PDA

View Full Version : Ak-47 & M16 what do you think? And explain



Semper Fi
08-19-2008, 02:41 AM
you ideas what could be changed, or be improved. Please Explain.

pdf27
08-19-2008, 06:42 AM
Tell you what, when starting a topic why don't you at least demonstrate that you have an opinion and that you know a little about the subject? Posts like this are little more than spam without at least some contribution from you to the topic.

Semper Fi
08-19-2008, 02:20 PM
Fine I like the M16 for I have grown up with this weapon It has great range and some power. Not as much as the Ak-47.

M16a2 fires a 5.56x45mm round
Ak-47 fires a 7.62x39mm round

pdf27
08-19-2008, 04:29 PM
Not as much what? Range? Wounding effect? Accuracy? Reliability? Training required of the user?

Semper Fi
08-19-2008, 08:19 PM
But still even with training, it is hard to hit anything up to 350yards. M16 you can hit things at a good 500-650yds.

Nickdfresh
08-19-2008, 09:32 PM
But still even with training, it is hard to hit anything up to 350yards. M16 you can hit things at a good 500-650yds.


It's not that easy to hit much beyond 350m with the M-16 either. Most soldiers under duress in grueling combat might not be able to shoot anyone beyond 200m with any consistency...

Nickdfresh
08-19-2008, 09:38 PM
Fine I like the M16 for I have grown up with this weapon It has great range and some power. Not as much as the Ak-47.

M16a2 fires a 5.56x45mm round
Ak-47 fires a 7.62x39mm round


The M-16's round, either version of the M193 5.56mm or the newer SS109 5.56mm, also has a much higher velocity causing greater ballistic damage at some ranges and "hydrashock," where the water content of the body ripples after being struck.

The older round was also noted for not "tumbling," (which is largely a myth) but actually exploding or blowing into shards at shorter ranges (about 0-20m) causing often horrific ballistic wound damage...That's why the Soviets adopted the smaller caliber 5.45mm round for the AK-74 at the end of Vietnam. Largely based on observations of the US battle rifle. One that was less reliable than the AK-47/AKM, and often less effective at shooting through the jungle foliage as it was more prone to deflection. But one that was also capable of delivering some horrific wounds whereas the AK is considered to be not much harder hitting than a 9mm pistol round at medium to longer ranges...

Chevan
08-21-2008, 06:43 AM
Actualy the counterpart of M-16 is the AK-74 not AK-47.
Some soviet soldiers who used both of AK-47/74 often told the old 7,62 shall is much more powerful and have a longer range of hit, AK-74 however was lighter and had more accuracy.

Rising Sun*
08-21-2008, 07:20 AM
But still even with training, it is hard to hit anything up to 350yards. M16 you can hit things at a good 500-650yds.

In close quarter, urban, close country, and jungle 350 yards is a lot, lot more than is likely to be needed in combat.

Snipers and marksmen may need a weapon accurate to 600 yds, but the average grunt doesn't, and probably couldn't hit anything with it at that range under battle conditions anyway (as you note by your comment about even training making accuracy at 350 yards poor).

Accurate to 250 yards is probably more than most grunts need for most purposes, and that's probably about 150 yds more than most will need for most encounters.

aerwulf6814
08-24-2008, 12:39 PM
For the ak- the zero is not as tight as the m16a2, due to a short sight radius, the round craps out after 350 meters, i do take into account mr kalashnikovs intent. But it plays well in dirt, key of bang. It was made for non techie troops and concripts. the biggest complaint is the lack of a hold open device.


As to the m16, it is accurate and the zero is not a problem, it is percieved as having a fouling problem due to the gas system venting into the bolt carrier, anyone army/marine trained knows when in doubt clean it. It is dirt sensitive with users complaining about how the "sand box" messes with reliability. Operators are complaining about the need for multiple hits on an opponent as the 556 rnd is thought to be weak against padded or layered clothing.

