Sheesh - what a bunch of Germanophiles ;-)

[Code13]

The quip still remains true though

[Cannon-fodder]

I think that a couple of points may have been missed in the AK variant vs. M4A2.

First of all, Abbot, could the fact that you and your buddies, as well as other soldiers evidently, didn't pick up AKs be because resupply wouldn't have the right ammo to hand etc.? I can imagine it would be quite annoying for the quartermasters if they kept having to stock both 5.45mm and 5.56mm.

Also, when we're talking about the Yugoslav Zastava M-variants are chambered for different ammo and have some notable differences to the AK. So, while the Zastava M70B1 chambers 7.62x39mm Soviet M1943 ammo, the later M80 chambers NATO standard 5.56mmx45mm M193/NATO. However, it is the earlier M70B1 that is the standard rifle in Serbian army as far as I know. In fact, I think they stand up to each other rather well - better accuracy and stopping power in the M70B1, but losing out in rate of fire and weight by a smaller amount.

It would be interesting to know which models Glider and the other guys who have fired these prefer, since it would give us some idea of whether the original AK design is the most important factor, or whether Yugoslav modifications actually improved the rifle.

When comparing the AK to the M4A2, isn't it a bit of a mistake, since (as somone said earlier) the AK-47 was designed as a LMG full automatic weapon capable of semi-automatic fire, while the M4 was designed with semi-automatic fir in mind and full auto as a later consideration (and taken out in the A2).

Finally, I wonder if a lot of the guys who swapped the M4A2 for the AK were after that full auto - it's quitea comfort to some people to know they've got a lot of volume of fire at close range, and certainly not everyone gets used to/likes 3 round bursts.

Just my two cents, anyway...

[Glider]

Originally posted by Cannon-fodder:

It would be interesting to know which models Glider and the other guys who have fired these prefer, since it would give us some idea of whether the original AK design is the most important factor, or whether Yugoslav modifications actually improved the rifle...

I used 7.62mm models, the M80 was not widely available. In fact I don't think I ever saw one during my service. Also I searched the net a bit and it seems that rifle enthusiast like the Zastava model because the manufacture quality is better, the clip (or some important part it is attached to) is made of about 50% thicker metal sheets making it far more resistant (but also heavier) and, finally, it appears that the rifle is rather more accurate than other mass-produced 7.62mm models due to the fact that its barrel was not chromed.

As far as the difference between various AK models is concerned, I can only repeat that veteran special forces appeared to prefer the heaviest type, the M72 LMG model (bipod, longer&thicker barrel, more accurate, can fire loner bursts), to the M70, let alone the M80.

[Dennis Grant]

Regarding the Ak/M16 debate:

I carried an FN-C1 (FN-FAL) for a little while, then the original C7 (M16), then the version with the optical sight, plus the C9 SAW (Minimi) both with iron sights and with the optical. I've also fired an AK-47 ( a captured Gulf War weapon) on the range.

The FN was heavy and long, with a good bayonet. Of all the weapons to have in hand when out of ammo, this was the one to have. As a rifle, it was very accurate out to stupidly long ranges, and I never saw one jam. It was also really easy to clean.

But you couldn't carry much ammo for the weight, it kicked like a mule, and those of us with the wrong cheekbone structure would get cut by the flip-up rear peepsight right above the eye socket every time it fired. Accordingly, the first 5 rounds were aimed, the next 5 were pointed, and the following ten were "just stop beating me up!"

Also, being as long as it was, it was a constant danger to everybody around you. Slung on your back so you could carry stuff, it would get caught in branches, vehicle hatches/doors, and (usually) other soldiers. I lost count of how many times my steel pot saved me from getting speared by the muzzle of somebody else's FN.

It was nice as a drill stick; looked good on the parade square and the long length made it easy to do drill with it. That was really its only redeeming feature.

When we got issued the C7, we had a hard time taking it seriously - it was light, short, had no kick at all, you could carry a ton of ammo for it... but it was hard to take that little bitty bullet seriously, and we'd all heard the stories about how easily it jammed.

