M16/AK Bit II


PDA






2ndChapterofActs
February 16, 2006, 05:03 PM
Greetings and Salutations!

For those of you who remember the fun we had a few months ago with a smashing debate spawning from the classic struggle between the M16A2, M4 Rifle/Carbine and the AK47 and all its variants here is some more relivent information about weaponry.

The whole debate spawned when a fellow posted something his brother aledgidly said from Iraq. The brother made mention in an email of how much better the AK was then the M16. This of course meant that I had to do some follow up questioning of buddies of mine serving in the Iraq and what I found was that the claims made in the persumed email were needless to say less then accurate (the inaccuracies were not all technical but rather dealing with the technical nature of the rifles but rather what our [US] soldiers were doing on the battlefield). I posted a new thread to correct the inaccuracies and low and behold I had a full fledged fight on my hands <snicker, snicker>!

Where very little was resolved in the way of opinions changing and thus I do not expect a whole lot from this thread I would like to put up some new information not mentioned in the M16/AK Bit.

First of all, the major beef with the M16 was the same as it has been from the beginning before the M16A2 was around, that issue being cleaning and jamming. There have been claims that M16 users spit more curses then bullets as their weapons are always jamming. This argument is always countered by those vets who have fired the weapon and say that the M16s used in the military are a lot better then the crappy AR's that are there for fun shoot-outs and therefore the weapons do not jam.

That being said here is some fun stuff...

1) On a military shooting range jamming is sometimes an issue with people (this was mentioned by a few AK lovers to no end) but not too long ago wile talking with a friend of mine who was just discharged (he served with the 75th Rangers) he mentioned while in basic making the mistake of while shooting prone resting his mag on the ground. This caused a double feed which jammed the weapon. Now that is human error not any malfunction of the weapon.

2) I read a book entitled From Out of Nowhere: A History of the Military Sniper. This book mentioned something that I didn't think of. The AK47 in Vietnam and in humid environments ran into a serious problem. Because it was made of wood it would expand and contract destroying not only accuracy but rifle handling as well. This of course was something the M16 didn't have to deal with. This brings into question the AK's durability (this was also a problem with the wood M14's). The modern shift of weapons has shown that such weapons like the AK are becoming obsolete. The M16 marked a new era of weapons. No longer were people trying to make the old wood rifles but plastic composites. The precision of the AR15 models were adopted by most nations as the new kind of infantry weapon. This was done for good reason. The AK was and is an old weapon. The M16 was the weapon of the future.

3) The 5.56 NATO round has proven over the years (many years) to be very effective in use. It doesn’t always knock down the target but it does kill. A target doesn’t have to fall to be considered dead. The target is dead when it is dead. 5.56 ammo rips through the body leaving a shock wave behind that is more damaging then the entry and exit. The bullet can pass through a person without bouncing around it is so fast. 5.56 has plenty of penetration power when it is fired at nearly the speed of sound. There have been plenty of stories of people running on though hit with 5.56 ammo but being found dead not long after. They were not knocked down but they were killed. It is also important to note that the size of the round does not detract from power at a long range shot. M16’s can kill over a mile. Effective range is based upon sightlines.

4) The cleaning of the M16 is not a difficult process. In fact it is one of the easiest things that most vets remember about basic training. It requires little special maintenance only a rag run through the parts used to fire. It has also been brought to my attention that there have been reports during the Iraqi conflict of soldiers having to strip down their weapons during a fight however every soldier I talk too laughs at this as it isn’t true. The M16A2 rifle is performing remarkably.

If you enjoyed reading about "M16/AK Bit II" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
atblis
February 16, 2006, 05:39 PM
There are plenty of crappy issue M16s.

Both rifles are full of compromises. The charging handle on the M16 is an issue. I prefer to have a bolt handle. If I have an issue with the gun, I have some recourse.

Believe it or not, the military (ours and others) doesn't really care if a cartridge is less than 100% affective (no such thing anyways in the world of small arms). They are considering many things other than one shot drops.

I don't think AK stocks really affect accuracy that much. It's not quite like a classic one piece hunting rifle stock.

What do you mean by "handling"?

BTW
I own neither. I do have a Daewoo though.

Correia
February 16, 2006, 05:57 PM
I like them both, before anybody jumps all over me, but to address your points:

1. So by putting pressure on the mag, it may malfunction. Okay, I use an AK mag as a vertical foregrip or as a monopod, and it works just fine.
2. Most of the modern AKs out there now use a synthetic stock. Moot point.
3. Since the modern AKs out there are now chambered in 5.45 or 5.56, also a moot point.
4. I've cleaned hundreds of guns, thousands of times. As far as military rifles go, the AR is the worst. And I like ARs, but using a cotter pin to hold the bolt in just plain sucks.

I like AR rifles. I sell lots of AR rifles. But I'm smart enough to admit that they aren't perfect. Both designs have their good points.

timothy75
February 16, 2006, 06:41 PM
Ak's have wood furniture not stocks. AR's are hard to clean I think. I like both and own both but it would be a toss up as to which I would prefer in a gunfight. And I doubt any man has killed enough bad guys with both to clearly say he prfers one over the other. They're both exellent guns.

MechAg94
February 16, 2006, 09:03 PM
Aside from that pin, I don't have an issue with AR cleaning, but I am not a combat soldier. The AK has just as many parts, just no small ones.

