M 16 or AK 47
sligo
to the AK 47?
I remember reading about the failure of the M 16 causing many marines their
lives when they ended up using it as a club in combat. Disgraceful!
Information gratefull received.
Seamus J. Wilson
..
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 5/24/02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
REC.GUNS supports Marylanders for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership!
Your donation could win a premier FULTON ARMORY RIFLE SYSTEM while you
defend our Second Amendment Rights. Click on www.direct-action.org today!
Learn about rec.guns at http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/rec.guns
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hooten
# With all the funds we have spent on refining the M 16 is it still inferior
# to the AK 47?
# I remember reading about the failure of the M 16 causing many marines their
# lives when they ended up using it as a club in combat. Disgraceful!
# Information gratefull received.
# Seamus J. Wilson
# ..
Inferior in what way?
I haave been issued many M16s during my service, and while not having
been in a hot combat zone, none of them caused me problems. The few
times on the range when I had a failure it was due to bad magazines.
Replacing the mag solved the problem.
I have shot new AK47 family rifles that could not hit a man sized target
past 150m, and have been able to make reliable hits on a the same type
target at 300m with a worn out basic training issue M16.
Your information if it was ever accurate is at least 30 years out of date.
200...@wongfaye.com
thats why they had bayonets
but when the ship hits the fan get as close as you can to the 60
Bill Barott
and volume of fire were the criteria. It may be inferior if unit or
training cost is the criteria.
sligo wrote:
> ...
KCOM
wrote:
#With all the funds we have spent on refining the M 16 is it still inferior
#to the AK 47?
#I remember reading about the failure of the M 16 causing many marines their
#lives when they ended up using it as a club in combat. Disgraceful!
#Information gratefull received.
#Seamus J. Wilson
#..
#
#
#---
#Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
#Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
#Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 5/24/02
#
#
In terms of accuracy, the M-16A2 is better.
--
Steve
Sung Han
Many of the problems of the M16 have been "solved" by simply adding a
heavier barrel, chrome lining the bore and chamber, and by using the
correct powder. (Many of the jams caused during the weapon's introduction
were due to the fact that the soldiers were told that the rifle didn't
need cleaning and cleaning kits weren't issued. Coupled with out-of-spec
cartridge powder that gummed up the bore and chamber, this lead to a very
high failure rate in combat.) The complete history of it was on
AR-15.com, but I'm not sure if it still is.
The limitations of using a varmint cartridge for a battle
rifle...well..that's a whole different can of worms. :)
Best regards,
Sung
Colonel Denier
# to the AK 47?
# I remember reading about the failure of the M 16 causing many marines their
# lives when they ended up using it as a club in combat. Disgraceful!
# Information gratefull received.
# Seamus J. Wilson
The problems experienced in Viet Nam after the M16's introduction were
the end result of a convergence of bad decisions, political pissing
contests, and ill-considered cost saving measures.
When the M-16 weapon system's idiosyncracies were fully understood,
and its shortcomings addressed, it began to realize its potential as a
superior assault rifle. It's not the longest-lived GI rifle for
nothing.
Ron Hingston
#
#Many of the problems of the M16 have been "solved" by simply adding a
#heavier barrel, chrome lining the bore and chamber, and by using the
#correct powder. (Many of the jams caused during the weapon's introduction
#were due to the fact that the soldiers were told that the rifle didn't
#need cleaning and cleaning kits weren't issued. Coupled with out-of-spec
#cartridge powder that gummed up the bore and chamber, this lead to a very
#high failure rate in combat.) The complete history of it was on
#AR-15.com, but I'm not sure if it still is.
#
#The limitations of using a varmint cartridge for a battle
#rifle...well..that's a whole different can of worms. :)
More than you'll possibly want (or need) to know about .223/5.56 ammo when used
with the M-16/AR-15.
http://www.ecis.com/~mraudio/AR15_Ammo_FAQ.htm#history
The info about wound ballistics is interesting (maybe a tad goulish).
#Best regards,
#Sung
Noah Yetter
Never inferior in terms of reliability?
First time I've heard that outrageous notion!
Yoss...@mindspring.com
wrote:
M16 has direct gas blowback on the bolt face, which if not carefully
cleaned can easily lead to jams. AK has a gas piston, which will
hardly ever jam. Roll in a mudhole with each rifle. See which one
fires. I have. Ak wins. M16a2 is def. more accurate. However, they
added 2 more pounds to it, so why not just go a pound more and keep
the m14, which is better than either of the others. Also,
ak mags are indestructible for all practical purposes. the ak has
been made for over 50 years, in dozens of countries, functioning in
all conditions. Why did they put a forward assist on a m16 if they
didnt think you would need it?
Spike43
#to the AK 47?
#I remember reading about the failure of the M 16 causing many marines their
#lives when they ended up using it as a club in combat. Disgraceful!
#Information gratefull received.
#Seamus J. Wilson
What's disgraceful is your info is nearly 40 years old.
Spike
NRA (Endowment), GOA (Life),
MCRGO, SCOPE (Life), CRPA
Michigan Constituton, Art. I, S. 6 : Every person has a right to keep and bear
arms for the defense of himself and the state.
Pete Zaitcev
First, did the USSR decision to rearm with a 5.45mm weapon
have a merit? This happened after the Vietnam war, so did
they simply think "Americans do it, so it must be right",
or was it a result of being on the receiving end of M-16?
Tangentially related is, did any Soviet client state arm
with 5.45mm AKs (AK-74)? 5.56mm (AK-101)?
Second, why did Israelis rearmed from their 5.56mm AK clone
to M-16? I reviewed recent and archival footage, and it seems
that Galil disappeared from their inventory quote a while ago.
Do they produce their M-16s themselves, or purchase them
in the U.S.? Or perhaps they receive them for free?
-- Pete
Jason Steiner
#
# Second, why did Israelis rearmed from their 5.56mm AK clone
# to M-16? I reviewed recent and archival footage, and it seems
# that Galil disappeared from their inventory quote a while ago.
# Do they produce their M-16s themselves, or purchase them
# in the U.S.? Or perhaps they receive them for free?
They get them from the U.S. at such a steep discount. As I understand
it, the switch was entirely motivated by cost.
jason
--
Alles, was deine Hand zu tun findet, das tue in deiner Kraft!
Denn es gibt weder Tun noch Berechnung, noch Kenntnis, noch
Weisheit im Scheol, in den du gehst.
Prediger 9:10
GLC1173
#Second, why did Israelis rearmed from >their 5.56mm AK clone to M-16?
Probably had more to do with the U.S. foreign-aid requirement that any
recipient nation spend a certain percentage of the aid on U.S.-made goods than
anything else. While that percentage varies from nation to nation, in Israel's
case it is 80% - making "foreign aid to Israel" really more corporate welfare
for the U.S. defense industry than anything else!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<B>Dissident news - plus immigration, gun rights, nationwide weather
<I><A HREF="http://www.alamanceind.com">ALAMANCE INDEPENDENT:
official newspaper of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy</A></b></i>
Bill Barott
The M-16 program had some reliability issues early on that were caused
by ammo (dirty powder) and lack of cleaning regimen. Neither was the
fault of the rifle, both were corrected, and both were corrected by
doing something other than altering the rifle.
Noah Yetter wrote:
> ...
Bill Barott
# didnt think you would need it?
you asked .. the answer is ..
why, the pentagon of course!!!
B.
Bill Barott
200...@wongfaye.com wrote:
> ...
John Kepler
# M16 has direct gas blowback on the bolt face,
No, it doesn't! The gas is directed into the interior of the bolt carrier
where the rear of the bolt acts as a piston to force the bolt carrier to the
rear, camming the bolt to unlock it from the barrel extension. You SURE you
ever owned an AR?
which if not carefully
# cleaned can easily lead to jams.
BS and other explatives! Been there, done that, NEVER had a
malfunction....neither has my second oldest son, the E-5!
AK has a gas piston, which will
# hardly ever jam. Roll in a mudhole with each rifle. See which one
# fires. I have. Ak wins. M16a2 is def. more accurate. However, they
# added 2 more pounds to it, so why not just go a pound more and keep
# the m14, which is better than either of the others.
Huh? Where are you getting these weight numbers? A fully loaded 14 weighs
over a pound more than the GARAND.....a rifle not known for fitting anyone
but a body-builder's definition of a "light-weight rifle". I love the M14,
but YOU can hump that thinly disguised boat-anchor up hill and down dale in
Indian Country if you feel you need the additional workout.....I'll take the
AR!
Also,
# ak mags are indestructible for all practical purposes. the ak has
# been made for over 50 years, in dozens of countries, functioning in
# all conditions.
Is that why the US Army Ordnance Bureau picked up THOUSANDS of totally
non-functional AK after the Gulf War? More than half of the Iraqi AK's
turned in after the war were non-functional due to the sand and grit. Some
functioning!
Why did they put a forward assist on a m16 if they
# didnt think you would need it?
To placate some bureaucrat....the only significant job that totally useless
device ever did well! Frankly, I'm still waiting to find someone that has
actually used that stupid thing!
Again....the contents of your note show such a lack of knowledge concerning
the AR, that it calls into significant question whether you have ANY
familiarity with the rifle.
John
Gunner Dave
# it, the switch was entirely motivated by cost.
It seems that our subsidizing of the Israeli defense industry is effectively
destroying their own in-house engineering efforts. Newer designs with a lot
of promise, such as the Tavor, are being scrapped based not on their merits,
but strictly cost -- we're practically giving those M-16's away. I can see
this definitely causing problems for both the US and Israel later on.
Jeff Edwards
# With all the funds we have spent on refining the M 16 is it still inferior
# to the AK 47?
# I remember reading about the failure of the M 16 causing many marines their
# lives when they ended up using it as a club in combat. Disgraceful!
# Information gratefull received.
# Seamus J. Wilson
The disgrace was pretty well corrected over 30 years ago. Is the M-16
still inferior? Depends on what you're looking for. If you want a
close quarters mass firepower combat piece with lots of built in
looseness (according to Kalashnikov himself), so that reliabiility
under all conditions of snow, dust, mud, etc.; that will keep throwing
lead when used and abused by semi or untrained troops; then the AK is
superior.
If you wnat a weapon that can be had in a variety of configurations,
from close quarters "shorty" to long range heavy barrel sniping or
competition; if you want superior sights and the adaptability to mount
vitually any optical sighting device in the world; if you actually
want to hit something in the 100 to 500 yard range, then the M-16 is
the answer.
