It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cold War Assault Rifles

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I was thinking for the last few days about Cold War era rifles, I noticed the NATO countries used 7.62 weapons with 20 round magazines(Some rifles were only semi auto) while the Warsaw Pact used fully auto AK type rifles with 30 round magazines holding the same calibre cartridge

In a crossfire, Who would win?




posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
NATO used 7.62mm ammo??? wow that's new for me.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Well the Russian 7.62x39mm round was shorter and less high powered, the 7.62x51mm NATO round was more powerful and more accurate but had alot more recoil so they were often issued in semi-auto.

Why isn't this in the weaponry forum?



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
have I gotten so old and senile? I seem to remember the US "assault rifle" round as being 5.56; I thought the 7.62 was used in the M-60 machine gun...but it has been over 30 years...

Toujours Pret!



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
No, my friend, you're not old, just too young.

The standard US rifle during the early to middle '60s, was the M14. It was 7.62mm/.308 NATO. It, like the Belgian FN SLR we in the UK used, were the best rifles around.

With standard iron sights, each member of a fireteam or section could lay down supressing fire out to 800 yards. As an individual weapon, you could drop targets out to 400 yeards, easily!

However, the powers that be in the US, wanted automatic weapons with increased firepower. The result was the early AR15/M16. With ammo being 5.56mm/.223 NATO, grunts could carry more mags with 30 rounds in them, than the standard 5 mags of 7.62.

In my opinion, prior to the introduction of 5.56mm ammo, you had better marksmen. The 7.62mm round was a big powerful brute that you had to learn to master and to do that, you had to shoot properly. Yes you could still blaze off 20 rounds in quick time, but it
hurt.

Nowadays, you just point your rifle, pull the trigger and spray rounds all over the place! No skill in that and, as far as I can tell, having an automatic rifle is just a quicker method of converting live rounds to empty cases.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Fritz,

HA! Well, it's nice to realize I am too young, for a change...

Yes, I hadn't considered the M-14...it had just been phased out when I did my service. My uncle carried it and said it was a great weapon...but he also said something about it being too big for our ARVN friends.

As I recall, he said skilled marksmen with the M-14 were referred to as "gravel-bellies"...or maybe I got that somewhere else.

What you say about the M-14 sure sounds right, if my experience with the M-60
is anything similar; yes, I've seen guys crank off more than 3 rounds on auto while unsupported, but it takes a pretty good-sized man, and proper use of the sling, to keep it close to target. And I think (I didn't look it up) that the 60 was heavier... .

And if the 60 is any comparison, then, yeah, auto fire would definitely hurt...
sorta' like my dad's old deer-rifle, only on auto.

After all the studies that have been done over the last half-century, involving rounds/kill ratio's, I wonder what they are thesedays?

in any case:

Toujours Pret!

oh yeah...talk about being too young...I enlisted at 17 (parents permission) served my full 3 yr. enlistment as an artilleryman, including a 13 month tour with a cav unit on the border in Germany, honorably discharged, and was still too young to buy a legal beer in California...ah, irony... .

[edit on 3/19/2006 by apocalypticon]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
The M14 seemed to be a great weapon, actually they were still using as the M21 sniper rifle before the M24 was introduced.

How about the Mini-14? I heard it was the crappiest 5.56mm rifle ever? is that true?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Always wanted to try out an SLR or the AK-47, just the thought of every squaddie being able to take you out at 800 yards with the right sighting system is worrying enough.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Trouble is Devil, that there is no contest. The FN SLR will beat the AK hands down.

The FN SLR or FN FAL - the one with the heavier barrel like an LMG, is a single shot self loading rifle, whereas the AK is a full auto rifle, a true assault rifle.

The AK was designed to give the simple Mongolian squaddy the ability to put down 30 rounds in about 2 seconds whilst our SLRs were designed for accurate shooting.

Having said that, if you take a humble matchstick, remove the head and break it in half, you could insert it just below or behind the safety sear and
, you got an automatic SLR. Done that myself - way to go 7.62!



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Trouble is Devil, that there is no contest. The FN SLR will beat the AK hands down.

Aye ofcourse the SLR will always be more accurate than the AK but the AK still a legend I'd like to try.






Having said that, if you take a humble matchstick, remove the head and break it in half, you could insert it just below or behind the safety sear and
, you got an automatic SLR. Done that myself - way to go 7.62!

There are tales of marine sergants and above using personalised automatic SLR's and 303 rilfes now adays...



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I personally like weapons with different or inovative ways of operation.

I like the fact the AK is such a well designed weapon and it's good looking to boot, one of few rifles I can stand wood on, but I do prefer synthetic stocks on them.

I wonder what inspired more fear into people, the SLR in the Falklands or the AK-74 in the Russian/Afghani war.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
My dear friends, you may be surprised to learn that in the original AK47, there was a very small length of string or twine, that operated the safety catch (bent and safety sear). Today, the change lever (a device that allows differant rates of fire) is still controlled by this length of string or twine.

As to: 'There are tales of marine sergants and above using personalised automatic SLR's and 303 rilfes now adays...' I think Devil that they are just that, tales - as are the stories of cut down Samaurai swords.

I have a very good mate who is a member of 4/2 Commando - now on leave from Afghanistan. He keeps me updated on various 'bits and pieces' and when I asked him about this, he said only specialist units used special weapons, such as the Lee Enfield but it has been rechambered for 7.62 and is sometimes used as a sniper rifle.

The use of FN FAL - equivalent is the RPK (the LSW of the AK world) is very rare although, having said that, the Brigade Patrol Team or Commachio Troop may have the odd one or two, but he is not too sure.

With regards to 'I wonder what inspired more fear into people, the SLR in the Falklands or the AK-74 in the Russian/Afghani war', I'm not too sure that a weapon system inspires fear. In my case in Oman, it was the .303 that was used against our FN SLRs. The Adoo were phenomenal shots and their snipers were given grudging respect, but fear..........? No, my friend.

The Muj were absolutely terrifying in their treatment of Russians during the war but I honestly believe it is always down to the person using the weapon, rather than the weapon.

After all - people kill people - not weapons.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join