AK-47/74s and their reputation....

[Sniperdoc 0]

Quote[/b] ]All this is moot. I've been in the Navy SEALS, did twenty years in the British SAS, then joined Delta Force for fun....*snip*

Gave me a good laugh and perfectly reflects my view on the initial threadstarter.

I mean...he´s not worried when someone is pointing and shooting an AK at him...

Either he´s wearing a kryptonite catsuit and a cape or he confuses some stuff he "should" have learned...

Anyway, lame topic already. Turned into a "mine is longer than yours" debate once again.

If it's so lame, then how come it's 6 pages already? It's called a discussion... don't want to be in it... don't post in the thread... That goes for all folks who have nothing better to do than be demeaning and cut on people instead of coming up with good conversation. Note: I didn't start the flaming... But there's several posters in here who have...

And speaking of which... I don't put words into peoples mouths either...

I said neither of what you stated in the quote above...

Have a nice day, come again.

It's like people are trying to be AK salesmen... jeez

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]I was under the impression that the M16 program was introduced to mimic the Soviet Infantry doctrine.

It was introduced to enhance the doctrine of fire and maneuver which then Lt Chesty Puller developed some decades earlier during the banana republic wars of the 1920 and the US utilized extensively during WWII.  We still use this doctrine today.  This is where the concept of fire teams comes from and it is a US invention and had no Soviet involvement  You are again misinformed.

Quote[/b] ]In all honesty I don't buy into the increased kill power of the smaller round. They said the same thing about the AK 74's.

Whether you buy into it or not does not change the objective data collected over the past 40 years and that data supports the 5.56 as the superior round for terminal effect.

Which begs the question why do they always claim that the 5.56 is designed to maim and leave wounded not kill, if it has a superior terminal effect?

Sorry I don't buy it. It all rings a little weak for me.

Of course we tell our troops all the equipment they are using is the best possible. What else would we say?

U.S. WWII Infantry doctrine proved decidely unfavourable against Soviet Doctrine in both Korea and Vietnam.

The core element of a U.S. fireteam in WWII was a large calibre rifle.

The core element of a Soviet fireteam in WWII was the SMG, soon after that war to be replaced by the Assault Rifle.

It is of note that after Korea and Vietnam, the Soviets did not abandon their SMG's and Assault rifles in favour of a heavier calibred rifle mimicing the U.S.'s success with the M14.

Strangely after 2 wars against Soviet tactics, America switched from longer ranged higher calibre rifles to lighter calibre assault rifles with lower expected engagement ranges, higher rates of fire and larger ammunition capacities.

Prior to direct involvement with the Soviet model, the U.S. had ignored the assault rifle completely and continued to focus on large calibre rifles, upgrading the Garrand M1 to the M14.

The introduction of the M4 has moved American Doctrine even closer to the WWII Soviet devised model.

The WWII Soviet Infantry Doctrine is the father of modern infantry tactics.

Their experience in this form of combat is far greater than our own.

[dreday 1]

Sinperdoc,

This is a quote from your original post:

"...I'm not saying that it's not an intimidating weapon... well actually that is what I'm saying... I'm saying that people just aren't impressed when you try to hold them at bay with an AK47/74 anymore in the mid-east."

I think that these are the words that Blaschiow was referring to. I am not entirely sure what you were trying to say here; but it came of sounding like you don't consider AK fire to be a serious threat. That's a very odd statement to make; even more so, since your job is to save lives that were endangered by this weapon.

Peace,

DreDay

[dreday 1]

U.S. WWII doctrine involves engagement ranges of 300+ metres and proved decidely unfavourable against Soviet Doctrine in both Korea and Vietnam.

The core element of a U.S. fireteam in WWII was a large calibre rifle.

The core element of a Soviet fireteam in WWII was the SMG, soon after the war to be replaced by the Assault Rifle.

