Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/28/2002 5:39:43 PM EDT
Please refresh my memory(oh no here I go again I,m stirring up sh** again)
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 5:43:02 PM EDT
Better optics and NV platform.

Better ergonomics.

Adjustable Length of Pull (with collapsible stock).

Lighter in some configurations.

Not many other reasons that I can think of.

The AK wins hands down for reliability.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 5:43:04 PM EDT
just cause...............................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IT IS ! ! !
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 5:43:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 5:47:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SGB:
just cause...............................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IT IS ! ! !


i'll second that.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 5:55:11 PM EDT
AR's good for 600 yards plus
Ak good for 300 yards max

Link Posted: 1/28/2002 5:56:19 PM EDT
Dude if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 5:57:24 PM EDT
The AR platform is modular and very versatile.

Personally I prefer the AK platform. Not necassarily in the com block format, but rather it's more refined incarnations. I think valmets and galils are superior to AR's. They are more reliable, use much more rugged mags and accuracy is on par. While the AR still beats them ergonomically, galils and valmets handle well and offer a real folding stock.

Don't get me wrong, AR's are great, but I prefer valmets and galils...
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 6:00:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sk8brdnick:
The AR platform is modular and very versatile.

Personally I prefer the AK platform. Not necassarily in the com block format, but rather it's more refined incarnations. I think valmets and galils are superior to AR's. They are more reliable, use much more rugged mags and accuracy is on par. While the AR still beats them ergonomically, galils and valmets handle well and offer a real folding stock.

Don't get me wrong, AR's are great, but I prefer valmets and galils...



Call Alan Zitta, he'll hook you up with a "real" folding stock system for an AR. That way you'll have a more accurate, more ergonomic rifle that is still easy to find mags for.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 6:06:41 PM EDT
Just check out the latest guns and ammo. it shows the "kings of the battlefield" or somemething like that. its the real thic issue. By the way Th AR15 is the Best... I have an FNC which is a type of AK, but I stil prefer my AR.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 6:23:25 PM EDT
boomerxm!

AR's good out to 600yd?? What are you smokin???

Check out these ballistics from Winchester:

.223 64-grain Super-X Pointed Soft Point:
velocity at 500yd.:
1473 fps
energy at 500yd.:
308 ft.lbs.

7.62x39 123-grain Super-X Pointed Soft Point:
velocity at 500yd.:
1093 fps
energy at 500yd.:
327 ft.lbs.

Please stop the madness buddy! If anything, the AR's only good out to 300 yd. Just like the AK. Why do you think they have to use 80 grain bullets for high power??
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 6:51:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2002 6:56:54 PM EDT by newtoma]
Bolt stays open on last shot! I have an AK and an FNC and I hate firing the last shot and not knowing it. With an AR, I can feel when the last round is gone.

Edited because Ive been drinking
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 6:54:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2002 6:54:57 PM EDT by newtoma]
I think he is saying you can hit something at 600 yards with an AR, not an AK.


Edited because I've been drinking.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 7:06:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Buddyman:
boomerxm!

AR's good out to 600yd?? What are you smokin???

Check out these ballistics from Winchester:

.223 64-grain Super-X Pointed Soft Point:
velocity at 500yd.:
1473 fps
energy at 500yd.:
308 ft.lbs.

7.62x39 123-grain Super-X Pointed Soft Point:
velocity at 500yd.:
1093 fps
energy at 500yd.:
327 ft.lbs.

Please stop the madness buddy! If anything, the AR's only good out to 300 yd. Just like the AK. Why do you think they have to use 80 grain bullets for high power??





Dude, what are you smoking?

Energy and velocity mean nothing if you can't hit anything.

I'd like to see you hit anything at 500 yards with an AK.


5.56 is a MUCH more accurate (and dare I say effective) round at 500 yards.

