U.S. troops using confiscated Iraqi AK-47s

eh, well....can't hurt for trying....
M-16 needs to go though or at least the 'durability' factor needs to be severely enhanced.

regards
seekerof

Btw.. thank for the links.. got me yet a another good gun pages..

The problem is the rounds we fire in our rifles, 5.56 nato rounds. I just dont see how creating another rifle thats pretty much a big square computer, extremely complicated, and still fires the same rounds will solve anything at all. What they need to do is keep it simple, i mean what happens if you drop the damn OICW? What the US military needs to do is create an assault rifle that fires 7.62 rounds, back in vietnam there was actually an M16 type of weapon that fired those rounds, i just dont see why they dont work on another one. I just hope our military solves the problem with lack of weaponry before we go to North Korea!

We also saw in this article of how afraid our troops were of using their 9mm berettas in CQB, thats another big problem that our military created, switching from 45 handguns to 9mm. Who cares if the 9mm shoots faster? What use is that if they can get back up after being shot by it? What we need is a 45 to hit em, knock em down for good. I heard that some of our special forces still prefer and some get to use the 45 handgun.

This is the AR-10, originally built in .308/7.62mm NATO. It was designed by Eugene Stoner, and was a FAR better gun than the M-16 ever thought of being.

Unfortunately only a few African countries adopted it, and it didnt go too far, because the US army had, in all its wisdom decided that small hypervelocity rounds were the wave of the future.

This is the gun you are referring to...



I also agree, the .223 is a massive mistake, and the 9mm is just as big of one. The idea of trading accurate intense fire for high volume firepower is a mistake.

"Don�t shoot fast, shoot good."
Clint Smith, Director, Thunder Ranch


www.classicfirearms.co.uk...

[Edited on 26-8-2003 by dragonrider]

Looks like a nice weapon, can you imagine what an update of that weapon would look like if it was ever remade? That gun looks alot like my custom AR15 assault rifle that i go hunting with.

Originally posted by AgentMulder320
Looks like a nice weapon, can you imagine what an update of that weapon would look like if it was ever remade? That gun looks alot like my custom AR15 assault rifle that i go hunting with.

It would look like this.... Problem is, it is now made like the AR-15, with the same problems....




www.biggerhammer.net...

So in your opinion what do you suppose should be done to solve all of our problems with military weapons and equipment (in your opinion whats a better system, land warrior, or OICW)?

I mean, the M16 was TERRIBLE in Vietnam, it always jammed and one single grain of sand could jam the firing mechanism. Why do they still use them?

Good Question. Money, probably, to buy weapons from thier favorite manufacturer.

From my first days in basic training on the qualification range to my Last shooting range in the army, I learned that the M-16 was unreliable. No matter what you did, the slightest outside influence, dust, dirt, ect, would jam the bastard up and make it doublefeed. It doesnt surprise me, jessica Lynches unit, when I heard about thier weapons malfunctioning. How many times have I had that happen purely on practice ranges? In the desert, it was a constant battle, having to clean the damn things out. In real combat, how the hell are you gonna stop (hey enemy guys, could you wait a moment while I disassemble my M-16 and clean it out, cuz its jammin up and stuff, thanks, much obliged). The M-16 is purely a #ty conbat rifle. It was never made to withstand the real dirty world.

Probably another reason we sustain such high combat casualties when we shouldnt: a little hard to defend ones self when you cant even fire cuz your weapon fails.

In combat, you dont need accuracy. most of the chaos of war pretty much prevents the average soldier from really caring about making exact hits. You aint snipers, youre grunts, you just want a piece thats gonna unload alot of ordinance in the general direction of your enemy, at a high rate, without jamming up. The term "supression fire" comes to mind. You simply wanna blow rounds at the bad guys and if they dont hit the bad guys, they might hit something else, like e generator, water buffalo, ect.

