AK-47 vs M16 [Archive]

Yournamehere

04-22-2009, 12:37 AM

The M14 is a heavy ass hunk of wood and steel that fires too big a round too fast. You have to be a beast to utilize one properly.

I appreciate both designs. I can't really compare them, as one was built in a country where reliability was king over ergonomics, in an era where subguns were still part of warfare due to their ability to lay down fire quickly, and the other was built by engineers in the newer age where space age junk was being applied to everything, and soldier/rifle interface was the primary concern in the design. The AK is the better "killing" gun, while the M16 is the better rifle, in it's most elegant terms (insert Marine Creed here).

k9870

04-22-2009, 12:47 AM

First, not all m14s are wood. By fast, do you mean muzzle velocity? Because velocity is good. The big round pierces the cover 556 bounces off, and drops people more effectviely. And who cares about full auto. Its a rifle, not a subgun.

Yournamehere

04-22-2009, 12:56 AM

Even the fiberglass/synthetic models are hefty, and by too fast I mean fully automatic fire rate, which, if you're trying to compare the M14 to other Assault Rifles, you'd factor in. Most countries don't use full size rifle cartridges in guns other than support weapons like machineguns. It's a good cartridge and the M14 is a decent weapon, you just need to control it.

ManiacallyChallenged

04-22-2009, 01:03 AM

I'll just do some random function comparisons.

Weight:
Advantage - M16 platform

Safety/Selector:
Advantage - M16 is easier to operate with one hand, AK variants require reposition of hand, and have longer travel.

Magazine:
Advantage - M16 drops out with one hand while other hand makes switch. AK requires entire operation to be handled one handed, or by moving hands off the rifle, plus removing and inserting magazine is harder to do quickly(paddle release is not easy)

Bolt/charging handle:
Advantage - M16 bolt release is easy to reach, and even the charging handle can be operated without moving your rifle off target. AK variants bolt is on the wrong side requiring reaching over the rifle or moving your trigger hand off.

BUUUUUUUUUUT........
That could be moot if you don't take care of your M16 and it gets dirty.
I would have to say that the AK is a great weapon to give to untrained people as even though the operation is more awkward, it's probably not going to slow them down since they can't do it fast either way. Also, if they can't perform takedown and maintanence, the AK's resistance to dirt and stuff will mean dirt will only impact performance, not outright function.

I may be off base here. But I think I am not.

Nyles

04-22-2009, 01:18 AM

Actually being in the military and having used both (real ones too, not commercial copies), I'm very glad to be going to war with a C7. It's easier to use, far more accurate, lighter (weight is only minor to people who've never actually done a ruck march), and actually sized for someone who grew up with proper nutrition. Yeah, it's a bitch to clean, but if you do your part it is a reliable weapon.

The AK is very good at doing exactly was it was intended to - clear a trench in the hands of a soldier who dismounted from his BTR less than 200 meters away. It's a great short range bullet hose, but in the hands of a trained soldier the M16 series is far better.

jdun

04-22-2009, 08:23 PM

Weight is a problem. In the US Army a typical load is around 80 lbs. It can be over 110 lbs depending on the weapons and gears.

You can carry twice as much 5.56 ammo for the same amount of weight of 7.62 x 51 NATO. Standard 5.56 magazine is 30 rounds. Standard 7.62 x 51 NATO magazine is 20 rounds. 210 5.56 vs 100 7.62 rounds. That's the trade off.

Someone posted that AK are "disposable weapons for disposable troops." Which is more or less correct.

Don't get me wrong the AK is the best rifle in its class. I own two in my collection but when it comes down to it I'll go with my six AR.

Spartan198

05-12-2009, 08:08 PM

The problem with the AK vs M16 debate is that most people are too hardheaded to have their opinion changed through discussion.

I admit to liking the AR15/M16 family over the AK, but I've also come to accept that both systems have their high points and their low points.

