The problem with the M16 is a few things that can be well explained through some science.
Direct Impingement. The basic operation of this is that as the gunpowder is ignited, and the bullet travels down the rifle, it is being propelled by the gunpowder's rapid expansion of gas to cool, which we can observe through laws of thermodynamics. As a result, this gas will go into the gas tube, and will travel down the gas tube to go into the gas key. Also, since we all know that nothing can ever completely combust, we have carbon in the gas. This will also go into the gas key, which, by the way, means that carbon gets everywhere in the chamber.
This carbon is also extremely hard and hot. This directly affects the bolt, which means that it is slowly being made brittle. As we all know, the more brittle something is, the easier it is to break. Thus, the bolt is weakened and as a result, sustained and cyclic fire will severely shorten the lifespan of the AR series rifle. Another issue is with the bolt itself, which has many small lugs. Although this means lock-up time is reduced, you end up with it being harder to clean out, and this means that it will be dirtier in the first place. The AR series bolt also has the issue of locking up if there is backpressure on the bolt when it is going back into battery, which means that a forward assist is necessary if the pressure of the rounds stripping from the magazine is too great. It tries to lock up earlier then necessary, and thus, you can see the wear groove in the guide cam. The smaller lugs also mean that they are easier to break, and this brings us back to Direct Impingement, which means that they will get brittle with repeated heating and cooling.
THE MOAR YOU KNOW
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;19733093]The problem with the M16 is a few things that can be well explained through some science.
Direct Impingement. The basic operation of this is that as the gunpowder is ignited, and the bullet travels down the rifle, it is being propelled by the gunpowder's rapid expansion of gas to cool, which we can observe through laws of thermodynamics. As a result, this gas will go into the gas tube, and will travel down the gas tube to go into the gas key. Also, since we all know that nothing can ever completely combust, we have carbon in the gas. This will also go into the gas key, which, by the way, means that carbon gets everywhere in the chamber.
This carbon is also extremely hard and hot. This directly affects the bolt, which means that it is slowly being made brittle. As we all know, the more brittle something is, the easier it is to break. Thus, the bolt is weakened and as a result, sustained and cyclic fire will severely shorten the lifespan of the AR series rifle. Another issue is with the bolt itself, which has many small lugs. Although this means lock-up time is reduced, you end up with it being harder to clean out, and this means that it will be dirtier in the first place. The AR series bolt also has the issue of locking up if there is backpressure on the bolt when it is going back into battery, which means that a forward assist is necessary if the pressure of the rounds stripping from the magazine is too great. It tries to lock up earlier then necessary, and thus, you can see the wear groove in the guide cam. The smaller lugs also mean that they are easier to break, and this brings us back to Direct Impingement, which means that they will get brittle with repeated heating and cooling.
THE MOAR YOU KNOW[/QUOTE]
Calm down bro, I'm not arguing with you on that part, the heat transfer caused by direct impingement is indeed a bad thing. However, it takes a long time for that kind of shit to actually matter, M16A1s are still used in parts of Vietnam and they still work fine over 40 years later after shitloads of abuse.
Furthermore, a few aftermarket modifications can fix 99% of the problems you'll ever have with an M16 or AR15.
Anyway, I don't see why I have to site sources, I'd be the only one. I'm not saying the M16 will never jam, I'm just arguing that people exaggerate the fuck out of its "unreliability". The only real source that I need to prove that is the US Armed Forces.
HK417. It's HK's answer to the AR-10 :love:
[img]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/images-products-mr762-general-mr762-lg.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=HiCom Raz;19733992]HK417. It's HK's answer to the AR-10 :love:
[img]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/images-products-mr762-general-mr762-lg.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
It's an AR10 with a gas piston.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;19734060]It's an AR10 with a gas piston.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. And I love AR10's. I also happen to be an HK fanboy. Their shit is great, if not a little expensive. And as to both your points and hunters, the main difference between durability of the AKs and ARs is the AR series need a little more love. Taking more time to maintain a firearm for more accuracy is a tradoff I would ABSOLUTELY be willing to make.
