Poll - Favorite Assault Rifle

[chico20854]

I know we've done this before, but it's been a while.

A couple of different philosophies seem to apply here:

1) My PC is from X country. X country issues Assault Rifle Y to their soldiers. My PC trained on this in boot camp and is most familiar with it and possibly has the spare parts to support it. Therefore, my PC carries Assault Rifle Y.

2) Assault Rifle Y has the least recoil for its weight, highest rate of fire, or fires the 6.5 Grendel, IMHO the baddest round ever. It never jams and could gut an elephant with a single shot from 1200 meters. It was a test weapon that my PC found in a burnt-out supply truck on the side of the road in western Poland. I'll worry about finding ammo later, and since it never breaks there is no need for spares. Therefore, my PC carries Assault Rifle Y.

3) I like the looks of Assault Rifle Z. Therefore my PC carries it.

(I exaggerate a little)

What is your favorite, and why? Do you think my philosophies apply.

[fightingflamingo]

M16 series, most of the time my PC's have been American's. The occasional British PC I have had used the L85. I tend to go with the issued weapon per the nationality played, unless I'm playing a SpecOps munchkin (whom can get anything).

[Raellus]

Do you consider the G3 series and the FN FAL/SLR "assault rifles"? Since neither are choices, I figure that maybe you consider them "battle rifles". I don't really see a clear distinction- seeing as the AKM is a choice on this list- but some folks (including the boys at GDW) do. Just wondering.

I like the AK-74. With it's fairly unique muzzle brake, it has very little muzzle rise on full auto and it's got the AK-47's legendary simplicity, toughness, and reliability. Since I'm rapidly becoming a Pole-o'-phile, I'd take the Polish equivalent Wz. 88 Tantal instead.

[pmulcahy11b]

Well, assault rifle-wise, I'm most familiar with the M-16, and I know what it can do and what it can't do. Unfortunately, I know what it can do and what it can't do.

[jester]

Assault Rifles, hmmm, Something robust, but also with the capacity for accuracy. Thus,

The SOCOM Model M14 which is a shortened version of the M14, or even the Carbine version. Another vairant would be the G3 cut down into an assualtrifle size or the L1/FN-Fal series in .308 cut down to carbine or assault rifle size.

If its purpose made assault rifle, then the HK 33/93 series seems to be good to go. Rebosut, reliable and accurate.

[Legbreaker]

The G-11.

It uses caseless ammo. I mean it's CASELESS! How cool is that!? :P
The low recoil, good range and massive standard mag size doesn't hurt either...

[Matt Wiser]

FN-FNC. Two main reasons: first, my SEAL PC needed a weapon that he could carry anywhere, even in prewar operations where carrying weapons "Made in the USA" could cause problems if KIA or captured. Second is more simple, really: I own a semi-auto version of the rifle. Which I had to register with the State of Calfornia after the state stupidly passed an assault weapons ban and I had to pay a $45 "registration fee".

[Grimace]

Seeing as I'm a lefty, I prefer the M-16 series. But, as Raellus mentioned I also like the G-3, but it's not on your list so I don't know if it's counted in this mix.

[Legbreaker]

Seeing as I'm a lefty, I prefer the M-16 series.
Sounds like you just need a real weapon that can be quickly and easily converted to left handed use...
The Steyr AUG would suit you nicely and is definately a better weapon than an M16...

[weswood]

M16, cause I know it

[Rainbow Six]

Preference would actually be a Battle Rifle (specifically the L1A1).

However, if I had to choose an assault rifle for a PC, I'd probably go for the L85 (based on philosophy #1).

[pmulcahy11b]

A plasma rifle in the 10MW range...

[Dog 6]

M-16A2 or A4, I used an A2 in the army and loved it, got my hands on an A4 a few times and its even better.

[Haven]

#1 with the twist of picking up the OPFOR #1 weapon for the extra ammo

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Galil, hey its cool. Other then that the M-16a1, a2, a3, a4 etc.

[leonpoi]

ak-74, because I'm always the GM and therefore I'm almost always a marauder, a Pole or a Soviet :).

[waiting4something]

The M-16/AR-15 series all the way. I always loved it. It's sexy. I had the hots for it when I was a boy and when I finally got my hands on one it didn't let me down. I prefer the carbines, but the full size rifles are great too. Besides carbines just don't have the range for that open terrain. I love this gun and never had probelms with it, unlike like the stories people always post. It's a solid weapon system, and if it wasn't it would have been replaced long ago. It has lasted longer then any other service rifle the USA has ever had, and I don't really see a replacement soon.

[Brother in Arms]

Heres one for the Lowly stamped reciever AKM!

I like the down range effect of the 7.62X39mm over the 5.54 or 5.45 though not as accurate as the latter two rounds ,its makes up for it with effect on penetrating cover. You can hit mansized targets at 300m without difficulty and at closer ranges it really comes into it own.

Yes the ammo and mags are heavy 8-30 round steel AK mags in my vest is about 20 lbs but Ill take it any time. Bakellite Magazines were a good developement as they allowed the soldier to carry less wieght in magazines and more in ammuntion. ( and they are tough as nails)

but with steel magazines you also have a lot of options in capacity 20, 30, 40 magazines are available and 75 round drums (china also made 100 round drums)

And yes they are heavy but about a pound lighter than the milled reciever Ak-47. And they are still very durable and I think that would be very desirable after the twilight war,

not only for when you have to kill every MotherF#cker in the room you can also beat someone to death one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQCWhsblq0A&feature=response_watch%20Only%20in%20Eastern%20Eur ope

and I'd take one from any country Russia, Romania,poland, Bulgaria, Hungary,Egypt ect.

I like the standard AKM with laminate furniture it is very rugged. Though If I aquired some of the black synthetic furniture of the AK-74 I wouldn't hesitate to put it on the AKM. The heatshield in the lower hand gaurd is nice.

One of my favorite forms of the AKM especially for vehicle use is the hungarian AMD-65 with the long muzzle break removed and substituted with a muzzle nut. The first mag was a 75 round drum and 30 rounders after that.
it looks just like this :)
http://i32.tinypic.com/9kcgwg.jpg

Three cheers for the AKM

[HorseSoldier]

M4A1 or similar. Pretty much the industry standard for professional gunfighters.

Though I'd feel well enough armed with most anything on the list that I'm actually familiar with, and don't doubt I'd feel okay with the rest given some range time to learn how they ticked and how to run them at speed and fight them.

[Spoe]

The SIG 550. Marry AR ergos (except the mag change) and precision to what's pretty darned close to an AK's internals. What's not to like?

[Raellus]

The SIG 550. Marry AR ergos (except the mag change) and precision to what's pretty darned close to an AK's internals. What's not to like?

I've heard it called the world's finest-made AK. Sounds good to me.

[jester]

The Piston Driven ARs made by Sig and S&W seem pretty cool these days.

[Spoe]

Do you consider the G3 series and the FN FAL/SLR "assault rifles"? Since neither are choices, I figure that maybe you consider them "battle rifles". I don't really see a clear distinction- seeing as the AKM is a choice on this list- but some folks (including the boys at GDW) do. Just wondering.

The classic distinction isn't operation, but power of the cartridge. Battle rifles use full power rifle cartridges, like 7.62x51mm, 7.92x57mm, 7.62x54mmR, .303 Brit, .30-06, 6.5x55mm, etc. Assault rifles use intermediate powered cartridges like 5.56x45mm, 5.45x39mm, 7.62x39mm, 7.92x33mm, 5.8x42mm, etc.

You mention the AKM. 7.62x39mm is an intermediate power cartridge. Compare these muzzle energy figures and tell me which group it fits into:
7.62x54mmR: 3600-3800J
7.62x51mm (M80): 3350J
.303 Brit: 3250J
7.62x39mm (M43): 2000J
5.8x42mm: 2000J
5.56x45mm (M855): 1750J
5.45x39m (7N10): 1400J

[Spoe]

The Piston Driven ARs made by Sig and S&W seem pretty cool these days.

Have they managed to do something about the carrier tilt problems that affect most of these piston conversions?

[pmulcahy11b]

Have they managed to do something about the carrier tilt problems that affect most of these piston conversions?

It also seems to me that pistons would get gunked up sooner or later, and that cleaning the piston assembly might not be so user-friendly. Any truth to that?

Come to think of it, the AK does use a type of piston...

[Tegyrius]

The classic distinction isn't operation, but power of the cartridge. Battle rifles use full power rifle cartridges, like 7.62x51mm, 7.92x57mm, 7.62x54mmR, .303 Brit, .30-06, 6.5x55mm, etc. Assault rifles use intermediate powered cartridges like 5.56x45mm, 5.45x39mm, 7.62x39mm, 7.92x33mm, 5.8x42mm, etc.
As a writer/designer, that's the distinction I use when such things matter. However, for purposes of hoplological taxonomy within the game, I generally lump battle rifles into the "assault rifle" category. Most game systems tend to loosely define "assault rifle" as "infantry rifle with burst or full auto fire mode," and there's no rigid mechanical distinction to differentiate "true" assault rifles from battle rifles. Traits derived from caliber performance or size do stand out, but I can't think of a system that makes an assault rifle fundamentally different from a battle rifle in terms of how the character makes attacks with it.

- C.

[HorseSoldier]

Have they managed to do something about the carrier tilt problems that affect most of these piston conversions?

Not especially. Except for units that need to run very short barrel lengths or suppressors on their AR type rifles, the piston driver AR-15 isn't necessary. They're mostly marketed to the civilian sector as a solution to the "problem" of internet hype.

[Spoe]

They're mostly marketed to the civilian sector as a solution to the "problem" of internet hype.

That's pretty much where I'm at. Heck, even the 10.5" DI SBR I built has been dead reliable for me. To it being, particularly for civilian uses, a solution in search of a problem, add in that the AR recoil system wasn't designed to have the operating force applied offset from the bore axis. This is what leads to the carrier tilt issues seen with the piston conversions.

[Spoe]

...I can't think of a system that makes an assault rifle fundamentally different from a battle rifle in terms of how the character makes attacks with it.

Nor can I think of a reason to. But, that extends to semi-auto hunting rifles and, to an extent, even bolt-action or other manually cycled weapons.

It's an arbitrary distinction, even in the real world.

[Spoe]

It also seems to me that pistons would get gunked up sooner or later, and that cleaning the piston assembly might not be so user-friendly. Any truth to that?
Not to my knowledge. Cleaning the pistons on my AK and SKSs isn't that difficult.

Come to think of it, the AK does use a type of piston...
FWIW, so does a DI AR-15. The bolt basically does double duty as a gas piston.

[HorseSoldier]

Not to my knowledge. Cleaning the pistons on my AK and SKSs isn't that difficult.

Routine use, definitely not a problem on most piston designs. Especially not on an AK, where most of the propellant gas bled off the action vents within the first bit of the gas tube, after giving the bolt a sharp kick to get it moving.

Corrosive ammo + sustained neglect can equal some real nastiness, given enough time, though.

[Spoe]

Especially not on an AK, where most of the propellant gas bled off the action vents within the first bit of the gas tube, after giving the bolt a sharp kick to get it moving.
Assuming your gas tube is vented. Not all AKs have a vented gas tube, however.

Corrosive ammo + sustained neglect can equal some real nastiness, given enough time, though.
This goes without saying. Of course, corrosive ammo isn't the bugbear some make it out to be, though.

[pmulcahy11b]

This goes without saying. Of course, corrosive ammo isn't the bugbear some make it out to be, though.

Corrosive ammo can be problematic, but it's more an issue for reloaders and handloaders than it is for the average shooter, especially if corrosive primers were used in the original round. It's also a big issue when you are shooting old ammunition, as the ammo might have degraded enough to render it unfireable or even dangerous. That's an issue that a T2K GM could easily exploit.

[headquarters]

It is piston driven ,but other than that relatively similar to the M4 .

I have to say ,it is a h**l of a gun.Even if it is only .556 and not our trusted
.308

Its piston system is very rugged and so far it has taken the abuse I have been allowed to dole out .

Some say that it cant take cold -this is false. It is used regularily at temperatures as low as -25C* up here -and it functions well.

As for gunk build up in the piston system -yes there will be a moderate fouling . But I think over 1000 rounds or more can be fired without even field stripping the thing .( For various reasons thats how many got through mine before a total cleaning .It wasnt badly fouled and could have taken alot more.)

Now,all AKor AR people out there this is just a preferance on my part -and it is alittle bit of both models this HK 416..

[B.T.]

I'm not quite shure on that. I am actually torn between 3 weapons. The question was, what would be the weapon of choice for my PC!

1. The weapon should be compatible with existing supply chains.

2. The ergonomics of the rifle should work.

3. You'd better be familiar with the weapon or at least the weapon family.

My problem is a relatively short thump. I have never used a real life M16/AR15/M4, but I own a softair M4. The fire selector works like a real one. Because of my short thumb, I have really problems to set the safety lever to full automatic. In a firefight that would be a sincere drawback!

I'm not fond of bullpub designs. I was trained with a conventional design and therefore I'd neglect a bullpub.

So: If my character was supposed to be of Western origin (and still belonging to a Western army), here are the weapons:

FN FNC

H&K G41

M16/M4

All three can take the STANAG mags. I'd prefer the FN or H&K because of the (to my point of view!) better fitting ergonomics.
I know, that the supply chain argument is not really a strong one, but I suppose, that most soldiers in a unit would use rifles with STANAG magazines and therefore you could use mags of your comrades (and of wounded or fallen).

If my PC was to be part of the US armed forces and a born American, he'd supposingly use the M16.

Well, that's what I think.

[dragoon500ly]

I have to cast my vote for the Galil, it really is the best of the AK/M16 clones.. I've owned one for almost nine years now and its a good all around rifle, simple, easy to maintain, large capacity magazine, excellent battle sights and it even has a bottle opener under the fore grip!! What more can you ask for?

[pmulcahy11b]

Israeli troops didn't like the Galil, primarily citing its weight, but also citing the fragility of the plastic parts. Of course, they put it through much heavier use than a civilian would.

[dragoon500ly]

Israeli troops didn't like the Galil, primarily citing its weight, but also citing the fragility of the plastic parts. Of course, they put it through much heavier use than a civilian would.

Never have had a problem with the weight, at least in my hands! I find that it controls muzzle climb better and allows for rapid re-acquiring of the target for multiple shots.

My Galil has the wood stock and foregrip so I can truefully say "I never had any plastic break on me!" LOL

[Twilight2000v3MM]

I've fired many in my life but I still go back to the M-16/AR-15 family. The 5.56 is pretty much a deal breaker at less than 200m. Ideally a 7.62x39 AR would be ideal or another "better" caliber (I have ARs in 7.62x39 and 6.8 SPC).

AS far as GAME goes... well Im a fan of the HK 33. I guess it goes back to "First Blood". ANd for my last birthday I got myself a clone of a HK33 just "Because" I "Needed" one in my collection before I died. LOL

[helbent4]

AS far as GAME goes... well Im a fan of the HK 33. I guess it goes back to "First Blood". ANd for my last birthday I got myself a clone of a HK33 just "Because" I "Needed" one in my collection before I died. LOL

Max,

For post-apoc games like T2K and TMP, it's the HK91 copied and manufactured by the "Christian Survival Network". (See "Vexed to Nightmare by a Rocking Cradle" by Dan Simmons.)

Tony

[Rapparee]

Probably biased here but the Steyr AUG, love it or loath it, it got whatcha need!

Fires standard 5.56mm round so ammo's readily available.

Fully loaded, its less then eight pounds so its quite quite light. Recoil as well is barely noticable.

Bullpup design means the weapon is nicely compact.

Modular design, breaks into 4 big parts...which admittedly break into many small parts! But the cleaning kit is stored inside the butt and even if you're a complete klutz, it shouldnt take more then a minute to put it all back together again. JUst watch the gas plugs...

Magazines come in 30 or 42 round sizes. Also vaguely transparent so you can get an idea of how much rounds you've left in there.

Its quite rugged and robust. I'm pretty sure the majority of the Steyr's I'm issued with were manufactured in the 80s and have been smashed around the place but they still do the job fantastically well. Did I mention jamming is rarely an issue?

Compatible with the M203 grenade launcher.

Easy to modify, particularly for left-handed shooters so they don't get brass all in their face. Also by changing the barrels, bolt and mag (plus mag housing), you can convert it into an LMG or an SMG firing 9mm. I've tried the 9mm variant once and its bloody mental!

I'll admit the standard optical sight is shite, but if you're a halfway decent shot you should still be hitting targets past 300m, the gun will do it.

I'm personally only familiar with the A1 so no grenade launchers for me or improved optics, but the ARW have the A2's and A3's and they get all the neat gadgets. Either way, a bloody handy rifle!

[bigehauser]

I prefer the M16 or M4 series weapon. That is what I am most comfortable with in reality as well.

Although as alternatives, I would choose an M1 Garand, an M1 Garand re-chambered in .308, or an M14.

[dragoon500ly]

I prefer the M16 or M4 series weapon. That is what I am most comfortable with in reality as well.

Although as alternatives, I would choose an M1 Garand, an M1 Garand re-chambered in .308, or an M14.

Shameless commercial plug, if you ever decide to go with a Garand, try the folks at Militech, yes it will cost you an arm and a leg as well as a future option on any first born male childern...but they took the time to do a proper rebuild (the rifle was litterly zero-timed), and included the cleaning kit, a copy of the original manual, the proper leather sling and 6 clips as part of the deal.

I purchased mine from them two years ago and have burned about 900 rounds so far, and not a single problem yet!!!

