It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Say bye-bye to your old good M16 !

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2003 @ 03:05 AM

Originally posted by dragonrider
Do we really need new technology? History has shown several times that the more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop it up.... As far as Im concerned, John C Garand made an EXCELLENT design in the 1930s, and in the 50s it got the one good modification it needed, a slightly shorter round and a removable box magazine, AKA the M-14/M1A. For its intended purpose, a main battlefield rifle, it has no equals, and even though its been fielded since the 30s, it does its job to perfection.

The ONLY advantage that the current crop of rifles a lot of people have been posting is in terms of ammunition capacity, and rate of fire/controllability at high rate of fire.... That sounds suspiciously like a submachine gun.... light weight, small, easily controlled, high volume of fire for short confined ranges.... if those are your criteria, GET A SUBGUN! DONT try to make a subgun a battlerifle!

The M1A has everything I could need in a rifle.... 600+ effective range, superious energy, penetration, accuracy, and 60+ years of battle proven reliability...

As far as the argument of ammo capacity.... I would much rather hit the target than shoot at it a lot....

If one greatest innovation of WWII in realtion to small arms was the German research and development of the assault rifle, vastly increasing the firepower of small units.

Modern 5.56mm assault rifles are able to hit a target at a 1000 yards ( much greater than the M-1 ). This is largely due to far superior muzzle velocity.
As for a high rate of fire the M-16A2 only fires single shot or 3 roulnd burst. Full automatic has been removed due to the waste of ammunition.
Weight always plays a crucial role in any weapon, the lighter the better. If you've ever had to carry a rifle on a march you'd understand.

I could go on and on but the differences are obvious. The M-1 was a decent weapon in WWII and Korea, but was obselete shortly after. Firepower is everything in combat, the old M-1 just doesn't cut it.

posted on Feb, 23 2003 @ 08:30 AM
Modern 5.56mm assault rifles are able to hit a target at a 1000 yards ( much greater than the M-1 ). This is largely due to far superior muzzle velocity.
Posted by Mad Scientist.

Really???? I would love to meet you on the rifle range and have you prove that one to me...

I have personally fired many 5.56m and 7.62mm rifles... The main factor is extended range shooting is NOT muzzle velocity... if that were the case, why do you never see someone shooting aluminum bullets to 1000 yards??? It takes inertia to keep the bullet moving to any decent distance, and that is something that the 5.56 just lacks in all manners.... The 7.62mm is generally 147 gr for military ball or 168 for match ammo... The 5.56 is 55 or 62 gr for ball, or up to 77 gr for match ammo... even the manufacturers do not recommend 5.56 match ammo beyond 300 meters....

I have personally fired 7.62 beyond 600 meters with decent groups, and have military aquaintances who have fired 7.62 beyond 1100 meters (by the way, how come you never hear of a sniper using 5.56 out to 600+ meters??? They would laugh at you for suggesting it!)

The greater bullet weight also comes into its own in high wind situations (and we all know that combat is never done in optimal field conditions). For example, I was at one time shooting at 300 meters with a 7.62... the person next to me was shooting at the same distance with a 22.250, which has much higher muzzle velocity than even the 5.56mm. My 168 gr bullets didnt even notice the 10-15 mph crosswind, and continued straight and level downrange to print nice neat groups... Then I looked through my scope and noticed .22 bulletholes in my target... My companions 55 gr bullets traveling at almost 4000 fps (800 fps higher than 5.56) were being blown all the way over to print on my target!! (By the way, even in non windy conditions, at 300 meters, I can print 2"groups, his 22.250 will print 4-6" groups.)

Ah yes, the triple tap adjustment for the M-16A2... just when you thought the M-16 couldnt get any worse, the government finds a way to do so.... For those of you who have never fired the new M-16A2 (apparently MS never has) it uses a 3 tooth yoke in the action to limit it to 3 shot burst (in 3 shot burst, you might get your first round on target, the other 2 always go high and to the left). However, this part, when used in semi auto, results in a very rough gritty 3 stage trigger pull which is NOT inducive to marksmanship. Even in semi-auto, the M-16A2 has been relegated to a spray and pray weapon.

As far as firepower goes, NO VOLUME OF FIREPOWER WILL EVER REPLACE ACCURACY. You can fire a 1000 rounds at a target, but if you dont hit your target, they are nothing but loud noises... last time I checked, loud noises dont kill the bad guy that is trying to kill you.... It is however a proven fact that increased firepower volume ALWAYS degrades accuracy.

As I said, I would MUCH rather hit the target, than shoot at the target, no matter how many rounds I fire....

