Every weapon has flaws, to claim one is better than another is pointless.

I love 1911s, but the .45 is a big round and 7+1 or 8+1 is kind of a low capacity. Para-Ordnance has solved this with a 14 shot, but it is thick in the hand, and well, it isn't an original 1911.

Glocks are very nice guns. Light, accurate, reliable. But now that they can design pressureless mag springs that fit 20 9mm rounds in a mag, a Glock is just another pistol now. No external safety isn't great either.

The day they build a gun superior to all others, with notable difference, then you buy it and brag.

Agreed, it is flawed. I just find it odd that there seem to be so many SF units in the world which prefer the traditional, direct impingement M16s and M4s over anything else, even piston ARs (in the case of Norway). I've never been in the service myself, but I just have to wonder if it says something that the old ARs seem to be preferred by "the elite".

And yes, it is true that the idea of a short-stroke piston is nothing new. I remember around the time that the 416 was announced, somebody on Military Photos posted scans of an old magazine article from the early-80s for a replacement piston kit called the Rhino. Do you remember that one?

I dunno about that. I don't know too many people who think the Chauchat was a good design, for instance. :D

Eh, buying a Glock for the mag capacity has always struck me as a dumb reason. I know plenty of people who always look at the Beretta 92F and SIG P226 and say, "the Glock 17 holds two more rounds, so I'd rather have that". Here's the thing, though: the Glock 17 wasn't exactly known in the 1980s for being the highest-capacity "Wonder Nine" money could buy. The H&K VP70 and Steyr GB both held 18 rounds, and they were both introduced years before the G17 (though they're also huge, which is I suppose one important difference).

Also, many handgun manufacturers lately have been cramming the extra two rounds into their 15-round mags to compete with Glock. Taurus now sells 17-round mags as standard with the PT92/PT99, for example.

I remember the Rhino it was in SWAT magazine I think. There is nothing wrong with the AR15/M16 system it the training in standard units that's fucked up. I have been working with a Government contractor for the past couple of week on a MILES sight for the M2 Browning. They went for a test with the Marine Corp and the stupid gunny had them remove all the grease and just use CLP. The weapons needs lithium grease in certain areas but then thought that was only for Arctic conditions. Lack of proper training in the regular force now SF they know how to make there weapons function all the time no mater where they are. That's why the SF world wide use the M4 including the French.

Just a word on my comment about the gunny. I don't think all Gunny Sgts are stupid just ones that don't want to learn something new. It could save his life or one of his troopers.

Well, I mean PROVEN designs. Like comparing an AK to an M16. They both have pros and cons, and many prefer one or another. You can't really say one is better, everyone has an opinion.

The Chauchat on the other hand, is good to compare to the Nambu Type 94.

http://i43.tinypic.com/15377e1.jpg


The Chauchat was unreliable to the max while the Type 94 could back fire and kill you... hmmmm. Which would I rather not touch?

Fair enough, I forgot about the Type 94's rep!

I'm of the opinion (as an AK aficionado) that the AR is an all-around better platform.

You can fix one of the problems the Chauchat had with some tin and solder. Cover those holes in the mag would solve some jamming problems.

Yep, that was it. I wish I could find the topic where they had those scans. It was an interesting read, though nothing really came of the Rhino, so I'm guessing it had issues of its own.

And what you're saying about training makes sense.

If you want a great AK get one with a milled receiver. Early AR's are Great with the 1 in 14 twist barrel. The A2 you can throw that Marine Corp 800 meter rear sight in the trash. I like the M4 Carbine for a lightweight weapon and the FAL for a Battle Rifle with an 18" Barrel.

FYI, the T-94 isnt a Nambu, its a Kenju. Kijiro Nambu had nothing to do with it's design.

I think every weapon is designed for a very specific role, and the AK is the perfect example of that. You have to look at Soviet doctrine to understand that - at the time the rifle was introduced, they were preparing to fight a war which would essentially be them pushing through the Fulda gap into West Germany. Their doctrine was to roll up on enemy trenches in their BTRs and dismount almost on top of them.

It's short enough to fit easily in an armored vehicle, has a large (for the time) magazine, fires on automatic to clear a trench with and is reliable enough and easy enough to make to be effective in the hands of a hastily-trained conscript army. It is not designed for accuracy or ergonomics, because when used the way it was intended to be it did not require those things.

The AK is a great rifle when used within its envelope. I've used it and the M16 series, and I'm glad it's a C7 I'm taking to war.