Legacy of the AK47

I think the M16A2 has much improved over it's A1 predecessor more likely to have been used in Vietnam.

 

Actualy,only true test M-16 had in Vietnam,and it failed greatly.It was alot of fun to see pissed off JI in Nam,trying to make their weapon work :lol: I know that i can shoot from AK till barel melt down,and why US use M-16-coz they dont hawe betther.They will newer admit that they failed to make good piece of weapon.

 

I agree with you, the M-16 has been greatly improved since it's introduction and now now does indeed deserve it's reputation as the premier assault rifle in the world, for those that can afford the very best.

See, even we can agree.

 

Grieg:
You're killing me brutha!


Tim

 

And every other war the USA has been involved in during the 30/40 years since Vietnam has been what? Inconclusive?

Again, the point made so often is that when the M16 was first introduced there were problems (for a variety of reasons) that are now solved. Why else would they still be using the thing after such a long period of time? It is not like America lacks the money to design a new gun...

 

Actualy,US did not had anything like Nam (jungle,mudd,water,hard condition for ur weapon,heawy and long infantry fights),so rifle and it improowments did not testet in hardest situation.It is world wide know how much problems JI had with M-16 in Nam,some of them probably fixed,but i doubt all.

Do the simple test.
1.Trow AK-37 in mud,and left it there 1 day.
2.Do same with M-16 and left it 6h.

3.Just wash it a bit with water.
4. try to shoot.

 

Yet the SAS use the M16 in live fire in jungles, the US use the M16 in the harsh environment of the desert, just off the top of my head these are two examples of the M16 being used operationally in tough environments.

You doubt all the problems have been solved, despite by your own admission having never used an M-16 you are willing to make this judgement.

I really don't understand what your test proves. It is well known that under adverse conditions the AK is probably the most reliable weapon, however this does come at a price. The price is accuracy which whilst perfectly good for Soviet and ex-Eastern bloc tactics is not what the NATO nations train for.

 

Have you performed that test?

 

Again sinissa... it comes down to different doctrines in establishing requirements for an infantrymans' standard weapon.
IF the M-16 concept had been fatally flawed, it would have been replaced long before now. I would not also be adopted by other nations' troops elite forces and police agencies.
Funny thing. They had their choice of most any weapons with which to equip ther troops. They chose the M-16A4, M4 or whatever variant desired... and seem quite happy to-date.
US forces are taught to keep their weapons clean, and all Marines are trained as riflemen. These boys and girls can shoot now. A highly accurate weapon--at range--fits right into US military doctrine.
It's simply not a case of... we can get Ak-47s much cheaper and store them in sewage tanks until needed by troops who couldn't take one apart in the first-place.
Your volley.

Tim

 

OK,take vietnam for exsample.Jungle.How far u can see enemy?Accuracu on 500? It is pure for statistics,not for real combat situation. What heapen when monsun rains start? Face it,ewery war after Vietnam,US had good backup support,without any heawy fight ang long engagment.Modern doctrine is to use Air strikes as much u can,and minimise ground forces resistance,and that work just fine.Just,M-16 was not pushed to limit to se when it breake.It was in Vietnam,and not after that.

About AK-47.I used AK,but it was not my main weapon,i used PKT.Used AK only in patrolls etc.5y of war in ex YU pushed AK to limit.Once in a week,u take oil,and put it in barel,spin AK few time and rifle is ready for anotther combat.

 

Like many people you are not well informed about Vietnam. Most of Vietnam isn't jungle. The terrain varies considerably. There is some jungle, there are also plains where one can see for kilometers, there are hills and mountains where firefights occurred between peaks and ridgelines with sometimes great distances involved. The Marine sniper Gunnery Sgt. Hathcock had the longest recorded sniper kill (until recently in Afghanistan) at over a mile in Vietnam.

As to the rest of your opinion..well, we have been over all this ground before. The men using the M-16 are fine with it. You don't like it, that's okay besides it's unlikely that Serbia would ever shell out 1000 dollars plus for M-16 rifles even if they did like them.

 

Vietnam vas guerilla war,one of basic guerilla war things was that u use small forces to ambush enemy forces,make much kills as u can,and withdrawn,usualy in safe and covered route (minefields,booby traps,to inflict more dmg,and slow donw possible pursuit)

If im guerilla figther,i will not attack enemy on plains,i will wait on much betther location for ambush.U had no really army on army frontal attack in Vietnam,they was smarther then that.

But lets go back on topic.US GI loved to fight with AK in vietnam,why is that?

 

They didn't.
Since about 3 million American men can claim to be Vietnam veterans (though most were rear area troops) you can find an opinion to suit every hypothesis you would care to make however there was no evidence that US infantrymen "loved to fight with AK" as you put it.
It's just one of those myths about Vietnam( of which there are many).
This one was probably started by rear area support troops who had never even held an AK but thought it made a good war story.

 

No,actualy i read some nice war storyes.Like,when rifle JAM,they trow M-16 and pick-up AK.Had more ammo,and had harder and stronger sound on shoot,and others things i mention earlyer.It is not urban legent,it is fact :bang:

 

Here some more sites about that.
http://dwb.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/978295p-6862352c.html
this is funny,it is from Iraq

 

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you were there and was speaking from experience.

I'm bored with this issue ..no real debate just one ill-founded opinion after another.

 

I beg to differ Grieg. Those Vietnam vets I hunted with for years all discarded their M16's in favor of captured AK47's. This is no myth; it is reality.

My personal opinion is that the 5.56 caliber sucks, and I will take the 7.62 X 39 any day over it, even though the weapon is not as accurate as late model M16's. While I do not own an AK 47, I do own a SKS, and find it preferable to the 5.56 caliber.

Again, my personal opinion, and my personal preferance.

- Greg

:smok:

 

I think we have already covered this ground pretty thoroughly. You can differ if you like buy you have anecdotes not facts.
You are relating personal anecdotes and claiming they are facts. That is something you don't have firsthand knowledge of since you weren't there to observe it.
We all have a right to our opinions but we don't have a right to our own facts.
Is there some reason why you feel compelled to cover this ground again? If there is some new evidence to consider I will be glad to do so.

 

And Grieg, neither were you. You differ with my opinion but offer only your own to counter it. You are beginning to impress me as the son of the person you claim to be and not the 1970's military veteran you claim to be.

A veteran of that age would know what I say to be correct, and at the very least admit the possibility, but for some reason, you differ.

If you honestly feel the way your posts sem to indicate, I feel sorry for you as you are quite mislead. You obviously have no first hand knowledge of reloading or ballistics and your comments continually refer to text book statistics which can be found in many places, rather than with first hand knowledge of firearms and their capabilities.

Your lack of knowledge on weapons capability is really beginning to bore me.

- Greg

:smok:

 

Lol..when your argument is weak never forget you can resort to personal attacks.
The facts remain. You weren't there. You didn't observe it. you are repeating stories you were told by your hunting buddies and trying to claim that you know them to be facts. How could you know they are facts and not embellished war stories?

When I point out the obvious; that you are repeating second hand stories only and claiming them as facts that isn't a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. You have not denied the truth of what I'm saying.

I don't make claims about war stories or anything else that I can't support which is why I'm not claiming first hand knowledge of this particular claim. Nobody could prove it has never happened unless they were present in every firefight. The idea of being able to disprove that claim is silly.

The rest of your post is contemptible and I won't come down to your level of childish almost name calling (except you didn't have the nerve to use the word liar). It's not a big concern of mine what you believe or don't believe.