AK47 vs M16 (again...)

There are hundreds of weapons available out there, and even more calibers (or are the language pedants demanding calibres?) While I'm more than willing to argue the merits of each situationally, I belong to a different school of thought when it comes right down to it.

IMHO, the best firearm to use in any given situation is the one in your hands at the time! When you get caught in a firefight, you don't have time to bitch about not having the weapon of choice. You make the best possible use of the weapon at hand.




When you get back, then you to to the EM Club, and bitch about how crappy it was, but only after you get back!

 

And if may add,if u back

 

The AK47 is "more forgiving" than the M16. In Viet Nam, a number of US soldiers I knew discarded the M16 and used captured AK47's because the M16 was such a bitch to keep clean. If it was not kept clean, it simply did not function.

Personally, I would not give you a nickel for an M16, but there are many versions, and many of the issues with the earlier models have seemingly been corrected.

Take a 30.06 bolt action with a 4X12 scope. It beats either weapon you are talking about.

My preference is the Remmington model ADL 700 (over the BDL), using 150 grain spitzer boat tail bullets, with "X" grains of IMR 4831. Gives about 2700 fps and will drop any animal in North America.

- Greg

:smok:

 

Don't take this personally but IMO that is one of those things that gets repeated by others but has no basis in reality. The reality is that even if you preferred the AK-47 you would not be able to get ammunition for it (in sufficient quantity) and even more important point that only a grunt or someone who was intimately familar with grunts would be aware of; you would be insane to use an AK-47 in a firefight involving American soldiers or Marines since it had a distictive sound and would make you a big f'ing target. You would do the one thing that no grunt likes and that is draw fire like mad.

 

i agree with the poster above

 

Vietnam? I'd guess those were M16A1s. What about M16A2s?

 

One of the most important things about a gun IMHO, which never seems to be discussed is the sights... If its got good sights it makes it much much easier to hit the target, and the M-16 has very clearly defined and easy to use sights... Now I've never seen an AK, but from what I hear the sights are crude and its less apparent to the shooter where they are shooting...

 

The important thing is for the shooter to be familiar with his weapon. The old Colt .45 SAR has some of the most crude sights one can think of. All it takes to be proficient is practice, and knowing how the gun shoots.

Inside 300 yards, a man that knows his weapon (AK47, M16, or .22 rifle) is a very dangerous adversary.

- Greg

:smok:

 

Instinctive shooting will suffice at close range, inside 50 yards or so.
Anything beyond that requires decent sights in order to be consistently accurate. If you don't have good sights, and know how to use them, adjusting for elevation and windage as needed, then at 300 yards you will be a very dead adversary if you are facing a man that is skilled in these areas.

ps..In the USMC the 500 yard firing line is still used last time I checked. If you can hit anything at 500 yards with an AK-47 then you are one lucky man.

 

"Instinctive shooting will suffice at close range, inside 50 yards or so.
Anything beyond that requires decent sights in order to be consistently accurate. If you don't have good sights, and know how to use them, adjusting for elevation and windage as needed, then at 300 yards you will be a very dead adversary if you are facing a man that is skilled in these areas".

Well, with a 45 ACP pistiol, I can hit a man sized target at 100 yards. With any one of several open sight rifles I own, I can put a bullet in a head sized target at 100 yards. With my scoped 30.06, a head shot at 300+ yards. With the SKS 7.62x39 we shot 2 liter bottles at 200 yards.

I feel "instinctive shooting" (whatever that is - perhaps "spray and pray"?) will only get you killed. I have had only 3 times in my life when I faced a human enemy, and not once did I have to shoot (twice hunting and finding poachers on the property, and one burglar). Facing off against a human adversary that is armed gets the blood a pumping! You realize if he brings his gun up, you kill or be killed. Fortunately, I never had to squeeze off the round.

Know the gun, know its limitations and your own, and you are ahead of 90% of those that possess "superior" weapons.

