Used by over 50 countries. Battle tested in many of the African wars, Korea and Vietnam. The FAL can use various types of 7.62X51 ammo with just a twist of the gas port knob.
It is extremely reliable in all weathers, unlike the M16.
The larger caliber has more takedown power and longer range than the 5.56 or 7.62X39.
Drawback is that the FAL is heavier and the ammo is also heavier.
Bla_Ze wrote:Best assault rifle? The one that you are trained with, and can operate properly.
For me, thats the AK5.
I'll take (wildly aimed) a shot in the dark and guess you were trained with the AK5. But really, I'd have to go with the AK47 for its ruggedness and wide availability. Having fairly large bullets doesn't hurt either.
I voted for the M4/M16. Normally I'd say the AK, but I decided to vote based on personal experience. I own two ARs and two AKs. The ARs have never had a failure between them. The AKs both have had problems.
I also had an FAL that had some troubles, but they're a very nice, handsome gun. Very old school, lots of millwork, minimal stampings.
Love this thread, bunch of guys with nill knowledge about weapons or ballistics.
But I'm no Hater, and I like weapons so this is a good thread
Agreed, considering the fact that the OP left out many Assault Rifles that are better than any of those listed, and failed to qualify what 'best' beans. Different lengths, calibers, and to a point, ergonomics can make one platform outpace another in a specific arena. I.E. a FAL vs. a short short barreled carbine, such as the Mk.18 Mod 0 in a close quarters battle environment. The lethality of both weapons would be sufficient, (excluding factors such as a khat smoking opponent, for example) however the superior maneuverability of the Mk.18 would likely be the deciding factor.
In the end, guns kill people. It's more about who's squeezing the trigger than the gun itself.
In the interest of playing along, I'll state that my ideal platform does not exist at the moment, but conceivably could. An FN SCAR chambered for either 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel (although the 6.8 is every slightly more salivating) would be, to borrow a colloquialism I'm rather fond of, most wondificent. These so called "intermediate calibers" offer an easily manageable recoil level similar to the 5.56 while still having enough velocity and mass to cause sufficient cavitation to the target (similar to that of the more powerful 7.62 NATO round) , or in laymans terms, have sufficient stopping power.
As for the platform itself, I find the SCAR to be as close to ideal as I've seen so far. It's reliability is sound, it's ergonomics comfortable and easy to use, and its modularity can make it perfect for almost any arena. Other than that, the fact that one system can become a "shorty" carbine, a regular carbine, or a DMR is also useful for equipping units less expensively than if three separate weapon systems had to be bought.
Not because its the best by any margin that you can realistically point to, it's heavy, fragile, and (was) labour intensive to build, but because it is conceivably the original that all others are based off of.
Deff Jaw wrote:Yes the XM8 is nice, but it fires the pussy 5.56X45mm round. the MP44 fires the 7.92X33mm round. Also the Galil is a knock off of the AK.
A knock-off the the AK which can be buried in the desert for a week, washed in the sea, and still fire reliably and accurately. Also it has a built-in bottle opener.
Definately the Sturmgewehr. It was the first true Assault Rifle after all. Existing Assault Rifles gotta give it credit, and it -was- the base for the design of the AK-47
metallifan wrote:Definately the Sturmgewehr. It was the first true Assault Rifle after all. Existing Assault Rifles gotta give it credit, and it -was- the base for the design of the AK-47
This. And I've actually fired one, a friend has it :3
Best is an objective measurement when you give no quantitative situations in which something could in theory be better or worse.
A knock-off the the AK which can be buried in the desert for a week, washed in the sea, and still fire reliably and accurately.
Funny how those guns are famed for being capable of something they don't actually do. Submersion and burial can damage an AK and doing such things significantly ups the chances of a jam or failure of another sort. The AK is a very rugged gun, it's not "Bury it then throw it in the sea and it's still 100% effective" rugged.
Soladrin wrote:Who cares how guns perfom in a game...?
Oh, and I'm still fan of the Dimaco c8, which our army still uses.
I don't remember seeing any mention of a situation or context in which we are to be judging these weapons. Videogames are just as good as any other unmentioned scenario.
metallifan wrote:Definately the Sturmgewehr. It was the first true Assault Rifle after all. Existing Assault Rifles gotta give it credit, and it -was- the base for the design of the AK-47
This. And I've actually fired one, a friend has it :3
And if you think an AK is tough, you haven't taken one of these for a wear test.
My grandpa on my dad's side was forced into the Hitler Youth at the outset of WWII. When the allies invaded Normandy, he managed to get his hands on one. He said you could lie half-buried in Norman mud, full of sticks, rocks, and leaves, in the middle of a rainstorm, and when time came to make the ambush, you could count on it to still perform perfectly.
I voted the AK. It is more than just history and functionality that makes it the best AR of all time. The fact that in some countries you can buy one for $25 american is just insane.
Time will tell on the SCAR, but I think we're long overdue for a weapon that is modular, covered in rail systems, and which uses significant amounts of composites in its receiver.
It's really very odd to me how firearms have progressed over the last 30 years. Very little has changed in terms of their basic function, but it seems like people spent all that time realizing, hey, it might be nice to be able to attach crap to it easily. It doesn't seem like it should take 30 years to discover that.
Oh, and I'm still fan of the Dimaco c8, which our army still uses.
Appears to be an AR. I don't see any major differences, at least.
sebster wrote:I'm with Generalstoner, there's more Ak-47s out there than anything else, used in more fields of conflict than anything else.
The market has spoken, whatever it is that an assault rifle is ultimately needed to do, the AK-47 does it better than the rest.
The bottom line is that the AK47 can account for the most deaths on a battlefield.
It is more than likely the 'best' assault rifle ever designed. Even if it jams, it is supposed to be one of the easiest guns to un-jam; that is a big plus. For it's cost, and reputation as a 'point and shoot' weapon, more people can be armed, cheaper than any other assault rifle.
ShumaGorath wrote:Best is an objective measurement when you give no quantitative situations in which something could in theory be better or worse.
A knock-off the the AK which can be buried in the desert for a week, washed in the sea, and still fire reliably and accurately.
Funny how those guns are famed for being capable of something they don't actually do. Submersion and burial can damage an AK and doing such things significantly ups the chances of a jam or failure of another sort. The AK is a very rugged gun, it's not "Bury it then throw it in the sea and it's still 100% effective" rugged.
... .
Yes, but the Galil is. It's a standard part of Israeli military acceptance testing.
ShumaGorath wrote:Best is an objective measurement when you give no quantitative situations in which something could in theory be better or worse.
A knock-off the the AK which can be buried in the desert for a week, washed in the sea, and still fire reliably and accurately.
Funny how those guns are famed for being capable of something they don't actually do. Submersion and burial can damage an AK and doing such things significantly ups the chances of a jam or failure of another sort. The AK is a very rugged gun, it's not "Bury it then throw it in the sea and it's still 100% effective" rugged.
... .
Yes, but the Galil is. It's a standard part of Israeli military acceptance testing.
Plus its got wire cutters and fricken bottle opener built in. they also solved alot of the ak's accuracy problems by simply moving the rear sight.
Lol No. Anything the AK-47 can do, some other weapon probably does better
It has two things going for it, reliability and quantity.
Let’s point out some faults.
1. 7.62x39mm is not a particularly effective ammunition. It’s a very stable, non-fragmenting round. The Early ones caused MINIMAL damage.
2. Accuracy isn’t anywhere near its modern counterparts. (High tolerances for better reliability)
3. Sighting Sucks, has a “high” profile and has weird ranges.
4. A lot of recoil.
5. No standardized mounting rails for accessories and sights.
6. XBOX HUEG magazine.
There are probably more that i haven't thought about.
lol. Thats a great picture, i saw a guy in Sierra Leone firing with the stock wedged between his feet.. like some sort of bizzarre bullet firing mortar tube?
Bla_Ze wrote:Lol No. Anything the AK-47 can do, some other weapon probably does better
It has two things going for it, reliability and quantity.
Let’s point out some faults.
1. 7.62x39mm is not a particularly effective ammunition. It’s a very stable, non-fragmenting round. The Early ones caused MINIMAL damage.
2. Accuracy isn’t anywhere near its modern counterparts. (High tolerances for better reliability)
3. Sighting Sucks, has a “high” profile and has weird ranges.
4. A lot of recoil.
5. No standardized mounting rails for accessories and sights.
6. XBOX HUEG magazine.
There are probably more that i haven't thought about.
Doesn't help that the AK is stupidly front heavy (and heavy in general). My upper body isn't terrible and after two magazines (single firing) I was getting tired in the forearms.
Snikkyd wrote:I'd have to say SCAR, but it isn't listed.
too bad the scar is one of those weapons that get's represented a lot more in games rather than in real life. from what I have read and talked to others about....it's really not all that....
sorry noobs...
I vote for FAL...but I would rather choose the M14, or the M1 Garand...
they are not really assault....but I would rather have an M14 than any other rifle out there. They fire rounds fast enough to be used for CQC, yet they are scary accurate even with iron sights to 1000+ yards.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Doesn't help that the AK is stupidly front heavy (and heavy in general). My upper body isn't terrible and after two magazines (single firing) I was getting tired in the forearms.
very true....the AK will outlast anything, if it was apocalypse time, and I had not gun cleaning supplies, I would trust nothing but the AK as far as reliability.....but they tumble bullets so bad, the thing is wildly inaccurate, and like Shuma said, very heavy...
Bla_Ze wrote:There are probably more that i haven't thought about.
There's no doubt a whole lot more. If the question is 'what assault rifle would I most like to have if I were a properly trained member of a modern day military?' then the AK-47 would come just about last. But we weren't asked that question, we were just asked "what is the best assault rifle?'
Now, in those terms you need to also consider how common the above situation is compared to this other question - 'what is the most practical weapon I can get my hands on the distribute to my warband, who have minimal training in combat and weapon maintenance and just need something loud and scary so that I can move from village to village terrorising and looting the locals to keep this god-awful scrub war going for decades?' then the AK-47 is the clear market leader.
Then you have to consider that the latter question is, sadly, a lot more common than the former, as demonstrated by the simple fact that there's a hell of a lot more AK-47s in the world than any other gun.
I agree with Sebster whole heartily. When I am running through Dust2 and trying to plant a bomb, my terrorist friends and I only rely on the power and efficiency of the AK47. No CT unit can stand against the withering hale of bullets unleashed by this weapon. Also, I can bury it in sand and throw it into the sea on my way to the bomb site
I prefer the SKS over the SKS....a bit more accurate...
although....there are exceptions....this is the beast that I own...the VEPR K
mine is chambered for the 7.62x39 at the moment...but I am thinking of bumping up to the .223...
I also own a a Yugo SKS, a few WWII rifles, SA XD 9mm subcompact, and a heavily *nerdily, uselessly* modded mossberg 500....
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh, I am also purchasing this from a friend, I am giving him money every month as it is over 4000 new....I am paying 1800 heavily used....
I LOVE this gun.. HK SL8 .223...
say what you want...
I have a baddass white rifle now..... I wish I could carry it around slung on my back....not to shoot anything...just because I love the look of it so much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:M14 definitely, the accuracy of a sniper rifle combined with the length of a carbine whats not to love
I'm sorry, but if you have the MP 44 up on the poll and no BAR listed something's going on.
Personally I would put the Thompson Gun up there, but as it is not a choice I got to go with the AK-47. Large caliber, works in all conditions, heavy enough to be a club, and mass produced.
Of course a running joke with the AK-47 is that you would be lucky to hit the broadside of a barn, from the inside.
Poor accuracy at long ranges is a drawback because if you can't get effective range, it's just not effective.
Although the whole "gun x works if mud is packed in" depends on luck. You can pack an AK-47 full of mud and have it fire or not.
Generalstoner wrote:I voted the AK. It is more than just history and functionality that makes it the best AR of all time. The fact that in some countries you can buy one for $25 american is just insane.
This is very true. In some countries, an AK-47 is worth LESS than a Live Chicken. Hahaha.
-------------------
I see some saying the SCAR Rifle without specifying what type it is, shows how much they know about guns.
My personal favorite is the FN H-SCAR with the FN-GL40mm equipped, in the Long Barrel variant.
Provides a good, heavy rifle, along with a Grenade Launcher, without the cumbersomeness of a light machine gun.
Edit: Oh, and its classed as BATTLE RIFLE so it automatically wins.
ShumaGorath wrote:Doesn't help that the AK is stupidly front heavy (and heavy in general). My upper body isn't terrible and after two magazines (single firing) I was getting tired in the forearms.
Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:I'm sorry, but if you have the MP 44 up on the poll and no BAR listed something's going on.
Personally I would put the Thompson Gun up there, but as it is not a choice I got to go with the AK-47. Large caliber, works in all conditions, heavy enough to be a club, and mass produced.
Of course a running joke with the AK-47 is that you would be lucky to hit the broadside of a barn, from the inside.
Poor accuracy at long ranges is a drawback because if you can't get effective range, it's just not effective.
Although the whole "gun x works if mud is packed in" depends on luck. You can pack an AK-47 full of mud and have it fire or not.
If you want a proper rifle, You're going 7.62 NATO route (FN/M1A or similar). I'd definitely take that first. Spray and pray is irrelevant if Bob from accounting can drill you at 600 yards. I've met Bob. You don't feth with Bob, but he's my kind of guy. He's got issues...
Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.
This leads me to believe that you've never held one before. The AK is one of the heaviest if not the heaviest assault rifle remaining in service on the planet.
Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.
This leads me to believe that you've never held one before. The AK is one of the heaviest if not the heaviest assault rifle remaining in service on the planet.
Then you're be as ignorant as you're wrong.
They're about the same weight as an SKS. They're light relative to .308s and real rifles. Again, if Charlie in the trees can carry one, if 8 year old child soldiers in the African bush can hang, you should be able to. You're never going to make it when the revolution comes if you can't tote a proper AK Shuma. Time to do some push ups!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: as noted the titel is best assault rifle, not best assault rifle a trained special forces operative would use. All around AK is the bomb. Its not what I'd prefer to have (see FN/M1a statements although I really really really like a Fulton Titan). The AK is something your average tribesman who just learned about that whole fire thing can use, all the way up to your flabbie armed Milwaukee City Council member who is convinced Arizona doesn't border Mexico.
Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.
This leads me to believe that you've never held one before. The AK is one of the heaviest if not the heaviest assault rifle remaining in service on the planet.
Then you're be as ignorant as you're wrong.
They're about the same weight as an SKS. They're light relative to .308s and real rifles. Again, if Charlie in the trees can carry one, if 8 year old child soldiers in the African bush can hang, you should be able to. You're never going to make it when the revolution comes if you can't tote a proper AK Shuma. Time to do some push ups!
My biceps put your wet noodles to shame, doesn't mean I want to go to war with a weapon that has very little compensation for it's recoil in the design mixed with a high weight that makes consistent centering difficult. That vietnamese villager couldn't handle the AK either, nor can those kids. The guns a symbol of ineffectuality in wartime. The soviets don't even use it any more.
Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.
This leads me to believe that you've never held one before. The AK is one of the heaviest if not the heaviest assault rifle remaining in service on the planet.
Then you're be as ignorant as you're wrong.
They're about the same weight as an SKS. They're light relative to .308s and real rifles. Again, if Charlie in the trees can carry one, if 8 year old child soldiers in the African bush can hang, you should be able to. You're never going to make it when the revolution comes if you can't tote a proper AK Shuma. Time to do some push ups!
My biceps put your wet noodles to shame, doesn't mean I want to go to war with a weapon that has very little compensation for it's recoil in the design mixed with a high weight that makes consistent centering difficult. That vietnamese villager couldn't handle the AK either, nor can those kids. The guns a symbol of ineffectuality in wartime. The soviets don't even use it any more.
Ill have you know my biceps were built buy years of rum glass curls! Again you didn't say it was for you.
Its good for 50 yards and thats all you're really using it for.
In light of the countries taken over by guys with AK's I'd say its done pretty damn good.
Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.
This leads me to believe that you've never held one before. The AK is one of the heaviest if not the heaviest assault rifle remaining in service on the planet.
Then you're be as ignorant as you're wrong.
They're about the same weight as an SKS. They're light relative to .308s and real rifles. Again, if Charlie in the trees can carry one, if 8 year old child soldiers in the African bush can hang, you should be able to. You're never going to make it when the revolution comes if you can't tote a proper AK Shuma. Time to do some push ups!
My biceps put your wet noodles to shame, doesn't mean I want to go to war with a weapon that has very little compensation for it's recoil in the design mixed with a high weight that makes consistent centering difficult. That vietnamese villager couldn't handle the AK either, nor can those kids. The guns a symbol of ineffectuality in wartime. The soviets don't even use it any more.
Well duh, the soviets disbanded a while back? Miss the headlines did ya?
Russia however, uses a lot of modernized versions of it. AN-94, AEK-971 and AK-107 are some examples.
The venerable BAR was exhibited tfor military trials in 1917 and was designed by Warmaster Uber Alles Mr. Browning as an automatic rifle to be fired while advancing. It beat the MP44 by absolute decades. I've shot one I don't see how you'd do that, its a heavy SOB and I felt all my teeth rattling when I fired bursts.
M14 and M2/3 carbines came from the Garand design. The original M1 carbine which was tweeked for auto came before the MP44.
AK 47 came independently (thats what he kept insisting anyway). Since the Rooskies had been building submachine guns known for similar ruggedness over accuracy by the gazillion I'd believe Kali baby unless someone shows the specs otherwise.
I'm not sure about the original Armalite. He was an aircraft guy not a German design lover, but I'll definitely bow to others with more experience there.
Shuma your current ignorance exceeds even your esteemed capacity, please take a knowledge break.
ShumaGorath wrote:
That vietnamese villager couldn't handle the AK either, nor can those kids.
You fail to understand, the AK47 is a peasant weapon, its designed to be handed out free to people with no weapons training and to be simple enough that they cannot really fail to use it. Consequently they didnt.
ShumaGorath wrote:
The guns a symbol of ineffectuality in wartime.
The AK47 is on three national flags. It is anything but ineffectual as a symbol or as a weapon.
ShumaGorath wrote:
The soviets don't even use it any more.
Which present tense Soviets are you talking about? It you are talking about the Russians or even the old 80's Soviets they used the AK74. The AK47 is an export weapon perfect for revolutionary warfare, and conscript hordes. It is not the weapon of a professional army, nor does it need to be. Even so the AK74 is just a redesigned AK47 with a 5.56 round.
I didn't want to get in to this argument but I think that there is a valid point to be made about the AK being heavy. I know a Vietnam vet, army airborne, who had discussed that. This is of course, an individual who had individual experiences that might not represent everyone, but he was there.
His claim concerning the AK is that the NVA had a nasty, for them, tendency to sling the rifle over their shoulders and rest their arms on it while marching, because ( his opinion) of the weight of the weapon. His belief is that often times put them at a disadvantage because when they ran into patrols they'd have to take the time to get that weapon off of their backs. Of course, he was the guy that carried the M60 when he first got there and never had a problem, so it might have been a discipline problem on the part of the NVA. He carried an AK part of the time he was there and a variety of other weird crap. I thought they told you what to carry, but either I'm wrong or he just didn't care and carried what he wanted to.
