Assault Rifle Shoot-off - XM8 still in? [Archive]

Chulo

09-24-2007, 02:24 PM

The big dust test of three piston-driven ARs against the M4 carbine are on hold until sample Mk16 SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) can be delivered. They are now expected in December. The test had originally been scheduled to begin last month.

The SCAR sample models, which are still in development, will not be delivered until December, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the commander of Program Executive Office Soldier, told Army Times recently. Brown said the tests will begin when all 10 sample models of each weapon are present. The test will feature weapons officials shooting 6,000 rounds though each weapon under sandstorm conditions.
Weapons officials from PEO Soldier scheduled the tests to be performed at Army Test and Evaluation Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July. Coburn began questioning the Army more than four months ago about its plans to spend $375 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009. Lighter and more compact than the M16 rifle, the M4 is more effective for the close confines of urban combat. The Army began fielding the M4 in the mid-1990s.
Coburn questioned the M4's "long-standing reliability" problems in his original April 12 letter and asked if the Army had considered newer, possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.
The weapons will be exposed to sandstorm-like conditions and then fired. Ten samples of each weapons will each have 6,000 rounds fired through it over the course of the five month test. The Army agreed to conduct the tests after Sen. Coburn threatened to hold up Army Secretary Peter Geren's confirmation earlier this year.
The weapons going up against the M4 are:

Mk 16 SCAR-L by FHN USA
HK416 by Heckler & Koch
XM8 by Heckler & KochYes, you read that right. The XM8 is in on this, though I don't expect anything to change regarding that program even if it were to win the competition.
I would have liked to see something from LWRC (http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/004468.html) in on this, too.
What Murdoc would really like is some feedback from readers about this competition. Does it sound valuable? Fair? Should changes be in order if the M4 performs poorly? Will you trust the results?
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/army_rifletest_070920/
www.murdoconline.com (http://www.murdoconline.com)
while the article is about the postponment of the shoot off, im more supprised of the XM8 still being considred.. i guess they made some changes or something

evanfitz

09-24-2007, 02:30 PM

Better have good reasons for it :0 (I didn't realise it was Heckler & Koch)

I'm personally rooting for the HK416

KillerBD

09-24-2007, 02:33 PM

For ****s and giggles they should just throw in an AK-101. Since they are looking for another AR to shoot the 5.56x45mm bullet anyway.... Would make sense to me... Not to mention the AK-101 is probly just as good and cheaper than the other competitors. fyi there is no need to start giving me crap about how the AK-101 isn't made in the U.S..... becuz neither are any of those other competitors... Afterall if the U.S. adopts one we will probly just make our own licenced copy of it here in the States.

-my lousy 2cents.

nullterm

09-24-2007, 02:39 PM

SMGLee

09-24-2007, 02:46 PM

how much you want to bet that the Army is going to continue to buy the M4s?

This test will proof nothing, but spend more $$ to keep politician happy.

The green machine is not going to be happy with just a HK 416 or a LWRC, and the XM8 has proven to be nothing but failure, only chopice land with the SCAR, but in the end, the Army will mostly likely find the M4 to be capable of sustaining combat through 2009.

They want a new gun, not just some upgrade, they don't want to start buying the 416 and end up with another M16 series for the next 20 years.

SCAR has the best chance, but for this round, the M4 will still rule the day. maybe down the line, when deployment of the SCAR has proven to be successful with SOCOM, maybe then army might buy into this, but then again, you never know what the next few years will bring us. new ammo and new delivery system are in a ever changing state as we speak.

scrybe

09-24-2007, 03:53 PM

Lee, slightly off topic, but was the MP Masada ever intended to compete in this selection process?

maple.leaf

09-24-2007, 05:31 PM

there is no need to start giving me crap about how the AK-101 isn't made in the U.S..... becuz neither are any of those other competitors...

Actually the 416 and the XM8 are made in the US. They made by HK-USA located in Virginia.

8thidpathfinderpower

09-24-2007, 05:43 PM

I am with that post earlier which stated that the M4/16 series will rule the day.

The Army, no matter how stupid the brass seems, usually never back down from a multi-billion dollar program..alth they did that to the DIVAD in the 80's.

But, I just do not see that happening.

ABNINF

09-24-2007, 06:45 PM

GrinchWSLG

09-24-2007, 06:45 PM

Wouldn't adopting the 416 just require the Army to switch out the uppers? I mean, that seems like the cheapest and easiest solution, aside from keeping the M4.

Herrmannek

09-24-2007, 07:09 PM

I like the Ak-101 suggestion. But it's a political issue.

Its not political. USA will not even consider anything that have differen't ergonomics than m16/m4. Fire selectros, mag relseases and so on must work on the new weapon as it worked on the m16/m4. US is pretty clear aboout this. XM8 was designed with this in mind, so it only expanded ergonomics of m16. Any AK alike is rifle is automaticaly ruled out of competitions because of that.

MoFo

09-24-2007, 07:12 PM

I think the mi16 is better then the AK47.

Freibier

09-24-2007, 07:41 PM

Actually the 416 and the XM8 are made in the US. They made by HK-USA located in Virginia.
No, they're not.

SMGLee

09-24-2007, 07:42 PM

Wouldn't adopting the 416 just require the Army to switch out the uppers? I mean, that seems like the cheapest and easiest solution, aside from keeping the M4.

and get stuck with another M16 series for another 20 years? Not going to happen!

deagle

09-24-2007, 07:46 PM

i think its smart of HK to still put out the xm8. it shows their confidence that all this time, they still believe its the best fire-arm out there. i think they should also throw in a hk416 to show off the improvements over the typical m4, b/c it will most likely not pass the sandstorm test.

if the US cant fund a complete overhaul, perhaps it can still purchase the modifying kits for 416 upgrade ; this way, they can still develop the m4 but also get upgraded. spending half our home-grown weaps (m4 made in usa) and other putting other half towards a german company is better than spending it all to them.

Personally, teh xm8 seems like a very good choice...lots of interchanability/compatibilty/versatility (the mg variant gunner would bascially handle the same weapon as the basic rifle version, and feel more comfortable). unlike now, whereas a SAW gunner might feel weird with m4/m16.

it seems like the logical front-runner over the touted SCAR, but it doesn't have as versatility i think.

ShakesFIST

09-24-2007, 09:21 PM

Personally, teh xm8 seems like a very good choice...lots of interchanability/compatibilty/versatility (the mg variant gunner would bascially handle the same weapon as the basic rifle version, and feel more comfortable). unlike now, whereas a SAW gunner might feel weird with m4/m16.

Actually out of the weapons listed the M8 is probably the least compatible/versatile/interchangeable.

Why would a SAW gunner feel weird with an M4?

KillerBD

09-24-2007, 09:25 PM

No, they're not.

Yea I found that hard to believe as well.... Espcially since HK is a German company and most of the new guns and whatever that are originally built by HK are made in Germany then they send them to "outlet" like "stores" in the U.S. so they can show off their new stuff to the U.S. government (at least thats how I understand it).

As for the AK-101 or other AK models (Poland knows how to make a good 5.56mm AK, the Beryl) not being accepted I really think it boils down more to politics than ergonomic issues.

Durandal

09-25-2007, 10:48 AM

*chuckle*

Politics, procurement, and C0¢k sucking...

Welcome to the world of the Defense Industry and the U.S. military.

We have a military program, that is looking for candidates to test a weapon platform designed to replace an existing weapon that works using the same caliber of munitions that would, most argue be the real element of the problem.

One should ask what is Mr. Brig. Gen. Mark Brown going to get from FN by deliberately delaying the test because they were unable to produce a viable, working, testable platform.

I bet dude gets a nice corner office after he retires.

GrinchWSLG

09-25-2007, 10:58 AM

and get stuck with another M16 series for another 20 years? Not going to happen!

Care to explain that? The 416 upper and M16 upper only appear the same from the outside, completely different on the inside. Just because it looks the same doesn't mean it isn't better.

Chops

09-25-2007, 11:00 AM

Dude, situational awareness. Lee knows more about the platforms in question than pretty much anyone else on these boards.

-HUNTER-

09-25-2007, 01:16 PM

The HK416 stands a very good chance, because of the ability to remain functioning well during **** conditions. Also because its an easy upgrade, and you can keep all the other gadgets exactly the same.

The AK101 is a good option for some contrast, but straight off it wont win because its to big. < they wanted smaller weapons...

The XM8 is just to new I think the best option is either the SCAR or the HK416. And from what Ive seen on the video about the HK416 then it will perform well during the sandstorm conditions.

SMGLee

09-25-2007, 01:33 PM

Care to explain that? The 416 upper and M16 upper only appear the same from the outside, completely different on the inside. Just because it looks the same doesn't mean it isn't better.

Army wants a new gun, new platform, something that will be different then a M16 series weapons. no matter how you spin it, HK 416 is still a M16 series wepaon.

no need to explain to some one like you if you state the 416 is completely different weapon then a M16 on the inside.....:)

Seraphim

09-25-2007, 01:35 PM

Army wants a new gun, new platform, something that will be different then a M16 series weapons. no matter how you spin it, HK 416 is still a M16 series wepaon.

no need to explain to some one like you if you state the 416 is completely different weapon then a M16 on the inside.....:)

Chen, you know nothing. Go back to playing airsoft you poser!

Now someone needs to come in here and say that their CA and TM HK416 has the same gearbox/innards as a Colt M4.

p-)

Chulo

09-25-2007, 01:42 PM

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4328/m4smallb92a86bg1.png (http://imageshack.us)
vs
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9161/scarlsmallb90d98qe8.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/500/hk416smallb901b1hl5.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4908/xm8smallb67970kl0.png (http://imageshack.us)
here is a pic to help

SMGLee

09-25-2007, 01:44 PM

Chen, you know nothing. Go back to playing airsoft you poser!

Now someone needs to come in here and say that their CA and TM HK416 has the same gearbox/innards as a Colt M4.

Sorry, I will go and hide in my cave now....!! Airsoft united.......I am now the self proclaim President of Airsoft union on MP.net...I should do a impression airsoft with my kit next month.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4908/xm8smallb67970kl0.png (http://imageshack.us)
here is a pic to help

to help what? it is still a piece of sh%t......

why did you think Army included the XM8, they know it will fail......again. this way.. they go on with the purchase of the M4s... until something new pops up.

if SCAR wins, this would still post a problem, this means a new training regiment for the army, it would be like doing a complete change over where a lot more $$ would have to be spent. but if SCAR wins, and most likely it will, it will pave the road for the next generation of rifles.

Seraphim

09-25-2007, 01:56 PM

Sorry, I will go and hide in my cave now....!! Airsoft united.......I am now the self proclaim President of Airsoft union on MP.net...I should do a impression airsoft with my LOADOUT next month.

Fixed it for you. :hug:

H2O MAN

09-25-2007, 02:04 PM

When will the Army have a Battle Rifle shoot-off?

They still use battle rifles don't they?

Chulo

09-25-2007, 02:05 PM

Sorry, I will go and hide in my cave now....!! Airsoft united.......I am now the self proclaim President of Airsoft union on MP.net...I should do a impression airsoft with my kit next month.

to help what? it is still a piece of sh%t......

why did you think Army included the XM8, they know it will fail......again. this way.. they go on with the purchase of the M4s... until something new pops up.

if SCAR wins, this would still post a problem, this means a new training regiment for the army, it would be like doing a complete change over where a lot more $$ would have to be spent. but if SCAR wins, and most likely it will, it will pave the road for the next generation of rifles.
lol.. well u posted before i finished the rest of the pics... .see.. they all look the same.. they have a handle, and a part where the bullet comes out and they are black..

