Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/26/2005 7:21:49 PM EDT
Yes, it's true. And, unfortunately quite a bit of it has been posted on this site. One guy recently stated that because his AR had a couple of FTF's and his AK did not during a recent outing, the AK was superior. No mention of how well the gun was maintained or what ammo was being used (that I remember). There have also been several other recent posts that say similar crap.

Well, here are my two cents. I own two Colt M4's and one Bushmaster M4. They are all less than two years old. I have approx 2,000 rounds through the Bushmaster and about 2,500 rounds through the two Colts. I have NEVER had one failure to fire, EVER, with any one of them. Yes, I use M855 and XM193 for the most part, but I have also gone through small amounts of other types here and there. I would trust them with my life anytime, anywhere.

I assume most of you could likely say the same.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 7:23:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2005 7:25:36 PM EDT by Stickman]
I honestly don't care what other people think of the AR15/ M16 platform. If someone needs to boast that their weapon requires no cleaning, that tells me about the mindset of the owner.

Sooner or later, you will run into a malfunction, and it doesn't matter when, where, or what you are firing. Murphy has raised his ugly head with me several times in the real world, but its why we train.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 7:27:36 PM EDT
I have never owned a gun that didnt jam at one time or another.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 7:29:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gmtmaster:
I have never owned a gun that didnt jam at one time or another.



Neither have I, except for my three AR's. Seems like you are missing the main point of my statement. I am saying the guns are extremely reliable.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 7:38:15 PM EDT
Mine attracts Jack Russell hair,damn AR!
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 7:44:38 PM EDT
I think it was the post about the LMT rifle. When someone bashes teh AR15 platform just sit back and say STFU!!!!! Icould really care less what most think about the weapons I use. If they don't like it they can keep using their AK or Ruger mini 14/30.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 7:48:42 PM EDT
MADE IN THE USE is all I need to know when I but a firearm, except for my XD.
Icon
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 7:53:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
Yes, it's true. And, unfortunately quite a bit of it has been posted on this site. One guy recently stated that because his AR had a couple of FTF's and his AK did not during a recent outing, the AK was superior. No mention of how well the gun was maintained or what ammo was being used (that I remember). There have also been several other recent posts that say similar crap.

Well, here are my two cents. I own two Colt M4's and one Bushmaster M4. They are all less than two years old. I have approx 2,000 rounds through the Bushmaster and about 2,500 rounds through the two Colts. I have NEVER had one failure to fire, EVER, with any one of them. Yes, I use M855 and XM193 for the most part, but I have also gone through small amounts of other types here and there. I would trust them with my life anytime, anywhere.

I assume most of you could likely say the same.



Yeah, I didn't like his post. It was a set up for disaster. Any gun / rifle can have problems. But when he coupled it with how is AK was flawless, it just didn't sit right. On top of that, later on he said an AR is fine in controlled / decent environments, while the AK was for "harsh" environments. Well that's just plain silly. The AR / M16 / M4, has seen alot of use in alot of different places and held up very well. He had an isolated case of a jamming weapon, which there were alot of variables. I'm sorry it didn't work for him, but it's not the design of weapons fault.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 9:02:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2005 9:03:44 PM EDT by ManiacRat461]
Most of the people who bash Ar15 platform either:
A) Do not own one and have never used one.
B) Rednecks(no offense to anyone) that buy one with their income tax or FEMA money and think they do not have to clean them. (met one of those the last I went to a public pay range and it literally was the last time, ever.)
C) Morons that still listen to the BS rumors that were started way back in the early sixties.
D) Stupid kids. (Work with one of these but he was schooled. Now owns and loves his RRA Entry Tactical I believe it is.)

Anyone who thinks they do not have to clean or lubricate ANYTHING mechanical is a fool. I've had one and only one failure that was not due to magazines, other than the full auto problem I had. FTE from my 20", that was after somewhere around 1500 rounds of nothing but Wolf and Olympic with no cleaning at all. Fixed while in the middle of the woods in Newton county using my USGI cleaning kit. Tapped the brass out using cleaning rods and a loaded magazine(not smart I know but I was improvising) ran patch with CLP through it and was back to shooting. Five minutes maybe?

