Neat stuff from grunts in Iraq

[john9001]

i'm sure if M-1 tanks were burning CNN would have let us know, every 15 min. along with a updated body count.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by lada
I were just looking for picture like this, to show how big technological supperiority US have

Notice the rag, center picture, under the tank?

Thats superiority dude

[Gunslinger]

Lada, if we were 600 meters away from eachother, you had an AK, and I had an M-16A2.....I garundamtee ya you'd be dead before me.  

You wan't superior firepower......notice the 2 mounted MGs above him to the left and right.

[Russian]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Lada, if we were 600 meters away from eachother, you had an AK, and I had an M-16A2.....I garundamtee ya you'd be dead before me.  

 

Aren’t you a gentleman! What’s next, an infant baby holding an AK while you compare superiority of your rifle? Why not just drop few JDAMS….then glow about superior M16.
(BTW, it’s standard practice to have at least 2 snipers with SVD for those distances)

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Lada, if we were 600 meters away from eachother, you had an AK, and I had an M-16A2.....I garundamtee ya you'd be dead before me.  

You wan't superior firepower......notice the 2 mounted MGs above him to the left and right.

600m.. that's a long, long way... 50m beyond the published effective range for that weapon. The AK's effective range is 400m. Of course, with the two weapons specified, at that range, the M16A2 would be the preferred pick.. however If I had a Garand or an M-14, or for that matter a Springfield, you'd both be dead.

Perhaps the better picks for that standoff range contest would be the Dragunov SVD vs the M40A3. I think the Dragunov's 30 rounds a minute vs the M40's bolt action could be a telling advantage...

Face it.. the commies went a different way in the 60's with squad level weapon development. They do have some very good combat weapons.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Hangtime
600m.. that's a long, long way... 50m beyond the published effective range for that weapon. The AK's effective range is 400m. Of course, with the two weapons specified, at that range, the M16A2 would be the preferred pick.. however If I had a Garand or an M-14, or for that matter a Springfield, you'd both be dead.

Perhaps the better picks for that standoff range contest would be the Dragunov SVD vs the M40A3. I think the Dragunov's 30 rounds a minute vs the M40's bolt action could be a telling advantage...

Face it.. the commies went a different way in the 60's with squad level weapon development. They do have some very good combat weapons.

I've shot the M-16 at 500 and 600 meters and it's plenty accurate.  The effective range on a POINT target is 550m and on an AREA target is 800m.  I'm not a huge fan of the 16 but it does have plenty of advantages over the AK and likewise the AK is a more reliable weapon.  Whenever I hear of trading accuracy for reliability I'm allways reminded of the battle of BELLEAU  WOOD during WWI.

[Hangtime]

Can't disagree.. can make a few more points tho. The 'punch' of a weapon is a big, big issue.. while the .223 (5.56x45) has an accuracy and range edge over the 7.62x39 round, at the ranges these weapons are commonly relied upon to do the work of combat (50-300 yards), the 7.62x39 has a distinct advantage in whallop and penetration.

At 600 yards the M-16's round has 1/5th the punch of a M-14's 7.62x51. 1/5th! Dude, that's a heluva lot less penetrating killin power.

You need to spend a coupla days playin with one of these.. you'll never look at an M-16 the same way again.



Caliber: 7.62x51 mm NATO (.308 Winchester)
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Length: 1120 mm
Barrel Length: 559 mm
Weight loaded: 5,1 kg (6.6 kg M14A1)
Magazine: 20 rounds, detachable box
Rate of fire: 700 -750 rounds per minute
Effective Range: 1200m

"Standard sights consist of the blade front sight with two protective "ears" and diopter-type adjustable rear sight, mounted on the rear of the receiver. Barrel is equipped with long flash suppressor. To be used in selective fire mode, M14 can be equipped with light detachable bipod. The M14A1 Squad Automatic rifle differs from M14 in the following: the fire selector is always installed. The standard wooden single-piece stock with semi-pistol grip is replaced by the "straight line" wooden stock with separate pistol grip and with folding front grip under the forearm. The hinged shoulder rest is attached to the buttplate. Special removable muzzle jump compensator is fitted to the barrel, as well as lightweight bipod. "

Sometimes, older is just a heluva lot better.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I've shot the M-16 at 500 and 600 meters and it's plenty accurate.  The effective range on a POINT target is 550m and on an AREA target is 800m.  I'm not a huge fan of the 16 but it does have plenty of advantages over the AK and likewise the AK is a more reliable weapon.  Whenever I hear of trading accuracy for reliability I'm allways reminded of the battle of BELLEAU  WOOD during WWI.

