What Rifle do you think should replace the M16?

Well guys, there are rumors about replacing the standard issue M16. What rifle do you think should replace the M16? Pictures would be helpful aswell.

I'm thinking either the HK G36K
http://www.hkpro.com/action4ksk1.jpg

Or the M4 Carbine

http://www.lesales.com/products/Colt_977_m4carbine.jpg

[Haiw]

Plasma rifle would be cool. Definately.

[StarvingStudent47]

I'd rather implement a 6.8mm SOMETHING than just switch over to the XM-8. Of course, as a civilian, no one really gives a crap what I think about this topic :)

[Operation Ivy]

I want "laser guns"

[mustamato]

http://www.hkpro.com/pdwpos3.jpg

I would like to see PDW´s issued to REMF´s, vehicle crews and other that don´t really need a large assault rifle.

[Argyll]

what about airsoft weapons,that way they all get to go home after the battles over!!

M4's or the G36!!

[Whistler]

Modern Americanized Kalashnikov.

Ak inner workings.
RIS system from an M4 with all the same attachments.
5.56 Nato with 7.62 Soviet versions for spec ops.

That would be cool... Probably cheap too. Looks like they are going with the M8 though :(.

[Haiw]

M4's are already in use with a lot of units anyway...

[Argyll]

Whistler,they already have that type of weapon it's called the SR47,it was tested in Afghanistan,I think there were like only 10 made or something like that!

[RP]

Well, here in Israel we have replaced almost all of our M16 (both a1 and a2) with the m4a1 in all the infantry units.

And hopefully in a year, we'll be replacing those with a brand new IMI Tavor.

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/tavor/tavor-21.jpg

[Ratamacue]

In case you haven't seen, FutureMarine, the military is most likely going to replace it with the HK M8, which is essentially a modified G36.

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/mil-leimages/xm8_rightmed.jpg
http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/mil-leimages/xm8_still-lifepopup.jpg
http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/mil-leimages/xm8apgsold1popup.jpg
http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/XM8-17-3.jpg

[usa320]

I say replace teh M-16's with M-4's and the M-4's with M-8's.

[Operation Ivy]

As long as the M8 is black and has ironsites im down with it :D

[Javehn]

I think there is AK modified to NATO standart with 5.56 bullets , AK-101..105 . I would shure love to put my hands on it .

[Antepilani]

I say they should issue a couple M14's per squad(like the 101st Airborne did in Iraq) along with the new M-8.

[perdurabo]

I think there is AK modified to NATO standart with 5.56 bullets , AK-101..105 . I would shure love to put my hands on it .
hmm Beryl is modyfied AK on 5.56 NATO so....

[papasmerf]

http://www.deutsches-kunststoff-museum.de/pics/soaker.jpg

[papasmerf]

I think XM8 is pretty ugly :|

[Javehn]

I think there is AK modified to NATO standart with 5.56 bullets , AK-101..105 . I would shure love to put my hands on it .
hmm Beryl is modyfied AK on 5.56 NATO so....
:D
Is Beryl good peace of weapon ? I presume it's something like our Galil (or like every second modification of AK in the world on that matter ) ..The reason is i want to look at it , is that i once put my hands on some old AK modification 7.62 (Russian AK-47 , or something like that ) , and it was much lighter then my Mini Galil 5.56 . If 7.62 AK had that weight , i am interested how much weight is AK 5.56 have . And weight is one the most important factors .
If only AK had the possibility of rails , or installing optic , sights , or anything else from that kind , that would be the best weapon ever ( i mean , some permenant solution where you can change different optics in matter of minute , not some different strange type rails , that good only for airsoft ) .

[Undo]

Current AK-74 is 5.45X39. Very light. Biggest asset is reliability. AKM is almost as light with the old-school round. AKs are available in practicly every flavor as the AK-100 series. I would love to see the US switch to AKs. $18 a pop and even a REMF couldn't screw them up. No way its gonna happen, though.

I thought XM-8 was already dead? G-36 is good gun.

Technically, M-4 is a carbine, not a "battle rifle". Don't know what that means, exactly, to those making the decisions. I have heard the shorter barrel has caused some problems.

[Javehn]

M4 (or FLAT-TOP) is a weapon that weight a ton , if you compare it to M16 , or car 15 . The only real difference between it and car 15 is the abillity to fire enhanced "green" AP rounds , and the abillity to put optics on it , without the different adaptors like MARS on M16 . It had incountered allready several problems , if i am not mistaken .
(About the Carabine , i think AR's - assault rifles get dessignation carabin , once they are shorter then some length , i don't remember which . So , AR-15 , or M16 commonly , have became to CAR-15 , or short M-16) .

[Undo]

I think there is AK modified to NATO standart with 5.56 bullets , AK-101..105 . I would shure love to put my hands on it .
hmm Beryl is modyfied AK on 5.56 NATO so....
:D
Is Beryl good peace of weapon ? I presume it's something like our Galil (or like every second modification of AK in the world on that matter ) ..The reason is i want to look at it , is that i once put my hands on some old AK modification 7.62 (Russian AK-47 , or something like that ) , and it was much lighter then my Mini Galil 5.56 . If 7.62 AK had that weight , i am interested how much weight is AK 5.56 have . And weight is one the most important factors .
If only AK had the possibility of rails , or installing optic , sights , or anything else from that kind , that would be the best weapon ever ( i mean , some permenant solution where you can change different optics in matter of minute , not some different strange type rails , that good only for airsoft ) .

AK sight attachment system is very robust. I don't know what you are referring to. It isn't ideal, as it is mounted down on the lower reciever and subject to a lot of vibration, but an AK with a EKP-8 Kobra optic is hard to beat.

http://tantal.kalashnikov.guns.ru/bstkobra.html

[Javehn]

I was reffering to , if you are , let's say , designated marksman , and carry a X4 scope . When the night comes , you supposed to change it to night scope . Instead of do it in a matter of , less then minute , how long it will take on AK ? You suppose to dismantle all side arm addaptor , mount a new addaptor for a night vision scope .

[Undo]

I was reffering to , if you are , let's say , designated marksman , and carry a X4 scope . When the night comes , you supposed to change it to night scope . Instead of do it in a matter of , less then minute , how long it will take on AK ? You suppose to dismantle all side arm addaptor , mount a new addaptor for a night vision scope .

Ah, yes. Very true. On M-4 you can piggy back NV and other devices. However, swapping out siderail systems on AK takes about 30 secs. Still, the M-4 rail system is definitely better in this regard. I guess my point was only that a mounting system does exist and is very good for what it is. It does have limitations.

But AK doesn't need a forward assist (heh).

The XM8 looks like a toy, G36K all the way...

[Ratamacue]

They're the same gun, dude. The only difference is the look, the sight, and some of the controls have been moved around/added for the US Military. Both the XM8 and G36 are made of plastic.

It looks a little bit curvy, it needs to be all black with a little bit more straight edges...

[Vance]

Damn, who the **** cares if it looks like a toy, if it works, it works...

Damn, who the f*** cares if it looks like a toy

you would be so surprised...

[Ratamacue]

How does it go? "If it's stupid but works, it isn't stupid."

[Vance]

Damn, who the f*** cares if it looks like a toy

you would be so surprised...
You missed part of my sentence there, buddy...

Damn, who the f*** cares if it looks like a toy

you would be so surprised...
You missed part of my sentence there, buddy...

I missed it on purpose, I wasn't replying to that quote, buddy.

[Vance]

:roll: Obviously that part of the sentence REQUIRES the other part to make sense. Oh, by the way:



How does it go? "If it's stupid but works, it isn't stupid."

just wanted to make this clear, I didn't say the XM8 is stupid.

[Operation Ivy]

Face it Mr. Marine you will be using the M8 instead of the m14/16/4 or G36 ;)

[Antepilani]

I would love to see the US switch to AKs. $18 a pop and even a REMF couldn't screw them up. No way its gonna happen, though.


Please tell me why we would ever want to use a less acurate firearm then what we have now.

Kalashnikov rifles are weapons for the 3rd world not professional militaries.

We should issue an M-14 with polymor stock and rails.

Face it Mr. Marine you will be using the M8 instead of the m14/16/4 or G36 ;)

You just named my 4 favorite ar's right there.... omg... noooo :|

http://www.isayeret.com/sniping/m14-d.jpg

http://www.mfiap.com/airsoft/acce/m16a2+rail_side.jpg



http://www.guns.com.hk/images/new/m4a1/m4a1photo01.jpg

http://www.hkpro.com/action7kskg36k.jpg

:roll:

[Russian Texan]

I would love to see the US switch to AKs. $18 a pop and even a REMF couldn't screw them up. No way its gonna happen, though.


Please tell me why we would ever want to use a less acurate firearm then what we have now.

Kalashnikov rifles are weapons for the 3rd world not professional militaries.

We should issue an M-14 with polymor stock and rails.


Another weapons expert :roll:

[jlanni]

i personaly like the look of the M16 ... it kinda has a scary look to it if ya know what i mean.. all the new stuff comeing out looks like a plastic toy.. but the gov needs to decide what to put out only thing i would put in is 7.62 ammo ive heard alot of complaints about the 5.56 not haveing the knock down power that the 7.62 does..

all the new stuff comeing out looks like a plastic toy..

True.

[crazyman]

if what the press releases say is all true, the M8 looks good if ya ask me. takes the best parts of the G36 and fixes some of the problems. Fact is though, i'll be carrying an M4 for quite awhile yet

[Mudcat]

So, if the US goes toward an HK design is it gonna be made in Germany or over here?

FN has a plant in South Carolina that makes the M240 and M249 for the US services. Does HK have a manufacturing plant set up over here?

I like HK's weapons but I do think it would be good for a country's main military rifle to be made in that country. Call it national pride or what ever but it makes good sense to me. "What if" we go to war with another country and they blockade or occupied Germany (the French maybe? rofl ).

[StarvingStudent47]

We should issue an M-14 with polymor stock and rails.

I stumbled upon this a while ago. Troy Industries "M-14 SOPMOD." To a dumb citizen as myself, it seems like a viable modern weapon for those who want a 7.62mm NATO round. What do other folks think of it, especially those in the military?

http://troyind.com/images/Web%20Black_scope_open.jpg

(barrels come in 12", 14", and 16" varieties.

Manufacturer's page here (http://troyind.com/Sopmod/SOPMOD%20M-14.htm)

We should issue an M-14 with polymor stock and rails.

I stumbled upon this a while ago. Troy Industries "M-14 SOPMOD." To a dumb citizen as myself, it seems like a viable modern weapon for those who want a 7.62mm NATO round. What do other folks think of it, especially those in the military?

http://troyind.com/images/Web%20Black_scope_open.jpg

(barrels come in 12", 14", and 16" varieties.

Manufacturer's page here (http://troyind.com/Sopmod/SOPMOD%20M-14.htm)

now that's a weapon

[Undo]

I would love to see the US switch to AKs. $18 a pop and even a REMF couldn't screw them up. No way its gonna happen, though.


Please tell me why we would ever want to use a less acurate firearm then what we have now.

Kalashnikov rifles are weapons for the 3rd world not professional militaries.

We should issue an M-14 with polymor stock and rails.


You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

No shame in it.

[usa320]

Its partly true. WHile the AK is more powerful than the M-4 or M-16, it does lack accuracy. The first shot is as accurate as an M-4, but after that it takes time to get another accurate shot, making it not good for CQB,

[Undo]

Its partly true. WHile the AK is more powerful than the M-4 or M-16, it does lack accuracy. The first shot is as accurate as an M-4, but after that it takes time to get another accurate shot, making it not good for CQB,

Where did you get this information? How does a few mils of accuracy at range make a weapon "not good for CQB"? I see these comments a lot, about the accuracy of the AK and I just don't understand it. In semi-auto an AK is extremely accurate out to about 250-300 meters (typical engagement ranges). In full auto it performs on par with other assault rifles. I just get tired of these cold-warrior reports about how inferior the AK is supposed to be. Any time you want to try it for yourself let me know. We can go to the range and you can have some fun and learn somethings for yourself first-hand. Not a flame, just frustration at what I see as an unfounded bias.

Besides, an M-16 might be a hair more accurate, but the AK will ALWAYS fire, and if nothing is going down range, I don't care whether it WOULD have been accurate or not.

This is just my opinion and my personal experience, but to each his own.

[StarvingStudent47]

Its partly true. WHile the AK is more powerful than the M-4 or M-16, it does lack accuracy. The first shot is as accurate as an M-4, but after that it takes time to get another accurate shot, making it not good for CQB,

Where did you get this information? How does a few mils of accuracy at range make a weapon "not good for CQB"? I see these comments a lot, about the accuracy of the AK and I just don't understand it. In semi-auto an AK is extremely accurate out to about 250-300 meters (typical engagement ranges). In full auto it performs on par with other assault rifles. I just get tired of these cold-warrior reports about how inferior the AK is supposed to be. Any time you want to try it for yourself let me know. We can go to the range and you can have some fun and learn somethings for yourself first-hand. Not a flame, just frustration at what I see as an unfounded bias.

