[Roboshred]

I was blasting away at some bowling pins early yesterday morning when I was approached by a soldier at the range(he wasn't in uniform). He looked over my guns and I offered to let him shoot my Maadi(Ak derivative). He pounded some steel plates at about 150 yds with open sights pretty regularly and commented that although he had just gotten back from Iraq that he had carried an AK on a regular basis while he was there. He said his rifle continuely choked on the ever present sand and his c/o told them they could keep some AK's in their vehicle as backup. His comments were that he loved his M4 but the action had difficulties with the sand. NO big deal but this seems to be a reoccuring theme there. I let him finish off a couple mags from my 1911 and thanked him for his service. If the issue with the sand proves out during this war, the m-16 and it's variants need to go away. Our soldiers need a firearm that works without fail. Just my .02;)

[Jim K]

Failure of the M16 rifle in sandy/dusty conditions was predicted long ago, by yours truly among others. It was one of two features I brought up to Gene Stoner as potential problems (the other was venting exhaust gas through the bolt carrier). He was not amused.

Many defenders of the rifle contend that it is reliable, given proper care and cleaning, but then concede that "proper" means almost 24x7 when in that kind of environment. In other words, when not shooting it, be cleaning it.

The AK-47 is not immune to dust and sand, and Russian troops had complaints in Afghanistan, but it is more tolerant of sand than the M16/M4. The Army defends the M16, but then really has no choice; no one likes to admit that they just might have made a boo-boo. There has been a lot of talk here and on other sites about other rifles that should be issued, ranging from .50 MGs for everyone* to old M1 rifles, M14's, Galil's, FAL's, etc. Some of these might be better, although the vaunted FAL gave up quickly when the Israelis used it in the 6-day war.

*Apparently by some kid who never saw a .50, let alone tried to carry one.

Jim

[Snaps]

see though, a big problem with getting rid of those would be teh fact that they're predicting more urban combat. Which the M-4s would be perfect for. There'll be different weapons better suited to different situations. There really isn't a way around that, and you knowthey're not going to pony up the cash to make different rifles availiable for different situations.

[Abominable No-Man]

I've heard that one before, too. The story is that there wer a couple of units that were authorized by someone to carry AK's to supplement their issue weapons. Depending on what story you read, the reason was either lack of M16's and/or 5.56mm ammo or the hideous unreliability of the M16.

I haven't found out for sure if it is true or not. I was over there, too, and I saw the M16 and M4 work very well under some very bad conditions.

Everyone who could fiddled with captured AK's, but no one who I ran across carried an AK.

So maybe it happened and maybe it didn't. Personally I would take stories like these with a grain of salt.

ANM

[.45FMJoe]

And this one time, at band camp...


Sorry man, I just don't buy stories like that. :)

[BusMaster007]

The FAL choked in the sand, too?
Hence, the 'sand cuts' in the L1A1?

Who makes a 'sand proof' rifle?

[Snaps]

I've got some sand in them without much trouble. You can't go leaving the thing laying aroudn though. I saw people that had problems but I never thought they were that bad.

Keeping the ejection port cover closed was a big thing. And brass to the grass in the mags was big..

I don't know though, the M-16 A2s seemed to have more problems than the M-4s

MY $.02

[E=MC^2]

Jessica Lynch said her M16 jammed before she could even fire a shot. The rumers must be true.:)

I served with 2/4 and 3/7 Cav out of Ft. Stewert. We were always encouraged to carry our M16A2 in plastic garbage bags while in the field or in the desert. What's even more humerous is that the Army actually has a special 'bag' that's designed for this. Our unit never stocked these but the Infantry did.

I don't know that the AK would be the anwer here either. Our M16's could consistantly drop the 300M(330yd) targets on the range. I've done several 30-round strings myself when trying to use up the ammunition we didn't want the hassle of turning back in. Are AK's capable of this accuracy? I've never been around them myself. I know my SKS would have some severe difficulty.

[buttrap]

the IDF tested the Russian AK out very well in sand...the sand gets in the gas tube vent holes and chews the gas rod all to hell..yes they work in sand but after a point they dont and a cleaning wont fix that problem..hence no gas holes in the AK-74...the M-2 .50 wont even run well in that stuff. The Galil has a AK rod with no gas holes in the tube and the brit FAL type sand cuts. The so called perfect Mp-5 wont even work in that stuff. The IDF finally decided that the M-16 was OK if it got cleaned 10 times a day as the sand did not destroy the guns.

[Abominable No-Man]

The French (yeah, I know, I know......) had quite a lot of experience with the desert prior to the first Gulf War- I believe in their colonies in Algiers and Morocco.

