PDA

View Full Version : Georgian Army Dumps AK for U.S.M-4



ok47s
02-11-2008, 06:04 AM
TBILISI, Georgia -- Soldiers from NATO aspirant Georgia switched their Soviet-era Kalashnikov rifles on Friday for U.S.-designed M4 models in part of a drive to distance themselves from their Russian-dominated past.
Since surging to power in a peaceful 2003 revolution, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has aggressively pursued NATO membership, which requires the former Soviet state to modernize its military.
"Goodbye old weapon! Long live the new one!" Saakashvili said at an opening ceremony of a new military base in Gori, which is 80 kilometers from the capital Tbilisi, close to the breakaway province of South Ossetia -- and is Stalin's birthplace.
Saakashvili handed over the M4 rifle to several soldiers.
He has argued with Russia over the status of Georgia's two rebel regions -- South Ossetia and Abkhazia -- which Moscow supports but Tbilisi has threatened to take back.
Georgia also built a new, NATO-standard military base in 2006 on the Black Sea coast near the border with Abkhazia.
Saakashvili has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on boosting the army and prides himself on creating a modern force. Georgia has about 2,500 soldiers in Iraq. Advertisements and pop songs glorify Georgian soldiers.
The country lies at the center of a power struggle between the United States and Russia in the Caucasus, a strategic region wedged between Europe and the Middle East.
Georgian officials say they have purchased enough M4 weapons to equip the entire army and that all troops will be issued them in the next few weeks.
The weapon is an assault rifle widely used by U.S. troops that can be switched between fully and semiautomatic fire. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2008/01/21/021.html




(http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2008/01/21/021.html#top)

John Morgan
02-11-2008, 06:06 AM
That's too bad. Nobody likes a downgrade.

RazorCityRifleman
02-11-2008, 06:44 AM
That's too bad. Nobody likes a downgrade.

You never know they might decide being able to hit the target is a fair trade for learning how to clean a rifle :D

Why is it you never see a Kalish is the winners circle? :cool:

Gee by golly we all know the AR system will jamb up tight or break within the first 30 or 40 rounds. Oh dear but how is it that they just keep winning and winning?

Don't tell me about "it's a combat thing" because I've been in combat and you know what? We won every rifle fight we got in and kicked AK's out of the hands of the loosers. If it weren't for a liberal media and a weak Commander and Chief we would have cleaned up the second desert war go-around and had the troops home awhile ago.

What about Afganastan? It took a few months to do what the Soviets couldn't do in years. How did our first boots on the ground ever last more than a day against the native stealy eyed sharpshooting locals with basically nothing more than M4's and a radio?

This whole topic cracks me up, I hope to hell some of you AK worshipers make it out to WY for one of our shoots and bring your money to put were your mouth is :cool: We can do the 300 to 50 yard or the crowd pleasing 500 to 100 yard we are game for either.

Hell bring three! We'll make it an agragrate team effort and I'll run it with my two teenage sons.

Cheers Den

ok47s
02-11-2008, 07:04 AM
That's too bad. Nobody likes a downgrade. RazorCityRifleman: "You never know they might decide being able to hit the target is a fair trade for learning how to clean a rifle." :D :)

Jim Fuller
02-11-2008, 07:05 AM
Can we get the parts kits from them? :D

RazorCityRifleman just incase you didn't realize it this is a pro AK website, your opinions are certianly welcome and I'm sure you have reasons to believe in your stance on M-4 vs AK just as we have reasons to believe in our stance on the same issue.

This has been debated here extensively and your post belongs in one of those threads. Since your new around here you might want to use the search feature, you might even learn something new, but of course that would require an open mind. ;)

Welcome to Warrior Talk

csjavi
02-11-2008, 07:12 AM
Don't tell me about "it's a combat thing" because I've been in combat and you know what? We won every rifle fight we got in and kicked AK's out of the hands of the loosers. If it weren't for a liberal media and a weak Commander and Chief we would have cleaned up the second desert war go-around and had the troops home awhile ago.

What about Afganastan? It took a few months to do what the Soviets couldn't do in years.
So, if the Soviets had used M16s/M4s instead of AKs, they would have won? If the US had used AKs instead of M16s/M4s, they would have lost? Hmm. Maybe not.

Maybe it's about having adequate equipment and then training to use that equipment. Maybe the use of some equipment requires more training and discipline than some other equipment. Maybe some armies are better trained and have better discipline. Hmm. Surely that can't be the reason.


How did our first boots on the ground ever last more than a day against the native stealy eyed sharpshooting locals with basically nothing more than M4's and a radio?
Perhaps the radios they had were used to call in AC-130s? :D

Jim Fuller
02-11-2008, 07:26 AM
Vincent,
If I could pull it off you know I'd do it, with or without Nick Cage,
I'd rather have you for back up than him anyhow ;)

Jim Fuller
02-11-2008, 07:45 AM
I have connections in Russia and also a friend who does business there in which they ship container sized loads of truck parts....... i'm sure he wouldn't mind hooking us up on the way back!!!!;)

Some Russian made parts kits sure would be nice ;) but then there those pesky Import/Export laws. :mad:

RazorCityRifleman
02-11-2008, 08:31 AM
Can we get the parts kits from them? :D

RazorCityRifleman just incase you didn't realize it this is a pro AK website, your opinions are certianly welcome and I'm sure you have reasons to believe in your stance on M-4 vs AK just as we have reasons to believe in our stance on the same issue.

This has been debated here extensively and your post belongs in one of those threads. Since your new around here you might want to use the search feature, you might even learn something new, but of course that would require an open mind. ;)

Welcome to Warrior Talk

Thanks for the welcome :D

I have learned plenty enough that I'm buying an AK myself, likley one of yours. I think it's high time someone put in the time to give the AK it's due, sort of reminds me of the early 80's when folks were getting the full capability of the 1911 sorted out.

It's all good by me.

I'm far more the shooter than collector and anything I get "collected" generaly ends up being sold so I can afford to play the shooting games.

I appreciate the fact that this is a pro Kalish enviro.

I wasn't being pissy about Kalish shooters at practical rifle matches. I attend many and don't see them, except for Jack A Sol on occasion at our local events.

I certainly don't see them in 3G or MultiG.

So were are they?

The Kalish folks shouldn't be so thin skinned after all it doesn't go with the bare bones AK tough guy image :p

I'm serious about some AK folks coming out to one of our events. We have always ran these events as run what you brung there are no weapon related rules.

Den

RazorCityRifleman
02-11-2008, 08:37 AM
So, if the Soviets had used M16s/M4s instead of AKs, they would have won? If the US had used AKs instead of M16s/M4s, they would have lost? Hmm. Maybe not.

Maybe it's about having adequate equipment and then training to use that equipment. Maybe the use of some equipment requires more training and discipline than some other equipment. Maybe some armies are better trained and have better discipline. Hmm. Surely that can't be the reason.


Perhaps the radios they had were used to call in AC-130s? :D

We are on the same sheet of paper :D

Den

Jim Fuller
02-11-2008, 09:11 AM
Den,
Good anwser to my post I love verbal sparing in the sprit of learning and I must correct my comment about you being new around here I looked at your post count and not your registration date (my bad). :o

I know that even one of my best AK builds is still going to only shoot 2" groups at 100 yrds. But for shooting humans out to 300 yrds. that works.;)

I would be more than happy to build you an AK that might even change your mind :eek:

Respectfully
Jim Fuller

Destro
02-11-2008, 09:55 AM
If mob of ninjas armed with M16s, ran firing wildly at a dug in position defended by AK47-armed warriortalk.com members; my money's on the warriortalk.com members. Tactics rule the day, that's why Americans kill a hundred to one of the enemy in every modern war.

