AK-47 inventor: U.S. troops in Iraq prefer my rifle to theirs
- Thread starter blaire576
- 40 comments
- 3,711 views
- 6,089
- Finland
<some patriotism> Our assault rifles basically combines the rugged and reliable design of the AK-47 with modern Western means of production. The result: one of the best assault rifles in the world. </some patriotism>
In optimal conditions the M16A2 is in many ways a better weapon than the Kalashnikov, it doesn't rely on brute power but the shock effect of the high-speed bullet. It's also very accurate and has a flat bullet trajectory. But in the real situation, there seldom are optimal conditions....
In optimal conditions the M16A2 is in many ways a better weapon than the Kalashnikov, it doesn't rely on brute power but the shock effect of the high-speed bullet. It's also very accurate and has a flat bullet trajectory. But in the real situation, there seldom are optimal conditions....
- 9,209
- DerAlta
Full stop. You need to politelly excuse yourself from this discussion.Master_Yoda
I was in the Army until 1999, and we were still using variations of the M16.
I'm calling you out on your sources. Where are your quoting from that says the US Military no longer uses the M16?
The M16 variations that I used all had excellent accuracy, and I never had to guess where the shot was going. Line up the sites and you're on target. If I was tween 300 and 450 yards I'd aim slighly higher, but anything within 300 yards, was dead meat.
Now, lets talk about stopping power and the geneva convetion. The M16 5.56mm shell is designed to wound, not kill. It will pass through a person and out the back side. They are down and out, and will survive. POW rules, and treating the enemy humanely.
This is only a short rebuttal, as I'm headed to work now.
Master Yoda, find me a source of your information, or excuse yourself.
- 19,311
- Inland Empire SoCal
- SOLID_LIFTERS
Der Alta
Actually, this is only partly true. The .22 caliber 55 grain bullet will cut though the human body with minimal damage to internal organs if it does not come in contact with bone. Hitting bone, it's an entirely different story.
The bullet becomes immediately unstable once it hits bone. It doesn't have the weight to punch through the bone. So, it spins, tumbles and starts to bounce off other bones which causes a tremendous amount of internal damage. The copper jacket also comes apart from the lead core, and often fragments causing a lot of internal damage. More so than an 7.62 x 39 bullet, which will usually shatter bones, and exit the body cleanly, if it exits.
In terminal ballistic tests and autopsies of shot victims, it shows that .223 Remington round can do much more damage than a hollow point bullet which is against the Geneva Convention.
I've done my own terminal ballistic testing of the .223 round on wet newspaper. Half the time, the bullet went in a straight line and penetrated about nine to eleven inches into the wet newspaper. But, some tumbled at end and did considerable more damage than the bullets that didn't tumble. Those that tumbled, only penetrated about six to eight inches.
I use Hornady SX .22 caliber bullets for varmint hunting in .223 Remington, and they completely frag after three inches of penetration, or so.
- 1,823
Having fired both guns, owning one, and about to own the other, I will say with 100% certainty, the M-16 sucks.*
Anyone who complains about the long range accuracy of the AK-47 is either has wet noodles for arms, or got some bad ammunition with a barrel that's been dipped in metal shavings and mud. AK-47's have superior accuracy - They have a decent-length barrel and a heavy, stable bullet with a ton of energy behind it.
The reason the US doesn't use an AK or some very close variant is because of the Cold War. Pure and simple, that's it.
*When I say sucks, that means it's my personal opinion. It doesn't mean I just insulted your mother or that you should take huge offense to it.
Anyone who complains about the long range accuracy of the AK-47 is either has wet noodles for arms, or got some bad ammunition with a barrel that's been dipped in metal shavings and mud. AK-47's have superior accuracy - They have a decent-length barrel and a heavy, stable bullet with a ton of energy behind it.
The reason the US doesn't use an AK or some very close variant is because of the Cold War. Pure and simple, that's it.
*When I say sucks, that means it's my personal opinion. It doesn't mean I just insulted your mother or that you should take huge offense to it.
- 1,168
jammyozzy*Anal note* It's not called the SA80. The term 'SA80' refers to three weapons, what is generally described as the SA80 (actually the L85), the L86 LSW and the L98 cadet GP rifle. It means 'Small Arms of the 80's.'
Anyway, I wouldn't say amazing, but it's certainly one of the most accurate assault rifles in the world. I've had the chance to fire the cadet GP version of it (8 times infact), and it is very accurate. Not particularly nice to handle though, all the weight is in the back.
Still, that might be slightly better with the L85, because the gas blowback system is located directly above the foregrip, so the weight distribution may be better.
*You see I can be anal too* SA80 is the name of the original rifle when it was produced by Enfield Munitions, since then the design has mutated beyond recognition, so while the designs still bear the name of SA80 you wont find that printed anywhere on the weapon (the model number and variant of your weapon is located on the right hand side just above the pistol grip).
The L85A2 is one hell of a weapon at range; a decent marksman can get 10 shots in a 200mm cluster at 400m. This is partly due to its low recoil, the stock is an excellent shape which fits into your shoulder perfectly meaning that your shoulder receives the blow and provides the stopping power which stops the rifle kicking up.
The handling of all of the SA80s variants is based on the idea that the weapon will be fired in the prone position; place your left hand on the barrel and your right hand on the pistol grip with the magazine resting on the ground and the rifle hard into your shoulder. You should find the handling greatly improved.
Also the only difference in weight distribution between the cadet and the real weapon is the gas feedback system, the little green thingamajig (forgive me if I'm getting too technical here) on the barrel with the clip top lid is empty in the cadet and contains a mechanism weighing just over 6 grams on the real rifle, the weapons are pretty well identical, the blowback (not the feedback) mechanism is unnoticeable. The cocking handle on the cadet, although it looks big, is mostly plastic and as a result weighs little. Since the cocking slider type thing on the 85 uses the same rail as the one on the cadet there is pretty much no weight difference (although a huge aesthetical one) between the two rifles.
Anyway back to the report, the M16 is a pretty useless rifle at range (when compared to the British arms and the AK74U) and is prone to jamming. Plus if you shake it around too much the next shot is almost certain to be a misfire. It may be light, have a low recoil, and good looks but there is a reason the US forces are swapping these things for AKs.
Edit: What was Blaire banned for? He's not on the Banned User Log.
- 19,311
- Inland Empire SoCal
- SOLID_LIFTERS
Ghost C
I can't stand the M16 either. I hate how the recoil springs vibrate for a good half second after the shot. This destroys an accurate second shot, or causes you to wait too long for a second accurate shot.
However, the recoil springs eliminate recoil, thus making a second shot quicker. But, it doesn't work for me at all. I'm used to recoil and know how to deal with it.
Most people who hate the M16 list the vibration of the recoil springs as their first disdain for the firearm.
- 1,168
Thanks.Der Alta