Personally, I think there are far too many wild stories that get thrown around about how different rifles performed in combat. It is entertaining to read, but you have to take it with a grain of salt.

Seraph
February 16, 2006, 09:23 PM
IMO, the greatest detriment of the AK is its piss-poor rear sight. AK's will run, certainly, but the shallow notch rear sight sucks by BB gun standards. I don't find the M-16/AR-15 difficult to clean at all, but, even if I did, I would still prefer it, by far, to the AK, if only for its vastly superior ergonomics.

MTMilitiaman
February 16, 2006, 10:26 PM
First of all, the major beef with the M16 was the same as it has been from the beginning before the M16A2 was around, that issue being cleaning and jamming. There have been claims that M16 users spit more curses then bullets as their weapons are always jamming. This argument is always countered by those vets who have fired the weapon and say that the M16s used in the military are a lot better then the crappy AR's that are there for fun shoot-outs and therefore the weapons do not jam.

That being said here is some fun stuff...

My brother is in the 101st 2/327th stationed in FOB Warrior right now. I have a handful of letters sent to me from him in basic training and his first duty station and in nearly every one he mentions how much he hates the M16A4 he was issued in basic, and the M4A4 of which he went through two in Fort Campbell. He was praised by his superiors in both places for both his willingness and ability to clean his weapons and between the two of us, he has always been the mechanically minded one, and the one who seemed to get as much pleasure from taking his weapons apart for cleaning and maintence as he did from shooting them. He knows how a rifle should work, and it isn't like the M16 family of weapons. He has told me on multiple occassions he would rather have just about any of his personally owned weapons, including his $320 Romanian WASR. I don't expect you guys to put much faith in his account, but he is one I trust and until I find myself in basic, it is what I have to go on when comparing the two rifles in question.

1) On a military shooting range jamming is sometimes an issue with people (this was mentioned by a few AK lovers to no end) but not too long ago wile talking with a friend of mine who was just discharged (he served with the 75th Rangers) he mentioned while in basic making the mistake of while shooting prone resting his mag on the ground. This caused a double feed which jammed the weapon. Now that is human error not any malfunction of the weapon.

So a military weapon is designed so that upwards pressure on the magazine causes the weapon to fail, and this is somehow human error and not a fault of the weapon? Sounds more like an excuse to me. As mentioned before, the hardest part with the Kalashnikov's magazines is getting them in the weapon. Once there you can do pretty much anything to them and it does not adversely affect their function or the function of the rifle.

2) I read a book entitled From Out of Nowhere: A History of the Military Sniper. This book mentioned something that I didn't think of. The AK47 in Vietnam and in humid environments ran into a serious problem. Because it was made of wood it would expand and contract destroying not only accuracy but rifle handling as well. This of course was something the M16 didn't have to deal with. This brings into question the AK's durability (this was also a problem with the wood M14's). The modern shift of weapons has shown that such weapons like the AK are becoming obsolete. The M16 marked a new era of weapons. No longer were people trying to make the old wood rifles but plastic composites. The precision of the AR15 models were adopted by most nations as the new kind of infantry weapon. This was done for good reason. The AK was and is an old weapon. The M16 was the weapon of the future.

This is so much BS crammed into such a small place it's sad. An AK having its handguards swell is not a serious problem, especially when you consider that the rifle was just pulled out of a hole where it had been buried under a rice patty for two months. The weapon will function fine with no handguards at all, and all the user would have to do is grab the magazine to control it. The handguard isn't free floating anyways so having it swell isn't going to adversely affect accuracy to a noticeable degree, esp in an ambush in the jungle where you contract distances are closer than 50 yards. And the durability of the Kalashnikov in any environment is far superior to the M16. History has shown that pretty much the only way to break an AK is to bounce it around in the back of a Datsun in central Africa for two or three decades with little or no maintence. You can complain about an AK's sights or ergonomics, but the two things the weapon has plenty of is reliability and durability, and questioning these as part of your advocacy for the AR only makes you look foolish. And finally, the simple solution to your claim of obsolecence is to take five minutes to install synthetic handguards on your AK, something many of the rifles manufactured today already have.

3) The 5.56 NATO round has proven over the years (many years) to be very effective in use. It doesnít always nock down the target but it does kill. A target doesnít have to fall to be considered dead. The target is dead when it is dead. 5.56 ammo rips through the body leaving a shock wave behind that is more damaging then the entry and exit. The bullet can pass through a person without bouncing around it is so fast. 5.56 has plenty of penetration power when it is fired at nearly the speed of sound. There have been plenty of stories of people running on though hit with 5.56 ammo but being found dead not long after. They were not knocked down but they were killed. It is also important to note that the size of the round does not detract from power at a long range shot. M16ís can kill over a mile. Effective range is based upon sightlines.

In the short term, in combat, I don't really care if the round kills the enemy as much as I am concerned with whether it quickly knocks the fight out of them. As long as they are not shooting at me, I don't care if they are alive or dead. There is mixed reports of the round's ability to do this in combat. Some say it is the cat's pajamas and simply devestating, others say it is absolutely worthless. I would be inclined to believe the truth is somewhere in between, but regardless, it is still a short range cartridge in a weapon touted for its accuracy as a long range rifle. Beyond the range where either can be depended on to reliably fragment or yaw in a dramatic fasion, about 150 yards in ballistic geletin, the 7.62x39 will be more effective than the 5.56 by virtue of its frontal diameter and mass.