Strangely after 2 wars against Soviet tactics, America switched from rifles with expected enagement ranges of 300 metres to lighter calibre assault rifles with expected engagement ranges of 150 metres.

Prior to direct involvement with the Soviet model, the U.S. had ignored the assault rifle completely and continued to focus on large calibre rifles, upgrading the Garrand M1 to the M14.

It is of note that after Korea and Vietnam, the Soviets did not abandon their SMG's and Assault rifles in favour of a heavier calibred rifle mimicing the U.S.'s success with the M14.

The introduction of the M4 has moved American Doctrine even closer to the WWII Soviet devised model.

The WWII Soviet Infantry Doctrine is the father of modern infantry tactics.

Their experience in this form of combat is far greater than our own.

Baff1,

You are way off. Here are just a few of many factual errors that you make in your post:

-Soviets had never used the concept of fireteams in WWII, nor for many years after

-All infantry doctrines (including the Soviet one) call for their squads to engage the enemy to at least 300 meters.

-It is highly debatable that the NK infantry tactics were superior to those of the US Army or Marines. In case of NVA/VC you might have a point, but their tactics were not based on a Soviet model.

-M16 have an engagement range of way more that 150 meters

-The adaption of AKs by the Soviets was influenced by their encounters with the German StG44. So by your logic, it should follow the Soviets had copied the German infantry doctrine...

I could go on, but I really don't' see the point...

Peace,

DreDay

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]Which begs the question why do they always claim that the 5.56 is designed to maim and leave wounded not kill, if it has a superior terminal effect?

No one authoratative claims what you state, that is a strawman argument. Whoever 'they' are, they are not ballisticians who research terminal effect. They are not Dr Marvin Fackler or Dr Gary Roberts.  Professionals debunk it as the urban myth it is. There is a reason Pat Rogers refers to the internet as the 'errornet'.

Quote[/b] ]U.S. WWII Infantry doctrine proved decidely unfavourable against Soviet Doctrine in both Korea and Vietnam.

Considering they prevailed against numerically superior foes on several occasions, the fire and maneuver doctrine worked quite well. It is still the current doctrine, if there are any significant defencies, the Pentagon would love to see your evidence.

Korea was held against an enemy that massively outnumbered us and we lost no major engagement on the ground in Vietnam. We lost not a single battle on the ground. It was the Congress cutting of all military assistance and Congressionally enacted prohibition of US air support that allowed Vietnam to reach the conclusion it found in April 1975, not a signle shortcoming of the doctrine of fire and maneuver that was not found wanting in a single battle.

[chipper 0]

ak47 is a terrorist gun

[TheReddog 0]

I say forget your AK vs M16 garbage, they're both great rifles int heir own ways, however the FN FAL owns them both (if you don't mind the weight)

[twisted 127]

I say forget your AK vs M16 garbage, they're both great rifles int heir own ways, however the FN FAL owns them both (if you don't mind the weight)

I'd like the see the FAL and FNC and G3 in Arma. a bit of variety rather than the ak vs m16 debacle here.

ps - sorry for bumping this thread.

[Soviet Spetsnaz 0]

I'm saying that people just aren't impressed when you try to hold them at bay with an AK47/74 anymore in the mid-east.

SpecOps, my arse. This guy is just another internet commando. What a clown.

[.COMmunist 0]

Would you please stop insulting each other! Please guys, this is a very interesting topic, but for some reason people think that if someone disagrees with them, they have to insult those people. WTF? If you don't like what the Sniperdoc has to say, there is no reason to call him names or just make fun of him. It is his opinion, let him have it. Express your point of view and if people disagree with you, so what? This AK vs. M16 argument is as old as the Cold War itself, there is no way in hell we will come up with a final decision on this forum which gun is better. But it is always fun to read about other people experiences with these guns. So guys, lets keep it clean and "professional".