I asked him about mechanical problems with the M-16 rifle to which he said that by the time he was there they had "ironed out" those problems. His belief is that the problems with the M-16, which he felt got American soldiers killed, were due to changes in the original design to reduce the cost of the rifle. He has unflattering things to say about those he felt responsible for those changes. Regardless, he thought it was a great rifle by the time he got there. I don't recall the exact dates he was there but I know he was there during the Tet, and that he was at Hue when the fighting was going on there. They were able to carry a couple hundred rounds for the M-16 without much trouble, and he said that he couldn't imagine many things he'd less like to get shot with because apparently that bullet has a nasty tendency to yaw and tumble when it hits someone.
The root cause of the early M16's problems was due to Army insistance of the use of a particular powder in the ammunition. This ammo shot dirtier than would have been the case.
I love how these posts ALWAYS pull out the guys that have to stick in the fact that they are "experts" in what ever type of weapon the thread is about. Not only that, but rather then enjoy the thread, they belittle the others that are just adding their opinion.
Remember what they say about peoples opinions folks.
Saying that though, I too voted the AK. I know its older then dirt and is getting pretty dated. But lets be realistic, its a gun that was simply built perfectly. Sure others could shoot father, more accurate, bigger bullets and what not, buts it the AK47 for goodness sake. There have been stories of them being run over, and the barrels bent back in place with rocks. The Vietkong would dig holes in the ground and leave them their for months. You can literally stick a sock in gear greese, and use that to clean the barrel and it will still fire every single time.
Id have to say as far as a "best" goes, something that you practically can not destroy, would win out every time. I look at it as, if I can only have one rifle in a zombie apocalypse, or real world apocalypse, would I want some flashy new rifle with bells and whistles....or one that wont break ever?
KingCracker wrote:I love how these posts ALWAYS pull out the guys that have to stick in the fact that they are "experts" in what ever type of weapon the thread is about. Not only that, but rather then enjoy the thread, they belittle the others that are just adding their opinion.
Remember what they say about peoples opinions folks.
Saying that though, I too voted the AK. I know its older then dirt and is getting pretty dated. But lets be realistic, its a gun that was simply built perfectly. Sure others could shoot father, more accurate, bigger bullets and what not, buts it the AK47 for goodness sake. There have been stories of them being run over, and the barrels bent back in place with rocks. The Vietkong would dig holes in the ground and leave them their for months. You can literally stick a sock in gear greese, and use that to clean the barrel and it will still fire every single time.
Id have to say as far as a "best" goes, something that you practically can not destroy, would win out every time. I look at it as, if I can only have one rifle in a zombie apocalypse, or real world apocalypse, would I want some flashy new rifle with bells and whistles....or one that wont break ever?
Hey I didn't say I was an expert! I do say Shuma has to do some pushups. Flap those arms boy!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KingCracker wrote:
Id have to say as far as a "best" goes, something that you practically can not destroy, would win out every time. I look at it as, if I can only have one rifle in a zombie apocalypse, or real world apocalypse, would I want some flashy new rifle with bells and whistles....or one that wont break ever?
The thing is, the AK can break. Especially if you accidentally pick up a 74 instead of a 47.
A guy did the same testing with an AR-15 and it still worked even though everyone says they're hunks of junk and jam if a spec of dust gets in.
The thing about the BAR though, it had selective fire and didn't quite fit in. It's usually called a LMG, but can also be termed as an assault rifle with a bigger bang. It was durable as hell and clumsy, but it worked wonders.
I also don't care too much about the bullet being too stable. The kinetic energy behind the bullet itself would add some "oomf" to it and of course you have the fact that the guy who has been shot now has a hole in him.
As I said before and as Frazzled pointed out again, its inaccuracy lends it to be not the best. However, I put the positives as outweighing the negatives so it has my vote.
Also, heavy guns can be good. You run out of ammo and you have a club, the only thing I have right now that can be called an assault rifle is a chinese SKS and I haven't fired it yet, but plan to next week along with my Nagant. Weplan to shoot for an hour followed by a quick trip to the emergency room to fix a dislocated shoulder.
Most of Nazi Germany's Weapons
Why?
Because they are the Granpappy of nearly every gun we know today.Nazi's were evil feths but they had advanced weaponry for their time.
(If I'm Incorrect then correct me but don't hate on a teenager who knows this because he saw a TV program)
The nazi's had amazing technology, its a good thing they didn't crack anti-gravity but they came close with their "flying-wing" programs. The germans were scientific masters when it came to warfare, the only thing that caused them to lose is the fact that they took forever to make anything.
Example: One TigerII tank knocked out around 15 JSII(russian heavy tank) before it became inoperable and got bogged down. At least I think it was 15, it might've been 50. I don't have the book I read it in with me so I can't readily check.
MenOfTanith wrote:Most of Nazi Germany's Weapons
Why?
Because they are the Granpappy of nearly every gun we know today.Nazi's were evil feths but they had advanced weaponry for their time.
(If I'm Incorrect then correct me but don't hate on a teenager who knows this because he saw a TV program)
And most of their stuff came from Amuricans or Brits.
Maxim machine gun. We thunk it. yea, we're BAD. Amuricans, thinking of inventive ways for Europeans to kill each other with for 100 years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:The nazi's had amazing technology, its a good thing they didn't crack anti-gravity but they came close with their "flying-wing" programs. The germans were scientific masters when it came to warfare, the only thing that caused them to lose is the fact that they took forever to make anything.
Example: One TigerII tank knocked out around 15 JSII(russian heavy tank) before it became inoperable and got bogged down. At least I think it was 15, it might've been 50. I don't have the book I read it in with me so I can't readily check.
Pss thats so last war. Who needs a hard to make Tiger II when a more cheaply made, epically more cool Mustang or Thunderbird can blow it to heck 5 times over with bombs and rockets.
We had radar, B-25s, the truck, better ships, the ability to make more tanks than god, and the atom bomb.
Samus_aran115 wrote:...Thought this was Sci-fi related.
None of these, I like the Boltgun.
Shesh,freakin' gun-nuts
Marine loving . Every good Imperor's Man knows the best assault rifle is a Husquevarna M117 lasrifle with accessorized battery pack bandolier. It even comes with flip out ork sticker. Be a man and choose a man's gun. Choose a Husquevarna.
I'll vote for the assault rifle that shoots further than I can throw a well weighted rock, and hits harder. If that's not avaliable I'll take a plasma rifle in the 40 megawatt range, please.
Samus_aran115 wrote:...Thought this was Sci-fi related.
None of these, I like the Boltgun.
Shesh,freakin' gun-nuts
Marine loving . Every good Imperor's Man knows the best assault rifle is a Husquevarna M117 lasrifle with accessorized battery pack bandolier. It even comes with flip out ork sticker. Be a man and choose a man's gun. Choose a Husquevarna.
At first, this made me laugh. Then I realized how PISSED the Ork would be that was being stuck.....then I laughed at the violence that would ensue.
Also I didnt say the AK will never break, thats just silly talk. But in all honesty, the thing is damn near un breakable. Besides its been proven that the AR15, although very accurate and nice looking, will jam if you blink your eyes to much
Frazzled wrote:They're light relative to .308s and real rifles.
So, its light relative to things which aren't assault rifles?
Frazzled wrote:
Who needs a hard to make Tiger II when a more cheaply made, epically more cool Mustang or Thunderbird can blow it to heck 5 times over with bombs and rockets.
Once you factor in the cost of weapons the production cost of a Mustang (~60,000 USD) is roughly the same as the production cost of a Tiger II (~64,000 USD), and the Thunderbolt (~85,000 USD) is significantly more expensive.
halonachos wrote:The thing is, the AK can break. Especially if you accidentally pick up a 74 instead of a 47.
A guy did the same testing with an AR-15 and it still worked even though everyone says they're hunks of junk and jam if a spec of dust gets in.
The thing about the BAR though, it had selective fire and didn't quite fit in. It's usually called a LMG, but can also be termed as an assault rifle with a bigger bang. It was durable as hell and clumsy, but it worked wonders.
I also don't care too much about the bullet being too stable. The kinetic energy behind the bullet itself would add some "oomf" to it and of course you have the fact that the guy who has been shot now has a hole in him.
As I said before and as Frazzled pointed out again, its inaccuracy lends it to be not the best. However, I put the positives as outweighing the negatives so it has my vote.
Also, heavy guns can be good. You run out of ammo and you have a club, the only thing I have right now that can be called an assault rifle is a chinese SKS and I haven't fired it yet, but plan to next week along with my Nagant. Weplan to shoot for an hour followed by a quick trip to the emergency room to fix a dislocated shoulder.
Frazzled wrote:The venerable BAR was exhibited tfor military trials in 1917 and was designed by Warmaster Uber Alles Mr. Browning as an automatic rifle to be fired while advancing. It beat the MP44 by absolute decades. I've shot one I don't see how you'd do that, its a heavy SOB and I felt all my teeth rattling when I fired bursts.
Yeah, but again, because it fired a big ass bullet it belongs in the light machine gun category, yeah? I mean, the big idea of MP44 was the intermediate round, in combination with select fire, yeah?
M14 and M2/3 carbines came from the Garand design. The original M1 carbine which was tweeked for auto came before the MP44.
I didn't know there was an M1 carbine capable of full auto, select fire and everything. Cool. Just looked it up though and it was first put into production in 1945, after the MP44.
AK 47 came independently (thats what he kept insisting anyway). Since the Rooskies had been building submachine guns known for similar ruggedness over accuracy by the gazillion I'd believe Kali baby unless someone shows the specs otherwise.
I've been told the similarities between the MP44 and AK-47 aren't as great as assumed. It's mostly the banana clip that makes them look so similar. But I'm not a gun nut, or know all that much at all so it'd be cool if someone with some realy knowledge could confirm or deny.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:The nazi's had amazing technology, its a good thing they didn't crack anti-gravity but they came close with their "flying-wing" programs. The germans were scientific masters when it came to warfare, the only thing that caused them to lose is the fact that they took forever to make anything.
Example: One TigerII tank knocked out around 15 JSII(russian heavy tank) before it became inoperable and got bogged down. At least I think it was 15, it might've been 50. I don't have the book I read it in with me so I can't readily check.
The willingness to dedicate hundreds of thousands of man hours into a supertank is less an example of super tech and more an example of a disfunctional strategic level design program. The Nazis were building Tigers at somewhere around a hundred thousand man hours per unit, and being swamped by T34s being cranked out at around a hundredth of that. Russian units would simply advance past the Tiger IIs, cut off lines of supply and force the Germans to scuttle their own tanks once they ran out of fuel.
It's a big part of why the Germans got beat, despite attacking Russia with the manufacturing power of pretty much all of of continental Europe behind them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Pss thats so last war. Who needs a hard to make Tiger II when a more cheaply made, epically more cool Mustang or Thunderbird can blow it to heck 5 times over with bombs and rockets.
We had radar, B-25s, the truck, better ships, the ability to make more tanks than god, and the atom bomb.
Yep. You also had weapon design priorities that made some kind of sense.
The Russians over ran a factory deep in Germany that was building a super bomber to hit New York. The Russians were just outside of Berlin, and the Nazis were still putting resources into building a super bomber to hit New York. Fascists. They be crazy.
But then 50 years later and the history channel spends half its time talking about the supertech of the nazis. Which does make for some cool tv, but it has to be put in the context of how completely bonkers crazy the Nazi war machine was.
Ill have you know my biceps were built buy years of rum glass curls! Again you didn't say it was for you. Its good for 50 yards and thats all you're really using it for. In light of the countries taken over by guys with AK's I'd say its done pretty damn good.
Cool. So the spear is the best assault rifle in history? More countries have been taken over by the spear than any other weapon.
Well duh, the soviets disbanded a while back? Miss the headlines did ya?
Russia however, uses a lot of modernized versions of it. AN-94, AEK-971 and AK-107 are some examples.
I'm still in love with the G3 though..
Those weapons are not the AK-47 and the soviet line was a joke.
Shuma your current ignorance exceeds even your esteemed capacity, please take a knowledge break.
I'll go do that but I think you'll be too busy building a golden idol of yourself to notice.
The AK47 is on three national flags. It is anything but ineffectual as a symbol or as a weapon.
I guess that explains why those countries have such good militaries with such wonderful track records for success. The level of adoption of the AK has little to do with anything but it's incredible prevalence and ease of access to it's ammunition. It was great forty years ago and passable 20. Its been replaced in every single country on the planet that can afford to do so.
Which present tense Soviets are you talking about? It you are talking about the Russians or even the old 80's Soviets they used the AK74. The AK47 is an export weapon perfect for revolutionary warfare, and conscript hordes. It is not the weapon of a professional army, nor does it need to be. Even so the AK74 is just a redesigned AK47 with a 5.56 round.
Soviet line was a joke. I meant russia. Any weapon with prevalence of ammunition and easily repaired and replaced parts is a "perfect" weapon for revolutionary warfare. The AK-47 is hindered in that role by it's full auto capacity (revolutionaries are usually terrible with conserving ammunition and firing correctly) and it's weight (They also don't do all those pushups fraz apparently does daily before it gets thrust into their hands). Also, if it's not the weapon for "A professional army" just what the hell are you disagreeing with me for? You didn't even argue against any of my points.
dogma wrote:Once you factor in the cost of weapons the production cost of a Mustang (~60,000 USD) is roughly the same as the production cost of a Tiger II (~64,000 USD), and the Thunderbolt (~85,000 USD) is significantly more expensive.
If your tanks have equivalent production costs to top tier fighter aircraft something is very wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Cool. So the spear is the best assault rifle in history? More countries have been taken over by the spear than any other weapon.
No, it doesn't fire an intermediate round with select fire capability. But the spear is one of the greatest weapons of history, because a wide range of societies found it the best weapon to meet their military needs. The same criteria applies to the AK-47.
I guess that explains why those countries have such good militaries with such wonderful track records for success. The level of adoption of the AK has little to do with anything but it's incredible prevalence and ease of access to it's ammunition. It was great forty years ago and passable 20. Its been replaced in every single country on the planet that can afford to do so.
The point is that most countries do not have the finances and training facilities of the developed countries, and many fighters don't have any national support at all. The superior performance of other assault rifles is nice, but not that nice given the low level of training of their troops.
As you point out, most fighting forces cannot afford a weapon with better performace, nor would their minimally trained fighters be able to maintain such weapons. As such the low cost and reliability of the AK-47 becomes the key factor. As such, for a question as vague as "the best" assault rifle, the AK-47 is a pretty decent answer, given how many fighting forces find it the best weapon for their purposes.
If your tanks have equivalent production costs to top tier fighter aircraft something is very wrong.
Doesn't seem too strange to me. Avionics were much less advanced then and fighter aircraft were smaller and lighter than tanks.
No, it doesn't fire an intermediate round with select fire capability. But the spear is one of the greatest weapons of history, because a wide range of societies found it the best weapon to meet their military needs. The same criteria applies to the AK-47.
True, but neither do most of the examples fraz was using to prove that it wasn't a heavy gun.
As you point out, most fighting forces cannot afford a weapon with better performace, nor would their minimally trained fighters be able to maintain such weapons. As such the low cost and reliability of the AK-47 becomes the key factor. As such, for a question as vague as "the best" assault rifle, the AK-47 is a pretty decent answer, given how many fighting forces find it the best weapon for their purposes.
Yeah, I noted first page that without any sort of criterion for judging the "best" term is pretty empty. The AK-47 isn't the lightest, it isn't the most accurate, it isn't the most durable or reliable (there have been more reliable weapons developed, the poor track record of the m16 and it's predecessors do much to inflate the AK47s "superior" reliability), and it's certainly not the easiest to control. If prevalence and uptake in citizen militias or poor militaries implies superiority then it's definitely the best though.
ShumaGorath wrote:Doesn't seem too strange to me. Avionics were much less advanced then and fighter aircraft were smaller and lighter than tanks.
It's pretty crazy.
True, but neither do most of the examples fraz was using to prove that it wasn't a heavy gun.
Yeah, that's true. But the AK-47 is a light weapon for one that fires a round that size, as I understand it. It's just that assault rifles typically fire much lighter rounds.
Yeah, I noted first page that without any sort of criterion for judging the "best" term is pretty empty. The AK-47 isn't the lightest, it isn't the most accurate, it isn't the most durable or reliable (there have been more reliable weapons developed, the poor track record of the m16 and it's predecessors do much to inflate the AK47s "superior" reliability), and it's certainly not the easiest to control. If prevalence and uptake in citizen militias or poor militaries implies superiority then it's definitely the best though.
And I'm saying that given no specific criteria ('what assault rifle would you most like to use?' 'what rifle would you outfit a modern army with?') then you've just got to figure out a way to scale all those factors against each other. I mean, the modularity of a SCAR is cool, but how valuable is it in real world military terms. Best way to do that is to look at what rifle is meeting the needs of the market, what weapon is being picked up above all the others.
When most of the market are warlords and revolutionaries then you're looking at equipping marginally trained troops with few resources. So they don't care about accuracy at range, they care about cost and reliability. That means the AK-47.
sebster wrote:
If your tanks have equivalent production costs to top tier fighter aircraft something is very wrong.
Chrysler priced the Sherman at roughly 34,000 USD per unit, so it cost a little over half as much as the Tiger II. The T-34, easily the best tank to be involved in the conflict, cost roughly 60,000 USD when correcting for the intentionally distorted exchange rate.
The cost of differing types of platforms has not scaled in a linear fashion since WWII. Aircraft have grown much more complicated over time, whereas tanks and the like have seen little in the way of technical improvements, and even that has been confined primarily to detection packages and armor.
To put it another way: a WWII mechanic could look at a modern MBT and at least identify the majority of the parts. The same is not true of the same mechanic looking at the guts of an F-22.
One interesting fact I stumbled on while going through my notes: the M1 Garand cost roughly 80 USD, the MP44 cost roughly 25 USD once the price is controlled for retooling costs.
I think its funny someone is whining about how heavy an AK-47 is....they weigh like 1 whole lb more than most of the other rifles listed, and is even a half lb lighter than the G3.
I think lack of context in what makes the rifle 'best' makes this topic kind of moot.
If its a 'you can only have one' , I'd go for an M4 with a 6.8mm Rem upper(HK 416 in 6.8 would be ideal, but they dont make it yet).
If its a best AR for the cost, Im going to get a case of AK's. Being able to arm 6-10 guys for the same cost of a Western military issue rifle, its easy to see who will be able to put more lead in the air(since we're talking about the guns- not the training).
Im still amused though- that when firearms threads come up you can ALWAYS spot the guys that get their 'expertise' in firearms through FPS video games. Seriously, stop being clowns with that. Playing Rock Band well doesnt make you Bonno, and Grand Tourismo doesnt make you Dale Earnhardt.
I'm a newb when it comes to guns. I put my vote down for the AK 47. I saw a show/documentary once about it and thought it was neato. I prefer it in L4D2 and most other games where it is available.
[/I think its funny someone is whining about how heavy an AK-47 is....they weigh like 1 whole lb more than most of the other rifles listed, and is even a half lb lighter than the G3.
With a full magazine it weighs 10.5 pounds, the M4 weighs 7 in the same conditions. FAMAS weighs 8. G36 Weighs between 6 and 8. The steyer aug weighs just over 7. The xm8 fishgun drifts between 5.5 and 8. The SCAR drifts between 7 and 8. Etc.