FYI, there's a lot more to effectiveness than just ft.lbs, like maybe velocity?
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 7:08:39 PM EDT
colt ar,cause the S.O.B is made in the U.S.A

Link Posted: 1/28/2002 7:09:04 PM EDT
BECAUSE IT IS MADE IN AMERICA.
Mike
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 7:58:18 PM EDT
buddyman, are you missing a chromosome? you just do not know. try hitting the paper with an AK at 500yds. just TRY it. oh im sure the AK round has more energy at 500...wherever it is. a rack grade, parris island bootcamp rifle can go 10 for 10 in the black at 500 with a competant recruit behind it. try that with the BEST hand selected AK you can find.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 9:41:52 PM EDT
*sigh* different weapons for different situations. Alot of countries have switched to a smaller size round, 5.56 or 5.45, ect. Also different guns for different people. It's all just opinion anyways. AK is a short range weapon, everyone knows that. It's not a Main Battle Rifle, nor is the AR. The answer is neither is better, sure they both do things differently and accomplish things the other falls short on but hell they both can kill ya.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:44:12 AM EDT
If you want to hit something and kill it at 500 yards, get a remington/winchester 700/70 in at least a 30-06. Sorry to say but AK and AR are designed for assault purposes (thats why liberals calls it "assault weapon") and its good for putting alot of lead into someone at close range (a shotgun does the same thing IMHO and its more politically correct) if you want to hit something and kill it at a 1000 yard, 300 remington ultramag will do (or a 50BMG if you can muscle it) Well actually AR/AK is good for 25-200 yards, below 25 yards its best to use a shotgunn, and I think anything over 300 yard you should use a sniper rifle. I think I also read something about how 5.56mm has trouble penetrating walls since the bullet becomes too frangible. Its good for police if they want to limit overpenetration but I still think the military should use 7.62x39 (well modify their M-16 into that caliber then develop a more reliable mags)
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:11:35 AM EDT
i have more reasons:

the loud safety on the AK

the selector is on the RIGHT side of the reciever (WTF?)

the magazine has to be removed by hand and the fresh one must be rocked into place.

no bolt hold open which further complicates reloading

i would say interchagability between AK's is hit or miss at best. any thoughts AK guru's?
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:52:20 AM EDT
Because only hits count. Watch-Six
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:13:38 AM EDT
The AR-15 is better, because I sold my AK's years ago.

Now wait...

Oh yeah, it's better because I can shoot better with it.

Personal preference.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 9:47:27 AM EDT
You guys are all missing the point. The Small Caliber High Velocity concept was a failure! The history proven caliber needed to effectively render battlefield casuaties at range has been larger rather than smaller. IIRC most of the 1770's era 'Kentucky' rifles were chambered for .50, this chambering was reduced over the next two hundred years to .30 with the M-1 .30-06 (7.62x63mm). This M-1 was without a doubt (one of)"the best battlefield weapon ever developed", and was largely responsible for winning WWII.
With the SCHV concept in full swing, the .223 was adopted and then it took up to 200,000 rounds fired for each enemy KIA. How is this improvement? The need for lighter ammunition and therefore more ammunition carried is evident with that type of hit/kill percentage.
With conscript troops and poor/limited training give them either the AK-74 or the M-16 for spray and pray. For better trained professional troops, keep the AR10 around for true stopping power and long range kill capacity.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:05:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sk8brdnick:
The AR platform is modular and very versatile.

Personally I prefer the AK platform. Not necassarily in the com block format, but rather it's more refined incarnations. I think valmets and galils are superior to AR's. They are more reliable, use much more rugged mags and accuracy is on par. While the AR still beats them ergonomically, galils and valmets handle well and offer a real folding stock.

Don't get me wrong, AR's are great, but I prefer valmets and galils...



In Israel, the AR series has almost completely displaced the Galil. The reason? The AR is lighter and more accurate. The Galil is now used in units that don't have to carry their weapon very far, for example, tank units.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:09:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 10:13:59 AM EDT by cc48510]
AR-15 Advantages --


  1. Better Sights

  2. Ergonomic (Round) Handgaurds

  3. Doesn't Require a Hydraulic Press to Assemble

  4. Mag. Well makes it easier to insert a Magazine

  5. Better Magazine Release

  6. Straight-Line Design

  7. Large Recoil Buffer Greatly Reduce Recoil

  8. Flat-Top Upper installs in seconds vs. a Chineese Scope mount for an AK which will take hours of filing to get it to fit.

