U.S Armored Troops prefer the AK

[Atavarius]

Linkage.

[Joe]

Oh no, they can't use that - it's not an American gun.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I just read the same article a few minutes ago, nice to see that there is almost zero intelligent discussion Yahoo MSG boards. I have not visited them much since my layoff.

As for the story, I dont think this absolutely means anything is wrong. Vehicle crews have always been lightly armed compared to infantry and it makes sense to pick up a local weapon whose ammo is plentiful.

[The Dark]

AKs are reliable weapons. May not be terribly accurate, but the play in the parts means they'll keep working when most rifles would jam. Considering they're not likely to need awesome marksmanship, the AK makes sense as a weapon for crews.

[Shinova]

Oh no, they can't use that - it's not an American gun.

Patriotism can be good and all but sometimes it's sickening.


Anyway I think this is pretty good, and the soldiers should be allowed to use AKs whenever preferable.

[Sea Skimmer]

This is kind of funny, the tank crews are picking up extra rifles while many infantrymen are dropping M4's in favor of handguns.

[TrailerParkJawa]

This is kind of funny, the tank crews are picking up extra rifles while many infantrymen are dropping M4's in favor of handguns.

Are they picking up handguns cause they are better for close quarters searches of bldgs? Or is there something they dislike about the M4?

[Nathan F]

And another victory for the .30 caliber. I still say bring back the good ol' 14 in at least limited use.

[Pablo Sanchez]

And another victory for the .30 caliber. I still say bring back the good ol' 14 in at least limited use.

.308 is a bit different from M43, as I'm sure you're aware

[Sea Skimmer]

Are they picking up handguns cause they are better for close quarters searches of bldgs? Or is there something they dislike about the M4?

There just better in close quarters, though it also seems there being used as check points as well, its probably so a man can both search and have a weapon at the ready, holding an M4 or M16 in one hand for hours isn't real comfortable.

[Vympel]

Clearly, the M1A1 Thompson must return.

[Sea Skimmer]

Clearly, the M1A1 Thompson must return.

Its really too long for the job, but US armored vehicle crews were issued M3 grease guns into the early 1990's.

[Knife]

Clearly, the M1A1 Thompson must return.

I second that motion.

[Alyeska]

Both the M14 and the M1A1 Thompson should stay dead. They are old weapons, overly heavy, and not the best.

Anyway, AKs are popular because Iraq is a bitch when it comes to matenience. AKs make that job easier.

The military SHOULD be supplying MP5Ns to the soldiers if the rifles are some times getting to big.

[Vympel]

Both the M14 and the M1A1 Thompson should stay dead. They are old weapons, overly heavy, and not the best.

Yeah, I was just being nostalgic.

The military SHOULD be supplying MP5Ns to the soldiers if the rifles are some times getting to big.

If maintenance is an issue, then MP5s are out- they're not appropriate for widespread use in the field, I hear. You need something equivalent to the AKS-74U.

[Nathan F]

Both the M14 and the M1A1 Thompson should stay dead. They are old weapons, overly heavy, and not the best.

The M14 is still quite alive in the form of it's sniper rifle version, and even in very limited issue in it's normal version.

[Sea Skimmer]

If maintenance is an issue, then MP5s are out- they're not appropriate for widespread use in the field, I hear. You need something equivalent to the AKS-74U.

Yes, something like the M3, one of only two submachine guns known to have shot down aircraft. Its got the stopping power if nothing else.

[Perinquus]

The problem with the current M16A2 and A3 and the M4 is the reduced stopping power that resulted when they went to a heavier bullet and a faster rifling twist. They did this in order to improve penetration, which it did, but it also reduced the tendency of the bullet to tumble when it hits flesh, and that's where the stopping power of the tiny 5.56mm bullet comes from. Now the heavier 62 grain bullet (combined with a rifling twist of 1 turn in 7 inches, or 1 in 9 in some weapons) just makes neat tunnels, whereas the old 55 grain bullet (combined with a 1 in 12 inch twist) tended to tumble end over end when it hit someone, and produce incredible wounds. As a result, in Vietnam, the American 5.56mm round produced more lethal wounds than the 7.62mm Russian round from the AK47. It was this which caused the Russians to go to a small caliber round similar to the American 5.56mm.

