M16/AK bit

[kal]

I'm not going to say which rifle is better, but the fact that the 5.56 can shoot flater and further than the 7.62 soviet appeals to me.

In a SHTF scenario(as you survivalists call it ), You will never see the enemy in the human figure. You will only see parts of him. A shoulder and arm, a leg, half an upper body, a head. But you will never see him in whole. Not only that, the enemy is going to be running left and right and the further he is, the harder it is to get a good shot. This is especially true in an urban setting. Dont forget, there is no time to adust your sights to make up for bullet drop. Because as soon as you see the enemy, he is gone. This is why the 7.62 soviet is a failure. And this is why the 5.56 nato is a success. For any one saying " 556 is weak, stupid poodle shooter, varmit, etc." shut up will ya? We have Marines in Iraq pulling off head shots from 400meters away with M4 carbines with scopes! That's a 14.5 inch barrel. I dare some one to take a modern AK103 assault rifle with 16 inch barrel and scope and pull off a shot like that without having to point the AK in sky like a mortar because of the horrible trajectory of the 7.62 soviet round.

 

[TheDutchman]

Just Curious who has shot a HK G36 and why is it better then a M16 or M4. If the M16 is such a POS as the ARM CHAIR COMMANDOS claim, can some answer how many direct fire deaths of US troops in Iraq.

 

[2ndChapterofActs]

I thought of something. With all of this challenging of AR owners by AK owners to have a show down with their weapons and find out who wins I would like to perpose a much more real contest. Warfare isn't always fair in fact in many cases you do all you can to tip the tide in your favor. Because my original post had to do with combat performance more then the sporting aspect of both these weapons I would think that any contest between the M16A2 and AK47 should start on this base.

1) The M16A2 needs to be of good build and the AK47 needs to be of rather poor or medium make (it has been mentioned many times that the standards that the AK are manufactured to are not as high as that of the M16A2. Now of course I think it was Cos who said that we cannont garentee that even the US manufactures are going to not cut corners in AR production. This of course is why I think that most of the AR's on the range are rather cruddy weapons. Of course they are cutting corners. Just like any sport the products you get for rec play are different in many cases from what the pros use).

2) The M16A2 needs to be cleaned the night before and in tip top shape where the AK47 hasn't been cleaned in about a week to two weeks (I think that this is more then fair given the fact that the US has professional soldiers who have been taught propper mantainance on their weapon and the enemy isn't as likely to have the weapons training).

3) The testing should be done in a dusty enviornment similar to Iraq.

4) The range that should be shot at should vary according to where the "battle" is going to happen. If it is out in the sands then the shooting should occor at the range somebody can see somebody else at the maximum effective range of the longest range weapon (in this case the test should be at 800-900 meters. 400-500 meters would work I suppose). If it is decited that this should be an urban shootout then the range should be 50-200 meters.

6) Both shooters should be on their knees or in the dirt.

7) The round used shouldn't be the same round. The M16A2 should be firing a standard NATO round and the AK should be shooting a hodgpodge of various rounds all put into the same magazine.

8) The AK47 should be fired on full automatic while the M16A2 should be fired one either a three round burst or single shot.

9) There should be no more then three or four magazines fired. (Unless it is decided that this is to be a long an intense firefight invalving many shooters in which case the M16A2 shooter should be able to call in a Napalm strike or gunships!)

Let me know if I missed anything.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Looks like the AR's have it...

As I have said before the AR is not some Crystal Figurine that if you just look at it funny, breaks. Will this awesome and versastile weapon never be able to live down it's tumultuos adoption that was screwed up through no fault of Stoner or the weapon system itself :banghead:

Normally, AR haters can be broken down into about 3 groups...
1. People that served and say somethin like,"Back then we were issued real weapons like the M14 and Garand,not these made by Mattel plastic and aluminum abominations", not the most objective view to listen to in my eyes
!

2. People that hate the," Evil, dirty, stupid, flimsy, not reliable as an AK deficates where it eats gas impengement system Stoner created. Man what was he smoking when he came up with that," haters... Who oddly enough, when asked to produce imperical evidence of an AR/M16 being brought down SOLEY DUE TO FOULING FROM NORMAL USE, they can't :banghead: !!!

