M16/AK bit

[MTMilitiaman]

I am not a combat vetern though I plan on military service when I get done with college. My brother is training with the 101st Airborne and should be in Iraq by the middle of October. He hates the M16. I trust his opinion. He has been around guns his entire life, has been shooting since before he was in kindergarten, and has an engineer's mind--a seemingly instinctual and uncanny ability to tell how things work just by looking at them. He has always loved to take things apart and mess with them and he has done some amazing stuff with his paintball guns and some of his real firearms without any formal training. He had an exercise in BASIC they called Mud-X because it rained the whole time. It was supposed to be a march, I believe 4 miles, followed by a shooting session--one of his first with the M16. They did some mortar drills that required they all dive to the ground. A pinch of mud got into the receiver. He got to the range but found he could not participate in the "shoot" part of the "march and shoot" because of this. He tried SPORTS to no avail. His Drill Seargant saw him desperately trying to put lead downrange and demanded to inspect the rifle. He even did a basic feild strip and tried to swab the chamber, but nothing worked. The Drill Seargant gave up by saying "This peice of ---- is useless" and dropping the rifle to my brother, who was still laying prone beneath him. The rifle was completely combat ineffective and required a full cleaning to function again. My brother was brought up at an early age to be anal about gun care and received compliments from his commanders for his ability to do this. My brother's rifle was very well maintained previous to this exercise but still went tits up when he needed it.
It scares us all that my brother is going to Iraq. It scares us all more that he will more than likely have an M16 or derevative. With my breif understanding of the adopting of the M16, it was adopted for political reasons and it appears to still be in service for purely political reasons.
Cleaning a weapon because you are a professional is different than cleaning a weapon because the weapon needs to be clean in order to function. Look at our soldiers in Iraq. Do they look clean? Look around them. When everything around you is sand, you are going to get sandy. And when you get sandy, chances are, your rifle is going to get sandy. The rifle has to function in this condition or it is of no use to the soldier or his country. I hear it is common practice to store M16s in garbage bags when not in use to prevent sand from getting in the receiver. Never heard of that happening with the AK. Seems to me that a soldier shouldn't have to have such a demanding maintence regime for his rifle--the rifle should be at least as tough and reliable as the soldier. Yes, I said "should," because now days, our service rifle pales in comparrison to the fine men and women we send into combat with it. But there are better rifles available to remedy this so it isn't an unrealistic expectation for the richest military on earth. Like what? Instead of listing the designs that are better combat arms than the M16, how bout you list a couple in current use that aren't better. There are better things a soldier has to do than have clean his rifle--like take care of himself and his comrades.
The best thing about an assault rifle should not be its accuracy. Why do we need an assault rifle to shoot 800 yards when its cartridge is of debatable effectiveness at half that range? There is a reason some poor bastard humps a 30 pound machine gun or 15 pound .30 caliber rifle and it isn't because the M16 is so effective at these ranges. I don't care if your M16 can be turned into a competition rifle or a varmint rifle. It wasn't designed for that purpose. I fail to see how succeeding at everything but your intended purpose makes you a success. The M16 is an assault rifle and as such designed with two primary purposes in mind; chambered for an intermediate powered rifle cartridge effective on human targets to a maximum engagement range of 300 to 400 meters and capable of automatic fire. The verdict is still out on the former but the M16 fails at the latter, lacks the reliability, at least under dirty operating conditions, of most or all of its modern competitors, and the best thing you can say about it is that it can put a .22 caliber hole in a target at least twice as far away as the effective range of the cartridge it is chambered for. Yeah, that sounds like a winner...
You see alot of improvements in design coming out for both the AK and the AR, but you'll notice, things like gas pistons and such evolving in ARs are designed to increase reliability which should already be present. There is no reason not to have a more reliable rifle in the hands of our troops, or at least one that doesn't require such high maintence. You talk about being realistic? I'll tell you what is unrealistic; keeping a hard use/combat rifle clean at all times. Meanwhile, you have improvements for the AK, but they are for much more minor ergonomic deficencies, not the reliability that is supposed to be paramount in a combat arm.
I suppose to each his own is where we must all arrive. I personally say, if you want a golpher gun, the AR-15 and its cartridge may be ideally suited. I'll still take a bolt gun simply because my brother said if I ever purchased one of Stoner's abominations, he'd refuse to associate with me. As for a combat arm, in the role of an assault rifle, the AK seems much better fitted to this role. It is accurate to the effective range of its cartridge, compact, capable of automatic fire, simple to operate and maintain, requires much less maintence than the M16, and is less prone to malfunction in adverse, dirty conditions. Or at least that is where I stand.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Who keeps telling this lie?