4) The cleaning of the M16 is not a difficult process. In fact it is one of the easiest things that most vets remember about basic training. It requires little special maintenance only a rag run through the parts used to fire. It has also been brought to my attention that there have been reports during the Iraqi conflict of soldiers having to strip down their weapons during a fight however every soldier I talk too laughs at this as it isnít true. The M16A2 rifle is performing remarkably.

The cleaning process on a Kalashnikov is even easier. The weapon works with a handful of sand in the reciever but should you decide to clean it, just about anything will work. Douse it in desiel or motor oil. Hell I've cleaned mine by throwing it a river and shooting it until it is dry. Mine has over 2000 rounds through it and I've only ever wiped down the receiver three or four times and cleaned the bore once. And this is with a steady diet of steel cased Russian rounds that cause most AR owners to just grimse. A thorough cleaning on an AK includes removing the dust cover and pulling the bolt carrier assembly out, spraying the receiver, bolt carrier assembly and bolt, and inside of the gas tube with Gunk Out, scrubbing it with a toothbrush, spraying it again, dropping a couple drops of Hoppes Lubricating Oil on the receiver rails, bolt carrier, trigger pin, and hammer pin, making sure the bolt face and gas piston is dry, then putting the thing back together again. Total ellapsed time, about 90 seconds, and your rifle feels spoiled because of it. Wipe down the bore every couple of cases if it suits you. Not difficult, and also not nearly as necessary as it is with Stoner's contraption.

2ndChapterofActs
February 17, 2006, 12:04 AM
1. So by putting pressure on the mag, it may malfunction. Okay, I use an AK mag as a vertical foregrip or as a monopod, and it works just fine.
2. Most of the modern AKs out there now use a synthetic stock. Moot point.
3. Since the modern AKs out there are now chambered in 5.45 or 5.56, also a moot point.
4. I've cleaned hundreds of guns, thousands of times. As far as military rifles go, the AR is the worst. And I like ARs, but using a cotter pin to hold the bolt in just plain sucks.


As much as everybody would like to go all out on the AR vs. AK debate I would like to say that if possible we should keep this in the realm of the military and warfare, not so much casual shooting. I understand that most modern AKís use composite stocks; however, I also understand that most AKís in the region of the world where the US is currently heavily militarily involved are not your modern AKís. In fact there would be a place to say that many of them are not really AKís at all but rather AK copies created by third world manufacturers. I would be the first to admit that the contest isnít exactly fair and more then likely heavily biased to the M16A2 with regards to current conflicts. I would also think that your conversion from 7.62 to 5.45 or 5.56 isnít the case in this conflict either. 7.62 ammo is very popular especially in the third world or developing nations for all the reasons AK lovers mention about that ammo. It is durable and is the perfect round for the AK that isnít going to be cleaned for months.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 17, 2006, 12:05 AM
1) not too long ago wile talking with a friend of mine who was just discharged (he served with the 75th Rangers) he mentioned while in basic making the mistake of while shooting prone resting his mag on the ground. This caused a double feed which jammed the weapon. Now that is human error not any malfunction of the weapon.

Resting your magazine on the ground will not cause a double-feed in any AR with any decent USGI magazine. The problem there was likely the magazine, not resting it on the ground. If anybody doubts this, I will be more than happy to take them out and give them a demonstration.

2) The modern shift of weapons has shown that such weapons like the AK are becoming obsolete.

Wooden furniture may be obsolete. I don't think the AK is. You could stop making AKs tomorrow and simply on the basis of sheer numbers they would be prevalent into the middle of the 21st century.

3) 5.56 ammo rips through the body leaving a shock wave behind that is more damaging then the entry and exit. The bullet can pass through a person without bouncing around it is so fast. 5.56 has plenty of penetration power when it is fired at nearly the speed of sound.

I don't think you have a good understanding of terminal ballistics. Try giving this site a read: http://www.ammo-oracle.com/

4) It has also been brought to my attention that there have been reports during the Iraqi conflict of soldiers having to strip down their weapons during a fight however every soldier I talk too laughs at this as it isn’t true. The M16A2 rifle is performing remarkably.

The March 2006 issue of SWAT magazine has an excellent article on cleaning and maintenance of the AR series of weapons in Iraq. As much as I like the AR though, there is no question the AK has the edge here.

As much as everybody would like to go all out on the AR vs. AK debate I would like to say that if possible we should keep this in the realm of the military and warfare, not so much casual shooting.

The difference caused in accuracy and reliability by swelling of wood furniture is so small that casual shooting is about the only place you would notice it.

I'd also add that at the end of the day, 20 guys with AKs vs. 20 guys with ARs, the difference in who wins won't be the rifle, it will be the training of the men behind the rifle.

2ndChapterofActs
February 17, 2006, 12:12 AM
My brother is in the 101st 2/327th stationed in FOB Warrior right now... he mentions how much he hates the M16A4 he was issued in basic... He was praised by his superiors in both places for both his willingness and ability to clean his weapons

I think you mentioned this before in the M16/AK Bit and I do respect that opinion. Not everybody likes the M16, but I would say that your brother probably makes it function and function well, which is the important part about this not personal preference.

So a military weapon is designed so that upwards pressure on the magazine causes the weapon to fail, and this is somehow human error and not a fault of the weapon?

