Well...fellow AR enthusiasts I am here on active duty for OBC ( I won't say where).  I was in a debate with fellow classmates about how the M16 suck...how the upper receiver bends with your bare hands, how the 1 in 17" twist is not good for M855 ammo..yep someone told me the twist in M16s are 1 in SEVENTEEN! How they would trade an M16 for a SKS! ALso my classmates said how inadequate the 5.56 round is.  Heck if someone shot me with it I'd be crying like a bitch!  I was just laughing at how they were heralding Kalashnikov and his rifles.  Don't get me wrong Kalashnikov was a great designer.  (I couldn't design a weapon!)  But my AR never failed me as a HP shooter nor did I have any malfunctions qualifying (yet) on the Army qual course.  But some fallacies are too funny to keep to yourself.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

I bet these are the same idiots that trick out 500.00 worth of garbage to a 100.00 sks.

I have had several sks's and AK clones over the years. Sold them all. Clunky ugly junk made by a 3rd world goat herder to be used by an 4th world dumbass in some forgotten region of the world.
5.56 may be a light bullet but at least it WILL hit where it is aimed. and THAT is what counts.

My apologies to CAMPYBOB bout my AK comments

AK = spray'Npray for the religious and spray'Nhope for the Communists.............
(But from 60 yds and in......)

Kalashnikov RULEZ!!!! (unless, of course, the other guy has an AR, and is over 400yds away)

Wasn't there a story on this site about an AK shooter who (to prove a point) filled his rifle's receiver with sand, fired it, and had the gun jam up so bad that it COULDN'T be unstuck?

A properly maintained AR will outshoot an AK any day of the week!

I used to have an AK47 and an AK74. Both were 100% reliable, never had a single malfunction with either. The 74 was way more accurate than the 47, and at longer ranges. The 74 still couldn't hit as consistantly accurate as my 16 inch Bushmaster. The AK74 was awesome though, it had absolutely no recoil. It literally had less recoil then my marlin .22, the muzzlebreak is ugly as sin but it damn sure works.

I love my AR, and it is my go-to gun, but I love my Kalashnikov too!



Cheers,
Chris

I'll take a AR-180 over a AK.

Keep your M-16s (they are not bad) for the range as long as it is maintained properly.

For military purposes:
I want something I can shoot when the Barrel is full of water and not have a KB.
I want something that will still work after I swing it like a club to bash in someones face.
I want something that was designed that any chimp can use.
I want a weapon system that was first designed around the magazine not a magazine as an afterthought.
I want something I can fill the mag and reciever full of sand and it will still feed and function.
I want something that if a have a jam I can clear it with my non firing hand faster than the M-16.
I don't care how ugly it is or that it is made by any chimp in a garage-actually that is better.
I want something that will work ALL THE TIME!!!!
A military rifle is not an heirloom, a collectors piece,a match rifle or any such thing-it's job is to kill period and do it efficiently and reliably.
If the the M-16 is such a superior weapon why are there over 50 million AKs out there?

Quoted: If the the M-16 is such a superior weapon why are there over 50 million AKs out there?

Well, this one is easy.

Because the Soviet Union and China gave away AK's.  (Included in the give away were the plans for production.)  The U.S. gave away M16's.  The Soviet Union and China gave away more.

Quoted: why are there over 50 million AKs out there?

'Cause the Russkies gave them out for free to terrorists and state's they supported.

Note: The IRA got AK's from the Russians, but when it came down to it, they much preferred the Armalite; M-16 and AR-180.

Why? Quality.

Quoted: For military purposes: I want something that was designed that any chimp can use.

I know I'm going out on a limb here but I'm going to recommend a CLUB.

Quoted: Quoted: For military purposes: I want something that was designed that any chimp can use. I know I'm going out on a limb here but I'm going to recommend a CLUB.

Trebek voice: We also would've accepted "big rock", or "blunt object".