M16 was designed for hit and run warfare, like driveby shootings or cavalry raids; AK47s not only shine at hit and run
work and they also are very good at stand up fighting. When accurized with better sights and a polymer hand guard, a muzzle break too; means that the AK47 in actuality is the better rifle and that is an IMHO thing.

Check out One Source Tactical and you will see that of which I speak.

RazorCityRifleman
02-11-2008, 10:39 AM
Den,
Good anwser to my post I love verbal sparing in the sprit of learning and I must correct my comment about you being new around here I looked at your post count and not your registration date (my bad). :o

I know that even one of my best AK builds is still going to only shoot 2" groups at 100 yrds. But for shooting humans out to 300 yrds. that works.;)

I would be more than happy to build you an AK that might even change your mind :eek:

Respectfully
Jim Fuller

You know being able to group tight isn't but one part of the AR equation. It's the total package of ergonomics and logistics as well. I would be the first to laugh if someone were to suggest that the AR was the perfect fighting rifle, of course it's not, but it is well understood.

Our events aren't benchrest matches anyway, they are "run and gun" with stages that reflect real world shooting positions.

I have no doubt that the AK could make a good showing, once it's understood. When I see the well built AK's with an M2 Aimpoint mounted forward, I think to myself that there's no reason why a skilled hand couldn't make that work for him.

I understand all this AR vs. AK is in good natured fun at least it is for me LOL

Den

Jim Fuller
02-11-2008, 10:46 AM
I understand all this AR vs. AK is in good natured fun at least it is for me LOL

Den[/quote]

Den
It is all in fun my friend, it's like 9mm vs .40 or Ford vs Chevy. I own a Chevy and carry a .40, You wouldn't happen to have a Ford and a 9mm would ya?

RazorCityRifleman
02-11-2008, 10:47 AM
If mob of ninjas armed with M16s, ran firing wildly at a dug in position defended by AK47-armed warriortalk.com members; my money's on the warriortalk.com members. Tactics rule the day, that's why Americans kill a hundred to one of the enemy in every modern war.

M16 was designed for hit and run warfare, like driveby shootings or cavalry raids; AK47s not only shine at hit and run
work and they also are very good at stand up fighting. When accurized with better sights and a polymer hand guard, a muzzle break too; means that the AK47 in actuality is the better rifle and that is an IMHO thing.

Check out One Source Tactical and you will see that of which I speak.

Prove it! Get out to some 3G or MultiG and school them short pants wearing, AR totin metro's :D then report back on your progress.

Den

RazorCityRifleman
02-11-2008, 10:49 AM
I understand all this AR vs. AK is in good natured fun at least it is for me LOL

Den

Den
It is all in fun my friend, it's like 9mm vs .40 or Ford vs Chevy. I own a Chevy and carry a .40, You wouldn't happen to have a Ford and a 9mm would ya?[/quote]

..umm actually, yes I do LOL :D

Den

Karl Kasarda
02-11-2008, 10:53 AM
I believe it is in the best interest of anyone who wishes to be a student of the rifle to learn both.

They're the two most prolific fighting rifles on earth and both have advantages and disadvantages.

Jim Fuller
02-11-2008, 10:55 AM
Den
It is all in fun my friend, it's like 9mm vs .40 or Ford vs Chevy. I own a Chevy and carry a .40, You wouldn't happen to have a Ford and a 9mm would ya?

..umm actually, yes I do LOL :D

Den[/quote]

It figures, As much fun as this is I got to get back to work. And you probly need to get your Ford to a repair shop, it could be a 9mm stuck in the intake, a .40 wouldn't fit. LOL :D

Cheers my friend

Section1_Operations
02-11-2008, 03:23 PM
Just another case where upgrading equipment as opposed to the training and mindset of the warrior.

A bad shooting with 9mm isn't solved by an upgrade to a .40 S&W/.45 ACP weapons platform any more than shaking the Cold War off is with the M16/M4 over broader democratic processes and mindsets.

Gabriel Suarez
02-11-2008, 03:46 PM
Jim Fuller and I will trade them an AR for an AK right now. 1 for 1.

I will take my AKs over ARs any day of the week...and anyone who tells me they cannot hit anything outside of driveway range, i will invite them to stand 400 yards away from me with my AK and we will let the prrof be in the pudding.;)

TennDECA
02-11-2008, 04:47 PM
AK vs. AR aside, it all boils down to, "If you want to join NATO, you have to use our stuff."

Deaf Smith
02-11-2008, 04:51 PM
Gabe,

In the hands of a very good shot the AK is fine. The problem is most grunt's are not that good a shot. The AR, with such as EOT or ACOG or ECAN or oh, a ton of snap on sights, make a rotton shot a fairly good one, even at a distance.

I have no doubt all the AK's used by Georgia are basicly stock AKs with lousy sights and just fair accruacy. AR's for all their faults, have great sights, great accuracy, and great egronomics. Now there are some fancy AKs, real good ones, made now. But the GI stuff they have is stock AKs, and well a stock M4 is well ahead of that.

Gabriel Suarez
02-11-2008, 04:51 PM
AK vs. AR aside, it all boils down to, "If you want to join NATO, you have to use our stuff."

Yep....I'll bet they will start using ACU and stuff like that as well.

Section1_Operations
02-11-2008, 05:50 PM
Yep....I'll bet they will start using ACU and stuff like that as well.

IIRC, the picture that went with the article had some troops wearing the USMC MARPAT BDU's.:rolleyes:

Section1_Operations
02-11-2008, 05:51 PM
The AR, with such as EOT or ACOG or ECAN or oh, a ton of snap on sights, make a rotton shot a fairly good one, even at a distance.


If you apply the same logic and make it an AK getting the optic your point is moot.

Deaf Smith
02-11-2008, 06:31 PM
If you apply the same logic and make it an AK getting the optic your point is moot.

But the Georgian's don't have that option. The cost of the re-design they would have to do to the AKs they have just to take assessories like an AR would, well, it would be easier to just go to the AR. And that is what they did.

Keep in mind you just don't bolt EOT's to an AK. You would have to R&D the design to make sure it's just as tough as the AK, simple, and very very reliable... Time and money.

If the AK had of been designed with a solid top cover, apenditure sights, and thicker receiver to begin with,, well then what faults it has would just not be there. But what is.. is.

RazorCityRifleman
02-12-2008, 05:26 AM
I'm surprised no one had said it yet so I'm going to break the ice.

It's probably a pretty safe bet that that our former commie brothers are getting one hell of a good deal on all this western style gear and if the US had been issuing puprle broomsticks that what they would be getting.

It's kind of interesting that they are getting MARPAT BDU's, reminds me of the PI and thier anti-guerrilla forces. They designed them around the USMC as well, right down to the summer service charlie dress uniform. Except thier "Marines" had thier own intelligence agency that operated about like SS brown shirts :cool:

Any hoo seeing foriegners dressed like jarheads was a little de ju voo.

.........and Gabe there don't have to be rifle duels LOL, seeing AK shooters post some decent scores in any kind of open competition that ephisizes practical rifle use would make me a believer. I've got some reactive steel targets, baracades, props and some really fun man on man drills that would sort things out :D

Den

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 06:03 AM
seeing AK shooters post some decent scores in any kind of open competition that ephisizes practical rifle use would make me a believer.

Let me guess...that is your background right? :cool:

I think we have discussed this AR vs AK thing until the cows actually did come home. I'm keping my AKs and have absolutely no interest in the AR platform other than in being familiar with it as an instructor.

FreezeGopher
02-12-2008, 06:07 AM
Georgia is a logistical nightmare for resupply when TSHTF. They should have stuck with the AKs.