There is also the thought that it does not do well on those persons using khat, a cocain leaf like plant imported from somalia, for the very purpose of allowing the user to fight longer when hit. The effect was discovered in somalia.

An ex-airforce general said the m4 sucked,but the bushmaster did well (!?!)

range is supposed to be 800 yards but lethality drops of after 400.

Semper Fi
08-25-2008, 12:07 AM
Yes I understand that. and everyones points are good but I was wanting to know if the us made the m16 fire a 308 ( 7.62x59mm) would it be better, or worse?

pdf27
08-25-2008, 02:42 AM
Such a weapon exists and predates the M-16/AR-15. It's called the AR-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-10).

Man of Stoat
08-25-2008, 03:51 AM
And what is this 7.62 x 59 mm you keep going on about?

Nickdfresh
08-25-2008, 04:11 AM
Such a weapon exists and predates the M-16/AR-15. It's called the AR-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-10).



Yes I understand that. and everyones points are good but I was wanting to know if the us made the m16 fire a 308 ( 7.62x59mm) would it be better, or worse?

The weapon, though heavily modified, is actually now in use as an intermediate sniper system for the US Army as the SR-25. Several others use it as well, including the Aussies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-25

Sergej
08-25-2008, 05:49 AM
Not 7.62x59mm it's 7.62x51

Semper Fi
08-25-2008, 11:33 PM
Not 7.62x59mm it's 7.62x51

thank you I was thinking 51 but it did not seem right. But thanks!

aerwulf6814
08-25-2008, 11:45 PM
semper fi- the .308 version of the ar series rifle is the ar-10,which actually preceeded the .223 variant,it is seeing an resurgence as a tactical rifle and as an advanced marksmans issue to both army/marine units. available to civillians

Walther
09-22-2008, 07:16 PM
thank you I was thinking 51 but it did not seem right. But thanks!

Both of you are wrong. The round fired by the AK-47 and also the SKS is 7.62x39mm.
Effectively the German Sturmgewehr 44 and the AK-47 were designed with the same experiences in mind (after all both sides, Russia and Germany were involved in the same battles), violent short to medium range battles in urban areas (Stalingrad).
In WW2, it was very early discovered that a full sized bolt action rifle firing a full sized round (like the K-98, the Mosin-Nagant or the Lee Enfield) and even full size semi automatic rifles, like the Garand, the G43 or the SVT-41, were too much of a rifle for most conscript soldiers. Unlike in WW1, it was not necessary anymore to take a pot shot at an enemy head popping up from a trench at a distance of half a mile, but fighting was much more mobile on short ranges up to 200-300 m.
The Germans started quite early to develop the Kurzpatrone, defacto a 7.92 mm round with a rather conical shorter cartridge case. Essentially they used the same bullet and a shortened version of their old 7.92x57 cartridge case (as not to have to modify their factories too much).
The Russians did about the same, keeping their old bullets of the 7.62x54R round of the Mosin-Nagant, but designing a new, shorter cartridge case (since the old, rimmed case was not really suitable for automatic weapons).
Both cases, the German and the Russian one, were rather conical, explaining the curved shape of the magazines used on both the AK-47 and the Stg 44.
The smaller rounds, with less propellant, while shortening the effective range of the weapons, permitted the individual soldier to carry more ammo, while the lower recoil made it easier to train recruits.
The design criteria of both rifles demanded the rifle to be shorter than the previous standard rifles. They should have full automatic capability to replace the submachine guns used previously, but should also allow reasonable range, bigger than a SMG's.
Now, the designs were both gas operated, with the gas cylinder on top of the barrel (due to the magazine mounted on the bottom of the weapons. To get the biggest possible distance between the foresight and the rearsight, the foresight was mounted close to the muzzle.
But concerning the internal workings, both rifles were very different.
The Germans used a tilting breech block, in a bit similar to the Bren gun's, while Mr. Kalashnikov had a close look at existing systems and used a rotating bolt similar to the Garand's. One goal was to use as few parts as possible, especially those, which can be lost in the field.
He also designed the weapon to be as reliable as possible, e.g. the bolt carrier of the AK-47 moves on two lips of the lower receiver like on rails, but doesn't touch anything else, so little chance for dirt blocking anything.
The original AK-47 prototype was manufactured from stampings, but at this time the technology wasn't yet that advanced in Russia, so the first series introduced to the Soviet Army was using conventionally milled receivers. Later the design was improved and a lighter and cheaper version was built, the AKM, using a stamped and spotwelded receiver.