[Panther Al]

Its the AUG for me: nothing against the black rifle, its a solid design, but I feel from a usability point of view the AUG is a handier weapon, especially for mounted troops. If I had to pick a rifle to equip my army, the exact version would be in 6.8spc though, and yes, there are 6.8spc AUGs out there: they are license made in the USA by MSAR.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think the sheer amount of 5.56 NATO, 7.62mm NATO, 7.62/5.45mm Kalashnikov, and 7.62mm Nagant cartridges in the world and the companies set up to manufacture them will make their replacement difficult and a long time in coming. Eventually, though, I think we will skip over caseless ammunition and replace them with ETC for rifles and heavier weapons, and retain the cased ammo for pistols. (Don't hold your breath for an ETC rifle, though -- I think those will be something my nephew's grandchildren will have rather than any time soon.)

BTW, my nephew got lucky -- his unit at 1ID went into an extended training/reserve role, and he has yet to see either Iraq or Afghanistan. It doesn't bode well for his future in the Army (the Army favors combat vets for promotions and choice positions), but I consider him lucky.

[bobcat]

M16A2 for my PC. does the job good enough, plenty of parts around if i gotta fix it, and its looks "poge" enough that the commies just might let me pass(hey i can hope)

[Zaskar24]

I voted other even though the M16 family is the AR that I am the most familiar with. For the other I would go with the H&K G41 as its design goes back to the G3 thru the 33 to it. Uses STANAG mags and can mount NATO optics as well as the H&K claw mount ones. Plus the folding stock version is pretty compact making it ideal for mounted troops.

[Raellus]

Eventually, though, I think we will skip over caseless ammunition and replace them with ETC for rifles and heavier weapons, and retain the cased ammo for pistols. (Don't hold your breath for an ETC rifle, though -- I think those will be something my nephew's grandchildren will have rather than any time soon.).

I recently read that one of the several reasons the G11 was not adopted by the German and U.S. armies is that caseless ammo has a potential issue with cooking off in the gun. If I understand correctly, conventional ammo helps with heat loss because the brass from spent rounds retains and takes some of the heat of discharge with it when it's ejected from the gun. Caseless ammo doesn't have this beneficial property. The gun, therefore, retains a lot of heat and this can, theoretically at least, lead some of the unfired caseless ammo to cook off in the gun. This could be catastrophic.

[Panther Al]

I think the sheer amount of 5.56 NATO, 7.62mm NATO, 7.62/5.45mm Kalashnikov, and 7.62mm Nagant cartridges in the world and the companies set up to manufacture them will make their replacement difficult and a long time in coming.

Oh I agree- the inertia that these rounds have is immense which makes the idea of rechambering the ar series a non-starter (even though the ar lends itself to it). If there is ever going to be change from the 5.56 to the 6.8 it would have to be because of the wholesale replacement of the ar series as a whole, something that won't happen soon.

Though if it did I can easily see the brits coughing politely as we swap to a .270 round and saying "We told you so..."

[bobcat]

I recently read that one of the several reasons the G11 was not adopted by the German and U.S. armies is that caseless ammo has a potential issue with cooking off in the gun. If I understand correctly, conventional ammo helps with heat loss because the brass from spent rounds retains and takes some of the heat of discharge with it when it's ejected from the gun. Caseless ammo doesn't have this beneficial property. The gun, therefore, retains a lot of heat and this can, theoretically at least, lead some of the unfired caseless ammo to cook off in the gun. This could be catastrophic.

from my research that issue was solved about 2 years prior to the project being scrubbed. the solution was in three parts IIRC changing the formula for the ammo to be more heat tolerant, improving the barrels heat dissipating capability, and i believe a mechanical safety to prevent a cook-off from chambering more rounds.

[Panther Al]

Well, I appear to have spoken a bit too soon:

Jordan has decided to license build 6.8spc LWRC rifles for their royal guard, true, they say only 5000 for now, but since they have the facility to make more, I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the road the rest of the Jordanian Army goes down the 6.8 road.

[waiting4something]

I don't see why the 6.8 is such a big deal? The round is really only made for close fighting. It's like a American made version of the 7.62x39mm. 6.8 is more a specialty round then a jack of all trades. The bullets are heavier and from what I have seen magazine capacity gets reduced also. Not dogging it, but it just seems lake a bad chose to have if you have to fight outside a built up area.

[Panther Al]

Um, yes and no. The whole 5.56 vs 6.5 vs 6.8 is half fact and half hyperbole. They each have strengths and weaknesses over each other. 5.56 doesn't hit as hard as some (including me who has used it as it was meant) but you can carry a lot of it easily. The 6.5 has the range - and the hitting power at range - that has to seen to believed, but is expensive and is optimised for long distance work (and admittedly its damn good at it). The 6.8 hits much harder than the 5.56, somewhat harder than the 6.8 under 400m, and is about the same at 400m+ as the 5.56 in accuracy and hitting power, all of which I am fine with. Downside is as mentioned, ammo capacity of a 30rd mag drops to 25. I personally don't have a problem with that. You can always have built 30rd versions that won't be much bigger so you can still use most ammo pouches out there, but I'll agree the roughly 40% increase in weight compared to 5.56 does suck.

But with harder hitting bullets you won't have to use as many (not that joe won't anyways, joe being joe) to get the same results.

As to the 6.5, if I wanted a sniper round, it would be at least a 7.62.

Or you could look at it this way:
The 5.56 was designed by varmint shooters to shoot varmints.
The 6.5 was designed by game hunters to take down game with a AR platform.
The 6.8 was designed by soldiers to kill other soldiers with the same AR platform.

[Tackleberry]

5.56, 6.5 or 6.8 doesn't really matter if your only driving it down an 11 inch barrel.

L85A1, heavy, unreliable but for front line troops came as standard with a 4x SUSAT.
L85A2, Heavy, very reliable and still has an optic on it.

21" barrel gives enough velocity to an SS109 round to penetrate CRISAT armour at 450m and still has enough punch to do some damage.

I can't hit a bus at 200m with an AK, but I can hit a man sized target at 600m with an L85.

Forget the L86 though, not worth the extra barrel length.

[HorseSoldier]

I can't hit a bus at 200m with an AK, but I can hit a man sized target at 600m with an L85.

AK's aren't great, but they're not that bad. If properly zeroed both the 47 and 74 are easily 200 meter guns (meaning minute-of-man with no problems), though that's maybe about the limits of it.

[Panther Al]

AK's aren't great, but they're not that bad. If properly zeroed both the 47 and 74 are easily 200 meter guns (meaning minute-of-man with no problems), though that's maybe about the limits of it.

And it does matter when and where they was made. Had the chance years ago to shoot a ton of them, and it was found that the East German ones was on the whole a lot more accurate, a lot further out. Had one, that while the sights was crap, when fired locked down in place, was placing MOA groups at 400. It became a keeper - though I never did get the chance to rework it to its true potential.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And it does matter when and where they was made. Had the chance years ago to shoot a ton of them, and it was found that the East German ones was on the whole a lot more accurate, a lot further out. Had one, that while the sights was crap, when fired locked down in place, was placing MOA groups at 400. It became a keeper - though I never did get the chance to rework it to its true potential.

I've heard similar stories, some of the East European AKs were better made than the Soviet and non-Euro nations but the East German models were considered the best of the lot.

[HorseSoldier]

We had brand new MPiK-74Ns in our arms room for foreign weapons training/familiarization, and they were awfully well put together for AKs (fit/finish better than the Polish AKMs and Bulgarian AR-M1s and RPK-74s we also had . . . and we won't even talk about the stack of Century Arms imported Romanian AKs we also had). Main issue I had with them was that folding stock is just ridiculously short, even for combat marksmanship sort of shooting. (Have heard that the Poles, who used the same stock, universally despised it on their version of the 74 as well.)

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j132/jboschma/SupportShoot021.jpg?t=1299299247

Raises the interesting idea of Warsaw Pact troops feeling that there were better and worse (or cooler/less cool) versions of the AK. With almost everyone in the front line states running some sort of AK-74, I wonder if you'd get East German AKs being prized trophies among Soviet troops, or Poles ditching their weapons for Soviet 74s any chance they got, etc. (And of course the AKSU would be extremely coveted I'm sure . . .)

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Hmm My Arsenal SG-31 5.45 (ak 74) is a great shooter. Its a 1-2is moa shooter with standard surpluss ammo. (closer to 2 then one). Thats better then minute of man. The 5.45 is more of a 300-400+ rifle I would think. The 7.62x39 is more of the 100-200ish rifle.

I think Ill go for the ak74 for my characters. In Europe/pact countries as ammo might be easier to come by.

[Sanjuro]

I went with the L85 (with a preference in post-apoc scenarios for the L1A1) for exactly the reasons Rainbow Six did; familiarity, with the added factor of tending to play British pcs.
I like the bullpup idea for the ability to carry a weapon with a full length barrel, that doesn't take up too much space in an APC. The clever 3-part sling was sheer genius- whether you're carrying something that needs both hands, or digging a trench, or relieving yourself behind a tree, the rifle stays eady for use and can be swung into firing position immediately.
The BIG downside is the inability to fire around the left hand side of buildings without exposing yourself to enemy fire- for that I almost went for the Steyr AUG, but I wondered about availability. Likewise for the Galil- I'll have to carry a bottle opener!

[Grendel]

Preference would actually be a Battle Rifle (specifically the L1A1).

However, if I had to choose an assault rifle for a PC, I'd probably go for the L85 (based on philosophy #1).

Im with you. FN FAL or L1A1 no puny 5.56 here.

[Brother in Arms]

I am kinda of the Maestro of battle rifles so here is my take on what a "battle rifle" vs. an "assault rifle" and is mostly dependent on caliber and conception of purpose/use on the battle field. These are my own definition between the two, both firearms have been used as standard infantry rifles which is where I believe the confusion comes from hopefully this helps in understanding the slight variantion in both types of firearm.

(ASSUALT RIFLE): a rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge, is capable of select fire and is fed by a detachable magazine.

(INTERMEDIATE CATRIDGE): a catridge that is greater in power than a pistol/SMG but less powerful than a full power rifle catrige.

(SELECT FIRE): Capable of Semi-automatic fire as well as full-automatic or mutilple round burst or both. The SELECT meaning the ability to choose one rate of fire or another.

(BATTLE RIFLE): a rifle that fires a full power rifle catridge, maybe select fire and most likely is fed from a detachable magazine.



Hopefully that didn't cause more confusion I will use examples to distinquish the two types of infantry rifles.
ASSAULT RIFLES: AK-47, AKM, AK-74: in calibers 7.62X39mm and 5.45X39mm as mentioned all fire an intermediate round are select fire (Semi-auto or Full Auto) and are fed with detachble box magazines. M16,M16A1,M16A2 all in caliber 5.45X45mm, select fire Semi-Auto or Full-Auto or Semi-Auto and 3 round Burst and are fed with detachable box magazines.

BATTE RIFLES: M1, M14, FAL, G3A3 in Calibers 7.62X63mm, 7.62X51mm. The M1 is Semi-auto Only, the M14, FAL and G3A3 are Select fire capable Semi-auto and Full Auto. The M1 feeds from an 8 round internal clip. The M14 can be fed with 5 round charger clips or fed with a deatchable box magazine. The FAL and G3A3 are fed by detachable box magazines.

Caliber is the easiest distinction, INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGES are 7.92x33 Kurz, 7.62x39mm, 5.56X45mm, 5.45X39mmm to name a few.

FULL POWER RIFLE CATRIDGES: 7.62X51mm, 7.62X54R are the the most common with 7.92X57, .303 (7.7X56mmR), .30-06 (7.62X63MM) as older but excellent options.

[Sanjuro]

Does that mean the M2 carbine (full-auto version of the M1) was technically an assault rifle?

[HorseSoldier]

The M1/M2 carbine is an interesting debate in that respect. The caliber is intermediate between military pistol ammo and full power rifle rounds, so (especially the M2), yes. On the other hand, 30 Carbine is on par with some of the heavier pistol cartridges -- ballistics are similar to 357 Magnum from a rifle barrel for instance. So it could be considered a "heavy SMG."

This is the problem with any sort of typology. As soon as you define categories you immediately have the fringe examples and outliers which are borderline for the categories.

[Brother in Arms]

Horse soldier is correct about broad sweeping definitions of firearms.

M2 carbine in my opinion is a proto-assault rifle in that they don't truly fire an intermediate catridge. I really consider the .30 carbine catridge to be a pistol catridge even though it has not been used in very many pistols (the ruger black hawk and AMT being the most notable). Its on par with .357 magnum as horse soldier said and its sort of like an enlarged SMG.

I would say though there are more firearms that fit these catergories than do not. I think the biggest problem is many people think the 7.62x39mm isn't a intermediate catridge because they compare it to 7.62x51mm. While it the same diameter bullet the catridge of the 7.62x51mm has a lot more capacity for powder and can be fired at much longer ranges and pentrate thru heavier cover. 7.62X39mm is a 300 meter proposition. 7.62X51mm is good out to 800 meters and can be used by a very competent shooter further. I guess range is one way to rank the firearm... .30 carbine can be shot out to 300 meters (on paper) but that is aboslute max most people can't hit a man sized target after that range, at all so it really falls more into the SMG role than Assault rifle I wouldn't want to have to use it much further than 100 meters myself.

Another good firearm that muddles these definitions I set is the SKS rifle. It is what I would consider a battle rifle that fireas an intermediate catridge (LOL) it is a more traditional pattern of rifle than the AK has a low capacity 10 round internal box magazine fed by stripper clips 20" barrel and is not select fire...but it shoots the intermediate 7.62X39mm rifle. It is another design that was attempting to be an assualt rifle but didn't quite make it. Had is been designed slightly earlier it would have been in 7.62X54mmR and been true battle rifle like simonovs earlier attempt the AVS-36 which was actually was select fire and fired 7.62X54mmR. These were used in early in ww2 before Tokarevs SVT-38 and SVT-40 replaced it.

Cheers

[DCausey]

I went with the M-16 series purely out of familiarity with my nation's rifle. I've never fired one yet, but I've examined my friend's M4 and it's a pleasure to hold. We'll go shooting one of these days, I imagine.

[Ronin]

I love the AK47/AKM. Im not ashamed to admit it. I dislike the M-16 family, even though the product is drastically improved, from what it started as. It really boils down to two things for me. Reliability, and hitting power. Nothing beats the reliability, durability, and strength of the AK. Ive just about ever crazy torture test there is with an AK. It always comes through with flying colors. Hell I watched some spetnaz guy load a mag in to a rifle. Set it down Magazine on the ground, and butt on the ground. Then do push ups off of it. Lets see you do that with a 16:p But heres the big thing to me Caliber. If you dont have at least .30cal. You dont have enough gun. (By the way that statement, kind of frightens me. As I believe my father would echo it) I mean really 5.56, its a gopher round. Just an ok one at that. Now I know that it been successfully used for about ever now. I just need a little more. And in the end. I own a Romanian SAR1 (Civilian semi-auto AK, I know, I know, people say their junk. But I must have a good one. Shoots sweet, and true.:)) I love it to death. Bar none my favorite to shoot.

[Legbreaker]

But heres the big thing to me Caliber. If you dont have at least .30cal. You dont have enough gun. (By the way that statement, kind of frightens me. As I believe my father would echo it) I mean really 5.56, its a gopher round. Just an ok one at that. Now I know that it been successfully used for about ever now. I just need a little more.
I hear that!
Got to be at least 7mm (give or take) to give me confidence it's actually going to take down the target without requiring follow up shots.
Circa 5.56 will do it, but what's the point of being able to carry all those extra rounds when you need twice as many to do the job properly?

[ArmySGT.]

M16.

If I have to go bone stock Military than an M16A2 AKA the Musket.

However, Stoner's invention really shines in that it is completely modular. In fact one could re-configure a rifle mid mission.

So, I carry an M16 series in M4 Configuration while mounted, from insertion I keep this on until the Patrol base.

At the Patrol base the PL say it is a quick recon and I am the DM.

Drop the magazine, eject the live cartridge, separate the upper receiver from the lower reciever, stow it, remove DM 20" upper with optics, Install upper with silicone wedge if necessary, re-insert magazine.

I would still have the collapsible stock on but, I would go from a patrolling rifle to one that can confirm and engage targets at 800.

Could even change calibers as easily such as going urban with a suppressed .458 SOCCOM with a change of upper, magazines and ammo.

[Legbreaker]

Pulling apart and reconfiguring would have to completely screw up the zero of the weapon....
Even if it had been zeroed before in that config, just the slightly different seating of the parts is likely to throw the zero off a couple of mils.

[ArmySGT.]

Pulling apart and reconfiguring would have to completely screw up the zero of the weapon....
Even if it had been zeroed before in that config, just the slightly different seating of the parts is likely to throw the zero off a couple of mils.

The barrel and the upper receiver are one assembly.

Thereforethe optics and the barrel are one unit. No change of zero for them.

There is the fit between the upper receiver and the lower receiver that could come into play.This slight and there is available a silicone wedge that can be inserted to remove all play.

A SOF unit could have certain M16 lowers "bedded" to matched uppers. However the silicone wedge is more economical and can be applied in the field.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Pulling apart and reconfiguring would have to completely screw up the zero of the weapon....
Even if it had been zeroed before in that config, just the slightly different seating of the parts is likely to throw the zero off a couple of mils.

Actually if the sight is already mounted and zeroed on the upper you will not have this problem. In this case one would leave the sights on the respective uppers.

