Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/22/2003 1:15:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 6:44:08 PM EDT by KA3B]
What the fuck is wrong with the shitheads on this list?

I post a simple article that I thought was relevent for two reasons, one was to let you guys know that this BS was placed up as 'news' AGAIN and also to get people to discuss their favorite rifle in its military form.

What do I get for my efforts?

Some shithead attributing the articles spelling errors to me. Get a fucking clue. I cut and pasted it - HAHAHAD zlBenz,you fucking piece of dog shit, I CUT AND PASTED IT moron boy.
How about another intelligent 16 year old chick response from you, c'mon, give it up now...

whatever
. Shit.

And if you were as smart as you think you are you would have just said that the article is a POS instead of making me out to be the person in charge of the spelling and accuracy of the article. Again I'll say that you need to take it up with the author, editor or publisher of the article.

So once again I am attacked for nothing by yet another AR15 know-it-all shithead, who, had he just kept his fucking yap closed - or better yet had just kept his comments on topic instead of attacking me over something I have no control of.

Ya think that you might have put forth your efforts into something more productive than attacking me shitstain?

By SLOBODAN LEKIC
Associated Press Writer

November 22, 2003, 3:55 PM EST


BAGHDAD, Iraq -- After nearly 40 years of battlefield service around the globe, the M-16 may be on its way out as the standard Army assault rifle because of flaws highlighted during the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

U.S. officers in Iraq say the M-16A2 -- the latest incarnation of the 5.56 mm firearm -- is quietly being phased out of front-line service because it has proven too bulky for use inside the Humvees and armored vehicles that have emerged as the principal mode of conducting patrols since the end of major fighting on May 1.

The M-16, at nearly 40 inches, is widely considered too long to aim quickly within the confines of a vehicle during a firefights, when reaction time is a matter of life and death.

"It's a little too big for getting in and out of vehicles," said Brig. Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division, which controls Baghdad. "I can tell you that as a result of this experience, the Army will look very carefully at how it performed."

Instead of the M-16, which also is prone to jamming in Iraq's dusty environment, M-4 carbines are now widely issued to American troops.

The M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16A2, with a clipped barrel, partially retractable stock and a trigger mechanism modified to fire full-auto instead of three-shots bursts. It was first introduced as a personal defense weapon for clerks, drivers and other non-combat troops.

"Then it was adopted by the Special Forces and Rangers, mainly because of its shorter length," said Col. Kurt Fuller, a battalion commander in Iraq and an authority on firearms.

Fuller said studies showed that most of the combat in Iraq has been in urban environments and that 95 percent of all engagements have occurred at ranges shorter than 100 yards, where the M-4, at just over 30 inches long, works best.

Still, experience has shown the carbines also have deficiencies. The cut-down barrel results in lower bullet velocities, decreasing its range. It also tends to rapidly overheat and the firing system, which works under greater pressures created by the gases of detonating ammunition, puts more stress on moving parts, hurting its reliability.

Consequently, the M-4 is an unlikely candidate for the rearming of the U.S. Army. It is now viewed as an interim solution until the introduction of a more advanced design known as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or OICW.

There is no date set for the entry into service of the OICW, but officers in Iraq say they expect its arrival sooner than previously expected because of the problems with the M-16 and the M-4.

"Iraq is the final nail in the coffin for the M-16," said a commander who asked not to be identified.

The current version of the M-16 is a far cry from the original, which troops during the Vietnam War criticized as fragile, lacking power and range, and only moderately accurate. At the time, a leading U.S. weapons expert even recommended that American soldiers discard their M-16s and arm themselves with the Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle used by their Vietcong enemy.

Although the M16A1 -- introduced in the early 1980s -- has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn't as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74. Both are said to have better "knockdown" power and can take more of a beating on the battlefield.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-iraq-goodbye-m-16,0,4783290.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:19:15 PM EDT
Fools. They should have gone with the SA-80.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:20:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
The M-4 ... was first introduced as a personal defense weapon for clerks, drivers and other non-combat troops.


Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:21:53 PM EDT
Gee, how many times have we heard this bullshit? How many other useless threads on this have been started here about this?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:28:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Gee, how many times have we heard this bullshit? How many other useless threads on this have been started here about this?

Someone on a Senate subcommittee directed a staffer to get some press for the OICW, as funding is probably about to run out. Bank on the current situation in Iraq to foster an opinion among the sheep that, "Gee, too bad those poor soldiers in Iraq are stuck with such shitty weapons. Obviously, if they had something new, they wouldn't be dying." Fact is, though, that we've been swallowing the OICW horseshit for so long that by the time it comes out (if ever) it'll be antiquated, too.