Needless to say, our military needs to re arm itself, the M-16 is simply a frappy rifle thats gonna get more of our guys killed than the other guys. If i was over there, u best believe I would be grabbin AK-s off enemy corpses, id probably leave my rifle on the truck, Screw the M-16. It kills more American troops than Ak-47 ever will.

But, as Jakomo pointed out, its really distyurbing that they send these guys overthere without being properly equipped. Part of it is the new army, with so many jobs being entrusted to the care of civilians. Civilians should not be dealing with supplying troops, medical, ect. but this is part of the big defense drawdowns: cut former army positions, give them to civilian contractors, and leave it in the thier money grubbing hands.

When i was in Saudi, I was horrified, on the airforce base, to see the number of civilians working in what should have been militayr jobs. At the on base airforce mess hall, they had locals, Saudis and other nationalities, working the kitches, serving the food. What if one of those bastards had terrorist connections? All they have to do is poison the food, put some germ or chemical in, ect. It was enough to make me spend most of my 6 months eating MREs instead of hot chow. They also had civilians doing laundry for the airforce, Civilians doing the paperwork, records, ect. In Germnay, we had alot of Civilian doctors workin on us too. Civilians working records. All formerly troop jobs.

Soon, it will be civilian Mercinaries doin the job. All contracts given to favorite companies, of course, leave your campaign contributions in the bucket, please.

I dread the situation over there. They have problems with supply lines because civilians are increasingly in charge of getting supplies to the troops. Civilians dont care so long as they are paid, and dont have the motivation or the drive to do the job right, unlike an army unit, which, comprised of soldiers, care a hell of alot more whether or not Pvt. Doe gets his ammo on time, cuz if he dont, someones gonna be breathing down his neck.

From the left: .30 m1 carbine round, 7,62x39mm "AK" round and 5,56x45 NATO round.

Now US sometimes claims that .30 M1 carbine was first assault rifle.. i think not, as its ammo is in "pistol class", in same range with 9x19mm and way inferior to .45 ACP..

The 7,62x39mm similar in many ways to FIRST real "medium power" assault rifle round, 7,92x33 Kurz used by mkb 42, mp43/44/stg 44 and Stg 45.. still the best medium round around.. (the Russian one..)

the 5,56x45 NATO, just compare its bullet size to the Russian 7,62mm.. diameter/lenght.. and the Russian bullet is also more than twice heavier.. 8g, as 5,56mm only weights some 3,6g max?

Originally posted by AgentMulder320
So in your opinion what do you suppose should be done to solve all of our problems with military weapons and equipment (in your opinion whats a better system, land warrior, or OICW)?

In my opinion, first of all, we need a weapons system that WORKS, chosen on dependability, reliability, accuracy, and stopping power, NOT chosen on whose political ally gets the contract...

Second of all, we need a program of reality based MARKSMANSHIP training. We dont need snipers, we need Riflemen. (There is a difference)

I am not a fan of the super geewhiz bells and whistles high tech crap that is being foisted on the military today... I am very much a believer in "If it ain't broken, DONT FIX IT". I say find a weapons system that is truly battle proven, absolutely reliable, rugged, accurate, and stick with it.

The best ones in the world to choose from are the M1A/M14, HK91/G3, and the FN FAL.

Dont get any better than those.

Now, what they really need is:


A Kalashnikov rifle..

*edit*

It even has so efficent muzzle brake, that G.I.s can do it Vietnam-style, even in Full automatic.. the muzzle climp is zero!

[Edited on 27-8-2003 by FULCRUM]

Originally posted by FULCRUM

From the left: .30 m1 carbine round, 7,62x39mm "AK" round and 5,56x45 NATO round.

Now US sometimes claims that .30 M1 carbine was first assault rifle.. i think not, as its ammo is in "pistol class", in same range with 9x19mm and way inferior to .45 ACP..