It's not much heavier than the G3 but then no one with a choice uses that anymore either. It perplexes me that people defend the heft of the weapon, it's not exactly up for debate.
Im still amused though- that when firearms threads come up you can ALWAYS spot the guys that get their 'expertise' in firearms through FPS video games. Seriously, stop being clowns with that. Playing Rock Band well doesnt make you Bonno, and Grand Tourismo doesnt make you Dale Earnhardt.
It's just as easy to spot the armchair marines too.
[/I think its funny someone is whining about how heavy an AK-47 is....they weigh like 1 whole lb more than most of the other rifles listed, and is even a half lb lighter than the G3.
With a full magazine it weighs 10.5 pounds, the M4 weighs 7 in the same conditions. FAMAS weighs 8. G36 Weighs between 6 and 8. The steyer aug weighs just over 7. The xm8 fishgun drifts between 5.5 and 8. The SCAR drifts between 7 and 8. Etc.
It's not much heavier than the G3 but then no one with a choice uses that anymore either. It perplexes me that people defend the heft of the weapon, it's not exactly up for debate.
Im still amused though- that when firearms threads come up you can ALWAYS spot the guys that get their 'expertise' in firearms through FPS video games. Seriously, stop being clowns with that. Playing Rock Band well doesnt make you Bonno, and Grand Tourismo doesnt make you Dale Earnhardt.
It's just as easy to spot the armchair marines too.
I guess the weight difference would be huge to someone that only knows the heft of an Xbox controller.
And, in your infinite wisdom, you do realize the weight is all steel and part of its ruggedness- and makes it more controllable under recoil? Or is that something the lil rumble pack controllers arent able to translate well?
Let me start off by saying the OP didn't list a single Assault Rifle\Weapon according to the National Firearms Act in the United States. For those of you who point out that it has expired you are correct and I am only using it as a referance, if you could post a differant legal definition where these firearms are listed as Assault Rifles and not machineguns I will withdraw my statement. Everything listed above is a machinegun. EDIT: I'm not doing this to nit-pick but rather to express my experiance in this matter and distinguish my self from the dozens of those who don't know what they are talking about.
Speaking of Arm Chair Marines (I like that ShumaGorath, I'll be using it more in the future) you can tell the OPs experiance with firearms. Who would list the 50+ yr old AK-47 vs the modern firearms there? The 107\108 is a credit to the AK family and would stand up to the other listings in my opinion especially because it's a composite body and uses 5.56 NATO rounds therefore countering that hangups about its weight. They have also done a pretty good job of eliminating that little issue with slamfire, there is nothing like going to a range and ten seconds later EVERYBODY HATES YOU because your rifle malfunctioned.
@Mistress of Minis: The added weight really only helps the recoil when you have something to mount it against\on and even then it only matters when you're firing on full auto which at a firing range you would never do. But I loved your rant about the Xbox jockies! That was golden!
I'm a little bothered that no shotguns are listed. Now for those of you who have read that and immediatly thought "Errr the poll is fer Assault Rifles not shot guns" I will direct your attention to the NFA to see that in fact some shotguns can be classified as Assault Weapons which is the closest thing to a definition of an Assault Rifle that there is. For those of you who are interested but don't want to do the research a Shotgun is classified as an Assault Weapon if it is semi-automatic and has any combination of two of the following characteristics: a pistol grip, has a FIXED magazine with a capacity of more then five rounds, has the ability to except any detachable magazine, has a detachable or folding stock, A flash supressor built in or if it has a threaded barrel capable of excepting a flash suppressor.
As for my experiance, I am a civilian, I grew up around firearms they probably are what kick started my interest in mechanical engineering as a hobby and I'm activley studying for my FFL.
Kilkrazy wrote:It's a poll about assault rifles, which are a standard military weapon used around the world since the 1940s.
A poll about weapons classed under the NFA as assault weapons will be of no interest to users outside the USA.
Agreed. An appropriate definition is the key. Assault rifles have a legal definition, shootng defiitions, it can be lots of things, as well as "best".
A BAR is an assualt rifle because it was meant to carried by one man in shot with rapidity at distances greater than a submachine gun, just as the M44, the AK 47 and M16. But its the same definition as a Henry repeater and Spencer carbine of the mid 1800s, or short bow for that matter. Under most definitions, its really just a carbine.
Frankly forget all that. As mentioned get a Tommy gun. They aren't assault rifles, but they ROCK HARD. Nothing says I love you like seeing your wife's face after she empties a fifty round drum full auto at a bunch of now very dead cans.
@Frazzled: Agreed but then to sit there and reload the drum, unless you have some trick you'd like to share takes more effort then it's worth.
As I said before the nit-picking was to distiguish myself from the others on here who seem to get their credibility and information stricktley from Video Games. Sorry for the de-rail
ComputerGeek01 wrote:Everything listed above is a machinegun. EDIT: I'm not doing this to nit-pick but rather to express my experiance in this matter and distinguish my self from the dozens of those who don't know what they are talking about.
I really could say something about how incorrect this is... But I'll be merciful for now.
"An assault rifle is loosely defined as a selective fire rifle designed for combat that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." (From Wikipedia.)
For a full definition you would need to define rifle and intermediate cartridge.
The intermediate cartridge is the important thing. It is a cartridge intermediate in power between a pistol cartridge as used in sub-machine guns and the full power rifle round of the early 20th century.
The cartridge is thought to be ideal for firefights at ranges up to about 300 metres, which covers 90% of WW2 infantry combat.
It could be argued that the M1 Carbine was the first example of this type of rifle to go into service.
[/I think its funny someone is whining about how heavy an AK-47 is....they weigh like 1 whole lb more than most of the other rifles listed, and is even a half lb lighter than the G3.
With a full magazine it weighs 10.5 pounds, the M4 weighs 7 in the same conditions. FAMAS weighs 8. G36 Weighs between 6 and 8. The steyer aug weighs just over 7. The xm8 fishgun drifts between 5.5 and 8. The SCAR drifts between 7 and 8. Etc.
It's not much heavier than the G3 but then no one with a choice uses that anymore either. It perplexes me that people defend the heft of the weapon, it's not exactly up for debate.
Im still amused though- that when firearms threads come up you can ALWAYS spot the guys that get their 'expertise' in firearms through FPS video games. Seriously, stop being clowns with that. Playing Rock Band well doesnt make you Bonno, and Grand Tourismo doesnt make you Dale Earnhardt.
It's just as easy to spot the armchair marines too.
I guess the weight difference would be huge to someone that only knows the heft of an Xbox controller.
And, in your infinite wisdom, you do realize the weight is all steel and part of its ruggedness- and makes it more controllable under recoil? Or is that something the lil rumble pack controllers arent able to translate well?
I guess the weight difference would be unoticable to someone that only knows the confines of a kitchen.
Enough jokes, you might think that so little weight doesn't matter.
But in the field, with little food, and little sleep it will matter. If it's life or death, or just redundant, who knows.
ComputerGeek01 wrote:Let me start off by saying the OP didn't list a single Assault Rifle\Weapon according to the National Firearms Act in the United States.
The NFA is a civilian law aimed at controlling what weapons we have access too- it has little to do with practical weapon definitions as its a politically derived set of statutes. Politicians dont know much about firearms, and it often shows in the laws.
A simple break down of weapon terminology:
Sub-machine gun- a machine gun that fires 'sub' (meaning smller in this case) sized ammunition compared to a full size machine gun. This is most often a pistol caliber. They are generally only effective at maximum 50-100 yards.
Battle Rifle- A semi automatic or select fire rifle firing a full sized rifle round that had previously been of the size chambered in bolt action rifles. Initially they had the concept of also functioning as light squad automatic weapons- but they didnt have enough weight to off set the recoil of fully automatic fire. The first example of an actual battle rifle is the M1 Garand- while not full auto or burst capable it was the first semi auto rifle issued in any quantity and tested by years of actual combat. The full size rifle rounds could be effective past 400 yards in the hands of a trained rifleman.
Assault rifle- a semi automatic or select fire rifle firing an intermediate size rifle cartridge(intermediate generally being smaller than 7mm and a case length of less than 50mm). The lighter ammunition allowed greater control during rapid fire as the recoil impulse is up to 75% less than many battle rifles. Being of a generally smaller size(less barrel length is needed for the smaller cartridges to achieve peak velocity compared to a battle rifle) theyre favored for urban and dense terrain where the medium range of engagements would negate the long range advantage of a battle rifle. Another concept of smaller caliber assault rifles like the 5.56mm, is the wounding vs killing aspect. If you wond someone, in theory his buddies will save him and drag him back- thus applying a logistical strain on the opposing army. Thats never really worked for us, guerilla warfare wasnt the predicted combat model
Then we get into actual machine guns. A general definition to seperate them from battle/assault rifles, is the duration of sustained fire the weapon can handle and a higher rate of full auto fire. Thicker barrels than thier rifle counterparts let them keep firing when a rifles barrel would have overheated, and some designs have barrels that can be swapped out but most modern desgins are cooled more effectively and don't need this.
Light machine guns fire the same ammo as most assault rifles, and some are beefed up versions of these rifles- sometimes just swapping out a barrel/receiver assembly like with the Steyr Aug. Medium machine guns, fire the same calibers as most battle rifles, 7.62 being the norm. They are generally purpose built as machine guns, with only a few designs being similar to battle rifles(a few G3 variants for example)- most mediums are operated by a single gunner, but the ammunition load is usually spread out amongst squad mates as belts of 7.62 can get heavy fast. Heavy machine guns, are crew served weapons- requiring 2 or more guys to hump the parts and set them up(or be mounted on a vehicle). The standard HMGs are the .50 cal and the soviet 14.5mm.
Generally machine guns are HEAVY, they usually weight twice as much as a rifle of the same caliber- or more if theres a tripod involved. The weight factor is why a weapon like the Browning 1918 (BAR) is never considered an assault rifle- it weighs damn near 20 lbs. Add in a bandoleer of 30.06 magazines, and it takes a pretty beefy dude to hump that effectively.
So- assault rifles are the 'just right' niche between the 'too small' SMG, and the 'too big/heavy' battle rifles. Actual machine guns are pretty much a separate category altogether.
The term "best" assault rifle is too general to get an accurate answer.
My vote went for AK-47, Its got a long service life, it's dirt cheap both to make and to trade/buy, its easy to operate, and easier to keep clean and oiled.
Just watch lord of war it'll tell ya all about it lmao
Mistress of minis wrote:
I guess the weight difference would be huge to someone that only knows the heft of an Xbox controller.
Its more than 25% heavier than an M4. That's a very significant weight difference.
Mistress of minis wrote:
And, in your infinite wisdom, you do realize the weight is all steel and part of its ruggedness- and makes it more controllable under recoil?
Mass itself is not a direct control on recoil. It depends entirely upon where the it is located along the length of the weapon, and how it relates to the position of the rear grip. The AK is massive through the front of the receiver, and is particularly top heavy; meaning that the majority of its mass is placed above the pistol grip. As such, when its fired, all that extra weight is simply more energy transferred over the hand; disproportionately increasing recoil on shots after the first.
I love how these posts ALWAYS pull out the guys that have to stick in the fact that they are "experts" in what ever type of weapon the thread is about. Not only that, but rather then enjoy the thread, they belittle the others that are just adding their opinion.
Remember what they say about peoples opinions folks.
Well said, Kingcracker.
I what to thank my fellow dakka members for restoring my faith in humanity You lot would probably blast the dove of peace out of the air with your assault rifles.
As for the AK47 what is there to celebrate. A weapon that has been responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands. I'll drink to that.
Seems to be a lot of crypto-fascism on this site these days. What happened to the old dakka? The golden age.
I'd take an AA12. Sure it's not a rifle and so suffers from range but who wouldn't want a 12ga shotgun that can put 300 rounds into a target in 60 seconds?
Mistress of minis wrote:
I guess the weight difference would be huge to someone that only knows the heft of an Xbox controller.
Its more than 25% heavier than an M4. That's a very significant weight difference.
If you're going to stand by and act like 2-3 lbs is a huge difference- lets look at the other weight factors involved.
Whats the weight of the body armor of the AK47 wielder? What, none?
Are they carrying a combat load of ammo? Nope, maybe a couple mags.
So, the gun might be a whopping 2-3 lbs heavier, but theyre carrying 15-30 less lbs of other gear. And you're also comparing it to a bare bones M4(which is also technically a carbine), start sliding toys onto an M4 and it gets heavier too.
The AK47 has killed more people than any other single firearm in history, and will keep on doing that for the forseeable future. And as Frazz pointed out, even 10 year old malnourished african kids and 115 lb asian guys have used them effectively. So the weight factor doesnt seem to be holding them back.
I like M4's/Ar-15s, Ive built more than a few and had alot of fun with them. But having trained shooters too, the AK is just simpler to learn, more forgiving in terms of maintnance and will preform to the skill level of the average untrained shooter for alot less $$$ than the other options.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:I'd take an AA12. Sure it's not a rifle and so suffers from range but who wouldn't want a 12ga shotgun that can put 300 rounds into a target in 60 seconds?
The poor schmuck carrying, or paying for that ammo
Ruckdog wrote:Hmm, I voted for the AK, but it was a close thing for me. I've never fired one, but I have qualified expert with the M16.
Ive only put around eight to nine thousand rounds through a couple AK's, vs somewhere around fifteen thousand on AR's(tax deductible training ammo! ). Ak's push you around a bit more since the bullet has more mass, and its not a target rifle. Main difference between them, is an AK will punch though just about any part of an autobody thats not axle or engine block, defeats light block walls, and the steel core stuff does pretty decent against light armor or for disabling vehicles. Most AK's are only mechanically capable of a group about twice the size of an M-16. Some of the eastern European ones are actually very well made and get much better groups, conversely, some of the worn out shoddy stamped ones are more like an ork shoota
Even with the heavier ss109 replacing the 55gr ball, a 5.56 doesnt do nearly as well for any of that. But, it does do better against body armor(which ironically most of the guys getting shot at by m4/m16's dont have any....).
Mistress of minis wrote:
If you're going to stand by and act like 2-3 lbs is a huge difference- lets look at the other weight factors involved.
I was a personal trainer for 4 years, and I currently operate my own training business in addition to managing a gym. I know a great deal about weight, and how the human body supports it in the course of movement. 2-3 pounds may not seem like much, but I would challenge you to hold a 5 pound weight at full arm extension, and then do the same thing with an 8 pound weight. You will notice the difference, as it is considerable.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Whats the weight of the body armor of the AK47 wielder? What, none?
Are they carrying a combat load of ammo? Nope, maybe a couple mags.
That weight isn't relevant to the question. You do not hold magazines while firing a weapon, nor do you hold body armor while in a fire fight. You carry them on your person, which is altogether different when considering operator fatigue.
Mistress of minis wrote:
So, the gun might be a whopping 2-3 lbs heavier, but theyre carrying 15-30 less lbs of other gear.
Again, that's not relevant to the weight of the weapon. We are comparing firearms, not firearms and likely operators.
Mistress of minis wrote:
And you're also comparing it to a bare bones M4(which is also technically a carbine), start sliding toys onto an M4 and it gets heavier too.
Yes, and if you mount additional equipment to an AK-47 it also gets heavier. We're comparing firearms, not firearms with accessories.
Mistress of minis wrote:
The AK47 has killed more people than any other single firearm in history, and will keep on doing that for the forseeable future.
That's debatable, as I doubt there is any statistical evidence to support your claim.
Mistress of minis wrote:
And as Frazz pointed out, even 10 year old malnourished african kids and 115 lb asian guys have used them effectively. So the weight factor doesnt seem to be holding them back.
I don't know what version of history you have read, but I think you would struggle to find effective combatants in either of those groups. Child soldiers are not, and never have been especially useful against anything beyond unarmed opponents, and the Vietcong (I assume this is who you are referring to) were not noted to be particularly talented soldiers. Moreover, simply because certain movements involving 115 pound Asian men were successful does not imply that the 115 pound Asian men who were part of the movement were particularly effective when wielding an AK-47.
Mistress of minis wrote:
I like M4's/Ar-15s, Ive built more than a few and had alot of fun with them. But having trained shooters too, the AK is just simpler to learn, more forgiving in terms of maintnance and will preform to the skill level of the average untrained shooter for alot less $$$ than the other options.
Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the AK-47 is heavy.
So the AK looses simply because its heavier? Thats border line stupid.
I see where your coming from with not comparing the weight of the carried gear and whatnot as I agree with that. I used to power lift and totally agree that weight on your person is a huge difference then what your arms are throwing around.
But in saying that, just saying that the weight is what makes it lose is just dumb. Infact saying that it looses out over the others because most the combatants that use them are under trained starving men and children is also stupid. We are talking about the WEAPON not all the other factors of how bad the untrained person shoots or how fast a super highly trained American force can take out a under trained starving child force from Africa.
The facts are very easy to find, the AK47 is easily one of the toughest, and easy to use weapons ever made. You have to realize that most of the AKs in service were made pre 1974 and are the very essence of friggin old. Take ANY of the other rifles from the list, beat the hell out of them, mis treat them, dont oil them up for months on end, OH and then lose them in a hay barn for a decade, and then see what one still works. Not only works, but still fires some what reliably and kills things. I will bet a years salary that it will be the AK47.
Again, since the topic is a bit vague, most people are defaulting to something that will always work not matter what. Which the ak47 WILL do. Also looking for statistics on how many MILLIONS the ak47 has killed is easy enough. Look up the history of ALL the countries that use the weapon, and see what the casualties were for the other side. Easily killed more people then any other gun in history.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh heres a website with some info on it. And it says a guess of how many AK47s were built are around 90million. So 1 bullet from every rifle, you do the math
sebster wrote:
If your tanks have equivalent production costs to top tier fighter aircraft something is very wrong.
Chrysler priced the Sherman at roughly 34,000 USD per unit, so it cost a little over half as much as the Tiger II. The T-34, easily the best tank to be involved in the conflict, cost roughly 60,000 USD when correcting for the intentionally distorted exchange rate.
Then I'm going to have to raise an eyebrow at the source of your figures. German heavy tanks were infamous for the level of engineering, over-engineering that is, and the amount of machine hours needed to manufacture each one. Quoting a T-34 as costing almost as much as a Tiger II seems very odd to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:It could be argued that the M1 Carbine was the first example of this type of rifle to go into service.
But that didn't have a select fire option until 1945, yeah?
I guess the weight difference would be unoticable to someone that only knows the confines of a kitchen.
Enough jokes, you might think that so little weight doesn't matter.
But in the field, with little food, and little sleep it will matter. If it's life or death, or just redundant, who knows.
Weight is important, but I didn't hear any stories of GI's dropping their guns because they were heavy. If the kit was heavy they would drop things wouldn't need first.
Plus, you get in close and club someone with 10 pounds you'll hit harder than 5-6 pounds. Now, weight means that the chances of fatigue will be higher, but I would gather that the adrenaline and survival instinct would balance it out(I haven't been in combat, but I could guess). Now when everything is over then it matters, however that's probably why they include slings on most weapons.
If I had a heavy weapon that could shoot with more accuracy and at a farther range than yours, you could only hope that the light weight lets you either run in closer or away before I can get a shot off( in real life I can't snipe and stuff, but in terms of example I am putting the marksmanship skills at the same level). Now, the AK-47 is inaccurate as nobody's business so...