Createdeemcee

09-25-2007, 02:06 PM

to help what? it is still a piece of sh%t......

I now have coffee pants thanks to you chen!

Skutatos

09-25-2007, 02:11 PM

What are the respective weights of these weapons?

GrinchWSLG

09-25-2007, 02:19 PM

Army wants a new gun, new platform, something that will be different then a M16 series weapons. no matter how you spin it, HK 416 is still a M16 series wepaon.

no need to explain to some one like you if you state the 416 is completely different weapon then a M16 on the inside.....:)

Well I was referring to the piston gas system in the 416.

I'm not some HK fanboy, I just didn't get why you think that they're one and the same. Are there faults other then the unreliable gas system on the M-16 series, aside from the small round it fires? I don't follow the series much since I'm more into older battle rifles.

SMGLee

09-25-2007, 02:28 PM

Fixed it for you. :hug:

why you f#@k with my load? :D

California Joe

09-25-2007, 02:29 PM

When will the Army have a Battle Rifle shoot-off?

They still use battle rifles don't they?

"When I get home I'm gonna punch your Mama right in the face"

H2O MAN

09-25-2007, 02:34 PM

"When I get home I'm gonna punch your Mama right in the face"

http://videodetective.com/photos/026/001101_6.jpg

L O L ! rofl

RomanS

09-25-2007, 02:38 PM

Chen,

what do you think should be a new standart rifle for US DOD ?

If you had to create one, what would you improve, add, replace?

What kind of caliber would you prefer to see adopted?

Would love to hear your opinion on that.

Thanks budd

mohica

09-25-2007, 03:19 PM

and get stuck with another M16 series for another 20 years? Not going to happen!

So. What is the problem with a piston driven M16 type weapon?

SMGLee

09-25-2007, 03:27 PM

If I have my ways.. and when hell freeze over...

this is what i would like to see...

rifle: FN SCAR L ...shooting the 77gr. modular system for mission specific demand.

infantry automatic weapon: CIS Ultimax 100

Squad automatic weapon: FN Mk46Mod1

GPMG: FN Mk48

DMR: SCAR-H or KAC M110.

This is what I like to see, but what is really going on behind the doors is something i only have a small glimpse at. US mil is definitely seeking the next do it all battle rifle, but at this time, there are paraell development in the weapon front, caseless ammo, new delivery systems are a few things that most of you have already know.

If the military buy into a system at this time, it would be a stop gap system until the magic rifle shows up. I think SCAR has the best chance to be selected by the Army. so far, SOCOM driven by Navy and Marines are looking into this system seriously. Even some rumbling from Air Force, Army is the only one holding tight and have not shown a general interest with the SCAR until this new requirement.

So. What is the problem with a piston driven M16 type weapon?

nothing, but not somethihg the Army want to go with...

I know you like you colt, but colt is not interest in releasing the M5 or the 1022. the HK piston is the best going out there. I know we have disagree on the HK and the LWRC, but I have extensive time on both systems, and the HK is definitely a better developed platform.

Little J

09-25-2007, 03:37 PM

to help what? it is still a piece of sh%t......

why did you think Army included the XM8, they know it will fail......again. this way.. they go on with the purchase of the M4s... until something new pops up.

Wouldn't it be funny if HK fixed the Xm8 and it did well in the tests.

I would love to see the brass trying to back out of it :)

RomanS

09-25-2007, 03:43 PM

Thank you Chen,
good stuff

SMGLee

09-25-2007, 04:04 PM

Wouldn't it be funny if HK fixed the Xm8 and it did well in the tests.

I would love to see the brass trying to back out of it :)

they did fix it a bit and resurfaced in southeast Asia, still not going to be good enough to beat the SCAR.

Durandal

09-25-2007, 07:16 PM

"Don't call it a comeback, I've been here for years."

Dean1962

09-25-2007, 07:20 PM

If they really wanted it to be fair, they would do the test DURING sandstorm conditions, and fire 10,000 rounds minimum. I have heard that the M-4 does quite well up to 4000 rounds, but after that, the fouling begings to take its toll and the rifle begins to jam. I read this a long time before the tests were announced, and I was disgusted to see that the tests were limited to the 4000 round magical number that would allow the M-4 to shine. Let's see what rifle is really the best. Fire them during a sandstorm and do NOT clean them until they are so fouled that they can no longer fire. Really, which rifle do you think will give up the ghost first???? M-4, head to the front of the line. All the piston actuated rifles, well, they will keep on rocking long after the M-4 has choked on all the sand.

My two cents
Dean.

SMGLee

09-25-2007, 07:48 PM

you throw stuff in the receiver, no matter what kind of gun you have, it will stop working sooner or later.

10k with sand in the receiver, that would be hard to attend. besides, how often do you as a rifleman fire up to 4k in a fire fight or during a op?

watch the HK 416 video, the ejection port door is closed so if you toss dirt on it, what does it matter? I can do the same with my M4

Piston offer better and longer operational tempo with out cleaning, its great for the spec op type or RE type support personnel that don't do weapon maintainance often.

keep a M4 lubed, clean, it will offer reliability required.

look at my M4... 5k later.. I had to clean it due to extreme foiling.

http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/cltactical/huge/dirt-002.jpg
btw, that is a chromed bolt in that gun.

Seraphim... This is an airsoft mock up gun....;)

mohica

09-25-2007, 08:01 PM

If I have my ways.. and when hell freeze over...

this is what i would like to see...

rifle: FN SCAR L ...shooting the 77gr. modular system for mission specific demand. Colt, HK, or LWRC piston system retrofit?

infantry automatic weapon: CIS Ultimax 100

Squad automatic weapon: FN Mk46Mod1

GPMG: FN Mk48 or US Ord. MK43 Mod 1?

DMR: SCAR-H or KAC M110. Smith Crazy Horse? New LWRC piston 7.62? HK 417?

nothing, but not somethihg the Army want to go with...

I know you like you colt, but colt is not interest in releasing the M5 or the 1022. the HK piston is the best going out there. I know we have disagree on the HK and the LWRC, but I have extensive time on both systems, and the HK is definitely a better developed platform.

If the military wants it, Colt will make it. They have stated as such. Don't get me wrong, I would take the 416 if that is what was available over a DI M4 any day of the week. I just think the LWRC is simpler, lighter, and so far seems to be just as durable from what I have seen. A little venture captial input to match HK's developmental costs of the 416 would put LWRC right there. It is tough for a small company to match HK's clout in R&D much less production facilities. KInda rootin' for the little American company.

KillerBD

09-25-2007, 11:09 PM

One thing I would really like to see is the U.S. military phase out the old 5.56 caliber and replace it with the 7.62mm as the new standard... Maybe a new 7.62x45mm bullet...??? Or something, I'm not the weapons designer here I'll let Colt, HK, FN, or whoever do that... But I believe that the 7.62mm round is overall better than the 5.56, even though the ammunition will most likely be heavier than the 5.56x45mm NATO round. >Unless the 7.62x25mm round is adopted as our new standard becuase its much smaller and [I think] lighter (?) (not gonna happen though)....

-my 2cents... But I'm just gonna get the hell outa here (leaves the building, sorta).

Alpheus

09-25-2007, 11:20 PM

infantry automatic weapon: CIS Ultimax 100

Squad automatic weapon: FN Mk46Mod1

Isn't the Ultimax a SAW as well? I'm a little confused by your terminology, what exactly is a infantry automatic weapon?

LaoSexMachine

09-25-2007, 11:26 PM

If they are looking at different calibers like 6.5 or 6.8 I might give a shat.

budgie

09-26-2007, 12:39 PM

I like the Ak-101 suggestion. But it's a political issue.

That'd be cool is the XM8 is still a viable option. If it shoots straight and does the job right at the right price then it should still be an option.

Is it as accurate? AKs have a reputation of not shooting quite as straight - plus the ergonomic factor goes against muscle memory for most US troops. Any AK shooters able to shed light on its cababilities?

Herrmannek

09-26-2007, 01:12 PM

Is it as accurate? AKs have a reputation of not shooting quite as straight - plus the ergonomic factor goes against muscle memory for most US troops. Any AK shooters able to shed light on its cababilities?

Unless it have that balance thingy*, its much less accurate than M16. Inaccuracy of a AK type weapons is a feature, flaw in design, not much can be done about it without designing whole new weapon...

*that goes forward when piston goes backward...

greycat

09-26-2007, 03:27 PM

Jippo

09-26-2007, 03:41 PM

Freibier

09-26-2007, 04:03 PM

Rubbish, normal AK system has sub-MOA capability if properly made.
Show me a sub-moa AK

Ratamacue

09-26-2007, 04:07 PM

I have a specific question about the XM8.

Is it different in significant ways from the G36 that would cause it to perform poorly, or do the countries that use the G36 have a different set of requirements than the US Army.The main differences are in the controls, specifically that the XM8 has a mag release accessible with the index finger as well as a bolt hold-open device and bolt release.

Jippo

09-26-2007, 04:09 PM

Show me a sub-moa AK

And I will show you a Finnish RK. For what I know they all were benchrested to that standard. Not some, but all of them.

If you want to take it a bit further, Sig 55x is very accurate. It does have improved gas system (but nothing like the mentioned counter mass system of the AK107[which can not improve accuracy]), but the bolt and it's locking are pure AK.

ShakesFIST

09-26-2007, 04:47 PM

A sub-MOA AK? That would be incredible. I would love to see an AK shooting better than 1 MOA because I figured it would be impossible because of the design of the weapon. An M16 is 3-4 MOA. An AK (with its reliability) shooting 4 times as accurate as an M16? We have found a wonder weapon!

greycat

09-26-2007, 04:48 PM

Thank you.

Do these differences explain the apparent satisfaction with the G36 by the Germans and Spanish but the dissatisfaction with the XM8 by the US?

Freibier

09-26-2007, 05:03 PM

And I will show you a Finnish RK. For what I know they all were benchrested to that standard. Not some, but all of them.

No way, Jose
sub-moa is 3cm@100m, minimum 5 rounds including the first shot.
I bet that none of the RKs does that, especially not with mil ammo.
I do target shooting alot and it takes a tuned rifle with very good ammo to go below 1moa every time

Ratamacue

09-26-2007, 07:34 PM

Thank you.

Do these differences explain the apparent satisfaction with the G36 by the Germans and Spanish but the dissatisfaction with the XM8 by the US?I don't know the results of the testing that the US did with the XM8, nor the general opinion of those who have handled it. But my guess as to its cancellation would be a lack of significant improvement over the M16/M4 (similar to how the Advanced Combat Rifle program of the 1980s was canned). The XM8 is lighter and more reliable than the M16/M4, but that may not have sufficiently justified the cost of re-equipping and re-training our forces.

KillerBD

09-26-2007, 10:03 PM

Unless it have that balance thingy*, its much less accurate than M16. Inaccuracy of a AK type weapons is a feature, flaw in design, not much can be done about it without designing whole new weapon...

*that goes forward when piston goes backward...

Are you talking about the AK-107/108, or AEK-971? Becuase they have a sort of recoil balancing piston that goes forward as the bolt goes back... But this would have very little effect on the weapons accuracy, unless shooting in full auto... But usually when you are comparing one rifles accuracy to another you don't test them in fully automatic mode.:roll:

Example:
Normal AK:
http://k41.pbase.com/v3/65/217165/1/47449546.ak_anim.gif (http://www.pbase.com/the_kampfer/autocad_drawings)
An AK-107/108 (incorporates the same system developed in the AEK-971):
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/6133/ak107op111456ii.gif

Or if by the "balance thingy" you mean the muzzle break? Well then again only in fully automatic mode would a muzzle break have a real effect of the bullets grouping when shooting at a ranged target.