Besides, an M-16 might be a hair more accurate, but the AK will ALWAYS fire, and if nothing is going down range, I don't care whether it WOULD have been accurate or not.

This is just my opinion and my personal experience, but to each his own.

Well, if you want to talk about "cold-warrior" reports, I've never heard a modern American soldier complain about the reliability of the M16a2. The a1 had problems in Vietnam, for sure, but things have changed since then. In my experience, bashing the reliability of the M-16 is very much an East-West Cold War thing, based more on "Kalashnikov pride" than real-life problems with Colt weapons.

Just out of curiousity--have you ever regularly used an M16a2 and had it jam on you? If so, then obviously my previous comments don't apply.

As for the accuracy of the AK47, sure it's very accurate on semi-auto. I don't know many people who dispute that--and usa320 clearly said that the first shot is just as accurate as an M-4. But the AK has far more kickback on full-auto than an M-4, so it IS less controllable in that situation. And "less controllable" equals "less accurate," no?

[Javehn]

On this matter , if you allready talking ... I think some US troops need much more then a new gun . Don't understand me wrong , love US troops , they are the best and kick ass . But common ... I don't think someone should blame to grate Kalach for being innacurate ;) >>


http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/aug2003/articles/ai082703c1.jpg http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/aug2003/articles/ai082703c4.jpg
The close to the camera guy , the "way" he is holding the Kalach :roll: And his hits rofl
(To be fair , the guy behind him seams to hold it correctly )

US range in Iraq , from what i saw in picture , 25 metters distance . Common ... :cantbeli:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/aug2003/articles/ai082703c3.jpg

[California Joe]

So, if the US goes toward an HK design is it gonna be made in Germany or over here?

FN has a plant in South Carolina that makes the M240 and M249 for the US services. Does HK have a manufacturing plant set up over here?

I like HK's weapons but I do think it would be good for a country's main military rifle to be made in that country. Call it national pride or what ever but it makes good sense to me. "What if" we go to war with another country and they blockade or occupied Germany (the French maybe? rofl ).

Berreta's are Italian but made in Indian Head Maryland.

[ibstolidude]

So, if the US goes toward an HK design is it gonna be made in Germany or over here?

FN has a plant in South Carolina that makes the M240 and M249 for the US services. Does HK have a manufacturing plant set up over here?

I like HK's weapons but I do think it would be good for a country's main military rifle to be made in that country. Call it national pride or what ever but it makes good sense to me. "What if" we go to war with another country and they blockade or occupied Germany (the French maybe? rofl ).

Part us the US contracts require the product to be made in the US

[ibstolidude]

US range in Iraq , from what i saw in picture , 25 metters distance . Common ... :cantbeli:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/aug2003/articles/ai082703c3.jpg

not to defend his misses, but
25 meters yes... they are shooting the small man shaped target that is the size of a man standing at 250 meters...

[Operation Ivy]

Maryland

woot Go Maryland

[Javehn]

US range in Iraq , from what i saw in picture , 25 metters distance . Common ... :cantbeli:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/aug2003/articles/ai082703c3.jpg

not to defend his misses, but
25 meters yes... they are shooting the small man shaped target that is the size of a man standing at 250 meters...

Maybe you are trying to say that the targets are the size of someone standing in 250 ? From the second picture i think i understand what you mean . Strange targets .

[Argyll]

Most weapons are zeroed at between 20-30 metres,this is common,as at that distance the round starts to rise,in its trajectory.
We always zeroed in on 25m ranges!

[Javehn]

Most weapons are zeroed at between 20-30 metres,this is common,as at that distance the round starts to rise,in its trajectory.
We always zeroed in on 25m ranges!

Yes , we also . That's why i reffered to that distance . The way the first guy holds Kalachnikov in picture , that is just so wrong , in so many levels .Just as his hits , that doesn't even fit to normal 25 m hits .

[marktigger]

that funny argyll cause we were alway's zeroed at 100m. For the reason you give.

[NcDeuce]

http://www.deutsches-kunststoff-museum.de/pics/soaker.jpg

http://www.learn.co.uk/glearning/primary/lessons/ks2/lesson3/contentimages/supersoaker.jpg

Trial versions of these weapons are being tested by Special Operations forces worldwide. Both weapons have the ability to completely render an enemy wet.

[Operation Ivy]

The squirt gun joke isnt that funny anymore :(

[Argyll]

Well Mark in all the camps I've been in there was always a 25m range for zeroing weapons,zeroing at 100m seems odd!Also it meant that we could zero also in the 25m Pipe ranges in other locations in the camps in NI,using the 22 conversion kit,this was for the old SLR I'm talking about here and not the SA80.
The reason for zeroing at 25 is that there is only about a 4 inch rise from line of sight to that target at 200m+.
Hving done a BASC firearms refresher course last year ,the instructor,basically said if you can get your rounds in a 4 in patch at 25m then you can achieve the same hits in excess of 200

[Antepilani]

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

No shame in it.


The Ak-101 has a barrel of 41.5 cm, how can you even pretend it has the accuracy as an M16A2 with a 50.8 cm barrel. That is the only thing I said that was negitive about it so I assume that is what you are telling me I have no "idea what I am talking about". On top of the lower accuracy you get a lower muzzle velocity, which means less energy is transfered to the person being hit with the round.


I don't think someone should blame to grate Kalach for being innacurate

The fact is due to it's lose tolerances, a short barrel, and the fact that the 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge leaves much to be desired, compared to western rifles like the G-36 and M16A2 they are inacurate.


In semi-auto an AK is extremely accurate out to about 250-300 meters (typical engagement ranges)

Are you aware that by the time a round reaches 300 meters it will have fallen almost a foot?

Because of the relitivly heavy round and the slow muzzle velocity the 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge has a very loopy trajectory, making it very hard to hit something much farther then 300 meters. Even at this range it is very inacurate relitive to Western rifles firing 5.56 x 45 mm and 7.62 x 51 mm.

Because of the higher muzzle velocity of both the NATO 5.56 and NATO 7.62 it has a straighter trajectory making it much easier to hit targets well beyond 300 meters.

[Upfrontreporting]

Any rifle which goes bang-bang in a rapid pace, couldn't give a toss what rifle to use as long as it delivers and the quality is top-notch.
I do have my preferences regarding weapons, although they are split between preferences based on academic studies and practical experience.

regards.

[NcDeuce]

i personaly like the look of the M16 ... it kinda has a scary look to it if ya know what i mean.. all the new stuff comeing out looks like a plastic toy.. but the gov needs to decide what to put out only thing i would put in is 7.62 ammo ive heard alot of complaints about the 5.56 not haveing the knock down power that the 7.62 does..

People thought that the M16 looked like toy guns when they first came out too. :lol:

http://www.mfiap.com/airsoft/acce/m16a2+rail_side.jpg

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/apsu_army_rotc/aau.sized.jpg

BOO!!! The only good weapon in these photos is the one you can just barely see in the top right corner of the second image. ;)

[NcDeuce]

http://www.deutsches-kunststoff-museum.de/pics/soaker.jpg

http://www.learn.co.uk/glearning/primary/lessons/ks2/lesson3/contentimages/supersoaker.jpg

Trial versions of these weapons are being tested by Special Operations forces worldwide. Both weapons have the ability to completely render an enemy wet.


The squirt gun joke isnt that funny anymore :(

:petting:

[Undo]

Well, if you want to talk about "cold-warrior" reports, I've never heard a modern American soldier complain about the reliability of the M16a2. The a1 had problems in Vietnam, for sure, but things have changed since then. In my experience, bashing the reliability of the M-16 is very much an East-West Cold War thing, based more on "Kalashnikov pride" than real-life problems with Colt weapons.

Just out of curiousity--have you ever regularly used an M16a2 and had it jam on you? If so, then obviously my previous comments don't apply.

As for the accuracy of the AK47, sure it's very accurate on semi-auto. I don't know many people who dispute that--and usa320 clearly said that the first shot is just as accurate as an M-4. But the AK has far more kickback on full-auto than an M-4, so it IS less controllable in that situation. And "less controllable" equals "less accurate," no?

Actually, yes, I have used the M-16A2 on a regular basis. All I have to say is, "alibi." It is a good weapon system, but the fact is it requires a lot of maintenance and even a clean one can jam at any time. If you have never heard a modern US soldier complain about its reliability, you should listen more carefully. Most of the guys I know complain that it requires way too much care. The thing that scared me most about the M-16 was that it wasn't consistantly unreliable. It could go forever sometimes, and sometimes it was like it was cursed. I just couldn't trust that it would be there for me in a pinch. For a tragic illustration, look at Jessica Lynch and her crew.

True, the AKM is a bit jumpy, but it should be compared to the M-14 to be fair. No one would ever say firing an M-14 full auto was a good thing to do. A better comparison would be the AK-74, which fires 5.45X39. Like the M-16, it has very managable recoil.

I was also referring to Russian made AKs, which are a little bit to a helluva lot better made than the Chinese, Romanian, Yugo, etc. AKs commonly encountered and available in the US. Seriously, I encourage you to go out and shoot one if you haven't already. Especially the 74. It has what is widely regarded as the most effective muzzle break ever made.

[Javehn]

Word ^^^

[Undo]

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

No shame in it.


The Ak-101 has a barrel of 41.5 cm, how can you even pretend it has the accuracy as an M16A2 with a 50.8 cm barrel. That is the only thing I said that was negitive about it so I assume that is what you are telling me I have no "idea what I am talking about". On top of the lower accuracy you get a lower muzzle velocity, which means less energy is transfered to the person being hit with the round.


I don't think someone should blame to grate Kalach for being innacurate

The fact is due to it's lose tolerances, a short barrel, and the fact that the 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge leaves much to be desired, compared to western rifles like the G-36 and M16A2 they are inacurate.


In semi-auto an AK is extremely accurate out to about 250-300 meters (typical engagement ranges)

Are you aware that by the time a round reaches 300 meters it will have fallen almost a foot?

Because of the relitivly heavy round and the slow muzzle velocity the 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge has a very loopy trajectory, making it very hard to hit something much farther then 300 meters. Even at this range it is very inacurate relitive to Western rifles firing 5.56 x 45 mm and 7.62 x 51 mm.

Because of the higher muzzle velocity of both the NATO 5.56 and NATO 7.62 it has a straighter trajectory making it much easier to hit targets well beyond 300 meters.

Okay, so you know a great deal about what you are talking about. That's great. My smart-ass response was based on your "not for a professional army" comment, which still sounds like an ignorant blanket statement.

Anyway, I am aware that the bullet drops quite a bit out at 300 meters, but the AK sights adjust for that range and when I shoot the steel diamond it goes, "dink".

Again, I think that comparing the AKM to the M-16 is not the most fair comparison. I would very much like to hear what you have to say about the 74. No disrespect intended. I am not a weapons expert, all of my opinions are based on personal experience. I would really like to know more about the science behind these things.

[REMOV]

Because of the relitivly heavy round and the slow muzzle velocity the 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge has a very loopy trajectory, making it very hard to hit something much farther then 300 meters. Even at this range it is very inacurate relitive to Western rifles firing 5.56 x 45 mm and 7.62 x 51 mm.Can you tell me why you compare intermediate round (7,62mm x 39) with rifle round (7,62mm x 51)? It make no sense. And naturally that ANY battle rifles (fed by rifle rounds, 7,62mm x 51 or 7,62mm x 54R for instance) are more accurate than ANY assault rifles (fed by intermediate round i.e. 5,56mm M16Ax or 7,62mm AKM or 5,45mm AK-74) because of cartridge power itself. It obvious.

You can compare intermediate rounds 7,62mm and 5,45mm with 5,56mm, but NOT with a 7,62mm x 51, because equivalent of such rifle round is 7,62mm x 54R. Those are TWO different cartridge types!

And, in fact, the small calibre intermediate rounds (i.e. 5,56mm x 45 or 5,45mm x 39) have greater velocity than a little bit larger intermediate rounds (as 7,62mm x 39 or 6,8mm x 43).

[REMOV]

True, the AKM is a bit jumpy, but it should be compared to the M-14 to be fair.It is not true. Boys, the M14 is large battle rifle fed by powerful rifle round, the AKM is lighter assault rifle fed by intermediate round. The 7,62mm x 51 it ISN'T comparable to 7,62mm x 39. Two different cartridge classes. Take Russian rifle round, i.e. 7,62mm x 54R and then compare features of battle rifles (or self-loading rifles).

A better comparison would be the AK-74, which fires 5.45X39. Like the M-16, it has very managable recoil.Sure, you can compare rifles in the same category - AKM to AK-74 and M16A1 and A2.