They developed a plastic carry bag for their FAMAS rifles, too.

ANM

[VG]

I served with 2/4 and 3/7 Cav out of Ft. Stewart. We were always encouraged to carry our M16A2 in plastic garbage bags while in the field or in the desert. What's even more humerous is that the Army actually has a special 'bag' that's designed for this. Our unit never stocked these but the Infantry did.

The Army issued plastic bags to troops before the Normandy invasions for the Garands and M1 Carbines. They are even sold as collector items on eBay.

I don't have access to the testing of the M16, but the testing of the M1 Garand is documented in detail in "Hatcher's Book of the Garand" by General Julian Hatcher. Sand doubled or quadrupled the number of malfunctions. The Garand proved itself in combat in WWII and Korea., but at the time, there was significant play in the press on these problems and the wisdom of fielding a semi auto service rifle.

The USMC officially selected the M1903 Springfield in December 1940, citing problems with reliability with semiautos. None of the rifles tested functioned after a "mud bath." After wetting and dragging through wet beach sand several times, the M1903 was able to function "with difficulty", the Garand managed three shots and could not be operated even manually without dissasembly for cleaning. The rifles functioned surprisingly well after fresh water and salt water soakings or showers, and without lubrication.

So, even for a rifle with the legendary reliability of the Garand, sand is a big problem. That it might be less of a problem for AKM's is only one consideration and largely moot.


Garryowen

[omega5]

The M16 should have gone away during Vietnam. The gun just plain sucks.
It jams if it's the least bit dirty and when it's clean, it lacks the power to do the job. I carried one for about 4 weeks in Nam and was lucky to live thru it. Thankfully, being a LRRP, I was able to carry a variety of weapons once the CO got over the AR15 kick and realized this gun would get his LRRP's killed. Say what you want, I'll take my M14, ans AK or even an SKS over an M16 anyday of the week. I've been there and done that.

[Jake 98c/11b]

In over 15 years of service I have yet to have a failure to function with the M16 series. Takes some effort but so far a near perfect record (broken trigger spring once). I will add that the Israeli's went to the Mauser rifles during the six day war and they had a sizable stock of AKs as well. Everything they had, to include the Mausers, had problems in the desert. The bolt action rifles had chambering problems and bolt lift was sometimes hard but they had the fewest problems.

I will admit that I have been lucky but that luck came with a lot of effort on my part.

Some AKs were (and probably still are) in use in Iraq. There was an article in the Army Times a while back about it. Many units deployed over there do not have enough M-16 or M-4 for all their soldiers. Armor units especially have this problem, the personal weapon in armor units is usually the M9 9mm. As I understand it tankers have only one long gun per tank, that leaves three of them with only the M9.

[goon]

My uncle, a Korean War vet, told me that his Garand worked every time as long as he kept it clear of sand.

Sand is pretty much the worst thing for any weapon.

[Larry]

When I was in Vietnam there were always those that did not take care of their weapons. They were the few, but they were the ones that had problems, too. Some did not appear to understand how things worked and others just could not be bothered.

I was a Navy Corpsman and saw the results of those problems. So I wore out my weapons taking them apart and cleaning them.

I get the feeling that some of the Reserve Forces pressed into action have very differing skills with thier weapons. One jam at the wrong time is a tragedy. I hope these problems result in a complete solution which given the military's track record is an impossible dream.

[Onslaught]

Funny, My Uncle, a U.S. Marine who did 3 tours in Vietnam, has nothing bad to say about the M16 or it's "ineffectiveness". Also, my Father's very good friend and morning coffee buddy who was a Medic in Vietnam has great respect for the wounding potential of the 5.56 round. While we were on the subject one morning, he told us a story of an entry wound at the clavicle that exited the top of the head....

FWIW, both have very similar and lasting emotional and nervous conditions from their time some 30+ years ago...

Of course, this has NOTHING to do with sand whatsoever, but back on the subject... the weapons weren't the only things that had trouble in the land of eternal sand... The vehicles, cameras, pretty much anything and everything had a hard time in an environment where sand is in the air and all around everywhere...

[cordex]

Why does no one suggest we replace the M249 with the RPD, the M60 with the PKM or the M2 with the DShK?

The '249, the '60 and the Ma Deuce all had problems in the sandbox too, didn't they? Or did people only selectively read the after action reports?

Any gun can fail. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to bring their grunt-proof wundergun over ... I'll find a way to make it stop. And if you issue it, the Infantry will find another few dozen ways.