StukaJr

09-26-2007, 10:53 PM

I think a lot of bad AK accuracy rep is started by internet phenomena - there are some lousy AK's out there - put together from horrendous part kits, compliance parts etc... I've seen guns that rattled on touch, had been put together from parts manufactured in different countries and toppled with compliance parts (made for best general fit for all variations) - sometimes not wanting to re-assemble after a fieldstrip... I once read a forum post by a guy getting 14" groups at 100 yards from a rest and half of the responders assured him that it was "AK accuracy" and a-ok, things considered...

I honestly hope they come out with AK grade system - just like Maple syrup or gasoline...

gaijinsamurai

09-26-2007, 11:56 PM

SMGLee

09-27-2007, 12:50 AM

Isn't the Ultimax a SAW as well? I'm a little confused by your terminology, what exactly is a infantry automatic weapon?

Ultimax is a magazine fed, light weight SAW that can be more man portable then the MK46. There is a requirement right now for a IAW, and I hope the Ultimax win the contract.

The IAW will bring more firepower to teams sweeping the MOUT. the IAW will be more likely to make entry with vs. a larger SAW. the Ultimax will be fed from a M16 compatible Beta style magazine to satisify the US mil requirement.

SMGLee

09-27-2007, 12:52 AM

I have a specific question about the XM8.

Is it different in significant ways from the G36 that would cause it to perform poorly, or do the countries that use the G36 have a different set of requirements than the US Army.

Don't you know that the G36s are experiencing problems as well?

I have seen classified pic of KSK runnning around afghan with Diemaco C8SFW

Loomisfarms01

09-27-2007, 01:40 AM

Jippo

09-27-2007, 05:17 AM

No way, Jose
sub-moa is 3cm@100m, minimum 5 rounds including the first shot.
I bet that none of the RKs does that, especially not with mil ammo.
I do target shooting alot and it takes a tuned rifle with very good ammo to go below 1moa every time

Believe it or not, I know what MOA is.

To what I know all RK's are bench rest shot at 20x20mm target @ 100m. Normal grouping for a good shot from ****e position would be 100mm @ 150m. In fact I have seen a fellow put 7/10 shots inside 100mm from 300m range, and that is with iron sights. And that is with military ammunition too. Admitted that the ammo is very good quality (Nammo Lapua).

Definately RK doesn't loose much to mil-grade AR-15's accuracy wise, although race guns will naturally be much better.

Hollis

09-27-2007, 11:40 AM

We all know the AK is less accurate than the M16/M4. But, match grade accuracy was not the intent of Mr. Kalashnikov, nor is it the priority of the designers and manufacturers of present-production AKs. Accuracy was purposefully compromised for the sake of reliability.
That having been said, most AKs (except the types Stuka mentioned above) will in fact shoot perfectly acceptable groups, which are suitable for the needs of most types of combat environments.

I think a few is missing, accuracy is relative to a number of factors, The biggest lost of accuracy is the Jerk on the trigger.

I really don't see what the complaint is with AK accuracy, it is not a 1000M Unlimited bench rest rifle. For what it is designed for is it accurate enough.

The Advantage of the AR platform, is that uppers are very easily changed and it is a very popular platform in the states. ERGO, there are tons and tons of accessorizing a person can do with all the options a person would ever want and then some.

AK are pretty much fixed platform. Once play with the furniture a little bit ,but that is it.

On shooting, I would say I am probably slightly better than average for a shooter. I would say most guys are not shooter, ever though they have firearms.

Again to reiterate, The most important part of accuracy is the shooter. A person can buy the most accurate everything and still not have a decent group.

I would suggest those who read way more than they shoot, is to go to your local range, watch a 1000 M shoot, watch a cowboy action shoot, watch the police shoot and then watch a military combat shoot. The styles all vary for the needs of the shooting to be done. Firearms that are preferred in each event is not the same one in another event.

For the Price and what the AK has to offer it is a great deal. But if you want highly accurate (tight groups) shooter,,,,, A bolt gun..... Savage, Remington, etc would be the way to go.

gaijinsamurai

09-27-2007, 11:51 AM

Well said, Hollis.

deagle

09-27-2007, 05:10 PM

Actually out of the weapons listed the M8 is probably the least compatible/versatile/interchangeable.

Why would a SAW gunner feel weird with an M4?

there was a schematic showing the different variations of the xm8 (mg, rifle, carbine etc...), so i guess its more versatile with the same weapons platform. The US soldier has different roles, and sometimes different weaps for that role. For ex. support (m249) and basic rifleman (m4/m16). I'm not sure if a m249 gunner is equally familiar with the m4/m16, but with the xm8, its essentially the same weapon as far as handling and parts go. they prob don't feel weird, but less familiar probably.

it kinda reminds me of the goal of the m14 rifle, and how they wanted to standardize it in support and rifleman roles.

Kocur

09-27-2007, 06:00 PM

Again to reiterate, The most important part of accuracy is the shooter.

Indeed. But if we concentrate on the very weapon, even putting ammo quality away, what makes a weapon accurate in semi auto is the barrel. More specifically, how it vibrates, and even more specifically - if it vibrates in repeatable pattern. The more its is so, the tighter the groups will be. Reason behind it is that each projectile should leave muzzle as close to the moment, when muzzle is in extreme position of it's 'swaying', as possible. The 'swaying' is end result of barrel vibration created by pressure rise and projectile travel down the bore. If the vibration pattern is disturbed, projectile will pass muzzle when it has more speed (like end of a pendulum), which will add some transverse acceleration to the projectile, which is a bad thing for such a fast rotating object. The effect is exactly what damaged crown does by letting gun gas push the projectile more on one side.

What stabilizes barrel's vibration pattern is naturally its stiffness and stiffness of the receiver. M16 receiver is stiff due to its shape and dimensions - and thats the reason for very good results possible with this weapon familiy - not Stoner gas system. It is also why RPK-based (thicker sheet metal) AK rifles are more accurate than AKM based, and the best are those with milled receivers - assuming also barrel is of proper design and quality.

The action itself of a gas operated semi auto weapon has no meaning for the semi auto accuracy. Pistons, especially those integral with bolt carrier actually do not even start to move back before projectile leaves the muzzle, so cant affect weapon position, even if recoil wasnt far more powerful factor. So called "tighter tollerances" in the recoiling group 'affecting' semi auto dispersion is BS excuse for some weapons worse dirt-resistance supposedly being trade off for accuracy.
The only way gas operated action can affect semi auto dispersion in measurable way is how gas tube is designed. If its 'stuck' between barrel and receiver tightly, it will disturb the barrel's vibration pattern by pushing against barrel after it streches by heat. Giving gas tube of a long stroke piston weapon, like AK, some longitudinal clearance, so it has space to get longer without pushing on gas block is the answer. Even more sure one is using short stroke pistons, where the only 'push' against barrel is from piston return spring, which is weak and more importantly almost constant.

California Joe

09-27-2007, 06:23 PM

And I will show you a Finnish RK. For what I know they all were benchrested to that standard. Not some, but all of them.

I don't think it's the weapon, I think it's because you guys all have a little Simo in you.

ShakesFIST

09-27-2007, 07:37 PM

there was a schematic showing the different variations of the xm8 (mg, rifle, carbine etc...), so i guess its more versatile with the same weapons platform. The US soldier has different roles, and sometimes different weaps for that role. For ex. support (m249) and basic rifleman (m4/m16). I'm not sure if a m249 gunner is equally familiar with the m4/m16, but with the xm8, its essentially the same weapon as far as handling and parts go. they prob don't feel weird, but less familiar probably.

it kinda reminds me of the goal of the m14 rifle, and how they wanted to standardize it in support and rifleman roles.

Kinda like how they have MG, rifle, and carbine variations for the M16?

M249 gunners are just as familiar with an M4/M16 as any other soldier, perhaps even more so. It's not like they sign up to be SAW gunners, they are trained with primarily with a rifle, any other weapon is trained with later. I've never heard of the SAW gunner refered to as "support". I always see it as machine gunner, automatic rifleman, or something similar.

Jippo

09-28-2007, 02:26 AM

I don't think it's the weapon, I think it's because you guys all have a little Simo in you.

We are the only nation in the world who can stop a charging T-34 with a toothpick and a pine cone. Lot of tiny Simos living in us.

(Ps. the above should have read machine rested instead of bench rested.)

mohica

09-28-2007, 11:49 AM

What stabilizes barrel's vibration pattern is naturally its stiffness and stiffness of the receiver. M16 receiver is stiff due to its shape and dimensions - and thats the reason for very good results possible with this weapon familiy - not Stoner gas system.

That is incorrect. The Stoner gas system IS a big factor (not the only factor) the AR15 series is accurate. There is liottle or no moving moment to affect the barrel because there is no reciprocating piston/carrier assembly with allot of mass i.e. AK47. This is physics.

It is also why RPK-based (thicker sheet metal) AK rifles are more accurate than AKM based, and the best are those with milled receivers - assuming also barrel is of proper design and quality.

The thicker receiver material may have some nominal effect, but the action upon the barrel remains the same although perhaps reduced. The longer barrel of an RPK is a factor in accuracy of the weapon also.

The action itself of a gas operated semi auto weapon has no meaning for the semi auto accuracy. Pistons, especially those integral with bolt carrier actually do not even start to move back before projectile leaves the muzzle, so cant affect weapon position, even if recoil wasnt far more powerful factor. So called "tighter tollerances" in the recoiling group 'affecting' semi auto dispersion is BS excuse for some weapons worse dirt-resistance supposedly being trade off for accuracy.
The only way gas operated action can affect semi auto dispersion in measurable way is how gas tube is designed. If its 'stuck' between barrel and receiver tightly, it will disturb the barrel's vibration pattern by pushing against barrel after it streches by heat. Giving gas tube of a long stroke piston weapon, like AK, some longitudinal clearance, so it has space to get longer without pushing on gas block is the answer. Even more sure one is using short stroke pistons, where the only 'push' against barrel is from piston return spring, which is weak and more importantly almost constant.

Your statements here are patently incorrect. I suggest you try and find a copy of one of the programs on the History Channel that shows slow motion film of both the AK47 and M16 firing. The sole intent was to determine exactly what is in question here. For those that have seen it, you know. The violent reaction of the AK47 causes a suprising amount of flex to the rifle. Seeing is believing.

Hollis

09-28-2007, 12:31 PM

Kocur, Let me share two experiences that demonstrate my thinking. Take the answer to a calculus question. One is written using the sq. root sign of 27 the other is a four place decimal equivulant.

In a calculus class there is only one answer, the four place decimal equivulant is only half an answer. In a chemistry class both would be fine. Because for all practical purpose they are the same. The key word is practical.

Second, was a story a aeronautical engineer told be of a class on air craft design he took. The prof, was explaining "externalitise (Unknowns that effect design)" of design. He stated from the bases of modern aAir craft design, from all we know, the bumble bee can not fly, but since the bumble has not taken this class, he does not know he can not fly.

The two rifles we are comparing are NOT bench rest rifles. The are both equally accurate for the purpose of their intended use. The Shooter is the more important than any designs differences.

