Quote:
Originally posted by Oblivion437
That was your experience. Guys from US ordinance jammed 2 fistfulls of wet sand in the receiver, poured mud down the barrel, and loaded shitty as hell Steel-cased Wolf-type Lacquered ammo. It fired over a hundred rounds without a single hitch.
|
They fired it with mud down the barrel and two handfuls of wet sand in the reciever?
BS.
Quote:
Also, if any of the parts were made in the US, China or Egypt, there's your problem right there. There aren't many small parts, so look for marks on the various parts upon field-stripping. If anything isn't in Cyrillic, there's your problem.
|
They were all taken off of Serb militants, so I doubt they had many US parts. Honestly I can't say, we didn't inspect them that closely, just had a bit of fun before destroying them.
Quote:
This isn't necessarily to say that the various countries do better or worse, but the Chinese Type 59 and Egyptian made rifles are made to very loose standards. According to Kalashnikov's original design, the weapon is of very high quality, just manufactured to that aim.
|
I fail to see how a weapon produced of stamped steel (primarily) on a five year plan can be called "high quality", but hey, to each his own.
Quote:
Now, for modern terms, we should compare it to the AK-108, it does, after all, use the same round.
[/b]
|
Well, the thread is comparing the AK-
47, not the 108.
Quote:
It uses a so-called 'stovepipe' mechanism in the form of a tube which directly bleeds gas and vents it straight into the moving parts of the receiver. While this obviously reduces weight and simplifies construction, it requires clean, high quality propellants and regular maintenance. In various rough combat zones, it seems the action will never achieve near-equivalent reliability. However, it allows for superior accuracy in both semi-and full auto (compared to the AK-47, though it uses a different round) and is generally in the hands of soldiers with clean ammo and proper maintenance tools.
|
I am always curious abouth the phrase used by detractors of the M-16 that it "bleeds gas and vents it straight into the moving parts of the receiver".
The weapon utilises all of the gas inside the bolt carrier and then vent the excess through the ejection port on recoil (you will notice two small holes for that purpose on the right hand side of the bolt carrier. After sustained firing the M-16 will have no more powder fouling of its lockwork than any other rifle, and in many cases less. In all my years around M-16s and AR-15s, I have only ever seen one failure in the "action" of the weapon, and that was due to a pin walking out, not fouling.
Quote:
My personal belief is, given the power of the AK-108 in giving the soldier a volume of fire advantage over the M-16A2, which is, in US Military use, fitted with a bolt-ratchet which stops the action after 3 shots. I still favor it over the full-auto capable A3 variant, despite the addition of a Weaver rail, as it is generally less reliable, despite excellent relibability with good maintenance, the AK-108 can withstand harsh environment conditions such as jungle or Desert hostilities for weeks on end, with little, if any effort to maintenance. To assure reliability in Afghanistan, it was required that soldiers field strip and clean their M-16 rifles 3 times a day. The M-4 Carbine was found to jam frequently even with good maintenance, had relatively poor killing power, undependable accuracy, and overall, gave a rather disappointing performance.
|
I would love to see your sources. I have never heard any soldiers complain about the M-4, other than the fact that it is less accurate (for obvious reasons) than the M-16. It is still a hell of a lot more accurate than any AK varient (54R rifles excluded).
Also, the three times a day issue was during a blackout sandstorm near Kabul. The Marines lifted the requirement the next day when it cleared.