[El Tejon]

cordex, cordex, cordex [shaking head and sighing heavily], there you go again, young man, always wanting to actually shoot and test weapons rather than listening to imaginary sea stories.

Now . . . let me tell you how the M4 does on French goats.:D

[MicroBalrog]

but no one who I ran across carried an AK.

I know some who do over here.:D

[MicroBalrog]

the M60 with the PKM

Actually, not a bad idea. I suggest an FN-MAG would be cool too.

[cordex]

Actually, not a bad idea. I suggest an FN-MAG would be cool too.
Good point. I'd agree heartily on the FN-MAG, but don't know enough about the PKM.

[Bob41081]

MicroBalrog,

I believe the M240B is an FN-MAG.

Booob

[Jeff White]

The M60 is being replaced in most units by the FN-MAG 58. In it's USGI guise it's known as the M240 B model in the USMC and G model in the Army.

The M60 is probably the worst GPMG design ever to be fielded by a major power, yet for some reason it doesn't generate the hate and discontent among the GSC crowd that the M16 always has.

I've always found it interesting that you don't find many M16 haters who have extensive experience with it. And when those with experience speak up they are usually dismissed out of hand in favor of unverifiable rumors in gun magazines and posted on the internet.

The desert is hard on anything that has moving parts. Weapons, vehicles, ancillary equipment. But we can overlook the problems that environment causes with all machinery except when it gives us a chance to kick around the M16 some more. :confused:

Jeff

[BDM]

I look at it this way I live in the northeast rain,snow cold,hot never bothered my bushie AR.Ive gone 1500 rounds in rain with no failures,I dont expect that my rifle will ever see a desert but if it did frequent cleaning should solve the problem.In WW2 garands not kept up failed in the north african desert.In korea my father found out the hard way that going from cold to warm causes condensation on the metal of a rifle and if not wiped down before going back in cold the rifle seizes and then he had to piss on it to get it to work..Bottom line knowledge and skill is power.If you understand your rifles stregnths and weaknesses and its design and how to maintain it in different environments it will function.No firearm is perfect and any rifle can fail if not maintained.There is no perfect low maintence weapon that is crap proof and until laser rifles or some other power or ammo source other than a gun powder based round is found lets all reconsile ourselves to the fact that a clean weapon is a properly functioning and reliable one.:D

[Dr.Rob]

There was a Reuter's story about US troops carrying the AK.. had nothing to dowith the m-4/m-16 being ineffective, had everything to do with troops who were NOT issued rifles suddenly being pushed into action that required the use of rifles. IE tankers doing riot control, cooks facing ambush, etc.

There is apparently a shortage of M-16's, given a geurilla war situation and a heavily armed populace/enemy.

[OEF_VET]

I've carried M-16A1's, A2's, and M-4's professionally for eight years in the Army, including a peacekeeping tour of Kosovo and a combat tour of Afghanistan (which by the way, is a desert). I never once felt that I was poorly equipped. As long as you do some PMCS (Preventive Maintainence Checks and Services) on it, it will work fine. Yeah, sand and dust can foul it up, but that's why you clean it every time you get the opportunity. Keep the ejection port closed and put a barrel cap over it (you can shoot right through it when the SHTF). When you stop for a few minutes, do a quick inspection. If need be, take a barbers brush to the dust, or a toothbrush. Instead of playing graba$$ with the other privates, or having an unneeded smoke, look after your weapon. It's that simple. Take care of your equipment and it'll take care of you.

But, what the hell do I know, right?

Frank

[MicroBalrog]

IE tankers doing riot control, cooks facing ambush, etc.

And tankers DON'T have rifles in your military?:uhoh:

Round here, anybody who can carry a captured AK, does, but few may.

[Jeff White]

Microbalrog asked;
And tankers DON'T have rifles in your military?:uhoh:

Tankers are issued the M9 pistol in our army. Each tank has two M4s that are BII (Basic Issue Items). It's been this way since WWII when BII was two Thompsons or M3 grease guns.

Jeff

[Larry]

If weapons are in such short supply, I wonder how good the training can be.

[444]

Far better than the enemy.

[Jeff White]

Larry,
Rifles are in short supply in armored units, because tankers are supposed to fight mounted, with their 125mm smoothbore cannon.

We've got tankers and artillerymen doing Infantry and MP missions because we made some serious misjudgments on what the next war would bring when we dismantled the Army during the '90s.

The training could be better (it always could be better) but rest assured you are served by the best trained, most professional armed forces the world has ever seen.

Jeff

[444]

"And tankers DON'T have rifles in your military?"

Yeah, they have rifles. When they realized they needed one they took it from a punk that didn't know what he was doing with it. Adapt and Overcome.