- Greg

:smok:

 

Instinctive shooting: Don't screw around waiting until your sights are centred. Use your hand-eye co-ordination.

Isn't that kind of an unspoken rule in combat? General exception being snipers of course.

 

When we go to the range, several of the courses of fire include targets at >12 feet. I do my best not to use my sights for those.

I also practice (with an unloaded weapon! ) point and shoot. I simply pick something in the house, preferably small, and point my trigger finger at it before wrapping it around the trigger. Then I move my head to check sight alignment/picture. I'm usually pretty close.

Pretty close doesn't sound that good, but when you pick out a salt shaker at 15 feet, and you're off by 1/2 an inch, that's right on for a man-sized target!

 

We cane always go back to the smooth bore musket then the M16 wont look so bad

 

Have you had military training Greg? The reason I ask is that they teach instinctive shooting in the military as well as aimed fire on known distance (KD) type ranges. Some services use different names for it though.
Tom and Siberian Black have it right. It's hand/eye point and shoot. With practice it is deadly at close range and much faster than using sights.

When I was in the USMC many years ago they called it snap shooting IIRC. I do recall that we also practiced with BB guns (airguns) of all things. One man threw up a small target in the air and you just point and shoot...repeat and repeat until wonder of wonders you begin to reliably hit the small discs..with a BB gun at a moving target. Your eye and brain can take the place of careful aiming if the target is close. It doesn't work well at long ranges.

BTW I would hope you could hit a head sized bullseye at 300 meters with a scope We were required to reliably hit 20 inch bulls eyes at 500 yards with iron sights.

 

Grieg,

No military service in my background; I was classified "1-H" (The newer term for the old "4-F"). Just been around guns and hunted all my life.

If you are talking "target shooting", you are talking a 'perfect' world, and one should be able to hit at 500 yards, assuming you ever get a target in real life at that range. No question that at those ranges, proper sights are key. Unfortunately, engagement ranges are many times much closer; often less than 100 yards, and here in the USA, most gunfight ranges take place at a distance of "feet", and not yards, according to police.

As I am sure you know, target shooting to shooting at a live target is comparing "black pawn to white knight". And if you are talking "snap shooting", then sights don't matter at all, and it amounts to nothing but a spray and pray.

Historically, military "hits" to rounds expended are only some 3% or so. It seems the military does less well in the field than they do at the target range.

All the best!

- Greg

:smok:

 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make Greg because, you see everyone does better on the range than they do in the field, be it military or police or whatever. As I already pointed out, instinctive shooting is a skill that can be learned and is quite effective at close range. It is not spray and pray which is a term that refers to using full auto to fire lots of unaimed rounds in the hope that some will find the target. I don't know of any military training that encourages spray and pray or anything like it.

While target shooting does not indeed fully prepare one for the stressful firefight of combat it is the first and essential step. If you don't learn to use your weapon properly when the stress is low, as on the rifle range, you will have no hope of using your weapon effectively when the stress is high.

As far as the militaries low percentage of hits compared to rounds expended, well IMO it's unwise to criticize that which you have never experienced.
For instance, Even though the USMC teaches that you should try to make every round count, there are times when it makes sense to fire many more less well aimed rounds. Not many people are aware of the skills and techniques that infantrymen depend upon every day to survive. If a small unit, say a squad is under heavy rifle or machinegun fire and they need to maneuver, to merely get up and run is foolish and usually fatal. Squads and fireteams are taught to coordinate their moves with covering fire. Several men advance while the others lay down enough covering fire to make the enemy either duck their heads or at least spoil their aim. Then they lay down covering fire for the next few men to advance.
Another time when you must achieve fire superiority (or die) is when your unit is ambushed. The proper technique if a patrol is ambushed is not to dive for cover or run. If you do you will almost certainly die. If the ambush was planned properly all lanes of retreat are covered by fire or are mined.
The proper response is for the unit to turn towards the ambush place your rifle at hip height and firing low make an assault towards the firing positions of the enemy. If you can put out enough fire to make them duck or just stop firing well aimed shots then your unit has a chance to gain fire superiority and ambush the ambushers. Not a very good chance, mind you, but if you are in the killing zone of an ambush it is your only chance.
It is not a waste of ammo. If you don't use these and other techniques that were learned the hard way from bitter experience you will not last long as a grunt.