RazorCityRifleman
02-12-2008, 06:22 AM
Georgia is a logistical nightmare for resupply when TSHTF. They should have stuck with the AKs.

My belief as well, but you know there is benifit to keeping our satillite states a little on the hook :cool:

Den

Section1_Operations
02-12-2008, 06:39 AM
But the Georgian's don't have that option. The cost of the re-design they would have to do to the AKs they have just to take assessories like an AR would, well, it would be easier to just go to the AR. And that is what they did.

Keep in mind you just don't bolt EOT's to an AK. You would have to R&D the design to make sure it's just as tough as the AK, simple, and very very reliable... Time and money.

If the AK had of been designed with a solid top cover, apenditure sights, and thicker receiver to begin with,, well then what faults it has would just not be there. But what is.. is.


What crack are you smoking beyond your own biases and lack of understanding in regards to the AK/AKM platform?:confused: Redesign, R&D, etc. -- where have you been in the world of firearms -- it's called an Ultimak rail and the problems solved.;)

Better yet, you use the side mount plate designed for the AKM series to add the Weaver/Picatinny throw lever scope mount and then choose your optic of choice.:cool:

Again, your arguments are moot not too mentioned as Gabe so quickly noticed rooted in the Modern Technique's school of Pumpkin Head brainwashing.:dope:

RazorCityRifleman
02-12-2008, 07:16 AM
Let me guess...that is your background right? :cool:

I think we have discussed this AR vs AK thing until the cows actually did come home. I'm keping my AKs and have absolutely no interest in the AR platform other than in being familiar with it as an instructor.

I have a mix of civy and military experience, spent a few years shooting NRA Service rifle till I got bored with it and then with the help and inspiration of a good friend started putting on practical rifle matches and have been doing that for quite a few years now.

The events we put on were for friends and family and thier friends and family and was mostly a WY thing. We distain gamer guns and mentality, match ammo etc.

Ball ammo, rack grade rifles and practical sights (any kind no rules) have been the nature of the beast, what ever it takes to get the hits under practical conditions. Of course folks have tried "match" rifles and handloaded ammo but it doesn't make a hoot.

If anyone wants to get a local effort going PM me, I would be happy to help out were I can with idea's. We have done our matches on National Guard KD ranges to primative local ranges and can put on a pretty good event on either.

Bottom line I'm really not trying to "convince" anyone of anything that's not going to happen on the internet, but in my world internet can meet real life :D

The effectivness of any weapon system can be sorted out on a rifle range. I really don't think combat is a repeatable enough medium to test combat rifles just like hunting isn't for hunting rifles. Too many varitables to draw sound conclutions.

One thing for sure though is that the AR/M16 is the weapon in the hands of many warriors and they do a good job with it. It's also in the hands of many ethusiastic civies who can shoot the hell out of things in a reasonably "practical" fashion.

That's just a fact and it isn't because the weapon is perfect. It's because it's been in constant combat somewhere in the world from the day of it's invention and it's well understood.

We can say the AK is reliable and for some under some conditions it can be. I shot thousands of rounds out of com-bloc weapons (all I could get my grubby little hands on including various makes of AK's, RPG's, RPD's, RPK's, 12.7's etc) after Desert Storm come to an end and they all required some PM to get them running.

However we can hardly say the AK more "effective", that effective thing is too much a blend of factors that only comes together were bullets meet meat or metal.

I'm more than willing to test that point were it really counts, steel on target, and have many times over under the measuring glare of my peers.

That's my point and since the AK crowd doesn't seem to be real interested is sorting this thing out I will let it go. I'll say though till you can outshoot AR ethusiest you are going to have a hard time proving the "effectivness" of your chosen system to anyone that really puts a premium on rifle skill.

Cheers Den

RazorCityRifleman
02-12-2008, 07:24 AM
What crack are you smoking beyond your own biases and lack of understanding in regards to the AK/AKM platform?:confused: Redesign, R&D, etc. -- where have you been in the world of firearms -- it's called an Ultimak rail and the problems solved.;)

The Ultimak and M68 (we could have sold them current stocks and production and updated our troops) would have been just the ticket for our new found commie friends.

Den

Thats how I'm going to set up my AK :cool:

Karl Kasarda
02-12-2008, 07:31 AM
.........and Gabe there don't have to be rifle duels LOL, seeing AK shooters post some decent scores in any kind of open competition that ephisizes practical rifle use would make me a believer.

I shoot high power (service rifle) as well as local "tactical" matches.

I shoot nearly always only AKs in the practical/tactical format matches and requently either are in 1st or 2nd place. Usually I lose things to score for speed due to magazine retention and actually attempting to use the cover rather than 'game' it, but lose NOTHING in regards to accurate hits from the rifle on target.

I have not shot the AK in a HP match as it doesn't lend itself well to that application, but I have shot my Arsenal AK at a HP SR 600 yard target on a practice day with decent scores (180 ish out of 200).

What sort of open competition are you referring to? In "practical" shoots, my AKs will not only equal but beat ARs.

Karl Kasarda
02-12-2008, 07:33 AM
That's my point and since the AK crowd doesn't seem to be real interested is sorting this thing out I will let it go. I'll say though till you can outshoot AR ethusiest you are going to have a hard time proving the "effectivness" of your chosen system to anyone that really puts a premium on rifle skill.

Again, you need to define "outshoot". We're not talking about laying prone, doping wind and collecting X's on the HP line here. While that course of fire is a great tool for true marksmanship training, it's not practical in the least; it just works the basics until they are part of your core.

BTW, I'm a Master HP shooter with some leg points - and I still prefer the AK for "tactical/practical" courses of fire and training. The AR works too, and is a better rifle for precision fire, but that only goes so far.

As I said before, they both have merits and detriments. One is better for long range precision fire, the other is better for 300 yard or less CQB, but that doesn't mean either can't do both roles with just slightly varying degrees of proficiency.

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 07:57 AM
I think we are rehashing material we have discussed at length before. If you do a thread search, you'll see where we stand. Funny how I have seen when AR guys want to denigrate the AK they will pit a rusty WASR 10 with surplus ammo against a Colt Custom M4 with Match ammo and say "Seee...seeeeeee!"

Its as if they hate the AK becuae it is not an AR. Comments like "commie friends" and "commie rifles" make me wonder. We may very soon have a "commie president" then who will be laughing at who?

Guys here at WT have shown repeatedly that a good AK can do anything an AR will do at reasonbale ranges. You want to get out farther, then I will submit that the 223 is just a 22 bullet at that point and not likely to do very well against a live human adversary.

Getting a "Ping" on steel, BTW is not the same as causing enough damage to make the bad guy fall down. Anything will kill inside 25 yards, but beyon that A 22 caliber bullet will not do what a 30 caliber bullet will do.

That the M4 is in the hands of warriors is true. Are the Finns and Russians any less warriors or any less men because they don't have the Coca-Cola/Apple Pie rifle? Hardly.

And another point...the AK has existed virtually unchanged since 1947 except for the addition of plastic furniture. How many versions of the AR have there been and are still being developed? The answer to a non-existant question? Maybe...maybe not. Maybe an ongoing quest to make the rifle work as intended.

If the AR was so reliable there would not have been any need for the M16A1, A2, etc. They would have left it alone. There would be no talk of a 6.8, and the M14s would be rusting in the armory.

Some guys get wed to their rifles and that is fine. I do not. I was an AR guy when I was a cop. But as soon as I was able to work with the AK I saw it was in fact a better weapon system, and now prefer it above all others.