AK's are great weapons, AR's are great weapons. Each have their advantages and drawbacks. Both have proven themselves many many times in combat.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 9:08:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:
I honestly don't care what other people think of the AR15/ M16 platform. If someone needs to boast that their weapon requires no cleaning, that tells me about the mindset of the owner.

Sooner or later, you will run into a malfunction, and it doesn't matter when, where, or what you are firing. Murphy has raised his ugly head with me several times in the real world, but its why we train.




couldnt have said it better myself. I;ve owned both types of rifles. each have their pros and cons. Its all a matter of personal preference and cleaning.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 9:11:50 PM EDT
I have an AK and i have to clean it, to me that is half the fun of shooting, i get to come home and take it all apart. The AR and M16 platform works or it would not be in the hands of our finest right now.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 9:36:26 PM EDT
i have had failures w/ both

AK--crappy ammo and tight mags

AR--dirty residue+Rem Oil sitting in the chamber for a while=BAD bolt locking and a PITA to charge!


other than that, they are both great platforms
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:21:29 AM EDT

MADE IN THE USE is all I need to know when I but a firearm, except for my XD.
Icon


Uh, yes. The USE makes great firearms and stuff. I like their liquor and women as well.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:58:45 AM EDT
I like AK's. AK's are awesome. AK's are some of the best guns the world has ever seen, and some of the worst. The design is definitely more robust, but a rock is more robust than an AK, does that make a rock the superior weapon? Nope.

I used to think AR guys were snobs. I bashed AR's because I needed to feel better about myself not being to afford one.


There is alot of give and take, and so on, and no one is ever going to be happy. People bitch about AR mags being to flimsy, but the AK mag is too heavy, the AR round not being powerful enough, but that AK round isn't accurate or drops like a rock. The AK has got a piston, but it is to heavy, while the AR has a lightweight gas system but "It shits where it eats!". Assault Rifles are by definition, all about compromise. They were born out of compromise. Medium cartridges, more power than a pistol, less than a rifle, more capacity than a bolt gun and a higher rate of fire, but no belt or quick change barrel, capable of being fired by conscripts, but still deliver some accuracy, able to function in less than optimal conditions, but not blow up in the users face, etc.

No one is ever going to be happy. Heck with the ones that bash, if they cannot comprehend the beauty in each and every firearm that they lay their hands on, maybe they should go somewhere where no one can have them so they can learn some appreciation.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 2:07:02 AM EDT
Big +1 AR'S are the Stuff
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 2:14:26 AM EDT
AR's are for professionals.

AK's are for peasants.

FAL's are for addicts.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:13:40 AM EDT
My brother in law did it to me just yesterday. Something about not getting a mans gun in a mans caliber, as he looked over my new Stag M4gery. I did not respond at all.

First off....he is Army, Army Intelligence in fact. I have to force myself to speak slowly so that he can understand, and I did not feel like doing that at the time, Second, given our age difference, I first started shooting the AR/M16 system back when he was still learning to use a potty chair.

Regardless, Ill never change his mind with any conversation, so the best thing to do is out shoot his ass on the range. No problem there.

I was about 15 when a Marine Vietnam Vet set me straight. I was bad mouthing the M-16 and he politely but rather firmly let me know that I was a misinformed ass! I had the presence of mind to pay attention.