 

Grieg,

We shall have to agree to disagree on some of the points you mention.

While I am sure that you have an abundance of first hand combat experience, my comments on weapons are based on my own personal knowledge and books. My comments on the combat aspect are based on books, and interviews with those that had direct combat experience in Viet Nam or WW2.

No doubt, their combat experience does not compare with your direct combat experience.

I am sure that all historians that have criticized military actions, tactics, or doctrine in history had specific first hand knowledge of what they wrote about. :roll:

- Greg

:smok:

 

The sarcasm is getting thick. Historians, the good ones anyway, make sure that they have reliable sources and lots of information before drawing conclusions.
If one clearly knows what they are talking and not just repeating anecdotes then it isn't necessary to have first hand knowledge.
It's pretty clear you have never heard of instinctive shooting nor the fact that it is taught as a skill. I gave you good examples of how and why it's useful. The fact that it is taught in the military is verifiable by rudimentary checking of facts.
The same can be said for your criticism of the 3% hit rate in combat. Rather than acquire the knowledge as to why such highly trained people should have such a low percentage of hits you instead jump to the conclusion that it must be because they "spray and pray". I gave you logical, verifiable reasons why the hit rate would be low e.g. covering fire yet rather than address the issues presented you again choose to personalize the debate by attempting (unsuccessfully) to insult me.
So be it. I'm not fragile and I can handle it. I will however continue to speak up on these forums on issues that I know something about. This happens to be one of them.

ps
Having been engaged in many online debates on things military and having had to defend myself from personal attacks on my credibility and truthfulness and especially due to the fact that there are so many phony war veterans putting out BS...and having to prove my bona fides to everyone that I debated, I long ago stopped discussing my personal experiences other than to say that my experience in the Vietnam War was minimal and leave it at that. Making no claim of firsthand combat experience tends to short circuit the inevitable challenges, personal attacks, snide comments about people on the internet claiming to be something that they aren't that always manages to derail the substantive issues that are being debated.
I simply state that I served in the USMC from 1970 to 1974. Most any comments I make related to training or the history of the war can be sourced and verified without having to fall back on claiming firsthand knowledge.

pss I think that people can disagree without becoming disagreeable don't you?

 

"pss I think that people can disagree without becoming disagreeable don't you?"

Evidentely, you cannot. You seem to take it personally when someone disagrees with you and you expect them to take your word as an authority without question.

I offer my opinion here just as you do; nothing more, nothing less.

As you should know, training and reality are "black pawn to white knight".

Good day sir!

- Greg

:smok:

 

In addition to your opinion you offer comments like:

It would be silly to try and claim that no sarcasm was intended with those remarks. It is true that I have sometimes in past threads allowed myself to resort to sarcasm as well, however none was intended in this thread. When I asked if you had military training I really wanted to know the answer to that question rather than merely trying to shut off debate. It was relevant to the issue of training in instinctive shooting since it is unlikely that only those with police or military training would be aware of it.

I did not ask anyone to take my word as an authority, without question. On the contrary, I went to some lengths to explain the rationale behind my comments in terms of logic and historical fact rather than merely stating that something is so because I say it is so.

I see little point in continue to squabble like this thus I will leave it to the readers of this thread to read my comments and make their own judgment as to the truth or wisdom therein. I would welcome some debate on the subject if anyone cares to take issue with the substance of my comments and can leave the personalities aside. Take issue with the logic, reasoning or accuracy of the facts rather than attacking me.