Better in the open, but far worse in the woods.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Fishu
Better in the open, but far worse in the woods.

Yes in the woods range means very little.


Hang,

I'm not at all saying I like the M16 as the perfect weapon and I would love to see the military get the M14 back.  My problem is when I hear that the AK is sooooo much better when it is no were as near accurate.  The M16 has reliability problems but it does work if you clean it.....every totally tubular day.  Eitherway on a stand off with somone that has an AK you are more accurate and can kill him before he can kill you.  That goes along way when it comes to a rifleman that's been taught marksmenship.  I fear getting a weapon like an AK that any nutjob can send a 1000 rounds down range in no time at all.  The problem with that is you get away from actually teaching somone the basic fundamentals of marksmanship.

[rabbidrabbit]

you guys saying accuracy does not matter because its short range are overlooking the obvious.  Real combat shooting is not pop up targets.  It's a head here,  legs sticking out there...  lots of small targets for short duration.  Being able to place quick, accurate shots with rapid follow up shots are an area where the m16 family easily outclasses the AK series.

[Hangtime]

Hiya Rabbit..

Little story here.. coupla young men with real nice CAR 15's, all tricked out SOG style with scopes and lasers were shooting on the 200 yard range a few weeks back. I was plinking away with my Finn M-39.. a 106 year old bolt action antique. We chatted a bit, seemed like nice kids, outta some military school. They showed me theirs and I showed 'em mine.

Came time to go out and pull butts, and I checked their targets.. very accurate shooters those kids were. The old Finn did pretty good.. but not a good as those scoped CAR's.

We got back to the line for the next round of shooting and I pulled out my 'Chinaman' towards the end of the round.. a lil SKS Paratrooper, no scope.  When they called the line to empty their magazines, I popped off 10 rounds, aimed rapid fire at their targets... 5 rounds each, right into the legs. The targets flopped on their backs, one after the other.

The AK is known to be a MORE accurate shooter than an SKS.. however any big bore weapon in auto mode is off the mark on the second shot. In single shot mode they are both fine shooters in their range parameters. Don't buy into the propaganda.. a rifleman is a rifleman, and when it comes time to deliver aimed accurate fire, the slug with punch is the 'money shooter'.

I let the kids play with the Chinaman and the Russian, I played with their CAR's. We had a great time, they learned something; might save their lives some day... big slugs penetrate; wreak havoc.. little slugs; not so much. If nothin else, they learned a bit of respect for the rifles the other side will be carrying... and what to use (and not to use) for cover if facing one.

Yep, like Guns said.. training is the key.. and when the other side has good well trained shooters, their AK's and Dragunov's will make 'em mighty damn deadly adversaries.

[Maverick]

I see a lot of verbage here about the relative accuracy of the 16, CAR and the AK. When it comes down to it the weapon that can be counted on to actually FIRE when needed will be the one prized by those going in harms way. As to the relative accuracy, there are folks who can make an accurate shooter based on the round the AK uses.

I think most of us would rather have a heavier round with better penetration than the 5.56. The accuracy of the weapon at extreme range is often far better than the shooter, especially when that shooter is under fire. Looking for the occasional 500 meter shot and claiming that is the critical one is falacious IMO. There are better choices than the standard rifle for ranges like that. If it's a single or small group then the sniper is by far the best option. For larger targets it's artillery and MG.s for coverage.

In any event the majority of action that is being seen is an urban combat situation. Accuracy beyond 100 meters isn't an issue in this case. Punching through a wall, door or other type of cover is along with a sufficient volume of fire to supress return fire is important.

[Hangtime]

Yup.

[rabbidrabbit]

It seems to be common consensus, and I agree, that the 5.56 round is not as hard hitting as one would like.  My point being a 1 MOA rifle is going to make a 150M 4 inch shot better than a 3-5 MOA rifle.  Obviously training and experience make all the difference too.  The 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 round both deliver similar energy to the target however the 7.62x39 is better at transfering the energy.

[NUKE]

I like my 1954 Russian SKS. I can hit stuff pretty well with it, and the ammo is cheap.