Author Topic: Soldier thoughts on their weapons (Read 1533 times)

texasmom · « **Reply #30 on:** June 03, 2007, 01:06:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
50 years later and the M16 still sucks. Surprised?

I liked it just fine. Never had to use it except the range though.

Suave · « **Reply #31 on:** June 03, 2007, 06:21:56 AM »

As much as I hated the m60 my opinion of the saw was lower. I only put about 200 rnds through one and it jammed about 6 times. Each time requiring the removal of the barrel to clear it, which is easy to do. It's not allways so easy to know if the barrel has been put back on correctly though. Since it fires from an open bolt, if the barrel is not back on all the way it falls off when you pull the trigger. Which would extra suck if you were shooting out a window or over a wall or something.

I read that there was an investigation because there were so many insurgent kia's in iraq with head wounds that they suspected executions. But it turned out that soldiers and marines were making head shots with m16a2s with optics from hundreds of meters on insurgents looking out from behind cover.

Even the best ak47s shoot groups wider than a man's torso at 200 meters. I've heard it said that the ak is a better mg than rifle, and that the m16 is a better rifle than an mg, I would agree with that.

Regarding military rifles, shot placement is more important than the size of the wound channel, since they all make comperable sized wound channels with 5.45 7n6 probably having the edge. It's almost like a rifle version of fn5.7.

The term stopping power isn't a very well defined term. If a man drops when shot it is either because he was shot in the head or spine, or he realises that he's been shot and he feints. Ever instantly drop a big game animal with one shot that wasn't in the head? Me neither. Most people feint if they know they've been shot, but then they get up. The ones that don't know they've been shot, sounds strange but it happens often, keep going untill they realize they've been shot. Remember that video from iraq that showed the US soldier standing by a humvee that was shot in his chest by a sniper? His armor chest plate stopped the bullet, yet he dropped like a sack of potatos. Three seconds later he got up and ran to cover.

VOR · « **Reply #32 on:** June 03, 2007, 07:33:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
Even the best ak47s shoot groups wider than a man's torso at 200 meters.

I used to believe that myself. It's a common and well-accepted myth.

AAolds · « **Reply #33 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:24:48 PM »

if we allowed the more lethal ammo for our weapons the M-16 would be fine, other than a handful of dust jammin it. Go back to the M14 or pick up an AK in the meantime.

VOR · « **Reply #34 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:43:32 PM »

M-14 is too long.

Suave · « **Reply #35 on:** June 04, 2007, 02:58:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
I used to believe that myself. It's a common and well-accepted myth.

What do you mean? I've never shot an ak47 let alone an ak74 that shot groups smaller than a dinner plate at 100 meters.

OdinGrunherze · « **Reply #36 on:** June 04, 2007, 03:08:55 AM »

Biggest problem with an AK is the ammo....
Loaded with consistant ammo, they shoot pretty good...
I have one here that will shoot sub MOA groups with handloads...

OG

cpxxx · « **Reply #37 on:** June 04, 2007, 06:33:08 AM »

Suave's comments remind me of the story I read about the Falklands war. An SAS soldier went head to head with an Argentine Marine. The SAS man had an AR-15, .223, the Argentinian an FN-FAL, 7.62.

Both fired simultaneously, the Argentnian missing fortunately. The SAS guy hit the Marine several times but he simply didn't notice in the adrenalin of the moment. Eventually the Marine saw blood on his hand realised he had been hit and dropped his weapon. He survived to explain later despite being shot three times.

If he'd been a better shot or more fanatical, the outcome would have been quite different.

Ghosth · « **Reply #38 on:** June 04, 2007, 07:30:59 AM »

Anyone watch future weapons?

.50 cal in what looks like a beefed up M16 frame. Single shots fired blew right through car door, through dummy, through car door on the OTHER side, and was gone who knows where. On burst mode the car just started disintegrating.

The other one that impressed me was a new .45 submachine gun that also featured some amazing new recoil management tech. Close quarters that baby will rock & roll. Think Thompson MG with half the felt recoil, much better ability to stay on target. They may have finally tamed the .45.

VOR · « **Reply #39 on:** June 04, 2007, 11:25:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
What do you mean? I've never shot an ak47 let alone an ak74 that shot groups smaller than a dinner plate at 100 meters.