*edit: BUT WAIT! Think of it 5subslr5! Trained Chimps, WITH AK-47s! Why, WE COULD TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

Quoted: Trained Chimps, WITH AK-47s! Why, WE COULD TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

Maybe under chimps, the AK might have to be a crew served weapon - one chimp to pack it full of sand and an 'operator' to swing it !!

-----------------------------------------------

KMFDM, all of this crap is meant only in fun - no flames intended.

If I could choose my engagements from say about 75 yards and in, I too might pick an AK.

What I really want to see is an AR-10(47) !!


(Believe it or not ArmaLite had one in the 1950's.)

Quoted: I want something that will still work after I swing it like a club to bash in someones face.

This is pretty dramatic, there are much better ways to accomplish the same thing that are easier for you, easier on the rifle and will create a better desired effect. A Big baseball bat swing is pretty easy to defelect and if you think it cant break an AK, I invite you to try it.

I want something that was designed that any chimp can use.

I think the AR's controls make it FAR easier to use than an AK. Especially mag insertion, mag release and safety.

I want a weapon system that was first designed around the magazine not a magazine as an afterthought.

True, AK mags are built like bricks. Too bad they feel like one too.

I want something I can fill the mag and reciever full of sand and it will still feed and function.

Have you found such a rifle?

I want something that if a have a jam I can clear it with my non firing hand faster than the M-16.

Best way to manipulate the charging handle is with your non firing hand.

A military rifle is not an heirloom, a collectors piece,a match rifle or any such thing-it's job is to kill period and do it efficiently and reliably.

Start here to see how efficiently and reliably AK's inflict damage to people.

www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt

Then take a peek here;
home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

Long articles indeed, but crucial reading that may shed some light. I cared enough and took the time to read them thoroughly and check the sources. I hope everyone does.

Quoted: If the the M-16 is such a superior weapon why are there over 50 million AKs out there?

Because they can't afford to buy M-16s.

The AR is more accurate and has better ergonomics.

The AK is more reliable.

Atleast from my experiences.

Here is one torture test the AR didn't win:

www.valmet-weapons.com/Torture_Test_Page1.html

OK, some of you are missing the point here though-although I do like some of the commentary gives me a good ha-ha especially the crew served chimps idea.

I am talking about general combat (infantry toe to toe 1st of all, not police duty, range "commando" work and things of that nature).

A friend of mine in combat after pumping 8 rounds into a persons chest cavity from an AR "shorty" who did not drop at close range commenced to beating the enemy to death with his buttstock-and broke his weapon while bludgeoning the enemy. It is not the first time I have heard of this defect in close combat (he did not have room for a baseball bat in his rucksack)and if any of you don't believe me-try to use your beloved range rifle as a club and see what happens.

Earlier this week on a military range I took an filtly AK-47 out dissambled the partially rusty magazine threw it in a sand pile picked up the magazine filled it full of sand shook it up then reassembled the magazine dropped it on the ground kicked it around in the sand pile-threw sand on it shook it off then loaded it with 30 rounds dropped it back in the sand pile kicked it around buried it in sand again then walked to the firing line tossed the loaded magazine about 10 feet kicked it a couple of times threw some more sand on it then commenced to fire and lo and behold it fed and fired all thirty rounds with out 1 hiccup-I saw when I was stationed in Germany awhile back an AK thrown in a mud puddle (the chamber and muzzle was plugged for "safety") then one or two wipes remove the plugs and it functioned flawlessly. Try that with your M-16 in combat and more than likely have your widow send a letter.
Also I don't need to go to a website to argue the "lethality" of an AK round vs. Green tip I already have read and seen most of it already and it depends on where the bullet stikes, velocity and who made it (yugo and Chinese lead-core is the best to shoot people with out of an AK).
 Don't get snowed by the whole accuracy crap because the average U.S. soldier in combat is no better a shot than anyone elses. What good is an accurate weapon vs. a weapon that any chimp can operate reliable-while you are in your foxhole clearing a "double-feed" in your "accurate" weapon-I am going to run up to you and fill you full of lead and laugh while I am doing it to you, or hell I may batter in your skull with the butt of my weapon (that if it bends or breaks) it has no effect on reliabilty-then jump in "my" new foxhole (not caring whether I slip on your brains or not) and finish my magazine into your friends. Or I may hit you 300 meters away from the prone- which I have done with AKs (Chinese, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Russian-but maybe I am the exception one never knows).

