horse did it's job(mission impossible?), REFORGER might not have even been neccesary. The Sov's had a huge military, but they also had a whole lot of pure junk once you chewed up the spearhead and first couple echelons.

I always thought their advance in echelon doctrine pretty much sucked. LandAir was way more than that doctrine could handle, at least in my opinion.

Blademaster
28 Jul 04,, 14:30
Yeah, i agree with that. REFORGER would've put too much power into Europe for the Soviets to deal with, so i suppose in the end it really rested on the USN. Of course, at the time they had a 600 ship navy(USN alone).

The USNs plan was to invade the Kola with a couple MADs to shut down the Backfires and close the sub bases, not that many people knew that.

The USN ran a practice run of the Op in the late 80s. We had the Kitty Hawk battlegroup within 50 miles of the Soviet coastline up by the Kola for 3 days before they realized we were there.

I bet they shit a brick when they found out the Yankees were that close, hehehe.

Still, if the USAF won the airbattle quickly, or the Black Horse did it's job(mission impossible?), REFORGER might not have even been neccesary. The Sov's had a huge military, but they also had a whole lot of pure junk once you chewed up the spearhead and first couple echelons.

I always thought their advance in echelon doctrine pretty much sucked. LandAir was way more than that doctrine could handle, at least in my opinion.


Hmmm, do you think that the Soviet were just observing the Americans and see what tricks that Americans would reveal? that the Soviets didn't want to reveal their military secrets in a hasty manner?

Just wondering. If this is true, then it must be the same for Soviet naval forces when they get near to the American coast, no?

eMGee
28 Jul 04,, 14:40
Now we're discussing naval warfare? I could've sworn this thread was originally about something else... :rolleyes:

Fury
28 Jul 04,, 15:33
m16 jams and overheats too much, while you can take an ak47 and dip it in mud and throw it down a cliff and it will still fire.

Just that people won't forget what we were originally talking about. The first operational M16s did jam and overheat and they had only 20 rds in their magazines, that's a fact but with the inrtoduction of M16A1 those problems were fixed and M16 works fine properly cleaned.

Bill
28 Jul 04,, 19:11
That would be out of Character for the Sovs.

Whenever they detected any American assets they swarmed all over them like locusts....which they did do when they finally detected the Kitty Hawk.

The Ocean is a vast expanse of nothing, it is very easy to hide in....even for a whole battlegroup- even today.

Bill
28 Jul 04,, 19:12
I'll agree with you there Fury- the original M-16 was junk. The M-16A1 was pretty crappy too if you ask me. The A2 however, is a damned fine weapon.

Fury
28 Jul 04,, 20:37
I bet alot of U.S marines during vietnam war would have chosen M14 over the original M16, lets compare the two weapons they are both full automatic both have 20 rds in magazines but that's where the similarities end. M14 is heavier (weights about 4.8 kg I guess :confused: ) it fires 7.62x51 round and when it comes to reliability the M14 is light years ahead of the first M16 model.
Atleast I would have chosen M14 without a second thought.

Praxus
28 Jul 04,, 20:57
The M14 action(Garands) is still one of the most reliable designs ever created, and it still is. The reliability factor now adays is more of a secondary issue to accuracy and knock down punch. I dunno about accuracy but it has over twice the knockdown punch as the M16. Which means it can penetrate walls of buildings at longer ranges, and of course can penetrate body armor much easier.

Bill
28 Jul 04,, 21:31
I'd take an M-14/21/25 over any battlerifle in existence.

Of course, i am slightly biased. :biggrin:

eMGee
28 Jul 04,, 22:58
I'd take either an AN-94 with Kobra sight or one of those modern Dragunov SVDK's over anything :cool:

Bill
29 Jul 04,, 00:20
Drunkanov huh?

OK, wanna have a shoot-out at 1000 meters, best man wins?

Hehehehe.

I will take a new build Springfield M-21, naturally.