RazorCityRifleman
02-12-2008, 08:10 AM
I don't disagree with any of the above post, there's no doubt in my mind that the AK can't be run efficient and is robust as hell. I'm going to give it a go myself :cool:

Because the AK is a good rifle doesn't mean all others are junk. That assumption flies in the face of reality and actually detracts from the effort to bring the AK skill set into the 21st century IMO.

I like the way you folks think and hope to meet some of you, when I get my AK I'm going to need some proper training :cool:

Cheers Den

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 08:17 AM
Because the AK is a good rifle doesn't mean all others are junk.

I don't think anyone said that.

RazorCityRifleman
02-12-2008, 08:44 AM
I don't think anyone said that.

It's all over the forum like a rash :D

Den

austin
02-12-2008, 08:44 AM
Gee by golly we all know the AR system will jamb up tight or break within the first 30 or 40 rounds. Oh dear but how is it that they just keep whining and whining?



Fix your post for ya! ;)



What about Afganastan? It took a few months to do what the Soviets couldn't do in years. How did our first boots on the ground ever last more than a day against the native stealy eyed sharpshooting locals with basically nothing more than M4's and a radio?


Umm. They were sourrounded by hundreds of men with AKs?

RazorCityRifleman
02-12-2008, 08:50 AM
I don't care who you are that was funny austin :D

Den

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 08:56 AM
It's all over the forum like a rash :D

Den

I disagree completely.

We have a forum dedicated to the AR15 platform, and we have a DVD project on how to run the AR-15. The only thing we do not do here, which other forums and schools do, is worship the AR-15 because its the American Rifle.

What I take exception is to is stuff like when the Gunsite 1911 crowd bad-mouths the Glock because its a plastic euro-gun unworthy of the hand of John Wayne or how no american should own "those commie guns", or something equally stupid.

Here our focus is not tradition, or "buying 'murican". rather it is efficiency. To that effect we have embraced the Glocks, point shooting as a part of the shooting continuum, the AK platform, and cross train with anyone who has something valid to teach regardless of who they are, what they shoot, or if they are good or bad.

RazorCityRifleman
02-12-2008, 09:12 AM
I disagree completely.

We have a forum dedicated to the AR15 platform, and we have a DVD project on how to run the AR-15. The only thing we do not do here, which other forums and schools do, is worship the AR-15 because its the American Rifle.

What I take exception is to is stuff like when the Gunsite 1911 crowd bad-mouths the Glock because its a plastic euro-gun unworthy of the hand of John Wayne or how no american should own "those commie guns", or something equally stupid.

Here our focus is not tradition, or "buying 'murican". rather it is efficiency. To that effect we have embraced the Glocks, point shooting as a part of the shooting continuum, the AK platform, and cross train with anyone who has something valid to teach regardless of who they are, what they shoot, or if they are good or bad.

You will have a hard time painting me with that brush Gabe, I have a G26 in my right front pocket as we speak, my G34 IDPA gun sits in my night stand drawer and there's a G21 SF in the case with my carbine out in my pick-up.

I will confess though I did go to the old Gunsite on the Marine Corps college/trade school "Tuition Assistence" program when I was stationed at the MCAGCC :cool: But hell at the time there wasn't much else going on and I'm not sure they even had a carbine course at that time.

A lot of water has passed under the bridge for me since those days and in hind sight think they ("Gun Mafia" LOL) used to do a good job getting folks thinking in the right direction. They didn't however do much for getting folks ready to carry day to day in the real world.

Den

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 09:30 AM
You will have a hard time painting me with that brush Gabe,

I don't think I am trying to paint you with that brush, but neither is there a rash of anti-AR15 sentiment in my house.

The AR is just a rifle (as is the AK) and I don't care if "our boys" use it or not. I do take exception when statements are made against it and those who use it....since I and my students use it.

Razor...I think the issue is closed...at least it is with me.

Randy Harris
02-12-2008, 09:36 AM
And one thing no one else has mentioned, 7.62x39 shoots through some things that 5.56 still thinks is cover...............

So if we modify our matches to make competitiors shoot at targets that are actually behind cover or concealment (you know, like people do in the REAL world), and then have something more robust as a target than just a piece of cardboard (maybe knockdown metal targets that just do not count as hits if they don't fall or maybe targets that are 5" thick of cardboard IDPA targets banded together with a half gallon jug of water attached to the back of the vital zone and there has to be full penetration and liquid drainage to count as a hit) then we might have a little paradigm shift in regards to what is actually "effective" and what is not.

Afterall, my BB gun will shoot through a single IPSC/IDPA target out to 50 or so yards. That does not mean I'm gonna be going to war with the ol' Red Ryder BB gun though.........

But what do I know.............

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 09:49 AM
And make them run and move through brush like they would if being shot at and hunted....and carry ALL of their gear and ammo all day long...and stuff like that.

RazorCityRifleman
02-12-2008, 09:54 AM
And one thing no one else has mentioned, 7.62x39 shoots through some things that 5.56 still thinks is cover...............

So if we modify our matches to make competitiors shoot at targets that are actually behind cover or concealment (you know, like people do in the REAL world), and then have something more robust as a target than just a piece of cardboard (maybe knockdown metal targets that just do not count as hits if they don't fall or maybe that targets are 5" thick of cardboard IDPA targets banded together and there has to be full penetration to count as a hit) then we might have a little paradigm shift in regards to what is actually effective and what is not.

But what do I know.............

True story to some extent (I've shot up shit with both calibers side by side) but at the end of the day they are both carbine cartridges so you are going to make some compromises with both calibers IMO. I wouldn't pick one weapon system over the other based on caliber alone, though that does effct some of my thinking. At some point we are going to see training quantities of 7.62x39 go away or get awful damm expensive for political reasons.

Probably a topic for a different thread though :D

Den

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 10:15 AM
Yep...and at that point the AK ammo will be as expensive as the AR ammo is today. That is....until SI's coyotes begin smuggling it in through Mexico;)

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 10:32 AM
Being an outlaw has its benefits.;)

RazorCityRifleman
02-12-2008, 10:37 AM
Yep...and at that point the AK ammo will be as expensive as the AR ammo is today. That is....until SI's coyotes begin smuggling it in through Mexico;)

I hear ya :cool:

5.56 ammo is expensive now for supply and demand economic reasons, not political, not yet. That said, in all seriousness 5.56 will always be availiable one way or another.

Never the less a lot of good AR training can be done with the Ciener .22 LR conversion and reduced size targets at 25 meters for the traditional nuts and bolt's basic training and also works great for working out your off-shoulder, moving, transition drill etc. CQB training before you ever switch out the BCG for full power ammo.

I've found it an effective way to get new shooters up to speed fast without breaking the bank. It works great and is kind of like ballistic dry firing :D

Den

TennDECA
02-12-2008, 11:18 AM
And make them run and move through brush like they would if being shot at and hunted....and carry ALL of their gear and ammo all day long...and stuff like that.

To that end Gabe, I have an honest question:

Gun mafia schools and civilian training aside, how do you feel the US MILITARY measures up when it comes to training for the "real world"? Granted, our technology has numerous advantages and as part of the fighting system, must be integrated into training. And obviously, more advanced warriors receive more advanced training (Ranger, SF, etc).

But if you were to break down US Army/USMC combat training to its BASIC, core levels (unarmed combatives, small arms, small unit tactics, etc), do you feel CURRENT military training is on par with your training philosphies (aside from the fact they they continue to use AR platforms :D )?

Best regards.

choirboy
02-12-2008, 11:55 AM
A smart President, sadly none in the pool, would trade any country an AK for an AR ---------- of course we give no cleaning kits! The AK runners have no fear of dirty guns---------- their surviviors will learn.:p

Choirboy

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 12:05 PM
Gun mafia schools and civilian training aside, how do you feel the US MILITARY measures up when it comes to training for the "real world"? Granted, our technology has numerous advantages and as part of the fighting system, must be integrated into training. And obviously, more advanced warriors receive more advanced training (Ranger, SF, etc).