  9. Smaller, Rounder Bolt Carrier is easily removable

  10. Can be opened by pushing a single pin by hand or with a bullet vs. An AK which requires a pair of pliers to turn the pin hard enough to disengage it from the notch

  11. Extremely Modular

  12. .223 Will Penetrate Body Armor Better

  13. Bolt Hold Open



AK-47 Advantages --


  1. Larger Gas Tube = More Reliable

  2. Easy for any idiot to use

  3. Folding Stock

  4. The Slide is on the side where it is accessable and can quickly be racked, unlike an AR where you have to turn the gun to rack it

  5. CHEAP. I can get an RPK Kit for $99 and a Receiver for $50. For $150, I could have a Fully-Auto RPK-47. Of course this wouldn't be legal. In North Africa, AKs go for $5.

  6. Magazines are sturdier, more reliable, and made to actually be altered

  7. Bigger Bullet = More lethal at close range

Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:12:14 AM EDT
LOL, you fellars are too funny, I believe some of you would argue w/ a fence post.

There is no best here, only opinions ......

I have shot my AK at 400 yards and at that range my groups were 14-17 inches (thank god for a large piece of plate steel), while I managed 2 hits outta 5 on the 550yrd target, with an 18" steel plate those were luck IMHO.
(these were from a bench rested position)

The AK is the most reliable combat weapon.

The AR is the more accurate, versatile and adaptable.

By one of each then you can quit your bickering, besides if I could only have one combat weapon I'd probably chose my M1 Garand in 30-06 which has the combat toughness of the AK with the accuracy and longer range of the AR and the lethality besting the both of 'em.

My 2,
Mike

Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:22:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wiggy762:
. . . this chambering was reduced over the next two hundred years to .30 with the M-1 .30-06 (7.62x63mm). This M-1 was without a doubt (one of)"the best battlefield weapon ever developed", and was largely responsible for winning WWII.



I would say that T-34s supplied by American lend-lease trucks had much more to do with winning WW2.

To the extent that American soldiers aided in the outcome, their lavish support by artillery and air resources were the key.


Originally Posted By wiggy762:
With the SCHV concept in full swing, the .223 was adopted and then it took up to 200,000 rounds fired for each enemy KIA. How is this improvement? The need for lighter ammunition and therefore more ammunition carried is evident with that type of hit/kill percentage.
With conscript troops and poor/limited training give them either the AK-74 or the M-16 for spray and pray. For better trained professional troops, keep the AR10 around for true stopping power and long range kill capacity.



Since switching to 5.56 mm, the NATO countries are finding that the long range marksmanship of their troops is improving. You can train recruits to proficiency faster with 5.56 than with 7.62 NATO.

The number of rounds per kill has increased from WW1 (7,000 IIRC) to WW2 (25,000) to Korea (50,000) to Vietnam (200,000-300,000). The big change between WW2 and Vietnam is due mostly to a change in training (resulting from a change of philosophy). Notice the change from WW2 to Korea, when the same hardware was used. Even in WW2, jungle warfare involved a high volume of unaimed fire. By Vietnam, the "mad minute" and spraying the jungle became common.

The AR-10 is too heavy. It also lacks the reliability of the M-16, and would have to go through more development to develop this reliability. In any case, 5.56 is just fine as a rifle round. For the SAW, a 6 mm would be a better choice. Since having 5.56, 6 mm, and 7.62 mm in one squad is a logistics problem, the best choice IMO would be some kind of 6 mm round for all three weapons.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:47:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Buddyman:
boomerxm!

AR's good out to 600yd?? What are you smokin???

Check out these ballistics from Winchester:

.223 64-grain Super-X Pointed Soft Point:
velocity at 500yd.:
1473 fps
energy at 500yd.:
308 ft.lbs.

7.62x39 123-grain Super-X Pointed Soft Point:
velocity at 500yd.:
1093 fps
energy at 500yd.:
327 ft.lbs.