Well, the first time on the range fixed that. Firstly, everybody (with the iron sights) dropped an easy 2" off their groupings at 400m compared to the FN. Not beating beat up by the weapon meant that it *stayed* accurate too. And we did some... experiments... and discovered that the little bitty bullet hit a lot harder than expected.

As for jamming... nope, never really an issue - with a couple of exceptions. Firstly, the weapon likes oil - if you try and run it completely dry, it'll get cranky - but it'll come right back if you squirt some oil into it. Secondly, we had "disposible" plastic mags that were never used as disposible. After contined use, the feed lips would break off and it'd multiple-feed on you all the time. When the plastic mags were taken out of the system and replaced with metal mags, the jams went away.

When the optical sight came out, all of a sudden everybody was a marksman. Hand a clerk a propery-sighted C7, and he'd shoot the centre out of the target at 200. Plus now every rifleman could see better out to a distance, making target differentiation easier - and the rifle is accurate enough to match the definition on the scope. It's an awesome package, and I'm stupified that the Yanks still use iron sights.

But my all-time favourite is the C9 Minimi with the optical sight. Most of the accuracy of the C7 with the ability to put down and sustain (thanks to the 200 round belt) large volumes of fire. Yeehah! A little heavier than the C7, but not bad in the bulkiness department - certainly not as bad as the FN - and easily slung for carrying.

I adopted the C9 as my personal weapon, I loved it so much. Besides, it cut down on the bitching during rifle PT when everybody else was carring C7/C8, and the troop leader was humping a C9. It also made me identifiable to the kids - I was the officer with the C9

The AK-47 I fired felt like a cheap piece of **** in my hands - it wasn't so much a rifle, as a collection of rifle parts in loose formation. But that impression went away when I fired it. It kicked pretty hard (brought back FN memories, although it didn't cut my eye socket like the FN did at least) but it was reasonably accurate at 400m - not the scalpel than the C7 was, but more than enough to get the job done.

Firing full auto was a little bit like wrestling an alligator in extended bursts, but if you kept burst discipline it was controllable. Not as nice as a C7, but not as evil as the C2 (the full-auto FN) had been either.

Given the choice, I'd take the C7 with the optical in a heartbeat. It just a nicer, easier to live with weapon, and the optical sight plus the accuracy is a real advantage in situations where you have the sightlines to make use of the longer range. But I don't consider having an AK-47 a handicap by any means. At 200m or less, both weapons are pretty much even footing, and the only real advantage to the C7 is the lighter weight of the ammo.

So to summerize, I disagree that the M16 family is a fragile, tempermental, "firing range" weapon because that doesn't match my experience. But I also disagree that the AK-47 is either vastly superior or vasly inferior. I think it is slightly inferior, but not enough to where the inferiorities would tip the battle against a unit so armed.

DG

[von Churov]

Originally posted by Glider:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by von Churov:

...

I was a signal troop. (398. Regiment of Serbia & Montenegro Army)...

I think we served in the same regiment, damn I am not certain about the number any more, the 398 was the signal regiment of the General Staff, was it not?

As far as your experience is concerned it is fairly consistent with what I saw. Our rifles were exposed to war-time conditions, mud, rain etc and it never occurred to us that they might jam. They never did.

</font>

[von Churov]

Originally posted by Cannon-fodder:

I think that a couple of points may have been missed in the AK variant vs. M4A2.

Also, when we're talking about the Yugoslav Zastava M-variants are chambered for different ammo and have some notable differences to the AK. So, while the Zastava M70B1 chambers 7.62x39mm Soviet M1943 ammo, the later M80 chambers NATO standard 5.56mmx45mm M193/NATO. However, it is the earlier M70B1 that is the standard rifle in Serbian army as far as I know. In fact, I think they stand up to each other rather well - better accuracy and stopping power in the M70B1, but losing out in rate of fire and weight by a smaller amount.

It would be interesting to know which models Glider and the other guys who have fired these prefer, since it would give us some idea of whether the original AK design is the most important factor, or whether Yugoslav modifications actually improved the rifle.

Finally, I wonder if a lot of the guys who swapped the M4A2 for the AK were after that full auto - it's quitea comfort to some people to know they've got a lot of volume of fire at close range, and certainly not everyone gets used to/likes 3 round bursts.

