In Vietnam Ak or M16

I won't own a black rifle to this day!

Click to expand...

after seeing your buddies die becaues of design flaws in this rifle im sure id feel the same way.

Depends. The M16 evolved through that war and continues to evolve. The AK is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

I think it says good and bad things about both rifles. The M16 needed some of that evolution, but it also lends itself to evolution and modularity moreso than the AK. The AK didn't need as much evolution, but it's design is not versatile enough to allow it to be changed much more in it's current form. Both have drawbacks, both have advantages.

It's hard to say unless you were there.

I know this. My AR15's are a far cry from the M16's from Vietnam. I'd trust them with my life.

Id trust the M16s I had when I was in (02-06). The early one definitely had problems but they have been resolved. I never had a rifle jam on me or anyone in my platoon, that I can think of, in combat. That includes in 2003 right after the huge red sand storm.

As far as the cartridge goes, I love the 5.56. It tracked well through all the cars and buildings we shot into. It does ricochet if it hits stuff at an angle though. Then again so does 7.62x51. Shoot enough machine guns with tracers and youll see that even the big .50 ricochets a lot if you hit stuff and a shallow angle.

Interesting, the M16/AR worshipers (who act like it can do no wrong) are awful quiet. I guess they don't want to argue with all of the firsthand experience in this thread (they normally like to proclaim how the problems with the M16 were "fixed" and were "overblown").

I can do 5 inch groups with my RPK @200 yards with cheap russian ammo.

The main problem with the jamming was a different powder than specified. The powder they used had "additives" and was cheaper. I'm not positive on the original powder but I'm guessing it was IMR 4895.
The procurement of this ammunition is the failure, not the rifle itself. Ball powder was in it's infancy in those days and an unknown quantity. Whoever was responsible for that clusterf..k should be made to pay, along with whoever approved it. By and large, although not my primary weapon, the M-16 performed reasonably well for me. However, I well remember charging a woodline with a .45, as the 50, M-60's AND the M-16 were not functioning. If you want to talk crap weapon, just look at the "PIG".
I'm sure that on occasion, somebody, somewhere actually picked up and used an AK vs. the issued M-16. I'm also sure that the distinctive sound of an AK being fired, turned the shooter into a bullet magnet. I know that in a firefight, many, many rounds were expended without a visual target. That is from personal experience.

the 5.56x45 mm bullet is very effective when fired out an m16, way more effective then the 7.62x39mm. yes the old M16 i heard was a POS i would pick a more reliable gun over a defective one any day but if the m16 gun is very reliable i would choose the .223 rem bullet over the ak bullet any given day.

Interesting, the M16/AR worshipers (who act like it can do no wrong) are awful quiet. I guess they don't want to argue with all of the firsthand experience in this thread (they normally like to proclaim how the problems with the M16 were "fixed" and were "overblown").

Click to expand...

The way I see it clem addressed the teething problems of the M-16 very well in post #23. Lets face it some people have their own reality on certain issues and it's pointless to try to change their minds.

I was in the service in 1972 and the M16A1 performed just fine. But by then the major problems with the M16 had been addressed. My only complaint with the weapon was the light barrel with a slow twist. Both of these problems were addressed in the M16A2.

I was there when Clem was.
Was issued the original m-16.
Absolute piece of garbage.
Thank God I was serving with the Aussies.
Grabbed a FAL 5 minutes after I sighted in the M-16.

I have never shot an M-16 or variant again.

AFS

I learned to call that "experimenter's bias". You can juggle anything to prove whatever you want to.

Click to expand...

I took a psychology statistics course in college. Hated that class.
The only thing I remember from it is what the prof told us on the very first day.
he opened the class by saying, "Don't believe statistics. They lie. If I wanted to, I could prove to you, using standard statistical methods, that the average person in the world has one testicle and one ovary."

Kimber45acp said:

Interesting, the M16/AR worshipers (who act like it can do no wrong) are awful quiet. I guess they don't want to argue with all of the firsthand experience in this thread (they normally like to proclaim how the problems with the M16 were "fixed" and were "overblown").