But if you were to break down US Army/USMC combat training to its BASIC, core levels (unarmed combatives, small arms, small unit tactics, etc), do you feel CURRENT military training is on par with your training philosphies (aside from the fact they they continue to use AR platforms :D )?

This COULD be a question that gets me in trouble, but I will see what I can do.

As far as the quality of people, I have not seen one US Soldier that was anything but top shelf people. And I will also say that I have seen 11 Bravo Infantry guys who were some of the best shots I have seen.

But before we say that all of our guys are walking dealers of death in the night, I have also seen SpecOps people (and no I won't get into saying whether they were SEALs or Delta) who could not shoot as well as an old out of shape cigar smoking patrolman from a local police agency.

So regardless of the unit and uniform, it is the man himself that counts.

As far as tactics, these are dictated by assetts and mission. If you have twenty men who have trained together and can tell what every other man is thinking, plus you have air and arty at your disposal, your tactics will be vastly different than if you are a small band of guerrillas operating with nothing but what you carry on your back.

Similarly, my training has not focused on modern infantry tactics with the assets mentioned, but instead more on the fighting skills of an individual alone....vastly different situations. And the rifle stuff we are developing has more in common with the guerrilla band than the large supported infantry unit. Thus it would be difficult to compare the two.

One thing is for certain...I will bet no one is shooting in war they way they are asked to shoot at the mafia schools. :rolleyes:

TennDECA
02-12-2008, 12:22 PM
This COULD be a question that gets me in trouble, but I will see what I can do.

What? YOU get in trouble? :D


...my training has not focused on modern infantry tactics with the assets mentioned, but instead more on the fighting skills of an individual alone....vastly different situations. And the rifle stuff we are developing has more in common with the guerrilla band than the large supported infantry unit. Thus it would be difficult to compare the two...

I agree. So are you saying that modern infantry training incorporates additional assets so much (air, arty, etc) that operating outside of that envelope is difficult for "big army" troops that rely on those assets and don't focus as much as the fighting skills and tactics of the individual or small unit? Not that the INDIVIDUALS couldn't fight as a guerilla; they just haven't been trained that way?

I suppose the closest correlation in the US military to the training you emphasize, would be Army SF (training lone individuals/small units/indiginous forces, etc., to fight a guerilla style war against a larger force).

Best regards.

Section1_Operations
02-12-2008, 03:51 PM
If the AR was so reliable there would not have been any need for the M16A1, A2, etc. They would have left it alone. There would be no talk of a 6.8, and the M14s would be rusting in the armory.


Let me pick your brain for a moment as I've read this before from you but I have a hard time making as clear a delineation of this as you suggest.

Are the modifications to the M16 platform really because of reliability?
Would you not concede that the M16 program is a good illustration of political infighting in the procurement process of the DOD -- the AK47 development never saw such tomfoolery?

Just looking at the M16 rifle since various SOCOM/NSWC projects pushed the M4 evolution:


M16 as Stoner designed and originally adopted by the Air Force (not the military as a whole...) chrome chamber, bore, carrier w/no forward assist and "A1" sights. (Colt argued "self-cleaning rifle" didn't' need the forward assist since it added complication and cost to the production...)

M16A1 adopted by Army (used by Marines) forward assist & no chrome chamber (later added) due to McNamara/DOD interference as well as political infighting within DOD procurement; the expansion of the "ribs" around the lower receiver to protect the magazine release. And let's not forget the changing of the 5.56mm ammunition powder w/o proper testing which casued numerous issues before it was corrected.

M16A2 Marine push on the program following Vietnam adds the "National Match" type sights & the addition of a brass deflector for left handed shooters. 3-rd burst standard. NATO standardization and change from M193 --> M855 w/M856 tracer requiring a twist change for the tracer. Change of flash suppressor and stock material.

M16A3 traditional M16A1 trigger group (Safe-Semi-F/A) for use by Navy. Precursor to the A4 "flattop" as later widely adopted.

M16A4 Picatinny Rail MIL-STD 1913 as well as railed hand guards.


Removing some of the stupid infighting from early on and the problems (lives) it cost, I donít see how many of the changes in twist rate, stock material, flash suppressors are any different than the changes in the AK/AKM series over its life.

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 04:04 PM
I am not as up on the history of the M16 as I am with the AK. It looks to me that there has been a constant process to improve the M16, whereas nothing of the sort has been needed for the AK. That is the way it looks from my perspective anyway.

Paco
02-12-2008, 05:04 PM
TennDECA,
US combat forces are the best gunfighters that have ever walked this planet. Its a function of superior doctrine, tactics, training and equipment employed by these amazing volunteers that it seems to me, pretty much like to mix it up.

A HUGE % of their fights have NOT utilized airpower or big guns and they win huge lopsided victories over and over and over.

When you get to the more elite units that go out and jump into gunfights more than daily, it's even more amazing.

Whether any individual troop is a crack shot is not nearly as important as their superior tactics in Mil Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT).
I have been stunned to read over and over of intense multiple day house to house battles where scores of enemy lying in wait perished with minimal friendly casualties.

Our weapons and other technology don't hurt a bit. But read House to House to see just how old fashioned in your face with a rifle the majority of the gunfighting was.

When these guys share their learnings, I pay close attention. Because once one is engaged, most of what one must accomplish at that point, is pretty similiar.

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 05:11 PM
All I can comment on is what I have seen.

Randy Harris
02-12-2008, 05:23 PM
And one more point...does anyone HONESTLY believe that if all of a sudden the Marines had AKs and the insurgents in Fallujah had been armed with M16A4s that the results would have been reversed?

Of course not. At least no one with any sense thinks that.

We have such a huge advantage in tactics, training, leadership, and communication that the particular guns really don't matter as much........

Paco
02-12-2008, 05:27 PM
+1 Randy. Thousands and thousands of highly motivated warriors who've individually engaged in dozens of gunfights SINCE 2001. Not all in that category of course. But a whole sh%&load that have!

Swap rifles, essentially same result you think? I'd say so.

S-Lee
02-12-2008, 05:33 PM
I am not as up on the history of the M16 as I am with the AK. It looks to me that there has been a constant process to improve the M16, whereas nothing of the sort has been needed for the AK. That is the way it looks from my perspective anyway.

Ak47

AKM

AK74

Ak100......:D

Gabriel Suarez
02-12-2008, 06:07 PM
Ak47 - Milled Receiver
AKM - Stamped receiver...same gun
AK74 - Same gun lighter caliber to keep up with NATO...later discarded for the 7.62x39 in Chechnya
Ak100 - Same gun polymer furniture and folding stock

Other than the stamped receiver, no substantial changes from the original.

What can we say of all the developments between the Armalite Air crew survival rifle and the current piston M4 in 6.8?

TennDECA
02-12-2008, 06:17 PM
...US combat forces are the best gunfighters that have ever walked this planet...

Paco,

I agree completely. I have two cousins that are SF operators currently deployed in the Middle East and I enjoy talking to them about their experiences.

I don't want to get too far off topic; I was just curious if Gabe felt current, core level military combat training for the INDIVIDUAL soldier/Marine was up to par with his forward thinking philosophy on the same subject (unarmed combatives, combat shooting, etc).

I know in the past, military training for the line soldier was more "static" (ie, "Gun Mafia-like"), but I guess MOUT, FOF, and other training schools aren't just for more advanced units anymore, and most, if not all, combat MOS's go through such training prior to deployment.

Best regards.

