Vietnam era AK47's

[Hangingrock]

It is my impression what one would encounter was dependent of the time period and the location in country. I saw a mix of small arms including recoilless rifles and mortars. The other thing was the field fortification systems tunnels, fortified hamlets and etcetera. What is an attention getter is being out ranged by your opponent's artillery which occurred in the northern areas.

 

[nathan]

Watching Vietnam war documentaries , most of the VCs and NVAs were using milled receiver AK 47s. And we know the milled is much better and desirable for a fact although it weighs a little more. NO doubt these were from China next door neighbor to the north.

 

[moxie]

Very true.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Post 21...

I agree with post 21.
I was going to revise my remarks & add some of the same information but I was pressed for time.
The "Swedish K" SMG 9mm(9x19mm) was used in SE Asia for a few years. Towards the end of the US involvement in SE Asia, Sweden, wanting to avoid any conflicts with the USSR & North Viet Nam decided to stop exporting the firearms & refused to allow any new SMGs to be delivered to the US military.

Smith & Wesson did set up the copy version; the model 76 9mm but by the time it was fielded(ready to be used), the combat operations/SOG missions were nearly over.
I never shot or used any model 76s but I heard they were not that great.
John Plaster wrote that he never felt the 9mm was enough for the SOG missions and didn't carry any SMGs. It's not known if ever used a M3a1 grease gun or Thompson SMG in .45acp.
The gunsmiths/armory mentioned at Ton Sut Nut(check spelling) is also mentioned in author Steven Hunter's novel I, Sniper. The main character; USMC combat veteran Bob Lee Swagger brings it up while discussing a gang member's full auto Swedish K 9mm with a "can"(sound surpressor). Hunter doesn't use the full name of the location.

 

[moxie]

The SOG guys I know didn't like the M3 or any other gun that fired from an open bolt.

 

[stressed]

I took a 7.62x39mm through my left hand, albeit it didn't "blow my hand off" and I still have use of most of it. Military FMJ ball wounds little whether 7.62 or 5.56. It's the reliability of the AK that made it so popular IMO. I'm a younger guy in my 20's and a vet of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I like hearing about the older vets and in this case older manufacture Chinese AK's

Question for you guys, how prevalent was 7.62x25mm in Vietnam? Did you run into any PPSh41's or PPS43's? Just the TT33/CZ52/M57 etc variants? Did you encounter any 9x18mm Mak?

 

[kBob]

Rusty,

Again the S&W is not exactly a copy of the K. It shares some features and looks. Sort of like some folks say the K is just a product improved Sten.

I looked to see if I had any original photos as THR does not like copyright issues.

Not happy with what I found but......

The M45 Swedish K is in the picture of Rush Limbaugh (not really but before he lost weight I was mistaken for him in DC one evening)

The S&W M76 is in the three guy picture on the viewer's left. The gun on the right is a 1928 Thompson. Center front is an MP40.

It is horrific what 20 years can do to a person, ain't it?

I believe the S&W tubing was slightly smaller diameter, but could be wrong. Notice the sights are different. The K actually has adjustable sights of a sort, those accustom with early UZIs would recognize the offset front sight post arrangement out on the end of the barrel shroud. Also the M45 is full auto only. The M45 stock is a tube with a leather cover and the S&W stock is a flat bit of steel some having plastic dip coat on part of the stock.

But this is supposed to be a rifle board so enough of this silliness.

-kBob

 

[d2wing]

I did not think much about NVA, VC or what they shot, except for the rockets. I had confidence that I was a better shot and better armed. I was never given any reason to think otherwise. I had distain for them and everything but the rockets. Those bothered me. But I have buddies that thought different. Hated the M16 and respected the AK. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
The situation Vern described sounds like a nightmare. Convoys were my specialty and standing orders were to speed up and leave the contact zone, do not stop, do not get bunched up or bottlenecked. However not all were properly trained because they transferred from infantry or some other mos. Or panic under fire. Of course you should not enter ambush but that usually wasn't an issue. Returning fire was the job of the hard trucks and shotgun riders. But we don't live in a perfect world and you have to be prepared for getting stopped and fighting it out. I personally took over leadership of a convoy under fire that was getting stopped jammed up and led it out of an ambush. Someone else's description of that ambush is in the Army Transportation museum. He did know what happened at the front but otherwise was accurate. I got a promotion for that.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

standing orders were to speed up and leave the contact zone, do not stop, do not get bunched up or bottlenecked. However not all were properly trained because they transferred from infantry or some other mos. Or panic under fire. Of course you should not enter ambush but that usually wasn't an issue.