If you aren't military, law enforcement, or have a Class III license,
you're not going to be shooting full automatic anyway. If you want a
lead sprayer that's kinda clunky and doesn't balance all that great,
but will still shoot after you toss it in the back of your truck for a
week or two, get an AK. If you want an all round decent rifle that
does more of the stuff a rifle is supposed to do, buy an AR. If .223
isn't enough caliber for you, the AR can be had in other calibers,
including .308 which beats hell out of the 7.62X39 AK round.
So the question is: "Better for what?"
Jeff
Gunner Dave
# cleaned can easily lead to jams. AK has a gas piston, which will
Ah, cleaned, schmeaned. Direct impingement worked for the Ljungmann, it
worked for the MAS, and it works just fine in the M16. The reason Stoner
ran with it was because it was proven, it was about as simple as a semi-auto
action can be, and probably most importantly, it was light. Disregard all
those "gas tube cleaning tools" you see in the trade publications -- between
the high pressures and small surface area, the gas system is effectively
self-cleaning. I've NEVER had a 16 break down on me due to a dirty gas
system, nor have I heard of it happening.
The weak link in the M16, IMO, is the tight tolerances of the locking lugs
and the chamber. (This is also a strong point in the accuracy department,
BTW. Nothing in life is free.) A good accumulation of dirt in here WILL
shut your weapon down. Now, I'm not talking about the kind of dirt you see
in 50 or 60 rounds; we're talking several hundreds, more than the amount of
ammo you or I will be carrying as part of a basic combat load. Yes, the
direct gas impingement system will dump a nice load of fouling into the
receiver each and every shot, but that's not what's making the chamber
dirty. That chamber would be getting just as dirty if it was a conventional
op-rod system.
Bottom line? Clean the chamber each day. It's something you're SUPPOSED to
do with ANY rifle in the first place. Some are just more forgiving about it
than others. The M16 is fairly unforgiving in this regard.
# hardly ever jam. Roll in a mudhole with each rifle. See which one
# fires. I have. Ak wins. M16a2 is def. more accurate. However, they
# added 2 more pounds to it, so why not just go a pound more and keep
# the m14, which is better than either of the others. Also,
# ak mags are indestructible for all practical purposes. the ak has
# been made for over 50 years, in dozens of countries, functioning in
# all conditions. Why did they put a forward assist on a m16 if they
# didnt think you would need it?
I once read of a test that the Russians performed some time back very much
like the one you described -- throw an AK in the mud, mush it around a bit,
and shoot it. The verdict was that it usually will fire the first round,
and if it fires the first round, it'll usually empty the magazine -- the
first round tends to blow most of the dirt and debris out of the weapon due
to the tolerances. Don't try this at home. :^)
The M14 isn't necessarily better or worse overall; it is certainly better
and worse than the other two at certain things. More follows.
The steel AK mags are tough, but abuse will eventually destroy them, too.
The feed lips are more tolerant of damage than those of most other weapons,
but a dent in the side is a dent in the side and this'll lock an AK mag up
just as badly as anything else. The Bakelite mags are nowhere near as
tough -- they actually get quite fragile with age -- but they're way
lighter, which is definitely a plus. I hear the Russians don't like them
because when they take hits (remember, they ride in chest pouches normally)
they shatter and the fragments don't show up on X-rays. A very interesting,
if cynical, worldview.
Forward assist -- it was instituted just when the jamming problems were
starting to go away, ironically enough. If it had been there from the
start, or cleaning kits had originally been issued with the rifles, or if
the first chambers had been chrome-lined, or if the military had used the
powder they told Armalite they would use (lots of "or's" there, huh? When
you look at how bad we botched this rifle's introduction, it's a wonder it
worked at all), doubtless more than a few American lives would've been
saved. I'm told the USMC trains its people to smack the assist following
each mag change, whether the rifle needs it or not; we sailors don't bother.
The only time I've ever seen a use for one (in the Navy, anyway -- we don't
deploy to the field or assault beaches all that often) is when a new (or
unattentive) shooter rides the bolt home. I've always felt it was a "just
in case" thing.
Now, as far as comparisons between these three weapons are concerned, things
get dicey. They were made for very different purposes. The M14 isn't an
assault rifle by definition, as only the M14 (modified) and M14A1's have a
provision for selective fire, and these aren't commonly issued. (We still
use some modifieds in the Navy, but the A1's are pretty much gone.) The M14
was designed to allow a rifleman to selectively engage targets out to around
500m (700m with a bipod) with a large, heavy round. Shots are carefully
aimed and taken singly. Proper positions are a must -- old-fashioned, but a
"rifleman's rifle" in the classic sense.
The M16 was designed as something lighter, with less range, more ergonomics,
and a higher rate of fire. The original was full auto, remember. (I know,
they did away with that with the A2, but now it's coming back with the A3.
Not very useful but going cyclic and burning a few mags off always makes me
glad I re-enlisted.) The idea was that you could train a person to shoot it
in far less time than with the 14 (very true; I've seen this time and time
again...if you want reasons I could list quite a few, but trust me on this
one) at the same level of proficiency, and the aforementioned shooters would
be carrying more rounds per pound and could lay down a lot of fire if
necessary. They were still taught to engage targets singly and selectively,
however.
The AK was designed as rough-and-tumble, simple as simple can be, for use by
a large number of conscripts with a comparatively low level of training, in
straightforward assaults involving lots of fire. (And in some cases,
motivation.) When the AK was designed, Russian infantry tactics seemed to
consist of:
1. Place selector on automatic.
2. Load weapon.
3. Insert round.
4. Depress trigger and advance.
5. If your magazine runs dry, remove it and return to step 2.
While this is a bit of a simplication, remember that most assaults were
performed by a large number of conscripts with a comparatively low level of
training, in straightforward assaults involving lots of fire. (With a PPSh
instead of an AK, of course.)
It all goes back to WWII. American tactics were based around the man with
the squad automatic suppressing the enemy positions, while the rest of the
unit outflanked and destroyed them with aimed fire. Old-fashioned as it
might sound, it worked, and when you look at the introduction of American
weapons, what do you see? The M14 was a modernized Garand, accompanied by a
squad automatic version. The M16 was a bit more modern and was accompanied
by a LMG (the M60), but notice the inclusion of fully automatic fire
initially -- it COULD be used as a squad automatic, if necessary. The
Russian's tactics, regardless of what you or I think of them, certainly
worked. They probably weren't the most efficient, but they got the job
done. Military philosophy is to refrain from fixing it if it ain't broke,
which is why we (along with a lot of others) still use the M16 system, and
it's why Russia (along with a lot of others) use Kalashnikov's system. But
I digress.
The Russians wanted something like the PPSh-41 -- high ammo capacity,
lighter than a battle rifle, selective fire, easy to produce, easy to use,
and reliable. They saw the StGW-44 and saw what an intermediary round could
do. Then they went ahead and put two and two together. That's why the SKS
didn't last -- it wasn't quite what they wanted. The AK was perfect for
their needs. When they saw what the .223 was capable of in Vietnam, they
realized that they were close, but not quite there, and the caliber was
changed. And that's why, today, they're using basically the same weapon as
they were in the '70's, just as America is. They work, but they work for
different reasons.
Which of the three ideas is best? I can't tell you. We never fought them
directly. I have a feeling it would've involved a whole lotta casualties on
either side, though, and I suspect the victor wouldn't be as clear as we (or
they) would like to admit. I, for one, am glad this question was never
decisively settled, as it wouldn't have been pretty. I'd just say that all
three rifles had their merits, all three had their flaws, and overall, all
three were (and are) good weapons (although in terms of a standard issue
weapon for infantry units, the M14 was overtaken by events almost before it
went into circulation), and just leave it at that. I can see how one will
be better than another under certain circumstances, but until the day we see
a rifle that's better than ALL of them under ALL circumstances, this issue
will never be settled. I don't believe that rifle exists today. In a
decade or two, though...
Paul Saccani
<bigjo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
#
## M16 has direct gas blowback on the bolt face,
#
#No, it doesn't! The gas is directed into the interior of the bolt carrier
#where the rear of the bolt acts as a piston to force the bolt carrier to the
#rear, camming the bolt to unlock it from the barrel extension. You SURE you
#ever owned an AR?
He is right (but perhaps only by chance). Don't confuse the method of
operation with the facts of operation. As soon as the bolt carrier
gas block disengages from the gas tube, residual gas is blown into the
upper receiver, and continues to be blown into the receiver as the
bolt face enters the receiver.
#which if not carefully
## cleaned can easily lead to jams.
#
#BS and other explatives! Been there, done that, NEVER had a
#malfunction....neither has my second oldest son, the E-5!
Depends on the ammunition. It can and has done exactly that in the
past. Some of the carbon fouling jams due to this method of gas
operation were incredible, and required chemicals to dissolve, just to
strip the rifle upper.
#Why did they put a forward assist on a m16 if they
## didnt think you would need it?
#
#To placate some bureaucrat....the only significant job that totally useless
#device ever did well! Frankly, I'm still waiting to find someone that has
#actually used that stupid thing!
Your search is over. It is a standard part of the training on M16
type weapons used in Australian service that the forward assist be
pushed three times on loading. Though of course, out in the field
that is not much adhered to, if time allows, most Australian users
will give it at least one tap to make sure. If it moves, you give it
some more, then try and find out what the problem is if you can.
The forward assist was introduced after the operational test phase,
along with a changed firing pin and a new magazine design. The main
rationale being that due to the cocking handle use, you had no means
of pushing an errant round forward to fire it. With the M1 rifle and
carbine, this could readily be done with their bolt design, by hand,
and this was part of the procedures for that weapon.
I've often wondered why they did not simply modify the bolt carrier to
allow you to push it with your thumb through the ejection port. This
would have been simpler and lighter.
#Again....the contents of your note show such a lack of knowledge concerning
#the AR, that it calls into significant question whether you have ANY
#familiarity with the rifle.
If nothing else, at least he got something right, even if only by
chance.
;)
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
Dean Speir
# The M-16 program had some reliability issues
# early on that were caused by ammo (dirty powder)...
It wasn't so much a matter of "dirty powder" than it was that
Olin/Winchester initially selected the wrong type of propellant for the
required burn rate. See:
http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-556faq.html
--
- Dean Speir <Dean...@thegunzone.com>
Formerly Famous Gunwriter / Gun Zone Maintainer
« =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= »
It's not a perfect world... it's why we _have_ guns!