Click to expand...

What was the point of this post? I've read and posted quite a bit here on THR over the years and I can't remember any posts from "M-16 worshippers" who "act like it can do no wrong." Maybe you can give me some examples of those posts so I can see what I am missing?

As for arguing with firsthand experience, it seems you ignored the firsthand experience of several people saying they had no problems with the AR15 in Vietnam?

So I read your post and I think: First he divides people into questionable categories (unreasonable M16 worshippers vs. people who have firsthand experience), then he ignores all the posts that don't agree with the point he wants to emphasize. So then I start to wonder why you want to start a pissing match instead of have a conversation about the weapon?

I can echo many of the sentiments expressed in this thread. As many have said, the current M-16 system is a far different beast than the one that was introduced in the 1960's. However, in my own experience, I have found it to be marginally effctive at best, and that was only with a very certain loadout, namely: 20" barrel with 1:7" twist and 77gr MK262 Mod1's. For a time, I carried a short barrel M-4 (10"bbl) and was disgusted with the performance. On several occasions I ID'd a target, took multiple rapid shots, confirmed the hits, and watched the target get back up and continue on to detonate IED's or dissapear to create trouble for us at a later date. The day we took a severe hit due to the M-4's inability to put a target down, I switched to a full-sized M-16, and was happier.
Despite all of that, I do own a full-sized semi-auto M16A2 style rifle, because I am of the opinion that every American citizen should have one upon reaching the age of 18, and be fully trained in its use. I am contemplating purchasing another full-sized rifle and customizing it, but I haven't fully made up my mind. I do know, however, that if I had to bug out right now, my AKM would be slung on my back.

the 5.56x45 mm bullet is very effective when fired out an m16, way more effective then the 7.62x39mm. yes the old M16 i heard was a POS i would pick a more reliable gun over a defective one any day but if the m16 gun is very reliable i would choose the .223 rem bullet over the ak bullet any given day.

Click to expand...

The 5.56x45mm round is not inherently potent: it must be combined with the correct barrel length, twist rate and bullet grain weight and type. You could argue that the effects of the early M193 55gr rounds were exaggerated, the failures of the later M855 round were played up, but out of all the loadings I have ever used with this cartridge, the MK262 Mod1 in 77gr has been the most effective.

Kinda doesn't matter.... small arms don't kill (or save) that many lives on the battlefield, and the outcome of the Vietnam war was determined through politics rather than soldiers killed, land taken.... or what rifle someone decided to use.

btw, if we really need a score board... every industrialized nation on the globe has switched to small caliber weapons, with quite a few more using the M-16 rather than an AK variant. I highly doubt countries like Russia, China, or Israel would choose a less effective weapon over something else since it cost them quite a bit to develop small caliber weapons.

Unfortunately for our boys, politics did play the larger role.

Unfortunately for our boys, politics did play the larger role.

Click to expand...

Trust your life to whatever piece of equipment you want to. I just won't trust mine to a .22 bullet, I don't care how fast it's going, especially out of a direct impingement system.

Another AR vs. AK thread.

While I have read about these rifles many times each has their advantages and disadvantages.

In all fairness the M-16 was a new weapon in Vietnam. I am sure hte AK-47 had a few teething problems in its development.

The AK is also a much simpler device with looser tolerances. The AK is accurate enough out to about 200 yards. In a long distance shootout the AK would lose. Vietnam was not long distance.

I still maintain that piston rifles are far superior to DI rifles. With new piston ARs coming out I wonder if the military will adopt the piston on M16s and M4s. The M14 was a piston type arrangement. The piston is nothing new, the AK, SKS, M1 Garand, M14, and a few others have used this setup.

The AK is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Click to expand...

I disagree. While it's true the AK isn't as modular as the AR and never will be, it's just as versatile. Look at the hundreds of different variants. Caliber, barrel length, shooting application, bullpup, etc. Hell it's even been copied and modified so you can barely tell it's an AK (the Sig 556).