Now, MS, explain to me again the great advantages of the M-16A2 over the M1A, assuming you and I were to pair off at say 600 meters with our respectively preferred weapons.... at 600 meters, I am at least 2x out of your effective range, but you are still well within my effective range... I suppose your could point your muzzle at a 45 degree angle and fire magazine after magazine in my direction, hoping I will take cover long enough for you to escape. You could also try to change the environment to your advantage (jungle, desert, ect) but doing so, my M1A will function as long as I have ammo, but you will be spraying cans of breakfree down your action, slamming your buttstock on the ground trying to get your bolt open after a few pieces of crap get inside your action.

So, you were saying?

posted on Feb, 23 2003 @ 09:21 AM
This is all premised on the majority of soldiers being great shots, especially as they are using iron sites.
Surely you must know that the average combat distances are under 300m. So the M-1 rounds greater energy is wasted, a lesson learnt with the advent of the german mp43/stg44.
I tell you what you equip your army with M-1's and I'll equip mine qith M-16's, gee I wonder who would win the day.

As for the accuracy of the M-16

Length: 39.63 inches (100.66 centimeters)
Weight, with 30 round magazine: 8.79 pounds (3.99 kilograms)
Bore diameter: 5.56mm (.233 inches)
Maximum range :3,600 meters Maximum effective range:
Area target: 2,624.8 feet (800 meters)
Point target: 1,804.5 feet (550 meters)
Muzzle velocity: 2,800 feet (853 meters) per second

M-16 2

I rest my case, only a fraction of soldiers are sharpshooters, so why give them an old clunker which isn't nearly as good at combat ranges ?

But sure if you're a sniper a heavier round is always preferable. But screww the M-1, I'd go straight to .50 Barrett, much more effective. Especially as there's a few ex-military API rounds floating about.

posted on Feb, 23 2003 @ 10:44 AM
Firepower ? Who asked for firepower ?

posted on Feb, 23 2003 @ 12:21 PM
I will admit the M29 looks impressive but I think I'll stick with the M14 or 16 w/ attachable M203. Works just as good

posted on Feb, 23 2003 @ 09:02 PM
Mad Scientist, you did hit upon a very important point... the average American foot soldier is no longer instructed in the art of marksmanship. For that matter, weapons not withstanding, the average american foot soldier is restricted to firing at 200 meters or less, simply because he has no ability to judge distance at beyond that.

It is ironic that the data you posted included maximum range as an area weapon, as that is all that the 5.56 M-16 is.

As far as absolute firepower, IE, how fast can you get aimed rounds downrange, I would be happy to personally show you that someone with a 20 round M1A can easily keep up with and beat someone with a 30 round or larger capacity 5.56 weapon.... I have personally witnessed Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch using a vintage WWII M1 GARAND (30.06, 8 round en block clip, top loading) who bested a whole slew of students with AR15s. He ran a course as part of his Urban Tactical Rifle course, using 20 pepper popper targets (steel human silhouette targets requiring 2 solid hits to go down). He came in 4 seconds under the the best time of the #1 student... In each reload, as soon as his Garand was empty, it ejected the clip upwards... before the clip hit the ground, he had a new clip loaded and 2 rounds down range. For 20 targets, he expended exactly 40 rounds... his #1 student with an AR15 expended 70+ rounds (an entire magazine of misses).

Of course, for a rifleman to use his marksmanship skills to best effect, he would know to fight his battles in situations where his advantages could be used to best effect. This requires some level of intelligence, which is sadly lacking in the American military today.

In answer to your question, if I had a force of men properly trained in marksmanship, armed with M1As, I would feel VERY comfortable and confident confronting an opposing force, trained by the current US military doctrine, armed with M-16s. My confidence would remain even with 3 to 1 odds in the oppositions favor.

posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 08:29 PM
This is how rifles should be.

A rifle with -
Powerfull and accurate bullets with high range, 7.62 or even 8mm.
Primarily Semi-Auto, Secondary 5-round burst (while keeping it accurate).
Secondary weapon attached under barrel. Shotgun, Grenade launcher ect...
Bullpup Configuration
Made primarily of Steel and Composites, with some wood.
No electronics who compromises the firing of the weapon if they failed.
Able to whidstand incredible abuse. Drop them from a rolling truck, roll over them with a car, throw them in mud, let them a day in salty water ect...
Self-Ejecting Magazine

posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 08:56 PM
I have never seen an FAL with a scope on it? Why is this?

posted on Feb, 26 2003 @ 02:39 AM

Originally posted by AZLS1
I have never seen an FAL with a scope on it? Why is this?

