The number one advantage of the AK-47 is reliability. You can plunk on in water and sand, run over it and the damn thing still works.
So if you’re not a regular, this weapon is ideal: cheap, learn & easy to operate, more rugged than any other gun I know of…a good stock on it for bashing heads, and you can fire the Nato rounds with it (but not the other way around). Ideal and hands down the best weapon for an irregular.
But the M-16…let’s be honest here, it kinda sucks compared with modern options and so there’s really no point to the weapon anymore. And any comments on it jamming?
So if you’re not a regular, this weapon is ideal: cheap, learn & easy to operate, more rugged than any other gun I know of…a good stock on it for bashing heads, and you can fire the Nato rounds with it (but not the other way around). Ideal and hands down the best weapon for an irregular.
Those rounds have to be heavily modified. Not the province of “amateurs.” The only ones I’m aware of that did this extensively were Filipino Marxist guerrillas…
But the M-16…let’s be honest here, it kinda sucks compared with modern options and so there’s really no point to the weapon anymore. And any comments on it jamming?
Um, it doesn’t “jam” unless one is an arse’hole that doesn’t clean it or if one was using shitty Vietnam era 20-round box magazines (when I was in during the early 1990s) which all had worn feed springs. Most of the “jamming” stuff came out of the early Vietnam era where the US military issued the weapon without cleaning implements and really, really bad info for the soldier, and a change in cartridge powder to the one used by the 7.62X51 round which fouled the guns. This was resolved, and while not perfect, the M-16 is a very effective killing implement…
If the weapon “sucks” so much, than why has the Canadian forces adopted it? In fact, Canada produces a superior version IMO. Basically an M-16A3 for all instead of just for a few elites…
I have an AR 15 and I have NEVER had a stoppage attributable to the weapon, and only one attributable to a 30 round magazine (should have only loaded 28…)
Exceptions: when testing hand-loads and when setting up the lovely adjustable gas system that I put on the rifle.
Also, where do people get these ridiculous ideas that you can fire 7.62 x 51 in an AK chambered for 7.62 x 39? can the AK-47 bend the space-time continuum?
It can’t. However, the round can be cut down and remanufactured into a 7.62X39mm and this is no easy process. I’m aware of it being done in the Philippines by the communist guerrillas who sometimes captured stocks of 7.62mm NATO from gov’t forces as they still used the M-14 and M-60 until recently. From the photographs I saw, it looked like a time consuming process and had to be done in very secure production areas, by child labor of course…
Place case in a lathe, turn down the neck and web to the right diameter.
Using a custom sizing die (or dies), size the case down into the correct form.
Trim case to correct length.
Recharge the case, seat and crimp the bullet.
This is what we Brits would call “a bit of a fag”.
I would not, however, expect great things from ammunition prepared in this way, particularly by unskilled labour. First of all, you are pushing a .308 bullet down a .311 barrel using a powder which is too slow for the application.
lol! I couldn’t help throwing some bait out there regarding the historical problems around M-16 jams. Not mentioned in the discussion thus far was the Vietnam era practice of duct-taping magazines together, upsidedown, to speed up reloading. However, this frequently damaged the magazine itself as it was slammed into the dirt --and filled it with…dirt. Shockingly, the dirty, bent magazines jamed. Whoops.
Good catch on the skilled mods of Nato rounds before they are at all useable. My main point being: AKs are for the underskilled with little access to proper equipment …so this kind of round modification is highly misleading. You’re right, it just plain doesn’t work in the field.
I said the M-16 sucked in comparison with more modern options that are now available and SHOULD be purchased by the Canadian military over C7s. And I stand by that. A SAR-21 is good example. A bullpup (and yes, to be considered, it’s got to be a bullpup IMHO) that is balanced (meaning better groupings), short (essential for urban combat and fast vehicle exits, handy for close combat and key for firing out of a vehicle), accurate (duh), superior egonomics, and the SAR-21 has transparent, indexed magazines so you can see instantly tell how many rounds you have left, excellent optics, and the damn thing can be field stripped in under 20 seconds without any tools (unlike some bullpups).
Can you refer us to any documents confirming this as a common cause of malfunctions and casualties apart from the well established ones caused by ball powder being substituted in early production for price reasons rather than the originally specified propellant?
How would this explain instances of men without duct taped magazines experiencing malfunctions?
That would be very handy for troops who weren’t trained, as was my generation, to count rounds fired and who would prefer to look at their magazine than to their front where the targets are.
Expect to see the gas piston AR 15 rifles to be in the inventory for the next 20 plus years (HK 416 having just been adopted by various US sneaky beaky people, as well as the Norwegians). Nobody has yet beaten the AR 15 layout for ergonomics and natural shooting, and the gas piston upper completely solves all reliability issues.
I never said that ball powder didn’t cause jams (or lack of proper cleaning training and equipment)… if you look at what I wrote, (paraphrase) “Not mentioned yet: the practice of duct-taping magazines together, upsidedown which frequently damaged the magazine itself as it was slammed into the dirt --and filled it with…dirt. And these dirty, bent magazines jamed.”
Do I really need to back up that taking a magazine, inverting it and and slamming it into the dirt will bend the lip of the magazine and get dirt in it? Or do you want proof that a dirty, bent magazine will cause jams??
When you misuse you equipment, it will fail. Jams were experienced by users of this poor practice or why would a small arms instructor (who’d gone 5 days in international military competition, shooting at 1000 yards, and never strayed into the 9 ring) warn against using taped, inverted clips? <— my source, not a document.