But hey, thats just my opinion. you are all welcome to yours.

This just proves that the American Army is going from an army of marksmen, to an army of spray and pray.

One of the reasons we beat the British in the revolutionary war, is that we aimed. AS a matter of fact, we were the first army to use the term, as is "ready aim fire", ever other army used "ready fire".

I could go on but I hate to type, and besides someone else will probably jump in and finish this.

Quoted: OK, some of you are missing the point here though-although I do like some of the commentary gives me a good ha-ha especially the crew served chimps idea. I am talking about general combat (infantry toe to toe 1st of all, not police duty, range "commando" work and things of that nature). A friend of mine in combat after pumping 8 rounds into a persons chest cavity from an AR "shorty" who did not drop at close range commenced to beating the enemy to death with his buttstock-and broke his weapon while bludgeoning the enemy. It is not the first time I have heard of this defect in close combat (he did not have room for a baseball bat in his rucksack)and if any of you don't believe me-try to use your beloved range rifle as a club and see what happens. Earlier this week on a military range I took an filtly AK-47 out dissambled the partially rusty magazine threw it in a sand pile picked up the magazine filled it full of sand shook it up then reassembled the magazine dropped it on the ground kicked it around in the sand pile-threw sand on it shook it off then loaded it with 30 rounds dropped it back in the sand pile kicked it around buried it in sand again then walked to the firing line tossed the loaded magazine about 10 feet kicked it a couple of times threw some more sand on it then commenced to fire and lo and behold it fed and fired all thirty rounds with out 1 hiccup-I saw when I was stationed in Germany awhile back an AK thrown in a mud puddle (the chamber and muzzle was plugged for "safety") then one or two wipes remove the plugs and it functioned flawlessly. Try that with your M-16 in combat and more than likely have your widow send a letter. Also I don't need to go to a website to argue the "lethality" of an AK round vs. Green tip I already have read and seen most of it already and it depends on where the bullet stikes, velocity and who made it (yugo and Chinese lead-core is the best to shoot people with out of an AK).  Don't get snowed by the whole accuracy crap because the average U.S. soldier in combat is no better a shot than anyone elses. What good is an accurate weapon vs. a weapon that any chimp can operate reliable-while you are in your foxhole clearing a "double-feed" in your "accurate" weapon-I am going to run up to you and fill you full of lead and laugh while I am doing it to you, or hell I may batter in your skull with the butt of my weapon (that if it bends or breaks) it has no effect on reliabilty-then jump in "my" new foxhole (not caring whether I slip on your brains or not) and finish my magazine into your friends. Or I may hit you 300 meters away from the prone- which I have done with AKs (Chinese, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Russian-but maybe I am the exception one never knows). But hey, thats just my opinion. you are all welcome to yours.

I smell a troll!

I thought the full auto option was removed on the new issued M-16's in favor of a 3 rd burst, because too many people were spraying and praying?  

While an AK isn't as accurate as an AR you can still hit your target, granted it isn't as nice of a grouping.

Quoted: I thought the full auto option was removed on the new issued M-16's in favor of a 3 rd burst, because too many people were spraying and praying?   While an AK isn't as accurate as an AR you can still hit your target, granted it isn't as nice of a grouping.

Yea, and that three round burst mechanism is not conductive to accuracy, which is why the A4 issued to special forces is now back to the old trigger system.

My AK-74 has never had a failure of any kind.  I can't say the same about my bushy.  It was a nightmare for the first 300 rounds.  Since then it has become a very reliable piece that I absolutely love.  Sure AR's are reliable when maintained, but I have no doubt that lack of maintainence or lubrication would make mine chug to a stop.  My AK on the other hand could probably go forever without cleaning or lubrication.  