Again using the calculus analogy, how accurate do you need? Calculus is not based on practical but absolute accuracy. My Father in-law was a highly skill design engineer, he would take a simple practical event and then spend hours on it to find or try to find the absolute value.

I think you are the type of person who would make a excellent bench rest shooter. I tried it long ago and did not like the fact for every hour I shot, I had probably 40 yours in preparations. AKs and ARs are more akin to my style of shooting. Fast, practical (hitting a clanger - Close is close enough) and most of all fun.

A combat infantry rifle for standard issue (all soldiers) needs to be simple to use, effective in the hands of the vast majority of soldiers, and relatively accurate for rapid engagement under the stress of CQC.

mohica

09-28-2007, 12:35 PM

That is all mumbo jumbo and irrelvant to what you initially said. The AR15 series is more accurate than the AK47 partly due to it's operating system. Conversely, the AK47 is less accurate than the AR15 partly due to it's operating system. That is fact.

StukaJr

09-28-2007, 03:15 PM

Your statements here are patently incorrect. I suggest you try and find a copy of one of the programs on the History Channel that shows slow motion film of both the AK47 and M16 firing. The sole intent was to determine exactly what is in question here. For those that have seen it, you know. The violent reaction of the AK47 causes a suprising amount of flex to the rifle. Seeing is believing.

I'd like to know what AK-47 they used for their test - like I've said, I've handled AK's I was glad I was not invited to fire.

The main difference between AK-47 is that it can be built to loose tolerance and function - with diminished performance, but still function. AR-15 built to loose tolerance will function as only holding down papers from blowing in the wind. That does not mean, however, that all AK's are built like crap - it's just the good ones are hard to come by as a crappy built AK will still fire just fine (as unwashed villagers are concerned)...

AR-15 has a thicker walled barrel than AK model rifles - that makes the accuracy as far as I'm concerned... If the gas system was responsible for accuracy of the weapon, I'd expect that closing off/welding the gas port would make both rifles single shot tack drivers (yet it don't happen). Here in Cali, one way of going around the State AW ban is to weld up the gas port on AK (thus non semi-auto) - did not hear any "improved accuracy" reports as of yet.

mohica

09-28-2007, 03:26 PM

I'd like to know what AK-47 they used for their test - like I've said, I've handled AK's I was glad I was not invited to fire.

Which AK used in the filming is irrelevant. An AK is an AK. Some may be more accurate than others, just not as accurate as the AR15 platform.

The main difference between AK-47 is that it can be built to loose tolerance and function - with diminished performance, but still function. AR-15 built to loose tolerance will function as only holding down papers from blowing in the wind. That does not mean, however, that all AK's are built like crap - it's just the good ones are hard to come by as a crappy built AK will still fire just fine (as unwashed villagers are concerned)...

So what is your point? We all know AK's go bang when you squeeze the trigger.

AR-15 has a thicker walled barrel than AK model rifles - that makes the accuracy as far as I'm concerned... If the gas system was responsible for accuracy of the weapon, I'd expect that closing off/welding the gas port would make both rifles single shot tack drivers (yet it don't happen). Here in Cali, one way of going around the State AW ban is to weld up the gas port on AK (thus non semi-auto) - did not hear any "improved accuracy" reports as of yet.

Don't keep looking for additional reasons why the AR platform is fundamentally more accurate than the AK platform. That is the way it is. The root of the issue is the action, period.

As for welding up AK gas ports and such, you are venturing into territory I will not go.

StukaJr

09-28-2007, 03:46 PM

Which AK used in the filming is irrelevant. An AK is an AK. Some may be more accurate than others, just not as accurate as the AR15 platform.

Well, you are observing two firearms in a slow motion filming - as a "scientific" experiment I would want to know the two subjects. Handling Romanian, Chinese AK's and those built from Russian parts - there is a difference. Second hand opinion of Russian built military AK's is even higher.

So what is your point? We all know AK's go bang when you squeeze the trigger.

My point is that AK can be built to loose tolerance and still function - thus it's often built to such tolerance and it's not apparent through the simple "chamber and fire" test. Loose tolerance is not a design of the weapon - it's just safe guarded from failure in case of it.

Don't keep looking for additional reasons why the AR platform is fundamentally more accurate than the AK platform. That is the way it is. The root of the issue is the action, period.

As for welding up AK gas ports and such, you are venturing into territory I will not go.

I was just pointing out that taking out the gas tube out of equation does not increase accuracy for as much clout as you seem to give it.

Finally, as accurate as AR is, AK fielded armies qualify on the same ranges as AR's with similar requirements - so as accurate as the rifle may be, they serve similar tasks (as far as hitting targets is concerned)

Kocur

09-28-2007, 04:03 PM

That is incorrect. The Stoner gas system IS a big factor (not the only factor) the AR15 series is accurate. There is liottle or no moving moment to affect the barrel because there is no reciprocating piston/carrier assembly with allot of mass i.e. AK47.

Well, "little or no moving moment" is exactly the case of most gas operated weapons, contrary to what might look like. Numbers I remember right now are for the BAR: piston moves back after projectile passes gas port and before it passes muzzle, by 2,8mm.

This is physics.

Which also says, that it takes time to accelerate a mass, when a force is applied. Also that force increases not "immediately" above minimal required level to move piston/bolt carrier - because it takes certain time for pressure in gas chamber reaches certain value, which in turn is due to small diameter of gas port, that restricts gas flow and certain volume of gas chamber in front of piston head, that has to be filled by gun gas. Those added usually make enough time for the projectile to leave the barrel - or do so, when moving parts had moved only several milimeters.
If movement of recoling parts in fixed barrel weapons was so important for dispersion - how could PSG-1 be a very accurate weapon? In case of its retarded blowback bolt there is no time at all after ignition when parts of action are still, that is before projectile reaches gas port, as it is in gas operated weapon.
Furthermore could anyone argue, that recoil is far more powerful force to displace weapon during projectile travel down the bore than movement of say 14% of entire weapon weight (.5kg / 3,5kg) by one or two mimeters? And yet rifles are accurate!

The thicker receiver material may have some nominal effect, but the action upon the barrel remains the same although perhaps reduced.

Well, that leaves you with a question: how come Rk95 is far more accurate than average AKM, when action of both weapons is the same and except for high quality of Finnish barrels and ammo, they differ only in stiffness of receiver?

The longer barrel of an RPK is a factor in accuracy of the weapon also.

What lenght of barrel does for grouping is increasing velocity, which means less time in usually not perfectly still athmosphere.

Your statements here are patently incorrect. I suggest you try and find a copy of one of the programs on the History Channel that shows slow motion film of both the AK47 and M16 firing. The sole intent was to determine exactly what is in question here. For those that have seen it, you know. The violent reaction of the AK47 causes a suprising amount of flex to the rifle. Seeing is believing.

Sure does that. But when recoiling group hits rear of receiver, the projectile is far on its way to the target. Is patently incorrect that projectile is not affected by what happenes to the weapon, when it is tens if not hundrets meters away from that weapon...?

The two rifles we are comparing are NOT bench rest rifles. The are both equally accurate for the purpose of their intended use. The Shooter is the more important than any designs differences.

I agree perfectly! I started my initial post by "stripping" the shooter-ammo-weapon system from the first two parts, to concentrate on the weapon part of the issue. It is naturally far less important, that 'shooter' part. It is very interesting to read Hitchman report, where it says, that even if rifle dispersion was increaced twice, it would not decreace statistical hitting probability in real combat conditions (of WW2 and Korea) noticeably - such is weight of human errors in aiming.

Again using the calculus analogy, how accurate do you need? Calculus is not based on practical but absolute accuracy.

My thinking exactly again. It is quite funny to judge average infantryman weapon only by size of groups, when those are in an inch area, which btw is usually done by comparing accurised variants of basic weapon.

I think you are the type of person who would make a excellent bench rest shooter. I tried it long ago and did not like the fact for every hour I shot, I had probably 40 yours in preparations. AKs and ARs are more akin to my style of shooting. Fast, practical (hitting a clanger - Close is close enough) and most of all fun.

Im no benchrest type of guy at all. Im just highly interested in how the stuff works down to the very basic level - and that is what my initial post was about. But when it comes to practical or combat-like shooting I find practical rate of fire, not to mention reliability far more meaningful features of a combat rifle, than groups size. That assuming naturally, that the weapon is accurate enough to hit body or preferably head at assumed practical range.

A combat infantry rifle for standard issue (all soldiers) needs to be simple to use, effective in the hands of the vast majority of soldiers, and relatively accurate for rapid engagement under the stress of CQC.

I couldnt agree more.

mohica

09-28-2007, 04:35 PM

Well, you are observing two firearms in a slow motion filming - as a "scientific" experiment I would want to know the two subjects. Handling Romanian, Chinese AK's and those built from Russian parts - there is a difference. Second hand opinion of Russian built military AK's is even higher.

My point is that AK can be built to loose tolerance and still function - thus it's often built to such tolerance and it's not apparent through the simple "chamber and fire" test. Loose tolerance is not a design of the weapon - it's just safe guarded from failure in case of it.

Again, the type is irrelevant for the comaparison. Sure, some AK's will be more accurate than others with better materials, etc. It still does NOT change the fundamental difference of THE ACTION of the weapon versus the action of the AR15 platform. It really is not that difficult, quit trying to make it so.

I was just pointing out that taking out the gas tube out of equation does not increase accuracy for as much clout as you seem to give it.

I would differ from that opinion. I don't think any AK is gonna be a match rifle, but remove the gas system and the reciprocation of the bolt/piston, you probably would see an increase in accuracy.

Finally, as accurate as AR is, AK fielded armies qualify on the same ranges as AR's with similar requirements - so as accurate as the rifle may be, they serve similar tasks (as far as hitting targets is concerned)

You are incorrect, the accuracy requirements of either weapon by their respective developers and end users is different. They both accomplish the same job in the end.

mohica

09-28-2007, 04:50 PM

Well, "little or no moving moment" is exactly the case of most gas operated weapons, contrary to what might look like. Numbers I remember right now are for the BAR: piston moves back after projectile passes gas port and before it passes muzzle, by 2,8mm.

Which also says, that it takes time to accelerate a mass, when a force is applied. Also that force increases not "immediately" above minimal required level to move piston/bolt carrier - because it takes certain time for pressure in gas chamber reaches certain value, which in turn is due to small diameter of gas port, that restricts gas flow and certain volume of gas chamber in front of piston head, that has to be filled by gun gas. Those added usually make enough time for the projectile to leave the barrel - or do so, when moving parts had moved only several milimeters.
If movement of recoling parts in fixed barrel weapons was so important for dispersion - how could PSG-1 be a very accurate weapon? In case of its retarded blowback bolt there is no time at all after ignition when parts of action are still, that is before projectile reaches gas port, as it is in gas operated weapon.
Furthermore could anyone argue, that recoil is far more powerful force to displace weapon during projectile travel down the bore than movement of say 14% of entire weapon weight (.5kg / 3,5kg) by one or two mimeters? And yet rifles are accurate!

You are really trying too hard to make an issue out of something where there really isn't one. Your camparison of an AK action to an HK delayed blowback is also fatally flawed. The delayed blowback is going to be inherently more accurate by nature. Two different animals for sure.

Dude, bottom line like I told the other fellow, find a copy or contact the History Channel and buy the episode that shows both the AK and AR firing. See it with youR own eyes and quit trying to fabricate reasons of why the AK is NOT inherently less accruate than an AR.