Praxus
29 Jul 04,, 00:22
That's not fair, guns are illegal in the Netherlands.

troung
29 Jul 04,, 00:45
A nice article on the AN-94

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as08-e.htm


"Originally it was intended to replace most, if not all, AK-74 rifles in the Russian service, but it soon turned out that the complete replacement is impossible due to the economical (mostly) and some other reasons. At the present time the AN-94 is considered as the "professionals' choice", and is used in limited numbers by the elite forces of the Russian Army, police and Internal Affairs Ministry. The main body of the Russian armed forces are still armed with the Kalashnikov assault rifles, and AK-type rifles will remain in service for a long time, most probably

In the single shots or the full auto mode, there's no significant advantages over the AK-74. At this point, one can ask "is all this complication of the AN-94 mechanism worth the achieved results"? From my point of view, there's no simple answer. The trained professional warrior can use the 2-rounds burst capability of AN-94 to the great degree of success, but prior to this, a lot of time and resources should be spent to train this professional soldier to use AN-94 effectively. Unlike the more common designs, like the Russian Kalashnikov or American M16 rifles and others, the AN-94 internals are not "user friendly", and it took weeks, if not months, to get used to this rifle, its assembly / disassembly and maintenance procedures. It is also more expensive to made and maintain, than the AK-74. From all this it is obvious why this very interesting rifle hardly will see any widespread service, at least with the Russian Army (which at this moment is conscripted by the large, and on a low budget). On the other hand, some elite units can make a good use for major advantages of the AN-94.

From the personal, but trustworthy reports I can add the following. First, the ergonomics of the AN-94 is not the best one. The shape of the pistol grip, and the inclined from the vertical plane magazine are way from being comfortable. The rear diopter sight has small apertures, not protected from dirt, and is hard to clean in the battle conditions. It also has sharp edges and can snag in the clothes or make a scratches on the skin when handled roughly. The grenade launcher mount under the barrel is a little weird, since it uses a large "bridge" between the stock and the launcher. The folding butt interferes with the trigger when folded, and the fire selector, which is separated from the safety, is hard to operate, especially when wet. On the other hand, as said above, in the 2-rounds burst it is very accurate and offers a great advantage in the terminal effectiveness over the standard single shot mode."



Me I would take what ever I get issued and that my supply master will give me bullets for. If that is a K-98K well I have no choice.... :rolleyes:

troung
29 Jul 04,, 01:02
“By the way, AKM? I see mostly aK-47’s in Iraq”

They have stocks of AKMs. Look harder.

“Very easy to mass produce? Let's hope they are doing a better job than the Chinese!”

They are fully able to build them and have done so for years now.

“The modernized RPKS it's quite favored by Russian troops in Chechenya.”

As compared to the RPK or RPK-74…

hey10103
29 Jul 04,, 04:01
yeah, plus the M16 fires 5.56mm rounds, thats smaller then the normal 9mm round most handguns take. and much smaller then the 0.50caliber round the AK47 takes...and hey lets fave it, if i aint fit for thie military, it aint fit for anyone....plus i find that if you throw a M16 on cement it wont work, and it has some hard plastic parts, as with the AK47 it has metal and wood, good for butting people in the head.

Officer of Engineers
29 Jul 04,, 04:29
yeah, plus the M16 fires 5.56mm rounds, thats smaller then the normal 9mm round most handguns take. and much smaller then the 0.50caliber round the AK47 takes...and hey lets fave it, if i aint fit for thie military, it aint fit for anyone....plus i find that if you throw a M16 on cement it wont work, and it has some hard plastic parts, as with the AK47 it has metal and wood, good for butting people in the head.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME!!!!!!

Bill
29 Jul 04,, 04:31
I guess it's time to ban another troll.

Luna, feel like getting it taken care of?