I was also referring to Russian made AKs, which are a little bit to a helluva lot better made than the Chinese, Romanian, Yugo, etc. Yeah, sure... Every country which made its own AKMs told you theirs are the best of the best - Germans, Poles, Hungarians etc. ;)

It has what is widely regarded as the most effective muzzle break ever made.Hmmm?

BTW - 7,62mm AKM is no longer in first-class Russian units from ca. 20 years, and its no longer produced. The Russian primary round is 5,45 x 39 not 7,62mm x 39.

[Undo]

REMOV,

Good points, all valid. The Russian 7.62X39 is not the same as the 7.62Nato.

The 7.62 round definitely has more kick than the 5.45. My point was simply that the 5.45 firing AK-74 is more closely matched to the M-16. When I said US should adopt AKs, I was refering to either the AK-100 series or the AK-74, not the old AKM.

I have no experience with Polish AKs, but Russian AKs are quite different than some made elsewhere, especially China.

I'll see if I can track down the specific quote about the muzzle brake. Some US weapons expert made the comment.

Does Poland still use 7.62 or 5.45?

By the way, true that the AKM is not standard issue to Russian troops and hasn't been for some time, but many Spetznas units prefer it. Many pictures of them using AKMs in Chech are available. One reason I heard was that the 5.45 round was too ****e to deflection in the wooded terrain of the region.

[koster]

On this matter , if you allready talking ... I think some US troops need much more then a new gun . Don't understand me wrong , love US troops , they are the best and kick ass . But common ... I don't think someone should blame to grate Kalach for being innacurate ;) >>
http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/aug2003/articles/ai082703c1.jpg
The close to the camera guy , the "way" he is holding the Kalach :roll: And his hits rofl
(To be fair , the guy behind him seams to hold it correctly )
That is one of many ways to hold it, I don't see anything wrong with that ;)
BTW, it's "Kalash" not Kalach.

[Javehn]

On this matter , if you allready talking ... I think some US troops need much more then a new gun . Don't understand me wrong , love US troops , they are the best and kick ass . But common ... I don't think someone should blame to grate Kalach for being innacurate ;) >>
http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/aug2003/articles/ai082703c1.jpg
The close to the camera guy , the "way" he is holding the Kalach :roll: And his hits rofl
(To be fair , the guy behind him seams to hold it correctly )
That is one of many ways to hold it, I don't see anything wrong with that ;)
BTW, it's "Kalash" not Kalach.

It's Kalach ;) . That's the way we call it in my place .
And yes , there are many ways to hold weapons , but not all of them are the right ways . This for example , is very far from being the right way .
The front hand should be supported on a knee , taking the forward weight of weapon , while the back weight taken by stock sitting in the sholder. His legs are in wrong posture , making him non stable on one place . It's better to hold the weapon more forward , even if it exeptable to hold it this way .
And so on - In short , the guy should have as much contact places between weapon and his body . This guy got it all wrong .

[Antepilani]

Can you tell me why you compare intermediate round (7,62mm x 39) with rifle round (7,62mm x 51)? It make no sense. And naturally that ANY battle rifles (fed by rifle rounds, 7,62mm x 51 or 7,62mm x 54R for instance) are more accurate than ANY assault rifles (fed by intermediate round i.e. 5,56mm M16Ax or 7,62mm AKM or 5,45mm AK-74) because of cartridge power itself. It obvious.


Your right, I shouldn't have, but I was just trying to get the point across.


Good points, all valid. The Russian 7.62X39 is not the same as the 7.62Nato.


That is definatly for sure.


And, in fact, the small calibre intermediate rounds (i.e. 5,56mm x 45 or 5,45mm x 39) have greater velocity than a little bit larger intermediate rounds (as 7,62mm x 39 or 6,8mm x 43).

Yes, like the 5.56 x 45mm firing from a rifle like M16A2 with 18 inch barrel will have a muzzle velocity of around 970 m/s where as the 7.62 x 39mm round has a muzzle velocity of around 720 m/s when fired from Ak-47.


Anyway, I am aware that the bullet drops quite a bit out at 300 meters, but the AK sights adjust for that range and when I shoot the steel diamond it goes, "dink".

The Ak-47 is not useful beyond 300-400 meters and sometimes you need to engage a target beyond this distance and be sure to hit it. But the Soviet Army used the sniper to extend the firing range of a squad(where Western Army's use it to shape the Battlefield).


When I said US should adopt AKs, I was refering to either the AK-100 series or the AK-74, not the old AKM.


We need a more powerful rifle cartridge to be in service like 7.62 NATO or the 6.8mm Cartridge they are testing, not the same one we have now coming out of a shorter barrel then what we have now.

Acurate Semi-Auto fire is a lot more deadly then spraying and praying. Unless of course you are using it in support of your squad/platton manouvering.

[REMOV]

My point was simply that the 5.45 firing AK-74 is more closely matched to the M-16.When I said US should adopt AKs, I was refering to either the AK-100 series or the AK-74, not the old AKM. In my opinion it is not good idea. The Americans don't accepted the weapon of their former enemy, and the AK-100 series assault rifles don't have advantage over the M16A2.

I have no experience with Polish AKs, but Russian AKs are quite different than some made elsewhere, especially China.Naturally we are sure, that ours AKMS are the best of the best! ;)

I'll see if I can track down the specific quote about the muzzle brake. Some US weapons expert made the comment. You know this is not just muzzle brake, but multifunction device - flash hider and muzzle brake together. Nevertheless it first time I heard that is "most effective". AFAIK the most effective muzzle brakes are used at heavy antimaterial rifles.

Does Poland still use 7.62 or 5.45?In second line Polish units (or in Territorial Defence) the AKM and AKMS are still in service. All of the 5,45mm assault rifles (i.e. Tantal) were withdrow in mid 90s.

By the way, true that the AKM is not standard issue to Russian troops and hasn't been for some time, but many Spetznas units prefer it.The special units ruled their own rules. This is small part of the whole army, right?

Many pictures of them using AKMs in Chech are available.Don't forget one thing, that Western people often don't recognize. In Chechenya there are naturally Federal Units, but the most of them are Chechen militias, faithfuly to the Russia. And they are the most frequently victims of their countrymen from underground. Their equipment is well... slight different than regular Russian army units. And the AKMS is still very popular weapon everywhere.

One reason I heard was that the 5.45 round was too ****e to deflection in the wooded terrain of the region.The problem is that fast intermediate rounds (like 5,45mm or 5,56mm) have their flaws - and one of them is stopping power. They are also more susceptible to gusts, and light obstacles sometimes changed their trajectory.

[[AFSOC]]

Ross Rifles :)

[Undo]

Remov,

Just to be clear, I never seriously thought that the US would adopt the AK.

I think the guy was talking specifically about assault rifle breaks, but I haven't found the quote yet. I am still looking.

I am sure Polish AKs are the best. :D

Good point about Chechen Militias in Chechnya. However, I was refering to Russian SF troops. VDV and GRU.

Antepilani,

Great info. But do you think it is still valid to assert that US doctrine is the same as it was in the cold war? It seems like the Russian and Isreali doctrine of a designated marksman (not snipers, sniper is a whole different kind of shooter/weapon combo) works pretty well in the battlefields of today, i.e. - urban environments where engagement ranges are pretty close. US doctrine must clearly be evolving, as the M-4 shortens the effective range of the M-16 and is becoming more and more common.
Your thoughts?

This is good stuff.

[REMOV]

I am sure Polish AKs are the best. :D
http://www.militech.sownet.gliwice.pl/inne/_AKMS_Girl_.jpg
The Polish girl with Polish AKMS ;)

[Antepilani]

Great info. But do you think it is still valid to assert that US doctrine is the same as it was in the cold war? It seems like the Russian and Isreali doctrine of a designated marksman (not snipers, sniper is a whole different kind of shooter/weapon combo) works pretty well in the battlefields of today, i.e. - urban environments where engagement ranges are pretty close. US doctrine must clearly be evolving, as the M-4 shortens the effective range of the M-16 and is becoming more and more common.
Your thoughts?

The M4 can hit a target at a decent range, the problem is since it has a shorter barrel the muzzle velocity drops quite a bit which lowers the percentage of rounds that fragment when they hit/go inside the target.

I agree we are starting to go with shorter barrels, like the standered issue M-8 is only going to have a 12.5 inch barrel. The M4 has a barrel length of 14.5 inches which means the muzzle velocity on the M-8 is going to be even less.

[Javehn]

Kalach is the **** . And no one would try to convince me with sientific bull**** . Hell , i had the luck to hold one Kalach , who suffered very much ( let's say his owner was an idiot , who thought he can go on IDF ) , and had a bullet inside the main body , and a lot of different fluids , and fragmentations ... He still continued to work without any slightest problem . While the M16 suffered from different stopishes (or misfires) without any reason to an eye , or from slightest dust inside it (causing some people to seriosly **** they pense in different situation) .

About the muzzle speed and all , beyond 300 metters the engagements from personal arms are done not on the target itself , but more to the source of fire in general , backed by sniper / designated marksmans , and machine guns (sence you have no slightest chance to aim and hit) . On this case , it doesn't matter what damn accurasy the weapon have , but if it still have a "kick" , which it does , and that's all .


And even more . Let's look at it from the tactical point of view .

Sometimes , weapon must produce big ammount of ammo , something like "pray and spray" . It done in next things : 1) When you want to split the enemy into small non communicating groups and nock each group at a time . 2) When you want enemy to be still on one position , he wouldn't be able to raise his head and answer with fire , and to "parralize" him and take the abillity of manouvre from the enemy . That one requiers from weapon to produce non stoping authomatic violent fire . Kalach can fire without a stop , and the only limitation of it is the ammount of magazines from the shooter . M16 getting stucked every 3 rounds after something like 9 magazines fired without a stop . To much gentle weapon .

So , Kalach is also good tactical weapon .

And on close ranges , it works perfectly well , and the only misuse in the world on it , is the fact that non trained , or very poorly - trained fighters mostly used it .

So here you have it . Kalach is very good weapon on close ranges , works just as M16 on long ranges , have better tactical value then M16 . And i am not talking about it's reliabillity , and finansial advantage over M16.

Peace .

[Antepilani]

That is one of the major draw backs of 5.56 x 45 mm rounds, you die relitivly slowly from massive blood loss instead of getting knocked on your ass(figurtivly speaking).


Sometimes , weapon must produce big ammount of ammo , something like "pray and spray" . It done in next things : 1) When you want to split the enemy into small non communicating groups and nock each group at a time . 2) When you want enemy to be still on one position , he wouldn't be able to raise his head and answer with fire , and to "parralize" him and take the abillity of manouvre from the enemy . That one requiers from weapon to produce non stoping authomatic violent fire . Kalach can fire without a stop , and the only limitation of it is the ammount of magazines from the shooter . M16 getting stucked every 3 rounds after something like 9 magazines fired without a stop . To much gentle weapon .


Please explain to me how it would jam every three rounds after firing 9 magizines?

Sounds pretty made up to me.


So here you have it . Kalach is very good weapon on close ranges , works just as M16 on long ranges , have better tactical value then M16 . And i am not talking about it's reliabillity , and finansial advantage over M16.


So your saying that the Ak-47 betrays the laws of physics and somehow magicly is just as acurate as the M16 at farther ranges then 300 meters?

[koster]

It's Kalach . That's the way we call it in my place .
And yes , there are many ways to hold weapons , but not all of them are the right ways . This for example , is very far from being the right way .
The front hand should be supported on a knee , taking the forward weight of weapon , while the back weight taken by stock sitting in the sholder. His legs are in wrong posture , making him non stable on one place . It's better to hold the weapon more forward , even if it exeptable to hold it this way .
And so on - In short , the guy should have as much contact places between weapon and his body . This guy got it all wrong .

OK, my mistake, I thought that you were talking about the way he holds it (left hand on the magazine), because its the right way, but I didnt see that he was using his knee to support his right arm.

[Javehn]

Please explain to me how it would jam every three rounds after firing 9 magizines?

Sounds pretty made up to me.


No , unfortunatly it's not so made up . Well , i was talking about the old M16A1's actually , but in the new ones (M4 , Car15 , M16 and the family) also the same problem exists . It's firing mechanism combined by big number of small moving interacting parts . Firing proccess produces soot ( that's what i found in dictionary - maybe you understand it as carbonite gases ) , that after a long fire proccess setlles on those small parts , becaming stiff and jamming them . Sorry ...
About the 9 magazines , that was a little test made on Car15 , non stop violent automatic fire .



So your saying that the Ak-47 betrays the laws of physics and somehow magicly is just as acurate as the M16 at farther ranges then 300 meters?


I didn't said that the Ak round is accurate as M16 round . What i am saying is , that on those ranges the accurasy isn't the essence (unless you are a designated marksman , or just using the scopes ) , the firing method on those ranges is different , and no way you can aim and hit something . So , i said that M16 advantage over Ak is lost on those ranges , and they both work in the same way .

