you ideas what could be changed, or be improved. Please Explain.
Tell you what, when starting a topic why don’t you at least demonstrate that you have an opinion and that you know a little about the subject? Posts like this are little more than spam without at least some contribution from you to the topic.
Fine I like the M16 for I have grown up with this weapon It has great range and some power. Not as much as the Ak-47.
M16a2 fires a 5.56x45mm round
Ak-47 fires a 7.62x39mm round
Not as much what? Range? Wounding effect? Accuracy? Reliability? Training required of the user?
But still even with training, it is hard to hit anything up to 350yards. M16 you can hit things at a good 500-650yds.
It’s not that easy to hit much beyond 350m with the M-16 either. Most soldiers under duress in grueling combat might not be able to shoot anyone beyond 200m with any consistency…
The M-16’s round, either version of the M193 5.56mm or the newer SS109 5.56mm, also has a much higher velocity causing greater ballistic damage at some ranges and “hydrashock,” where the water content of the body ripples after being struck.
The older round was also noted for not “tumbling,” (which is largely a myth) but actually exploding or blowing into shards at shorter ranges (about 0-20m) causing often horrific ballistic wound damage…That’s why the Soviets adopted the smaller caliber 5.45mm round for the AK-74 at the end of Vietnam. Largely based on observations of the US battle rifle. One that was less reliable than the AK-47/AKM, and often less effective at shooting through the jungle foliage as it was more prone to deflection. But one that was also capable of delivering some horrific wounds whereas the AK is considered to be not much harder hitting than a 9mm pistol round at medium to longer ranges…
Actualy the counterpart of M-16 is the AK-74 not AK-47.
Some soviet soldiers who used both of AK-47/74 often told the old 7,62 shall is much more powerful and have a longer range of hit, AK-74 however was lighter and had more accuracy.
In close quarter, urban, close country, and jungle 350 yards is a lot, lot more than is likely to be needed in combat.
Snipers and marksmen may need a weapon accurate to 600 yds, but the average grunt doesn’t, and probably couldn’t hit anything with it at that range under battle conditions anyway (as you note by your comment about even training making accuracy at 350 yards poor).
Accurate to 250 yards is probably more than most grunts need for most purposes, and that’s probably about 150 yds more than most will need for most encounters.
For the ak- the zero is not as tight as the m16a2, due to a short sight radius, the round craps out after 350 meters, i do take into account mr kalashnikovs intent. But it plays well in dirt, key of bang. It was made for non techie troops and concripts. the biggest complaint is the lack of a hold open device.
As to the m16, it is accurate and the zero is not a problem, it is percieved as having a fouling problem due to the gas system venting into the bolt carrier, anyone army/marine trained knows when in doubt clean it. It is dirt sensitive with users complaining about how the “sand box” messes with reliability. Operators are complaining about the need for multiple hits on an opponent as the 556 rnd is thought to be weak against padded or layered clothing.
There is also the thought that it does not do well on those persons using khat, a cocain leaf like plant imported from somalia, for the very purpose of allowing the user to fight longer when hit. The effect was discovered in somalia.
An ex-airforce general said the m4 sucked,but the bushmaster did well (!?!)
range is supposed to be 800 yards but lethality drops of after 400.
Yes I understand that. and everyones points are good but I was wanting to know if the us made the m16 fire a 308 ( 7.62x59mm) would it be better, or worse?
And what is this 7.62 x 59 mm you keep going on about?
The weapon, though heavily modified, is actually now in use as an intermediate sniper system for the US Army as the SR-25. Several others use it as well, including the Aussies:
Not 7.62x59mm it’s 7.62x51
thank you I was thinking 51 but it did not seem right. But thanks!
semper fi- the .308 version of the ar series rifle is the ar-10,which actually preceeded the .223 variant,it is seeing an resurgence as a tactical rifle and as an advanced marksmans issue to both army/marine units. available to civillians
Both of you are wrong. The round fired by the AK-47 and also the SKS is 7.62x39mm.
Effectively the German Sturmgewehr 44 and the AK-47 were designed with the same experiences in mind (after all both sides, Russia and Germany were involved in the same battles), violent short to medium range battles in urban areas (Stalingrad).
In WW2, it was very early discovered that a full sized bolt action rifle firing a full sized round (like the K-98, the Mosin-Nagant or the Lee Enfield) and even full size semi automatic rifles, like the Garand, the G43 or the SVT-41, were too much of a rifle for most conscript soldiers. Unlike in WW1, it was not necessary anymore to take a pot shot at an enemy head popping up from a trench at a distance of half a mile, but fighting was much more mobile on short ranges up to 200-300 m.
The Germans started quite early to develop the Kurzpatrone, defacto a 7.92 mm round with a rather conical shorter cartridge case. Essentially they used the same bullet and a shortened version of their old 7.92x57 cartridge case (as not to have to modify their factories too much).
The Russians did about the same, keeping their old bullets of the 7.62x54R round of the Mosin-Nagant, but designing a new, shorter cartridge case (since the old, rimmed case was not really suitable for automatic weapons).
Both cases, the German and the Russian one, were rather conical, explaining the curved shape of the magazines used on both the AK-47 and the Stg 44.
The smaller rounds, with less propellant, while shortening the effective range of the weapons, permitted the individual soldier to carry more ammo, while the lower recoil made it easier to train recruits.
The design criteria of both rifles demanded the rifle to be shorter than the previous standard rifles. They should have full automatic capability to replace the submachine guns used previously, but should also allow reasonable range, bigger than a SMG’s.
Now, the designs were both gas operated, with the gas cylinder on top of the barrel (due to the magazine mounted on the bottom of the weapons. To get the biggest possible distance between the foresight and the rearsight, the foresight was mounted close to the muzzle.
But concerning the internal workings, both rifles were very different.
The Germans used a tilting breech block, in a bit similar to the Bren gun’s, while Mr. Kalashnikov had a close look at existing systems and used a rotating bolt similar to the Garand’s. One goal was to use as few parts as possible, especially those, which can be lost in the field.
He also designed the weapon to be as reliable as possible, e.g. the bolt carrier of the AK-47 moves on two lips of the lower receiver like on rails, but doesn’t touch anything else, so little chance for dirt blocking anything.
The original AK-47 prototype was manufactured from stampings, but at this time the technology wasn’t yet that advanced in Russia, so the first series introduced to the Soviet Army was using conventionally milled receivers. Later the design was improved and a lighter and cheaper version was built, the AKM, using a stamped and spotwelded receiver.
A while ago I bought a dectivate Chinese copy of an AKM, because I wanted to study the mechanism. It is a very simple design and anybody with access to a few standard machine tools can make one.
Jan
Jan, they are actually talking about the 7.62 NATO round, which is indeed 7.62 x 51mm. There was indeed a predecessor of the AR-15 (the AR-10) which fired this round, although the current AR-10 variants are descendents of the M-16 rather than directly of the original AR-10.
Sorry! Now where is the red faced smiley? I should have read the posts completely before replying.
Jan