LOL

Lunatock
29 Jul 04,, 04:42
Your most kind. I'll have to remember the next one is all yours.

troung
29 Jul 04,, 05:53
“yeah, plus the M16 fires 5.56mm rounds, thats smaller then the normal 9mm round most handguns take. and much smaller then the 0.50caliber round the AK47 takes...and hey lets fave it, if i aint fit for thie military, it aint fit for anyone....plus i find that if you throw a M16 on cement it wont work, and it has some hard plastic parts, as with the AK47 it has metal and wood, good for butting people in the head.”

So you watch lame programs on the discovery channel huh? The AK-47/AMK use a 7.62x39mm round, the 9mm round in normally 9x19mm in the west and 9x18mm in Russia. The M-16 uses the 5.56x45mm.

eMGee
29 Jul 04,, 09:41
Drunkanov huh?
Har har, funny.



OK, wanna have a shoot-out at 1000 meters, best man wins?
If I, or you, could get me a SVDK and allow me some time to practise, sure.



Hehehehe.

I will take a new build Springfield M-21, naturally.

Hehehehe.

And you keep repeating yourself.



That's not fair, guns are illegal in the Netherlands.
Unless you get a license. But it takes long and I'm sure you can't own a Dragunov SVD[S/K] or any (select-fire) Kalashnikov (derrived)-type rifle.



They have stocks of AKMs. Look harder.
Probably Maadi (Egyptian-made) pieces of shits.



They are fully able to build them and have done so for years now.
You call the NORINCO CQ a succes? Wow.

Oh and, about the article you've posted about the AN-94. I've read mostly enthousiastic stories about it. I also heard they've made a few improvements on the AN-94 and are also planning a short-barrel version, on Russian firearms forum.

(P.S.: Learn how to quote properly.)

Fury
29 Jul 04,, 13:46
It has been my experience that folding stocks suck.

The M-249 can be had with a folding stock(Para version). Know what advantadge that gives it?

None.

PS- linking the word sniper with the word dragunov is offensive, hehehehe. ;)
Linking the word semiautomatic rifle with the word sniper is an offense ;) hehe :)

eMGee
29 Jul 04,, 13:54
Him being an American, I don't see how it could "offend" him. I think he was refering to the fact that, if I'm not mistaking, the Dragunov SVD wasn't classified as a "sniper rifle" from the beginning but something in the lines of: "long range support rifle", by the Russians.

Fury
29 Jul 04,, 14:15
I hope nobody gets offended, it was a joke afterall. Dragunov was never intended to be a true sniper rifle but I don't know if M21 was either, I think M21 serves the same purpose as Dragunov, infantry support and accuracy is a different matter both rifles can take out man from 1000 meters even the Dragunov if someone has doubts about it ;)

eMGee
29 Jul 04,, 14:28
I hope nobody gets offended, it was a joke afterall.
Hence the quote marks in my previous post ;)

Fury
29 Jul 04,, 14:46
http://www.geocities.com/landofsnipers/weapons/gepardENG.htm
That's the Gepard sniper rifle if someone hasn't seen it before, The M6 version freaks me out :eek:

s_qwert63
29 Jul 04,, 15:01
I don't see how it could "offend" him.

The only way it will offend him is when it blows a 3 inch hole in his head, ala 7.62x54R.

Bill
29 Jul 04,, 17:04
If by an act of god i was outshot at 1000 meters by a guy with a drunkanov i'd be too embarrassed to be offended.

LOL

The Dragonov is not a real sniper rifle. The M-21 is an adaptation of the M-14, inspired by the M-1D sniper rifle of WWII.

Carnage_59
29 Jul 04,, 18:38
The M16 is way more accurate than the AK-47. If you can not hit the target than you fucked. Who cares if you can dip the AK-47 in mud. The AK-47 was made cheap and you get what you pay for. It is a very inaccurate peice of shit. The M16 is an accurate rifle. I do not know about anyone else but if I were going to war with a M16 I would feel save know that i could hit the target. If I had the AK-47 I would only hope that as the barrel is bouncing all over the place that it happens to end up in front of the target. It does not really matter if it can shoot it matters if you can hit the target. Oh yah and another thing just because it was used more does not mean shit. It only means that it was made to the old standards and with old technology. You only have to clean the M16 daily which I do not see a problem with. Another thing is since the the M16 is so light the soldiers do not have leave food behind just to have the same amount of ammo as a AK-47 user but Ak-47 users had to do that to keep up with M16 users.

