AK47 vs M16 (again...)

hmmm...i think ill have to side with gregg on this one...

 

Grieg,i will wrote again,i was in combat,and military training with AK-47 (M-70AB2-Yugoslavian version),and again,i ppl clain that AK is higly inaccurate.I can hit 30x30 cm target (chest target) from 250m and any decent shooter can,not only me,im not wonderman.Do u know how much is 250m? I berely sow the target,it is 2.5 football fields,it is unrealistic range for combat,coz nobody will stand and leth u to shoot him.Ewery combat i sow was in 100-200m ranges,somethime only 30-50m range but again it was hard to see enemy (naturaly) so ur point,500 yards shooting is for what? Take for exsample latest US fights in Iraq.Urban areas,combat range is not more then 100m probably.We got weapons for extended range,any squad had 1,it is dragunov sniper,what is not real sniper,it is more mid range semi-auto rifle (500-800m best results),and equiped with mechanical sights allso,for close range.Dont mix it with real sniper rifles,we got that too.

 

I've trained with the SA80 (iron sights) and targets under realistic situations are available at 4-500 metres (Up to 550 yards), and achievable with that rifle. The targets you saw reflect your experiences in combat, which is something I credit highly, however in other areas, more open areas (Such as Hertfordshire where I trained) longer ranges are achievable and realistic.

 

Hmmm..since I stated (I think I did, maybe not) that i qualified high Expert on the USMC ranges at 200, 300 and 500 yards why would you ask me if I knew what 250 meters is? If you can barely see a man size target at 250 meters then maybe you need some glasses?
The fact is sinnissa, the USMC has been doing this (fighting) a bit longer than you so I don't think they are going to change their training methods on your word alone that it is unnecessary
Look at it this way. As i stated, the training is snap shooting (for very close range) 200 yards (for close range) 300 yards (for medium range) and 500 yards (for longer range). Now if your troops become proficient at all those ranges and they have a weapon that is effective at those ranges and they encounter a situation where they need that training then they are good to go. They can fight close range, medium range or long range.
Now imagine that it was determined that they don't need a weapon that is effective at that range and they have never trained at that range and then there is a need for fighting at longer ranges, such as on the desert or the steppe or the plains or in the mountains then you have troops that are ineffective. Your troops can fight at close range and medium range only so they are not prepared to meet all the situations that they may encounter.

All in all I think the US training results in better trained and better equipped troops and IMO past experience has justified that belief.
No doubt you don't agree but please explain how it is better to have soldiers that are less prepared to fight effectively on terrain that prevails on a significant portion of the earths surface?
It is not possible for soldiers to be too well trained or too well prepared but it is certainly possible that they can be poorly trained and unprepared.

ps...check out some of the videos of US troops fighting in Iraq and you will see them firing from rooftops and at the enemy on other rooftops sometimes at quite a distance. And what about Afghanistan?

 

I dunno, talking about length.. Serbs have been fighting wars since the 9th century... Thats a good 1000+ years head start

At least one video I've seen of Iraq has been of some US soldiers breaking and entering a house... One of the soldiers who kicked down the door was holding an AK-47 or something similar to it, in what seemed to be usual military business... Maybe it was a trophy? Does the USMC or US army allow soldiers (of any rank...) to utilise captured weapons? If so, is this situation-specific?

He wasn't holding any other weapon (except maybe a holstered pistol) so I doubt he had found it and taken it with him...

 

Yeah, but Sinnassa wasn't there at the time.

No, typically soldiers/Marines cannot use captured weapons. I haven't seen the video so I can't comment on what you saw.

 

To summarise a series of posts -

AK-47 is designed more for shorter-range engagements, and has perfectly fine accuracy for this task.

Most Western militaries (especially the UK & USA) tend to train their troops for a wide variety of missions, from jungle to desert to Arctic to temperate, and therefore they place a fair emphasis on medium-range engagements, as they are more likely to encuonter them. So they went for guns (like the M16) and training systems that allow this.