About the Soviet assualt rifles doctrine. When the Germans invaded the USSR, the Soviets mostly fought with Mosin Nagan rifles. The Germans used both rifles and submachine guns and were very efficient with the submachine guns especially. That's when the Russians have decided to arm their troops with submachine guns. The famous PPSh gun became a symbol of WW2 for the Russians. They used it very extensively, much more than the Germans used theirs. After the war the Russians needed a replacement for PPSh, so Kalshnikov's gun was accepted as a standard post WW2 assualt rifle of the Red Army. In my opinion (just my opinion), it looks like the Americans were influenced by the success of the AK assault rifles. Like Baff1 said, the Americans continued improving their Garants for further use as a standard issue rifle in the military. Who knows how long would it take for the US Army to adopt the M16 if it wasn't for wide introduction and success of the AK-47 around the world. So there is probably some truth to it that the Soviet assault rifle tactics influenced the American tactics in the 50s and 60s. They probably would hate to admit it though, but that is another topic.

[Sniperdoc 0]

U.S. WWII doctrine involves engagement ranges of 300+ metres and proved decidely unfavourable against Soviet Doctrine in both Korea and Vietnam.

The core element of a U.S. fireteam in WWII was a large calibre rifle.

The core element of a Soviet fireteam in WWII was the SMG, soon after the war to be replaced by the Assault Rifle.

Strangely after 2 wars against Soviet tactics, America switched from rifles with expected enagement ranges of 300 metres to lighter calibre assault rifles with expected engagement ranges of 150 metres.

Prior to direct involvement with the Soviet model, the U.S. had ignored the assault rifle completely and continued to focus on large calibre rifles, upgrading the Garrand M1 to the M14.

It is of note that after Korea and Vietnam, the Soviets did not abandon their SMG's and Assault rifles in favour of a heavier calibred rifle mimicing the U.S.'s success with the M14.

The introduction of the M4 has moved American Doctrine even closer to the WWII Soviet devised model.

The WWII Soviet Infantry Doctrine is the father of modern infantry tactics.

Their experience in this form of combat is far greater than our own.

Baff1,

You are way off.   Here are just a few of many factual errors that you make in your post:

-Soviets had never used the concept of fireteams in WWII, nor for many years after

-All infantry doctrines (including the Soviet one) call for their squads to engage the enemy to at least 300 meters.

-It is highly debatable that the NK infantry tactics were superior to those of the US Army or Marines.  In case of NVA/VC you might have a point, but their tactics were not based on a Soviet model.

-M16 have an engagement range of way more that 150 meters

-The adaption of AKs by the Soviets was influenced by their encounters with the German StG44.  So by your logic, it should follow the Soviets had copied the German infantry doctrine...

I could go on, but I really don't' see the point...

Peace,

DreDay

I would have to agree with DreDay on this one...

IIRC most US infantry doctrine was taken from German documentation and experience.

I'm by far no authority on the matter, but I do know a couple of Army Lieutenants that study WW2 avidly and we usually have lengthy discussions about WW2-this-and-that.

And... If I recall Soviet Doctrine... well... I don't recall any. I think it pretty much came about after WW2. If I may just make a bold and completely ignorant statement... I thought Russian doctrine in WW2 was to throw as many men into the fray as possible and if any of them retreat, to shoot them down. (on a lighter note, I know that wasn't true at all times, but it did happen on several occasions)

I really can't speak on an authoritative level since I didn't go to the War College and study Sun Tzu or Rommel's battle maps.

Although I must say I was pretty impressed with the T-34... The Tiger II was more powerful, but I tell ya what... when you don't have rubber or fuel... it sure can make a beast like the Tiger II more prone to breakdowns.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I'm saying that people just aren't impressed when you try to hold them at bay with an AK47/74 anymore in the mid-east.

SpecOps, my arse. This guy is just another internet commando. What a clown.

Says the poster with "Spetsnatz" for a username.  