I have yet to see one person as fast on the controls and rememdial action drills with their favorite non-AR bullet chucker as I am with any M-16 based platform.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:25:35 AM EDT
the AR is a fine weapon, I just take issue with the caliber. The AR fills it's role perfectly, that being a rifle ment for a highly trained and motivated soldier. The AK is also a fine weapon, and fills it's roll very well, that being a weapon for a poorly trained, unmotivated conscript script soldier. I could not think of a better weapon to hand to a random person give them a 2 minute talk on how it worked, then point them in the general direction of conflict. The AR is a perfect platform for someone who's well trained, and knows what they're doing, I just don't like 5.56NATO, it's a weak caliber not well suited for a battle rifle. My ideal caliber would probably be the 6.8SPC, as it's a wonderful mix of the 5.56 and the 7.62 nato rounds. Has the same trajectory path as 7.62nato, but fits inside 5.56 STANAG mags at a cost of 25 rounds vs. 30 rounds. Has much better wound balistics at greater ranges than 5.56.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:03:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
the AR is a fine weapon, I just take issue with the caliber. The AR fills it's role perfectly, that being a rifle ment for a highly trained and motivated soldier. The AK is also a fine weapon, and fills it's roll very well, that being a weapon for a poorly trained, unmotivated conscript script soldier. I could not think of a better weapon to hand to a random person give them a 2 minute talk on how it worked, then point them in the general direction of conflict. The AR is a perfect platform for someone who's well trained, and knows what they're doing, I just don't like 5.56NATO, it's a weak caliber not well suited for a battle rifle. My ideal caliber would probably be the 6.8SPC, as it's a wonderful mix of the 5.56 and the 7.62 nato rounds. Has the same trajectory path as 7.62nato, but fits inside 5.56 STANAG mags at a cost of 25 rounds vs. 30 rounds. Has much better wound balistics at greater ranges than 5.56.



All the guys dead from the 5.56 probably take issue with it too.

I like 6.8 also, but I don't think the 5.56 is any slouch in combat, regardless of the rumors floating around.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:17:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:29:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 4:52:30 AM EDT by dalesimpson]

Originally Posted By captainobvious:
AR's are for professionals.

AK's are for peasants.

FAL's are for addicts.



Peasants? Is that meant to be an insult? I personally own 6 AKs and 2 ARs. Where does that put me? I carried an M16 for 6 years, does that make me a professional, or am I a peasant now because I also collect/shoot AKs? I don't know... the word peasant seems like an insult to me. BTW, I shoot pretty damn well with both platforms, so I guess if I am a peasant, I am a pretty lethal peasant. I also used to swear that I would never own an AR, and I don't know why. But now that I own a couple I am damn glad that I have them. As has been said, they are no more or less reliable than the AK. The AK just seems to be more forgiving as far as maintenance goes. I just hope that this doesn't turn into an AK bashing thread.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:44:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:
I honestly don't care what other people think of the AR15/ M16 platform. If someone needs to boast that their weapon requires no cleaning, that tells me about the mindset of the owner.

Sooner or later, you will run into a malfunction, and it doesn't matter when, where, or what you are firing. Murphy has raised his ugly head with me several times in the real world, but its why we train.



+1

and a Aaaaaaaammmmennn!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 5:03:41 AM EDT
I'm just here for the pictures. People can post what they want.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 5:53:41 AM EDT
I have'nt had issue with my AK's, AR's or FAL's...I must sure know how to pick em..Of course I know how to clean em after shooting though..
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:12:21 AM EDT
No rifle is idiot proof,cept maybe a AK,that being said, have heard mention some AK owners having problems as well.


TG
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:15:46 AM EDT
i like my ar's and also my ak's
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:22:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 6:24:44 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By dalesimpson:

Originally Posted By captainobvious:
AR's are for professionals.

AK's are for peasants.

FAL's are for addicts.



Peasants? Is that meant to be an insult?



Dale, I'm guessing that the Cap'n meant "designed for", and was being ever-so-slightly sarcastic, but without the use of a smiley.

As a former AR basher, I can say that my time in the "real" world with Arfcommers is what changed my position. I've learned to accept the limitations that an AR has, and have discovered that they can be just as reliable as an AK. One just has to set it up correctly (i.e. your tight-chambered tackdriver AR won't be able to eat rusty Wolf, while your mil-spec, chrome-lined beater M4gery can). No matter what you shoot:

Accuracy, Reliability, Cost.

Pick two.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:24:11 AM EDT
There tools.....plain and simple
Snap-on or Craftsman..you pick, but it's the guy wielding the tool that makes the difference.....
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:26:03 AM EDT
And Don't worry Dale..I got an AK to...
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:42:12 AM EDT

The design is definitely more robust, but a rock is more robust than an AK, does that make a rock the superior weapon? Nope.



