RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

View Poll Results: What is your favorite assault rifle for your PC
M-16/C-7/M-4/AR-15 series 47 47.96%
AK-47/AKM 15 15.31%
AK-74 and similar 5 5.10%
L-85 7 7.14%
AUG 6 6.12%
Galil 5 5.10%
FNC 3 3.06%
other (post below) 12 12.24%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 98. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121  
Old 11-05-2011, 02:40 AM
HorseSoldier HorseSoldier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 846
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-06-2011, 08:19 AM
Cpl. Kalkwarf Cpl. Kalkwarf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegyrius View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 02-13-2012, 06:20 PM
Schone23666's Avatar
Schone23666 Schone23666 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 440
Default

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.
__________________
"The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear."
— David Drake
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 02-18-2012, 01:49 AM
Medic's Avatar
Medic Medic is offline
Resident Medic, Crazy Finn
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: In the cold north called Finland
Posts: 265
Default

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...
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 04-13-2016, 01:48 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 400
Default

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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by HorseSoldier View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin View Post
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.

Last edited by CDAT; 04-13-2016 at 02:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 04-13-2016, 01:56 PM
.45cultist .45cultist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medic View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 06-13-2020, 10:39 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 3,339
Default It's Alive!

Based on the new responses on the Favorite APC/IFV thread, I thought a bit of thread necromancy might be in order.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, and campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, available-

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 06-29-2020, 02:35 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is online now
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,115
Default

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.
__________________
Don't get killed. That's the other guys' job. -- Isaac Arthur

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 06-29-2020, 10:27 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 06-29-2020, 11:42 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 07-04-2020, 07:11 PM
Sith's Avatar
Sith Sith is offline
Registered Amuser
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 63
Default

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-...ine-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.
__________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 07-06-2020, 02:16 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 3,339
Default Draw

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.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, and campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, available-

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook

Last edited by Raellus; 07-06-2020 at 04:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 07-08-2020, 12:23 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sith View Post
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-...ine-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.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 07-08-2020, 12:24 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 07-08-2020, 01:08 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 3,339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT View Post
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.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, and campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, available-

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 09-18-2021, 06:17 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is online now
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,115
Default

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.
__________________
Don't get killed. That's the other guys' job. -- Isaac Arthur

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 09-18-2021, 07:12 PM
kcdusk's Avatar
kcdusk kcdusk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 384
Default

All the Assault Rifles have the same stats. So it doesn't matter which one you choose.
__________________
"Beep me if the apocolypse comes" - Buffy Sommers
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 09-19-2021, 02:29 PM
Ursus Maior Ursus Maior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Ruhr Area, Germany
Posts: 96
Default

I have very few experience, but felt comfortable with my G3 battle rifle.
__________________
Liber et infractus
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 09-19-2021, 03:19 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 3,339
Default Look Good, Feel Good

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcdusk View Post
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.

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

-
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, and campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, available-

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 09-19-2021, 05:13 PM
cawest cawest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 166
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 09-20-2021, 10:21 AM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
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.

...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
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)?
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 09-20-2021, 01:27 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 3,339
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT View Post
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.

-
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, and campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, available-

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 09-20-2021, 04:54 PM
micromachine micromachine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 25
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 09-21-2021, 03:25 PM
bash's Avatar
bash bash is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: California
Posts: 60
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 09-22-2021, 05:55 AM
ChalkLine's Avatar
ChalkLine ChalkLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 668
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 09-22-2021, 06:43 AM
ChalkLine's Avatar
ChalkLine ChalkLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 668
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 09-23-2021, 05:49 AM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
polls, weapons


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.