[cookhj]

jeff white, just a correction, the 240G is the marine corps version and the 240B is the army version.

[Jeff White]

cookhj,

You're right of course...Must be getting dyslexic in my old age :uhoh: .

Jeff

[BDM]

If colt didnt have the monoploly on the M4 being produced there would be more weapons faster where they are needed,in the hands of our guys.I hope eventually something is done to subcontract work out to other manufacturers to make the M4 if not get the full size M16 and change barrel assemblies,stock assemblies and internals to allow full auto and that should solve the M4 shortage problem.

[Jeff White]

BDM,
There is no shortage of rifles in the US Army. The armor units simply aren't authorized rifles. This is a temporary crisis brought on by poor planning.

Jeff

[BDM]

Oh I see,and I agree poor planing..hell they should have a rifle for every one wether they think they need it or not..bone headed thinking no matter the MOS every one should have a rifle available to them from clerks to cooks to who ever may be needed to squeeze a trigger when ever a situation arises.I cant beleive they are making tankers dismounted infantry and then those guys dont have what they need.

[444]

This has been going on for a long time. Twenty some years ago when I was a track driver (M113), I was issued a 1911 and shoulder holster and no rifle. At the time, I was really happy about it. We tried to keep the pistol in our rucksack so that we didn't have to clean it after the exercise. Sometimes we even got away with it.

[VG]

As long as you do some PMCS (Preventive Maintainence Checks and Services) on it, it will work fine. Yeah, sand and dust can foul it up, but that's why you clean it every time you get the opportunity. Keep the ejection port closed and put a barrel cap over it (you can shoot right through it when the SHTF). When you stop for a few minutes, do a quick inspection. If need be, take a barbers brush to the dust, or a toothbrush. Instead of playing graba$$ with the other privates, or having an unneeded smoke, look after your weapon. It's that simple. Take care of your equipment and it'll take care of you. Damn, that sounds like common sense. You must have been an NCO....
Know a guy named Robin Sage, maybe?

If colt didnt have the monoploly on the M4 being produced there would be more weapons faster where they are needed,in the hands of our guys.I hope eventually something is done to subcontract work out to other manufacturers to make the M4 if not get the full size M16 and change barrel assemblies,stock assemblies and internals to allow full auto and that should solve the M4 shortage problem. FN is contracted to build M16's at the moment, the contract is bid every few years. Everyone has their eyes carefully on Colt because of their fragile financial state.

[OEF_VET]

VG,

Yep, I was an NCO, and proud of it too. But, nope, never had the pleasure, or displeasure depending on your point of view, of experiencing Robin Sage. Them snake eaters are too nuts, even for me.

Frank

[Grump]

Jessica Lynch said her M16 jammed before she could even fire a shot. The rumers must be true

Well, in Highpower, I always preferred the matches where the rule in rapid-fire strings was "NO first-round or third-round alibis." If'n you can't get that first chambered round to fire, you're either seriously mishandling your weapon (and M16 vs. AK system won't make a rat's butt of difference), or something is seriously broken.

Or were they carrying empty chambers in that column in-country? That could *explain* a "jam" before even firing a single shot...but it's still some bad loading techniques. I smell a rat.

BTW, I heard that the Steyr AUG even choked on sand in the Gulf War #1. Any substantiation of this? Seems the operating springs and bolt riding on rails would minimize the chances of that, but real-world experience rules...

[capnrik]

umm, Omega5 said
Thankfully, being a LRRP, I was able to carry a variety of weapons once the CO got over the AR15 kick and realized this gun would get his LRRP's killed.

So your CO preferred the AR15 to the M16?

Pray tell, what was your MOS?

[OEF_VET]

capnrik,

The AR-15 was the original designation of the M-16 family of weapons. That was how it was originally known when adopted by the Air Force (the original branch to adopt the weapon). It wasn't until later that the weapon was accepted by the Army and type standardized as the M-16. So, referring to the Vietnam-era weapon as the AR-15 isn't inherently wrong.

Frank

[omega5]

11Bravo back then.( don't know what it's called now) Recondo School Na Trang. Back then an "M16" was called an AR 15 as often as it was a Mickey Mouse gun.
As a LRRP, we always carried some VC weapons. A shot fired from an AK or SKS didn't get the attention from the VC that a shot from an allied weapon would.
I've shot at a gook behind an 8 to 10 inch tree with and "M16" and wasted my rounds. I've also shot at a gook behind a similar size tree with my M14 and cut the tree down on him. Don't really care what you think. I've been in combat with both and you couldn't give me an "M16" or any of it's decendants.
Dirt. A REMF can find time to keep his weapon clean. (But usually didn't)If my team has made contact with a superior force and we're running for our lives to reach an extraction point, we dont have time to stop and clean a weapon. It has to work filthy. Mud, Red dirt, leaves, debris, sand; don't matter, it has to work or I or my team is dead!
Just my $.02 but it comes from something other than video games and TV.