[Sniperdoc 0]

Would you please stop insulting each other! Please guys, this is a very interesting topic, but for some reason people think that if someone disagrees with them, they have to insult those people. WTF? If you don't like what the Sniperdoc has to say, there is no reason to call him names or just make fun of him. It is his opinion, let him have it. Express your point of view and if people disagree with you, so what? This AK vs. M16 argument is as old as the Cold War itself, there is no way in hell we will come up with a final decision on this forum which gun is better. But it is always fun to read about other people experiences with these guns. So guys, lets keep it clean and "professional".

About the Soviet assualt rifles doctrine. When the Germans invaded the USSR, the Soviets mostly fought with Mosin Nagan rifles. The Germans used both rifles and submachine guns and were very efficient with the submachine guns especially. That's when the Russians have decided to arm their troops with submachine guns. The famous PPSh gun became a symbol of WW2 for the Russians. They used it very extensively, much more than the Germans used theirs. After the war the Russians needed a replacement for PPSh, so Kalshnikov's gun was accepted as a standard post WW2 assualt rifle of the Red Army. In my opinion (just my opinion), it looks like the Americans were influenced by the success of the AK assault rifles. Like Baff1 said, the Americans continued improving their Garants for further use as a standard issue rifle in the military. Who knows how long would it take for the US Army to adopt the M16 if it wasn't for wide introduction and success of the AK-47 around the world. So there is probably some truth to it that the Soviet assault rifle tactics influenced the American tactics in the 50s and 60s. They probably would hate to admit it though, but that is another topic.  

That's probably the reason why the US switched to the M16 in the first place... no?

The M1 or M14 couldn't really compete with the AK-47 as far the as the amounts of rounds thrown down-range. I was surprised they used those rifles as long as they did. I mean, the only thing the US had that competed with the MP44 was the Thompson or the BAR (But the Germans had the MG-34 to compete with the BAR), but the range on the Thompson wasn't quite as good as the MP44's. For a man-stopper of that day and age... Thompson any day, but for an Assault Rifle... MP44. Heck... it was the first real Assault Rifle ever...

But, I could see how Russian "hardware" may have influence the US to move forward with theirs in the 50's and 60's...

Heck... the US military abandoned the ways of the Sniper during WW2 and had to retrain their troops. Everyone pretty much dumped Snipers as an effective weapon until the Soviets had their backs against Stalingrad. Russian Snipers became more prevelant and German Snipers fewer due to massive casualties.

The US only truly adopted a Sniper program during the Vietnam war. Before that, they had Designated Marksman that were asked "can you shoot a scoped rifle?", and if you answered yes, were handed a Springfield with a scope and told to support their company or platoon by picking off important targets.

As a matter of fact, most of the Sniper doctrine that exists nowadays also came from German schooling. IIRC, the Germans actually sent Sniper School teachers to the US in the 60's to train the US Army Sniper School trainers in the ways of the Snipe. (But the Ghillie was definitely a Scottish thing... ) Along with that came the Marine's Sniper Schools... Quantico and Camp Pendleton. I was stationed at Camp Pendleton for most of my career.

All I know is, that when I was stationed on the USS Belleauwood, we had some libbo at Vladivostok and our Sniper team was able to shoot with some of the Russian's Snipers... I have to say that we did much better on their ranges than they did...

[Varry 0]

Sinperdoc,

This is a quote from your original post:

"...I'm not saying that it's not an intimidating weapon... well actually that is what I'm saying... I'm saying that people just aren't impressed when you try to hold them at bay with an AK47/74 anymore in the mid-east."

I think that these are the words that Blaschiow was referring to. I am not entirely sure what you were trying to say here; but it came of sounding like you don't consider AK fire to be a serious threat.  That's a very odd statement to make; even more so, since your job is to save lives that were endangered by this weapon.

Peace,

DreDay

i don't w&nt to play the devil's advocate, but i think you have to read all the words, i think what he means is the combo:

AK's in the mid east (probably old and since the fall of the regime, badly maintained) + untrained soldiers firing the weapon = not a too big threat to a trained soldier with good and well maintained weapon.