Please stop the madness buddy! If anything, the AR's only good out to 300 yd. Just like the AK. Why do you think they have to use 80 grain bullets for high power??



The difference in energy is only 19 ft*lbs. A MLB fastball has NEARLY EIGHT TIMES THAT ENERGY DIFFERENCE. My air rifle has that in muzzle energy. Yes, it spits an 8 grain pellet out at 1100 ft/second.

Plus, you are missing good points, like the2 BC of M855 is .330 while the 64 grain Power Points is .253...

M855 goes below the speed of sound at 800-900 meters. You Chi-Com 7.62 x 39 stuff goes transonic at 320 meters. Big difference.

BTW, the reason 80 grainers are used at 6 is purely wind drift comparisons to M852 in 7.62 x 51. 68's and 69's group beautifuly at 6 in calm conditions. They just get tossed around a little more with wind than the 168's the .30 caliber rifles use.

At 2 and 3, some even use 52's if its calm.

Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:48:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Buddyman:
boomerxm!

AR's good out to 600yd?? What are you smokin???

. . .



In order to be effective, you have to:

1) Hit the target

2) penetrate the target sufficiently to destroy internal organs.

Both 7.62x39 and 5.56 NATO are able to achieve 2) at 600 yards and greater. However, the AK is already marginal on 1) at 300 yards.


Originally Posted By Buddyman:
Please stop the madness buddy! If anything, the AR's only good out to 300 yd. Just like the AK. Why do you think they have to use 80 grain bullets for high power??



The 80 grain is used because it catches less wind. The 80 grain Sierra has been used to beat 7.62 NATO "long range" M-14s at 1,000 yards. AT 600 yards, the AR with 80 grain bullets dominate.

In the past, ARs with the 69 gr Sierra were able to compete at 600 yards. At a disadvantge vs. the .30 cal gas guns with the 168 gr Sierra, to be sure, but they could still compete (they would have been almost on an equal footing at 500 yards). The AR with 69s have long dominated the 300 yard line (even though they take more wind than the .30 cal 168 gr.). At 300, the new 75 gr 5.56 bullets take less wind than the .30 168 gr at 300 yards.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:55:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:


The difference in energy is only 19 ft*lbs. A MLB fastball has NEARLY EIGHT TIMES THAT ENERGY DIFFERENCE. My air rifle has that in muzzle energy. Yes, it spits an 8 grain pellet out at 1100 ft/second.





And energy is irrelevent for our purposes.

Both rounds will only creat small wound channels at long range (and this is true of 7.62 NATO and .30-06, too).

The real issue is the depth of the wound channel. This is deteremined by the bullets cross-sectional density and its momentum.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:56:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rahimiv:
Sorry to say but AK and AR are designed for assault purposes (thats why liberals calls it "assault weapon") and its good for putting alot of lead into someone at close range (a shotgun does the same thing IMHO and its more politically correct) if you want to hit I think I also read something about how 5.56mm has trouble penetrating walls since the bullet becomes too frangible. Its good for police if they want to limit overpenetration but I still think the military should use 7.62x39 (well modify their M-16 into that caliber then develop a more reliable mags)



Wrongo. The M16 is more accurate than any "battle rifle" out there. While it can spray lead, this is not efficient and accurate, trained semi-auto rifle fire still prevails.

M855 ball outperforms M80 ball at ranges over 350 meters. Up close, even lightweight HP's will penetrate walls, car bodies and the like very easily. Its only in animate, living tissue does the 5.56 fragment.

7.62 x 39 is a step down in ballistics from the 5.56 x 45 NATO. Why would your conversion be of any merit? Bigger bullet? It won't make any improvement from the muzzle to 200 meters in incapacitation and beyond that, accuracy of the 5.56 trumps the 7.62....

Its hard to believe smaller is better but its true.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 10:57:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 10:59:00 AM EDT by wiggy762]

Originally Posted By wiggy762:
. . . this chambering was reduced over the next two hundred years to .30 with the M-1 .30-06 (7.62x63mm). This M-1 was without a doubt (one of)"the best battlefield weapon ever developed", and was largely responsible for winning WWII.