[Langenator]

Jeff White-

I hate to do this to you, but you've made a second error of fact: US tanks use a 120mm smoothbore cannon (original design by Rheinmetall of West Germany.) The Russkies and those who buy their tanks use 125mm.

And for the edification of everyone else: FN makes the M-16, M-249, and M240 series (B, C, and G models) for the US military. Colt makes the M-4. Interesting bit of trivia I picked up on a tour of the FN plant.

And FWIW, until the end of August, I was assigned to the Stryker Brigade (currently at Camp Udari, Kuwait, getting ready for the 2-way livefire). Even our battalion paralegal guy had an M-16. Only some of the staff officers, medical types, and field grades (Major and up) had just M9s as weapons. This includes the cooks.

[BevrFevr]

I think some of you may be missing the point here. Combat experience not withstanding. I believe that sand and use and poor maintenace can foul any weapon system up.

I but I'm sure the m16 system is the best thing since sliced bread whn clean. But what I ask is how much time do you want the grunts to spend keeeping it clean. You can effectively clean an ak with a boot lace and an old nail in a matter of seconds. If you have to. Even If you have just seen one for the first time in your life.

Try that with your m4. I think a better weapon design can be made that the m16/m4 that is accurate, reliable, easier to maintain, and has more effective firepower.

Every system has it's day and sometimes that day is now. Let's move on, Let's adapt improvise and overcome.

Yes, I loved my 72 Cutlass Supreme. But when it's nasty out give me a front wheel drive anyday.

-bevr

[444]

One thing that I have brought up a few times in similar discussions is, how do we know just how reliable the AK is in combat ? Now don't get me wrong, I am not disputing it's reliability, I know it is very reliable. What I am saying is that it seems like everytime a soldier anywhere in the world gets a stoppage with an M16, we hear about it. This only makes sense since they are US soldiers and it is only natural that we talk to them and get reports from their relatives and friends along with stories from the major news media in this country. By the same token, our soldiers are not using the AK on a wide spread basis, therefore we dont really get any solid information about how well they run in various conditions. We make assumptions, but what are they based on ?
I think a lot of people make the leap that malfunctions NEVER occur with the Ak and that maintainance is non-existent mainly because we never hear about it. But do we actually know whether or not the enemy is cleaning their weapons or how frequently they are cleaning their weapons ? Do we know if they are experiencing stoppages and if so, how often and under what conditions ? Do we know how often an AK is repaired or cast aside because of parts breakage ? Do we know if the enemy is lubricating their weapons and if so, with what ? These are subjects which we know all about with American weapons; some of us have been in the military and know exactly the answers to these questions. But I for one have never read a single thing about the AK that discussed this stuff.


Again, this isn't intended to be a "let's defend my faviorite rifle" post. It is just food for thought.

[fallingblock]

I was 45B20 from '67 to '72.

I handled a lot of M16's & M16A1's, and the fact that they were usually broken may have influenced my opinion :D .

One of the common serious malfunctions in the early days was attributed to the use of IMR powder rather than the Olin ball propellants which the AR was designed for. The IMR left a lot of carbonization on the bolt carrier and around the bolt lugs. This resulted in total lockup with a high round count.

The problem of partly chambered rounds which could not be extracted was also common, again perhaps due to lack of sufficient cleaning, but the rifle was useful only as a club until disassembled (which required separating the upper from the lower receiver), not something one would wish to do in a firefight:( .

The addition of the forward-assist plungers actually exacerbated the failure to chamber problem in many cases, as the round would be well and truly jammed into the chamber by the time the grunt realized it wasn't going to go home. On some M16A1's coming through the depot, the charging handle had been bent upward or broken off by some troop in the field trying to extract a round which he had used the forward assist plunger to
wedge into the chamber seconds earlier. :eek:

In my opinion, this lack of an external bolt handle articulated to the bolt to allow forceful extraction of rounds combined with the direct-impingement gas system are the two primary and incorrectable faults of the AR system.

These design faults have been ameliorated by good and consistent quality of manufacture of the rifles and ammo, and by organizational emphasis on regular and meticulous cleaning, but they remain as serious flaws on any combat rifle.

