AK 47 VS M16 video

[RockyMtnTactical]

The Galil was actually meant to be the rifle of the IDF but military aid gave them dirt cheap M16s Vs Galils they would have to pay full price for. The Galils just never took off as the issue rifle.

Which is exactly my point... It's simply not that great of a rifle. If it was unequivocally better than the M16, the Israeli's (who happened to invent the design) would be using it... and so would everyone else.

It's not bad, but it's not any huge improvement...

 

[JHansenAK47]

Sights aren't that great either. They work but are not nearly as refined as an M16 sight.

 

[Slamfire]

Which is exactly my point... It's simply not that great of a rifle. If it was unequivocally better than the M16, the Israeli's (who happened to invent the design) would be using it... and so would everyone else

Money is a far higher greater barrier to replacement than performance. If something is in inventory and meets miniumum requirements, why replace it if it costs lots of money?

You can see this in real life all the time, folks driving around in clunkers, when for $50,000 they could get a plush mobile. Somehow, it seems, the cash outlay is a barrier, and a clunker becomes good enough.

Governments have budgets too, you know.

Heck the Russians used the Mosin Nagant until what, the 1950's? And they are still using the 7.62 X 54R. So why did they not replace the Mosin's with M98 Mausers, and the rimmed round with rimless? $$$$$ Money $$$$.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

why replace it if it costs lots of money?

The main reason you would replace it is if it was significantly better... which it is not.

 

[JHansenAK47]

You got to remember the Israelis had troops in Lebanon for most of the 80s. Plus they were running ops all over the Gaza strip and west bank. They Designed the locally produced Merkava tank and had to buy hundreds of those. Ask a US tanker which tank is better the Abrams or the Merkava. They have mandatory military service because they use their military. If you were running the budget what would you do? Buy Galils or save money and get more equipment. They spend more per capita for defense than any country I can even think of.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

The main reason you would replace it is if it was significantly better... which it is not.

Which explains why the USAF no longer has any F-16s or F-15s now that the F-22 has entered service right?

 

[JHansenAK47]

The main reason you would replace it is if it was significantly better... which it is not.

The Galil was originally designed to replace the Israeli FAL. Which would jam with all the dust.
More of a case of dropping a rifle for a cheaper one than anything else.
A lot of people were surprised that Israel decided to go forward with the Tavor project. They have to pay full price for domestically manufactured rifles than US made ones.
Thats another stipulation of Military aid to Israel is it has to be manufactured in the US otherwise we won't help pay for it.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Which explains why the USAF no longer has any F-16s or F-15s now that the F-22 has entered service right?

No, that is why we don't have F4's and F14's.

We can't build up thousands of F-22's on a moments notice. But, we are putting them into service and they are recognized as THE most advanced fighter. We're not giving them to reserve units or looking to phase them out...

Also, having F-22's along with F-16's is similar to how we have M16's along with M14's, M9, etc... Different tools for different missions. The M14 gets used because we have them, yes. I'm not saying that budget doesn't play an issue, but if budget were all that mattered couldn't we be saving a lot of money by not developing new innovative designs and just making more F-16's?

Not to mention, firearms have been around for hundreds of years and advancement comes slowly with them now.

Planes have been around for only about 100 years and took until WWI to see how big of a role they could play in battle. Comparing the Galil to the F-22 and the M16 to the F-15 or F-16 just doesn't really make sense... There's no way the Galil is any where near that much more superior (IF AT ALL)...

Unless you believe that one guy with a Galil is at a distinct advantage over 6 similarly trained guys with M16's...

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

No, that is why we don't have F4's and F14's.

We can't build up thousands of F-22's on a moments notice.

Also, having F-22's along with F-16's is similar to how we have M16's along with M14's, M9, etc...

Your attempt at defeating the analogy has completely fallen apart.

First of, the F-14 is a Navy bird... not of concern to the USAF. Second, the Phantoms were phased out and replaced with F-15s and F-16s in their respective roles. The Phantom has nothing to do with the F-22/F-15/F-16 issue.