The most current version of the Glock kB! FAQ
is at http://www.thegunzone.com
Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D.
& chamber...
Walt Kuleck
Author, "The AR-15 Complete Owner's Guide"
...get it at http://www.fulton-armory.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Barott" <bba...@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: M 16 or AK 47
# You don't get out much then.
#
# The M-16 program had some reliability issues early on that were caused
# by ammo (dirty powder) and lack of cleaning regimen. Neither was the
# fault of the rifle, both were corrected, and both were corrected by
# doing something other than altering the rifle.
Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gunner Dave" <ris...@charter.net>
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: M 16 or AK 47 [Long...I Hate It When This Happens]
--snip--
# Ah, cleaned, schmeaned. Direct impingement worked for the Ljungmann, it
# worked for the MAS, and it works just fine in the M16.
Actually the system, termed "long stroke piston via direct gas impingement" by
Gary Paul Johnston, dates to the 1900 Rossignol. That's the turn of the
*previous* century, or over a hundred years ago. Ljungmann was a
"Swede-come-lately."
--snip--
# ammo you or I will be carrying as part of a basic combat load. Yes, the
# direct gas impingement system will dump a nice load of fouling into the
# receiver each and every shot, but that's not what's making the chamber
# dirty. That chamber would be getting just as dirty if it was a conventional
# op-rod system.
Perhaps, Dave; but the real issue is that all that crud gets dumped into the
bolt carrier, the upper receiver, the lower receiver, the fire control system...
--snip--
# but a dent in the side is a dent in the side and this'll lock an AK mag up
# just as badly as anything else. The Bakelite mags are nowhere near as
# tough -- they actually get quite fragile with age -- but they're way
# lighter, which is definitely a plus. I hear the Russians don't like them
The aluminum AR mags were originally intended to be disposable, "use once &
discard." Thus durability was less of an issue as they weren't supposed to be
reused. That concept didn't take, obviously.
# Forward assist -- it was instituted just when the jamming problems were
# starting to go away, ironically enough. If it had been there from the
The FA was demanded by the Army long before the "jamming" issue raised its ugly
head in combat. Stoner never liked the FA. However, every Army rifle since
breechloaders were invented had a means of postively closing the bolt, so the
M16 had to have such a means as well. One hopes that the use of the FA doesn't
wedge a round in the chamber; that was Stoner's concern. The use of the FA, in
his view, could turn an annoyance into a fatal embarassment.
# start, or cleaning kits had originally been issued with the rifles, or if
# the first chambers had been chrome-lined, or if the military had used the
# powder they told Armalite they would use (lots of "or's" there, huh? When
# you look at how bad we botched this rifle's introduction, it's a wonder it
# worked at all), doubtless more than a few American lives would've been
The M16 was issued without cleaning rods (save the "barracks" rod) or other
cleaning gear. Note that the original M16 had no place for a cleaning kit; the
trap butt came with the 'A1.
# saved. I'm told the USMC trains its people to smack the assist following
# each mag change, whether the rifle needs it or not; we sailors don't bother.
# The only time I've ever seen a use for one (in the Navy, anyway -- we don't
# deploy to the field or assault beaches all that often) is when a new (or
# unattentive) shooter rides the bolt home. I've always felt it was a "just
# in case" thing.
--snip some really good stuff about military philosphies & tactics.
# It all goes back to WWII. American tactics were based around the man with
# the squad automatic suppressing the enemy positions, while the rest of the
# unit outflanked and destroyed them with aimed fire. Old-fashioned as it
# might sound, it worked, and when you look at the introduction of American
# weapons, what do you see? The M14 was a modernized Garand, accompanied by a
# squad automatic version. The M16 was a bit more modern and was accompanied
# by a LMG (the M60), but notice the inclusion of fully automatic fire
# initially -- it COULD be used as a squad automatic, if necessary. The
The Germans also used their GPMG--M34 or M42--as the fire base for their version
of the squad. For them, the K98K was sufficient to their purpose. That is,
until they discovered what the SVT 38 and SVT 40 could do for them; but that
story would take a book, and has, "Hitler's Garands."
--snip more really good stuff, alas.
My bottom line? For us civilians, the AR hands-down is the choice. Widespread
parts availability, unsurpassed flexibility, an unprecedented rifle system--to
get into detail would take a book. So I wrote it. Enjoy.
Walt Kuleck
Author, "The AR-15 Complete Owner's Guide"
...get it at http://www.fulton-armory.com/
Paul Saccani
On Fri, 31 May 2002 13:22:36 +0000 (UTC), Dean Speir
<dean...@thegunzone.com> wrote:
#Bill Barott <bba...@mindspring.com> asserts...
#
## The M-16 program had some reliability issues
## early on that were caused by ammo (dirty powder)...
#
#It wasn't so much a matter of "dirty powder" than it was that
#Olin/Winchester initially selected the wrong type of propellant for the
#required burn rate. See:
IIRC, they switched from IMR to ball, but the problem was more than
the burn rate. The burn rate increased the cyclic rate of fire, and
is supposed to have caused direct reliability issues. Ball powder
contained calcium carbonate in excess amounts. This precipitated to
form limestone in the working parts of the rifle, which solidified
when cold. This brought on some failures to function.
# http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-556faq.html
That is a nice page. You might want to correct the reference to 5.45
x 39 which sneaked in at the end of the notes section.
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Barott
acceptable and the powder they used was very close to the canister
powder WW748, but Winchester ball powders (actually, all ball powders)
are filthy because of the volume of inhibitors that are required. To
this day, WW748 will crud up an AR-15 bolt carrier like you have to see
to believe. IMR 4895 or N140, both of which are comparable in speed,
are far cleaner and do not carbonize the way 748 does.
Dean Speir wrote:
> ...
Pete Zaitcev
# of the squad. For them, the K98K was sufficient to their purpose. That is,
# until they discovered what the SVT 38 and SVT 40 could do for them; but that
# story would take a book, and has, "Hitler's Garands."
Walt, I am curious about this positive view of the SVT.
Care to provire any references (to printed works)?
The common lore in Russia is that SVT was a total crap,
heavy and _extremely_ unreliable. Soldiers dropped it and
replaced with Mosin at every opportunity.
-- Pete
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
REC.GUNS supports Marylanders for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership!
Your donation could win a premier FULTON ARMORY RIFLE SYSTEM while you
defend our Second Amendment Rights. Click on www.direct-action.org today!
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
versus the M16. There is one place where the AK has it all over the AR
and that is price. I can buy 2 to 3 AKs for the cost of 1 AR. Of
course, if you can tell me where I can get a Fulton Armory AR for $200
to $300 then... <G> and I won't tell anyone where/how I got it,
honest. <VBG>
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
REC.GUNS supports Marylanders for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership!
Your donation could win a premier FULTON ARMORY RIFLE SYSTEM while you
defend our Second Amendment Rights. Click on www.direct-action.org today!
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aamund Breivik
"Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D." <wjku...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
# One hopes that the use of the FA doesn't
# wedge a round in the chamber; that was Stoner's concern. The use of the
FA, in
# his view, could turn an annoyance into a fatal embarassment.
I agree with him, since I have used a FA device (not on an AR, but still)
exactly once. Turned out the round was dented, and forcing it in just wedged
everything up tight- I had to use both hands on the charging handle to clear
the malfunction. At the time I was very glad this happened at the range and
not during combat, since I was on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia and had to
rely on my rifle.
FA devices, in my opinion, are dangerous and should not be used exept as
"silent closing" devices for loading your rifle quietly.
--
Aamund Breivik
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
REC.GUNS supports Marylanders for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership!
Your donation could win a premier FULTON ARMORY RIFLE SYSTEM while you
defend our Second Amendment Rights. Click on www.direct-action.org today!
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Saccani
<wjku...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
#Hi, Dave, et. al.,
#
#----- Original Message -----
#From: "Gunner Dave" <ris...@charter.net>
#Newsgroups: rec.guns
#Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:49 PM
#Subject: Re: M 16 or AK 47 [Long...I Hate It When This Happens]
#
#--snip--
#
## Ah, cleaned, schmeaned. Direct impingement worked for the Ljungmann, it
## worked for the MAS, and it works just fine in the M16.
#
#Actually the system, termed "long stroke piston via direct gas impingement" by
#Gary Paul Johnston, dates to the 1900 Rossignol. That's the turn of the
#*previous* century, or over a hundred years ago. Ljungmann was a
#"Swede-come-lately."
The Johnston system seems somewhat different from both the Ljungmann
and Stoner systems, to the extent where both received utility patents.
Stoner's was US 2,951,424, and differs in material aspects from the
Ljungmann system. Neither could be called long stroke piston.
#Perhaps, Dave; but the real issue is that all that crud gets dumped into the
#bolt carrier, the upper receiver, the lower receiver, the fire control system...
Yep. Not a problem with the correct ammunition and care of the rifle.
#The aluminum AR mags were originally intended to be disposable, "use once &
#discard." Thus durability was less of an issue as they weren't supposed to be
#reused. That concept didn't take, obviously.
Well, the original steel magazines were MUCH worse than the Aluminium.
I have my doubts about the Al being intended for disposable use, but
remain ready to be enlightened. There were pre loaded plastic
magazines intended for such use, supplied in bandoleers some years
ago, but I've never heard of any organisation adopting them.
## Forward assist -- it was instituted just when the jamming problems were
## starting to go away, ironically enough. If it had been there from the
#
#The FA was demanded by the Army long before the "jamming" issue raised its ugly
#head in combat. Stoner never liked the FA. However, every Army rifle since
#breechloaders were invented had a means of postively closing the bolt, so the
#M16 had to have such a means as well. One hopes that the use of the FA doesn't
#wedge a round in the chamber; that was Stoner's concern. The use of the FA, in
#his view, could turn an annoyance into a fatal embarassment.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other. ;)
Sturtevent's FA kept the customer happy, and the buffer he developed
resulted in real improvements in reliability.
#The M16 was issued without cleaning rods (save the "barracks" rod) or other
#cleaning gear. Note that the original M16 had no place for a cleaning kit; the
#trap butt came with the 'A1.
Do people actually use that? Ours all had a rubber extension between
the butt and butt plate, so we never had to think about whether or not
to use it. Separate cleaning kits are used which attach to your
webbing, or can be stored in an ammo pouch. Most of ours come in a
long pouch with a sheet metal bipod which attached to the gas block.
Handy in the mud, if nothing else.
