The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: wheels on May 25, 2010, 10:58:23 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/25/military-reconsiders-armys-use-m-rifles-afghanistan/
I found this to be an interesting article. Is the military admitting the m16 is not as good as the ak 47?
What do you think?
-
I think they're saying the M4 is a short-range weapon. Hmmm...isn't that what it was designed to be? Now they're realizing it's not a sniper rifle. Well, Duh! ::)
-
The article made it look like the status quo was defending - - - the status quo.
The AK is a 63 year old design, the AR 50+ years old. Both have pluses and minuses. I see in the military's adherence to the M-4 and M-16, though, an unwillingness to envision multiple scenarios and to be prepared for any of them. The AR platform is a natural for multiple uppers with multiple features and calibers.The .mil should be exploiting the hell out that platform, instead of sticking with one caliber.
Our troops paid the price for that intransigence in Somalia, again in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now again in Afghanistan.
-
Both were built on totally different ends of the design spectrum to achieve the same result. A reliable, lethal, battle rifle. The M-16 was designed around extremely close tolerances to achieve as much accuracy in a mass produced battle weapon as possible. The AK-47 was designed quite the opposite. It's design was based on quite loose tolerances by comparison to the M-16 to achieve superior reliability. Both models accomplished their goals, albeit the M-16 does it with more accuracy, but at a trade off for reduced reliability. The AK-47 achieves superior reliability, but with much less accuracy.
The bottom line on these guns is that it depends on the type of warfare being fought, and at what distance you expect to engage your targets. In Viet Nam where most of the fighting was close range jungle encounters and ambushes, in that scenario the AK-47 was far superior to the M-16. The inhospitable rainy, wet, jungle conditions also favored the AK-47. Rust, dirt, and mud effected it's operation far less than the M-16 which jammed frequently, and it required field stripping much of the time to clear it, and get it up and running again. Not exactly the best thing to have happen in a fire fight in the middle of the night.
In Iraq, where many enemy encounters are at longer ranges because of the open desert, the M-16 has a definite range advantage, but it's smaller .22 caliber round is handicapped. Much has been reported about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56 MM round at ranges greater than 300 meters. This has been addressed with different ammunition recipes. The jury is still out on it's effectiveness.
So, in many ways the argument continues as to which is best. Both have been in service more than twice as long as the soldiers carrying them have been alive, which alone says something as to their effectiveness as well proven battle weapons. Bill T.
-
its funny, laugh, don't get upset, its funny, ha is the proper response, its funny.
I am not responsable for the actions of film, I had no part in making and I do not approve of the gun handling and poor muzzle control. Its funny, laugh...
-
If I was shooting at people at 200 meters plus I would go with the M 14. The first firearm I ever shot. Ft Dix 1966 Armed Forces Day!
Video. At 3 I would have turned and shot him in the back. It's about winning the gunfight baby ;D
-
If I was shooting at people at 200 meters plus I would go with the M 14. The first firearm I ever shot. Ft Dix 1966 Armed Forces Day!
Video. At 3 I would have turned and shot him in the back. It's about winning the gunfight baby ;D
I like the way you think . ;D
When TT and I win the election do you want to be DCI ;D
FQ wants the job but he is to liberal for profiling, never mind "Extreme prejudice". (At least that's what the iguana's say ;D )
-
I like the way you think . ;D
When TT and I win the election do you want to be DCI ;D
FQ wants the job but he is to liberal for profiling, never mind "Extreme prejudice". (At least that's what the iguana's say ;D )
I would be honored to serve.
-
I would be honored to serve.
Here ya go. You can start to study up :D :D
http://www.ehow.com/how_4473852_tie-hangmans-knot.html
-
Solus, Thank you, but THAT lesson is for the Justice Dept.
