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.

G36C

Think im going to build one later this summer if I can find the money to do so.

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.

The barrel and chamber are pretty heavy since they are solid. And adding the cartridges 0.5kg's to that, i think its pretty front heavy.


Edit: Also, it's a magazine, not a clip.

I would put a vote for the tommy gun being the best club.

halonachos wrote:I would put a vote for the tommy gun being the best club.

I shot my mate’s replica Brown Bess a couple of times. That felt like a good honest club.

sebster wrote:

halonachos wrote:I would put a vote for the tommy gun being the best club.

I shot my mate’s replica Brown Bess a couple of times. That felt like a good honest club.

300 years ago...

"Look at this mate I invented a new club"

"whats special bout it"

"It makes a big bang to scare your oponent"

Gun I would least like to be clubbed with: Mauser T-gewehr.

17.7 kilos unloaded.

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.

Wrexasaur wrote:

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)

And can we please switch 'front, middle and back' to 'barrel, receiver, stock/butt'.

Sure, but what will that do for the AUG's self esteem?

We all know how important self-esteem is. "You're not backwards, AUG, you're just differently abled."

The AUG has all those parts It just has alot less stock to its butt

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'

loki old fart wrote: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"

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 SU-16CA is nice. I really like the in-stock magazine repository.

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.


This proves the ak is inaccurate: start at 5:02 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfCWjriIN6w

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.

How come there isn't an option for the Phased Plasma Rifle in a 40 watt range?

Necros wrote:How come there isn't an option for the Phased Plasma Rifle in a 40 watt range?

We aren't measuring directed energy weapons.

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.


This proves the ak is inaccurate: start at 5:02 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfCWjriIN6w

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.

30 whole rounds? wow. Empirical evidence there.

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

30 whole rounds? wow. Empirical evidence there.

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.