• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Treat Your Rifle Like a Lady

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
680
The Will Eisner M-16 U.S. Army Rifle Maintenance Booklet Comic

32 Page M-16 A1 Booklet comic, art by Will Eisner Studios, unknown author or authors.
Distributed to every U.S. soldier from 1968-1972 during Vietnam conflict.
Originally sealed in plastic to accomodate weather concerns, and for jungle distribution.

Digital version to found here:
http://www.ep.tc/problems/25/index.html

Will Eisner made also a Pershing Missile Maintenance Booklet Comic
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,895
Reaction score
233
sort of like 'Tee Emm' for soldiers, and isn't that the guy who did the art for 'MAD' magazine?

Will Eisner made also a Pershing Missile Maintenance Booklet Comic

would _love_ to see that!! ;D

cheers,
Robin.
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
547
Reaction score
26
Good grief, "don't this, don't that" and I thought the SA80 had problems.
Don't miss the letter about the AK47 and compare handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD896858 in Abraham Gubler's post on the EM2 rifle.
Kalashnikov, seeing the SA80, thought UK must have a lot of clever soldiers. He'd probably have thought USA had a lot of very careful ones. This manual is an eye-opener.
Seriously, what a difficult job to design a military rifle that works and stays working in all kinds of adverse conditions.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
680
robunos said:
sort of like 'Tee Emm' for soldiers, and isn't that the guy who did the art for 'MAD' magazine?

Will Eisner made also a Pershing Missile Maintenance Booklet Comic

would _love_ to see that!! ;D

cheers,
Robin.

yes, Eisner made some work for MAD
one of his best work is "The Spirit"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Eisner

during WW2 he already made Maintenance Booklet Comic for Military


One of his longest-running jobs was PS, The Preventive Maintenance Monthly,
from 1951 to 1970
here are digital back issue
http://dig.library.vcu.edu/cdm4/index_psm.php?CISOROOT=/psm
 

Kevin Renner

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
95
Reaction score
4
Curiously a good friend of mine is working on a Eisner biography. I'll have to ask him if he knows about this.
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
547
Reaction score
26
One of Spielberger's books on the Tiger tank had as an appendix a German wartime 'cartoon' manual for the Tiger with a similar approach to Eisner's.
 

Just call me Ray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
10
Michel Van said:
yes, Eisner made some work for MAD
one of his best work is "The Spirit"

It was just recently made into a movie.

Now let's never speak of that movie ever, ever again :p
 

Firefly 2

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
8
Just call me Ray said:
Michel Van said:
yes, Eisner made some work for MAD
one of his best work is "The Spirit"

It was just recently made into a movie.

Now let's never speak of that movie ever, ever again :p

As a comic buff I must say: hear hear!

Cool to see that comic! Ver nice.
 

gollevainen

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
69
Reaction score
3
Having used Kalashnikovic in field....jesus...Now we know why US relys so much to it's airpower and wants to avoid ground wars....
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
gollevainen said:
Having used Kalashnikovic in field....jesus...Now we know why US relys so much to it's airpower and wants to avoid ground wars....

Having also used the AK I am extremely happy that the enemys of the US have chosen it as their weapon of choice, its only positive attribute is the maintainability. Sure the AR15 series takes more effort to maintain but any well trained proffesional soldier will keep it running with no difficultie at all as long as the supply chain gets him all the lube he needs.

Problems with AK:
1) Inaccurate just as a basic weapon, but this compounded by problem 2
2) No practical mounting options for optics, thermals, laser etc. The result is that whilst US forces and western ones in general get ever better CQB and long range optics thus improving their perfromance at short ranges and pushing out the practical engagement range (often now within the same sighting system and thus weapon) the AK is stuck with the same iron sights it has had for over 60 years. Even worse is whilst western rifles are no mounting ever better thermal sights effectively providing 24/7 capability the AK can not practically take any.
3) Ergonomics, it sucks and this compounds the above two problems
4) Magazine ergonomics, as a result of the shape of the AK's magazine a soldier is limited as to how many he can carry compared to a NATO standard magazine, this reduces overall firepowe and time in the field.