At least that is the way I did it. Till I got around to getting lowers for almost all of my uppers.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

The barrel and the upper receiver are one assembly.

Thereforethe optics and the barrel are one unit. No change of zero for them.

There is the fit between the upper receiver and the lower receiver that could come into play.This slight and there is available a silicone wedge that can be inserted to remove all play.

A SOF unit could have certain M16 lowers "bedded" to matched uppers. However the silicone wedge is more economical and can be applied in the field.

DOH!!

What he said.

[HorseSoldier]

On the AR, pretty much all the magic happens in the upper receiver, so as long as the sights or optic were pre-zeroed, installation on a lower wouldn't make any real practical difference.

There is the fit between the upper receiver and the lower receiver that could come into play.This slight and there is available a silicone wedge that can be inserted to remove all play.

Beat me to it. Upper to lower fit doesn't matter much at all. Even the accu-wedges are more for the OCD portion of the shooting community than anyone trying to get better performance.

The modularity aspect for the individual Big Army troop isn't that great a strength on the AR/M16/M4 for the simple reason that it isn't used as such -- units just don't have additional specialized uppers, etc. However, I know a lot of SF guys, in some cases entire ODAs, that have deployed with multiple uppers for their M4s, and some guys who used SPR uppers on M4 lowers with pretty good success (trigger is not as good as the one on the issue SPR lower . . . but non-match grade M4 triggers never had an army-wide safety warning about match grade triggers failing on the SPRs).

It makes pretty good sense if you're either doing mounted operations and have extra stowage for spare uppers (starts making much less sense when you've hauling a golf bag of gun parts on your back on a ruckmarch) or if your mission set(s) is/are deliberate enough you can preconfigure your weapons -- going into Fallujah, maybe 12" barrel uppers are preferable, patrolling some wide open stretch of nothing in Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe 18" uppers are better.

That said, the bigger show stopper in my experience is ammunition quality rather than optimizing barrel length. With good ammo (Mk 262) and an ACOG, shooting unknown distance targets out to 600 meters gets boring, and (with the aid of a ballistic computer and spotter making wind call) I've seen a guy make a hit on a steel chest plate out around 1200 meters with a 12" upper. With standard issue green tip, you're probably more consistently in the 3-4 MOA (and realistically, anywhere from probably 1.5-6 MOA, depending on lot), which out at 600 which is pretty much just rolling the dice before you even start worrying about things like wind, bullets going transsonic, and such.

[Ronin]

I hear that!
Got to be at least 7mm (give or take) to give me confidence it's actually going to take down the target without requiring follow up shots.
Circa 5.56 will do it, but what's the point of being able to carry all those extra rounds when you need twice as many to do the job properly?

Amen, Leg. Amen.

[Ronin]

M16.

If I have to go bone stock Military than an M16A2 AKA the Musket.

However, Stoner's invention really shines in that it is completely modular. In fact one could re-configure a rifle mid mission.

So, I carry an M16 series in M4 Configuration while mounted, from insertion I keep this on until the Patrol base.

At the Patrol base the PL say it is a quick recon and I am the DM.

Drop the magazine, eject the live cartridge, separate the upper receiver from the lower reciever, stow it, remove DM 20" upper with optics, Install upper with silicone wedge if necessary, re-insert magazine.

I would still have the collapsible stock on but, I would go from a patrolling rifle to one that can confirm and engage targets at 800.

Could even change calibers as easily such as going urban with a suppressed .458 SOCCOM with a change of upper, magazines and ammo.

Yeah, I remember when that gun was called the Stoner. To heavy, and to complex.

[Ronin]

On the AR, pretty much all the magic happens in the upper receiver, so as long as the sights or optic were pre-zeroed, installation on a lower wouldn't make any real practical difference.



Beat me to it. Upper to lower fit doesn't matter much at all. Even the accu-wedges are more for the OCD portion of the shooting community than anyone trying to get better performance.

The modularity aspect for the individual Big Army troop isn't that great a strength on the AR/M16/M4 for the simple reason that it isn't used as such -- units just don't have additional specialized uppers, etc. However, I know a lot of SF guys, in some cases entire ODAs, that have deployed with multiple uppers for their M4s, and some guys who used SPR uppers on M4 lowers with pretty good success (trigger is not as good as the one on the issue SPR lower . . . but non-match grade M4 triggers never had an army-wide safety warning about match grade triggers failing on the SPRs).

It makes pretty good sense if you're either doing mounted operations and have extra stowage for spare uppers (starts making much less sense when you've hauling a golf bag of gun parts on your back on a ruckmarch) or if your mission set(s) is/are deliberate enough you can preconfigure your weapons -- going into Fallujah, maybe 12" barrel uppers are preferable, patrolling some wide open stretch of nothing in Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe 18" uppers are better.

That said, the bigger show stopper in my experience is ammunition quality rather than optimizing barrel length. With good ammo (Mk 262) and an ACOG, shooting unknown distance targets out to 600 meters gets boring, and (with the aid of a ballistic computer and spotter making wind call) I've seen a guy make a hit on a steel chest plate out around 1200 meters with a 12" upper. With standard issue green tip, you're probably more consistently in the 3-4 MOA (and realistically, anywhere from probably 1.5-6 MOA, depending on lot), which out at 600 which is pretty much just rolling the dice before you even start worrying about things like wind, bullets going transsonic, and such.

OK, lets dispel one thing right now. The M4 is a pile of shit. It was designed to be a handy rifle for non-combat, support troops. Just like the M-1 carbine was designed for in WWII. A replacement for a pistol. The M-4 jams up after 2, 30 round mags, and over heats. Because it is not meant to be in an extended encounter. You can say well "professionals", and spec ops use it. Yeah, well when your choice for a short barrel rifle is and M4, or an M4. You obviously pick the M4. People seem to think that PMC's, and Spec ops can grab all sorts of neato crazy shit. They get whats in the armory. Whats there? Sig 550? AKSU74? Colt MARS? CZW-438? No, M4s, or an M-16A (whatever.)

[ArmySGT.]

OK, lets dispel one thing right now. The M4 is a pile of shit. It was designed to be a handy rifle for non-combat, support troops. Just like the M-1 carbine was designed for in WWII. A replacement for a pistol. The M-4 jams up after 2, 30 round mags, and over heats. Because it is not meant to be in an extended encounter. You can say well "professionals", and spec ops use it. Yeah, well when your choice for a short barrel rifle is and M4, or an M4. You obviously pick the M4. People seem to think that PMC's, and Spec ops can grab all sorts of neato crazy shit. They get whats in the armory. Whats there? Sig 550? AKSU74? Colt MARS? CZW-438? No, M4s, or an M-16A (whatever.)

What?

Huh?

I have never experienced any of that. As for overheats, any weapons is going to do that pressed into service as a GPMG. The Rifle (or Carbine in this case) is not an M60 or M240B.

As for SOF? Yeah, they certainly can pick any wazoo stuff off the shelf. Their budget is independent of Regular "Big" Army.

Why does SOF take M4A1s or HK 416s? Logistics. Lots of parts and easy repairs.

[Ronin]

So you would trust an M4 over a M16A2,3, or 4 in an extended fire fight? Lasting over a half an hour? You would stake your life on a weapon designed for support troops as opposed to one designed for front line troops? Reports from the stan, fending off long engagements seem to say differently. Although, I dont know what youve been through. So You may have seen different. But the info I have read, and spoke to people with seems to same different. SF, inventory isnt as exotic as people would like to think. Personally I dont think the 416 is all that anyways.

[ArmySGT.]

So you would trust an M4 over a M16A2,3, or 4 in an extended fire fight? Lasting over a half an hour? You would stake your life on a weapon designed for support troops as opposed to one designed for front line troops? Reports from the stan, fending off long engagements seem to say differently. Although, I dont know what youve been through. So You may have seen different. But the info I have read, and spoke to people with seems to same different. SF, inventory isnt as exotic as people would like to think. Personally I dont think the 416 is all that anyways.

Short answer, yes.
I carried an M4/M203 in Iraqi Freedom 03-04, 04-05. I am an MP.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Yeah, I remember when that gun was called the Stoner. To heavy, and to complex.

Hell the USMC wanted the Stoner 63 system/rifle. I was in later so I never had any personal experience with it. My first Gunny thought highly of it.

Personally I would have liked to give it a try. Though its kinda hard getting a hold of one.

[ArmySGT.]

Hell the USMC wanted the Stoner 63 system/rifle. I was in later so I never had any personal experience with it. My first Gunny thought highly of it.

Personally I would have liked to give it a try. Though its kinda hard getting a hold of one.

Robinson Arms Expedition Rifle
(http://www.gunweek.com/2005/feature0301.html)

[Legbreaker]

The barrel and the upper receiver are one assembly.

Good point. It's been nearly two decades since I last stripped an M16 so the mind was a little foggy...

Still, it's a shit rifle in my experience compared to others I've handled.

[ArmySGT.]

Good point. It's been nearly two decades since I last stripped an M16 so the mind was a little foggy...

Still, it's a shit rifle in my experience compared to others I've handled.

Been our Main Arm for more than 40 years. Come a long way in that time. So have manufacturing methods, materials, and practices.

[Panther Al]

I hear that!
Got to be at least 7mm (give or take) to give me confidence it's actually going to take down the target without requiring follow up shots.
Circa 5.56 will do it, but what's the point of being able to carry all those extra rounds when you need twice as many to do the job properly?

There might be times I am left scratching my head at things you say, but here Leg you nailed it centre mass, right out the gate.

I've always felt, and seen firsthand, that the 5.56 lacked in the hitting power department. Much like the old saying of don't get into a pistol fight with something that doesn't begin with a .4 ("Yes Top, Honest to god, I did find that Kimber over here, its just a pure coincidence that it happens to be the same model as my personal one back in the Springs..."). Yes, even a .22 can kill if you aim well enough, but face it, running and gunning isn't conductive to precision shooting. When I was over the sand box, and we went dismounted once the invasion phase was done, one of the first things I did was do a swap with another joe: I gave him my M16A2 Upper for his M4 Upper. Having a fixed stock on the M4 was pure win: It balanced perfectly with a 203, wasn't wobbly, still compact, and just flat out worked - within the limitations of the Short 14.5" barrel granted.

On another thread, I put it like this when comparing the various "Intermediate Rifle Cartridges" that people are talking up lately:

The 5.56 (AKA .223) was designed to snipe varmits. Dogs, cats, prairie dogs, stuff of that ilk by varmint shooters.
The 6.5 Grendel was designed by Long Range Shooters to snipe large targets from an AR platform.
The 6.8 was designed by troops to kill troops.
The 7.62S was designed by weapons designers to be cheap and reasonably effective at killing most any medium sized target.


In short, the 7.62S is a round that has really great potential: I seen some handloads with top flight brass and sierra bullets fired from bolt guns that would knock your socks off. Though the rounds are a bit hot for even an AK. If an AK was built to stand those loads, and built to tighter tolerances, that would be a world beater. Of course, those tighter tolerances would degrade the ruggedness of the design...
(And funny enough, since the introduction of centrefire ammo, the 6.8 size has been dancing in and out of vogue: always on the verge of being accepted, yet never being so.)

[Schone23666]

That said, the bigger show stopper in my experience is ammunition quality rather than optimizing barrel length. With good ammo (Mk 262) and an ACOG, shooting unknown distance targets out to 600 meters gets boring, and (with the aid of a ballistic computer and spotter making wind call) I've seen a guy make a hit on a steel chest plate out around 1200 meters with a 12" upper. With standard issue green tip, you're probably more consistently in the 3-4 MOA (and realistically, anywhere from probably 1.5-6 MOA, depending on lot), which out at 600 which is pretty much just rolling the dice before you even start worrying about things like wind, bullets going transsonic, and such.

I don't quite have as much experience here, but 1200 meters with a 12 inch upper? That's crazy! :eek: Though I suppose the ballistics computer and the spotter helped.

Still, I would suppose that hitting anything past 300 or maybe even 150 meters accurately and consistently would depend on a crapload of other variables like the ones you described, plus weather conditions (rain, snow, etc.), dust, debris, if the target(s) are behind some form of cover (most likely) or moving/running between positions and firing from cover (also likely), and add to that adrenaline, fatigue, pucker factor, etc. etc. etc.

I think a Navy friend of mine who has a just a bit of experience in this department put it rather bluntly when he commented on other shooters at a range accurately placing shots on paper/steel targets. "Yeah, a lot of them shoot well. Only problem is, the targets don't shoot back..."

[Targan]

Leg and I have very similar views on firearms I think. Even with increased weapon and ammo weight I'd go for a 7.62mm rifle over 5.56mm any day. My deep and abiding love for the SLR will never die. Sure it's old school but it's the only rifle I'm still confident I could strip, clean and reassemble in a hurry. And it's so damned rugged, a really solid piece of equipment. The 7.62mmN round will knock a man down and leave him DRT nearly every time. And up close and personal there is a big difference between a butt strike from a "plastic fantastic" modern assault rifle/carbine etc and a battle rifle, not to mention what you can do with a SLR with a fixed bayonet. Terrifying.

[Legbreaker]

Leg and I have very similar views on firearms I think.
You got that right!
Give me five minutes to re-familiarise myself and I'd be able to field strip, clean and reassemble the SLR at light speed again. Could do the M60 in about two minutes flat (including a thorough field clean and oil) back in the day and wasn't bad on the M16 either (as much as I loathe the thing). Was quite good with the F88 Steyr AUG too before I got out and although they're a nice weapon to patrol with, they're still woefully underpowered for my liking.

Most weapons are fairly easy to operate if you bear in mind there's really only a couple of different ways a semi or fully automatic weapon can work. Basically there's open and closed bolt, coupled with gas piston, impingement, or recoil operation. The rest is really just fairly minor details. Remember those basics and most stoppage drills are relatively easy to transfer from one weapon to another.

[B.T.]

Leg and I have very similar views on firearms I think. Even with increased weapon and ammo weight I'd go for a 7.62mm rifle over 5.56mm any day. My deep and abiding love for the SLR will never die. Sure it's old school but it's the only rifle I'm still confident I could strip, clean and reassemble in a hurry. And it's so damned rugged, a really solid piece of equipment. The 7.62mmN round will knock a man down and leave him DRT nearly every time. And up close and personal there is a big difference between a butt strike from a "plastic fantastic" modern assault rifle/carbine etc and a battle rifle, not to mention what you can do with a SLR with a fixed bayonet. Terrifying.

Hey, that's what I think - although I'd replace "SLR" by "G3" and I've got no clue about fighting with a bayonet :D

What I really dislike with all the AKs is the right hand position of the cocking handle (Hope this is the right term. I'm talking of the lever you have to pull to load a round into the action.). In my mind, this is so unusual, I can't see to get familar with this. When I have to load the rifle, I still want to have my firing hand at the pistol grip - and my eyes on target. I just can't imagine, that would work with the lever on the right side of the rifle.

And for all of your thoughts on the AR15/M16/M4-thing: There are loads of extra parts for this system. If one has the money, he can build a relatively rugged rifle, in which the upper receiver and the upper part of the rail/handguard are one piece, therefore eliminating some of the problems with to much stuff fitted to the rifle (barrel!). And there are tons of extra stuff, that can be mounted via the rails. The hole system has the big advantage, that you can build your weapon for a specific task/mission. And it's the service rifle with several Western armies.

I would strictly avoid a prolonged firefight, if I were to live in a world like the Twilight 2000 world. Therefore I think that a rifle, that is precise, is better, than a weapon, that can be stuffed with tons of dirt, but might not be that precise.

[HorseSoldier]

OK, lets dispel one thing right now. The M4 is a pile of shit. It was designed to be a handy rifle for non-combat, support troops. Just like the M-1 carbine was designed for in WWII. A replacement for a pistol. The M-4 jams up after 2, 30 round mags, and over heats. Because it is not meant to be in an extended encounter. You can say well "professionals", and spec ops use it. Yeah, well when your choice for a short barrel rifle is and M4, or an M4. You obviously pick the M4. People seem to think that PMC's, and Spec ops can grab all sorts of neato crazy shit. They get whats in the armory. Whats there? Sig 550? AKSU74? Colt MARS? CZW-438? No, M4s, or an M-16A (whatever.)

So,

A) I've never had trouble keeping my issue M4 or M4A1 running, even in crappy environments (ditto back when I was rocking an M16A2, though that was a long time ago).

B) I've spent a good chunk of my misspent youth in a SOF unit. I can't think of any team guys I ever worked with who shared your opinion of the M4 and, as I mentioned in a previous thread, guys were happy enough with the M4A1 that a number of them, after playing with HK416s, went back to standard M4A1s. Most were pretty skeptical about the SCAR-L as a waste of money/reinvention of the wheel (I got out before the L got cancelled).

And none of them would have considered going downrange with an AK or other foreign weapon. Whatever else can be said about it, the AR is an ergonomic miracle and those guys got the training to make the most of those strengths. Put a guy on a clock and they can make hits faster and better with an M4 compared to the alternatives. That makes alternatives a pretty hard sell.

[Tegyrius]

What I really dislike with all the AKs is the right hand position of the cocking handle (Hope this is the right term. I'm talking of the lever you have to pull to load a round into the action.). In my mind, this is so unusual, I can't see to get familar with this. When I have to load the rifle, I still want to have my firing hand at the pistol grip - and my eyes on target. I just can't imagine, that would work with the lever on the right side of the rifle.