In conclussion , Kalashnikov still exellent weapon , and unfortunatly not aprissiated .
However again , it's very general statement , because there are some enviroments that M16 is much preffered over AK , mostly because of it's weight .

[stuntman]

The best replacement should be the LR-300.
Caliber - .223 (5.56 Nato)
Available in semi automatic or select fire
11.5" barrel length, with Phantom flash suppressor
Overall length: folded - 21.5", unfolded - 31.0"
Weight 7.0 lbs.
Rate of fire - 950 rounds per minute on select fire
Effective range of 300 meters plus
Field strips with no tools required
Iron sights are fully adjustable
Flat top receiver - Weaver base
Rifling 1x9 twist chrome lined barrel
Multi-sling mount points
http://www.zmweapons.com/images/Lrlazersm.jpg
The LR 300 is a light, small compact accurate rifle. For use as an excellent entry weapon system, the LR 300 gives the operator the surgical accuracy and power needed for one-shot takedowns. it is a LR 300 upper and lower receiver with a new type of interconnecting op-rod gas system, which allows for a short barrel and folding stock giving the weapon it's compact feature. The diverted felt recoil keeps the weapon on sight, with no muzzle rise.

The LR 300 has a flat top receiver which accepts all Weaver type mounts, electronic sights and scopes. Plus the LR 300 has iron sights, so all will witness each other. If you lose power you will not lose your sights.

All other features are the same as an AR-15/M16, the trigger, charging handle, magazine button, hold open device, etc. The LR300 will accept all AR-15/M16 magazines. The grip angle has been changed to the same angle as the 1911 Pistol Grip for better control.
LR 300ML Military/Law Kit
The LR 300ML is available as a top end kit. The LR300ML Kit comes complete with an upper assembly receiver, folding stock assembly and pistol grip. Kit fits any AR-15/M16 lower receivers with NO modifications needed. Use your lower receiver and put on the LR 300 Kit to make it a complete LR 300ML Rifle. Select-fire models only, requires a one-hole modification to lower receiver.
Now thats what i call a improvement!

[Ratamacue]

:cantbeli:

[Antepilani]

Stuntman may I ask why would we need a weapon with a shorter barrel, then what we have?

[California Joe]

That was a helluva sales pitch.

[Bobs]

Question: What about the tavor? Why are the israelis using a bullpup design. Plz tell me. :roll:

[Antepilani]

Because it's a native design, that's about the only reason.

[Roger Rabbit]

Bullpup also reduces the overall size of the weapon without reducing the length of the barrel. Speaking of which i spoke to some people who have used the SA80 and the M16(i believe they were refering to the A2) and they said in terms of balence they prefered the SA80. Anyone else got any opinions?

[REMOV]

Because it's a native design, that's about the only reason.Yeah, sure. And naturally Israeli government gives their soldiers bad weapon, just for "native design"? Why don't they produces Galil again? It was also a "native design" replaced by... American-made M653 (and other M16Ax models). The funny thing is that Tavor is partially produced in the USA, and transferred as a FMS program.

[Javehn]

Galil is good and reliable weapon , but heavy as hell , and tends to catch some corrosia . I would like to have P90 as a personal weapon for IFV crues , or at list pistol (i can dream .. ) . What you think REMOV , about my Kalach vs M16 remarks ?

[rom2]

and what about the famas ?
french army is developping a new one , named papop .

but , for me , it's no use buying a new rifle. the concept is still the same : a bullet launched by powder . I prefer my gvt to buy more chopper than a new rifle , except if the new rifle has something new

[Durandal]

M16A3-4

Two perfectly acceptable rifle series for the requirements.

[RomanS]

MY GOD !

LOL

Started as what rifle should we use for USA, and it turned into Pepsi vs Coke.

Question for you all number 1.
HOW MANY OF YOU REALLY FIRED AND TRAINED WITH

AKMS
AK-74S
AKS-74U
AK-74M
AK-101
AK-103
???

I would love to hear your storries, especially firing at different ranges, different types of targets, using different optics, and magazines. Perhaps photos?

As for me, I've been holding an AK since I was 9. First I fell in love with our gorgeous weapon in NVP (Basic Military Training) in shools. Where we learned how to take it apart, and clean it. Once a month they would bring blanks, and we would fire them with much exitment. The models we had were AKM, AKS-74 and AKS-74U. Once a year we would go to the local Motorized Infantry's range, and fire live ammo.

Later on I signed up for MVD school, and started getting into AKs a lot more. I would go with SOBR and OMON to watch them practice, and they would let me fire their girlfriends. They taught me proper aiming, reloading and how to properly use bursts to supress enemy fire. Basically they showe me all their tricks and cheats.

Most of the members of SOBR(now OSOM) were officers with previous experience in Afgan, Karabah and Prednistrovie. Some even had a chance to fire M16A1 in Afganistan, when they captured them during an ambush on caravans. Yes we all know how ****ty the A1 was. They made a lot of fun of it.

I knew about the A2 and it's use of it in Somalia, a year before our first Chechen war. They were saying it was an improved version of A1, that now shot 3 round bursts iunstead of fullauto. We couldn't get our hands on it, but I did read about it a lot. Still there were cases of US soldiers talking about jams, unreliable mags, and annoying spring sound in the buttstock.

When the first Chechen war started, I closely paid attention to our guys operating in different regions. I didn't get to go in, but I've been in Vladikavkaz and Mozdok. There me and our cadets helped with grunt work. Loading trucks, opening tin cans of ammo, and just preparing for future deployment. It was a great practice.

There we heard many storries how their AK's saved their lives many times. Especially during the first weeks of fight for Grozny. The Dudaev's crews were armed with the same weapons, and 90% of his "beards" were ex-Soviet forces. Basically they trained in the same tactics, and with the same weapons during the 80s. Some were even members of paratroopers and recon units in Afgan. Dudaev himself flew bombers in Afganistan, and is credited for authoring carpet bombing technique.

During the fights of January of 1995, the snow in Grozny melted, and mixed with rich nasty local mud. Russians didn't have the time to sit down, and scrape the **** load of dirt off their AKs, because of constant ambushes and attacks. Every time a group would re-locate, or starts a cleansing of the district, they come under fire.

There was a case of a guy from Maikop Brigade 131 when his ak-74 was rolled over by T-72 during the fight. The heavy tracks cracked the bakelite magazine, and bent the charging handle. There was no time to go "****, my AK", he quickly picked it up, and emptied the cracked mag, without a single jam. Under heavy boost of adrenaline, he didn't realize how reliable the AK was. I personally inspected his weapon later, ans said "DAMN", that thing looked like dried up lasagna. It's now in the military museum of Maikop city.

There were thousands of storries how their AKs never gave up, and kept on going even after not cleaning it for months. Since I never dealed with Ministery of Defence, i know that those guys are forced to clean their AKs after each engagement. But MVD and Federal Service didnt bath their tools for a while.

16SPN did you guys clean them a lot?
Most of the MVD officers would lose their cleaning kits in a week. Just like the SVD cheek pieces. Those in SOBR who had AK-74S would throw the kit away, and pack their stocks with medkits and lots of ductape for mags.


Next, I will talk about accuracy....

[TriggerPuller]

I like the M-4 and it's variants(SOPMOD) in 5.56mm but with Lemas APLP ammo,not NATO ball rounds.

TP

[RomanS]

ACCURACY!

Well this issue seems to be always the most sensitive.

If we take 2 targets 4x4, white paper with a black circle in the middle. We will put it 100 meters away, and fire 2 weapons at them.

One will be used with M4A1 -iron sights
The second will be AK-74M -iron sights

http://double.uhome.net/gun/gun640/fgun/m4a1_carbine.jpg
http://www.army.lv/Oruzhie/Avtomati/AK-74M/AK-74M(1).jpg

The person that will be firing it, should be experienced with both weapons.
The weapons should be zeroed and both have 10 rounds of military ball in both mags. Firing rate - SEMI AUTO

By facts we should have results similar to this-

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/target.jpg

It is a FACT that M4 is more accurate. At a 100 meters this seems very fair for both rifles.
Look at the results. We are talking about an inch of MOA on M4, and inch and half -2 with AK-74M's MOA. I'm sure some Special Forces operator can do better with just iron sights, but an average shooter should have similiar results to this.

Now most of the fire fights don't happen farther 250-300 meters, lets add a human Silhouette (how it would appear at 100 meters) to the target.



http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/target2.jpg

As we can see, both rifles applied lethal shots on the body mass.
5.56 is known to be a high velocity round.

5.45x39 round was called "poison bullet" by the mudjahadeens. Because of it's airpocket, when it enters your flash, it tumbles around. Making your insides into minestrone.

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/wund1.jpg
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/wund3.gif

SO with both rifles, you would bring a world of pain to your enemy.

NOW PLEASE!
If you are part of military forces, and you can't hit a human size target at 100 meters with an AK, you might want to think about a different career.

As for Polish AKs, I'm sorry - They are great. But we are again comparing Coke to Big Sams Cola.

Russian AKs are the best AKS amongst the all known "COPIES" in the world.
Izhmash makes them with pride, even today with budget cuts.

I've shot both Beryl, Tantal and even the good ol Kbk AK . I'm sorry my Polish friend, I have to go with the Russian AKM. Just the laminated redish wood and a bakelite magazine gives me a hard on. And it feels much much more - just Right

[mustamato]

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/target2.jpg

I think the man on the right died :)

Good points PermskiiOMON, do you have any pictures of how it is on 200/300 meters as well?

[Antepilani]

5.56 x 45 mm

http://www.ammolab.com/wund4.gif

Higher Velocity equals larger temporary cavity.

[RomanS]

ouch lol

Yeah
I don't want to get hit with either.

[Javehn]

Yeah , go Kalashnikov , go go . There you have a scientific part , courtesy of PermskiiOmon . The fact that Kalashnikov is the status of Israeli most Elite force , S'13 should also say something about it ..

[mustamato]

Russian AKs are the best AKS amongst the all known "COPIES" in the world.
Izhmash makes them with pride, even today with budget cuts.

I've shot both Beryl, Tantal and even the good ol Kbk AK . I'm sorry my Polish friend, I have to go with the Russian AKM. Just the laminated redish wood and a bakelite magazine gives me a hard on. And it feels much much more - just Right

And the finnish RK´s? Polish and east german AKM´s are used in Finland as well, they are not even close to be comparable in terms of quality and precision (note sights on the finnish one). But yeah, maybe there is something special about Izmash, I don´t know because I´ve never fired one of theirs (it´s a polish AKM in the "foreign weapons training"-box).

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/m62.jpg
Usually without the silencer though

[RomanS]

Yes I've shot many versions of Valmet.

Still, Izhmash AKs are the Cuban cigars of Tabacco world.

[mustamato]

Yes I've shot many versions of Valmet.

Still, Izhmash AKs are the Cuban cigars of Tabacco world.

Care to explain why?

[Antepilani]

Yeah , go Kalashnikov , go go . There you have a scientific part , courtesy of PermskiiOmon . The fact that Kalashnikov is the status of Israeli most Elite force , S'13 should also say something about it ..

You got that out of what he said?

All he proved is that 5.45 in the Ak-74 is less deadly then the 5.56 in the M4 and the Ak-74 is less acurate by quite a bit at 100 meters.

The only possitive thing about it was it's reliability.

[RomanS]

The Valmet's sceleton stock is not as comfortble as Russian AKS or underfolding AKMS.

The muzzle break on them as not as effective as lets say AK-74 compensator. They are uglier (my opinon). But I think the most of all, innerchangeble parts. Like the magazines, and bolt carriers with other AKs.

[Javehn]

Just like i said before ( first of all , the one who shot it , must be some hell of a sniper ) , the accurassy at 100 metters is not so main issue .
That's different disperce of something like 0.002 mil's .
It have a bigger disperce rate , yes , but only for half inch there . And the weapon quallities bits the hell out of this disperce .

[Antepilani]

Just like i said before ( first of all , the one who shot it , must be some hell of a sniper ) , the accurassy at 100 metters is not so main issue .
That's different disperce of something like 0.002 mil's .
It have a bigger disperce rate , yes , but only for half inch there . And the weapon quallities bits the hell out of this disperce .



http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/target2.jpg

As you can see the Ak-74 clearly missed five times and the one on the bottom right looks like a miss making 6. However the m4 missed maybe one, but the majority of the red circle is on the target.

The distance between each bullet hit is at least twice as far as the M4 hits.

[RomanS]

My point was,
AK is not worse then M16 family. And the M16 family is not better then AKs.
The argument is interesting, but only between those people who tried both weapons. And not just a mag. I'm talking about thousands and thousands of round through.