In short the mythical AK is little short of junk compared to what is being deployed by western armies today.
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
547
Reaction score
26
Sealordlawrence said In short the mythical AK is little short of junk compared to what is being deployed by western armies today. The AK is stuck with the same iron sights it has had for over 60 years. Modern rifles ought to be better with 60 years of development. Compare the AK with an 1890s Mauser Gewehr 98.
its only positive attribute is the maintainability.
In other words, it fires when you pull the trigger.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
smurf said:
Sealordlawrence said In short the mythical AK is little short of junk compared to what is being deployed by western armies today. The AK is stuck with the same iron sights it has had for over 60 years. Modern rifles ought to be better with 60 years of development. Compare the AK with an 1890s Mauser Gewehr 98.
its only positive attribute is the maintainability.
In other words, it fires when you pull the trigger.

The AR15 series fire when you pull the trigger.

Modern rifles are incredibly capable compared to the AK, that was point, I dont quite know why you think they should be better.
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
547
Reaction score
26
The AR15 series fire when you pull the trigger.
An awful lot of Eisner's booklet is telling you what to do when it doesn't, which weak parts to treat with kid gloves, and how to keep it free from dust and dirt. Perhaps none of that was necessary.
Modern rifles are incredibly capable compared to the AK,
Isn't that better? [I meant better than the AK after 60 years work, not better than they have become - though there is always room for improvement, probably in the direction of achieving the gains by simpler means. I did say the task was difficult]
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
You seem confused, all weapons need maintenance, the M16 needs more than others, that is what I have said all along.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,387
Reaction score
1,430
Some of the latest ARs have the piston system vs direct impingement for the best of both worlds. Now if you could get parts for them. . . :'(
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
sferrin said:
Some of the latest ARs have the piston system vs direct impingement for the best of both worlds. Now if you could get parts for them. . . :'(

I have yet to meet anyone who has even needed parts for a gas piston AR personally.
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
547
Reaction score
26
SLL said:
You seem confused
Not at all. You have expressed yourself quite clearly (though you did misunderstand me)
all weapons need maintenance, the M16 needs more than others,
Eisner's booklet seems to suggest a lot more.
See attachment. The US used similar arduous conditions when testing the EM2 and other rifles in 1951. See Abraham Gubler's post later on the .280 rifle thread.
 

Attachments

  • 04.jpg
    04.jpg
    62.1 KB · Views: 27

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,387
Reaction score
1,430
sealordlawrence said:
sferrin said:
Some of the latest ARs have the piston system vs direct impingement for the best of both worlds. Now if you could get parts for them. . . :'(

I have yet to meet anyone who has even needed parts for a gas piston AR personally.

I don't doubt it (I've heard they're very reliable) but if you do happen to need parts you're pretty much FUBARed as most AR manufacturers are WAY backed up and with relatively few making parts for the piston guns. . .<shrugs>.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
sferrin said:
sealordlawrence said:
sferrin said:
Some of the latest ARs have the piston system vs direct impingement for the best of both worlds. Now if you could get parts for them. . . :'(

I have yet to meet anyone who has even needed parts for a gas piston AR personally.

I don't doubt it (I've heard they're very reliable) but if you do happen to need parts you're pretty much FUBARed as most AR manufacturers are WAY backed up and with relatively few making parts for the piston guns. . .<shrugs>.

Very true, and who knows when Obama is going to shut them down! :mad:
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
smurf said:
SLL said:
You seem confused
Not at all. You have expressed yourself quite clearly (though you did misunderstand me)
all weapons need maintenance, the M16 needs more than others,
Eisner's booklet seems to suggest a lot more.
See attachment. The US used similar arduous conditions when testing the EM2 and other rifles in 1951. See Abraham Gubler's post later on the .280 rifle thread.

It does not suggest that at all.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,387
Reaction score
1,430
sealordlawrence said:
sferrin said:
sealordlawrence said:
sferrin said:
Some of the latest ARs have the piston system vs direct impingement for the best of both worlds. Now if you could get parts for them. . . :'(

I have yet to meet anyone who has even needed parts for a gas piston AR personally.