Yes such a misfire is human error. Where one would say that a military weapon shouldnít do that there is also a place for saying (more importantly I may add) knowing your weapon is extremely important. And my buddy who told me this story put it bluntly. Resting the mag on the ground is poor shooting style anyway and he was being lazy. He laughed it off as being a schmuck at the start but as far as he was concerned laziness leads to carelessness and people get hurt. So yes it is human error.

This is so much BS crammed into such a small place it's sad. An AK having its handguards swell is not a serious problem, especially when you consider that the rifle was just pulled out of a hole where it had been buried under a rice patty for two months.

As far as swelling; this isnít BS. The butt swelling was more the issue then the hand guard. This changed the weight of the weapon and the way it recoiled not just playing with accuracy but how the rifle shot. I donít think you can really call this BS, it is pretty well documented and this isnít some idle story for arguments sake (I doubt this swelling thing is as much an issue in Iraq then in jungles). You do however point out that the weapon still fired despite abuse. And that is remarkable. You also point out that most firefights are over rather small distances but even back in 1968 when the M16 fired well close engagements tended to go with the M16. The reason being even though the AK is an effective CQB weapon it still wasnít as accurate. Firing from the hip the M16 would hit its target more then the AK would. And now the M4 tops both in CQB.

And as far as cleaning; the only trap I would like to avoid is the stereotypical ďM16 must be cleaned all the time or it will jam, jam, jam and cleaning is bad when it comes to a combat weapon because you shouldnít have toĒ. Cleaning isnít hard, it doesnít take a lot of time, it isnít a drawback. Most vets that posted before agreed with this. AKers would claim cleaning was a drawback and the vets would say from experience that it isnít and the result would be the equivalent of telling a vet he didnít know what he was talking about. Vets that didnít like the M16 didnít usually debate the cleaning aspect, only the knock down and such.

whm1974
February 17, 2006, 12:20 AM
I'd also add that at the end of the day, 20 guys with AKs vs. 20 guys with ARs, the difference in who wins won't be the rifle, it will be the training of the men behind the rifle.

This is very true. I remember reading something long ago that the M16 was first used by SEALS before it became GI. And THEY had no problems with it.

-Bill

2ndChapterofActs
February 17, 2006, 12:21 AM
The swelling,

Yeah I just thought of something reading your post BR. I was reading a book about sniping and I would suppose in the world of sniping such swelling would also be important. So perhaps you would be right in the general order of things. But the expanding and contracting of wood wouldn't just play with accuracy but rot and such (less of a problem in this tussle I would imagine) and I know that was important. It was a big plus of the early M16's. Problem ridden as they were they were suited for the wetness in a way the M14's and AK's were not thanks to plasic.

2ndChapterofActs
February 17, 2006, 12:36 AM
I don't think you have a good understanding of terminal ballistics.

I understand this enough, note I said can pass through not will pass through. Having the ability to and doing so are two different things. Also the point I am trying to get accross is that 5.56 can kill without only a head shot which seems to be another popular complaint. Also in Blackhawk Down: A Tale of Modern War DELTA Sfc. Paul Howe mentions making kills with his M4, knowing he was hitting his targets but also knowing that the bullets were just going right through them.

I also know that the shock wave an M16 round carries can kill without touching. While going through basic training a number of soldiers of mentioned to me that their instructors told them if a bullet got close enough to their head the shockwave would do the killing.

MTMilitiaman
February 17, 2006, 12:42 AM
The "shockwave" on a 5.56 can't kill a ground squirrel, much less a human. Likewise you originally stated the 5.56 was traveling, how did you put it;

5.56 has plenty of penetration power when it is fired at nearly the speed of sound.

Considering the speed of sound at sea level is about 750 mph or about 1100 fps and change, the 5.56 is going close to 3x the speed of sound when it leaves the muzzle. Heck even the 7.62x39 bests the speed of sound considerably, with an average muzzle velocity of between 2000 and 2400 fps depending on bullet weight and barrel length.

Also, you mentioned shooting from the hip...are we talking actual combat here or Chuck Norris?

Zak Smith
February 17, 2006, 01:06 AM
It's SOP to use the mag as a monopod in 3Gun action style competition. I have never seen one fail because of that.

MechAg94
February 17, 2006, 01:12 AM
The 5.56 is a fast round out of a 20" barrel, but it is not much faster than a .308 if at all. You can forget about shock waves when dealing with wounds. A faster bullet will wound more than a slower bullet all things being equal, but the 5.56 is not a super bullet. A 50 cal won't kill without a hit either.

That being said, 5.56 is an effective round and the BS people spew about needed 47 rounds to kill someone is just that. Some cartridges are better some are worse. Shot placement is important just like any other rifle round (even 30.06).

whm1974
February 17, 2006, 01:47 AM
I also know that the shock wave an M16 round carries can kill without touching. While going through basic training a number of soldiers of mentioned to me that their instructors told them if a bullet got close enough to their head the shockwave would do the killing.

The shockwave may very well make them deaf but I doupt that it will kill a human being.

There is so much BS about the 5.56x45 round it isn't funny.

-Bill
-Bill

NineseveN
February 17, 2006, 02:25 AM
I also know that the shock wave an M16 round carries can kill without touching. While going through basic training a number of soldiers of mentioned to me that their instructors told them if a bullet got close enough to their head the shockwave would do the killing.

