[rolls eyes and continues to dwell a realm of facts instead of loud talking]
I prefer my Saiga .308 over an aluminum jam-factory.
Flagrant hyperbole meant for dramatic response.
My 16 never jammed on me. Not even once.
I made sure it was lubed.
I made sure the magazine feed lips weren't bent and there was appropriate pressure on the spring.
Referring to it as a "jam factory" shows the true undertones to your argument though.
Also, are we arguing the 7.62x39mm Ak-47, or your Saiga .308 which is a x51 firearm?
You aren't going to rhetoric me out of what over 20 years of experience has taught me. Being a real warrior, maybe, does not justify being an Internet warrior.
When it comes to conversations about firearms, yes. Yes it does.
Plenty of soldiers don't like the AR and it has failed them.
Plenty love it, and wouldn't trade it for anything, especially an AK-47.
This is the counterpoint that is reality, that you are dismissing. I'm not even surprised that you are, because you are an AK fan. That's all fine and fair, but being objective is paramount to have factual conversations.
I have already posted several examples of such from hardcore combatants who saw extensive fighting. One of which even expressed the platforms superiority in engagements with seasoned and well trained opponents using the AK.
Being a 'slob' is often a requirement of unplanned battle conditions.
This is where your experience with the CNC milling of firearms fails you, and I would ask you to concede your inexperience in actual combat conditions.
There is an inherent difference between soldiers being "slobs", or being deployed in long in theater field operations, making time to eat an MRE, take a crap, take a piss, shave their face so their mask fits properly, change their socks, or any other plethora of actual field activities that they must find time for, then not taking 5 minutes to wipe down the bolt carrier and breach of their 16, and spatter some CLP on it if that's what they have.
Can you explain to me why the only failures I witnessed out of 230 soldiers were the 3 soldiers I saw laying their 16, dust cover and mag well exposed, in the sand, or even on some occasions sitting on it?
Your argument would be that the AK may take that in stride.
My very valid counterpoint would be that the staggering engagement success our troops have endured in some firefights, specifically those from IED ambushes, or perimeter engagements in standoff fights, would not be as successful without an exceptionally accurate platform with a ballistically flat-shooting round.
If a soldier never finds him/her self under conditions where daily babysitting of the AR isn't possible... Well... He/she hasn't wandered far from the mess and might consider being a cook instead...
That's an erroneous lie exaggerating the daily upkeep necessary of the M16.
You are attempting to paint a picture of M16/M4 maintenance that is not accurate whatsoever, and binds all troops who have never had a problem with one to a close proximity to the chow hall.
This is extremely disingenuous, and I think you know it.
Can you explain why these are so easy to find?
"Colt M4 and M203 from April 2007 till Oct 2007 (had a SAW for the begining of the tour) while living at FOB Rustamiah, south east part of Baghdad, Iraq, completed over 200 combat patrols. I didn't have one malfuntion the entire time."
"To be equally clear, no sample of 100 or so grunts is enough to settle any longstanding argument. But after years of carrying an M-16 (the A2 version, in the 1980s and 1990s) and years of observing them in the field, often in firefights, I have yet to see a modern M-16 or M-4 fail in the ways described in others’ reports, and I have not found significant reliability complaints from troops using the rifles in trying environments. (Interestingly, two Web sites that closely follow military equipment decisions,
www.military.com and
www.defensereview.com, reported late last month that the special operations community had dropped its program to replace M-4s with a rifle colloquially known as the SCAR, in part because the SCAR was not living up to its early billing – a common trait among rifles in development – and because it was not regarded as offering an upgrade on the M-4 that was worth the investment.)
Does that mean that M-4s and M-16s have not failed in combat, and are not still failing?
No. But it is curious that the Army’s examination of the battle of Wanat, which was part of the fuel on the latest controversy, did not find systematic problems with weapons. And it is hard not to notice, as we have tried to examine the issues, that many of the complaints about M-4 and M-16 reliability are almost impossible to trace because they are either anonymous or do not include essential information, including the unit’s name, and the date and location of the failure. This makes the complaints of the last few years much different from the complaints of the mid-1960s, when the din from the field was such that a near deluge of angry veterans spoke openly of the problems, and the rifle was overhauled, as the early M-16 needed to be. If there are widespread problems with the rifles, then they should be detectable in units in heavy fighting.
