Weapon Of Mass Destruction

[Sarajevo071]

Wow, so much “AK bashing” here!? I personally loved my AK (better version/quality then Russian) and I was military trained. I admit, I hold M16 only once in my hands, but what about all that issues I heard how M16 get more jammed and less reliable in extreme conditions!? A read allot about that. Also the lenght... If I am walking thru the woods, jungle or inside some building, I would like to have something lesser lenght but powerfull enough to go thru brick walls... But, that's just me. "Cannon-fodder" and "illiterate peasant recruit".

That's funny!

[SWJED]

Wow, so much “AK bashing” here!? I personally loved my AK (better version/quality then Russian) and I was military trained. I admit, I hold M16 only once in my hands, but what about all that issues I heard how M16 get more jammed and less reliable in extreme conditions!? A read allot about that. Also the lenght... If I am walking thru the woods, jungle or inside some building, I would like to have something lesser lenght but powerfull enough to go thru brick walls... But, that's just me. "Cannon-fodder" and "illiterate peasant recruit".

That's funny!

Don't take it personal - Warsaw Pact leadership decided you were illiterate cannon-fodder - not the West

[SWJED]

... ran across this site - AK-47 vs AR-15 / M-16 - has a lot of pros and cons of both weapons.

"The M16 is by far the more superior weapon. It's lighter, more accurate, more versatile, and with proper maintenance it is very reliable. Indeed, it might be less sand proof then the Galil/AK47 series. However, all you need is to clean it once a day and it will work properly. Since modern armies clean their smallarms on a daily even during combat deployment this is a non-issue.

In fact, most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War when the M16 was first issued. The 5.56 ammunition given then to the troops used a low quality sticky powder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was changed, the misfire problems disappeared as well."

[slapout9]

The problem was not just the gun powder but to much oil on the bolt. Not only was the gun powder changed but so was the oil. If there is a lot of residue in the chamber combined with a lot of oil on the bolt it will form an occlusive seal, which will stop it from operating until cleaned. I have never seen it happen with ball ammo but blank ammo combined with the buildup from using a blank adapter and to much oil would stop ours all the time. Our armorer used to show the proper amount to apply to the whole bolt and bolt carrier group by putting a drop on the end of his fingertip. A little dab will do ya.

[Sarajevo071]

And with AK, you hit with your leg to open chamber and put bullet in, fire once to clean the barrel and you are ready to go again (even if no one clean that gun for days, even after rain or snow)! Until you get time to sit down and proper clean you weapon.

[Uboat509]

... ran across this site - AK-47 vs AR-15 / M-16 - has a lot of pros and cons of both weapons.

Interesting site but it seems that an inordinate amount of space was devoted to the bayonet. I'd be the first one to tell you that you do not want a bayonet on an M4, but that is pretty much moot now.

SFC W

[zenpundit]

Sarajevo,

I'm not attacking the Ak-47. Or illiterate peasants. Just pointing out that if you have a relatively poor country and you need 500,000 infantry weapons for your army, most of which is recruited from the villages - your bang for the buck is with something that is easy to use and stands up to abuse. This would be most of the world's militaries, numerically speaking.

And for everyone, HNN has an article up now by another AK-47 advocate:

" Why the U.S. loses Small Wars"

Author's Website:

AK-47

[Sarajevo071]

Even if you attacking AK it’s just fine. I wasn’t born with it. I was just saying my preferences and why… You do have right in pointing out price (I don’t agree about “weapon education”) but I was just questioning how good is western weapons in extreme conditions, since I didn’t have a chance to try them? What I heard was they need a lot down time and maintenance (starting from small arms up to planes). That’s all, mate.

[120mm]

The AK has lousy ergonomics. And I've seen fairly impressive AK failures.

I would be comfortable using one, in a pinch, but I prefer the AR series of rifle.

[Sarajevo071]

Don't take it personal - Warsaw Pact leadership decided you were illiterate cannon-fodder - not the West

No, I didn't take it personal... Especially since I was not under Warsaw Pact. Yes, M16 has good sides too. But, I think it is just personal preferences... One can not say a priory this one or another one it's best. It's not the tool, it is how you using it and how good you are with it. In my hands I carried from WWII weapons, hand guns, MP5, to the M16 and I always went back to what I get to know best and what I like it. Also, even heavier, I preferred wooden stock.

PS. Don’t you think if those cops in LA bank robbery shootout have AK they would penetrate those 2 guys since they M16s (from SWAT) couldn’t do it!?

[MASON]

All weapons and equipment have a cost and need time devoted to maintenance. Some less than others. Allowing time for other things, like reading and thinking, so when the time comes to act or speak or write in a public forum (War is one public forum, the internet is another) ones ideas' and purposes' may count for something more than a moment or be thought of in a good light giving resonance into the future.

As this thread demonstrates, weapons, particularly hand held ones have a cultural and personal nature to them. When, Where, and How weapons are used are a direct expression of personal will and character. The weapons image then assumes the general impression the operator has achieved.

The AK is definitely a formidable Icon.

Telling a mate, neighbor or would be friend on this small earth he does not dress well does not help him watch your back.