Lol, where do you get this stuff? This is physically, 100% impossible.

georgeduz
February 17, 2006, 02:58 AM
accuracy m16.peep sights will help the ak.i will not buy an ak but if i had to...it would be 5.56 or with any othe bullet over 3000 fps.and i would use the mojo peep sights,i must must tell you the iraq army was unable to hit targets and make kills,there where many fire fights with rifles and the m16 ruled the day.ONLY HITS COUNT

clange
February 17, 2006, 03:13 AM
I also know that the shock wave an M16 round carries can kill without touching. While going through basic training a number of soldiers of mentioned to me that their instructors told them if a bullet got close enough to their head the shockwave would do the killing.
Wow. :uhoh:

Ok, I'm going to try and say this in the nicest way possible..

You should stop posting for awhile, or at least stop posting what some friends brother told you, and READ some threads here. Give it a few weeks, you'll learn a lot.

MTMilitiaman
February 17, 2006, 04:28 AM
accuracy m16.peep sights will help the ak.i will not buy an ak but if i had to...it would be 5.56 or with any othe bullet over 3000 fps.and i would use the mojo peep sights,i must must tell you the iraq army was unable to hit targets and make kills,there where many fire fights with rifles and the m16 ruled the day.ONLY HITS COUNT


Mojos can help and are a drastic improvement over the standard sights, but they do nothing to improve the AK's short sight radius. That said, the Iraqi Army's inability to make hits is the indian, not the arrow. The AK is plenty accurate for its intended role, and if the operator is capable of hitting at the range with anything, will be able to put rounds COM out to at least 200 yards. In fact, my limited experience with the AK beyond that range seems to indicate anyone who knows what they are doing can put them COM out to 300 yards with a little practice. That said, I whole-heartedly agree that the sights are the weak point of the Kalashnikov and the best thing you can do for one is probably put a red dot or reflex style sight on it. Luckily, there are a host of options available and several very good Russian optics that are comparible to Western optics but at half the cost, so doing this is relatively easy.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 17, 2006, 10:10 AM
I understand this enough

Given some of the statements you have made, I would politely disagree. The thread I gave you is good reading.

I also know that the shock wave an M16 round carries can kill without touching. While going through basic training a number of soldiers of mentioned to me that their instructors told them if a bullet got close enough to their head the shockwave would do the killing.

As others have already noted, this is completely untrue.

atblis
February 17, 2006, 11:14 AM
Take a look at the Daewoo K2
It has the accuracy
Excellent sights
AK reliability
etc. etc.

Shane333
February 17, 2006, 12:13 PM
2ndChapterofActs,

I'm sorry to be so harsh, but this thread comes accross as a desperate (and largely ill informed) attempt to justify your prejudice against the AK platform.

If AK's don't do it for you, that's your preference and you're entitled to it.

I personally like the AK platform and don't feel any need for an AR. That's just my style.

As for the 5.56 vs 7.62 cartridge capabilities, my baby brother's best friend was part of a fire team in Iraq. His team's job was to clear buildings once the enemy was confirmed to be inside. A lot of close quarters combat, if you can imagine.

He loves the M4 and sees it as an ideal platform, but recognizes the difference in the performance of different cartridges.

His words:
"...I do know from experience that it takes at least 3 rounds to take a guy down, on average. Thats not taking into account the ocassional headshot or centermass vital organs. But if i had to choose, i go with a 7.62 anyday. They stay down, which is what really matters in the end."

ID_shooting
February 17, 2006, 12:42 PM
I love AK/AR threads, kinda funny when the whole "my brother, cousin, freind, buddy, net pal, some show I watched" crowd shows up and state what they know as fact.

Hereis FACT, I was in the Army for 8 years, My first M16 was an A1, I didn't get my first A2 untill 92. I have fired many thousands of rounds through an M16 both in range work and FTX (I was lucky and never deployed into combat) and I have never, not once had a jam in an M16. Some were 20 year old rattle traps, some were NIB issue rifles. When people tell me an M16 is a jam-o-matic I tell them they are full of it.

As for the AK, I choose not to pick sides, both are good guns and perform to thier designs.

Shane333
February 17, 2006, 01:44 PM
I love AK/AR threads, kinda funny when the whole "my brother, cousin, freind, buddy, net pal, some show I watched" crowd shows up and state what they know as fact.

Hereis FACT, I was in the Army for 8 years, My first M16 was an A1, I didn't get my first A2 untill 92. I have fired many thousands of rounds through an M16 both in range work and FTX (I was lucky and never deployed into combat) and I have never, not once had a jam in an M16. Some were 20 year old rattle traps, some were NIB issue rifles. When people tell me an M16 is a jam-o-matic I tell them they are full of it.

As for the AK, I choose not to pick sides, both are good guns and perform to thier designs.


Interesting remark. I recognize that the information from my brother's friend (who I maintained a correspondence with) is second hand. Of course, any information I get from you is second hand too.

"Kinda funny" isn't it?

Frankly, I'll take the information from my contact, who I know personally and who has lots of actual combat experience, over your non-combat experience anyday.

I recognize that by the time I cited it the information was third hand for you. That's ok. Take it for what it is, with the necessary grain of salt, and move on or comment on it if you actually have something relevant to say.

Shane333
February 17, 2006, 02:08 PM
Anyone can see properly maintained Ar's working just fine, at any range, any day, given good mags, and ammo. To claim otherwise is to reveal your ignorance. You can also see AK's malfunctioning at those same ranges.

