The Mighty Mattel

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we were stripped of our heavy weapons, gunships, tanks and forced to fight eye-to-eye in every engagement, our people would be dying by the bushel.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. a good rifleman can make hits faster and at longer range with the AR, and every weapon malfunctions in the desert (with the possible exception of knives).

The AK is an inferior weapon to the AR, and is outclassed by the AR in every way that matters (accuracy,reload speed, shootability, sights, range (if we're talking about the .30 caliber ak), and units that can use whatever they want use the AR.
 
Golgo-13
Thank you for the voice of reason in this.
In addition to first hand combat reports on the M16, we DO have access to actual studies done on the weapons and equipment WE use. Since this latest couple conflicts I have seen reports put out by reputable sources reporting an evaluation of US military equipment from weapons to socks to personal hydration systems to communications equipment. According to these reports, the soldier in the field is requesting shorter weapons and handguns since most of their fighting is in urban areas. This is contrary to the many posts you read on here talking about the lack of range and long range punch of the cartridge: the guys that are really using it in battle are far more worried about CQB. They also wanted a handgun with more stopping power, night sights, and better reliability. The report specifically addressed an issue they are having with the magazine springs in the M9 pistol. But, this same report doesn't mention anyone complaining about the reliability of the M16 or M4.
Again, this is a HUGE problem on the internet. The people who are actually doing it, usually don't see it that way. The people who have been there, and done that who also know enough about guns to make an honest evaluation definitely don't agree.

Now, I personally don't have equivilent sources for other countries weapons. I have never read a detailed after-action report of how another counties' wepons performed in combat. I have never spoken to someone that used them in combat and in the field. I have never seen any kind of after-action study referenced and only a couple times have ever heard anyone mention that they talked to some guy who said he had been in country "X" military and he thought their rifle was great or whatever. Based on the fact that I have spent a lot of time reading about this stuff and have never seen any hard facts presented, I presume not many others have seen such hard facts either. This unfortunately brings me to the belief that it is just something else that has been repeated on the internet until it has become fact in many peoples minds.
 
Gewehr98,

If you read the threads you posted thoroughly, you will find that the reason soldiers are using AK's is not out of personal preference but because they are short M-4's and need rifles. Contrary to popular belief, everyone is not issued a rifle. Your personal weapon is determined by your job.

If we were stripped of our heavy weapons, gunships, tanks and forced to fight eye-to-eye in every engagement, our people would be dying by the bushel.
Click to expand...

Cosmoline,

While I am sure it was unintended, your statement is an insult to every U.S. infantryman. Your statement demonstrates your lack of understanding as to what is truly necessary to be successful in combat. The quality of soldier that our country puts on the battlefield is unquestionably superior when compared to our enemies. Most notably, we are better marksmen, more disciplined and are more physically fit.

I have had the unfortunate experience of engaging a numerically superior enemy force without the benefit of heavy weapons, gunships and tanks in the same conditions that are at issue here. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, it was no contest. We all came home, scores of them are taking a dirt nap.

I thanked you earlier for your passion regarding the fielding of a better rifle. I would welcome a better rifle. But do not think for a minute that the quality of my rifle determines my quality as a soldier. Far from it.
 
Last edited:
Blackhawk6, I *did* read those threads thoroughly, thank you.

My point was that if the AK is so inferior to the M16/M4, why is it considered an acceptable substitute standard in theater. Or even a preferred weapon for spec ops types? Granted, the troops in that news report wanted something with more firepower than their issued M9's. But I didn't see much printed about supply channels getting those folks any M16's or M4's to fill the void.

My issue weapon when flying during deployments is an M9. I've been active duty long enough to start with the M38, then the M1911, and when supplies caught up, the M9. When not flying, and on alert in tent cities in the sandbox, etc, my issue weapon was an FN-made M16A2. That fine talcum-powder sand got everywhere. Cleanliness was the order of the day. Often times I wished I had my Bulgarian SLR-95, even if it was semi-auto. :(
 
Gewehr98,
?
My point was that if the AK is so inferior to the M16/M4, why is it considered an acceptable substitute standard in theater.
Click to expand...

It s not an issue of whether or not the the AK is better than the M-4. Its an issue of whether or not the AK is better than an M-9. See my comments to Cosmoline regarding the quality of the rifle vs. the quality of the soldier. That having been said, I am not sure if corrective action is being taken to rectify the shortage of rifles.

But I didn't see much printed about supply channels getting those folks any M16's or M4's to fill the void.
Click to expand...