KingCracker wrote:So the AK looses simply because its heavier? Thats border line stupid.
I didn't say the AK-47 is an inferior weapon. I said that its significantly heavier than most assault rifles.
KingCracker wrote:
Look up the history of ALL the countries that use the weapon, and see what the casualties were for the other side. Easily killed more people then any other gun in history.
That doesn't tell us how many people the AK-47 has killed, it only tells us how many people were killed in conflicts involving AK-47s. Moreover, we have to consider the older weapons in use during events like Communist Uprising in China before we can definitely say that the AK-47 has killed more people than any other gun.
KingCracker wrote:
Oh heres a website with some info on it. And it says a guess of how many AK47s were built are around 90million. So 1 bullet from every rifle, you do the math
I imagine that many of those weapons were never involved in a hostile conflict, let alone the death of another being.
sebster wrote:
Then I'm going to have to raise an eyebrow at the source of your figures. German heavy tanks were infamous for the level of engineering, over-engineering that is, and the amount of machine hours needed to manufacture each one. Quoting a T-34 as costing almost as much as a Tiger II seems very odd to me.
I'm taking my data for the T-34 from Accounting for War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the Defence Burden, 1940–1945. Its hard to produce a sound exchange rate where the Soviet Ruble is concerned, as it was not a market currency.
And don't forget that the Communist Revolution was still new to them.
The Germans had better stuff, but it cost a lot and later in the war they lost a lot of production facilities so that didn't help. Russia had moving factories and could move and set them up within 24 hours thanks to their railroad system. I believe that it was said that as the frontlines moved so did the factories, keeping a supply of new armor within arms reach.
[/I think its funny someone is whining about how heavy an AK-47 is....they weigh like 1 whole lb more than most of the other rifles listed, and is even a half lb lighter than the G3.
With a full magazine it weighs 10.5 pounds, the M4 weighs 7 in the same conditions. FAMAS weighs 8. G36 Weighs between 6 and 8. The steyer aug weighs just over 7. The xm8 fishgun drifts between 5.5 and 8. The SCAR drifts between 7 and 8. Etc.
It's not much heavier than the G3 but then no one with a choice uses that anymore either. It perplexes me that people defend the heft of the weapon, it's not exactly up for debate.
Im still amused though- that when firearms threads come up you can ALWAYS spot the guys that get their 'expertise' in firearms through FPS video games. Seriously, stop being clowns with that. Playing Rock Band well doesnt make you Bonno, and Grand Tourismo doesnt make you Dale Earnhardt.
It's just as easy to spot the armchair marines too.
I guess the weight difference would be huge to someone that only knows the heft of an Xbox controller.
And, in your infinite wisdom, you do realize the weight is all steel and part of its ruggedness- and makes it more controllable under recoil? Or is that something the lil rumble pack controllers arent able to translate well?
As the only one of us thats likely ever actually fired the weapon in question and as the only one of the two of us who likely owned an original xbox (The AK is 20% heavier than the xbox console!), and as the only one between the two of us here thats been utilizing arguments based in logic rather than ad hominim (love those superiority by farmer militia arguments!) I should probably note that the wood stocks aren't particularly rugged by modern standards and the heft of it's operating parts accomplish a task that modern guns have likewise accomplished insofar as reliability is concerned with much lighter composite materials.
The weight does help with reducing recoil slightly in the initial shot, but that same heft makes it slower to center and more difficult to keep on target in anything resembling a prolonged fashion. The weight is also placed poorly on the gun for recoil compensation purposes.
ShumaGorath wrote:As the only one of us thats likely ever actually fired the weapon in question and as the only one of the two of us who likely owned an original xbox (The AK is 20% heavier than the xbox console!), and as the only one between the two of us here thats been utilizing arguments based in logic rather than ad hominim (love those superiority by farmer militia arguments!) I should probably note that the wood stocks aren't particularly rugged by modern standards and the heft of it's operating parts accomplish a task that modern guns have likewise accomplished insofar as reliability is concerned with much lighter composite materials.
The weight does help with reducing recoil slightly in the initial shot, but that same heft makes it slower to center and more difficult to keep on target in anything resembling a prolonged fashion. The weight is also placed poorly on the gun for recoil compensation purposes.
You must like being wrong, youre pretty good at it.
I have owned and fired numerous AK's, chinese, russian, and my preference goes to the ones of Finnish make. I've built AR-15's since I was 14. Grampa was a gun nut. I was a competitive shooter in practical pistol and 3 gun matches through most of the 90's. Ive got alot of trigger time with both, and over 22,000 rounds between the two. I think I have a little more perspective than most.
And I do have an original Xbox, morrowind and Kotor sucked up a few hours of my life. Its even modded so I could put games right onto the HD.
And you and dogma may think the 2 lbs of extra weight is an immense issue for various reasons you see as logic. And I suppose if you are jsut looking at numbers from Wiki- it could be logic. But, in the real world outside of internet experts- 2 lbs is easily countered by proper form and stance. Knowing how to hold a rifle properly goes a very long ways to minimizing fatigue- and its kinda obvious thats something outside of your personal experience. But, you seem more comfortable arguing, rather than possibly learning- so carry on
Mistress of minis wrote:
And you and dogma may think the 2 lbs of extra weight is an immense issue for various reasons you see as logic.
No, its not logic, its practical experience. If you want me to bring logic into this conversation I will be happy to attach formal proofs to all of my posts.
Mistress of minis wrote:
And I suppose if you are jsut looking at numbers from Wiki- it could be logic.
Logic is the process by which inference can be established as legitimate. Stating that a given weapon is significantly heavier than another given weapon is not related to logic, it is simply a fact.
Mistress of minis wrote:
But, in the real world outside of internet experts- 2 lbs is easily countered by proper form and stance.
Not true at all. Without going into mechanical expositions, I can simply say that the AK-47 would be the weapon of choice the world over were that not the case. After all, it is apparently both cheap, and sufficiently accurate.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Knowing how to hold a rifle properly goes a very long ways to minimizing fatigue- and its kinda obvious thats something outside of your personal experience.
Internet experts indeed.
Mistress of minis wrote:
But, you seem more comfortable arguing, rather than possibly learning- so carry on
The apparent volume of statistical evidence you have presented is simply overwhelming. Clearly no one could stand against such indefatigable force.
Kel-TEC RFB assault rifle
Kel-Tec has introduced an assault rifle in a Bullpup format. Called the RFB for Rifle Forward ejection Bullpup. From the buzz on the boards, this might be the second hottest introduction at the 2007 Shot Show.
It is chambered in 7.62mm, utilizes FN FAL magazines and comes with barrel lengths of 18", 24", and 32"
The apparent volume of statistical evidence you have presented is simply overwhelming. Clearly no one could stand against such indefatigable force.
Ok, you bring your M4 to the range, I'll bring my AK. We'll run a few tac courses and see if my skinny self with the overwieght AK and your physical trainer fitness with a lightweight M4 preform comparably. All that extra weight should leave me totally exhausted.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Ok, you bring your M4 to the range, I'll bring my AK. We'll run a few tac courses and see if my skinny self with the overwieght AK and your physical trainer fitness with a lightweight M4 preform comparably. All that extra weight should leave me totally exhausted.
Firing ranges are now battlefields?
Goalposts are generally anchored in the ground, but perhaps they do it differently in the Southwest?
ShumaGorath wrote:As the only one of us thats likely ever actually fired the weapon in question and as the only one of the two of us who likely owned an original xbox (The AK is 20% heavier than the xbox console!), and as the only one between the two of us here thats been utilizing arguments based in logic rather than ad hominim (love those superiority by farmer militia arguments!) I should probably note that the wood stocks aren't particularly rugged by modern standards and the heft of it's operating parts accomplish a task that modern guns have likewise accomplished insofar as reliability is concerned with much lighter composite materials.
The weight does help with reducing recoil slightly in the initial shot, but that same heft makes it slower to center and more difficult to keep on target in anything resembling a prolonged fashion. The weight is also placed poorly on the gun for recoil compensation purposes.
You must like being wrong, youre pretty good at it.
I have owned and fired numerous AK's, chinese, russian, and my preference goes to the ones of Finnish make. I've built AR-15's since I was 14. Grampa was a gun nut. I was a competitive shooter in practical pistol and 3 gun matches through most of the 90's. Ive got alot of trigger time with both, and over 22,000 rounds between the two. I think I have a little more perspective than most.
And I do have an original Xbox, morrowind and Kotor sucked up a few hours of my life. Its even modded so I could put games right onto the HD.
And you and dogma may think the 2 lbs of extra weight is an immense issue for various reasons you see as logic. And I suppose if you are jsut looking at numbers from Wiki- it could be logic. But, in the real world outside of internet experts- 2 lbs is easily countered by proper form and stance. Knowing how to hold a rifle properly goes a very long ways to minimizing fatigue- and its kinda obvious thats something outside of your personal experience. But, you seem more comfortable arguing, rather than possibly learning- so carry on
We have a wise woman here! Well... regards guns anyway.
When your doing your commando tests to win your green beret, you literally do everything with your 22-24lbs of webbing (two full water bottles and 6 full magazines) and your rifle. No sense doing exercise in the military with running shoes on is there? We used to laugh at the "camp commandos" in the regular army who pride themselves on running laps with their nice running shoes on, or bench pressing 300lbs. What use is that type of exercise in a combat situation?..
Sorry.. rambling again...
Anyway, we used the L85A2, and i always liked it slung across my back when i doing the "tarzan" assault courses, but the Science guys would always say "oh its extremely accurate and nice and short for OBUA, the only downside is its pretty heavy" but once i used it for a while, i got used to it.
I remember after patrolling almost daily in Iraq my arms were nice an strong to the point i hardly noticed i was carrying it, and when i switched rifles with one of the USMC guys who was attached to my unit, i felt like... the gun just seemed a bit light and wussy feeling! I think that you are entirely correct, and even disregarding proper form and stance, 2lbs makes little difference to a soldier actually using it. You really dont feel two pounds when your hauling ass across open ground and your carrying 300 rounds, two greenies, wearing your combat body armour and helmet and gaking your pants cos the AK rounds are zinging over your bonce!
Intenet intellectualls will of course look at cold hard statistics via google and make their decisions on cold logic, but i agree entirely with your statement above.
Actually, the whole debate seems subjective, so it seems odd to get worked up about it doesnt it? We all have our favourites and what we are used to using and such like.. i dont really think that anyone can deem with certainty what makes a rifle "the best" cos were all built differently.. I picked the AK cos its rugged and it gets the job done. But i dont think this topic is about saying for certain why one pwns another, and it seems odd to me that so many threads seem to turn into a "win" the argument type of thing.
Anyway, each to their own. I fired a FAMAS a few times and i didnt like that either, but im sure it gets the job done. It seems an odd thing to argue about so vehemently.
@ mattrym, maybe they'll take your experience more seriously than mine
I had the chance to put a mag through an SA-80, and it was ok. I'd really like to get a chance to see how the HK upgrades to the L85 changed it though. It wasnt a cheap fix(like 400 pounds per unit!) but its one of the best rifles out there now- alot of the new developments are in HK's 416 which looks like it will be around a very long time.
sebster wrote:
If your tanks have equivalent production costs to top tier fighter aircraft something is very wrong.
Chrysler priced the Sherman at roughly 34,000 USD per unit, so it cost a little over half as much as the Tiger II. The T-34, easily the best tank to be involved in the conflict, cost roughly 60,000 USD when correcting for the intentionally distorted exchange rate.
Then I'm going to have to raise an eyebrow at the source of your figures. German heavy tanks were infamous for the level of engineering, over-engineering that is, and the amount of machine hours needed to manufacture each one. Quoting a T-34 as costing almost as much as a Tiger II seems very odd to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:It could be argued that the M1 Carbine was the first example of this type of rifle to go into service.
But that didn't have a select fire option until 1945, yeah?
The T-34 was the best tank purely because a farmer could operate and it took next to no time to produce, and sloping armor ofcourse.
If your looking for an actual one on one fight between tanks it's hard to beat a Tiger or even Panther.
That said, I too find it hard to believe that a T-34 was more expensive then a Sherman, I doubt Stalin was actually paying a lot to his workers etc.
I haven't read through the entire topic but.. There's a little flaw to the poll.
The Sturmgewehr is called StG44, not MP44, the MP series are the Machinpistole, which is a sub-machinegun, whilst the Sturmgewehr is an assault rifle.
And by 'Best assault rifle of all time' do you mean for the time of its use or which one is the best overall? The StG44 was probably the best weapon of WW2 (weapon meaning Rifle/gun/assault rifle here), whilst a modern weapon such as Steyr Aug or a G-36 would be much better than the StG44 if you're just looking at the guns without caring when they were in use.
The AK-47 isn't nearly as good as a modern rifle either, it's used because it's avalible anywhere. It kills, but its rate of fire and accuracy are really not good comparing to an M4A1 or such.
Mistress of minis wrote:@ mattrym, maybe they'll take your experience more seriously than mine
I had the chance to put a mag through an SA-80, and it was ok. I'd really like to get a chance to see how the HK upgrades to the L85 changed it though. It wasnt a cheap fix(like 400 pounds per unit!) but its one of the best rifles out there now- alot of the new developments are in HK's 416 which looks like it will be around a very long time.
Im pretty well positioned to give you an answer there, as i was serving when that whole thing went off. When i first joined up in 1999 people whinged that the rifle was prone to stoppages, and a few years later I was based in Plymouth at 42 commando at the time, so it was about.. i dunno.. 2002? Anyway, they (HK and the MOD) took volunteers to go testing the HK modified rifles. They came back 6 weeks later and gave us several lengthy briefs on the whole process.
They gave us many statistics from the 4 different environments that they fired in, Arctic (In Northern Norway) Primary Jungle, Desert and temperate in the UK... well..in Wales
They use the term "fired to failure" and this meant the rifle having 3 stoppages in total. Looking at the graphs the modded SA80 out performed the M4 and the AK in pretty much every environment. The M4 especially fell short of the other two, and had many stoppages in the desert climate as dust sticking to the weapon oil apparently caused alot of stoppage issues. I think they put about 960 rounds through the SA80 in the desert before it had its third stoppage, and about 3000 in the UK, which is fething impressive.
Interestingly i recall the HK guys telling us that they estimated that 90% of stoppages with the old SA80 were caused by the cocking handle, because it was shaped like a normal cylindrical bolt, and this apparently meant that the expelled casings would just fly off in a random direction. And i personally remember once in training shouting "stoppage!" and when i looked to my right and tipped the weapon, the very tip of an expelled casing was caught in breech, it was easily cleared but i just thought "how the hell did that happen?" anyway, they changed the shape of it into a sort of, half crescent moon D shaped cocking handle and said it basically turned the expelled casings away from the rifle better by aiming them somewhat. I must have fired a few thousand rounds through my rifle in Afghanistan the last time, and i dont recall having one stoppage. Funny how such a tiny detail can make such a big difference eh?
As i said, its down to what your own personal preference is. I think the M4 is a good 3 or 4 pounds lighter than ours when they are loaded, but i always prefered our standard issue rifles. I was always comfortingly reasssured by its meatiness. And it was really short which is nice when your jumping through windows and clearing buildings and such.
I also thought that if a civilian came at me and lethal force via bullets or bayonets would not be acceptable, i could have grabbed it by the barrel and wrapped it round some bastards head cricket bat style! Jolly Good show!
You must like being wrong, youre pretty good at it.
Wrong with what? You didn't adress my arguments in any way, you just said they weren't important because you're daddies little pistol shooter.
I have owned and fired numerous AK's, chinese, russian, and my preference goes to the ones of Finnish make. I've built AR-15's since I was 14. Grampa was a gun nut. I was a competitive shooter in practical pistol and 3 gun matches through most of the 90's. Ive got alot of trigger time with both, and over 22,000 rounds between the two. I think I have a little more perspective than most.
Neat. I like to tell people I own a yacht.
And I do have an original Xbox, morrowind and Kotor sucked up a few hours of my life. Its even modded so I could put games right onto the HD.
Morrowind and Kotor are both PC games as well.
And you and dogma may think the 2 lbs of extra weight is an immense issue for various reasons you see as logic. And I suppose if you are jsut looking at numbers from Wiki- it could be logic. But, in the real world outside of internet experts- 2 lbs is easily countered by proper form and stance.
No, not really. The weight is still there regardless and the AK47 started losing out bidding wars to the AKM (the most popular gun on the planet) in the 50s. That gun has now been replaced again by the AK74. In the magical unicorn land where your personal experiences trump the decision making of every quality military on the planet I'm sure their horns will fire 7.62 rounds.
Knowing how to hold a rifle properly goes a very long ways to minimizing fatigue- and its kinda obvious thats something outside of your personal experience. But, you seem more comfortable arguing, rather than possibly learning- so carry on
Yep. Our experiences and those of every quality military on the planet. We're all wrong because you've put a few downrange and didn't have a big problem with it's weight.
Ok, you bring your M4 to the range, I'll bring my AK. We'll run a few tac courses and see if my skinny self with the overwieght AK and your physical trainer fitness with a lightweight M4 preform comparably. All that extra weight should leave me totally exhausted.
Doesn't that have more to do with personal skill than with the weapon? The discussion is about the quality of the weapon, not the how much time you spend at the range. Oh wait. You don't actually have any backup to your arguments, you just pull the good old "I HEV GUN I KNO MORE!" without using any sort of factual basis for your posts.
dogma wrote:I'm taking my data for the T-34 from Accounting for War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the Defence Burden, 1940–1945. Its hard to produce a sound exchange rate where the Soviet Ruble is concerned, as it was not a market currency.
Fair enough, though I'm left wondering what the market price is for slave labour, used heavily by both sides?
It's hard to reconcile those figures with how few tanks Germany built, compared to the mass of tanks produced the far smaller industrial capacity of the Russians.
Soladrin wrote:The T-34 was the best tank purely because a farmer could operate and it took next to no time to produce, and sloping armor ofcourse.
And total range without refueling, and mobility off road, and reliability. All of which allowed Russian armoured units to drive deep into German territory without resupply, which is exactly what tanks are for.
If your looking for an actual one on one fight between tanks it's hard to beat a Tiger or even Panther.
Absolutely, as dedicated one on one tank killers the German heavy tanks were wonderful, but ultimately the ability in the open field against other tanks is a fairly small part of what makes a tank an effective weapon of war.
It's quite telling that Germany's greatest victories occurred while they were using mostly Mk III and Mk IVs, and despite the ability of Tigers and Panthers in one on one combat they were rarely used in decisive operations. Slow, inefficient tanks are slow and inefficient.
That said, I too find it hard to believe that a T-34 was more expensive then a Sherman, I doubt Stalin was actually paying a lot to his workers etc.
When they were being paid at all and not forced labour.
And yeah, the Russians built a hell of a lot of tanks. The Germans built far, far fewer, despite having the production capacity of most of continential Europe behind them.
You must like being wrong, youre pretty good at it.
Wrong with what? You didn't adress my arguments in any way, you just said they weren't important because you're daddies little pistol shooter.
Guess your ego is blocking out the 3 gun matches part I mentioned(3 gun matches- being pistol, shotgun and rifle). And I did address your arguments- I just didnt say what you wanted to hear, so you keep trying.