Source -
http://www.apacheclips.com/boards/s...ining-the-Complaints-About-M4-M16-reliability "
"You didn’t mention the critical advantages of the M-16 and M-4 – they are lightweight and extremeley accurate. I fought in the invasion of Iraq with the Third Battallion, Fifth Marines, and I can tell you firsthand that after we crossed the Euphrates, we were ambushed nearly every day, often by superior numbers. The main reason we consistenltly stomped our attackers was simple – we hit what we were aiming at and they didn’t. The forces opposing us (Republican Guard, Saddam Fedayeen, and foreign mercerenaries and terrorists) were generally brave, tactically sound, and well armed, they just couldn’t deliver killing shots even in a perfectly executed ambush. Part of the difference in ability was training, but part of it was the inherent inaccuracy of the AK-47. Even the Russians switched over to a round sized similar to .223 long ago with the AK-74. .223 weapons, and especially the M-16 and M-4, are simply much easier to fire accurately in the heat of combat due to their light weight, low recoil, and ease of use. Tweaking the round and rifle itself may be a good idea, I’ll leave that to the experts, but I highly doubt that any move away from .223 would be advisable."
A rifle should work under the worst circumstances ALWAYS. This includes not getting proper attention. A real battle rifle needs no cleaning/maintenance for long periods of time and can tolerate the abuse of unexpected conditions. The AR-15 cannot take the abuse and neglect that an AK can; abuse and neglect that should be EXPECTED and DESIGNED FOR.
It is in fact figured in to the A2 forward. You simply need to lube it a bit, and give a real quick wipe down every day.
Here are some other things a "real battle rifle" needs:
-The ability to hit what you are aiming at.
-The ability to maintain sight picture inbetween rounds.
-The ability to manage the weapon platform without having to roll it, or put it down to manipulate its functions, including switching firing modes and changing magazines.
-Barrel flex that is not conducive to unreasonable shot grouping.
-An offset bolt that during cyclic action causes the weapon to yaw when fired in automatic mode.
Have you ever been in a situation that causes excess duress with the mortality of your life on the line ixtow?
While you tremor from the increase of adrenalin shooting through your body, struggling to maintain sight picture composure, do you really think your AK (ESPECIALLY a semi-auto one) will detract, or contribute to your engagement success?
Is it any shock at all that the majority of soldier deaths in modern conflicts have been attributed to IED's, car-bombs, suicide bombers, and RPG's?
That's because, under duress, the AK-47 is probably one of the worst firearms you could hold in your hand
unless the engagement was ~75m.
Even then, it is fatiguing, and hard to keep on target. neither of which complement its inherent inaccuracy.
I'm sure your DPMS is more accurate than my Saiga .308. But I don't need one bullet inside the other. I need them on a torso.
This is not the mark of a true combat rifle, ixtow.
Not every target presents itself as a walking torso. Especially in modern warfare.
As distance increases, your likelihood of being able to strike back, with an AK, is extremely diminished. Particularly if target presentation is small in size, or brief.
My Saiga .308 will remain effective, and accurate enough to do that at ranges the .223 won't even reach.
Edit: You aren't even discussing a x39 AK-47. You are discussing a 7.62x51 firearm. That is not what is issued to most enemy combatants.
7.62x39mm -
Range Elevation Velocity Energy ETA Drop Max Y 10mph Wind Deflect
0 yds -1.50 in 2400 fps 1573 fpe 0.000 sec 0.00in -1.50 in 0.00 in
25 yds 0.24 in 2333 fps 1486 fpe 0.032 sec 0.19in -0.55 in 0.08 in
50 yds 1.58 in 2266 fps 1402 fpe 0.064 sec 0.79in -0.40 in 0.35 in
75 yds 2.50 in 2201 fps 1323 fpe 0.098 sec 1.81in -0.13 in 0.79 in
100 yds 2.96 in 2137 fps 1247 fpe 0.133 sec 3.28in 0.26 in 1.39 in
125 yds 2.95 in 2073 fps 1174 fpe 0.169 sec 5.22in 0.78 in 2.16 in
150 yds 2.46 in 2011 fps 1105 fpe 0.205 sec 7.65in 1.44 in 3.08 in
175 yds 1.43 in 1950 fps 1038 fpe 0.243 sec 10.62in 2.26 in 4.21 in
200 yds -0.15 in 1890 fps 975 fpe 0.281 sec 14.13in 3.25 in 5.52 in
225 yds -2.38 in 1831 fps 916 fpe 0.322 sec 18.29in 4.43 in 7.12 in
250 yds -5.29 in 1774 fps 859 fpe 0.364 sec 23.14in 5.83 in 9.00 in
275 yds -8.91 in 1718 fps 806 fpe 0.407 sec 28.70in 7.45 in 11.14 in
300 yds -13.27 in 1664 fps 756 fpe 0.452 sec 34.99in 9.32 in 13.51 in
Past 200 yards the 7.62's ballistic trajectory drop is completely unacceptable.