[QUOTE=HiCom Raz;19734112]Exactly. And I love AR10's. I also happen to be an HK fanboy. Their shit is great, if not a little expensive. And as to both your points and hunters, the main difference between durability of the AKs and ARs is the AR series need a little more love. Taking more time to maintain a firearm for more accuracy is a tradoff I would ABSOLUTELY be willing to make.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather not pay $15,000 for a single gun thanks (Retail price for government agencies buying the HK417)
[QUOTE=TippZ;19703847]"AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker in the room, accept no substitutes."
The one who knows which movie this is from, gets a cookie![/QUOTE]
"AK-47. The cheapest there is. When you have absolutely have no training, can't shoot for shit, and can't get anything better, accept no substitutes."
[QUOTE=Umi-hebi;19734255]I'd rather not pay $15,000 for a single gun thanks (Retail price for government agencies buying the HK417)[/QUOTE]
I know:(. But hypothetically, if I walked into a HUGE gun store and they said take any 1 thing you want, I'd get that.
[QUOTE=HiCom Raz;19734495]I know:(. But hypothetically, if I walked into a HUGE gun store and they said take any 1 thing you want, I'd get that.[/QUOTE]
'Hypothetically' if they sold anything I'd vouch for a M134 or a Mk. 19
:bandwagon: I'm on it with the ak47.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;19733093]The problem with the M16 is a few things that can be well explained through some science.
Direct Impingement. The basic operation of this is that as the gunpowder is ignited, and the bullet travels down the rifle, it is being propelled by the gunpowder's rapid expansion of gas to cool, which we can observe through laws of thermodynamics. As a result, this gas will go into the gas tube, and will travel down the gas tube to go into the gas key. Also, since we all know that nothing can ever completely combust, we have carbon in the gas. This will also go into the gas key, which, by the way, means that carbon gets everywhere in the chamber.
This carbon is also extremely hard and hot. This directly affects the bolt, which means that it is slowly being made brittle. As we all know, the more brittle something is, the easier it is to break. Thus, the bolt is weakened and as a result, sustained and cyclic fire will severely shorten the lifespan of the AR series rifle. Another issue is with the bolt itself, which has many small lugs. Although this means lock-up time is reduced, you end up with it being harder to clean out, and this means that it will be dirtier in the first place. The AR series bolt also has the issue of locking up if there is backpressure on the bolt when it is going back into battery, which means that a forward assist is necessary if the pressure of the rounds stripping from the magazine is too great. It tries to lock up earlier then necessary, and thus, you can see the wear groove in the guide cam. The smaller lugs also mean that they are easier to break, and this brings us back to Direct Impingement, which means that they will get brittle with repeated heating and cooling.
THE MOAR YOU KNOW[/QUOTE]
DI guns run perfectly fine, and weigh a hell of a lot less with less moving parts. You can argue all you want against them, but they work and they work well.
AK for it's raw stopping power and durability.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;19733093]The problem with the M16 is a few things that can be well explained through some science.
Direct Impingement. The basic operation of this is that as the gunpowder is ignited, and the bullet travels down the rifle, it is being propelled by the gunpowder's rapid expansion of gas to cool, which we can observe through laws of thermodynamics. As a result, this gas will go into the gas tube, and will travel down the gas tube to go into the gas key. Also, since we all know that nothing can ever completely combust, we have carbon in the gas. This will also go into the gas key, which, by the way, means that carbon gets everywhere in the chamber.
This carbon is also extremely hard and hot. This directly affects the bolt, which means that it is slowly being made brittle. As we all know, the more brittle something is, the easier it is to break. Thus, the bolt is weakened and as a result, sustained and cyclic fire will severely shorten the lifespan of the AR series rifle. Another issue is with the bolt itself, which has many small lugs. Although this means lock-up time is reduced, you end up with it being harder to clean out, and this means that it will be dirtier in the first place. The AR series bolt also has the issue of locking up if there is backpressure on the bolt when it is going back into battery, which means that a forward assist is necessary if the pressure of the rounds stripping from the magazine is too great. It tries to lock up earlier then necessary, and thus, you can see the wear groove in the guide cam. The smaller lugs also mean that they are easier to break, and this brings us back to Direct Impingement, which means that they will get brittle with repeated heating and cooling.
