It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The outdated M4 carbine and M-16 why is our military still using them?
page: 5share:
a reply to: redmage
Lmao get the **** out of here with that tired ass trash!
As someone familiar with the development of not just 5.56 but the actual SCHV concept and theoretical development itself I can tell you that you're so wrong it's unreal!
Go back and read the original project agile reports etc, 5.56 is and has been since day one an absolutely brutal killer even as compared to much larger rounds like 762 NATO...
(Certain people in the crowd will be screaming but what about m855/SS190!!! To you people I say SHHH we don't speak about the dark times....)
That is the plain truth of the matter and no idiotic talk about wounding one person takes two more people out of the fight will ever change it.
If you want to know the truth about what drove the SCHV revolution (small caliber high velocity) just look at the standard ammo load of a soldier issued the m14 just prior to the m16 coming into service.
For bonus points look at things like the SAWS test program to see the Ph (probability of hit) Pk (probability of kill) and individual/squad stowed kills differentials between the m14 & m16!
There's also the side matter of the m14 being a flaming sack of dog s*** in every possible way from breakage rates to just manufacturing the damn things!
The m14 was a flat disaster that had a disturbing amount of our people still rocking m1 garands disturbingly far into its "adoption" with the ability to actually get the damn guns made only saved by TRW developing their chain broaching process even if it was too little too late.
As much as there were very real issues with the m16 early on (and still) it very much saved our bacon in a big way even in the face of the active sabotage the program continually (and to this day) suffered. It is truly no coincidence that the gun only started to really hit it's stride when the Arsenal system finally got a bullet to it's head.
Lmao get the **** out of here with that tired ass trash!
As someone familiar with the development of not just 5.56 but the actual SCHV concept and theoretical development itself I can tell you that you're so wrong it's unreal!
Go back and read the original project agile reports etc, 5.56 is and has been since day one an absolutely brutal killer even as compared to much larger rounds like 762 NATO...
(Certain people in the crowd will be screaming but what about m855/SS190!!! To you people I say SHHH we don't speak about the dark times....)
That is the plain truth of the matter and no idiotic talk about wounding one person takes two more people out of the fight will ever change it.
If you want to know the truth about what drove the SCHV revolution (small caliber high velocity) just look at the standard ammo load of a soldier issued the m14 just prior to the m16 coming into service.
For bonus points look at things like the SAWS test program to see the Ph (probability of hit) Pk (probability of kill) and individual/squad stowed kills differentials between the m14 & m16!
There's also the side matter of the m14 being a flaming sack of dog s*** in every possible way from breakage rates to just manufacturing the damn things!
The m14 was a flat disaster that had a disturbing amount of our people still rocking m1 garands disturbingly far into its "adoption" with the ability to actually get the damn guns made only saved by TRW developing their chain broaching process even if it was too little too late.
As much as there were very real issues with the m16 early on (and still) it very much saved our bacon in a big way even in the face of the active sabotage the program continually (and to this day) suffered. It is truly no coincidence that the gun only started to really hit it's stride when the Arsenal system finally got a bullet to it's head.
a reply to: jrod
That's absolutely not true in the slightest. The Kalashnikov pattern firearms, especially the Russian ones are engineered so that the major parts like bolt etc are lifed to about 15% more round count than the barrels, when the barrel is done they're meant to be thrown away and replaced with a new one.
This is why they don't care that barrel and bolt swaps require arcane wizardry and specialist equipment / tooling as well as disturbing amounts of hand fitting if you actually want the gun to work anywhere close to it's design potential after its put back together!
Can you redneck "gunsmith" them and keep one running forever and shooting almost straight?
Sure, I've got an AK almost through it's third barrel and second bolt.
BUT I also have essentially several thousand dollars into AK specific tools jigs and translated as well as untranslated armorer and repair manuals on top of the several thousand more dollars in "generalist tools" that make it possible to use my AK specific tools. (I didn't really spend thousands on the ak specific stuff unless you count the absolutely silly number of hours etc I spent sourcing information and then building my own tools. But if you count them at any reasonable $/hr figure it's more like low 5 digit dollars)
Your AK ain't gonna live forever don't buy the hype.
Also your makarov is a blowback brick gun... Yeah it'll run, like crap, forever and ever because if you can't make a blowback gun that fires a low powered round do so you're kinda too dumb to be making guns period!
The AR/M16 otoh...
Well just look at the way people build them like Legos and shoot them like bullets are going out of style!
Case closed
That's absolutely not true in the slightest. The Kalashnikov pattern firearms, especially the Russian ones are engineered so that the major parts like bolt etc are lifed to about 15% more round count than the barrels, when the barrel is done they're meant to be thrown away and replaced with a new one.
This is why they don't care that barrel and bolt swaps require arcane wizardry and specialist equipment / tooling as well as disturbing amounts of hand fitting if you actually want the gun to work anywhere close to it's design potential after its put back together!
Can you redneck "gunsmith" them and keep one running forever and shooting almost straight?
Sure, I've got an AK almost through it's third barrel and second bolt.
BUT I also have essentially several thousand dollars into AK specific tools jigs and translated as well as untranslated armorer and repair manuals on top of the several thousand more dollars in "generalist tools" that make it possible to use my AK specific tools. (I didn't really spend thousands on the ak specific stuff unless you count the absolutely silly number of hours etc I spent sourcing information and then building my own tools. But if you count them at any reasonable $/hr figure it's more like low 5 digit dollars)
Your AK ain't gonna live forever don't buy the hype.
Also your makarov is a blowback brick gun... Yeah it'll run, like crap, forever and ever because if you can't make a blowback gun that fires a low powered round do so you're kinda too dumb to be making guns period!
The AR/M16 otoh...
Well just look at the way people build them like Legos and shoot them like bullets are going out of style!
Case closed
a reply to: roguetechie
I like you.
I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, but clearly you are well informed. You've made some really good points about the AR-15 and it's permutations. It's late, and I'm not sure I'm fully prepared to debate some of the nuances of things I don't think I agree with, but for the most part you have posted excellent information which is pretty much "bullet proof". You've also been pretty "forward" about the presentation of that information, and I kinda like that too.
You'd get no argument from me about the M14 being a tragedy as a battle rifle, but then we'd have to get into the definition of what is a "battle rifle"? (and the fact there is no such thing). Without going further, you're right in that the 5.56 was principally selected for weight, but the Armalite Rifle was a compromise of sorts, and the early evolutions of that are well documented. Has it been refined with the M4, and so many other variations? Absolutely, it has! Is it fool proof? Nope.
I honestly don't think we can really discuss the merits of any firearm until we consider who is using it, who the opponent is, what firearm they are using, and under what conditions. Herein lies one of the strengths of the AK. Is it crap? Perhaps. But it is easily produced, in staggering numbers, without sophisticated machinery and it's durable over its "lifetime". But that 'lifetime' caveat is critically important to the overall discussion.
You've correctly identified barrel life vs bolt and action life for the AK, but you have to put this into the context of the life of the fighter. They're not designed to fire a million rounds; they're just designed for the 13 year old fighter to seriously wound or kill one opponent, and that's the life of the "system". It's a paradigm shift in thinking...most of our current opponents don't view the fighter any differently than they do the weapon. They're all just a commodity. So why put a an expensive and sophisticated weapon in their hands? If it gets dropped and buried in the sand for 20 years, and can still fire a few thousand 'spray and pray' rounds, well, all the better. And this the AK can do. I'm not sure we can say this for the AR, but again that's not what it's designed to do.
Can I take my AR's out to the range (or coyote hunting) and get repeatable results for "years"? Yes, with the proper care. Can I do the same with my AK's? No, not honestly. But, as you've noted, I can just throw my AK's away (or sell them cheap, as worn out or whatever) and not worry about it. I'm less likely do that with a built AR (regardless of how it's built). And, I'm certainly not going to do that with a Super Match M1A! So it's all kind of a matter of perspective.
Anyway, I've gone on too long already. I'd really like to have some discussions with you about reloading, if you are so inclined, at some point. I'd also like to get your insights on some of the hybrids which are now showing up with seemingly pretty good results.
Anyway, take care, and I'll look forward to future discussions.
I like you.