Meanwhile, our enemies around the world carry AK-47s.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:31:00 PM EDT
What a startling revelation!!!


You mean the military is actually USING those M4 thingies to the point that the M16 is going away????

WHO-DA THUNK IT?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:31:46 PM EDT
So why put my name in the quote you shithead?
I am not the one who wrote the fucking thing.

I only cut and pasted it.

Dipshit.



Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
The M-4 ... was first introduced as a personal defense weapon for clerks, drivers and other non-combat troops.



Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:33:16 PM EDT
I can find 6601 useless threads on other topics.


Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Gee, how many times have we heard this bullshit? How many other useless threads on this have been started here about this?

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:33:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 1:43:06 PM EDT by DzlBenz]

Originally Posted By KA3B:
So why put my name in the quote you shithead?
I am not the one who wrote the fucking thing.

I only cut and pasted it.

Dipshit.

Relax, man. I'm not singling you out as the author. Sheesh. Touchy, touchy.

Upon further review, I will single you out, KA3b. Since you posted this goofy article without comment, with the title in bold letters, one can naturally assume that you were so motivated by the veracity of the article to share it with the world. However, you have apparently not realized that the article is chock full of statements which are nothing more as opinion, but offered as fact. If you took the trouble to post this article, without comment, then you must be in agreement with the content and goal thereof. So I do take you directly to task for posting such bilge, which is clearly not news, nor is it informative in any sense. It's not funny, and there's no poll. There's no one to "hit" in the article, and there's no tape measure. It clearly doesn't belong.

And save your scatalogical references for appropriate threads about, well, shit.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:40:34 PM EDT
Maybe they just need to learn better maintenance procedures and stop using wet lubes that attract sand and dust. Using a dry teflon type lube would prevent 90% of the fouling problems experienced by these troops. Also, if the M4 is suffering from increased wear due to higher gas pressures, perhaps they could go with a smaller diamaeter gas port and tube to cycle the bolt. This would decrease the force on the bolt as well as allowing more bullet velocity due to more of the gas going down the bore instead of through the operating system.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:44:49 PM EDT

Instead of the M-16, which also is prone to jamming in Iraq's dusty environment, M-4 carbines are now widely issued to American troops.



I don't get this.

The M16 and the M4 are functionally identical, except in barrel length. If something makes an M16 jam, it makes an M4 jam. They are the same.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:51:32 PM EDT
Nothing wrong with evolution. It happens constantly. And I welcome new and modern firearms for the military. For those of you who are amazed (and saddened) that the M16 is being phased out, would you prefer the military was still using the Springfield '03?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:58:21 PM EDT
The article is a bit behind the times. They're looking at the XM-8 in the shorter term, not the OICW combination grenade launcher/rifle.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:58:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 2:04:16 PM EDT by sniper1az]
Well, the M-16 is too long says my son's friend just back from the "shithole known as Baghdad". 5/3 Marines. He's going back with 20,000 of his buddies from Camp Pendleton after the first of the year. He'll be with the 4th Marines then.

Can't move around in a Hummer with the M16, too long. So they got some M-4s for that stuff. When they hit the ground, he prefers the M-16 to the M-4. And yes, the M-4s are harder on parts like the bolt due to the higher gas pressure in the barrel when it opens. This is due to the timing of the gas port in the 14" barrel. The shorter the barrel, the more unreliable the weapon gets. This is all due to the higher pressure in the barrel as the bullet passes the drilled gas port in shorter barrel. They have tried to drill the holes smaller to limit the higher pressures getting to the bolt, but the bolt still has to begin to unlock when there are high pressures in the barrel in comparison to the M-16. Hope this will clear up some things.


So ,when will we see the M-468 take the place of the M-16? And it has a folding stock with a 16" barrel! With the 115gr bullet, the guys will love this one!

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:00:09 PM EDT
Article is full of shit on a number of points:

Although the M16A1 — introduced in the early 1980s has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn't as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74. Both are said to have better "knockdown" power...
Huh? M16A1 was the 60s.
How does the 74 have more "knock down" power?
The M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16A2, with a clipped barrel, partially retractable stock and a trigger mechanism modified to fire full-auto instead of three-shots bursts.
Wrong. That is the M4A1
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:01:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Raynor_Schiene:
Nothing wrong with evolution. It happens constantly. And I welcome new and modern firearms for the military. For those of you who are amazed (and saddened) that the M16 is being phased out, would you prefer the military was still using the Springfield '03?