There are too many closed minded AR snobs on this board.  Just because a weapon is not an AR or Garand doesn't make it bad...

Spade:

BUT WAIT! Think of it 5subslr5! Trained Chimps, WITH AK-47s! Why, WE COULD TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

That reminds me of the SNL skit where they were going to send monkey soldiers into a bat cave to kill the bats and they had a picture of a babboon with an AK

AK's do jam, they are not jam proof. Fill any action full of sand and it won't work. Shoot any gun with a barrel full of water, and you get what you deserve. AK's are inferior in their ergonomic's, controls, accuracy, magazine rock,  poor sights (for semi)and lack of bolt hold open. If you can't clean your rifle once every 24-48 hours of combat, you need something besides a rifle, like a tank. I can only own semi-auto in my state, so I need to hit what I shoot at in the first few shots, not 5-10. I have sold my newer AR15's and gone to SP1's. 1:12 barrel is devastating with 55gr, and light weight and will take plenty of rounds before over heating. If you're over heating barrrels you need something else besides a rifle.

I think it's funny to read these people with their apocolyptic senarios, single handedly holding off human waves with their , never cleaned, full of mud rifle that was used to knock a buildings down with before being called to combat duty.

The AK was a great rifle for 1947. And a good choice if you can't get an M16 or G36 or a Galil.

Berthold-  I will agree with you that the stock sights on most AK's are poor as can be, and with all posters that most aren't as accurate, but the AK magazine is FAR superior to the crappy M-16 magazine- they had the design right in 1947, with a huge, deep 4 sided, metal no-tilt follower, if you ever taken one apart, whereas we have only partially fixed the problem with plastic green followers in the early 90's.

I personally would love to own a high quality AK, like a Finnish Valmet, with it's improved sights and excellent manufacture quality, and give it a 100 yard accuracy test.

When AR-15 owners say "most of my problems were mag or ammo related" THAT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. If a gun doesn't shoot, it doesn't shoot.  AR's are far more ready to fail with an out of spec mag or poor ammo, and I've had enough clicks instead of bangs with my clean AR and new GI mags to know it's a bit more of a slot machine handle when I pull the charging handle, than with an AK.  With an AK, there are no concerns about loose gas tubes or mis-aligned gas rings.

That said, I would rely on my AR over my AK as a SHTF rifle, though not nearly as realible, the superior sights, trigger pull, and accuracy make the AR my choice.  But if I could trade my Bushmaster for a semi-auto Valmet AK I would do so in a heartbeat.

Given a choice, I'll take a H&K G36. Both the AR and AK series are both fine weapon systems, but think they are a generation behind the times. The AR has served us well, but it is time for something better.

Quoted: .......we were the first army to use the term, as is "ready aim fire", ever other army used "ready fire".

ar10er, interesting factoid - I sure didn't know about this.

Any other info on this subject ??  (Genuinely interested.)

Wow, this is almost as heated as the dreaded Mac / PC debate. I understand the debate between reliablility and accuracy.  The point that I would make is that, while I'm not military or LEO, I still have slugged though mud and sand and dirt with my PROPERLY MAINTAINED AR and it sill seemed to fire just fine.  I would have to admit, given the overall service record of both rifles, the AK probably does have to win in the reliability category given that it was sucessfully built to be horrendously mistreated and still fire....HOWEVER... like everything in life, there is a trade off (no, you can't have your cake and eat it too).  The reason the AK is "more reliable" than the AR is because it is built with much looser tolerances, and while these looser tolerances may get you greater reliability, anyone who knows the very first thing about firearms can tell you that looser tolerances also mean less accuracy, in the case of the AK, much less accuracy.  It is a tradeoff, loose to keep it working, or tighter to keep it to where you can actually hit what the hell you are aiming at.    The AK is on the former, and the AR is on the latter.  Personally I would rather be on the latter, because I am quite capable of maintaining my AR and would like to be able to hit what the hell I'm shooting at when I need to.  Drop your AK in the mud and fire it, that's fine, but you can burn all the cylindrical mags in the world and it doesn't do you any good unless you can hit what you're aiming at. In the end it comes down to which end of the spectrum you prefer to be at.  I will say however, that if you properly maintain your AR it will function just fine and be deadly accurate.   If you don't want to proprly maintain your weapon buy a water pistol.