I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, but clearly you are well informed. You've made some really good points about the AR-15 and it's permutations. It's late, and I'm not sure I'm fully prepared to debate some of the nuances of things I don't think I agree with, but for the most part you have posted excellent information which is pretty much "bullet proof". You've also been pretty "forward" about the presentation of that information, and I kinda like that too.
You'd get no argument from me about the M14 being a tragedy as a battle rifle, but then we'd have to get into the definition of what is a "battle rifle"? (and the fact there is no such thing). Without going further, you're right in that the 5.56 was principally selected for weight, but the Armalite Rifle was a compromise of sorts, and the early evolutions of that are well documented. Has it been refined with the M4, and so many other variations? Absolutely, it has! Is it fool proof? Nope.
I honestly don't think we can really discuss the merits of any firearm until we consider who is using it, who the opponent is, what firearm they are using, and under what conditions. Herein lies one of the strengths of the AK. Is it crap? Perhaps. But it is easily produced, in staggering numbers, without sophisticated machinery and it's durable over its "lifetime". But that 'lifetime' caveat is critically important to the overall discussion.
You've correctly identified barrel life vs bolt and action life for the AK, but you have to put this into the context of the life of the fighter. They're not designed to fire a million rounds; they're just designed for the 13 year old fighter to seriously wound or kill one opponent, and that's the life of the "system". It's a paradigm shift in thinking...most of our current opponents don't view the fighter any differently than they do the weapon. They're all just a commodity. So why put a an expensive and sophisticated weapon in their hands? If it gets dropped and buried in the sand for 20 years, and can still fire a few thousand 'spray and pray' rounds, well, all the better. And this the AK can do. I'm not sure we can say this for the AR, but again that's not what it's designed to do.
Can I take my AR's out to the range (or coyote hunting) and get repeatable results for "years"? Yes, with the proper care. Can I do the same with my AK's? No, not honestly. But, as you've noted, I can just throw my AK's away (or sell them cheap, as worn out or whatever) and not worry about it. I'm less likely do that with a built AR (regardless of how it's built). And, I'm certainly not going to do that with a Super Match M1A! So it's all kind of a matter of perspective.
Anyway, I've gone on too long already. I'd really like to have some discussions with you about reloading, if you are so inclined, at some point. I'd also like to get your insights on some of the hybrids which are now showing up with seemingly pretty good results.
Anyway, take care, and I'll look forward to future discussions.
a reply to: roguetechie
A fair point for the common Infantry Grunt.
As the Common Army Infantry Grunt is Issued an M4-Carbine with only Semi and 3 R Burst mode , and The Regular Infantry will certainly never run any sort of Suppressor on there M4 , Which means a Piston ran AR-15 is in a way waisted on the Regular Army , notice I said in a way . In combat a soldier needs every advantage they can get including an overly engineered AR-15 with a piston . Will a regular Army Infantry soldier put enough rounds through there M4-Carbine on a regular basis to see there DI M4 fail mmmm I would say Unlikly , but in the Unlikely event that they do a piston could save there lives .
Now lets talk about JSOC i.e. Special Forces , Ranger Battalion, Delta Group, 160th SOAR those Guys and Gals run full auto M4's and use Suppressors all the time. Now with a DI rifle on full auto it is extremely dirty, and the ammount of gas cycling the bolt round to round is very unbalanced, Also when a DI rifle is running a suppressor it is even more unreliable as the suppressor causes much more gas to be expelled in to the bolt/rifle , and you have to run Low velocity rounds were talking 1000fps here running thru a Direct impingment system how reliable do you think a Low velocity round is in a DI rifle ?
Now with a true clean Piston ran AR-15, full auto mode is uniformly balanced round to round makeing for more accurate and controllable follow up shots. And as for a suppressor being ran on a piston its a worlds differance because the piston can be tweaked to allow more gas through the out flow keeping the gas out of the shooters face and allowing for higher velocity rounds .
oh yea and the comments you made about the re-used magazines being the most common stopage issue for the M4 is absolutly true to a point, New magazines and New rifles are issued to soldiers for each deployment and as for JSOC most of those gents are running PMAGS and LANCER MAGS.
just my two cents
The real question is, why does it need to be a "clean" operating system" if the weapon will go thousands of rounds dirty provided you occasionally clear bbl fouling and make sure crud doesn't build up in or on the locking surfaces?
A fair point for the common Infantry Grunt.
As the Common Army Infantry Grunt is Issued an M4-Carbine with only Semi and 3 R Burst mode , and The Regular Infantry will certainly never run any sort of Suppressor on there M4 , Which means a Piston ran AR-15 is in a way waisted on the Regular Army , notice I said in a way . In combat a soldier needs every advantage they can get including an overly engineered AR-15 with a piston . Will a regular Army Infantry soldier put enough rounds through there M4-Carbine on a regular basis to see there DI M4 fail mmmm I would say Unlikly , but in the Unlikely event that they do a piston could save there lives .
Now lets talk about JSOC i.e. Special Forces , Ranger Battalion, Delta Group, 160th SOAR those Guys and Gals run full auto M4's and use Suppressors all the time. Now with a DI rifle on full auto it is extremely dirty, and the ammount of gas cycling the bolt round to round is very unbalanced, Also when a DI rifle is running a suppressor it is even more unreliable as the suppressor causes much more gas to be expelled in to the bolt/rifle , and you have to run Low velocity rounds were talking 1000fps here running thru a Direct impingment system how reliable do you think a Low velocity round is in a DI rifle ?
Now with a true clean Piston ran AR-15, full auto mode is uniformly balanced round to round makeing for more accurate and controllable follow up shots. And as for a suppressor being ran on a piston its a worlds differance because the piston can be tweaked to allow more gas through the out flow keeping the gas out of the shooters face and allowing for higher velocity rounds .
oh yea and the comments you made about the re-used magazines being the most common stopage issue for the M4 is absolutly true to a point, New magazines and New rifles are issued to soldiers for each deployment and as for JSOC most of those gents are running PMAGS and LANCER MAGS.
just my two cents
edit on 14-2-2020 by asabuvsobelow because: mispell
edit on 14-2-2020 by asabuvsobelow because: mis
spell
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Ok so this post deserves a more detailed response but I'm in the hospital with MRSA in one of the two heart valves I just had replaced in mid October so I'm gonna shotgun this a little.
1. The AK (and especially the 5.45x39 chambered and new generation ones!) are far from bad guns! In reality up until ammunition like mk318 mk262 and m855a1 and certain mods developed by both civilians and the military to the AR itseld came on the scene, the ak74m and 5.45x39 combination was just flat BETTER than our m16 variant and m855 combo as military rifles and not to a small degree!
For the people who didn't catch that I kinda like AK's from me talking about my ridiculous ak tooling and literature dragon horde this should clear up that I really like AK's and their various offshoots.
2. The AK is not cheap or easy to manufacture! As of 2018 today and with variation dependent upon specific new model you're talking about, the Russian military is paying between $1000 & $1300 each for new build AK's of various stripes. (The rpk16 likely costs FAR MORE but there's no public information on what the Russian MOD pays for these) This is SUBSTANTIALLY more than a new m4a1 costs the US government or foreign governments. (But way less than the trash m27/hk416 because HK are pirates and the headlines from a year or so back about them ONLY charging $1500 per m27 was HK playing publicity games and lowering the price for as long as public scrutiny was on them then they promptly jacked the price back up.)
The point here though is that they're not even cheap to produce and the perception of them being such is based entirely on the Russians and others having massive stocks of them they surplused and also them being sold at a massive loss quite often.
3. Can you go blow a few thousand rounds with an AR pattern rifle in crappy field conditions and trust it to work with little to no maintenance?
Unfortunately the answer here is, if it's a rack grade built to government TDP spec m4 m4a1 or m16a4 then no you cannot. It will to some degree require more care (and spare parts like bolts especially if it's an m4/m4a1 because the carbine gas system makes the little bastard eat USGI spec bolts!)
Now, drop in a SOPMOD bolt upgrade kit, swap your carbine length gas system for a midlength gas system on 14.5" barrels, possibly go to a better than milspec bolt which will likely cost you less even, and you've definitely got the durability side locked down to a point where you can trust it more than an ak.