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
REC.GUNS supports Marylanders for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership!
Your donation could win a premier FULTON ARMORY RIFLE SYSTEM while you
defend our Second Amendment Rights. Click on www.direct-action.org today!
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Saccani
wrote:
#I agree completely, well almost, with your analysis of the AK-47
#versus the M16. There is one place where the AK has it all over the AR
#and that is price. I can buy 2 to 3 AKs for the cost of 1 AR.
More than that. An AKM sells for around the US$50 mark in Yemen.
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clyde321
Just try and bring it into the states.
I think folks are talking about the cost here. Even if you don't like it, most
of the conversation here pertains to what is and isn't in the U.S.
Clyde <---- starting to wonder why I even read the Aussies posts.
#More than that. An AKM sells for around the US$50 mark in Yemen.
#
#cheers,
#
#Paul Saccani
#Perth West Australia
Jason Steiner
# ## didnt think you would need it?
# #
# #To placate some bureaucrat....the only significant job that totally useless
# #actually used that stupid thing!
#
# Your search is over. It is a standard part of the training on M16
# type weapons used in Australian service that the forward assist be
# pushed three times on loading.
Ah, but is it necessary? Not being in the military, I don't use it as
a matter of course, and have never had to use it, even in environments
with a great deal of dust and sand. If a round doesn't chamber,
forcing it in is not the indicated action anyway.
# I've often wondered why they did not simply modify the bolt carrier
# to allow you to push it with your thumb through the ejection port.
# This would have been simpler and lighter.
You can. The indentation on the bolt carrier that trips the ejection
port cover serves. I wish I could find an upper that didn't have
a forward assist but did have a flat top and a brass deflector. It
would be somewhat lighter, simpler, and easier to stow.
jason
--
Alles, was deine Hand zu tun findet, das tue in deiner Kraft!
Denn es gibt weder Tun noch Berechnung, noch Kenntnis, noch
Weisheit im Scheol, in den du gehst.
Prediger 9:10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
REC.GUNS supports Marylanders for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership!
Your donation could win a premier FULTON ARMORY RIFLE SYSTEM while you
defend our Second Amendment Rights. Click on www.direct-action.org today!
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug T
# I agree with him, since I have used a FA device (not on an AR, but still)
# exactly once. Turned out the round was dented, and forcing it in just wedged
# everything up tight- I had to use both hands on the charging handle to clear
# the malfunction. At the time I was very glad this happened at the range and
# not during combat, since I was on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia and had to
# rely on my rifle.
#
# FA devices, in my opinion, are dangerous and should not be used exept as
# "silent closing" devices for loading your rifle quietly.
#
# --
# Aamund Breivik
And now you know the only real use for the FA.
And I'll bet it's a lesson you won't soon forget.
Doug T
Who forgot the Drill Instructors advice to never use the FA to try and
force a round into the chamber after some 25 years without a AR-15 to
play with.
Paul Saccani
<ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
#Paul Saccani <traptinne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
## "John Kepler" <bigjo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
##
## #
## #Why did they put a forward assist on a m16 if they
## ## didnt think you would need it?
## #
## #To placate some bureaucrat....the only significant job that totally useless
## #device ever did well! Frankly, I'm still waiting to find someone that has
## #actually used that stupid thing!
##
## Your search is over. It is a standard part of the training on M16
## type weapons used in Australian service that the forward assist be
## pushed three times on loading.
#
#Ah, but is it necessary? Not being in the military, I don't use it as
#a matter of course, and have never had to use it, even in environments
#with a great deal of dust and sand. If a round doesn't chamber,
#forcing it in is not the indicated action anyway.
In military use, you have IA (immediate action) drills which you have
to follow. The safety aspect is somewhat different to civil use.
The main problem is with getting a round out that the extractor has
not fully engaged, and the possibility of the weapon failing to fire,
due to being out of battery. There is also the problem of silent
loading to consider. If you ride the bolt down, it will not finish in
battery, but needs to be persuaded with the F/A.
## I've often wondered why they did not simply modify the bolt carrier
## to allow you to push it with your thumb through the ejection port.
## This would have been simpler and lighter.
#
#You can. The indentation on the bolt carrier that trips the ejection
#port cover serves.
You can't put enough force on it, believe me, I've tried.
# I wish I could find an upper that didn't have
#a forward assist but did have a flat top and a brass deflector. It
#would be somewhat lighter, simpler, and easier to stow.
Colt make them. I've seen them on automatic versions of the M16A2
used in Saudi. (Not all M16A2 have burst, even those in US service)
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Saccani
wrote:
#Hey Limey,
# Just try and bring it into the states.
#I think folks are talking about the cost here.
I see. I commented on prices quoted for weapons that are
non-transferable or importable to the US for practical purposes. You
can't buy a new M16 in the USA, can you? For what its worth, an M16
in Yemen is around the US$200 mark, but you can only get used ones.
Semi-automatic AR-15's are available, but unpopular.
# Even if you don't like it, most
#of the conversation here pertains to what is and isn't in the U.S.
Why should that bother me?
Even if you don't like it, this is not rec.guns.usa.
# Clyde <---- starting to wonder why I even read the Aussies posts.
What's the problem?
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Osmo Ronkanen
# Referring the topic, I have two serious questions.
#
# First, did the USSR decision to rearm with a 5.45mm weapon
# have a merit? This happened after the Vietnam war, so did
# they simply think "Americans do it, so it must be right",
# or was it a result of being on the receiving end of M-16?
The idea was to improve the accuracy on automatic fire. M-16 was
better
than AKM so they made something that is still better.
# Tangentially related is, did any Soviet client state arm
# with 5.45mm AKs (AK-74)? 5.56mm (AK-101)?
They were in the process of doing so but had not completeted it AFAIK.
For exaxample the East Germany had IIRC about 170 000 AK74's and over
700 000 AK/AKM type weapons.
# Second, why did Israelis rearmed from their 5.56mm AK clone
# to M-16? I reviewed recent and archival footage, and it seems
# that Galil disappeared from their inventory quote a while ago.
A major reason is the weight. Galil is very heavy about 4.3 kg without
a magazine compared to 3.5 kg for M16A2 and about 3.0 kg for AKM/AK74.
# Do they produce their M-16s themselves, or purchase them
# in the U.S.? Or perhaps they receive them for free?
As I understand the U.S. military aid is made in U.S.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
# M16a2 is def. more accurate. However, they
# added 2 more pounds to it, so why not just go a pound more and keep
# the m14, which is better than either of the others.
How is it better? I cannot see the nostalgy that the rifle with the
shortest service life in the history of the U.S. army raises. They
switched to M16 as M14 was inferrior to AKM.
Also have you thought what M14 and M16A2 weight with say 180 rounds
of ammo in magazines. The difference is slightly more than a pound.
Osmo Ronkanen
B>
# The AK was designed as rough-and-tumble, simple as simple can be, for use by
# a large number of conscripts with a comparatively low level of training, in
# straightforward assaults involving lots of fire. (And in some cases,
# motivation.) When the AK was designed, Russian infantry tactics seemed to
# consist of:
# 1. Place selector on automatic.
# 2. Load weapon.
# 3. Insert round.
# 4. Depress trigger and advance.
# 5. If your magazine runs dry, remove it and return to step 2.
# While this is a bit of a simplication, remember that most assaults were
# performed by a large number of conscripts with a comparatively low level of
# training, in straightforward assaults involving lots of fire. (With a PPSh
# instead of an AK, of course.)
#
If that is the case then why did Kalashnikov design AK mainly for
semi-automatic fire? Just look at the selector, it has semi-automatic
at the bottom so that when pushed hard it goes into semi-automatic.
Kalashnikov designed also a submachine gun using same selector. In it
automatic was at the bottom. Also the mere fact that it fires from closed
bolt means that it was designed mainly for semi-automatic fire.
Also rememeber that Soviets had done away with submachine guns in their
infantry squads before AK was adopted.
# weapons, what do you see? The M14 was a modernized Garand, accompanied by a
# squad automatic version. The M16 was a bit more modern and was accompanied
# by a LMG (the M60), but notice the inclusion of fully automatic fire
# initially -- it COULD be used as a squad automatic, if necessary.
Well M14 was intended to be automatic, it just did not work as such so
they took the selectors away. Also M60 was adopted same time as M14.
Osmo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
REC.GUNS supports Marylanders for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership!
Your donation could win a premier FULTON ARMORY RIFLE SYSTEM while you
defend our Second Amendment Rights. Click on www.direct-action.org today!
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D.
Best regards,
Walt Kuleck
Fulton Armory
http://www.fulton-armory.com/
Everthing for the AR-15, M1 Garand, M14 & M1A, and M1 Carbine
Author, "The AR-15 Complete Owner's Guide"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aamund Breivik" <aam...@online.no>
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: M 16 or AK 47 [Long...I Hate It When This Happens]
#
# "Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D." <wjku...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
#
# # One hopes that the use of the FA doesn't
# # wedge a round in the chamber; that was Stoner's concern. The use of the
# FA, in
# # his view, could turn an annoyance into a fatal embarassment.
#
# I agree with him, since I have used a FA device (not on an AR, but still)
# exactly once. Turned out the round was dented, and forcing it in just wedged
# everything up tight- I had to use both hands on the charging handle to clear
# the malfunction. At the time I was very glad this happened at the range and
# not during combat, since I was on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia and had to
# rely on my rifle.
#
# FA devices, in my opinion, are dangerous and should not be used exept as
# "silent closing" devices for loading your rifle quietly.
#
# --
# Aamund Breivik
Lone_Wolf
#Yoss...@mindspring.com wrote in message news:<ad45ul$dmi$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
## M16a2 is def. more accurate. However, they
## added 2 more pounds to it, so why not just go a pound more and keep
## the m14, which is better than either of the others.
#How is it better? I cannot see the nostalgy that the rifle with the
#shortest service life in the history of the U.S. army raises. They
#switched to M16 as M14 was inferrior to AKM.
No, they changed doctrines, and adopted a new rifle to match the new
doctrine. At least some part of the decision making loop was driven by
McNamara and his whiz kids deciding they knew more about fighting a war
than the people who actually did the fighting, and pushed the M16 down
the throat of the Army. The M14 is mostly a product-improved version
of the M1, same projectile, shorter case taking advantage of newer powders,
improved gas system, and a twenty round box magazine instead of an eight round
disposable clip. If you know how to handle and maintain an M1, you can
handle and maintain an M14 (as my kid brother proved in the South Carolina
Corps of Cadets, when he scared the upperclassmen by detail stripping the
M14 he was cleaning, most of them didn't know how to do so). The M1/M14 are
VERY shootable, with a lot more throw weight than an M16. They also have,
with issue ammunition, a greater effective range, the US Army has mostly
dropped any kind of marksmanship training at over 300m as part of the new
doctrine.