So, rather than adhering to your previous statements of 'logic', you switch gears to questioning my credibility. That seems a bit desperate really. Sometimes I wonder if you live in a reality slightly out of phase with our own- where talking out of your butt louder and longer makes you right.
If you need to feel like you have won that badly, here a Gold Star for you, a blue ribbon, a +1 sticker, and a lifetime pass for your short bus 'logic'.
Ive stopped replying to you in other threads, and it looks like I'm going to just carry that over to all threads- since you're very consistent in terms of conflict while providing no substance of any real value.
As for the T34 issue, the only reason I can see them costing more comparatively, is that Russia wasnt as industrially developed as the US- the rarity of industrial goods generally makes them worth/cost more. They may also be factoring in the costs of losing factories as the tanks cost. Just a few guesses though, my Russian history is pretty basic.
Mistress of minis wrote:Guess that means you dont have an M4 or the skills/experience to back up your 'logic'.
Wait, were you seriously expecting that I would say something along the lines of "Any time, anywhere."?
Sorry, but I don't indulge attempts at the instigation of pissing contests on the internet.
More to the point, you have consistently distorted my argument. I have never said that the AK-47 is inferior to the M4. Nor have I said that I think the M4 is an ideal weapon. I've only said that the AK-47 is noticeably heavier than the M4. I'm not sure if this distortion is intentional, or if you simply cannot be relied upon to carry a reasonable conversation. In either case, you have proven to me that you are incompetent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mistress of minis wrote:
So, rather than adhering to your previous statements of 'logic', you switch gears to questioning my credibility. That seems a bit desperate really.
I'm sorry, but do you not recall your reply to me, in which you made a direct attempt at questioning my credibility?
Mistress of minis wrote:Guess that means you dont have an M4 or the skills/experience to back up your 'logic'.
Wait, were you seriously expecting that I would say something along the lines of "Any time, anywhere."?
Sorry, but I don't indulge attempts at the instigation of pissing contests on the internet.
More to the point, you have consistently distorted my argument. I have never said that the AK-47 is inferior to the M4. Nor have I said that I think the M4 is an ideal weapon. I've only said that the AK-47 is noticeably heavier than the M4. I'm not sure if this distortion is intentional, or if you simply cannot be relied upon to carry a reasonable conversation. In either case, you have proven to me that you are incompetent.
You dont indulge in pissing contests on the internet? Really?
Youre making assumptions, both on my intent and competence. I havent distorted your argument at all, you have made statements that the additional weight of the ak47 is a drawback and hindrance. I disagree, and you dont seem to like that because you can't seem to really counter it with anything besides 'its heavy'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Mistress of minis wrote:
So, rather than adhering to your previous statements of 'logic', you switch gears to questioning my credibility. That seems a bit desperate really.
I'm sorry, but do you not recall your reply to me, in which you made a direct attempt at questioning my credibility?
That reply was directed towards Shuma, if you wish to seek insult where its not intended, thats your issue. Questioning credibility is one thing- but belittling and going out of you ones way to discredit someone is different. He made statements- I countered, then he felt the need to mock every reply line by line to 'prove' he wasnt wrong.
I didnt mock or belittle your experience as a personal trainer, but I did point out that the proper stance for holding a rifle is not at all like holding a dead weight directly away from your body. Ergo- I was questioning your knowledge- not your credibility. If anything that statement validated your experience, but provided some differing perspective based on my own. If you're referring to something else, feel free to let me know.
And, this leads me to ask- if you dont think the AK is inferior to the M4- what point were you trying to make?
Mistress of minis wrote:
You dont indulge in pissing contests on the internet? Really?
No, I don't. Maybe you consider the category of pissing contests to be inclusive of things which I would exclude. In general, I only consider pissing contests to be the sort of thing that is fundamentally untestable due to the format in question. The classic example being a physical challenge; such as your invocation of the assault course.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Youre making assumptions, both on my intent and competence.
Actually I asked a question about your intent, and followed that up with a statement regarding what I felt to be your likely answer. Given the format of this debate, it seemed like a reasonable leap of induction; also meaning that it wasn't an assumption.
My statement about your competence was, likewise, not an assumption but an inductive leap. Though, in hindsight, the word 'prove' was poorly chosen.
Mistress of minis wrote:
I havent distorted your argument at all, you have made statements that the additional weight of the ak47 is a drawback and hindrance.
That is indeed what I am arguing, however you have not addressed that point until now. You misrepresented my argument by continually indicating that I was somehow calling the AK-47 an inferior weapon, when I said no such thing.
Mistress of minis wrote:
I disagree, and you dont seem to like that because you can't seem to really counter it with anything besides 'its heavy'.
Actually, you'll note that I gave a fairly detailed explanation of exactly how the weight, and weight distribution, of the AK-47 negatively impacts its performance. If you want, I can also provide you with the relevant calculations for recoil energy and vector in comparison with other assault rifles. And, before you attempt to object, recoil energy is a function of, among other things, the mass of the weapon.
Additionally, I have not seen an argument from you which deals directly with the weight of the AK-47. You have argued that the total weight of anticipated kit makes the weight of the weapon irrelevant, which is not true for a number of reasons. You have argued that the likely sort of operator is relevant to the quality of the weapon, which it isn't. And you have argued that your appreciation of the weapon somehow nullifies the weight difference between the AK-47 and a number of other rifles, which, again, is not true.
Mistress of minis wrote:
That reply was directed towards Shuma, if you wish to seek insult where its not intended, thats your issue.
I was merely pointing out that you are more than willing to use the same tactics which you criticized Shuma for employing.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Questioning credibility is one thing- but belittling and going out of you ones way to discredit someone is different. He made statements- I countered, then he felt the need to mock every reply line by line to 'prove' he wasnt wrong.
Would you like me to quote the posts in which you belittled his strength by stating that he had never lifted anything other than an Xbox controller?
Mistress of minis wrote:
I didnt mock or belittle your experience as a personal trainer, but I did point out that the proper stance for holding a rifle is not at all like holding a dead weight directly away from your body.
Actually, you didn't do that until now. More importantly, my use of the dead weight example was merely to illustrate the significance that 2-3 pounds of extra weight can have.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Ergo- I was questioning your knowledge- not your credibility. If anything that statement validated your experience, but provided some differing perspective based on my own. If you're referring to something else, feel free to let me know.
Mistress of minis wrote:
Guess that means you dont have an M4 or the skills/experience to back up your 'logic'.
Credibility is equal parts trustworthiness and expertise. You directly attacked my credibility.
Mistress of minis wrote:
And, this leads me to ask- if you dont think the AK is inferior to the M4- what point were you trying to make?
That 2-3 pounds of extra weight is a significant difference that can impact operator fatigue. The very first point I made in the course of this dispute, which I have since spent 2 pages attempting to return to as you continually distorted my position by making unjustified inferences.
mattyrm wrote:
We have a wise woman here! Well... regards guns anyway.
When your doing your commando tests to win your green beret, you literally do everything with your 22-24lbs of webbing (two full water bottles and 6 full magazines) and your rifle. No sense doing exercise in the military with running shoes on is there? We used to laugh at the "camp commandos" in the regular army who pride themselves on running laps with their nice running shoes on, or bench pressing 300lbs. What use is that type of exercise in a combat situation?..
Sorry.. rambling again...
Anyway, we used the L85A2, and i always liked it slung across my back when i doing the "tarzan" assault courses, but the Science guys would always say "oh its extremely accurate and nice and short for OBUA, the only downside is its pretty heavy" but once i used it for a while, i got used to it.
I remember after patrolling almost daily in Iraq my arms were nice an strong to the point i hardly noticed i was carrying it, and when i switched rifles with one of the USMC guys who was attached to my unit, i felt like... the gun just seemed a bit light and wussy feeling! I think that you are entirely correct, and even disregarding proper form and stance, 2lbs makes little difference to a soldier actually using it. You really dont feel two pounds when your hauling ass across open ground and your carrying 300 rounds, two greenies, wearing your combat body armour and helmet and gaking your pants cos the AK rounds are zinging over your bonce!
Intenet intellectualls will of course look at cold hard statistics via google and make their decisions on cold logic, but i agree entirely with your statement above.
Actually, the whole debate seems subjective, so it seems odd to get worked up about it doesnt it? We all have our favourites and what we are used to using and such like.. i dont really think that anyone can deem with certainty what makes a rifle "the best" cos were all built differently.. I picked the AK cos its rugged and it gets the job done. But i dont think this topic is about saying for certain why one pwns another, and it seems odd to me that so many threads seem to turn into a "win" the argument type of thing.
Anyway, each to their own. I fired a FAMAS a few times and i didnt like that either, but im sure it gets the job done. It seems an odd thing to argue about so vehemently.
You obviously have a lot more experience than I do with the practical application of rifles. I know quite a bit about the "academic" aspects of firearms and I've fired a lot of civilian arms but I've never been a soldier. I empathize with you about someone quoting design data and test performance to you when you're the one having to use it in the field. I would imagine that there are all sorts of factors that are very difficult to measure or replicate on a firing range.
My question is would a small weight difference over time make a difference in the performance of the soldiers using it, even if it isn't noticed by individuals? It seems to me that weight reduction would always be a goal, because a soldier carries so much equipment anyhow. Also, it never ceases to amaze me how heavy ammunition is. Would a lighter cartridge like the .223 make a big difference when you're carrying hundreds of rounds?
With all due respect to "Mistress of minis". Range shooting can't compare to field usage.
Ive been in the field for weeks, military exercices around the clock. Low sleep, low food conditions.
And i'll promise you weight matters. Doesn't matter how much, or where. Whatever you can get rid of, its gonna help.
And expecially weapon weight, since sometimes you have to move with weapons ready for LONG periods, its gonna add up, and eventually your arms are gonna hurt like hell (Been there)
Grignard: While there are some differances, they aren't that big.
5.56 AP round 12.5g
7.62 AP round 18g
(manufacter specs)
So 9 magazines worth (270 rounds) is 3,3kg vs 4,8kgs.
Rigg/vest weights are although less noticable.
Bla_Ze wrote:With all due respect to "Mistress of minis". Range shooting can't compare to field usage.
So then tell me where the ak47 has ever failed in field usage? Thats where it excels- and the range is where it generally fails compared to other rifles. Again, if a 10 year old malnourished African kid can carry one around, I fail to see where grown men would quibble so much over a couple of pounds.
Bla_Ze wrote:With all due respect to "Mistress of minis". Range shooting can't compare to field usage.
So then tell me where the ak47 has ever failed in field usage? Thats where it excels- and the range is where it generally fails compared to other rifles. Again, if a 10 year old malnourished African kid can carry one around, I fail to see where grown men would quibble so much over a couple of pounds.
10 year old malnourished kids shoot themselves or get shot when they're running around with the AKs, they are miserable soldiers with an almost absolute failure rate against anything but unarmed civilians. Are you really so daft as to be using child soldiers as a success case for this weapon? Are you seriously doing that?
Mistress of minis wrote:
So then tell me where the ak47 has ever failed in field usage?
The point isn't that it has failed in field usage. The point is that, over extended period of time, the operator fatigue caused by the AK-47's weight produces proportionally larger groups than lighter weapons.
Going with the AK-47. I was unsure what we were taking as our criteria for 'best.' So...I am going to go with the AK for name recognition. And for being recommended by name from Mr. Nicholas Cage himself.
Grignard wrote:
My question is would a small weight difference over time make a difference in the performance of the soldiers using it, even if it isn't noticed by individuals? It seems to me that weight reduction would always be a goal, because a soldier carries so much equipment anyhow. Also, it never ceases to amaze me how heavy ammunition is. Would a lighter cartridge like the .223 make a big difference when you're carrying hundreds of rounds?
Yeah ammo is heavy, as i said, i think the difference between a British rifle with a full mag on and an M4 with a full mag on is about 3 lbs? Im sure you can google it and find out in a second or two.. but in modern theatres such as Afghanistan and Iraq you are pretty much ALWAYS carrying at the absolute minimum, 9 full magazines, several full water bottles or a camelbak, grenades, link ammo for the heavy weapons, extra mortars, radios, radio batterys, a small amount of scran, assault gear like small aluminium ladders and gak like that (its actually pretty ridiculous the amount of stuff you take out on an advance to contact patrol in Helmand province now im sat listing it!)
And body armour and helmet to boot!
Its so extensive i really dont think 5 or 6lbs in rifle and small arms are going to make a difference.
Now, maybe that few lbs will be of use in a commando assault or some type of SWAT thing or you know.. rapid response raid or something, but alls im saying is, there are many many many things that you want in a rifle, and i feel that a few extra pounds of weight aint that big a deal when your factoring it all in. Go for reliability, stopping power and accuracy over weight!
In fact.. having once experienced a "dead mans click" in training, i would say that if the rifle is 99% less likely not to jam, i wouldnt care if it weighed as much as an anvil.
And no true Royal Marine doesnt LOVE carrying the GPMG!
The issue with weapon weight is entirely the weight presented when in a ready or firing position, not the general load weight of the soldier. Fatigue in the forearms develops quickly from static weight held over a foot away from the body and the constant reflexive stabilization of that weight effects the performance of a shooter. The problem gets worse over time and accuracy and capability are demonstrably reduced with the addition of only a few pounds of weapon weight.
There are better ways to reduce a soldiers loadweight then by using lighter parts and smaller forms of ammunition, but weapon weight is problematic beyond loadweight and a few extra pounds 18 inches from the body is vastly more noticeable and important in a combat situation than few more on the vest or in the pack. The goal of reducing weapon weight is to improve performance over extended arms ready situations, not to improve travel times or reduce overall fatigue. You shave pounds where the bodies musculature can't handle them well and you place them where it can.
Does anyone know what the heaviest part of an AK is? Is the barrel heavier than most or something? I don't have experience with guns, but with any other tool that I will be holding in front of me when I use it, gets to be tiring when all the weight is at the end farthest from me; such is the case with a mattock. I doubt the barrel is the heaviest part, but with extra weight in the clip, it could become an issue of dexterity over the course of a long battle.
I know there is a massive difference in the ways the tools are used, but the main point is where you are lifting the tool, and repeating that action many times. If the weight is mainly at the back of the AK, it wouldn't seem to be as much of an issue either way.
I also wonder what assault rifle just makes the best club, even if it doesn't effect the overall usefulness of the weapon.
Does anyone know what the heaviest part of an AK is? Is the barrel heavier than most or something?
Sorta depends on what "part" means to you, but the AK is a fairly front-heavy weapon. The receiver is made from relatively thin metal stampings (older models excepted), and it's the rearmost component of the gun, besides the stock which is basically optional, and usually made to be light. The barrel and gas system, particularly the piston, are all solid, heavy metal, and all fairly far forward.
That said, my main complaint with the AK is that the forearm is pretty small, and the gun gets very hot, very fast. It's a bit of a pain to shoot one without gloves. By comparison, ARs tend to have a lot more forearm, often with a free floated barrel, which makes for less burning of hand.
What I like about the AK is the cocking handle being fixed to the bolt and on the right side. To me that's the right place for the handle, and being fixed is more rugged. The stupid two finger, handle on the AR is awful. Not only can you not exert any useful strength on it when the gun jams, but you have to disturb your sight picture to operate it, and many optics interfere with reaching it as well. By far the worst thing about the AR.
dogma wrote:Gun I would least like to be clubbed with: Mauser T-gewehr.
17.7 kilos unloaded.
Broken link, awesome gun.
Now THAT is what I call a club.
Phryxis wrote:Sorta depends on what "part" means to you, but the AK is a fairly front-heavy weapon.
"Section" would have been a better term. I automatically think three parts when it comes to rifles and such; front, middle, and back.
Answered my question either way.
Those things were a .525 caliber (15mm I think) and no muzzle brake...I can imagine shooting one WAS getting clubbed.
And can we please switch 'front, middle and back' to 'barrel, receiver, stock/butt'. I can hear my former DI turned gunsmithing instructor getting all hostile sounding in the back of my mind "Front? Middle? Are you talking about firearms or your granmas garden!? If you wanna go plat tomatoes in the front of the garden...." (I actually miss that cranky old fart- he was amusing in his rants)
Here is the reason why (imo) the Sturmgewehr is the best. 1. It is a little bit more expensive than the AK to manufacture (mostly stamped parts).
2. Very Simple to clean and maintain.
3. ZERO muzzle climb on full auto fire. At 50 meters I 15 rounds with a 5 inch spread the AK would be all over the place and the m16 wouldn't be much better.
3. 7.92 x33 mm round 130 grains at 2350 feet per second. Aks muzzle velocity is about 2100 fps.
4. It is just accurute out to 400 meters as the Kar 98. (I have done the tests myself with iron sights only).
5. Fires at 600 rounds per minute.
Deff Jaw wrote:Here is the reason why (imo) the Sturmgewehr is the best. 1. It is a little bit more expensive than the AK to manufacture (mostly stamped parts).
2. Very Simple to clean and maintain.
3. ZERO muzzle climb on full auto fire. At 50 meters I 15 rounds with a 5 inch spread the AK would be all over the place and the m16 wouldn't be much better.
3. 7.92 x33 mm round 130 grains at 2350 feet per second. Aks muzzle velocity is about 2100 fps.
4. It is just accurute out to 400 meters as the Kar 98. (I have done the tests myself with iron sights only).
5. Fires at 600 rounds per minute.
1- its alot more expensive since theyre collectors items and so few were made. Im curious whos you got to fire though, there arent very many in the US. I've only gotten to see Larry Vickers in person, but havent got to shoot one yet. There arent many people that share thier 15,000$ collector pieces 2- so is the AK- moreso as its 60+ year track record has shown. It also hasnt been tested in every environment like the AK has been.
3-lack of muzzle climb doesnt automatically equal more accuracy in full auto- it means the recoil is pushing the shooter back more which usually has a similar effect to muzzle climb.
3 Actually- your numbers are off, 7.92x33 runs 2250 with a 125gr(a 130gr will be slower), And the 7.62x 39 runs 2325 with a 123gr round. (2100 fps is with commercial 150gr sp hunting ammo)- theyre essentially identical for ballistic comparisons.
4- Theres no way on earth its as accurate at 400m as k-98, the difference in ballistics alone can guarantee that, factored in with barrel length and the attributes of the bolt vs semi auto action. Its ability to put more rounds downrange might get it more hits- but thats not accuracy, thats rate of fire and target saturation.
5- everything Ive ever read on it- put it between 500-600. And thats a big part of why the muzzle climb is minimal.
Im not denying it was a good/groundbreaking gun, but its virtual lack of combat service history doesnt tell us much. It mighta been great, but history is full of what-ifs like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for the guys that think AKs fly up and away during auto-fire- here are some examples of that being nonsensical misconception:
And this is how nature tells you 'The gun is smarter than the operator'
Kel-TEC RFB assault rifle
Kel-Tec has introduced an assault rifle in a Bullpup format. Called the RFB for Rifle Forward ejection Bullpup. From the buzz on the boards, this might be the second hottest introduction at the 2007 Shot Show.
It is chambered in 7.62mm, utilizes FN FAL magazines and comes with barrel lengths of 18", 24", and 32"
It is one of those clever ideas which wasn't quite as revolutionary as they thought.
The FN F2000 ejects the case forwards and their mechanism was patented in 1997.