Go to an actual free float handguard preferably with MLOK and while you're at it switch to an extra large heat dissipating barrel nut because why not and you will actually save money over a RIS2 quad rail, lighten your gun a bunch, and drastically improve your guns usability and potential by eliminating the almost 30 moa of barrel deflection running a ris2 can induce in some shooting positions because it's not free float!
4. Battle rifle isn't a real term like you said. The reality is 7.62x51 individual rifles are just a generation behind 5.56 5.8 and 5.45 chambered individual weapons not a different concept. They are pre small caliber high velocity ammunition theory era "assault rifles" just like the AK which the Russians called a submachine gun for awhile even though their individual rifle fired the same round (sks).
This is just another proof that firearm terminology is downright nonsensical and or wonky as a cross eyed donkey more often than not just like the whole short stroke long stroke and DI operating system terminology situation me and OP somewhat discussed partially... You really want to see an example of this ask guys from 4 different countries what the difference between an LMG & a GPMG is (hide sharp objects first though because a brawl is about to happen!)
I'll cut this post off here but I have some other thoughts I'll wait to bring up dependent upon your reply to this and where you want to take the conversation.
Ok so this post deserves a more detailed response but I'm in the hospital with MRSA in one of the two heart valves I just had replaced in mid October so I'm gonna shotgun this a little.
1. The AK (and especially the 5.45x39 chambered and new generation ones!) are far from bad guns! In reality up until ammunition like mk318 mk262 and m855a1 and certain mods developed by both civilians and the military to the AR itseld came on the scene, the ak74m and 5.45x39 combination was just flat BETTER than our m16 variant and m855 combo as military rifles and not to a small degree!
For the people who didn't catch that I kinda like AK's from me talking about my ridiculous ak tooling and literature dragon horde this should clear up that I really like AK's and their various offshoots.
2. The AK is not cheap or easy to manufacture! As of 2018 today and with variation dependent upon specific new model you're talking about, the Russian military is paying between $1000 & $1300 each for new build AK's of various stripes. (The rpk16 likely costs FAR MORE but there's no public information on what the Russian MOD pays for these) This is SUBSTANTIALLY more than a new m4a1 costs the US government or foreign governments. (But way less than the trash m27/hk416 because HK are pirates and the headlines from a year or so back about them ONLY charging $1500 per m27 was HK playing publicity games and lowering the price for as long as public scrutiny was on them then they promptly jacked the price back up.)
The point here though is that they're not even cheap to produce and the perception of them being such is based entirely on the Russians and others having massive stocks of them they surplused and also them being sold at a massive loss quite often.
3. Can you go blow a few thousand rounds with an AR pattern rifle in crappy field conditions and trust it to work with little to no maintenance?
Unfortunately the answer here is, if it's a rack grade built to government TDP spec m4 m4a1 or m16a4 then no you cannot. It will to some degree require more care (and spare parts like bolts especially if it's an m4/m4a1 because the carbine gas system makes the little bastard eat USGI spec bolts!)
Now, drop in a SOPMOD bolt upgrade kit, swap your carbine length gas system for a midlength gas system on 14.5" barrels, possibly go to a better than milspec bolt which will likely cost you less even, and you've definitely got the durability side locked down to a point where you can trust it more than an ak.
Go to an actual free float handguard preferably with MLOK and while you're at it switch to an extra large heat dissipating barrel nut because why not and you will actually save money over a RIS2 quad rail, lighten your gun a bunch, and drastically improve your guns usability and potential by eliminating the almost 30 moa of barrel deflection running a ris2 can induce in some shooting positions because it's not free float!
4. Battle rifle isn't a real term like you said. The reality is 7.62x51 individual rifles are just a generation behind 5.56 5.8 and 5.45 chambered individual weapons not a different concept. They are pre small caliber high velocity ammunition theory era "assault rifles" just like the AK which the Russians called a submachine gun for awhile even though their individual rifle fired the same round (sks).
This is just another proof that firearm terminology is downright nonsensical and or wonky as a cross eyed donkey more often than not just like the whole short stroke long stroke and DI operating system terminology situation me and OP somewhat discussed partially... You really want to see an example of this ask guys from 4 different countries what the difference between an LMG & a GPMG is (hide sharp objects first though because a brawl is about to happen!)
I'll cut this post off here but I have some other thoughts I'll wait to bring up dependent upon your reply to this and where you want to take the conversation.
a reply to: asabuvsobelow
Just so you know, the m4a1 is basically fully fielded at this point and it's S 1 A...
Thankfully they've finally ditched the horrific m16a2 3 setting 4 different trigger pull abortion of an FCG and our guys once again use their trigger finger for burst control as God and Hiram maxim intended!
(Not to mention that if you are gonna have a burst setting its been scientifically proven that you're much better off with a 5-7 round burst at typical assault rifle cyclic rates because at 3 rounds the last 2 rounds of your burst are all but guaranteed to represent the furthest a user will be off target consistently!
On that note the cyclic rates of the m16 and almost every other current military GI rifle out there right now are in a well known for decades kinematic ergonomic and human factors "dead zone" that exists between 10 and 20 hertz i (rounds per second and or 600-1200 rounds per minute).
You are far better off because of human reaction time and multiple other factors having a cyclic rate under 600 or over 1200 rpm than anywhere in this range. This is part of the secret of James Sullivan's "constant recoil" concept he used in his ultimax machine gun design (as well as his AR/m16 deep update kits of various stripes and his new MG X design) that makes it so much better to fire accurately etc which is not publicly mentioned basically ever.
As to the suppressor and suppressed GI gun thing...
There are multiple ways to skin that cat, a piston system being one of them though honestly even SOCOM isn't actually going to put enough rounds through their guns between chances to at least do a perfunctory good enough cleaning of their gun's insides unless something has gone horrifically wrong and yet somehow they've managed to get ammo resupply on the fly!
In addition to that, your can is gonna absolutely need cleaning before your gun insides are if you are practicing the CLP douche and occasional boresnake preventive maintenance plan by a massive enough margin that you'd be all but guaranteed to start seeing baffle strikes and suppressor shooting off guns before guns started going down!
Now, go to a short enough barrel length (quite a bit shorter than even a mk18 barrel, ridiculously you shouldn't be using 5.56 for this application short in truth!) And piston becomes the way to go though even if it's in those other calibers.
But even in the whole always on suppressor scenario provided you aren't running ridiculously short barrels there's a whole host of things you can do to make the DI AR at least as good and often outright better wrt suppressor operations and cleaning that the DOD just does not do because they suck and they hate their employees!
Sadly, making people obsessively detail clean their guns and on a far too frequent basis becomes an even bigger liability once you throw suppressor into the mix.
Also on the flipside of this the hk416/m27 is known for being gassy as hell and getting crudded up to the point of inducing stoppages incredibly quickly because it's a very poor implementation of a piston operating system so pistons aren't even a sure thing advantage wrt suppressors!
It gets worse for piston guns and suppressor use too because the actual expansion chamber and piston itself can and will crud up enough to cause stoppages in many cases at lower round counts than a DI AR will experience them due to receiver fouling. (and good luck fouling a gas tube) And trust me when I tell you you'd much rather pop a pivot pin and panic field expedient clean the inside of an AR upper/bcg at night in the dark under fire than disassembling cleaning and reassembling something like a 416 gas system AND popping the pivot pin and panic scrubbing the upper and bcg in the same conditions! (No dwell time remember? That means with a suppressor installed you're gonna foul the piss out of both your gas systems and receivers!)
Luckily for both piston and AR style DI guns though there's actually a whole suite of things that can be done to mitigate the increased fouling and gassing issues that suppressors can cause (the propellant gas and debris is also really not good to inhale etc) most of which apply equally to piston and DI military firearms.
And that, my friend, is really the issue here...
There's really no such thing as the "better" operating principle/system!
It is all purely a series of tradeoffs and engineering decisions made during the design and construction of each individual implementation of each operating system which determines whether THAT INDIVIDUAL DESIGN will be better or worse than any other individual design.
Truthfully it's an all around poor way to attempt to separate firearms designs into different categories period because the definition and usage of each label is poorly defined, inconsistently applied to different designs, and altogether too inconsistent to even be truly meaningful distinctions!