Mike

Originally Posted By 5subslr5

ar10er, interesting factoid - I sure didn't know about this.


It was in a book I had on the war of independence. It seems the French, who were helping to train us, thought it was a waste of time.

After the war, everybody started using it.

It was also on the history channel some time back, if I remember correctly.

Quoted: There are too many closed minded AR snobs on this board.  Just because a weapon is not an AR or Garand doesn't make it bad...

Well, gee, it is AR15.COM!!!!

Quoted: Originally Posted By 5subslr5 ar10er, interesting factoid - I sure didn't know about this. It was in a book I had on the war of independence. It seems the French, who were helping to train us, thought it was a waste of time. After the war, everybody started using it. It was also on the history channel some time back, if I remember correctly.

I'll file this one !  (Should be good for at least a couple of drinks at the local watering hole.)

Quoted: Given a choice, I'll take a H&K G36. Both the AR and AK series are both fine weapon systems, but think they are a generation behind the times. The AR has served us well, but it is time for something better.

You beat me to it. However, my main reservation about this rifle is the lack of iron sights. The AR-15/M-16 series probably has the best iron sights hands down. I'm sure HK's and Sig's diopter sighting system is just as good as well.

I'd take a Sig 550 or Valmet series myself. The Sig is sub-MOA capable in the right hands, and the Swiss use a variant of it as their designated marksmen rifle (like the SPR we all so desire ).

Lastly, I'll add that I'll put up a new AK-74M or AK-101 from Izmash in Russia against a new Colt M4 carbine any day.

themao

Quoted: Given a choice, I'll take a H&K G36. Both the AR and AK series are both fine weapon systems, but think they are a generation behind the times. The AR has served us well, but it is time for something better.

DAMN!  How many batteries does that thing take?

Quoted: You beat me to it. However, my main reservation about this rifle is the lack of iron sights. The AR-15/M-16 series probably has the best iron sights hands down. I'm sure HK's and Sig's diopter sighting system is just as good as well. themao

If I remember correctly, the Spanish use the G36 with a 1.5x optical scope with rudimentary iron sights for back up. But, I agree, qualty adjustable sights would be the way to go.

It only uses one battery for it's integral red dot sight.The variant shown here is the export version with it's 1.5x sight. The German military has a dual sighting system which features a 3-3.5x power sight for long range shooting, and a red dot for close in work.

themao

Quoted: If I remember correctly, the Spanish use the G36 with a 1.5x optical scope with rudimentary iron sights for back up. But, I agree, qualty adjustable sights would be the way to go.

Yep, and just for the record, I don't consider sights on a rifle with less than 6-8" of sighting radius to be rifle iron sights

themao

"Our government exists only to defend our pre-existing rights."
Thomas Jefferson

whenever i say the world Assualt Rifle, they always say, "dude you have a AK47!!!????" they always assume.  people dont realize there are other Assualt rifles out there.  so i have to explain to them is a AR15 or a civilian (non class 3) version of the M16.  then they are like , "AKs are sooo cool."  then i explain they cant hit crap and they all try to be defencive.  when i pull out the old, "most all of the allied countries use the M16 over the AK47. wonder why dumb @$$"  