In a perfect world, we'd have that do-all,end-all weapon that's the size of a 1911 and can blow a MiG out of the air at 30,000 feet, but unfortunately we don't live in that world and no weapon can do everything.

(Well, some would argue in a perfect world we'd have no need for weapons of any kind, but I'm sure you understand my point.)

k9870

05-12-2009, 09:04 PM

Why is it always an AK47/M16 debate. Both are outdated rifles. Sorry m16 fans, the platform has seen its days. And AK fans, why is it all the 2-bit nations have these while everyone else is pgrading, even russians se AK-74s and are trying to manufactre enough AN-94s to replace them.

Also, there are other rifles. Why not get into a Sig 550 series vs. Galil debate?

jdun

05-12-2009, 10:49 PM

The AN-94 is a crappy design. I would be surprise the Russian would adopt it.

k9870

05-12-2009, 10:52 PM

Apparently Spetznaz are using it, But then Ive heard so much BS abot them its not even funny anymore. I always thought the AK platform sucked as a rifle, it fit russian tactical doctrine during the cold war, but now its outdated.

jdun

05-12-2009, 11:16 PM

Which Spetsnaz are using it because I can tell there no such thing as Spetsnaz. Spetsnaz translated in English means "Special Force". Which Russian SF (Alfa, Vympel, etc) unit are using the AN-94 because like the USA the Russian has many different type of SF.

The AN-94 is a crappy design because it's complicated. How many combat rifles do you know of that use pulleys. That's right the rifle use string pulleys to function. It is not durable enough for the battlefield.

The selling point is two bullets will hit the same spot to defeat hard body armor. I can tell you that's BS. The second bullet might he close to the same spot because when the first bullet hit the body it will react to the bullet. It would be impossible if the target is in motion. It will not defeat hard body armor. It's plain marketing.

Gunmaster45

05-12-2009, 11:37 PM

Why is it always an AK47/M16 debate. Both are outdated rifles. Sorry m16 fans, the platform has seen its days.

How do you figure the M16 has "seen its days"? They are simply improving on them in better ways and reissuing them (hence the M16A2/A3 becomes the A4). It's not like the SCAR or XM8 are going to replace it.

why is it all the 2-bit nations have these while everyone else is pgrading, even russians se AK-74s and are trying to manufactre enough AN-94s to replace them.

Uh, because they are dirt fucking poor and the AK is the cheapest and easiest weapon to issue to people who have no military training. Russia is not as cheap, and thus improved up the AK-47 as the AK-74, just as we have been upgrading our M16 rifles.

k9870

05-12-2009, 11:42 PM

I dont trust a rifle that craps where it eats, sorry AR fans. I also don't like the 556 but i know theres the AR-10 for that need. Id take an m14 any day thogh, beautiful sight picture and Rock-Solid Reliability. Nothing better. Only if the Military had adopted the 276, id love to see a m14 in that:D

Gunmaster45

05-12-2009, 11:50 PM

The M14 is a fine rifle, but it is basically a select fire M1 Garand with a detachable magazine in .308. It is heavy, and uncontrollable in full auto. Have you ever shot an M14 on full auto? In three rounds you are above your target.

Now, by saying you prefer an M14 over an M16, you're basically saying you'd rather use a Krag-Jorgenson than a Springfield 1903. One phased out the other because it was superiorly built for combat use.

.223 ammo is lighter, the mags carry more, and it is far more controllable on auto. The A2/A4 fire in burst mode, which abolishes "spray and pray" and the gun is practically recoiless on semi. It is very accurate at normal combat ranges. It may get dirty, but what gun doesn't? Take some time out of your day when people aren't shooting at you and clean the damn thing.