Guns like the hac-7 and AR15 are both prime examples of this truth be told. In the hac-7 you have a gas tube that runs to a "long stroke piston". In the AR you have exactly the same thing!
And yet their operating systems are quite different.
(Yes I know you take exception with the idea that the AR is piston operated but it really is and you could make a very good case for calling it a long stroke piston since the piston/bolt aren't returned to a "top dead center" ready to cycle again state until the camming surfaces engage on the return stroke of the bolt carrier.)
Conversely, we have the m1 carbine which is considered a short stroke piston even though it's piston is only mechanically returned to it's top dead center ready to fire position when the forward slide surface of the bolt carrier which extends under and past the front of the chamber pushes it back closed on return stroke.
Do you kinda see what I mean by the definitions and usage of the terms short & long stroke as well as DI are kinda useless to even separate guns into different categories now?
(Bonus weirdness, "TRUE" direct impingement gas systems literally squirt gas at a flat spot or indentation in the front of the bolt carrier as seen in the ag42 ljungman and mas 49 service rifles... Confusing right?!)
The definition and implementation situation is a part of what makes this conversation so frustrating and ultimately fruitless... We're arguing about something where the distinctions between item A and item B are functionally meaningless and thus neither of us can ever be "right".
Just so you know, the m4a1 is basically fully fielded at this point and it's S 1 A...
Thankfully they've finally ditched the horrific m16a2 3 setting 4 different trigger pull abortion of an FCG and our guys once again use their trigger finger for burst control as God and Hiram maxim intended!
(Not to mention that if you are gonna have a burst setting its been scientifically proven that you're much better off with a 5-7 round burst at typical assault rifle cyclic rates because at 3 rounds the last 2 rounds of your burst are all but guaranteed to represent the furthest a user will be off target consistently!
On that note the cyclic rates of the m16 and almost every other current military GI rifle out there right now are in a well known for decades kinematic ergonomic and human factors "dead zone" that exists between 10 and 20 hertz i (rounds per second and or 600-1200 rounds per minute).
You are far better off because of human reaction time and multiple other factors having a cyclic rate under 600 or over 1200 rpm than anywhere in this range. This is part of the secret of James Sullivan's "constant recoil" concept he used in his ultimax machine gun design (as well as his AR/m16 deep update kits of various stripes and his new MG X design) that makes it so much better to fire accurately etc which is not publicly mentioned basically ever.
As to the suppressor and suppressed GI gun thing...
There are multiple ways to skin that cat, a piston system being one of them though honestly even SOCOM isn't actually going to put enough rounds through their guns between chances to at least do a perfunctory good enough cleaning of their gun's insides unless something has gone horrifically wrong and yet somehow they've managed to get ammo resupply on the fly!
In addition to that, your can is gonna absolutely need cleaning before your gun insides are if you are practicing the CLP douche and occasional boresnake preventive maintenance plan by a massive enough margin that you'd be all but guaranteed to start seeing baffle strikes and suppressor shooting off guns before guns started going down!
Now, go to a short enough barrel length (quite a bit shorter than even a mk18 barrel, ridiculously you shouldn't be using 5.56 for this application short in truth!) And piston becomes the way to go though even if it's in those other calibers.
But even in the whole always on suppressor scenario provided you aren't running ridiculously short barrels there's a whole host of things you can do to make the DI AR at least as good and often outright better wrt suppressor operations and cleaning that the DOD just does not do because they suck and they hate their employees!
Sadly, making people obsessively detail clean their guns and on a far too frequent basis becomes an even bigger liability once you throw suppressor into the mix.
Also on the flipside of this the hk416/m27 is known for being gassy as hell and getting crudded up to the point of inducing stoppages incredibly quickly because it's a very poor implementation of a piston operating system so pistons aren't even a sure thing advantage wrt suppressors!
It gets worse for piston guns and suppressor use too because the actual expansion chamber and piston itself can and will crud up enough to cause stoppages in many cases at lower round counts than a DI AR will experience them due to receiver fouling. (and good luck fouling a gas tube) And trust me when I tell you you'd much rather pop a pivot pin and panic field expedient clean the inside of an AR upper/bcg at night in the dark under fire than disassembling cleaning and reassembling something like a 416 gas system AND popping the pivot pin and panic scrubbing the upper and bcg in the same conditions! (No dwell time remember? That means with a suppressor installed you're gonna foul the piss out of both your gas systems and receivers!)
Luckily for both piston and AR style DI guns though there's actually a whole suite of things that can be done to mitigate the increased fouling and gassing issues that suppressors can cause (the propellant gas and debris is also really not good to inhale etc) most of which apply equally to piston and DI military firearms.
And that, my friend, is really the issue here...
There's really no such thing as the "better" operating principle/system!
It is all purely a series of tradeoffs and engineering decisions made during the design and construction of each individual implementation of each operating system which determines whether THAT INDIVIDUAL DESIGN will be better or worse than any other individual design.
Truthfully it's an all around poor way to attempt to separate firearms designs into different categories period because the definition and usage of each label is poorly defined, inconsistently applied to different designs, and altogether too inconsistent to even be truly meaningful distinctions!
Guns like the hac-7 and AR15 are both prime examples of this truth be told. In the hac-7 you have a gas tube that runs to a "long stroke piston". In the AR you have exactly the same thing!
And yet their operating systems are quite different.
(Yes I know you take exception with the idea that the AR is piston operated but it really is and you could make a very good case for calling it a long stroke piston since the piston/bolt aren't returned to a "top dead center" ready to cycle again state until the camming surfaces engage on the return stroke of the bolt carrier.)
Conversely, we have the m1 carbine which is considered a short stroke piston even though it's piston is only mechanically returned to it's top dead center ready to fire position when the forward slide surface of the bolt carrier which extends under and past the front of the chamber pushes it back closed on return stroke.
Do you kinda see what I mean by the definitions and usage of the terms short & long stroke as well as DI are kinda useless to even separate guns into different categories now?
(Bonus weirdness, "TRUE" direct impingement gas systems literally squirt gas at a flat spot or indentation in the front of the bolt carrier as seen in the ag42 ljungman and mas 49 service rifles... Confusing right?!)
The definition and implementation situation is a part of what makes this conversation so frustrating and ultimately fruitless... We're arguing about something where the distinctions between item A and item B are functionally meaningless and thus neither of us can ever be "right".
a reply to: roguetechie
First, I'm sorry to hear of your heart condition. I hope you get well (and get out of there) soon! My sincerest of wishes are with you there! Hopefully this discussion is more therapeutic for you than the opposite. I will assume it is more therapeutic. With this in mind, I'd like to respond to one point (for now).
Regarding your item #2 (AK cost to manufacture), in order to have a more detailed discussion I think here we really have to make the distinction between milled AK receivers and stamped receivers. In my statements above, I was really referring to the latter and not the former. I would probably agree there isn't a whole lot of difference in the machining equipment requirements when comparing a milled AK receiver to that of a typical M4 type design, and given the economies of scale in 'western' production capabilities, one could probably make a credible argument the AK is in fact more expensive. However, I don't think the same can be said for stamped AK varieties. I would put forth these are much cheaper to manufacture in comparison, and require significantly less milling and machining capability.
That said, I've seen guys hammer together a stamped AK system (around a machined barrel of course) in their basement, and in countries like Afghanistan, kids are doing the same thing in back rooms of street markets. Are they quality firearms? Oh hell no, but they go bang pretty reliably. Are they moa accurate outside 50-100m? Nope, but a lot of times that doesn't really matter when you've got 15-20 guys shooting at you with one of those in a CQ or urban combat scenario. And this was kind of my point with the 'who, what, when and where' comment.
Regarding the costs of the AK to eastern block military's vs. the cost of the M4 to western military's I can't really argue your numbers because I don't have better statistics myself. I would only say that it is hard to compare apples to apples of dollar 'value' across the eastern and western military spectrum's. In other words, using $1 US dollar as the basis of comparison, $1 US dollar has a different value to the Russian military than the same dollar has to the US military. So, when we say something costs $1,000 dollars I'm not sure that figure means the same thing to the common Russian citizen as it does to a US citizen (I'm probably explaining this badly, but hopefully you see my point).