Here are some of my favorite shots.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/64bb7afd.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/AK-74N_1PN58_3.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/IMG_3000.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/krinkovblack.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/IMGere2.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/IMG_0rer7.jpg

[Javehn]

Nice picture , the bayonet perhaps interfear something .
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/IMG_3000.jpg
I didn't tryed thousand of rounds on Kalashnikov , just to experiment a bit on it (the AK-47) . M16 was my personnal weapon for a short ammount of time (8 month) , then it was the Mini Galil .

[Antepilani]

The fact is that the M16 family is better in accuracy and range. This on top of the fact that the ammo for the M16 is a lot lighter then the ammo for the Ak-47(not to mention the size of the magizines) which means they can carry many more magizines(Soldiers in Iraq carried as many as 15, sometimes more).

The only thing the Ak-47 has, is sometimes a better chance of killing a person and it's reliability.

Professional Armies want accuracy not weapons to spray and pray with. You ever wonder why the only countrtries on the planet excluding a few that use the Ak series have conscript armies?

[AFG]

nice AK pics

[mustamato]

The Valmet's sceleton stock is not as comfortble as Russian AKS or underfolding AKMS.

The muzzle break on them as not as effective as lets say AK-74 compensator. They are uglier (my opinon). But I think the most of all, innerchangeble parts. Like the magazines, and bolt carriers with other AKs.

Hm? What´s the point of even comparing it with a 5.45? And no, a finnish RK can´t use a AK-74 magazine, but I guess you figured that out already. And yes, a 5.45 has less recoil than a 7.62 RK62. Although the compensator and folding stock on RK95 would be nice to have on the RK62/76´s as well, gives 30% less recoil and gives the ability to fire rifle grenades. Plus that it wouldn´t cost that much money if those changes was to be put upon the RK62/76 in the future.

http://practical.hypermart.net/y-taitto.gif
Would be nice to put on a RK62/76[i]

http://practical.hypermart.net/y-suujar.gif
[i]Would be nice to put on a RK62/76,
although you still couldn´t shoot rifle
grenades it would give less recoil.

http://www.valmet-weapons.com/SakoM92.jpg
Result, easily the most beautiful "banana magazine Kalashnikov" out there.

[vitiaz]

Ideally...a Kalashnikov-based rifle (I dont care who makes it...maybe the Sig-55x series) using the new 6.8x43 SPC round.

What will probably happen...a new M16/M4 upper chambered for the 6.8x43.

If anyone is going to SHOT, you will probably be seeing a lot of new announcements on this.

:D

[Antepilani]

What will probably happen...a new M16/M4 upper chambered for the 6.8x43.

I heard we are testing that and it might be used in the M8. The problem is you would have to switch the NATO standered.

[stuntman]

Stuntman may I ask why would we need a weapon with a shorter barrel, then what we have?
Please are you two dimentional? I hope you know you can add any barrel lenth. I was trying to sell (lol) its reliablility not reall ythe look. Although the look and funtion are good by products of the craftmanship.

[RomanS]

Actually,
since im not a small sized person, I would take both. M4 untill it stops firing, and then pull out an AK74 and fire it till the ammo is out.
YEAH
One bitch is good, but 2....... yummy

[UkrainianAmerican]

Actually,
since im not a small sized person, I would take both. M4 untill it stops firing, and then pull out an AK74 and fire it till the ammo is out.
YEAH
One bitch is good, but 2....... yummy
Cant disagree with you there, partner!

[Durandal]

ACCURACY!

Well this issue seems to be always the most sensitive.

If we take 2 targets 4x4, white paper with a black circle in the middle. We will put it 100 meters away, and fire 2 weapons at them.

One will be used with M4A1 -iron sights
The second will be AK-74M -iron sights

Ok, here is my first issue. Why are we talking about an M4? Just curious. Why not use a M16A2 or A4? With a longer barrel and heavier rifle stock. Both will out shoot a M4, with more energy. The M4 is a CQB weapon, a carbine that choots rifle ammo...or pistol depending on the mod, not an assault rifle. The M16A2 is the rifle of issue to a majority of combat personel, not the M4.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/target2.jpg


As we can see, both rifles applied lethal shots on the body mass.
5.56 is known to be a high velocity round.

Actually, and I am suprised no one that has actually shot ANY gun would not catch this, this example is horribly flawed. If we are talking baout an inch MOA center mass, all of these rounds would be center mass with no misses. Folks, this target is a 1" circle, measure that on your chest. The human outlines are not to scale with the actual target, but ARE to scale, sort of at range, there is a big difference.

At this range both rifles will hit center mass (though the M4 IS more accurate).[/quote]

I, personally, own both a carbine version of the AR-15 and the SAR version of the ROMARM AK-47 if that matters in the discussion or if there are any questions. I love both of them, but hte AR-15 is so much lighter. I have shot at least 3000 rounds through both and NEITHER of them have jammed...ever...even dirty, with different types of mags by different manufacturers.

Note: I saw mention of spring noise. My does not make that noise. It is somethign that cna be corrected easily enough. If your magazine is cause a jam, then the spring has lost its tension. None of it has anything to do with the performance of the gun itself. Just crappy, worn, or broken parts. Something ANY gun can fall victim too.

Hope that helps in the conversation.

Cheers!

[11F5S]

The fact is that the M16 family is better in accuracy and range. This on top of the fact that the ammo for the M16 is a lot lighter then the ammo for the Ak-47(not to mention the size of the magizines) which means they can carry many more magizines(Soldiers in Iraq carried as many as 15, sometimes more).

In Vietnam 28 mags on the pistol belt and one in the weapon was SOP on my team (almost 500 rounds)...extra boxed ammo was carried in the ruck....try doing that with the AK47.

[NeedsABetterName]

OK first off,the XM-8 looks like something outta Star Wars or Star Trek.It woud be SO much better to go with G-36s.And just add some RIS and a Piccanty rail to it.Maybe do some fance,cool new IR holo sight...Bottom line,lets take the XM-8 in like the future,where it looks more in-place..

[Durandal]

OK first off,the XM-8 looks like something outta Star Wars or Star Trek.It woud be SO much better to go with G-36s.And just add some RIS and a Piccanty rail to it.Maybe do some fance,cool new IR holo sight...Bottom line,lets take the XM-8 in like the future,where it looks more in-place..

Yep, nothing better than wasting tax payer's money switching from one 5.56 platform to another. The M16 series ahould ONLY be replaced by a GENERATIONAL leap in technology.

[non-zero possibility]

the pic of the ak PermskiiOMON posted, with a grenade launcher nvg and bayonete is funny. If he shot the grenade he would die... the bayonete is blocking the barrel.

[anonymous individual]

the pic of the ak PermskiiOMON posted, with a grenade launcher nvg and bayonete is funny. If he shot the grenade he would die... the bayonete is blocking the barrel.

lol PermskiiOMON is suicidual. :D

[GazB]

But the AK has far more kickback on full-auto than an M-4, so it IS less controllable in that situation. And "less controllable" equals "less accurate," no?


With empty magazines fitted recoil figures are as follows:

AKS-74: 3.39 Joules.
M16A1: 6.44 Joules.
AKM: 7.19 Joules.

From these figures I would expect the recoil for an AKM and an M4 to be very similar. The Smaller lighter M4 (than the M16A1) with a shorter barrel would generate more recoil than a standard M16A1. To further change the numbers in favour of the AK I am pretty sure that the 7.62 x 39mm AK to compare would be the AK-103 with the AK-74 style muzzle brake. (Note Remov despite the fact that they no longer make AKMs that doesn't mean that AK-103s would not be used by Special units that might like a larger heavier round...)

"The Ak-101 has a barrel of 41.5 cm, how can you even pretend it has the accuracy as an M16A2 with a 50.8 cm barrel."

Current thinking on accuracy seems to suggest that shorter more rigid barrels can be as accurate or more so than longer barrels. A longer barrel gives higher velocity and more energy but unless it is seriously short it does not effect accuracy.

"On top of the lower accuracy you get a lower muzzle velocity, which means less energy is transfered to the person being hit with the round. "

First off most bullets go right through people so the effect on the transfer of energy will not be effected that much.

And secondly even with the difference in barrel length the 7.62 x 39mm round has considerably more energy than the 5.56mm round... remember momentum is mass x energy and the bullet the AK fires is twice the weight of the bullet the M16 fires... the M16 bullet is faster but not twice as fast.

"The fact is due to it's lose tolerances, a short barrel, and the fact that the 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge leaves much to be desired, compared to western rifles like the G-36 and M16A2 they are inacurate."

What lose tollerances? Nothing rattles on my AKM when I run with it. A long barrel is not required for the ranges it is to be used. The 30 cal projectile of the 7.62 x 39mm is rather heavier than the little .22 calibre projectile of the M16 series and it travels slower. It has more energy and is rather less effected by the wind or blades of grass or twigs.

"Some even had a chance to fire M16A1 in Afganistan, when they captured them during an ambush on caravans."

Vast numbers were tested by the Soviet Union... most actually came from Vietnam, who had hundreds of thousands of them.



...I can estimate range better than I can estimate deflection from a twig.

"Are you aware that by the time a round reaches 300 meters it will have fallen almost a foot? "

And when you set the sights for 300 metres before you shoot you actually are aiming a foot higher. The rear sight slides back and forth to allow for range. If you choose not to use that then any rifle will be inaccurate.

"Because of the relitivly heavy round and the slow muzzle velocity the 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge has a very loopy trajectory, making it very hard to hit something much farther then 300 meters. Even at this range it is very inacurate relitive to Western rifles firing 5.56 x 45 mm and 7.62 x 51 mm. "

Really. And Western soldiers don't know how to adjust their iron sights for range. What morons. I hunt with 7.62 x 51mm rounds with 180 grain projectiles and out to about 400m there is no difference between it and the Russian AK round. It hits a little harder, but that is all. Accuracy wise they are comparable (troops aren't issued with marksman accuracy hand made rounds). The major difference is of course my 7.62 x 51mm rifle weighs over 5kgs and is rather long and bulky.

BTW REMOV the muzzle break is considered the most effective at reducing felt recoil. It does nothing to reduce muzzle flash, and it is noisier than most other muzzle brake as it directs gas back at the user and those standing next to them.


"Yes, like the 5.56 x 45mm firing from a rifle like M16A2 with 18 inch barrel will have a muzzle velocity of around 970 m/s where as the 7.62 x 39mm round has a muzzle velocity of around 720 m/s when fired from Ak-47. "

But the AK round is twice as heavy and able to resist crosswinds and twigs and grass without a huge deflection. Some early (M193) rounds for the 5.56mm even disintegrated in mid air before they got anywhere near the target. The smaller lighter 5.56mm bullet will lose velocity faster than the heavier slower 30 cal round so at long range the AK round has an even greater energy advantage.

"The Ak-47 is not useful beyond 300-400 meters and sometimes you need to engage a target beyond this distance and be sure to hit it."

There is at least on PKM in each unit, plus the RPK-74 operator and of course there is the soldier or soldiers with the SVD/s. On a real battlefield few soldiers would see targets that they could identify as enemy and have time to shoot at before they found cover again at more than 300m. Besides a target at 400m could receive an airburst from a 40mm grenade.

"But the Soviet Army used the sniper to extend the firing range of a squad(where Western Army's use it to shape the Battlefield). "

They are not what we in the west call snipers... they are just guys with extra marksmanship training. Besides worse comes to worse a target at 400m plus will be engaged by the vehicle you are travelling in... a BTR-80 or BMP-2 or BMP-3.

"We need a more powerful rifle cartridge to be in service like 7.62 NATO or the 6.8mm Cartridge they are testing, not the same one we have now coming out of a shorter barrel then what we have now. "

Then when you introduce a New AK-103 you should also consider an SVD per platoon. Or more realistically introduce this new 6.8mm weapon but start mass producing a new M14 that is lighter and better designed and issue one or two per unit at least. (note the shift to 6.8mm calibre is to get the bullet weight to between 100 and 120 grain... how heavy is the AK round?)

"In my opinion it is not good idea. The Americans don't accepted the weapon of their former enemy, and the AK-100 series assault rifles don't have advantage over the M16A2."

He wasn't claiming that it was superior in every way... he was taking exception to some comments that it was somehow inferior in accuracy for some magical reason.

Some here seem to equate the trajectory of the bullet with accuracy. If that were true you'd think flechettes would be the projectile of choice... they are not.

"The special units ruled their own rules. This is small part of the whole army, right?"

Whether it is a small part of the army or not is irrelevant. If they CHOSE to use an AKM you would think that would suggest that accuracy was acceptible. Just as western Spec ops using AKMs in afghanistan on some operations might suggest that it was adequate for the job too.

"So your saying that the Ak-47 betrays the laws of physics and somehow magicly is just as acurate as the M16 at farther ranges then 300 meters?"

Please tell us what makes a round of ammo accurate?

