Should the US adopt the AK47 and ump the AR15

I do understand why people feel passionately about some rifles, even the M-16, if that rifle ever saved their bacon. You must approach this issue dispassionately, as you must do with any metal item with holes drilled into it.

My problem with the AR series is that if it ever has a stoppage, it's a doozy and a real problem to 'de-jam.' I've seen rifles (and bought new ones) with a dry bolt carrier jammed forward. Try as you might, the T-shaped charging handle does not give you much to pull on, and I don't recommend hammering ANYTHING on a firearm, especially the aluminum T-handle. (Open the action) I just take a can of CLP, WD-40, or any other spray oil, try to get to the bolt and work it free. Not a thing done easily in combat I would guess.

I love my HBar and my flat-top, but I emphasize, these are TOYS. If they have a stoppage, choke on a new reload, gag on a new gunpowder or some such, all I lose is a fine afternoon at the range or the prairie dog town.

I just want these young USA soldiers to have the best rifle that can be found. After having owned a half dozen AR-style rifles, being flat-tops, CARs and the Alpha-Duece style, I'm not so sure.
 
Tourist, the problem with the M-16, as far as I have been able to determine, is that it is not an M-1. It was designed to be a lightweight, high-velocity microcaliber weapon that made use of every bit of modern technology available at the time. It was designed to replace the AR-7, a 7.62x51mm rifle of Eugene Stoner's design that had been submitted to compete with the M-14. The AR-7 had a titanium barrel with some sort of carbon fiber outer cover that supported the titanium and the Ordnance Department was able to get one to burst, thereby justifying their rejection of the whole rifle. Nobody has ever been able to get another to replicate that, as far as I know, so the test was always in some doubt.

When the M-16 arrived in VietNam, the traditionalists, and that is a good description of most military persons, took one look at it and rejected it out of hand because it was made of plastic and aluminum rather than wood and machined steel in the manner of firearms with which they were accustomed. it was also so damned light that it just had to be fragile, after all, it weighed about 1/3 less than their beloved M-1 Garands. The fact that it fired controllably on full auto made little difference to a mind that saw full auto much as General Ripley of Civil War fame saw repeating weapons, as ammunition wasters. My father, a WWII vet and West Point grad, observed about the change to 3-round burst on the M-16A2 in lieu of a full auto capability that they hadn't done any house-clearing exercises recently or they would not have done that. The problems that the M-16 had as a result of the Army's stupidity over the ammunition and the issuance of the weapon without cleaning kits (yes, really) only gave its opponents grounds for hating it even more. It never seems to have dawned on them that the weapon was hobbled from the first by the stupid decisions in the Army that went against the recommendation of the designer. Now, the same idiotic mentality insisted on sending BreakFree CLP to the sandbox when prior experience showed that it was deleterious to the weapon in that environment. Deja vous all over again.
 
Originally posted by Geraldo
RWS-The Mini-14 is nowhere near as durable as it's big brother
Click to expand...

Yup...but few things are....:D And in any case I'd MUCH rather have my Mini-14 than an M-16 if I were grabbed by the scruff of the neck, forced to give up my warm coffee and thrown from my warm log home into some kinda warzone. (owned four of AR's in various configurations, the only gun I'd ever had more disappointing than them was a H&K SL-7)

Truth is I'd rather have the M1-A/ M1-A Bush than either of them, but that's just me and my individual preferences.

I can't see them actually replacing the M-16 in any case.

BTW, I thought there was lotsa bragging and chest pounding about how reliable the M-16 and Beretta were in the first Gulf war? anyone know the story on that?
 
methinks the OICW will be a major pain in the ass to haul around
even for armoured troopers :eek:
 
FullerH... What have you been smoking? titanium/CF barreled AR-7's in 308?

I highly doubt that anyone was making guns with titanium or carbon fiber in the 60's.. And the AR-7 is a .22LR packable survival rifle currently made by Henry. The AR-10 is a .308 version of the AR-15, altho I must admit I don't know where it fits in the timeline - my suspicion is after the AR-15.

Personally, I like the AR-15. The one I own is pretty crappy, but it was assembled from parts and wobbles like crazy - large hold Colt A1 upper, brand new Stinger lower, Bushmaster barrel and God knows where the bolt came from! It was cheap at a gun show. As long as the upper is aligned properly, everything works great. Eccentic pin setups are no fun in a gun... But it works, and the rifle is plenty accurate for my needs. The only reason I can get away with the loose fit is that everything about the firing of the gun is in the top half... So, does anyone have an old Colt large pin stipped lower? Or a normal upper? Willing to trade!

As a battle rifle I think the .223 is a bit small, but there is no arguing with the reason they went to it. 223 is lightweight! I'd rather lug around a bunch of 223 than 308 or anything else. With a loaded 30rd magazine, it adds very little weight to the gun. I have a Mossberg 590 that I've added a few things to... It can carry a total of 21 rounds, I keep it loaded with 19(6 in the tube, 6 in a sidesaddle and 9 in loops on the sling). It weighs a ton! Carrying around more than a few boxes of .30 ammo for my Mosin was a PITA. Plain and simple, they can carry more ammo, and I can't say that having 300 rds of 223 is worse than 100 rds of 308. The 308 is bigger, has more energy and range, but for the most part shots aren't that long and you can fight longer with more ammo. Others have gone this route also... Russia with their own 5.56mm AK-74 and the new Chinese ammo that I can't remember - something like 4.9 or 5mm? Small, light, and fast ammo is going to be here until we get phasers and photon torpedos. Hope they give us transporters too...