Oh, and don't even get me started about HK! Suffice to say, it would be hard to find a more arrogant bunch. So you'll get no disagreement from me on this subject. On a more comical note; I trust you have seen the..."HK. Because you suck. And we hate you."...piece which has been floating around for a while now. If not, it's a funny read if nothing else. Some elements have been challenged in some firearms circles, but the underpinning theme of the piece pretty much hits the 'X' ring. An entertaining read in any case.
Lastly, regarding terminology, and firearms discussions in general, heh, yeah they're kind of like the old saying about "opinions".
Anyway, great discussion and great information.
I hope you get well soon!
First, I'm sorry to hear of your heart condition. I hope you get well (and get out of there) soon! My sincerest of wishes are with you there! Hopefully this discussion is more therapeutic for you than the opposite. I will assume it is more therapeutic. With this in mind, I'd like to respond to one point (for now).
Regarding your item #2 (AK cost to manufacture), in order to have a more detailed discussion I think here we really have to make the distinction between milled AK receivers and stamped receivers. In my statements above, I was really referring to the latter and not the former. I would probably agree there isn't a whole lot of difference in the machining equipment requirements when comparing a milled AK receiver to that of a typical M4 type design, and given the economies of scale in 'western' production capabilities, one could probably make a credible argument the AK is in fact more expensive. However, I don't think the same can be said for stamped AK varieties. I would put forth these are much cheaper to manufacture in comparison, and require significantly less milling and machining capability.
That said, I've seen guys hammer together a stamped AK system (around a machined barrel of course) in their basement, and in countries like Afghanistan, kids are doing the same thing in back rooms of street markets. Are they quality firearms? Oh hell no, but they go bang pretty reliably. Are they moa accurate outside 50-100m? Nope, but a lot of times that doesn't really matter when you've got 15-20 guys shooting at you with one of those in a CQ or urban combat scenario. And this was kind of my point with the 'who, what, when and where' comment.
Regarding the costs of the AK to eastern block military's vs. the cost of the M4 to western military's I can't really argue your numbers because I don't have better statistics myself. I would only say that it is hard to compare apples to apples of dollar 'value' across the eastern and western military spectrum's. In other words, using $1 US dollar as the basis of comparison, $1 US dollar has a different value to the Russian military than the same dollar has to the US military. So, when we say something costs $1,000 dollars I'm not sure that figure means the same thing to the common Russian citizen as it does to a US citizen (I'm probably explaining this badly, but hopefully you see my point).
Oh, and don't even get me started about HK! Suffice to say, it would be hard to find a more arrogant bunch. So you'll get no disagreement from me on this subject. On a more comical note; I trust you have seen the..."HK. Because you suck. And we hate you."...piece which has been floating around for a while now. If not, it's a funny read if nothing else. Some elements have been challenged in some firearms circles, but the underpinning theme of the piece pretty much hits the 'X' ring. An entertaining read in any case.
Lastly, regarding terminology, and firearms discussions in general, heh, yeah they're kind of like the old saying about "opinions".
Anyway, great discussion and great information.
I hope you get well soon!
edit on 2/15/2020 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)
a reply to: asabuvsobelow
Oh oh!!!
Terribly sorry to double reply to this post of yours but I just caught the lancer mags thing at the end of your post!
Please do yourself a favor and save yourself some money by sticking to gen3 pmag's over the Lancers. The lancers actually don't last as long and will tend to start having feed issues as they age due to the join between the polymer body and metal feed lip area.
What they were attempting to do appears to make a whole lot of sense on paper but in my own and everybody I knows real world experience with their magazines it just doesn't work out quite like they wanted it to and eventually leads to issues which cause stoppages as they get older / reach high round counts fed through them.
Magazines are a wear item that need to be considered semi disposable when they start showing signs of wear my friend. If you do this it will save you much time heartache and frustration.
Oh oh!!!
Terribly sorry to double reply to this post of yours but I just caught the lancer mags thing at the end of your post!
Please do yourself a favor and save yourself some money by sticking to gen3 pmag's over the Lancers. The lancers actually don't last as long and will tend to start having feed issues as they age due to the join between the polymer body and metal feed lip area.
What they were attempting to do appears to make a whole lot of sense on paper but in my own and everybody I knows real world experience with their magazines it just doesn't work out quite like they wanted it to and eventually leads to issues which cause stoppages as they get older / reach high round counts fed through them.
Magazines are a wear item that need to be considered semi disposable when they start showing signs of wear my friend. If you do this it will save you much time heartache and frustration.
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
To clarify, I was in fact referring to stamped receiver AK's when I was talking about the cost and complexity of manufacturing though as milled AK receivers (and AK offshoots) are a whole other thing on their own. That said, you would be comically wrong in thinking that making a milled AK receiver is in any way equivalent to making AR receivers in cost complexity and machining requirements but for very understandable reasons which I'll do a quick dirty layout of for you because you'll likely find it interesting.
So first off there are two major differences between milled AK receivers and AR receivers.
These are:
1. AR receivers are aircraft aluminum and AK receivers are steel. Milling and etc of aluminum is much easier than steel even if the aluminum undergoes heat treat etc before you start your milling operations etc.
2. Milled AK receivers are milled from raw billets (essentially a slightly larger than receiver sized big rectangular hunk of steel) while the aluminum AR receivers are forged in a big automatic machine to what is known as near net shape. (Most of my AR's I have built have started out as a raw so-called 0% forging which I buy for $15 per lower and about $20 per upper through a company that gets it's 0% forging from the same place most of the major gun manufacturers get their forged 0% lowers. I then finish machining them to spec with my little CNC mill and a couple other nifty CNC tools I have some of which are home built small scale equivalents of what the big boys use) But between aluminum being far easier cheaper and faster to machine, the near net shape forging thing, and not needing to do heat treat etc... It's massively cheaper easier and faster to make AR receivers on an industrial scale than milled AK receivers.
So setting aside milled AK receivers though, it's still much more expensive to manufacture a stamped AK than an AR to an almost comical degree and this can best be illustrated/in some senses proven by looking at the offerings of a company called Palmetto state armory which mass manufactures both AR's and stamped AK's here in the US for the civilian market. If you peruse their site it very quickly becomes apparent that you can get a preassembled OR full AR parts kit for massively less than their AK offerings. The price differential is more than enough to simply put it off as their AR stuff being cheaper because they make and sell more of it.
It really is just plain cheaper and faster not only to physically make the parts but also even to assemble them into a fully functioning AR pattern gun than an AK pattern gun with a stamped receiver.
This has to do with the fact that the AR started off from the outset being specifically designed to have its parts made and toleranced for "automated screw machines and numeric control machining" and assembly by semi skilled workers rather than fully trained gunsmiths while the AK most emphatically was not.
Also, paradoxically, the combination of the stamped so cheap it's practically free receiver and the "use precision only where precision is absolutely required and everywhere else leave plenty of empty space/keep the tolerances as loose as possible" design ethic all but assures the AK will need a ton of hand fitting by very skilled personnel to be assembled. Unfortunately for the Russians labor costs and the square footage / large numbers of manual tools and machines you need to keep for the hand fitting of parts are a major %'age of manufacturing costs even in Russia! (And as evidenced by Palmetto state armory, Florida too!)
As far as the build it in caves thing... You don't have to tell me my friend!
Teenage me started out heat treating AK rails in disposable aluminum pie tin filled with burning dot3 brake fluid!
Its really kinda tricky bringing the you can build it in a cave thing into it too because, going with the most infamous example, many of the AK like objects coming out of places like the dara arms market near the Khyber pass in the Pakistani frontier zone which is essentially a semi autonomous pashtun ruled enclave you were seeing things that looked like AK's but were most often chambered for essentially 7.92x33 (the round the German stg43/mp43 assault rifle fired which is a bit milder and easier to cave build an action for) or even 7.62x25 tokarev which are not anywhere near as difficult to build actions for as even 7.62x39 even assuming you broadly follow the actual internal construction and operating system design and don't just make it look like it does.
