Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Mistress of minis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

[/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.

Sad thing is, people who think this is true exist.

Another draw back to the AK-47.

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.

What ever happened to this

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"

dogma wrote:

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?

Guess that means you dont have an M4 or the skills/experience to back up your 'logic'.

Mistress of minis wrote:

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:

dogma wrote:

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.

The Russians were also expert at recovering knocked out tanks. They recovered and repaired 2/3rds of their knocked out vehicles.

I would be interested to know how the production cost of the T34 was worked out to find that it cost 2/3rds more than a Sherman.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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?

dogma wrote:

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?

I rather like the ADF's Austeyrs. They look comfortable to use.

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.

Mistress of minis wrote:

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?

Did you drink your breakfast?

Less of the breakfast drinking!

Only Moderators are allowed to drink breakfast around here.

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.