AK47 vs M16 (again...)

Then why did the US not get something that matches the AK47's reliability?

 

Because that kind of reliability( the ability to fire when dirty) comes with a price, which is crudity. Anyone who has held an AK-47 and an M-16 in their hands side by side cannot help but notice the difference. The AK-47 parts are mostly stamped steel with high tolerances (sloppy fit) so if dirt or rust is present it is less likely to jam up the mechanism. That loose fit and poor manufacturing is also what leads to poor accuracy. The barrel and receiver group, when poorly joined leads to inaccuracy. The seating of the barrel/receiver group in the stock is also important for accuracy.
If you keep an M-16 cleaned properly, as every infantryman should be trained to do, it is every bit as reliable as an AK-47, as lethal if not more and more accurate.

 

One reccomendation. Don't buy chinese or Romanian AK next time

 

well, the AK is still the best battle rifle out there.

 

Sounds like a personal preference. :lol:

I'll still take the M1 Garand or the M1A over either.

- Greg

:smok:

 

Well, everyone has their personal preferences I guess, if they are truly familiar with the weapons involved and not just repeating others opinions.

As a shooter who has apparently had experience with both Greg I would wonder what leads you to prefer the 30.06 over the .308? The reason I ask is that this debate took place in the military also except it was around 4 decades ago. The .308 (7.62mm Nato) was found to be more accurate than the 30.06 so the bullseyes were reduced in size in order to differentiate between the top shooters.

This newsgroup post describes the situation accurately:

here is another post by Bart Bobbit on this subject:

link:
http://skyblu.wordpress.com/target-...-century/308-winchester-vs-30-06-springfield/

None of this is with the intent of trashing the venerable 30.06. I like that cartridge and the M1 Garand a lot it's just that the M-14(or M1A) in 7.62 Nato is definitely an improved version of that classic rifle.

 

Not really since by the generally accepted conventions the AK is an Assault Rifle, not a Battle Rifle.

I respectfully invite you to add something to your posts (Not just here but elsewhere on this discussion group as well) to back up the statements you make. One sentence statements with no supporting evidence make for less than a lively debate, infact if you cannot qualify your statements in at least some regard they become basically worthless to a debate and will probably be regarded as so by forum-goers.

What leads you to that conclusion? How many assault rifles have you had experience of using? Under what circumstances? It doesn't of course have to mean direct experience, what articles/accounts/interviews have you read or heard to support your view?

 

I agree with Simon.

 

Grieg,

Now don't take offense, but I find the quote by "BB" quite hilarious! Let's take what he says at face value, and that is he is saying the .308 is more accurate. What rifle was being used by the shooters? What bullet was being used by the shooters? What powder and how many grains were being used? Was anyone using "paper patch" bullets or discarding sabots?

To say that any caliber is more acurate based solely on caliber is ridiculous, so I would need to have more information. My father shot at Camp Perry back in the late '70's and I can't remember if he used the '06 or .308. Both are good calibers, but the .308 falls a bit short of the velocity capabilities of the '06 because of its reduced case capability.

I use 150 grain spitzer boat tails in both, with a ballistic coefficient of .423.
My preferred powder is IMR 4831 or IMR 4895. I don't have all my reloading books handy so let's look at IMR 4895. With the 150 grain bullet, the "max" charge is some 51.5 grains with the '06 for a MV of 2958. The .308 has a max of 45 grains at 2,777 fps.

Since I am not a "target shooter" so to speak, I want the additional MV and foot pounds of energy. Whether my group is 1/2" or 1" is just not a concern. The target is down.

With IMR 4064, I can get the MV of the '06 with a 150 grain bullet up to 3,012 fps; only a bit slower than the 5.56, with a whole lot more foot pounds of energy.

I look at weapons with killing in mind, not target shooting scores. With that in mind, of the weapons I own and have shot, the 30.06 stands supreme.

The .308 is a close second.

All the best!

- Greg

:smok:

 

No offense taken. Whether you accept BBs analysis or not doesn't change the fact that the top competition shooters in the military all changed to the .308 cartridge. Not some of them, all. Even those using the Garand were using .308 Garands by the 1960s. With the introduction of the M-14 (and after the inevitable teething problems) it became the rifle of choice.
The military competition shooters AFAIK don't load their own ammo but use match grade ammo. If anyone developed a 30.06 load that would outshoot the .308 they apparently kept it secret.

 

Grieg,

The M14/M1A is a great weapon, no question (I love mine), but I believe the difference in the competition has more to do with the rifle than the caliber or load.

And once again, you are talking target shooting, and the difference in any accuracy is simply not a factor when shooting at a live target.

- Greg

 

Did any of u shooted from Yugoslav PAP ( i think that is variant of SKS simonov) accuracy if that rifle is excelent,and why is that? Simple,barel is much longer,and balance far betther in "old type" rifles then from modern ones,especialy in bul-pup versions.

 

I only fired the thing once when we were drilling tromblone procedures with school AT granade. Couldn't belive how far that big AT granade flew (i overshot tank target at 200m).

Otherwise we used them only for ceremonial purposes (flag platoon of the barracks i.e. command of RV & PVO Slovenia). We used normal battle not pimped up versions (cromed).

Wasn't M-59/66 PAP (better known as Papovka) version of Tokarev (SVT)?

For those who don't know what Papovka is:
M-59/66 PAP (Polu Avtomatska Puška - Semi automatic rifle)




BTW we were told that thing was extremly accurate.

 

I have held an SKS whilst I was in Uganda and luckily didn't have to fire it.
I cannot see what the alance in bull-pups is wrong? I find my G22 Walther a very comfortable gun to fire and the balance of it is much better than any .22 bolt action or semi-auto in a standard layout that i have used simply because the majority of the weight is in the back with makes it in my opinion more comfortable to hold.

 

Maybe it was,i dont really know,i will check it out,but i think that is SKS derivat.It is highly accurate,and i dont know why they abandon it (no auto is probably reason)

 

To me it looks like an SKS with minor differences. My SKS is Chinese made, and many a wild hog went down on our property with that gun. (Of course, I reload my own using a soft tip 125 grain jacketed bullet rather than the easy to find and cheap FMJ. For awhile, we even bought the "Steel Core" ammo by the case, but it seems it is no longer available as the ATF had an issue with small arms AP ammo).

My opinion is that the SKS is to my generation, what the .30 caliber carbine was to my father's, except the SKS costs less ( I paid $70 bucks for mine). Great "throw in the truck" gun! When you remove the bayonet however, one does need to put a rubber ring around the cleaning rod to keep it from rattling.

- Greg

:smok:

 

I thought the M1 Garand was obsolete now.

 

not obsolete , still a fine weapon ...the m14 is a garand with a magazine {better) the m16 is much easier to shoot ,weighs less and you can carrie twice as much ammo {ammo is also much lighter),,,a modern m16 with a grenade launcher and a night scope is way better than a garand ....most of the time

 

However, the M14 is the gun to get if you want power-it shoots 7.62mm rounds. I think it matches the AK47.

 

I think that the NATO 7.62mm catrige is significantly longer and heavier than the Soviet 7.62mm, making it more powerful