AK47 vs M16 (again...)

Blaster;
Please tell tell me what you actually and factually know about firearms, ammunition, and ballistics?

 

Sure. Fine. You're right, I'm wrong.

 

Blaster that's not a particularly good attitude to take. Please explain to us how you come to your viewpoint and crucially why. That's what this forum is all about, debate, and through it we all potentially stand to learn. Your posts as they stand do seem inflamatory, agressive and many are somewhat argumentatively worded.

It's not a case that we're right and you're wrong necessarily, however in your posts you do come over as argumentative and sure of yourself considering your lack of research, lack of experience, lack of understanding or a combination. Unfortunately that's almost garunteed to get people's backs up.

Please don't take that as an insult, it's not supposed to be, what I'm trying to do is put into context why we perhaps seem unfairly harsh when we respond to posts which are written in absolute terms (for example, "...piece of equipment "A" is totally useless...") about equipment that we have either researched more completely or in a number of cases have practical experience of.

It is entirely possible to pose questions without getting defensive when the responses don't match your preconcieved opionions.

 

Which I think is rather the point, a properly looked after M16 or L85 for example should not suffer anything more than a few stoppages throughout its service life. Cleaning a rifle adequately takes a matter of ten or twenty minutes or so, probably less by a skilled soldier.

A torso shot with a 5.56mm or 7.62mm M1943 will in all likelihood put the recipient out of the fight at normal combat ranges so the advantages of either or moot really, except that the NATO rifles are generally more accurate over normal combat ranges, Soviet rifles more robust.

The advantage of being able to shoot through solid cover like brick walls is one I find curious, I have (In my admittedly limited experience) yet to take instructions in small arms where I have been taught to shoot at things I cannot see over any appreciable range, the only circumstances where that is usefull is for LMG/GPMG, which is really not applicable to this discussion. Considering the small space a prone human body takes up and excepting fluke shots, how much of an advantage is penetration through such solid cover typically when using open sights or 1.5x optics?

 

Simon, like you said, any hit is going to cause dismay on the other side. However, with those added optics, imagine the consternation on the other side if you pull off a hit like you mentioned!

If you can ding the bad guys when they believe they're behind cover, they're going to be slightly more than dismayed!

"Hey, they can shoot through walls! And hit us, too! Fall back!!!"

 

Basicly if you fight in wooded country this is a very welcome. I can't stop loughing when i see in the movies poeple taking cover behind trees. 7.62 can goe trough and hit a man behind a tree with ease (it would realy have to be a biiiiiig tree not to be able to shoot trough, especialy if you take into the account that visibility in the wooded terrain is 200m tops (depending on configuration) and most shooting is done on these distances. In urban warfare this is also welcome becouse of reasons Tom mentioned. You don't have to hit someone to make them pull out, becouse when bullets start punching trough the wall nobodywill stay there and hoped not to be hit.

 

Well, Simon, the reason that I think that NATO should have stuck with their 7.62mm round as standard is because it can penetrate a tree and the 5.56mm cartridge can't. Same thing with 'half brick' walls in urban areas. If the enemy can hit you despite the wall you're ducking behind, and you can't shoot the enemy thorugh the same wall, wouldn't that be bad?

 

That is why they have grenade launchers and AT weapons. Why try to shoot through the wall when you can destroy it?

 

The thing is Blaster that being able to penetrate a tree or brick wall isn't necessarily a huge advantage. Yes for surpressive fire it can help (But again that's what you're LMGs are for, not your assault rifles) or for snipers with IR scopes but again they have their own specialised weapons. It's going to be pretty terrifying having bullets come through a wall to be sure, but the liklihood of such blind fire randomly hitting anyone is pretty small.

UGLs, light mortars, LAWs, LMGs etc are all much better in this respect.

In any case if this is what you base the superiority of the 7.62mm on then you are ignoring a lot. As has been said, a 5.56mm round at normal combat ranges is plenty powerful enough to injure, for the most part an infantry rifleman is not going to be wasting ammunition shooting someone he cannot directly see, and as has already been mentioned 5.56mm is a lot more controllable in fully automatic, which fighting house to house is very useful where the 7.62mm is basically overkill at such short ranges. 5.56mm weapons tend to be much shorter as well, easier to use when jumping out of an AIFV or Helicopter and much easier to use in buildings or heavily wooded areas. Lastly as Greig mentioned a lot more 5.56mm ammunition can be carried by each man, so each individual soldier can fight for longer without needing resupplied.