The AR requires no more cleaning than most rifles under the same conditions :banghead: ... With the exception of the bolt which needs to be detail cleaned every FEW THOUSAND rounds :banghead:! I don't know how much ammo you personally plan on carrying, Cosmo, but if I can't clean(just the basic wipe down of internal parts not deatail clean) my rifle in about 2,000 rouonds, the plan is seriously FUBARed ! I don't even think the guys over in the Mog(Black hawk down) even fired that many rounds before pick up(correct me if I'm wrong)?...

"But it deficates where it eats!!!",some will say. And to them I will respond so what, until I see a rifle disabled from fouling alone, you guys are just grasping at strawmen arguments. "Oh but the tolerances are too tight for a battle rifle!". Yes but with tight tolerances you get tight groups as a side-effect, is my answer. " BUt the bullet is only big enough to shoot vermin with, you can't even hunt with it!" Tell that to some dead RPG possesing nasties over in the sandbox... and the saga goes on and on !

 

[AZ Jeff]

There are WAY too many closet commandos who have read too many legends about the inherent "goodness" of the AK versus the inherent "badness" of the AR.

Virtually NONE of these guys has either
1. been in combat (or)
2. been involved in the comparative SCIENTIFIC testing of small arms

The closest they may come to any TRUE experience with EITHER of these rifles is throwing a few rounds down range at the local gun club.

Yet, they spout statements as if they have used one or both of these rifles on the "two way rifle range" extensively.

Until someone puts up some CONCRETE RESULTS, (not anecdotal BS about your neighbors brothers cousin-in-law who was in combat zone "X"), the relative performance of the AK versus the AR will continue to a matter of opinion rather than fact.

One last question for the armchair commandos: how do you all know that the level of accuracy of the AR is "not needed", but the level that the AK provides is "perfectly acceptable"?

(Wouldn't that depend on the type of terrain, the type of enemy being engaged, and the battle doctrine of both forces?)

 

[2ndChapterofActs]

AZ looks like you beat me to the puch with your last post <grin>. And I would like to refer you back to my innicial post anc cousin's email. We are starting to get back to the calabration issue. I don't know where this assumtion comes from that the M16's efective power is drained from such a small round. Both the AK and the M16 can fire and hit and kill well over a mile maybe two. They knew this back in 1968. Effective range is based on sightlines. The muzzle power of the M4 will send a bullet killing at a long range. 800 meters is effective killing when it comes to the M16. Not to mention the fact of the shock wave! My father has told me time and time again that when he was going through basic in 1968 he was told that you could kill somebody with the M16 without even touching them. If a bullet went past your ear the shockwave would give nasty brain dammage and death could occur! This was told as basic rifle range safty. Physics is physics regardless of how big or small the round is. If you send something fast enough it not only has a shockwave but it will kill.

I would also say that the M16 performed well in the first Gulf War and in Somalia and so I see no reason as to why it should work now. That story of the M16 not working in training may be true. But I have seen on here vets saying that they never had problems with their rifle. I have heard that over and over again from other US servicemen. Rifles do jam, there are problems. There are problems with every rifle ever made. There will be a jam. This goes for AK's too! I am sure that AK's jam and have jammed when they should take a lot of abuse like their fellow rifles.