PERVADER1
02-12-2008, 06:27 PM
The stamped version was made not only for cheaper production, but also because they were more flexable and more able to absorb recoil pressure. The milled receivers supposedly had the potential possibility to crack back then.

Still, NOTHING like the issues the M16 had DECADES later...:D

S-Lee
02-12-2008, 06:28 PM
Ak47 - Milled Receiver
AKM - Stamped receiver...same gun
AK74 - Same gun lighter caliber to keep up with NATO...later discarded for the 7.62x39 in Chechnya
Ak100 - Same gun polymer furniture and folding stock

Other than the stamped receiver, no substantial changes from the original.

What can we say of all the developments between the Armalite Air crew survival rifle and the current piston M4 in 6.8?

that is a bit out of way to bring in the linkage from air crew to piston 6.8 from LWRC. if you look simply at the mil-spec rifle modification. it is about the same as the AK.
a fair comparison would be M16-M16A1 to M16A2 to the current M16A3/4.

so pretty much they are on the same footing.

Deaf Smith
02-12-2008, 07:47 PM
What crack are you smoking beyond your own biases and lack of understanding in regards to the AK/AKM platform?:confused: Redesign, R&D, etc. -- where have you been in the world of firearms -- it's called an Ultimak rail and the problems solved.;)

Better yet, you use the side mount plate designed for the AKM series to add the Weaver/Picatinny throw lever scope mount and then choose your optic of choice.:cool:

Again, your arguments are moot not too mentioned as Gabe so quickly noticed rooted in the Modern Technique's school of Pumpkin Head brainwashing.:dope:

And say, what country has adopted the Ultimak? Has it been proven to be as sturdy as those on the AR? No? And the sidemount? Has the mounts you talk about been put on it been adopted? No again?

So you want a country to just up and stick that stuff on a weapon or shall they get a system that is proven? We see why you are not their advisor.

dogfacedan
02-12-2008, 08:22 PM
RCR, Did you read this after you wrote it ? "I really don't think combat is a repeatable enough medium to test combat rifles just like hunting is for hunting rifles"

austin
02-12-2008, 09:51 PM
AK vs. AR aside, it all boils down to, "If you want to join NATO, you have to use our stuff."

Yep.

Putin is a crook and creep and is surrounded by thugs, heck he even uses their language from time to time.

I say let them keep their AKs. They should sell them to their citizens and use the Swiss model to make Georgia a no-go area.

Razorback
02-13-2008, 02:17 AM
And the sidemount? Has the mounts you talk about been put on it been adopted? No again?

While it's true that the Ultimak is not in anyone's military inventory, the side rail has been extensively tested, implemented and used by the Russians. The Russians also have some good optics from magnified scopes (PSOP series) to holographic sights (Kobra, and another I don't remember the designation for), and red dot sights (PK-01, PK-23, PK-A series -- which has a nice feature of a black dot, so you still have an aiming point if your batteries or the electronics go tits up).

IMO they should have bought new AKs (or have their retrofit with the side rails if they don't already have them) from the Russians and been done with it. Now they have to learn a new weapon system, whereas with the AKs they could have put more of the money towards proper training. But then, they probably took ARs more for NATO membership than because of any preference.

Mickey Rourke
02-13-2008, 03:12 AM
Now they have to learn a new weapon system, whereas with the AKs they could have put more of the money towards proper training.You don't need training if you have the latest in weapons, do you?:rolleyes:

RazorCityRifleman
02-13-2008, 05:11 AM
RCR, Did you read this after you wrote it ? "I really don't think combat is a repeatable enough medium to test combat rifles just like hunting is for hunting rifles"

Of course I did :D

Think about it awhile it will sink in.

Den

Gabriel Suarez
02-13-2008, 05:19 AM
Well, since this is quickly turning into an "AR is better cuz its 'murican" thread, I will go back to the AK forum.:rolleyes:

Section1_Operations
02-13-2008, 06:35 AM
Well, since this is quickly turning into an "AR is better cuz its 'murican" thread, I will go back to the AK forum.:rolleyes:


Sorry that the rest of the fishing/pissing going on detracts from what I thought was a rather honest exchange.

The point I was attempting to illustrate is that in an unbiased comparison of the contexts of both platforms their progression isn't all that dissimilar when looking at the military supplied weapons.

When one puts the politics of the procurement process in context with those issues born out of it and the reversal of those decisions to restore rifle reliability -- the two platform stand in a similar development progression respective of their nationís evolving military role.

I think the note worth making on the two platform developments really comes into play in another area: the AK/AKM is designed as an assault rifle (carbine ~16" bbl); the M16 was designed as a rifle (~20" bbl). It gives one a hint about whom and what types of goals were driving the projects while under their development.

The M16 platform is a study of one wrong decisions and/or goals after another spiral out of control. The M4 is a entirely different study of its own complexity.

The Russians got it right when it came to driving the development of an infantry assault rifle.

Section1_Operations
02-13-2008, 06:48 AM
And say, what country has adopted the Ultimak? Has it been proven to be as sturdy as those on the AR? No? And the sidemount? Has the mounts you talk about been put on it been adopted? No again?


Since you failed to note my sarcasm let add a few thoughts to help you out.

You posed a problem based on your false assumptions and a lack of imagination (or just plain knowledge of the topic) -- I offered a solution.

Ultimak studies -- I know of none; however, let's not put the "mighty" AR up as the be all end off of testing for bolt on C.O.T.S. items. I've seen plenty of downright $hitty ChiCom crap being used by G.I.'s -- issued/tested -- I think not.:rolleyes:

And it was pointed out the side mounts have been adopted and are in use on the AK/AKM series.



So you want a country to just up and stick that stuff on a weapon or shall they get a system that is proven? We see why you are not their advisor.


And we see why you want a pissing context in another doesnít fit my paradigm issue so let me put my thoughts in as why it just cannot be any other way.

I see more and more why some of our members are pulling out of these threads at a certain point.

CR Williams
02-13-2008, 08:02 AM
Each rifle was designed to fit a particluar military philosophy of the time. Is it really useful to just set them on a table and make comparisons given that? The Russian military had a different philosophy for use of both rifle and infantry than the US when these rifles were designed and produced. They appear, even with the various fits and starts suffered, to be working pretty well within those philosophies. Each has positives and negatives about the designs. Is there much benefit, then, to picking them all apart? You get what you want, you learn to use it as best you can, you go on. All else appears to be decoration.

choirboy
02-13-2008, 10:10 AM
Blackguns are not my favorites but do work well when kept clean. If you want groups on paper a mediocre blackgun will outshoot a good AK. My lack of faith in the AR's came about 20 years ago when I slipped on snow taking a walk on the farm and bent the recoil spring tube into "NON FUNCTION" without hurting the fiberglass stock. I still have the M1- Garand my Dad managed to MAIL home when he got shot in WWII. It shoots patterns not groups. The stock looks like sawmill slabs we used to use to hit #4 stone railroad ballast for batting practice.

AR's are accurate but fragile. I have 2 that anything but a single hole at 200 yds is shooter error (CUSTOM RELOADS-GUN SPECIFIC).

I do not want to bet my life on a "safe queen". None of my M1-A's will out shoot the aforementioned AR's. But a malfunction in an M1-A is noteworthy.

I started this post only to say give "them" all the black guns but no cleaning gear:)

Choirboy

Section1_Operations
02-13-2008, 01:03 PM
Each rifle was designed to fit a particluar military philosophy of the time. Is it really useful to just set them on a table and make comparisons given that? The Russian military had a different philosophy for use of both rifle and infantry than the US when these rifles were designed and produced. They appear, even with the various fits and starts suffered, to be working pretty well within those philosophies. Each has positives and negatives about the designs. Is there much benefit, then, to picking them all apart? You get what you want, you learn to use it as best you can, you go on. All else appears to be decoration.