[Larry]

If you want to fix all the small arms problems, just ask Johnson's wiz kids. They know everything.

[E=MC^2]

Tankers are issued the M9 pistol in our army. Each tank has two M4s that are BII (Basic Issue Items). It's been this way since WWII when BII was two Thompsons or M3 grease guns.

Kinda hard to believe but 3/7 Cav Ft. Stewert, GA was still issuing the M3 Grease Guns to tankers when I left in '97.

At that time basic issue for each Abrams was one M203, the rest had M9's.

[Blain]

U.S. Rifle - M14.....the ULTIMATE solution!

[BDM]

Even a 14 will jam up in dust and sand if not cleaned although it may take a little longer to do.Nothing is 100% reliable weather properly maintained or not and every firearm needs preventitive maintenence to work properly even a 14 or an AK or what have you.Besides you cant fit a 14 in the close confines of a tank or humvee and even in APCs it takes up too much space unless they issue an 18" barrel bush model with side folding stock then maybe.

[Joe Demko]

U.S. Rifle - M14.....the ULTIMATE solution!

Blain,
Do please tell about your combat experience with the M-14 that would lead you to make this statement. While you're at it, tell about the times the M-16 let you down in combat, too.

[Jake 98c/11b]

While I am a diehard fan of the M-14 it is far from the Ultimate Solution. The ultimate solution simply does not exist, all the world is a competing compromise.

Some people talk a lot but they don't seem to say much.

[BevrFevr]

That ain't really fair. I wonder how many of the brainiac pothead MIT college grads that design those bitchen weapons systems that make this country the world power it is have even been in a fist fight. Probably not many.

I know some combat vets I wouldn't trust with a loaded paint brush but somehow they survived. It doesn't mean their views are any less welcome here.

-bevr

[Joe Demko]

I would expect somebody who makes a statement like "U.S. Rifle - M14.....the ULTIMATE solution!" to have some sort of experience to back it up. Combat experience isn't even necessary. I'll be happy for Blain to tell us about his extensive field experience with both rifles.

[BevrFevr]

fair enough

edit to add I have never been in the military don't want to give the wrong impression. Nothing I hate worse than a poser.

-bevr

[Willard]

The Syrians (at the least) issued canvas covers for their AK's during GW1.
US troops also captured AK's whose magazines were absolutely jammed up tight from sand and dirt.

The weakest link in the M-16A1's and A2's I've used (8+ years Army Infantry) was the magazine. 99% of the stoppages I experienced were due to crappy mags-bolt over base and double feeds being the most common.

Willard

[Langenator]

The M-14 is far from the ultimate solution when you have to to house-to-house and room-to-room. It's just too dang big. And there's not enough rail space to hang all the 11B doo-hickeys-M68 sight, PAQ-4 IR laser, Tac-lite, etc.

Here's a rifle I'd love to see someone at least try to build:

Take the mechanicals of the AR-18; Swap the trigger group and magazine well to make it a bullpup design (can any engineer types tell me if this would be possible?). This gives you a M-16 length barrel (for more velocity and accuracy) in an M-4 length weapon.
Give the barrel 1:7 or 1:8 rifling and use 77gr, 5.56mm rounds.
Put M-4 style foregrip/rails on it, plus a rail on top of the receiver, so you've gor space to hang the 11B toys.
Fold-down rear-sight with fixed front post.

Would this be a feasible weapon system?

[Snaps]

I think the only thing they need to do here (my opinion only) is replace all the old M-16 A2s with M-4s. Shorter and back to F/A

NOthing will work perfectly in sand. Those are no different.

[Jeff White]

Snaps,
If you want full auto, you need the M4A1...M4 is burst just like the M16A2 and A4.

Jeff

[Snaps]

Wow, all hte ones they were getting in when I got out were F/A, i just kind of figured all the military ones were.

Whoops:(

[MAKOwner]

Even if no weapon is perfect is in the desert, wouldn't you want something that isn't as prone to jamming? It seems to me the M16 could be improved apon as it sure seems to have a couple blatant "flaws" to me... Still teach the troops to clean clean clean whatever weapon we come up with but give them one that isn't quite as finicky and I think it will be better in the end.

The XM8 looks promising to me (ducks incoming objects).

(disclaimer - No combat experience...)

[N3rday]

You know, it always seemed like a good idea to have a bullpup design. really, if you think about it, you could have a slightly higher barrel that goes back like a bullpup, and have a pistol magazine that you could load into the pistol grip, and have a shorter barrel under the 5.56 barrel.


could use Beretta clips or something.
Just a gun n00bs theory...