And when we are talking about the AR vs. AK does that mean there are crappy versions of the M16A2? (this is a serious question. I studdy a lot about war out of personal interest but don't know all that much about civilian moddles of weapons ect) I have seen a number of posts on here suggesting that. This being the case I would imagine that a crappy AK could beat up a crappy AR and I think that this is where much debate is coming from. But I find it hard to believe that the M16 is used for political reasons. Other countries use and enjoy the M16 as well. The Aussies and the Brits primarily. When Bravo Two Zero was cut off behind enemy lines in the Gulf War during the scud hunt their weapons were M16's and M203's. They were out in the Iraqi desert for weeks out of contact with their British command and left behind them over 200 Iraqi dead. Not bad for a weapon that by that point according to many posts here should have been frozen up because of sand and crud.

I also find it rather humerous that the guys that have used the M16A2 in combat have stated their respect for that weapon and have contradicted many myths about it. But every time they do that somebody refuts them as if their combat experiance means nothing. That is the same kind of thing like telling Michael Jordan he dosn't know what he is talking about when it comes to the game of basketball. Does anybody else find that odd? Personally I think these vets have taken the abuse rather well.

 

[beerslurpy]

Jeff I see your points but you lost me at...

Virtually NONE of these guys has either been involved in the comparative SCIENTIFIC testing of small arms

Now this is BS. I have a strong scientific background and I am not prone to making stuff up or engaging in weak reasoning. My background is in biology and chemistry, but I have dabbled in mechanical engineering extensively for hobbies. I have an expansive understanding of and rapport with the mechanical bits of guns. I have for many years.

Even if this were not so, the reliability of the AK47 is readily comparable to the M16. Why? Because every time I go to the range at least one of each is present. I can easily go up to someone and watch them, or we can trade off guns to see what they are like, etc. I also can discuss with others their personal experiences.

I have expereinced the wonderous reliability of the M16 first hand. Some owners have awesome luck with them, some have nothing but jams. Most have awesome luck with certain brands of ammo and certain magazines but jams with others. Spotty at best.

If the difference was a small one, I would be glad to let it slide. But it is a trend that holds true across many guns, many owners and many calibers if you count Saigas as AKs (which I do).

If my life depends on it, I might hide up to my nose in muddy water, something that Florida has an abundance of. When I am in that water, I want to be able to fire my submerged and very dirty gun if needed. When I get back out of the water, I may not have to time clean the gun immediately. Again, which one will still spit lead? When one's life depends on a gun, one shouldnt have to worry about the environment intruding on reliability. If you can survive up to your nose in poop, your gun shouldnt complain.

Personal opinion:
I personally beleive that an assault rifle is a close-mid range gun that should place an emphasis on compactness, reliability and consistency. I think of it as an improvement on the thompson and the mp40 rather than as a miniaturization of the garand. The FAL was not an assault rifle.

Things like >400 yard accuracy, wind drift and time to target are all irrelevant in a gun with the small powder charge and short barrel of a typical assault rifle. It is just too damn hard to wound something consistently at distant ranges with a moderate-energy FMJ round.

308 answers the power-accuracy compromise of the AR/AK by sacrificing controllability, ammo capacity and weapon compactness. 308 is the designated marksman answer. It is not the Room Broom or the Alley Sweeper. The M16 is designed to accomplish the close in role, but does it poorly. Jams are much more expensive up close than far away. An AR in 308 can afford to jam more often because being reduced to the cyclic rate of a bolt action isnt a huge shortcoming in a marskman's rifle.

I have a lot of hope for the F2000, though the price makes me a sad panda.

 

[AZ Jeff]

Now this is BS. ....Even if this were not so, the reliability of the AK47 is readily comparable to the M16. Why? Because every time I go to the range at least one of each is present. I can easily go up to someone and watch them, or we can trade off guns to see what they are like, etc. I also can discuss with others their personal experiences.