Here folks let me explain a few things here also- Before I joined the Army back in the Eighties I listened to most people about the Superiority of "American weapons and Marksmanship". My father had been an small arms repairman in the time of the Garand and M-14 and liked both very well had nothing good or bad to say about the M-16 except that later in Vietnam as a officer he opted for a greasegun over a pistol or a M-16-mostly due to he worked alot out of a Jeep and it was more convienant than either. I fired the '16 and the 'A1 for 6 years then went to the 'A2-not having too many problems with either mostly bad magazines or what seemed at the time as "minor malfunctions". And I believed what he (my father and many others had told me about "Crappie Commie" weapons. Until one day I decided to buy an Semi-auto Chinese AK and he fired it out of curiosity: and said "Damn that is a good weapon". Well I kept on in the military and talked to many combat vets. who had very much different opinions of the AK than what I had been taught by the Army and civilian world.
The AK is a different weapon to us Americans because it is so different than any military weapon we use. It is actually very simple to change magazines when you are taught how to do it correctly not quite as fast as a M-16 but pretty quick none-the-less. The controls are alien to most of us, safety mounted on the R. side of the weapon (my second biggest complaint) but very easy to manipulate with gloved hand and real quick to tell if it is on safe or not and harder to accidentally disengage. The lack of a hold open device is my biggest gripe but hey I am willing to trade that off. The sights are faster to adjust and easier to check and I myself prefer the square post and "U" notch over peeps.

Here is something also for you "Gravel Bellies" to chew on. If American marksmanship was so good in the revolution why then did  Gen. Washington complian about it and make the Q.M. issue the buck and ball loads for general consumption whenever possible? The "Rifleman" in our history was probably the 1-5 percenters.  

Quoted:
whenever i say the world Assualt Rifle, they always say, "dude you have a AK47!!!????" they always assume.  people dont realize there are other Assualt rifles out there.
"Assault is a behavior, not a device."
from communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-rkba17.html#top

I would also point out that anyone who begins ANY statement with "dude" is not worth wasting oxygen on.

so i have to explain to them is a AR15 or a civilian (non class 3) version of the M16.  then they are like , "AKs are sooo cool."  then i explain they cant hit crap
Wrong. AK's are accurate if you have the right one. The Polytechs are great, and the Bulgarians with their Steyr barrels (of which I have one) get me within almost an inch of my M4 at 100m if I really make an effort. I have since put on a RSA match trigger and purchased some Norinco steel core ammo which according to many is the most accurate ammo they have ever fired. I am looking forward to my next trip to the range

and they all try to be defencive.  when i pull out the old, "most all of the allied countries use the M16 over the AK47. wonder why dumb @$$"
Well, I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that it would be rather unprecedented for the "allied countries" to adopt the rifle of their adversary as military issue.

Quoted:
The AK is a different weapon to us Americans because it is so different than any military weapon we use. It is actually very simple to change magazines when you are taught how to do it correctly not quite as fast as a M-16 but pretty quick none-the-less.
I just made mine even faster.
redstararms.com/pix/wing3.WMV

The controls are alien to most of us, safety mounted on the R. side of the weapon (my second biggest complaint) but very easy to manipulate with gloved hand and real quick to tell if it is on safe or not and harder to accidentally disengage.
Check these out.
assaultweb.net/ubb/Forum3/HTML/004249.html

The lack of a hold open device is my biggest gripe but hey I am willing to trade that off.
This one bugs me also.

 

A good high quality AK such as a Valmet will surprise you on accuracy. I agree that the AR system can be more accurate on average. It is a more advanced design. But, I have a 20" Saiga in 7.62X39 with a 4X24 Russian scope that rivals my HBAR to 200 yds. My .308 Saiga will shoot very well to the further reaches. These have to be scoped to rival the excellant A2 sights on the HBAR. I have $219 in the total package for the 7.62X39 gun. Go figure about those monkey guns.

Also I forgot to mention in return that the AK (7.62x39) will fire with water in the barrel and not make the gun go KB-not something I can say about the M-4 carbine (I have 2 bolts with shorn lugs on my workbench that were fired w/water in the barrel.)without stopping and draining for a few seconds. I am not sure what happens with full sized M-16 series rifles though.