Now a little question

ak uses 7.62x39MM ammo while the G3 uses the same calibre but longer ammo (7.62x51MM); what's the difference in performance and lethality of both ammunition types?

[Sniperdoc 0]

Sinperdoc,

This is a quote from your original post:

"...I'm not saying that it's not an intimidating weapon... well actually that is what I'm saying... I'm saying that people just aren't impressed when you try to hold them at bay with an AK47/74 anymore in the mid-east."

I think that these are the words that Blaschiow was referring to. I am not entirely sure what you were trying to say here; but it came of sounding like you don't consider AK fire to be a serious threat.  That's a very odd statement to make; even more so, since your job is to save lives that were endangered by this weapon.

Peace,

DreDay

i don't w&nt to play the devil's advocate, but i think you have to read all the words, i think what he means is the combo:

AK's in the mid east (probably old and since the fall of the regime, badly maintained) + untrained soldiers firing the weapon = not a too big threat to a trained soldier with good and well maintained weapon.

Now a little question

ak uses 7.62x39MM ammo while the G3 uses the same calibre but longer ammo (7.62x51MM); what's the difference in performance and lethality of both ammunition types?

Well... as far as I know it also comes down to the grain of the bullet.

As far as the casing length... increased initial velocity, maybe increased range (dependant on various factors)... can't really say for certain since I'm not a ballistics expert, but I can give you a link for some information on lethality of various types:

The Pigboard

[Control 0]

I was boored so...

Now I must admit to not reading the whole six pages but it amuses me that I didn't se anyone bringing up what in my view has the biggest effect on practical accuracy between the AK47 and the M-16:

Take a look at the distance between the back and front sights... the AK47 are almost as close together as a large pistol. For those not in the know, the distance between the sights determens how accuretly you must position the front sight in the back sights to hit what youre aiming for.

Trust me when I tell you that this has a much bigger practical effect than the difference in mechanical accuracy between the rifles.

[Heavy Metal 0]

That and the fact peep sites rule. All target rifles seem to use peep sites for a reason

[BlackScorpion 0]

Well... 7.62 NATO has scored a sniper kill at 1.2 km, that ought to tell you something about the capability. For a DMR level rifle, basically a semi-automatic sniper rifle, in the caliber, the effective range is somewhere between 500 to 800 meters, in other words rougly twice that of the 7.62x39mm shot from a normal gun using it. Both rounds are fairly heavy at around respectable 8.0 and 9.5 grams (123 and 147 grains). Muzzle energies are rougly 2.0 and 3.3 kilojoules (62 grains and 1.7 kJ for 5.56 NATO, mid-lenght barrel?). The terminal effiency is defined by the amount of energy transferred to the target material; the bigger the bullet, the more area it will hit unless it fragments, expands or tumbles. Thus bigger rounds are more likely to have an increased stopping effect due to the faster rate and bigger amount of energy that is transferred. to the tissue.

The ballistics themselves are defined by bullet shape (drag), somewhat material (stability), weight (stability, less wind drift on denser rounds), barrel lenght and twistrate, and amount and type of propellant (i.e. gunpowder) used. Also quality of both gun and bullets matter, and the bullet has to go the right way to hit something. Again, down to the shooter.

One reasons for the Finnish AKs accuracy are their tighter tolerances and new sights. The rear sights are mounted on the cover "lid", near the start of the buttstock. They're fairly similar to the ones used on M16. This MP.net thread has some info on AKs.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ] The terminal effiency is defined by the amount of energy transferred to the target material; the bigger the bullet, the more area it will hit unless it fragments, expands or tumbles. Thus bigger rounds are more likely to have an increased stopping effect due to the faster rate and bigger amount of energy that is transferred. to the tissue.

Exactly why the US MK262 mod15.56mm load has such an astounding reputation.