Kel Tec is now out with a check piston driven .223 with a cool foregrip that folds out into its own bipod. Lovely and cheap. thought about getting it for the wifey for you know....squirrels..yea...squirrels...
The AUG has all those parts It just has alot less stock to its butt
Which, as we all know, is what kept Sir Mixalot out of the Australian Army.
ZERO muzzle climb on full auto fire
This isn't really how firearms work.
First off, with a few (very rare) exceptions recoil basically comes down to catrtidge. It's not like a "good" .308 has no recoil, and a "bad" one has lots. They all have very similar recoil impulses, with minor variation created by the type of action. There's a cost to power and it's recoil. You can't engineer it out without major tricks like counter-reciprocating masses, none of with the Stg44 has.
So all guns have a firing impulse, and that firing impulse always results in some loss of point of aim. The shooter then has to compensate for that, and given the rate at which guns shoot, this isn't re-aiming, so much as applying a constant pressure.
You can see that in MoM's first video. The shooter has the gun nicely under control, but then when the mag clears, he takes a small step forward. He was leaning on the gun to keep it on point of aim.
So... You can say there's "zero climb" but that has more to do with the shooter than the gun, and the choices the shooter makes as far as correction. I could shoot an M14 with "no climb" by leaning on it the right amount, but it'd be all over the place, because it's still shooting a .308 round.
The energies of the 7.62 kurz are not all that high, but they're non-trivial, certainly far in excess of a .223, for example. The layout of the gun can help with recoil, but it doesn't make it go away. You still have to know how to run the gun, and even if you do know how, it's not "zero climb" it's just "manageable" or not.
It's not a 9mm. It's also not a .308.
It mighta been great, but history is full of what-ifs like that.
Honestly, though, what's the odds of knocking it out of the park with the first swing? The Stg44 was revolutionary, but once the revolution happens, things still tend to evolve.
Kel Tec is now out with a check piston driven .223
Kel-Tec is an odd company. I've heard some good things, but somehow I end up thinking all their stuff is budget bin crap.
The reason why I don't like the AK as much as the mp 44 is that its is about as accurate as some orks. IT can't anything over 100 meters.if you don't believe me that the mp 44 is as accurate as the kar 98 over 400 meters you have a problem. 1. I USED IRON SIGHTS, do you understand that and I used original russian ammo for my ak test and original german ammo for the kar 98 and mp 44.
The AK seemed fairly accurate when I was using it, and I was firing over a sandpit well in excess of 100 meters. If the weapon is machined well the round will travel in a pretty straight trajectory, the 7.62 round isn't inherently inaccurate. Most of it's accuracy issues come with the second and third bullet being fired due to it's high recoil mixed with the arm fatigue caused by having to constantly recenter a front heavy weapon after near every bullet. A good marksman with a good weapon from the ak series should be able to hit targets with reliability.
Also, youtubes don't prove anything. No matter the side of the argument you're on.
I saw some pretty amazing shooting in an episode of 'deadliest warrior'. It was a terribly stupid episode, but there was a guy firing on dummies, from a moving boat, at about 75-150 yards. So, from inside a moving boat, the guy could hit every single target without losing much accuracy, aside the farthest targets; he hit every single target nonetheless.
It was actually quite impressive, seeing as the AK is more machine gun, and less rifle.
Deff Jaw wrote:The reason why I don't like the AK as much as the mp 44 is that its is about as accurate as some orks. IT can't anything over 100 meters.if you don't believe me that the mp 44 is as accurate as the kar 98 over 400 meters you have a problem. 1. I USED IRON SIGHTS, do you understand that and I used original russian ammo for my ak test and original german ammo for the kar 98 and mp 44.
If you can't hit a target at 100 meters with an AK-47 , then you need to go back to the range and practice some more. The problem ain't with the rifle, it's the operator.
No I put the sights on the target correctly, but it still was inaccurate. I was just saying that it can't hit anything because it didn't have a great spread (7"). I fired 30 rounds with all 3. Kar 98 3" and MP44 3.5". Now who is going to argue back that the ak is still better? BECAUSE it is not, it is a russian piece of junk that has a chance of hit something at 100 meters. Also every time you fire the AK the barrel jiggles around. Also the barrel and bolt are off center to it tends to pull to the right. The stock is 1" below what it should be (not an inline stock). The MP44 has an inline stock and the barrel barely moves.
Deff Jaw wrote:No I put the sights on the target correctly, but it still was inaccurate. I was just saying that it can't hit anything because it didn't have a great spread (7"). I fired 30 rounds with all 3. Kar 98 3" and MP44 3.5". Now who is going to argue back that the ak is still better? BECAUSE it is not, it is a russian piece of junk that has a chance of hit something at 100 meters. Also every time you fire the AK the barrel jiggles around. Also the barrel and bolt are off center to it tends to pull to the right. The stock is 1" below what it should be (not an inline stock). The MP44 has an inline stock and the barrel barely moves.
30 whole rounds? wow. Empirical evidence there. Im still curious whose 12,000$ STG44 you got to play with.
If your AK had a barrel that jiggled- you were pretty silly to shoot it- the barrel is supposed to be fixed. If it was moving there was something wrong with it. And its been well proven, via numerous ordinance departments the world over that am AK is mechanically capable of 3-4" groups at 100 meters- pretty much the same as the stg44 , but still elss accurate than other modern rifles.
You also stated the 44 could outshoot the 98k at 400m, but dont give any group sizes you shot at those ranges. I imagine those would be some amusing numbers.
Anytime you want to meet halfway, I'll put my AK up against your stg44. If you actually own one. And we can run a few thousand rounds. And maybe that will give you some real experience that exceeds your 30 round examples above.
The stg44 was a good gun for its time, revolutionary even, but held back too long by Hitlers genius. But if it was as awesome as you seem to believe it is- they would have kept making it, the occupation forces would have absorbed the tech instead they evolved it and made thier own design. AK's are still made today, STG's are not. AK design features are seen in numerous modern designs of service rifles in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. The STG44- other than the principle- none of its unique mechanical features were that amazing or robust that they have continued to be used in weapons designs.
Your thread is titled "Best Assault Rifle of ALL time" not 'Best assault rifle of 1943-1945', the AK has been a factor in almost every ground engagement of the last 60 years, not just a small region of Europe for a few years. People far better qualified than you or I have figured this out time and again and argued it more eloquently than happens here.
Mistress you used a few youtube videos to "Prove" that the AK wasn't heavy. You are a wizard of Irony.
Your thread is titled "Best Assault Rifle of ALL time" not 'Best assault rifle of 1943-1945', the AK has been a factor in almost every ground engagement of the last 60 years, not just a small region of Europe for a few years. People far better qualified than you or I have figured this out time and again and argued it more eloquently than happens here.
The thread it titled "best assault rifle of all time" not "Best assault rifle between 1946 and 1959 (when the AKM was put into service)". The length of use and ubiquity of a thing is not relevant to it's quality or capability, only it's adoption and manufacture.
Your thread is titled "Best Assault Rifle of ALL time" not 'Best assault rifle of 1943-1945', the AK has been a factor in almost every ground engagement of the last 60 years, not just a small region of Europe for a few years. People far better qualified than you or I have figured this out time and again and argued it more eloquently than happens here.
You should probably copy paste those posts then, you're not doing much better than Deff Jaw.
Mistress you used a few youtube videos to "Prove" that the AK wasn't heavy. You are a wizard of Irony.
You must be functionally slowed- the text that went with the videos was clearly about the recoil argument. You seem to be the only one that thinks theyre about weight. Numerous claims were made the AK isnt as controllable during autofire- those videos provide a counterpoint to that misconception( a misconception your statements support). So, scroll back and read them lil letters & words over the top of the vids, and maybe you can sound a tad less ignorant.
But, this poll, and pretty much everyother poll ever done on the topic, puts the AK on top. The reasons are clear, and you can deny them if you like, but that doesnt change history.
Now who is going to argue back that the ak is still better?
Uhh, I dunno, the vast majority of firearms experts?
Look, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, not trying to be a dick, that's just the facts.
Case in point: "I was just saying that it can't hit anything because it didn't have a great spread (7")."
At 100 yards, that means the gun is shooting 7 MOA. Seriously? You think even the crappiest AK is a 7 MOA gun? No. A good AK will go around 3 MOA, and the worst are no worse than 6.
Similarly a good quality Kar98 might even go sub-MOA, certainly under 2.
So these groups you're recording are more a commentary on your shooting than anything else.
There's a lot more to evaluating firearms than giong out to the range and banging off a magazine.
Also the barrel and bolt are off center to it tends to pull to the right.
No? They're not... What sort of AK were you shooting? Did it explode at any point during your "testing" and shower the area with shrapnel?
Everyone... let me introduce you to an old friend of mine..... Meet Ivan:
Ivan is my Romanian Ak47 with a Tapco folding stock.
Ivan can shoot Wolf/BrownBear junk ammo at at 100y targets all day long from the ready position and get under/around 2-3moa. With Quality ammo on a benchrest I have shot MOA with it before at that range.
Ivan has had thousands of rounds put through him, and very rarely jams. When he does jam, 9/10 times its because of something I did or forgot to do. Mainly thanks to my military background im used to holding onto the magwell of an M4 instead of useing the forward grip. On an Ak47, this tends to me pulling on the mag offsetting it and it fails to feed properly.
@ phryxis & jp400- you guys realize google is gonna start getting a buncha hits on 'MOA' ?
It may as well mean 'Moon orbital aperature' , as moa is difficult to explain to actual shooters.
Buy hey, the sectional density of some of the posts here are pretty close to the ballistic coefficient of a cow pie(shovel launched not hand propelled).
ou must be functionally slowed- the text that went with the videos was clearly about the recoil argument. You seem to be the only one that thinks theyre about weight. Numerous claims were made the AK isnt as controllable during autofire- those videos provide a counterpoint to that misconception( a misconception your statements support).
Ahh, yes, forgive me. I hadn't read your post since you initially posted it and I didn't go back and reread it in making my own post. That said, swap out weight for kick and my statement remains the same. You're so functionally incapable of making a sensical point that you've fallen back to youtube videos to prove something. Guess what. Watch this. This is gonna be cool.
OH MAN DIVING IS SO EASY! AS LONG AS I CAN FIND A YOUTUBE VIDEO OF SOMETHING HAPPENING IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT EVERY SINGLE MILITARY WITH A BUDGET LARGER THAN WALMARTS THINKS!
So, scroll back and read them lil letters & words over the top of the vids, and maybe you can sound a tad less ignorant.
Done and done!
But, this poll, and pretty much everyother poll ever done on the topic, puts the AK on top. The reasons are clear, and you can deny them if you like, but that doesnt change history.
What reasons? The only reasons you've stated was reliability and that it was prevalent through to the 70s while still having good uptake within civilian militias and impoverished nations. The AK was the best assault rifle in the world once. It's not now. This thread isn't about what was the best was thirty years ago and it certainly isn't about what congolese child militias are running around with. I never once said the kick made the gun unhandleable. I never said that the weight made the gun some sort of thors hammer that can only be wielded by giant nordic men with pure hearts. I said in modern times the weapon needlessly fatigues the user which results in sub par accuracy accuracy over time and I stated that the angle of recoil is above the stock which in combination with the round it fires causes a needless amount of muzzle climb. None of these things are insurmountable. The gun is still around, thats a testament to it's quality. That doesn't make it the best and it certainly doesn't make you right.
That said, you have the reading comprehension of a sizable planet and you're going to respond to my point again the way you have been the entire time. By stating that you, youtube, and children handle the gun great, so it's obviously the best assault rifle in history. You will gloss over points that I make, or you will gloss over most of my post entirely and just focus on the youtube diving thing. You argue from a consistently shifting position and you argue via authority, you've done it here, you've done it in that goofy thread about 40s german registration numbers, and you've done it in pretty much every other thread you've taken to disagreeing with someone in. So please. Go on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:Anti-gun retards don't even do that. They just call anything that isn't a revolver an "assault rifle", even bolt actions.
I'm surprised some aren't googling
"which end of the gun do I point away from myself" OR
"what gun is bestest gun based on MW2".
I'm amazed it took you so long to come in here, not read anything, then post something mind numbingly stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jp400 wrote:Everyone... let me introduce you to an old friend of mine..... Meet Ivan:
Ivan is my Romanian Ak47 with a Tapco folding stock.
Ivan can shoot Wolf/BrownBear junk ammo at at 100y targets all day long from the ready position and get under/around 2-3moa. With Quality ammo on a benchrest I have shot MOA with it before at that range.
Ivan has had thousands of rounds put through him, and very rarely jams. When he does jam, 9/10 times its because of something I did or forgot to do. Mainly thanks to my military background im used to holding onto the magwell of an M4 instead of useing the forward grip. On an Ak47, this tends to me pulling on the mag offsetting it and it fails to feed properly.
Fateweaver wrote:Anti-gun retards don't even do that. They just call anything that isn't a revolver an "assault rifle", even bolt actions.
I'm surprised some aren't googling
"which end of the gun do I point away from myself" OR
"what gun is bestest gun based on MW2".
WIN!
Automatically Appended Next Post: A WASR-10? Really? Wow, and here I thought a WASR-10 was an AK-47. Man, I guess all those military equipment identification guides I read in the military lied to me.
I already said the FAMAS was the best assault rifle in MW2. Dude doesn't read threads, he had a perfect chance to take a shot at me there.
A WASR-10? Really? Wow, and here I thought a WASR-10 was an AK-47. Man, I guess all those military equipment identification guides I read in the military lied to me.
Why are you handling civilian mods for AKMs in the military? You sure that happened? You sure it's not that that didn't happen and you're just using the anonymity of the internet to make it seem like you have firsthand experience with something? Meh, you probably did see it in a manual somewhere, the visual differences between the ak-47 and the AKM are sleight and entirely dependent on where they were manufactured. You have to really dig into the specifics of the weapon and it's functionality to know or care about the difference. The AKM is the most widespread of all AK varient weapons and most AK-47s you see in the hands of militaries or on markets are actually AKMs. The AK-47 as a catchall name is pretty pervasive in the AK series and even the AK-74 is often misidentified as such. The AKM is slightly more reliable than the AK-47 and just over a pound lighter. It was also easier to fit with accessories when it was first developed, but neither gun has a true stock pattern any more so thats not really relevant fifty years after the AKM was put into service.
Because terrorist use whatever types of weapons they can get their hands on?
A WASR-10 is an AK-47. In fact, an AKM is an AK-47. Both are just different types manufactured to fulfill different roles. Just like an M4 is an M16. They all got the same design characteristics, but were modified to fulfill a specific role.
The AK-47 is the best assault rifle because of it's longevity, ease of manufacture, ease of maintenance, and the ease at which it takes to learn how to fire the weapon accurately.
Because terrorist use whatever types of weapons they can get their hands on?
I don't think they're fishing around ebay for the guns though.
A WASR-10 is an AK-47. In fact, an AKM is an AK-47. Both are just different types manufactured to fulfill different roles. Just like an M4 is an M16. They all got the same design characteristics, but were modified to fulfill a specific role.
In my opinion as well as the opinions of the manufacturers and designers those things do make them different guns. Regardless the AKM is part of the AK series but it not an AK47 just as the M4 is part of the AR-15 based weapons but is not an AR-15. The parts on the AKM and the AK47 are entirely dissimilar, unlike the m16a2 and the M4 and they can not be switched out with ease.
It might be mind-numbingly stupid according to you but it's true.
Most people I know against guns (and I know a lot) don't know the first thing about guns. Guess it's easy to bitch about something being evil and bad and not knowing anything about what it is you are classifying as "evil".
If you can't take my tongue in cheek jab at anti-gun retards as just that, tongue in cheek, then you have issues my man. If my comment offended you, well, grow a pair and then come back to guns when you can play with the big dogs.
Fateweaver wrote:It might be mind-numbingly stupid according to you but it's true.
Most people I know against guns (and I know a lot) don't know the first thing about guns. Guess it's easy to bitch about something being evil and bad and not knowing anything about what it is you are classifying as "evil".
If you can't take my tongue in cheek jab at anti-gun retards as just that, tongue in cheek, then you have issues my man. If my comment offended you, well, grow a pair and then come back to guns when you can play with the big dogs.
I was more offended because you took the jab in a thread where no one had once even brought up gun control as a topic, let alone questioned the need for the weapons. It's like walking into a forest and then complaining about people that hate trees. Its pretty clear you hadn't read the thread and were just taking a shot at liberals.
Most people I know against guns (and I know a lot) don't know the first thing about guns. Guess it's easy to bitch about something being evil and bad and not knowing anything about what it is you are classifying as "evil".
Im pro gun control but I know a good bit about firearms (and have even had the chance to fire them). Guns aren't evil, they're just hunks of metal wood and plastic. Where do I sit on your scale?
If you can't take my tongue in cheek jab at anti-gun retards as just that, tongue in cheek, then you have issues my man. If my comment offended you, well, grow a pair and then come back to guns when you can play with the big dogs.
I didn't take it as tongue in cheek. That post was pretty in line with what you normally submit.
Fateweaver wrote:It might be mind-numbingly stupid according to you but it's true.
Most people I know against guns (and I know a lot) don't know the first thing about guns. Guess it's easy to bitch about something being evil and bad and not knowing anything about what it is you are classifying as "evil".
If you can't take my tongue in cheek jab at anti-gun retards as just that, tongue in cheek, then you have issues my man. If my comment offended you, well, grow a pair and then come back to guns when you can play with the big dogs.
I was more offended because you took the jab in a thread where no one had once even brought up gun control as a topic, let alone questioned the need for the weapons. It's like walking into a forest and then complaining about people that hate trees. Its pretty clear you hadn't read the thread and were just taking a shot at liberals.
Most people I know against guns (and I know a lot) don't know the first thing about guns. Guess it's easy to bitch about something being evil and bad and not knowing anything about what it is you are classifying as "evil".
Im pro gun control but I know a good bit about firearms (and have even had the chance to fire them). Guns aren't evil, they're just hunks of metal wood and plastic. Where do I sit on your scale?
If you can't take my tongue in cheek jab at anti-gun retards as just that, tongue in cheek, then you have issues my man. If my comment offended you, well, grow a pair and then come back to guns when you can play with the big dogs.
I didn't take it as tongue in cheek. That post was pretty in line with what you normally submit.
I never mentioned liberals. Not all anti-gun nuts are liberals (most are but not all) so you can't hold that one over me since I didn't mention liberals.
I was commenting on another posters comment about certain peoples knowledge of guns being wikkipedia and google.
Thank goodness I got you on iggy. I don't have to read your posts unless I want to. Life has been so much less stressful.
A WASR-10 is an AK-47. In fact, an AKM is an AK-47.
You and Shuma are both wrong.
The family of guns is "AK" just like the family of guns is "AR."
So, a WASR-10 is an "AK." It's not actually an AK-47, nor is it an AKM.
Similarly an AR-15 is an "AR." It's not an M16 nor is it an M4.
There are actually very, very few AK-47s in the world. There are many, many of its descendants, and derived weapons. I've always found the Sig rifles pretty interesting. They're like a Swiss watchmaker decided to make an AK.
Its pretty clear you hadn't read the thread and were just taking a shot at liberals.
And you have a problem with that? Why do you hate freedom?
The family of guns is "AK" just like the family of guns is "AR."
So, a WASR-10 is an "AK." It's not actually an AK-47, nor is it an AKM.