It is important to draw clear lines between assassinating Heads of State and other foreigners who irk you, (Kim Dong Ill, Hugo Chavez, Amadinawhateverthehell that A hole in Iran ) which falls under "Foreign Policy".
and imposing legal penalties on violent or egregious offenders, In fact I may change the Dept.'s name to "Animal Control".
;D
-
Solus, Thank you, but THAT lesson is for the Justice Dept.
It is important to draw clear lines between assassinating Heads of State and other foreigners who irk you, (Kim Dong Ill, Hugo Chavez, Amadinawhateverthehell that A hole in Iran ) which falls under "Foreign Policy".
and imposing legal penalties on violent or egregious offenders, In fact I may change the Dept.'s name to "Animal Control".
;D
I can retrain my Yorky from "ratter" to "rat bastard" control! ;)
-
Most of the troops would be better served by an M16 instead of an M4. Give them the right weapons. DUH. It's that simple.
-
Most of the troops would be better served by an M16 instead of an M4. Give them the right weapons. DUH. It's that simple.
Is this true? Honestly, I've seen this debated endlessly. But is that extra 4" buying you much inside of 300 yards which is what both weapons were designed for? Moving to an AR-10 would be game changer, for good or ill (heavier load outs and fewer rounds) vs more ummph. Likewise the 6.8mm as a compromise. I'm just not convinced that with using an optic (which should be standard) the extra 4" is that big of a deal for the average grunt.
FQ13 who could be very wrong here
-
Ammunition production will quadruple under a T&T Admin.
Plenty to go round. Kinda like that Switzerland post, only in the true American Spirit, with a raffle for a Barret 50BMG!
8)
-
Ammunition production will quadruple under a T&T Admin.
Plenty to go round. Kinda like that Switzerland post, only in the true American Spirit, with a raffle for a Barret 50BMG!
8)
I think they are nearly maxed out now, but we can implement a building program of factories. ;D
-
If we'd adopted the FAL along with the rest of NATO, we wouldn't NEED to have this discussion.... 8)
-
I think they are nearly maxed out now, but we can implement a building program of factories. ;D
Rebuild the Civilian Marksmanship Program. If there is ever (God help us) a Quaker administration, it would be a priority. A modernized scouting program, HS school shooting teams, Old School (apolitical) NRA style ranges, government subsidized shooting sports, etc. All done in the name of national security against foriegn threats, military readiness and to prevent domestic tyranny. A moison in every pot! ;) Though I would prefer the old A2s converted to SA and handed out like the Garands and M1 carbines were. The Swiss have the right idea. For that matter so did TR.
FQ13
-
As in the days of Auto Shop,...and other trades taught in schools in the past, perhaps GUNSMITHING and BALLISTICS,..... ARMORERS, and MACHINISTS, can make a resurgence.
Hell, I'd sign up.........
Civilian Marksmanship, ROTC, A REAL Homeland Security Initiative. Civil Defense Corps, Border Patrols, yes it can happen.
-
FQ, in Afghanistan the problem is that so many engagements happen at over 300 yards. Sometimes WAY over. The full length rifle allows a good shooter to hit 500 yard bulls all day long.
-
Coming back on thread, the M4/M16 is more accurate than the AK, for the grunt who is trained to be a rifleman, our adversaries are definitely not trained to that level, the extra barrel length is of minor consequence, extra 150fps, which is nice. Having shot both at advanced distance and at different targets, the 7.62x39 has better penetration in urban settings, bar none, than the 5.56, in open territory, I will take the accuracy of the 5.56 on a non armored target, in either rifle, it is lethal, but blows up easy on any barrier. Inside of 200 yd the accuracy of the AK is really good and the penetration is excellent, lethality on targets not so much, but you can hit your target behind barriers better than the 5.56, and a hit is always better than a miss. I am a personal admirer of the M14, long distance capability, hard hitting, and a bitch to hump with ammo to boot, I like the idea of one per squad, with a designated marksmen to operate it, and maybe an ammo carrier to support it. If I am running in a urban setting, the M4 allows a better sighting system, aimpoints, optics etc... that allow better/faster sight alignment, the AK just the crude rear blade, front sight set up, that works and is strong, but might slow me down, compared to the M4 with optics, but if your a rifleman, won't slow you down, as you are use to not using a crutch, such as optics. 2 men, well trained on each system, as John Wayne said in Rio Bravo, I would would hate to live on the difference.
