Keeping The Dust Out

Funny, I don't recall seeing anyone making special dust seals for the Kalashnikov. Oh wait, silly me, that design actually does work without excuses.

Apples and oranges. Different operational requirements does not mean inferior type: it means DIFFERENT type.

 

Herald

 

 

A quality-manufactured, rack grade AK is as accurate as a rack grade M16/M4. We rarely see apples to oranges comparisons when these weapons are discussed and that has skewed American opinion of the Kalashnikov for decades. Most of our enemies fire on full auto at any distance, their troops are of questionable training to begin with and are often guilty of less-than-diligent weapons maintenance. Contrast them with a Bulgarian or Russian AK fielded by quality soldiers. Or, for that matter, a Finnish Rk/Rm variant, Israeli Galil or S. African R4 fielded by equally capable soldiers. Ammo quality is the biggest reason why the AK has an unfair reputation for inaccuracy. Most ComBloc 7.62x39mm ammo is of less-than-stellar consistency. But my own accuracy tests and those of many others have proven that switching to Finnish Lapua or U.S.-manufactured ammo effectively halves group sizes. 2-2.5 MOA accuracy is not uncommon when using good loads. 

 

Weapon weight is basicially a toss-up. A loaded M4 sans Aimpoint/ACOG/IR illuminator/flashlight/Swedish penis pump weighs about 7 lbs. An equally clean AK-74 goes about 7.9 lbs. A 7.62x39-chambered Rk62 or Rk65 TP weighs about 9.25 lbs. If a soldier is bothered by an extra 1-2.25 lbs. in rifle weight, get him in the gym or transfer him to the motor pool.

 

7.62x39mm ammo is unquestionably heavier than 5.56 NATO. But when soldiers are being told to double and triple-tap hajis out of necessity with the varmint cartridge 5.56, you're going to need a lot more ammo. (No wonder the Finns retained the 7.62 M43 cartridge. They tested all possibilities, read the reports from other battlefields and kept the original cartridge for their latest assault rifle.) Of course you can have an AK in the inferior NATO and comparable 5.45 Russian cartridges if you want to brag about how much ammo can be carried. 

 

Ergonomics? I'll take a completely reliable AK with slightly slower mag changes and safety manipulation* over a "handy" M16/M4 that needs modification upon modification, excuse upon excuse to be a distant second in adverse function.

 

* Even the safety issue can be a non-issue if you're using a Galil or R4, both of which have a thumb safety in addition to the traditional receiver latch.  

Dude the r-4 and the Galil are in 5.56mm...so some of the weapons you're touting AREN'T AK's....they use the AK-type action.

 

It's like saying because I have a 4 cyl. MG engine in my car it's an MG...it's not.

 

The AK-47 was designed for mass-production and automatic fire, by draftees.  It's simple, reliable, and not too accurate...the Galil and the South African weapons aren't AK-'s.

 

As I understand it, not having been a soldier, but from folks on this board who have been/are...if you keep the m16/M4 clean it works.  Now you don't want to clean your weapon, that's fine get an AK....

 

Herald makes a point, it's different...it's designed for a different sort of army.  It's a bad choice if you want a western-style army, but it's OK if you want to run a Third World Militia, or a drug-gang, or you have minimally trained troops in very austere conditions.

The question isn't whether or no, with modern manufacturing and design he could produce a BETTER M-16, but rather whether the expense, of design, replacement of existing weapons, and the cost of retraining, and spares would be worth the increased benefit?  If it costs $ 20 Billion to replace the M-16/M-4 and we get a 10% better rifle, is it worth it?

 

Put another way would you get a better result with $20 billion invested in spares, new sights, and training ammunition?  Or, $20 billion invested in a more precise mortar round or more precise/guided artillery projectiles?

 

Bottom-Line: no one doubts you can make a better mouse trap, but the question is, is it worth the increased effort and price tag?

Thank you, Capt. Obvious. The point is that the action was chosen by armies outside the former Combloc. Neither Israel or South Africa, or Finland for that matter, were beholden to any alliance that forced certain designs upon their military. They chose Kalashnikov derivatives because they were the best design.

If and when Horsesoldier comes by tell him your points....as he makes the same points as I do, or rather I make his points FOR HIM, and he has some 20 years experience in the field.

I question YOUR military combat credentials, myself...I freely admit I don't have any.  So it is your contention that the AK, not the R-4, or the Galil, but the AK was made for something OTHER than a draftee army, advancing whilst firing automatic?  Or that troops in the field don't spend time cleaning their weapons?  Dude that's fundamental to the action of good troops, when down time comes, odd numbers, every third man, even numbers, however you divvy the troops up, clean their weapons.  From WWI on it's what I read about, to include Korea, Vietnam, and OIF...so the troops will be cleaning their weapons, whether or no they be AK's, R-4's or M-16's.  The M-16 works, the direct impingement is no worse than non-direct impingement, according to some on this board....Keep the weapon clean and it works.

 

I really ought to have stayed out of this, after all I'm not a "grunt" and this is just going to become another M16 Sucks/Rules v. the AK Sucks/Rules thread....

 

My point is that the M-16 does NOT suck and that the AK-47 does NOT rule and those who say otherwise generally are just spouting the conventional wisdom, whether or no there is any data to back it up....

