AKs, M14s and M16s! Oh My!

Neon Dingo · Post by **Neon Dingo** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 7:40 am

A lot of people's gun knowledge relies solely on Counter-Strike, which is really funny and sad.

I read that in Vietnam many soldiers that carried M-16s picked up AK-47s off of dead Viet Cong for a number of reasons. The Vietnam era M-16's main problem was that the barrel wasn't chrome plated and thus allowed build up in the barrel that caused it to jam quite often.

I also read a letter from a soldier to his parents that said they had a large pile of malfunctioned M-16s and he called the gun "the most unreliable weapon I have ever shot." He even went on to describe how a fellow soldier was killed due to a malfunction.

There are a number of good things about the 5.56 round, but personally I really don't see what's so great about it. The M-14 was actually reissued in the Iraq because Marines liked the range of the M-14 and the fact that a 7.62 round penetrates a lot better than a pansy 5.56.

There are a number of superior rifles to the M-16, such as H&K's G36 or Sig's 552.

What does everyone think about the FN-FAL? The FN-FAL is probably one of the most widely used rifles in the world.

Oh yeah, and from what I've read about the Galil, it is superior to the AK-74. It was made by the Israelis to compete with the AK variants.

porcu · Post by **porcu** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:35 am

I've fired a brasilian FN-FAL. I didnt really find anything super special about it but it was alright. I would prefer an AK just because it's become a symbol of the proletariat.
I don't understand all this nitpicking about guns but then maybe that's because any experience i've had with them has been either as a civilian or a criminal. To me a gun is a gun, they all do the same thing.

Ernesto · Post by **Ernesto** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:39 am

Neon Dingo wrote:A lot of people's gun knowledge relies solely on Counter-Strike, which is really funny and sad.

That is sad. When I don't really know what I'm talking about, I try my best to shut the fuck up.

Neon Dingo · Post by **Neon Dingo** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:40 am

Porcu wrote:To me a gun is a gun, they all do the same thing.

Yeah, that's a good point.

I'd also like to point out this thread inspired me to randomly play a game of Counter-Strike. http://a.1asphost.com/fugitech/i_kick_ass.jpg

I kicked a lot of ass for not playing for several months.

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:50 pm

Neon Dingo wrote: http://a.1asphost.com/fugitech/i_kick_ass.jpg

Wow. So you joined a n00b server and pwned 'em? jeez nobody else could have acomplished something like that!

Viktor · Post by **Viktor** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 7:05 pm

Doyle wrote:No, the 74 uses 5.45x39. It's basically an AK47 case necked down to accept the smaller round. From what I hear, the 5.45 round yaws quite a bit and is actually pretty effective.

FYI, the M16 uses 5.56 NATO. In Vietnam, they used .223 Remington which had a tendency to tumble and fragment quite a bit making it a pretty effective round, too. However, the NATO round is heavier and doesn't tumble so much. It's pure penetration.

.223 Remington is a whole other round from 5.56 x 45mm M193 (Vietnam era) or 5.56 x 45mm NATO M855 (often called SS109 in Europe) and firing either 5.56 round in weapon chambered for .223 Remington will win you a trip to the ER or the morgue when it blows up in your face!

The M193 round used in Vietnam used a bullet with it centre of gravity towards the rear of the bullet. When combined with a slow 1:12 twist barrel, this mean the round yawed and pitched violently after entering soft tissue and caused a large wound tract. Unfortunately, this instability of the bullet meant that shots fired through foliage usually went wide of the intened target while the slower, but heavier 7.62 x 39 rounds from the VC's and NVA's Chinese Type 56 (AK47 clone) stayed on target.

Early M16s in Vietnam got a bad rap for unreliability as the were pitched to the first troops that received them as requireing very little cleaning just when the main DoD supplier for the M193 round at the time was churning out ammo which left a very high level of carbon deposits in the weapon after firing. Once the supplier got sorted and the troops received the proper cleaining kits and training, the "black rifle" was as or more reliable than the M14 it replaced.

The 5.56 NATO round uses a faster 1:7 twist barrel and heavier bullet with an internal steel penetrator cap which allows it to defeat current body armour at ranges up 400 metres. It's a lot more stable in flight and has proven very effective in recent conflicts.

In response to Neon Dingo:

The G36 and SIG552 are ballistically identical to the M16A2 or M4A1 depending on the barrel length as they use the exact same 5.56 NATO round.