The issue here is not the continuing development of new weapons for America's war fighters. The issue is that articles such as the one posted here contain very little in the way of verifiable fact, and simply are not news. I can recall reading articles in that great bastion of scientific inquiry, Popular Mechanics, way back in 1989 about how the M-16 was going to be replaced by an integrated rifle/sighting/communications device. The sources in the posted article are offering opinion, and the writer of the article reports these opinions as if they were fact. I'm all for the development of weapons technology. I am dead-set opposed, though, to this type of all-flash-no-bang reportage of non-news. It serves no good at all, rather, it is generally counter-productive in the sense that it could give the guys in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot zones a rather uneasy feeling that they have deliberately been sent to war with inferior weaponry, which simply isn't the case at all.

Whoo. Nice run-on sentence, there, eh? Fuck it.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:09:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Article is full of shit on a number of points:

Although the M16A1 — introduced in the early 1980s has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn't as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74. Both are said to have better "knockdown" power...
Huh? M16A1 was the 60s.
How does the 74 have more "knock down" power?
The M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16A2, with a clipped barrel, partially retractable stock and a trigger mechanism modified to fire full-auto instead of three-shots bursts.
Wrong. That is the M4A1



Sylvan. I might be wrong, but the AK-74 is not a .223 right? It's similar, but not a .223 round.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:18:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Raynor_Schiene:
Nothing wrong with evolution. It happens constantly. And I welcome new and modern firearms for the military. For those of you who are amazed (and saddened) that the M16 is being phased out, would you prefer the military was still using the Springfield '03?



I agree with DzlBenz and will also add that what is being developed to replace the M16 is NOT a good idea. Having a giant 14 pound techno gizmo replace a rifle is just plain stupid. I don't know about you, but I don't want to trust my life to not only a mechanical system, but also a bunch of electronic systems as well. What happens when you run out of battery power? What about if you crush some computer on the weapon? Not to mention the ridiculous 10" barrel on that clusterfuck of a weapon. The extra training, cost, and complexity of the proposed replacement will only serve as a detriment. It's funny how people cry about the M16 being more complex and unreliable than the AK47, yet their plan is to replace the "complex unreliable" M16 with something even MORE complex and unreliable. What forward thinking indeed!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:20:04 PM EDT
Okay, if your weapon is too bulky replace it with something like the OICW! Please. The M16 is a fine weapon, as is the M4. They both have their purposes and they both have their limitations, as with all firearms. Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't the military consider issueing Mid-Length carbines or Dissipators if the M16 is too long and the M4 too prone to failure? Perhaps it is time for something new, but as someone who intends to join the military when my time comes, I'm frightened by the prospect of carrying a personal weapon into combat with a friggin' computer on it. Firearm mechanisms are subject to failure enough as it is, throwing a computer chip on the damn thing isn't going to help make it more reliable.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:45:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Raynor_Schiene:

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Article is full of shit on a number of points:

Although the M16A1 — introduced in the early 1980s has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn't as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74. Both are said to have better "knockdown" power...
Huh? M16A1 was the 60s.
How does the 74 have more "knock down" power?
The M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16A2, with a clipped barrel, partially retractable stock and a trigger mechanism modified to fire full-auto instead of three-shots bursts.
Wrong. That is the M4A1



Sylvan. I might be wrong, but the AK-74 is not a .223 right? It's similar, but not a .223 round.


The 47 is a bigger and slower round than the 5.56
The 74 is a smaller and faster round than the 5.56
The author of the opinion piece is saying that both smaller and faster and bigger and slower both have more "knock-down" power.
That must be why all spec-ops are using the AK series of weapons.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:49:51 PM EDT
Troy's gonna kick your ass for the inaccuracies in the article!!! !!!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 3:08:19 PM EDT
The 5.45 round is slower than 5.56 by a couple hundred fps if memory serves, not faster.

Cpt. Redleg
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 3:19:38 PM EDT
OK, that's it for me.
I'm quitting this site; selling my Bushmasters; hawking my AR10 as soon as I get it; changing my name to JEEVES and getting an FAL.
I can't take it anymore!!!


Yeah, right.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 3:29:05 PM EDT
This has already been gone over many, many times on the AR-15 board.

If its turning up in the media again its because HK's PR office is trying to keep the idea alive.