 

But the AK47 and M16A2 both have 30 round magazines, and the AK47 uses the 7.62mm round and the M16A2 uses the 5.56mm round.

 

I think what you don't realize is that the 30 round mags for the M-16 (which are the same for the SA-80/L-85) are smaller and lighter because the 5.56 round is smaller and lighter. A soldier only has so much room on his self to carry ammo and gear. The smaller and lighter you can make it, the more room he will have and the longer he carry it before getting fatigued.

 

And 5.56mm weapons are mre compact and easier to control than 7.62mm weapons, right?

 

This should explain everything. It's an article comparing the 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO:
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#762

 

AK-47 got 870mm lenght,M-16 got 1006mm lenght,so ur not right on this.
And about that who can carry more rounds,just look this:5.56x45 and 7.62x39.7.62 is bit heawyer but it is not bigger (by space he using) coz 5.56 has more lenght,and it is not slim allso.I personaly carryed 6 mags+1 in rifle when i done patrolls.

 

I was comparing 5.56mm weapons to 7.62mm NATO weapons. In any case, re-read what i said. They tend to be shorter, for every 7.62mm weapon (or rifle of similar calibre) that that is shorter than the M16 (to use that as a ball park weapon) I'd like to bet I could list a dozen that are longer, so my statement stands, they do tend to be shorter.

The 5.56mm cartidge is quite a bit slimmer, plus with the complete round of the M1943 isn't much shorter at all IIRC since the bullet itself is longer than the 5.56mm bullet, and the cartridge itself quite a bit wider. It doesn't really matter in any case, in terms of the space they take up AK magazines take up more space than an M16 magazine, in terms of weight each AK round is heavier, so again it still stands that the more 5.56 rounds can be carried either by individual soldiers or by transport vehicles.

In any case again, the comparison was actually being made here with the 7.62mm NATO round, not the Soviet one.

 

O,sry then,but u did not notice that u speak about 7.62 NATO,and i asume that u speak about 7.62x39,but i think that diference in weight in not important at all,coz in the same amount of rounds we carry 300 grams more.And we carry clips,not rounds alone so i carry 6 clips allwasy,in my combat west,and it is basic (patroll) number of clips,with my PKT on position i had several thousends of rounds with me.

 

About one of the posts on pg 1 here:

Couldn't superiority also take into account the availability of the weapon?

The AK is widely used by insurgents because it is far more easily purchaced on the black market than the M16.

Yes the M16 may be a better weapon indivudually but when the enemy can get more guns they can spit out more bullets increasing risk.
Would you rather be on the side that can put out a lot of rounds or the side than can spit out half that manny but with slightly more accuracy.

Quality vs Quantity

ps: I prefer the AK.

 

No question in my mind. One accurately aimed round is worth thousands of poorly aimed ones. That is also the philosophy of the USMC (where I trained) Well aimed fire is effective. Poorly aimed fire is ususally ineffective.
The place where you ARE is significantly smaller than all the places in the wide world where you ARE NOT.

 

What about the effect on morale? One thousand poorly aimed shots would certainly scare me alot more than one well placed round...

Hell, I probably wouldnt even feel it


Still there is alot to be said for supressive fire; the more you can lay down, the less the enemy will pop his head up... which is good for you.

 

Actualy M-16 cant be 100% more precie then AK,that is absolutly nonsens.Maybe up to 10% when we look basic AK-47 model,and what about prices?Im shure that for 1 M-16 u can buy at least 3 AK-47,i dont remember that some otther nation use M-16 as main infantry rifle,eawen bigg US friend Israel use Galil,they home made rifle,witch interesting look more like AK then M-16 and not withouth reason 2/3 world use AK-47 as basic assault rifle.On ewery post when ppl from US try to glorify their M-16 they potence that US soldiers r excelent marksmanships,and their enemys r untrained pesants.Is it a bit unfair?A little comparation.Take Serbia for exsample.After 1996,in past 10y we where few time european champions in baskeball,world champions allso,wining alot champions in wolleyball,vaterpolo,handball,etc.Serbia got less then 10mil ppl,when ur sport investments r a joke.So why not lager,with more whelts,with "betther training" countrys ,like US,Canada,UK,r any otther bigg country dont beat us in that score?