U.S Armored Troops prefer the AK

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-27 12:34pm

Knife wrote:Was looking at the first pic in the series that Vympel posted. The first trooper with the '203 does not have his leaf sight up. What the fuck is he shooting at and how the fuck is he aiming. He is no where close to being able to see through the quad sights, so??????????

To borrow an Australian term (well, not really borrow, it's ours)- he thinks he's King Shit.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2003-08-27 01:43pm

Edi wrote:One of the reasons we use the standard AK with the 7.62 caliber is that every single twig in our copious forests doesn't make shots go awry. This is what we were told anyway, but if I'm off base here, feel free to use my post for a chewtoy...

Edi

It hasn't stopped Swedes or Norwegians switching to 5.56mm, even though their terrain is similar to ours. Remember that two years ago the official line was that "T-72s are much better for us since Leopard 2s are too heavy for our environment", but once there was a change to get Leos 2 at a ridiculously low price the mantra goes now "Leos are a huge improvement over T-72s"...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-27 02:19pm

Oberleutnant wrote:
Edi wrote:One of the reasons we use the standard AK with the 7.62 caliber is that every single twig in our copious forests doesn't make shots go awry. This is what we were told anyway, but if I'm off base here, feel free to use my post for a chewtoy...

Edi
It hasn't stopped Swedes or Norwegians switching to 5.56mm, even though their terrain is similar to ours. Remember that two years ago the official line was that "T-72s are much better for us since Leopard 2s are too heavy for our environment", but once there was a change to get Leos 2 at a ridiculously low price the mantra goes now "Leos are a huge improvement over T-72s"...

A 5.56mm carbine might have trouble with heavy underbrush, but a full sized rifle will chop right through it, really, in the unlikely event the brush can still 5.56mm rifle fire, you couldn't see your target anyway.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-27 04:50pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: Anyway it makes sense that troops are picking up some FAL's. There where many reports of infantry needing to fire out to 600+ meters during the invasion and that's getting outside the effective range of a full sized M16 or SAW let alone a cut down M4.

Wait, I thought all infantry combat was to take place at under 300 metres
according to the accounting boffins who fobbed off the 5.56?

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-08-27 05:39pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
A 5.56mm carbine might have trouble with heavy underbrush, but a full sized rifle will chop right through it, really, in the unlikely event the brush can still 5.56mm rifle fire, you couldn't see your target anyway.

That haven't really stopped people (conscripts, irregulers) from shooting or trying to shoot through the brush anyway.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-27 07:13pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Wait, I thought all infantry combat was to take place at under 300 metres
according to the accounting boffins who fobbed off the 5.56?

The vast majority does both in Iraq and elsewhere. But during the initial week or so of the invasion when the troops where mostly in the flat open southern Iraqi desert their where cases when they came under fire from long range. But really I don't think it means anything, since your not going to hit or accomplish all that much at such a range without a crew served weapon.

Heck for all we know this guy might simply have had his weapon damage by enemy fire and simply grabbed up an FAL and decided to keep it. The same reports i read which had cases of 600+ meter rifle fire also said that a record few soldiers had opted to pick up enemy weapons. I

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-08-27 11:33pm

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

7.62 x 39 mm != 7.62 x 51 mm.

Agent Fisher · Post by **Agent Fisher** » 2003-08-27 11:54pm

quick question. Doesn't the m-16 have a drum magizine

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2003-08-28 12:43am

Agent Fisher wrote:quick question. Doesn't the m-16 have a drum magizine

The most common AFAIK is a box. Now, there is something called a C-Mag that is kind of like a 100 round drum magazine. I think you could use it for the M-16 with the right adapter (it goes on the HKs and a few other weapons with the correct adapter.) Even if they did have a drum before the C-Mag, it would almost certainly be less common than the good old box, and thus won't be available to the average trooper.

The Soviet AK-74s and AK-47s will supposedly use drum magazines (up to 75 round) meant for their RPK variants, but they are quite rare.

The box still seems to be the favorite for Assault Rifles.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-08-28 02:15am

Oberleutnant wrote:
Edi wrote:One of the reasons we use the standard AK with the 7.62 caliber is that every single twig in our copious forests doesn't make shots go awry. This is what we were told anyway, but if I'm off base here, feel free to use my post for a chewtoy...