Therefore M16's rule!!!!!

Horsey poo. A lot of GIs died in 'Nam because their M-16s jammed. In CQB accuracy at 100 yards or less is two magnitudes of an order a lower factor at 1000 yards. The worst jam in a '16/AR-15 is when the mag pops the last two rounds in at the same time. It's a nasty jam. AKs.... they just don't do that.

Lunatock
29 Jul 04,, 18:38
I hope nobody gets offended, it was a joke afterall. Dragunov was never intended to be a true sniper rifle but I don't know if M21 was either, I think M21 serves the same purpose as Dragunov, infantry support and accuracy is a different matter both rifles can take out man from 1000 meters even the Dragunov if someone has doubts about it ;)

How about comapring a .50 barret Sniper rifle to a Dragunov? Taking a man out at 1000 meters applies to both rifles. And a Barret has the cement block smashing ability hey10103 insists on.

Accuracy and/or luck aside, a semi-repeat of the sniper duel from Saving Private Ryan could go down like this. Instead of a trained sniper with a Barret shooting a dragunov user through the scope..A Barret round would plow right down the barrel of a Dragunov and leave a gaping hole in the SVD users chest.

Praxus
29 Jul 04,, 19:25
The 9.3 x 64mm Cartridge has a relitivly low muzzle velocity making it more inacurate at any great ranges then say 7.62 NATO and 30-06, similar to the AK-47/AKM in this sense.

http://www.accuratereloading.com/9364c.jpg

griftadan
29 Jul 04,, 20:40
The M855 cartridge of the M-16A2 has a muzzle velocity of 2850fps, the AK-47s 139gr projectile attains a muzzle velocity of 2350fps.

yah i didnt know the real number, all i knew was the m16 was alot faster

s_qwert63
29 Jul 04,, 20:49
If by an act of god i was outshot at 1000 meters by a guy with a drunkanov i'd be too embarrassed to be offended.

Try outshooting a female mercenary sniper from Estonia, and I would be impressed.


The Dragonov is not a real sniper rifle. The M-21 is an adaptation of the M-14, inspired by the M-1D sniper rifle of WWII.


Can you really call the M-1D a sniper rifle?
It is simply a Garand with a scope, being something similair to the SVD.

s_qwert63
29 Jul 04,, 20:57
How about comapring a .50 barret Sniper rifle to a Dragunov?

No compare teh Barret to the V-94.

V-94 vs. M82A1
Cartridge: 12.7x108mm vs. 12.7x99mm
Weight: 11.7kg vs. 12.9kg
Length: 1.7m vs. 1.45m
Barrel: 1000mm vs. 737mm
Starting velocity of the bullet: 820m/s vs. 850m/s
Optics: 13x scope vs. 10x scope
Max. Effective Range: 2000m vs. 1800m

WOW, not much difference is there?
Oh, no, wait if I were 2000m away from you, I would be able to shoot you, while you wouldn't! :P <------ sounds like bullshit doesn't it?

Do you know what really matters?
The guy looking through the scope.

s_qwert63
29 Jul 04,, 21:07
LOL!

How big do you think the hole would be with a 9.3x64mm?


A hole?
I think it would consume the whole head!




PS: M21 please, respect Comrade Dragunov, AFAIK, he achieved MUCH more than you did - and deserves respect.
Come to think about it... WHAT THE FUCK is with Americans calling every single appliance/weapon connected to the military M-x???