PermskiiOMON
Interesting pictures you posted... but I'd like to question you... you show two pictures of bullet groups that are 1-2 inches across. Then you place these bullet groups over human sillouettes. Now forgive me if I am mistaken but a 1-2 inch group couldn't possibly result in a bullet entering someones neck and their thigh (upper leg bone) unless the were less than 6 inches high. My foot is 12 inches long... all of those bullet impacts would be contained in the sole of my foot.

"Higher Velocity equals larger temporary cavity."

Except that is from a 20 inch barrel within 200m. Also it travels point forward for the first 10cm... a front on hit of a fit person facing you the bullet will have exited before it really starts to tumble. With an M4 it will not disintegrate at any range.

"The fact is that the M16 family is better in accuracy and range."

Says you.

"Professional Armies want accuracy not weapons to spray and pray with."

You say the M16 is slightly better with accuracy and then you suggest that the Ak is inaccurate. Accuracy is important but why do you think all the troops are not issued with sniper rifles? Do you think it might be because accuracy is not all important?

"the pic of the ak PermskiiOMON posted, with a grenade launcher nvg and bayonete is funny. If he shot the grenade he would die... the bayonete is blocking the barrel."

It is a picture showing all the attachments the rifle can be fitted with. BTW nice pics of the 60 round magazines... an AKS-74U with such a mag must be fun at close quarters... :-)

"Actually, and I am suprised no one that has actually shot ANY gun would not catch this, this example is horribly flawed. If we are talking baout an inch MOA center mass, all of these rounds would be center mass with no misses. Folks, this target is a 1" circle, measure that on your chest. The human outlines are not to scale with the actual target, but ARE to scale, sort of at range, there is a big difference. "

Thank goodness someone else spotted it... I was begining to worry.

BTW if you are so worried about accuracy at long range... get and AK-101 in NATO 5.56mm calibre. Peter K Kolikas (Spelling) from Soldier of Fortune stated that it was every bit as accurate as any M16 variant he had fired. Considering the move to heavier bullets I'd still prefer the 7.62 x 39mm however. The 5.56mm is too powerful for rabbits but too underpowered for deer IMHO. With good shot placement a 7.62 x 39mm is fine for goats and small deer breeds.

[Antepilani]

Current thinking on accuracy seems to suggest that shorter more rigid barrels can be as accurate or more so than longer barrels. A longer barrel gives higher velocity and more energy but unless it is seriously short it does not effect accuracy.

The faster something is going, the longer the distance required for wind to make it move a given distance. Also the faster the round goes the longer it takes gravity to pull it to the ground. So this means the round fired from a shorter barrel will be more effected by wind and it will drop quicker.

You are sadly mistaken.


What lose tollerances? Nothing rattles on my AKM when I run with it.

That's not what it means. By your use of the word "rather" I can tell English is not your first language.



A long barrel is not required for the ranges it is to be used. The 30 cal projectile of the 7.62 x 39mm is rather heavier than the little .22 calibre projectile of the M16 series and it travels slower. It has more energy and is rather less effected by the wind or blades of grass or twigs.

This is true, except you forget to mention that the 7.62 x 39 mm has a muzzle velocity of less then 770m/s. This means that because it weighs twice as much and it is going slower that gravity will have a much bigger effect on the round then 5.56 x 45 mm.


BTW if you are so worried about accuracy at long range... get and AK-101 in NATO 5.56mm calibre. Peter K Kolikas (Spelling) from Soldier of Fortune stated that it was every bit as accurate as any M16 variant he had fired.

At what range?

If it is less then say 300 meters, the difference in accuracy is going to be a lot different then say 600 meters. There were many times when soldiers had to engage targets at 500+ meters in Iraq and they found the M4 to be lacking. The Ak-101 wouldn't be any better.


You say the M16 is slightly better with accuracy and then you suggest that the Ak is inaccurate. Accuracy is important but why do you think all the troops are not issued with sniper rifles? Do you think it might be because accuracy is not all important?

Accuracy increases the chances of a kill, I'd say it's pretty damn important.


Says you.

No, says the Laws of Physics.

[usa320]

i definately think we should rechamber the bastard to fire 7.62.

[Salty Dog]

why change it at all?
if it ain't broke...

[Durandal]

why change it at all?
if it ain't broke...

All Too TRUE.

[AFG]

ah man this thread is turning quickly into an AK vs M16/M4 family :( i want to hear more about different guns :D

[Ghostwolf]

I think this thread is expressing the wrong point.

It is not the type of rifle that determines the lethality on the battlefield,
but the type of ammunition used as one of the primary factors. There
were several instances during OIF that the U.S. soldiers complained about
the 5.56 NATO round(SS-109 ammunition) does not have adequate
stopping power against enemy soldier targets at range over 300m, even
though the round can penetrate a thin armor plate at the same distance
with no difficulty. The same also to the 7.62X39mm round used by the AK
rifles family, that the round simply over penetrate the target without
causing enough wounding effects to drop a man.

There was one incident where a number of U.S. soldiers were court
martialed for using "non-regulation ammunition" which uses the
Blended Metal technology, and reulted in some horrifying deaths. This
type of ammunition when hit a "cold" target, like a dry wall or a metal
surface, the bullet will penetrate with limited expansion because the wall
takes the heat generated by the impact away. But when it hits a human
body, the heat transfer was too slow because muscle tissue transfer heat
slower than a dry wall and metal plate, and caused the bullet to behave
like the Glazer round, it simply explodes inside the target body.

[mustamato]

I think this thread is expressing the wrong point.

It is not the type of rifle that determines the lethality on the battlefield,
but the type of ammunition used as one of the primary factors. There
were several instances during OIF that the U.S. soldiers complained about
the 5.56 NATO round(SS-109 ammunition) does not have adequate
stopping power against enemy soldier targets at range over 300m, even
though the round can penetrate a thin armor plate at the same distance
with no difficulty. The same also to the 7.62X39mm round used by the AK
rifles family, that the round simply over penetrate the target without
causing enough wounding effects to drop a man.

There was one incident where a number of U.S. soldiers were court
martialed for using "non-regulation ammunition" which uses the
Blended Metal technology, and reulted in some horrifying deaths. This
type of ammunition when hit a "cold" target, like a dry wall or a metal
surface, the bullet will penetrate with limited expansion because the wall
takes the heat generated by the impact away. But when it hits a human
body, the heat transfer was too slow because muscle tissue transfer heat
slower than a dry wall and metal plate, and caused the bullet to behave
like the Glazer round, it simply explodes inside the target body.

1.) This claim is quite known among soldiers and has been so long before the war in Iraq. In other words, it´s a established myth. So I wonder if it really was so that the rounds lacked stopping power, or if the soldiers simply thought that they did. I doubt that many of them has been shooting at humans with different types of weapons and have had the chance to compare.

2.) Good. But sadly there are civilian contractors in Iraq that uses these dum-dum bullets that are not courtmartialed.

[Loke]

Here are some of my favorite shots.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53088/krinkovblack.jpg


HEY, that's my yugo Krink!!!
I've also got an Izhmash AK74 in 5.45x39.
With russian ammo and humid/rainy conditions the bastard locks up like the Alcatraz (i.e it fail to work half the time). I came in last in a "fun" pre-christmas IPSC competition-shoot because of light primer strike and severe fouling of the internals of the gun. Bah!

http://home.no/jervno/akcollection.jpg

But it's a fun gun never the less.

[GazB]

"The faster something is going, the longer the distance required for wind to make it move a given distance."

The lighter something is the more it is effected by wind. Compare a car and a balloon.

It is certinaly effected by the amount of time the wind has to act on the object but the lighter 5.56mm round also slows down faster than the heavier 7.62x39mm round.

"Also the faster the round goes the longer it takes gravity to pull it to the ground."

Gravity effects every bullet at the muzzle. Gravity operates at the same rate for everything no matter what speed they are travelling at. The higher initial velocity makes the trajectory flatter, but a flatter trajectory isn't a more accurate round. A flechette round shoots much flatter than a 5.56mm round... does that make it more accurate?

"So this means the round fired from a shorter barrel will be more effected by wind and it will drop quicker. "

Not it doesn't mean any such thing. It means the Aks round is more curved, but that the M16s round is more effected by wind or light material between you and the target like grass or twigs.


Quote:
What lose tollerances? Nothing rattles on my AKM when I run with it.


That's not what it means. By your use of the word "rather" I can tell English is not your first language.


Except in the quote you gave I didn't say rather.

"This is true, except you forget to mention that the 7.62 x 39 mm has a muzzle velocity of less then 770m/s. This means that because it weighs twice as much and it is going slower that gravity will have a much bigger effect on the round then 5.56 x 45 mm. "

The 7.62 x 39 projectile weighs more than twice as much as a 5.56mm round. It travels almost as fast... 200m/s isn't that much. To put it into perspective most .308 cal rounds like the 7.62 x 51mm round are travelling at the same speed as the 5.56mm round at 300m... about 650m/s... the only difference is weight of projectile... the 5.56mm round shedding speed faster than 30 cal rounds because of their light bullet weight.

"At what range?

If it is less then say 300 meters, the difference in accuracy is going to be a lot different then say 600 meters."

Who is firing at 600m targets? How can you identify a target at that range let alone be looking for a target at that range? Even if you actually hit someone at that range the velocity is going to be so low you are hitting them with the equivelent of a .22lr. There won't be markings to say it is 600m. In the heat of battle a target at that range is a waste of ammo with any intermediate cartridge.

It is amazing that that a complaint from the US Army about the lack of range of the 5.56mm round in the desert could be taken seriously if you can engage targets at 600m.

"There were many times when soldiers had to engage targets at 500+ meters in Iraq and they found the M4 to be lacking."

Well perhaps it is their fault for using a varmint calibre in the first place. Perhaps you need a heavier round... like a 122 grain 7.62 x 39mm round.

"Accuracy increases the chances of a kill, I'd say it's pretty damn important."

Accuracy increases the likelyhood of a bullet going where it is directed. This has nothing to do with "killing power". A gun that will work will always be better than one that might. The difference in accuracy is not enough to have much effect on the outcome... at long range the M16 might be marginally more accurate, but also far less lethal as well... Sounds to me like ATGMs on an APC... gets you involved in fights you shouldn't be involving yourself in.

"No, says the Laws of Physics."

An unsual interpretation of them.

The trends of bullets seem to me to be tending toward the heavier projectile rather than the lighter projectile. The move to 6.8mm is to get heavier projectiles moving fast. Suggests to me that heavier projectiles are better killers and my own experience of hunting cooberates that view.

A Stinger round for a .22lr rifle is fine at up to 50m where the results are quite impressive. A 32 grain projectile at 450-500m/s ususally makes a bare patch on the exit wound side where the fur is blown off with the impact if you hit it within 50m. Outside 100m it is useless and has trouble dropping animals cleanly... subsonic 40 grain projectiles can kill cleanly at up to 120m with a good rifle. Very curved trajectory and you have to estimate range well to get a clean hit, and no fur flies around the target, but the drop just the same. Of course that is just rabbits... with goats a nice neck shot you could still kill out to about 70m with the subsonic rounds... I woudn't use the Stingers at any range on goats.

Looking forward to getting some 153 grain projectiles from Wolf performance ammo ltd for the 7.62 x 39mm... be interesting to compare with the 122 grain rounds I have been using.
BTW the rounds are the same calibre as the .303 ...ie the bullets are actually .311 calibre. I am thinking of rechambering a .303 to 7.62 x 39mm as the round is very cheap and at the ranges I hunt at it is comparable to a 303 round. A local made the same change and shortened the barrel to 14 inches and got initial groups of 1.5 inches at 100 yards, so there is nothing wrong with the round.
Later when the barrel was shot in, and of course using hand loads he got .75 MOA accuracy at 100 Yards.

Of course this means little in combat... as does the supposed advantage of the 5.56mm round. You don't have a bench rest and a clearly marked target, a clearly defined range, nor can you wait for a still clear sunny day, and you rarely get to use handloaded ammo in a mint condition barrel. Nor are you allowed warm up shots.

"stopping power against enemy soldier targets at range over 300m, even
though the round can penetrate a thin armor plate"

So called stopping power and armour penetration capability are opposites.

" I doubt that many of them has been shooting at humans with different types of weapons and have had the chance to compare. "

The rounds they are comparing them to will be 308 calibre rounds from MGs or enemy weapons.

"I came in last in a "fun" pre-christmas IPSC competition-shoot because of light primer strike."

A light primer strike? Sounds like an excuse.. was it really a hangover?

"and severe fouling of the internals of the gun"

You didn't clean it before the shoot? Despite its reputation for reliability I always clean my rifles before I go shooting. Soviet conscripts saw "hell" if they didn't clean their weapons properly.

[Durandal]

There were many times when soldiers had to engage targets at 500+ meters in Iraq and they found the M4 to be lacking.

What idiot would make this claim...or even use this argument?!?!?

The M4 is not a 500+ meter weapon. Not too sure HOW MANY times this point needs to be made.