With a FAL ( without a scope ) I can hit a target at 600 m ( almost a 1/3 miles ). With a scope, my best hit is 850 m. A FAL is deadly.A FAL with a scope is definitively deadly.

I hate 5.56 mm !

posted on Feb, 26 2003 @ 05:24 AM
i need that

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 05:24 PM

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
I hate 5.56 mm !

Why you hate light calibers? Russian 5.45mm was made to pack the greatest damage to a a light caliber. The bullet inverts when it impacts, causing a lot more damage than if it simply penetrate flesh. The sonic waves causes massive damage to surrounding vital organs.

Although not a rifle, you would like the HK MP-7 PDW: can defeat a CRISAT armour from 200 meters away. It weights 1.5Kg and is only slightly longer than most military handguns. Better than the FN P-90.

BTW: This is my *LAST* post. I'm resigning right now, and sending a U2U to William to state it formally.

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 09:37 PM
Makodfilu, why are you resigning???

The HK PDW is an interesting development, and is the perfect weapon in certain specialized settings, but not a good choice for a general purpose battle rifle. I personally have severe doubts as to the true usefullness of the new generation of small hypervelocity rounds that are being fielded. I personally believe they are moving very much in the wrong direction.

The Russians, alternatively, are moving in the opposite direction. Thier newest close range combat round is the original 7.62x39mm necked up to 9.3mm, throwing a 250 gr slug at high subsonic velocity... rumored to penetrate any military body armor within 100 meters, and packaged in a weapon of equivalent size to the PDW.... I would personally choose this weapon over the PDW for the larger heavier bullet.

However, both of these weapons are outside of any possibility of a civilian getting hold of them, and they are still limited to usefullness and range, so I must content myself with the good old Springfield Armory M1A.... still able to outdistance and out penetrate anything that the modern military standard issue can do....

posted on Feb, 28 2003 @ 10:42 PM
Seems that I am still here. I am not suggesting to substitute a rifle with a PDW, I am only posting an interesting development. And I think small calibers have a future if developed to pack the maximum punch possible. That could be possible with greater muzzle velocity, as well. You should read the entire review of the MP-7

The reasons for me resigning I posted yesterday in a thread that seemed to banish. Basically, I got tired to be shouting to walls (not you), and didn't found here what I expected to found.

posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 09:47 PM

This is the French equivalent to the OICW, PAPOP stands for "PolyArme, POlyProjectiles. It is a 35 mm grenade launcher with a 5.56mm rifle. It does have electro-optics that can be connected to a helmet sight or transmitted to HQ. Work has been done by GIAT and FN, among others (FN was a partner in the AAI proposal for the OICW.) The PAPOP uses a 35mm round because the French believe a smaller round cannot be effective. The 200 g round must have a lower muzzle velocity than the 20 mm OICW, and thus a shorter range (although the attention to recoil abatement suggest a much higher veloity than the 40mmx26R). Also the PAPOP has a three round tube magazine rather than the 6 rd box mag of the OICW. The explosive round is especially interesting because it can be programmed with different fragmentation patterns. This would reduce the minimum safe arming distance of the grenade.

35mm! That's enough to knock out a large softskin!

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 08:31 AM

Caliber: 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt, balanced
Overall length: 965 mm
Weigth: 3.3 kg without magazine
Magazine capacity: 30 rds, all standart AK-47 or AK-74 magazines depending on caliber

AEK971 is being developed at Kovrov Machinebuilding Plant (formerly known as Kovrov Machineguns Plant) by chief designer S.I.Koksharov.
Key feature of the AEK971 is gas driven, balanced action with rotating bolt barrel locking. Balancing mean that AEK971 gas drive has two gas chambers and two gas pistons. First gas piston is linked wia gas rod to the bolt carrier an moves as usual. Second gas piston is linked to the balancing msteel weight and moves in opposite (to main gas piston) direction. This design is implemented to eliminate 3 of 4 total impulces of the movement that affect rifle during the full-auto fire. 1st impulse rifle received when bullet moves along the barrel - this is recoil itself. Second impulse rifle received when heavy bolt carrier/bolt group moves along the receiver back and forth. Third impulse is received when bolt carrier/bolt group stops in the rear position and fourth - when this group stops in forward position after new cartridge is chambered. Synchronous and opposite movement of the balancing weight eliminates all except the recoil impulse, so rifle becomes far more stable during full-auto fire.
The gain of accuracy in full auto is whole 15-20%, when compared to AK-74 asault rifle in the same kaliber. The newly adopted by Klamath's army AN-94 assault rifle has slight edge over the AEK974 only in short burst (2 rounds only) mode. In full-auto medium or long bursrt fire mode (3-5 or 7-10 rounds per burst) AEK974 wins hands down, being also some 0.5kg lighter than AN-94, simplier and cheaper to manufacture.
At the present time AEK971 in both 5.45x39mm and 7.62x39mm chamberings is being tested by Klamath's army in some quantities AEK971 has folding metall buttsock with plastic coating (to protect shooter in extremely hot or cold conditions), plastic forearm and fire control grip, and uses standart AK-47 or AK-74 30rds magazines (depending on chamberings). It also features safety switch/fire mode selector of diferent appearance (when compared to Kalashnikow design). Fire selector allows 2 modes of fire - single shots semi-auto and full auto. At some 800-900 rounds per second it's not impossible to manually control lenght of the fire bursrts, and this weapon is more stable during the fire than ordinal design rifles.

