Quote:
Originally posted by miked10270
Both weapons are effective out to 300M and VERY few infantry engagements take place at greater ranges. Commonly it's less than 100M.
|
Most AK's hold a group of about 1.5 feet at 150M. This is unacceptable for any infantryman.
Do not confuse civilian AK knock-offs for the real thing.
Quote:
Both weapons are sufficiently accurate for the purpose. In combat either weapon is far more accurate than the person using it. As such the M-16's better accuracy is completely superfluous.
|
I dissagree. Accurate fire in combat is what saves lives and wins wars. Remember, if you actualy hit the other guy, he won't shoot back.
Quote:
There's a less than 10% difference in ammunition & magazine weight & volume. Yes, I KNOW that ammunition is something that has to be carried, but a difference that makes no difference is no difference and an infantryman doesn't go into battle carrying so much ammunition that it's weight and volume makes a difference. Believe me, there's plenty of other infantry kit where weight savings should be made.
|
I have no idea what the TRW of a 7.62x39 round is (your10% figure seems low), but assuming you are correct, 10% is a hell of a lot of weight to a ground pounder. The simple fact is that 5.56 shoots flatter, weighs less, and wounds better than the 7.62x39. Our troops can carry more ammo and shoot it more accurately.
Quote:
Magazine capacity is the same now that the M-16 comes with a 30 round mag as an option to the 18 round one originally issued.
|
The M-16 never came with an 18 round magazine.
Quote:
So what it boils down to for me is ease of handling, simplicity of use, and of course RELIABILITY (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Firstly, "ease of handling". The AK-47 is the slightly shorter and heavier weapon. The arrangement of the bolt carrier and return spring is better in the AK in that all parts are contained within the receiver cover wheras in the M-16 they extend into the stock. AS such, the AK can be easily used without a stock or as a true folding stock variant. Compare the folding stock variants of the AK-47 with the CAR-15. As such, while the M-16 has superior ergonomics and is lighter, within a confined space the AK-47 is easier to handle with it's reduced length.
|
The length you save is only 6cm. Is that worth the added recoil and lack of ability to shoulder the weapon with the stock folded. I guess if you are playing Rambo it would look good, but in a fire-fight I prefer to hit the bad guy, not just scare him.
Quote:
Secondly "simplicity (or ease) of use" The AK is the simpler, almost more "agricultural" weapon. But the time required to train someone in the use & maintenance of an AK-47 is FAR LESS than that of an M-16. One thing I particularly like with the AK is the fire selector - the way it moves from "safe" through "cyclic" to ""self loading" (or safe through full-auto to semi-auto). This is the opposite of the M-16 where the fore selector moves "safe"-"self loading"-""cyclic". In a panic situation (combat?) the fire selector is SHOVED off safe fast & hard & "all the way". In the case of the AK-47 that moves it to single shot "self-loading", in the case of the M-16 that moves it to full auto "cyclic". Which mode burns up (& wastes?) the available ammunition (i.e what's in the magazine attached to the gun)? Let's be honest guys, that's why "cyclic" was replaced with 3 round "burst" on the M-16A3!
|
The M-16A3 is full auto, you are thinking of the M-16A2. The burst function was installed in response to the Vietnam era infantrymans penchant for holding the weapon out from around cover and emptying his magazine without ever looking at his target.
I prefer the selector on the M-16. Not only can I easily access it from a firing position, if I do "panic" and bump it clear over to burst, I almost gaurantee it needs to be there anyway. I'll make up for the waste of rounds through the extra ammo I can carry.
Quote:
Thirdly, "reliability". Do I REALLY need to say this (yet again)? The M-16 NEEDS daily TLC & 10wt sewing machine oil to keep it going wheras the AK-47 NEEDS the thick of the mud scraped off occasionally. In the field a gun is really for shooting with, not for cleaning and maintaining. By a fairly wide margin the AK will fire in a far worse state of neglect than the M-16 and in prolonged combat / field conditions weapons maintenance will slide, particularly with less disciplined troops. Even in the case of disciplined & intelligent personnel such as the US Army, "available unit firepower" is periodically reduced while weapons are being field stripped, cleaned and oiled.
|
My platoon went two weeks without a single stoppage running our M-4s bone dry. The reliability problem with the M-16 is a myth.
Quote:
In conclusion, the AK wins outright as a combat weapon simply because if I pick one up out of the mud & pull the trigger I KNOW it'll go "bang" again & again.
|
We tried that test with quite few AKs we got our hands on. Not one of them fired. The tolerances on weapon that would fire after that abuse would have to be so sloppy that you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it.