THE MOAR YOU KNOW[/QUOTE]
BSCLY.
Poop where you eat.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;19734767]DI guns run perfectly fine, and weigh a hell of a lot less with less moving parts. You can argue all you want against them, but they work and they work well.[/QUOTE]
They run fine, yes. However the AR-15 has a tendency to have "WTF" malfunctions. Weak extractor, ejector, etc.
All of this reduces reliability.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JmIQXkoog8[/url]
M16 because Price used it to take down that helicopter in 1-2 shots.... Oh wait... That's the m4
[QUOTE=HazeFyer23;19736148]M16 because Price used it to take down that helicopter in 1-2 shots.... Oh wait... That's the m4[/QUOTE]
Which is an M16 with a shorter barrel and telescoping stock, at its base.
And he used an M203 attached to said M4, IIRC.
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;19734994]BSCLY.
Poop where you eat.[/QUOTE]
This what you mean?
[img]http://scp-wiki.wdfiles.com/local--files/reddawn/page3.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=protoAuthor;19736186]Which is an M16 with a shorter barrel and telescoping stock, at its base.
And he used an M203 attached to said M4, IIRC.[/QUOTE]
Your sarcasm meeter seemed to have malfunctioned, my good sir.
I just love these threads though.
As for HK417 kid: All you need is an AR-10 and a kit to convert it from DI to a gas piston. Much cheaper, looks better, and... yeah. More money for boolets and optics.
[editline]11:21PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19736318]This what you mean?
[IMG]http://scp-wiki.wdfiles.com/local--files/reddawn/page3.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Sauce?
[QUOTE=Thomas849;19739295]Your sarcasm meeter seemed to have malfunctioned, my good sir.
[/QUOTE]
FUCK. I forgot to oil it.
AK-47; "I'm goinfd to shewyt you!" M-16; ":fuckoff:"
[QUOTE=Magman77;19739446]AK-47; "I'm goinfd to shewyt you!" M-16; ":fuckoff:"[/QUOTE]
We have more guns than you. About 108 more.
*sigh* the AK-47 isn't nearly as common as anyone thinks it is. It is mediocre at best.
The AK-74 was a substantial improvement that actually puts it in the running with the M16.
The 47 suffers from short range and horrible inaccuracy. The gun is reliable, but frankly what is the point of reliability if the guy on the other side of the field is just gonna shoot you from well outside your effective weapon range? The 47 is supposed to be fired on full auto, but with the increased weight of the 7.62x39 over the 5.56 NATO, you are going to expend your ammunition stores much MUCH faster than the single or burst fire M16's.
The 74 sought to fix many of these issues and make an actual battle rifle.
[editline]03:01AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;19730771]5.56x45 NATO reliably will tumble and explode within 125 yards. After that it just makes holes.
Also, the AK is definitely easier to clean. Easier to clean out the recesses of the bolt.
Mug of Doom, you are not allowed to talk in this thread anymore unless you cite proper evidence, because you lack understanding and research. The M16 WILL jam quicker then the AK47, a consequence of DI, and tight tolerances. The AKM is far less accurate then the m16 as a result of loose tolerances.
With proper training, both weapons are just fine, but both could be better.
The Robinson XCR, to me, fixes everything :razz:[/QUOTE]
I have an XCR. Best goddamn rifle I've ever held. Fucking LOVE that rifle.
All that shit you hated about the AR-15 platform? FIXED.
[QUOTE=GunFox;19739529]The 47 suffers from short range and horrible inaccuracy. [/QUOTE]
I think this questions has too many variables for it's own good.
