|
Post by Bigmack on Nov 14, 2003 21:21:08 GMT -5
or maybe we could stop talking out of our asses and learn the facts.
Stats are at the muzzle.
5.56 NATO: 55gr bullet 3240 FPS .224 diameter 1282 ftlbs 1744 joules
7.62x39 Russian 125gr bullet 2365 FPS .309 diameter 1553 ftlbs 2112 joules
7.62x51 NATO 150Gr bullet 2820 FPS .308 diameter 2649 Ftlbs 3603 joules
at 200 yards(currently accepted 'average' range for modern combat.):
5.56 NATO 2352 FPS 676 Ftlbs 919 Joules
7.62x39 1783 FPS 882 ftlbs 1200 joules
7.62x51 NATO 2263 FPS 1706 FtLbs 2320 Joules
|
|
|
Post by Bigmack on Nov 14, 2003 21:37:24 GMT -5
Quoted via Destrukto: As for the other arguments, the 7.62 russian is effective 200-300 yards. The 5.56 nato is effective 500 yards. 100-200 yards difference. Whoopie. There are rare instances where this range is even met. Desert maybe? Thats about it. Even if you are in range with an m16, and out of your ak47 range, i bet the m16 guy wont even touch you. 500 yards with iron sights is a tough shot. Marines are trained on the 500 yard range. Not that tough a shot for a trained soldier.As for power of the cartride, the Ak blows out the m16. Say at 10 yards away, person A shoots person B in the stomach. If person A has an M16, most likely there wont be enough damage to keep that guy from firing back (flesh wound). Now put an Ak47 in Person A's hands. The initial wound would be about the size of a fist and the exit wound would be about the size of a 19" monitor (like the one in front of me ) Which would knock out your spine rendering every muscle in you body useless... I don't think you could fire your gun after that. Also, there are many accounts at close range that after being shot with a 5.56, the victim doesn't feel the bullet because of its small size and high velocity; thus making him still dangerous. Aaaand you're an idiot. Firstly, nothing will cause that much of a traumatic effect short of a 20mm round. Secondly, 5.56 NATO is DESIGNED TO FRAGMENT after impacting flesh (at speeds above 2700fps.) what does this create? a 9 inch long, 6 inch wide wound channel. nasty little bugger. so far as got feeling a bullet... let me shoot even a .22 at you and you tell me you don't feel it.As with accuracy... The Ak has a more powerful round than an M16, hence, more recoil, making it more prone to less accurate shots as you get beat up by the recoil. The M16A2 has a smaller 5.56 round which provides less recoil as stated above. The soldier get less beaten up (funny terminology, eh?) and therefore recovers from the recoil quicker and takes the second shot (or burst) accurately. The accuracy is only dependent on the recoil and the user; not the barrel (besides length), they are made with the same quality. Quality isn't always a black and white thing. Quality comparisons between the United States and China/Iraq/Iran/etc are no contest. The quality, fit and finish of our Rifles are bar none the best in the world at this time. The only true contender would be Russia with their more recent AK designs (and Quality controls). Lets also look at the actions of the weapons involved...the AK has a more massive bolt, attributing to more violent recoil and a loss of sight picture. The AR-15s bolt carrier is counter ballanced by the recoil buffer to reduce a low recoil even more.Final thoughts... Destrukto was right about if the gun don't work, who cares about accuracy. The thing he was a little off on, was that an M16 wouldn't make a good club; The plastic stock break off, and has broken off because of some real-life melee attempts... Please, don't take any of this personally.... It's ok to have grudges with a certain firearm. These are just the facts, and I'm presenting them in a non-japanese fashion. mmmkay? Take it from someone whos used both firearms. I'd take the M-16 any day over an AK-47. longer sight picture, less recoil, similar power, greater wounding potential. Don't knock the M-16... its an excellent weapon. solid, accurate, and yes...you can use it as a club. stock is fiberglass with a metal recoil buffer tube and stronger than wood. Maybe i'm just a diehard US-is-Best American... but thats how i feel. you can take your AK. i'll take my M-16.
|
|
|
Post by Motown on Nov 14, 2003 21:40:34 GMT -5
...BUWHAHAHAHAHA...AK47...in .308 caliber...BUWHAHAHA. Taking an already highly inaccurate weapon in full automatic fire and chambering it with a powerful cartridge such as the .308, is ludicrous. Hell, why doesn't the US give up the MP series chambered in such weak calibers like 9mm, and 10mm. They should just go above and beyond, and just stick in there the .50AE round, that'll teach em' Comparing 7.62x39, and 7.62(NATO) that's like saying the .30 Carbine cartridge is almost the same as .30-06, which they're obviously not. I commend Bigmack, the soothsayer, who swims through the pool of bull shit, and comes out smelling like a spring flower
|
|
destrukto
New Member
Armalite Hater!
Those who swear by armalites have never owned an AK
Posts: 625
|
Post by destrukto on Nov 14, 2003 23:14:37 GMT -5
I was not comparing the 7.62x39 to the .308, I was comparing it to the 30-30, which has about the same ballistic performance as the 7.62x39.