I've never had a problem keeping my firing hand on the pistol grip and reaching over the top of the rifle to run the charging handle. Using Hungarian 20-round magazines, I also can reach underneath the rifle without difficulty. But I'm 6'1" and have never had to do it in body armor, both of which may have been factors in my favor.

- C.

[ArmySGT.]

I've always felt, and seen firsthand, that the 5.56 lacked in the hitting power department.


My problem is not with 5.56, it is with the M855 round.

The 55 grain m193 cartridge was a lead core with a full metal jacket. It would flip end for end when travelling through meat creating great wound channels. Sometimes the nose would separate from the base and angle away. This would create to wound channels.

The Hague conventions on ammunition made a mistake mandating pointed ammo as that can cause a more grievous wound than rounded nose.

Anyway the 62 grain M855 is Armor Penetrating with a tungsten rod surrounded by lead. It is balance for it length.

It doesn't yaw and drives right through like an ice pick. Small tight wound channels with small disruption of blood vessels. The damn Fedayeen using opiates in battle in OIF 1 seemed to keep going when hit. They didn't feel it whacked on pain killers but, certainly died later.

It is why Mk 262 and SOST is working better. The Insurgents are not wearing body armor and the M855 goes right through them.

Unofficially it is taught now to shoot for the pelvis or scapula to make an incapacitating bone break. Skirting legality though.

[Legbreaker]

What I really dislike with all the AKs is the right hand position of the cocking handle.

There are many, many weapons with the cocking handle on the right side of the weapon - take the M60 machinegun for example.
I agree though it's bad practise to remove your master hand from the pistol grip, but if that's the way the weapon is designed, so be it. You can't actually shoot while operating the cocking handle anyway (unless there's something seriously wrong with the weapon), so it's not all bad.
And then there's bolt action rifles....

[Panther Al]

My problem is not with 5.56, it is with the M855 round.

The 55 grain m193 cartridge was a lead core with a full metal jacket. It would flip end for end when travelling through meat creating great wound channels. Sometimes the nose would separate from the base and angle away. This would create to wound channels.

The Hague conventions on ammunition made a mistake mandating pointed ammo as that can cause a more grievous wound than rounded nose.

Anyway the 62 grain M855 is Armor Penetrating with a tungsten rod surrounded by lead. It is balance for it length.

It doesn't yaw and drives right through like an ice pick. Small tight wound channels with small disruption of blood vessels. The damn Fedayeen using opiates in battle in OIF 1 seemed to keep going when hit. They didn't feel it whacked on pain killers but, certainly died later.

It is why Mk 262 and SOST is working better. The Insurgents are not wearing body armor and the M855 goes right through them.

Unofficially it is taught now to shoot for the pelvis or scapula to make an incapacitating bone break. Skirting legality though.


Quite right: Should have made the distinction between what we use now and what it was designed to use, as its two very different things.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

My problem is not with 5.56, it is with the M855 round.

The 55 grain m193 cartridge was a lead core with a full metal jacket. It would flip end for end when travelling through meat creating great wound channels. Sometimes the nose would separate from the base and angle away. This would create to wound channels.

The Hague conventions on ammunition made a mistake mandating pointed ammo as that can cause a more grievous wound than rounded nose.

Anyway the 62 grain M855 is Armor Penetrating with a tungsten rod surrounded by lead. It is balance for it length.

It doesn't yaw and drives right through like an ice pick. Small tight wound channels with small disruption of blood vessels. The damn Fedayeen using opiates in battle in OIF 1 seemed to keep going when hit. They didn't feel it whacked on pain killers but, certainly died later.

It is why Mk 262 and SOST is working better. The Insurgents are not wearing body armor and the M855 goes right through them.

Unofficially it is taught now to shoot for the pelvis or scapula to make an incapacitating bone break. Skirting legality though.

I know a lot was made in the media about the alleged use of opiates by insurgents in Iraq but I've never seen a lot of evidence to prove that it was the norm and not just an odd occurrence here and there.
However I have seen lots of evidence first hand of the M855 round over-penetrating and doing relatively little damage on wood, metal and more importantly, on feral animals (particularly goats).

The M855 round (specifically the Australian version of it) was in use with a number of Agricultural Protection officers in Western Australia in the early 1990s for culling feral goats, cats, foxes and dogs. They were using semi-auto versions of the F88 Austeyr (or it could have been that the full-auto lock-out was permanently fixed, I can't remember), the rifles and ammo were supplied direct from the Small Arms Factory, Lithgow.

The M855 round would drill right through the goats and they would stand there, look at you and then run off a couple of hundred metres to hide in the scrub only to bleed out later. Even gutshots didn't drop them with the 5.56mm.
I can tell you, those goats were not using opiates - well, as far as I'm aware but you know what some of those radical goats are like, long beards, shaggy hair, don't bother to wash, berets & turtlenecks and using any kind of weed they can find, bloody hippies and beatniks the lot of 'em! :D :p

I tend to believe that a lot of the problems with dropping Fedayeen in OIF1 came down to over-penetration/low damage of the 5.56mm M855 ammo and the fact that the Fedayeen were very well motivated by religious belief rather than the idea that they were 'hopped up' on drugs.

[ArmySGT.]

I know a lot was made in the media about the alleged use of opiates by insurgents in Iraq but I've never seen a lot of evidence to prove that it was the norm and not just an odd occurrence here and there. I didn’t get to see or watch the news of those events for years later. I don’t know of any use in the Insurgency. The Fedayeen were an Elite Group (abusing the work Elite for sure) of Ba’ athists. Saddam used history and myth to create backgrounds and lineages for his formations. The Fedayeen are the Ismaili sect that came to be known as the Assassins. Saddam used the name to enhance the fearsome reputation of his better equipped thugs.
However I have seen lots of evidence first hand of the M855 round over-penetrating and doing relatively little damage on wood, metal and more importantly, on feral animals (particularly goats). Interestingly so has just about everyone. Which is why it is so damn frustrating that it is the primary ammunition type. Only political cronyism can explain the issue of AP ammo that is less effective in a fight with an enemy that does not wear body armor anyway.
The M855 round (specifically the Australian version of it) was in use with a number of Agricultural Protection officers in Western Australia in the early 1990s for culling feral goats, cats, foxes and dogs. They were using semi-auto versions of the F88 Austeyr (or it could have been that the full-auto lock-out was permanently fixed, I can't remember), the rifles and ammo were supplied direct from the Small Arms Factory, Lithgow.
The M855 round would drill right through the goats and they would stand there, look at you and then run off a couple of hundred metres to hide in the scrub only to bleed out later. Even gutshots didn't drop them with the 5.56mm. Same thing with Turkeys on the Rifle ranges at Ft. Riley.
These birds would walk right across the range, blithely ignoring the 40 firers and their noisy rifles trying to qualify on a pop up range. Birds would hop, ruffle their feathers, and keep on strutting along.
Technically your supposed to shut down the range for wild life. However the turkeys are so numerous that no one closes a range because of them.
I can tell you, those goats were not using opiates - well, as far as I'm aware but you know what some of those radical goats are like, long beards, shaggy hair, don't bother to wash, berets & turtlenecks and using any kind of weed they can find, bloody hippies and beatniks the lot of 'em! :D :p Randy old things always with a wink, a leer, or a whistle. Poor example for young gentlemen.
I tend to believe that a lot of the problems with dropping Fedayeen in OIF1 came down to over-penetration/low damage of the 5.56mm M855 ammo and the fact that the Fedayeen were very well motivated by religious belief rather than the idea that they were 'hopped up' on drugs. Ten years on I wonder if the after action reports are available. It was the Marines in the vicinity of An Nasiriyah, if I recall correctly.

[Raellus]

I tend to believe that a lot of the problems with dropping Fedayeen in OIF1 came down to over-penetration/low damage of the 5.56mm M855 ammo and the fact that the Fedayeen were very well motivated by religious belief rather than the idea that they were 'hopped up' on drugs.

You're probably right. The sight of enemy fighters taking multiple hits and still kicking has got to have a pretty powerful psychological impact on the folks who witness it (and the shooters especially). As a result, those stories tend to get passed around and the idea that that sort of thing is the norm tends to spread quickly.

In the book Blackhawk Down, Somali fighters are described as being hopped up on a popular, locally grown stimulant called Khat [sic]. Some of the American Delta boys were using titatium-tipped 5.56mm ammo in their M4s and they apparently passed right through their unarmored targets, who continued to fight as if nothing had happened. Regular 5.56mm had roughly the same effect in many cases.

During the battle of Fallujah, Marines found stockpiles of perscription stimulants, atropine, and adrenaline among insurgent weapons caches (No True Glory- Bing West; House to House- David Bellavia). Apparently, the insurgents were pumping themselves up for the fight. Once again, it was probably a relatively small number of fighters doing it, but the sight of one or two guys taking multiple rounds center mass or having limbs blown off and continuing to fight would tend to leave a pretty strong and frightening impression. Troops can be forgiven for spreading/believing those kinds of stories.

[HorseSoldier]

In Bowden's book, he talks about the same problem with 7.62x51 AP ammo through M60s.

When it's all said and done, people can be both surprisingly hard and surprisingly easy to kill, just depending. (That said, I agree on the issues with M855 -- problem I see with it is consistency, with way too much variation in terms of accuracy and lethality across lots due to the overly complex nature of the projectile.)

[Legbreaker]

Which is why AP shouldn't be standard issue....

[bobcat]

armor piercing ammo should only be issued out in large scale if your expecting armor wearing bad guys. ball ammo or hollow points for unarmored bad guys.(considering the hague only got a handful of countries to even show up let alone agree to the damned thing i see nothing wrong with dum dum bullets for a fight)

[HorseSoldier]

The restriction on projectiles intended to cause unnecessary suffering only applies to opponents who adhere to the laws of land warfare -- which insurgents can do, though the current crop of ass hats certainly fail to do.

As such, technically zapping them with the finest maiming technology modern science can dream up (as well as summary executions and other bits of extremity much frowned on these days) is permissible, though the political costs of such are obviously show stoppers.

[HorseSoldier]

Which is why AP shouldn't be standard issue....

It was, apparently very popular in WW2 for use by BAR men in US formations because it penetrated structures and cover better. I've always wondered if the use of it in Somalia was someone looking backwards and thinking if it was good enough for D Day itches good enough for Mogadishu.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Leg and I have very similar views on firearms I think. Even with increased weapon and ammo weight I'd go for a 7.62mm rifle over 5.56mm any day. My deep and abiding love for the SLR will never die. Sure it's old school but it's the only rifle I'm still confident I could strip, clean and reassemble in a hurry. And it's so damned rugged, a really solid piece of equipment. The 7.62mmN round will knock a man down and leave him DRT nearly every time. And up close and personal there is a big difference between a butt strike from a "plastic fantastic" modern assault rifle/carbine etc and a battle rifle, not to mention what you can do with a SLR with a fixed bayonet. Terrifying.

Yeah, I have similar views myself, even though my experience is limited. If I was dropped into an unknown planet that is Earthlike, I'd want at least something from .270 caliber but I'd prefer something at least .30 caliber. The AK being tolerant of harsh conditions with 7.62mmS would be a good choice. At least the .7.62mmS is comparable to a .30-30, a a good deer round. Anything larger, hopefully with enough hits, I could bring it down. I would like something more powerful, that would be something like the M-14 or SLR in .308 Win (7.62mm NATO) or even the M1 Garand in .30-06. The M-16 series, better than nothing but if I had to go back in time, at least they should have uprated it to something like a .243 Winchester.

P.S. - Since this is for assault rifles only, my choice is the AKM/AK-47, but the rest of my post about having a battle rifle stands.

[Legbreaker]

Personally I'm not a huge fan of the 7.62S round. Very hard to hit the broad side of a barn at a decent range unlike 7.62N. Hell, even 5.56N is in my experience more accurate (if less hard hitting).

[Raellus]

The fact remains that 7.62mm is too heavy and too high power to be practical for the engagement ranges that most soldiers will find themselves fighting at. Folks have known this since WWII (at the latest) and that's why 7.62 x 39mm and other "intermediate" rounds were developed.

Yes, if most engagements were at 300m +, then 7.62mm L would be the way to go, no question. But for fights at less than 200m- and that's most fights nowadays- it's just too much round for the job. And if you want to have the full auto fire option, forget about 7.62mm L.

I'm not saying that 5.56mm (or 5.45mm) is a particularly good round- there are probably better- but the 7.62mm L is not the be-all, end-all of assault rifle bullets.

There's a reason why a lot folks insist on the distinction between "battle" and "assault" rifles. They're different classes of firearms, due, for the most part, to the size and power of the cartridge they fire. Nearly everything that I've heard and/or read states that accurate full-auto fire is almost impossible with a 7.62mm L rifle. I mean, nearly every Western GPMG uses the same round and they all have bi-pods/tri-pods.

I'm just getting kind of tired of the 7.62mm L love-fest going on here. If it was so ideal, why isn't more widely used in modern assault rifles? And don't get going on politics or the evil U.S.A. military-industrial complex.

I'll put it in the non-fiction recommendations thread but if this sort of thing interests you, you should read The Gun (by Chivers). It's a history of the AK-47 series with a good long preface (the first third of the book) on the history and development of the fully automatic gun. There's also a lot about the development of the M-16 rifle and, although the author tries to avoid getting drawn into the whole 7.62mm S vs. 5.56mm round debate, there is some interesting stuff about that as well (including top-secret comparison testing on cadavers surreptitiously imported from India).

[HorseSoldier]

For a service rifle round, 7.62x51 represented an absolute refusal to learn anything about small arms and combat from World War 2 on the part of the US military (and to ignore our own pre-war R&D, such as the Pedersen 276 round).

Had the people making decisions back in the late 40s/early 50s about such things had a shred of sense we'd have wound up with NATO using the British 280/7mm round that improved on the 7.92 Kurz concept rather than adopting a round that was just 30-06 reinvented with more modern powder and a consequently shortened case.

It's what if's and such, but had US forces with FALs (or M14s or even EM-2s) chambered in 280 Brit gone head to head with the AK-47 in Southeast Asia, I doubt 5.56mm would have ever turned up as a military cartridge. It's appearance had a lot to do with the hardware guys dropping the ball so utterly with the 7.62x51/M14 combo that it opened the way for advocates of pure theory to jump into the game, from which we got the SCHV idea and the resultant 5.56x45 round (and 5.45x39, eventually).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Unfortunately the military is just as much a victim of "what's fashionable" as anybody else.
When all the scientists gushed about the wonderous effects of lightweight, small calibre, high velocity rounds, they were telling the military exactly what the military wanted to hear at that point in time - the rifle would be the most effective force multiplier on the battlefield because these new bullets will make it so.

That is to say, the concept was that the new SCHV rounds would cause hydrostatic shock which would completely incapacitate the enemy soldier, not kill him. Then his comrades would be out of the fight as they carried him away from the area. In this way you removed not just one soldier but possibly another two to four and you created a greater drain on rear area resources as they tended the wounded.

The reality is that the individual soldier's rifle is way down on the list for causing enemy casualties. On a conventional battlefield, artillery & aerial bombing and explosives/fragmentation such as grenades cause the greatest number of casualties. In irregular warfare the enemy often ignores their casualties and continues to fight rather than tend the wounded.

When you get to low level conflict such as urban fighting, then the individual soldier/rifle* combo can really come into its own and I think what it really needs is a round that will injure the enemy to a point where the enemy stops fighting or it kills him outright. * rifle, carbine, smg or whatever individual weapon.

7.62mmN works, 7.62mmS works, 5.56mm works but it does seem that the projectile weight and cartridge length of the 7.62mmS suit that role better than the other rounds I mentioned. I'm not saying it's the best, just that the intermediate cartridge is probably better served by having a heavier projectile than 5.56mm or 5.45mm offer.
It's interesting to note that the Soviets/Russians developed the 9x39mm round to provide a heavier projectile for the close range combat of urban warfare because they weren't satisfied with the 5.45mm nor the 7.62x39mm cartridge for that role.

[Panther Al]

For a service rifle round, 7.62x51 represented an absolute refusal to learn anything about small arms and combat from World War 2 on the part of the US military (and to ignore our own pre-war R&D, such as the Pedersen 276 round).

Had the people making decisions back in the late 40s/early 50s about such things had a shred of sense we'd have wound up with NATO using the British 280/7mm round that improved on the 7.92 Kurz concept rather than adopting a round that was just 30-06 reinvented with more modern powder and a consequently shortened case.

It's what if's and such, but had US forces with FALs (or M14s or even EM-2s) chambered in 280 Brit gone head to head with the AK-47 in Southeast Asia, I doubt 5.56mm would have ever turned up as a military cartridge. It's appearance had a lot to do with the hardware guys dropping the ball so utterly with the 7.62x51/M14 combo that it opened the way for advocates of pure theory to jump into the game, from which we got the SCHV idea and the resultant 5.56x45 round (and 5.45x39, eventually).

Exactly.

The 7.62N is a great round for a GPMG, and even Sharpshooting, but as a battlefield round, its a bit much. Where as the SCHV is perhaps a little bit on the not enough. The 7.62S is a great round in theory, and even in practice to a degree, but the handicaps of the AK47 lets it down.

And yes, the .276 Pederson was a fantastic round, and to be fair, the .280 British was perhaps the best round to come out in the post war period. Its a shame it didn't take - and the US deserves the blame for that. But then, yet again, after a major war, Small Arms Designers returned to the .270-.280 size, only to lose out to something else. Seeing the same thing now - 6.8mm is .270. Sometimes I don't think we will ever learn... ;)

[Targan]

I'm just getting kind of tired of the 7.62mm L love-fest going on here. If it was so ideal, why isn't more widely used in modern assault rifles?