Add on top of that the fact that the United States does not teach its rank and file front line soldiers marksmanship (hence the addition of the DMR) and you have the problem.

Right tool for the right job.

M4 is CQB
M16AX is 100 to 300 meters (I do not care what person tells you otherwise, the weapons match the troops training and typical engagement zones).

The above argument is like bitching that the stock AK74U is mediochre at 300 yards.

Not $hit.

[StarvingStudent47]

Has the USA ever considered switching to a bullpup design? The British love the SA80 (well, except for some reliability problems in desert environments), and a bunch of militaries use the Steyr AUG, and Israel is switching over to the Tavor...has the USA ever considered joining this trend?

[Ratamacue]

I'm sure it's crossed the mind of the military at some time or the other, but it seems like they want to stick with a standard layout for now.

[Durandal]

Has the USA ever considered switching to a bullpup design? The British love the SA80 (well, except for some reliability problems in desert environments), and a bunch of militaries use the Steyr AUG, and Israel is switching over to the Tavor...has the USA ever considered joining this trend?

Yes, I do not have all the info in front of me, but check out the 1980s DoD ACR program. Not all the guns were bullpup, but some were. Colt , AAI (my uncle's company), Styer, et all...developed prototypes...)

[Ratamacue]

Durandal, do you have any info or knowledge on the Steyr ACR? From what I understand the flechette ammo was very accurate and effective.

[Durandal]

Durandal, do you have any info or knowledge on the Steyr ACR? From what I understand the flechette ammo was very accurate and effective.

I do not have any of the technical info. The Styer ACR was one of the few Bullpup configs and it did shoot flechette. The program was axed because of costs. The purpose of the ACR project was to increase the hit probablity of the base infantryman by 100%. Lots of projects dealt with this...and still do today by most modern armies. The AN-94 for example, was a direct result of new 100% requirements by the Russian military (I am sure GazB has a lot more info on that than I do...or more accurate info)

On the web...

Caliber: 5.6 mm flechette
Action: Gas operated, rising breech
Barrel length: 540 mm
Weigth: 3.23 kg unloaded
Rate of fire: ?
Magazine capacity: 24 rounds

An ugly gun too.

[Durandal]

Here is a good article of flechettes...

http://www.thegunzone.com/spiw.html

I have held the AAI CAWS round in my hand a nearly 4" 12 ga round. ..the thing was huge. Believe it or not, there was a brief movement during the Reagan Administration to move from a rifle to a CAW type system.

[Ghostwolf]

The British love the SA80 (well, except for some reliability problems in desert environments)

Not quite, in fact they hated the "Sir Jam-A-Lot" so much that the UK MOD
has a plan to replace it with other more reliable rifles, included in
considerations are the HK G36 series. The problem is there isn't enough
money to do that.

It still jams like hell, despite the fact that UK soldiers clean their weapons
3 times a day.

[-Max2-]

Ghostwolf:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7161

;)

[Undo]

GazB,

Good stuff, man. I agree that engaging targets beyond 300m is outside the scope of the average infantry engagement. That's what your DM and support weapons (and in the US military, your radio) are for.

I had to laugh about the "putting atgms on apcs" comment. When my platoon was transitioning from 113s to our next vehicle we all hoped for Bradleys, but they gave us Hummers. The reason they gave us actually made sense, and was probably the only thing I ever heard from higher that did make any sense. They said that if they gave us Bradleys we would be too likely to engage small enemy elements rather than report them, which was our job. So they gave us thin-skinned hummers. Not as comfortable for sleeping, etc., but probably a good choice.

[Undo]

Also, regarding bullpup designs, they may be good for the average infantryman on a traditional battlefield, but have some serious drawbacks in urban areas (if you switch to off-hand you get a face full of brass). One of the reasons SF groups don't use bullpups very often. A design like the FN P90 sorts this out, but it is the only design of its kind right now and is not a replacement for an assualt rifle.

[Ghostwolf]

Ghostwolf:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7161
;)

Hmmm, amazing. Just some changes to the parts inside the rifle, and all
of a sudden you got a whole new weapon system with a devine like
accuracy and reliability, despite its short barrel length and all that pre-
existing problems with the bullpup rifle design?

Thanks for the info, but I still have doubt regarding the validity of this
report, unless I see more than one source confirm these improvements,
otherwise I am just going to treat it as another rumor.

[GazB]

"I had to laugh about the "putting atgms on apcs" comment."

For a while in the 80s the MICV (ie an APC with a cannon and usually a ATGW) was some super battlefield weapon that could take anything on. Of course if you think about it... a Bradley stopping to fire a just supersonic TOW at a T-64 that is 3km away that might fire an APFSDS at five times the speed of sound while moving from cover to cover is not a fair contest... (Nor the Soviet equivelent of a BMP-2 and an M1A2 doing the same think with a Konkurs missile... of course the laser beam riding missile from the BMP-3 can fly 5 km and can be fired on the move and the missile travels twice as fast, but there is still a significant armour difference).

"So they gave us thin-skinned hummers. Not as comfortable for sleeping, etc., but probably a good choice."

Makes sense to me, but I do like the Soviet solution of mixed units for recon... includes tanks as well as recon assets, to cover a withdrawl, or to take on a light enemy position if needed. Note their recon versions of their BMP-2 and BMP-3 have 30mm cannon but no ATGMs.

"Has the USA ever considered switching to a bullpup design? "

Well regarding bullpups I guess you'd include the Steyr ACR and probably the H&K ACR as bullpups. (The H&K ACR being a modified version of the G11 with a magazine over the top of the rifle with the firing mechanism to the rear.

The Steyr ACR had no range adjustment controls... the trajectory over the effective range was so flat.

Note that the G11 ammo is called 4.7 x 34, whereas the ACR ammo was called 4.92 x 34mm. this was because the Germans and the US measure calibre differently.

"From what I understand the flechette ammo was very accurate and effective."

The new design single crystal sabot (or something) for the Steyr meant that the sabot seperation was much more consistant and reliable than previous types and allowed higher velocity for the projectile as well. This made it rather more accurate than previous flechette rounds, but still not as accurate as a rifle bullet. There were also questions about lethality. It could penetrate an soft and most hard body armour at very long ranges but it was found that if the flechette didn't bend (they called it fishhooking) then it could actually penetrate a beating heart and not stop it... ie a heart hit was not fatal. There was the risk of infection but in general it just isn't lethal enough. (obviously if it went throught your head or spinal column, or punctured your lung it would have effects, or a gut shot would lead to problems but entry and exit wound would be hard to find... unless the flechette bent.

The G11 worked well as did most of the other contenders (including duplex bullets) but at the end of the day none of them were generational leaps forward that would greatly improve hit probability and lethality, and if it couldn't improve enough in either of these areas then the huge expense (especially with the caseless rounds initially) wasn't worth it.

Of course they all offered improvements in ammo. Caseless ammo greatly reduced weight and cost as far less brass was needed, while the flechette rounds reduced weight too... the projectile and the case being the two largest components of a rounds weight. With one flechette round having a normal case it slightly reduced weight but the steyrs flechette round reduced the weight of both components... the flechette itself much lighter than a bullet and it used a plastic case that was lighter than a brass case too.

[hank]

This is really interesting and thanks for the great AK phots to all that posted.

Couple of things to keep in mind:

Flat trajectory - there is no such thing. All bullets regardless of weight or rate of spin fall or are attracted to earth in exactly the same amount. I don't remember exactly b/c it has been years since physics class, but rate is something like 9.8 m/sec2. The only variable that will effect how much the bullet falls is time. Thus, the amount a bullet drops is only effected by velocity because a bullet that reaches its target faster has less time to fall. It is really that simple.

There is no force in nature that will ever make a bullet "rise". That is simply not possible. The flatness of the trajectory simply means that the arc has less drop only because the bullet is in the air longer and thus effected by gravity less.

Don't confuse accuracy with barrel length. A one inch barrel is inherently just as accurate as a 100 inch barrel if fired from a machine. The error comes from the human operator. Years ago I read an article where a magazine fixed a handgun to a rig in an laboratory and fired the gun mechanically. They measured the results. Then they cut one inch off the barrel and fired again. They repeated this until they had a one inch barrel. Without the human element the gun produce nearly identical results. The point is that barrel length will effect accuracy when humans fire it b/c the amount of movement a human necessarily puts on the weapon while holding it casuse a a greter disparity down range. There is a term for this but I don't remember it. Some ballistic expert will know what I am referring to and know the term.

Also, the reduced velocity of a shorter barrel will allow the wind and gravity more time to effect the bullet and thus add another element that creates less predictable results.

hank

[Yard Ape]

I think the M16 still has some life left in it, but it may be overdue for a significant upgrade.

Canada uses the C7 & C8 which are derived from the M16 & M4 respectively. The C7 is currently going through a mid-life upgrade to a C7A2 model. This includes green furniture, telescoping butt, improved sight, and ambidextrous mag catch, cocking handle, and fire control selector. The green furniture is okay as it is suited to more environments than black, but it will not eliminate the need to cam the rifle (no furniture colour could do this). The telescoping butt is the best improvement going into this. There are some who argue that we should be looking for a new sight and not just an improvement of the old, and there is concern that the ambidextrous cocking handle will be ****e to getting caught on things. You can see details & pictures of the C7 upgrade here: http://www.tacticalkit.com/images/c7a2rifle.ppt

The C7A2 will be an improvement over the current C7A1. However, there are some who argue that the C7 should be retired & replaced by the C8 for all soldiers (just as some argue that the M16 should be replaced by the M4 in the US). This is typically argued for based on the suitability of a shorter weapon if mechanised infantry in their cramped APCs and of a shorter weapon in urban and underground environments. The primary concern about this is the loss of range when going from a 20” barrel to a 14.5” barrel. This concern was even rasied by the US in Small Arms and Individual Equipment Lessons from Operation Iraqi Freedom:
M-4 carbine: Soldiers were very satisfied with this weapon. It performed well in a demanding environment especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics. As one Brigade Commander said, "The M-4 with PEQ and PAC provided overmatch over our threat equipped with AK-47s and RPGs." The general consensus is that every rifleman wants the M-4 vice the M-16A2.

The most significant negative comment was reference the M-4's range. In the desert, there were times were soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range. The 82d Airborne soldiers wished they had deployed with M-14's at the squad level as the 101st did.

One well presented alternative that I have come across has been to adopt a 16” barrel length for the C7. This maintains the range without requiring the platoon to carry additional weapon & ammo types. When combined with a collapsing/telescoping butt, the weapon would also have the compactness desired by the soldier. As the author put it this “C7A3” would have a “balance of manoeuvrability/compactness, yet retains lethality and accuracy out to the ranges required by modern combat.” You can see the recommendation for adopting the 16” barrel for the C7 here: http://nightoperations.com/Doc/Infantry-Rifle-Carbine1.pdf

http://www.diemaco.com/images/sal-c7a1.gif C7A1: Current model to be replaced by C7A2
http://www.diemaco.com/images/sal-c7.gif C7: Original still around in limited numbers
http://www.diemaco.com/images/sal-c8.gif C8 Carbine
http://www.diemaco.com/images/sal-lsw99.gif C7 LSW: Not in service (& never was)
http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/c7a2-3.gif C7A2: Artist's vision
http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/c7a2-2.jpg 16" barrel: Artist's vision

[Javehn]

Flat trajectory - there is no such thing. All bullets regardless of weight or rate of spin fall or are attracted to earth in exactly the same amount. I don't remember exactly b/c it has been years since physics class, but rate is something like 9.8 m/sec2. The only variable that will effect how much the bullet falls is time. Thus, the amount a bullet drops is only effected by velocity because a bullet that reaches its target faster has less time to fall. It is really that simple.

It took me a long time to remember all the stuff i learned long time ago , and caused me enourmous headeck . :D >>>>>

The bullet ballistic is devided to 3 basic parts : 1)Inside ballistic - how the boolet acts inside the rifle . 2)Outter Ballistic - from the time it is leaving the weapon , to the impact time . 3) End ballistic - from the time bullet hits the target , to it's total stop.

(I will reffer to regular boolet of M16 - M193 , starting speed -960 m/s )
Now , indeed , the forces that work on bullet in outside ballistic are it's kinetic energy (speed of the boolet ) , driving the boolet forward , gravity force , driving the boolet to the ground , and Air friction force , making the boolet to loose it's speed . The boolet weight is making difference - (W = mg ) , so the more weight boolet has , more soon the ground G force will take over it .

Now , about the flat boolet fly - inside the weapon there are curves , that spinning the boolet . When the boolet is fired , it is spined inside the weapon , and that fact makes the boolet fly for some trajectory in a course that you can call it - FLAT . for M16 , regular 5.56 boolet will fly 25 metters in flat proj .
After that , the gravity making it's course , and makes the bullet lower it's path . That gravity force works on M16 regular boolet from 25-100-120 metters .