And now for the reality check. The F-35 will fill the role of the F-16 but is not going to unit for unit replace it because of economic converns. The F-22 directly fills the role of the A&C model eagles, but will not unit for unit replace it for economic concerns.

Production rates aren't the issue. The USAF has no intention of replaceing the elderly birds because of economic concerns despite the fact the F-22 is far superior to either aircraft.

Face it, your argument is completely and totally debunked. Economic concerns play a huge role in military procurement.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

No your argument is making no sense. You attempted to say that the Galil is esentially an F-22 and the M16 is an F-16.

That is a ridiculous analogy. An F-22 is so superior to the F-16 that the F-16 would be lucky to even get a shot off at an F-22. There is a HUGE difference in performance. Even a man armed with a Mosin could get a shot off and even kill a man with a Galil...

Also, the difference in pricing is EXTREMELY huge as well.

I never discounted budgets. I am only saying that the Galil is not that much better (if at all) than an M16, whereas the F-22 is a dramatic upgrade over an F-16, but also a dramatic price increase as well.

This is an apples and oranges argument that you claim to have won.

Like someone else pointed out, the IDF has tons of AK's as well, but they don't issue those. So, does that make the AK the F-4 or P-51?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

No your argument is making no sense. You attempted to say that the Galil is esentially an F-22 and the M16 is an F-16.

Please stop. You have invented this argument. I simply presented a case where clearly superior technology is not replacing inferior equipment in service because of economic concerns. The only parallel that should be drawn was the price comparisson between the expensive Galil and the cheap M-16. Through extension, the expensive F-22, which is only going to be used in very limited numbers, versus the F-15 and F-16 which are cheap by comparisson and will be very plentiful for decades.

That is a ridiculous analogy. An F-22 is so superior to the F-16 that the F-16 would be lucky to even get a shot off at an F-22. There is a HUGE difference in performance. Even a man armed with a Mosin could get a shot off and even kill a man with a Galil...

That's great, but you're arguing to defeat an argument that you created.

I never discounted budgets.

Yes, you did. It was pointed out that the Galil didn't see widespread service after introduction because M-16 rifles were given away virtually free. You discounted that. Post #22 & #26.

 

[SammyIamToday]

"The main reason you would replace it is if it was significantly better... which it is not."

"Also, the difference in pricing is EXTREMELY huge as well."

So, which one is it?

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

The only parallel that should be drawn was the price comparisson between the expensive Galil and the cheap M-16.

Than you missed the whole point entirely.

Yes, you did. It was pointed out that the Galil didn't see widespread service after introduction because M-16 rifles were given away virtually free. You discounted that.

Like I said, you missed the point entirely.

The Galil is not that advanced... and you have yet to prove otherwise.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

"The main reason you would replace it is if it was significantly better... which it is not."

"Also, the difference in pricing is EXTREMELY huge as well."

So, which one is it?

The difference is, we ARE building the EXTREMELY high price tag F-22's because they are THAT GOOD in comparison to what we have now, and using them. We aren't giving them to the reserve units either... Why?

Whereas, the Galil isn't that much more money in comparison, but despite that, they aren't getting made in large amounts and/or getting put on the front line.

The F-22 is so good, we'll take as many as we can get our hands on and use them on the front lines.

Apples and oranges...

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Than you missed the whole point entirely

Let me see if I can get your point... It attempted to be, "The Galil can't be a superior weapon to the M-16 platform because it saw limited use."

Am I right in that being your point?

Okay, I'll proceed with the assumption that it is your point.
1) Your point is a giant logic flaw. If A is B and B is C, then A is not necessarily C. The widespread use of a weapon is not directly attached to it's superiority to other weapons. How many nations do you see trucking around Ohio Class SSBNs?

2) Isreal procured M-16 rifles from the US for $100. Each Galil Rifle would cost ten times that amount. If the USAF can't justify paying three times the amount per unit for a new fighter, what makes you think the IDF would pay ten?

We aren't giving them to the reserve units either... Why?

Actually, yes. The Airforce Reserve is getting F-22s.

The F-22 is so good, we'll take as many as we can get our hands on and use them on the front lines.

One problem. That's not at all what happened. We didn't take nearly as many F-22s as we could. In fact, we cut the production number from the original order.