A while ago I bought a dectivate Chinese copy of an AKM, because I wanted to study the mechanism. It is a very simple design and anybody with access to a few standard machine tools can make one.

Jan

pdf27
09-23-2008, 01:35 AM
Jan, they are actually talking about the 7.62 NATO round, which is indeed 7.62 x 51mm. There was indeed a predecessor of the AR-15 (the AR-10) which fired this round, although the current AR-10 variants are descendents of the M-16 rather than directly of the original AR-10.

Walther
09-23-2008, 04:23 AM
Jan, they are actually talking about the 7.62 NATO round, which is indeed 7.62 x 51mm. There was indeed a predecessor of the AR-15 (the AR-10) which fired this round, although the current AR-10 variants are descendents of the M-16 rather than directly of the original AR-10.

Sorry! Now where is the red faced smiley? I should have read the posts completely before replying.

Jan

TheBeam
11-17-2008, 01:13 AM
The number one advantage of the AK-47 is reliability. You can plunk on in water and sand, run over it and the damn thing still works.

So if you're not a regular, this weapon is ideal: cheap, learn & easy to operate, more rugged than any other gun I know of...a good stock on it for bashing heads, and you can fire the Nato rounds with it (but not the other way around). Ideal and hands down the best weapon for an irregular.

But the M-16...let's be honest here, it kinda sucks compared with modern options and so there's really no point to the weapon anymore. And any comments on it jamming? ;)

Nickdfresh
11-17-2008, 02:27 AM
The number one advantage of the AK-47 is reliability. You can plunk on in water and sand, run over it and the damn thing still works.

Yes well, ameteurs need guns too...:)


So if you're not a regular, this weapon is ideal: cheap, learn & easy to operate, more rugged than any other gun I know of...a good stock on it for bashing heads, and you can fire the Nato rounds with it (but not the other way around). Ideal and hands down the best weapon for an irregular.

Those rounds have to be heavily modified. Not the province of "amateurs." The only ones I'm aware of that did this extensively were Filipino Marxist guerrillas....


But the M-16...let's be honest here, it kinda sucks compared with modern options and so there's really no point to the weapon anymore. And any comments on it jamming? ;)


Um, it doesn't "jam" unless one is an arse'hole that doesn't clean it or if one was using shitty Vietnam era 20-round box magazines (when I was in during the early 1990s) which all had worn feed springs. Most of the "jamming" stuff came out of the early Vietnam era where the US military issued the weapon without cleaning implements and really, really bad info for the soldier, and a change in cartridge powder to the one used by the 7.62X51 round which fouled the guns. This was resolved, and while not perfect, the M-16 is a very effective killing implement..

If the weapon "sucks" so much, than why has the Canadian forces adopted it? In fact, Canada produces a superior version IMO. Basically an M-16A3 for all instead of just for a few elites...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7_rifle

Man of Stoat
11-17-2008, 03:20 AM
I have an AR 15 and I have NEVER had a stoppage attributable to the weapon, and only one attributable to a 30 round magazine (should have only loaded 28...)

Exceptions: when testing hand-loads and when setting up the lovely adjustable gas system that I put on the rifle.

Also, where do people get these ridiculous ideas that you can fire 7.62 x 51 in an AK chambered for 7.62 x 39? can the AK-47 bend the space-time continuum?

Nickdfresh
11-17-2008, 08:29 AM
...
Also, where do people get these ridiculous ideas that you can fire 7.62 x 51 in an AK chambered for 7.62 x 39? can the AK-47 bend the space-time continuum?