Just my two cents, anyway...

Here's a note from "other guys".

The "new" M80 is just being introduced in the army...as S&M (this stands for Serbia and Montenegro, and not for Symphony and Metallica) army is approaching NATO.

But it's a long process to replace nearly 2 million of M70's diferrent variations vhich were produced.

So, so far only the elite units are recieving new equipment...Signalers were definitly the last one to recieve it (except maybe the cooks and artilerymen).

Speaking of M70 versions, it's not only M70b1 which was official rifle in S&M army, but there were several versions for different troops. a, b, ab1, a1, b1, a2, b2, and eventually ab2 the one that I used. They all differ in stock variations (a's are those with folding stock) and gas chamber (b are those with modified gas chamber and rifle grenade sight in the top of it) and 1 and 2 stands for something that I don't remember anymore.

Anyway ab2 is the latest version of M70 with all improvements and folding stock.

And it's a good piece of steel.

We were told that it was really better quality than original AK47...but I though that it could be propaganda (I believe China sais the same about their version of AK 47 which seems to be piece of junk compared to others).

But I see now that it might have been the truth...(Only truth that I was told in the Army).

My former superiors had an experience with M80, and they say that it's a "good weapon" but for us "lausy piece of ****" , even old M70 is too good.

They say that 80 is accurate but it feels like a toy compared to 70 due to lack of recoil. It's still reliable and "just a bit more accurate".

I will investigate some more...I know some people.

[Cannon-fodder]

Great, I look forward to hearing your findings...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Dennis Grant:

Regarding the Ak/M16 debate:

(much good stuff snipped)

The AK-47 I fired felt like a cheap piece of **** in my hands - it wasn't so much a rifle, as a collection of rifle parts in loose formation. But that impression went away when I fired it. It kicked pretty hard (brought back FN memories, although it didn't cut my eye socket like the FN did at least) but it was reasonably accurate at 400m - not the scalpel than the C7 was, but more than enough to get the job done.

...

So to summerize, I disagree that the M16 family is a fragile, tempermental, "firing range" weapon because that doesn't match my experience. But I also disagree that the AK-47 is either vastly superior or vasly inferior. I think it is slightly inferior, but not enough to where the inferiorities would tip the battle against a unit so armed.

DG

I'm manning the regimental weapons display this year at the Calgary Stampede; most of the veteran Canadian troops serving at the stand (I am not one of them; 18 years in but no operational experience) pretty much scoff at the AK 47. Some loved the old FN (I couldn't hit a thing with it but shoot well with the C7, at least on the Level II shoot).

Still, the AK has a "mystique" - many people each day come up and ask if we have "AK 47s" on display. Perhaps it is just name recognition - they ask if Carl G is really an "RPG" - probably the same way your average civvie will consider every tank from WW II a "Sherman" regardless of what it looks like.

One of our Warrant Officers suggested that one or two FNs should have been retained per section (the platoon already uses .308 Winchester in the C6, so ammo would not be a problem). Aren't the Americans using M14s in limited numbers in Iraq? The ability for sharpshooters other than snipers to reach out and touch someone has appeal in some circles - not sure if there are official "lessons learned" regarding this or not.

[ July 11, 2005, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[zmoney]

Really interesting conversation. Now for my two cents, I just got out of the US army a little over a month ago and to be honest I carried a machine gun most the time instead of a riffle. But I have shot an Ak and M4 a lot. I think semi auto is the best for a rifle in any situation. I carried the fully auto version of the M4 when I first got in and only fired it on fully auto when we were trying to use up all our ammo at the range so we could go home quicker.

Think about it. You can pull the trigger pretty fast say for example 400rds per minute compared to 600rds per minute on fully auto. And all 400rds are going to go where you aim them and you don’t have to fight the gun much. Where as the 600rds, the first one or two are going to go where you want then the gun especially the AK is going to fly all over the place. The Ak47 isn’t that accurate to begin with, and then if switched to fully auto forget about it.