What you are engaging in when you observe rifle performance at the local gun club is SURVEYING (taking a poll, be it written or mental.) It's NOT TESTING.

While your survey may be "scientific", it's NOT the same as TESTING, where as many VARIABLES as possible are CONTROLLED and/or MEASURED.

Surveys "may" say that shooters report better results with the AK than the AR, but we don't know about what other variables may be involved.

It's kinda like the famous "gun control" survey that said that a gun in the house was 43 times more likely to kill an occupant than an intruder. The survey was flawed in so many ways as to make that statistic meaningless.

Back to testing--when someone posts a SCIENTIFIC, COMPREHENSIVE, comparative tests of these two weapons, then the BS will stop. Until then, it's all conjecture, rumor, and opinion.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

Even if this were not so, the reliability of the AK47 is readily comparable to the M16. Why? Because every time I go to the range at least one of each is present

I'll bet that no Colt or FN M-16a2 rifles marked "U.S. GOVERNMENT PROPERTY" are present at your range. An AR-type rifle, which could be made by anybody from Bushmaster to Olympic Arms to whoever else, from pot metal or from forged steel, and hand-assembled by a master 'smith or thrown together by some guy in his garage, is certainly not representative of the M-16a2.

That seems kind of like watching another shooter at the range struggle with a Llama "1911" (or high-end, super-tight, match target 1911) and walking away with the notion that what you saw is representative of all 1911 pistols.

Respectfully, most of the people posting in this thread have probably never even seen a real M-16a2 (or an actual commie-bloc AK for that matter).

I used the M-16 in the Marines in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as those "peacetime" years from 1999 to late 2001. It is an exceptional infantryman's rifle.

 

[jefnvk]

Even if this were not so, the reliability of the AK47 is readily comparable to the M16. Why? Because every time I go to the range at least one of each is present

If you wanna compare it that way, I have seen plenty of Century AK's not work. So I guess I can conclude that teh AK is a crappily manufactured, worthless gun.

 

[beerslurpy]

The problem is, what are you guys going to accept as a "real M16A2" and not a "cheap fake." If you say "only those in uncle sam's posession" how the hell am I going to get a large number for testing? How would anybody except the US govt? Also, arent Uncle Sam's cleaned every day and tended to by a dedicated armoror?

There is an enormous problem with discarding the bottom 80 percent of ARs as cheap garbage while calling the top 99.9 percent of AKs valid specimens. Which is exactly what you do when you compare a falling-apart weld-job AK to a jamming bushmaster. An AK built to the same price/quality point as the cheapest AR would not only be utterly reliable, but would probably have room in the budget for optics as well.

The simple truth is that with the AK a few outliers on the cheap end of the spectrum have problems, mostly with trigger slap and other non-reliability related things. On the AR spectrum, the entire design of the gun is the problem which is why the US militaries have such a rigourous cleaning and maintenance dogma. You can play the iverglas and try to argue that my methodology isnt airtight, but the simple fact of the matter is that ARs are like a box of chocolotes while AKs tend towards the reliable end of things. Accuracy the AR gets hands down, but not reliability.

Btw, you dont think I just saw an AR with a jam and didnt ask who made it, do you? I cannot remember seeing anything but bushmasters and RRA guns in the longest time. Then again, I cant remember seeing an actual Colt gun.

 

[Bostonterrier97]

This entire arguement is analogous to comparing the Ross Rifle to the SMLE.
The Ross Rifle was an absolute dream of an accurate rifle, originally designed for the 280 Ross Cartridge it was so accurate it out shot the 1903 Springfield at Camp.

The rifle was great...as long as you kept it clean, and you reassembled the bolt correctly after cleaning.

The rifle was also an abysmal failure on the muddy fields of Flanders during WWI.

My point is: what works well on the target range, doesn't necessarily work well in a harsh combat environment.