It can't. However, the round can be cut down and remanufactured into a 7.62X39mm and this is no easy process. I'm aware of it being done in the Philippines by the communist guerrillas who sometimes captured stocks of 7.62mm NATO from gov't forces as they still used the M-14 and M-60 until recently. From the photographs I saw, it looked like a time consuming process and had to be done in very secure production areas, by child labor of course...

Man of Stoat
11-17-2008, 08:54 AM
How I would do it:

1. Remove bullets, reclaim powder.
2. Place case in a lathe, turn down the neck and web to the right diameter.
3. Using a custom sizing die (or dies), size the case down into the correct form.
4. Trim case to correct length.
5. Recharge the case, seat and crimp the bullet.

This is what we Brits would call "a bit of a ***".

I would not, however, expect great things from ammunition prepared in this way, particularly by unskilled labour. First of all, you are pushing a .308 bullet down a .311 barrel using a powder which is too slow for the application.

TheBeam
11-18-2008, 05:00 AM
lol! I couldn't help throwing some bait out there regarding the historical problems around M-16 jams. Not mentioned in the discussion thus far was the Vietnam era practice of duct-taping magazines together, upsidedown, to speed up reloading. However, this frequently damaged the magazine itself as it was slammed into the dirt --and filled it with...dirt. Shockingly, the dirty, bent magazines jamed. Whoops.

Good catch on the skilled mods of Nato rounds before they are at all useable. My main point being: AKs are for the underskilled with little access to proper equipment ...so this kind of round modification is highly misleading. You're right, it just plain doesn't work in the field.

I said the M-16 sucked in comparison with more modern options that are now available and SHOULD be purchased by the Canadian military over C7s. And I stand by that. A SAR-21 is good example. A bullpup (and yes, to be considered, it's got to be a bullpup IMHO) that is balanced (meaning better groupings), short (essential for urban combat and fast vehicle exits, handy for close combat and key for firing out of a vehicle), accurate (duh), superior egonomics, and the SAR-21 has transparent, indexed magazines so you can see instantly tell how many rounds you have left, excellent optics, and the damn thing can be field stripped in under 20 seconds without any tools (unlike some bullpups).

Rising Sun*
11-18-2008, 06:16 AM
Not mentioned in the discussion thus far was the Vietnam era practice of duct-taping magazines together, upsidedown, to speed up reloading. However, this frequently damaged the magazine itself as it was slammed into the dirt --and filled it with...dirt. Shockingly, the dirty, bent magazines jamed. Whoops.

Can you refer us to any documents confirming this as a common cause of malfunctions and casualties apart from the well established ones caused by ball powder being substituted in early production for price reasons rather than the originally specified propellant?

How would this explain instances of men without duct taped magazines experiencing malfunctions?

Rising Sun*
11-18-2008, 06:19 AM
... and the SAR-21 has transparent, indexed magazines so you can see instantly tell how many rounds you have left,

That would be very handy for troops who weren't trained, as was my generation, to count rounds fired and who would prefer to look at their magazine than to their front where the targets are.

Man of Stoat
11-18-2008, 08:28 AM
Bullpups... Oh please!

Expect to see the gas piston AR 15 rifles to be in the inventory for the next 20 plus years (HK 416 having just been adopted by various US sneaky beaky people, as well as the Norwegians). Nobody has yet beaten the AR 15 layout for ergonomics and natural shooting, and the gas piston upper completely solves all reliability issues.

TheBeam
11-18-2008, 02:17 PM
Can you refer us to any documents confirming this as a common cause of malfunctions and casualties apart from the well established ones caused by ball powder being substituted in early production for price reasons rather than the originally specified propellant?

How would this explain instances of men without duct taped magazines experiencing malfunctions?

