In Vietnam Ak or M16

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dr.Mall Ninja

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
703
Location
Saint Louis. MO
I am wondering what was the best rifle for nam.During the Vietnam war most range took place at close quarters in the jungle so the extra range the m16 has wouldn't probably give much advantage over the ak. The ak was also much more reliable then Vietnam era m16's, and the stopping power of the 7.62x 39 over the 223. Was there any true advantage of the m16 over the ak for Vietnam, I am in no way an expert I was just wondering what you guys had to say.
 
In vietnam, our boys were issued first generation M16s that were garbage. I believe that 5% of the deaths of our troops were directly or indirectly caused by their low quality M16 A1. Think about it, the gun was so bad that the U.S. government got off it's @$$ and made some improvements (forward assist for one). That right there means it had MAJOR problems. Throwing .22 caliber bullets at a determined enemy using .30 caliber bullets was stupid. Half our troops should have been issued M14s. 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. The whole situation with vietnam pisses me off.
 
Wasn't the round count something like 140,000 bullets fired for every one enemy kill?

While I tend to favor the AK over the AR for most applications, I don't think the type of rifle would make much of a difference in their situation.
 
Last edited:
I served in the early 70's, every chance we got we picked up an AK, we had a great CO that got us an M-14 every chance we got, we were in combat control operations and the shorter M16 might have been the way to go, but they were a piece of ****. they still are in the new version I believe, I think those boys need more stopping power. when you look at the enemy that is fired up on religion, drugs like the somali pirates are, or just adrenalin, the puny 5.56 round is just not gonna cut it.:mad:
 
Let's see AK $300 M16 $2000
__________________


I think the govt contract price for M16s in the 60s was about $160.

I served in the early 70's, every chance we got we picked up an AK,

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.

I have heard this so many times but never saw it happen during my tour. I understand that some special ops guys that went deep into enemy territory did use AKs (and wear black pajamas) so at a distance they looked like VC/NVA.

if the weapon was maintained then the ak had no advantage
__________________


Having used the AR/M16 since 1968 and agree. I did what I was told and the M16 always worked for me. Lack of accuracy is a AK disadvantage.

What year did the 3 round burst come about?
__________________


That was with the A2 in the 1980s.
 
I dont know about those round counts! :rolleyes: :scrutiny:

Stastics are a tricky and often misleading "Science". That number could be the number of rounds made / ordered by the military divided by the number of KIA reported, with no back-up for either number. Then you could find out that the number of rounds included practice rounds or included the total military order for every year of the veitnam war.....you just dont know! IT just goes back to the person that compiled thoses stastics was probably trying to prove a point......and thier "Research" undoubetedly supported their thesis. (Amazing how that happens).

There are lots of ways the numbers can be really skewed if you dont know the methodology of how that ratio was arrived at.

Not to pee on the parade....just dont like stastics! :D
 
IT just goes back to the person that compiled thoses stastics was probably trying to prove a point

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

I had a college professor that Hated it when I asked for sources when she was spewing her B.S. Then I looked them up, and refuted her argument and outed her selective sourcing / partial facts to the class. My grade wasnt great but it was worth it. (She wanted to fail me but knew better)
 
I believe that 5% of the deaths of our troops were directly or indirectly caused by their low quality M16 A1.
Click to expand...

Got some actual stats to back up that belief?

Let's see AK $300 M16 $2000
Click to expand...

Let's talk about the real world prices of each of these weapons.

An AK, today, from China costs about $85, IIRC. You won't get that price here in the States, of course, but an AK is a dirt cheap weapon to make. I don't know what the costs of these rifles were during the Vietnam War, but do keep in mind China and Russia subsidized weapons of all types and sent advisors to the Vietnamese. I'd also really like to know what China and Russia each spent in "aid" to the Vietnamese, I've never heard a figure for either.

As posted above, apparently M-16s went for $160 at the time. Nowadays, they go to the .gov for around $800 each.

The cost of rifles really doesn't matter, for the cost of other weapons and munitions will greatly eclipse the cost of small arms.
 
CC19109M16s.jpg
This is a picture of jamed up M16s after a fight with the NVA in the DMZ, July 1967. A lot of Marines and troopers died because of these pieces of ****. I know, I was there, I took this picture.
 
clem do you recall how many jammed?

were there any conditions that could have led to them jamming like rain or an extended time in the jungle?

thank you for your service, my father also served in vietnam.
 