 

[SammyIamToday]

The difference is, we ARE building the EXTREMELY high price tag F-22's because they are THAT GOOD in comparison to what we have now, and using them. We aren't giving them to the reserve units either... Why?

If your price was no matter argument held any water, we'd have been pushing them out as fast as possible and replacing all obsolete units. However, that's not reality.

Whereas, the Galil isn't that much more money in comparison, but despite that, they aren't getting made in large amounts and/or getting put on the front line.

In a country like Israel (with a much smaller budget) that's basically in a sustained state of war, the amount of monetary difference between almost free weapons (that work) and fully paid for weapons produced domestically (that are arguably an upgrade) is very substantial. Trying to say that it's simply based upon how much of an improvement a new piece of equipment adds is simply wrong.

The F-22 is so good, we'll take as many as we can get our hands on and use them on the front lines.

Apples and oranges...

Actually its a good comparison because it shows that money slows down any equipment acquisition process by a military. No matter how much of an upgrade the new equipment offers.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

"The Galil can't be a superior weapon to the M-16 platform because it saw limited use."

No, my point is that the Galil simply is not much of a better weapon. Can you prove otherwise?

That would be my only real point everything else is secondary in my argument. Please provide proof that the Galil is a substantial improvement over the M16.

Wiki states that the price of an F-16 is "US$18.8 million (F-16C/D) in 1998".

It also states that the F-22 cost "US$137.7 million as of 2007" not to mention the "US$ 62 billion" program cost...

I'm no math guy, but that is a substancial sum to pay...

You're comparison simply doesn't work. The US is paying HUGE money to get these planes and putting them on the front line with their best pilots (I am assuming), not just with their reserve units.

If the Galil is so good, why aren't they using every Galil they have with as many of their elite troops as possible?

Hell, I want to know what (if ANY) gun gives you the advantage that an F-22 does over an F-16....

Apples and oranges. Sorry, your argument sucks, but you won't admit it...

If your price was no matter argument held any water, we'd have been pushing them out as fast as possible and replacing all obsolete units. However, that's not reality.

I agree. But that wasn't my point there was it? Besides, the US is using the F-22, it is not "arguably an upgrade". It is 10x the fighter the F-16 is.

Actually its a good comparison because it shows that money slows down any equipment acquisition process by a military. No matter how much of an upgrade the new equipment offers.

But that has nothing to do with the argument.

This is about whether the Galil is an upgrade over the M16. To say that it is an upgrade is arguable in your own words.

That the F-22 is an upgrade is simply not an argument.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

No, my point is that the Galil simply is not much of a better weapon. Can you prove otherwise?

It's not that hard to prove. The Galil won over the M16A1 in a head to head procurement competition.

Wiki states that the price of an F-16 is "US$18.8 million (F-16C/D) in 1998".

Good for Wiki. There's a very good reason no reputable academic institution allows Wiki as a source. The USAF pays 45 mil per airframe.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Good for Wiki. There's a very good reason no reputable academic institution allows Wiki as a source. The USAF pays 45 mil per airframe.

Hey, at least I stated where I got my numbers. I am not saying they are accurate... I have no clue, but it's the only source I could find in 1 minutes time.

Do "reputable academic institutions" allow ClickClickD'oh as a source?

Are in charge of buying/selling equipment for the military?

It's not that hard to prove. The Galil won over the M16A1 in a head to head procurement competition.

That's funny, because you've spent a lot of time rambling on about F-22's trying to prove your point about the Galil... and still have yet to prove anything...

 

[Slamfire]

It is my considered opinion, based on what I have read and seen, that if a weapon system meets minimum requirements, it will stay in inventory for a long time. That is until outside events show that the system is so militarily inferior that it has to be replaced. Funding is the primary reason for this inertia.

To this back into the firearms world, we look back and see something like the Trap Door. The Government went the “cheap” route and decided to save money by converting muzzle loaders to cartridge by using the Trap Door mechanism. Well it was not long when they decided converting muzzle loaders was a bad idea, and they started manufacturing new Trap Doors. In for a penny, in for a pound. This obsolete mechanism was the primary service arm all the way up to the Spanish American war in 1892. We all know how outdated the Trap Door was at the time. The fact the Trap Door met the “minimum” requirements, kept it in inventory until outside events required change. These decisions are always funding driven.