#Also have you thought what M14 and M16A2 weight with say 180 rounds
#of ammo in magazines. The difference is slightly more than a pound.
The M16A2 wasn't adopted until almost twenty years after the M16A1, and
incorporates a lot of changes insisted upon by the military service that STILL
has M14's as part of their inventory. Go look up references to the
Designated Marksman that the USMC is considering... The USMC still feels
that accurate, aimed, rifle fire is an essential component of the rifle squad's
capabilities, and the low penetration from standard M16 ammunition is one
of the concerns they hope the DMR will help them resolve. When it comes to
marksmanship and penetration capabilities, the M16A1 and M16A2 are worlds
apart. And I'd check those weight figures again, the magazines alone for the
M14 are significantly heavier, bullet weight alone (just the projectile, not
including powder and brass differences) is over two pounds in difference.
James
James
#Osmo
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------
#REC.GUNS supports Marylanders for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership!
#Your donation could win a premier FULTON ARMORY RIFLE SYSTEM while you
#defend our Second Amendment Rights. Click on www.direct-action.org today!
#Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Zaitcev
# The M16A2 wasn't adopted until almost twenty years after the M16A1, and
# incorporates a lot of changes insisted upon by the military service that STILL
# has M14's as part of their inventory. Go look up references to the
# Designated Marksman that the USMC is considering... The USMC still feels
# that accurate, aimed, rifle fire is an essential component of the rifle squad's
# capabilities, and the low penetration from standard M16 ammunition is one
# of the concerns they hope the DMR will help them resolve.
Facts correct, but this has no bearing whatsoever on the rifle the
rest of the squad carries. Basically, M14 as you describe it fulfills
the same role as does SVD in Russian army.
-- Pete
Atllaw2
## lives when they ended up using it as a club in combat. Disgraceful!>
Ya know, for years I've read stuff like this. Why it bothers me now, I don't
know, maybe I'm just getting old and less tolerent. But as a young trooper I
trained with the M1 and M14. Later I carried the M16 for 2 years in the RVN
during the 1966 -1970 time frame and NEVER had a failure to feed, fire or
eject. Nor did I ever hear any such complaints from others. Even my once RTO,
Sp4 Wesley, (wonder where the boy is now-he must be around 50) whose idea of
cleaning his rifle was to squeeze LSA into the bolt carrier area and work the
bolt a few times, never had a malfunction. Maybe because I told him the first
time it did I would give him an Article 15!
I loved the M1 (to many John Wayne movies as a kid), and appreciated the M14's
firepower, but the M16 and M16A1 were GREAT weapons for the playground of the
Orient.
Oops, there was one person who didn't like the M16. Tau, my one time Kit
Carson scout, once through down his rifle and said to me " Di We, M16 numba 10!
you get me AK, Ok?" It wasn't that his rifle malfunctioned, he just missed
the NVA he was shooting at! Maybe it's just what your're used to...
Richard N. Elliott.
Former Captain of Horse &
Keeper of the Peace, current
Interpreter of Statute
Gunner Dave
# at the bottom so that when pushed hard it goes into semi-automatic.
# Kalashnikov designed also a submachine gun using same selector. In it
# automatic was at the bottom. Also the mere fact that it fires from closed
# bolt means that it was designed mainly for semi-automatic fire.
Another question that could be asked: why didn't Kalashnikov include a bolt
hold-open device for when the magazine ran dry? Just about everyone uses
one now; just about everyone used one (who used an autoloader, that is)
then. Even the SKS, an earlier weapon and one he certainly had knowledge
of, incorporates it. It certainly seems like a good idea and as much as I
love shooting my SAR, this is probably my primary gripe with it. The fact
is, every weapon has its little quirks, just as every designer has his or
her little quirks. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
Standard combat load, IIRC, was (is) 3-4 magazines of 30 rounds each. I
don't know how many rounds it takes to put an AK into a hot gun status, but
I doubt 120, even in a very short time, will do this. Just about any
assault rifle in use today will tolerate this. We've all heard stories of
just how hot an AK can get without any lasting effects. Firing from an open
bolt may help cooling and reduce cook-offs, but it also allows dirt to enter
the weapon when it's ready to fire. If you look carefully at an AK, you'll
see that it's fairly dirt-proof with a magazine inserted, round chambered,
and safety on. I have a feeling Kalashnikov's primary concern was keeping
crud out of the innards, not cooling. Remember, when this weapon was
conceived, the Tokarev and Simonov rifles had been having some reliability
problems for this very reason. I wouldn't be surprised if this was very
much on his mind at the time.
Regardless, this is all conjecture. It's easy to look at a 50+-year-old
weapon and second-guess it. Kalashnikov did a number of interviews during
his life. I wonder if he's ever commented on this?
One last thought: the MP5 also fires from a closed bolt. If it was designed
for semiautomatic fire, someone needs to tell a LOT of people about this.
Most (including H&K, apparently) don't seem to know this.
# Also rememeber that Soviets had done away with submachine guns in their
# infantry squads before AK was adopted.
Are you sure about this? I don't believe so. I believe as one was phased
out, the other was phased in. I could be wrong here, but that's the way I
interepret the information and it tends to support my theory. (Making me a
bit biased, of course, but that's open to debate.)
Remember, the SKS was (and is) a fine weapon. The Soviets had only one real
complaint about it: not enough firepower. Kalashnikov's design solved this
(more ammo on board, automatic fire) and was adopted over it. If automatic
fire wasn't desired -- hell, REQUIRED -- the SKS would've been in mainline
service for a much longer period, don't you think? Do you know how much it
costs to adopt a new weapon, begin production, crank out the weapons for a
couple of years, and then switch to another? I mean, WOW, and this is
exactly what happened in this case. It takes an act of God for something
like this to happen, even to Communists. ;^) Either the SKS REALLY was
horrible or the AK just did the job so much better they HAD to have it NOW.
The SKS isn't a horrible weapon by any stretch of the imagination; don't let
the High Power and Palma guys tell you any different, it's just fine as a
battlefield instrument. Therefore, it must be that the AK was just much
more suitable for what they had in mind, no? Anaylize the differences
between the two weapons and tell me what you think.
# Well M14 was intended to be automatic, it just did not work as such so
# they took the selectors away. Also M60 was adopted same time as M14.
Initially, not really, the way I understand it. The original concept was an
updated Garand -- more firepower due to the detacheable mags and larger
capacity, and a smaller (and thus, lighter) action resulting from the
shorter cartridge it would use. Automatic fire was almost an afterthought.
Case in point: current nomenclature designates the semiauto-locked M14 as
the M14, the select-fire version as the M14 (modified), and the
purpose-built automatic rifle version as the M14 A1. If it was really
intended to just do the automatic thing, why this pattern of nomenclature?
Also, remember that while the M14 (modified) was (and is) pretty damned
uncontrollable even in short bursts unless you're a real hero, the M14 A1 is
not bad at all. Between the stabilizer, the modified sling w/ foregrip, and
the straightline stock, it's all right. The cost difference between the two
rifles was only a couple of bucks, if that. Why opt for the semi? Simple.
It had more to do with current US battle doctrine than anything else. A
whole platoon of guys with squad autos isn't conducive to fire-and-maneuver
tactics unless everyone is VERY well disciplined. Unless they are, it
quickly becomes a fire-and-fire situation, with maneuvering getting left
behind at the staging area.
The M60 didn't come into use until a short time afterwards...same time
period, yes, but not the same time IIRC. When the M14 was first conceived
and introduced, the concept of a squad of riflemen, being supported by a man
with a squad automatic (the BAR of WWII, the M14A1 later) was the rule. The
M60 was an effort by the US to shift more towards the German style of
warfare, with light machine guns replacing both tripod-mounted medium
machineguns and squad automatic rifles, and it took a little while to
perfect.
Regardless...the Soviets used massed fire in WWII and it worked. The
Chinese (who'd received equipment and training from the Soviets, and were
organized somewhat along the same lines) used it extensively in Korea,
although not too many people would say it worked there; the Chinese were
largely lacking in effective armor, air, and artillery support, and without
these, a large rush with lots of shooting has another, less flattering name:
human wave tactics. WITH proper support, I'm sure they would've done much
better. The Soviets used similar tactics when fighting was required during
the "pacification" of their satellite states through the early years of the
USSR. They largely continue to fight this way (Afghanistan being a notable
exception for the most part, probably due to the elusive enemy) to this very
day, simply because it's always worked and continues to work. It's
unacceptable to American minds because we tend, as a people, NOT to tolerate
friendly casualties easily, and when we see young men and women dying in
some foreign country on our TV sets we tend to get vocal about it. Also,
our military is a voluntary one, and it couldn't support the kind of
casualties this kind of fighting produces. However -- and a BIG however --
the Soviet-era army could support large numbers of casualties, as the
majority of the troops were conscripted and trained rather quickly. This
sort of fighting didn't penalize poorly trained troops. Put yourself in the
place of any Russian general, circa 1950-1980 or so, and ask yourself if it
would do the job. It would. A recurring theme I've seen in Russian
thinking and design of the time, and one that certainly has merit even
today, is this: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I could also bring up the RPK family of squad automatics, but really, it's
not much of an issue. I'll leave this for another post.
Gunner Dave
# to follow. The safety aspect is somewhat different to civil use.
# The main problem is with getting a round out that the extractor has
# not fully engaged, and the possibility of the weapon failing to fire,
# due to being out of battery. There is also the problem of silent
# loading to consider. If you ride the bolt down, it will not finish in
# battery, but needs to be persuaded with the F/A.
Paul makes several excellent points here. The purpose of IA drills is to
imbue the operator -- you, me, or anyone else -- with "muscle memory." This
is an important concept in most military training. I think it goes without
saying that, when under stress, the mind starts playing less of a part than
it normally does while the body plays more of one. By consciously doing
something over and over, you start to do it subconsciously. (Actually,
unconsciously.) The more complicated such a drill is, the harder it is to
learn and the higher the "FUBAR" factor becomes. Teaching a recruit to just
hammer on the FA is much easier than teaching a recruit to notice, diagnose,
and troubleshoot every possible malfunction that could occur, and normally
the results will be the same.
