Real rifles

[warhawke]

In the case of the AK74 the Soviets thought they were missing the on micro-calibers and wanted to look just as advanced as the US, plus with their tactical doctrine the reduction of strategic materials was important. Colonel Kalashnikov HATED the idea, fought against it, and told all and sundry that they needed to improve the 7.62mm rather than go smaller, he was overruled.

As far as the other countries, the early adopters were either getting huge quantities of ammo from us, or our allies (like Israel and South Africa) or they saw the writing on the wall about a forced adoption by NATO. America has always supplied the lions share of ammunition and equipment to NATO and they knew that we would eventually make them adopt the 5.56 as we did in 1979-80.

Personally I think that if we had adopted something like the British .280 or the 7x49mm instead of the 7.62x51 NATO, we might well be using it today. Instead we demanded the 7.62 NATO, offered to adopt the FN-FAL. We reneged on that deal and adopted the M-14, played political games and lied to congress and the SecDef about the cost and production numbers on the '14 and generally screwed the pooch until McNamara slapped the whole system and made them take the M-16.

The ballistics of the .280 are strangely close to the 6.8mm Rem with a 140gr 7mm bullet fired at 2,415fps out of a 43mm case. This little puppy in an FN would be cool, not to mention that the FN would be about a pound lighter, and I think with 50 years of improvements and modifications we would be very happy to go to war with it, I know I would. Heck, a with modern powder and a VLD bullet this round would give the 6.5 Grendel a run for it's money I bet. Instead we have to have these silly arguments about a round and weapon designed with faulty data and rammed down the throats of the military by it's political leadership.       

[Bidah]

Looks like this warhawk guy just got right in everyones rear end.  Bravo! Question:  If the 556 is inferior why did other countries produce battle riffles in that caliber subsequent to the ar. (the Galil and AK74)

Tim, in defense of warhawke (of which he really does not need, or require).  A lively discussion was started, and yes, it was spirited.  The .223 is not quite what the discussion is about, since in general terms it is not a Rifle round, but that of a Carbine.  What we were ultimately discussing is Rifle platforms, not the rounds that they fire, overall anyway.

-Bidah  (here I go stirring the mud again).

[SIG229DAK]

I have friends shooting .223 chambered rifles, that shoot very straight to 200-300 yards and don't kick much. I'm glad they're happy with them. 

 But my choice was for an AK 47 clone for, A: reliability B: .30 cal projectile C: Cheap, easy to find ammo D: Being able to hunt game animals with it (as WA state doesn't allow deer hunting with .223 cal). D: Low initial cost of the rifle and it's parts.

To me that makes it the best "all around" useful semi-auto rifle, for MY use. 

[tombogan03884]

its not so much that AR's are crap as the service ammo, accurate .308 in an EFFECTIVE bullet design doesn't care what launches it. FMJ is everyones last choice (other than paper or tin cans) even in 155

[tombogan03884]

Warhawke, Do you realize the AR system has been military standard for a bunch of countries for over 40 years. Thats longer than the 03 Springfield, It's more than twice as long as the M 1 Garand and the M-14/M-1A combined. Thats longer than some of our fellow posters have been alive. You may think it's junk but there seems to be alot of people who don't agree with you. :p

[Sponsor]

[warhawke]

Warhawke, Do you realize the AR system has been military standard for a bunch of countries for over 40 years. Thats longer than the 03 Springfield, It's more than twice as long as the M 1 Garand and the M-14/M-1A combined. Thats longer than some of our fellow posters have been alive. You may think it's junk but there seems to be alot of people who don't agree with you. :p

Gee, we adopted the M-60 in 1957 and messed around trying to get them to work until we finally adopted the M-240 (AKA the FN MAG) a weapon that was adopted all over the planet starting in 1958. Now, we adopted the Browning M1919 MG in 1918 and replaced it in 1957, so the Browning was our weapon for 39 years and the M-60 has been around for 61 years, does this make the M-60 a better weapon?

Hey, since the M-14 was adopted in 1957 and replaced in 1964 ( 7 years) the M-14 must have been the most useless POS ever built, right? That was even less than the Krag-Jorgensen.

WAIT!!!!!!!! The AK-47 has bee around LONGER than the M-16 so it must be the ULTIMATE WEAPON

Just because a bad idea has been around a long time doesn't make it right, look at Communism.

[tombogan03884]

Hey, since the M-14 was adopted in 1957 and replaced in 1964 ( 7 years) the M-14 must have been the most useless POS ever built, right?
I've been told exactly that by Marines from the early 60's. You ever read early comments about the Garand ? At Camp Perry they hated it in the 30's, Thats why the Marines on Guadalcanal were issued the Johnson rifle.

WAIT!!!!!!!! The AK-47 has bee around LONGER than the M-16 so it must be the ULTIMATE WEAPON
 Do you want to get the Gatling gun into this discussion of Rifles as well ? Dr. Gatling first developed it during the Civil war, First hooked it to an electric motor in the late 1800's and its only been slightly modified since.
    I also knew guys in the Marines who could shoot 500 yard bulls all day long from sitting Kneeling and prone positions  with the AR. No bench. and that was with general issue M16-a1 off the rack in the late 70's

[tombogan03884]

Darn, I know point and click,  but I think my last post makes a point. A person will stink with equipment he doesn't  TRAIN with. ( got to read them directions

[tombogan03884]

In the case of the AK74 the Soviets thought they were missing the on micro-calibers and wanted to look just as
As far as the other countries, the early adopters were either getting huge quantities of ammo from us, or our allies (like Israel and South Africa) or they saw the writing on the wall about a forced adoption by NATO. America has always supplied the lions share of ammunition and equipment to NATO and they knew that we would eventually make them adopt the 5.56 as we did in 1979-80.

Personally I think that if we had adopted something like the British .280 or the 7x49mm instead of the 7.62x51 NATO, we might well be using it today. Instead we demanded the 7.62 NATO, offered to adopt the FN-FAL. We reneged on that deal and adopted the M-14, played political games and lied to congress and the SecDef about the cost and production numbers on the '14 and generally screwed the pooch until McNamara slapped the whole system and made them take the M-16.

 I think with 50 years of improvements and modifications we would be very happy to go to war with it, I know I would.         

  Try this again,   How about a Berreta Matchlock   with 350 years of improvement they must have it right by now

[tombogan03884]

YES I"M TECHNICLY CHALLENGED.