That said, even when it comes to Dara the stereotypical image people get in their minds (and that dirt bag reporters continually reinforce to this day) is this image of an old tribal dude in a dirt floor but "using his feet as a vice while he hand stamps painstakingly recreated forged factory markings into his handmade Kalashnikov pattern rifle"...
Meanwhile what they SHOW YOU and claim to be this man's completely made by hand gun looks like a shockingly good and faithful reproduction of an actual factory AK!
Wanna know a secret though?
The boyos in places like dara have had things like Bridgeport knee mills and engine lathes tucked away in their REAL WORKSHOPS since, at latest, when the fight against the Soviets over the border started heating up which theyve been making their nice clone AK's etc on.
It's somewhat debatable whether these reporters are too stupid and lazy to catch onto the locals scamming them into believing master gunsmith Mohammed ibn footvice is really making damn near visually identical to factory AK'S or outright liars who don't mind pushing the agendas that such photos and claims are meant to push.
Honest guys like Miles Vining (a regular contributor to thefirearmblog.com owner of the silah report site and etc) who have been there themselves and are actually people of the gun will happily tell you about the shocking number of Haas and etc CNC vertical machining centers they got shown on their last trip there!
This is another part of what makes discussing this entire subject pretty hard in addition to all the other ways it's hard to discuss. There is truly massive incentive for various parties to willfully grossly misrepresent the actual state of things like illicit and craft manufacturing of firearms. Hell there's massive incentive to willfully misrepresent the true situation with legal industrial mass manufacturing of firearms too!
And in both cases people can and do egregiously misrepresent stuff for a variety of reasons that range from antigun politics to plain old marketing.
This entire subject is a minefield of bad information and deliberate misinformation and it's really not surprising that as a consequence even people who consider themselves "gun people" often have beliefs that don't actually match reality.
To clarify, I was in fact referring to stamped receiver AK's when I was talking about the cost and complexity of manufacturing though as milled AK receivers (and AK offshoots) are a whole other thing on their own. That said, you would be comically wrong in thinking that making a milled AK receiver is in any way equivalent to making AR receivers in cost complexity and machining requirements but for very understandable reasons which I'll do a quick dirty layout of for you because you'll likely find it interesting.
So first off there are two major differences between milled AK receivers and AR receivers.
These are:
1. AR receivers are aircraft aluminum and AK receivers are steel. Milling and etc of aluminum is much easier than steel even if the aluminum undergoes heat treat etc before you start your milling operations etc.
2. Milled AK receivers are milled from raw billets (essentially a slightly larger than receiver sized big rectangular hunk of steel) while the aluminum AR receivers are forged in a big automatic machine to what is known as near net shape. (Most of my AR's I have built have started out as a raw so-called 0% forging which I buy for $15 per lower and about $20 per upper through a company that gets it's 0% forging from the same place most of the major gun manufacturers get their forged 0% lowers. I then finish machining them to spec with my little CNC mill and a couple other nifty CNC tools I have some of which are home built small scale equivalents of what the big boys use) But between aluminum being far easier cheaper and faster to machine, the near net shape forging thing, and not needing to do heat treat etc... It's massively cheaper easier and faster to make AR receivers on an industrial scale than milled AK receivers.
So setting aside milled AK receivers though, it's still much more expensive to manufacture a stamped AK than an AR to an almost comical degree and this can best be illustrated/in some senses proven by looking at the offerings of a company called Palmetto state armory which mass manufactures both AR's and stamped AK's here in the US for the civilian market. If you peruse their site it very quickly becomes apparent that you can get a preassembled OR full AR parts kit for massively less than their AK offerings. The price differential is more than enough to simply put it off as their AR stuff being cheaper because they make and sell more of it.
It really is just plain cheaper and faster not only to physically make the parts but also even to assemble them into a fully functioning AR pattern gun than an AK pattern gun with a stamped receiver.
This has to do with the fact that the AR started off from the outset being specifically designed to have its parts made and toleranced for "automated screw machines and numeric control machining" and assembly by semi skilled workers rather than fully trained gunsmiths while the AK most emphatically was not.
Also, paradoxically, the combination of the stamped so cheap it's practically free receiver and the "use precision only where precision is absolutely required and everywhere else leave plenty of empty space/keep the tolerances as loose as possible" design ethic all but assures the AK will need a ton of hand fitting by very skilled personnel to be assembled. Unfortunately for the Russians labor costs and the square footage / large numbers of manual tools and machines you need to keep for the hand fitting of parts are a major %'age of manufacturing costs even in Russia! (And as evidenced by Palmetto state armory, Florida too!)
As far as the build it in caves thing... You don't have to tell me my friend!
Teenage me started out heat treating AK rails in disposable aluminum pie tin filled with burning dot3 brake fluid!
Its really kinda tricky bringing the you can build it in a cave thing into it too because, going with the most infamous example, many of the AK like objects coming out of places like the dara arms market near the Khyber pass in the Pakistani frontier zone which is essentially a semi autonomous pashtun ruled enclave you were seeing things that looked like AK's but were most often chambered for essentially 7.92x33 (the round the German stg43/mp43 assault rifle fired which is a bit milder and easier to cave build an action for) or even 7.62x25 tokarev which are not anywhere near as difficult to build actions for as even 7.62x39 even assuming you broadly follow the actual internal construction and operating system design and don't just make it look like it does.
That said, even when it comes to Dara the stereotypical image people get in their minds (and that dirt bag reporters continually reinforce to this day) is this image of an old tribal dude in a dirt floor but "using his feet as a vice while he hand stamps painstakingly recreated forged factory markings into his handmade Kalashnikov pattern rifle"...
Meanwhile what they SHOW YOU and claim to be this man's completely made by hand gun looks like a shockingly good and faithful reproduction of an actual factory AK!
Wanna know a secret though?
The boyos in places like dara have had things like Bridgeport knee mills and engine lathes tucked away in their REAL WORKSHOPS since, at latest, when the fight against the Soviets over the border started heating up which theyve been making their nice clone AK's etc on.
It's somewhat debatable whether these reporters are too stupid and lazy to catch onto the locals scamming them into believing master gunsmith Mohammed ibn footvice is really making damn near visually identical to factory AK'S or outright liars who don't mind pushing the agendas that such photos and claims are meant to push.
Honest guys like Miles Vining (a regular contributor to thefirearmblog.com owner of the silah report site and etc) who have been there themselves and are actually people of the gun will happily tell you about the shocking number of Haas and etc CNC vertical machining centers they got shown on their last trip there!
This is another part of what makes discussing this entire subject pretty hard in addition to all the other ways it's hard to discuss. There is truly massive incentive for various parties to willfully grossly misrepresent the actual state of things like illicit and craft manufacturing of firearms. Hell there's massive incentive to willfully misrepresent the true situation with legal industrial mass manufacturing of firearms too!
And in both cases people can and do egregiously misrepresent stuff for a variety of reasons that range from antigun politics to plain old marketing.
This entire subject is a minefield of bad information and deliberate misinformation and it's really not surprising that as a consequence even people who consider themselves "gun people" often have beliefs that don't actually match reality.
a reply to: roguetechie
Well, even though I've been shooting, collecting, instructing and reloading for in excess of nearly 50 years...you are clearly way out of my league when it comes to firearms manufacture! (and I'm not being sarcastic here either).
My only comment is, yes, I am very aware AK receivers are steel and AR's are aluminum. That fact was assumed, though I did not state it.
In any case, I am clearly not sufficiently qualified to participate further in this discussion.
Well, even though I've been shooting, collecting, instructing and reloading for in excess of nearly 50 years...you are clearly way out of my league when it comes to firearms manufacture! (and I'm not being sarcastic here either).
My only comment is, yes, I am very aware AK receivers are steel and AR's are aluminum. That fact was assumed, though I did not state it.
In any case, I am clearly not sufficiently qualified to participate further in this discussion.
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
All good man. I really like this subject and have invested way too much in time energy and resources into it.
There's an entire world of intrigue and stupidity lurking just below the surface of the firearms world that is both fascinating and horrifying.
All good man. I really like this subject and have invested way too much in time energy and resources into it.
There's an entire world of intrigue and stupidity lurking just below the surface of the firearms world that is both fascinating and horrifying.