Because its not just real men that need to shoot in wars. A smaller round is needed for the women and girly-men. :sacool:

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Drifting off a little but still somewhat on topic - this is one for people who put their hate on the SA80/L85. :p
This news article is over a year old but it seemed to have been missed outside the UK. For anyone who still thinks the L85A2 is junk because of the problems suffered by the L85A1, the following story shows that it is one tough piece of kit.

http://www.expressandstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/WD3510522@COLE-3-SL-15.jpg

Soldier reunited with gun that saved his life
Wednesday 16th December 2009, 11:30AM GMT. Express & Star news website

Hero Black Country soldier Luke Cole has been reunited with the rifle that saved his life in battle.

The SA 80 rifle took three bullets that otherwise would have killed the 24-year-old West Midland Territorial Army Private in a battle that claimed the lives of two comrades and won him the Military Cross.

The first 7.62 mm Kalashnikov round hit the weapon head on, narrowly missing the barrel and tearing apart the bodywork, while the second blew the sight off and the third smashed into the side, ripping through the inside of the gun and blasting out of the pistol grip.

Miraculously none struck Pte Cole, already wounded twice in the battle, and last night he saw the remains of the weapon for the first time since it saved his life in the Taliban ambush two years ago.

The rifle still worked and Pte Cole, from Bradmore, continued to shoot with it for a further hour as he lay trapped in the killing field. And the rifle that fired 360 rounds during the fire fight will now serve as a constant reminder of the bravery shown by Pte Cole in the battle near Garmsir in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

It has pride of place at the HQ of the 4th Battalion The Mercian Regiment in Fallings Park, Wolverhampton where he was based and will hang on the wall of the bar that last night was renamed The Cole in his honour.

Former forklift truck engineer Pt Cole said: “It is a shock to see the state it is in. It makes you realise how heavy the firing was. It saved my life. Any of those three bullets would have killed me instantly if it had not taken the blows.

“When you remember that I had the rifle braced on my shoulder at the time and was sitting up you realise those rounds would have hit me in the head or throat.”

Pte Cole was on a six-month tour of duty with the regular army 2 Mercian Regiment when he was hit in the stomach and leg, losing five inches of thigh bone, during the attack in September 2007.

The former Smestow School pupil was on his last mission before redeployment.

Original post http://www.expressandstar.com/latest/2009/12/16/soldier-reunited-with-gun-that-saved-his-life/ but I've pretty much just copied and pasted it all here.

[Panther Al]

Drifting off a little but still somewhat on topic - this is one for people who put their hate on the SA80/L85. :p
This news article is over a year old but it seemed to have been missed outside the UK. For anyone who still thinks the L85A2 is junk because of the problems suffered by the L85A1, the following story shows that it is one tough piece of kit.

http://www.expressandstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/WD3510522@COLE-3-SL-15.jpg

Soldier reunited with gun that saved his life
Wednesday 16th December 2009, 11:30AM GMT. Express & Star news website

Hero Black Country soldier Luke Cole has been reunited with the rifle that saved his life in battle.

The SA 80 rifle took three bullets that otherwise would have killed the 24-year-old West Midland Territorial Army Private in a battle that claimed the lives of two comrades and won him the Military Cross.

The first 7.62 mm Kalashnikov round hit the weapon head on, narrowly missing the barrel and tearing apart the bodywork, while the second blew the sight off and the third smashed into the side, ripping through the inside of the gun and blasting out of the pistol grip.

Miraculously none struck Pte Cole, already wounded twice in the battle, and last night he saw the remains of the weapon for the first time since it saved his life in the Taliban ambush two years ago.

The rifle still worked and Pte Cole, from Bradmore, continued to shoot with it for a further hour as he lay trapped in the killing field. And the rifle that fired 360 rounds during the fire fight will now serve as a constant reminder of the bravery shown by Pte Cole in the battle near Garmsir in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

It has pride of place at the HQ of the 4th Battalion The Mercian Regiment in Fallings Park, Wolverhampton where he was based and will hang on the wall of the bar that last night was renamed The Cole in his honour.

Former forklift truck engineer Pt Cole said: “It is a shock to see the state it is in. It makes you realise how heavy the firing was. It saved my life. Any of those three bullets would have killed me instantly if it had not taken the blows.

“When you remember that I had the rifle braced on my shoulder at the time and was sitting up you realise those rounds would have hit me in the head or throat.”

Pte Cole was on a six-month tour of duty with the regular army 2 Mercian Regiment when he was hit in the stomach and leg, losing five inches of thigh bone, during the attack in September 2007.

The former Smestow School pupil was on his last mission before redeployment.

Original post http://www.expressandstar.com/latest/2009/12/16/soldier-reunited-with-gun-that-saved-his-life/ but I've pretty much just copied and pasted it all here.

Now that is just plain awesome. If ever has to pick up a tab at that bar I would be sorely disapointed in his mates...

[95th Rifleman]

Now that is just plain awesome. If ever has to pick up a tab at that bar I would be sorely disapointed in his mates...

British desighn combined with German engineering. Makes for a nice combo.

[ArmySGT.]

Drifting off a little but still somewhat on topic - this is one for people who put their hate on the SA80/L85. :p
This news article is over a year old but it seemed to have been missed outside the UK. For anyone who still thinks the L85A2 is junk because of the problems suffered by the L85A1, the following story shows that it is one tough piece of kit.

So what your saying is that the L85 is much like the M16. Took until the A2 model to carry it with pride, and not have to keep putting bits back on with super glue.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Too bad there are no civ sale semi auto versions in the US.

[ArmySGT.]

Too bad there are no civ sale semi auto versions in the US.

Probably would have paid for the L85A2 development ten years ago.

[Sanjuro]

First time I saw the L85 I couldn't beleive how small it was!
When I did rifle drill with the SLR, I could stand at parade rest with the butt on the ground, my right arm slightly curled and my hand on the foresight, ie with about 10" of the barrel in front of my hand and wrist.
Rifle drill with the L85? At parade rest, with my arm straight, I could just reach the end of the barrel. No wonder they made the clever 3-part strap so you could wear it everywhere!

[bobcat]

as far as people saying 5.56mm isn't potent enough i know for fact it drop a decent sized deer at 100M with one aimed shot. (yes i was useing SS109 green tip ammunition) :D

don't tell range control about it though. i told them the deer ran in front of my target while i was trying to qualify. tasted good too.

[Twilight2000v3MM]

6x45........... all the militar(ies) have to do is switch barrels. 80gr FMJ out of a 14.5" barrel at about 2600-2700 fps with better terminal ballistics and energy.

Just my 2 cents.

[ArmySGT.]

Mmmmmmmmm here kitty, kitty, kitty.

http://www.policestore.com/.aspx/pid=42026/sku=152000096/Product/60-Round-Magazine?mc_ID=p4035&sp_rid=MjM3MDYxMDA5NjES1&sp_mid=3718534

[Tegyrius]

6x45........... all the militar(ies) have to do is switch barrels. 80gr FMJ out of a 14.5" barrel at about 2600-2700 fps with better terminal ballistics and energy.

I'm liking the looks of .300 AAC Blackout too.

- C.

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah, the Blackout is an interesting offering. If I were way more into suppressors and such I'd have an upper in that caliber in the collection in short order.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

I'm liking the looks of .300 AAC Blackout too.

- C.

Not only just switching barrels, just switch mags attach a silencer, and you have a subsonic silenced weapon. And if you forgot to take off the silencer when you went back to or accidentally put in a mag of supersonic ammo you would not have a catastrophic problem just a slightly embarrassing one (that is if anyone notices).

I would like to see the 6mm, though though .300 black out is cool too, if not a little more veritable.

[Schone23666]

As for this topic, well....yep, I chose the AR-15/M-16/M-4 platform. Don't mean to sound jingoistic in any way, but it's what I'm comfortable with. Plus, it's come a long way since the teething problems the original models had back in the day. As for as assault rifles go it's a very accurate firearm, easy to handle and very ergonomic, and the biggest plus being it's such a modular platform. The design of the upper and lower receiver has allowed it to be easily adapted to a whole slew of various calibers and barrel lengths, and the Picatinny rail system allows it be tricked out in whatever configuration you want with all the various accessories they have these days. The number and various type of accessories that can be mounted on the platform these days are insane to say the least, which I'm sure some members here can attest to.

[Medic]

Again, depending on the nationality of the said character, practically any assault rifle would do though I have some qualms about the reliability of the Colt family. For a Finnish character it would be the m/62 or m/95, depending on his unit of service. And in case of m/95, probably one equiped with some kind of an optic and the cheekplate installable on the folding stock.

For a mercenary character the Israeli Tavor might be cool...

[CDAT]

First off I went with the AR Platform. Have used it in real life, and trust it. I have had the opportunity to use the AK, and do not trust my life to it, the rest I have no first hand experience with. I did serve around some Brits who had good things to say about there rifle (no idea what A version it was).

AK's aren't great, but they're not that bad. If properly zeroed both the 47 and 74 are easily 200 meter guns (meaning minute-of-man with no problems), though that's maybe about the limits of it.
One more saying it depends on the rifle. I have used ones that no one could get to zero, even in a bench rest it patterned like a shotgun. I have never seen one that was accurate, but have seen lots that are OK, and many that just flat out suck.

OK, lets dispel one thing right now. The M4 is a pile of shit. It was designed to be a handy rifle for non-combat, support troops. Just like the M-1 carbine was designed for in WWII. A replacement for a pistol. The M-4 jams up after 2, 30 round mags, and over heats. Because it is not meant to be in an extended encounter. You can say well "professionals", and spec ops use it. Yeah, well when your choice for a short barrel rifle is and M4, or an M4. You obviously pick the M4. People seem to think that PMC's, and Spec ops can grab all sorts of neato crazy shit. They get whats in the armory. Whats there? Sig 550? AKSU74? Colt MARS? CZW-438? No, M4s, or an M-16A (whatever.)
I have to say you must be smoking crack or something, I have first hand experience going through way more than 2 magazines. I carried 16 magazines loaded to 27 rounds, there was one time I ran dry and had to reload from the supplies in the truck, guess how many jams I had? Zero, guess how many jams the team had, Zero and they fired about as many rounds as I did.

[.45cultist]

Again, depending on the nationality of the said character, practically any assault rifle would do though I have some qualms about the reliability of the Colt family. For a Finnish character it would be the m/62 or m/95, depending on his unit of service. And in case of m/95, probably one equiped with some kind of an optic and the cheekplate installable on the folding stock.

For a mercenary character the Israeli Tavor might be cool...

Don't worry, I used an R604 M16(no "A") in 1995, it was 10 years older than I was and had serial number 54,XXX.

[Raellus]

Based on the new responses on the Favorite APC/IFV thread, I thought a bit of thread necromancy might be in order.

[pmulcahy11b]

I've used both the M16 and AK-47 in real life -- and the winner is the AK-47. Yes, it's heavy, and a decent lot of ammunition is beastly heavy, but it works. I haven't had extensive real-life use of an AK, but you can shoot and shoot, throw it around, use it as a baseball bat club, and it keeps going without a hiccup. and it's round is guaranteed a fight-ending wound or a kill.

The M16 is light and easy to tote around, and you can carry a s---load of ammo for it. And you'll need it, because you'll need at least a 3-round burst or sterling marksmanship to bring an enemy down. And then, the bane of existence in my experience with the M16 -- extraction failure. Rarely did I go through more than 3 magazines without one. Often, it was only one. Then you find yourself clearing your chamber under fire, discarding the magazine (because it was sometimes the culprit) ans then doing a SPORTS routine.

[Legbreaker]

The M16 is light and easy to tote around, and you can carry a s---load of ammo for it. And you'll need it, because you'll need at least a 3-round burst or sterling marksmanship to bring an enemy down. And then, the bane of existence in my experience with the M16 -- extraction failure. Rarely did I go through more than 3 magazines without one. Often, it was only one. Then you find yourself clearing your chamber under fire, discarding the magazine (because it was sometimes the culprit) ans then doing a SPORTS routine.

Have to agree with your assessment of the M16 - I had similar experience with them myself. Every. Single. One.

[CDAT]

I've used both the M16 and AK-47 in real life -- and the winner is the AK-47. Yes, it's heavy, and a decent lot of ammunition is beastly heavy, but it works. I haven't had extensive real-life use of an AK, but you can shoot and shoot, throw it around, use it as a baseball bat club, and it keeps going without a hiccup. and it's round is guaranteed a fight-ending wound or a kill.

The M16 is light and easy to tote around, and you can carry a s---load of ammo for it. And you'll need it, because you'll need at least a 3-round burst or sterling marksmanship to bring an enemy down. And then, the bane of existence in my experience with the M16 -- extraction failure. Rarely did I go through more than 3 magazines without one. Often, it was only one. Then you find yourself clearing your chamber under fire, discarding the magazine (because it was sometimes the culprit) ans then doing a SPORTS routine.
I have to say that your experiences are totally different from mine. I spent about five years is Iraq using M16/M4's of one type or another. But most of that time I was working OGA (Other Government Agency) this just means that I was working for a different agency than the one I belonged to (State department when I was Army in this case). I had the opportunity to work with the locals a lot, and we (the US government) would give them brand new from the factory firearms, within a month we got a fair number of them back as they were no longer working. What were those firearms you ask? They were AK-47's (not sure who made them but think it was a former block) and Glock 19's. One of the things that I got tasked with was figuring out what went wrong, with the Glocks we found that it was due to poor ammo, they had a fair amount of bad ammo that produced squib loads, the way they cleared them was to fire another round. So on one had it shows that the Glocks were very tough firearms as they did not blow up, they just had bulges in the barrels that would lock the slide open. As for the AK, we have no idea what they did. We could not even get the slide to open with a hammer it was as if it was welded in place. Could not find anything out of the normal with the ammo it was not the best quality, but not the worst I have seen, it did have corrosive primers, but not that out there. They did not do the best maintenance, but much better than what "they" (being the uber fans) say is all that is required, I have also seen troops do worse maintenance on there M16 and they still worked just fine. Then when you add in the lack of accuracy or maybe better to say lack of consistency. What I mean by this is when doing test shooting some of them shot patterns, and others were almost OK, none were what I would call good, best were about 2 to 3 MOA, worst I do not have any idea as not all rounds were on the paper from a bench rest at 25 feet (worst I have ever seen, so not saying it is typical of them).

[Sith]

I have a lot of experience with the M16/AR over the past 30 years. I have to say that one of the greatest disservices done to this weapon has been the military’s notion that the weapon has to be dry. This has done more to perpetuate the myth that it is unreliable than anything else. The M16 will run dirty all day as long as it is properly lubricated. The guys at EAG ran an AR for over 31k rounds with one cleaning back in 2012 https://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-magazine-filthy-14/ , since then the test has been replicated time and again by other folks. The military’s obsession with dry/clean weapons has probably caused more problems with reliability than any design or manufacturing mistake.

The wetter the better. The M16 will absolutely run dirty, but not dry.

[Raellus]

It's well documented that the early M-16, relatively advanced compared to its contemporaries, was not ready for the battlefield (much like the Panther tank in WW2). By the 1980s, most of the kinks were ironed out. That's not to say that the later versions of the M-16/AR-15 are perfect, but there's a reason (besides marketing) that AR-15 "black rifles" are the most popular "assault weapons" on the US civilian market, and that military versions are used by armed forces around the world.

There are entire books and websites devoted to the Great AK-47 v. M-16 debate.

The arguments can be boiled down to:

Recoil/Accuracy: M16 (this is why the AK74 was created)
Reliability: AK (this is why newer assault rifles don't use Stoner's direct impingement gas system and instead use a variation of the AK's piston-driven system)
Weight (of weapon & ammo): M16 (also why the AK74 was created)
Ease of Maintenance: AK
Range: M16
Stopping Power: AK
Ergonomics: M16 (this is why the HK416 and SIG 716 & MCX pretty much copy everything about the M4 other than its operation)
Durability: AK

So it's pretty much a push, and the "winner" depends on what factors the individual shooter values more.

[CDAT]

I have a lot of experience with the M16/AR over the past 30 years. I have to say that one of the greatest disservices done to this weapon has been the military’s notion that the weapon has to be dry. This has done more to perpetuate the myth that it is unreliable than anything else. The M16 will run dirty all day as long as it is properly lubricated. The guys at EAG ran an AR for over 31k rounds with one cleaning back in 2012 https://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-magazine-filthy-14/ , since then the test has been replicated time and again by other folks. The military’s obsession with dry/clean weapons has probably caused more problems with reliability than any design or manufacturing mistake.

The wetter the better. The M16 will absolutely run dirty, but not dry.

Also when supply wants zero carbon on the weapon. It has been found to work better with a bit of carbon on. I have also seen more weapons damaged/destroyed by troops trying to get the last speck of carbon off so that supply will accept it.

[CDAT]

It's well documented that the early M-16, relatively advanced compared to its contemporaries, was not ready for the battlefield (much like the Panther tank in WW2). By the 1980s, most of the kinks were ironed out. That's not to say that the later versions of the M-16/AR-15 are perfect, but there's a reason (besides marketing) that AR-15 "black rifles" are the most popular "assault weapons" on the US civilian market, and that military versions are used by armed forces around the world.

There are entire books and websites devoted to the Great AK-47 v. M-16 debate.