Then , the boolet starts to act this way : sence the boolet is spinning , but the friction makes it loose the speed , the boolet just starting to act as wave with magnified amplitude in every cicle - going up and down . That means , that boolet will pass same distance from the ground twice . Let's say , if you will fire at 300m , and you aiming to some point , in order to hit it , you must aim bellow the point ! Something like 30 cm .

Eventually , the boolet is getting "tired" , and because of i's law speed caused by air friction , and it's parabolic move , it will start "throwing ass" - in every boolet , the mass center is from behind , in order to make it more "ballistical" . When the boolet speed becoming low , the back part of boolet wants to go forward . When it does that , it loosing all of its ballistic quallities , and the boolet falls to ground .

So , there is force in nature , that makes the boolet rise .



Don't confuse accuracy with barrel length. A one inch barrel is inherently just as accurate as a 100 inch barrel if fired from a machine. The error comes from the human operator. Years ago I read an article where a magazine fixed a handgun to a rig in an laboratory and fired the gun mechanically. They measured the results. Then they cut one inch off the barrel and fired again. They repeated this until they had a one inch barrel. Without the human element the gun produce nearly identical results. The point is that barrel length will effect accuracy when humans fire it b/c the amount of movement a human necessarily puts on the weapon while holding it casuse a a greter disparity down range. There is a term for this but I don't remember it. Some ballistic expert will know what I am referring to and know the term.


I don't know what kinda experiment they did , but someone shure missinterpritting the results . The barrel length not only good for boolet speed , it is also good for boolet STABILITY . Bullet fired from one inch barrel will loose it's stabillity after 5 metters in the air , and if it by some mirracle getting to 100 metter , it will not be able to to no damage what so ever .

[hank]

Javehn, thanks for clearing all that up. Now I understand that the heavier the bullet that faster it will fall. I'll keep that in mind.

[Javehn]

Javehn, thanks for clearing all that up. Now I understand that the heavier the bullet that faster it will fall. I'll keep that in mind.

Sorry guy , didn't meant to diss you or something . Just -


All bullets regardless of weight or rate of spin fall or are attracted to earth in exactly the same amount

And


The only variable that will effect how much the bullet falls is time ;)

I was reffering to something else thow , the claim that no way the boolet can rise -


There is no force in nature that will ever make a bullet "rise". That is simply not possible.

Again , no meant to diss .

[UkrainianAmerican]

bullets fall down in the same amount of time, BUT the heavier bullet will naturally travel slower, then a lighter bullet with the same amount of energy. thus the heavier bullet will fly a shorter distance before falling down.

[flickme]

I would say the G36. But definitely not the M4. Thats not a practical weapon to replace the M16.

[Yard Ape]

I would say the G36. But definitely not the M4.I still do not think that it is time to retire the M16. This does not mean there is no room for improvment. With a 16" barrel & telescoping butt, this weapon can meet all the needs of a modern army.

[LordHalbert]

Some of you folks are little confused about bullet trajectory physics.

All bullets (heavy and light) will accelerate vertically to the ground at (9.8m/sec)/sec - if air resistance is removed from the equation.

All projectiles are effected by acceleration on the vertical and horizontal axis.

Gravity effects the vertical acceleration and air resistance effects all axis.

Generally, a heavier bullet is less effected by air resistance than a lighter bullet. Note that density is also a factor and it's not the same as weight. An elephant is heavier than a bullet but not as dense. An elephant would not make a good bullet even though it's heavier than most bullets since it would be more effected by air resistance because of it's density and shape.

Ok, so firing a light bullet and a heavier bullet (of the same density) at the same target at the same velocity, the heavier bullet will typically have a flatter trajectory since it's time in flight is generally less than the lighter bullet due to the fact that air resitance will have less of an impact on the heavier bullet (usually). This means the lighter bullet will be in flight longer thus will drop further. So, in order to reach the same target, the initial firing elevation of the gun that fired the lighter bullet will have to be greater than for the heavier bullet - to reach the same destination.

I hope I have cleared things up :D

[Herrmannek]

"Also the faster the round goes the longer it takes gravity to pull it to the ground."

Gravity effects every bullet at the muzzle. Gravity operates at the same rate for everything no matter what speed they are travelling at. The higher initial velocity makes the trajectory flatter, but a flatter trajectory isn't a more accurate round. A flechette round shoots much flatter than a 5.56mm round... does that make it more accurate?


-What about shootig at elevated targets? Sights are designed to shot targets on same leval as shooter? I didn't seen artilery ruller in hands of grunts(OICW not included :) ) Flat trajectory makes easier to hit in such conditions.

- What if you can't estimate range properly?
bare eye range finding ussualy has +-10% error, with lays in 20 metres section at 100 metres , 40 at 200 and 60 at 300. But deepnes of target, don't know proper terminology, is the lenght of section of error you can make in range finding to hit target of known height and range. This value is deacreasing with range and increasing with height of target. Those are resons you ussualy can't hit man with pistols at long ranges, because your estimated range error is greater than terget deepnes. The same goes for rifle rounds. Esspecialy target is low or only small amount of it is exposed, then even at 300 metres speed of rifle bullet makes difference.

Conclusion: Speed of bulet have much in common with accuracy in battlefield conditions...

EDITED: style

[GazB]

"Flat trajectory - there is no such thing."

Of course there is.

As soon as a bullet leaves a barrel it starts dropping due to gravity. Its path through the air is its trajectory. The shape of that trajectory has more to do with velocity than the weight of the bullet, though external effects like wind will be based on the weight of the projectile and its shape.

This latter is very important. An RPG-7 round is well known to be badly effected by crosswinds. Not because of its weight, but because of its shape. The rear stabiliser fins are pushed easily by the wind due to their area and low mass (like an open parachute), but this results in RPG-7 rounds turning into the wind as the pushing the rear with the wind turns the nose of the projectile into the wind and the rocket motor propels the round forward.

An unpowered projectile like a bullet... especially a pointed round will tend to turn with the wind (the nose being lighter than the rear and without any propulsion the aerodynamic forces will tend to make the round head in the direction it is pointing).

"All bullets regardless of weight or rate of spin fall or are attracted to earth in exactly the same amount."

Quite true and after 3 seconds both rounds will have fallen vertically the same distance. However the faster round will have traveled further than the slower round unless the faster round was shedding speed very rapidly... ie a projectile of low sectional density will lose speed faster than a projectile of high sectional density. For example jumping out of a spacecraft 1,000m above the surface of the moon are two people... both of identical personal weight, both carrying a parachute. Both will fall at the same rate and both will hit at the same speed even if one has their parachute open and the other does not. On Earth the one with the parachute open will fall much more slowly than someone that does not deploy their parachute because their mass an the mass of the parachute they have requires more air to be displaced (ie pushed out of the way) for them to descend.

The difference between modern pointed bullets is not that great and sectional density is rather more effected by projectile weight than shape as such.

The whole purpose of changing to calibres in the 6.5-7mm calibres is to optimise the sectional density for bullets in the 100-120 grain weight range.

"Thus, the amount a bullet drops is only effected by velocity because a bullet that reaches its target faster has less time to fall. It is really that simple. "

But the mass and shape and density of the projectile effects the rate at which the bullet decelerates in our atmosphere. If you accelerated a blob of plum jam to 1km/s it wouldn't maintain that speed very long. A dense hard heavy material would however maintain velocity much better.

"There is no force in nature that will ever make a bullet "rise". That is simply not possible."

First of all yes there is... add fins and control surfaces that act on the air that the bullet passes through.

The fact that the bullet starts descending when it leaves the barrel is a fact. To overcome this the sights on all weapons allow for this... you don't bore sight a rifle and then stand taller to hit targets further away, you loft the projectile by firing up into the air so tha it is still descending from what would otherwise be a laser straight trajectory to fall far enough to hit the target at range x.

If you have a Rifle zeroed in at 300m then you will find that the bullet will print high at closer than 300m and low beyond 300m. That doesn't mean that the bullet is not effected by gravity at up to 300m... it means that the sighting system has been adjusted to compensate for the effect of gravity on bullet drop at 300m.

"less drop only because the bullet is in the air longer and thus effected by gravity less. "

The effect on the bullet is always the same. It is the trajectory that is effected more or less by gravity... depending upon the speed, shape, density, and mass of the projectile.

"Don't confuse accuracy with barrel length. A one inch barrel is inherently just as accurate as a 100 inch barrel if fired from a machine. "

Not completely true. The rifling in the barrel is intended to stabilise the bullet... if the barrel is so shor that the bullet is not spinning sufficiently fast to stabilise it then accuracy will be rather random.

Also with the shorter barrel velocity will be reduced... there are two types of accuracy. The fist is how tight your groupings are... it a cluster of 5 shots that are touching in a clover pattern at 100m is very good. If they are 20m to the right of the target that is OK... adjust your sights to bring the impacts onto the target. The other type of accuracy is meaningless for most hunters/shooters. Being able to hit the centre of the target with one bullet but the other four bullets falling within a 20m circle of the target is useless and suggests something is seriously wrong.

As the barrel gets shorter the group will drop down the target as the trajectory changes (assuming the sights or aiming are not adjusted). This is still OK as long as the group of rounds is tight as a simple adjustment of the sights is normal before you go out hunting.

"Now I understand that the heavier the bullet that faster it will fall. I'll keep that in mind."

No, you were right in the sense that gravity acts over time. In a vaccuum all things fall at the same rate, but on Earth the atmosphere effects that. A lead balloon will fall, but a balloon filled with helium will rise. The difference is like underwater... things that are lighter than the water move up... the same weight float and heavier descend... the same in the air... if lighter than air it floats, heavier it descends. Not many things lighter than air are useful as bullets as they are too light and don't maintain their velocity well. A small hard heavy thing is best... that is why lead is used in bullets... it is denser than other widely used metals.

"Speed of bulet have much in common with accuracy in battlefield conditions... "

High velocity to flatten trajectory reduces ranging errors, but introduce problems of greater effect of wind or deflection of objects on the battlefield.

"What about shootig at elevated targets? Sights are designed to shot targets on same leval as shooter? I didn't seen artilery ruller in hands of grunts(OICW not included ) Flat trajectory makes easier to hit in such conditions."

That is why tracer ammo is used. At ranges that the target might be engaged... say 300-400m max the trajectory of the average bullet like a 7.62 x 39mm means that at worst the bullet would have dropped maybe a foot from the muzzle... with the iron sight at minimum range (100m) then that is probably 9 inches low... ie aim for the head... hit them in the chest, or aim for the chest hit them in the gut... ie no big deal. Plus looking at a target at 400m... you might not realise it is exactly 400m, but you know it is greater than 200m so you can set the sights at say 300m... a standard battle range and aim for centre of mass.

[Herrmannek]

"Speed of bulet have much in common with accuracy in battlefield conditions... "

High velocity to flatten trajectory reduces ranging errors, but introduce problems of greater effect of wind or deflection of objects on the battlefield.

"What about shootig at elevated targets? Sights are designed to shot targets on same leval as shooter? I didn't seen artilery ruller in hands of grunts(OICW not included ) Flat trajectory makes easier to hit in such conditions."

That is why tracer ammo is used. At ranges that the target might be engaged... say 300-400m max the trajectory of the average bullet like a 7.62 x 39mm means that at worst the bullet would have dropped maybe a foot from the muzzle... with the iron sight at minimum range (100m) then that is probably 9 inches low... ie aim for the head... hit them in the chest, or aim for the chest hit them in the gut... ie no big deal. Plus looking at a target at 400m... you might not realise it is exactly 400m, but you know it is greater than 200m so you can set the sights at say 300m... a standard battle range and aim for centre of mass.

So we must answer question what is more common fault of miss, bad weather or shooters error? And I think that drop for 7.62x39 at 400 metres is much greater than one feet. REMOV should know such data...

[11F5S]

On the battlefield if you took the time to think about all the scientific factors of ballistics Charles would drop you in your tracks.

[GazB]

"So we must answer question what is more common fault of miss, bad weather or shooters error? And I think that drop for 7.62x39 at 400 metres is much greater than one feet. REMOV should know such data..."

At long range there are many factors. Shooters errors would be the most significant but having a flatter shooting rifle doesn't solve all his problems.

The 5.56mm round might have half the drop of the 7.62 x 39, but it also has less energy as well. Out past 250m the 5.56mm bullet doesn't even fragment from a full length barrel... in other words it is no more lethal than any other .22 cal round at longer ranges. The fact that twigs or grass between you and the target can stop you from hitting them at all makes it rather less practical in my view.

BTW I have checked and the ballistic path of the 7.62 x 39mm is very curved but the difference in path for it and the .223 is not hugely different. Also at 400 yards the .223 bullet is travelling at 371mps while the 7.62mm bullet is travelling at 352mps... and the 7.62mm bullet still has more energy.. 370 ftlbs of energy vs 204 ftlbs for the .223.