I'm just trying to defend the ARs, because I'm a fan.

k9870

05-12-2009, 11:59 PM

Im not a full auto type of guy, even with an m4 id be in single shot almost the whole time. I dont care if its heavy, I marched around with a garand in basic no problem. 556 may do good against most targets, but it doesn't deliver much energy at longer ranges, is poor at punching through cover,while a 308 would pierce that wall the enemie's behind with stopping power to spare, 556 is not not the greatest on body armor, vehicles, etc, and poor against drugged up enemies like we were seeing in somalia. And with an m1a, i could put a 4 round mag in and have an nice deer rifle:D

Gunmaster45

05-13-2009, 12:11 AM

Actually, I think I'd prefer single shot too. Wierd how I would defend that :confused:.

A .308 does have more penetration, but who shoots through walls all that often anyway? A .223 can pierce soft body armor and the likes pretty easily, as can a .308. A .223 shatters and tumbles when it hits human tissue, so kinetic energy is maintained. It may be a .22 bullet moving at the speed of sound, but it has some punch to it.

Maybe you don't mind weight, but after a while my Garand gets a little too weighty more my taste.

I'm a recoil person. I prefer weapons with less recoil, and .223 fits that bill WAY better for me. The bigger it gets, the more chance I have of pulling a shot. A .308 is like a short .30-06, which can kick pretty decent. Heavy guns like Garands make this recoil less painful, but 4 pound Remington 700s are a different story.

It is clear that you prefer M14s, and I prefer both (but I'm sticking up for the ARs!), so no point in debating much further with this...

k9870

05-13-2009, 12:17 AM

Well, gunmaster, ever try limbsaver? Mine is a slip on for my remington but tried it on my freinds winchester 94s and it makes them a peasant plinker you could shoot all day, and a couple hundred rounds in some trap is no prob on the 12 ga. Im sure it would look slightly out of place on a garand though lol.

As for the m16 vs AK debate, Im a 3rd party. If I could only pick between those too, M16. At least it shoulders well for me and has good sights.
Never could like the AK.

Gunmaster45

05-13-2009, 02:35 AM

Strangley shotguns don't have the same recoil to me. Probably because I shoot shotguns offhand and fire rifles from a bechrest. My dad has has tons of recoil reducers and devices, but when testing customer's guns for accuracy, I can't customize them for my own needs.

One interesting recoil reducer is the Mercury suppressor, a small 1 lb bar that is inserted into the stock to add a pound to the rear of the gun and shift the recoil more to the shooters favor. Did wonders for my single shot duck gun (H&R 101-40B or something like that) in 3" shells.

steveUSMC2/2

05-13-2009, 05:14 AM

Guys good to be part of your forum now been great fun reading. Gotta be the 5.56

Spartan198

05-13-2009, 11:26 AM

Why not get into a Sig 550 series vs. Galil debate?
Probably because the SIG 550 and Galil haven't been pitched up against each other in conflict after conflict over the last 40 years or so.

ManiacallyChallenged

05-14-2009, 03:36 AM

Isn't the argument for 5.56 that it is controllable in automatic fire? That being the entire point of military doctrine these days, I would have to say that the M14 hasn't been an effective weapon in a squad role since World War I.

Also: welcome steve(numberstring). Happy reading.

Here's a fun weapon for you: the American 180. The huge submachine gun in .22rimfire. That was kind of the earliest version of the AN-94 in a way. The idea being it would put two or more rounds in the same place.

Excalibur

05-14-2009, 06:39 AM

I don't know much about how soldiers are trained in full auto fire, unlike the movies, real soldiers don't often use full auto when shooting unless it's for suppression

jdun

05-18-2009, 07:39 AM

Probably because the SIG 550 and Galil haven't been pitched up against each other in conflict after conflict over the last 40 years or so.

There are two current rifles in the world that have been truly tested and combat proven in all extreme environments. Guess which two? AK and AR.

Anyone wants to get shot with 5.56? I don't think so. You can ask all the dead insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan on how effective the 5.56.