The arguments can be boiled down to:

Recoil/Accuracy: M16 (this is why the AK74 was created)
Reliability: AK (this is why newer assault rifles don't use Stoner's direct impingement gas system and instead use a variation of the AK's piston-driven system)
Weight (of weapon & ammo): M16 (also why the AK74 was created)
Ease of Maintenance: AK
Range: M16
Stopping Power: AK
Ergonomics: M16 (this is why the HK416 and SIG 716 & MCX pretty much copy everything about the M4 other than its operation)
Durability: AK

So it's pretty much a push, and the "winner" depends on what factors the individual shooter values more.

Recoil/Accuracy: M16 (this is why the AK74 was created)
This may be why it (the AK74) was created, and it is much more accurate than the AK47, if you go off of the information out there it could be argued that it is more accurate than the M16, but that is a misnomer if you ask me. The reason for this is how they determine accuracy. They use Circular error probable, and we use MOA (Minutes of angle). If you try to convert the information given about the AK74 you end up with about 3.9 MOA (compared to the 5.9 MOA for the AK47), where the M16A2 has an average of 4.2 MOA. But this is misleading as for the AK74 (AK47 as well) half the rounds will be outside this circle, but every round from the M16 will be inside, with most rifles being between 1 to 3 MOA.

Reliability: AK (this is why newer assault rifles don't use Stoner's direct impingement gas system and instead use a variation of the AK's piston-driven system)
I am not going to get into this this except to say that there is some out there who come down on both sides of how reliable the direct impingement system is or is not. Also in my first hand experience the M16 (not saying it is the direct impingement) was much more reliable in combat than the AK47, but others have different experiences.

Weight (of weapon & ammo): M16 (also why the AK74 was created)
Weights are with out magazine, M16 6.37lbs (2.89kg), AK47 7.7lbs (3.47kg), AK74 6.8lbs (3.07kg). Magazine weights for a fully loaded 30rd magazine are .99lb (.45kg) for M16, between 1.6 to 2lbs (.74 to .92kg) for AK47, and 1.215lb (.551kg) for AK74.

Ease of Maintenance: AK
For this I do not know what the expected level of operator maintenance is for the AK, but will say that it is easier to field strip, not that the M16 is difficult, the biggest issue I see for the M16 is it does have some small parts that could be lost in the dark or what not.

Range: M16
I think that this has a lot to do with accuracy, as it is difficult to hit a target if the bullet is off by more then the size of the target at that range.

Stopping Power: AK
At the barrel, The AK47 has 1502ft/lb (2036 J), the AK74 has 979ft/lb (1328 J), and the M16 1302ft/lb (1764 J). So the AK47 is the winner here, but the AK74 is in last place, so I would not say AK, as you are bouncing between AK47 and AK74. The AK47 also has the best penetration.

Ergonomics: M16 (this is why the HK416 and SIG 716 & MCX pretty much copy everything about the M4 other than its operation)
This is one more thing that I am not going to get into, as I have never carried the AK for extended periods of time. I have used it for training and teaching others, for this is was fine, but I have thousands of hours on the M16 so not sure it is better ergonomics or just more familiarity.

Durability: AK
This is the same as the reliability.

[Raellus]

Ease of Maintenance: AK
For this I do not know what the expected level of operator maintenance is for the AK, but will say that it is easier to field strip, not that the M16 is difficult, the biggest issue I see for the M16 is it does have some small parts that could be lost in the dark or what not.

I based this off of much anecdotal evidence. I once saw a video of a rusted AKM found in a hole in the ground in Mozambique. It was covered in rust. The finder poured some motor oil over it and was able to fire it. I've never seen or heard of a similar feat with an M16.

Also, the AK is reputed to require less frequent cleaning. This, I think, makes maintaining it easier.

I don't like field stripping my AR-15. As you pointed out, too many little parts. The AK-47/AKM has fewer parts. This make maintenance easier too.

Stopping Power: AK
At the barrel, The AK47 has 1502ft/lb (2036 J), the AK74 has 979ft/lb (1328 J), and the M16 1302ft/lb (1764 J). So the AK47 is the winner here, but the AK74 is in last place, so I would not say AK, as you are bouncing between AK47 and AK74. The AK47 also has the best penetration.

I only mentioned the development of the AK74. It wasn't really included in the comparison, but thanks for including it in your assessment.

Ergonomics: M16 (this is why the HK416 and SIG 716 & MCX pretty much copy everything about the M4 other than its operation)
This is one more thing that I am not going to get into, as I have never carried the AK for extended periods of time. I have used it for training and teaching others, for this is was fine, but I have thousands of hours on the M16 so not sure it is better ergonomics or just more familiarity.

One of the biggest knocks on the ergonomics of the AK series is the safety/selector switch mounted on the right side of the receiver. It can't be operated without removing one hand- usually the right hand (for most, the dominant/shooting hand)- from the weapon. This is a major design flaw.

It's also reputedly quite loud. I've read numerous accounts of LRRPs and SOG recon teams in Vietnam being tipped off to an impending ambush by the loud CLACK of AKs being taken off safe.

Durability: AK
This is the same as the reliability.

To an extent, but not really. I was thinking more of what would happen if one tried to butt-stroke an enemy. The M16's plastic stock is a lot less sturdy than most models of AK-47/AKM, many of which have a metal buttplate in addition to a wood butt. The M16's foregrip is less sturdy as well.

[pmulcahy11b]

On the direct impingement system: An author for Small Arms Review said it well: they are the only weapons that throw up in their own mouths when they fire.

[kcdusk]

All the Assault Rifles have the same stats. So it doesn't matter which one you choose.

[Ursus Maior]

I have very few experience, but felt comfortable with my G3 battle rifle.

[Raellus]

All the Assault Rifles have the same stats. So it doesn't matter which one you choose.

In terms of game mechanics, you're right, more or less. But T2k is also theater of the mind, and, for some players, at least, it matters what weapon they imagine their PC wielding. If I'm going to daydream about using an assault rifle, I want it to look cool. :cool:

It's not in the poll, but I like the looks of the Swedish AK-5.

-

[cawest]

i went with AR. its all about ammo and spare parts for me. it is very hard to reload russian war ammo. not saying that it cann't be done only that it is harder.

[CDAT]

I based this off of much anecdotal evidence. I once saw a video of a rusted AKM found in a hole in the ground in Mozambique. It was covered in rust. The finder poured some motor oil over it and was able to fire it. I've never seen or heard of a similar feat with an M16.

Also, the AK is reputed to require less frequent cleaning. This, I think, makes maintaining it easier.

I don't like field stripping my AR-15. As you pointed out, too many little parts. The AK-47/AKM has fewer parts. This make maintenance easier too.

I have also seen videos of things like this, but my real world experience with AK's is very different. Yes they may require less frequent cleaning but the AR is not one that needs near as much cleaning as many say. I spent on average about 5 minutes when we came back from a patrol cleaning my rifle, over the almost two year deployment never once had any malfunctions of any kind. On my second and third deployments where I was working with the locals they had there AK's and at least when we were around they did maintenance, they had all sorts of issues from failure to fire up to the bolts seized up so much that could not even get them open with a hammer.

...



To an extent, but not really. I was thinking more of what would happen if one tried to butt-stroke an enemy. The M16's plastic stock is a lot less sturdy than most models of AK-47/AKM, many of which have a metal buttplate in addition to a wood butt. The M16's foregrip is less sturdy as well.
If you butt-stroke an enemy with an AR nothing happens to the rifle, as they are not plastic. They are not as weak as people make them out to be. The fore-grip are also very sturdy, now yes there are after market ones that are very weak and my guess is that is where the misinformation about service weapons comes from. We used ours to beat down doors, and all sorts of other stuff with none breaking from that. We did have one rifle break, but that was when the soldier who's rifle it was leaned it against the truck tire, walked off to do something and the truck moved driving over it, this would have also broken a wooden stocked rifle (it was also the barrel that was bent, not the "plastic' that broke). Now how does it compare to the AK's wooden butt stock I can not say for sure as I have never used an AK to butt stroke someone, I do know that wood stocks have issues with accuracy based on the humidity. Last thought on the strength issue is if it was a issue why would the US Army be switching its M14/21's to synthetic stocks (the EBR)?

[Raellus]

I respect your personal experiences, CDAT, and my intent is not to dismiss it or question your integrity but, excepting your anecdotes, everything I've seen, heard, or read on the topic has been pretty adamant that the AK-47/AKM is a sturdier weapon (i.e. can handle more wear and tear and hard use, and less routine maintenance) than the M16. Of course, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean that the AK is a better overall weapon than the M16.

If you butt-stroke an enemy with an AR nothing happens to the rifle, as they are not plastic.

What material are M16A1/A2 buttstocks made out of?

Last thought on the strength issue is if it was a issue why would the US Army be switching its M14/21's to synthetic stocks (the EBR)?

I assume weight is a big factor in that decision, and also the age and wear of the original wooden furniture. I also assume that synthetic materials are sturdier now than they were in the mid-1960s.

-

[micromachine]

I have thought about this one for quite a while and I think I would use the assault rifle with the best chance of "battlefield pickup" for my area of operations. I know the battlefield is in flux and there is a good chance that even friendlies are armed with opfor weapons and the opfor having familiar weapons.
So, in a behind enemy lines campaign, I would opt for the opfor assault rifle, so I can get spares easily and pickup ammo and magazines off the dead and prisoners. The added plus is that I would make a scout come closer to positively identify me as an enemy.
I would keep my issue weapon and magazines as well, so long as i can leave it in a safe place suitabily disabled so prying eyes and hands don't make a "five finger discount" purchase at my expense. If my party has a vehicle, this is a no brainer. This will keep my options open for its use should a supply of ammunition be located.

[bash]

In game terms, I went with the AK-47/AKM. In both T2k and M2k I've always seen them as common "found" weapons. The Pact flooded the second and third world with them for decades. The proliferation of the AR platform (to the best of my knowledge) in the real world is an artifact of the fall of the iron curtain.

I think the mix of WP and NATO equipment gives a good feel for the setting. After a couple years of cantonment and pulling in stragglers even nominally NATO units aren't going to have homogenous load outs. Even if characters have their originally issued weapons they've likely, in my view, to have picked up AKs just to make scrounging for parts and ammo easier.

[ChalkLine]

My philosophy is always reduced to the following criteria:

Firstly, "will it let me down at a crucial moment?"

Secondly "is there plenty of ammunition for it?"

I usually go for the AK-74 variants in Euro campaigns as there's buckets of ammo and magazines, it's rock solid and also it doesn't draw undue sniper attention. Really, if I'm some chump holding what everyone's holding and there's a guy with a Gucci gun next to me they're going to whack him first. Similarly if I was to play in the USA it'd be an M16.

[ChalkLine]

Its the AUG for me: nothing against the black rifle, its a solid design, but I feel from a usability point of view the AUG is a handier weapon, especially for mounted troops. If I had to pick a rifle to equip my army, the exact version would be in 6.8spc though, and yes, there are 6.8spc AUGs out there: they are license made in the USA by MSAR.

I have a friend in the ADF and he is not a fan of the AUG/F88 because he finds it's difficult to shoulder with his body armour on. He prefers conventional rifles with a sliding stock so he can adjust it.

[CDAT]

I respect your personal experiences, CDAT, and my intent is not to dismiss it or question your integrity but, excepting your anecdotes, everything I've seen, heard, or read on the topic has been pretty adamant that the AK-47/AKM is a sturdier weapon (i.e. can handle more wear and tear and hard use, and less routine maintenance) than the M16. Of course, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean that the AK is a better overall weapon than the M16.

I agree that the stories out there are about how the AK can be totally abused and still work, and the AR if any dust gets in it, it will jam. However I think that the AK and the AR are much more in the middle. I think it was a forgotten weapon video (or maybe the link was from it, do not remember) where they took both a AR and AK did the same dirt and mud test on them on video. The AR was the one that worked better. (just looked it up it is inrangeTV the AR test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU and the AK test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU) There is also the video by Brandon Herrera (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htkYVB4LaDM) who is about the biggest AK fan that I know of. Based on those videos, and what I have seen in real life both from others using them and using them myself I think that the reliability of the AK is vastly overblown, same as the AR being a jam o'matic, having said that the biggest advantage I see for the AK over the AR is if something needs fixed in a third world good luck for the AR, but the AK I can see you making parts in a back yard garage. Heck I saw quite a few AK, and Mosien who had broken stocks that were just nailed back together, not something that you can do with an AR.

What material are M16A1/A2 buttstocks made out of?
I do not know the exact thing that they are made out of, some fiber reinforced polymer. Also this is for GI ones, not the after market (some are good I am sure, but other are just cheap plastic) I was in a LEO AR armorers class and the Colt instructor noticed one of the guys in the class had after market parts, so he asked if he could use one of the forgrips (told him that they would likely be destroyed) and was able to bend them with his arms snapping it in half, he then let the class try to do the same with the GI issue ones, no one was able to even bend them. My understanding is that the for grips and the butt stock are made out of the same, with the butt stock also being filled (where not intended to be empty for the cleaning kit).

I assume weight is a big factor in that decision, and also the age and wear of the original wooden furniture. I also assume that synthetic materials are sturdier now than they were in the mid-1960s.

-
My understanding is that it is because of the stiffness and that they do not swell with the moisture in the air, weight was not noticeable (we had some of both wood and synthetic) we did the same things with both.

Now I am not anti-AK, I think that the AK is just a fine weapon, I am pro AR on the other hand and feel that it is a better overall firearm. Having said that both are tools, both were out, the AK will be easier to rebuild in a TW2k type world, I think that the AR will last longer before it is needed, but this could be my bias so take it for what it it worth.

[Sith]

This doesn’t really fit here… but doesn’t warrant its own thread either.



Ok… Which one of you is building an M16EZ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/RetroAR/comments/ty00lo/ez_upper_is_done/

[pmulcahy11b]

This doesn’t really fit here… but doesn’t warrant its own thread either.



Ok… Which one of you is building an M16EZ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/RetroAR/comments/ty00lo/ez_upper_is_done/

I hope that's not one of those "Ghost Guns...":mad:

Are any of these guys being legal and registering their short-barreled rifles?

[HaplessOperator]

AR-15 variants for service rifles, hands down.

Manual of arms is faster than a raped ape. Runs better in mud than an AK. Runs even better if you keep 'er wet, even in the desert (the "keep your weapon dry" thing is a sure fire way to have it malfunctioning; environmental contaminants can't seize if they're a liquid), and you can slap just about anything on the platform in any configuration you wish and still have a lighter rifle than the next competitor, and you can trivially upgrade or modify essentially any single part of the rifle imaginable.

Need a rifle the size of an MP5? Mk18 has you covered. Need to reach out and touch someone at 800? Mk12 and 90-grain SMK's got it. Want to convert between the two in a private setup? You're two takedown pins and 15 seconds away from a room sweeper to a precision rifle. More exotic workups are easily possible; that same rifle can serve as a 9mm subgun to a .50BMG bolt-action, magazine-fed rifle or anything in between, and with a given lower, fire anything that fits within the 5.56 action length, and if you're not too snooty about upsizing, you've got the AR-10 and SR-25 families of design following essentially the same pattern.

Lefties do fine, too. No proprietary parts switching (which aren't issued along with service rifles most of the time, anyway), no worries about having to physically pull your magazine free if retention isn't required but speed is, allowing you to shortcut the process of gassing your weapon back up, no brass to fly in your face if you're transitioning shoulders (and you will constantly be transitioning shoulders).

With over 500 companies manufacturing parts for the things, and thousands that could if needed, they're better situated than any other country's service rifle for emergency wartime production, especially considering modern design and fabrication methodology for cutting aluminum billet and punching barrel blanks, and the existing aftermarket is probably the richest for any rifle platform in existence. These days, you can turn an AR-15 cheaper and faster than you can most extant AKs.

There's no one rifle that can do everything, but the AR-15 - especially in its modern incarnations - probably comes the closest.

If I were a trifling man, I could also mention that I've never been able to ignore that all these countries with indig service rifles (especially bullpups) tend to have their special operations forces almost universally using some flavor of AR-15 as well.

For the business end of things, an AR-15 is - within most common shootout distances - slinging a round that is going to cause considerably more tissue damage than a 7.62x39, as well, with lighter recoil, faster follow-up on the target, and on a trajectory that isn't like firing a rock from a slingshot.

[Raellus]

Ah, the classic AR v. AK debate continues!

The AR-15 runs better in mud than an AK.

I'm curious as to your sources for this claim. Everything I've read or seen on this particular subject says the exact opposite.

The AK-47 series is legendary for its robustness and ability to operate reliably even when filthy. I once saw a video of South African special forces recovering an AK that had been buried for years in a guerilla cache in Mozambique. They literally dumped a can of motor oil over it (not even close to a proper cleaning), and then immediately fired off a 30-round magazine on full auto with no problems. I've never seen an M-16 do that.

The early M-16 had a deadly reputation of jamming under adverse conditions. In Vietnam, hundreds of US soldiers and Marines were KIA when their first-gen G.I. M-16s jammed during firefights. To be fair, this was corrected in subsequent versions but, AFAIK the AK still operates more reliably under adverse conditions (mud, sand, water, etc.) than the AR-15.

If I were a trifling man, I could also mention that I've never been able to ignore that all these countries with indig service rifles (especially bullpups) tend to have their special operations forces almost universally using some flavor of AR-15 as well.

True, but these days, those AR "flavors" are more-often-than not look-alikes rifles like the HK416, which uses a different, more reliable operating system. It looks like an AR-15 but, ironically, its innards are more similar to those of the AK.

For the business end of things, an AR-15 is - within most common shootout distances - slinging a round that is going to cause considerably more tissue damage than a 7.62x39.