I don't doubt it (I've heard they're very reliable) but if you do happen to need parts you're pretty much FUBARed as most AR manufacturers are WAY backed up and with relatively few making parts for the piston guns. . .<shrugs>.

Very true, and who knows when Obama is going to shut them down! :mad:

I spoke to a local dealer about a LMT piston AR, he called them and they said if I ordered now (about two weeks ago) it would be here "no sooner than July 2010". I'm on the list at another dealer who said "we have some coming in. . .sometime". At least in the latter case all schedules are blown to hell. It's to the point where the manufacturers are running into problems getting all the materials they need.
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
547
Reaction score
26
SLL said
It does not suggest that at all.
and I admit it does not if you take me to mean literally that Eisner makes such a comment. He does not compare the M16 with other rifles, but the contents of his booklet and the general level of care advocated (and so presumably needed) do suggest that the M16 needed more care than many, if not most other rifles, not only the AK47. Most service rifles were subjected to acceptance tests under conditions far more arduous than those for which Eisner suggests protecting the M16. A WWI soldier in the trenches nearly 100 years would have laughed his socks off at the idea that his rifle needed to be carried in a plastic bag to protect it (had such things existed then.) A WWII soldier engaged in house to house fighting (which is what led to the assault rifle in the first place) would be appalled at the idea that his rfle was not ready for use, and if fired through its bag might not fire again at once. Was this attachment really true?
 

Attachments

  • 06.jpg
    06.jpg
    74.2 KB · Views: 33

gollevainen

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
69
Reaction score
3
Having also used the AK I am extremely happy that the enemys of the US have chosen it as their weapon of choice, its only positive attribute is the maintainability. Sure the AR15 series takes more effort to maintain but any well trained proffesional soldier will keep it running with no difficultie at all as long as the supply chain gets him all the lube he needs.

Problems with AK:
1) Inaccurate just as a basic weapon, but this compounded by problem 2
2) No practical mounting options for optics, thermals, laser etc. The result is that whilst US forces and western ones in general get ever better CQB and long range optics thus improving their perfromance at short ranges and pushing out the practical engagement range (often now within the same sighting system and thus weapon) the AK is stuck with the same iron sights it has had for over 60 years. Even worse is whilst western rifles are no mounting ever better thermal sights effectively providing 24/7 capability the AK can not practically take any.
3) Ergonomics, it sucks and this compounds the above two problems
4) Magazine ergonomics, as a result of the shape of the AK's magazine a soldier is limited as to how many he can carry compared to a NATO standard magazine, this reduces overall firepowe and time in the field.

In short the mythical AK is little short of junk compared to what is being deployed by western armies today.

Hah, typical western BS...

If normal guy, only with conscript training can hit 300m targets after decades since last fired assault rifles with Kalashnikoviks, how can it be "innacurate"? Not to mention guys like me, who are sports shooters can get even more impressive results when firing rifle which has it's sights fucked up by bitter service conscripts just before about to leave their duty?

Ofcourse rifle that fires smaller round is in theory more accurate and in practice, yeah M16 and other western rifles can propably fire smaller pack of hits compared to Kalashnikoviks. But hows that relevant when Kalashnikoviks still can hit what it's needed to hit? Ranges above 300m you don't use assault rifles anyway so it's all just plain nitpicking. Or how do you explain that everytime when finnish soldiers in UN peacekeeping operations or other international military shooting competetions always tend to win?

Ergonomics+military= syntax error. If western soft-bunny-soldiers feels that their rifles are not comftable...well lets just hope they never got to go to as situation where they have to use them.

Like someone said, in combat you need gun that fires when you pull the trigger. If you can rely to Kalashnikovik to do that when it has lyed in a mud and dirt and is full of derpy and other stuff like pine cones, how on earth it can be "near to junk"?
 

Wim

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hah, typical western BS...

If normal guy, only with conscript training can hit 300m targets after decades since last fired assault rifles with Kalashnikoviks, how can it be "innacurate"? Not to mention guys like me, who are sports shooters can get even more impressive results when firing rifle which has it's sights fucked up by bitter service conscripts just before about to leave their duty?