The M14 was bought back into the military because in the first Gulf War there was a need for a 7.62 caliber that can reach further then the 5.56 for Designated Marksman. The only thing that the USA military had at that time was the M14 in large quantity. So military got the M14 out of storage. The M110 (SR25/AR10) has replaced the M14 in that roll. In fact it replaced the standard bolt action sniper rifle. The M14 is being put back into storage.

k9870

05-18-2009, 04:10 PM

I beleive the AR platform is being used since soldiers are familiar with it, less new training required. I would love to see .308 caliber battle rifles back. One vet I know told me "don't bring an m16 to a gunfight" He'd seen drugged up insurgents take a burst of 556 and one took 9 9mm rounds from an mp5. The m240 guarding their position never failed to stop a threat:D

MoviePropMaster2008

05-18-2009, 07:51 PM

Who cares?

I got racks of both so I can fire nearly any variant I want at anytime ;)

Ergonomics, accuracy, weight and recoil go to the M16 and it's variants...

Resilience, ruggedness, reliability go to the AK and it's variants.

And since I venture that the VAST MAJORITY of the members here have not fired these full auto at length I will point out the following:

What sucks: The M16 sucks when trying to clear a 'stuck' casing in the chamber. I've had to pull a gun completely and issue another one just because of that. In a filthy environment, the M16s are a real liability. I've had them malfunction in sandy environments and muddy raining environments. Mostly due to failure to load or extract.

The AK is way better when clearing the gun under fire.

When a shell gets stuck in an AK you just put the rifle's buttplate on the ground and kick the charging handle down with your boot (all battlefield expediencies). If the brass body stays in the chamber then you have to ditch the rifle, but it is easier to clear a jam than an M16. I've had to do this 'boot' clearing with the charging handles of M1 Garands in dirty battlefields as well. (make sure the barrel is pointing away from your face ;) ) and in the case of magazine fed weapons, dump the mag first.

The M16 is safer when firing questionable ammo. If the charge is too hot then the slender aluminum magazine blows out the bottom of the rifle (of course the soldier should STOP firing immediately and return the rifle to the armorer). For the record I've never seen this anywhere when using ammo that *I* issue.

When firing prolonged bursts, the AKs get super hot (all guns do, but the AKs burn my hands). the M16s were designed for better thought towards heat shields and protection of the shooter. Also the Chinese TYpe 56 AKs have that stupid metal pin that traverses laterally through the lower wooden forearm, which ensures that you burn your hand when dumping a 30 round magazine. If you don't fancy the thought of carrying a scorching hot piece of metal around after firing, then the M16 is safer for the shooter.

Recoil: The AK is a shoulder killer. The M16 has that buffer spring to absorb a lot of the recoil - "Bang! ....Sproinggggggg!" Also with recoil buffers the guns are much nicer to shoot, but then these silicon/polymer recoil buffers are a recent innovation and were not available to soldiers for decades.

Both are excellent guns but both have their strengths and drawbacks.

Nyles

05-18-2009, 08:30 PM

I don't know much about how soldiers are trained in full auto fire, unlike the movies, real soldiers don't often use full auto when shooting unless it's for suppression

Actually when winning the fire fight, we shoot semi, about 30-40 rounds a minute. Full auto is for room clearing or taking a trench.

jdun

05-18-2009, 10:47 PM

One vet I know told me "don't bring an m16 to a gunfight" He'd seen drugged up insurgents take a burst of 556 and one took 9 9mm rounds from an mp5.

God, whoever said that is stupid. Go to AR15 and post that crap. They going to eat you alive.

Game kiddies should not be posting on gun boards.

MoviePropMaster2008

05-18-2009, 11:40 PM

God, whoever said that is stupid. Go to AR15 and post that crap. They going to eat you alive.

Game kiddies should not be posting on gun boards.

When I was a kid I would hear bullshit like that all the time, usually at GUN SHOWS hahahaha.

But lots of them aren't just OLD Walter Mittys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mitty). I remember REAL veterans who bought into the urban myths on the battlefield. My own father was a decorated WW2 vet. He was a B.A.R. gunner, but he bought into the myth that the M3A1 grease gun had no rifling, had a smooth bore barrel and that's why it was called the "Grease gun" (he was never issued the M3A1, so he only heard this "urban legend" through other G.I.s. He did train on the Thompson). Anyway, it seems ironic that I am arguing with my father, who was a decorated World War 2 veteran (since passed away) about the M3A1 grease gun. It almost seemed disrespectful, if it were not for the fact that I was right and he was wrong.