Thing is the G36 is a piece of shit, just ask Austrian or any of the others who have had the chance to shoot one. The Bundsweher is NOT pleased with them.

BOTH the XM-8 and XM-29 OICW are teetering on their last legs and HK is grabbing at straws trying to keep it alive.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 3:37:42 PM EDT
Notice that the solution here is a BULLPUP.

The M16 configuration is too long to move around inside vehicles, but the M4 may lack the barrel length to get good velocity and penetration at longer range.


Instead of looking at HK or that OCIW abomination, they should issue some contracts to develop a kick-ass bullpup with a good trigger and an easily switchable ejection port.

THere's a lot out there now, between the FAMAS, Tavor, Steyr AUG, that Singapore bullpup, the upgraded SA80, etc.

I know ya'll will jump on me for heresy, but this really is the solution.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 3:39:51 PM EDT
Two words: Military surplus
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 3:48:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Notice that the solution here is a BULLPUP.

The M16 configuration is too long to move around inside vehicles, but the M4 may lack the barrel length to get good velocity and penetration at longer range.


Instead of looking at HK or that OCIW abomination, they should issue some contracts to develop a kick-ass bullpup with a good trigger and an easily switchable ejection port.

THere's a lot out there now, between the FAMAS, Tavor, Steyr AUG, that Singapore bullpup, the upgraded SA80, etc.

I know ya'll will jump on me for heresy, but this really is the solution.



You cannot shoot a bullpup off of your left shoulder. Because of that you expose too much of your body trying to go around right hand corners. This is why the Austrailain SAS wont use the AUG, why the IDF SF and Police have no plans to give up CARs for TAVORS like the grunts are going to be stuck with. Why the 22nd SAS refuse to use SA80's.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:00:22 PM EDT
Huh? The M16A2 is too bulky, so they're going to replace it with the freakin enormous OICW? They're worried about shooting from vehicles, so they're going to go to a weapon that either shoots 5.56 from a ridiculous 10in barrel, or shoots grenades that have to be laser-rangfindered to the right setting before they're useful?

This is just a random M16 bashfest. If they were actually going to replace the M16, they'd know exactly what they were going to replace it with and why. Instead, they make several contradictory points in a haphazard way, suggesting that someone doesn't like the M16, but doesn't have a good reason why. Therefore, it sounds like new weapon developers trying to justify their existince even though they haven't come up with anything that's really a significant improvment over what we already have. The quote from "a commander who asked not to be identified" seems to confirm this.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:08:09 PM EDT
Just exactly do you guys expect------from a writer with the first name of Slobodan???!!???
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:14:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 4:22:24 PM EDT by LWilde]
Well...I wasn't going to add my $0.02 but I changed my mind.

Having used an M-16A1 in the bush and having owned a souped up Colt AR-15 20" HBAR and an SA-M-7 Commie gun by Arsenal for years, I think if I were in the sand pile now and had my choice of weapons, I'd opt for the AK knockoff...even in the SA only condition.

I love my AR. It is a beautiful weapon and damn accurate out past 300m with the compact ACOG. I don't remember ever having any problems with my M-16 (But that was a LONG time ago and I might be forgetting some bad things...). I also keep my weapons spotless. If I were deployed now, I'd be cleaning my M-16 every chance I had...'cause let's face it, your life depends largely on your weapons and we know that M-16s tend to be a bit tempermental and require frequent cleaning and lubrication with the CORRECT lube.

Nonetheless, having blathered all that...if I had a choice, I'd choose the commie gun. It always works, never jams, takes any mag and any ammo, and is accurate enough out to over 100m...and we all know that most infantry combat occurs inside of 100m...don't we?

There are lots of other fine assault weapons out there too...anyone ever fire one of the Sig 551s?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:14:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:22:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cpt_Redleg:
The 5.45 round is slower than 5.56 by a couple hundred fps if memory serves, not faster.



But 5.45x39 isn't as velocity dependant as 5.56x45.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:43:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RiffRandall:

Originally Posted By Cpt_Redleg:
The 5.45 round is slower than 5.56 by a couple hundred fps if memory serves, not faster.



But 5.45x39 isn't as velocity dependant as 5.56x45.