Ofcourse rifle that fires smaller round is in theory more accurate and in practice, yeah M16 and other western rifles can propably fire smaller pack of hits compared to Kalashnikoviks. But hows that relevant when Kalashnikoviks still can hit what it's needed to hit? Ranges above 300m you don't use assault rifles anyway so it's all just plain nitpicking. Or how do you explain that everytime when finnish soldiers in UN peacekeeping operations or other international military shooting competetions always tend to win?

Ergonomics+military= syntax error. If western soft-bunny-soldiers feels that their rifles are not comftable...well lets just hope they never got to go to as situation where they have to use them.

Like someone said, in combat you need gun that fires when you pull the trigger. If you can rely to Kalashnikovik to do that when it has lyed in a mud and dirt and is full of derpy and other stuff like pine cones, how on earth it can be "near to junk"?
[/quote]
@gollovainen: sic! (So it is!)
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
You see the amusing thing is that all the BS spouted by the ignorant the M16 series do fire, and there are multiple piles of dead people to prove it. No t only that but it fires faster, more accurately, gives the shooter better reaction times through superior sights, better ability at long range also through superior sights and night vision capability through the ability to mount modern thermal sights.

As for what a conscript can do, hitting a target at 300metres on a range is one thing, hitting a person at any range in combat is quite another and it shows a spectacular lack of knowledge to compare the two.
 

gollevainen

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
69
Reaction score
3
You see the amusing thing is that all the BS spouted by the ignorant the M16 series do fire, and there are multiple piles of dead people to prove it. No t only that but it fires faster, more accurately, gives the shooter better reaction times through superior sights, better ability at long range also through superior sights and night vision capability through the ability to mount modern thermal sights.

As for what a conscript can do, hitting a target at 300metres on a range is one thing, hitting a person at any range in combat is quite another and it shows a spectacular lack of knowledge to compare the two

The point is that you seem to bash Kalashnikoviks being junk and inaccurate, while it's prooved by millions of soldiers around the world that it isne't either and in fact it's far more realible and robust than any other assault rifle design out there. It's lack in accuracy is marginal as it's more than accurate enough for infantry use. Sights and night vision stuff is irrelevent to the rifle design...our RK95 can feature all variety of fancy sights and other gizmoes and yet it's plain old kalashnikovik.

And yeas, there is a huge difference on hitting targets and hitting real enemy, but I think we are both mature enough to understand that the difference is with the guy behind the gun and not in the gun itself. A fine individual in such circumstances can hit the enemy with any given gun....My point has been that Kalashnikovik is accurate enough that it's all down to the shooter eventually. If it's ever down to it, there is no question what rifle I would choose if I had all alternatives avaible....
 

mz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
681
Reaction score
8
As someone who has fired somewhat with an RK-62 (Basically a Kalashnikov with different iron sights), hitting a person's head size target consistently at 150 m is accurate enough for me - after that you need a different system anyway, not an iron sights assault rifle. The rifle is accurate enough so that the difference in shooter dominates. RK-62 shooters have done well in peacekeeper marksmanship competitions. Maybe some Chinese cheapo surplus Kalashnikovs are less accurate, but that's not the fault of the design.

It's also a bizarre argument that the Kalashnikov design is bad because it has iron sights. It has iron sights because other sights would break apart in ten minutes when the conscripts are jumping around with the guns. It's not an inherent limitation of the rifle or mechanism type, it's a choice to reduce costs and increase reliability.

I don't have experience with the M-16, but from the maintenance manual it seems to be about five times more complex than a Kalashnikov which has the lid, a spring and two moving parts plus the gas tube that you service (that's 5 parts that come out of the rifle). Disassembly or assembly time by inexperienced conscripts is counted in seconds. No small easy to lose parts come loose. The M-16 disassembly looks much harder in the manual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrpk3bk2IEw&feature=related

Maybe some day I'll get to handle an M-16 or some variant thereof.
 