They still train you to count rounds, lol! Disengaging at target to look at your ammo isn’t recommended. It’s just the difference between being able to quickly check, visually, if you get distracted or even pick up another weapon mid-fight. Of course, not having the option is, in every way, better.
Man of Stoat: “Oh Please” isn’t exactly an arguement. Sure, it may take 20 years to phase out the cheaper, well-established weapon designs…but that doesn’t make them better. Just popular. The advantages I listed make for more effective troops, who will out perform identical troops carrying M16s. Just like the the M16 troops will out perferm identical troops with AK-47s. (Tries to steer this back on topic.)
Beam, it has been discussed on here ad nauseam that there is an enormous elephant in the room when it comes to bullpup designs: it is impossible to fire around the left side of cover without exposing yourself. This is one of the (several) reasons why relatively few armies have adopted them.
I have also yet to handle a bullpup which balances “better” than an out the box AR 15 – most of them are exceedingly back heavy which makes them seem easier to carry, but they are universally ghastly to shoot with.
Interestingly, the Israelis have adopted a bullpup and have done the opposite of what every other army in the world does with a new weapon system: they have issued it to new recruits rather than to the older professional soldiers who have grown up with the M-16/M4. A cynical view to take is that they have done this to avoid the inevitable bitching which ALWAYS happens when an army replaces a trusted conventional weapon with a bullpup, since the recruits don’t know any better. If there genuinely was an increase in performance, don’t you think the Israelis would have issued it first to their crack professional troops?
As for cost, don’t think for a minute that an HK 416 is cheaper than any of the bullpup designs currently in production – it is an extremely expensive piece of kit, yet the performance improvement is worth it. Provided the cost issue doesn’t put people off, expect the 416 to become the de facto standard.
I have seen one bullpup the ejects spent cartridges out the bottom of the weapon and I’d love to see a bullpup like the SAR-21 with that modification as the rest of the rifle is ambidextrous. (One final mod I would make would be to put in a selector switch in the same position and style as the M-16.)
Then you’d have a truly powerful weapon and since I can fire ambidextrously with minimal loss in performance, firing from the left side of a barricade would not have the unfortunate side effect of getting hot cases in your face. (It’s to distracting, I agree!)
I must admit, I feel in love with the FAMAS the first time I fired one and saw instantly saw the advantages of having a SMG legth weapon that packs the punch of an assault rifle for clearing rooms.
Incidentally, I will say I never liked firing the AK-47 and will concede the M-16 feels far more comfortable to shoot. That said, I find some bullpups way more comfortable to shoot and the balance agrees with me.
I will also say, I’d be hoping that a bottom ejecting bullpup would limit on disadvantage I have found: when firing a lot of rounds, the fumes sting my eyes… something I’ve never had with a long rifle.
The M-16/M-4 is also A LOT more accurate than the AK, and has greater range. As I said, the AK, while ideal for some of the close in jungle fighting American troops faced in 'Nam, is inferior overall if both weapons are being handled by motivated professionals…
Incidentally, the M-16 also has better stopping power due to its horrific ballistic wounding characteristics in some circumstances, whereas the AK’s 7.62mm short round loses velocity as has little more stopping power than a 9mm at medium ranges…
Right, I did the 7.62 NATO to 7.62 x 39 cartridge conversion last night, and it was a bit of a fag. i had to use a file to reduce the rim and web diameter, and I discovered another problem: the extractor groove needs to be deepened. this was also a bit of a pain with the file. with a lathe I could have done it far faster, and would probably manage 10 to 15 cartridges an hour. Having done one, I would do it like this now:
Progressively size NATO case until the web reaches the bottom of the die.
Put case in lathe, base outwards, turn rim and web down to correct diameter at correct taper.
Deepen extractor groove
Size case fully.
Using Dremel or lathe, trim case to a little over 39 mm
Use a Lee case trimmer to finish trimming, then chamfer.
Alternatively, steps five and six could be done just on the lathe if you make a little jig to reference the position of the base of the cartridge in the chuck.
Wow! Man of Stoat: That is a ton of work converting the bullets. Obviously, 15 bullets an hour is way to slow to be practical on a war footing…unless you’re a sniper. An AK-47 wielding sniper. lol! (An SKS would be the obvious ‘era’ choice here.) It would take a day of work just to get 100 rounds.
And I thought loading my own bullets was a lot of work…that’s hardcore. Good work and thanks for that post!
In each case, AK 47, AK74 and M16 and Car15 (grandson, but relevant) I have handled said weapons, though, being in politically correct and thus backward NZ, not fired, each weapon.
My choice would be AK series.
Why?
In a little known experiment, NZ Army buried in wet tidal sand an AK, left it there for 14 weeks, right next to an M16.
Dug up, pull-through put through the barrel, loaded and cocked, the AK went full out auto NO problems. About 5 mags’ worth.
The M16 … same treatment… jammed at shot 5.
From this, I conclude the AK to be the better weapon.
Esoterics of ballistics and cartridges/grainages/bullet loadings aside: the AK has to come out on top in terms of pure operability.
(Edit: I find it significantly worthy of note: in Vietnam many regular troops ditched the issued M16 as soon as possible and employed AK’s instead. Plainly this says that “word had got around” and men preferred the chance of living, over the chance of dieing from a weapon jam at an inopportune moment. Granted, the XM177 Prototype didn’t suffer the same catalogue of ills that its’ M16 offpsring did, but the fact the M16 was ditched or carried unused suggests much in regards to the view taken of it by those it was issued to.)
A marksman can always be trained to good shooting and habits, regardless of weapon. The weapon itself has to be the “in combat” criterion, because a properly trained operator will achieve with it things the basic “grunt” will not. There, I agree with previously stated opinion.