MT2008

05-19-2009, 12:00 AM

Eh, I've seen Vietnam vets post on other message boards who hate the M16 series and constantly complain that our troops today are still using it. And when anyone argues with them, they do the same thing - they say "I'm a vet and you ain't, so shaddup! I know what I'm talking about! (*Insert insult about opponent's age here*)"

It seems understandable that they have the attitude, given the early issues. But what bothers me is that they don't seem to understand that the M16s we use today are, at least, rather different than the ones they used in 'Nam. I don't have much experience with ARs (barely any, in fact), but I still feel that their failure to understand the difference between an XM16E1 and, say, an M4A1 makes them hard to take seriously.

Excalibur

05-19-2009, 12:21 AM

I've seen a lot of that in docs. The M16/M4 system today isn't a bad weapon, it just needs some improvements

k9870

05-19-2009, 04:09 AM

Excalibur

05-19-2009, 05:09 AM

Well certain windows and house walls, but in Iraq, those walls are made of stone. If you fire a 5.56 into a wall of the average western style house, it goes right through the dry wall. a 5.56 should penetrate most windshields of cars, 9mm can penetrate the average car windshield.

ManiacallyChallenged

05-19-2009, 08:37 AM

I will just interject two things.
One: The Box o' Truth.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/thebuickotruth.htm
Check out the Buick o' Truth(that page smarted, cause my family used to own a Buick)

Second:
I think the phrase m4geries is the greatest thing.

jdun

05-20-2009, 12:31 AM

I actually haven't heard any of the Iraq vets I know complain about reliability, they were pretty OCD on their maintenance. The complaint is caliber. The person I work with was army before USCG, he saw 5.56 ricochet off windshields and house walls when the 7.62 would pierce it. And as to AR15.com, that site is full of mall ninjas, sorry Ive looked there when doing research before and it seems like they only care abpout how tacticool they can make their m4geries and if you try to say anything is better they flip out.

Unlike your game kiddie wannabe friend the people on AR15 actually own and shoot firearms. Many saw combat and some are teachers. I seriously doubt your friend has any military experience or firearm training.

Anyone that said the 5.56 ricochet off windshields has no creditability. The 5.56 have no problem penetrating unarmored car windshields. It's not my opinion it is a fact.

It is also a fact that no small arms calibers has 100% stopping power. In other words you don't fire one shot and wait to see if your opponent goes down or not. You double tap your opponent. Double tap him again if he doesn't go down. Double tap him if he is moving. This happen in a matter of a single second.

If the 5.56 was so bad then why did the Soviet made their own version?

Current there are over 4000 US military personnel that were killed in Iraq. Keep in mind that I'm not trivializing their sacrifices. I just want to make a point. There is about 4000 Americans killed a month in car accident. There is about 4000 Americans that drown each year. There is about 4000 Americans that die from the flue each months. In over 8 years if the 5.56 was that bad as you said it is then you would expect far more Americans to die in Iraq right? I mean they went house to house killing those SOB. The Blackwater guys didn't have a problem killing with 5.56 at range well over 200 yards.

There is always a trade off between large and small calibers. I'll list some of them.

1. Control. You get better control with the 5.56 then 7.62. Five paper targets at 25 yards. You have to double tap them each. Which calibers do you think will do it faster and more accurate? The 5.56.

2. Weight. You can carry twice as much 5.56 ammo then 7.62. 100 rounds of 7.62 vs 210 rounds of 5.56. Which would you prefer? In intensive combat you can go through hundreds of rounds in minutes. In place like Afghanistan you don't have a magic wand to conjure extra ammo. What you carry is what you got. Resupplies can takes a long time to arrive.