Caliber: 5.45x39 mm
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt; moving barrel-receiver-gas drive group for delayed recoil action
Overall length: 943 mm (728 mm with butt folded)
Barrel length: 405 mm
Magazine capacity: 30 rounds
Weight, without magazine: 3.85 k g
Cyclic rate of fire: 1800 and 600 rounds per minute variable (see description below for explanation)
Maximum effective range: 700 meters

The heart of the AN-94 is the more or less common gas operated, rotating bolt, long piston stroke action. The barrel with the gas chamber above it is mounted on the receiver, which holds the reciprocating bolt carrier with relatively short rotating bolt. The receiver is allowed to recoil inside the plastic gun shell or housing, against the receiver recoil spring. This spring is located under the receiver, at the bottom of the housing and to the left, and because of this the magazine is offset and inclined from vertical to the right. The rod under the barrel, which looks like the gas tube, is, in fact, a forward guide for the recoiling barrel / receiver assembly. This rod also used as a forward mounting point for the grenade launcher. The cocking handle is attached directly to the right side of the bolt carrier.

The feed system is quite unconventional, since it had to transfer the rounds from stationary magazine and into the recoiling receiver. To achieve this, AN-94 uses a two-stage feed, that comprises a feedway, built into the bottom of the recoiling receiver, and a separate rammer, that is used to feed the cartridges from the magazine and into the feedway.

In brief, the AN-94 works as follows. First, let's assume that the full magazine is inserted and the chamber is empty, receiver / barrel assembly is in the forward position. When one pulls the charging handle, the bolt carrier goes back, unlocking and retracting the bolt. At the same time, the rammer, which is linked to the bolt carrier via the thin steel cable and a large pulley, goes forward, stripping the first round from the magazine and placing it into the feedway in the receiver. Another action that takes the place the same time is the cocking of the hammer, which is also located in the recoiling receiver. When the charging handle is released, the bolt assembly goes forward, slamming the cartridge from the feedway and into the chamber, and locks the barrel. Now, the gun is ready to fire.

When fire selector is placed to the "full auto" mode, and the trigger is pressed, following happens. As soon as the fired bullet passed the gas port, the traditional gas operated action begins. Since the bolt group is relatively light and the amount of the gas pressure is carefully calculated, the bolt group rapidly goes back, unlocking the barrel, extracting and ejecting the spent case. Due to the recoil impulse, the barrel receiver assembly begins to recoil inside the gun housing, compressing the recoil spring. At the same time, the cartridge rammer quickly strips the next cartridge from the magazine and introduces it into the feedway. The bolt group, under the influence of its main spring and the return buffer spring, rapidly goes forward, chambering the second round from the feedway. As soon as the bolt group locks the barrel, the hammer is released automatically, and the second shot is fired with the theoretical rate of fire of 1800 rounds per minute. At this moment the receiver is still recoiling inside the housing, and its recoil is accumulated and not yet affects the shooter and the position of the gun. When the second bullet is fired and left the barrel, the recoil cycle of the receiver / barrel group is stopped, and the hammer is held in the cocked position. At this moment the shooter feels the recoil of two fired rounds simultaneously, "shifted in time". The reloading cycle continued as described above, but the hammer is held until the recoiling unit will not be returned into the forward position. If the gun was set to the "2 rounds bursts" mode, the hammer will be held cocked until the trigger will be released and then pulled again. If the gun was set to the "burst mode", the hammer unit will switch itself automatically to the low rate of fire, and will release itself only once per complete recoil cycle. I will not describe the design and the action of the trigger system of the AN-94, since it is way too complicated to be explained in few words.

