Comparsion of assault rifles

I should note that the weapon thats in the pic of ur link is NOT a stoner 63 (otherwise know as the mk-23 mod 0 of Vietnam fame).

In fact that weapon is an Ares Shrike(www.aresdefense.com...); the shrike is a modular weapon developped by using a modified lower receiver of an M-4, adapted with an upper receiver and barrel developped by the Ares corp. The weapon was offered to the navy Seals during Afganistan in lieu of the FN MK-46 mod 0 LMG. It saw limited action with members of the teams.


Stoner 63




Stoner 63 LMG





Ares Shrike LMG









the only thing in common between the 2 weapons is the fact that the shrike can use the belts developped for the MK-23 mod 0 from the vietnam era.

[Edited on 5-1-2004 by GabRaz]

These weapons work in -40 c without any problems..
(Ive actually [been forced] fired these weapons in -35/37c.. and it worked just like in the summer.. but i didnt..

)

so true my friend, so true

The only bad thing about RK95 is that it is not produced anymore. When beretta bought sako it threw rk95's productionline out of factory and what i have heard those machines still stand at the backyard of the factory in rain and snow. rusted to uselessnes.

In fact FDF has started retro fitting rk62s with folding buttocks, because they got very few rk95s . Used one of those things in army.

Steyr AUG A3 in Sniper configuration, with heavier and longer 20inch barrel, detachable bipod and long-range telescopic sight
thats if u havent said it allready

Originally posted by SectorGaza
change the ak-74 to Nikonov AN-94 "Abakan" assault rifle? and add the israeli Tavor assault rifle

Why would he change an AK-74 for an AN-94? AK-74 has fewer moving parts to break, and reliability has always been it's strongest point.

nenothtu out

Originally posted by jetsetter
So, what do you guys think of the M-14. I like it. I believe that it is still used by the Navy SEALS.

M-14 is a good gun, and is still used by various SpecOps types, primarily as a sniper weapon, but it's not strictly speaking an "assault rifle".

nenothtu out

Do not use the term "assault rifle." It's a psychological description intended to make the public believe that the tool is intended to commit some kind of assault on a human being.


"Assault rifles" are nothing special when you compare them to any real hunting rifle. If you're going to hunt a deer, the minimum power you can legally hunt with is 50% more powerful than what the M16 fires. (.243 Winchester vs. .223 Remington)

Compare the silly little .223 used in the M16 to a real game cartridge, like a .375 H&H, and you're talking about something 3 1/2 times more powerful.

The 30-round magazines you find on "military" weapons are not that much of an advantage, either. Many handguns can shoot 15 rounds, and with a quick reload of the clip, you have another 15.


Just because you paint a gun black, give it laser beams, flashlights, or call it an assault rifle doesn't make it any more deadly than a ho-hum deer rifle.






But, while we're on the topic, I'd have to put my two cents in and say that if I needed something I could bet my life on I'd go with an AK (47 or 74) or the H&K G3. Sure, there are lots of other guns out there with advantages, but for me, I want cheap, available ammo and a gun that fires no matter what.




[edit on 2-2-2009 by username371]

reply to post by username371


"Assault rifle" is a legitimate term, referring to a select-fire intermediate caliber weapon. (Like everything besides the M-14 mentioned in this thread) They're distinct from automatic rifles like the G3, M14, or FAL, which are select-fire rifles chambered for full rifle rounds.


EDIT: now the term "Assault weapon" is generally media hyped bullcrap. But that's something else entirely.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by mdiinican]

I'd suggest switching AN-94 with AEK-971/973 or AK-107.

But then again, AK-74M does not need any replacement at the moment. It is a good enough weapon already, and there is no radical improvement available yet.