3. Magazine size. The 5.56 hold more per magazine then the 7.62.

4. Pain level. You can shoot 5.56 continuously without effecting your performance. That isn't the case with 7.62 where there is a point the pain will effect your accuracy.

5. Larger calibers mean bigger guns that translate to more weight you have to carry.

k9870

05-20-2009, 12:36 AM

I don't consider people in their 40s who have fought in Iraq gamer wannabe kids. And I personally wold like to see intermediate calibers but if its 308 vs 556, ill go 308. And not everyone likes the 556, what works for some doesn't work at all. And there are people who become so atatched to a platform they say everything else is crap. Ar15.com is one such place, you try to say anythings better than m4geries and they flip on you. Im even guilty of some bias, Like me thinking the Remington and Benelli pmp actions trump mossberg/NEF/etc.

jdun

05-20-2009, 12:40 AM

You friend is a game kiddie. He has no idea what he is talking about. If he was actually in the military he would have known that the 5.56 will penetrate unarmored car windshield without any difficulty. I have never meet a real combat vet that said differently. It's common knowledge.

k9870

05-20-2009, 12:55 AM

There are documented cases in failures to penetrate, depending on strength/angle of glass. it stands that 308 penetrates deeper, sorry to break it to you. I would not trust a windshield against 556 personally, but if i was firing at a car i'd take an m14 over any m4. Come down to the CG base and tell some of the prior army guys i work with their game kiddies.....

BTW, care to share you massive expertise and experience using 5.56mm weapons in battle?

Gunmaster45

05-20-2009, 02:52 AM

The 5.56mm round is going at the speed of sound, I think it is more than capable of penetrating a car windshield, as long as it isn't bullet proof.

ManiacallyChallenged

05-20-2009, 09:46 AM

READ THE BUICK O' TRUTH!

Repeated testing(sure, not with scientific rigor, but still) shows that very few things WILL NOT penetrate a windshield. Hell, the 5.56 will penetrate THE FRIGGIN CAR.

EDIT: Link
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot4.htm

Gunmaster45

05-20-2009, 09:29 PM

The only thing to take into account is the angle of the windshield. A round such as a .38 Special or maybe even some rifle rounds may ricochet off the windshield if it hits at enough of an angle.

I watched this show where they showed that the only place you are really safe from incoming fire when taking cover behind a car is at the front or rear axles (behind the tires) since there is enough to stop the bullets there. But you should stand a few feet from the car so rounds hitting the hood or back won't fragment into you.

I hate how in movies and videogames they show car windshield shatter after being hit by rounds, even though the glass is layered and stuck together with special adhesive, so it would only spider a little bit.

ManiacallyChallenged

05-20-2009, 11:06 PM

They did a great job with it in GTA 4, actually.
The windshield will not get destroyed unless someone is ejected through it, and the side windows shatter easily(as shown by... THE BOX O' TRUTH!)

However, you can still take cover behind the open door of a car.

Gunmaster45

05-20-2009, 11:47 PM

Yeah, GTA 4 was great with that. I actually tried to destroy the windshield with gunfire without blowing up the car and it is impossible. Even when you don't blow the car up, weapons fire will never destroy the windshield.

If the car rolls though it may break. The cover system in general didn't factor in what guns can penetrate. You can take cover behind a cardboard box and you'll be okay.

I wish GTA 4 had more guns, it gets boring with the typical selection after a while.

k9870

05-20-2009, 11:50 PM

Gunmaster45

05-21-2009, 12:15 AM

Ironically the show I was talking about is on right now, American Guardian on the Outdoor Channel, 153 on my Dish Net.

Panwich Krauser

05-26-2009, 01:28 PM

hey, they'll both get the job done.

mikhail made a beauty that has been around for more than 50 years. he wins for withstanding the test of time.

america (fuck yeah) made a gun that needed improvements, then made those so it keeps it perfectly, if not outperforms.

how bout AK in the left hand, Colt in the right? i'm 6'7" and built like a linebacker. i've done it, it's fun, and everyone's happy.

