Ok, so...this thread:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1635288;page=unread#unread

Is getting out of hand and while interesting on a number of points, doesn't belong in Alpine and Ice, so I'm hoping the posters will be willing to move it here


It's funny how I always hear about how the M16 sucks, but really only from people who don't know an M16 or AK47 from a hole in the wall. They are two of the best and most prolific weapons on the planet. Honestly I dont see why they have to be compared the way they are. Lets cover some points...

First the M16:

Pros:

light

Very Accurate

low recoil

fires at a high velocity*

reliable as long as properly maintained**

*The higher velocity means it maintains it's penetrating power long throughout the flight path, the bullet flies in a flatter trajectory relative to distance, and a lighter bullet can be used and still maintain an effective killing power

**It MUST BE KEPT CLEAN!

Cons:

somewhat unreliable if not maintained properly

relatively complex mechanism makes maintenance more difficult

Now how about the AK47:

Pro's:

very hard to get a serious stoppage without actually breaking parts

hits harder within it's effective range due to larger bullet

simple mechanism makes maintenance almost brain free

overall simplicity means anyone from the average 5 year old to the average 85 year old can learn to use it properly in no time at all

so prolific that finding ammo or parts anywhere in the world means a trip to the local market

Cons:

heavy

inaccurate at longer ranges

larger ammunition meaning you can carry less per pound of load

slower muzzle velocity so the trajectory is not as flat making aiming outside 100-150 meters take thought

VERY distinctive sound when fired, possibly drawing fire from everyone carrying an M16 within earshot

Some inaccuracies addressed in the other thread by someone who has probably never fired either weapon:

1) The M16 is more prone to jamming than the AK47: Not true, provided the M16 has been properly maintained. In a "pound for pound" lack of maintenance, however, the AK will run longer without stoppages than an M16, all other things being equal.

2) The AK47 has more penetrating power: This, again, is not true. It has more stopping power, and more destructive power close in because of it's larger bullet and cartridge, but there is a difference between penetration and stopping/destructive power. The smaller high velocity bullet of the M16 will out penetrate the larger, lower velocity bullet of the AK47 almost every time.

3) The AK47 is more accurate: Ok, this one flabbergasts me. I know the Marines (my old branch) train to shoot at much longer distances than the army does, but come on? Anyone who has fired both weapons will immediately be able to tell that the M16 is VASTLY superior in accuracy. I regularly shot to 550+ meters point target with an M16. I could hit 300 meters off-hand. With an AK, I had to REALLY try to hit the same sized target at 150 meters off hand, and the overall effective range is really only about 300 meters. This is just..well..I don't know where the hell that one came from.

4) This one may jsut be misunderstanding proper terminology on the posters part, or perhaps just complete misunderstanding of what you actually do with rifles...but; You can carry the AK47 in mud and water without having to "rebuild" it (compared the the M16). Well, yes and no. First, you don't rebuild a weapon in the field. I dunno what they do now (it's been 10 years) but we sure didn't carry extra parts for our weapons in the field. Second...if your weapon was clean to begin with, and your carrying it properly using prohylactic techniques, you sure as hell can drag an M16 through mud and still have it fire when you pull the trigger. It will still need to be cleaned shrotly afterwards because the act of firing works grime into the inner workings, but it WILL fire when you need it. And if you break it down and clean it, it will be jsut fine. No rebuilding needed. As for water? Has no effect. I don't know why that would even be brought up. Any water left in the rifle will be forced out within the first few rounds and there will be lotsa steam but that's all. No detriment what so ever.


Ok...start discussion and/or flaming...wait for it.....waaiitt for it...now!

--Andy P

Personly I find a bit more comfort in the idea of a 7.62 rather than a 5.56 such as the diffrence between an FN and C7/C8/M16. Howerver with the strengths of an FN I think out weigh the other weapons with the weight diffrence. Aside from FIBUA and trench clearing I dont think that a fully auto weapon is supper neassary in a full sec or pl with support weapons. When in a FIBUA setting the lighter round will asist in preventing friendly fire/non-combantant kills.

Personly I find a bit more comfort in the idea of a 7.62 rather than a 5.56 such as the diffrence between an FN and C7/C8/M16. Howerver with the strengths of an FN I think out weigh the other weapons with the weight diffrence. Aside from FIBUA and trench clearing I dont think that a fully auto weapon is supper neassary in a full sec or pl with support weapons. When in a FIBUA setting the lighter round will asist in preventing friendly fire/non-combantant kills.

First the M16:

**It MUST BE KEPT CLEAN!

Cons:

somewhat unreliable if not maintained properly

relatively complex mechanism makes maintenance more difficult

Further, the M-16 is fairly long. That is, it's not well suited to close quarter combat, nor is it easy to shoulder quickly when exiting a vehicle. Ergo, it's not well suited for urban combat, which seems to be the predominant forum for combat in modern times. Gone are the days when armies squared off face-to-face on opposite sides of an open field.

I think that's why they came up with CAR-15 and its variants.

I'm buying a Mosin Nagant. 7.62Xcaveman

I wonder why the US never went with Bullpup design if they wanted something for CQBR and open ground? A lot of other countries favors this design nowadays.

After that, it was the "if it aint broke, dont fix it". A bullpup is usually more complex than a standard layout, mostly due to the linkages that need to exist between the trigger group and the feeding/firing group.

One of the most prolific bullpup designs is the British SAsomethin-or-other (I dont remember the designation). ...

That would be the SA80, I think. I'm more familiar with the M16 myself, but I've heard the Steyr AUG is not that much difficult to maintain and the design looks simple enough. Then again, its just what I heard, never got the chance to use one. From what I know, most bullpup would be using 5.56 rounds.

"Even after lying in a swamp you can pick up this rifle, aim it and shoot. That's the best job description there is for a gun. Real soldiers know that and understand it," the 86-year-old gunmaker told a weekend news conference in Moscow.