What never changes is the weight of 7.62 ammo and steel mags. Another thing that never changes is the Aks and its ball ammo is its poor grouping, and bad performance against wind and gravity, beyond about 200 yds.

Another AK problem is that slow, awkward safety lever. Sheesh, that thing is a nightmare, forcing the user to walk around with the safety disengaged. Super bad idea in stressful situations, in my book.

Yes, the AK safety leaves something to be desired. No doubt.

As for weight, yes, the 7.62 ammo weighs more. Yes, the mags are steel (unless you're using an AK74 or AK101 variant). Oh well. You can either grow stronger or else use the AR.;)

benEzra
February 17, 2006, 02:19 PM
The modern shift of weapons has shown that such weapons like the AK are becoming obsolete. The M16 marked a new era of weapons. No longer were people trying to make the old wood rifles but plastic composites. The precision of the AR15 models were adopted by most nations as the new kind of infantry weapon. This was done for good reason. The AK was and is an old weapon. The M16 was the weapon of the future.
AK-47--first issued in early 1950's.
M16--first issued in early 1960's.

Both guns are now roughly half a century old. Both have stood the test of time. The fact that the M16 design is a few years younger (it actually dates from the 1950's) does not automatically make it superior. The AC556 and the British L85 are newer than either, but they're definitely not superior to the half-century-old AK and AR/M16 designs.

5.56 has plenty of penetration power when it is fired at nearly the speed of sound
5.56x45mm, 62-gr M855: Mach 2.8
7.62x39mm, 123-gr FMJ: Mach 2.1

Both exceed the speed of sound by a wide margin.

The 7.62x39mm round has twice the mass, considerably more momentum, and is less fragile. Neither is a particularly good penetrator, though.

What never changes is the weight of 7.62 ammo and steel mags. Another thing that never changes is the Aks and its ball ammo is its poor grouping, and bad performance against wind and gravity, beyond about 200 yds.
If you're arguing AK design vs. M16 design, it's a bit misleading to limit yourself to the older 7.62mm AK's. If you compare a 5.45x39mm AK (optics rail, synthetic furniture, lighter ammo, polymer magazines) with an M16A2 or A4, they are a lot more closely matched than you'd think.

The Russians have been using the 5.45x39mm AK-74 since the late 70's/early 80's.

(Disclaimer--I like AR's and AK's; I own a SAR-1 and would like an AR someday. I just think that some of the points raised here against the AK here are not valid.)

NineseveN
February 17, 2006, 02:20 PM
What you are forced to do is JETTISON other, needed survival gear. That aint happening, if you have any sense. There's 30-40 lbs of other gear that's every bit as vital, like concealed body armor, water, shelter, sleeping gear, medical stuff, and so on. Nobody can run and gun properly with more than 50 lbs of gear. I don't care if your name is Jack LaLanne.

Then we should all have .22LR assault rifles...because apparently weight is everything. :scrutiny:

Polymer/plastic mags are available for the AK. I bought about 15 of them from K-Var a while back (Belgian Waffle mags are very nice).

The AK safety lever can be a huge pain for folks with small hands, I have large hands and I can manipulate the safety with one finger.

AR VS AK?

Granny Smith to Golden Delicious.

Rambosky
February 17, 2006, 02:20 PM
2dnchapterofacts,

Please take the time to read, if you haven't already, http://www.ammo-oracle.com/ becasue I too know you don't have a good understanding of terminal ballistics.

OldWolf
February 17, 2006, 04:20 PM
Scroll down to the "Full Auto Video Shoot" - you need broadband for this one!

http://www.gunsmokeenterprises.net/index.htm

ID_shooting
February 17, 2006, 08:21 PM
Shane,

um, then again, nevermind.

2ndChapterofActs
February 20, 2006, 09:01 PM
I will admit that I had no clue as to the speed with which 5.56 comes out of the barrel. I just sort of assumed it would be less then the speed of sound as if it were over each blast would be a sonic boom but I guess I was wrong. However, here I know I am not wrong. When dealing with the shockwavesÖ

My dad is a Nam vet and remembers keenly what they were told in basic about the 5.56 shockwave. They were told not to fire over each otherís shoulder as it HAD accounted for deaths from friendly fire. Oddly enough the bullet never touched the victim. The shockwave caused some sort of concussion. This happened enough to make the instructors on the firing range warn the recruits. That is pretty definitive proof right there. Also, back with the first thread I posted a received an email from my cousin who is a Marine serving in Iraq (you can look this up by doing a word search for M16/AK bit. The thread has been locked up but you can still read it). I didnít even know about the shockwave until he mentioned it. While discussing the 7.62 and 5.56 he said that there were two schools of thought on the ammo; the first being that the 7.62 has great knock down and can royally mess somebody up, the second being that the 5.56 rips through the body with a shockwave.

And as far as me being biased, I guess it does show, but to be honest I donít want to rag on the AK too much as it is a fine weapon. But I think the M16 gets too much of a bad rap. That is why I tend to be more defensive about it. I have always thought that this debate is more political then practical. I think the Vietnam experience in some ways tainted the M16 beyond what it should have been. It seems that most anything American to come from that war is met not only by open distain but questionable character where the other side is glorified.

Oh, and that link that was posted. I havenít found time to really look hard at the information but a lot of it seems very interesting so thanks.

MTMilitiaman
February 20, 2006, 09:16 PM
I don't know how to tell you this any more nicely, but regarding the shockwave theory, you're wrong--and that is the bottom line.