Rockwolf66

05-26-2009, 09:01 PM

Panwitch,
At your size you are unusually large and I'm betting that alot of weapons are simply put too small for your frame. On the other hand you can use weapons that are larger than what people would usually use comfortably. I have a friend who is 6'4" and his Platoon Commander once had him carry an M-2HB SAS style(Fully Assembled on a tripod) durring a training mission. Normally such a thing is done with a GPMG.

While you can fire low to mid power rifles one handed it's not something that many people have the strenght for.

Panwich Krauser

05-26-2009, 11:08 PM

True. Most guns do look a little smaller in my hands. I have an AMT Hardballer Longslide, which my friends just call the "Joe sized .45".

jdun

05-28-2009, 03:57 AM

The military is currently working on an intermediate round, as the 5.56 does not have all that much enrgy to play with. At extreme range it loses power, where 7.62mm DMRs come in. Of course I have heard AR fans say an m4 with an acog is a better DMR....yes, really...And even thin obstacles like sheet metal and wood doors have been known to slow the 556 down enough that it isn't delivering enough energy to reliably take down a bad guy. I cant wait to see an intermidiate round, the 6.5 grendel would be good if it didn't jam up so easy.

The M-855 has more then enough penetrating power to blow the brain out of a Soviet solider wearing a hamlet at 600 yards.

You have tunnel version about stopping power like most arm chair commandos. Here the deal, it's not all about stopping power. If it is then life would be a lot easier. I would be shooting 30mm ammo or greater. I can't because there are trade off. It's not a black and white issue.

You know why US SF don't use .30 caliber rifles? Control because in real life there is no 180 degree firing line. Everything is fluid. The firing line reinforced bad habits.

If you go to any combat school they will teach you how to control your weapon so you don't blow your partners brain up.

You train like you fight. Yes they are using live ammo and explosive.

http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=684&Itemid=39

k9870

05-28-2009, 04:19 AM

You have tunnel version about stopping power like most arm chair commandos.

Sorry i prefer more punch. Sinle, precise shots. I dont rely on rate of fire. And in reality you cant hit everything in the head. .22 holes in the chest dont really drop something hyped up on drugs all that effectively, especially in FMJ form. Good ammo like 75gr TAP may give me more faith...as far a FMJ military ammo and war, Id take a .308. In civilian life too.

All m16 arguments go into the m1a vs ar-15 debate.

"5.56 is more controllable in full auto"

Yeah, cause we can all afford or legally buy class 3s.....

"it's not about caliber, itws about shot placement"
In that case, why not 10/22s? ....Oh, so caliber does matter? Taking back your original stateent?

"With 556 you can carry more ammo"

Well, if i drop things with a single shot instead of a 3 round burst, im using less. Dont need as much.

".308s are heavy."

Yep, an extra pound of rifle....big deal.

Gunmaster45

05-28-2009, 04:29 AM

Kinetic energy is what is important, commonly called "knock down" power, even though common physics prove bullets don't knock people down. If a bullet stops in the body, it is far more likely to kill you due to the kinetic energy, but if a bullet passes through you, it doesn't hold this same energy. For instance, many people compare 9mm to .45 ACP. A 9mm is a fast moving high velocity round that is quite small. When it hits a person, it doesn't always stop in the body. This is why most people use 9mm hollowpoints. It ensures they stay in the body. The .45 on the other hand is a big, slow moving bullet. When it hits, its kinetic energy is maintained and more damage is done.

I've heard that while .223s are really fast (meaning it would pass through the body) and small, they tend to tumble and shatter in the human body, which does quite a bit of damage. Since it is about 10 rounds more in each magazine for a .223 over a .308, I think I'd stick to .223. But as a Navy Seal once said, "When you give them two in the head and one in the chest, they won't know the difference."

k9870

05-28-2009, 04:35 AM

Well, the 223 efffect, shattering is usually close. I remeber hearing m4s only shattered within 120 yards. The m16 fares a little better. An m14 will kill a uy behind a wall though.