3. Then there are the guys that say," Well the cartrigde it uses is only big enough to shoot baby mice with ,and even then you better have PERFECT shot placement, like right between the ears, or you risk it shooting back!"
I have come to the realization that 7 out of 10 times, these are the guys that have never even shot the caliber, even at paper, but can judge simply by seeing the rounds diminutive stature. These are also the same guys that are in the bigger bullet bigger hole crowd,which normally stands true, but how does that saying go...," There is an exception to every rule !!!!"; and shooting flesh(even lightly armored) 5.56X45is most definitley the exception....

Did I miss anything

 

[2ndChapterofActs]

Guess thats all then! Nice talking with you all.

 

[Cosmoline]

If the M16 is such a POS as the ARM CHAIR COMMANDOS claim.

Why is the AR fans feel the need to resort to personal insults like this over and over again? I've been called an "armchair commando" more times here than I ever was over on Michael Moore's board.

Oh look, here's some more of it:

as you survivalists call it

Let's stick to talking about RIFLES, people I get called enough of these names by the antis.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Just for the record,

I never name-called, I simply did some grouping ! Oh yeah, I left out the last group of people, who are either in the," All of the above," category ,or the ,"MIx and match", from the above three...

 

[Cosmoline]

All I have to do to see some fouling and jaming of the AR platform from normal use is sit next to someone shooting one at the range. I'll hear more curses than shots.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Having carried either an M-16A2 or M-4 in virtually every environment on the globe, please allow me to respond to some of the comments previously posted.

First, obsessive maintenance is an integral part of military life. When the military buys equipment it does so with the understanding that said equipment will be used for a long time. (By way of example, some of the M-60's in my platoon in 1995 dated back to Vietnam) Regular, routine maintenance ensure the longevity of the equipment, especially equipment subjected to the harsh conditions and abuse that small arms are. Regardless of the weapon fielded, regular, routine maintenance will continue to be performed. One day a maintenance free rifle may be fielded, but it will most likely continue to be maintained on a regular basis.

Second, few, if any, firefights require an individual rifleman to fire thousands of rounds. The basic load for a rifleman is 210 rounds. Most soldiers carry extra magazines, but certainly no one is carrying more than 400-500 rounds. Consequently, I could care less if my rifle fires 3,500 rounds without cleaning before it malfuctions and the other guy's fires 10,000 rounds. Neither one of us is realistically going to make it anywhere close to that number before A. one of us is killed B. one of us decides it is in our best interest to leave or C. one of us runs out of ammunition. What I need is a rifle that can fire a reasonable number of rounds without cleaning before malfunctioning, say a thousand.

Third, the sand in the regions of the world where we are currenlty conducting operations adversely affects everyones weapons and equipment. I have come across more than one AK-47 with a malfunction. A good friend of mine carried an AK operationally, and consciously decided to change back to his M-4. Draw whatever conclusion you care to.

Fourth, while reliability is an important characteristic of a combat rifle, it is not the only one. Ergonomics, weight and accuracy are a few others. Excessive accuracy at the expense of reliability is unacceptable. Likewise, excessive reliability at the expense of weight or ergonomics or accuracy is also unacceptable. The idea is to find a rifle that balances all of these attributes, and others, at acceptable levels. The M-4 may not be ideal but, of the rifles currently available, I believe it achieves this balance the best. Just because the military's definition of an acceptable level of reliablity (or accuracy or weight or ergonomics) differs from your own does not make it wrong.

Finally, if you are going to assert that one piece of equipment is better than another for a particular application, it is only reasonable for people to question your authority to make such an assertion. If your understanding of equipment and its performance is limited to what you have read or to what your next-door neighbor's brother's nephew told you at a barbecue, then you should not be offended when people with a detailed undertanding of the equipment, its performance and the conditions underwhich it was employed based on substantial first-hand experience take you to task. This applies whether the subject is combat rifles or skateboards.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

BlackHawk6's post + infinite, Hate to say it but,

Toldja so


PS I actually enjoyed saying toldja so ...