On the Other hand, the SMLE was chambered in .303 Brit, was not nearly as accurate, or as powerful as a Ross Rifle chambered in 280 Ross, but it worked
really well under battle field conditions.

Both the AK and the AR designs have the strong points as well as short commings.

However both rifle designs can be improved. And there are currently better designs out there. For example: the AN-94 or the HK G-36.

I think one major short coming is the cartridge. Take an 7.62x45 mm Case (I'm refering to the old Czech round) and neck it down to 257 (6.3mm) or 264 (6.5mm).
(To aid in extraction you want a cartridge case with taper to it.)

Then design a modern Assault Rifle around the cartridge using the best features of existing designs.

 

[2ndChapterofActs]

Ok, the assumtion here is that the M16A2 rifle isn't reliable. I hear that from just about every post on the AK side. But I thought this was or should have been cleared up by those guys who have seen combat with the M16A2. It worked for them and was reliable in the dusty climate of Iraq. That is enough proof right there. Then of course the rebuttle is "well it has to be cleaned to get that kind of performace". But it did get that kind of performance and cleaning has been pointed out to be an easy and non time consuming process.

As for the US military's cleaning doctine I think you will find that if you talk to WWII vets they were told to clean clean and reclean their M1's and Tommy guns, and BAR's ect. Not only that but prior to 1970 the US Army was training on the M14 rifle and it was with that rifle that US soldiers were told to clean and reclean their weapons.

And of course this waiting thing has popped up again. In the military there is a lot A LOT of waiting. And yes this time is used to clean your weapons sometimes, maybe even most times. What are you going to do otherwise? I would also like to point out that because the M16 HAS worked in combat in dusty and crappy conditions I think that story about the WWI rifles is nonapplicable.

And as for this talk about an AR not needing to be able to hit something at 800m personally I would think that if your standard weapon can be used to clear rooms pretty well and also can be used to snipe pretty well then you have all bases covered. The AK does no good if the operator is killed at 800m by the M16A2 or even 500m by the M4. And of course when it comes to CQB the M4 performs stunningly and the M16A2 can more then hold its own.

Oh yeah, and is there any ideas to the thought that the AK is somewhat romanzicized because it was the and to an extent still is the "revilution" weapon? And I think that it gets some credit for the defeat of the US in Vietnam wich of course had very little to do with weapons and all to do with politics.

 

[beerslurpy]

Love the G36, wish my government would allow the proles to have them. With the SCAR's eminent release, that may become a possibility. Like the 308 SCAR, that sounds quite nice.

Dont like the AN94. It is overly expensive and complicated what I have seen and heard. It would also require our government to permit the proles to own real guns again. 1200 rpm is about 1199 more than we are currently allowed per trigger pull.

I completely agree that a 6.5x39 or 6.5x45 and a new rifle built around it would be an awesome thing, but that doesnt seem likely to happen anytime soon. I would be thrilled beyond belief if FN took the F2000 and chambered it for 6.8SPC. From what I understand, it wouldnt be enormously difficult to accomplish this from a machining or design standpoint, since the brass is very similar, no?

And 2nd I completley agree that the VC could have won the battle with any gun. They never won a battle anyway, merely forced us to run around the country chasing them. Their strategy was based around being a continous annoyance and thriving in the empty places that ARVN and US incompetence/corruption left open for them. It also didnt help that the US military continually misestimated that they would have the war won in a few months. I hope that is a mistake we dont succumb to in Iraq. The US's credibility got so bad that even after the VC lost a ton of key personnel and equipment during Tet, no one beleived the US had any chance of winning and the politicians pulled us out.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

I wanted that to be done along time ago, Beerslurpy

When I suggested we should have a,"designated marksmen", type issue weapon someone laughed at me ...