Excalibur

05-28-2009, 04:58 AM

I've held an M14 and it is heavy as hell compared to an full length M16. It's about endurance on how long you can hold your rifle, aim it while holding it's weight and getting that shot. If the weapon is too heavy, it doesnt matter if it has accurate and heavy punching ammo if you can't pick it up or hold it against your shoulder for too long

k9870

05-28-2009, 04:11 PM

Tell that to WW2 vets. Or vietnam vets. My friends dad was hitting 600 yard silouettes with simple ball ammo and iron sights.

Gunmaster45

05-28-2009, 08:52 PM

I've known Vietnam vets who are complete BS artists (not to say the guy you know is), for instance, one guy I know was a Marine sniper and every story he told about his service was lifted straight from the biography "Marine Sniper: 93 Confirmed Kills" about Carlos Hatchcock. I can't image how he figured none of us would realize this.

The expression "Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" doesn't apply anymore, I guess, when your popping guys a 600 yards with iron sights. :eek:

k9870

05-28-2009, 08:59 PM

600 yard iron siht shots are not quite as realistic in combat, as range targets are set and you ahve alkl the time in the world. My friends dad was a range instructor/boarding team member in the navy and was top m14 marksman in his section. His brother was army in vietnam, carried an m14, and said he kept mags after every fight since they were issuing m16s (SP1s) that he refused to carry. He had to feed it from m60 belts. His stories arent BS, he only tells a few, usually about when a friend saved his life or such. As you can understand, he really doesnt like talking about vietnam.

Gunmaster45

05-28-2009, 09:01 PM

Yeah I understand. I just felt like informing the forum members about the BS artists.

k9870

05-28-2009, 09:05 PM

There are plenty of those, on one forum a guy was claiming he used his single shot .22 to hit squirells at a quarter mile and his 50bmg build to hit gophers between 1 and 1.5 miles.

jdun

05-28-2009, 09:54 PM

Sorry i prefer more punch. Sinle, precise shots. I dont rely on rate of fire. And in reality you cant hit everything in the head. .22 holes in the chest dont really drop something hyped up on drugs all that effectively, especially in FMJ form. Good ammo like 75gr TAP may give me more faith...as far a FMJ military ammo and war, Id take a .308. In civilian life too.

All m16 arguments go into the m1a vs ar-15 debate.

"5.56 is more controllable in full auto"

Yeah, cause we can all afford or legally buy class 3s.....

"it's not about caliber, itws about shot placement"
In that case, why not 10/22s? ....Oh, so caliber does matter? Taking back your original stateent?

"With 556 you can carry more ammo"

Well, if i drop things with a single shot instead of a 3 round burst, im using less. Dont need as much.

".308s are heavy."

Yep, an extra pound of rifle....big deal.

Christ you have no idea what you're talking about.

Reread what I posted. I didn't mention one word about full auto. I mention control and double tap. Do you know what double tap is? Two quick shot two pull of the trigger. You don't go burst or full auto as other people posted on this thread. The only time you do it is to maintain suppression.

See that video on that I posted. They didn't use full auto or burst they use semi-auto. It trigger manipulations. That's one of the things that they teach you in combat class, trigger manipulation and gun control.

What happen when a 22lr hit the heart. The same thing happen when a .50 caliber hit the heart. The same thing happen when a .30 caliber hit the heart. 30 seconds or less to live.

Do you actually think one shot of .30 caliber will drop a guy? Have you seen a person that got hit multiple times with 30mm cannon and still moving? 30mm is twice as big as a .50 cal and is consider heavy weapon.

Do you actually think that every shot you pull will hit the target just like in the movies? You're living in a fantasy world. That's not real combat. In Vietnam for every 100,000 round fired we got one kill. In the first Gulf War we cut that down to 10,000 rounds for every one kill. The 10,000 to 1 is the best in the world.