oldefarte

I'll give you credit for your taste in posteriors, Cap'n Hero, unless that's yours, in which case I apologize for presuming. That said, I've read loads of specs on bullets and various calibers, etc., etc., etc. Oddly, those wonderful stats don't always seem to play out in real life, so forgive me if I go with what I know. And among the things I know is that the Russians lost that fight with the Muj... fancy that. Of course, the Muj were mostly shooting the 47 and its larger round. I'm not presuming cause and effect there (that would be "post hoc ergo procter hoc"), but I do wonder at

I'm intrigued, BTW, by those, such as "Fluid Power", extolling the cheapness of ammo and mags for the AK-74. Where are you buying this stuff that it's so cheap? No amount of shopping around has convinced me that, at least in the American market, the 5.45X39 is anything other than the pricier option.

During Vietnam, there were a lot of weapons floating around - the M-14, firing the 7.62X54 (.308) round, the AK-47, firing the 7.62X39 round, and the M-16, firing the NATO .223 round. Subsequently, the Russian Army adopted the smaller, faster bullet, with the AK-74, firing the 5.54X39 round. I was Navy, working with the SEALS and Marine LRRP (what is now called "SWCC", tho' we had no special name at the time). The SEALS had the option of choosing their weapons and, invariably, chose either the AK-47, both because of its reliability and to leave a smaller "footprint", or the HK-91, firing th