Well, that leaves you with a question: how come Rk95 is far more accurate than average AKM, when action of both weapons is the same and except for high quality of Finnish barrels and ammo, they differ only in stiffness of receiver?

I am not too familar with the Rk95, but I seem to remember there were some changes to the fire control group. Better materials and manufacturing methods, superior barrels and ammo, all should make a difference. Still isn't gonna be inehrently as accurate as an AR platform. It is the nature of the beast.

What lenght of barrel does for grouping is increasing velocity, which means less time in usually not perfectly still athmosphere.

Sure does that. But when recoiling group hits rear of receiver, the projectile is far on its way to the target. Is patently incorrect that projectile is not affected by what happenes to the weapon, when it is tens if not hundrets meters away from that weapon...?;

The "recoiling group hist rear of receiver" is again irrelevant. IT IS A FUNCTION OF THE AK ACTION BY DESIGN, THE RECIPROCATION OF THE HEAVY BOLT/PISTON GROUP. GEEEEEZ!!!

StukaJr

09-28-2007, 05:14 PM

Again, the type is irrelevant for the comaparison. Sure, some AK's will be more accurate than others with better materials, etc. It still does NOT change the fundamental difference of THE ACTION of the weapon versus the action of the AR15 platform. It really is not that difficult, quit trying to make it so.

My point is that well built AK would flex less violently than a not well built AK - unless the filmmaker wanted to point out a drastic difference. While I don't disprove anything - simple fact that I don't know the AK used in the filming, makes me less likely to jump on the bandwagon that all AK's act like they did in that video... So without information of the AK used - I don't take the video as a proof that all AK's behave like the one in the video. I don't even have such information if the AK had a 74 style muzzle brake - which would do a lot to stabilize barrel whip.

I would differ from that opinion. I don't think any AK is gonna be a match rifle, but remove the gas system and the reciprocation of the bolt/piston, you probably would see an increase in accuracy.

Well, it doesn't improve accuracy of the weapon when gas chamber of the weapon is blocked off - thus the gas only fills up about an inch of the remaining chamber. Bolt carrier and piston remain immobile - thus I don't see how their removal would benefit the weapon (other than making it lighter) and not introduce some other unwanted side effects. No leap of accuracy recorded - that's not theory, but practice at this point.

Biggest offender of stringing and shotgun grouping IMO is Mini-14 - there was a project that put the same Mini-14 in sub-MOA group by bracing the barrel in a bridge truss-like support, like this: http://accu-strut.com/ The gain in accuracy has been a lot greater than any modifications to the gas system... Same was achieved by shortening the barrel and applying heavy muzzle brake on mine.

Using the same gas chamber logic - one would think that sub-MOA Garands and M1A's block off or completely re-design the gas system?

You are incorrect, the accuracy requirements of either weapon by their respective developers and end users is different. They both accomplish the same job in the end.

I was implying the Marksmanship training of various countries as far as distance, target size and success ratings - not factory imposed standards.

StukaJr

09-28-2007, 05:29 PM

My final comment on this - I'd go a long way of improvements on a rifle in accurasizing process before ever looking at the gas system...

Jippo

09-29-2007, 04:47 AM

I am not too familar with the Rk95, but I seem to remember there were some changes to the fire control group. Better materials and manufacturing methods, superior barrels and ammo, all should make a difference. Still isn't gonna be inehrently as accurate as an AR platform. It is the nature of the beast.

You can see a comparison with pictures in this thread:

http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=60332&

Jippo

09-29-2007, 04:49 AM

My final comment on this - I'd go a long way of improvements on a rifle in accurasizing process before ever looking at the gas system...

I fully agree.

onefast93z28

09-29-2007, 09:03 PM

I'd like to see them adopt the 416 because it's the cheapest, fastest way to get something better than the M4 to our troops. Unfortunately, the Army seems to want a whole new, revolutionary, rifle when there is no need to.

D-gin

09-29-2007, 09:06 PM

I'd like to see them adopt the 416 because it's the cheapest, fastest way to get something better than the M4 to our troops.
What do you base that on?

Not to mention that will never happen for oh so many reasons.

SMGLee

09-30-2007, 01:16 AM

Is this your opinion or is it based on some report?

what do you think?.....:)

KillerBD

09-30-2007, 01:49 AM

I think this is the propaganda video that mohica saw and has been talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

^I personally don't think this is a very good comparison between the two weapons at all. "Here we have some old crappy 'AK-47' made by a blind Pakastani in 1967 from spare bicycle barts" .... "Over here is a U.S. manufactured M-16 made from high precision factory parts and high quality steel" :cantbeli:

Also at the very begining of the video when they are talking about how the AKs barrel is "clearly" flexing up and down.... Well yea that turns out to be its cleaning rod.... Though the barrel does flex a little bit, but so does the M-16s barrel as well if you look closely. <But the flexing of their barrels is sorta unsubstancial for both casses as far as accuracy is concerned, becuase by the time they start flexing the bullet has already left the end of the muzzle.

This is a better comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqaeX2KigSc&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3fJ2hPjIOE&mode=related&search

As for the argument between mohica and StukaJr.... Well its pretty obvious to me that StukaJr has won. Congrats! :D

onefast93z28

09-30-2007, 05:08 AM

What do you base that on?

Not to mention that will never happen for oh so many reasons.

Because all you have to do is swap the upper instead of buying whole new rifles, plus all the new crap and training that goes along with a new rifle. Last I checked, uppers had a lower unit cost than whole rifles...

Chulo

09-30-2007, 11:57 AM

Jippo

09-30-2007, 01:27 PM

^I personally don't think this is a very good comparison between the two weapons at all. "Here we have some old crappy 'AK-47' made by a blind Pakastani in 1967 from spare bicycle barts" .... "Over here is a U.S. manufactured M-16 made from high precision factory parts and high quality steel" :cantbeli:

Well on the Russian video comparison the M-16 isn't exactly in mint condition either!

KillerBD

09-30-2007, 01:33 PM

Well on the Russian video comparison the M-16 isn't exactly in mint condition either!

Yea I agree with ya there. I think the Japense video was probly the best overall comparison, but that was just comparing the bullets.

The Russian video was okay, but was pretty cheesy when they grabbed footage from the movie Platoon. I agree with ya there.

What we need is a video comparing the two guns with an M-16A4 being compared to an AK-101 or even 103. Also the video can't be made in Russia or the U.S. becuase of pride in their own products could get in the way of making a real comparison... Let the British do it :)

LaoSexMachine

09-30-2007, 01:42 PM

AK or M16? I like them both. I have an AR and two AKs and might take it out to the range in a head to head comparison but I only have surplus ammo for both. The range is only 100 yards.

Hollis

09-30-2007, 01:43 PM

Sort of thought about threads on comparisons, like this one.

Egads the Movie "Platoon"........ ya got to be kidding me?

This reminds me of boys locker room *** talk by a bunch of virgins discussion the wild gratuitous *** they where going to have, could have, might of have..... to impress each other with their male ****** prowess.

mohica

09-30-2007, 02:00 PM

I think this is the propaganda video that mohica saw and has been talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

Propaganda? WTF? Somebody just took the time to show the clones the reality. Kalashnikov himself has said that accuracy was second to durabilty in more that one interview. He also said it was accurate enough for it's intended prupose.

^I personally don't think this is a very good comparison between the two weapons at all. "Here we have some old crappy 'AK-47' made by a blind Pakastani in 1967 from spare bicycle barts" .... "Over here is a U.S. manufactured M-16 made from high precision factory parts and high quality steel" :cantbeli:

You need to get past the construction or better yet, who built the AK, any AK. They just are not as accurate as the AR15/M16. That is the way it is.

Also at the very begining of the video when they are talking about how the AKs barrel is "clearly" flexing up and down.... Well yea that turns out to be its cleaning rod.... Though the barrel does flex a little bit, but so does the M-16s barrel as well if you look closely. <But the flexing of their barrels is sorta unsubstancial for both casses as far as accuracy is concerned, becuase by the time they start flexing the bullet has already left the end of the muzzle.

Hmmmm, the cleaning rod huh? You need a new perscription for glasses or maybe Lasik. The AK barrel flexes in recoil and back into battery by movement of the carrier/piston assembly. Since it is flexing in recoil - up - and returing to "home" and then flexing in return to battery - down - and then returning home it sure sounds like the barrel is in constant motion. There for your statement - "the flexing of their barrels is sorta unsbustancial" -is patently false and reveals your true ignorance of the subject. I don't think I have ever heard a more stupid comment about rifles and accuracy. You just lost all credibility.

Turns out to be the cleaning rod, hmmmmm. Did you watch the same video? CLEARLY, the barrel flexes, not once, but twice as the mass of the carrier/piston assembly move rearward in recoil and then forward back into battery. I am really having a difficult time understanging the resistance to the basic tennant that the action of the AK makes it less accurate than the M16 all things being equal. I just mentioned the video so you guys had some visual evidence and you even question that! Most that are students of small arms have know this for decades. Even the AK's designer acknowledges it. What is the problem?

This is a better comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqaeX2KigSc&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3fJ2hPjIOE&mode=related&search

As for the argument between mohica and StukaJr.... Well its pretty obvious to me that StukaJr has won. Congrats! :D

I wasn't an argument, it was a debate. No hostilities until you come up with some stupid sh!t like this. Added, he didn't "win" anything, there are no prizes. I will finish this post by saying I have had my trigger time on both systems, and the M16 is INHERENTLY MORE ACCURATE THAN THE AK REGARDLESS OF WHO MAKES THE AK.

mohica

09-30-2007, 02:05 PM

have no idea what the 2nd video was saying , but all it showed was the bullet comparison, which we know the AK is abit more devastating,

Really? That is odd. I guess the Russians switching to the 5.45 x 39 was just coincidence. It had nothing to do with the devastating killing and wounding potential of the M193 round out of the 1/12 twist barrel they witenessed during the Viet Nam war.

SMGLee

09-30-2007, 02:14 PM

Because all you have to do is swap the upper instead of buying whole new rifles, plus all the new crap and training that goes along with a new rifle. Last I checked, uppers had a lower unit cost than whole rifles...

Where did you get that info? HK has not release any $$ for just the upper conversion along.

When did this thread became a AK vs. M16 gig?

mohica

09-30-2007, 02:17 PM

My point is that well built AK would flex less violently than a not well built AK - unless the filmmaker wanted to point out a drastic difference. While I don't disprove anything - simple fact that I don't know the AK used in the filming, makes me less likely to jump on the bandwagon that all AK's act like they did in that video... So without information of the AK used - I don't take the video as a proof that all AK's behave like the one in the video. I don't even have such information if the AK had a 74 style muzzle brake - which would do a lot to stabilize barrel whip.

The barrel of an AK is gonna flex regardless of who makes it. It is a FUNCTION OF THE DESIGN OF THE WEAPON. Are some gonna be worse than others? Probably, but it doesn't change the fact it is due to the design of the weapon. You cannot discount that and make it go away because you think the revamped Valemt M62 is of superior quality in fit and finish. It is still an AK.

Well, it doesn't improve accuracy of the weapon when gas chamber of the weapon is blocked off - thus the gas only fills up about an inch of the remaining chamber. Bolt carrier and piston remain immobile - thus I don't see how their removal would benefit the weapon (other than making it lighter) and not introduce some other unwanted side effects. No leap of accuracy recorded - that's not theory, but practice at this point.

That is puzzling because if you cut off the gas sytem, in effect it becomes a bolt action rifle by proxy. It may not be a huge difference at 100 yds, but may be huge at 300-400 yards.