Short range = ~250 metres
Medium range = ~500 metres

 

Acctualy grieg prehaps you need glases?

I realy think he was refering to standard 30 x 30 cm target (Head & Shoulders or sometimes reffered to by us as prhljaj (eng.dandrouf) target).

 

I don't understand the logic behind that comment. He is the one that states he can barely see a man sized target at 250 meters whereas I am the one that qualified on a rifle range where we fired at man sized targets at 500 yards so I fail to understand what you are getting at?

 

He stated that he can barely see 30 x 30cm (basicly 11,81 x 11,81 inch) target on range of 250m. Basicly he got it wrong, 30 x 30cm is head target and is standard for short ranges. Read his text i quoted

 

Maybe for you guys. Our 200 yardand 300yard target bullseye was 10 inchs (~26 cm) in diameter. At 300 yards we went to the head and shoulders "Dog" target for rapid fire.
The courses have since changed to all sillouhette type targets in different sizes for different ranges.

 

Yeah, but you have this size bullseye on big white square. We use sheet metal green or brown painted knock down targets of various sizes (H&S, MG, Basketball player). For night firing targets are lightly iluminated from below.

Sometimes the damn things already have big holes in them :angry: . You can see you hit it but the damn thing it won't fall :angry: . This can be a problem if your turn to fire is toward the end of the excercise.

 

U answered instead off me TISO,it was 30x30 cm target.Somebody mention desert etc,there is no desert in Serbia,and terain is mostly tree cowered hills and mountans,and not only Serbia,whole Ex Yugoslavia,including Slovenia where TISO live look like that.And trust me we got plenty weapons for extended range where that is possible (roof tops,what u say,most fearless weapon in Sarajevo vas Dragunov sniper),And dont tell me pls how US got longer war tradition then Serbia pls,u insult my knowlege on counting :lol:

 

What does it matter what Serbia or Slovenia looks like when we are discussing training soldiers? Our troops are trained to fight in any terrain anywhere in the world. What happens if you have to fight somewhere else?

Snipers have a limited function. You don't fight battles with snipers and snipers have never determined the outcome of any significant battle.

I assume you already read my reply to Tiso. I wasn't referring to Serbia since Serbia isn't attempting to tell the US military how best to equip and train their soldiers. I was referring to Sinnissa only.

BTW..how many military conflicts has Serbia won?

 

There seems to be a lot of debate bouncing back and forth. So, does anyone have a fixed opinion on which is better.

 

Which what?

If you are talking the AK47 vs the M16 as the original post states, the M16 is a better rifle for the most part, barring personal preference. I do not care for the 5.56 caliber myself, and have never agreed with the change from 30.06 to 7.62 NATO, and now to the 5.56 caliber the USA uses.

A lot of preferences come from familiarity, and those preferences will be affected because of geographic availability of weapons.

Another factor is cost of making the weapon. Many military weapons in history have been fielded on a basis of cost vs effectiveness.

Personally, I'll take the M1 or M1A over either gun. I like the 30.06 caliber of the M1 Garand, but also like the 20 round magazine capacity of the M1A.

I don't care for the 55 grain bullet of the 5.56 caliber, and even though it fires at a higher velocity (some 3,000+ fps) I'll take the '06 at 2,700 fps with a 150 grain bullet any day.

Bottom line is that any weapon is only as good as the person that wields it.

- Greg

:smok:

 

With the exception of my preference for the 7.62 Nato over the 30.06 I agree pretty much with everything you said.

 

Perhaps this could be of interest.
Interview with SPETZNAZ sniper of his experiance in Afganistan in mid 80's:

http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/soviet.htm

On cleaning of guns

 

If u Ask past 100year,only 4.This last one was ciwil war,i dont think that anybody win there.

 

TISO;
The US Army uses the man sized silhouette sheetmetal falling targets that you mentioned. It is what qualified on. They were set at distances from 50m to 400m.