MP-Pistol Forum banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Site Staff
Joined
·
9,617 Posts
Very poorly researched and reported, this reporter certainly doesn't know what he's talking about, and the people he talked to are in the minority. The AK is a loose fitting weapon that will function in just about any conditions, but it's an inferior weapon compared to the M4. The AK series has gone through very limited changes since it was designed in the 40's, yes...it's a much older design than the M4, and the M4 has gone through numerous generations since the original AR15 designed by Eugene Stoner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Yeah it could have been better done but I agree with the general sentiment. There is much more to the design of the AK vs the M16 than level of tightness. For one the M-16 shits where it eats by its gas operation mechanism which makes little sense. It is also required to be way too clean for a combat weapon to prevent jamming. I know all the range rats say all you have to do is keep it clean but try that when you are laying in mudholes for days on end. Tolerances are too tight, the mags suck, cleaning the gas tube and bolt is ridiculous. Don't even get me started on the cartridge. There is a reason why Special Forces has been trying to get something other than the M-16 and .223 cartridge. The only positive thing I have to say about it is that it has become a very accurate rifle. Which is nice if you are shooting holes in paper targets. Interesting that the Army has M4 talking points all ready for anyone who criticizes the weapon. Anyway I think we can do better after 50 years. I will caveat my dislike for the weapon by saying I know a lot of other Marine Corps veterans with many years of service who do like the M16. But I don't know any who think much of the round it fires in any of it's permutations.
 

·
Site Staff
Joined
·
9,617 Posts
Let me address a couple of the things you mentioned. Research into the effectiveness of the cartridges used in military firearms has shown the 5.56 NATO to be more effective out to 300 meters than 7.62 NATO, beyond 300 meters the 7.62 NATO is more effective, the heavier bullet comes into play at the extended ranges, but those extended ranges are very seldom encountered. This research has been well documented by Dr Fackler and proven accurate in the real world.



There is a very good reason the AR15 was designed without a gas piston to operate the action, people forget that a piston actuator was used in the M1 and M14, the gas piston system used in those rifles was an almost constant source of problems, the gas pistons would break, get stuck, loosen, and several other problems related to that system, those problems go away with the much less complicated gas system used in the AR rifles. While it is a "dirty" system, it has proven to be more reliable than the gas system that was used previously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,133 Posts
We have to remember something... the guy is trying to push a product.



If I was trying to sell your corn tortillas, i'd call your flour ones crappy and defective also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Alright, my $.02. As for cleaning, the M16 is easy to clean. As long as it was clean before you shoot it. If it has gone more than two months and regular being shot then yes it'll be more difficult to clean. Jams will happen they happen with any weapon you shoot. The only reason the M16 seems to jam more is because people don't understand that oil is good when shooting. For storage a like coat is best but if you're going to be shooting at the range all day a heavy coat, or several medium coats throughout the day, are best. You only have to keep the bolt oiled to prevent jams. Really the only time I've had jams is when the spring in the magazine loses its tension but an easy, temporary fix for that is to simply stretch the spring out some. I do agree with you on the cartridge though, if could use a bit more power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
G56

You can make about anything jam but I'd venture to say that the Garand is pretty high on the reliablity list in that respect.



Made in America, tested in north Africa, France, Italy, Germany, Austria,Tinian, Saipan, Iwo Jima, etc...................
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
Steelshooter said:
...the M-16 shits where it eats by its gas operation mechanism which makes little sense...


I like the way you put that.

I might have to steal that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
G56 said:
Let me address a couple of the things you mentioned. Research into the effectiveness of the cartridges used in military firearms has shown the 5.56 NATO to be more effective out to 300 meters than 7.62 NATO, beyond 300 meters the 7.62 NATO is more effective, the heavier bullet comes into play at the extended ranges, but those extended ranges are very seldom encountered. This research has been well documented by Dr Fackler and proven accurate in the real world.



There is a very good reason the AR15 was designed without a gas piston to operate the action, people forget that a piston actuator was used in the M1 and M14, the gas piston system used in those rifles was an almost constant source of problems, the gas pistons would break, get stuck, loosen, and several other problems related to that system, those problems go away with the much less complicated gas system used in the AR rifles. While it is a "dirty" system, it has proven to be more reliable than the gas system that was used previously.


You have to love the adjustable gas system of the FAL.

I'm still surprised we ended up with the M14 instead of the FAL. (Actually, I'm not.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
937 Posts
I was reading somewhere that H&K was offering the G36 to the military. THe G36 gas system is a piston type, but the gas never leaves the frontal area of the gun, eliminating the cruddy mess you have to deal with on the ARs and AK's. The G36 is offered in numerous minor design changes from sniper to CQC versions. The army didn't take it because of the re-training issues (at least that's what I read) invoved in switching to a completely new platform, a la M14-M16A1.



