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.

Like I said before, I'm dead set on american products, but something felt.... wrong holding an AK-47. Something was just off. I didn't like it. M16s are so reassuringly rugged and solid, and they just feel right, in my opinion.

Probably has to do with some gestalt stigma of mine against AKs since that rifle essentially embodies an entire era of strife and posturing. To me, it represents everything anti-american, lol.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Like I said before, I'm dead set on american products, but something felt.... wrong holding an AK-47. Something was just off. I didn't like it. M16s are so reassuringly rugged and solid, and they just feel right, in my opinion.

Probably has to do with some gestalt stigma of mine against AKs since that rifle essentially embodies an entire era of strife and posturing. To me, it represents everything anti-american, lol.

Interestingly I have the opposite view. I like the ergos and solid feel of the AK. Now I'm not having to cart that puppy around (give me an M4 or even an M1 carbine thank you) but the AK was my favorite. I'll take an M16 over an SKS though.

Now if I'm buying the bullets, then its back to the M16. Frazzled is nothing if not cheap.

Samus_aran115 wrote:.

I'd take an m16 over a Kalishnikov, simply because I'm absolutely confident in american products, and I will defend them, even if it causes my death

Comrade, your respect for capitalist pig products is good, but I would take a AK-47/74 any day of the week over a bog standard m-16. When the m-16 came out it had scerious problems with the gunpowder they where using and the barrel had to be constently kept clean. Kinda hard to do in the jungles of south east asia eh?

The PAVN told their solders to leave the mattel toy gun and take the good stuff like grenades, knives, food etc etc etc. AK's are dirt cheep, easy to maintain, you can cover them in sand, dunk them underwater and they will fire first time all the time. Even a afghan rebel or a idiot sheep herder can break down a AK and re assemble it. The AK weapon system had killed more human beings then almost any other weapon out there.

An AK is no easier to break down and clean than an M16/M4 series weapon.

As for leaving an AK in the sand or dunked in water and assuming it will fire, I suspect it is as prone to misfire as any other abused weapon when abused. I know for a fact that Afghan troopers who don't maintain their AKs don't always have it fire when they want it to.

I've managed to jam up or misfire an AK or two in my time... that said, it happened far less often on the AKs then it did on the M-16s/AR-15s, and the AKs were hardly maintained whereas the peashooters were broken down, cleaned, lubed, etc. almost religiously after every use... In fact, I can think of only a handful of times where they didn't jam up or something while at the range, I'd hate to imagine them in a combat environment...

No comment on M-4 as I've never actually fired anything other than blank rounds from one, but as I understand it its basically the same internal configuration as the M-16 and AR-15 so i would imagine it would have the same issues.

Huffy wrote:So, I'm a big military history fan, and I was wondering if anyone on this forum has heard or/know of areas where Soviet military tech/hardware was considered better than its western counterpart? considering how all I ever hear is that anything not made by the US is garbage

Not as much good vs. bad as different design propose.

For example most Soviet tech is very basic, very reliable, and designed for troops with poor logistics. The individual T-72 was and is crap compared to the M1A1 Abrams. But, "Quality of quantity" -Stalin was (and still partially is) part of the Russian battle plan. .They were designed for conquering vast tracks of western Europe.For example they had a fuckin ton of T-72 and T-80s the Soviet versions were much better than the Iraqi export versions. To the point were we (NATO/US) was not planning on holding most of West Germany/France. We were planning on doing a fighting retreat, and just old a toe hold in Europe. Our first fall back position IIRC was Gibraltar.

Also the AKM was pretty much an SMG that shot a assault rifle round. It was made to be simple, not accurate, or "good". Rather to give a lot of illiterate peasants a lot of firepower, and for that it is great.

<----- Loves AKs, and is saving up to buy an AK-74 BTW

SOFDC wrote:Assuming a rifle fresh off the line, if a rifleman can't hit anything beyond 50m with an AK platform...He ain't a rifleman. Goes double for 5.45.

50m was obviously an exaggeration. It's really boring when people choose to interpret something other than how it was it was clearly intended. Yes, the effective range of any assault rifle is greater than 50m, good thing to clarify that we all know that.

One could argue they are less "accurate" in that you have to start judging distances more precisely and sooner than you do with 5.45 or 5.56 rifles (Or stop caring about the idea of taking ranging shots.) sure, but my experience has been that most of the real "inaccuracy" of the AK comes from people who don't often use it, don't want to learn HOW to use it, or don't care about hitting the target in the first place.

Or one could point out that the simplicity and increased durability of the AK comes at the cost of precise machining, and that affects accuracy at range, and that as such it is less accurate at range than other assault rifles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Well an M16 is, by its very nature, a more accurate rifle. However, without optics that advantage is marginal.