Edi
It hasn't stopped Swedes or Norwegians switching to 5.56mm, even though their terrain is similar to ours. Remember that two years ago the official line was that "T-72s are much better for us since Leopard 2s are too heavy for our environment", but once there was a change to get Leos 2 at a ridiculously low price the mantra goes now "Leos are a huge improvement over T-72s"...

Didn't really follow the tank discussion, but I think the main reason we're so far keeping the RK is that you can scavenge ammo from the enemy, because the only threat to us is from the East. The added benefit (whatever it's worth) in the brush is just an extra bonus. Besides, don't the Swedes and Norwegians use the 7.62 NATO round, which also has a lot more kick?

Edi

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-28 02:27am

Edi wrote:

Besides, don't the Swedes and Norwegians use the 7.62 NATO round, which also has a lot more kick?

Both Sweden and Norway use 5.56mm NATO in their current rifles, but both also use 7.62mm NATO for heavier weapons like medium machine guns. Same story with every other NATO army and a good chunk of the rest of the world.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2003-08-28 02:36am

Actually the old shorter 7.62mm WP round is nowadays a rare sight in the Russian military after the introduction of AK-74 and other weapons chambered in the 5.45mm calibre. The ability to use enemy's ammunition was a good idea in the sixties, but it wouldn't help us anymore that much. The longer round (7.62 X 54mm) used by PKM and Dragunov is pretty much the only thing the both countries still have in widespread use.

In Sweden, the Army replaced all their AK4s (HK G3 clone) with AK5, a 5.56mm assault rifle based on FNC, and handed over old weapons to the Home Guard and Balts. The same thing happened with their squad automatic weapon when they procured Belgian FN Minimis. Right now the Norwegians are testing various 5.56mm rifles to replace their 7.62mm G3s. Their special forces have been using Diemaco C8s for sometime now, I believe.

When it comes to assault rifles, we are probably the only country in Europe which still hasn't moved away from 7.62 or has no plans to do so.

You might find the links provided in this topic interesting. That second poster has nothing to do with me.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-08-28 02:49am

Ack, meant to say 5.56 NATO, my bad.

Anyway, thanks for the replies.

Edi

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-28 01:50pm

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
Agent Fisher wrote:quick question. Doesn't the m-16 have a drum magizine
The most common AFAIK is a box. Now, there is something called a C-Mag that is kind of like a 100 round drum magazine. I think you could use it for the M-16 with the right adapter (it goes on the HKs and a few other weapons with the correct adapter.) Even if they did have a drum before the C-Mag, it would almost certainly be less common than the good old box, and thus won't be available to the average trooper.

The Soviet AK-74s and AK-47s will supposedly use drum magazines (up to 75 round) meant for their RPK variants, but they are quite rare.

The box still seems to be the favorite for Assault Rifles.

I don't know if its a different model or if there are adapters for it, but you can put a high capacity mag (Cmag) on both the M16 and the M4.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-29 06:35am

The Soviet AK-74s and AK-47s will supposedly use drum magazines (up to 75 round) meant for their RPK variants, but they are quite rare.

Not supposedly- they can definitely- I've seen it

They can also take the very long RPK mags- the 40-rnd and there's a new 60-rnd one coming out.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2003-08-29 07:27am

Vympel wrote:Not supposedly- they can definitely- I've seen it

They can also take the very long RPK mags- the 40-rnd and there's a new 60-rnd one coming out.

Isn't there also one 45 rounder box?

Generally, when I say "supposedly," it means that I agree with the source. But I:
1) Hadn't seen it for myself yet, not even a picture.
2) Only one source I've read has said it and the others never mentioned it, so I want to let the other person know it is not 100% definite. Now that you've confirmed it, I can tell the next person who needs to know about this that fact without the word "supposedly."

Are 60 round box magazines kind of too much of a good thing? I mean, that rifle magazine already sticks out ridiculously with the picture I saw in Jane's Recognition guide (now that can't possibly be more than a 45 round mag. That thing is going to...

Why don't you just go all the way to the drum and its 75 round capacity? Is there a problem with the drum?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-29 08:41am

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
Why don't you just go all the way to the drum and its 75 round capacity? Is there a problem with the drum?

The bigger the magazine the bigger the spring and thus the bigger the bitch to reload them round by round. Drums also tend to simply have low spring lives and be even harder then oversized rifle mags to load. its sound to me like the people who make them are trying to find the optimum capacity.

There's also issues of weapons balance and overall weight but those are less of a concern since the weapons going ot be used from a standing position less often then a rifle.