But What's not to love about the concept of a bullpup issue weapon when you get 2xs the effective range of m193 witht the same room clearing/swingability of the M4...Keep it semi for the actual DM with a beefed up .308 or 6.8 cartrige and allow the grunts 5.56x45 for rock and roll for ambushes, room clearing, and that feel good factor I know that it gives our boys when they have to engage at really close quarters... ! 26"-30" bullpup, with 20"-24" barrel would do wonders for the 5.56x45 rounds effective range and effect on impact....add an ACOG and you got somthing serious there! But I doubt it would like sand anymor than our current M-16...Anybody know how hard it is to field strip the F2000? I'm guessing a royal PITA ...

 

[2ndChapterofActs]

Not sure what that has to do with the disscussion on hand. But I think that at long last we have gotten to the point where everybody has become red in the face over this thread and therefore disscussion is dropping off a bit. I suppose this is a good thing <grin> any further comments before everybody moves on?

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

2ndChapter,

I totally agree. Even if the 5.56X45 doesn't have much energy left in it at 400yds out of an M4 barrel with red dot or ACOG(it will still penetrate an issue helmet though), what differnce does it make if it hits you in the head, neck, or high in the center of your chest(wind pipe/lungs) and you are not covered? Will a similarly equipped AK with a red dot or ACOG mounted on it be able to make a 400yd shot ? Will it even come close to holding MOA at that distance ? My uneducated guess is, DOUBT IT! !

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Beerslurpy,

You still have not posted why exactly the AR is a jammomatic in your eyes .... All I keep reading is it has to be cleaned, it has to be cleaned, and it has to be cleaned... Well if you show me a precision piece of equipment that doesn't need to be cleaned then I will stay outta this one for the rest of it's duration . You make it seem as though every AK has never jammed and every AR/M16, by virtue of it's,"Flawed design", is nothing but crap... Personal challenge here: If you are ever in this part of Texas, bring your AK. I will take my Bushmaster M4gery. We go to the range and fire 30 round mags until empty(slow fire 1rnd to 3 seconds) and give the guns 3 minutes between mags. After a case of Wolf ammo, we will see what happens . I will not strip or detail clean my AR AT ALL! All I want is to add a drop of oil to the three holes on the bolt carrier after about 700-8oo rounds or so,deal...

 

[beerslurpy]

I'm sure there are plenty of reliable ARs and a few unreliable AKs, but my experience thus far is that most ARs are very fickle about ammo and mag choices.

If you propose a contest with both guns shooting lacqured wolf or some other equally crappy brand all day long, then youre up.

If you get to hand pick the ammo while I get stuck with whatever falls out of hat, no deal. I dont even shoot wolf normally, only silver bear for me.

Why slow firing with time between each mag?

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Beerslurpy,

I am sure you wouldn't mind frying the barrel of a maximum 450 dollar gun, but being of meager earnings and no prospects for winning the lottery, I would prefer not to slag my 850 dollar Bushie's barrel... I know the test itself will not hurt it, but excessive heat will ruin even the unstoppable AK . Basicly I got more to lose if we slag the barrels...

PS I already said we would both fire polymer Wolf but if you want to take a step down to the nasty laquered, we could do that too. My M4gery has digested 700+ rounds of it without cleaning the bolt, bolt carrier, receiver, FCG, adding oil, or anything else ! I ran it dry with no problems(except clean up later). The oil in the above test is to hopefully make the cleaning up afterwards less of a PITA, since it took me 3 days to clean back to my status quo after that 700 rnd torture test last time !

 

[beerslurpy]

If its any consolation I would be using a 550 dollar arsenal AK.

Regardless, it would be an interesting test. I'll definitely PM you if I head over to texas anytime soon.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

Also, arent Uncle Sam's cleaned every day...

USMC SOP says that, in garrison, all weapons recieve a cleaning once per month

...and tended to by a dedicated armoror?

"Tended to" and "dedicated"? Well, the armorer is required to keep them locked up and make sure they are all still there and servicable at the end of the day, but he doesn't do anything other than count them and repair them.