Biggest offender of stringing and shotgun grouping IMO is Mini-14 - there was a project that put the same Mini-14 in sub-MOA group by bracing the barrel in a bridge truss-like support, like this: http://accu-strut.com/ The gain in accuracy has been a lot greater than any modifications to the gas system... Same was achieved by shortening the barrel and applying heavy muzzle brake on mine.

Using the same gas chamber logic - one would think that sub-MOA Garands and M1A's block off or completely re-design the gas system?

Yes they would, but you can't compare battle accuracy with match or sniper accuracty. That is genereally why bolt action rifles are used when super precision is needed.

I was implying the Marksmanship training of various countries as far as distance, target size and success ratings - not factory imposed standards.

As was I. Those items you mention are different by various countries, not necissarily factory imposed standards.

mohica

09-30-2007, 02:19 PM

Where did you get that info? HK has not release any $$ for just the upper conversion along.

When did this thread became a AK vs. M16 gig?

That is a good question Chen, probably some guy with a $350 AKS clone thinks he has the end all. Seeing as you have chimed in again, perphaps you would be willing to weigh in on this one so we can put it to rest and get back to the original discussion. Which weapon in your opinion is more accruate by design?

Jippo

09-30-2007, 02:21 PM

You need to get past the construction or better yet, who built the AK, any AK. They just are not as accurate as the AR15/M16. That is the way it is.

Do you realise it makes absolutely no difference if both are capable to shoot 2MOA? It is far more accurate than your average infantryman will be in combat!

It simply doesn't matter.

wild_wild_wes

09-30-2007, 03:30 PM

My Norinco 84S in 5.56 is amazingly accurate for an AK; it gets close to 1.5 MOA at 100 meters. The main thing that lets it down is the archaic rear leaf sight.

mohica

09-30-2007, 04:05 PM

Do you realise it makes absolutely no difference if both are capable to shoot 2MOA? It is far more accurate than your average infantryman will be in combat!

It simply doesn't matter.

Sure, I am fully aware of it and have stated as such in at least one previous post. Neither are "match" rifles in general issue configuration which it appears some are trying to make them out to be. You might want to address your question to a couple of other fellas here that are intent on trying to prove something that just isn't going to be.

We all know the M16 can be modified to get remarkable accuracy from the type of weapon it is, but you will not have the same luck with an AK.

SMGLee

09-30-2007, 05:34 PM

That is a good question Chen, probably some guy with a $350 AKS clone thinks he has the end all. Seeing as you have chimed in again, perphaps you would be willing to weigh in on this one so we can put it to rest and get back to the original discussion. Which weapon in your opinion is more accruate by design?

I know the M16 system are more accurate then an AK.

tighter tolerance in design, and less weight hanging off the barrel.. you can build a much more accurate AR then you can with the AK design.

that being said..

is AK accurate for fighting.. YES. AK is more then accurate enough to engage targets out to 300m and make a successful hit, but so well a M16.

of course this is the perfect world, where we fought colonial sytel, every one is standing in a line and we can shoot at targets that is actually man size.

today in the sandbox, you might have a hadji hiding behind a wondow that you only side a extreme angle shot at it, you would have to make a accurate shot in order to send him to hell.... I rather do it with a M4 using an A2 sight vs a AK with that v cut rear sight.

AK is a good gun, it is extreme reliable, but you can't try to justfy its accuracy on par to a M16.

AK is more accurate then you might imagine, and the AR is more reliable thne you are led to know.

SMGLee

09-30-2007, 05:35 PM

My Norinco 84S in 5.56 is amazingly accurate for an AK; it gets close to 1.5 MOA at 100 meters. The main thing that lets it down is the archaic rear leaf sight.

Wow, that is amazing, what kind of ammo are you using? a gun that is supposed to shoot 3-4MOA, you can do 1.5 at 100. interesting.

wild_wild_wes

09-30-2007, 08:12 PM

The 84S is 1/9 twist, and I used PMC 55 grain. I've had three other 7.62X39 AKs, and they were only broad-side-of-a-barn capable. My 84S is special. I guess it's barrel was uncommonly well made, prolly a mistake, but I've heard that others have had good results with the 84, better than the Galil, if you can believe that. I've never shot it beyond 100 meters though...the rear blade is not confidence-inspiring...

D-gin

09-30-2007, 09:41 PM

Because all you have to do is swap the upper instead of buying whole new rifles, plus all the new crap and training that goes along with a new rifle. Last I checked, uppers had a lower unit cost than whole rifles...

If that is what you think then tell me why the US Gov wouldn't go with something like a 1020 upper?

onefast93z28

09-30-2007, 09:53 PM

KillerBD

09-30-2007, 09:59 PM

Propaganda? WTF? Somebody just took the time to show the clones the reality. Kalashnikov himself has said that accuracy was second to durabilty in more that one interview. He also said it was accurate enough for it's intended prupose.

There for your statement - "the flexing of their barrels is sorta unsbustancial" -is patently false and reveals your true ignorance of the subject. I don't think I have ever heard a more stupid comment about rifles and accuracy. You just lost all credibility.

#1: I know Mikhial has made statements saying that reliability is more important than accuracy. But I don't recall him saying that AKs are **** for accuracy... Which is the impression I am getting from you by your "debate"

#2: Read my whole statment, don't just quote 1/3 of it and make me look like a jackass. I said (something to the effect of) "the flexing of their barrels is sorta unsubstancial for both weapon, as far as accuacy is concerned anyways because the bullet has already left the barrel by the time in begins moving up and down...." Though I do agree that a flexing barrel on a firearm will pose an eventual negative effect on accuracy. But the reason for that statment was just to sorta counter the narrarators comment about how the M-16 had no recoil, and the AK-47 was "throwing" itself around.

Bottom line is: A better comparison would be an M-16A2 (or A3, or A4) vs. an AKM (or even an AK-100s series) pretty much anything on something newer than the old Type 1 recievers.

D-gin

09-30-2007, 10:08 PM

You seem to know so much more about this so why don't you tell me...

My guess: bureaucracy
Your guess is a good one, You can bet the Government will buy from a US manufacture before they buy from a foreign one.

The 416 will never be fielded in large numbers to the regular army.

ShakesFIST

10-01-2007, 12:41 AM

The 416 will never be fielded in large numbers to the regular army.

Except for in Norway ;)

D-gin

10-01-2007, 12:57 AM

Except for in Norway ;)
I was referring to the US Army. p-)

SMGLee

10-01-2007, 05:25 AM

SMGLee

10-01-2007, 05:32 AM

You seem to know so much more about this so why don't you tell me...

My guess: bureaucracy

I'm only pushing the 416 upper because it's what's in the test. Any of the piston driven uppers would work for me.

You still have not answer me, where did you get your data on the pricing of the HK 416? or did you just pull that from something you read on the internet?

let's assume a fully assembled HK 416 is 1250.00. that is gun, rail system, and front and rear detachable sights. the upper should be around 800-900 each. did you know you can buy a FN SCAR for less?

so the HK 416 is just a pop on... have you look into the sights would have to be those HK units, so you would have to re-train the troops on zero and use of it in battle? or you would have to make a A2 style rear sight that would conform to the HK's rail heigh on the receiver and rail?

so if the HK is easier to train and supply, have you consider the logisic end of this? new barrel, new barrel nut, new rail, new bolt, new extractor, new carrier, new firing pin, new firing pin retainer, new buffer spring, new buffer, new sights? not so easy now..humm?

if I am the US mil, I look at all this issues, and then look at the same amount of issues with the FN SCAR, at least I will be getting a more modualr and a brand new platform for less $$$ and at the same time, I would get out of the M16 series that the military have been using for the past 50 years. plus SCAR will not FTF in a over the beach operation.

SMGLee

10-01-2007, 05:39 AM

Bottom line is: A better comparison would be an M-16A2 (or A3, or A4) vs. an AKM (or even an AK-100s series) pretty much anything on something newer than the old Type 1 recievers.

I shot my AK 74s with a brand new Polish Tantal barrel and a match trigger against a standard mil-spec LMT M4, I was using the Russian 5.45 and Lake City 62gr. no matter how I slice it off the bench and no matter how other tried. the LMT M4 consistantly had better groups out to 100yrds, even with a heavier trigger. and the LMT was able to hit a 8inch steel plate out to 400 on every shot compare to kind of spoty performance(70% hit ratio) from the AK74. both weapon was shooting EOTechs.

ShakesFIST

10-01-2007, 06:08 AM

1.5MOA out of an Norinco AK with PMC ammo? 3-4MOA gun shooting 4MOA ammo getting 1.5MOA..... you are a better amn then I can ever be. ;)

Maybe he doesnt know what the M in MOA stands for?
(HINT: Its NOT meter) p-)

StukaJr

10-01-2007, 02:57 PM

I shot my AK 74s with a brand new Polish Tantal barrel and a match trigger against a standard mil-spec LMT M4, I was using the Russian 5.45 and Lake City 62gr. no matter how I slice it off the bench and no matter how other tried.

Did you give it to Abu Workerbee to try? He can use the force p-)

wild_wild_wes

10-01-2007, 10:42 PM

Maybe he doesnt know what the M in MOA stands for?
(HINT: Its NOT meter) p-)

Ha ha!

The 84S reciever is much stiffer than regular stamped AKs...1.5mm vs. 1mm. Perhaps this has something to do with their relativley greater accuracy.

onefast93z28

10-02-2007, 02:10 AM

You still have not answer me, where did you get your data on the pricing of the HK 416? or did you just pull that from something you read on the internet?

let's assume a fully assembled HK 416 is 1250.00. that is gun, rail system, and front and rear detachable sights. the upper should be around 800-900 each. did you know you can buy a FN SCAR for less?

so the HK 416 is just a pop on... have you look into the sights would have to be those HK units, so you would have to re-train the troops on zero and use of it in battle? or you would have to make a A2 style rear sight that would conform to the HK's rail heigh on the receiver and rail?

so if the HK is easier to train and supply, have you consider the logisic end of this? new barrel, new barrel nut, new rail, new bolt, new extractor, new carrier, new firing pin, new firing pin retainer, new buffer spring, new buffer, new sights? not so easy now..humm?

if I am the US mil, I look at all this issues, and then look at the same amount of issues with the FN SCAR, at least I will be getting a more modualr and a brand new platform for less $$$ and at the same time, I would get out of the M16 series that the military have been using for the past 50 years. plus SCAR will not FTF in a over the beach operation.

I don't know anyone at H&K so I don't have a clue about their pricing, where are you getting your numbers from?

Even if you can get a full SCAR cheaper, you still have a ton more retraining and let's not even talk about the logistics of bring a whole new rifle into service....

I never said the 416 was the best option, I only think it's the quickest one.

mohica

10-02-2007, 11:51 AM

#1: I know Mikhial has made statements saying that reliability is more important than accuracy. But I don't recall him saying that AKs are **** for accuracy... Which is the impression I am getting from you by your "debate"

IIRC, in an interview with Kalashnikov, it was during a discussion in comparison with the M16 the intereviewer mentioned the greater accuracy of the M16 among other things i.e. weight comparison, etc. Kalashinkov stated that the AK47 was built for durability and reliabiltiy first and foremost. He didn't directly refute that statement so, by caveat, he acknowledged yes the M16 may be more accurate, and paraprhasing here "but it will fail when the AK47 will still fire." That is his opinion. What else would you expect him to say?

