Rifle Reliability

To the best of my knowledge, the two weapons were designed with entirely different tactics in mind, thus different accuracy standards. When I had the chance to fire an AK, I wasn't on a KD course, so I can't say for certain how accurate it is, or isn't.

However, the weapon was primarily designed for close in fighting, 200 meters and less IIRC. Therefore, it isn't required to make consistent head shots at 500 meters. The US has always placed high value on marksmanship at longer distances. Frankly, if I can take a guy out of the fight at 500 yards, I'm all for it!

 

Actualy u can ajust sight on AK-47 up to 800m if i remember good,but boulet "drop" ( not flat trajectory) and it is preety much for notthing.Up to 300m it is more flater boulet trajectory so u dont need to aim headshots,u just ajust sight.And AK-74 and abowe use NATO 5.56x45 ammo,so it had same balistic charasteristic as NATO ammo (naturaly it is same ammo :lol: ) and i think that barel is extended a bit.

 

No it doesn't, the AK74 uses the Soviet 5.45mm round, which is basically just a slimmed down 7.62 M1943 round.

Most sources I've read (Admittedly Western, but I've heard nothing yet to contradict that), indicate that the 5.45mm was the result of Soviet tests of captured M16s being sent back from Vietnam.

This kind of begs the question that if true, and the AKM/7.62mm M1943 combination was so superior why was it redesigned to take a round based on testing the "inferior" 5.56mm round

Even if this isn't true, if the 7.62mm M1943 is so good, why did the Soviets take the step down to the 5.45mm in any case?

 

Ur right simon,they use 5.45x39,and AK-101 and abowe use 5.56x45mm NATO ammo.We use home made (serbian industry) AK's with 5.56x45mm rifles,so i mixed it up.

 

OK, but it's also worth pointing out that just because the round has the same ballistic characteristics doesn't mean that the weapon is as accurate as other weapons which share the same ammunition.

 

Ur right simon,but barel is extended for 60 mm,and flater trajectory of 5.56x45 ammo point that acurracy is improowed from standard AK-47,and i think that is enought,so what rifle is more accurate (ak-101 and M16A2) is up to shooter,coz they r close enought.

 

I had an XM16E1 and it only jammed once using a bad mag. The XM16E1 was the test verson that later was adopted as the M16A1. I would take that rifle any where.

 

I had AK-47,and PKT and it newer jam :lol:

 

I guess it's time for something really unreliable-the British SA80, complete with a likeliness to break when used in combat conditions, and a tendency for magazines to fall out.

 

Blaster that's complete nonsense. This is what I wrote on the first page:

The magazines only fall out if the release catch is pressed, the release catch was originally exposed so sometimes could get accidentally pressed, but that was solved very early on in the A1's service and is not a problem at all in the A2.

It's only unreliable if it isn't looked after and a tendency to break? Only if you try beating tanks to death with one.

Please post comments like that only if you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

 

post subject

Come on Blaster, when IS your birthday?

 

I am not telling you, Merlin. Seriously, Simon, I read the LA80's unreliability stuff from a book.

 

I read a book about a girl who went down a rabbit hole. Should I take everything in it as gospel truth?

If you are referencing material in a book or any other source, you should cite it, ideally full information including title, author, publisher, year and even page. If thats not possible, as much information as possible to allow others to find it. Also investigate alternative sources e.g. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... lity&meta= to see if the view you cite is commonly shared or if it represents a lone viewpoint. You will also wish to investigate the authors credentials -- do they have any personal experience, do they have a personal bias on the issue?

I am disappointed (not surprised) that this sort of basic research skill is no longer taught in schools.

Tom

 

True, but I don't think it would be part of the 4th grade(?) curriculum in any case If Blaster is telling the truth about his age he is a bit precocious. His mental ability and curiosity may be outreaching his education.

 

post subject

"And still they gazed, and still their wonder grew,
That one small head, could carry all he knew."
(The Village Schoolmaster by Oliver Goldsmith. 1728-1774.)

 

I dont know -- I was certainly taught that sort of thing in primary school. Having taught high-school, I know it is more or less missing from the UK curriculum, but its a shame as, IMHO, education should be about teaching people how to think and learn.

Merlin -- Excellent quote

 

post subject

Then again, he could be one of John Wyndham's Midwich Cuckoos!!! :roll:

 

You have a point, Ossian. I think that book was published in the year 2000 or something like that. Anyway, now that the LA80's reliability has been pretty much confirmed, anyone else like to suggest a rifle?

(Actually, Ossian, my school does teach how to cite articles, but I'm too lazy to cite anything if it's not for a project).

 

At risk of getting off topic, that is very disappointing. You should know from other posts on this board that we are sticklers for accuracy, particularly in technical information and most posters make a very clear distinction between opinion (e.g. IMHO), unsubstantiated information (e.g. IIRC or ISTR) and material which others can follow up. People will think far more highly of you if your posts consist of verifiable information to back up your opinions instead of what seems to be a series of arbitrary statements about equipment and technologies that, with all due respect, you have no experience of outwith books and games.

Please do not take the above as criticism but as part of the learning process.
Tom

 

sks

i'll throw a new one in here, the sneered at SKS. ok its heavy, has perhaps the cheapest safety ever installed, and by far the worst rear sight i've ever had the bad luck to shoot with. BUT the damn things always goes BANG when you pull the trigger and with a decent rear sight is accurate enough to take woodchucks at 150 yds. i would rate it a 9 with 1 being suprised if it shoots and 10 the mythical maintance free never fail gun. i've fired thousands of rounds through mine and am still waiting for the first failure. i have 4 long guns i keep close to their ammo for home defense and farm shooting. one is my 10/22 for small pests, the second is a mossburg 12 bore, the third is a marlin camp carbine in 9mm [ for the wife mostly] and the last is my SKS. it is my choice for anything outside that's bigger than a woodchuck that has to be put down right now. all 4 are excellent guns but the SKS is the only one i would rate as a 9. the others would be 7 or 8 depending on which ammo is in use.