Rhodes1968 1,638 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 No surprise to us Im sure but to admit the AK is more effective in high dust/dirty environments had to hurt. Google the announcement I lost the link. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
docfury 1 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 Save everyone the trouble. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/25/army-outgunned-afghanistan/?test=latestnews Quote Link to post Share on other sites
L5K 162 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 From what I have been hearing on this issue, I think they should see what going back to a rifle instead of a carbine will do for them. They are complaining about power at range, and then they issue short barrels that drastically cut the velocity of the round at the muzzle... It would at least be a good intermediate solution to partially but not completely fix issues, and it shouldn't cost as much as some other solutions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
docfury 1 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 (edited) Just finished reading the article, dont know if I agree that US forces are out gunned in Afghanistan. I love my AK, but if I wanted to reach out and touch someone reliably, in the heat of combat, and at 300+ meters, id take an M4 any day of the week. I thought it was interesting that the army is going back to using M14's due to it being a 7.62 (.308). And what the deuce? They cancel the XM8 for production, but give the go ahead for this ? http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl13-e.htm Oh, and a quick question, doesnt the Marine corps still use the standard M16 in combat? Full size ? (long barrel) Edited May 27, 2010 by drfury Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dussandr 76 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 A million dollars would buy the Army about 10,000 Mosin-Nagants and plenty of surplus ammo. Then they wouldn't be outgunned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
elia.jon1 1 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 i was thinking they should have plenty of 20 inchers around..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
loki0629 55 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 Oh, and a quick question, doesnt the Marine corps still use the standard M16 in combat? Full size ? (long barrel) Yes, the M16A4. Fixed stock, 20 inch barrel. We never went with the M4 carbine route as a general issue weapon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
raidersfan_5544 57 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 "A million dollars would buy the Army about 10,000 Mosin-Nagants and plenty of surplus ammo. Then they wouldn't be outgunned. " LMAO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
leadslinger 37 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 (edited) I think this is going to revive the 6.8 spc, 6.5 grendel and the 6.5 mpc debate. http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?showtopic=30020&st=0 Edited May 27, 2010 by leadslinger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vbrtrmn 167 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 A million dollars would buy the Army about 10,000 Mosin-Nagants and plenty of surplus ammo. Then they wouldn't be outgunned. But it would cost $10M to run the official evaluations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chevyman097 2,579 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 (edited) "A million dollars would buy the Army about 10,000 Mosin-Nagants and plenty of surplus ammo. Then they wouldn't be outgunned. " LMAO A million? where you get your Mosins lol. 10 grand would buy about 10,000 Mosins Edited May 27, 2010 by Chevyman097 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rhodes1968 1,638 Posted May 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 Knew you guys would get a kick out of this. Its time the Stoner rifle went the way of the Garand as a honorably retired rifle. There is a push for the 308 but I am not sure as they do love spray and pray almost as much as the AK folks over there. Lets be honest if you had your choice in the matter for your own protection wouldn't you rather have a well built high reliability 30 cal rifle even if FA suffered?? I know I would. Recoil management has greatly improved since the M14 and FAL were introduced, they need to do it right and make no compromise. Yeah I know Im dreaming. Just whatever they do make sure its gets built here in the US. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nailbomb 10,221 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 Knew you guys would get a kick out of this. Its time the Stoner rifle went the way of the Garand as a honorably retired rifle. There is a push for the 308 but I am not sure as they do love spray and pray almost as much as the AK folks over there. Lets be honest if you had your choice in the matter for your own protection wouldn't you rather have a well built high reliability 30 cal rifle even if FA suffered?? I know I would. Recoil management has greatly improved since the M14 and FAL were introduced, they need to do it right and make no compromise. Yeah I know Im dreaming. Just whatever they do make sure its gets built here in the US. Why even bother talking about FA suffering? They only afford you 3 round burst, and frankly I've never known anyone who used it except messing around on a range, or dumping blanks at the end of a training