Right, since it doesn't fragment anyway, and relies only on tumbling for damage. Inside 200 yds the 5.56x45 kicks the heck out of the commie round.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:47:43 PM EDT
In think the problem with the m-16 is the person using it. The military does not spend a fraction of the time they should giving these
guys weapons training. I was inf. in the army and still did not get the training I would like to have gotten. Most units in the military go to the range every once in awhile shoot a few rounds and thats it. I'm from the south and people here grew up with firearms almost from birth, but we had guys in ower units that had never fired a weapon before. In the real world a person for self defence can go and practice with there firearm any time they so chose and our l.e.o. can do the same, the military will not let the soldiers just go to a military range and shoot to better them selfs. In the military you can,t go down to the arms room and say I need my weapon so I can go practice. I didnt know not one soldier in my unit that took pride in his weapon and the above statment is just part of it. When I joined the army and got to my first unit i was given a M-16 A1 that was 20 somthing years old and it was a peace of
sh!*. Alot of guys just did not care about the weapons and I got stuck with crap. I hear other soldiers saying the samething. It all comes down to this.
1. Get the soldiers better training.
2. Up date the weapons more offten.
3. Get the soldiers out to the range more.
I mean hell the ammo is free or better yet the ammo is on the tax payer. So at the end of the p.y. don't get the grease monkeys tools get ammo and go to the range.
4. Have about 5,000 M-16 at the range were soldiers can go and check them out and practice on thier own.
I might be crazy but this is my thought on all of it. Trust you soldiers and give them some credit. If you are a officer it might save your life one day by having men that respect you not hate you. I have never once had a problem with any of my weapons once I got to know them.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:55:55 PM EDT
Should read my postings before I hit submit because my spelling sucks tonight. But you all ment what I knew. lol
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:08:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
Two words: Military surplus



Not
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:33:20 PM EDT
Whatever the replacement is.......it has to be PLASTIC!!!!!!

PLASTIC!

No more of that sissy metal stuff on our guns!
Uh UH!!

PLASTIC!!!!!!!

Like something out of "Toys R US"!!
It has to be PLASTIC!!!!!!!!


Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:41:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
You cannot shoot a bullpup off of your left shoulder. Because of that you expose too much of your body trying to go around right hand corners. This is why the Austrailain SAS wont use the AUG, why the IDF SF and Police have no plans to give up CARs for TAVORS like the grunts are going to be stuck with. Why the 22nd SAS refuse to use SA80's.



Exactly - special units should still be allowed to choose whatever weapons they want, but for the average infantry, airborne and armoured troops, a bullpup might still be the best solution, given the different priorities that have to be traded off.

The average infantry soldier rarely NEEDS to shoot off the weak shoulder, and it still CAN be done, it is just slightly more of a hassle than with a carbine.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:02:10 PM EDT
The whole article is full of shit, and the Army brass is even more full of shit.

Either have your troops maintain their basic weapon, or don't give them a weapon at all. A new one will not make the situation any better.

Questions?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:05:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Well...I wasn't going to add my $0.02 but I changed my mind.

Having used an M-16A1 in the bush and having owned a souped up Colt AR-15 20" HBAR and an SA-M-7 Commie gun by Arsenal for years, I think if I were in the sand pile now and had my choice of weapons, I'd opt for the AK knockoff...even in the SA only condition.

I love my AR. It is a beautiful weapon and damn accurate out past 300m with the compact ACOG. I don't remember ever having any problems with my M-16 (But that was a LONG time ago and I might be forgetting some bad things...). I also keep my weapons spotless. If I were deployed now, I'd be cleaning my M-16 every chance I had...'cause let's face it, your life depends largely on your weapons and we know that M-16s tend to be a bit tempermental and require frequent cleaning and lubrication with the CORRECT lube.

Nonetheless, having blathered all that...if I had a choice, I'd choose the commie gun. It always works, never jams, takes any mag and any ammo, and is accurate enough out to over 100m...and we all know that most infantry combat occurs inside of 100m...don't we?

There are lots of other fine assault weapons out there too...anyone ever fire one of the Sig 551s?



STLRN reported that all 40 AKs his unit tried in the sandbox jammed. He carried one in combat, and it jammed (I think the first time he used it), as did all the other weapons in the unit.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:35:47 PM EDT
I say we have a contest for a huge article on why this whole 'replacement' idea is a load of BS.

There was a pretty good reason to replace the M-14.