I feel it's just as adaptable as the M16.

Posted by RedLion


btw, if we really need a score board... every industrialized nation on the globe has switched to small caliber weapons, with quite a few more using the M-16 rather than an AK variant. I highly doubt countries like Russia, China, or Israel would choose a less effective weapon over something else since it cost them quite a bit to develop small caliber weapons.
__________________

Click to expand...

This is what Kalashnikov had to say about the 5.45x39mm Cartridge:

"It is you Americans that are to be blamed for our switch to 5.45x39mm cartridge. The soviet "experts" saw you using 5.56mm in Vietnam and didn't want to miss on something.
I was all for modernizing the 7.62mm cartridge."

The Russian "experts" thought that Americans know something, and forced the switch. So, the change was made as a result of political and economical pressure, not as a result of testing.

The Chinese did what they do best: COPY!!! They did this for ever and did the same thing with the cartridge.

The Israel case is different. Their country is small and always at risk. Their industry within reach of enemy. They have to be able to get ammo and other stuff from US if they need it. They will always adopt the US cartridge. Their survival depends on it.

Everyone else in NATO is just biting the bullet because they have to be on the same page with US (the big lion in the coalition).

The NATO had a much more suitable round back in late 40's. Everyone in the coalition wanted the .280 British. But they had to adopt the US pushed .30 cal. Was the 308 better? No, it wasn't, but the big lion makes the rules.
The same with the .223. US adopted it without even consulting the coalition and everyone had to adopt it.

Actually the Russians also brushed aside a better cartridge than their 7.62x39mm. The Czech 7.62x45mm was better, had more range, but the Czechs had to switch to the Russian round.

I talked to a guy who works for a local dealer who said he picked up and USED many AKs on the battlefields of Vietnam.

Click to expand...

I got to chuckle every time I hear about those guys who threw away thier M-16's and carried an AK-47 in Vietnam!!

The guys I served with who were in combat in Vietnam would have brought smoke on your azz from every available weapon at the sound of an AK firing at night!

There was also the little matter of our spooks booby trapping 7.62x39 ammo with C4 loaded rounds. Orders were given not to pick up & fire enemy weapons or ammo about mid-war.

rc

I carried an M14 and didn't wonder which one was better.

There was also the little matter of our spooks booby trapping 7.62x39 ammo with C4 loaded rounds. Orders were given not to pick up & fire enemy weapons or ammo about mid-war.

Click to expand...

Yes sir, called the Eldest Son program. Not sure what they loaded the rounds with, as I dont think C4 will reliably detonate from a rifle primer; I could be way off though. Was difficult to plant the stuff, but quite effective. It got leaked to the press, and I believe the politicians stopped it. Bad for the "image." You're right though: standing orders were to never pick up an enemies weapon. That was reserved for MACV-SOG and 5th/7th group guys.

Just for fun:
http://www.jcs-group.com/military/war1964/project.html

ldest Son cartridges originally were reloaded with a powder similar to PETN high explosive, but sufficiently shock-sensitive that an ordinary rifle primer would detonate it. This white powder, however, did not even faintly resemble gunpowder. SOG's technical wizard, Ben Baker - our answer to James Bond's "Q" - decided this powder might compromise the program if ever an enemy soldier pulled apart an Eldest Son round. He obtained a substitute explosive that so closely resembled gunpowder that it would pass inspection by anyone but an ordnance expert. While the AKM and Type 56 AKs and the RPD light machine gun could accommodate a chamber pressure of 45,000 p.s.i., Baker's deadly powder generated a whopping 250,000 p.s.i.

Click to expand...

I'm just a young guy who was not in the military, I will take the word of those who were there and saw it over some person my age who "tried it at the gun range and it didn't happen".

Just my .005 cents.

We were issued new AR-15's in Oct or Nov 1964 at Bien Hoa. Mine was kept clean and did it's share of field duty and never malfunctioned once. The M2 Carbine it replaced did, however, malfunction but that was associated with the 30 round mags.