OR you could load 4 12" shells into a handgun type clip, similar to a handheld shotgun I saw a picture of...I think it was a Mag 7 or 9 from South Africa

again, in theory...

[mephisto]

Sand Sucks. It gets in your hair and your socks and under your nails. And you can never get it out of your shoes. :fire: Lets all go witha No4 Mk II.:D

[fallingblock]

"It gets in your hair and your socks and under your nails. And you can never get it out of your shoes."
************************************************************

'Crunchy' sensation everytime you eat something:( .

The #4MkII would indeed be a good choice for a sandy theater of operations, the lug recesses are out where you could clear them quickly, and the detatchable magazine is perhaps easier to clear than the mauser type.;)

[OEF_VET]

Well said PvtPyle. Preach on brother.

Unfortunately, not enough soldiers actually read PS magazine. It's just another thing that gets tossed into the section chiefs desk and forgotten about. Never mind that there is vital information in every issue. Even though probably 95% of the stuff in it never applied to my equipment, I would always skim through each issue, looking for stuff that did apply, and then read that info and some stuff I'd never need to know.

It's like I said previously, it's all about the PMCS. Take care of your equipment and it'll take care of you. Neglect it, and it will fail when you need it the most. There is no 'Holy Grail' of firearms. They are all machines with intricate moving parts, assembled by humans. Therefore, they are not perfect and are subject to breaking down. Good 'ole Murphy's Law. Yeah, everyone has their preferences. But, regardless of what you think of as the ultimate weapon, a lack of attention to detail will get you killed.

Frank

[MicroBalrog]

PVTpyle:
Thanks for that. Any thoughts on AGS-30?

[MicroBalrog]

Tankers are issued the M9 pistol in our army. Each tank has two M4s that are BII (Basic Issue Items). It's been this way since WWII when BII was two Thompsons or M3 grease guns.

Jeff



We give 'en either Galil or Glilon rifles.;)

[zahc]

we dont have time to stop and clean a weapon. It has to work filthy. Mud, Red dirt, leaves, debris, sand; don't matter, it has to work or I or my team is dead!

IANAS

But a guy where I work was in vietnam, had the same attitude, and loved the M16. Said some people carried the M14 but it was to *%^#% heavy for him. Bigger round though which was good to have around.

[Grump]

Blain
Do please tell about your combat experience with the M-14 that would lead you to make this statement. While you're at it, tell about the times the M-16 let you down in combat, too.
Okay, I'm not Blain, and I have done no combat, but I can tell you about some range experience, almost all in deserts and perhaps 10% in dusty conditions.

3,000+ rounds through a Springfield-receiver GI parts M1A I built up, maybe 2,000 rounds through a Colt HBAR, 1,000 or so through a Valmet M76 and miscellaeous rounds through a pair of Imbel-receiver FAL parts guns and various buddies' ARs of various makes.

Even under these mere range sessions and a long-walk bunny hunt with the Valmet, they have all jammed, but never once because of dust. The M1A was mishandled and fired with its op rod outside the receiver channel. Ugly jam but easily fixed with a bit of muscle to the system.

With a bad mag (missing 3/8-inch of the front side of one feed lip), the M1A once had a smokestack feed jam. Bolt stopped forward, with the live round pointing out of the recever group. Easily cleared.

The Valmet had chronic magazine problems, now almost all fixed (Galils won't work well). Also had many problems with reloads getting case separations, not at the head, but halfway up. All easy to clear. Placed well in a 3-gun match racking rounds all over the field, from "broken case extractors" which were the next fed round, to tipping the receiver to dump rounds that sunk the bullets all the way in when the rounds smacked the barrel below the chamber (Galil mag did that the most).

FAL--adjust the gas system per instructions and you'll need to fiddle again with light loads that still function just fine in the M1A. Otherwise, not much experience.

ARs: I've twice seen a bad mag send a round up into the channel in the underside of the charging handle. The bolt lugs then crammed the round up into the space around the rear end of the gas tube. Can you say totally unclearable jam?

The ARs I personally fired were all kept with minimal lube, and collected very little dust. Half of them have either mysteriously failed to fully chamber a round or skipped feeding a round from the mag at least once, despite being fired less than 200 rounds between cleanings. None of these were from bulged or bent cases, either. Others I've observed on the firing line years ago at HP matches seemed to mysteriously misfeed as frequently as M1s (NOT M1As), and that's not counting the reloaders who forgot to charge their cases.