Why would you expect the media to report on something the military is doing right? No controversy=no story. When was the last time you saw a story on the successes we have experienced in Iraq? When I was in Afghanistan, there was a story on the shortage of SAPI plates we were experiencing. Never saw the story on how the shortage was corrected because it was not written. As units are being rotated out, I am sure those replacing them will be arriving with the appropriate number of M-4's/M16A2's.

Decribing the AK as a "preferred weapon for spec ops types" is too much. Special Operations units often have wide latitude in what weapons they choose to carry. Having worked with both U.S and Coalition SOF on numerous occasions, I have yet to see anyone carrying an AK. Are there members of these units carrying the AK, perhaps. However, the weapon most commonly carried by both U.S. and Coalition personnel was the M-4. What does that tell you?

Regarding your experience with the M-16A2, I have had similar problems. I am not disputing that routine maintenance of your rifle is required. When the maintenance is performed, you have a rifle superior to the AK. When you do not, you have a paper weight. People who make their living with a rifle and who have been properly educated act accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Blackhawk6 said a mouthful there. You're not going to hear about the units in Iraq getting the M-4's that they need. Why? Because the reporter who wrote the original story has forgotten about it and moved on to something else, like the Presidential election or the Westminster Dog Show. Iraq and our soldiers' are the last things on his mind now. The units that are there now have posssibly corrected that mistake, either by drawing from other units or by revamping their TO&E.

Why do SpecOps prefer the AK? Like Blackhawk6 said, in my experiences, they don't. The ones I've seen almost universally carried the M-4. I imagine that there are sometimes when they do carry AK's, such as on covert, behind the lines ops where the sound of an AK firing will help confuse the enemy more than the firing of an M-4. Of course, in most of those types of ops, firing your weapon is the LAST resort anyways. There might also be instances where resupply might be an issue, but those are passing into history. With the ability we have to resupply our guys in any kind of weather, at any time of day, and under most levels of threats, I don't see some SF A-Team having to wait long for a resupply. Of course, it could happen, good ole Mr. Murphy and all.

Frank
 
Concerning Spec. Ops. using AK’s.

Sometime around 1974 at Camp Perry I talked with a retired Special Forces guy that was with CCC and ran over the border recon missions (I think they were called roadrunner missions) into Cambodia. He told me they carried AK’s for the following reasons. 1. If his team was visually spotted by the NVA carrying the AK and the way they were dressed it could buy them some bug out time, as the NVA would think they were also NVA/VC. 2. He also made the comment if they had to fire the sounds of the firing may confuse the enemy some what being the same gun the NVA were using. He said he preferred a Colt CAR-15.

Have a good day and remember to pray for our troops around the world.

Turk
 
According to these reports, the soldier in the field is requesting shorter weapons and handguns since most of their fighting is in urban areas. This is contrary to the many posts you read on here talking about the lack of range and long range punch of the cartridge: the guys that are really using it in battle are far more worried about CQB.
Click to expand...

That's broadly true of Iraq (although there have been some complaints about the long-range effectiveness of the M4) but I think you would find a different set of priorities coming from the experience in Afghanistan, where much of the fighting was at longer ranges. You never know what kind of battle you're going to fight in next and it would not be wise to choose equipment suited only to one set of circumstances. (I can't resist pointing out that if they want to combine good long-range performance with a compact weapon, the obvious solution is a bullpup, which the US Army seems utterly determined to avoid).

There were no special complaints about the rifles in the official summaries I have read, but IIRC there were various problems reported, which seemed to be mainly down to magazines.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
 
Posted by Golgo-13
444 has an excellent point regarding the Ak's reputation in America. It is entirely based on anecdotes. Have any of you (Oleg, perhaps?) ever seen anything resembling an after-action report on the AK from any nation? Any kind of systematic review of the AK by any nation or organization that uses a lot of them? If so, please step forward and tell us about it. Not about how great your personal AK is, please, we've heard oodles about personal ARs and AKs. Let's hear the straight poop on the AK from the people who chose it, issued it, and carried it into combat.
Click to expand...
I was a commander of HQ security platoon in 1 Mechanized Division of Polish Army. It is line unit with long tradition. I finish my service quite fast thanks to health problems (cancer), but I had enough time to took a long look at AK 47.
My platoon used about 15 AKs plus some different rifles. One year in command and 0 problems with any of those 15 AKs. Most of them was produced beetwen 1965 and 1974 (one was from 1977 if I remember well). Of course all were used as a combat rifle (not for fun). Sand, water, mud and lot of shooting (full auto too). I'm not great fan of AK BTW, but it NEVER failed in my platoon. Is it good enough for you friend?
 