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
In any case, I am clearly not sufficiently qualified to participate further in this discussion.
I to concede , My knowledge comes from Military experience and recreational shooting and also a love for firearms in general.
But I in know way have an encyclopedic knowledge like Mr.Roguetechie , BUT! I still say Pistons are better . I would have killed for a Barret REC 7 while I was in the Military.
a reply to: roguetechie
Well, you know about it far better than I do.
I'll just be good with being "comically wrong"...if I go further it might be worse.
Nice conversation, but like I said...you are far smarter than I am.
I yield to you.
All the best!
Well, you know about it far better than I do.
I'll just be good with being "comically wrong"...if I go further it might be worse.
Nice conversation, but like I said...you are far smarter than I am.
I yield to you.
All the best!
edit on 2/15/2020 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)
a reply to: asabuvsobelow
I've never had a chance to play with a REC7 but I have no doubt it's a solid firearm and I'm a huge fan of the Barrett m240LW and LWS.
You guys really do make some fair points and once upon a time I was a piston or nothing guy myself. (I hang my head when I admit this but I was also a 6.5mm general purpose cartridge rabid fanboy too!)
It was only after some incredibly knowledgeable dudes mocked me mercilessly for having bad opinions and telling me I should feel bad for having them and then pointing me to arcane reports and dusty tomes telling me only that the answers were somewhere in the 300 page pdf I was now looking at in order to force me to read the whole thing if I wanted to know why I was "stupid".
It had a huge effect on me and sucked me deep into learning the history and context behind controversial guns and the decisions that made them that way.
This process I was put through colored how I respond in threads like these pretty majority.
That said, I just want to make it clear that there's no hard feelings on my part and I genuinely hope I didn't upset or offend anyone with my own abrasive style of posting.
I've genuinely enjoyed this conversation with you guys because I absolutely love the subject matter and light up at any chance I get to engage in down and dirty conversations about the real nitty gritty aspects of weapons design and history.
Thanks guys
I've never had a chance to play with a REC7 but I have no doubt it's a solid firearm and I'm a huge fan of the Barrett m240LW and LWS.
You guys really do make some fair points and once upon a time I was a piston or nothing guy myself. (I hang my head when I admit this but I was also a 6.5mm general purpose cartridge rabid fanboy too!)
It was only after some incredibly knowledgeable dudes mocked me mercilessly for having bad opinions and telling me I should feel bad for having them and then pointing me to arcane reports and dusty tomes telling me only that the answers were somewhere in the 300 page pdf I was now looking at in order to force me to read the whole thing if I wanted to know why I was "stupid".
It had a huge effect on me and sucked me deep into learning the history and context behind controversial guns and the decisions that made them that way.
This process I was put through colored how I respond in threads like these pretty majority.
That said, I just want to make it clear that there's no hard feelings on my part and I genuinely hope I didn't upset or offend anyone with my own abrasive style of posting.
I've genuinely enjoyed this conversation with you guys because I absolutely love the subject matter and light up at any chance I get to engage in down and dirty conversations about the real nitty gritty aspects of weapons design and history.
Thanks guys
originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: asabuvsobelow
I've never had a chance to play with a REC7 but I have no doubt it's a solid firearm and I'm a huge fan of the Barrett m240LW and LWS.
You guys really do make some fair points and once upon a time I was a piston or nothing guy myself. (I hang my head when I admit this but I was also a 6.5mm general purpose cartridge rabid fanboy too!)
It was only after some incredibly knowledgeable dudes mocked me mercilessly for having bad opinions and telling me I should feel bad for having them and then pointing me to arcane reports and dusty tomes telling me only that the answers were somewhere in the 300 page pdf I was now looking at in order to force me to read the whole thing if I wanted to know why I was "stupid".
It had a huge effect on me and sucked me deep into learning the history and context behind controversial guns and the decisions that made them that way.
This process I was put through colored how I respond in threads like these pretty majority.
That said, I just want to make it clear that there's no hard feelings on my part and I genuinely hope I didn't upset or offend anyone with my own abrasive style of posting.
I've genuinely enjoyed this conversation with you guys because I absolutely love the subject matter and light up at any chance I get to engage in down and dirty conversations about the real nitty gritty aspects of weapons design and history.
Thanks guys
When I was around 6-7 years old I swore that one day I'd design a replacement for the M16/AR15 so my dad wouldn't have to ever worry about a malfunction etc. when they were in the military.
1. After a lifetime of studying I failed. (The only truly NEW action I ever designed was basically worst than every automatic action in existence).
2. Everything I learned, every myth I had to break down, every piece of misinformation I studied, lead me to pretty much the exact same conclusions as you roguetechie. I normally just hold my tongue cause I don't want to have to type a novel explaining all the tradeoffs and limitations of difference platforms, especially the AK & AR myths, most of which have been beaten to death.
So good job to you sir. Keep spreading your solid information, cause I aint got the energy.
edit on 16-2-2020 by CobaltCPD because:
Improvements
a reply to: asabuvsobelow
Having used the m4 in afganistan i will say its far better than anything the enemy had. The rounds are far more lethal than the 7.62. When your in combat the more rounds you can carry the better its not always easy to get a resupply of ammunition so the more you can carry the better. And size and weight matters especially in places like Afganistan.
Now i was reading everyones opinions wants to claim they jam etc. They dont unless your a fool and try to run them wet. Yes ive seen idiots try to use oil thinking they are somehow improving things. They are meant to run dry thats why in a desert they have few problems other than having to periodically change out the bolt do to wear and tear. In 4 years deployment had that happen twice.
So to wrap up my ramblings i would take an m4 over an AK any day if the week. I put thousands of rounds even with suppressors without jams as long as you properly clean your weapon. The early version of m16s had problems and there was also training issues. Lets face it during nam etc they didnt clean them properly. Im sure the rail guides they added helped alot as well. Now i will discuss the AK for a second since i have seen their effectiveness as well.
The AKs jam much more more often and when they do very difficult to clear. You can tell when their AKs jam sounds like a hammer hitting a steel plate. Other problem is they tended to use full auto and warp the barrels you wouldnt believe some of the weapons we captured so accuracy is just non existent with an AK. If we were more than 100 meters out odds were good they would miss we didnt. Now lets cover lethality a second i was in spc forces as a medic. And it was much easier to patch someone up who was hit by a 7.62. The bullets tend to enter the front exit the back. Finding the exit wound is not difficult. However get hit with a 5.56 and you have no clue where the exit wound might be. I have seen people hit in the leg and it exits out their back or arm and it comes out their neck. As far as body damage the 5.56 creates much more trauma.
So give me the m4 all day long it has proven itself to be superior to an AK. Yeah you may wear out bolts but they are easy to replace and it takes alot of wear before you have to. But the whole time the m4 will hit what you aim at the same cannot be said for the AK.
Having used the m4 in afganistan i will say its far better than anything the enemy had. The rounds are far more lethal than the 7.62. When your in combat the more rounds you can carry the better its not always easy to get a resupply of ammunition so the more you can carry the better. And size and weight matters especially in places like Afganistan.
Now i was reading everyones opinions wants to claim they jam etc. They dont unless your a fool and try to run them wet. Yes ive seen idiots try to use oil thinking they are somehow improving things. They are meant to run dry thats why in a desert they have few problems other than having to periodically change out the bolt do to wear and tear. In 4 years deployment had that happen twice.
So to wrap up my ramblings i would take an m4 over an AK any day if the week. I put thousands of rounds even with suppressors without jams as long as you properly clean your weapon. The early version of m16s had problems and there was also training issues. Lets face it during nam etc they didnt clean them properly. Im sure the rail guides they added helped alot as well. Now i will discuss the AK for a second since i have seen their effectiveness as well.
The AKs jam much more more often and when they do very difficult to clear. You can tell when their AKs jam sounds like a hammer hitting a steel plate. Other problem is they tended to use full auto and warp the barrels you wouldnt believe some of the weapons we captured so accuracy is just non existent with an AK. If we were more than 100 meters out odds were good they would miss we didnt. Now lets cover lethality a second i was in spc forces as a medic. And it was much easier to patch someone up who was hit by a 7.62. The bullets tend to enter the front exit the back. Finding the exit wound is not difficult. However get hit with a 5.56 and you have no clue where the exit wound might be. I have seen people hit in the leg and it exits out their back or arm and it comes out their neck. As far as body damage the 5.56 creates much more trauma.