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Cosmoline,(and others with a less than high opinion of the AR)

I just got back from a range trip(well actually I went fishing for 3 hours too) where I fired NOTHING BUT STEEL-CASED WOLF poly-coated ammo...Not a single failure in either my M4gery or my MP-AR(ar pistol)...I fired approximately 200 rounds through each weapon today, usually five shots at a time(at max 10), switching between the two platforms to allow one to cool as I shot the other. NOT A SINGLE FAILURE OF THE STONER SYSTEM or the Wolf poly ammo!!!(except for the bolt not locking back on a defective 10 rnd mag, that got a M.A.S.H hospital type fix with some tape under/around the floorplate, which got it to lock back 95%) ...Now earlier in the week I was at the range and fired atleast another 200 rounds through both firearms. NEITHER RECEIVED even LIGHT CLEANING of the internal parts(MP-AR did get 2 drops of oil to the bolt carrier cause it isn't even broken-in at less than 600rnds total,but oil don't clean, just lube), let alone a detail cleaning like I normally do. I did wipe the dust off the outside of both receivers but that doesn't count 'cause our outdoor range has an abundance of this. That is in excess of 400 RNDS through EACH weapon without so much as a brush/ patch down the bore. My Stoners must have both been sick that day ,and not gotten the memo that they should jam every two or three rounds ,or atleast every couple of mags like it's supposed to. Maybe I should have a talk with them? That way they will uphold the Jam-o-matic reputation like all good little AR's are supposed to :banghead: !

If 650+ rounds of Wolf laquered ammo before, and now 400+ rounds of Wolf poly(both without cleaning), didn't disable my M4gery, please tell me again how unreliable my rifle is !

PS For any interested I will post a range report on the Wolf ammo and my firearms tomorrow, in my So I bought a case of Wolf, thread...

 

[KriegHund]

This is worse thana fight with an anti. No one seems to be convincing anyone, not even the fence sitters.

I will say this- Having shot a couple hundred rounds of .223, i would say it is more than capable of comeptently killing someone.

And whats all this about cover? Even HP's will go through thick cover of branches and then through sheet metal.

 

[Correia]

Too Many... Dude, just chill...

I have a little bit of experience with all of the different military style rifles. I direct/design/participate in 3gun matches, so I've seen many many guns come through. From really cheap to very expensive. I've seen pretty much everything malfunction. I've probably seen a whole lot of rounds go downrange out of several hundred different kinds of guns.

Here is how I see it. The M4/AR is a good gun. It isn't the be all end all of everything in the universe, but it is a good gun. The majority of the rifles used in 3gun are AR type. Mostly because they offer an excellent combination of accuracy, ergonomics, and most of all - you can shoot the dang things very fast.

Now I've seen a ton of AR malfunctions. Strangely enough, the individuals who care about their guns, and have all of their equipment in order, seem to not have any malfunctions. The new guys, or the guys who have the mini-gunsmithing station in the bed of their truck manage to have dozens of malfunctions per match. The average shooter is not like one of us, and I see many more AR malfunctions at the regular range than I do in a match.

More important than cleaning is the original build quality of the gun. I know one shooter who uses an original Colt SP, and as far as I've seen, it is flawless. Other guys buy a new gun and will have constant malfunctions. But the good ones, or troubled ones that have been fixed by somebody with a clue seem to work just fine. I have a friend who is a hardcore competitor who had a Bushmaster that was a hunk of crap. He sold it, and swore off ARs for several years out of disgust. A while ago he got a really good deal and ended up with a Rock River and another Bushmaster. Both of these guns have been flawless. His first one was just a hunk of garbage, brand name notwithstanding.

The most common malfs I see seem to be mag related. The AR mag basically sucks, step hard on one after you've dropped it on a stage and that mag is probably gone. I've seen lots of AR mag problems. Good mags = less problems. User errors amongst shooters are common too, with seeing people shove in mags, but not seat them hard enough, only to have them fall out, or hitting the mag release when they take their finger out of the trigger guard.

My business partner spent a year overseas serving as a 45B (armorer). In his entire time in Afghanistan they didn't have any real M4 problems in his unit, and they did a lot of shooting. He knows much more about ARs than I do, and he thinks that they are fine.

Now I like to compete with a Vepr or a FAL. That is my personal choice, and believe it or not, I shoot those better than I do an AR. However in my sport I'm kind of odd.

The AK series gets a bad rap for accuracy. I've got a Vepr that I'm pretty certain I could outshoot 98% of you with. A good AK has good accuracy. Comparisons to Khyber Pass guns made out of former railroad ties and Century guns aside, a quality new Russian AK stacks up pretty well against a rack grade M16 in overall usebility, with the better sights, safety, and BHO going to the M16.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Correia,

With all due respect to your moderator-ship, why do I need to chill ? Is my fervor showing?... In the assault rifle category, the AR is king for a reason. It is the best balance of high speed low drag, with more than enough reliability for 99.9 percent of the conflicts we as civies, can expect to face(good enough for our boys good enough for me, after researching). If I could never clean my rifle, EVER, then I would take an AK, but I am not forced to never clean my rifle so why lose accuracy and ergonomics for a minimal gain in reliability? If you shoot the AK good, that is great, but for most people, you ARE the exception, not the rule ...