 

[Roadkill]

Soldiers in combat zones clean their weapons every chance they get cause their lives depend on it. I have a Sks hanging on the wall in my gun room and the BRN 56 round that was in it which failed to fire because the firing pin was rusted and didn't hit the primer hard enough. I later cleaned the gun and it fired perfectly. If the guy who tried to shoot me had cleaned his rifle that morning like I cleaned mine he might be telling this story instead of me. Try this little game. Next time you go to the range take eighty rounds, regardless of gun you are going to shoot, and if the gun fails to operate in any manner have someone with a paint ball gun shoot at you until you are firing again. Then have them use a high powered air rifle. You'll clean that gun, the magazines, the ammo, the ammo pouches, the sling, anything that you think might keep you from getting hurt.

rkk

 

[2ndChapterofActs]

Well put roadkill though given the field of these comments don't be too surprised if somebody gives you a hard time and says, "But you had to clean your weapon... the AK you wouldn't have to do that". And when were you in? If it was after 1968 then whuppie! most of the troubles with the M16 were over and done with.

 

[Cosmoline]

On the AR spectrum, the entire design of the gun is the problem which is why the US militaries have such a rigourous cleaning and maintenance dogma. You can play the iverglas and try to argue that my methodology isnt airtight, but the simple fact of the matter is that ARs are like a box of chocolotes while AKs tend towards the reliable end of things. Accuracy the AR gets hands down, but not reliability.

Yup. My old Sar-1 (now my roommate's) is a poorly-made firearm with a mix of milled parts that look like a beaver gnawed them into shape and sheet metal parts that look like reject scrap metal. It cost me something like $250 back in 1998. I put about 5,000 rounds through it, and my roommate has put at least that many. At times I would shoot it until the barrel was glowing red. Other than installing a cheap plastic bumper to lessen trigger slap, I've never put any money into it. Yet that old POS has NEVER jammed. Not once! Not even when my roommate tried to "lube" it with gobs of crisco. It's functioned well for many months with no cleaning at all. It's functioned well at thirty degrees below zero and in the damp. It's got rust spots all over, and looks like hell. But like the Mosin-Nagants before it, that ugly little bugger just keeps on shooting.

You might be able to get a high-end AR/M-16 with aftermarket mods and improvemetns to function well in rough condtions. But I defy anyone to put a low-end AR through half of what that low-end AK has been through and match those results.

As far the weird idea of having a paintball/airgun guy shooting at you, I'd like to have the rifle that I KNOW will burn the nutcase down whether or not I remembered to clean it the day, week or month before.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

I really don't have a dog in this race, but i need to step in here to hopefully stop this "Aks have loose tolerances and that makes them better!" meme what's been floating around.

It's wrong, and as a Machinist and engineering student, I find it annoying.

Tolerance is the amount of variation in dimension in a part. large tolerances reduce reliability. The chauchat is a weapon with loose tolerances.


Clearance, which is what the people mean when they talk about the AK, is the amount of space between parts. more clearance=more places for mud to get into or out of the weapon.

Personally, I don't think the dubious advantage of reliability, which is a binary quantity anyway, offsets the increased shootability of the AR. Even if the AR jams three times for every one from the AK, that doesn't make up for the fact that i can hit man sized targets four times as well with an AR with an ACOG or other issued sight.


I'm going to leave the explanation why 120 degree temperatures don't affect spring steel for another day, along with the discussion about the relative lethality of FMJ 7.62X39 vice the .223, and the grass is greener on the other side debate.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

On the AR spectrum, the entire design of the gun is the problem which is why the US militaries have such a rigourous cleaning and maintenance dogma

If we had a rifle that worked no matter how dirty it got, do you think we would just stop cleaning our weapons? Weapon reliability when clean/dirty/underwater/upside down/on the moon doesn't dictate cleaning doctrine. You have spare minutes, you clean your rifle. That's all there is to it.