evolution. Well aimed fire > spray and pray Where it really comes into play will be the squad level automatic weapons. These play a vital role in cover fire, saturation of fire, and Area denial. The 240G(or 240B the army uses) has always been more reliable than the 249 SAW(overly hyper rate of fire) in my expirience, but frankly is too large for urban environments, and is significantly heavier. It is a wonderful thought that we could just issue our troops a weapon that would be well suited to whatever environment they are being deployed in, isn't it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 (edited) I'm no military expert or anything, but it seems to me that they ought to just use modernized M14's.....More powerful round that they already have millions of around, caliber used by NATO already so no political strings attached like all the fancy AR rounds named after Anglo-Saxon mythological characters. And the weapon could easily be customized, ie "battle rifle" style ones for infantry, traditional style ones for DMR, etc. And they already have a bunch, just phase out the M4's for more of them...I bet you wouldn't hear any complaints about 7.62 NATO at 600 yards.... Edited May 27, 2010 by Klassy Kalashnikov Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bizzarolibe 5 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 I'll take a well-lubed AR with a quality magazine (NOT the crap the military uses) over an AK any day, unless we're talking about a polonged (5+ year) zombie apocalypse. I love my AK (see my avatar) and I'll NEVER be without an AK, but to be perfectly honest I find my AR easier to shoot, more ergonomic, much more accurate, and much lighter. I think everyone should own both, but should the crap hit the fan (and I doubt it ever will--and also hope it doesn't) my AK will be my backup, and the AR will be my primary. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rhodes1968 1,638 Posted May 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 (edited) I cant resist this...With an AK there is no need of a backup. Sorry...I understand the attachment to the rifle if accuracy is your prime directive but in the nity gritty of that hell hole over there other things come into play. So I wont further debate the AR vs AK issue, that is the army's problem. As for stocking for yet another rifle round I already have three with x39R, 308, and x54R so I have to pass on the 223. So why FA? After Korea and the human wave tactics of the Chicoms it was felt FA was required for the next generation of infantry rifle. Of course now those human wave tactics are completely obsolete due to improved air and artillery support. Our air and artillery is so accurate now its almost spooky and allows for all sorts of tactics impossible 50 years ago. On a side note if you have ever watched videos of the Middle-East soldiers in combat they are pretty much point and spray missing every damn thing. But marksmanship has never really been a big part of their culture. One of the reasons the M14 was dropped was its poor FA performance, it really danced badly. There were other problems as there always will be but that one stood out. Now oddly it was never really supposed to operate in FA except as a last desperate act. It could also be on the picky side on ammo and not as simple as some would like. The problem now is which 30cal platform to issue and we may well find several before its all done. HK has an excellent rifle if they can work out the license issues and get past the anti-change mentality that always appears. I think this was long overdue and finally the idea that above all other requirements that weapon must fire no matter what and it should be 30cal. But what I find ironic is after 60 years that AK is still rolling up its reputation all the while being put down by everyone except the guy whose life depends on it. Edited May 27, 2010 by Rhodes1968 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marlborocowboy92 1 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 I was reading about this last night... I think they should not phase out the m4 or m16 but just incorporate more M14's or something. linke instead of 2 out of 2 having an m4 1 out of 2 would have a m14 ..I am not an AR guy but the military sure is so why dont they just start issuing AR10's? or you know they could just give saiga 7.62x39's and .308's to everyone lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TacSat 90 Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 (edited) There are 3 different updated M14s ive seen. that have Mil contracts.. the Sage EBR I got a chance to handle one last week. was not to crazy about. troy industries has a real nice one as well and vltor is basic and simple. the vltor is around 500 the others 800 - 1000.and vltor is nice as well. the vltor is around 500 the others 800 - 1000. If you already have an M1a here are some options.. it is on my wish list for now. Edited May 27, 2010 by TacSat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rifleshooter474 2 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 Quote:But all the M4s have fairly advanced optics, which really add to their capabilities," he told FoxNews.com. End of quote: WHAT!!!! I can and I have installed the same advanced optics,that many are using on the M4s. On my two AKs EOTech/ACOG/AIMPOINT M4. They work just as good on the AKs as they do on my ARs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