I never said that ball powder didn't cause jams (or lack of proper cleaning training and equipment)... if you look at what I wrote, (paraphrase) "Not mentioned yet: the practice of duct-taping magazines together, upsidedown which frequently damaged the magazine itself as it was slammed into the dirt --and filled it with...dirt. And these dirty, bent magazines jamed."

Do I really need to back up that taking a magazine, inverting it and and slamming it into the dirt will bend the lip of the magazine and get dirt in it? Or do you want proof that a dirty, bent magazine will cause jams??

When you misuse you equipment, it will fail. Jams were experienced by users of this poor practice or why would a small arms instructor (who'd gone 5 days in international military competition, shooting at 1000 yards, and never strayed into the 9 ring) warn against using taped, inverted clips? <--- my source, not a document.

They still train you to count rounds, lol! Disengaging at target to look at your ammo isn't recommended. It's just the difference between being able to quickly check, visually, if you get distracted or even pick up another weapon mid-fight. Of course, not having the option is, in every way, better. ;)

Man of Stoat: "Oh Please" isn't exactly an arguement. Sure, it may take 20 years to phase out the cheaper, well-established weapon designs...but that doesn't make them better. Just popular. The advantages I listed make for more effective troops, who will out perform identical troops carrying M16s. Just like the the M16 troops will out perferm identical troops with AK-47s. (Tries to steer this back on topic.)

Man of Stoat
11-19-2008, 02:47 AM
Beam, it has been discussed on here ad nauseam that there is an enormous elephant in the room when it comes to bullpup designs: it is impossible to fire around the left side of cover without exposing yourself. This is one of the (several) reasons why relatively few armies have adopted them.

I have also yet to handle a bullpup which balances "better" than an out the box AR 15 -- most of them are exceedingly back heavy which makes them seem easier to carry, but they are universally ghastly to shoot with.

Interestingly, the Israelis have adopted a bullpup and have done the opposite of what every other army in the world does with a new weapon system: they have issued it to new recruits rather than to the older professional soldiers who have grown up with the M-16/M4. A cynical view to take is that they have done this to avoid the inevitable bitching which ALWAYS happens when an army replaces a trusted conventional weapon with a bullpup, since the recruits don't know any better. If there genuinely was an increase in performance, don't you think the Israelis would have issued it first to their crack professional troops?

As for cost, don't think for a minute that an HK 416 is cheaper than any of the bullpup designs currently in production -- it is an extremely expensive piece of kit, yet the performance improvement is worth it. Provided the cost issue doesn't put people off, expect the 416 to become the de facto standard.

TheBeam
11-19-2008, 11:55 AM
I have seen one bullpup the ejects spent cartridges out the bottom of the weapon and I'd love to see a bullpup like the SAR-21 with that modification as the rest of the rifle is ambidextrous. (One final mod I would make would be to put in a selector switch in the same position and style as the M-16.)

Then you'd have a truly powerful weapon and since I can fire ambidextrously with minimal loss in performance, firing from the left side of a barricade would not have the unfortunate side effect of getting hot cases in your face. (It's to distracting, I agree!)

I must admit, I feel in love with the FAMAS the first time I fired one and saw instantly saw the advantages of having a SMG legth weapon that packs the punch of an assault rifle for clearing rooms.

Incidentally, I will say I never liked firing the AK-47 and will concede the M-16 feels far more comfortable to shoot. That said, I find some bullpups way more comfortable to shoot and the balance agrees with me.

I will also say, I'd be hoping that a bottom ejecting bullpup would limit on disadvantage I have found: when firing a lot of rounds, the fumes sting my eyes... something I've never had with a long rifle.

Nickdfresh
11-19-2008, 09:51 PM
I have seen one bullpup the ejects spent cartridges out the bottom of the weapon and I'd love to see a bullpup like the SAR-21 with that modification as the rest of the rifle is ambidextrous. (One final mod I would make would be to put in a selector switch in the same position and style as the M-16.)

Then you'd have a truly powerful weapon and since I can fire ambidextrously with minimal loss in performance, firing from the left side of a barricade would not have the unfortunate side effect of getting hot cases in your face. (It's to distracting, I agree!)