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,385
Reaction score
99
Website
cluttonfred.info
I will freely admit that I do not have any first-hand experience with either the M-16 or AK-47 and their derivatives. I have however been around gun collectors and enthusiasts all my life. I have also handled and fired most earlier U.S. military weapons from replica musket to an original .45-70 "Trap Door" Springfield, from a 1903 Sprinfield to an M1 Garand, M1 Carbine and Thompson M1A1. I own a 1917 Enfield, an M1 Garand and an M1 Carbine.

There are a great many variants and a great many manufactures of the AR and AK platforms, but there are a few basic objective facts the we ought to be able to agree on:

  • The AR series tend to be inherently more accurate due to tighter manufacturing tolerances and inherent design features.
  • The AK series tends to be more tolerant of dirt and abuse due to deliberately looser manufacturing tolerances and inherent design features.
  • Both are viable choices as combat arms and, in the end, it's the sighting system and most especially the soldier and his/her training that will make the difference.
  • In the world market, the AK series new and old are far less expensive than the AR series new and old.
  • The 5.56 mm and 7.62 x 39 mm calibers have their pros and cons irrespective of the weapon used but, there too, both are proven and viable options.
  • No matter what else comes down the pike, both are likely to be common weapons for generations to come.
Now everybody stop bickering and get back to Secret Projects, please. ;D
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,387
Reaction score
1,430
mz said:
As someone who has fired somewhat with an RK-62 (Basically a Kalashnikov with different iron sights), hitting a person's head size target consistently at 150 m is accurate enough for me - after that you need a different system anyway, not an iron sights assault rifle. The rifle is accurate enough so that the difference in shooter dominates. RK-62 shooters have done well in peacekeeper marksmanship competitions. Maybe some Chinese cheapo surplus Kalashnikovs are less accurate, but that's not the fault of the design.

It's also a bizarre argument that the Kalashnikov design is bad because it has iron sights.

Funny thing is the basic AR-15/M-16 has iron sights.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
680
smurf said:
SLL said
It does not suggest that at all.
and I admit it does not if you take me to mean literally that Eisner makes such a comment....

that not Eisner comment, but the unknown autor
Eisner made only Artwork for Army booklet
 

buzz_knox

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I've got quite a bit of trigger time on both the AR and AK platforms. Both have their virtues and drawbacks and both are subject to quite a few myths (negative and positive). For ARs, the myths include it being best to run them dry and that they will not function when dirty. The reality is that they need to be wet but if they are, they will run dirty. AKs are supposed to be flawlessly reliable yet inaccurate. The reality is that AKs are more accurate than people give them credit for (the 5.45 models especially) and will malfunction in the right (wrong) circumstances.

It's important to note that the booklet is from a few generations back in AR development. Many of the problems with the AR platform were due to outside circumstances (attempting to economize ammunition production that resulted in disastrous changes to the specs, and misinformation that the weapon never needed to be cleaned) as well as the need to flesh out the design.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
Some people here seem very confused. Sure you can hit a target on a range at 200m with an AK using iron sights, but who cares? It means nothing. When you are engaged in CQB in an urban environment with low light conditions, grenades going off etc etc what matters is accuracy, speed on target, target location. In that environment rifle ergonomics, sighting options, pointability etc make the difference and the AR15 series cans the AK everytime here. And that is before we get to the magazine issue, as a result of the size and shape of the AK magazine a soldier equipped with an M16 can carry far more rounds.

To state that ergonomics makes no difference and to blindly blab on about hitting targets at 300m on ranges just demonstrates a shocking level of ignorance.
 

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,385
Reaction score
99
Website
cluttonfred.info
sealordlawrence said:
To state that ergonomics makes no difference and to blindly blab on about hitting targets at 300m on ranges just demonstrates a shocking level of ignorance.

That seems to be overstating what was said and comparing apples and oranges.

Does a vintage AK-47 compare favorably with a modern, tricked out M-4 with all the options? Of course not.

Did that same AK-47 compare favorable with the early M-16, both with iron sights? It certainly did.