But with the XM-8, what will we gain? Hell, we will LOOSE some capabilities. I can't think of anything that is as easy to change around than the M-16/M-4. Can you?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:13:58 PM EDT
The history goes like this.....When the americans fought Spain in Cuba with their Krag/Jorgensen and the spanish had the Mauser and were able to keep a better rate of fire as well as a higher kill ratio than the U.S. soldiers the army learned their lesson! they just stole the best weapon design of the time (mauser) and moved on! Why do people bull headishly cling to the AR-15/m-16 family of weapons? it's serverd longer than any rifle so far so let it go at that. the fact is, look at the last 3 wars we fought Vietnam = Jungle & Iraq = Desert, we need a reliable weapon in the wars of the future and the AKMS already exsists. Why don't we just 'steal' the AK design and be done with it? it seems that some people think their manhood is being questioned when people talk about the m-16's short comings! And yes it has shortcomings! but the factg also is this, The reports to the general staff etc. about the m-16's performance in iraq is CLASSIFIED! thats why it's hard to say how it's doing in iraq. But if they do change rifles then ultimately we'll "know" what it's performance was in Iraq.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:19:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
The history goes like this.....When the americans fought Spain in Cuba with their Krag/Jorgensen and the spanish had the Mauser and were able to keep a better rate of fire as well as a higher kill ratio than the U.S. soldiers the army learned their lesson! they just stole the best weapon design of the time (mauser) and moved on! Why do people bull headishly cling to the AR-15/m-16 family of weapons? it's serverd longer than any rifle so far so let it go at that. the fact is, look at the last 3 wars we fought Vietnam = Jungle & Iraq = Desert, we need a reliable weapon in the wars of the future and the AKMS already exsists. Why don't we just 'steal' the AK design and be done with it? it seems that some people think their manhood is being questioned when people talk about the m-16's short comings! And yes it has shortcomings! but the factg also is this, The reports to the general staff etc. about the m-16's performance in iraq is CLASSIFIED! thats why it's hard to say how it's doing in iraq. But if they do change rifles then ultimately we'll "know" what it's performance was in Iraq.



1) The AK design is obsolete.
2) The AK design has a number of shortcomings.
3) As I posted above, AK reliability in the sandbox was something less than 100% (actually, the 40 AK samples tested by a fellow member of this board in the sandbox--all 40 jammed).

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:25:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 9:28:03 PM EDT by Cpt_Redleg]
I was posting the 5.45 info only because one of the posts (Sylvans' above mine "The 47 is a bigger and slower round than the 5.56
The 74 is a smaller and faster round than the 5.56
The author of the opinion piece is saying that both smaller and faster and bigger and slower both have more "knock-down" power.
That must be why all spec-ops are using the AK series of weapons.") referred to the 5.45 as being faster than the 5.56, which is not the case. I didn't take it further than that because A) I'm not sure anyone anywhere knows which of the two is more superior and B) I didn't want to re-start the debate about wether the 5.45s tumble, yaw, bend etc., capabilities are by design or by chance. Or, worse yet, re-start the AK vs. AR debate.

Merely correcting a post. Tha'sall! Not trying to start a raging debate on 5.45x39 vs. 5.56x45.


Cpt. Redleg
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:29:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackjack272:
There was a pretty good reason to replace the M-14.

But with the XM-8, what will we gain? Hell, we will LOOSE some capabilities. I can't think of anything that is as easy to change around than the M-16/M-4. Can you?



W-O-R-D
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:34:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:35:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
The M-4 ... was first introduced as a personal defense weapon for clerks, drivers and other non-combat troops.





Double Think he meant M-1 Carbine!?

Luck
Alac
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:46:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:


You cannot shoot a bullpup off of your left shoulder. Because of that you expose too much of your body trying to go around right hand corners. This is why the Austrailain SAS wont use the AUG, why the IDF SF and Police have no plans to give up CARs for TAVORS like the grunts are going to be stuck with. Why the 22nd SAS refuse to use SA80's.



Actually it can be done, at least with a AUG.

It ain't comfortable but neither is shooting lefty when you are right handed.

Basically you gotta remember not to put your face near the ejection port. If you forget it will be bad.



How do you manage that without putting your cheek on the reciever? Not use the sight at all?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:46:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
Two words: Military surplus



I'll second that!!!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:25:54 PM EDT
Nice to live in a fantasy world...
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:33:49 PM EDT

1) The AK design is obsolete.
2) The AK design has a number of shortcomings.
3) As I posted above, AK reliability in the sandbox was something less than 100% (actually, the 40 AK samples tested by a fellow member of this board in the sandbox--all 40 jammed


1. It is not obsolete, HOW?
2. name the short comings!
3. was this so called sandbox test done with m-16's as well? Unless it's done scientifically by a gov't agency or Private contractor is seems to me to be so much "my gun better than your gun" BS. do you have a link to it? or other info?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top