At least the Soviets had the decency to give the constructors of their weapons adequate respect and call the weapons after them.
e.g.
SVD - Snaiperskaya Vintovka Dragunova
AK - Avtomat Kalashnikova
SVT - Snaiperskaya Vintovka Tokareva
PM - Pistolet Makarova

Even the aircraft are named after their constructors.
Mig - Migoyan Bureau
Su - Sukhoi Bureau
Tu - Tupolev Bureau
Mi - Mil Bureau

Americans however choose to call everything "M(insert number)"

Therefore there is a shitload of confusement when tryng to find out what is what.

The M1 Abrams tank, might as well be the M1 Garand rifle for all I know.
The M4 Sherman tank, might as well be the M4 Carbine.

Lunatock
29 Jul 04,, 21:07
No compare teh Barret to the V-94.

V-94 vs. M82A1
Cartridge: 12.7x108mm vs. 12.7x99mm
Weight: 11.7kg vs. 12.9kg
Length: 1.7m vs. 1.45m
Barrel: 1000mm vs. 737mm
Starting velocity of the bullet: 820m/s vs. 850m/s
Optics: 13x scope vs. 10x scope
Max. Effective Range: 2000m vs. 1800m

WOW, not much difference is there?
Oh, no, wait if I were 2000m away from you, I would be able to shoot you, while you wouldn't! :P <------ sounds like bullshit doesn't it?

Do you know what really matters?
The guy looking through the scope.

There a site that gives a description of a "V-94"? All google comes up with is the V94 Degausser. A bulk eraser.

s_qwert63
29 Jul 04,, 21:07
The 9.3 x 64mm Cartridge has a relitivly low muzzle velocity making it more inacurate at any great ranges then say 7.62 NATO and 30-06, similar to the AK-47/AKM in this sense.

http://www.accuratereloading.com/9364c.jpg


Sources/evidence?

Praxus
29 Jul 04,, 21:19
I was taking a guess. Look at the round. It is short and the cartridge is very skinny relitive to other bullets. All modern bullets use the same powder. It would seem like a logical assumption. I may be wrong though.

Bill
29 Jul 04,, 22:10
All modern bullets do not use the same powder.

Drunkanov accomplished less than me. I'm still alive- he's dead.

I've got him beat by miles. :)

M means Military.

Simple eh?

1800 meters is not the actual range of the M-82.

The M-82 also fires from a 10rd magazine- semi automatic. :)
The M-89 is a more comparable rifle to the V-94 if you want to compare rifles of like attributes. The range of the M-89 far exceeds 2000 meters.

The M-1D was constructed from hand selected components from the M-1 assembly line and then specially hand fitted by master armorers. Just like the M-21. It was very much more than 'just' another M-1 with a scope.

I'd take on any sniper the US military saw fit to oppose me against. You don't get to pick your opponents, only your shots. ;)

s_qwert63
29 Jul 04,, 22:19
Drunkanov accomplished less than me. I'm still alive- he's dead.



But his toys made so many thousands of people (including many of your comrades in arms) dead. Do you seriously think he accomplished less?

Bill
29 Jul 04,, 22:22
I am alive, he is not.

I've accomplished far more until i die too. ;)

s_qwert63
29 Jul 04,, 22:23
There a site that gives a description of a "V-94"? All google comes up with is the V94 Degausser. A bulk eraser.


Will scan info either later tonight or tommorow.

s_qwert63
29 Jul 04,, 22:26
I am alive, he is not.

I've accomplished far more until i die too. ;)


But he left a legacy that will still take away thousands of lives in decades to come, and a firearms bureau.
What legacy will you leave?
A couple of paintballs on the OPFOR's helmets?

Bill
29 Jul 04,, 22:28
We didn't use paintballs in field problems dude.

MILES gear. :)

I'm an American Veteran, my legacy is those who've come after me in the United States Army.

Beat that.

Praxus
29 Jul 04,, 22:29
All modern bullets do not use the same powder.

What are the differences?

s_qwert63
29 Jul 04,, 22:35
We didn't use paintballs in field problems dude.

MILES gear. :)

I'm an American Veteran, my legacy is those who've come after me in the United States Army.

Beat that.


Errr...
I'm a normal person, my legacy will be dozens of children that I shall leave behind :D.