They're weird, I'll admit that. I have AKs that group well and others that can't group worth doodoo. To be fair though, I'm not much of a shot group kinda guy. Once my sights are zeroed I don't mess with paper targets because my range has steel from 200-700m so I shoot at that. More fun.

Anyway, in my experience an AK sometimes can and sometimes can't group well but can usually hit steel easily at a distance.

To me the major drawback of the AK platform isn't accuracy but the ability to shoot accurately; the ergonomics admittedly leave alot to be desired and the sights are crude and the sight radius too short. These shortcoming as easy enough to address with some simple modifications.

All in all though I'd say it's accurate enough for the job under realistic conditions as is.

As for our ME counterparts, zeroing a rifle's sights seems to be a skill that just isn't taught, learned or emphasized. Putting the selector on the first notch and pointing it that-a-way was good enough for them until we started teaching them to shoot properly. I think that's fueled the fire of the AK inaccuracy myth more than anything.

Chairboy · « **Reply #40 on:** June 04, 2007, 11:37:52 AM »

It might be difficult to make sweeping statements about AK accuracy considering the wide range of manufacturing conditions. Unlike most arms, the AK is built in everything from high tech factories to shade tree machine shops in garages. The design is widespread, it's the Stenn gun of our age. Batches from the new factory in Pakistan might be machined with great accuracy and put together like swiss watches, for instance, while the same gun from a small time builder 500 miles over might be a general collection of parts flying in loose formation.

I think some of the appeal of the design is that no matter how it's constructed, it's generally a forgiving weapon that's got a solid and simple enough design to survive the wide conditions of manufacture and maintenance.

VOR · « **Reply #41 on:** June 04, 2007, 11:42:00 AM »

Shifty · « **Reply #42 on:** June 04, 2007, 01:01:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Airscrew
Laser, the M16 doesnt suck, it just doesnt meet current requirements anymore. Remember the M16 was designed to compensate for the limp wristed, wimpy, eastern white boys that never shot a gun before, were afraid of recoil and couldnt carry anything heavier than 10 pounds

tedrbr · « **Reply #43 on:** June 04, 2007, 02:57:29 PM »

Thoughts?

AR Family (M16A2 ands M4) has had serious design flaws forever, but getting procurement changes made through the Infantry Center is like trying to get an intelligent bill that positively effects citizens through Congress. Very byzantine bureaucracy --- the kind Chinese proverbs warn against.
The H&K 416 piston recoil design, with one simple design change over a direct gas piston, is much superior.

Also, the rifles as issued are very rear garrison in their design. The416 comes with rail mounting system as a standard; military AR family does not. Many soldiers spend their own money on AR modification parts to equip their rifles and carbines they use in theater: combat slings, better magazines than issued, rail mounts, bipods, combat sights and optics, mounted lights.

5.56mm round is light. It may have good accuracy, minimal recoil, and light weight to allow a good basic load of ammo be carried, but it does not have the penetration often needed, and it's tumbling round means that light vegetation can throw it off it's intended trajectory. Army is very single minded on the continued use of the 5.56 round, even with plans to move to telescoped and caseless ammo loads. Using the 5.56mm round in squad automatic weapons like the M249 makes a bad situation worse when a small unit needs a heavier punch somewhere in it's ranks.

Many operators, by some accounts, have been adopting the 6.8mm round as a good compromise between the virtues of the 5.56 and 7.62mm rounds.

9mm is useless in a combat environment. .40mm, 10mm, .45... any would be better than the 9mm.

Special Operations Groups tend to choose their equipment in house, and they take what works well for them in the environments they work in. Weapons, clothing, equipment... their whole kit. The common soldier is stuck with what has been decided in the Pentagon, PEO Soldier, and the Infantry Center, as well as Congressional input and lobbying from big defense contractors have decided that the solider needs.

What to know what works well? Look to the operators and PMCs. Not what the common soldier gets.

Suave · « **Reply #44 on:** June 04, 2007, 03:38:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
It might be difficult to make sweeping statements about AK accuracy considering the wide range of manufacturing conditions.

True that, that's why I said even the best. Which would be bulgarians and Izhmash. The Vepr rifles are supposedly an accurized version of an ak47, I don't know how they perform, but at any rate, they're not really ak's.

Only one of those rifles in the pic is an ak.