The 5.56mm round performs really well in ballistics tests, but it falls short of 7.62x39mm when it comes to penetrating anything tougher than soft tissue. I've also read multiple battlefield reports of the 5.56mm round lacking "stopping power", and of human targets of fighting through multiple 5.56mm round hits.

That all said, what I've read/seen on the subject definitely confirms that the ergonomics, operating controls, recoil, accuracy, mod-ability, and ammo weight of the AR-15 is superior to the AK and its variants.

-

[HaplessOperator]

Ah, the classic AR v. AK debate continues!



I'm curious as to your sources for this claim. Everything I've read or seen on this particular subject says the exact opposite.

The AK-47 series is legendary for its robustness and ability to operate reliably even when filthy. I once saw a video of South African special forces recovering an AK that had been buried for years in a guerilla cache in Mozambique. They literally dumped a can of motor oil over it (not even close to a proper cleaning), and then immediately fired off a 30-round magazine on full auto with no problems. I've never seen an M-16 do that.

The early M-16 had a deadly reputation of jamming under adverse conditions. In Vietnam, hundreds of US soldiers and Marines were KIA when their first-gen G.I. M-16s jammed during firefights. To be fair, this was corrected in subsequent versions but, AFAIK the AK still operates more reliably under adverse conditions (mud, sand, water, etc.) than the AR-15.



True, but these days, those AR "flavors" are more-often-than not look-alikes rifles like the HK416, which uses a different, more reliable operating system. It looks like an AR-15 but, ironically, its innards are more similar to those of the AK.



The 5.56mm round performs really well in ballistics tests, but it falls short of 7.62x39mm when it comes to penetrating anything tougher than soft tissue. I've also read multiple battlefield reports of the 5.56mm round lacking "stopping power", and of human targets of fighting through multiple 5.56mm round hits.

That all said, what I've read/seen on the subject definitely confirms that the ergonomics, operating controls, recoil, accuracy, mod-ability, and ammo weight of the AR-15 is superior to the AK and its variants.

-

Mostly from running both platforms in mud comps and on the job for the past 20 years. There's modern mud tests that bear this out, though. Outside of "legendary" claims and lingering fuddlore regarding the original production model's faults in Vietnam, essentially anything that shuts an AR-15 down is going to shut down an AK as well. About the only thing they do better - assuming both weapons are well-lubricated - is run better in deep freeze conditions, and if your AR isn't running in Bridgeport at 12,000 feet, well, you're using the wrong lubricant.

If you're not running the thing dripping, put plainly, you're doing it wrong. CLP is cheap, and there's not a thing in the world will seize on if you've got the operating system essentially swimming. Ran the thing through the Dynamic Assault Course and a couple dozen critical incident courses over the years, and through most competition, and whether shooting compromised or flat range, she runnin', as long as you keep the thing wet.

As far as the actual mechanics of it, the popular claim that an AK runs better because of "loose tolerances" is bunk. That's why the thing ingests so much environmental contamination, and why you can get so much large particulate in the chamber and even down into your magazine, even if the weapon is loaded. If your safety isn't on, the side of your weapon is open and able to ingest. Like, not just moisture, or water with particulate in it, but talking chunks, and straight into your operating system. The bolt also doesn't self-clear the way an AR does, blowing gas though the starboard side of the bolt carrier group; you're generating a high pressure environment that exits through the path of least resistance with every shot, and you can literally see it blowing mud out of the ejection port during the firing cycle. Whole thing stays more or less closed off, as well, whether the ejection port cover is open or not (better to keep it closed after charging a round anyway).

Your anecdote about dumping a can of motor oil into and onto a weapon isn't surprising at all. Motor oil, as it turns out, and as you may imagine, is an utterly fantastic lubricant, and as I've attempted to make clear, if a weapon is well-lubed, it'll generally fire, no matter the make or model, so long as it's not got a gross physical stoppage already in play that requires clearing to allow cycling the operating system.

As to the early M16 part, I couldn't really tell you other than agree with the reports, but we're not really talking about early M16s with jacked up operating and maintenance instructions, poor barrel finishing, and engineered failures.

As to the variant operating system, it's more reliable than the in-line internal gas piston of traditional ARs in certain circumstances, but it's not an across-the-board thing, and there are trade-offs with it, as there are with any design choice in a firearm; there ain't no such thing as a free lunch in any engineering field, and internal gas piston vs. an offset short stroke is no different. Also, for what it's worth, the system you're referring to shares little with an AK, as it's derived directly from G36's system in function, which itself is derived from the AR-18; the Germans basically re-skinned a Stoner design for their own operating system, and later put it back into an AR-15 form factor. There's a fairly straightforward lineage to this. As to the 416 mention, prior to their rolling that out, most of the ARs in use by the special operations forces mentioned were simply product improved Colt designs from licensed manufacturers, and still used the in-line internal gas piston.

For terminal performance, yeah, 7.62x39 knocks through a lot of light cover better, but you get better AP performance through body armor (especially more modern designs, as 7.62x39 designers failed to keep up with Western ceramics) with the tungsten core munitions at the higher velocities that the 5.56 cartridge generates, even out of M4-length barrels, compared to the AK. If you're sitting there trading rounds with someone through cover, though, few hundred yards away, where this sort of thing is usually taking place, you're doing yourself a disservice by sitting there and not making use of the rest of the weapons in your squad to fix, flank, and tenderly caress that hostile element that's engaging you. For what it's worth, though, you can wallbang just fine with 5.56 though most residential structures. If you're trying to sit there and wallow out a block wall, you're not going to achieve that with either rifle, unless you've got a firing squad. And generally speaking, if you're behind cover that I can't penetrate with my rifle, but COULD penetrate with a 7.62 round, I'm going to set your corpse on fire with a copper jet from an HEDP round or slamming a LAW into you, cuz it's no skin off my ass, and I brought three, because only an idiot fights fair.

There's no perfect weapon, again, and with any of them, you're working in other areas to counter shortcomings. ARs simply don't require a multitude of sacrifices.

As to the humans fighting through multiple 5.56 round hits, there's nothing surprising about that. You see similar with many other cartridges, all the way up to .300 WinMag. Ugly truth of it is that any hit not in the ten ring is gonna be a long an ugly death if you're looking at torso hits. If you don't blow the heart and lungs out, it's gonna take an uncomfortable amount of time for your target to die, period. Sometimes you see someone go down quickly from the traumatic psychological shock of the event, but it's unpredictable and absolutely cannot be counted on, even if you slammed a 7.62x51mm round into their chest. You can blow someone's heart and both lungs out with a hit, and worst case scenario, they've still got about 8 seconds on their feet they can kill you with. That's why you fire until your target is hamburger, no matter what system you're running. If you don't get a good spinal, or blow out the heart and lungs, or get lucky and tag someone in the domepiece, you're going to have to shoot them more. There's a reason it's a good idea to get a machine gun into a house, and it's not just cuz of fire superiority. 9mm, 5.56, 7.62, doesn't matter. If you can shoot your target half a dozen times and destroy every functional organ they have, they're going to bleed out and go down from hypovolemic shock that much quicker, and you've got more of a chance of clipping the strings with a good spinal hit with every shot that nails them, or blowing out the pelvis, or getting a similarly good structural hit that physically prevents the human body from working the way it's supposed to.

Stopping power in and of itself is a literally non-existent concept born largely out of fuddlore and the operators of a weapon not understanding the actual principles of what's taking place when they smoke someone, and weighing their perceptions of a fictional understanding of how gunfire kills people against an uncompromising reality of what happens when a bullet hits an organism that is wired from the ground up to stay alive until the brain shuts down from lack of oxygen and that is fully capable of killing you even after lethal injury unless you completely disassemble it or clip the strings.

Also, sorry for the whole post quote. I haven't used forum markup for years and am utterly terrible at it, and was unsure of how badly I'd bork the formatting if I tried getting clever or fancy.

PS: I should add that none of this is a straight repudiation of the AK platform as a whole. But the takeaway should be that there's nothing particularly legendary about it other than how widely available it was and how much better it was than most systems in use by the countries and non-governmental forces that adopted them in its early days of widespread popularity; the landscape didn't offer a lot of breadth in choice back then, and its competitor hadn't sorted out teething issues. The "reliability" of an AK is literally nothing more than you can achieve out of essentially any rifle platform in existence. We just don't see many other countries' designs in constant use through decades of conflict, because most countries don't spend decades at war or directly supplying conflict forces the way the US and USSR did. Like, no one's going to have an enduring memory of the L85 other than UK servicemembers. Everyone's seen an AK, and after Vietnam, just about anyone except folks who run both platforms regularly and in a variety of operating conditions is typically exposed to a great deal more myth than reality.

[Raellus]

I appreciate your thorough response, HaplessOperator. You've got me questioning a lot of what I thought I knew about the AK vis-a-vis the AR-15.

As far as the actual mechanics of it, the popular claim that an AK runs better because of "loose tolerances" is bunk. That's why the thing ingests so much environmental contamination, and why you can get so much large particulate in the chamber and even down into your magazine, even if the weapon is loaded. If your safety isn't on, the side of your weapon is open and able to ingest. Like, not just moisture, or water with particulate in it, but talking chunks, and straight into your operating system. The bolt also doesn't self-clear the way an AR does, blowing gas though the starboard side of the bolt carrier group; you're generating a high pressure environment that exits through the path of least resistance with every shot, and you can literally see it blowing mud out of the ejection port during the firing cycle. Whole thing stays more or less closed off, as well, whether the ejection port cover is open or not (better to keep it closed after charging a round anyway).

Isn't that a feature as much as a bug? I've read that the AK's loose tolerances contribute to reduced accuracy compared to the AR, but that they allow the AK to continue to operate in pretty much any environment with very little routine maintenance.

Lest anyone think that I'm an AR hater, I am not. Although I tend to be cynical and rather suspicious of the US military-industrial complex, there must be legitimate reasons that the AR platform is still going strong. It's the only assault rifle that I've ever operated and I haven't experienced any performance issues with it. I must say, though, cleaning it is a bit of a chore. Again, I don't know from experience but I've read that the AK has fewer working parts and is easier to disassemble/reassemble than the AR.

In the T2kU, I think I'd still take the AK-74 over the M-16A2. I'm not quite fully convinced that the AR family is as robust or likely to function in adverse conditions as the Kalashnikov, and in Poland, at least, ammunition for the latter would be easier to come by.

-

[HaplessOperator]

Isn't that a feature as much as a bug? I've read that the AK's loose tolerances contribute to reduced accuracy compared to the AR, but that they allow the AK to continue to operate in pretty much any environment with very little routine maintenance.

It might be useful to talk about meanings here, and to clarify what tolerances mean for a gun, as well as clarify my own language, since I was mirroring yours; it's going to remain obfuscated unless I do. So, tolerances in a gun - as with any manufacturing - are simply deviations from spec. It often gets used colloquially (especially in discussions on AK reliability) to mean the overhead in design. That is, in the case of designing a cylinder exactly 1 inch wide, when you need it to be a minimum of .95 inches for optimum function, you're generally talking about clearance. The tolerance for that part may be so many hundredths or thousandths of an inch plus or minus that diameter.

In a gun, if your manufacturing methodology has loose tolerances from the designed standard, that means - literally - nothing other than you're going to have parts that don't fit, due to both stacking tolerances and variance in one edge being off beyond a functionally acceptable tolerance at the same time the part mating to it is off as well. In Soviet AKs, this was fairly common, due to inconsistent manufacturing quality and essentially non-existent QC, though the platform can generally survive this due to a sufficient overhead in design specifications. For example, both the front and rear sight bases in Soviet-era AKs are often off-spec to a significant degree, as are the gas block, and - oftentimes - the front and rear trunnions themselves. When parts like the trunnions and gas blocks are out of tolerance, it doesn't contribute to reliability or resilience against environmental contamination; it merely means that it's going to be things like blowing more or less gas than designed, or the parts beating the absolute hell out of each other since the fitment isn't as designed.

This is no more easy on the AK than it is any other design. This isn't an indictment of your intelligence or knowledge, but you can see how this in and of itself wouldn't explain making something reliable, just wear out quicker, or serve as an indication of cheap (not efficient) manufacture. The lion's share of AK reliability is myth; it's no more reliable or less reliable than most other service rifles we've collectively made as humans after World War 2, and most of the characteristics ascribed to AKs apply more or less equally to other platforms. AKs deal with cold weather pretty well as designed, but that's about the only particularly notable thing about them, and it's a capability that can be rather efficiently engineered into existing designs, as the Canadians have done with several platforms over the years. That said, best way to keep your gun ice-free in ultra-low temperatures is to keep it sealed and well-lubricated with a temp-appropriate petroleum distillate, and an AK is far from sealed, and an AK full of ice is going to fail to cycle just as surely as any other gun full of ice is. THAT said... most weather almanacs I've seen for the time don't suggest that this would be a concern, anyway. Switzerland, in 4th Edition, on the other hand...

Something to mention in favor of the AK is how sharply tapered the cartridge it fires is; that's why the magazines look the way they do. It takes an awful lot wrong to cause a malfunction in cartridge extraction in an AK. Also, the internal open space in the receiver DOES allow for the buildup of gross particulate in some of the interior spaces without serious obstruction to the action, but once you get anything in the path of travel for the bolt, guide rod, or in the chamber, it fails just as easily as any other weapon, for the same reasons that any other weapon would fail: the operation is being physically obstructed. This is probably where a lot of the perception of its resilience to mud probably comes from; most weapons solve this problem by simply not letting the mud in in the first place, or by having nowhere for the mud to actually infiltrate.

On accuracy... it's mostly down to the 7.62 Soviet cartridge, and more specifically, the QC and batch quality of Russian ammo. 7.62x39 has a dog crap ballistic coefficient, but manufactured properly, it's fine. The trouble is that the same philosophy that applied to Soviet rifles was applied to their ammunition, and at the time, it was inconsistent as all hell, along with inconsistent barrel mounting and poor crowning at a number of their factories, which essentially causes the bullet to be thrown off by a minute degree as it leaves the barrel. This, combined with inconsistent ammunition quality, propellant loading, and the subsequent variability in velocity and trajectory. All of these things combine to give you a far more variable beaten zone at any given distance on any particular target at any particular angle of fire.

Lest anyone think that I'm an AR hater, I am not. Although I tend to be cynical and rather suspicious of the US military-industrial complex, there must be legitimate reasons that the AR platform is still going strong. It's the only assault rifle that I've ever operated and I haven't experienced any performance issues with it. I must say, though, cleaning it is a bit of a chore. Again, I don't know from experience but I've read that the AK has fewer working parts and is easier to disassemble/reassemble than the AR.

There's no assumption of hate/dislike. People can enjoy whatever guns they want. For the longevity of the platform, it's largely due to how iterated-upon it is, the depth of the market, and the simple fact that there's literally nothing out there that would be worth the cost of replacing it; there's plenty of guns that do this thing or that better than a rack-grade M16, but there's practically nothing out there that does so for the same cost, and reducing build quality of most platforms to match an AR in cost would turn the platform in question into a trash fire; meanwhile, the ceiling on ARs is essentially sky-high - spend HK416 money on an AR-15, and you've got an AR-15 that will run circles around a 416, or a SCAR, or... you get the idea.

As to the moving parts bit, they're more or less identical. An AR-15 has eight parts that move when the operating system cycles, the same as an AK. Assembly or disassembly is something I've genuinely never considered, as it's kind of neither here nor there. You disassemble a Glock with your finger and thumb by pulling down two tabs, giving the slide some play, and squeezing the trigger; this doesn't mean that it's more or less suitable than a Beretta 92's pressing a button and rotating a tab, or a Sig P226, etc., merely that it's disassembled in a different manner. The AK's method of disassembly (and its construction) mean that it's got kind of a garbage sight radius and that it's more or less impossible to mount optics to it in a typical manner without a side mounting fixture.

In the T2kU, I think I'd still take the AK-74 over the M-16A2. I'm not quite fully convinced that the AR family is as robust or likely to function in adverse conditions as the Kalashnikov, and in Poland, at least, ammunition for the latter would be easier to come by.

Here, we're in full agreement, after a fashion. I kept a couple AKs in my truck as insurance against an absolute worst case. Ammunition and supply of other sorts was never short, and I could literally walk into the ASP and walk out with entire pallets, and was often encouraged to do so simply to make room for the next shipment coming in, and we were rolling like Scrooge McDuck in 40mm, LAWs, AT4s, and ordnance of all descriptions, but by the end of my first deployment, I had run completely out of ammunition exactly once, and had resolved to take several measures to ensure such a thing would never impact me again, no matter what the failure point.

Bonus info: the best AKs were never made in Russia, or Poland for that matter. Bulgaria, Romania, and the German DDR were rocking what were basically Cadillacs in comparison to the Polish and Russian pieces, and once the iteration of the platform began by countries outside of RSFSR, the AMD series and like "upgrades" more or less left the original platform (both AKM and AK-74) in the dust.

AKs, like the T-series tanks, have a mythology around them that is wildly overblown compared to the actual hardware sitting in front of you. I could tell you some truly hilarious stories about the so-called "monkey models" I got to shoot hell out of, but that's probably a story for another thread, along with the elaboration of what being a monkey model actually means in a practical sense when you're considering smacking the things with HEAT rounds.

And please, call me Hapless. All my friends do.