Last edited:
Cosmoline,

While I am sure it was unintended, your statement is an insult to every U.S. infantryman. Your statement demonstrates your lack of understanding as to what is truly necessary to be successful in combat. The quality of soldier that our country puts on the battlefield is unquestionably superior when compared to our enemies. Most notably, we are better marksmen, more disciplined and are more physically fit.

I have had the unfortunate experience of engaging a numerically superior enemy force without the benefit of heavy weapons, gunships and tanks in the same conditions that are at issue here. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, it was no contest. We all came home, scores of them are taking a dirt nap.

I thanked you earlier for your passion regarding the fielding of a better rifle. I would welcome a better rifle. But do not think for a minute that the quality of my rifle determines my quality as a soldier. Far from it.
----

Excuse me while I :rolleyes:

No, I never insulted any serviceman. I insulted the AR-15 platform. It's a disservice to our servicemen to give them second-rate weapons which need to be cleaned over and over and over and over and over again in order to function properly. The fact that our servicemen have made do with inferior weapons and managed to come out on top says a lot about the quality of our servicemen. The fact that we continue to give them schlock in order to keep Colt in business says a lot about us, none of it good.

I for one do NOT want to see our guys in Iraq go nose-to-nose, without armor or heavy weapons, with the dirty-fighting !%@$s with nothing but the junky rifles and carbines we've given them. Maybe they'd come out on top of the fight with no losses, but by G*D I'm not going to sit by silently and force them to roll those dice. We are giving them GARBAGE and any resulting deaths are our collective responsibility as tax payers.

:fire:
 
No, I never insulted any serviceman. I insulted the AR-15 platform. It's a disservice to our servicemen to give them second-rate weapons which need to be cleaned over and over and over and over and over again in order to function properly.
Click to expand...

You're right.

We should immiediately retire all american equipment that needs to be clean to work properly in favor of its combloc equivalent.

I hope you like flying hinds.
 
It's like beating your head into a wall. For the life of me I don't understand how otherwise reasonable people insist that the AR-15 platform is an adequate combat weapon. It's DEFECTIVE. It doesn't work unless you baby sit it, give it the right oil, etc.

I'm not saying we should give our troops Mausers or AK-47's (though they'd probably work better in Iraq). I'm saying we need to adopt the BEST RIFLE AND CARBINE NO MATTER THE COST! Not the second best, not "good enough," but the BEST. As close to flawless as possible. More than one jam in 1,000? Needs daily cleanings? Fussy about oil, dust, or mud? Doesn't hit hard enough? Breaks apart if beaten on the floor? Then it is GONE FROM SELECTION. No matter if it's a US design or not, no matter which Senator supports it. It's tossed in the junk heap forever.

What we give our troops should jam rarely if at all, should hit hard enough to kill a man reliably at 400 meters, should be tough enough to withstand extreme abuse and should be able to last weeks without a cleaning. That's bare minimum. If such a weapon doesn't exist, then WE MUST CREATE IT. We are Americans, for the love of Mike!

THe AR's DO NOT EVEN PASS my own very basic requirements for what *I* own. So how can I go and tell some serviceman on the front lines to make due with it because it's good enough? It's immoral!
 
We should immiediately retire all american equipment that needs to be clean to work properly in favor of its combloc equivalent.
Click to expand...

That's a perfect analogy, actually. The AR-15 was designed by aviation engineers. They fully expect their designs to be serviced by teams of A&P mechanics, as a helicopter would. Unfortunately we don't give our troops GUN BEARERS who can babysit their rifles. So making the rifle function as well as a helicopter or jet just ain't gonna cut the mustard.
 
It's like beating your head into a wall. For the life of me I don't understand how otherwise reasonable people insist that the AR-15 platform is an adequate combat weapon. It's DEFECTIVE. It doesn't work unless you baby sit it, give it the right oil, etc.
Click to expand...

It's like banging your head into a wall. For the life of me I don't understand how otherwise reasonable people insist that the AR-15 platform is not an adequate combat weapon. It's EFFECTIVE. It works unless you abuse it and fail to maintain it.

You are absolutely wrong about not insulting servicemen. The most respected and experienced servicemen choose the AR-15 platform for almost every situation. There is a reason for that. Let the professionals decide what they want, and they will pick the AR-15 platform 99% of the time as history has shown. You are effectively suggesting that they don't know what they are talking about. You may have the best of intentions, but personally you give me the impression that you are simply a card carrying member of the AR haters club. I doubt that you would stop your incessant arguments against it if a poll revealed that 99.99999% of servicemen disagreed with you.
 
Let the professionals decide what they want
Click to expand...