On Future Weapons, they spotlighted an AR style reciever that could fire despite being immersed in water and then shaken out in a second, burried in sand, etc. H&K simply put their gas system into the AR frame. The army is now looking at that, supposedly. Best of both worlds, I guess.
 

·
Site Founder
Joined
·
2,889 Posts
really irritates me when people with no experience with a weapon system knocks it...



5.56 works...

M-16 platform works.



Keep it lubed, and it will run for damn near ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
Jester said:
really irritates me when people with no experience with a weapon system knocks it...



5.56 works...

M-16 platform works.



Keep it lubed, and it will run for damn near ever.


I agree. But it's far from perfect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
Nothing is perfect, but the people behind this load of BS are exceedingly disingenuous.



ak-74 hits 2:1 vs. an ar? I highly doubt it, unless they took a lot of the op-rod mass out of the ak-47 when going to the 74. I've fired both a full auto ak-74 clone and a full auto ar. The AR was much easier to control. As a function of hits over time, they BOTH sucked compared to my own AR with a good semi-auto trigger and decent sights.



Beta-C mags... Nothing like a mag you need trainig to have work, and needs as much maintenance as a gun. As to their capacity being necessary for full auto. Well one, you don't hold the trigger till empty. And if you did, having the beta-c would leave you with a barrel that was questionable. One quick reload and another dump, and you'dd be past the service life of the barrel.



We can't win a ground war anymore due to the proliferation of AKs. Uhh yeah. Thats why the primary threat to US ground forces are IEDs. Good call there.



A walking man can't use sights well. BULLSHIT. A good red dot sight kicks ass when on the move.



Hanging more weight off a rifle makes it jam? Maybe, but I haven't noticed it with the AR platform.



The Ultimax rifle. Looks like a SAW replacement, so why bag on the AR to push it?



Asfor the age. Go look at rifles on the market. They are mostly the same as 60 years ago with a couple exceptions. A couple rifles with moving barrels to play recoil impulse games that nobody has deployed in any real numbers. Some bullpups which have not fared well in general, and the G11.



Unless it has something horribly wrong, leave it alone. You do not want soldiers debugging it in the field.
 

·
Site Staff
Joined
·
9,617 Posts
Some comments about the video's linked above:



The "experts" from the Armed Forces Journal" rave about the HK, aren't those the same people that were completely conned by Stan Bulmer from LeMas about their ammo? Temperature sensing bullets and all? They made fools of themselves on that one.



The guy from the Discovery Channel series, I can't think of the name of it, he's easily impressed, by the way, he also fell for a demonstration put on by Stan Bulmer from LeMas.



So what is the HK able to do that the M4 can't, he buried it in sand, the magazine was in place and the cover was closed, M4 would have absolutely no trouble with that. He dunked it in a trashcan partially filled with water, did you notice the Seals in the opening scene in the sea with their M4's? The Seals dunk their M4's all the time, no big deal. What exactly did they show that was different from the M4? The bolt was cold after firing, big deal.... It's cleaner than the M4, true, it is cleaner, but that cleanliness comes with the added complexity of a piston and lots of extra parts that are known to be more prone to failure than the simple system used in the AR's. It's easier to attach and remove the grenade launcher, whoopee...



A lot of the AR guys are real excited by the weapons showing up that are piston operated, but the vast majority of those folks aren't familiar with the very valid reason why the AR was designed to do away with the gas piston.



BTW, M1's and M14's have definitely had their share of jamming problems, and sometimes those jamming problems are caused by the piston actuated gas system malfunctioning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
I didn't link those videos because I agree with the sales pitches and politics of them.

I linked them for the sole purpose of showing the HK416 to anyone that hasn't seen it.

Those 2 videos just happened to be the first 2 that popped up from my search.



Also, the direct impingement system of the AR is nothing new.

The system has been around since about 1901.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
YukonGlocker said:
[quote name='G56']Let me address a couple of the things you mentioned. Research into the effectiveness of the cartridges used in military firearms has shown the 5.56 NATO to be more effective out to 300 meters than 7.62 NATO, beyond 300 meters the 7.62 NATO is more effective, the heavier bullet comes into play at the extended ranges, but those extended ranges are very seldom encountered. This research has been well documented by Dr Fackler and proven accurate in the real world.



There is a very good reason the AR15 was designed without a gas piston to operate the action, people forget that a piston actuator was used in the M1 and M14, the gas piston system used in those rifles was an almost constant source of problems, the gas pistons would break, get stuck, loosen, and several other problems related to that system, those problems go away with the much less complicated gas system used in the AR rifles. While it is a "dirty" system, it has proven to be more reliable than the gas system that was used previously.


You have to love the adjustable gas system of the FAL.

I'm still surprised we ended up with the M14 instead of the FAL. (Actually, I'm not.)[/quote]



I'm an aficionado of the FAL (got the tools, got the kits, got the finished products
) I'd love to chime in with a solid "Here! hear!" but the Izzy's supposedly gave theirs up because they jammed too much.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top