To the extent that American soldiers aided in the outcome, their lavish support by artillery and air resources were the key.

Infantry still has to seize, hold and defend the enemy's homeland to win a war. The air support and artillery argument was put to rest in Vietnam with the miserable failure of airpower and firebase supported 'take it during the AM and give it back in the PM' warfare.


Originally Posted By wiggy762:
With the SCHV concept in full swing, the .223 was adopted and then it took up to 200,000 rounds fired for each enemy KIA. How is this improvement? The need for lighter ammunition and therefore more ammunition carried is evident with that type of hit/kill percentage.
With conscript troops and poor/limited training give them either the AK-74 or the M-16 for spray and pray. For better trained professional troops, keep the AR10 around for true stopping power and long range kill capacity.



Since switching to 5.56 mm, the NATO countries are finding that the long range marksmanship of their troops is improving. You can train recruits to proficiency faster with 5.56 than with 7.62 NATO.

I don't doubt that it is improving as there was only one direction to go. What is the criteria for 'long range', 400m, 500m? The only reason the training is faster is because of the lowered recoil, in this realm a 'heavier' weapon would be better. Why is fast training a positive criteria? I would like to see more time not less used for rifle training as per the Marine Corps.

The number of rounds per kill has increased from WW1 (7,000 IIRC) to WW2 (25,000) to Korea (50,000) to Vietnam (200,000-300,000). The big change between WW2 and Vietnam is due mostly to a change in training (resulting from a change of philosophy). Notice the change from WW2 to Korea, when the same hardware was used. Even in WW2, jungle warfare involved a high volume of unaimed fire. By Vietnam, the "mad minute" and spraying the jungle became common.

The reasons for the change in kill percentage from WWII to Korea has to do with the training offered to new WWII troops vs. new Korea era troops. Due to the collapsing perimeter around Pusan, troops were quickly thrown into the fight. Mostly from Japan, and these were occupation troops with decayed training.

The AR-10 is too heavy. It also lacks the reliability of the M-16, and would have to go through more development to develop this reliability.

Are you kidding me? The AR10 is the father of the AR15, it was the first and has had a spotless record in the limited areas it was adopted. This record cannot be matched by the AR15 with the abysmal conversion to ball powder causing incredible fouling and stoppages. The AR10 uses an 8 lug Johnson type rotating bolt that has been in production since the 30's and was used by the Marines in the Pacific. The AR10 uses components made for use with a full power .30 rifle round. The AR15/M16 was the rifle that needed more developement to meet a reliability need.

In any case, 5.56 is just fine as a rifle round.

Not for me and mine.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 11:15:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wiggy762:

Infantry still has to seize, hold and defend the enemy's homeland to win a war. The air support and artillery argument was put to rest in Vietnam with the miserable failure of airpower and firebase supported 'take it during the AM and give it back in the PM' warfare.



In WW2, the support arms are what gave our GIs an edge. If anything, the German infantry with their mix of small arms out performed ours with our mix of small arms.

Our support weapons did a magnificint job of interediction, hence our success on the European battlegrounds of WW2. That, and the fact that almost all German resistance was concentrated on the Eastern Front.


Originally Posted By wiggy762:
I don't doubt that it is improving as there was only one direction to go. What is the criteria for 'long range', 400m, 500m? The only reason the training is faster is because of the lowered recoil, in this realm a 'heavier' weapon would be better. Why is fast training a positive criteria? I would like to see more time not less used for rifle training as per the Marine Corps.



300m.

If we ever get into a real war, the value of rapid training will become obvious.



Originally Posted By wiggy762:
The reasons for the change in kill percentage from WWII to Korea has to do with the training offered to new WWII troops vs. new Korea era troops. Due to the collapsing perimeter around Pusan, troops were quickly thrown into the fight. Mostly from Japan, and these were occupation troops with decayed training.



Yes.

But training and circumstances were the main reasons for the change in 'nam.