Bill
29 Jul 04,, 22:36
Consistency, texture, chemical content, you name it.

The main difference is of course the burn rate of the powder in question. Pistols generally use much faster burning powder than rifles.

Bill
29 Jul 04,, 22:37
Sounds like you're destined to be broke then.

F all that, i have a Dog. ;)

Praxus
29 Jul 04,, 22:41
Then he will have another 12 children to get more welfare, lol.

s_qwert63
29 Jul 04,, 22:45
Then he will have another 12 children to get more welfare, lol.


Indeed, my sinister plans have been found out :(

But since Turks get away with it, why shouldn't I?

Bill
29 Jul 04,, 22:52
Why is it i feel like i'm talking to a sinister two-bit latin dictator when i converse with you squirt?

Must be that stupid picture under your name.

LOL

s_qwert63
29 Jul 04,, 23:07
Why is it i feel like i'm talking to a sinister two-bit latin dictator when i converse with you squirt?

Must be that stupid picture under your name.

LOL


Well I did have an A in psychology when I was studying it :D

PS: too bad I forgot 90% now.

Fury
30 Jul 04,, 00:05
Comparing Dragunov to Barret M82 is as stupid as comparing RPG-7 to Phoenix missile, they are not in the same league. Why not compare Barret to OSV-96, they are like twins both are semiauto, same caliber, same effective range, or how about Barret M82 vs RT-20, that RT monster fires 20mm AA gun ammunition with API and HE rounds effective range is 2 kilometers roughly and you don't have to hit the target directly with HE round since the area of explosion is 5 meters that includes shrapnels, you surely don't want to be on receiving end of RT-20.

s_qwert63
30 Jul 04,, 00:10
Comparing Dragunov to Barret M82 is as stupid as comparing RPG-7 to Phoenix missile, they are not in the same league.


NO!
It's time to compare Kalashnikov bayonet to the F-117!

Praxus
30 Jul 04,, 00:26
You guys got it all wrong, mr. dogfucker says it's the "Drunkanov"!
Come on eMGee, get over it;)

Bill
30 Jul 04,, 00:27
The effective lethal range of 20mm HEI ammunition is more in the vicinity of 2 meters- not 5.

A 40mm HEDP grenade has a 5 meter radius- and is obviously a much larger munition.

I dunno if you've ever shot a .50BMG sniper rifle, but if you did, you should have a terrible and rational fear of any shoulder fired arm in the 20mm class.

A dislocated shoulder is not my idea of a good time.

Bill
30 Jul 04,, 00:28
Who is mr. dogfucker?

Bill
30 Jul 04,, 10:00
No, but i am a moderator, and i will ban your dumbass if you insult me again.

I have refrained from calling you a civilian know-nothing godless communist heathen, i expect you to show me similar courtesy.

You owe me an appology.

Fury
30 Jul 04,, 11:51
The effective lethal range of 20mm HEI ammunition is more in the vicinity of 2 meters- not 5.

A 40mm HEDP grenade has a 5 meter radius- and is obviously a much larger munition.

I dunno if you've ever shot a .50BMG sniper rifle, but if you did, you should have a terrible and rational fear of any shoulder fired arm in the 20mm class.

A dislocated shoulder is not my idea of a good time.

Now that you mentioned, I have fired 12.7x108 caliber rifle just recently so I know what its like, and about the RT-20, to make the recoil more or less bearable by the average shooter, the Croatian designers developed a quite interesting counter-recoil system, that uses a reactive principle. The system consist of the large reactive tube, located above the barrel. The forward end of this tube is connected to the barrel at about its middle point. The rear part of the tube forms the reactive nozzle. When gun is fired, some hot powder gases are fed from the barrel to the reactive tube and back, forming a back-blast with reactive force that cats again the recoil forces.
Hell yeah! I would shoot RT any day :biggrin: you have to a little wild thing like me to do that.

Fury
30 Jul 04,, 12:17
I thought you had a dog for a wife?