Having said that, from personal experience a trained shooter with a properly built Soviet bloc AK can hit mansized targets at 200 yards. I could and I'm no Annie Oakley.

Whereas at the range with an M16 or other modern assault rifle you'd be expected to hit at 200m with such accuracy that you should use it to zero in your sites.

Samus_aran115 wrote:
I'd take an m16 over a Kalishnikov, simply because I'm absolutely confident in american products, and I will defend them, even if it causes my death

never understood why america doesn't use the kalishnikov?

LordofHats wrote:Yeah and its Iraq. They're a very useful armed force for the purposes of comparison.

Useful for purposes of comparison in the sense that they're around the caliber of armed force that the U.S. has been going up against for the past few decades? You're right, I totally agree.




Also, it might be useful to note for everyone who's comparing the M16 to the AK-47 and talking about problems that the M16 had when it was first introduced in Vietnam, that the M-16s being used today are significantly better and don't have a lot of the problems that originally plagued first generation M16s. So while it might be more valid to say that the AK-47 was better than the M-16 of the late 60s and early 70s, I think the argument becomes a lot more difficult when you begin discussing the more current versions, like the M16A4, and of course the M4.

remilia_scarlet wrote:never understood why america doesn't use the kalishnikov?

It isn't as good. Note that it isn't just America that looks past the AK, every country in the world with decent resources behind it's military chooses a more accurate rifle, with far greater magazine capacity.

Consider China who took made their own version of the AK, the Type 56, and made so many it became the most produced rifle in history. Along with a more refined version, the Type 81, this was how they armed their military while they were a massive, but impoverished nation. Now that they've got the money for something decent they've left the AK behind, developing They used that and a superior version, the Type 97, bullpup design that fires a 5.8mm round (very similar in performance to the standard 5.56mm NATO round fired by the M16).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hordini wrote:Also, it might be useful to note for everyone who's comparing the M16 to the AK-47 and talking about problems that the M16 had when it was first introduced in Vietnam, that the M-16s being used today are significantly better and don't have a lot of the problems that originally plagued first generation M16s. So while it might be more valid to say that the AK-47 was better than the M-16 of the late 60s and early 70s, I think the argument becomes a lot more difficult when you begin discussing the more current versions, like the M16A4, and of course the M4.

And that in turn was a result of the rifle being rushed into production for deployment in Vietnam, specifically a lack of testing of final modifications and poor quality control over the manufacture of the unusual new 5.56mm round, and had nothing to do with any inherent problems in the design of the rifle.

In fact, the only criticism levelled at the time that actually related to the weapon design itself was over it being a popgun, as it fired a much smaller than the M-14 it replaced. It was a criticism that was built around instinct (big bullet is better) versus how things actually worked (smaller round still put the target down, and allowed greater ammo capacity and more accurate automatic fire). It's a criticism that's just gotten more and more groundless as time has moved on, as every major rifle developed since then has used a round about the same size as 5.56 NATO. Look at the rifles adopted by the UK, the Germans, the French, the Russians and the Chinese, they're all the same general size as the 5.56 fired by the M16.

And then look at the only major change to the M16 family outside of the various select fire changes - the move to make the carbine version the standard, sacrificing even more velocity for mobility.

never understood why america doesn't use the kalishnikov?

Take the mechanism, shove it in a nice clamshell-opening body with better human engineering, slather with rails, use NATO ammunition, Congratulations, you made a SCAR.

Whereas at the range with an M16 or other modern assault rifle you'd be expected to hit at 200m with such accuracy that you should use it to zero in your sites.

The reason for the 200m zero (Which is the exact same on the AR platform as a 50 meter zero...and generally accomplished at 50m.) was to take advantage of a flat trajectory, and does not necessarily indicate a small dispersion cone. That 200m zero will still benefit an M16 shooter even if his particular rifle was at the maximum limit for acceptance (Around 4 inches at 100m...and it is a rare AK that will not shoot at least that well when it comes off the line.)

The reputation for inaccuracy that the AK has garnered is due to movies, dirtshooters, and fighting with people whose method of marksmanship is to, quite literally, depend on the will of god. This is like me saying that pistols won't hit a car at 10 feet because gangsters hold them sideways and jerk their whole hand hard enough to swing the muzzle 15 degrees off target during firing.

Or one could point out that the simplicity and increased durability of the AK comes at the cost of precise machining, and that affects accuracy at range, and that as such it is less accurate at range than other assault rifles.