Accuracy requirements for the AK-47 are (from what I could find) are at 100M 4 shots fired into a 15cm (5.9") or less circle and the center of impact deviation is no more than 5cm (1.97")radius for the extreme spread-Awhile back I saw a shipping label from a crate of M-16A1s that was hung on a tool box that stated accuracy requirements of between 3"-5" at 100 meters-yes there is some difference sometimes more markedly than others.  

My next cunning plan is to begin an extensive chimp training program for the use of the AKM to take over the world heheheh

Quoted: Quoted: I thought the full auto option was removed on the new issued M-16's in favor of a 3 rd burst, because too many people were spraying and praying?   While an AK isn't as accurate as an AR you can still hit your target, granted it isn't as nice of a grouping. Yea, and that three round burst mechanism is not conductive to accuracy, which is why the A4 issued to special forces is now back to the old trigger system.

Wait.  Both rifles still have semi, so accuracy there is a wash. But, in a choice between 3-rnd burst and auto, the 3rnd burst wins.  Why, because the first three rounds are the only rounds that stand a chance of hitting the target at any range longer than50m.  I've seen (accidental)three-round bursts fill a 1" group at 25yrd zeroing ranges.  So, the idea was to keep some ability with automatic fire, but to limit the waste of rounds that never stood a chance anyway.

The reason that the 3rnd is not preferred by Special Ops forces is that they do not engage in LARGE numbers, so they need a lot of firepower in a very short time, and they have the additional training and discipline to use the FA mode.  That means a fully automatic weapon, not a burst weapon.  In addition, the requirements of CQB (which is not a traditional conventional infantry role) mean the the soldier needs to be able to hose down/suppress a close-in target quickly, which also rules out burst mode.

Quoted: A friend of mine in combat after pumping 8 rounds into a persons chest cavity from an AR "shorty" who did not drop at close range commenced to beating the enemy to death with his buttstock-and broke his weapon while bludgeoning the enemy.

Well, from one military guy to another, you are full of it.

1.  "AR shorty's" are not issued by the military.

2.  If it's the M4 carbine you're referring to, they don't come standard with a full buttstock, it's collapsible.

3.  Where did the weapon "break"?

4.  But the most important question is when and where did this combat occur?  I know I'd be very interested in this.  (and don't tell me this guy was with TFR in Mog)

Sounds to me like your "friend" is FOS.

-SARguy

Quoted: Also I forgot to mention in return that the AK (7.62x39) will fire with water in the barrel and not make the gun go KB-not something I can say about the M-4 carbine (I have 2 bolts with shorn lugs on my workbench that were fired w/water in the barrel.)without stopping and draining for a few seconds. I am not sure what happens with full sized M-16 series rifles though.

Where did you fire a M4 with water inside? You spec ops or something....Mall Ninja perhaps?

SJSAMPLE: Full auto is better with discipline as you say. You can train yourself to fire two round bursts much faster on multiple targets than with a 3 round burst switch, from what I've read at least and the cops I've met that do SWAT stuff.

Again, Valmets, Sigs and Galils aside, I'll put a new Izmash AK-101/74M up against any Colt M4 carbine ANY DAY.

themao

SARguy: The "shorty" I was referring to was an XM177 series (the guy just said "Car-15")-and the weapon broke at the aluminum buttstock where it threads into the reciever-where they normally break when used as a club. Making the weapon unusable until a new one is installed (preuming the reciever is still ok).
Did you use a M16 style rifle during bayonet training in Basic Training? or was it a "Rubber Duck"-remember the "buttstroke to the head" amongst other commands (I know at FT. Leonardwood we used "Rubber Ducks"). All one has to do is look at the support for the ALUMINUM reciever extension (aka buffer tube) given by the buttstock and wonder how much abuse it can withstand.

www.gunsnet.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69850

More info on the Sig 550 rifle. There's this guy from Switzerland who owns one. Says it's not as reliable as the G36 or AK.

themao