Don't mess with the moderators, and try not to get offended if someone says some bad things about some russian weapons :rolleyes:
If M21 snipe says Dragunov is crap, so what? I suppose its free to express your opinion here as long as its not a direct insult to anyone or something like that.

Bill
30 Jul 04,, 18:15
Well, you wont have to deal with it anymore emgee, cause you're about to be banned.

Siyanara.

Lunatock
30 Jul 04,, 18:35
Salaam Aliekum EMG, you will be missed. (Ray, want to give him a sendoff as only an "arrogant curry eater" can?)

Praxus
30 Jul 04,, 19:42
Sniper stop insulting a firearm, and eMGee stop trying to piss off sniper.

Fury
30 Jul 04,, 20:16
At the point where this conversation turned to sniper rifles the fight began. I counted snipe saying "Drunkanov" three times total, is eMGee banned now? the Drunkanov sounds funny when you first say it but repeating it takes the joke out of it if there is any. If you want see Dragunov been fired accurately at 1000 meters all you have to do is get your ass over here and watch as the finnish guerrilla forces demonstrate the right use of Dragunov rifle, you'll be surprised ;)

Fury
30 Jul 04,, 21:49
The AK M16 issue is pretty much done and settled. :rolleyes:

Bill
30 Jul 04,, 23:04
just waiting for the admin to ban him.

I offered him a chance to appologize, he insulted me again. He made his bed, now he gets to lay in it.

Asta La Vista.
(that one's spelled correctly, ha ha ha)

Lunatock
31 Jul 04,, 02:34
I don't care wheter he insults a firearm (that sounds extremely silly itself), but he keeps repeating extremely "unfunny" stuff and therefore completely ruines the discussion.

By the way, M21Sniper: I won't most likely get banned, since I know Gio. Bad luck pal :biggrin:

Now which board would that attitude have carried him further? This one where Snipes a Mod? Or a different one where Snipes an admin?

Bill
31 Jul 04,, 05:35
EmGee was banned by unanimous vote of the mod staff at WAB.(i could have just done it myself, but i am a fair man and so left it to a vote.)

Insulting moderators unprovoked will not be tolerated.

Fury
31 Jul 04,, 11:40
Why not make a new thread Dragunov vs M21, I will keep cheering for Dragunov just to keep the thread alive :biggrin:

Bill
31 Jul 04,, 15:29
Go for it.

hey10103
31 Jul 04,, 18:56
...

hey10103
31 Jul 04,, 19:13
ya you should make one, this thread is getting old, besides, people keep bringing up different guns like, M14 or M60, its called "AK-47 vs M16" not "Ak-47 vs any variation, 'relative', replacment of the M16 or any other gun"....and if you bring up the fact that the M16 is winning over the AK-47 in Iraq, think about it, they are Iraq people, they probly dont know the butt of their gun from the barrel :biggrin:
Plus, i dont really think this thread matters much because the M16 is being discountinued, so... :biggrin:...


http://www1.odn.ne.jp/13shoutai/senki-parts/99-1-5kai/fa-mas.jpg
is a variation of the australian military gun
http://www.arms.ru/Guns/Images/famas/FA%20MAS.jpg

just thought i would mention that....by the way this is what my airsoft gun looks like: http://homepage1.nifty.com/kamonnegi/guestF(7)/famastag_001.jpg

Sinfulcurves_AK
04 Aug 04,, 02:08
lol, I haven't been here in a longtime and you boys are still arguing about this topic that's been raped about 5,000 times already? Sadistic freaks! I found an interesting read in this -- (maybe be old, but 'o well...spank me)

~BAQOUBA, Iraq - An American soldier stands at the side of an Iraqi highway, puts his AK-47 on fully automatic and pulls the trigger.

Within seconds the assault rifle has blasted out 30 rounds. Puffs of dust dance in the air as the bullets smack into the scrubland dirt. Test fire complete.