For a person like me who grew up with the "old school" rifles that are made out of wood and steel, could blow holes in almost everything, and had very few moving parts, the AK is the ultimate assault rifle, it's basically the same characteristics in a semi-auto package.
I'm starting to lean more towards the synthetic stocks more than the old-style wood, but I'll never trade steel for aluminum anyday.
The M16 has too many moving parts for my tastes, plus it doesn't have the traditional bolt handle I grew up with, it has that stupid charging handle, and the bolt release annoys me to the very depths of my soul.
As for quality control, the US doesn't have the best in the world, it's lagging behind the Germans, Swiss, and the Finns in my opinion.
Just throwing my 3 cents in
|
|
|
Post by DE50man on Nov 15, 2003 20:38:21 GMT -5
Hell, why doesn't the US give up the MP series chambered in such weak calibers like 9mm, and 10mm. They should just go above and beyond, and just stick in there the .50AE round thats what i have been saying all my life.... ;D
|
|
Lorenzo
New Member
Avtomat Kalashnikova
Posts: 155
|
Post by Lorenzo on Nov 17, 2003 22:17:17 GMT -5
Bigmack, your right with most of the stuff you said in there (though an Ak round will rip out your spine...trust me). By the way, I posted that, not Destrukto... look whos the idiot.
Anyways, Motown, putting a .308 in an Ak is a great idea. Its basically an FN FAL or an M14 (which both have fully auto standard) with a 30 round magazine, an fully auto for those dirty CQB times... So you'll have a gun with the range of an M14, reliability of a banana (for lack of words), and the stopping power of a PSG-1. By the way, the U.S. should use a .50AE chambered into a UMP-like form. That would be a great idea; I'd rather have that than a pussy 9mm round, wouldn't you? And about the 7.62 Russian and NATO round getting mixed up, that was resolved...
I'll start loading my Ak-47, Biggy ;D
|
|
destrukto
New Member
Armalite Hater!
Those who swear by armalites have never owned an AK
Posts: 625
|
Post by destrukto on Nov 17, 2003 23:14:37 GMT -5
thank you lorpicc, I didn't ever remember saying anything like that, because I know a .223 is perfectly capable of killing somebody, but because it breaks apart on impact, I have little use for it beyond target practice and "pest control", same thing with the .243, and to a lesser extent the .303 British and the 5.45x39 because they have a severe tendency to spin and yaw (turn sideways) when they hit something, causing massive internal trauma. So on retrospect the .223 is totally unsuitable for most hunting due to the fact that it breaks apart and the low "knockdown power" factor, which is why I think the 7.62x39 is better, more like a full size rifle cartridge than the .223.
|
|
|
Post by DE50man on Nov 17, 2003 23:25:42 GMT -5
...the .303 British and the 5.45x39 because they have a severe tendency to spin and yaw (turn sideways) when they hit something, causing massive internal trauma FYI, that is how the Baron VonRichtofen (the Red Baron) was killed .303 round that is
|
|
|
Post by Munin on Nov 18, 2003 11:08:52 GMT -5
lorpicc opined:
"Anyways, Motown, putting a .308 in an Ak is a great idea."
Yeah, they already do that. It's called a PKM, and it's basically the Soviet version of the M60 (which is our fully-automatic .308). I don't think you fully realize the difference in size between 7.62x39 and 7.62x51.
As for 5.56 NATO only being good for targets and "pest control," I would classify guys carrying guns and the desire to kill me as "pests" and use the weapon appropriately.
|
|
Lorenzo
New Member
Avtomat Kalashnikova
Posts: 155
|
Post by Lorenzo on Nov 18, 2003 16:39:41 GMT -5
lorpicc opined: "Anyways, Motown, putting a .308 in an Ak is a great idea."Yeah, they already do that. It's called a PKM, and it's basically the Soviet version of the M60 (which is our fully-automatic .308). I don't think you fully realize the difference in size between 7.62x39 and 7.62x51. Munin, two things wrong, the PK shoots a 7.62x54R (same round as the Dragonov), and I do know the difference between the Russian and NATO 7.62. Chambering an Ak with a .308 would make it more effective as an assault weapon with the things I stated on my last post. Maybe even a 7.62x54R would do the trick in an Ak...
|
|
|
Post by Munin on Nov 18, 2003 17:09:59 GMT -5
No, no mistakes, only simplifications (since you seem to be having a hard time with this as it is).
Yes, I know what the PKM shoots, and I am reminded all too well of what the Dragunov shoots every time I have to buy ammunition for mine. The 7.62x54(r) is the closest Soviet Block equivalent to the 7.62 NATO (7.62x51, or .308). So when you are suggesting chambering an AK for .308, you are suggesting chambering an AK for 7.62x51, which is virtually identical to 7.62x54(r), which is exactly what a PKM is. If you chamber an AK for .308 (or thereabouts), you no longer have an AK, you have a PKM. You have effectively moved out of the "assault rifle" class and into the "light machinegun" class. Even an M14 is more accurately classed as a "battle rifle." And since the round itself is larger and heavier, you won't have the convenient 30-round "banana" magazine, or if you do it will be large and unweildy. Individual soldiers would be carrying less ammunition for the same weight (and more bulk), and the shorter barrel on the AK would not be able to take as much advantage of the increased powder as a longer-barreled light machinegun (like an M60 or a PKM). The recoil would be less manageable, especially if you let the weapon fire in automatic or burst mode. So what do you get? Less ammo capacity, inefficient use of muzzle energy, and lower accuracy. So it's like a lose-lose-lose situation. Sure, you may knock a guy down, but both 5.56 NATO and 7.62x39 already do that.