Originally Posted By wiggy762:
Are you kidding me? The AR10 is the father of the AR15, it was the first and has had a spotless record in the limited areas it was adopted. This record cannot be matched by the AR15 with the abysmal conversion to ball powder causing incredible fouling and stoppages. The AR10 uses an 8 lug Johnson type rotating bolt that has been in production since the 30's and was used by the Marines in the Pacific. The AR10 uses components made for use with a full power .30 rifle round. The AR15/M16 was the rifle that needed more developement to meet a reliability need.



The '16 has had its problems worked out, the AR-10 hasn't. The current production AR-10s simply don't have the necessary reliability without further development.

I don't know about the original AR-10, since it has never really been tested.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 11:45:16 AM EDT
Hmm, I wonder what makes these people think that they would be making all kinds of 300+ yards shots in a war. That's just silly. Unless you are in a desert or artic tundra, how would you even see your enemy from that distance. Chances are you'd be fighting in cities or forest/jungle areas. You guys must have x-ray vision or be expecting the enemy to be wearing neon pink unitards or something:-)

Regarding AK vs AR, look at the mags. AR's uses the flimsiest mags I have ever seen. AK's mags are pretty much unbreakable. AR's don't like me, they jam on me every few hundred rounds... Every AR I have shot (and that's lots). I have never experienced a stoppage with an AK type weapon. The ergonomics are very different between the two, but once you get used to the AK is handles just fine.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:06:22 PM EDT
reliability is the most important aspect of any weapon system. The AK just plain works. MOA accuracy isn't going to determine the outcome of any fire fight. Not saying the AR isn't a good system. It is! But if I had to choose a rifle to stake my life on, I would have to choose an AK. It is the most battle tested rifle in the World. That said, I would never sell my Bushmaster. Now you guys have me thinking I need a M1A. Man, I swear this is a disease!
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:07:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:
The '16 has had its problems worked out, the AR-10 hasn't. The current production AR-10s simply don't have the necessary reliability without further development.

I don't know about the original AR-10, since it has never really been tested.



What relibility problems are you referring to? I was unable to find any reliability problems related to the AR10 after the change from steel swaged barrels inside aluminum sleeves to chrome lined all steel barrels. My reference was the Black Rifle.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:12:33 PM EDT
Please.

Who would want a cheap, stamped sheet-metal rifle, with the ergonomics of a folding chair, and about the same accuracy?

The ignorant masses.
I'm an elitist.
I prefer a higher class of weapon.

AR
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:24:25 PM EDT
Yet another AK vs. AR thread gone south.

Geez. Both have advantages and disadvantages. It is a tradeoff. The same things that make an AR so easy to control, make it unable to take a folding stock. The same things that make it more ergonomic, make it less reliable.

It is a friggin trade-off. The only place they really need to upgrade is in the mag. dept. becuase AR-15 magazines suck. They were designed to be thrown away. yet, at that they cost more than the Russian AK Mags. which were designed to be reused. Now, if they could design an AR to take AK magazines....
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:48:30 PM EDT
Don't have to worry about
"Friendly incoming"

People usually associate AK with the bad guy.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 12:49:22 PM EDT
The appropriate comparison is AK vs. FAL vs. M14.

The AK looks pretty weak in that company.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:12:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wiggy762:
Are you kidding me? The AR10 is the father of the AR15, it was the first and has had a spotless record in the limited areas it was adopted. This record cannot be matched by the AR15 with the abysmal conversion to ball powder causing incredible fouling and stoppages.



Actually the father of the AR-15 was an ArmaLite rifle called the "Stopette" in .222.

The switch to ball powder was the fault of the Army and the Army alone.

Neither ArmaLite nor Colts' was informed of the powder change until after the fact. Then both ArmaLite and Colts' changed the AR-15 (M16) to use the different powder to cover the Army's sorry ass.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:29:03 PM EDT
I have it on good authority that Navy Spec-Ops personnel use/have used Aimpoint-equiped AK series weapons for Urban and CQB operations.

All of the KAC AK-RAS systems sold to date have been to DEVGRU.

JAW
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:37:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cc48510:


The same things that make an AR so easy to control, make it unable to take a folding stock.