U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites) may not have found weapons of mass destruction, but they're certainly getting their hands on the country's stock of Kalashnikovs — and, they say, they need them.

The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles.

A four-man tank crew is issued two M4 assault rifles and four 9mm pistols, relying mostly on the tank's firepower for protection.

But now they are engaged in guerrilla warfare, patrolling narrow roads and goat trails where tanks are less effective. Troops often find themselves dismounting to patrol in smaller vehicles, making rifles essential.

"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.

"Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks. Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now," Young said. "We are certainly capable of performing the missions that we have been assigned, there's no issue with that, but we do find ourselves somewhat challenged."

In Humvees, on tanks — but never openly on base — U.S. soldiers are carrying the Cold War-era weapon, first developed in the Soviet Union but now mass produced around the world.

The AK is favored by many of the world's fighters, from child soldiers in Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable and known to jam less frequently.

Now U.S. troops who have picked up AKs on raids or confiscated them at checkpoints are putting the rifles to use — and they like what they see.

Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in Iraq's dusty environment. Many say the AK has better "knockdown" power and can kill with fewer shots.

"The kind of war we are in now ... you want to be able to stop the enemy quick," said Sgt. 1st Class Tracy S. McCarson of Newport News, Va., an army scout, who carries an AK in his Humvee.

Some troops say the AK is easier to maintain and a better close-quarters weapon. Also, it has "some psychological affect on the enemy when you fire back on them with their own weapons," McCarson said.

Most U.S. soldiers agree the M16 and the M4 — a newer, shorter version of the M16 that has been used by American troops since the 1960s — is better for long distance, precision shooting.

But around Baqouba, troops are finding themselves attacked by assailants hidden deep in date palm groves. Or they are raiding houses, taking on enemies at close-quarters.

Two weeks ago, Sgt. Sam Bailey of Cedar Falls, Iowa, was in a Humvee when a patrol came under rocket-propelled grenade and heavy machine gun fire. It was dark, the road narrow. On one side, there was a mud wall and palms trees, on the other a canal surrounded by tall grass.

Bailey, who couldn't see who was firing, had an AK-47 on his lap and his M4 up front. The choice was simple.

"I put the AK on auto and started spraying," Bailey said.

Some soldiers also say it's easier to get ammo for the AK — they can pick it up on any raid or from any confiscated weapon.

"It's plentiful," said Sgt. Eric Harmon, a tanker who has a full 75-round drum, five 30-round magazines, plus 200-300 rounds in boxes for his AK. He has about 120 rounds for his M16.

Young doesn't carry an AK but has fired one. He's considered banning his troops from carrying AKs, but hasn't yet because "if I take the AK away from some of the soldiers, then they will not have a rifle to carry with them."

Staff Sgt. Michael Perez, a tanker, said he would take anything over his standard issue 9mm pistol when he's out of his tank.

And the AK's durability has impressed him.

"They say you can probably drop this in the water and leave it overnight, pull it out in the morning, put in a magazine and it will work," Perez said.~


:) Whoo! And you bastards stop bashing the good 'ol 47 -- At least keep the comparisons contemporary, okie dokie? The AK-74M (and 100 series, 107/8) is great, it's prolly as accurate as any M16A2.

Officer of Engineers
04 Aug 04,, 04:33
lol, I haven't been here in a longtime and you boys are still arguing about this topic that's been raped about 5,000 times already? Sadistic freaks! I found an interesting read in this -- (maybe be old, but 'o well...spank me)

The Queen's Rules does not allow me to hit a civilian. My wife would John Wayne Bobbit me (or sugar up Number One Daughter on her night out with the girls).


:) Whoo! And you bastards stop bashing the good 'ol 47 -- At least keep the comparisons contemporary, okie dokie? The AK-74M (and 100 series, 107/8) is great, it's prolly as accurate as any M16A2.

I was pissed of the 1st time I read this article and I'm still pissed off about it.

http://worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=268

Sinfulcurves_AK
05 Aug 04,, 03:38
~hehe~ Your wife rocks then!