That having been said, using the FA for ramming a round home is probably not
a good idea for most folks. I've never experienced a situation where it was
required, whether shooting militarily or otherwise. If you're shooting in
the military, why risk making a bad problem worse? You didn't pay for the
ammo. Rack the charging handle and try again. Who cares if a round goes
over the side? If you're a civilian, the answer is even simpler: if that
round won't chamber under spring pressure, do you REALLY want to force it
into battery in your $800+ firearm? I sure as hell don't.
It really comes down to application. In the US Navy, we don't even bother
with the FA. Our weapons are (usually) well-maintained and dirt isn't a
problem. We would, in all probability, never have to do the kind of
shooting that would foul a M16 up badly enough to require the FA; by that
point, we'd be using something with a little more stopping power. (Like a
Mk 45 and a couple of Hornets.) On the same note, we wouldn't have much use
for the silent bolt closure feature, either; if we're locking and loading,
we're not concerned with who's hearing it. Infantry, however, have a whole
different set of circumstances. I operate from the same FM's as they do
with regards to weapons, but outside of this, I'm not qualified to really
discuss the differences.
# You can't put enough force on it, believe me, I've tried.
Agreed, and I've got some big 'ole paws. This other guy must be a monster.
# Colt make them. I've seen them on automatic versions of the M16A2
# used in Saudi. (Not all M16A2 have burst, even those in US service)
That's news to me, but I'm only speaking for one branch. (Then again, most
people don't know the Navy still uses M79's and M14's, and quite extensively
at that.)
Pete Zaitcev
# hold-open device for when the magazine ran dry? Just about everyone uses
# one now; just about everyone used one (who used an autoloader, that is)
# then. Even the SKS, an earlier weapon and one he certainly had knowledge
# of, incorporates it. It certainly seems like a good idea and as much as I
# love shooting my SAR, this is probably my primary gripe with it. The fact
# is, every weapon has its little quirks, just as every designer has his or
# her little quirks. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
This question was raised in the group before. Every time I just
cannot understand what the utility of bolt hold would be?
How, exactly, are you going to use it, if the weapon had
the feature? In case of SKS, you obviously cannot load it without
the bolt hold, so this is why it does have it. In case of AK, it
would be a feature without any practical use! Such a feature
only adds one more detail for several kopeks, if not rubles, worth
of manufacturing costs, and one more thing that can break.
-- Pete
R Joseph
in article <adrmik$6e2$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>:
## Another question that could be asked: why didn't Kalashnikov include a bolt
## hold-open device for when the magazine ran dry?
#
#This question was raised in the group before. Every time I just
#cannot understand what the utility of bolt hold would be?
Just my opinion, but I like it because it sounds different when
the last round is fired. I do count the rounds coming out, but
not always perfectly. That slight difference in sound and feel
is present when I shoot my AR-15, and I kind of miss it when
shooting the AK and the FN-FAL.
BTW, I thought I'd seen a last round hold-open device for the
metric FAL from Tapco, but I can't seem to find it in their
latest catalogs - is such a thing available, or did I imagine it?
--
Richard Joseph
Email: in...@rjsoftware.com
Internet: http://www.rjsoftware.com/
RJ Software - Practical Applications for the Digital Universe
Paul Saccani
<ris...@charter.net> wrote:
#Another question that could be asked: why didn't Kalashnikov include a bolt
#hold-open device for when the magazine ran dry?
Doctrinal reasons, I would imagine.
# Just about everyone uses
#one now; just about everyone used one (who used an autoloader, that is)
#then.
More of a US influence. Certain forces, such as the UK and Australia,
removed such features as the automatic hold open device from their
versions of the FAL, for instance. Differences in doctrine, in a
nutshell. Europeans in general do not make use of such devices, due
to doctrine of replacing magazines before they are empty.
# It certainly seems like a good idea and as much as I
#love shooting my SAR, this is probably my primary gripe with it.
Is this a FAL variant, such as SAR-58? If so, the automatic hold open
has been removed by design. In most cases, the hold open retains the
hole for the pin which activates last round hold open, and it is a
simple matter to insert the pin and have this feature.
#Standard combat load, IIRC, was (is) 3-4 magazines of 30 rounds each. I
#don't know how many rounds it takes to put an AK into a hot gun status, but
#I doubt 120, even in a very short time, will do this. Just about any
#assault rifle in use today will tolerate this.
Concur.
# Firing from an open
#bolt may help cooling and reduce cook-offs, but it also allows dirt to enter
#the weapon when it's ready to fire. If you look carefully at an AK, you'll
#see that it's fairly dirt-proof with a magazine inserted, round chambered,
#and safety on. I have a feeling Kalashnikov's primary concern was keeping
#crud out of the innards, not cooling. Remember, when this weapon was
#conceived, the Tokarev and Simonov rifles had been having some reliability
#problems for this very reason. I wouldn't be surprised if this was very
#much on his mind at the time.
That may be so, but it might be more strongly related to what the
customer wanted.
#One last thought: the MP5 also fires from a closed bolt. If it was designed
#for semiautomatic fire, someone needs to tell a LOT of people about this.
#Most (including H&K, apparently) don't seem to know this.
Heat management is not so much of a issue with pistol rounds,
especially when you consider the additional cooling from the greater
diameter barrel, and the greater ratio of barrel mass to thermal
loads.
#Remember, the SKS was (and is) a fine weapon. The Soviets had only one real
#complaint about it: not enough firepower. Kalashnikov's design solved this
#(more ammo on board, automatic fire) and was adopted over it. If automatic
#fire wasn't desired -- hell, REQUIRED -- the SKS would've been in mainline
#service for a much longer period, don't you think? Do you know how much it
#costs to adopt a new weapon, begin production, crank out the weapons for a
#couple of years, and then switch to another? I mean, WOW, and this is
#exactly what happened in this case. It takes an act of God for something
#like this to happen, even to Communists. ;^) Either the SKS REALLY was
#horrible or the AK just did the job so much better they HAD to have it NOW.
Concur.
#The SKS isn't a horrible weapon by any stretch of the imagination; don't let
#the High Power and Palma guys tell you any different, it's just fine as a
#battlefield instrument.
Still going strong in many parts of the world....
# Automatic fire was almost an afterthought.
#Case in point: current nomenclature designates the semiauto-locked M14 as
#the M14, the select-fire version as the M14 (modified), and the
#purpose-built automatic rifle version as the M14 A1. If it was really
#intended to just do the automatic thing, why this pattern of nomenclature?
#
#Also, remember that while the M14 (modified) was (and is) pretty damned
#uncontrollable even in short bursts unless you're a real hero, the M14 A1 is
#not bad at all.
# Why opt for the semi? Simple.
#It had more to do with current US battle doctrine than anything else. A
#whole platoon of guys with squad autos isn't conducive to fire-and-maneuver
#tactics unless everyone is VERY well disciplined.
#
#The M60 didn't come into use until a short time afterwards...same time
#period, yes, but not the same time IIRC. When the M14 was first conceived
#and introduced, the concept of a squad of riflemen, being supported by a man
#with a squad automatic (the BAR of WWII, the M14A1 later) was the rule. The
#M60 was an effort by the US to shift more towards the German style of
#warfare, with light machine guns replacing both tripod-mounted medium
#machineguns and squad automatic rifles, and it took a little while to
#perfect.
Most interesting comments.
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford Reed
be adapted to metric and inch pattern guns.
TAPCO and DSA would be a couple of places to start. There are about 10 or
so variations, but most seem to be interchangeable.
"R Joseph" <in...@rjsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:adst5p$e3n$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
bolt
> ...
Aamund Breivik
"Pete Zaitcev" <zai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:adrmik$6e2$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# # Another question that could be asked: why didn't Kalashnikov include a
bolt
# # hold-open device for when the magazine ran dry?
#
# This question was raised in the group before. Every time I just
# cannot understand what the utility of bolt hold would be?
# How, exactly, are you going to use it, if the weapon had
# the feature?
Some AK variants do have a sort of hold-open feature, I believe some Saiga
shotguns have it. And Yugoslav-issue AKs tend to have hold-open magazines,
although there is no provision for holding the bolt back while you change
mags.
The hold-open feature I've seen on Saigas is basically a hook on the safety
lever, that will hold the charging handle back if you switch the safety on
while the bolt is held back. With hold-open mags and this hooked safety
lever, reloading drill becomes: safety on, change mags, safety off, fire.
Flipping the safety off releases the bolt.
As for why the AK originally didn't have a hold-open feature, I would guess
it's for the same reason as why the G3 was selected over the AR-10 by the
Norwegian army:
When the bolt is held back, the mechanism is wide open for snow or dirt.
When various rifles were tested for Norwegian use, they had people shooting
them while a snowplow was throwing snow at the firing line to see if the
rifles would fail in a snowstorm. The G3 worked fine, while the AR-10 got
filled up with snow when the bolt locked back. It doesn't take a snowstorm
to do this; merely falling into mud or snow with a rifle that has just run
dry can jam it up.
Most likely mr. Khalashnikov was more concerned with reliability in mud and
snow than he was with quick reloading.
--
Aamund Breivik
Gunner Dave
It would have to be. Some of the things all those other, "lesser",
countries do with regards to their weapons just make no sense to me. ;^)
# More of a US influence. Certain forces, such as the UK and Australia,
# removed such features as the automatic hold open device from their
# versions of the FAL, for instance. Differences in doctrine, in a
# nutshell. Europeans in general do not make use of such devices, due
# to doctrine of replacing magazines before they are empty.
Interesting. I can understand the utility of changing out mags with rounds
still in them...nothing more embaressing than a *click* when a *BANG* is
called for. Still, some of the European preferences baffle me --
non-drop-free magazines and bottom magazine catches on pistols, for
instance. It feels like I need three hands when I'm changing magazines in a
PP, yet Europeans manage it with ease. A training deficiency on my part?
Most definitely, but the concept is still alien to me.
# Is this a FAL variant, such as SAR-58? If so, the automatic hold open
# has been removed by design. In most cases, the hold open retains the
# hole for the pin which activates last round hold open, and it is a
# simple matter to insert the pin and have this feature.
I should've been clearer on this. I was referring to a SAR-1, Romania's
current entry into the low-priced pistol-gripped AK clone market. After a
few minutes spent hogging out the uneven magazine port with a Dremel tool,
it's become quite serviceable, although it's still butt-ugly.