Thing is...an AK is not mechanically any simpler than most comparable weapon systems. Nor is it really more durable, in some ways it's frighteningly weak. Notice that little sheet steel gas piston housing above the barrel? A dent of sufficient depth (Say, caused by collision with the steel/concrete barricade the shooter was moving towards at full speed. Guess why I bring this up.) will lock the rifle cold after you squeeze the trigger one more time, as it will not allow the flared end of the piston to move rearward. Getting debris (particularly gravel) inside the reciever, contrary to popular belief, WILL cause the rifle to take a dump in a hurry. Allowing solid foreign matter into your trigger parts is NOT a thing to strive for, and unfortunately the safety design encourages this any time it is actually set to go bang.

As far as precision machining goes, its not really any less precise than anything else made on the same processes. Lots of people will be quick to shout about loose "Tolerances" on the AK, but the word "Tolerances" is not the same as "Clearances". One can make a set of parts that are within .00000000001" of the design sheet, and still have a half mile wide trench to shove dirt into as it moves back and forth. Tolerances in the locking lugs and chamber area are still critical dimensions (These are also big deals in terms of achieving and accurate weapon) and they WILL be well made. To do otherwise makes bombs, not rifles. That AKs don't tend to have case head failures and explode as a general rule should speak for itself on this point.

I think the argument becomes a lot more difficult when you begin discussing the more current versions, like the M16A4, and of course the M4.

This is the truth. When you start bringing in the M16A3/4/5/9001 and comparing it to the bog standard 1940s-50s vintage AKs, you have a very dumb test. This is like comparing a car made 30 years ago with a quarter million miles on it to one made today. Bring in the AK74Ms, AK100 series and the AK12, and suddenly the picture starts getting a little different. You see ammunition QC/selection improvements on both sides, you see optics improvements and distribution on both sides, parts upgrades and modifications....it goes on.

SOFDC wrote:

never understood why america doesn't use the kalishnikov?

Take the mechanism, shove it in a nice clamshell-opening body with better human engineering, slather with rails, use NATO ammunition, Congratulations, you made a SCAR.

Whereas at the range with an M16 or other modern assault rifle you'd be expected to hit at 200m with such accuracy that you should use it to zero in your sites.

The Israelis did it decades ago with the Galil. The new piston driven .223s from Ruger, Sig, et al use the same concept. Its not a revolutionary concept.

Frazzled wrote:

SOFDC wrote:

never understood why america doesn't use the kalishnikov?

Take the mechanism, shove it in a nice clamshell-opening body with better human engineering, slather with rails, use NATO ammunition, Congratulations, you made a SCAR.

Whereas at the range with an M16 or other modern assault rifle you'd be expected to hit at 200m with such accuracy that you should use it to zero in your sites.

The Israelis did it decades ago with the Galil. The new piston driven .223s from Ruger, Sig, et al use the same concept. Its not a revolutionary concept.

I've got an AR-15 and a Golani, both shoot flatter and more consistently than any AK I have fired. I cannot use a ROMAK, Tantal or any other AK clone as the furniture on them is far too small for me (My arms are a little long and the regular wooden AK stocks are a joke). I will be buying (in the near future) an American made AK clone from Inter-Ordnance. These have much better quality of construction and have much larger, plastic stocks.

So I haven't had much of a chance to check in on this thread, but lemme narrow it down to categories
This is post world war 2 to now
Categories:
1.)Fixed-wing aircraft
2.)Helicopters
3.)Armored Vehicles(tanks/apc/ifv)
Also, how different are/were the views on warfare?(which shows how the varied techs were developed)

Quotes are all messed up on the above two posts, just saying

I haven't heard too many facts on russian camouflage, but it seems like the US has just about the best patterns in the world (MARPAT, and CADPAT and AOR1+2 similarly).

I think this is what they're currently using:


Looks ugly.

Oddly, we've taken steps back from digitalized patterns with multicam, which is a very attractive pattern. Seems to do the job fine without being computer generated (at least not the same way as MARPAT). UCP was an awful pattern. I still can't believe the Army made it standard.

Those ground effect vehicles were pretty cool. Not saying they were good or anything as they were untried, they just looked cool and were pretty 'out there'. With that being said i can see them being useful from a non-military standpoint as it is an efficient mode of transport.

Speaking as someone who doesnt know that much I would guess that russia's Outmoded gear is due to the different attitudes towards friendly casualties in theatres of conflict. Russia is simply less focused in RnD than USA at this moment in time.

The US armed forces though still moderatley Interventionist are incredibly afraid of losing soldiers and repeating the political and idealogical rout of Vietnam hence all the technology.

Another area they shined in: Engineer vehicles.

From ditchers to mine laying, bridging assets, they had some darned useful vehicles and gear.

Jake