In this case, that was exactly what happened -- the convoy was miles long, and the lead vehicles came under fire. There was no chance of running and it only made sense not to enter the killing zone.

 

[d2wing]

Thanks for the reply Vern. The more I know the less I understand. About Vietnam that is. We also had convoys miles long also separated into groups. Some of our cover was US Army, some ROK, Some ARVN,. Good you were there for support and cover. I thank you on behalf of all the guys that made it.
And I still think we had the best guns and the best troops. No respect for my enemies and their equipment. Respect for us and our stuff.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Early in the war, the M16 was truly problematical. Part of it was that someone in the supply chain believed Stoner's assurance the M16 would never need cleaning -- so cleaning gear wasn't issued. Some of it was due to the normal glitches you find when any new weapon is adopted -- except we adopted this one while we were in combat and learned the glitches the hard way.

The current M16s -- the M4, M16A2 and A4 are pretty good weapons, and our officers and NCOs know how to keep them working.

 

[Ron James]

The M-14 was not a wonder weapon, it was heavy, the ammo was heavy and it was very difficult to fire full auto. Yes it fired an effective round, so did the M-16. No one ever tried to steal our M-14's, hell, I tried to give mine away. What we drooled over was the Car 15 or the Swedish K. I don't know about the rest of the world, but up in the High Lands no American carried a AK-47 , not even the Snake Eaters or the strange guys with no marking on their uniforms that we dropped off on B52 missions. Perhaps in other parts of Nam but not there, as stated, the sound of a AK-47 would bring forth fire and brimstone. We had odd ball weapons coming out of our Gee Gee ( Special forces camp was just a few miles from us and they were easy to trade with ). I had my own M3-A1, Model 12 Trench, A Browning High Power, My own 45, ( it had been listed as lost in combat ). no AK's, they were traded off to the flat landers when ever we made a convoy run to Na Trang. Respected the VC?, well we respected the VC because they had guns and such and was trying to kill us as we were trying to kill them, but I don't believe I ever heard someone say , " man, I really respect those fine gentlemen and their infantry weapons " our comments were laced with swear words that showed disrespect and usually started with something such as " those M***** F****** Gooks. Sorry, that is the way I remember it.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Early in the war, the M16 was truly problematical. Part of it was that someone in the supply chain believed Stoner's assurance the M16 would never need cleaning -- so cleaning gear wasn't issued. Some of it was due to the normal glitches you find when any new weapon is adopted -- except we adopted this one while we were in combat and learned the glitches the hard way.

The current M16s -- the M4, M16A2 and A4 are pretty good weapons, and our officers and NCOs know how to keep them working.

This is the first time I have seen Gene Stoner given as the source for the statement that M16 never needed cleaning. Do you have a published source for this attribution?

 

[RustyShackelford]

Early AR models.....

Early Armalite Corp 5.56mm rifles had unlined barrels.
In the heat & rain of SE Asia, rust & corrosion soon followed.
M-16s of the early 60s had many problems but the M16a1s offered a few improvements.
The US armed forces had the rifle barrels chrome lined to prevent rust. This helped greatly.

 

[nathan]

An Aussie trooper with captured Chicom milled AK 47 after the Battle of Long Tan, Phuoc Toy Province, SE of Saigon City, August 1966. Isnt that beautiful? Aussie s were armed with FALs and M16s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uODWvj8aP-Q

 

[Hangingrock]

The M-14 was not a wonder weapon, it was heavy, the ammo was heavy and it was very difficult to fire full auto. Yes it fired an effective round, so did the M-16. No one ever tried to steal our M-14's, hell, I tried to give mineaway.

There are different opinions as to the merits of the M14. As for the M16 the "Hill Fights" for the Marine Corps brought out issues. Given the choice between the two my preference was for the M14.

 

[d2wing]

I loved both the M-14 and M-16. They were both very accurate, unlike anything that was shot at me. A sniper missed me completely. I jumped on a mounted M60 and that contest was over quickly.