The WASR-10 is a single fire variation of the AKM using a romanian made receiver. It's an AKM with a switched out part. It's a few degrees of separation closer to kevin bacon then the AK-47 and AKM were from each other in my opinion, but indeed they are separate guns as far as function and sales are concerned.
There are actually very, very few AK-47s in the world. There are many, many of its descendants, and derived weapons. I've always found the Sig rifles pretty interesting. They're like a Swiss watchmaker decided to make an AK.
I like your style.
And you have a problem with that? Why do you hate freedom?
A WASR-10 is an AK-47. In fact, an AKM is an AK-47.
You and Shuma are both wrong.
The family of guns is "AK" just like the family of guns is "AR."
So, a WASR-10 is an "AK." It's not actually an AK-47, nor is it an AKM.
Similarly an AR-15 is an "AR." It's not an M16 nor is it an M4.
There are actually very, very few AK-47s in the world. There are many, many of its descendants, and derived weapons. I've always found the Sig rifles pretty interesting. They're like a Swiss watchmaker decided to make an AK.
Its pretty clear you hadn't read the thread and were just taking a shot at liberals.
And you have a problem with that? Why do you hate freedom?
Without the AK-47 or the AR-15, the AKM and the M4 would not exist. The AK-47 is the grandfather to the whole AK series and its derivatives, just as the M16 is the grandfather of the M16 and M4 series of rifles.
Very few AK-47s in the world? What planet are you on? ~100 million AK series have been produced, out of that 100 million the AK-47 is the one that was produced the most. They are the most widely used firearm, and are used in over 50 countries.
jp400 wrote:Everyone... let me introduce you to an old friend of mine..... Meet Ivan:
Mainly thanks to my military background im used to holding onto the magwell of an M4 instead of useing the forward grip.
Translation, JP400 likes Ivan, and has been known to grab him inappropriately...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:
A WASR-10 is an AK-47. In fact, an AKM is an AK-47.
You and Shuma are both wrong.
The family of guns is "AK" just like the family of guns is "AR."
So, a WASR-10 is an "AK." It's not actually an AK-47, nor is it an AKM.
Similarly an AR-15 is an "AR." It's not an M16 nor is it an M4.
There are actually very, very few AK-47s in the world. There are many, many of its descendants, and derived weapons. I've always found the Sig rifles pretty interesting. They're like a Swiss watchmaker decided to make an AK.
Its pretty clear you hadn't read the thread and were just taking a shot at liberals.
And you have a problem with that? Why do you hate freedom?
yes, I've heard very good things about the new Sig piston driven AR. Tests show chamber temperature really is reduced. of course it costs a mint...but then again it is a Sig.
Very few AK-47s in the world? What planet are you on?
I live on a planet where things make a lot more sense if you actually read them. Let's recap what I said:
"There are actually very, very few AK-47s in the world. There are many, many of its descendants, and derived weapons."
And that's the truth. The Russians made some AK-47s, but then the pretty quickly changed over to the AKM, then the AK-74, etc. etc. etc.
There are not very many ACTUAL AK-47s. There are millions upon millions of guns from the AK family. AKMs, Type 56s, all the ones produced by former Soviet client states, all the ones the Scandanavians made, etc. etc. etc. etc. These are all AK family guns, but they're not AK-47s.
The AK-47 has a milled receiver. Once they changed over to steel stampings, it became the AKM.
The WASR-10 is a single fire variation of the AKM using a romanian made receiver.
I know, I've got one. A lot like jp400s, but with all Tapco furniture. It actually doesn't work all that well for me. I may have gotten a bad batch of Wolf, but it couldn't go into battery. A guy at the gun store had some different ammo, and it shot that flawlessly, so the rifle is probably fine...
But still, yet another failure in an AK, while both my ARs have never had a stoppage that I can recall.
It takes STANAG magazines, which I find work well. I guess another complaint I have with the AK is the magazine system. It's a bit clumsy to operate, and for your trouble you get the sort of feed issues that jp400 described.
In general, the whole "fit a front lip in, then tilt back, then catch" approach is garbage. It's the same crap on the M14, FAL, etc. You can put the magazine in wrong and it binds up, etc. etc. With the STANAG mags, it's effortless. Even the release is a bit difficult to operate, poorly placed, stiff, etc. I've never understood why the AK/M14/FAL are so convoluted. I've always assumed it was for strength, but I don't see how it's any stronger.
Tests show chamber temperature really is reduced. of course it costs a mint...but then again it is a Sig.
That's gonna be the claim on all the piston driven ARs, and at this point, there are a LOT of them.
Fateweaver wrote:
I never mentioned liberals. Not all anti-gun nuts are liberals (most are but not all) so you can't hold that one over me since I didn't mention liberals.
I was commenting on another posters comment about certain peoples knowledge of guns being wikkipedia and google.
Thank goodness I got you on iggy. I don't have to read your posts unless I want to. Life has been so much less stressful.
I'm about as pro-gun as you can get yet I just got finished being called a liberal 10 times in 2 hours by my father in law because of my socialist leanings. True, you did qualify, *most*, but you're probably right, because the traditional left has been dead in this country for 30 years.
Ultimately that is beside the point though I think the problem that Shuma had which I'll express in a more polite manner is that I see no profit in bringing politics into this thread. This wasn't a gun politics argument until you came in with that. I'd love to see it not turn into a politics argument at all.
For an assault rifle, though, .308 is a bit impractical. It's just too much for full auto fire offhanded. It's very nice for a "battle rifle" though, something to be fired at distance and then make a transition to CQB, but it will not be at its best in close.
To be fair, though, this rifle isn't so much about giving a .308 to the common infantryman, as giving an autoloader to marksmen who are currently shooting bolt guns.
As far as the future assault rifle round, there's a bunch of options out there right now, but the 6.8 SPC seems like a typical offering and probably the leading candidate. It's odd how much of a leap was made from the 7.62x51 down to the 5.56x45. One is a bit of a bear, the other is virtually recoilless. Strange that they didn't make a more gradual move.
In that respect, I've always wondered why the constant games with cartridge. The 7.62x39 strikes me as being a very useful size. Recoil is acceptable, power is good.
In the end, this is the motivation for systems like the SCAR. If you make a gun that's modular enough, you can absorb cartridge changes without too much pain.
THAT IS NOT AN ORIGINAL AK47. I was able to get my hands on 1 (through way to many phone calls even then I hadbasicly pay to borrow it). The ORIGINAL AK can't have a good grouping at all because the 1. the bolt is off center of the rifle 2. Barrel flops around like a fish when you fire it. Also those groups that over 30 rounds. So 30 rounds with a kar 98 and 4 reloads with a 3" group is not bad at all.
Also I am thinking that the way to go is an intermediate round like the 6.8 IN the XM8 "body."
And how were you able to identify the one you got as an original?
1. the bolt is off center of the rifle
Ok, not it's not. I don't really even know what you think you're saying, but the AK's bolt is centered along its horizontal axis. It's even pretty well centered vertically, but that depends on what you count the dust cover as, etc.
Honestly though, I don't really know what you even think you're saying. You're just sorta yelling things that don't make a lot of sense.
Barrel flops around like a fish when you fire it.
No, it doesn't. It's fixed very securely to the receiver. If it wasn't the gun would explode and the shooter would die.
No the ak 47s bolt is slightly off center on the VERTICAL axis. Fire an AK on full auto and have a 1000 frames per second camera watching the barrel. IT flops around like a fish.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ALSO IF I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE POSTED THIS TOPIC!
Deff Jaw wrote:No I put the sights on the target correctly, but it still was inaccurate. I was just saying that it can't hit anything because it didn't have a great spread (7"). I fired 30 rounds with all 3. Kar 98 3" and MP44 3.5". Now who is going to argue back that the ak is still better? BECAUSE it is not, it is a russian piece of junk that has a chance of hit something at 100 meters. Also every time you fire the AK the barrel jiggles around. Also the barrel and bolt are off center to it tends to pull to the right. The stock is 1" below what it should be (not an inline stock). The MP44 has an inline stock and the barrel barely moves.
Now youre saying its off center vertically- when they way youve been talking is that it pulls right due to being off center? You also claimed the barrel wiggled around, but seem to have set that sillyness aside. I posted 3 vids(and there were several others showing the same thing) that demonstrated the slightly elevated barrel axis doesnt have the problems you have indicated- the recoil rise isnt that severe under ful auto- and with single shots its not even a factor.
You certainly seem to think you know what youre talking about. If you had a deeper knowledge of assault rifles- first things- you wouldnt have listed the G3 and FN-Fal in the poll- they are battle rifles. Also the XM-8 wouldnt be listed, while it is an assualt rifle/modular weapon, its never made it off the testing ranges and doesnt look like it ever will. Without some real world testing its just a lab toy for FPS players to drool over. And you seem to have decided the AK47- isnt an ak47- its a bunch of variant/derivitives- so why didnt you list those right off the bat instead of waffling on the point to justify the mp44 is 'better'?
I would also again ask, where and who's mp44 you got to fire? People are pretty stingy/careful with rifles valued between 10-15 thousand dollars, and only a small list of collectors actually fire thiers.
Even if you do have access to one, it doesnt seem like youve fired it enough to really have an idea of its handling characteristics compared to other rifles. Get a few thousand rounds through a couple different models and you might get a much more coherent point of view than your ' I fired 30 rounds' tests you mentioned.
Just saying the mp44 is better because you want it to be, doesnt make it true. You keep harping on the barrel/stock/off center bolt axis of the AK as an enormous design flaw of some sort- but fail to realize its a deliberate design element. The reasons for which I doubt you would really understand since you also think the AKs have barrels that wiggle around-which makes people wonder if youve even fired one hands on. Its ok to not know something- gives you a chance to learn new things- but acting like you know stuff that you dont(or cant communicate what you really mean) doesnt do much for your credibility when you tell others they are wrong but cant back your claims with anything valid.
Deff Jaw wrote:No the ak 47s bolt is slightly off center on the VERTICAL axis. Fire an AK on full auto and have a 1000 frames per second camera watching the barrel. IT flops around like a fish.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ALSO IF I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE POSTED THIS TOPIC!
No the ak 47s bolt is slightly off center on the VERTICAL axis.
Really? Then why did you say this: "Also the barrel and bolt are off center to it tends to pull to the right."
Being off center vertically causes the gun to pull right? That's interesting.
It's also extremely common for rifles to have their bolt/barrel positioned out of the vertical center for the gun. I'd speculate it's in excess of 75% of all designs that are set up that way.
Fire an AK on full auto and have a 1000 frames per second camera watching the barrel. IT flops around like a fish.
Ahh, I get it, high speed video. And when you say "flop like fish" (for the hundreth time), you really mean "flexes slightly." Gotcha.
Watch that video. It's a Barrett .50 going off, and there's obvious barrel flex, plus flex elsewhere in the gun. Barretts are very accurate guns. Guns flex when fired. Guns flex for a lot of reasons, actually. It's why they like to free float barrels.
Go ahead and google "free float barrel." I'll wait.
Now, here's a golf ball hitting a steel plate at high speed.
It jiggles and flexes like a water balloon. Does that mean that golf balls are soft like water balloons? Or, I guess in your world, like a fish?
No. It means that high speed cameras expose a world of crazy behavior that we don't notice under normal conditions. Firearms desginers understand that barrels will vibrate and flex. It's something they work around.
ALSO IF I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE POSTED THIS TOPIC!
Right, because nobody has ever been wrong on an internet forum before.
I can't tell you whose MP44 I used, because he doesn't want people knocking on his door. Actually a MP44 is worth a MINIMUM of $25,000. A REGISTERED AK47 is worth 40,000 because their are more legal MP44s than legal AKs.
Deff Jaw wrote:I can't tell you whose MP44 I used, because he doesn't want people knocking on his door. Actually a MP44 is worth a MINIMUM of $25,000. A REGISTERED AK47 is worth 40,000 because their are more legal MP44s than legal AKs.
Ok dude.... seriously... stop talking! In fact... I now going to blow your lies right out of the water with supporting facts:
Deff Jaw wrote:Actually a MP44 is worth a MINIMUM of $25,000..
It is not illegal to make a Class 3 firearm with the right permits for personal use. You just have to use current in country parts. (And if you know where to look pending the weapon there is still a MASSIVE supply to me had)
OR you could use the "Post-Dealer" method if you don't want to build your own and still want to get a Class 3 weapon for the cheap.
Step 1: Same as above
Step 2: buy a "Post-Dealer" Firearm legally and register it under your name as a small business expense
Step 3: "Demo" it with the local PD... aka let them shoot a case of ammo through it.
Step 4: It is now legally yours
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit!
How do you think all those gun shops with Class 3 weapons are legally doing it on the cheap? Granted you can't buy them and can only "Rent" them in house to shoot... but still.
No, it's not. Barrett is an American company that makes a number of .50BMG rifles (plus some other stuff). The AS50 is made by a British firm, Accuracy International, who also make the Arctic Warfare guns popularized in Counter-Strike.
Bla_Ze is correct, I mistook the AS50 for a Barrett, since they look very similar. It doesn't change the main point, though, which is that both the AS50 and the Barrett .50s are sub MOA long range guns, and they still show barrel flex while firing.
But also the barrel moves just very little while the aks moves even more like WAY more
Sure, the AS50 has less flex in the barrel... And it shoots sub MOA.
The AK has considerably more flex, and it shoots more like 3 MOA.
In case you haven't googled MOA yet, please do so now.
In any case, we all know there's more to accuracy than barrel flex, but nothing about this is novel. Barrels flex and vibrate under the extreme stresses of firing. It's understood that this happens. The fact that an AK vibrates more than an AS50 is no surprise, the AK is a much, much lighter gun, with a much thinner barrel.
To suggest the AK is flopping around like a fish is a drastic over statement.
It's also ignoring the basic realities of physics. The AK's barrel doesn't flex because it's a "crappy gun." It flexes because that's the behavior you get from a tube of steel under the levels of stress generated by a 7.62x39mm bullet firing. All rifles deal with this.
In fact, the Stg44, being much older than any of the other guns in the list, doesn't have the benefits of modern metallurgy to give it a light and rigid barrel. I think if you filmed the Stg44 with a high speed camera, you'd see a lot of the dreaded "fish" activity you're so contemptuous of.
I dunno, it's tough to know where you're coming from. Maybe the problem is that you're talking about "assualt rifles" and the rest of us are stuck on assault rifles? Is there a difference I'm not aware of?
lol Cant tell me because its likely youve never fired more than that one 30 rd mag through it- and that makes you an 'ecksphurt'.
You do realize- if the AK barrel moved like you claim it does- that gas piston tube on top- which is a fixed part- would get ripped off?
Every rifle barrel flexes when fired- sometimes its called 'barrel whip'. Nothing new there. High speed cams catch it, but to the naked eye its imperceptible-kinda like your expertise on this topic. You have an opporunity here to educate yourself and really learn what you're talking about- instead you're fabricating 'facts' and standing by your ill informed opinions.
Also- most of those 'legal' mp/stg44's you are talking about- really arent. Most were brought home as war trophies by WWII vets. The 1968 Gun Control Act gave a grae period in which those guns had to be registered, only a small percentage actually were. This means most of those that are family heirlooms arent properly registered- ergo- illegal. Which means theyre basically an illegal receiver with a selection of moderately valued parts attached. Thats assuming you actually know somebody that would let you shoot thiers
As for the price- just because one is listed at 25k$ doesnt mean it sold for that. A gentleman I still do gunsmithing for has been trying to get his hands on one for a while and a few months back one sold for 12k$- it had been listed for 20k, and kept dropping in price. This economy has hit alot of collectors hard like that.
Thats a PDW, which is fancy term for mix between and SMG and a sidearm. So, it might as well be on the poll along with the xm8, the G3 and FAL since they dont fit assualt rifles either
Frazzled wrote:Any gun with a beer bottle opener has a lot going for it.
Well i ahve a few more things to add to that (if my friend wasnt bulls ing me. They probably were but hell whatever) the Russian wire stocks could double as a bread cutter, cant remember the pistol but its slide could be used as a bottle opener, the PPSH could be used as a chair when the tripod was down. Please anyone who actualy knows if this is true or not let me know so i can get my friend back
warpcrafter wrote:You forgot the Alexander Arms .50 cal Beowulf. It's machine-gun power without the machine gun weight.
Holy crap, I agree with someone! Large Caliber bullet with AR ergonomics and customizability. And I may not be a balistic expert, but my father has done Law Enforcement and Military Training and Sales for the last 25 years (aka, my entire life) so I've picked up a few things. Also own several of the options on the list and have shot them all except an XM8 (non-production gun).
I wouldn't think anybody owns the rights to that anymore, do they?
Yeah, it was a bit strange. They changed the names of several of the weapons or just called them by generic titles "Sniper rifle" being one. I chalk it up to nintendo or the times.
Deff Jaw wrote:I can't tell you whose MP44 I used, because he doesn't want people knocking on his door. Actually a MP44 is worth a MINIMUM of $25,000. A REGISTERED AK47 is worth 40,000 because their are more legal MP44s than legal AKs.
Ok dude.... seriously... stop talking! In fact... I now going to blow your lies right out of the water with supporting facts:
Deff Jaw wrote:Actually a MP44 is worth a MINIMUM of $25,000..
It is not illegal to make a Class 3 firearm with the right permits for personal use. You just have to use current in country parts. (And if you know where to look pending the weapon there is still a MASSIVE supply to me had)
OR you could use the "Post-Dealer" method if you don't want to build your own and still want to get a Class 3 weapon for the cheap.
Step 1: Same as above
Step 2: buy a "Post-Dealer" Firearm legally and register it under your name as a small business expense
Step 3: "Demo" it with the local PD... aka let them shoot a case of ammo through it.
Step 4: It is now legally yours
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit!
How do you think all those gun shops with Class 3 weapons are legally doing it on the cheap? Granted you can't buy them and can only "Rent" them in house to shoot... but still.
You can do that IF you what to go to jail for 20 years. It is not legal to "make" a semi auto ak a full auto one. And your will also be a convict and will never be allowed to legally own a weapon.
Deff Jaw wrote:I can't tell you whose MP44 I used, because he doesn't want people knocking on his door. Actually a MP44 is worth a MINIMUM of $25,000. A REGISTERED AK47 is worth 40,000 because their are more legal MP44s than legal AKs.
Ok dude.... seriously... stop talking! In fact... I now going to blow your lies right out of the water with supporting facts:
Deff Jaw wrote:Actually a MP44 is worth a MINIMUM of $25,000..
It is not illegal to make a Class 3 firearm with the right permits for personal use. You just have to use current in country parts. (And if you know where to look pending the weapon there is still a MASSIVE supply to me had)
OR you could use the "Post-Dealer" method if you don't want to build your own and still want to get a Class 3 weapon for the cheap.
Step 1: Same as above
Step 2: buy a "Post-Dealer" Firearm legally and register it under your name as a small business expense
Step 3: "Demo" it with the local PD... aka let them shoot a case of ammo through it.
Step 4: It is now legally yours
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit!
How do you think all those gun shops with Class 3 weapons are legally doing it on the cheap? Granted you can't buy them and can only "Rent" them in house to shoot... but still.
You can do that IF you what to go to jail for 20 years. It is not legal to "make" a semi auto ak a full auto one. And your will also be a convict and will never be allowed to legally own a weapon.