I think the Ak is so popular because its so easy to get. They’re everywhere. Plus they’re easy to maintain. They are also very rugged. That’s why they are so popular with groups that don’t really have a lot of money to spend on weapons. They’re cheap, rugged, easy to maintain and easy to use. Plus a lot of people like the fact that the AK47 is 7.62. I personally like the 7.62 and wish the US would switch back to a bigger caliber. But the 5.56 is a lot lighter and you can carry more rounds so it’s a trade off.

Now in my experience the people who I fought only sprayed and prayed on fully auto. They didn’t hit anyone just rattled people. They on the other hand were receiving accurate fire from better aimed shoots. Look at the stat’s. We hardly lost anyone in the ground fight even in Falujah where it was mono e mono.

So in conclusion they are both good guns for deferent reasons. But both are better used on semi auto.

[zmoney]

To Eifran, we are losing in Iraq for the same reason you in Isreal are loseing your country to the Palistineans. Its because our politicians are spin less and not cause the Arabs like to use the AK.

[flamingknives]

Oi! No politics!

[Dandelion]

Sooner or later you'll win, Flames. Keep at it.

Cheers

Dandelion

[Cannon-fodder]

Michael Dorosh - The M14 is very popular anyway, because of the higher calibre (7.62mm as opposed to current NATO standard of 5.56), leading to higher stopping power. A mate of mine said that this first started happening in Vietnam, because some of the guys they were facing wouldn't drop after 2-3 hits, probably due to amphetemins etc.

zmoney - Looks like your wish for a higher calibre rifle will be granted, the US Army is going to be releasing into service the new XM8, which runs on 6.2mm, much like the old Browning round. Supposed to pack a mean punch, that bullet.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Abbott,

In my opinion, you "grow weary" because there are people on this forum that just don't buy your line. You are upset because some of us do not accept your statements as gospel, just because you made them.

BigDuke, I got weary of reading all of your puffy-headed tangents, and I wasnt even in a conversation with you. I'm surprised Abbott lasted as long as he did. Your posts have about the same variance as an Iraqi terrorist firing blindly with an AK on full-auto.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Sooner or later you'll win, Flames. Keep at it.

Cheers

Dandelion

Either that or I shall go and set their house on fire, whilst simultaneously slicing it into bits.

Cannon-Fodder: Everything I've read on the XM8, including the US Govt. invitation to tender, says that future US small arms will be chambered for 5.56mm NATO. 5.56mm requiring multiple shots to down an enemy may be due to a variety of reporting errors rather than a flaw with the round itself. Apart from anything else, it's difficult to know wether or not you hit them at firefight ranges and situation.

Hell, it's difficult to tell if you've hit someone in a paintball game and those ranges are much shorter and hits pretty obvious.

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

QUOTE]BigDuke, I got weary of reading all of your puffy-headed tangents, and I wasnt even in a conversation with you. I'm surprised Abbott lasted as long as he did. Your posts have about the same variance as an Iraqi terrorist firing blindly with an AK on full-auto. [/QB]

David C.,

If you don't like what I write, don't read it. Nobody aimed an automatic rifle at your skull, to make you open up this forum thread.

If you think something I say is unreasonable, challenge it with a reasoned arguement. Calling people names isn't going to advance the discussion.

[Cannon-fodder]

Ah, FlamingKnives, you may be right there... can't remember where I heard that they were changing calibre. I'll just check it up...

[Cannon-fodder]

Ah yes, you're right, googled it and this is what I got:

Caliber: 5.56x45 mm NATO

Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt

Overall length: 838 mm in basic configuration, butt extended

Barrel length: 318 mm in basic configuration; also 229 mm in Compact and 508 mm in Sharpshooter and SAW versions

Weight: 2.659 kg empty in basic configuration

Rate of fire: ~ 750 rounds per minute

Magazine capacity: 30 rounds (STANAG) or 100-rounds double drum in Automatic Rifle/SAW role

[zmoney]

Cannon my understanding is they scraped the xm series cause it proved to be junk. My unit already received a deferent machine gun to replace the 240 bravo and a deferent automatic rifle to replace the Saw. Both of the newer models are really light and easy to carry. They are designed to make CQB (close quarters battle) easier with those types of weapons. You can now actually shot our 7.62 machine gun from the shoulder while standing up. Of course I was in an all male unit so I don’t think the chickies in the big Army would be able to.

