Watched 'Lock N' Load' last night

/MSG/

/MSG/

Uwaa OmO
If anyone's surprised I'll be shocked. Anyways it was a show on the history of the rifle, culminating with a show down between the M16 and the AK47. The bias against the AK the Ermy showed just turned me off to the program. I like a lot of his work, and I know the show is designed to cater to a certain crowd, but everyone knows the AK is better.
 
The AK is supposedly "better" because its dependable. That trait is due to the relatively large clearances between parts, which allows sand and crap to float around inside the mechanisms without causing a jam. Its well suited for a rag-tag army that doesn't have the discipline to keep their weapons clean.

In comparison, the M16 requires regular cleaning and maintenance. For that duty the owner is rewarded with greater accuracy and more versatility.

I saw the show last night as well, and it highlighted problems with the first 1000 unit shipment to troops during the Viet Nam war. At first they loved the new gun due to its light weight, low recoil, accuracy and the claim that it was supposedly "self cleaning". It turns out that the ammunition delivered to the field, however, used a different type of propellant than used in initial testing, causing a build-up of carbon deposits in the barrel, eventually causing consistent jamming.

The initial M16 was them modified to the M16A, which featured a chrome lined barrel and a manual jam release. These along with the correct propellant and a regular program of cleaning and maintenance, has made the gun as dependable as initially specified.
 
Southern Man said:
The AK is supposedly "better" because its dependable. That trait is due to the relatively large clearances between parts, which allows sand and crap to float around inside the mechanisms without causing a jam. Its well suited for a rag-tag army that doesn't have the discipline to keep their weapons clean.
Click to expand...
True, it was designed to be simple for untrained masses to use, though it's original version (it only lasted until 1953 when the AKM took it's place) was actually quite nicely designed from solid milled steel and much hand work. Of course this wasn't the most efficient way to make over 100,000,000 rifles so it was later changed to a stamped receiver.

In comparison, the M16 requires regular cleaning and maintenance. For that duty the owner is rewarded with greater accuracy and more versatility.
Click to expand...
Accuracy is only an issue with the AK because of poor quality ammo. Better ammo components and quality control would result in much higher accuracy for it. The hand loads I have for my AK are about 1.25 MOA whereas government spec for 5.56 only requires 2-4 MOA.

As for versatility the AK is relatively versatile though admittedly not as much as the M16/AR15 platform. But this hasn't stopped the AK being used in nearly every service caliber in the world, in a machine gun, sniper rifle, sub machine gun and regular assault rifle roles, along with a multitude of accessories.

I saw the show last night as well, and it highlighted problems with the first 1000 unit shipment to troops during the Viet Nam war. At first they loved the new gun due to its light weight, low recoil, accuracy and the claim that it was supposedly "self cleaning".
Click to expand...
Sort of. The military ended up being saddled with the rifle after it was founded they rigged several of it's tests when stacked against the government manufactured M14. So the claims of self cleaning could easily be seen as yet another attempt to sabotage the rifle.

It turns out that the ammunition delivered to the field, however, used a different type of propellant than used in initial testing, causing a build-up of carbon deposits in the barrel, eventually causing consistent jamming.

The initial M16 was them modified to the M16A, which featured a chrome lined barrel and a manual jam release. These along with the correct propellant and a regular program of cleaning and maintenance, has made the gun as dependable as initially specified.
Click to expand...
Cleaning the gun is relative towards it's reliability. I never cleaned my rifle once while in Iraq and suffered not a single jam other than a feeding problem with one of my magazines (another common problem). Of course my rifle was older than almost all the people I deployed with had had seen significant use as compared to everyone else with their brand new A4's. YMMV of course but for me, I kept it dirty and grimy and it ran a shot great.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
In short, no. The AK will always be more reliable.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is much argument that the AK is more reliable than the M16 in real-world situations.

The question becomes whether you want reliability in hostile environments or superior accuracy. I prefer the extra maintenance and care that the AR requires in order to get the accuracy I require.
 
WinterBorn said:
I don't think there is much argument that the AK is more reliable than the M16 in real-world situations.

The question becomes whether you want reliability in hostile environments or superior accuracy. I prefer the extra maintenance and care that the AR requires in order to get the accuracy I require.
Click to expand...
Accuracy in this case is relative. It's one thing to sit down calmly at a bench with a large target at a known distance and proceed to assume the proper position, take your time, steady your heart and breath, and slow steady squeeze the trigger. It is another thing entirely to sprint with about 80 lbs of gear in 140 degree weather after 12 hours of patrolling and try and engage a hostile target.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Accuracy in this case is relative. It's one thing to sit down calmly at a bench with a large target at a known distance and proceed to assume the proper position, take your time, steady your heart and breath, and slow steady squeeze the trigger. It is another thing entirely to sprint with about 80 lbs of gear in 140 degree weather after 12 hours of patrolling and try and engage a hostile target.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. But since I am not going to be sprinting with 80lbs of gear in 140 degree weather, I have the advantage.

I hunt coyote with my AR, so I am shooting at distances I know reasonably well. I am using a rest most of the time, so I can get the most from mine. I like having sub-MOA accuracy.
 
WinterBorn said:
I agree with you. But since I am not going to be sprinting with 80lbs of gear in 140 degree weather, I have the advantage.

I hunt coyote with my AR, so I am shooting at distances I know reasonably well. I am using a rest most of the time, so I can get the most from mine. I like having sub-MOA accuracy.
Click to expand...

Ah well in that case the standard 7.62x39 is vastly overpowered for the application anyways and the AR would better suit you. Of course the option for a .223 or 5.45, shown to be more accurate then the .30 cal varieties, may be just as favorable.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Ah well in that case the standard 7.62x39 is vastly overpowered for the application anyways and the AR would better suit you. Of course the option for a .223 or 5.45, shown to be more accurate then the .30 cal varieties, may be just as favorable.
Click to expand...

The most accurate rifle I have in my collection is a Rem 700 in .30-06. I can coax some amazing accuracy with 180 gr Norma rounds. But it would make a mess of the coyotes.
 
WinterBorn said:
The most accurate rifle I have in my collection is a Rem 700 in .30-06. I can coax some amazing accuracy with 180 gr Norma rounds. But it would make a mess of the coyotes.
Click to expand...

Mine is my 6.5 Grendal, which I hope to use with success during deer season this year.
 
Watermark said:
:blah: guns :blah: guns
Click to expand...

suicide.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top