Lol- Deff continues to display a lack of ability to validate his posts and just makes a one liner about legality- which is completely irrelevant to the actual debate.
JP covered the legal aspects, yet all Deff can say is its illegal....
I've been to many machinegun shoots. Lots of automatic AKs to be seen, still havent been to one were anyone was using an MP44.
But- this seems pointless at this juncture. I can hear Deffjaw quoting Adam Savage "I reject your reality and substitute my own!!" Which ofcourse make the MP44 the most uberest bullet launching machine to have ever graced the face of the planet.
I actually voted for the AK at first, but I got to shoot a SCAR 16S yesterday, and I think I'm in love. I know its technically a carbine, but it shoots 5.56x45m, so I would put it in here.
The only thing stopping me from buying one is the $3k pricetag
Seeing as there is a tax on the manufacture of NFA firearms, it does appear as though it is quite legal.
I suggest you read this in order to get some footing on the issue.
Moreover, as private citizens and corporations are nearly interchangeable under US law, one wonders how the various companies that make their living by manufacturing automatic weapons in the US do so legally if in fact it is illegal to do so.
Oooh, now we are getting into the difference between 03 Federal Firearms License and 03 SOT (Special Occupational Tax).
Neat, keep going, I lack drama in my life.
Hey, do any of you yanks own a 'bullpup' firearm? If so, is it generally more comfortable to hold and easier to reload with the difference magazine position?
Cheese Elemental wrote:Hey, do any of you yanks own a 'bullpup' firearm? If so, is it generally more comfortable to hold and easier to reload with the difference magazine position?
Dont own any, but spent some time training with the SA-80 during my service.
I liked it. Fairly comfortable, a little easier to carry than a fully loaded combat layout m4. I prefer the location of the magazine well of non-bullpup rifles, however.
Cheese Elemental wrote:Hey, do any of you yanks own a 'bullpup' firearm? If so, is it generally more comfortable to hold and easier to reload with the difference magazine position?
Don't own any, but I've shot a few.
Definitely better in terms of ergonomics. Purpose built bullpups are great.
"Custom" bodge jobs are hit or miss depending on the rifle. Used a bullpup built on a romanian AK; hard to change mags and you needed a radiator on the grip to cool it down enough to use it even for semi auto.
They ditched the XM-8 program because the gun was too expensive- not a big surprise they did the same with the SCAR when it got to be around the same price
not a big surprise they did the same with the SCAR when it got to be around the same price
The piece that stuck out to me, which does make sense, is that there's no really significant sea change from the M4 to the SCAR-L. It's basically just a minor improvement, same cartridge, same basic capability.
I think that until they do something like the 6.8SPC, there's really no reason to change off the M4.
That said, M4s wear out. I'm not sure why they wouldn't replace old guns with a new model, but I guess if it costs more, that's enough of an argument. That and the fact that you've got a familliar weapon with parts all over the place.
Mistress of minis wrote:They ditched the XM-8 program because the gun was too expensive- not a big surprise they did the same with the SCAR when it got to be around the same price
And yet every javelin missile system (Some foam, a computer weaker than an Ipod and some chemical explosive) costs more than a tesla roadster (An all electric sports car). Military appropriations are a mystical and hilariously corrupt thing.
It's special foam and maybe an ipod wouldn't be able to stand the pressure of the launch or the chemical explosive may be really expensive to make and then transport and then assemble and then transport.
If you were a truck drive wouldn't you want to be paid more if the load you were carrying was explosive and just not some lettuce?
Although the military does have issues, if they don't spend all of the money alotted they get less than what they got that time. Its actually beneficial to spend all of the money they get than to save it. This isn't a military problem though, some civilian airports also get money for having x amount of passengers even if the passengers flew for free and for just 30 minutes.
Mistress of minis wrote:They ditched the XM-8 program because the gun was too expensive- not a big surprise they did the same with the SCAR when it got to be around the same price
And yet every javelin missile system (Some foam, a computer weaker than an Ipod and some chemical explosive) costs more than a tesla roadster (An all electric sports car). Military appropriations are a mystical and hilariously corrupt thing.
**sigh**
OK Mr. Armchair general.. I didn't know that you designed and built this system. When was the last time you actually touched let alone fired one of these in person and not COD4? Never? Ok, thats what I thought.
The missile and Clu was 1st field tested back around 90 or 91 (which means design was even earlier)... the Ipod was deployed in what... 2002? Thats a big difference in available tech dontcha think?
Second... **Edit** you know what... feth it. Read it for yourself. Ain't worth my time typing it out from my TM. Wiki is close enough in this case.
Third.... the Clu is reusable.. that saves you about 100kish per shot. Now you only have to replace the missile.. which is about 40-50k. Now in the grand bigger picture...40-50k is a steal for knocking out a tank that costs your enemy millions to replace.
So.. In the words of every Jav instructor.... Get a Clu Dude!
**edited for price errors. I was actually getting my prices backwards**
Why does any of this mean that the missile needs to cost $80,000 per unit, tho?
I have to agree with Shuma here, there's simply not enough going into each missile to justify that high a price. The only way I can understand it, is if there's so few made that there's no economy of scale...
But I was at Walmart the other day, and they had 42" LCD TVs for $400.
A new Audi S4 starts at about $47k.
I mean, seriously, is there twice as much labor, material, R&D, ANYTHING going into a single Javelin as into an S4?
Phryxis wrote:Why does any of this mean that the missile needs to cost $80,000 per unit, tho?
The Javelin is a fire and forget weapon, and that's the primary reason behind its high unit cost; packing all that extra guidance equipment into each missile is what makes it so expensive.
That isn't to say there isn't a significant amount of contract glut to be accounted for, there most certainly is. And anyone making the point that the way the US deals with military procurement is highly inefficient (though Gates has started doing a better job) will be hard pressed to find himself making an incorrect statement.
The Javelin is a fire and forget weapon, and that's the primary reason behind its high unit cost; packing all that extra guidance equipment into each missile is what makes it so expensive.
I understand fully... But I am skeptical that the hardware needs to cost all that much.
As I said, an Audi S4 costs $47k... There's just a lot more engineering, materials, electronics, everything going into that car.
I'm no procurement expert, but if I know anything about how the government operates, what happened was they ordered x missiles for y dollars so it amounted to, say, $20k per missile. Then the project went so far over budget, that the contract ended up being 4y instead of y, and so they said, "we got x missiles for 4y dollars, so that's $80k per missile."
The issue isn't manufacturing cost, so much as the supplier just bills you how much it costs to run their department for how long they estimated it'd take, and then when it takes four times longer, they just bill you four times as much.
The number of missiles you produce is not many, certainly not as many as a car. Not to mention the Audi S4 shares bits and pieces with lots of other cars providing even more economy of scale. Additionally you can just keep that factory going year after year after year making small changes as the model tweaks but production continues.
In contrast they only build a few thousand missiles per year. The parts for them are almost entirely exclusive to the missile and the quantities produced are so small as to make mass production of the style that really drives costs down nearly impossible.
Finally, the missile is designed to sit on a shelf for years at a time then one fateful day be locked into a CLU and fired. After sitting dormant for years, possibly a decade or more it will have to work perfectly on the first shot. If it doesn't, the wrong people die. Its like your Audi would be put in a shipping crate and left there for a few years then one day someone fills up it's gas tank and it has to go win an auto race immediately. No breaking it in, no careful tune ups, just stuffed in a shipping crate at the factory and six years later all it gets is a tank of gas before going into a road race.
Building things to the military's standards is brutal. It's not like an Audi where if it doesn't work you call a tow truck and have a mechanic fix it. If a Javelin doesn't work lots of our people die. Building things to that kind of standard isn't cheap.
OK Mr. Armchair general.. I didn't know that you designed and built this system. When was the last time you actually touched let alone fired one of these in person and not COD4? Never? Ok, thats what I thought.
Did you ever fire one that wasn't a dummy unit? How's all that insurgent armor doing these days?
The missile and Clu was 1st field tested back around 90 or 91 (which means design was even earlier)... the Ipod was deployed in what... 2002? Thats a big difference in available tech dontcha think?
Yeah. Usually things get cheaper as they get older. New technology drives the price and cost of manufacturing down for old technology or gets replaced entirely. This doesn't happen in military procurement largely because of contractual obligations creating a lack of need.
Second... **Edit** you know what... feth it. Read it for yourself. Ain't worth my time typing it out from my TM. Wiki is close enough in this case.
I've read this. Twice before actually. I know all about it. I don't think you understand things like economics, materials cost, labor cost, engineering and development costs, or simple graft and inefficiencies though, and apparently we're arguing from two different places. I think it's needlessly expensive (It is as acknowledged by our own military) and you think it's cool. These aren't conflicting ideas, you just like to shout and hoot and hollar about whatever.
Third.... the Clu is reusable.. that saves you about 100kish per shot. Now you only have to replace the missile.. which is about 40-50k. Now in the grand bigger picture...40-50k is a steal for knocking out a tank that costs your enemy millions to replace.
The taliban tank commanders must be shaking in their boots.
So.. In the words of every Jav instructor.... Get a Clu Dude!
With current technology (14 years after introduction) you can scratch build a javelin system with the same or superior components for a fraction of the price. The only reason it is that expensive is because of no bid contracts and the corrupt economics of military procurement. The foam isn't expensive, the electronics are old, and chemicals are cheap. If you're going to try to defend the inflated costing of military items at least chose an item that doesn't cost several hundred times what it should by modern manufacturing practices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyyr wrote:The number of missiles you produce is not many, certainly not as many as a car. Not to mention the Audi S4 shares bits and pieces with lots of other cars providing even more economy of scale. Additionally you can just keep that factory going year after year after year making small changes as the model tweaks but production continues.
In contrast they only build a few thousand missiles per year. The parts for them are almost entirely exclusive to the missile and the quantities produced are so small as to make mass production of the style that really drives costs down nearly impossible.
Finally, the missile is designed to sit on a shelf for years at a time then one fateful day be locked into a CLU and fired. After sitting dormant for years, possibly a decade or more it will have to work perfectly on the first shot. If it doesn't, the wrong people die. Its like your Audi would be put in a shipping crate and left there for a few years then one day someone fills up it's gas tank and it has to go win an auto race immediately. No breaking it in, no careful tune ups, just stuffed in a shipping crate at the factory and six years later all it gets is a tank of gas before going into a road race.
Building things to the military's standards is brutal. It's not like an Audi where if it doesn't work you call a tow truck and have a mechanic fix it. If a Javelin doesn't work lots of our people die. Building things to that kind of standard isn't cheap.
Thats why I used the tesla roadster as my mark of comparison. A short run unique all electric automotive that uses the frame of a lotus but just about everything else is proprietary and unique.
ShumaGorath wrote:Did you ever fire one that wasn't a dummy unit? How's all that insurgent armor doing these days?
Fired 1 in AIT, Twice while in garrison, and assisted in the deployment of a couple in OIF 1. Yes, cause we should make everything to fight haji right? OK ACG!
ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah. Usually things get cheaper as they get older. New technology drives the price and cost of manufacturing down for old technology or gets replaced entirely. This doesn't happen in military procurement largely because of contractual obligations creating a lack of need...
Won't beat this horse to death. It's already been stated where to read.
ShumaGorath wrote:I've read this. Twice before actually. I know all about it. I don't think you understand things like economics, materials cost, labor cost, engineering and development costs, or simple graft and inefficiencies though, and apparently we're arguing from two different places. I think it's needlessly expensive (It is as acknowledged by our own military) and you think it's cool. These aren't conflicting ideas, you just like to shout and hoot and hollar about whatever.
Funny, the same thing can be said about you ACG.
ShumaGorath wrote:The taliban tank commanders must be shaking in their boots..
I know Saddam's tank crews did.
ShumaGorath wrote:With current technology (14 years after introduction) you can scratch build a javelin system with the same or superior components for a fraction of the price. !
Ok ACG, I will sit here and patiently wait for you to scratch build a working replica of the system and prove me wrong. Hop to it!
Fired 1 in AIT, Twice while in garrison, and assisted in the deployment of a couple in OIF 1. Yes, cause we should make everything to fight haji right? OK ACG!
Magic. So tell me, when did you work in the factory that produces them? I mean, you're argument seems to be that they cost a lot because they are effective, which they certainly are.
However thats the kind of argument a child would make.
As an aside Haji refers to those who have made the pilgrimage to mecca, it doesn't mean "middleastern insurgents or terrorist groups". I'll chalk that one up to your brilliant training turning you into an expert in the fields of military procurement though!
Won't beat this horse to death. It's already been stated where to read.
You said to read the wikipedia page. I suspect you did so because you don't know what you're talking about, have a poor grasp of manufacturing as an industry and engineering as a practice and don't have an entirely full grasp of the contractual procurement procedure as a government process. Theres no horse here, you're basically avoiding the crux of the argument because you have no way to actually argue against it. You just like something so you feel like waving your arms and shouting. Very much the soldier, but soldiers make terrible accountants.
Funny, the same thing can be said about you ACG.
You haven't exactly done a good job of showing that though.
I know Saddam's tank crews did.
Was that before or after the vast majority were shot by aircraft or our own tanks?
k ACG, I will sit here and patiently wait for you to scratch build a working replica of the system and prove me wrong. Hop to it!
No thanks. In the meantime though, how about you actually attempt to debate the point of running manufacturing costs? I don't think wikis alone are going to pull that one off for you.
I would assume it performs the same on both consoles. Can't speak to the pc version from firsthand experience, but if my knowledge of it is correct it's actually slightly better than console in the hands of a skilled user given that it doesn't scatter past the crosshairs and it's much easier to make snap shots with a mouse.
Nope the Famas is less powerful and less accurate (like that really matters in a game that you can jump and get a perfect headshot) than the M16A2.
Go for Bad Company 2 the G3 is the best. it doesn't miss (as long as single shot it). The best MG is the M60. And last but not least the GOL Sniper Magnum is the best sniper rifle.
Best tank is the T90R, best AFV is the Bradley, and their is no difference between the choppers.
Nope the Famas is less powerful and less accurate (like that really matters in a game that you can jump and get a perfect headshot) than the M16A2.
Actually, they have nearly identical stats. They do the same damage and have the same bullet grouping in the game. The games stat screen says otherwise, but it's incorrect (and pretty meaningless, most of it's gunstats are wrong). The famas has a marginally slower fire rate, firing about 8% slower but the bullets in the burst fire closer together, making it better for snapshots and long range firefights. It also takes up less of the screen than the m16.
ShumaGorath wrote:Magic. So tell me, when did you work in the factory that produces them? I mean, you're argument seems to be that they cost a lot because they are effective, which they certainly are.
However thats the kind of argument a child would make.
Nice strawman ACG, so tell me... what does asking me how many I fired turn into me working in the factory? Do you think that active duty while sitting stateside just sits on our duff and never EVER goes to a range? Apparently so.
ShumaGorath wrote:As an aside Haji refers to those who have made the pilgrimage to mecca, it doesn't mean "middleastern insurgents or terrorist groups". I'll chalk that one up to your brilliant training turning you into an expert in the fields of military procurement though!.
My taining has made me more of a man then you can ever hope to be ACG. How about you actually grow a pair, put your money where your mouth is hotshot, and enlist. Sadly, you never well cause you will never EVER amount to anything more then a internet tough guy.
ShumaGorath wrote:You said to read the wikipedia page. I suspect you did so because you don't know what you're talking about, have a poor grasp of manufacturing as an industry and engineering as a practice and don't have an entirely full grasp of the contractual procurement procedure as a government process. Theres no horse here, you're basically avoiding the crux of the argument because you have no way to actually argue against it. You just like something so you feel like waving your arms and shouting. Very much the soldier, but soldiers make terrible accountants.
Once again, this sounds like you. And since I have first hand experience and knowledge, that puts me a few steps above you. Who's only knowledge is based on video games and what his beloved CNN tells him so. Just because YOU say im avoiding the issue doesn't make it so ACG. Keep trying though.. if you go "Nah Nah Nah" and stick your tounge out some more... maybe someone will believe you.
ShumaGorath wrote:Was that before or after the vast majority were shot by aircraft or our own tanks?.
Once again ACG, were you there? Oh hey guess what... I was. I know what happened cause I saw it unfold with my own two eyes. CAS doesn't work very well when your in range of whats called "Danger Close" highspeed. Plus when you are operating 30-40k infront of the main body sneaking and peaking off the grid, you would be dead by the time CAS scrambled and was on station for a hotdrop. We had to be self sufficient and be able to handle anything Saddam could throw at us.
ShumaGorath wrote:No thanks. In the meantime though, how about you actually attempt to debate the point of running manufacturing costs? I don't think wikis alone are going to pull that one off for you.
How about you just plain talk from anything other then your 4th point of contact?
Nice strawman ACG, so tell me... what does asking me how many I fired turn into me working in the factory? Do you think that active duty while sitting stateside just sits on our duff and never EVER goes to a range? Apparently so.
Actually I was just wondering if you had fired one the first time I mentioned it. I'm attempting to segway it into something concerning knowledge of the weapons costs now, since thats what we're arguing.
My taining has made me more of a man then you can ever hope to be ACG.
Exchange hope for want.
How about you actually grow a pair, put your money where your mouth is hotshot, and enlist. Sadly, you never well cause you will never EVER amount to anything more then a internet tough guy.
Guess not! At least in this instance though, I'm an internet tough guy thats correct arguing with an internet tough guy thats wrong. Lets be real, you're the one constantly bringing your military experience (however meaningless to the argument) into threads.
Once again, this sounds like you.
That makes sense, I posted it.
And since I have first hand experience and knowledge, that puts me a few steps above you.
Not really. We're talking about how much something costs the government to buy and how much something costs to make. Your experience is absolutely meaningless.
Who's only knowledge is based on video games and what his beloved CNN tells him so.
That doesn't make any sense. The javelin in modern warfare was fre... Wait, I paid sixty dollars for the game. I got hundreds of javelins. You know what? Maybe thats why I think the Jav should come in batches of 50 for a dollar!
Just because YOU say im avoiding the issue doesn't make it so ACG.
No, that fact is self evident by the fact that you're dodging the issue. It's pretty clear.
Keep trying though.. if you go "Nah Nah Nah" and stick your tounge out some more... maybe someone will believe you.
Nah Nah Nah *sticks out his tongue*
Once again ACG, were you there? Oh hey guess what... I was. I know what happened cause I saw it unfold with my own two eyes.
Yes, I'm sure you covered several hundred miles of terrain simultaineously. Thank you solid snake.
CAS doesn't work very well when your in range of whats called "Danger Close" highspeed. Plus when you are operating 30-40k infront of the main body sneaking and peaking off the grid, you would be dead by the time CAS scrambled and was on station for a hotdrop. We had to be self sufficient and be able to handle anything Saddam could throw at us.
Yes, I'm sure. Now what does this have to do with the weapons cost?
How about you just plain talk from anything other then your 4th point of contact?
I'm convinced you actually don't even know what this argument is supposed to be about. Convinced, but not surprised.
. Every good Imperor's Man knows the best assault rifle is a Husquevarna M117 lasrifle with accessorized battery pack bandolier. It even comes with flip out ork sticker. Be a man and choose a man's gun. Choose a Husquevarna. 