First it depends on which "AR" you refer to.

The ArmaLite AR-18 and AR-180 have both a folding stock and controllability.

(Don't forget the "AR" in "AR-15" stands for ArmaLite. I always like to mention this as it still chaps Colts' managements ass - some AR-15 owners too.
Course then we have the CAR-15 - only way Colts' could figure out how to get their initial on an AR.)
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:39:08 PM EDT
Any of you na sayers of the wounding/killing potential of the 5.56 at long ranges just line up on the 600 yard line so we can shoot you and then you can report to us on how it didn't hurt. I would prefer not to be shot with anything but if it comes down to it I would prefer my enemies to be armed with AK rifles that are roughly 400% less accurate than mine. It would be interesting for someone to whip up a batch of reduced velocity loads and a big hunk of ballistic gelitan and see which round actually does penetrate better at long range. I'm surprised no one has thought to mention that the Ruskies were so impressed with our wimpy little rifle round that they chose to duplicte it for their next generation of assault rifles. Oh yes and remember that the theroy of the 5.56 is that by incapacitating but not quickly killing an enemy soldier you disable two more to drag his dying ass to the rear.

And finally as Timothy Hutton put it forth so eloquently, "A skilled marksman is probably better off with a sig p-210 than the average terrorist is armed with an AK-47."

That being said I have an AK and I love it, but there are much better choices available for the savvy rifleman that don't sacrifice in reliability and provide much more accuracy and ease of use.

Ramble mode off.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:39:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JAW:
I have it on good authority that Navy Spec-Ops personnel use/have used Aimpoint-equiped AK series weapons for Urban and CQB operations.



Really?
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:43:52 PM EDT
500 yards? Hell, I can't see a man-size target clearly beyond 250 yards ! I own both AK and AR and both have positive attributes (all mentioned above). Based on my personal experience over the last couple of years with both guns, I would give a slight edge to the AR.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 1:48:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JAW:


All of the KAC AK-RAS systems sold to date have been to DEVGRU.

JAW



I continue to learn.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:18:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cc48510:
The same things that make an AR so easy to control, make it unable to take a folding stock.



Really?

Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:33:53 PM EDT
Pat Rogers' article in a recent issue of SWAT explains why a collapsible, not folding, stock is preferable for use on weapons used for serious gunfighting.

According to Pat, folding stocks which incorporate adjustable length of pull would be fine.

The collapsible stock of the M4 is a desirable feature.

The short LOP of many AK weapons is already short enough for use in these contexts.

JAW
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 4:25:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wiggy762:


What relibility problems are you referring to? I was unable to find any reliability problems related to the AR10 after the change from steel swaged barrels inside aluminum sleeves to chrome lined all steel barrels. My reference was the Black Rifle.



I am refering to the current production Armalite AR-10 and Stoner SR-25, which have not proven to be sufficiently reliable. The USMC tested the SR-25, but civilian use has shown that both have problems. It may be an old design, but it hasn't gone through its teething period yet.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 4:34:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sk8brdnick:
Hmm, I wonder what makes these people think that they would be making all kinds of 300+ yards shots in a war. That's just silly. Unless you are in a desert or artic tundra, how would you even see your enemy from that distance. Chances are you'd be fighting in cities or forest/jungle areas. You guys must have x-ray vision or be expecting the enemy to be wearing neon pink unitards or something:-)



During WW2, infantry combat occured at 1,000 yards (in the North African desert), from 200 to 600 yards (Alutians), 400-500 yards (the beaches of Normandy and Anzio), less than 200 yards (the hedgerows of Normandy), less than 30 feet (the jungles of the South Pacific), etc.

Fighting occurs in jungles and forests and cities and on mountains and in deserts and in open fields. In a place like Afganistan, where the terrain favors long range shooting, I'd imagine an AR would have a significant advantage over an AK.

Even inside 300 yards, the higher hit probability of the AR would be an advantage. The higher hit probability comes from the ARs accuracy, low recoil, and at short distances its flatter trajectory is also an advantage. Short range targets are not always fully exposed . . .
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top