[Red Diamond]

The M4 SOPMOD came out around 1997 and was in frontline units by 1998 so as far as assault rifles available during the T2k era it just barely squeaks buy. The M4 SOPMOD allows for all of the accoutrements that we take for granted now but were groundbreaking in the 90s and before the gun porn rifle modifications got too crazy.

[HaplessOperator]

The M4 SOPMOD came out around 1997 and was in frontline units by 1998 so as far as assault rifles available during the T2k era it just barely squeaks buy. The M4 SOPMOD allows for all of the accoutrements that we take for granted now but were groundbreaking in the 90s and before the gun porn rifle modifications got too crazy.

It was actually first rolled out with Block 1 in '95 (!), just a year before the M16A4 was type classified (and which they'd been kicking around with as the M16A2E4 since about the same time the SeaBees started kicking the M16A2E3 around), and '97/'98 gave us the M16A4 rollout, and in vastly greater numbers, with all the same rail space (and more) with flat top and longer KAC quad-rail Picatinnys as the M4 SOPMOD. None of this is to disagree or nitpick, but only to emphasize that the RIS and RAS systems were around much earlier than most folks imagine. The kicker is that the rollout could have gone MUCH quicker; the forging house at Colt was only dedicating a tiny amount of capacity to this upgrade, and KAC was doing the RIS and RAS work essentially at a back office, with Crane working in essentially the same capacity toward these integrations for the SOCOM side of the house.

Also, how did they go crazy? Practically everything we do to a rifle for the past 20+ years is more or less what anyone halfway serious about shooting would have done to their rifles back in the 70s, 80s or 90s, except you don't have to hunt down a legendary mythical gunsmith that everyone in the country knows the name of to get it done; you just drop the parts in yourself after having them delivered to your door.

All that happened was that you now have better quality glass on top without drilling on your gun or mounting an interface, can mount a light without needing a clamp that holds a giant Maglite, and you don't have to zip-tie your handguards together while having parts zip-tied to your handguards, and we don't have to mess with the D-ring assembly anymore, cuz D-rings suck rancid, overripe dog turds.

[Red Diamond]

It was actually first rolled out with Block 1 in '95 (!), just a year before the M16A4 was type classified (and which they'd been kicking around with as the M16A2E4 since about the same time the SeaBees started kicking the M16A2E3 around), and '97/'98 gave us the M16A4 rollout, and in vastly greater numbers, with all the same rail space (and more) with flat top and longer KAC quad-rail Picatinnys as the M4 SOPMOD. None of this is to disagree or nitpick, but only to emphasize that the RIS and RAS systems were around much earlier than most folks imagine. The kicker is that the rollout could have gone MUCH quicker; the forging house at Colt was only dedicating a tiny amount of capacity to this upgrade, and KAC was doing the RIS and RAS work essentially at a back office, with Crane working in essentially the same capacity toward these integrations for the SOCOM side of the house.

Also, how did they go crazy? Practically everything we do to a rifle for the past 20+ years is more or less what anyone halfway serious about shooting would have done to their rifles back in the 70s, 80s or 90s, except you don't have to hunt down a legendary mythical gunsmith that everyone in the country knows the name of to get it done; you just drop the parts in yourself after having them delivered to your door.

All that happened was that you now have better quality glass on top without drilling on your gun or mounting an interface, can mount a light without needing a clamp that holds a giant Maglite, and you don't have to zip-tie your handguards together while having parts zip-tied to your handguards, and we don't have to mess with the D-ring assembly anymore, cuz D-rings suck rancid, overripe dog turds.

I didn't see M16A4 nor SOPMOD get in the hands of the rank and file until 97- 98. I know they existed, but I didn't see them when working with Marines nor Army so speaking of the T2K context, I think they just got under the wire for inclusion.

As for gun porn I'm referring to cut out magazine wells, monogramed charging handles and upper receivers (Zombie Response Team, etc.) over engineered charging handles, slings, vanity flash suppressors, etc. Many products are made for the range and are not durable. Theres a lot of garbage out there that I'm sure you've seen. And I don't know this, but don't Soldiers and Marines still zip tie their add-ons to their rifles still as back up? I can't imagine the military changing that much but it's been a minute for me.

BTW, I'm glad someone is active on here! Good to hear from you.

[kato13]

I typed a response and it didn't post!

As far as I know this has not been an issue, but browsers and platforms keep changing small elements which might have an effect.

One thought, if you are taking a long time to craft a post, you might want to "Preview Post" every once in a while to refresh your cookies.

If you see this more than once please send me a PM with your Platform, OS, Browser. If someone else has seen this please PM me and I will create a thread to try to track this down.

[HaplessOperator]

I didn't see M16A4 nor SOPMOD get in the hands of the rank and file until 97- 98. I know they existed, but I didn't see them when working with Marines nor Army so speaking of the T2K context, I think they just got under the wire for inclusion.

As for gun porn I'm referring to cut out magazine wells, monogramed charging handles and upper receivers (Zombie Response Team, etc.) over engineered charging handles, slings, vanity flash suppressors, etc. Many products are made for the range and are not durable. Theres a lot of garbage out there that I'm sure you've seen. And I don't know this, but don't Soldiers and Marines still zip tie their add-ons to their rifles still as back up? I can't imagine the military changing that much but it's been a minute for me.

BTW, I'm glad someone is active on here! Good to hear from you.

Oh, I know they took a while to distribute; I was just making the point we had the designs locked in and type-classified even earlier than you supposed; had we gone directly to unit replacement, there were - at the time - four major forging houses in addition to two primary military workshops that could have handled conversion and distro. If oil prices had spiked, and we'd seen a resurgence in spending, and the Soviet Union had never collapsed, it's a solid bet we'd have seen A4s and M4A1s in everyone's hands vice M16A2s. I've often extolled the point that after GW1, and under the working concept that the bear we're hunting is still out there, it's a solid bet our forces would have looked a lot more like 2001-2004 than the early to mid 80s aesthetic everyone seems so latched onto, there being a clear and present reason to neither quit while you're ahead nor risk falling behind. The makers of 1e and 2.2 did what they could, but hindsight being what it is, there's a lot of stuff I read having served after 9/11 and getting hands-on with a bunch of Russian hardware that seems more than a little laughable.

ON TO PARTS AND ACCESSORIES, THE REAL MEAT.

Magazine wells cut for faster reloads don't really impact the structural integrity of the weapon, and the beveled flares actually increase the overall strength of the lower receiver in that portion of the gun, while making it easier to slam a magazine home in a compromised shooting position.

As for the charging handles, yeah, there's some crap out there, but there was always crap out there for basically every other firearm that had decent market saturation and aftermarket. A good ambi is solid as all hell, and it's not hard to find T-handles (like most parts these days) that are significantly better than what's issued, especially if you want to be able to run your full manual of arms conveniently from the weak side.

The slings? The old two-points were kind of crap for anything except flat range shooting, and were basically as minimal as you could get in form and function, just enough to carry the rifle without much trouble. You can make a nice loop sling with them, but that's not really a sell for combat usage. A good three point, though, does everything the two-point does for retention, plus being able to blast the rifle off of you if it's trying to drown your ass in a ditched helo or vehicle rollover into water, and having your rifle bungeeing to your workspace and hanging by itself at a ready position for easy manipulation or ready to grab after sliding it out of the way for a sidearm transition is pretty solid. Worked out for me alright fighting through Karmah and Zaidon, anyway, and I can tell you dead-ass that an old two-point would have legit been substandard and in some cases life-threatening; does the same job, just doesn't have the same limitations, and does things that a two-point simply can't.

For the muzzle devices... not really sure how one can break other than being screwed on incorrectly to the muzzle threads and having a bullet strike on the way out or just being horrifically timed; they're generally made from the same material the receiver; the original AR-15 and M16 flash hiders were aluminum; I prefer steel, myself. Properly timed and fitted, there's not really much to break, and it's certainly not a load-bearing part.

I've got a few ARs at home that I'd have taken in a heartbeat over what they handed me, and that are better timed for the M855 round; green tips don't even bottom the buffer out, so you get a nice, smooth, punchless recoil pattern with each shot, and gassing it up to eat anything is a breeze with the adjustable gas block.

Like I said, I'll not debate you one bit that there's crap out there, but the military's transition to sourcing civilian designs instead of leaving it to the Ordnance Department or Natick meant one thing: civilian sports and tactical industry was destined to leave the military in the dustbin with small arms design, and the coup was accomplished fairly bloodlessly several decades ago. Only real requirement is to spend wisely, and avoid crap manufacturers. Do that, and you can fairly trivially build a rifle that smokes a brand new rifle from your company's armory for about 3/5 to 3/4 of the price.

As for the zip ties, they wanted us to, but we gave up on it pretty quick in onesies and twosies here and there once we got in country, and then to greater and lesser degrees in larger numbers, and no one seemed to mind. It's mostly a concern for training, far as I ever saw, and once you've got a PEQ-2 or a PEQ-16, a Surefire M3, TA31 or a red dot and magnifier all mounted, your rifle starts becoming covered in Paracord pretty quick. I did zip-ties for a while, and then said hell with it and went with blue Loctite for knobs and mounting plates. Any impact serious enough to rip a secured accessory off its mount is going to destroy the accessory, anyway, or for the electronics, physically rip the body of the device's body open when it goes with the mounting plate.We had a few combat losses of equipment, but it was stuff like vehicle rollovers crushing a rifle that fell out, or an M249 being ejected and sent flying and landing like a javelin or smacking into a rock and jacking the receiver, or stuff catching frag.

Now, with all the puffing and trifling out of the way, glad to meet ya! And yeah, happy to see folks besides the admins running around. I gather you're a slightly older salt. Be cool to swap some stories some time; I'll talk at the drop of a boonie cover, and hold forth on the tools of the trade all day.

[HaplessOperator]

As far as I know this has not been an issue, but browsers and platforms keep changing small elements which might have an effect.

One thought, if you are taking a long time to craft a post, you might want to "Preview Post" every once in a while to refresh your cookies.

If you see this more than once please send me a PM with your Platform, OS, Browser. If someone else has seen this please PM me and I will create a thread to try to track this down.

I had that happen to me once a day or so ago, but I'm pretty sure it was exactly what you suggested, because a "token timed out." It directed me to reload the page, and I (rather cleverly, hah!) copy-pasted the novel I was typing before doing so.

[kato13]

A token timeout is cookie related.

I have doubled the cookie session timeout to 4 hours. We will see if that resolves the issue.

[Red Diamond]

Oh, I know they took a while to distribute; I was just making the point we had the designs locked in and type-classified even earlier than you supposed; had we gone directly to unit replacement, there were - at the time - four major forging houses in addition to two primary military workshops that could have handled conversion and distro. If oil prices had spiked, and we'd seen a resurgence in spending, and the Soviet Union had never collapsed, it's a solid bet we'd have seen A4s and M4A1s in everyone's hands vice M16A2s. I've often extolled the point that after GW1, and under the working concept that the bear we're hunting is still out there, it's a solid bet our forces would have looked a lot more like 2001-2004 than the early to mid 80s aesthetic everyone seems so latched onto, there being a clear and present reason to neither quit while you're ahead nor risk falling behind. The makers of 1e and 2.2 did what they could, but hindsight being what it is, there's a lot of stuff I read having served after 9/11 and getting hands-on with a bunch of Russian hardware that seems more than a little laughable.

ON TO PARTS AND ACCESSORIES, THE REAL MEAT.

Magazine wells cut for faster reloads don't really impact the structural integrity of the weapon, and the beveled flares actually increase the overall strength of the lower receiver in that portion of the gun, while making it easier to slam a magazine home in a compromised shooting position.

As for the charging handles, yeah, there's some crap out there, but there was always crap out there for basically every other firearm that had decent market saturation and aftermarket. A good ambi is solid as all hell, and it's not hard to find T-handles (like most parts these days) that are significantly better than what's issued, especially if you want to be able to run your full manual of arms conveniently from the weak side.

The slings? The old two-points were kind of crap for anything except flat range shooting, and were basically as minimal as you could get in form and function, just enough to carry the rifle without much trouble. You can make a nice loop sling with them, but that's not really a sell for combat usage. A good three point, though, does everything the two-point does for retention, plus being able to blast the rifle off of you if it's trying to drown your ass in a ditched helo or vehicle rollover into water, and having your rifle bungeeing to your workspace and hanging by itself at a ready position for easy manipulation or ready to grab after sliding it out of the way for a sidearm transition is pretty solid. Worked out for me alright fighting through Karmah and Zaidon, anyway, and I can tell you dead-ass that an old two-point would have legit been substandard and in some cases life-threatening; does the same job, just doesn't have the same limitations, and does things that a two-point simply can't.

For the muzzle devices... not really sure how one can break other than being screwed on incorrectly to the muzzle threads and having a bullet strike on the way out or just being horrifically timed; they're generally made from the same material the receiver; the original AR-15 and M16 flash hiders were aluminum; I prefer steel, myself. Properly timed and fitted, there's not really much to break, and it's certainly not a load-bearing part.

I've got a few ARs at home that I'd have taken in a heartbeat over what they handed me, and that are better timed for the M855 round; green tips don't even bottom the buffer out, so you get a nice, smooth, punchless recoil pattern with each shot, and gassing it up to eat anything is a breeze with the adjustable gas block.

Like I said, I'll not debate you one bit that there's crap out there, but the military's transition to sourcing civilian designs instead of leaving it to the Ordnance Department or Natick meant one thing: civilian sports and tactical industry was destined to leave the military in the dustbin with small arms design, and the coup was accomplished fairly bloodlessly several decades ago. Only real requirement is to spend wisely, and avoid crap manufacturers. Do that, and you can fairly trivially build a rifle that smokes a brand new rifle from your company's armory for about 3/5 to 3/4 of the price.

As for the zip ties, they wanted us to, but we gave up on it pretty quick in onesies and twosies here and there once we got in country, and then to greater and lesser degrees in larger numbers, and no one seemed to mind. It's mostly a concern for training, far as I ever saw, and once you've got a PEQ-2 or a PEQ-16, a Surefire M3, TA31 or a red dot and magnifier all mounted, your rifle starts becoming covered in Paracord pretty quick. I did zip-ties for a while, and then said hell with it and went with blue Loctite for knobs and mounting plates. Any impact serious enough to rip a secured accessory off its mount is going to destroy the accessory, anyway, or for the electronics, physically rip the body of the device's body open when it goes with the mounting plate.We had a few combat losses of equipment, but it was stuff like vehicle rollovers crushing a rifle that fell out, or an M249 being ejected and sent flying and landing like a javelin or smacking into a rock and jacking the receiver, or stuff catching frag.

Now, with all the puffing and trifling out of the way, glad to meet ya! And yeah, happy to see folks besides the admins running around. I gather you're a slightly older salt. Be cool to swap some stories some time; I'll talk at the drop of a boonie cover, and hold forth on the tools of the trade all day.

1. I'll say the M16A4 is superior to the M4. I was never issued nor shot one so, to the original question, I choose the M4 SOPMOD since I know it in great detail. As you said, I'm an "old salt" so as an official curmudgeon I don't like SOME of the fancy fangled stuff out there - most of it I love but still don't know how long it will last in a post nuke Poland after 3-5 years. But we'll never know unless something breaks out in our lifetime- which it could!!!

2. You have some great insights and opinions on how the world unfolds in an alternate reality. I really enjoy hearing other's take. It's what makes this game fun. And it makes me keep coming back to this forum- even if there's only a few of us! hahaha.

And you said it, there's great information on here! I am amazed at the level of detail some folks have put in here.

Look forward to hearing from you soon

[HaplessOperator]

On another thread, I put it like this when comparing the various "Intermediate Rifle Cartridges" that people are talking up lately:

The 5.56 (AKA .223) was designed to snipe varmits. Dogs, cats, prairie dogs, stuff of that ilk by varmint shooters.


No. It wasn't.

I know this is an ultra-old comment, but this is going up for anyone that comes along so they're not being fed BS; practically this entire forum thread is full of fuddlore and misinformation, along with a side of having a fatally flawed understanding of ballistics.

The .223 Remington round was developed from the ground up to meet CONARC (forerunner to FORSCOM) requirements for a new land service weapon in 1957, with the primary requirements being the ability to penetrate both a steel plate 1/8 an inch thick and a steel helmet at 500, while remaining supersonic to the same distance, and with the same MOA out of the test barrel as the M2 cartridge, with the project being managed by Remington, Sierra, and Fairchild.

This round was later adapted by FN to generate higher chamber pressures and standardized as the 5.56x45mm round used by NATO. It was never designed as a varmint round, but its extremely flat trajectory and high velocity make it an exceptional choice for it, in addition to its fantastic ballistic performance against two-legged varmints.

[.45cultist]

No. It wasn't.

I know this is an ultra-old comment, but this is going up for anyone that comes along so they're not being fed BS; practically this entire forum thread is full of fuddlore and misinformation, along with a side of having a fatally flawed understanding of ballistics.

The .223 Remington round was developed from the ground up to meet CONARC (forerunner to FORSCOM) requirements for a new land service weapon in 1957, with the primary requirements being the ability to penetrate both a steel plate 1/8 an inch thick and a steel helmet at 500, while remaining supersonic to the same distance, and with the same MOA out of the test barrel as the M2 cartridge, with the project being managed by Remington, Sierra, and Fairchild.

This round was later adapted by FN to generate higher chamber pressures and standardized as the 5.56x45mm round used by NATO. It was never designed as a varmint round, but its extremely flat trajectory and high velocity make it an exceptional choice for it, in addition to its fantastic ballistic performance against two-legged varmints.

He's right. Remington made the .223 for the Army's specs at Stoner's request.