#2: Read my whole statment, don't just quote 1/3 of it and make me look like a jackass. I said (something to the effect of) "the flexing of their barrels is sorta unsubstancial for both weapon, as far as accuacy is concerned anyways because the bullet has already left the barrel by the time in begins moving up and down...." Though I do agree that a flexing barrel on a firearm will pose an eventual negative effect on accuracy. But the reason for that statment was just to sorta counter the narrarators comment about how the M-16 had no recoil, and the AK-47 was "throwing" itself around.

Again, if you think the "eventual" flexing of a barrel in both recoil and return to battery is "sorta unsubstancial" in relation to the accuracy of the weapon regardless of what the weapon is, you are grossly mistaken. Period.

By the way, you are incorrect that the bullet has totally left the barrel before the barrel moves on the AK47. Also, the AR15/M16 series has negligible recoil compared to the AK47 which has a much more violent action.

Bottom line is: A better comparison would be an M-16A2 (or A3, or A4) vs. an AKM (or even an AK-100s series) pretty much anything on something newer than the old Type 1 recievers.

Actually the original AK47 type 1 milled receiver would probably fair better than the AKM series. Later milled receivers would fair better as well. The Chinese use 1.5mm sheet metal in their AK's while the Russians and the majority of the old Soviet block use 1mm sheet metal in their receivers.

Regardless of the type of material used in receiver fabrication, sheet metal or forged, you can't escape the simple fact of the mass of the bolt/carrrier/piston reciprocating during the firing cycle of the AK has a detrimental effect on the accuracy of the weapon. This is a function of the design of the weapon. Period.

mohica

10-02-2007, 11:54 AM

I posted this as a new thread but for those not inclined to look, check it out. One cool Mo Fo. Semi - closed bolt. Auto - open bolt. Sweet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-VX4M_jgSk

Hollis

10-02-2007, 12:16 PM

I posted this as a new thread but for those not inclined to look, check it out. One cool Mo Fo. Semi - closed bolt. Auto - open bolt. Sweet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-VX4M_jgSk

I did not see the whole film, Are you saying the M4 operates closed bolt in semi and open bolt in full auto?

A sten/bren are both open bolt guns, they fire semi and full, select fire.

A close bolt is like the M4 and AK they both fire semi and full as a close bolt system, again select fire

I would say for obtaining better accuracy the close bolt is a better system. on a open bolt, it reminds me of shooting a flint lockm in that there is a delay when the trigger releases the sear and the BOOM.

Open bolt full auto are simplier...ergo less expensive to make. For pistol cartridges very simple to make, for rifle a bolt locking mechanism and delay release mechanism has to be employed. Ergo recoil operated roller locks on the MG42, gas operating rod on the Bren.

Hollis

10-02-2007, 12:19 PM

AK or M16? I like them both. I have an AR and two AKs and might take it out to the range in a head to head comparison but I only have surplus ammo for both. The range is only 100 yards.

I like both rifles, but for those who know ES I posted this for him to help him see the difference.

The armorers tool kit for the AR:

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/ARTollkit.jpg

Now the critical tools, armorer kit for the AK:

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/AKtoolkit.jpg

ok it is exagerated a tad bit.

mohica

10-02-2007, 12:44 PM

I did not see the whole film, Are you saying the M4 operates closed bolt in semi and open bolt in full auto?

It is not an M4. It is the LWRC Infantry Automatic Rifle. Developed by request for a USMC requirement. this thing is really neat. It does share much with the M4, but obvously the FCG is much different.

Read more here:

http://www.lwrifles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1111

Jippo

10-02-2007, 01:08 PM

The armorers tool kit for the AR:

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/ARTollkit.jpg

Hollis, you made a mistake. #1 is AK sight adjustment tool.

StukaJr

10-02-2007, 03:17 PM

IIRC, in an interview with Kalashnikov, it was during a discussion in comparison with the M16 the intereviewer mentioned the greater accuracy of the M16 among other things i.e. weight comparison, etc. Kalashinkov stated that the AK47 was built for durability and reliabiltiy first and foremost. He didn't directly refute that statement so, by caveat, he acknowledged yes the M16 may be more accurate, and paraprhasing here "but it will fail when the AK47 will still fire." That is his opinion. What else would you expect him to say?

He probably didn't want to beat the deadhorse to death or no firing line to take "interviewer" to... In the video I've seen, he was target shooting with Izhmash Biathlon rifle at coin sized targets at 50 meters with peep sights.

I don't understand why people compare the two rifles all the time - AK has barrel that's 4" shorter, that alone should suggest that it would be less accurate... I've never shot the M16 with its original barrel but I'm almost certain that every "AK47 vs M16" thread involved heavy A2 type barrels, not the original thinner ones (or Heavy Barrel would never have been requested on A2 upgrade).

I'm for one not fighting that M16A2 is a more accurate rifle in vacuum of target shooting, but in combat application (especially given current training) it's more or less a moot point... Comparing rifles almost 30 years apart is another. Comparing two rifles where one has more exposure and bias is the third (enough complaints about open leaf sights as is).

Again, if you think the "eventual" flexing of a barrel in both recoil and return to battery is "sorta unsubstancial" in relation to the accuracy of the weapon regardless of what the weapon is, you are grossly mistaken. Period.

By the way, you are incorrect that the bullet has totally left the barrel before the barrel moves on the AK47. Also, the AR15/M16 series has negligible recoil compared to the AK47 which has a much more violent action.

Why would barrel flex in "return to battery"?

The barrel flexes and moves as the bullet is traveling down the bore - it can be observed on any rifle, with or without the gas system. This travel is the biggest force in creating the flex - gas diverting back into the gas tube and propelling the piston is the least of it. If that force was so great - M14 rifle would be inaccurate as all hell. Thicker barrels will flex less and lighter will flex more - but all will flex at some degree, it's just thicker barrel will flex with greater level of consistency. Gas system may have added a marginal flex but that's dampened by thicker barrel as well - either way, a thicker target barrel takes care of both problems of accuracy at once.

Regardless of the type of material used in receiver fabrication, sheet metal or forged, you can't escape the simple fact of the mass of the bolt/carrrier/piston reciprocating during the firing cycle of the AK has a detrimental effect on the accuracy of the weapon. This is a function of the design of the weapon. Period.

Bolt Carrier does not begin its rearward movement until the bullet has left the barrel. Period.

mohica

10-02-2007, 04:21 PM

He probably didn't want to beat the deadhorse to death or no firing line to take "interviewer" to... In the video I've seen, he was target shooting with Izhmash Biathlon rifle at coin sized targets at 50 meters with peep sights.

I don't understand why people compare the two rifles all the time - AK has barrel that's 4" shorter, that alone should suggest that it would be less accurate... I've never shot the M16 with its original barrel but I'm almost certain that every "AK47 vs M16" thread involved heavy A2 type barrels, not the original thinner ones (or Heavy Barrel would never have been requested on A2 upgrade).

I'm for one not fighting that M16A2 is a more accurate rifle in vacuum of target shooting, but in combat application (especially given current training) it's more or less a moot point... Comparing rifles almost 30 years apart is another. Comparing two rifles where one has more exposure and bias is the third (enough complaints about open leaf sights as is).

Jesus H. Christ dude! Why don't you understand? Talk about beating a dead horse. I am at a complete loss as you why you continue to argue a point that is patently incorrect. Forget heavy barrels, light barrels, long barrels, short barrels, fast twist rate, slow twist rate, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

THE AK47 AS A RESULT OF IT'S ACTION AS DESIGNED IS INHERENTLY LESS ACCURATE THAN THE M16.

This holds true in target shooting as well as combat shooting. Will it make a hill of beans difference in the real world versus the operator using the weapon. Yes and no.

By the way, I doubt Kalashnikov was too concerned with having to prove his weapon, it has already been done. That is why he was being interviewed.

Why would barrel flex in "return to battery"?

Because of the mass and to a degree the length of the carrier/bolt/piston assembly in realtion to the barrel.

The barrel flexes and moves as the bullet is traveling down the bore - it can be observed on any rifle, with or without the gas system. This travel is the biggest force in creating the flex - gas diverting back into the gas tube and propelling the piston is the least of it.

Your statements are incorrect, at least depending on what type of weapon. IF you were to have flex in a barrel of a say Chandler bolt action rifle, it would be infintesmial to the point it is irrelevant. Now, with gas operated weapons you change the playing field, depending on the action of course. In the case of the AK47, the mass of the carrier/bolt/piston assembley as well as it's length contributes to the distortion of the weapon upon firing. You just gotta understand, for all practical matters in a combat situation it may not make a huge difference for some, but you have to quit trying to make the AK some type of match rifle. It isn't and ain't never gonna be one.

If that force was so great - M14 rifle would be inaccurate as all hell. Thicker barrels will flex less and lighter will flex more - but all will flex at some degree, it's just thicker barrel will flex with greater level of consistency. Gas system may have added a marginal flex but that's dampened by thicker barrel as well - either way, a thicker target barrel takes care of both problems of accuracy at once.

No, the M14 is a DIFFERENT ACTION. The bolt is very light weight and is independent of the op rod, they are not one piece. The piston is a small item also and independent of the op rod. So you have three separate parts for the M14 doing what one does for the AK.

There are things you can do to any rifle too accurize it. Heavy forged receivers, heavy barrels, fluted barrels, etc. all can help, but you still can't change the fact of the initial design of the weapon. It is what it is.

Bolt Carrier does not begin its rearward movement until the bullet has left the barrel. Period.

Sorry pal, but you are incorrect. The carrier/bolt/piston assembly starts it's rearward movement as gas reaches the gas hole in the barrel. This includes a mininmal amount of pressurized air in front of the bullet and of course propellant gasses as the bullet passes the gas hole. This happens in milliseconds but does occur.

Jippo

10-02-2007, 04:35 PM

Flex in return to battery makes no difference for practical accuracy, as it only affects accuracy in full auto fire.

StukaJr

10-02-2007, 05:21 PM

mohica - you are discussing target rifle characteristics affected by "full-auto" weapon characteristics...

Sorry pal, but you are incorrect. The carrier/bolt/piston assembly starts it's rearward movement as gas reaches the gas hole in the barrel. This includes a mininmal amount of pressurized air in front of the bullet and of course propellant gasses as the bullet passes the gas hole. This happens in milliseconds but does occur.

Ummmm... You forgot that the gas has to build up enough pressure to overcome the return spring - by the time the bolt carrier begins to move (leave alone slams) the bullet has long cleared the muzzle. If you review high speed photography, you will see so. "Begin" movement, perhaps... But nowhere near "violent", by any stretch...

I never stated that AK is a match or a bench rifle - that point was made by Jippo and another member as their personal experience, not mine. But I will go on a limb and suggest that accuracy gain of the AR would be marginal at best, given two equally trained counterparts, each with bias towards their own weapon system and shooting from unsupported position... Perhaps if there was a market for "Match" or "Varmint" AK parts - you'd see a lot more Match AK's and if there was no import ban on most quality parts, you would see a lot more AK's that stand their own. For Military purpose - it does what it was intended to do and does so very well - with improvements and upgrades over time.

Can one build a Match AK rifle? I still say the answer is "yes"... And I'd want one.

SMGLee

10-02-2007, 06:11 PM

if you take a Dragnov and a Sr25, you will find the Sr25 to be superior in accuracy.

If you take a AK74 and compare to a M16A2, the accuracy again will be won by the M16 series.