What about this are you not understanding? If it was a good idea, people would have already done it. They haven't, ergo, it's probably not a good idea.
|
|
destrukto
New Member
Armalite Hater!
Those who swear by armalites have never owned an AK
Posts: 625
|
Post by destrukto on Nov 18, 2003 17:58:11 GMT -5
When it comes to firearms in the US military, good ideas usually take a long time to implement. For example, during the Spanish-American war, the Spanish were using German Mausers, a tried and true gun design, the US was using the Krag-Jorgenson, a new design that wasn't all that reliable or accurate compared to the Mauser. After the war, the US ended up ripping off the Mauser design (it wasn't even that good of a copy either), and it took them 3 years to finally get the cartridge right, they ended up taking the German 7.92x57 and bottlenecking it down to 7.62x63 (the extra 6mm was obtained in the bottlenecking process) to avoid having to pay the Mauser company even more money than it had to, and after the whole process you ended up with the 03 Springfield or should I say 03 Mauser.
Another example would be the adoption of the M16.
During WWII the Germans came up with a new breed of infantry designed to combine the firepower of a sub-machine gun with that of a battle rifle, and they called it the "sturmgewehr" or assault rifle. The Soviets picked up on it towards the end of WWII, and after about 2 years of research and development, they christened the AK47, the US on the other hand was totally blissful towards developing new infantry rifles, and finally after Korea they modified the M1 into the M14 which was basically the same thing rechambered for 7.62 NATO with a 20 round removable magazine and with a full auto setting added on for good measure. When Vietnam finally rolled around the US troops found themselves outgunned by the NVA with their AK47s, the US was forced to find a replacement for their M14s, and thanks to Robert Mcnamara, the US was stuck with the M16, which in of itself is a bad idea to begin with. It took the Soviets 2 years to adopt their first assault rifle, while it took the US about 20 years to adopt their first assault rifle. Good ideas usually take a very long time to implement, while bad ideas are readily adopted.
The next great idea is to replace the M16 with the G36, but due to arrogance and stubborness by the ordinance department and congress, but more people will continue to die because their M16 FAILED them.
|
|
|
Post by xaos on Nov 19, 2003 9:25:32 GMT -5
"more people will continue to die because their M16 FAILED them."
If their Armalite rifle failed them, it's 99.9% likely that the event occured because they failed the rifle, by not maintaining it properly.
If someone shoots themself in the foot, do you blame the gun, or do you blame the idiot that was pointing the gun at his foot with his finger on the trigger?
Yes, Armalite rifles are more maintainance-intensive than many other rifles. That's why they teach soldiers how to clean their bloody gun in basic.
Now, I'm not a real big fan of Armalites, but do you really think they'd still be using the same design if this rifle is as horrible as you say it is? Gimme a friggin break. We may have some boneheads working in our government, but if a combat weapon is as much of a deathtrap as you're making it out to be, don't you think someone would do something about it?
|
|
destrukto
New Member
Armalite Hater!
Those who swear by armalites have never owned an AK
Posts: 625
|
Post by destrukto on Nov 19, 2003 18:31:43 GMT -5
I'm going to quote a book I have here, The Book of Rifles(1965)
- AR-10 (early version of the M16 chambered in 7.62 NATO)
"It FAILED to pass tests in West Germany"
Armalite - AR15 (predecessor to the a1 and a2)
(a smaller version of the AR-10 in caliber .223)
I quoted these passages to show the people out there that the M16 has never passed a Western European (or Eastern European as a matter of fact) weapons trial, and yet it passed US trials. When the Germans reject a weapon, that's usually a very good sign that it isn't any good, it doesn't mean rechamber it and adopt it as a standard infantry weapon.
I do not blame the gun for somebody else's stupidity or carelessness, but I do blame the people who put defective weapons into the hands of our troops. If the M16 wasn't rushed into service, and they simplified and refined the design more, it probably would have ended up being an awesome assault rifle, but they didn't and that's the problem.
The more parts a weapon has, the more ways in which it can fail, reducing the number of parts reduces the number of ways it can fail.
"The complexity of a weapon is inversely proportional to the IQ of the weapon's operator" -Murphy's Law
|
|
|
Post by Ballista on Nov 19, 2003 21:27:36 GMT -5
Well fellas, I have an assignment for you: find out what firearm (general design) has been chosen most often by special forces units around the world to replace their nation's signature battle rifle, excluding any Russian or third-world forces.
Hint: it is the subject of this thread.
|
|