Comparison of the rounds from a Russian site:
Yellow = 5.56
Blue = 5.45
Red = 7.62
The 5.56:
Saying that the 7.62x39 has better ballistics than the 5.56 or .223 is completely wrong when arguing the effective range, and the trajectory.
7.62x39 coupled with barrel flex from an AK leads to a terrible engagement experience.
Particularly when your enemy faces none of these specific shortcomings.
I don't know why you feel the need to discuss x51
I can also fill it full of sand and mud and it'll still work with no reduction in those qualities.
Not hard to do when the qualities are bottom-barrel to begin with.
The environment of war is not a place for precision machining that can be fouled up by a few grains of sand.
Without having been there, can you elaborate on your experience in this forum? Can you explain to me why myself and others, even those with extensive combat roles, have not had any issues with the M16?
Can you elaborate as to the effectiveness of the M16A2/A3 in Fallujah?
Modern Firearms have become like the internals of an Engine. A place no kind of dirt belongs. And as such, they are failure in engineering as the designers have lost sight of the purpose and environment.
Completely nonsensical attempt at relation.
By the way are you aware what the ksi of 7075 Aluminum is vs the stamped steel the AK is made out of?
I'd like you to post those figures here if you can.
Perfection is far less sensible than merely limiting imperfection. That last sentence is the underlying root of virtually all military operations.
This would apply were the M16 considered to be "perfection". It is not. It makes many concessions at the expense of reliability.
However, what it has brought to the battlefield, is superior to the AK in its flexibility of roles.
If combat was consistently about kicking doors in, then I would agree that the M16/M4 has no place in modern combat.
What you cannot grasp is the necessity for flexibility in roles.
The M16 has proven itself superior in these roles, time and time again.
The Rifle removed from that point is less than adequate. Period. An AR exposed to the same environment as an AK, will fail long before the AK.
Reliability, like it or not, is one of many facets of an effective combat firearm.
You can comment about how you can cake it with mud and take a dump in the breach and it will still fire, but you won't be much of a threat from ~150m+.
The M16 rifleman can hit the intended AK47 wielding target the first time, every time, under duress, from 0m-200m.
The AK's operable range is not as flexible. Despite your false claims that the 7.62 is a "superior round", and that you will be "more effective at range".
That's how it is. You may argue that it isn't so, but that's like arguing that human beings don't need oxygen to live. This is a thing that is true. We call such things facts. That's how it is.
I will accept your limited and or complete lack of exposure to the combat environment as the limiting factor in your perspective.
You think, very clearly, that a gun going "bang" every time is as important as every other factor of a combat firearm.
You also have a delusional perception of AR reliability in the field.
If you and I were to square off at anything outside 100m, and we were both staring at each other, heads exposed over a berm, could you hit me 100% the first time, before I hit you, with our preferred firearms?
I know this is just hypothetical, but it highlights the reality of combat in a way you are incapable of understanding. I would absolutely, without fail repeatedly be able to tag you in the head.
You would have to make "adjustments".
Time is life. Accuracy is life.
7.62x51 > 5.56x45. There is no argument on that point.
Wait.
Are we discussing the ballistic comparison of the x39, or the x51?
7.62x39 > all other pistol cartridges, so far.
I would almost be inclined to agree with you on this.
Anyway. I'm still looking for a way to call a conventional handgun better than an AK Pistol without being a liar or a snob. Any input ON THAT SUBJECT is still sought...
You won't get it.
People will not violate their sensitive worldview to concede to this valid point.
It isn't about the AR-15 and it's various and obvious shortcomings AS A PISTOL.
I agree that shorter barrels severely handicap the 5.56/.223.
The AK pistol indeed is likely a better handgun than the PLR.
It isn't even a consideration. The PLR-16 isn't on the menu. AS A PISTOL, and at ranges a PISTOL might be used at, the 7.62x39 > 5.56x45. PISTOL. HANDGUN. That is the subject. Otherwise SHUT YOUR C#$% HOLSTER! OCDO isn't about discussing Long Gun Carry anyway...
Wow.
So polite.
Sensitive nipples?