The FN FAL family (and it's derivertives such as the British SLR and Canadian C1) are damn good guns. The problem for your average 170 lb soldier is that they're long, heavy and just about impossible to hold on target when firing on full auto. Plus for a given weight, you get to carry a whole 1/3 more 5.56 x 45mm ammo than you do with the 7.62 NATO rounds the M14s and FN-FAL use. Modern (M16/AK74) rifles were designed for the WW3 we luckily never to see where NATO took on the Warsaw Pact forces in heavily wooded central Germany. Why build a 1,000 metre rifle when engagement distances averaged under 50 metres in Vietnam and weren't expected to be over 300 metres on a European battlefield?

The Galil is basically an Israeli built Valmet (a Finnish AK47 clone) chambered for 5.56 x 45mm. The have a good reputation for relaibilty and accuracy and were/are manufactured under license in the RSA although the stocks had to be lengthened as the avergae RSA troopie is quite a bit taller and heavier than your average IDF soldier.

M16s Vs. M14 in Iraq? Well, if most of your firefights wer expected to take place in open, flat desert terrain, would you pick a battle rifle with an effective range of 600 metres or one that's accurate and effective to the best part of a 1,000 metres?

I'd happily carry my Aimpointed/ACOG'd M14 out in the desert or when manning a roadside checkpoint and hump my M4 or M733 in my ruck until I got into urban areas.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 9:31 pm

Viktor wrote:.223 Remington is a whole other round from 5.56 x 45mm M193 (Vietnam era)

No, it isn't. The only difference is pressure, and that only causes a problem when you're using a SAAMI .223 chamber instead of a 5.56 NATO chamber.

Neon Dingo · Post by **Neon Dingo** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:36 pm

Wow. So you joined a n00b server and pwned 'em? jeez nobody else could have acomplished something like that!

More or less, yeah. Maybe one or two guys were good on that server. Actually, I pwnzed them with a pistol for about 70 of those kills, then moved on to the Scout, and then the 552. Easy stuff. Hah

The only reason I said the 552 and the G36 were better is because I've read that SWAT and counter-terrorist ops prefer the reliability and the designs in those guns over the M4/M16s. I'm pretty sure they're the same rifle in terms of accuracy and range.

I think the 552 and the G36 are much more expensive than the M4/M16, but I could be wrong.

Question: I don't know a whole lot about shotguns, so what is the range of a slug? I know that buckshot will just bounce off your chest at about 100 yards.

Question: I'm turning 18 soon. What types of firearms would I be able to legally purchase?

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:52 pm

Neon Dingo wrote:Question: I'm turning 18 soon. What types of firearms would I be able to legally purchase?

This can vary by state, but federally you can buy longarms from a dealer and pistols from a non-dealer. You can't buy pistol ammo from a dealer either, but gun shops may not bother checking your age.

airsoft guy · Post by **airsoft guy** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 12:41 am

If I remember corectly the G36 and SIG 55x rifles use a meachanism very similar to an AK's, just more refined making them even more reliable and accurate.

You should check oue www.packing.org Like Doyle said longarms you can buy, I'd check out your state laws before touching a handgun though, some places, like Washington state, allow you to own a handgun and keep it at "your place of abode" but you can't carry it, while other states will issue a carry permt if you're 18 and pass their qualifications, but you can't buy said handgun or ammunition for it, that's federaly regulated.

What would you need a shotgun for after 100 yards? If it's for defense I'd like to know where someone's going to be at a hundred yards and be a threat to you unless you're using it for hunting. Shotgun slugs are rather heavy, about 500 grains usually and they'll go a lot farther than buckshot and still be effective, but not as far as most rifle rounds because it's so heavy and big and slower.

What are you going to use the firearm for is the main question, then you can decide what to get.

Neon Dingo · Post by **Neon Dingo** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:32 am

I live in Texas. I'm not sure if I'm going to continue living in Texas after I graduate, but more than likely. I looked on packing.org but I couldn't find any conclusive information about the age required, but I'll keep looking.

Edit: I have to be 21 to carry in Texas.

Well I was just curious about slugs, I've never fired a slug and a friend of mine was telling me some bullshit like "slugs go as far as rifle rounds" and that seemed really wrong. I told him the aerodynamics and the gunpowder probably wouldn't get it very far. The idea of a slug was intriguing to me, I guess.

Edit: That same friend of mine wants to carry a Desert Eagle .50AE concealed. Haha

Since I can't carry until I'm 21, I'm going to probably try and buy a .45 pistol or a pump shotgun for home defense, like when I begin living alone in an apartment soon.