As for the capabilities of USAF planes, heck if I know. The cost growth on USAF planes is such, that in time it will require the entire Defense Budget will buy one plane. Pilots will draw numbers to see who gets to fly the thing.

Ships are so expensive, the Navy has a 100 year hull program. That is, design the ship so you can refit and refurbish the thing for a service life of 100 years.

 

[atblis]

While pretty slick and well produced, that video is not a good source of info.

Neither of those shooters know what they're doing. They should have had the same person shoot both rifles.

Regarding the Israelis, they don't buy their equipment simply based on what's the best. There are a few political concerns involved.

 

[JHansenAK47]

First of all the Galil was never designed to replace the M16 rifle. It originally came out of the 6 day 1967 war because the FALs were jamming in dust. The Israelis saw how well the AK performed and decided to make their own version. So they start making and issuing them to their armed forces. While they are transitioning they start getting cheap M16s which get the job done for less per unit. Normally a country would keep with a domestically manufactured rifle to help its economy. However they chose to save a significant amount of money using US military aid. US military aid won't pay for anything not made in the US.
Nobody said the Galil was meant to replace the M16. They came on the scene later and were chosen over the Galil because the Israeli army hadn't transitioned fully to the Galil. They just changed course to save money so they could have their budget stretch further. Otherwise I know they would have chosen a domestic design or in the least a domestic manufacturer.

 

[REOIV]

I just like how the guy shooting the AK at 200 yards didn't adjust the ladder sight to compensate for the bullet drop in addition to the goofy way he pulled the trigger.

Notice later when they show a close up of it in his hands. The damn thing is still set for 100 yards or less.

Great job there Einstein, no wonder you're only hitting the bottom of the paper.

It's a mystery!!!

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Hey, at least I stated where I got my numbers. I am not saying they are accurate... I have no clue, but it's the only source I could find in 1 minutes time.

Perhaps you should do more than one minutes research then.

$45million is the cost of a F-16C Block 52 aircraft at delivery.

That's funny, because you've spent a lot of time rambling on about F-22's trying to prove your point about the Galil... and still have yet to prove anything...

Wait, the Galil winning in a head to head competition againt the M-16A1 doesn't prove anything?

Is there anything you would consider proof then?

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Perhaps you should do more than one minutes research then.

Frankly, I don't care, even now. This is still an apples and oranges comparison, regardless of if the price is $18mil or $45mil. If you want to start a thread on military aircraft, go right ahead though.

We are talking about rifles, not aircraft. I know a thing or two about rifles, I am not the military aircraft expert and don't claim to be, but with what little I do know, I can say emphatically that this comparison is not even close... There is no comparison between an F-16 and an F-22. They are a world apart, it is no contest...

An army of 100 men armed with M16's is not at any distinct disadvantage to an army of 100 men armed with Galil's.

That is my point and has been all along.

You never answered this question.

Do "reputable academic institutions" allow ClickClickD'oh as a source?

My point is, you keep stating things like facts, but you have zero credibility and cite no source. I don't know if you are correct or if Wiki is correct... Not that it matters, it is really a moot point. I don't even know why we are still talking about F-22's...

I simply stated that the Galil wasn't a significant improvement (if at all) over the M16. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence for one thing you have posted. But you have spoken like an authority...

Wait, the Galil winning in a head to head competition againt the M-16A1 doesn't prove anything?

Is there anything you would consider proof then?

Who conducted the test? When, where? What possible biases did the test people have? How many test's were conducted? What were the exact results? By what margin is the Galil better?

How are you a more reliable source than Wiki or any other random person on the internet? When you state things I am just suppose to believe it?

Your argument with the F-22's and F-16's is ridiculous. If they came up with a rifle that made the user "invisible" in some respect and allowed the user to engage/destroy multiple targets at once before the enemy even knew they were there... it would be in use in the military... and probably put into the hands of our elite forces...