M16/AK Bit II

[Shane333]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Dirty M16 Test Video

Scroll down to the "Full Auto Video Shoot" - you need broadband for this one!

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

 

[ID_shooting]

Shane,

um, then again, nevermind.

 

[2ndChapterofActs]

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.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

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]

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]

However, here I know I am not wrong. When dealing with the shockwaves…

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 other’s 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 didn’t 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]

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]

Sooooo, you think he is wrong then??

 

[2ndChapterofActs]

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]

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 30° 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]

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]

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]

And as far as cleaning; the only trap I would like to avoid is the stereotypical “M16 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 shouldn’t have to”. Cleaning isn’t hard, it doesn’t take a lot of time, it isn’t 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

NP, Its all good.

 

[Wynterbourne]

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*