While I don't disagree the purpose I set out in following the information wasn't to perpetuate a VS. discussion but to show that when one uses some intellectual capacity in objective context the subject lends to the greater philosophies of the respective military structures -- it's purely an exercise for the mind here -- and maybe somewhere in that a broadening of one's own context of understanding as everyone brings some bias to the table.:)

SanjŻrŰ
02-13-2008, 03:11 PM
I see more and more why some of our members are pulling out of these threads at a certain point.
Yep, some folks tend to get frustrated. I, for one, have enjoyed reading this thread and the banter back and forth. There has been good discussion, gentlemanly conduct, and good insight by all. Maybe these topics have been gone over ad nauseum, but I learn something new each time.

My favorite line was:

It's all over the forum like a rash
That was just funny.:D

Deaf Smith
02-13-2008, 04:21 PM
Since you failed to note my sarcasm let add a few thoughts to help you out.

You posed a problem based on your false assumptions and a lack of imagination (or just plain knowledge of the topic) -- I offered a solution.

Ultimak studies -- I know of none; however, let's not put the "mighty" AR up as the be all end off of testing for bolt on C.O.T.S. items. I've seen plenty of downright $hitty ChiCom crap being used by G.I.'s -- issued/tested -- I think not.:rolleyes:

And it was pointed out the side mounts have been adopted and are in use on the AK/AKM series.

Sorry but you have posted many a time about how Military specs are so good (M-16 specs .vs. such as Bushmaster.) And now you say their testing is not so good?

darwin25
02-13-2008, 06:22 PM
Blackguns are not my favorites but do work well when kept clean. If you want groups on paper a mediocre blackgun will outshoot a good AK. My lack of faith in the AR's came about 20 years ago when I slipped on snow taking a walk on the farm and bent the recoil spring tube into "NON FUNCTION" without hurting the fiberglass stock.

Hah, Lucky you. A buddy of mine fell on top of his M16 while we were traversing a rocky river. His rifle got wedged on the rocks and the buffer tube or recoil spring tube as you call it just broke rendering his rifle completely useless....in the middle of a running gun battle...Lucky me I have an AK47 at that time. I fell a couple of times on my gun but it did not broke.

I had the same post here.

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?t=30248. By The way I already have a real AK47 aside from my Type 84.

Funny but I once told the story in Glocktalk and AR lovers are quick to dismiss that while it is possible to break the buffer tube, it would take a huge amount of force to break it like running a truck over it. My experience told me otherwise.

darwin25
02-13-2008, 06:49 PM
Ok I found the thread titled "Baby or AK47". "Baby" is how we call the M4 Carbine

Please read

NO LINKS TO GUN MAFIA FORUMS PLEASE


Here is the reply. Apparently the poster contacted Jim Eden of Bushmaster to verify if it is possible to break the buffer / extension tube by just falling on top of it.



[quote]Originally posted by bulm540
[b]
Hello,
The rifles are required to pass a drop test of three feet as that is the average height they are carried at. Although it is possible to break the stock itself from a higher height it would require a lot of force to bend or break the extension tube to render the firearm inoperable such as running it over with a vehicle.
Thank you,
Jim Eden
Technical Support
Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC
Office: 1-800-883-6229 ext. 277
Fax: 207-892-8068

Nanuk
02-14-2008, 03:51 AM
One of my good friends just spent a year working in Tblisi. The Georgians hate the Russians, it is more likely that fact more than anything else that made them switch. He said alot of them carried what looked like Krinks, when he asked, he was told they could not hit anything with them because they just sprayed and prayed.

LMGBeliever
02-14-2008, 05:10 AM
Except for the tremendous language barrier and the fact that they all look like they are related, they were alright guys. I know the insurgents didn't care to fight with them as the Georgians were fairly ruthless. I think every Georgian soldier has a little "deliverance" in him.

I imagine their switch has a lot to do with logistics, as they were running AK's and PKM's and the ammo can sometimes be difficult to find. If you had a 5.56mm then you could get it at the base your staying on.

RazorCityRifleman
02-14-2008, 05:37 AM
I do not want to bet my life on a "safe queen". None of my M1-A's will out shoot the aforementioned AR's. But a malfunction in an M1-A is noteworthy.

Choirboy

Here we go again misconception mania :D

Funny how we would use safe queen in the same sentence as the M1A LOL but I have to say in all honesty I have seen more M1A's go down at our events than any other rifle. Now it could be they generaly show up in the hands of those trying to buy the "magic" or it's because most of then are built by Sprieldfield Armory and thier house brand rifle parts are a couple notches below DPMS or Model 1 Sales.

A close tie are M1 Garands, I could give the Garand a pass since many of them have been though the grinder with honorable service, but if your going to run them seriously your going to have to fix them. My favorite Garand experience was when a noted gun writer and trainer was giving my 14 year old a class on "proper" carbines using his M1 Garand Tanker as the example. My boy continued loading his mags and checking his gear getting ready for his relays run, listening politly as he went on about it's many merits. You know what happened :D It broke on his first go around and he was out, he swaped out parts and my boy beat him soundly the second time.

Another thing that always shows up with M1A/Garands in sight problems. Before shooters make thier first run down range for the day we give "admin" time at each yard line to be shot to get hard zero's on pulled and marked targets. It never fails there are folks fiddling with improperly tensioned or broke sights.

These are the cute little things that don't show up on the internet but do at events that emphisize practical conditions and skills. We hear about every AR that ever broke at a shooting school, stories most of the time parroted by folks that havn't shot thier "superior" design safe queen more that 50 rounds at a time. Ironic that the schools that train profesionals always seen to be 90% AR's that might be something to think about LOL

Carry on :cool:

Den

BB82
02-14-2008, 06:14 AM
Just a personal opinion, but I think that every one on this forum should be able to pick up ANY weapon and be at home with it's use and function. My life experience has taught me that it's very rare that what you've trained for and with actually will be right by you when you need it.

Suppose 'the end of the world as we know it' happens while you are at work... And your AK's are back at the house. But as you start your long walk home (roads are closed by debris) there just happens to be a patrol car sitting on it's roof where the 'blast' dropped it, and there is an AR15 or M16 laying there inside the car. Do you have the skills necessary to pick it up and use it? And not just 'use' it, but use it effectively, as if you'd trained with it every day? What if you were walking past a house that had been blown apart, but you spied a M14 or a Garand sitting in the middle of the rubble? Do you know how to use it? What about FN, or HK, or ANY other brand weapon? What if it's a .22lr Ruger 10/22?

Train to be flexible. Know everything you can about different weapon platforms.

As far as the AR vs. AK debate....one interesting observation that I see is the trend now for the major AR manufacturers to develop and field gas-piston uppers. Even the Dancing Pony has their version in the works. And it seems they are quite popular and much more reliable than the old 'gas tube'.
I have no doubt that one day you'll see the best of both worlds fused together between the utter reliability of the AK and the accuracy of the AR.
It's coming. You can just now see it topping the horizon.

TennDECA
02-14-2008, 07:58 AM
The AK vs. AR vs. M14 vs. Garand vs. HK vs FAL, etc etc, debates always crack me up.

Every single one of these weapons have been battle-proven over DECADES of combat in every possile environment. If I had a CHOICE about which one to pick, I'd probably choose the AK or FAL. Just a personal preference. But if I DIDN'T have a choice and had to fight with whatever was available, I wouldn't hesitate to grab any one of them (given a basic knowledge of use and maintenence for each one).

Of course, this is assuming use in COMBAT, not COMPETITION.