# That may be so, but it might be more strongly related to what the
# customer wanted.
That's part of the reason for my last post: I'm trying to figure out just
what, exactly, the customer wanted. I have my own opinions on this but I'm
always happy to hear others; I'm hardly an expert on the matter. If the
Soviet military was anything like the American one, they probably didn't
know what they wanted until they saw something that resembled it.
# Heat management is not so much of a issue with pistol rounds,
# especially when you consider the additional cooling from the greater
# diameter barrel, and the greater ratio of barrel mass to thermal
# loads.
Agreed. I didn't consider that issue.
# Most interesting comments.
Same on your end. I've got some new issues to think over now.
Paul Saccani
Joseph) wrote:
#BTW, I thought I'd seen a last round hold-open device for the
#metric FAL from Tapco, but I can't seem to find it in their
#latest catalogs - is such a thing available, or did I imagine it?
It's just a matter of inserting a simple pin into the hole which
should be drilled into the hold open device. If you can't buy one,
you should be able to make one without too much bother.
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Zaitcev
# [...] Still, some of the European preferences baffle me --
# non-drop-free magazines and bottom magazine catches on pistols, for
# instance. It feels like I need three hands when I'm changing magazines in a
# PP, yet Europeans manage it with ease. A training deficiency on my part?
# Most definitely, but the concept is still alien to me.
This is how we were told to do it on Makarov we were issued.
You get the magazine with your left. Then, holding the magazine,
put your left thumb on the release and press back. The empty
should pop about two-three millimeters so that your left index
finger can catch it. Now pull it out (at this moment, you drop
it in your pocket if you can, otherwise skip this step). Notice
that you can reload laying on your back since you do not rely
on gravity. Also, any jam can be "assisted" with the full
magazine rim. Then, insert the full, and release the hold
with your right thumb.
I am relatively weak and I had trouble releasing the hold
and using index finger to pull the empty magazine. Should
have trained more, I suppose.
-- Pete
Paul Saccani
<ris...@charter.net> wrote:
## Europeans in general do not make use of such devices, due
## to doctrine of replacing magazines before they are empty.
#
#Interesting. I can understand the utility of changing out mags with rounds
#still in them...nothing more embaressing than a *click* when a *BANG* is
#called for. Still, some of the European preferences baffle me --
#non-drop-free magazines and bottom magazine catches on pistols, for
#instance. It feels like I need three hands when I'm changing magazines in a
#PP, yet Europeans manage it with ease. A training deficiency on my part?
#Most definitely, but the concept is still alien to me.
As the name suggests, the PP is not really for military use... Many
european SL pistols do have drop free magazines. Those that do not
are found quite irritating by our 'murkin friends, who seem to have
widely adopted a procedure of dropping the mag on the ground during a
reload. This seems quite practical in the short term, but can have
long term consequences in field use, like running out magazines (in
production terms as well as individual user terms), dirt in magazines
and so on. Historically, military pistol use has been much greater
in europe than in the America's, with the pistol being the personal
weapon of many of the crew of crew served weapons. The numbers
involved, and their usage, are greater, and the production resources
etc... lesser. That's a good reason for a difference in doctrine.
Some of the current production pistols have magazines which will drop
free only when nearly empty. So any time the mag starts to fall out
with the release pushed, is a good time to change, and if doesn't fall
free, you know you have at least 5 rounds left.
#I should've been clearer on this. I was referring to a SAR-1, Romania's
#current entry into the low-priced pistol-gripped AK clone market. After a
#few minutes spent hogging out the uneven magazine port with a Dremel tool,
#it's become quite serviceable, although it's still butt-ugly.
We used to make an AK variant here in Australia, for export to the US.
This had the hold open features that you desire, as the customer is
always right.... Unfortunately, the federal government decided that
it did not like this, and refused the import permits for parts made by
sub-contractors, and the export permits for the finished product.
## That may be so, but it might be more strongly related to what the
## customer wanted.
#
#That's part of the reason for my last post: I'm trying to figure out just
#what, exactly, the customer wanted. I have my own opinions on this but I'm
#always happy to hear others; I'm hardly an expert on the matter. If the
#Soviet military was anything like the American one, they probably didn't
#know what they wanted until they saw something that resembled it.
They weren't much like the US model....
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunner Dave
# This is how we were told to do it on Makarov we were issued.
# You get the magazine with your left. Then, holding the magazine,
# put your left thumb on the release and press back. The empty
# should pop about two-three millimeters so that your left index
# finger can catch it. Now pull it out (at this moment, you drop
# it in your pocket if you can, otherwise skip this step). Notice
# that you can reload laying on your back since you do not rely
# on gravity. Also, any jam can be "assisted" with the full
# magazine rim. Then, insert the full, and release the hold
# with your right thumb.
Very interesting. I was doing something similar to this; I place the index
finger on the magazine's lip and my thumb on the catch at the same time to
get a bit of leverage. It just seemed to feel more natural to me. Still, I
think I'll always be more comfortable with using my strong hand thumb to
drop the magazine in an American-style arrangement. To each his or her own.
On a somewhat related note, we're going to see a whole new generation of
American military pistoleros doing something similar to this with their
Berettas. Owing to the extremely poor quality of most of the magazines
we've been issued, the things tend to self-destruct in a fairly spectacular
manner when dropped on a hard surface; it seems the base plates are a bit
too brittle and the edges snap off. As seperate base plates don't seem to
exist in the supply system, the resulting magazine is rendered useless and
must be destroyed. Since ordering new magazines is somewhat more difficult
than pulling teeth these days, the law of the land on most ranges seems to
be that magazines are never to be dropped, but caught and placed in the
pocket. My concern is the adage of "Train like you fight, fight like you
train;" I can only wonder how many of these folks will be doing the same
thing if they're ever forced to use their weapon in an actual combat
situation. Kind of like the stories from police ranges of old, where cops
were admonished to carefully remove the empty brass from their revolvers and
pocket it before reloading in order to keep the ranges clean, and the same
police later being found dead after shootouts with empty revolvers and
pockets full of brass. I sincerely hope this policy doesn't get anyone
killed.
Ah, the joys of budget cutting. Trim enough fat and some meat will go with
it.
# I am relatively weak and I had trouble releasing the hold
# and using index finger to pull the empty magazine. Should
# have trained more, I suppose.
I'm graced with large, thick hands and I also have trouble releasing the
hold unless I've got my index finger already positioned on the magazine.
Don't be so hard on yourself. Perhaps we both should train some more.
Gunner Dave
# As the name suggests, the PP is not really for military use... Many
Agreed...PP was just the first name that came to mind and I tossed it out.
I've had the same problem with Makarovs and others. While a Makarov is
debatably not too far from a PP, it was certainly intended for military use.
# european SL pistols do have drop free magazines. Those that do not
# are found quite irritating by our 'murkin friends, who seem to have
# widely adopted a procedure of dropping the mag on the ground during a
# reload. This seems quite practical in the short term, but can have
# long term consequences in field use, like running out magazines (in
# production terms as well as individual user terms), dirt in magazines
# and so on. Historically, military pistol use has been much greater
# in europe than in the America's, with the pistol being the personal
# weapon of many of the crew of crew served weapons. The numbers
# involved, and their usage, are greater, and the production resources
# etc... lesser. That's a good reason for a difference in doctrine.
Agreed. The pistol has never been considered anything other than a sentry's
weapon for low-risk situations, a sidearm, or something to be used indoors
where ricochets are not desirable, in the American military. Still, dropped
magazines (with the exception of our Beretta mags, ironically enough) can be
recovered; I've always thought of pistol mags as somewhat disposable when
outside of a training environment. I can always go looking for the
magazines I dropped after the action's over. As for running out of ammo,
the only times we carry ammo loose are with shotguns; rifle ammo is carried
in magazines, or sometimes clips, and pistol ammo is carried in magazines,
period. If the mags are all gone, so's the ammunition. I COULD go back and
get some more...but I could probably go back and get more mags as well.
# Some of the current production pistols have magazines which will drop
# free only when nearly empty. So any time the mag starts to fall out
# with the release pushed, is a good time to change, and if doesn't fall
# free, you know you have at least 5 rounds left.
While I'm sure this is a good idea with units that have received the proper
training to make use of this feature, this would be a total nightmare for
us. A magazine release that may or may not work, depending on ammunition
left? Just thinking about it gives me the creeps. :^)
# We used to make an AK variant here in Australia, for export to the US.
# This had the hold open features that you desire, as the customer is
# always right.... Unfortunately, the federal government decided that
# it did not like this, and refused the import permits for parts made by
# sub-contractors, and the export permits for the finished product.
Someone's always spoiling the fun. Down with government! Down
with...err...wait a minute. Nevermind.
# They weren't much like the US model....
What kind of differences are we talking about here, besides the bolt hold
open feature?
Aamund Breivik
# # Doctrinal reasons, I would imagine.
#
# Interesting. I can understand the utility of changing out mags with
rounds
# still in them...nothing more embaressing than a *click* when a *BANG* is
# called for. Still, some of the European preferences baffle me --
# non-drop-free magazines and bottom magazine catches on pistols, for
# instance.
As Paul has already pointed out, Europeans generally don't throw away
magazines. Anything you drop on the ground in a firefight is most likely
lost for ever- especially if you're fighting in snow, mud, marshland etc.
And who is going to stand still while changing mags, range style? Unless
your military can afford to hand out pre-loaded magazines all the time,
you're going to need that empty mag if you survive the fight- with US
training, soldiers are apparently only expected to fight a single, short
engagement, after which their weapons are single-shot only.
There is also the issue of magazines falling out of pistols while in the
holster- the US style mag release is all too easily depressed when running
or crawling about in the woods, and combined with a drop-free magazine that
can easily cause fatal embarrassment when you draw the gun. Personally I
prefer the US style release combined with a non-drop-free mag and paying
some attention, but several militaries with combat experience disagree.
--
Aamund Breivik
... ...
Post what ever you want . I for one like to get a little knowledge
about what goes on in other countries.
As far as $50 ak goes I wonder what $50 US is worth in a place like
Yemn.
BTW I always felt that aks' were worth about $50 US right here in the
good old USA. Thats why I don't own one even when they were $350US I
thought they were about $300 too much
Now before anyone flames me, Im not trying to take anything away from
the ak . I just think they are and always were way over priced.