Enough ranting for tonight... I need to keep my strength up for IRC ;)
 
Hugh, I'll give Hackworth his due for his combat record in Vietnam, but now he's a media consultant/reporter, and that's it. His predictions of how we would wage war in urban areas were flat wrong, tainted by his experience in SE Asia. His doom and gloom about chemical weapons was apparently straight from his rectal data bank.

I'm aware of the actual failings of the M16 in the 1960s. But I'll try and take a look at the site, keeping in mind that someone probably had a political axe to grind.
 
I also read Hackworth, and I believe it is the best part of Soldier of Fiction.

You'll notice that he's a Vietnam vet and a Colonel. You will also notice that Charlie Beckwith is a Vietnam Colonel. As was the custom at the time, if you spoke your mind beyond the party line, you stayed a Colonel and never became a General.

For several years, it was my pleasure to motorcycle with Colonel Robert McBride, a proud member of the 'Raggety @$$ Militia.' He was a fighter pilot in the '300 Club.' That meant at least 100 missions in WWII, 100 in Korea, and 100 in Vietnam. Both he and his wife Robbie darn near fed and clothed me my entire sophomore year in college. You'll notice that despite his record, he also stayed a Colonel. During his later years at Truax field, he investigated airplane crashes due to his attention to detail and honesty.

I admire all of these 'Colonels.'
 
Tourist, While I'm not sure comparing Charlie Beckwith to Hack is apples to apples, I get your point. I have no problem with Hackworth the soldier, I do with Hackworth the reporter.
 
The tight tolerances in the not so sweet M-16 cause the weapon to jam, and guess what? YOUR DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I like my Galil 7.62 George.
 
i imagine they are supply folks that didnt expect trouble and didnt clean the weapons. if ya clean a M16 it aint gonna jam (well not often anyway)

i honestly believe that an AK is hard to beat for troops who dont regularly clean there weapons.

as far as M1/M14/FN/etc, these are all old weapons which everyone is switching away from vs switching to. maybe for spec ops, but i dont think we will ever switch to 762 again for gen'l purpose use.

mini14 is not suitable for service use its not heavy duty enough, and suffers severe overheating on full auto. it wont work.

too bad the AK in 556 is not as reliable as the 762, it would be good for service folks imho
 
When I was in during the mid-late 80s (tank mechanic) we had OPFOR weapons familiarization classes. AK47, AKM, AK74, etc.
Typically, the instructor would drop the durn commie junk in the Grafenwoehr mud or NTC sand and let it percolate while it was explained to us that “…the AK series were designed for use and abuse by uneducated peasants and illiterate conscripts who didn't have the benefit of our professional standards and modern technology.”
(Sneer, insert contrasting "shot in the leg, tumbled out his arm" 5.56mm anecdote here)
Then, after a decent block of instruction, one of our "less-than-high-speed" guys would do a quick filed-strip and clean, followed by a brief inspection by the range safety ossifer.
Proof of the pudding was when we'd all get the opportunity to burn a few rounds downrange. Bang, bang, bang. Not Click!
I was impressed, to be honest. We knew that our 16s couldn't do that. Greaseguns, maybe. Ma Deuce, probably. Hmmmmmm. Guess I’d be happier to be an idiot, by their definition.
 
M-16 doesn't even rate in my top 3.

I watched a special on the Falklan Island war, The brits weren't too fond of the .223, 2-3 rounds to drop a bad guy. The Bad guys had .308 FAL's and were dropping brits with 1.

If I had my way it would be:
1. FAL 308
2. H & K .308 (Don't remember numbers)
3. AK 47

If forced to .223, I choose Steyr AUG. Of course I'm biased, I own one and put thousands of rounds through it with ZERO jams. Of course my mileage with a issued M16, 20 years of qualifying and training is a way different story, the M16 is a maintenance pig, it jams its finicky about magazines (just try 30 rounds in a 30 round clip!). I think I am just lucky though with my AUG, I would be interested to hear from some Australand or Austrian soldiers to hear of their expierence with the AUG.

Whatever weapon I have it definately will have a low power optical sight.

Of course I would change to the M16 for just one OPTION: The M203.



Paul
 
For whoever would rather take an UZI over an M-16..lol, that's funny. You go girl with your full auto pistol (basically) and try to outshoot an assault rifle;)

The G36 is a force to be reckoned with...one nice weapon.
 
Originally posted by Warthog
For whoever would rather take an UZI over an M-16..lol, that's funny. You go girl
Click to expand...

For urban combat, ofcourse. Apparently a rifle as long as an M-16 is more difficult to use in tight corners than an UZI?:confused:

I wouldn't know.
 
an UZI is not high on my list, an AKM or M16 is much better, better accuracy/more power/not much longer than an UZI in the M4 configuration/just a lot more rifle imho, all major armies in the world are going AWAY from a SMG, and going w/the M16/AKM style weapon FWIW

greg
 
Geraldo,

I do believe that you write what you know. Hackworth has really sounded off against Beretta 92s and breakage problems. There was also some mention of the old bugaboo, 'stopping power.' He quoted some soldiers as saying that if a USA soldier shot a terrorist with a 'mouthful of khat,' it took four rounds to bring him down. To my way of thinking, the .45 vs. 9mm debate ended long ago; there is a .45 under my bed and not a 9mm in the house.

Why does he feel this way? Again, he professes his opinion when it might have been better for his career to remain quiet. He remembers the M-16 stoppages and the soldiers that died from those early problems. He sees the .9mm issue, and once again speaks up, but this time as an author. I see no difference in character. This used to be called using 'the bully pulpit.'

Funny though, when the excrement goes into the A/C, it's these 'colonels' that they call upon. Who led President Carter's ill-fated raid to secure the hostages. Why, it was Charlie Beckwith!

It seems strange that there wasn't at least ONE general sitting around the Pentagon with some grit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top