By the way, this change to the newer much less effective bullet was carried out in the name of NATO standardization. The Belgian SS109 bullet was chosen as the new NATO round. Interestingly, the SS109's designers thought the reduced tendency of the bullet to tumble was a good thing. They were glad it prodced less fearful wounds, since this was perceived as more "humane". Why the hell you would want to use "humane" ammo on an enemy who may kill you if your weapon fails to stop him I can't imagine. And that is just what is happening. Our troops are reporting numerous incidents where their weapons are not putting the enemy down, and this is costing our troops lives and damaging their morale. This is what happens when you let your priorities get so badly out of order, and allow squeamish PC considerations to affect weapons design.

The other problem with the M16 series is that the bolt and bolt carrier are a fairly snug fit in the bolt raceway inside the receiver, leaving little space to allow tolerance for dirt and grit that might enter the mechanism. The direct gas action, which pumps carbon fouling directly onto the bolt and bolt carrier does not help either. In temperate climates, this is overcome by using copious quantities of oil, and cleaning the weapon frequently. This solves the problem, and actually allows the weapon to funtion quite reliably (I never had my M16 or M4 jam on me when I was in the infantry). However, in sandy, dusty environments like the deserts of Iraq, all the lubricant used to keep the M16 functioning acts like a magnet for dust and sand, so the moving parts are soon coated with a grinding, abrasive paste, and reliability suffers. You can leave off the lubricant, and dispense with this problem, but then the weapon suffers from a lack of lubrication to offset the carbon fouling building up inside the receiver.

After Armalite sold the rights to the M16 to Colt, and it was adopted by the army in Vietnam, they designed the AR18 and tried to interest the army in it, but the military was already commited to the M16. This is a pity, since the AR18 is a better basic design. It's more tolerant of dirt and dust, doesn't use a dirty, direct gas action, and is cheaper to manufacture. It keeps the M16's best features though, like the 8-lug rotating bolt, and the M16's superior ergonomics. This is why the German G36, the British SA80, and Singapore's SAR-21 are basically modifications of the AR18's design, while no one has used the M16 as a basis for any more modern designs.

[MKSheppard]

By the way, this change to the newer much less effective bullet was carried out in the name of NATO standardization. The Belgian SS109 bullet was chosen as the new NATO round. Interestingly, the SS109's designers thought the reduced tendency of the bullet to tumble was a good thing. They were glad it prodced less fearful wounds, since this was perceived as more "humane". Why the hell you would want to use "humane" ammo on an enemy who may kill you if your weapon fails to stop him I can't imagine.

The SS109 was designed to be more capable of penetrating the enemy
most likely to be found on the European theatre, you know, soviet MRR
infantrymen wearing BODY ARMOR, not black pyjamas

[Perinquus]

By the way, this change to the newer much less effective bullet was carried out in the name of NATO standardization. The Belgian SS109 bullet was chosen as the new NATO round. Interestingly, the SS109's designers thought the reduced tendency of the bullet to tumble was a good thing. They were glad it prodced less fearful wounds, since this was perceived as more "humane". Why the hell you would want to use "humane" ammo on an enemy who may kill you if your weapon fails to stop him I can't imagine.

The SS109 was designed to be more capable of penetrating the enemy
most likely to be found on the European theatre, you know, soviet MRR
infantrymen wearing BODY ARMOR, not black pyjamas

No shit Sherlock.

Go back and reread my first paragraph. Specifically the second sentence, which reads:

They did this in order to improve penetration, which it did, but it also reduced the tendency of the bullet to tumble when it hits flesh, and that's where the stopping power of the tiny 5.56mm bullet comes from.

The reduced wounding capacity was a by-product, but one which the round's Belgian designers were happy about, and made no effort to correct. There should have been an effort to improve penetration without sacrificing wounding capability, but there wasn't and now as a result, our troops are saddled with a rifle that can't be counted upon to get the job done.

[MKSheppard]

The reduced wounding capacity was a by-product, but one which the round's Belgian designers were happy about, and made no effort to correct. There should have been an effort to improve penetration without sacrificing wounding capability, but there wasn't and now as a result, our troops are saddled with a rifle that can't be counted upon to get the job done.

Meh, It did the job fine with that Journalist.

[Sea Skimmer]

The reduced wounding capacity was a by-product, but one which the round's Belgian designers were happy about, and made no effort to correct. There should have been an effort to improve penetration without sacrificing wounding capability, but there wasn't and now as a result, our troops are saddled with a rifle that can't be counted upon to get the job done.