I can get 1.5 MOA out of my rock in sub-zero weather! Don't knock us rock-throwers!
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:46:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 6:55:04 AM EDT by metalsaber]
I don't see that much bashing. I see people complaining about problems, but I hardly see that as bashing. Just cause someone happened to have a bad day with an AR over an AK, its not the end of the world. My .22 functioned better than my DPM at one point, but I didn't give up the DPMS for the .22
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:47:05 AM EDT
Did I mention I only throw rocks MADE IN THE USE?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:53:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 6:54:18 AM EDT by billclo]
I've actually had more problems with my AK than my 2 ARs put together. Arsenal USA SSR-85B. Poor quality trigger group wore out after only about 1000 rds, and was failing to reset the trigger. This meant that I had to push the trigger forward with my finger before I could shoot again. Replacing it with a better quality trigger assy (Tapco G2) solved the problem, and gave a much nicer trigger pull to boot.

I've had a couple Fail to fires and fail to fully extracts with my 2 ARs over the years. The fail to extracts were my fault, not keeping the gun properly lubed before shooting it. The Fail to fires were a worn out hammer spring.

Considering that I've only had 2 FTFs and a couple fail to extracts in 10 years, and maybe 12-15k rds isn't so bad. (I don't keep detailed records of rounds fired anymore)

Is the AK more forgiving of poor maintenance? You bet it is. Is it perfect? Certainly not. I know the AR's limitations, and work within them.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:56:10 AM EDT
Here is my take on this.
When I was younger I bought a bulgarian sa-93 for 300 bucks out the door with 6 mags and a case of ammo, this was 92 or 93. I liked the gun, it shot well enough and never had any issues. I eventually sold it as well as most of what I had while in college as I had no time to shoot nor money. Last year I bought my first AR and fell in love, it shot great, was accurate and didn't have any issues that I couldn't prevent.
On the day after christmas last year I bought another ak, a bulgarian sar2 in 5.45 good rifle, shot well enough , the trigger kinda sucked, but the beauty was in 2-3k rounds I put through it I never cleaned it and never oiled it, I checked it every range trip and it was fine.
I consider the AK a superb fighting gun, if I was out in the countryside with no resupply and hardly any tools I would prefer to have an AK as my weapon as I know I won't have to maintain it too well or worry about things breaking.
I also consider the AR a superb fighting gun, my RRA government shows me that. Much more accurate then the AK and more versatile, as well as up/downgradeable. Yes it is more maintenance heavy then the AK, I am afraid to see what would happen on a bad drop, and parts can and do break more often then the ak. As long as you have time and tools you can keep and AR running just as well as an AK.
I sold my AK, I jsut didn't like it as much as my AR, I have no problems or issues against ak's I just prefer and AR and that is what I stuck with.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:25:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 7:27:00 AM EDT by CTKurt]

Originally Posted By safetyhit:
Yes, it's true. And, unfortunately quite a bit of it has been posted on this site. One guy recently stated that because his AR had a couple of FTF's and his AK did not during a recent outing, the AK was superior. No mention of how well the gun was maintained or what ammo was being used (that I remember). There have also been several other recent posts that say similar crap.

Well, here are my two cents. I own two Colt M4's and one Bushmaster M4. They are all less than two years old. I have approx 2,000 rounds through the Bushmaster and about 2,500 rounds through the two Colts. I have NEVER had one failure to fire, EVER, with any one of them. Yes, I use M855 and XM193 for the most part, but I have also gone through small amounts of other types here and there. I would trust them with my life anytime, anywhere.

I assume most of you could likely say the same.


To each their own but if you come to a forum site it isnt so everyone can agree on all issues. It is basically an organized anonymous argument.

*I want both* edit
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:36:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vengarr:
Here is my take on this.
When I was younger I bought a bulgarian sa-93 for 300 bucks out the door with 6 mags and a case of ammo, this was 92 or 93. I liked the gun, it shot well enough and never had any issues. I eventually sold it as well as most of what I had while in college as I had no time to shoot nor money. Last year I bought my first AR and fell in love, it shot great, was accurate and didn't have any issues that I couldn't prevent.
On the day after christmas last year I bought another ak, a bulgarian sar2 in 5.45 good rifle, shot well enough , the trigger kinda sucked, but the beauty was in 2-3k rounds I put through it I never cleaned it and never oiled it, I checked it every range trip and it was fine.
I consider the AK a superb fighting gun, if I was out in the countryside with no resupply and hardly any tools I would prefer to have an AK as my weapon as I know I won't have to maintain it too well or worry about things breaking.
I also consider the AR a superb fighting gun, my RRA government shows me that. Much more accurate then the AK and more versatile, as well as up/downgradeable. Yes it is more maintenance heavy then the AK, I am afraid to see what would happen on a bad drop, and parts can and do break more often then the ak. As long as you have time and tools you can keep and AR running just as well as an AK.
I sold my AK, I jsut didn't like it as much as my AR, I have no problems or issues against ak's I just prefer and AR and that is what I stuck with.



Yes, but did you try to shoot your ar that long without cleaing it?? Ask misterpx about that.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:42:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 7:45:20 AM EDT by Hylton]
People that bash the AR15 usually cant afford them in the first place and that’s why they have such strong animosity for them, the AK47 is a reliable weapon but its certainly no AR15
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:14:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 8:27:24 AM EDT by Horik]
The AK is the elephant man of ergonomics! Heavy and tumorous and the important parts are overbearing.

The AR is the playmate of ergonomics! Nice and smooth and the important parts are easy to find.

Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:31:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By safetyhit:

Originally Posted By gmtmaster:
I have never owned a gun that didnt jam at one time or another.



Neither have I, except for my three AR's. Seems like you are missing the main point of my statement. I am saying the guns are extremely reliable.



Of course they are.
Kept properly cleaned , lubed, and fed decent ammo so are :

FALs
AKs
M1s
M14s
G3s
­03 Springfields.......

Hmm , well I guess Im missing your point too...........
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:56:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gmtmaster:
I have never owned a gun that didnt jam at one time or another.



I have had an old school CZ75 for 20 years now that has never failed once. I could not even guess how many rounds I have pumped out of that bad boy.


On the AR note, I have had high dollar dear riffles fail on me more than my Colt or Bushy ARs. They run like a champ. I think it comes down to ammo most of the time but it could be a few things. Some people use grease and that stuff gums up big time.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:07:51 AM EDT
My AR has given me feed/extraction problems on only ONE occasion-using my M261 with cheap Remmington fodder (which didn't do well in my P22 or Ruger Mark II either). I've never had any ammunition that was even similar to standard military rounds (old PMC, or even Barnaul, for example) give me any trouble.

I HAVE had my AK stutter a few times, but that was mostly my fumbling with it early in our "relationship." The shooter has to learn every platform-"a rifle is a rifle" is a damn lie. With that said, you often have to learn each rifle too-my AK is pretty darn accurate for an AK and fairly accurate for a .30-30-class rifle in general.

Choose between them? What am I going to be doing? Tell me that, and I'll choose which one I want right then.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:45:02 AM EDT
My AR runs fine. Fuck the naysayers. What really gets me is most of the AR bashers do not even own one, or have ever even fired one.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:47:54 AM EDT
What I'd like to know is why these two are even being compared? Two completly different rifles, bullet size etc.? There nothing a like?? There are tons of weapons to choose from. Pick the one you like and fits your bill keep it clean and enjoy it for what ever reason but to say my weapon is better then yours well its time to get out of the sandbox I think mommy has dinner done and before you leave tell the little kid you just threw sand at that your daddy will beat his up...
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 11:10:39 AM EDT
I like my AR better than my AK, cause if it ever has a malfunction, I have plenty of gadgets attached that I can take off and throw at the bad guy. The only thing I can take off my AK is the mag...


Nothing like getting beaned in the head by a $400 Red dot, a $350 dollar flashlight, or a $110 flip up sight!

The collapsible stock is pretty easy to take off as well. If your using a GI sling, taking that stock off and leaving it attached to your barrel makes one hell of a mace.

Which is the better weapon now???
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 11:14:32 AM EDT
AR's and AK's are probibly compared the most because of thier use in both Vientam and 'Peacetime' (aka the cold war). They Russians were villified and the AK was the symbol associated with them. Think of it... when did you NOT see an 'evil' russian or Chi-com without an AK on thier shoulder?

The AK and AR are more similiar than most think. They were both DESIGNED to be used by the untrained/unskilled recruits/peasants. The AR was developed bacause the M14/M1 has a serious recoil and the Army was not producing 'marksman' as in WWI and WWII, but needed a recruit to put lead down range. The AR's small size, low recoil light weight (esp in ammo loadout) meant that a recruit should be able to put more rounds in the general direction of the enemy. Aimed or not. Remember the AR-15/M-16 initially didn't require cleaning (ease of use) and the range/lethality has been in question since the 1960's. In Desert Storm jamming was reported and serious questions were being asked (AGAIN) about the M16's reliability.

The AK, with its lose tolerances, prevelance in all 2nd/3rd world countries it still being associated as used by our 'enemies' still gives it a bad rep.

If you have never had a gun jam or fail to extract then you are not shooting as much as you think you are. My AR fouls up quite nicely if I don't clean it after 1000 or 1500 rounds. Since its an XM-16 upper I have no forward assist and simply have to go home when the FtF or FtE start occuring. My Garand has yet to get fouled to the point of failing... simply due to the different gas systems. My 1911 also will jam after 300-400 rounds.. stovepiping quite regularly when fouling is prevent. My M1 Carbine runs clean, but again it does not share the AR-15 direct gas system.

To say that one sucks simply shows bias, nothing more. Both will jam, maybe at different rates or require different circumstances before the jams occur.

Bottom line: A well maintained weapon will function. The only issue is what level of maintenance needs to be achieved. Its clear that the AR needs MUCH more TLC than an AK.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 11:18:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JJREA:

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
the AR is a fine weapon, I just take issue with the caliber. The AR fills it's role perfectly, that being a rifle ment for a highly trained and motivated soldier. The AK is also a fine weapon, and fills it's roll very well, that being a weapon for a poorly trained, unmotivated conscript script soldier. I could not think of a better weapon to hand to a random person give them a 2 minute talk on how it worked, then point them in the general direction of conflict. The AR is a perfect platform for someone who's well trained, and knows what they're doing, I just don't like 5.56NATO, it's a weak caliber not well suited for a battle rifle. My ideal caliber would probably be the 6.8SPC, as it's a wonderful mix of the 5.56 and the 7.62 nato rounds. Has the same trajectory path as 7.62nato, but fits inside 5.56 STANAG mags at a cost of 25 rounds vs. 30 rounds. Has much better wound balistics at greater ranges than 5.56.



All the guys dead from the 5.56 probably take issue with it too.

I like 6.8 also, but I don't think the 5.56 is any slouch in combat, regardless of the rumors floating around.



Oh I know 5.56 is a killer, inside it's fragmentation velocity. Outside of that, and it just punches .22 caliber holes in people like an ice pic. Out of a 20" barrel I belive 55gr nato drops bellow it's fragmentation velocity at around 270 meters or so. That's decent, you're not going to expect to engauge baddies out past that range. With a 14.5" barrel that range drops down to about 130 meters I believe, a 11.5" barrel 90 meters, 10.5" about 50 to 75 meters. You see what I'm getting at? I'd prefer the 6.8 that will put a bad-guy down out too probbaly 400 meters from an 18" barrel. Thus you now have the range to engauge long targets, out of a shorter package that's suitable for MOUT opperations. Pretty good in my book.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 11:30:48 AM EDT
Bottom-lining this, if it's mechanical, it will fail. That said, any well-maintained firearm with previous user experience indicating it to be a reliable shooter should not be disatisfied...or throw darts at another weapon platform.

Ed
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 11:50:29 AM EDT
When I was in Nam we had the M14 only got to fire the M16 to go to Nam. Heard pros and cons on the m16 while I was there in 68-69. Now I have my first AR15 by RRA and love it. Of course I love all my weapons. I wish the government would change their minds and let us buy the M14 which is a great weapon also. I would buy one of them too so I can add it to my collection of weapons... I agree with most you must keep all weapons clean or sooner or later you are going to have some problems.hug.gif
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 11:59:38 AM EDT
I went on a huge shooting trip xmas night, and yesterday. I brought my AK (sar-1), my AR carbine (SP-1 mutt gun), and about 4 pistols. I fully expected to have a failure of some kind in my AR. However, it functioned 100% on 62gr SP Silver bear. My AK was 100% as well. This really boosted my confindence in MY ar15, beacause the first round I ever fired out of it FTE'd. Stuck case.

Im a happy man.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:13:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:

Originally Posted By JJREA:

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
the AR is a fine weapon, I just take issue with the caliber. The AR fills it's role perfectly, that being a rifle ment for a highly trained and motivated soldier. The AK is also a fine weapon, and fills it's roll very well, that being a weapon for a poorly trained, unmotivated conscript script soldier. I could not think of a better weapon to hand to a random person give them a 2 minute talk on how it worked, then point them in the general direction of conflict. The AR is a perfect platform for someone who's well trained, and knows what they're doing, I just don't like 5.56NATO, it's a weak caliber not well suited for a battle rifle. My ideal caliber would probably be the 6.8SPC, as it's a wonderful mix of the 5.56 and the 7.62 nato rounds. Has the same trajectory path as 7.62nato, but fits inside 5.56 STANAG mags at a cost of 25 rounds vs. 30 rounds. Has much better wound balistics at greater ranges than 5.56.



All the guys dead from the 5.56 probably take issue with it too.

I like 6.8 also, but I don't think the 5.56 is any slouch in combat, regardless of the rumors floating around.



Oh I know 5.56 is a killer, inside it's fragmentation velocity. Outside of that, and it just punches .22 caliber holes in people like an ice pic. Out of a 20" barrel I belive 55gr nato drops bellow it's fragmentation velocity at around 270 meters or so. That's decent, you're not going to expect to engauge baddies out past that range. With a 14.5" barrel that range drops down to about 130 meters I believe, a 11.5" barrel 90 meters, 10.5" about 50 to 75 meters. You see what I'm getting at? I'd prefer the 6.8 that will put a bad-guy down out too probbaly 400 meters from an 18" barrel. Thus you now have the range to engauge long targets, out of a shorter package that's suitable for MOUT opperations. Pretty good in my book.



I know what you're getting at, and you can post all kinds of technical jargon but the fact is GI's are getting kills with the 5.56 out to longer distances than you mentioned with the SPR and SAM. The spr has an 18" barrel. The SAM has a 20". Mk262 is a good round. And even the m855 will do the trick. I'm pretty sure it's yawing much after the frag range. I think the icicle thing is just rumored bs. Don't get me wrong, it's more deadly within th frag range, but it'll kill further out than that. I keep sayin this but if you're only relying on tests that we're done in a controlled environment, it's not the full story. It's a benchmark. And a good one, but don't put it in a box. Information can be dangerous.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:35:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vengarr:
Here is my take on this.
When I was younger I bought a bulgarian sa-93 for 300 bucks out the door with 6 mags and a case of ammo, this was 92 or 93. I liked the gun, it shot well enough and never had any issues. I eventually sold it as well as most of what I had while in college as I had no time to shoot nor money. Last year I bought my first AR and fell in love, it shot great, was accurate and didn't have any issues that I couldn't prevent.
On the day after christmas last year I bought another ak, a bulgarian sar2 in 5.45 good rifle, shot well enough , the trigger kinda sucked, but the beauty was in 2-3k rounds I put through it I never cleaned it and never oiled it, I checked it every range trip and it was fine.
I consider the AK a superb fighting gun, if I was out in the countryside with no resupply and hardly any tools I would prefer to have an AK as my weapon as I know I won't have to maintain it too well or worry about things breaking.
I also consider the AR a superb fighting gun, my RRA government shows me that. Much more accurate then the AK and more versatile, as well as up/downgradeable. Yes it is more maintenance heavy then the AK, I am afraid to see what would happen on a bad drop, and parts can and do break more often then the ak. As long as you have time and tools you can keep and AR running just as well as an AK.
I sold my AK, I jsut didn't like it as much as my AR, I have no problems or issues against ak's I just prefer and AR and that is what I stuck with.



I would not worry about dropping one, i seen more than one moron drop their M16 15 feet off the bleachers and land on concrete,and then went and qualified with it.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top