Each weapon has it's positive and negative attributes. But EVERY single one of them will kill a person. And in combat, that's ALL that matters.

Section1_Operations
02-14-2008, 08:35 AM
Sorry but you have posted many a time about how Military specs are so good (M-16 specs .vs. such as Bushmaster.) And now you say their testing is not so good?


MIL-SPEC production processes that produced the .mil and some .le weapons are above that used by the commercial manufacturers.

There's no ambiguity in regards to that on my part nor did I reference that specific testing as no good.

Aimpoint, EOTech's, ACOGS, various other long range optics, rails, etc. have all seen .mil testing as well as meeting set standards for the respective piece of equipment. These specifications are different than the TDP of our rifles as they're simply different pieces of equipment.

C-More optics, Command Arms accessories, and a number of other $hity gear that's out there is the type of ChiCom crap I'm referring too.

RazorCityRifleman
02-14-2008, 12:12 PM
The AK vs. AR vs. M14 vs. Garand vs. HK vs FAL, etc etc, debates always crack me up.

Every single one of these weapons have been battle-proven over DECADES of combat in every possile environment. If I had a CHOICE about which one to pick, I'd probably choose the AK or FAL. Just a personal preference. But if I DIDN'T have a choice and had to fight with whatever was available, I wouldn't hesitate to grab any one of them (given a basic knowledge of use and maintenence for each one).

Of course, this is assuming use in COMBAT, not COMPETITION.

Each weapon has it's positive and negative attributes. But EVERY single one of them will kill a person. And in combat, that's ALL that matters.

Exactly right :cool:

A good argument can be made for any of them and if it weren't for those folks that can't accept that rattling on and on these threads wouldn't be near as intertaining :D

Den

MTS
02-14-2008, 04:08 PM
Ak47 - Milled Receiver
AKM - Stamped receiver...same gun
AK74 - Same gun lighter caliber to keep up with NATO...later discarded for the 7.62x39 in Chechnya
Ak100 - Same gun polymer furniture and folding stock

Other than the stamped receiver, no substantial changes from the original.

What can we say of all the developments between the Armalite Air crew survival rifle and the current piston M4 in 6.8?

AK107

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-107

AEK971

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEK-971

:D

TrojanSkyCop1
02-14-2008, 10:12 PM
The Georgians hate the Russians

How ironic then that Josef Stalin was a Georgian! :eek: Then again, maybe not; maybe that 'splains why he had so many Russian either murdered or sent to the gulags.

zen4
02-15-2008, 05:12 AM
I'd run my modern Vepr up against an AR anytime. It's not the design as much as the tight tolerances and manufacture. It's a 223 and very accurate. AK easy and AR accurate........so they could have upgraded to better manufacturing process, tighter tolerances, improved barrel, and kept the AK design, and trained the shooter to be a rifleman and not a sprayer and prayer.............of course its political.........I wonder who got that contract??????:rolleyes:

SheepleWithTeeth
03-01-2008, 03:49 AM
Well I for one find the banter stimulating and pleasurable . . .

Someone mentioned AK's wound ballistics and penetration of cover, I notice Den hasn't answered . . . bet he says it's all about shot placement . . . or that combat and hunting are not repeatable mediums . . . or that .223 has taken as many deer as 7.62x39

Den, I will take that one on: of course hunting and combat are inconstant, and that is the biggest argument for the AK. It was made to take the brunt of every variable at the hands of people who were completely untrained, and when they point it, it will still go bang . . . while the m16 requires a great deal more care (read: lab like, repeatable medium) . . . the AK is chambered in a caliber that will take crappy ammo, send that ammo through variable kinds cover, hit variable sorts of humans in variable parts of their bodies, and it will inflict grievous bodily harm on said humans . . . whilst the .223 was made to take decent grade ammo of the correct weight for the barrel (lab like specific parameters), send that ammo accurately across empty space (read: lab like repeatable environment), and if the shooter has held up his end of the bargain and hit his enemy in the torso he best hurry up and do it again, and this time hope the bullet tumbles just so, or he can hit a better spot in the torso, or maybe aim for a head shot, because that bad boy over there ain't slowing down, oh, no, he's unslinging an AK-47 . . .

The AK was for an army fond of the PapaShaw who admired the Nazi's Sturmgewehr. The M16 was for an army fond of the Garand who admired the Nazi's Mauser bolt actions.

Let me sum up: combat and hunting are mediums full of variables, yet hunters have come up with tables to say what platform will be suited to a given species inside a given range, and the instructors here have looked at comparable sources of data to make comparable conclusions.

The m16 was designed to work with known quantities, and if it conditions do not exceed certain parameters it will deliver group sizes that no one is arguing are usually better than an AK's, and it will do so at ranges that are better than expected from an AK. But in harsher conditions, the AK will kill guys who are busily trying to deal with their malfunctioning m16s.

The M16 can be relied on for more consistent performance of the bullet in flight to a target, and in controlled environments that is enough. But the AK can be relied on for consistent fire when you press the trigger and for more consistent kills when the bullet hits its man - and when the man is behind cover.
Notice use of words: M16s "target" vs. AKs "man". Also, check out the archives, several have posted details on how much better the AK does whenfed decent ammunition - the disparity in ammo quality has skewed the record somewhat. The AK can be tuned to a degree, and Jim Fuller can tell you how.

And if you look around, you will see that there are plenty of AR fans here, as well as people who scoff at anything short of a .308, Garand fans, and those who are in love with Scout rifles or long range sniping. As well as people who haven't much knowledge of rifles, just come here to talk pistols - and they have a debate just like this going over Glocks vs. 1911s. There's even a guy who doesn't say much on guns of any kind, he's focused on sticks and knives . . . and he's one of the most venerated instructors.

This website is full of those who are into honor. M16s and AKs are just tools that can be used to uphold honorable principles, like the 2nd Amendment and the continued guarantee of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" regardless of enemies foreign and domestic (I'm referring to terrorrists and felons.)

I used to sign my posts with this tagline: The m16 is a beauty queen, the AK47 a bada** biker b**** . . . Are you taking her home to Mom, or are you going to war?
I mean that as a compliment to both platforms - certainly it's nice to introduce Mom to Miss Illinois, 2006. Warriortalkers tend to advocate monogamy when it comes to women, but with guns its nice to have a rifle for every niche.

Back to the thread starter, the whole point of the article is that the M16/m4 is being adopted for political, not tactical reasons. As has happened in other times and places . . . maybe at every stage in its history, every time anyone adopted it.

Section1_Operations
03-01-2008, 05:47 AM
Short of politics and people's pet opinions regarding platform...

Let's keep in mind that while the 7.62x39 Soviet BALL does offer more penetration, the neck penetration and tumble rate of both US & Soviet BALL ammo is consistently inconsistent as a "man killer".

As is demonstrated in both calibers for consistent wound trauma incapacitation short of optimal shot placement an OTM/JHP design is needed.

Jack-O
03-01-2008, 04:13 PM
one thing that got glossed over or was missed by many, may have been one salient point that RCR made some time back.

If a rifle is serviceable and it's weaknesses and maintenance requirements are known then it can be a good combat effective weapon. the operator must play to the strengths and work with the weakenesses.

this is basically the same debate currently going on with the 870 vs Saiga thread.

now what I want to know is when those georgian rifle parts kits will hit our shores!!

papermaker
03-01-2008, 06:49 PM
Of course I did :D

Think about it awhile it will sink in.

Den

Depends on what testing you want to do. If you want to know if it will stand up to the rigors of combat on seven continents at any altitude, temperature and humidity with an experimental condition no experiment can replicate - soldiers - then combat is the only way.

EVERY new product or service gets a field trial in EVERY industry. (regardless if it's planned or not)