I must admit, I feel in love with the FAMAS the first time I fired one and saw instantly saw the advantages of having a SMG legth weapon that packs the punch of an assault rifle for clearing rooms.

Incidentally, I will say I never liked firing the AK-47 and will concede the M-16 feels far more comfortable to shoot. That said, I find some bullpups way more comfortable to shoot and the balance agrees with me.

I will also say, I'd be hoping that a bottom ejecting bullpup would limit on disadvantage I have found: when firing a lot of rounds, the fumes sting my eyes... something I've never had with a long rifle.

The M-16/M-4 is also A LOT more accurate than the AK, and has greater range. As I said, the AK, while ideal for some of the close in jungle fighting American troops faced in 'Nam, is inferior overall if both weapons are being handled by motivated professionals....

Incidentally, the M-16 also has better stopping power due to its horrific ballistic wounding characteristics in some circumstances, whereas the AK's 7.62mm short round loses velocity as has little more stopping power than a 9mm at medium ranges...

Nickdfresh
11-25-2008, 06:27 PM
.30 M1 rifle!

Um, okay...:confused:

H&K G3!

Man of Stoat
11-26-2008, 03:09 AM
Right, I did the 7.62 NATO to 7.62 x 39 cartridge conversion last night, and it was a bit of a ***. i had to use a file to reduce the rim and web diameter, and I discovered another problem: the extractor groove needs to be deepened. this was also a bit of a pain with the file. with a lathe I could have done it far faster, and would probably manage 10 to 15 cartridges an hour. Having done one, I would do it like this now:

1. Progressively size NATO case until the web reaches the bottom of the die.
2. Put case in lathe, base outwards, turn rim and web down to correct diameter at correct taper.
3. Deepen extractor groove
4. Size case fully.
5. Using Dremel or lathe, trim case to a little over 39 mm
6. Use a Lee case trimmer to finish trimming, then chamfer.

Alternatively, steps five and six could be done just on the lathe if you make a little jig to reference the position of the base of the cartridge in the chuck.

TheBeam
11-27-2008, 02:01 AM
Wow! Man of Stoat: That is a ton of work converting the bullets. Obviously, 15 bullets an hour is way to slow to be practical on a war footing...unless you're a sniper. An AK-47 wielding sniper. lol! (An SKS would be the obvious 'era' choice here.) It would take a day of work just to get 100 rounds.

And I thought loading my own bullets was a lot of work...that's hardcore. Good work and thanks for that post!

Uyraell
02-12-2009, 12:28 AM
In each case, AK 47, AK74 and M16 and Car15 (grandson, but relevant) I have handled said weapons, though, being in politically correct and thus backward NZ, not fired, each weapon.
My choice would be AK series.
Why?
In a little known experiment, NZ Army buried in wet tidal sand an AK, left it there for 14 weeks, right next to an M16.
Dug up, pull-through put through the barrel, loaded and cocked, the AK went full out auto NO problems. About 5 mags' worth.
The M16 .... same treatment... jammed at shot 5.
From this, I conclude the AK to be the better weapon.
Esoterics of ballistics and cartridges/grainages/bullet loadings aside: the AK has to come out on top in terms of pure operability.

(Edit: I find it significantly worthy of note: in Vietnam many regular troops ditched the issued M16 as soon as possible and employed AK's instead. Plainly this says that "word had got around" and men preferred the chance of living, over the chance of dieing from a weapon jam at an inopportune moment. Granted, the XM177 Prototype didn't suffer the same catalogue of ills that its' M16 offpsring did, but the fact the M16 was ditched or carried unused suggests much in regards to the view taken of it by those it was issued to.)

A marksman can always be trained to good shooting and habits, regardless of weapon. The weapon itself has to be the "in combat" criterion, because a properly trained operator will achieve with it things the basic "grunt" will not. There, I agree with previously stated opinion.

Regards, Uyraell.