I only wish that the BS would stop as, some people actually believe that the AR/M16 series has not evolved since 1968! I believe that combat experience is worth more than my opinion so BlackHawk 6 got me fired up again, maybe I shoulda just said ,"Preach on!!", and left it at that !

 

[Correia]

No that wasn't a Mod thing, it was just that you were foaming at the mouth a bit.

This argument has gone on since the dawn of time, and will continue when cockroaches rule the Earth. I've seen about 1,000 threads on this subject, and none of the hardcore ever change their minds. So there is no use in getting worked up. The only reason I posted is because your broad generalizations of AR haters is way off, as I know multiple combat veterans who absolutely hate the AR, and other vets that love them. And I don't know any of your general categories would fit somebody like Kevin McClung, who has forgotten more about guns than most of us will ever know, who also despises the AR. There are plenty of people with vast amounts of experience with contridictory opinions on this subject, and I think we should just let it die.

 

[bbgun]

get real. 90+% of the non accidental hitting is <100m

most hits are accidents, (to include richochets). Most hits are poor hits, not good ones. The M4 has little more range than the AK, but it doesn't need it, either. You can't use such accuracy, and the further away an enemy is, the less need of an instant stop. Maybe the M4 will "only" hit at 1/2 mile like a .22 lr rifle does at 10 ft, but I bet you bleed out before you can run 800 yds. Our guys don't have to ride riight out and scalp anybody, you know.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

most hits are accidents, (to include richochets).

Hits in combat are intentional, though they are harder to get than on a static range. Every time I pulled the trigger I meant to. Sometimes I hit. Sometimes I did not. I never fired my rifle and "accidentally" hit a bad guy nor I have I seen it happen nor have I heard of it happening.

Most hits are poor hits, not good ones.

There are certainly a substantial number of less than optimal hits. A large number of rounds strike people in the extremities, but a large number strike people in the torso or head. Regardless, in my expereince being hit anywhere with a rifle is generally bad for the recipient. Factor in lack of approporiate medical care and that "poor hit" in the shoulder is going to give you a big problem.

The M4 has little more range than the AK, but it doesn't need it, either. You can't use such accuracy...

Nonsense. It has been used and with good effect.

...the further away an enemy is, the less need of an instant stop.

Agreed.

 

[bbgun]

Then you aint been around much, dude.

when the smoke, flash, darkness, dust, ducking bullets, no ear protection, etc, are factored in, the hits are mostly random accidents. I never said that the hits weren't INTENDED, just that misses are a LOT more commonplace. As in 1000's of shots per hit. That is a fact that's been known for decades, even with muzzleloaders, there were many, many shots taken per hit achieved.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

I've been around more than most; less than some.

As you have obvioulsy been around more than me, perhaps you can explain to me how if I align my sights properly on a target, and press the trigger properly my hit is an "accident?"

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Our boys get ear protection or I'm Sure 100% or our guys have permanent hearing loss!

If you fire a .22 rimfire without muff, or plugs, you can get perm. hearing loss. Just imagine firing the snappy little 5.56 out of your M4(little barrel big blast/concussion)while ,"MGer Blake" (*fake name*) fires his freaking M249 mini me over your right shoulder , all while taking incoming '47 fire ....I can kinda imagine it, on second thought, I will stop thinking about it now as I think I just wet myself ...

Hearing loss would be the least of your worries at the time, but I am sure Uncle Sam has it factored into the budget. I want to say it was a Combat
Vet from the sandbox that told me this.

Correia, I knew you were not acting in a full moderator mode or your verbal jab, I am sure would have been atleast a verbal ," left hook"...And to be fair to me about my grouping methods, I did qualify the statement with," MOST AR haters can be....,"

 

[bbgun]

so who is the bser CLAIMING he fires carefully while

being shot at? The blast is a big reason for the 99.99% of shots that MISS in military combat. The goons couldn't take adequate care of sound suppressors, and they'd be stolen left and right, so the military struggles on with grossly inferior gear.

 

[Correia]

Suppresors stolen left and right? By our troops? Out of our stocks? Huh?

I don't even know what world this thread is in now. This thing is done.