I'm also interested in a rifle, but I am really not sure what kind of rifle would be right for me.

airsoft guy · Post by **airsoft guy** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:52 am

Ruger 10/22 I love mine, it's so freaking awesome, it's a great plinker or rifle for wee critters, for home defense it's not too good though being as it's a .22. For home defense go with a pump shotgun, people hear you rack that slide and they'll leave or piss themselves if they're in the same room, that way you don't have to shoot anyone and mess up your new apartment, that and shotguns have low penetration into even thin apartment walls with the right ammunition, and it's not too hard to miss with a shotgun.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:38 am

On top of that, if you keep your eye on circulars for sporting goods stores you can get a pretty good pump shotgun for about $200 NIB. Not a bad deal at all.

Banko · Post by **Banko** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 6:32 am

you guys are comparing wrong guns. a gun from 1947 is still more reliable then most guns that exist now. I dunno but I think that is pretty sad. Though the AN94. and AK102, are awesome guns...

porcu · Post by **porcu** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 10:12 am

missiles were mroe accurate back then too

Lynxer · Post by **Lynxer** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 10:57 am

Guns are rather obsolete imho. I have a wooden club in my room that is technically capable of inflicting severe hemorage on bulgelars skulls. If there is one thing i hate more then guns its thieving. hehe.

Well, i loath guns for the purpose of taking someones life. I do have a mechanical and romantical fascination for firearms however. I think all men do.

oh my, it seems i misspelled haemorrhage, hurry spelling nazis! persecute me for my contemptuous mistake!

Viktor · Post by **Viktor** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 12:12 pm

Doyle wrote:
Viktor wrote:.223 Remington is a whole other round from 5.56 x 45mm M193 (Vietnam era)
No, it isn't. The only difference is pressure, and that only causes a problem when you're using a SAAMI .223 chamber instead of a 5.56 NATO chamber.

The average 5.56 NATO round is loaded 20-25% hotter than the average .223 Rem which makes the outcome of the bullet jamming a SAAMI spec cylinder very messy and something to avoided. Isn't .223 Rem intended for a 1:12 twist rifled barrel compared to the faster 1:7 twist of the 5.56 NATO?

Silver · Post by **Silver** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:14 pm

Neon Dingo wrote: I read that in Vietnam many soldiers that carried M-16s picked up AK-47s off of dead VietCong for a number of reasons. The Vietnam era M-16's main problem was that the barrel wasn't chrome plated and thus allowed build up in the barrel that caused it to jam quite often.

Well I bet soldiers were introduced to the weapon, to see what this weapon could do. That's about it. Soldiers picking up AK's from the field and started using it, thats bullshit and romance. You are responible for your own rifle, and if you abandone on it for an AK, you will be facing a mad fukkin CO, if not even a court marshall.

I also read a letter from a soldier to his parents that said they had a large pile of malfunctioned M-16s and he called the gun "the most unreliable weapon I have ever shot." He even went on to describe how a fellow soldier was killed due to a malfunction.

This could probably be true, if you have a 1000 M16A1's, a certain percentage will have 'technical problems' production wise. He wasn't the 1st to die of a rifle exploding in his hands, nor the last. Although the M16A1 did have it's problem in the humid jungle, the models that came after the A1 are adapted globaly and will be used for years to come.

There are a number of superior rifles to the M-16, such as H&K's G36 or Sig's 552.

You got a Volkswagen Golf and you got a Porsche 911. Different price tag, different expectations. It also takes account that the M-16' is American and the G-36 is German, both country's use it as their standard rifle. So does the UK use it's L85, the French their Famas. As for the Sig. It look's pretty, that's about it. That's a rifle that needs like 5 times more upkeep then a M16. Bah.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:30 pm

Viktor wrote:The average 5.56 NATO round is loaded 20-25% hotter than the average .223 Rem which makes the outcome of the bullet jamming a SAAMI spec cylinder very messy and something to avoided. Isn't .223 Rem intended for a 1:12 twist rifled barrel compared to the faster 1:7 twist of the 5.56 NATO?

Not sure about that twist thing, but I checked the websites for Bushmaster, Olyarms and Colt. The most common twist was 1:9, although I saw some 1:10 at Olyarms and a 1:7 at Colt. I did notice that Colt's LE and military model rifles all had a 1:7 twist, though.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:35 pm

Neon Dingo wrote:
Porcu wrote:To me a gun is a gun, they all do the same thing.
Yeah, that's a good point.

Call me crazy, but did you just quote porcu and attribute the quote to Killzig?