Sure, if I'm fighting in the middle of a field, with the other guy having an M16, I'd be fucked. But I don't plan on getting into a firefight anywhere near a field, or any other big open space. I do, however, plan on spending most of my life in a relatively urban place, which makes the range less of a problem.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;19731321]The original AK 47 was discontinued in 1953, it had a stamped receiver (known as a Type I) and due to metallurgy problems with the receivers warping, an AK 47 with a milled receiver (known as the Type II) was introduced in 1951 and produced alongside the Type I until 1953. In 1954 or so the Type II was vastly simplified and replaced with the Type III which was produced until 1959 when the AKM (also known as the Type IV or 4) was adopted, this happened because the metallurgy problems experienced before were finally fixed so they basically employed the changes they made to the design with the milled receiver AK's and further simplified the design, using more rivets, more stampings and a simpler design process.
THE MORE YOU KNOW
I don't know where you get the whole heavy recoil thing from though, considering the only real difference between the guns is the receiver, and the milled receiver adds like 3 or 4 pounds to the gun, the recoil is actually much lighter. Same with the Type 1, which is slightly heavier than the AKM.[/QUOTE]
You are correct about the recoil, it has been a while since i have looked at information on the kalashnikov series, i was just saying what i could remember about the weapon systems.
M16's are horrible, they have accuracy, but only when the fuckers don't jam, the smallest bit of dirt just fucks everything up.
My unit recently got our M4's and they are so much better and i have not had mine jam or have any complications. (We've also been using our cco's which i've found to make aiming a lot easier when you have a kevlar on depending what distance the target is at since you don't have to have the "dot" directly in the center of the cco...)
If you keep good maintenance of the m16, they don't jam too much but i've had plenty of times where i had just finished removing every bit of grime and carbon from the weapon then headed out to the range only to have to go through sports with in the first 10 rounds because it either mis-fed a round into the chamber or the bolt got stuck.
As for the AK-47, i've never used one, probably never will, though i would like to.
(I'm not a gun nut, nor do i really even know anything about rifles (other then how to fire and maintain one) i just know what i've learned during my time in the military and i only speak from my experience with the weapon.)
[QUOTE=Bean-O;19656593][B]-M16a2 and a4 as well as M4 don't have a full-auto setting, only 3 round burst.
[/B] Hey, thats not a con, its good, prevents "spray and pray" with the soldiers. A major problem in Nam is that most soldiers would spray into the jungle and run out of ammo, making them all shit themselves in horror as the enemy closes in. Besides, it really only takes 1 or 2 shots from any gun to kill someone or something, range just affects the overall damage the shots do.
M16, much more accurate.
AK47 is too loud and inacurate.
AK's are for kids.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;19656593][B]-M16a2 and a4 as well as M4 don't have a full-auto setting, only 3 round burst.
[/B] Hey, thats not a con, its good, prevents "spray and pray" with the soldiers. A major problem in Nam is that most soldiers would spray into the jungle and run out of ammo, making them all shit themselves in horror as the enemy closes in. Besides, it really only takes 1 or 2 shots from any gun to kill someone or something, range just affects the overall damage the shots do.[/QUOTE]
no, the m4 carbine is auto/semi
voted ak, won't ever let you down
AK101, I don't really have much reasoning, I just like it.
[quote=Wikipedia]The AK-101 is an assault rifle of the Kalashnikov series. The AK-101 is designed for the world export market, using 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges, which is the standard of all NATO armies. The AK-101 is marketed at those looking for a weapon that combines the logistical compatibility and familiarity of the 5.56x45 NATO round with the legendary reliability of a Kalashnikov. It is designed with modern and composite materials, including plastics that reduce weight and improve accuracy. Many of the improvements found in the AK-101 are also present in the AK-103 and the rest of the AK-10X series of rifles.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Karbine;19741151]no, the m4 carbine is auto/semi
voted ak, won't ever let you down[/QUOTE]
Theres a burst option too...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.