This is an interesting read:

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ammunition/mk262_080105/

Quote[/b] ]Yet the ensuing firefight did not go as the Iraqis had planned. Rather than being overwhelmed, the three Americans instead put down a hail of highly accurate rifle fire. Advancing against this murderous wall, entire sections of Iraqi infantry were simply cut down. Screaming and rattling away with their Kalashnikovs on full auto, they were knocked from their feet by carefully aimed shots. When staggering losses finally broke their spirit, the surviving Iraqis either threw down their weapons or simply ran away. Scattered about lay the bodies of 167 of their comrades. The Iraqi dead lay in mute testimony to the Americans' tenacity and marksmanship skill.

With the criticism of poor terminal performance leveled by many on the 5.56x45, you would think those 167 Iraqis were cut down by 7.62mm M14s. Such was not the case. They fell to 5.56 Mk 12 sniper rifles firing 77-grain Mk 262 Open Tip Match ammunition.

Quote[/b] ]One reasons for the Finnish AKs accuracy are their tighter tolerances and new sights. The rear sights are mounted on the cover "lid", near the start of the buttstock. They're fairly similar to the ones used on M16. This MP.net thread has some info on AKs.

Not to mention Lapua ammo beats the crap out of Russian ball.

[Second 0]

That and the fact peep sites rule. All target rifles seem to use peep sites for a reason

Then again people are forgetting that peep hole darkens sightpicture and it darkens it alot. For my airsoftguns i've made my own opensights because of that reason. Luckily our rifle has opensights for darker conditions... And i think that HK-products has too.

And forexample creator of AK himself doesn't like peep sights (mentioned that when discussing about finnish RK), one reason for that is that moving target is harder to hit with that, and i agree. But this comes to personal taste and what someone has got used to as much as "sientific" accuracy.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]And forexample creator of AK himself doesn't like peep sights (mentioned that when discussing about finnish RK), one reason for that is that moving target is harder to hit with that, and i agree. But this comes to personal taste and what someone has got used to as much as "sientific" accuracy.

The M-16A2 and the M-4 generally have two apetures on the peep site. The large one is called a ghost ring apeture and it is used to make it easy to acquire the sights in low light and moving targets at close range.

[Sniperdoc 0]

Quote[/b] ]And forexample creator of AK himself doesn't like peep sights (mentioned that when discussing about finnish RK), one reason for that is that moving target is harder to hit with that, and i agree. But this comes to personal taste and what someone has got used to as much as "sientific" accuracy.

The M-16A2 and the M-4 generally have two apetures on the peep site.  The large one is called a ghost ring apeture and it is used to make it easy to acquire the sights in low light and moving targets at close range.

I never used that peep hole... I knew it existed, but then again... as a Corpsman I never had to qual with the M16 (Geneva Convention issues with that). I could never get used to the sights on a M16 anyways... they always seemed strange to me. Now that M9 sight post and rear aperture... That was more my speed...

[Second 0]

The M-16A2 and the M-4 generally have two apetures on the peep site. The large one is called a ghost ring apeture and it is used to make it easy to acquire the sights in low light and moving targets at close range.

That i would like to get too. Our rifle's hole is bit too tight, well moving target to 50 meters was piece of cake but that was in shooting range, with predictable target.

I had Airsoft Famas and it had three different hole sizes, small, medium and HUGE. Although with experience and short shooting ranges (usually less than 50 meters/yards) it was better to learn to shoot and aim along barrel line, or use flashlight attached to barrel because those ways were faster. Aiming was good only in situations where opponent wasn't aware that someone was aiming him or target was pinned down, so there wasn't hurry. Infact i was considering to remove sights totaly and replacing it with simple aiming rail, for airsoft-ranges that would have been good choice.

[evilnate 0]

I <3 my SAR-1 / AK-47.

Accurate enough to hit a average sized peice of firewood @ 200 yrds. several times over.

/my 2c