 

again according to horsesoldier you begin to tear apart many studies and polls from OIF and Afghanistan one begins to see that the M-16 is not as bad as many would have it and that many complaints about the weapons, M-16/M-9 etc. etc. come form folks who have limited combat experience with the weapons.

 

Bottom-Line: I don't buy the myths people like to portray about the m-16 or the AK.

A few points not noted: 

 

Ergonomics of the AR are superior:  position of safety, mag release, etc.

 

AK probably makes a better club when out of ammo.   (This is not an insult.)

 

AR has an inherently more accurate design than AK, G3, FN FAL, etc.  This has been gone into more detail elsewhere on SP, I am sure someone will dig it up for you - one thing is how all recoil forces and counterforces are in a straight line, in line with center bore.  

 

Iraq, last user to have experience with both and to be at a decision point, seems to want to move from AK to AR.

 

 

 

Just my $0.02.  Nothing against Comrade Kalashnikov who made exactly what he was asked to make.

Arguably the US Army had the best rifle of WWII in the Garand...the StG 44 and StG 45 MIGHT have taken the honours, if they had been produced in large enough numbers, but they weren't...leaving the Garand as the winner.  HOWVER, I would argue that at the rifle section, platoon, company and battalion level, against a reasonably close to TO& E Wehrmacht, on the defense, the US Army was seriously out-gunned, by the MG-42 (v. the BAR and Browning LMG/MMG), the 8cm mortar at company (v. the 6cm mortar) and 7.5 cm LIG and 12 cm at battalion (v. the 81mm at the US battalion level).  The US won, not because it outnumbered or out-rifled the opposition, but because, in toto, the entire US Army TEAM was better, the US had a decent tank, great communications, great artillery, great aircraft, and a great 2.5 Ton truck, to keep all that equipment, fueled, maintained, and ammunitioned.  It was the ability of the US Army to amass combat power at above the battalion level and SUSTAIN that combat power that won the war, not the best infantry weapon.

 

You could give Saddam Hussein's troops the M-16 in 1991 and again in 2003, and the US forces the AK-47, in both cases the outcome would remain unchanged.  I know you know this, but an Army succeeds on more than it's rifle section firepower...it's not that the US Army has the Best (insert piece of kit here)...it's that, the whole effect of the US Army is to be better, overall, than it's opponents, not simply over-match them piece of kit for piece of kit.

 

And so it comes back to how much "bang" do you get for your buck...you're easily looking at 3,000,000 million weapons, at $500 per weapon it's USD 1.5 Billion for replacement....probably USD .15 million per year for upkeep, for 20 years that's another USD 3 Billion, ammunition, if the ammunition is different, so certainly you're looking at USD 6 Billion + for 20 years.  So the question becomes what could the US Army get for that 6 Billion+ besides a new rifle? 

 

Horsesoldier posits, and I say why argue, let's not spend USD 6 Billion+ on new rifles...how about spending USD 6 Billion, over 20 years, USD 300 million, on the XM-8 weapon sight for all combat personnel, and an ACOG for all Combat Support personnel, and then spending the rest on sending everyone to the range 50% more than they currently fire?  That'll produce an increased combat effect, too.

 

Or why not spend it on the PGMM 120mm and more Excalibur 155mm rounds...Infantry does the dyin'; Artillery does the Kill'n...so doesn't it make more sense to increase the lethality of the combat support over a new rifle?  Or how about greater situational awareness, get a Battlefield Internet up and running for ALL companies, and ALL combat platoons, allowing maximum connectivity, up and down, leading to greater combat power, usable, and reducing friction...if we reduce friction, we FUNCTIONALLY increase combat power.

 

Engineers say, "The best is the enemy of the good enough."  The M-16 is "good enough" does it need to be the best?  Again, a number of armies that had the best rifles, lost the war, France 1870, or won in spite of, not because of their rifle, the US 1941-45.

 
The M-4 weighs 6.5 pounds or thereabouts. Its not the rifle that is the issue its the AMMUNITION weight.


Prove this. You seem to repeat the fictions verbatim. The correct answer ios that you don't know. The AR-15 (M-4) in function studies seems to have failed at less than 4% opready in combat. Thats pretty damnwed good for preciusiohn machinery/ We have no good numbers about the AK-47 in WAR because nobody enemy has published data equivalent to ours. All we have is anecdote and the obvious limited results of our own testing.

Note, I am NOT an expert on rifles, but you've got to convince me that you are. Techniocally so far, you fail at least on three major issues I question as I point out above.

 

Herald

 

Herald, once again you come across as a blowhard know-it-all. Unless you verified my accuracy claims, they're meaningless? What a pompous ass! Furthermore, who are your experts? If you do have them, I can almost guarantee they have little to no experience with Kalashnikovs or variants of same. I do. I've also owned several AR rifles, all top notch equipment, so can make valid comparisons beyond a single example.

 

Stick to commenting on stuff most people don't have much knowledge on, like stealth sytems, OTH radars, etc. At least there you can fool most people into thinking you're something you may or may not be. But from your stupid comments in this discussion, not the least of which your comments on comparative wound ballistics, it's clear you don't know anything about rifles beyond what you can glean from Google. "tranverse force vector" my ass...get out and shoot something other than your mouth.