And does a modern production AK-74M in 5.45 x 39 mm equipped with a grenade launcher and accessory optics compare favorably with that M-4? It sure does.

Let's not confuse the platforms, which have both been much refined over the years, with individual rifles produced over a half century or their accessories. As for which is the right choice, that depends on the use, the training of the users and how much money is to be spent.
 

buzz_knox

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Mole said:
That seems to be overstating what was said and comparing apples and oranges.

Does a vintage AK-47 compare favorably with a modern, tricked out M-4 with all the options? Of course not.

Did that same AK-47 compare favorable with the early M-16, both with iron sights? It certainly did.

And does a modern production AK-74M in 5.45 x 39 mm equipped with a grenade launcher and accessory optics compare favorably with that M-4? It sure does.

Let's not confuse the platforms, which have both been much refined over the years, with individual rifles produced over a half century or their accessories. As for which is the right choice, that depends on the use, the training of the users and how much money is to be spent.

Assuming a right handed individual, the ergonomic advantages were the same from the original AR-15 to the latest M4A1: the fire controls were readily accesible to the thumb without shifting the firing grip as is the mag release (to the right forefinger), the bolt could be run with the support hand without taking the weapon off the shoulder, magazine changes were easier due to the straight in design, etc. All standard pattern AKs (from the original stamped AK-47 through the milled variants and up to the latest AK-74M) have the same ergonomics (slower to run the bolt due to it being on the right side, unless you use your right hand, the unmodified safety requires breaking the firing grip to manipulate, mag changes are more complicated and easier to flub). You can modify the AK to get around some of these issues, but then then it ceases to have standard pattern ergonomics.

As for sights, the original apeture sights are superior to the original (and still in service) notch/post AK sights. But there again, the AK isn't that bad, especially using a 5.45.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
Mole said:
sealordlawrence said:
To state that ergonomics makes no difference and to blindly blab on about hitting targets at 300m on ranges just demonstrates a shocking level of ignorance.

That seems to be overstating what was said and comparing apples and oranges.

Does a vintage AK-47 compare favorably with a modern, tricked out M-4 with all the options? Of course not.

Did that same AK-47 compare favorable with the early M-16, both with iron sights? It certainly did.

And does a modern production AK-74M in 5.45 x 39 mm equipped with a grenade launcher and accessory optics compare favorably with that M-4? It sure does.

Let's not confuse the platforms, which have both been much refined over the years, with individual rifles produced over a half century or their accessories. As for which is the right choice, that depends on the use, the training of the users and how much money is to be spent.

Wrong. The Russians have still come no where near improving the ergonomics of the AK-47/AK74 series or its mounting options to the extent that it could be said to 'compare favourably' to the AR15 series. The statement made in the qouted post above is completely false.
 

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,385
Reaction score
99
Website
cluttonfred.info
[quote author=sealordlawrence]
Wrong. The Russians have still come no where near improving the ergonomics of the AK-47/AK74 series or its mounting options to the extent that it could be said to 'compare favourably' to the AR15 series. The statement made in the qouted post above is completely false.
[/quote]

Don't beat about the bush, tell us how you really feel! You might want to relax the tone of your posts somewhat to allow the possibility, however remote, that someone else might have a valid opinion that differs from yours.

The AKs ergonomics might not be your cup of tea, but the weapon has certainly stood the test of time. It represents a different philisophy, one that values low cost and durability over all other factors. In some situations, that matters more than others.
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
547
Reaction score
26
Sealordlawrence said
The statement made in the qouted post above is completely false.
Which one? Statements like that do not help to clear confusion.

This discussion has taken on the nature of "Which is the better tank, Panther or T-34?" and could run forever.
To say that the AK-47 might no longer be best choice in some circumstances, or indeed might never have been best choice in those circumstances, is one thing.
To suggest that 60 years on the fact that there are more modern rifles with their own advantages makes junk of a classic design made in 'dozens of countries' and supplied in millions is just silly.