-
When I went through boot camp at Ft. Knox back in the summer of '65 ( :D :D doesn't THAT sound like I'm an Old Timer?) it was with the M14. I loved that rifle. I hit the 300m pop-up target every time with it. Iron sights and you had to center the target in the front sight blade rather than the other way around at that range...but the confidence it gave me was incredible.
The picture of a soldier in battle dress carrying a M14 that was on the cover of the pocket notepads we used with the caption "The Ultimate Weapon" helped a lot too.
When I first saw a M16, before even handling it, my first thought was Mattel. After picking it up, that reaction was reinforced..it just felt too light.
I gained more respect for the AR format, if not the caliber, with use. Since then I've come to think that the AR10 (as FQ mentioned) would, perhaps, be the best of both worlds. I've never handled or even seen an AR10, so I don't know.
Anyone have insight to that question?
-
Unfortunately, I cannot attest to the AR-10 as a battle rifle. I have one, but it has been converted to meet SR-25 specs. So, not a true measure of versatility. I can tell you what type of sniper rifle it makes. (F-ing Brilliant!) Knowing what I know about the weapon and the cartridge. I think that it would make an excellent battle rifle. Although you would still have the same issues as the M-16 as far as cleaning and maintanance.
-
Unfortunately, I cannot attest to the AR-10 as a battle rifle. I have one, but it has been converted to meet SR-25 specs. So, not a true measure of versatility. I can tell you what type of sniper rifle it makes. (F-ing Brilliant!) Knowing what I know about the weapon and the cartridge. I think that it would make an excellent battle rifle. Although you would still have the same issues as the M-16 as far as cleaning and maintanance.
Yeah...If I do ever build an AR, I would want to have it be a gas piston action. I'd guess there are piston AR10's around? I hear arguments both ways, but I'm just emotionally against dumping the hot dirty gas into the action.
-
Is this true? Honestly, I've seen this debated endlessly. But is that extra 4" buying you much inside of 300 yards which is what both weapons were designed for? Moving to an AR-10 would be game changer, for good or ill (heavier load outs and fewer rounds) vs more ummph. Likewise the 6.8mm as a compromise. I'm just not convinced that with using an optic (which should be standard) the extra 4" is that big of a deal for the average grunt.
FQ13 who could be very wrong here
It's 5.5" and it does make a substantial difference in velocity and energy.
-
Lt. Col. Plaster spoke of this at the NRA Conv. "Winning the Sniper War In Iraq"
Most Chechens, Taliban, Al-Quaeda, that flooded Iraq after our Shock & Awe, use 4X scopes,... rule of thumb, gets accurate hits at 400 meters. Beyond that is 50/50, based on shooter skill and equip. It's a hit or its not.
Our troops, prefer 10X optics, at long range, and a superior round in the 7.62x 51, to get effective kills out to 1000. The AR's, with 18" and/or 20" barrels have "probable" ranges covered to 400-600yds, but house to house is the most effective.
The AK, is a up and close, Katy Bar The Door, urban assault rifle. Period. Long range accuracy was never really considered; within 100yds. is a problem for those on the receiving end.
But remember, the AR is "finicky";...... twist, bullet weight, smaller bullet, conditions, let alone the shooters capabilities, all play a role. While the AK runs on 20 year old handloads, and filled with sand.
The up close house to house platform for the AR has merit. It always has. Range, and shooting beyond 250yds, + brings a lot of variables into both. Edge goes to the AR for distance, but AK has the ability, at close range, to just not stop firing.