I was with 1st Battalion 9th Marines from 11/66 through 8/67. From 01/67 till I left we were operational around Dong Ha and in the DMZ area. We were in a lot of operations and I think it was around 04/67 that we got the M16s, and then it started. You could NOT keep it cleaned enough to work in the dust and the climate that was there. There were a whole bunch of things wrong with the rifle.

Here is part of something I wrote a long time ago:



Here’s some comparison statistic figures between the M-16 & M-14:
M-16 M-14
Chamber Pressure-52,000 PSI(a) 50,000 PSI (a) same as .50 M-2 Machine Gun
(PSI = Pounds per square inch)
Cycling Rate=1,000 RPM + 750 RPM
(RPM = Rounds per minute)
Bolt Locking Lugs = 7 3
Chamber Design = Closed, star Open

All weapons, except a very few, have "eight functions' occurring when fired to complete a cycle;
1. Firing
2. Unlocking * (not for M-3A1 Sub-machine gun)
3. Extraction *
4. Ejection * (not for M-79 Grenade launcher)
5. Cocking
6. Feeding
7. Chambering
8. Locking (not for M-3A1)

* = problem functions with the M-16s


Now here is what was finally determined, (much later), as to what the defects / problems were with these early M-16 Rifles.
1. The powder used in the loads for the 5.56mm ammunition was the old style powder, which was a dirty burning powder. It was fine for the 7.62mm ammunition that was used in the M-14 and M-60, because, these weapon's gas systems, (ARE SELF CLEANING), and are isolated from the receiver / chamber-bolt areas. The M-16 has a gas tube that runs from the front sight ramp to the receiver (carrier key) and dumps hot gases & carbon right into the receiver and chamber area when fired. (The receiver / chamber fowled out real fast, and what happens to oil / lubrication when it is heated up? It turns into gunk.). Some one was trying to save money by using the old powder.
2. On full auto fire the cycling rate was 1,000 plus RPM (rounds per minute). The rifle "over revered" (it was NOT designed for that high of a cycle rate), and just like a car engine something is going to give. The buffer was later changed to one with "counter weights" in it to slow the cycle rate down to 600-650 RPM.
3. The chambers and bores of these M-16s were susceptible to corrosion and rust, (the chambers would develop small pits). And with the high chamber pressure, (52,000 PSI), the brass cartridges would expand and "flow" into these pits locking / sealing the spent brass into the chambers.
The extractors would rip the cartridge rim off the case. Or the carrier would not even cycle.

A new chrome lined chamber and barrel was developed and ALL M-16s were thus modified, (later).
Note: The Russians & Chinese have been chrome lining the bores and chambers of their weapons for years. I never saw an SKS or AK fail like these M-16s did.

I won't own a black rifle to this day!
 
Note: The Russians & Chinese have been chrome lining the bores and chambers of their weapons for years. I never saw an SKS or AK fail like these M-16s did.
Click to expand...

Yep. They started with the PPsh back in ww2. Since then, all their combat small arms have crome lined bore and chamber.

Don't forget the round. The heavy 7.62x39mm bullet was much better for combat in dense jungle. You don't make a jungle carabine out of a light .22 that will bounce off trees.
 
AK for sure. The AR system is by far too fussy to be a combat weapon. It's not bad for LE or private citizens, but for military applications it's lacking.

As a member of recent military duty, I've had the M16a2 and M4 fail on me way too many times to depend on it when things get tough. Whenever I needed it, it seemed I had to clear a stoppage. I just can't trust the system, it's accurate & ergonomic, but just too fussy to trust. Every trigger pull I wondered if it would jam up....not a good feeling 8,000 miles from home.

Give me anything other than that....I always thought the tolerences were just too tight and unforgiving. I'd rather have a junk, worn out AK that still sends rounds out the tube. Accuracy takes a backseat when you need lead downrange fast.

The 5.56 round is fine...no problems there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Who makes a good M16 clone
Replies
7
Views
4K
highpower
H
M
  • Locked
M16 OR MINI 14 FOR FIGHTING IN VIETNAM?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
7K
jim d
J
2
  • Locked
M16/AK Bit II
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Wynterbourne
W
2
  • Locked
M16/AK bit
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
5K
Correia
C
M
  • Locked
AK-47 as a trail gun? bear gun?
2
Replies
48
Views
10K
taliv
T
Back
Top