Bill
Paul Saccani
...) wrote:
# Post what ever you want . I for one like to get a little knowledge
#about what goes on in other countries.
Thank you, that is very gentlemanly of you.
# As far as $50 ak goes I wonder what $50 US is worth in a place like
#Yemn.
One of the staples, "aish turkia", which is bread around 12" diameter
and 1" thick, essentially a loaf of bread, costs around 10 cents US, a
3.5 litre (close to a US gallon) bottle of soft drink (eg, Pepsi)
costs around 70 cents US, if that will give you some idea.
Things used to be only slightly more expensive in Saudi, but now that
they have restricted private ownership of firearms, I haven't got a
clue what the street price is, if such things remain available.
There are no restrictions in Yemen at present.
# BTW I always felt that aks' were worth about $50 US right here in the
#good old USA. Thats why I don't own one even when they were $350US I
#thought they were about $300 too much
# Now before anyone flames me, Im not trying to take anything away from
#the ak . I just think they are and always were way over priced.
They are in the US. So too, are M16 rifles sold to non government
customers free to buy them. If memory serves me correctly, the usual
price for bulk purchase through FMS without subsidy, is in the order
of US$150 (it used to be US$120). In quantities of 1,000 or more
through commercial channels, you get stuck with five to eight hundred
dollars apiece! This is for selective fire versions, of course.
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Saccani
<ris...@charter.net> wrote:
## Some of the current production pistols have magazines which will drop
## free only when nearly empty. So any time the mag starts to fall out
## with the release pushed, is a good time to change, and if doesn't fall
## free, you know you have at least 5 rounds left.
#
#While I'm sure this is a good idea with units that have received the proper
#training to make use of this feature, this would be a total nightmare for
#us. A magazine release that may or may not work, depending on ammunition
#left? Just thinking about it gives me the creeps. :^)
Oh, it always works... remember, you are going to be pulling the
magazine out if you really want to change it. It is not a big deal,
except that the US methods are not really suitable for it.
## They weren't much like the US model....
#
#What kind of differences are we talking about here, besides the bolt hold
#open feature?
Sorry, a misunderstanding. I mean the US model for defence
procurement. The whole establishment in the USSR was very much a top
down way of doing things. They were lucky to have such talented
engineers to make it work anyway...
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunner Dave
# magazines. Anything you drop on the ground in a firefight is most likely
# lost for ever- especially if you're fighting in snow, mud, marshland etc.
# And who is going to stand still while changing mags, range style? Unless
# your military can afford to hand out pre-loaded magazines all the time,
# you're going to need that empty mag if you survive the fight- with US
# training, soldiers are apparently only expected to fight a single, short
# engagement, after which their weapons are single-shot only.
And (not for the first time), I agreed with Paul. European and American
doctrines, while similar on the surface, have a number of very significant
differences that aren't likely to be resolved any time in the forseeable
future. The European method obviously works for the Europeans; otherwise,
they would've changed it decades ago. Same deal with us yanks. The
problems arise when an American (me) attempts to use a weapon designed with
something else in mind; while I'm going out on a limb here, I'd assume that
it's the same situation with a role reversal.
# There is also the issue of magazines falling out of pistols while in the
# holster- the US style mag release is all too easily depressed when running
# or crawling about in the woods, and combined with a drop-free magazine
that
# can easily cause fatal embarrassment when you draw the gun. Personally I
# prefer the US style release combined with a non-drop-free mag and paying
# some attention, but several militaries with combat experience disagree.
I think that may be a stretch there, Aamund. I've NEVER experienced this,
or even heard of this, happening. I've seen safeties disengaged and
(rarely) slides racked -- probably not situations that are uniquely
American in nature -- but never a magazine catch hit. I suppose it's
theoretically possible, but I really don't see this as an issue. Even if it
were to happen, the grip angle prevents a loose magazine from dropping out
of the weapon unless VIGOROUS activity is implied, assuming the holster used
is the standard US military model and the pistol is a M9 Beretta. Assuming
this were to occur, I'd think that a falling magazine would be detected by
the operator; I could be wrong here, but the position of the pistol as it
rides in the holster, combined with the weight of the magazine, leads me to
suspect that it would bounce off the leg on its way down unless the operator
were on his or her back...not the best place to be when engaging in combat
by my reckoning. Regardless, the change of mass would most likely be
perceptible, as the Beretta is not all that heavy of a pistol. I hardly
think this is an "issue," as you termed it.
Be that as it may, my experience and training allow me to make faster and
more comfortable magazine changes with an American-style drop-free magazine.
YMMV, and if you hail from somewhere outside the US, it probably will.
What's important is finding the system you're comfortable with, whatever it
may be, and maintaining proficiency with it. I'd think that the specifics
would be largely irrelevant when the lead starts flying.
jas...@mindspring.com
#
# In case of AK, it would be a feature without any practical use!
I guess I'll have to disagree with you. I assume you've spent some time
firing both the AR and the AK? The AR's bolt hold provides the rifleman
with a very distinct feeling when it locks open, as opposed to the normal
recoil cycle. There's no such feedback from the AK.
With the AR, it's: *BANG* "ok, I'm empty."
With the AK, it's: *BANG* *click* "ok, I'm empty."
Now, perhaps you can keep track of how many rounds you've cranked off in any
given magazine. In slow fire drills, I might be able to too. But when I'm
practicing failure drills or hammers, I can't keep track.
jas
--
Jason Van Patten
Aamund Breivik
#
# # There is also the issue of magazines falling out of pistols while in the
# # holster- the US style mag release is all too easily depressed when
running
# # or crawling about in the woods,
# I think that may be a stretch there, Aamund. I've NEVER experienced this,
# or even heard of this, happening.
I've seen it fairly often, with the Glock 17 in the standard-issue Glock
hard plastic holster as used by the Norwegian Army.
# Even if it
# were to happen, the grip angle prevents a loose magazine from dropping out
# of the weapon unless VIGOROUS activity is implied,
Vigorous activity is implied, we're talking about combat or training for
same. Since when do infantry soldiers not engage in vigourous activity?
Note that most of our pistol users either have a large primary weapon (like
an 84mm recoilless) or are medics who are busy carrying stretchers; they
tend to be busy with other things than checking their pistols. Particularily
antitank gunners and other frontline pistol users tend to do a lot of
crawling and "obstacle course" type movement, which makes them loose their
magazines with alarming frequency.
Nowadays the load carrying vests have an integral soft holster on the chest,
I don't know if people still loose mags from these.
# YMMV, and if you hail from somewhere outside the US, it probably will.
# What's important is finding the system you're comfortable with, whatever
it
# may be, and maintaining proficiency with it. I'd think that the specifics
# would be largely irrelevant when the lead starts flying.
Agreeed. My beef with Americans dropping mags is mainly that they're
supposed to help defend my country if TSHTF, and I know they're going to
loose 80% of those mags in the snow. One does not simply go back and
retrieve magazines from snow; especially when a company or so has ran over
the area and kicked white stuff over them. I should know- I've spent hours
with a mine-detector trying to recover lost magazines after an exersice.
So unless the US military is prepared to resupply their troops with a
shitload of magazines, I believe they will run into trouble if fighting a
prolonged war in the arctic.
Let's hope that never happens, eh?
--
Aamund Breivik
Gunner Dave
# hard plastic holster as used by the Norwegian Army.
Not owning a G17 myself, I'll have to take your word on this, but I stand by
my assertion that this isn't a problem with the Berettas.
# Vigorous activity is implied, we're talking about combat or training for
# same. Since when do infantry soldiers not engage in vigourous activity?
By VIGOROUS, I meant something along the lines of being shaken mightily by
my feet while someone lays into me with a baseball bat. I've banged my
holster on bulkheads, mashed it against walls, rolled over on it, gone down
ladderwells a bit too quickly with it (read: I slipped), and I've never had
the magazine release itself. I HAVE seen the baseplate broken off a
magazine (along with the lanyard ring on the frame) while the pistol was
holstered due to collision, but I suspect this particular problem is
somewhat unique to the current breed of low-quality magazines we're being
issued, and this was a very unusual case to begin with. (Indeed, the fact
that the lanyard ring snapped off as well should tell you just how violent
the impact was. I was honestly surprised that the pistol's frame hadn't
been tweaked.)
# Note that most of our pistol users either have a large primary weapon
(like
# an 84mm recoilless) or are medics who are busy carrying stretchers; they
# tend to be busy with other things than checking their pistols.
Particularily
# antitank gunners and other frontline pistol users tend to do a lot of
# crawling and "obstacle course" type movement, which makes them loose their
# magazines with alarming frequency.
Now that I've done a quick comparison in mag releases (G21, PT-92 -- not the
exact weapons in question but close enough, and the only similar weapons in
my collection), I can see the problem here: if the mag release on the G17 is
anything like that of the G21, it sticks out quite far, probably to make it
easier to release it. The Taurus (and Beretta) feature one that's nearly
flush with the frame, in a somewhat indented area, possibly to avoid just
this kind of thing happening. I think the inadvertant magazine release
problem is an issue with the G17, not pistols in general.
Note that I'm NOT knocking Glocks here; I prefer the Glock configuration, I
prefer the Glock magazines, I much prefer cleaning and servicing Glocks, and
I've never bumped a Glock's safety off while it was holstered -- for
somewhat obvious reasons. This can and does happen in the Berettas,
something that frightens me to no end when the bubbas on watch are in
condition one.
# Nowadays the load carrying vests have an integral soft holster on the
chest,
# I don't know if people still loose mags from these.
Can't comment on this either.
# Agreeed. My beef with Americans dropping mags is mainly that they're
# supposed to help defend my country if TSHTF, and I know they're going to
# loose 80% of those mags in the snow. One does not simply go back and
# retrieve magazines from snow; especially when a company or so has ran over
# the area and kicked white stuff over them. I should know- I've spent hours
# with a mine-detector trying to recover lost magazines after an exersice.
# So unless the US military is prepared to resupply their troops with a
# shitload of magazines, I believe they will run into trouble if fighting a
# prolonged war in the arctic.
I think they're considered expendable for the most part during wartime --
Beretta mags have never been expensive (I think they're the only high-caps
available in the US right now for less than $20, new in wrapper), and
judging by the quality of the ones going into circulation, the government's
probably getting a better deal than I am.
# Let's hope that never happens, eh?
Not my cup of tea -- if roughing it was enjoyable to me, I would've joined
the Army. I'll stick with my steam heating and hot showers on cold weather
deployments, thank you very much. :^)