I have no experience with the newer AK100 series so I can't commit on it.

as to the AK series, components are build with more tolerance. this has nothing to do with when the bullet leaves the barrel, but it has to do with how the mech. lock up everytime there is a round chambered, with the AK, the chance that the first round are locking up with some difference then the second are very high, as you know, with accuracy, how each components interface are essential to an accurate rifle. so if you are varience in the wy the bolt interface with the breech, you will start to get variation in accuracy. this is why sniper like bolt gun, lock up are always exactly the same. this is also why they like to sell fitted bolt with those match barrel that goes into those high dollar AR.

I guess you can build an accurate AK, but the way the gun is desing with the overally long bolt travel and how the carrier interface with the receiver, it just was never design to be an accurate rifle. it is more like couple of thousand Soviet rifleman with BMP in support and T72 rushing down the narrow path that is West Germany.

Hollis

10-02-2007, 06:56 PM

Jesus H. Christ dude! Why don't you understand? Talk about beating a dead horse. I am at a complete loss as you why you continue to argue a point that is patently incorrect.

Hey dude, chill.......... You have several members who are experience and very knowledgeable trying to help you out.

I am going to try to say this without coming off as a pissed off DI, I really don't think you know what you are talking about. You know some stuff, BUT NOT ENOUGH.

A forum is great for discussion but not for teaching the indepth knowledge it takes with some one who does not realize how much they don't know.

You never bothered to answer my questions on your posts. It may be clear in mind, but you are failing to not get that across to others.

If you want the accuracy of a bolt gun, buy a bolt gun a AK will never do it. A bolt gun will never deliever the rounds down range as fast as a AK.

Read more............... The other members here have been very tolerant. Your making it sound like my 13 year daughter knows more about fire arms than you. BTW she knows a lot. She tells me, how much the boys her age are clueless.

Hollis

10-02-2007, 06:58 PM

Hollis, you made a mistake. #1 is AK sight adjustment tool.

I have to save that for ES. That was great, thanks.

Laworkerbee

10-02-2007, 06:59 PM

Did you give it to Abu Workerbee to try? He can use the force p-)

Anything past 100 meters go ahead and give me a call, remember I'm the guy who couldn't put anything in the black at 100 meters on Saturday

200, 300, 400, even 600 no problem.....but 100 meters might as well be 1000 :cantbeli:

Hollis

10-02-2007, 07:21 PM

Anything past 100 meters go ahead and give me a call, remember I'm the guy who couldn't put anything in the black at 100 meters on Saturday

200, 300, 400, even 600 no problem.....but 100 meters might as well be 1000 :cantbeli:

I can help you out there, Make a bigger black circle. That is interesting BTW. Do you know why?

The mind can play tricks on us, thinking that is a done deal, we slack off and go sloppy........ that equates to a miss.

StukaJr

10-02-2007, 07:23 PM

Those were non-standard rifle targets - needs larger paper so you can see where your misses stack up at... And your Enfield sights are from WWI - anything under 100 yards you can reach and poke with that bayonet p-)

if you take a Dragnov and a Sr25, you will find the Sr25 to be superior in accuracy.

Wellll... Just to be fair, if Sr25 was built on 20+ year old Chinese receiver, with a mix of parts produced in various countries, shot with ball ammo etc - it wouldn't be all that accurate either p-) American market is not exactly spoiled with quality import parts to build from... Plus, the Dragunov was introduced 30 some years prior to design of Sr25 and which design saw more action?

Laworkerbee

10-02-2007, 07:43 PM

I can help you out there, Make a bigger black circle. That is interesting BTW. Do you know why?

The mind can play tricks on us, thinking that is a done deal, we slack off and go sloppy........ that equates to a miss.

I was using the "point blank" settings of my Enfield sights since there is no 100 meter mark, when I moved it to 200 meters I shot low, scaled up to 300 meters it was then spot on...

what the hell?

Those were non-standard rifle targets - needs larger paper so you can see where your misses stack up at... And your Enfield sights are from WWI - anything under 100 yards you can reach and poke with that bayonet p-)

Bummer he made me remove the bayonet, I wanted to see how I grouped with it attached.

SMGLee

10-02-2007, 08:00 PM

Those were non-standard rifle targets - needs larger paper so you can see where your misses stack up at... And your Enfield sights are from WWI - anything under 100 yards you can reach and poke with that bayonet p-)

Wellll... Just to be fair, if Sr25 was built on 20+ year old Chinese receiver, with a mix of parts produced in various countries, shot with ball ammo etc - it wouldn't be all that accurate either p-) American market is not exactly spoiled with quality import parts to build from... Plus, the Dragunov was introduced 30 some years prior to design of Sr25 and which design saw more action?

I think that is where you are wrong, any Dragnov style rifle from yugo to Russian, it will not group as well as a SR25. I am not talking about a chinese dragnov that you can buy, but current crop of manufactured rifle coming off assembly line.

so a well made russian dragnov with match 7.51x54R ammo will not out shoot a SR25 with match 308M ammo.

StukaJr

10-02-2007, 08:06 PM

I was using the "point blank" settings of my Enfield sights since there is no 100 meter mark, when I moved it to 200 meters I shot low, scaled up to 300 meters it was then spot on...

what the hell?

I was taught to always set my sights at 300 yards and shoot at the base of the black of the target at 100 yards...

If you were shooting the 125 grain loads I made you - then it should be pretty close to 7.62x51 (~2700 fps muzzle velocity), then 300 sight zero would mean that you are zeroed at a 100 yards as well (?) as the arch of the bullet rises (at 100) and falls (again at 300), crossing the same point of impact... 200 yard sights would be low at 100 yards as it's still on the rise...

Laworkerbee

10-02-2007, 08:31 PM

The only rounds that I scored on that target with were the rounds you loaded for me, the 180 grain Serb rounds were way the hell off target.

StukaJr

10-02-2007, 08:33 PM

The only rounds that I scored on that target with were the rounds you loaded for me, the 180 grain Serb rounds were way the hell off target.

They probably veered off towards the two Bosnian guys, on the bench to our left...

...

...

Did I just say that? p-)

But really, I'm bringing some construction paper next time to the range to properly sight stuff in - those 25 yard targets at 100 yards with cardboard backing full of holes aren't cutting it.

so a well made russian dragnov with match 7.51x54R ammo will not out shoot a SR25 with match 308M ammo.

I'm just gonna have to pick up 7.62x54R reloading dies then p-)

SMGLee

10-02-2007, 09:16 PM

I'm just gonna have to pick up 7.62x54R reloading dies then p-)

You know, I just happen to have a Mk11 Mod0 available to me....what a coincidence.

StukaJr

10-02-2007, 09:35 PM

You know, I just happen to have a Mk11 Mod0 available to me....what a coincidence.

Hehe, nice! I start enough discussions and I'll get access to AT4's p-)

I have been mulling 7.62x54r handloads for a while now - seeing whom will give me access to their SVD...

mohica

10-02-2007, 09:50 PM

Hey dude, chill.......... You have several members who are experience and very knowledgeable trying to help you out.

Thanks so much for the kind offer, but I am doing ok. The issue is some here are trying to make a case for the AK47 being as or more accurate by nature than an AR16/M16 series. That is patently false. It is not reality. It is voodoo majic.

I am going to try to say this without coming off as a pissed off DI, I really don't think you know what you are talking about. You know some stuff, BUT NOT ENOUGH.

I might have fallen off the turnip truck, but it wasn't last night. I can assure you, I know enough not to make a ignorant claim that an AK47 is inherently as accurate as an M16.

A forum is great for discussion but not for teaching the indepth knowledge it takes with some one who does not realize how much they don't know.

You never bothered to answer my questions on your posts. It may be clear in mind, but you are failing to not get that across to others.

Common sense really, particulary after seeing the video, for the novice by the way, watching the distortion of the AK47. I don't know how much more clear it could be. Some people just want to hear what they want to hear.

If you want the accuracy of a bolt gun, buy a bolt gun a AK will never do it. A bolt gun will never deliever the rounds down range as fast as a AK.

Well, finally a sensible statement from the opposition, but already known to most I would think. An AK will never be as accurate as a bolt gun. Damn, that one sure raises the bar. Not too sure though what happened to the AK/M16 comparison, don't know how the bolt action got in the mix.

Read more............... The other members here have been very tolerant. Your making it sound like my 13 year daughter knows more about fire arms than you. BTW she knows a lot. She tells me, how much the boys her age are clueless.

Ouch, now that hurts. Yeah, I am a dumb ass for sure. By the way, what's in your safe?

Hollis

10-02-2007, 10:08 PM

By the way, what's in your safe?

My Capital One card.

In regards to this discussion

I own 6 AK 47s
2 AK 74s
1 AR 10
1 AR 180
3 ARs,

I also have a working MG42, 1911 Browning, several Uzis, My oldest is a 1818 Springfield that I shoot, I reload for over at least 36 different calibers, shoot metalic Black powder, combustable cartridges and just good old fashion front stuffers.

I build firearms, all the AKs I own I have built, I built the MG 42 and 1919, and a bunch of others, I have hot bluing tanks, parkerizing tanks, a machine shop.

Do you want to see the pics? My reloading bench is about 20 ft long, 2 dillons, one single stage, 10 gauge, 12/20 guage 410 presses, I cast my own bullets and lube and size them.

MY daughter by 10 years old, loaded 9mm 40 S&W, 12 gauge Black powder, 30 Carbine, 8mm, 308 and 30-06 with me, and probably a few more.

BTW, I don't have a safe I have Safe(S), and a safe room.

I will not even get into what else I own, you can see some of the pictures on MP Net.

My daughter when she was 9, working out the 1919.

BTW, Not meaning to get into my safe is bigger than yours, Go to Cody WY, the Cody Museum........ anything else is very small potatoes. I have been shooting for over 51 years.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/Lena1919.jpg

mohica

10-02-2007, 10:20 PM

Wellll... Just to be fair, if Sr25 was built on 20+ year old Chinese receiver, with a mix of parts produced in various countries, shot with ball ammo etc - it wouldn't be all that accurate either p-) American market is not exactly spoiled with quality import parts to build from... Plus, the Dragunov was introduced 30 some years prior to design of Sr25 and which design saw more action?

FYI, the SR25 is the product improved version of the grandaddy of the 7.62mm Stoner rifles, the Fairchild/ArmaLite AR10 developed in the mid to late 1950's. So the basic design has been around for 50+ years.

StukaJr

10-02-2007, 10:29 PM

Common sense really, particulary after seeing the video, for the novice by the way, watching the distortion of the AK47. I don't know how much more clear it could be. Some people just want to hear what they want to hear.

I watched the video, for the sake of the argument. First thing that bothers me - the AK shooter can't hit torso sized target at 200 yards from supported position, in semi-auto? Obviously, these firearm experts never heard of mechanical rests and can't achieve basic requirements of a Soviet stroibat conscript in review of the two firearms (that is some test)... So the shooter doesn't know how to use open leaf sights - let's make a video of how impossible it is to use chopsticks p-)

Second thing, in the very beginning of the video that compares the two guns firing in slow motion - they show the handguard of the M16 and only portion of the barrel (which I can clearly see whip, right before it cuts). Still don't see the explanation of the bolt carrier fitting the cause - barrel whip happens as the bullet is travelling down the muzzle + 1500 odd ft/lbs of energy expanded at the muzzle, not as the bolt carrier strikes home.

Those points alone should make the comparison more than skeptical.

Ouch, now that hurts. Yeah, I am a dumb ass for sure. By the way, what's in your safe?

Just visit "sticky" Building Firearms and see...