AK47 vs M16 (again...)

Thanks for the heads-up Smeghead and 1950willys. Now I get it.

 

I read this in a military magazine from the 1980s, and would like its accuracy confirmed.

Apparently the initial reliability problems with the M16 in Vietnam came from a parculier source. The M16 was originally produced with a cartridge using a particular type of powder that did not leave residue within the barrel, eliminating the need to clean the barrel. However, with the increase in demand for ammo due to the war, ammo with more normal powder was purchased, which did leave residue in the barrel. However, nobody told the troops about the ammo change, so they continued to not clean out the barrel.

So is that truth or rubbish?

 

Acctualy not the barell but mechanism.

 

almost correct- the reason they went to the ball powder was cost, it was cheaper that the powder speced by armalite. the seals had been using the ar15/m16 for quite a while and had no major troubles with theirs.

 

Hm,i look with diferent wiuew.I got rifle at home,popular "floberka" here,in 6mm caliber.Interesting is that that rifle date from 1890-1905,and i still shoot from it! So what is the point? It is simple bolt action 1 round rifle,so there is notthing to brake/jam.More simple rifles r far more reliable from complicated mechanism rifles.

 

A rifle bullet penetrating a brick wall? I thought only .50 cal. bullets could do that.

 

Depends,not all birck walls r the same :lol:

 

I think those being referred to is cinderblocks which arent that strong to begin with. As a child there was a couple in my backyard so I tried to move one to make space to play hockey. It was no more than 10-15cm when I dropped it and it split into 4-6 giant pieces not to metnion thousands more small ones.

 

I work on construction yards some time,and u got "two types" of brick walls.Full brick and half-brick wall.Full brick is 30 cm and probably no rifle can penetrate it,and half brick is 15 cm,what is not problem for 7.62x39 and 7.62x51.

 

That clears things up. Still, I bet the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge would fail to penetrate half brick walls and trees. So why again is NATO not using a 7.62x39mm cartridge again?

 

It is all in compromises.As i sayed b4 nato 5.56 was made on limit of stability so it can bounce from bones,and lighter slug got flater trajecrory then heawy one.NATO still use 7.62mm ammo,it is not rejected from use.

 

NATO is not going to use a cartridge that was developed by the Warsaw Pact. That would be like Ford cars with GM engines. We were all set to go to war with those countries for 40 some odd years.

Besides, if NATO wanted to use a .30 caliber cartridge they would have stayed with the 7.62mm NATO.

 

Then why didn't they? The 5.56 cartridge has all the disadvantages with no advantages in any matter whatsoever. If NATO's gonna' do this they may as well use BBs in a gunfight. Knowing that the 7.62 cartridge is clearly superior by a landslide, and the 5.56 cartridge is a useless shoddy good. Who cares about flat trajectories and stability limits that don't mean half a darn thing?

 

NATO has an official website...so does the US.....and other country's weird.

 

If you had ever had to carry 10 to 15 magazines of ammunition in your gear, in crushing heat, while marching for miles you would understand one of the reasons why the 5.56mm was chosen over the 7.62mm. Not to mention the 6.5 lb 5.56mm rifle compared to the 9.5 lb 7.62mm rifle. When you combine that with the increasingly short engagement ranges in most recent wars you have several reasons.

 

...and the controllability of 5.56mm particularly when firing bursts at short range compared to that of 7.62mm.

Not to mention that flat trajectories help with marksmanship and since shooting is an important part of what guns are for being able to hit targets is a real plus.

The stability or not of a projectile can be a increase wounding to soft tissue, which is a very real advantage too.

Before dismissing things as "not meaning a darn thing" you might want to check on the accuracy of what you're saying, the ability of a projectile to wound and fly in a predictable manner is very important for military firearms.

There's nothing wrong with asking for information when it comes to terms or concepts you don't understand either.

 

Blaster, a personal request.

Please, when there is a debate about whether A or B is better, and evidence is put forward that B is better, please do not start calling A worthless.

It often is simply not true, as usually the superiority gap is marginal. Calling the weaker of the two 'shoddy' or 'useless' is inaccuarte, unfair, and often makes me want to argue on its behalf!

If we ever debate the Bob Semple vs M1A3 however...

 

Tell ye what, let's do an experiment. First, I'll shoot you in the thigh with a 7.62, at 200 yds. Then I'll shoot the other thigh with a 5.56. They you can decide whether either one is a worthy round for combat!?


Blaster, I'm all for helping people out, that's why we belong to forums like this. But you have to remember that many of us have used these weapons and ammunition that you speak so blithely of! We have personal, hands-on experience with them, where you've only read about them. Hell, one of us even had targets firing back at him! You just can't throw out statements like that, with no personal knowledge, or solid information to back them up.

That would be like me joining an automobile forum, and saying that the rotary engine isn't worth a damn as compared to the V8. I personally don't know squat about cars, and have absolutely no frame of reference to make such a statement. (And if ANYONE turns this thread into a debate on car engines, I'll delete those posts, and send piles of nasty spam to your inboxes, both PM and e-mail!!0

Can you see my point? Or anyone else's here?

 

U cant hawe all,when is matther of rifle r the ammo what rifle use.I just like to be shure that my rifle will newer jam and i can relie on my own abilitys to inflict highest possible dmg with that rifle.It is allso good to know what advantage,and disvantages that preicular ammo provide u when u facing enemy who use diferent one.But i had not that expiriance,only thing when i had combat engagment was agains Albanian terrorist in south Serbia (not Kosov,dont mix things) and they use allso AK-47 but albanian and chinese made AK's and ammo what is much lower quality then serbian is.What i can say thet they r poor marksmans eawen with sniper.

 

Yet another attempt to set off an explosion?
Every time you make some inane statement like this, is seems calculated to start an argument, as you seemingly only make these statemetns where US or NATO equipment is mentioned.
Are you trying to cozy up to the former Eastern Bloc members,or to you just like baiting westerners/Americans by constantly degrading anything they do?
It's enough to make one believe you're not ten years old!