I've had a 5.56 go off in my face. My head was right over the compensator of a Mini-14. We were in a small trailer. The bolt had seized shut and my uncle had too much Wild Turkey in him. He flipped off the safety and pulled the trigger. The bolt wasn't seized shut anymore, but I got the full effect of the blast concentrated on the right side of my head. The bullet went through the floor an inch from my big toe. I couldn't hear anything out of that ear for a couple days, and had an instant headache, but I am still very much alive and kicking. Likewise, I have had near misses on dozens of ground squirrels with the 5.56 and never had one die from it.

The bullet is tiny and designed to minimize air displacement. The more air a bullet displaces, the most resistance it faces. This is bad cause it increases the rate at which a bullet loses velocity due to drag. The "shockwave" created by a bullet's flight is small compared to that of having a truck pass you on the highway.

You're wrong, no if, ands, or buts about it.

O and each blast is a sonic boom--that is why guns go "boom."

MechAg94
February 20, 2006, 10:51 PM
The sonic boom is part of why you hear the reverberation downrange. Fire a single shot .22 LR one time and then fire a .22 Short. You will notice the difference.
Well, the shock wave might damage your ear drum if fired over your shoulder, but I doubt death would result. Sounds like they were either stories getting out of hand or exageration of an actual safety incident.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 20, 2006, 10:57 PM
However, here I know I am not wrong. When dealing with the shockwavesÖ

Yes, you are wrong. Not a little bit wrong either. Not "it is a matter of interpretation" wrong. Not "some people have evidence supporting" wrong. You are simply flat out 100% don't-know-what-you-are-talking-about-wrong.

My dad is a Nam vet and remembers keenly what they were told in basic about the 5.56 shockwave. They were told not to fire over each otherís shoulder as it HAD accounted for deaths from friendly fire.

I am not in a position to say whether your Dad was told that or not. I am in a position to say that the statement is utter crap, regardless of what he was told.

Oddly enough the bullet never touched the victim. The shockwave caused some sort of concussion. This happened enough to make the instructors on the firing range warn the recruits. That is pretty definitive proof right there.

Well, if it happened that often you should have no trouble producing some documentation to support that contention then. Considering there are warning orders out on minor things like cook-off; being able to kill people by firing over their head should have ample documentation.

Also, back with the first thread I posted a received an email from my cousin who is a Marine serving in Iraq (you can look this up by doing a word search for M16/AK bit. The thread has been locked up but you can still read it). I didnít even know about the shockwave until he mentioned it.

You are WAY out of your lane and do not know what you are talking about. There is no such thing as what you describe. Having done a few high-low two-man shooting where the muzzle of an AR15 was uncomfortably close to my ear, I can assure you it is not fatal. The worst injury so far is nasty brassburn on the back of my neck.

NineseveN
February 20, 2006, 10:57 PM
I will admit that I had no clue as to the speed with which 5.56 comes out of the barrel. I just sort of assumed it would be less then the speed of sound as if it were over each blast would be a sonic boom but I guess I was wrong. However, here I know I am not wrong. When dealing with the shockwaves…

My dad is a Nam vet and remembers keenly what they were told in basic about the 5.56 shockwave. They were told not to fire over each other’s shoulder as it HAD accounted for deaths from friendly fire. Oddly enough the bullet never touched the victim. The shockwave caused some sort of concussion. This happened enough to make the instructors on the firing range warn the recruits. That is pretty definitive proof right there. Also, back with the first thread I posted a received an email from my cousin who is a Marine serving in Iraq (you can look this up by doing a word search for M16/AK bit. The thread has been locked up but you can still read it). I didn’t even know about the shockwave until he mentioned it. While discussing the 7.62 and 5.56 he said that there were two schools of thought on the ammo; the first being that the 7.62 has great knock down and can royally mess somebody up, the second being that the 5.56 rips through the body with a shockwave.

And as far as me being biased, I guess it does show, but to be honest I don’t want to rag on the AK too much as it is a fine weapon. But I think the M16 gets too much of a bad rap. That is why I tend to be more defensive about it. I have always thought that this debate is more political then practical. I think the Vietnam experience in some ways tainted the M16 beyond what it should have been. It seems that most anything American to come from that war is met not only by open distain but questionable character where the other side is glorified.

Oh, and that link that was posted. I haven’t found time to really look hard at the information but a lot of it seems very interesting so thanks.



Let me put it another way:


It is physically impossible for any common small arms round to kill a living thing in the manner that you suggest without ever physically touching it. Period. There is no debate. The science on this is absolute.

Anyone that tells you otherwise is completely, absolutely, 100% full of poop.

MechAg94
February 20, 2006, 11:41 PM
:uhoh: Sooooo, you think he is wrong then??:confused:





:D :D :D :D :neener:

2ndChapterofActs
February 21, 2006, 10:31 AM
If that is the case, and you seem to know what your talking about... would it have been possible for earlier versions of the M16 to have that problem as they slowed down the bullets now probably move slower now then they did then. I seem to remember that there were added twists or something in the barrel that slowed down later models. Because I'm not trying to blow smoke up you butt here.

NineseveN
February 21, 2006, 10:36 AM
If that is the case, and you seem to know what your talking about... would it have been possible for earlier versions of the M16 to have that problem as they slowed down the bullets now probably move slower now then they did then. I seem to remember that there were added twists or something in the barrel that slowed down later models. Because I'm not trying to blow smoke up you butt here.