The 7,62x39mm similar in many ways to FIRST real "medium power" assault rifle round, 7,92x33 Kurz used by mkb 42, mp43/44/stg 44 and Stg 45.. still the best medium round around.. (the Russian one..)

the 5,56x45 NATO, just compare its bullet size to the Russian 7,62mm.. diameter/lenght.. and the Russian bullet is also more than twice heavier.. 8g, as 5,56mm only weights some 3,6g max?

You are very correct in your assessment.

The .30 M1 Carbine has about the same impact energy as a .357 Magnum revolver. Indeed, a number of pistols were actually built for this (supposedly) rifle caliber round, including the Ruger Blackhawk single action revolver, and the now discontinued AMT AutoMagIII




As far as the 5.56m/.223 goes, in military configuration, it is firing either a 55 grain or 62 gr bullet at 3100 or 2900 feet per second velocity respectively. (Note* These muzzle velocities are ONLY arrived at using the full sized 20" M-16 barrels). These produce around 1000-1200 foot pounds of energy, which is about the same as a full power .44 magnum revolver round.

When these rounds are used in the short 14" M4 carbine, your muzzle velocity drops to around 2600-2700 feet per second, and the energy drops to around 700 foot pounds of energy, about the same as the ancient varmint round, .22 Hornet.

The 7.62x39mm AK47 round fires a 124 gr bullet at around 2400 feet per second, producing around 1600 foot pounds of energy, which is about 20% less than a .30-.30 Winchester lever action deer rifle.

By comparison, the .308/7.62mm NATO round fires a 147 gr bullet at 2800 feet per second, producing around 2600 foot pounds of energy (1 and a quarter TONS of impact energy).

The .30 M1 Carbine is straining at 100 meters. The 7.62x39mm taps out around 200 meters. The 5.56mm is about worthless beyond 250-300 meters... the 7.62mm NATO is just getting to its stride at 600 meters, and has been documented to be perfectly effective at 1000 meters.

Do you need any more reason?

There is just i BIG PROBLEM with the 7,62x51mm NATO.. the recoil.. Full automatic fire isnt really a option with that.. when firing the round with rifle.. MG:s, different story..

Btw to me, due metric system:

5,56x45mm (.223) NATO fired from M-16:
V: 950m/s E: 1800 Joules

7,62x39mm M43 fired from AK-47:
V: 715m/s E: 2000 Joules

7,62x51mm NATO fired from FN-FAL/G3:
V: 850m/s E: 4500 Joules

...

I really dont know the "imperial system"..

There is just i BIG PROBLEM with the 7,62x51mm NATO.. the recoil.. Full automatic fire isnt really a option with that.. Posted by Fulcrum

Full auto fire is a waste of time and ammunition. Consider that in full auto, (has been proven by numerous tests) you are completely off your target by your third shot, even in 5.56mm.

Remember, if the bullet doesnt hit the bad guy, its nothing but a loud noise... and I have never heard of a loud noise killing anyone (although it certainly does give your position away!)

A trained Rifleman should be capable, with a 7.62mm NATO rifle, to make torso hits at between 200-300 meters at least 50% hit rate at 1 shot every 1-2 seconds, in semi-auto.

Unfortunately, there are VERY few Riflemen in the military nowadays...

I cringe when i think about how many of you want AK47's as our standard rifles. If only we could create a far superior weapon that fires 7.62 rounds, makes you wonder what a futuristic M14 would look like.

Originally posted by AgentMulder320
I cringe when i think about how many of you want AK47's as our standard rifles. If only we could create a far superior weapon that fires 7.62 rounds, makes you wonder what a futuristic M14 would look like.

Does it need to be futuristic? As long as it fires every round from first to last reliably and accurately, it is meeting the main requirements of the job. So what if it doesnt look as cool as the G36?

It doesnt need to be futuristic. By using that word i didnt mean that i wanted it to be like the OICW (with a comp and all inside) , i simply mean one with a new look(i was basically talking about M14), but simple, we simply need a weapon that can be twice as good as the AK's.

I think I would prefer the AK-47 to the M-16.

My favorite pistol is the Glock 21C 45ACP...I love mine.