 

[moxie]

Being missed completely by snipers is the only way to go. Harder to dodge 122s. Ouch!

Re the Swedish K. This was a nice, accurate, light, controllable SMG. I had one but by the time I got to the party (very late) I could get my hands on no extra mags. Had only one mag. And 9mm ammo was almost nonexistent. So sizewise the M3A1 was the obvious choice. Heavier. Much heavier with extra loaded mags, but at least they and ammo for them were available. And they were .45s. Plain Jane .45 ACP ball vs. 9mm ball.

If size didn't matter then the M-16 ruled, shorties being unavailable to me at that time. And, of course, it fires from a closed bolt which can be a deal breaker.

Today's M4 (the new GAU-5/CAR/shorty) approximates the best of all possible worlds. Light (even with extra loaded mags), small, handy, reliable, accurate, fires from a closed bolt and shoots a lethal round. And you can upgrade it with lots of neat optics. AK-47/74 might be the equal in terms of reliability and lethality, but the M-16 and variants have the edge everywhere else.

 

[Seven High]

The early M16s we're not properly tested before being deployed to Vietnam. Someone in the supply chain ordered that the powder in the 5.56 cartridge be changed from stick to ball without testing it first. Lives were lost because of this "oversight" Someone should have been sent to jail for this. It was quietly covered up.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Actually, ball powder was the Army standard and had been for more than a decade. The crime was in adopting a rifle design that was not compatible with the standard powder, and which had not been tested with it.

 

[Tommygunn]

If size didn't matter then the M-16 ruled, shorties being unavailable to me at that time. And, of course, it fires from a closed bolt which can be a deal breaker.

I may be off my peak today but I'm not sure what you meant by that -- did that mean closed bolt weapons were prefered over open bolt?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I may be off my peak today but I'm not sure what you meant by that -- did that mean closed bolt weapons were prefered over open bolt?

Open bolt designs are for full automatic fire. For semiautomatic fire, closed bolts are superior.

Full automatic fire from hand-held weapons is virtually useless in combat.

 

[moxie]

Yes to what Vern said.

And, to expand. With an open bolt, you're never totally sure that when you let that bolt fly that you will chamber and fire a round. No way to do a "chamber check." Also, if you rack the bolt it makes a lot of noise. The "safety" is usually a cheesy afterthought on these guns. The M3A1, for example, employs a little sheet metal tit sticking out of the dust cover into the bolt's finger hole. No way I would trust that. Breathe on it and it will likely let go and fire. Open bolt guns are fine if your back is against the wall, SHTF. That's their main function, IMO, sorta like a good boot knife. Otherwise, not so much. As Vern pointed out, in full auto in combat they ain't so good. The M-16 fires from a closed bolt, of course.

 

[Tommygunn]

Thanks for the explanations.
I've never been in uniform or in a war; I only ... "know" what I read or what I've picked up from others.
I've gotten the impression from what I've picked up that most people (who've never been in a war, that is) have a highly over-rated opinion of full-auto, or, just really don't understand it.
I have been given to understand that its best use is with crew-served weapons and used for "area-denial" and it helps convince enemy soldiers to keep their heads down and not move around a lot.
I've never been able to examine a "grease-gun" but I have handled (but never been able to fire) real Thompsons. It seems to me that it might be pretty easy to check if the mag is empty, with the bolt back you can look right through the ejection port and see.
This might get "iffy" in a battle I guess. Then of course with stick magazines the bolt was held back by the tab on the magazine follower and thus there's no real "clue" that you're on empty while the AR only holds back the bolt when it IS on empty.

I took my screen-name here, obviously from the venerable ol' Thompson combining it with the more vernacular "Tommy Gun" with the extra "n" to distinguish it from others who might have appropriated the name + there was an 1960s TV private-eye series called "Peter Gunn." Picked up the idea because I was a big fan (still am) of the old 1960s series "COMBAT!" in which actor Vic Morrow played the squad sergeant, Chip Saunders, who in all but two episodes carried a model 1928 Thompson.
....But I have to admit as to practical, well-designed WW2 guns I prefer the M-1 Carbine over the Thompson, and the Garand for best true "battlerifle" of the WW2 allies.
But, the "Tommy Gun" is still an iconic weapon.