On the same note the new guns aren’t as accurate at distances as the older heaver models so typically we would carry at least one of the 240s in the platoon for greater suppression range.

Since everyone seems to be focusing on creating better CQB weapons I wish they would make a bigger bullet. Like 6.5mm for instance. I think that is what NATO should change to. I’ve heard stories from people about the 5.56 just going strait through folks without stopping them on the first couple of rounds. You typically have to get 2-5rds in someone body (unless it’s a head shot) to make them go down.

[flamingknives]

To the best of my knowledge the XM8 based small arms have not been scrapped and are still in development. US special forces have recently got the FN SCAR - a rifle that can be modified for 5.56 or 7.62 calibres.

The competition for the XM8 was reopened as the scope of the procurement had expanded to include a full family of small arms rather than the OICW that Heckler and Koch was contracted to supply.

What are these new weapons? I presume that they have names.

[zmoney]

Sorry I was haveing a brain blank. I should have said it was the SCAR. I was in the 2/75 Ranger Reg. here in Ft Lewis. I currently work for them as a civilian. We were supposed to get the xm series last fall but it fell through. On test that our sister battalion conducted on the 5.56 xm showed the gun just wasn't rugged enough and demanded to much time in the upkeep department. The thing that is good about the xm series is its weight. Which anyone who has ever been in the infantry feild in any country can truely appreciate their rifle being light.

Also in the xm series they have planned a .50cal model and a MK19 model which is the gerande laucher machine gun. I'm sure they also have a few more on the board. I read an article last year about all the deferent xm models they were planning. It was in one of our army magazines. Then I didn't hear anything more about them. So I asked our batt. armourer and he told me the test showed they were junk. So thats why we didn't get them last fall.

I think the M4 is ok. The only reason to change weapons in my opinion is to get a bigger caliber. I don't think we need some fancy, expensive, space looking gun just to do it. After being in the Army I can suggest thousands of ways to save tax dollars and this is a big one.

[flamingknives]

Being as the XM8 group is based on the H&K G36 action I find it unlikely that the mechanism is a problem. Perhaps the plastic bits are too fragile, but there's no reason for that to be the case.

As for cleaning, it can't be much worse than an M16 type, as it doesn't deposit propellant gasses into the breech. Indeed there are many articles about the ease of maintenance of the G36.

I understand that it's not what US Specfor wanted though.

The support stuff would be the XM307 and 312, IIRC - a .50 cal lightweight HMG and a 25mm airbursting grenade launcher.

[zmoney]

How do you know so much about those weapons? I mean your right about what you say but I'm just wondering if you are in the US army.

Yes H+K make excellent weapons. Look how much they improved the bull pup. And yes the problem consisted of the weapon had a tendancey of some parts breaking because it is a fragile weapon. I personally have never so much as held one so I can not say much other than what I have heard second hand. But I am guessing what they meant by maintance being a problem, is that it collected a lot of sand and dirt in hard to clean places. I can say though that the M4 is a rugged weapon. Far superior to the old M16. The M4 would shoot even if it hadn't been properly cleaned for a good while. I'm not saying that it is as rugged as the AK but its rugged for a modern US military weapon.

On the same note I read somewhere the Military is going back to the .45 as the promient side arm. I think that is a great idea for the male portion of the Army, but for the gals I think they should stick with something smaller. Because if you cant hit what you aim at the bang isn't going to help you.

[flamingknives]

My Google-fu is strong and I work in a related industry.

H&K has also done a re-work on the M16 series - the 416

http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/hk416.html

[roqf77]

Yes H+K make excellent weapons. Look how much they improved the bull pup. And yes the problem consisted of the weapon had a tendancey of some parts breaking because it is a fragile weapon

Well kinda off topic but h&k reworked the british army's sa-80 to the a-2 model. and as im told unlike the previous 2 works very well. so yes they do! if they got the sa-80 to work well im sure they can do alot! and just for a general point of info the british police who purchased g36 had a prefernce purely on the point of performence of the sa-80-a2 over the g36 but the current stocks are being reserved for the army and so a new rifle was needed.

i apologise for the unessary statement but h&k are a fine weapons maker.