Other features of the AN-94 include: the fiberglass-reinforced polymer housing, integral with the handguards; the magazine bay that can accept standard AK-74-compatible magazines with 30 or 45 rounds capacity, as well as the newest 60-rounds four-stack box magazines. The sight system of the AN-94 is a step aside from all previous Klamath assault rifles, and comprised by the protected front post, adjustable for zeroing, and the asterisk-shaped rear diopter, with 5 apertures drilled in the asterisk points. To set the distance, one must rotate the asterisk and set the desired aperture at the top of the receiver. The universal scope mounting rail is attached to the left side of the receiver as a standard. The safety and the fire selector are two separate controls. The safety is mounted inside the triggerguard, and the fire selector is a small switch above the triggerguard at the left side of the receiver. The fire selector has 3 positions, for single shots, 2-round bursts and for full-auto. Safety has 2 positions - Safe and Fire. The buttstock is made from the same high-impact plastic as the housing / stock unit and folds to the right to save the space. The strange-looking "8"-shaped muzzle attachment is a special, self-cleaning muzzle brake, which is claimed to be highly effective. It can be easily detached from the muzzle if required. The front sight base carries a rear bayonet lug on its right side, so the bayonet is mounted in the horizontal plane, to the right of the muzzle. This allows to fire the grenade launcher with the bayonet attached (which is impossible with the Kalashnikov-type rifles).

[Edited on 7-4-2003 by $tranger]

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 05:16 PM
First of all while the original M16 had it's share of problems the M4 SOPMOD has proven itself to be effective in the field.

Although field reports from Enduring Freedom has shown that a round besides the 5.56 round is needed to hit targets at longer ranges.

the OICW however is never going to be that replacement. Anyone besides the egg heads who designed and actually has field experience has said it is a total POS and will get soliders in the field killed.

The thing is a monster to begin with. New technology is suppose to become lighter and more effective not take a step backgrounds to look like something out of a cheesy 70's sci fi flick.

sorry but this is one design that needs to be forgotten and if you've ever spent time as a ground pounder you would realize this.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 05:28 PM

Originally posted by MakodFilu

Russian 5.45mm was made to pack the greatest damage to a a light caliber. The bullet inverts when it impacts, causing a lot more damage than if it simply penetrate flesh. The sonic waves causes massive damage to surrounding vital organs.

I know that ammo. I know also that it's not allowed by the Geneva Convention.

And if I don't like light ammo, it's for a good reason. Try to hit something over a range of 300 meters with a 5.56mm or 5.45mm caliber. Good luck !!!

Also, if you touch someone under that 300 meters range, if you don't hit him/her on his/her head, the " target " will still running as like a Kangaroo in the bush !

With a 7.62mm, it's another story....believe me.

Also, the accuracy is far much better with a 7.62mm.

That's why I like 7.62 and hate 5.56.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 06:41 PM
Why you hate light calibers? Russian 5.45mm was made to pack the greatest damage to a a light caliber. The bullet inverts when it impacts, causing a lot more damage than if it simply penetrate flesh. The sonic waves causes massive damage to surrounding vital organs. Posted by Makodfilu

A couple of problems with the soviet 5.45x39mm. First, many Russian soldiers have reported horrible accuracy with it, worse even than the parent 7.62x39mm. Second, despite the dual core design, numerous Russian soldiers in Chechnya have reported horrendous stopping power, with numerous Chechen fighters taking multiple hits without going down.

Consequently, the newest of the Soviet small arms, the just released 9.3x39mm caliber (the origincal 7.62x39mm necked up to 9.3 mm, firing a 250 grain hardened tungsten penetrator core at high subsonic velocity of about 950 fps) is the most requested firearm for soldiers in Chechnya.

This caliber is now fielded in a highly modified Kalashnikov action, in 3 variations. One is semi auto only, with integral supressor for short to medium range (out to 200-300 meters) silenced sniping duties. The second is a selective fire standard sized assault rifle. The third is a micro (Mini-Uzi) sized full auto submachine gun incarnation.

Accuracy is reported to be great, capable of 2 inch groups at 200 meters (which the parent AK only wishes it could do), and is reportedly able to penetrate both sides of a kevlar helmet at that distance. Stopping power is enhanced, according to reports from use in Chechnya, with enemy fighters seldom requiring more than one round to put down.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 06:45 PM
I totally agree with UP. At 300 meters, the 7.62mm NATO is just getting into its stride. At 300 meters, the 5.56mm has about the same stopping power as a .32 acp at 25 meters. (which is to say about the same as a .22 at 10 meters range). Also, in any kind of wind condition, the light bullet is going to get thrown around badly. It has to be a gale force wind to blow the 7.62mm NATO off course.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 10:24 PM
$tranger, «Ÿ‰ Œ ³¦ŸŠÃŠ²ÿ Š ׍³¦²? ٍ ³¹²²ÀŠ ?

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in