From www.ammo-oracle.com. You really need to read that entier page before you come back to this thread:

The original ammo for the M16 was M193, with a 55gr copper-jacketed lead-core bullet. The rifling twist on the first M16s was 1 turn in 14 inches, or 1:14. This twist rate was selected simply because it was the twist rate commonly used in the .222 Remington-chambered varmint rifles that the .223 round was based on. During tests of the M16 in arctic regions, it was found that the slow 1:14 twist wasn't fast enough to stabilize the 55gr bullet in the denser air. To correct this problem, the twist was tightened to 1:12 and all future M16s and M16A1s came with 1:12 barrels.

The M855 round and particularly the M856 tracer round, are very long bullets and require a faster twist rate in order to be stabilized in air. Firing M855 from a 1:12-twist rifle would result in an understabilized bullet that would only fly straight for about 90 yards, then veer off as much as 30į in a random direction. In order to prevent soldiers from accidentally firing M855 in 1:12-twist rifles, M855/SS-109 was given a green-painted bullet tip. This allows M855/SS-109 to be differentiated from plain-tipped M193. M16A2s, A3s, A4s, M4s and M4A1s all have a 1:7 twist and can stabilize both M855 and M193.

BBstacker
February 21, 2006, 08:34 PM
As a AO in the navy and spending 2 tours in nam. the 5.56 , 7.62, .50 cal or 20 MM can KILL you by missing with a shockwave.If it where true I would be dead. I have work on and shot every rifle and handgun the navy had from a .22 RF to the 30.06 BAR. FASU Danang.

possum
February 21, 2006, 08:47 PM
personally i don't mind cleaning weapons one bit as a matter of fact, I clean them more than i shoot them. I personally have had no problems with my m16/a4 at all in two tours of duty. fitted with an ACOG it makes it that much better. just like everyone one else i wish things were different but sometimes you have to work with what you have been issued.

And thank god that the shock wave from a passing bullet won't kill you or i would have probly been dead two or three times over. probally even decapatated!:)

Yes, the AK safety leaves something to be desired. No doubt i agree i wish the ak safety was the same as the sks safety i really like that and have become very comfortable with it.

.45Guy
February 21, 2006, 09:03 PM
And as far as cleaning; the only trap I would like to avoid is the stereotypical ďM16 must be cleaned all the time or it will jam, jam, jam and cleaning is bad when it comes to a combat weapon because you shouldnít have toĒ. Cleaning isnít hard, it doesnít take a lot of time, it isnít a drawback. Most vets that posted before agreed with this.

I must disagree here. When I was vacationing at Club Tallil, I noticed a strange occurence. The fine moondust sand would form a hard white concretion on the bolt carrier/bolt(bone dry). It was a B#$%@ to get off, and was quick to return.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 21, 2006, 10:47 PM
If that is the case, and you seem to know what your talking about... would it have been possible for earlier versions of the M16 to have that problem as they slowed down the bullets now probably move slower now then they did then.

No, it would still not be possible. No small arm is capable of killing via a "shockwave" simply by passing close by someone.

ghost squire
February 21, 2006, 10:59 PM
5.56 has plenty of penetration power when it is fired at nearly the speed of sound.

Oookkkkk....

Are you for real?

I doubt a 5 inch shell could kill you by air shockwaves much less a 5.56... 7.62 wouldn't have a chance either. People have been shot in the legs and torsoes with .50 cals and 25mm Bushmaster cannon rounds at close range, it often doesn't kill them even though it makes contact with them. "Hydostatic shock" didn't settle their hash either...

Shane333
February 21, 2006, 11:28 PM
Shane,

um, then again, nevermind.

ID_shooting,

I apologize for being rude in my remarks. I was too heavy handed in my comment to you earlier.

Looking back, I realize that it does look weak to say, "well my friend who is a marine/navy seal/ranger/etc. says such and such".

clange
February 22, 2006, 04:00 AM
If that is the case, and you seem to know what your talking about... would it have been possible for earlier versions of the M16 to have that problem as they slowed down the bullets now probably move slower now then they did then. I seem to remember that there were added twists or something in the barrel that slowed down later models. Because I'm not trying to blow smoke up you butt here.
We dont doubt that it was said, it probably was, whats at issue is the fact it isnt possible. There are all kinds of such silly stories someones brother heard in boot camp. My personal favorite is that a .50BMG will break your legs from the shockwave alone if it gets within a five feet. Its the same story, and its just as crazy.

ID_shooting
February 22, 2006, 09:21 AM
"I apologize for being rude in my remarks. I was too heavy handed in my comment to you earlier."

NP, Its all good.

Wynterbourne
February 23, 2006, 10:15 PM
I also know that the shock wave an M16 round carries can kill without touching. While going through basic training a number of soldiers of mentioned to me that their instructors told them if a bullet got close enough to their head the shockwave would do the killing.

*blink**blink**blink*

Ok, my BS-O-Meter has officially 'red-lined'.

I guess the shockwave from the awesome speed of this round should have blown my leg clean off, rather than leaving this danding little scar from the grazing. I'm lucky I can still walk! I mean, the shockwave alone should have severed muscle and tendon, shattered bone, and blown arteries. It's a freaking miracle!

*sigh*

If you enjoyed reading about "M16/AK Bit II" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!