Yes, I most certainly am an AR-hater. I don't just hate the rifle, I hate the system which produced it and I hate the theories behind it (our guys can't or won't shoot the enemy unless they spray and pray, our guys are afraid of recoil, our guys can't carry a proper rifle, the M-14 is too much for our guys, our guys are a bunch of inner-city rejects who can't shoot etc. etc. etc.)

But I'm all for letting professional soldiers decide. But let me ask you this, how many servicemen are allowed to bring an FN-FAL into combat? A STGW-57? Can they dump the .223 in favor of the .30'06 at will? Can they start using repeaters in .300 Win Mag? No, of course not. Only a very few are able to choose, and even they are very limited in choices. So I'll believe you when the servicemen have at least as much freedom to choose their weapons as you and I do. Right now most of them are lucky to have a beat-up M-16A2.
 
Here, folks, is the core of the problem:

It works unless you abuse it and fail to maintain it.
Click to expand...

NOT GOOD ENOUGH! A soldier should be able to rely on his weapon EVEN IF it is abused and covered with crud. No exceptions, no excuses. In other words, if a bunch of M-16's jam in the desert, blaming the type of grease the soldiers used is bogus. The weapon should work with crisco smeared all over it, as my AK-47 recently did (long story there) :D
 
So I'll believe you when the servicemen have at least as much freedom to choose their weapons as you and I do.
Click to expand...

An awful lot of them choose the AR as a personal weapon once they leave the service. I'd daresay that the AR is the dominant platform among veterans who own a military style fighting rifle. I have no data to back it up, other than those I come in contact with on a regular basis, so I don't expect you to accept that. I really don't expect you to accept anything come to think of it.

When they make a dirt proof weapon, let me know.

Resume...
:banghead:
 
Every modern day vet I know likes the AR. Every single one.

My ARs combined have had fewer malfunctions (2, ever, with the same bad mag) than my buddy's SAM7. My new vepr has never malfunctioned, but only has about 500rds through it.

The AR is much, much better suited for use in the US military than is the AK, or anything else except maybe the other 5.56 rifles out there (G36, Sig 55X, etc). I've never seen one bit of reputable evidence suggesting that anything out there is signifigantly better than the AR.

Like any US military rifle thats been around for such a long time (heh... there are no others) there are going to be a small number of extremely vocal detractors, and thats fine, but it doesn't make the rifle in question any less viable. Heck, the guy that started this thread (about how terrible the AR is) seems to think that buckshot is more effective at 100 yards than .223.:scrutiny: Makes you wonder.:rolleyes:
 
Of course there's never going to be an end to this age-old debate. Sadly given the way our federal gob'ment works, whatever ultimately does replace the AR line will almost certainly be more fragile, more complex, and more prone to failures. Heck even I will probably be looking back with longing at the reliable old AR's.

:D
 
Quote
"Yes, I most certainly am an AR-hater. I don't just hate the rifle, I hate the system which produced it and I hate the theories behind it (our guys can't or won't shoot the enemy unless they spray and pray, our guys are afraid of recoil, our guys can't carry a proper rifle, the M-14 is too much for our guys, our guys are a bunch of inner-city rejects who can't shoot etc. etc. etc.)"

I have several friends deployed in Iraq. They are not inner-city rejects are
fine marksmen and great american soldiers. I find that comment offensive
to me as I hope all americans do . The m14 is from a war of the past it served well and now is outdated. Get with the times move forward or stand still don't go backwards.
 
Cosmoline wasn't posting his own personal belief with the "inner-city rejects" statement. Quite the opposite. He was stating his disgust with the apparent assumption in the designing of the M16.

If it isn't clear by now, Cosmoline is not out to insult America or her troops. He's just calling (shouting?) for a better weapons system.
 
I, for one, am all for the adoption of a better weapons system provided that it actually is better. The XM8 proponents are ballyhooing the superiority of a weapons system that doesn't exist outside of a handful of prototypes. The M-14 crowd are fixated on their personal idea of what a modern infantry weapon should be, despite the facts that the M-14 wasn't able to fulfill its own hype in its own day and that the US military of that time found it unsatisfactory in many ways. The AK-47 set bases their religion on anecdotal evidence and little more, AFAICS. As I said, I'm all in favor of adopting a demonstrably superior weapons system. I am not in favor of humoring internet hobbyists who have little or no experience with the system they are damning and even less experience with the system they wish to have as a replacement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Spare Bolt
Replies
3
Views
443
Onmilo
Onmilo
2
  • Locked
M16/AK Bit II
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Wynterbourne
W
N
  • Locked
full auto problem
Replies
19
Views
851
newgunmike
N
B
  • Locked
M4/M16 Fire to Destruction Test
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Darthbauer
D
J
  • Locked
M16 MTBF: Hard Data?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Oleg Volk
O
Back
Top