2ndChapterofActs
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 27
"Trust me, I have seen the physical affects of all three the M-16, M-4 and the Ak-47. Throw all those things you read away. THe 7.62 is still the deadlestt round within 200m, trust me it will rip flesh and bone right out of your body,, I have seen it first hand. THe M4 has alot to be said, it is a good weopon within 150m mostly because of it's small size so for close quarters it is perfect but alot of the guy say, and I have seen it, for myself, it does not have the stopping power needed in combat. Especially at distances gereater then 150m. Some of the guys have even picked up[ AK47s to use and just sling thier M4 over thier back. It;s like shooting a .22!!!! As for the regular M16 you get the distance because of the longer barrel, some of the guys here have added Scopes to thier standard M16 and have been hitting guys out at 500m in the head with no problem. And as for how either t! he M4 and M16 are doing. Well like in every conflict since they were invented! Clean it Clean It Clean it Clean it Clean it! If not it WILL jam at the worse time! It WILL JAM! And dont' leave your magazines loaded with a full 30rds, springs get really weak, especially in these high temps over here. And then they wont feed correctly! The AK47 of course hasnt had this problem. Oh course the enemy has the better WEAPON!"
_________________________________________________________________
This was posted by somebody a little bit ago and spawned some rather interesting discussion. I don't really want to be nocking too bad on anything that is said by somebody who is in Iraq but I am wondering where he picked up his information. A few of you may want to take a look at this bit of an email sent by my cousin. He is a Marine Sgt. and weapons specialist for a mortuary unit. Some of this appears to be direct contradiction to the above email. I asked him about the arguments put forth in this post as objectivly as I could. I would say his response was pretty even handded.
_________________________________________________________________
Nick,
Hey, sorry for not responding to all of your emails. Thanks for sending them...
Hm, the AK 47 vs M16 debate has been raging on (as you well know) for a long time so I'll give you my 2 cents (for what its worth).
You are right about the AK's inferiority when it comes to range and accuracy but its benafit with a larger round thus making it a bit more reliable in the dusty climate of Iraq
You are right about the M16's superior accuracy (800 meters point target open sight) but its deficit with needing constant cleaning with all the dust around here.
Now there are two lines of thought with the size of the round... the 7.62 is like getting hit with a sledge hammer and will mess you up, but the 5.56 is not to be overlooked. It is about speed and will travel through you with a nice shock wave causing a lot of internal dammage and/or bounce around in you if it hits solid bone. And lets be honest, a piece of straw can speed through a tree with enough speed.
The M16 (as you have pointed out) is manufactured with much higher standards than most AK's and since I've trained for 9 years with the M16 I would choose it over anything else any day of the week. As far as penetrating body armor, the majority of our opponents do not wear armor, but the squad has other weapons intrinsic to it (like the 240G) that will more than make up for any lack of individual stopping power of the M16. But this does not mean the M16 lacks penitration only a solid takedown round.
The M4 is much like the M16, just a bit smaller (and cutier <hehe>). About the only thing that is traded up for weight and size with the M4 is long range shots, but it wasn't really designed for such things so it doesn't really matter. The M4 is for close range combat and room clearning and I've never cleared a room 500 meters long on a reflex sight. The M4 will kill with the right sightline. It really is a good marriage, submachinegun and rifle all in one.
So, to say which is the best I am prejudiced to the M16, but that is my oppinon. I've never heard of service men picking up AK's unless it was out of absolute necessity. First, there is a very different sound when one shoots them so if I'm hearing AK fire from the side of me or behind me I am not going to think "that's just another one of my guys" I'm going to think "I'm being shot at from behind."
hope that helps,
J.J.
_________________________________________________________________
This was posted by somebody a little bit ago and spawned some rather interesting discussion. I don't really want to be nocking too bad on anything that is said by somebody who is in Iraq but I am wondering where he picked up his information. A few of you may want to take a look at this bit of an email sent by my cousin. He is a Marine Sgt. and weapons specialist for a mortuary unit. Some of this appears to be direct contradiction to the above email. I asked him about the arguments put forth in this post as objectivly as I could. I would say his response was pretty even handded.
_________________________________________________________________
Nick,
Hey, sorry for not responding to all of your emails. Thanks for sending them...
Hm, the AK 47 vs M16 debate has been raging on (as you well know) for a long time so I'll give you my 2 cents (for what its worth).
You are right about the AK's inferiority when it comes to range and accuracy but its benafit with a larger round thus making it a bit more reliable in the dusty climate of Iraq
You are right about the M16's superior accuracy (800 meters point target open sight) but its deficit with needing constant cleaning with all the dust around here.
Now there are two lines of thought with the size of the round... the 7.62 is like getting hit with a sledge hammer and will mess you up, but the 5.56 is not to be overlooked. It is about speed and will travel through you with a nice shock wave causing a lot of internal dammage and/or bounce around in you if it hits solid bone. And lets be honest, a piece of straw can speed through a tree with enough speed.
The M16 (as you have pointed out) is manufactured with much higher standards than most AK's and since I've trained for 9 years with the M16 I would choose it over anything else any day of the week. As far as penetrating body armor, the majority of our opponents do not wear armor, but the squad has other weapons intrinsic to it (like the 240G) that will more than make up for any lack of individual stopping power of the M16. But this does not mean the M16 lacks penitration only a solid takedown round.
The M4 is much like the M16, just a bit smaller (and cutier <hehe>). About the only thing that is traded up for weight and size with the M4 is long range shots, but it wasn't really designed for such things so it doesn't really matter. The M4 is for close range combat and room clearning and I've never cleared a room 500 meters long on a reflex sight. The M4 will kill with the right sightline. It really is a good marriage, submachinegun and rifle all in one.
So, to say which is the best I am prejudiced to the M16, but that is my oppinon. I've never heard of service men picking up AK's unless it was out of absolute necessity. First, there is a very different sound when one shoots them so if I'm hearing AK fire from the side of me or behind me I am not going to think "that's just another one of my guys" I'm going to think "I'm being shot at from behind."
hope that helps,
J.J.
Last edited: