Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/19/2006 10:41:54 AM EDT
Here me out first - there have been so many articles on rifles that are/might replace the M16/AR and how the M16 isn't up to snuff, plus the new calibers that have been suggested for ARs, 6.5 and 6.8. I always thought that if I were in charge I'd just modify the AK in x39, put on a Galil thumb safety, exchange slide-down safety on the right with a hinged one like on the AR, fix up the sights, etc.

Why not? AKs are cheaper than hell and imagine all the ingenuity if the US really focused on product-improving the AK and its ammo.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:48:28 AM EDT
What if cows had wings? They'd be eagles.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:49:48 AM EDT
Because a tweaked AK in 6.5 would make sense and be cost effective. Two things the U.S.GOV and D.O.D. cannot do.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:56:13 AM EDT
Generally, the United States Military stresses hitting your target...
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 12:39:25 PM EDT
Only AK type I could see the U.S. using would be made by SIG.

Don't think the U.S. would use the 7.62X39 other than special applications
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 4:57:56 PM EDT
What if the U.S. adopted communism, soccer, and some pie other than apple?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 5:21:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 5:27:16 PM EDT
I could see it. Too many people in this forum are closed minded. I shoot both a M4 and a AK. The AK would have to go through some changes, but would be cost effective and more reliable than our current long rifle. With the right barrel modifcations, it could be more accurate.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 8:04:05 PM EDT
Can you say "SCAR"?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 8:53:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 6:47:28 AM EDT
I think with the right barrel and caliber modifications, it would be a great idea...
However, we can do the caliber mod's to M16's just as easily, and the accurate barrels are already on those...
If all the m16's suck, then yeah change out... but I think most are good salvagable weapons capable of being put to good use as they are, and some might need some modification, which would be cheaper than re-doing the whole lot right now...

If we did do a caliber conversion, how many mags could we pick up off the ground? Wouldn't the point of the AK to have the same parts as other countries?

I think it would be possible... If I bought my own island, I'd think about this idea for my own army... but for the US? no way... Hitting your target is more important, something AK's have a slightly harder time doing
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 6:51:29 AM EDT
Somewhere in my stored stuff, (which means lost forever) I have a 1976 Infantry Mag that says by spring of that year (spring of 1976) the army will start fielding a M16 chambered for a 6 mm, simular to the 243.

Lots of rumers but I bet I dont see the army replacing the m16 style rifle in my life time. The 62 grn bullet seems to be doing pretty good so I doubt you see that change eigther, and no way in hell is the army gonna go to an AK
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 7:02:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Coopmandu:
i1.tinypic.com/o6i1yu.jpg



Yeah, Tapco might get the contract to produce the next U.S. infantry rifle.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 7:12:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 7:33:12 AM EDT by 5subslr5]
Purely by chance, I had the honor and pleasure to meet one of the Rangers in the Somalia fight.* Guess we met maybe three times and talked at length at the VA hospital here in Oklahoma City.

This guy took three (3) AK rounds through the stomach and was still in the fight. He took another round through the shoulder and was still in the fight. Finally, he took another round laterally through the shoulders and was knocked out of the fight. (I saw the scars.)

Maybe the above is one reason we should not convert to the AK-47 ??

Also please remember weapons reflect the tactical thinking of the militaries that deploy them. Both the AK-47 and M-16 perfectly reflected the differing tactics (and different type soldier) of the US and Soviet forces.



5sub

Link Posted: 2/20/2006 7:21:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By borat:
Here me out first.



No.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 8:46:51 AM EDT
Why would the US military do that? Switch to the AK? Oh the humanity!

I'm not saying the AK isn't a great firearm by the way. To me, growing up
during the cold war, the AK is a symbol of communism. A fine weapon to
be sure, but the thought of AKs being issued to American soldiers, no way.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 9:17:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Purely by chance, I had the honor and pleasure to meet one of the Rangers in the Somalia fight.* Guess we met maybe three times and talked at length at the VA hospital here in Oklahoma City.

This guy took three (3) AK rounds through the stomach and was still in the fight. He took another round through the shoulder and was still in the fight. Finally, he took another round laterally through the shoulders and was knocked out of the fight. (I saw the scars.)

Maybe the above is one reason we should not convert to the AK-47 ??

Also please remember weapons reflect the tactical thinking of the militaries that deploy them. Both the AK-47 and M-16 perfectly reflected the differing tactics (and different type soldier) of the US and Soviet forces.



5sub




Exactly!
This has nothing to do with "AR is better" or "AK is better"
It has to do with the differing tactics of the militaries who adopted them.
Just like the Germans had the MG42 and we had the 1919A4 - different LMGs for different roles.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 9:38:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 9:42:54 AM EDT by borat]
Seems like most responders here didn't read my whole post. I'm not saying to switch to a Tapco AK - what I'm saying is that the US military is looking now at other weapons not based on the AR - like FN's SCAR - the gas tube looks like a goner. I'm suggesting that instead of building up a whole new rifle such as the SCAR and XM8 and HK 416, wouldn't it make sense to just modify and Americanize the AK/AK system and use that as the new infantry weapon. Kinda like an update to the Galil except not with a milled rcvr.

Or maybe if the US changes to a 6.8mm AR with gas piston that will be good enough.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:29:05 AM EDT
Piston systems are great if your barrel is under 10" and/or suppressed. I don't buy the claims that they are a must have for every AR out there.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 11:28:42 AM EDT
What about that new Russian Rifle The An 94
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 4:49:06 PM EDT
But we'd have to come up with a whole new drill maual.........................


I think it's a good idea, but is not nearly as accurate as what we like/are used to.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 5:08:33 PM EDT
no

the AK, while KISS, is not the greatest distance gun (expecially w/ 7.62x39) and sucky sights
at CQB, its a good spray and pray gun, but its not as ergonamic

h/w, the piston system is better--simplier, more reliable

now if you get an AK system mixed with an AR style setup, and improved ammo, THAT would work
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 5:15:21 PM EDT
Cons.
-Inaccurate.
-Imported.
-A cheap Russian gun made in America would be an expensive American made Russian gun.
-Heavy.
-Inadequate round.
-Horrible ergonomics.
-Frustrating to assemble/disassemble.
-It's the epitome of a non modular design.
-No optics mount that's worth the pot metal it's made from.
-Non NATO caliber chambered.
-Doesn't take STANAG mags.
-Would require extreme amounts of training for soldiers.
-Would require extreme amounts of training for armorers.
-Even more out dated than the M16.

Pros.
-Reliability.

<­BR>





Link Posted: 2/20/2006 6:10:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 6:11:30 PM EDT by ChiefPilot]

Originally Posted By borat:
Here me out first - there have been so many articles on rifles that are/might replace the M16/AR and how the M16 isn't up to snuff, plus the new calibers that have been suggested for ARs, 6.5 and 6.8. I always thought that if I were in charge I'd just modify the AK in x39, put on a Galil thumb safety, exchange slide-down safety on the right with a hinged one like on the AR, fix up the sights, etc.

Why not? AKs are cheaper than hell and imagine all the ingenuity if the US really focused on product-improving the AK and its ammo.



Ah yes, the choice of communists, terrorists, and ROP'er monkey pumpers. I don't think so. It's offensive that you'd even suggest it.


Link Posted: 2/20/2006 7:15:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 7:22:51 PM EDT by Phil1712]

Originally Posted By olds442tyguy:
Cons.
-Inaccurate.
-Imported.
-A cheap Russian gun made in America would be an expensive American made Russian gun.
-Heavy.
-Inadequate round.
-Horrible ergonomics.
-Frustrating to assemble/disassemble.
-It's the epitome of a non modular design.
-No optics mount that's worth the pot metal it's made from.
-Non NATO caliber chambered.
-Doesn't take STANAG mags.
-Would require extreme amounts of training for soldiers.
-Would require extreme amounts of training for armorers.
-Even more out dated than the M16.

Pros.
-Reliability.



Well said.

In essence, this is what an AK 47 is, well, or just the reciever.



You can literally throw your trash in the gun and it'll work. Reliability, but trash cans don't do much.


Link Posted: 2/21/2006 12:30:32 AM EDT
There is the 55x which won a fat contract for the DEA/DOJ/DHS

That is about as AK as we can expect our government to use
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:04:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:25:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By borat:
Here me out first - there have been so many articles on rifles that are/might replace the M16/AR and how the M16 isn't up to snuff, plus the new calibers that have been suggested for ARs, 6.5 and 6.8. I always thought that if I were in charge I'd just modify the AK in x39, put on a Galil thumb safety, exchange slide-down safety on the right with a hinged one like on the AR, fix up the sights, etc.

Why not? AKs are cheaper than hell and imagine all the ingenuity if the US really focused on product-improving the AK and its ammo.



First let me say Im a big fan of the AK. But why do people keep saying the AK is cheap is in cost ?? The only factor in the cheap cost is it is made with barely no labor cost. Them factory workers don't get jack shit for pay normally. There's your cheap cost. If it was produced over here in the USA .Which it would have to be... It would cost up there with the M16 series per rifle. It might be alittle cheaper but not by much. Example. My job here in the USA pays $75,000 a year. In Russia the same job pays $8000 a year and we work for the same company... Do the math and you will see why import rifles are cheap. It dosen't have anything to do with manufactoring process.
Also the M16 series is a very good weapon. I haven't a clue where you got that it isn't. I carried one for a good while and have many thousand of rounds down range to say other wise. It isn't perfect but what is .... WarDawg
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:52:01 AM EDT
What would happen. We would still kick everyones ass. The rifle doesn't make or break the army as long as it performs within certain perameters ( accurate and realiable enough) We have the best trained and motivated troops in the history of the world.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:40:06 PM EDT
Then we'd have soldiers and internet posters bitching about the problems that the AK has, and that so and so Army has so much better weapons.

There is always somebody that has something that is so much better than the uter crap we are issued. From weapons, to field rations, to toilet paper.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:50:46 PM EDT
Who gives a damn what rifles cost? We can afford M16s, just like we buy airplanes that cost $500 million dollars each.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:12:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blue_Genes:
Generally, the United States Military stresses hitting your target...



No they don't, they quit doing that when they adopted the M16.. If they did, we would still be using the M14..
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:28:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By coltshorty14:

Originally Posted By Blue_Genes:
Generally, the United States Military stresses hitting your target...



No they don't, they quit doing that when they adopted the M16.. If they did, we would still be using the M14..



your joking right, I hope so, I really really do
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:03:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By coltshorty14:

Originally Posted By Blue_Genes:
Generally, the United States Military stresses hitting your target...



No they don't, they quit doing that when they adopted the M16.. If they did, we would still be using the M14..



I thought the M14 was a known second place finisher at Camp Perry to the M16. Did I go retarded or something or did you?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:05:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By borat:
Here me out first - there have been so many articles on rifles that are/might replace the M16/AR and how the M16 isn't up to snuff, plus the new calibers that have been suggested for ARs, 6.5 and 6.8. I always thought that if I were in charge I'd just modify the AK in x39, put on a Galil thumb safety, exchange slide-down safety on the right with a hinged one like on the AR, fix up the sights, etc.

Why not? AKs are cheaper than hell and imagine all the ingenuity if the US really focused on product-improving the AK and its ammo.



What if the US military adopted an AK?

Well they would be so stupid that we would need to fire a lot of people. Our troops would have less effective ammo and weapons. Hell would have frozen over.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:58:43 AM EDT
The AK is no dout the most reliable rifle in the world. . Like the SIG series if you blend several different weapons systems you get a rifle better than the M16 design and also better than the standard AK design. IMO WarDawg
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:06:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 4:09:53 PM EDT by _DR]
The AK is the BG's gun.
We are the Good guys, remember?

Maybe this will help:


Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:01:01 PM EDT
The U.S military will never use a foreign weapon for general use other than special applications. The military prides itself on using domestic weapons and to adopt a foreign rofle will make us look third world and unable to creat our own weapons
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:34:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 10:42:45 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By oxyman:
The U.S military will never use a foreign weapon for general use other than special applications. The military prides itself on using domestic weapons and to adopt a foreign rifle will make us look third world and unable to creat our own weapons



Really?

The Springfield '03, the standard infantry weapon of the US in WWI, but used through the VietNam war, was basically a copied Mauser action.

The M9, the current standard sidearm of the US Army, is an Italian design, basically a clone of the Beretta 92F.

The M240 is a Belgian designed Machinegun, basically an updated FN MAG LMG made by FN Herstal for the US Army and USMC for some time now, and progressing to replace the M60 which was based on the German MG42 action, another foreign weapon.

The M249 SAW is in fact a rebadged FN Minimi 5.56mm Machinegun, produced by FN Herstal of Belgium in their US plant for the US Army.

The SigArms P228 serves as the Pistol, M11 for US Navy pilots. SigArms is a Swiss-German partnership, and the M11 (P228) is a Swiss Design.

The Sigarms P226 Has been adopted as the Mk 24 Mod 0 by the US Navy Seals in a special corrosion resistant edition. Again, Sig is a Swiss-German Firm.

The AT4 Antitank Missile was designed and is made by a Swedish Firm, FFV Ordnance.

I could go on.

I don't think the AK will ever be adopted, nevertheless...

you are mistaken on that point, sorry...
Top Top