From the credible-sounding reports I hear, the ARs frequently keep on ticking for very long times. But it also sounds like when they choke, they choke badly. I'm all for some objective side-by-side testing under the talcum-powder sand conditions of Iraq, using various states of lube/no lube and types of lube. Because so many spaces in the AR receiver give the dust no place to go, I'm predicting the M14, run almost dry, will perform better than anything else out there, in strings of 500 rounds between cleanings.

The Valmet with decent mags will come in a very close second, or will be equally jam-free at zero. But in .223, it might rip a casehead right off when the chamber gets a bit dirty. Extraction is a bit...vigorous.

[bad_dad_brad]

I work with a guy that was an infantry captain in the Gulf War. He was a stickler about making sure his men kept their A2 M-16 rifles clean, and made sure that they took care of maintenance. Because of this, he has remarked that malfunctions were rare.

He respects the M-16 and he just bought a civilian AR-15 Bushmaster just awhile back for farm coyote control and fun. He completely trusts the weapon system, as long as you keep it reasonably clean. Another thing he stressed was to make sure to wipe away any excess lube and cleaner.

One of the things often forgotten, when these threads about the M-16, which always seem to evolve into a comparison with the AK, is accuracy and knock down power. The M-16 and the .223 is clearly superior. I have an AR-15 Bushy Shorty and an AK Romanian SAR-1. The AK is so crude regarding ergonomics and iron sight systems that I rarely shoot it.

[Langenator]

Brad, that's a question that I've wondered about for quite a while...why the heck didn't the Russkies put aperature sights on the AK?

Are there aftermarket aperature sights available?

[c_yeager]

One very important thing that isnt being addressed is acuracy. I know that the AK is reputed to be "combat accurate" but, from the people ive actually seen shoot them they dont all even make that grade. Personally i wouldnt be too happy with a 10moa rifle no matter how well it worked. The truly horrible iron sights (not to mention short sight radius) dont help much either. Compare that to the really nice peeps on the m16 and the optics options of an M4 and its no contest.

[Wildalaska]

After reading all this, I think our best bet is to return to the uber reliable, uber powerful and uber accurate 1903 Springfield

WildsimplesolutionAlaska

[Correia]

I've said this so many times that I sound like a broken record. The myth of AK inaccuracy comes from the fact that most of the AKs Americans are exposed to are the cheapest slapped together out of used parts guns you can make, firing the cheapest ammo known to man.

I have a Vepr with the Krebs A2 style peep sights. www.krebscustom.com I can shoot 2 inch groups at 100 yards, and I've shot 6 inch groups at 200 yards. And I'm not that good of a group shooter. In the hands of a real rifleman I'm sure it could do better.

So it isn't really fair to compare a $800 Bushmaster to a $250 SAR. :)

It is good to read PvtPyle's postings. It is nice to see some first hand information rather than the ramblings of us internet couch commandos. :D

[444]

Couch commando ?
Speak for yourself.
I am in a recliner.

[rock jock]

Ahhhh, the old AK vs. AR thread. As regular as the changing of the seasons.

We all know that the AK is indestructible. Heck, it will function even when dipped in wet concrete and allowed to cure. In fact, in ancient Babylonian times, AK-style sticks were dropped into volcanos and extracted intact while the AR-style sticks sadly burned to ashes. :rolleyes:

[goon]

An aperture rear sight would do wonders for a good AK.
I had a VEPR K .223 that I managed to shoot a 1.5 inch ten shot group with. It was from the prone, off sandbags at 100 yards with a warm barrel.
I was using UMC 55 grain FMJ ammo.
I know that an AK could be made to shoot pretty well if someone put some time into it.
I think that alot of the inaccuracy with the AK comes from cheap ammo and poor sights.
Get rid of those two and you would have a rifle that would have the best of both worlds.
At the very least, I would love to have a aperture sight back on the receiver cover on my SA-M7. It couldn't hurt.

On the other end, I had an SAR-1 that routinely shot 8 inch groups at 100 yards. I promptly sold it off.

[AKM]

The problem with an Aperture/Peep sight is the fact that it has to be mounted close to the eye (on the Receiver cover).

If you have a Kobra or other red dot mounted to a side mount, you will be surprised at how much flex the Receiver has (you can alter the point of aim quite a bit by just flexing the Receiver with your hand, not to mention the receiver cover since it sits on a higher plain)!

That’s why the Russians mounted the rear sight on the forward Trunnion.

[roscoe]

Krebs sells a receiver-mounted peep sight for the AK, and they say it maintains zero because they have some sort of set screw on the receiver that keeps it aligned. I have my eye on one for a .223 Saiga.

(near the bottom of the page)
http://www.krebscustom.com/CustomParts.html

My question is why no one has made one for the SKS.