That's something which has been attempted since modern Kevlar body armor was first developed and even before that, but it just isn't possibul, to pierce armor you need a highly stable round, a highly stable round isn't going to tumble. If you can solve this problem and do it in an affordable way you'll easily make tens of millions

[Perinquus]

The reduced wounding capacity was a by-product, but one which the round's Belgian designers were happy about, and made no effort to correct. There should have been an effort to improve penetration without sacrificing wounding capability, but there wasn't and now as a result, our troops are saddled with a rifle that can't be counted upon to get the job done.

That's something which has been attempted since modern Kevlar body armor was first developed and even before that, but it just isn't possibul, to pierce armor you need a highly stable round, a highly stable round isn't going to tumble. If you can solve this problem and do it in an affordable way you'll easily make tens of millions

It's a trade off, I grant you, but it can still be done to varying degrees. One method currently being considered (though I highly doubt they'll act on it, unfortunately) is scotching the 5.56mm and going to a slightly larger caliber round.

The Russians apparently did a better job with their 5.45mm bullet. Current reports from Afghanistan are that The current-issue 5.56mm round, especially when fired from the short-barreled, M-4 carbine, is proving itself to be woefully inadequate as a man stopper. Engagements at all ranges are requiring multiple, solid hits to permanently bring down enemy soldiers. Penetration is also sadly deficient. Even light barriers are not perforated by this rifle/cartridge combination. (Apparently the SS109 sacrificed some of the 5.56mm's wounding capacity in exchange for penetration, and failed to improve penetration all that much) Troopers all over are switching to the seventy-seven grain Sierra Matchking (loaded by Black Hills) whenever it can be found. Its performance on enemy soldiers is not much better, but it does penetrate barriers.

By contrast, the Afghans called the Russians' 5.45mm round "the poison bullet" because it produced so many kills in combat. The Russians' small caliber round is disigned with a hollow space in the nose to assure that tumbling takes place. And it still manages to pentrate about as well as the current 5.56mm - though the 5.56mm is not a great penetrator compared to say a 7.62mm NATO round.

[Edi]

One of the things I like about the AK-47 is that it usually has no penetration problems. Light cover is mostly useless against it, and sustained fire will tear down even brick walls (not very thick ones, though) in short order. It's also reliable as hell and extremely low maintenance, and the ammo if plentiful and common, and if you wreck something in it, more likely than not you can scavenge parts or even a whole new weapon off the battlefield.

Sure, range is limited to about 300 meters for effective firing, and it's probably not quite as accurate as the M16 and M4, but in the hands of a trained soldier, the difference should not be all that significant. Given a choice between the M16/M4 and AK-47, I'd choose the latter without a second thought. That might have something to do with the fact that I'm trained to use one too, while I've never even seen the US rifles up close. What everyone should also keep in mind is that I'm talking about good quality AKs here, they aren't all alike. The basic, Soviet AK-47 for example is lower quality overall (though still quite usable, functional and lethal) and less accurate than the Finnish RK-62 (significantly better sights), which is internally an almost exact duplicate. I say almost,, because you can use AK parts to replace damaged RK parts, but not the other way around, because RK parts are just that tiny bit larger that they won't fit.

Edi

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Sure, range is limited to about 300 meters for effective firing, and it's probably not quite as accurate as the M16 and M4, but in the hands of a trained soldier, the difference should not be all that significant. Given a choice between the M16/M4 and AK-47,

But AFAIK most M16/AK47 debates eventually come to:
1) Accuracy vs Reliability (while some have different experiences, most seem to think the AK is more reliable)
2) The stopping power of the 5.56 to the 7.62.
3) Ergonomics (though sometimes ergonomics AFAIK are linked to reliability - the AK sometimes eliminates parts and doubles up others, thus reducing failure points but worsens ergonomics to some people)

But this one is new on me. I thought having a very accurate rifle matters more and not less for a trained soldier.

Suppose I'm a sniper that can shoot 0.5MOA groups. Then I'd be restricted more by my rifle. I'd need a great rifle to do my best - perhaps nothing Automatic can meet my needs.

But if I'm just a "point, spray and hope guy" guy, then I could have a 6MOA weapon and it'd still be OK. In fact, it might be even better - the wider spread might even help me by compensating for my lack of accuracy.

So what gives? Or is it like "It doesn't matter because a trained soldier would be able to find cover till he reaches three hundred meters and begins to fight where performance is about him, not his rifle's extreme accuracy?"