So give me the m4 all day long it has proven itself to be superior to an AK. Yeah you may wear out bolts but they are easy to replace and it takes alot of wear before you have to. But the whole time the m4 will hit what you aim at the same cannot be said for the AK.
a reply to: dragonridr
Lololol
I just want to tag flying clay disk and as above to make sure they read what you said...
Especially the part where you mentioned being a Specops medic and thus benefiting from guns with the SOPMOD bolt kit! (I'm telling ya kids that bolt kit is almost magic!)
You also brought up a very good point I had forgotten about AK stoppages having this tendency to be either ultimately basic rack the bolt easy to fix OR I need an old priest a young priest and the blood of 6 virgins / an 8 pound rock to beat this stuck round out of the gun bad!
I found your comments on running the gun drier interesting and sorta not meshing with my experience until I reached out to a buddy who explained patiently to me a couple things...
The more you know I guess
Lololol
I just want to tag flying clay disk and as above to make sure they read what you said...
Especially the part where you mentioned being a Specops medic and thus benefiting from guns with the SOPMOD bolt kit! (I'm telling ya kids that bolt kit is almost magic!)
You also brought up a very good point I had forgotten about AK stoppages having this tendency to be either ultimately basic rack the bolt easy to fix OR I need an old priest a young priest and the blood of 6 virgins / an 8 pound rock to beat this stuck round out of the gun bad!
I found your comments on running the gun drier interesting and sorta not meshing with my experience until I reached out to a buddy who explained patiently to me a couple things...
The more you know I guess
a reply to: CobaltCPD
Yeah, I still play with designs and modifications quite a bit but like you I've concluded it's probably not my lot in life to design the next world beater combat rifle.
And thanks i appreciate the feedback on my little one whackjob crusade to defend the armalite's honor. I really did start off hating the gun and thinking it was absolutely terrible once upon a time. Even after I started doing the reading and experimenting I fought for years to still believe armalite pattern guns were terrible and that I somehow just had freakishly good luck with every AR I touched.
Yeah, I still play with designs and modifications quite a bit but like you I've concluded it's probably not my lot in life to design the next world beater combat rifle.
And thanks i appreciate the feedback on my little one whackjob crusade to defend the armalite's honor. I really did start off hating the gun and thinking it was absolutely terrible once upon a time. Even after I started doing the reading and experimenting I fought for years to still believe armalite pattern guns were terrible and that I somehow just had freakishly good luck with every AR I touched.
a reply to: roguetechie
Totally with you on that. The more I learned the more it made sense.
In the gun world myths are incredibly pervasive. I'll bet you know of one classic one, the actual reviews/reports on the M14. It still has its defenders despite the cold reality of its performance limitations.
Then getting into AK vs AR myths just plain hurts. Especially those involving reliability involving both platforms.
That said I don't suspect their will be a major improvement over our current firearms, the future of combat belongs to drones. The battlefield itself has always been at the mercy of artillery.
Totally with you on that. The more I learned the more it made sense.
In the gun world myths are incredibly pervasive. I'll bet you know of one classic one, the actual reviews/reports on the M14. It still has its defenders despite the cold reality of its performance limitations.
Then getting into AK vs AR myths just plain hurts. Especially those involving reliability involving both platforms.
That said I don't suspect their will be a major improvement over our current firearms, the future of combat belongs to drones. The battlefield itself has always been at the mercy of artillery.
a reply to: dragonridr
You make some interesting points .
Interesting I often heard this exact statement during my years in the Army , though I can say this was not my expieriance in reality but to each there own. The selector switch on an AK goes safe , auto, single, meaning if a fire fight kicks off the guy holding the AK has a tendency to panic throwing the selector switch all the way down which is why Single shot is the bottom selection so the guy shooting the AK doesn't dump the entire magazine on Full Auto soon as the fire fight kicks off. Which is why most of the AK's we stumbled across were on Single not full Auto, and I never saw an AK with a bent barrel that I can recall that is .
Again that is a statement I often heard while in the Army and I can say I never saw that in reality but I do know that 5.56 does have a tendeny to tumble once it hits a soft target , that or pass straight through. As far as running an M4 "wet" in desert conditions, that is just plain terrible the silt and sand gets in causing the weapon to sound like sand paper , and eventually fail . In my Company we were taught to leave a little carbon build up on the bolt and to use oil in very very specific spots on the bolt. I personally never saw an AK with a bent barrel but I don't doubt it happend , I recall seeing locals use them as walking sticks through the mountains.
And as far as the lethality of a 7.62x39 on soft targets , its heavy , slow and the bullet itself would malform or even mushroom if you will when it hit soft targets , not unlike a JHP. To my memory the round had no problem inflicting plenty of damage but then again I wasn't a medic . The AK-47's used in country by the locals were handed down from person to person to person used simply untill they stopped working neglected to the point of insanity, so finding one jammed on mission or after an engagement was not uncommon.
You make some interesting points .
Other problem is they tended to use full auto and warp the barrels you wouldnt believe some of the weapons we captured so accuracy is just non existent with an AK. If we were more than 100 meters out odds were good they would miss we didnt.
Interesting I often heard this exact statement during my years in the Army , though I can say this was not my expieriance in reality but to each there own. The selector switch on an AK goes safe , auto, single, meaning if a fire fight kicks off the guy holding the AK has a tendency to panic throwing the selector switch all the way down which is why Single shot is the bottom selection so the guy shooting the AK doesn't dump the entire magazine on Full Auto soon as the fire fight kicks off. Which is why most of the AK's we stumbled across were on Single not full Auto, and I never saw an AK with a bent barrel that I can recall that is .
I have seen people hit in the leg and it exits out their back or arm and it comes out their neck. As far as body damage the 5.56 creates much more trauma.
Again that is a statement I often heard while in the Army and I can say I never saw that in reality but I do know that 5.56 does have a tendeny to tumble once it hits a soft target , that or pass straight through. As far as running an M4 "wet" in desert conditions, that is just plain terrible the silt and sand gets in causing the weapon to sound like sand paper , and eventually fail . In my Company we were taught to leave a little carbon build up on the bolt and to use oil in very very specific spots on the bolt. I personally never saw an AK with a bent barrel but I don't doubt it happend , I recall seeing locals use them as walking sticks through the mountains.
And as far as the lethality of a 7.62x39 on soft targets , its heavy , slow and the bullet itself would malform or even mushroom if you will when it hit soft targets , not unlike a JHP. To my memory the round had no problem inflicting plenty of damage but then again I wasn't a medic . The AK-47's used in country by the locals were handed down from person to person to person used simply untill they stopped working neglected to the point of insanity, so finding one jammed on mission or after an engagement was not uncommon.
edit on 16-2-2020 by asabuvsobelow because: mis spell
new topics
top topics
-
Plane Crash in South Korea
Mainstream News: 14 hours ago, 11 flags -
Cutting Boards
Food and Cooking: 17 hours ago, 10 flags
active topics
-
Evidence of Covid-19 Vaccine Dangers -and- Possible Covid-19 Vaccine Induced Deaths.
Diseases and Pandemics • 175 • : Oldcarpy2 -
Why Such An Uproar Over Non-US Citizens With H1-B Work Visas.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 56 • : WeMustCare -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3841 • : Thoughtful3 -
Plane Crash Today --Azerbaijanian E190 passenger jet
Mainstream News • 70 • : WeMustCare -
Plane Crash in South Korea
Mainstream News • 17 • : WeMustCare -
Mexico Plans Alert App For Migrants Facing Arrest In US
Mainstream News • 10 • : WeMustCare -
New York Governor signs Climate Law that Fines Fossil Fuel Companies
US Political Madness • 35 • : Irishhaf -
Cutting Boards
Food and Cooking • 8 • : butcherguy -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News • 111 • : Solvedit -
Kurakhove officially falls. Russia takes control of major logistics hub city in the southeast.
World War Three • 26 • : Oldcarpy2