leadslinger 37 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 (edited) I'll take a well-lubed AR ... over an AK any day, ......I find my AR easier to shoot, more ergonomic, much more accurate, and much lighter. The only thing i find cumbersome as far as ergonomics is concerned is racking the bolt. Still with practice i am getting proficient. i have also added an extended safety lever. mag change just requires practice and it becomes pretty easy. Accuracy.... here are a couple of targets i shot three days ago just for shits and giggles. 200 yards sand bag rest forearm used shoulder for the rear, iron sights. Not to shabby for an old guy with a constantly shaky head, tri focal glasses and arthritic hands. I think I'll stay with the saiga and buy more ammo. Edited May 28, 2010 by leadslinger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bizzarolibe 5 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 I cant resist this...With an AK there is no need of a backup. ...and with an AK you'd better hope and pray that the guy shooting at you isn't any more than 100 yards away. You'd also better hope and pray that you don't have lug the thing 10 miles during the summer. You'd also better hope and pray that the round you shoot into a target doesn't go through and hit an innocent bystander. Etc., etc... Sorry, just couldn't resist Naw seriously though I love my AK and it's a blast to shoot, but the AR is my first choice. I was once like you, but then I actually bought an AR of my own and realized that all the stuff you hear about them (mostly regarding reliability) is pretty overblown. I've seen guys put thousands of rounds through them *without cleaning*, and all they did to keep them running was apply a little bit of lube here and there. If you have a quality rifle (BCM, Spikes, Colt, Noveske, etc.) and quality mags (Magpul), all you need is a little lube. I think the benefits of the AR (much better ergonomics, reduced recoil, and accuracy) are more than worth the nominal amount of upkeep. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Krom 36 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 The 5.56 is a poor round for a 14" barrel, basically garbage for anything past 100m. But I still have a hard time believing AK47s are out preforming it at longer ranges. AK47's and M4 are shorter range weapons. The M4 with optics (ACOG) has a huge accuracy advantage at ranges in excess of 100m but has a poor effect on targets, the AK47 (no optics) has a huge advantage in terms of stopping power at the same ranges but is not as precise. That said neither has a clear advantage in my book. I kinda feel like the US military should quit trying to make all our infantry weapons so standardized. There are different tools for different combat environments. But since I know that will never happen, the US military needs a standard assault caliber (6.8?) that functions very well out of short barreled carbines and is not dependent on velocity to be effective. .308 is overkill for standard infantry weapons unless they are in an designated marksman role. The U.S. military should: -Develop a 5.56 cartridge that still has good terminal effects at lower velocities -Or better yet change our standard caliber to 6.8 spc or similar. -increase the use of designated marksman and issue m14's/AR10's Personally I'd take an AK74 fitted with an ultimak and reflex II with the triangle shaped aiming system in an afghan type environment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nailbomb 10,221 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 ...and with an AK you'd better hope and pray that the guy shooting at you isn't any more than 100 yards away. You'd also better hope and pray that you don't have lug the thing 10 miles during the summer. You'd also better hope and pray that the round you shoot into a target doesn't go through and hit an innocent bystander. Etc., etc... As far as durability, I've had failures of both my AK and AR. Everything must be tested befor its performance is vital. Also, your preception of accuracy is off. A quality ak is more than capable on a man sized target past 100 yards. I think the stock saiga irons are realisticly conservative at the 300 yard maximum. Lugging it? Not a valid argument IMHO. I'll carry some more weight to get more firepower. +1 to what Krom said... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 Also, your preception of accuracy is off. A quality ak is more than capable on a man sized target past 100 yards. I think the stock saiga irons are realisticly conservative at the 300 yard maximum. Well said. I can do rapid fire offhand with the irons on my x39 (I use the Kreb's rear ring sight but probably could with stock irons too) and hit a Q target at 100 yards easy. I was able to keep em on the man sized target at 200 too, going a little slower though, no rapid fire at 200 for me. I'm not the greatest shooter either, I'm sure a better rifleman could easily do 300 with the irons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shades_of_grey 1,092 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 I cant resist this...With an AK there is no need of a backup. ...and with an AK you'd better hope and pray that the guy shooting at you isn't any more than 100 yards away. You'd also better hope and pray that you don't have lug the thing 10 miles during the summer. You'd also better hope and pray that the round you shoot into a target doesn't go through and hit an innocent bystander. Etc., etc... Sorry, just couldn't resist Bizzarolibe, you have a Legion rifle. Are you telling me that you can't hit man-sized targets >100yds with it? If so, you just need practice. That rifle is effective at far more than 100 yrds, even using standard irons... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwMmhSWRu3Q Naw seriously though I love my AK and it's a blast to shoot, but the AR is my first choice. I was once like you, but then I actually bought an AR of my own and realized that all the stuff you hear about them (mostly regarding reliability) is pretty overblown. I've seen guys put thousands of rounds through them *without cleaning*, and all they did to keep them running was apply a little bit of lube here and there. If you have a quality rifle (BCM, Spikes, Colt, Noveske, etc.) and quality mags (Magpul), all you need is a little lube. I think the benefits of the AR (much better ergonomics, reduced recoil, and accuracy) are more than worth the nominal amount of upkeep. Of course, AK's will run with zero lube and a handful of sand tossed into the receiver. Regardless, you really need to see another video before you go on about the fantastic "benefits of the AR", (pay particular attention to the first part of the vid)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lprGoEpDXJQ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sjgusmc21 850 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gkcf 8 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 I think the old school AR-18 was a perfect solution to the debate myself. It's the best of both. The ruggedness, simplicity and reliability of an AK, with the accuracy, ease of use and enhanced ergonomics of an AR. Plus tt's has one of the most comfortable grips ever created in my opinion. Had it not been overshadowed by the M16 and given further development it could have been a serious contender. It still has potential really.Most of the modern ACR type rifles rip off it's design anyway. Hell, most of Stoner's protoypes and developments were leaps and bounds ahead of their time. The Stoner 63 weighed 11 lbs and had so light a recoil that it could be fired from 1 hand, over your head no less. With a little more devlopment it probably would have beaten out the M249. It's a damn shame so many weapons with great potential get passed over for dumb reasons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wolverine 10,360 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 I'm no military expert or anything, but it seems to me that they ought to just use modernized M14's.....More powerful round that they already have millions of around, caliber used by NATO already so no political strings attached like all the fancy AR rounds named after Anglo-Saxon mythological characters. And the weapon could easily be customized, ie "battle rifle" style ones for infantry, traditional style ones for DMR, etc. And they already have a bunch, just phase out the M4's for more of them...I bet you wouldn't hear any complaints about 7.62 NATO at 600 yards.... This!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
L5K 162 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 Bizzarolibe, you have a Legion rifle. Are you telling me that you can't hit man-sized targets >100yds with it? If so, you just need practice. That rifle is effective at far more than 100 yrds, even using standard irons... This video shows an unfair comparison. That old guy is just that good of a shot. There's another video of him using a .40 cal Glock at that range and he hits the plate like 4/10 rounds if I remember correctly. That said yeah, 100 yards is not a long range shot, and any AK should be hitting a man sized target at 300 yards with practice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bizzarolibe 5 Posted May 28, 2010 Report Share Posted May 28, 2010 (edited) ...and with an AK you'd better hope and pray that the guy shooting at you isn't any more than 100 yards away. You'd also better hope and pray that you don't have lug the thing 10 miles during the summer. You'd also better hope and pray that the round you shoot into a target doesn't go through and hit an innocent bystander. Etc., etc... As far as durability, I've had failures of both my AK and AR. Everything must be tested befor its performance is vital. Also, your preception of accuracy is off. A quality ak is more than capable on a man sized target past 100 yards. I think the stock saiga irons are realisticly conservative at the 300 yard maximum. Lugging it? Not a valid argument IMHO. I'll carry some more weight to get more firepower. +1 to what Krom said... I'm going to have disagree with your assessment of accuracy. There may be a handful of AK's out there that are capable of hitting center of mass at 200+ yards, but no Saiga I've ever owned has ever gotten below ~4" at 100. My AR will do about 1 inch with decent ammo. Not to mention, shot placement is everything right? So isn't it much better to have a rifle capable of making *headshots* rather than body shots at 200+ yards? And yeah, I'm also going to have to disagree with your assessment of weight. I think you're definitely in the minority on this one. Weight is one of THE most important factors to consider in any fighting weapon. A lighter weight weapon gives you greater mobility, not to mention it's much faster to get it on target from a lowered position. Regardless, like I said before, both weapons have their places...in my safe P.S. Can you tell I've been spending some time over at ARFCOM lol?? Edited May 28, 2010 by Bizzarolibe Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.