From http://world.guns.ru/assault/as01-e.htm

The Kalashnikov assault rifle, also known to the West as the AK-47 (Avtomat Kalashnikova - 47, Kalashnikov automatic rifle, model of 1947), and its derivatives, also known under the common name of AK, is the most prolific small arm of the 2nd half of the XX century. It had been and still is (in more or less modified form) manufactured in dozens of countries, and used in hundreds of countries and conflicts since its introduction. The total number of the AK-type rifles made worldwide during the last 60 years is estimated at 90+ millions. This is a true legendary weapon, known for its extreme ruggedness, simplicity of operation and maintenance, and unsurpassed reliability even in worst conditions possible. It is used not only as a military weapon, but also as a platform for numerous sporting civilian rifles and shotguns (see Saiga semiautomatic shotguns, for example). The AK is an amalgam of previously known features and solutions, combined in the most effective way. The effectiveness, however, depends on the criteria used to measure it, and the key criteria for any and every Soviet and Russian military arm are: Reliability, Simplicity of operation and maintenance, Suitability for mass production. There never was any significant demand for good ergonomics or superb accuracy, though.

From http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm

# 1965 - 1967. Field reports from Vietnam began to look much more pessimistic. M16 rifles, issued to US troops in the Vietnam, severely jammed in combat, resulting in numerous casualties. There were some causes for malfunction. First of all, during the introduction of the new rifle and its ammunition into the service, US Army replaced originally specified Dupont IMR powder with standard ball powder, used in 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition. The ball powder produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the actions of the M16 unless the gun was cleared well and often. This pitifully combined with the fact that the initial M16 rifles were promoted by the Colt as "low maintenance", so, for the sake of economy, no cleaning supplies were procured for new M16 rifles, and no weapon care training was conducted fro the troops. As a result, soldiers did not knew how to clean their rifles, and had no provisions for cleaning, and thing soon turned bad. To add the trouble, the ball powders also had a different pressure curve, so they produced higher pressures at the gas port, giving the rise to the rate of fire, and, thus, decreasing accuracy and increasing parts wear.
# 1967 - 1970. The deficiencies discovered in previous years began do dissolve. 5.56mm ammunition was now loaded using different powders that produce much less residue in the gun action. The barrel, chamber and bolt of the rifles were chrome-lined to improve corrosion resistance. Cleaning kits were procured and issued to troops, and a special training programs were developed and conducted ever since. Earliest cleaning kits could be carried separate from rifle only, but since circa 1970 all M16A1 rifles were manufactured with the containment cavity in the buttstock, that held the cleaning kit. At the same time (circa 1970) the new 30 rounds magazines were introduced into service instead of the original 20 rounds ones, to equal Soviet and Chinese AK-47 assault rifles, which had 30-rounds magazines from the very beginning.
... ...
At the present time almost all initial flaws of the M16 are bugged out, and it is considered among the best assault rifles in the world. While its reliability in the harsh conditions cannot match reliability of its main rival, the Kalashnikov AK-47 and AK-74, it is still a quite reliable rifle, especially when well maintained. It is also comfortable to fire and quite accurate.

Lots more interesting reading on both guns, (and others), for anyone to make their own judgment.
There is not much secret or experimental about either gun these days, so as Mole said
Now everybody stop bickering and get back to Secret Projects, please.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
Nothing silly about it at all. The fact is that the AK series now suffers severe deficiencies in terms of ergonomics and mounting options compared to the AR series. That is a fact and it is one that reduces the combat effectiveness of the AK series compared to the AR series.
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
547
Reaction score
26
SLL 2
That is a fact ... that reduces the combat effectiveness of the AK series compared to the AR series.
so it does, and it is due to improvements in the AR series, but that is a long way from
SLL 1
In short the mythical AK is little short of junk compared to what is being deployed by western armies today.

Shall we call it a day?
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
smurf said:
SLL 2
That is a fact ... that reduces the combat effectiveness of the AK series compared to the AR series.
so it does, and it is due to improvements in the AR series, but that is a long way from
SLL 1
In short the mythical AK is little short of junk compared to what is being deployed by western armies today.

Shall we call it a day?

You are wrong hence why in the very post you qouted I said 'compared to'. ::)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top