Treat Your Rifle Like a Lady

[smurf]

Shall we call it a day?

Apparently not.

You are wrong

How?
To quote SLL in full, but with my emphasis:

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.

If neither rifle is changed, their comparative combat effectiveness remains the same.
"now suffers"implies that it used not to suffer such severe deficiencies (though it may have suffered some).
There are two ways in which the combat effectiveness of the AK series may be reduced compared to the AR series.
One is that the AK series has actually introduced modifications which lower its absolute combat effectiveness, while the AR remains unchanged. Is that what you mean?
The other is that any improvements (including zero improvements) made to the AK are more than matched by improvements to the AR. In these cases the fact that the AK "now suffers severe deficiencies" with "reduced combat effectiveness compared to the AR series" is due to improvements in the AR, isn't it?

The only way I can see is that an unchanged AR may be capable of accepting for example, improved 'add-on' sighting attachments, while the AK is not, but that you do not count such improved attachments as improvements to the AR? Is that what you mean?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Thank you for repeating my initial post back to me, I am glad you finally understand it. :

A rifle is a multitude of things, most people here make the mistake of believing that it is merely an operating system to propel lead, this is fundamentally wrong. The ergonomics of a rifle will determine how rapidly and how accurately its user can acquire and engage targets, how much ammunition he can carry and consequently how combat effective he is. None of the AK series even comes close to comparing to the current AR-15 series in this area, primarily as a result of the flexibility of the rail systems now in use. Furthermore a rifle is a platform for its sighting systems, and again the AK series does not even compare.

The AK is a bog basic lead propelling machine but of two equally well schooled and proficient soldiers the one with the best equipped AR15 will always be more effective than the one with the best AK under the same circumstances.

 

[smurf]

It has not been difficult to understand your arguments, (I have been able to rewrite them perhaps even a little more accurately than you expressed them initially, though I do regard an AR with an improved sight devised by someone else as an improved AR.)
But you seem to have difficulty with other people's: To quote Mole

It [the AK]represents a different philosophy, one that values low cost and durability over all other factors. In some situations, that matters more than others.

That that philosophy is valued is shown by the enormous numbers of AKs which have been bought or otherwise acquired over 60 years. The problem the AK addresses is that not all soldiers are equally well-schooled and proficient. That some US soldiers equipped with the AR in its early days failed to keep it going properly illustrates this, and was the reason Eisner's booklet was produced. But they all need to be equipped. Other nation's training opportunities may well be inferior to the US, and their recruits never reach the same standard. Under those circumstances, for them, the AK is a more effective tool in combat, just as a spade might be a more effective trench-digging tool than a Terrier trench digger on a steep hillside or when petrol supplies run out.
While your criterion is accurate, so far as it goes, the AR does require, as your posts have indicated, better training and back-up supplies.
Actually, I do not and have not claimed that the AK is objectively a better rifle (though some would prefer it) - only that to condemn it as junk is unthinking. After all when it comes down to it, "propelling lead" reliably, with swift response and sufficiently accurately to hit a fairly large target is the name of the game, isn't it? It is even possible that time spent practising with a supposedly inferior tool might provide greater dividends in actual combat than spending the time on learning sophisticated alternatives useful in a few specialised situations. CQB against terrorists is currently seen as important, but it is a long way from all-out war, as the casualty figures show. The AK was designed in 1947 using the lessons of a then recent all-out war. Let's hope we don't have another to prove its usefulness. Who won in Vietnam?

 

[JFC Fuller]

It has not been difficult to understand your arguments, (I have been able to rewrite them perhaps even a little more accurately than you expressed them initially, though I do regard an AR with an improved sight devised by someone else as an improved AR.)
But you seem to have difficulty with other people's: To quote Mole

It [the AK]represents a different philosophy, one that values low cost and durability over all other factors. In some situations, that matters more than others.

That that philosophy is valued is shown by the enormous numbers of AKs which have been bought or otherwise acquired over 60 years. The problem the AK addresses is that not all soldiers are equally well-schooled and proficient. That some US soldiers equipped with the AR in its early days failed to keep it going properly illustrates this, and was the reason Eisner's booklet was produced. But they all need to be equipped. Other nation's training opportunities may well be inferior to the US, and their recruits never reach the same standard. Under those circumstances, for them, the AK is a more effective tool in combat, just as a spade might be a more effective trench-digging tool than a Terrier trench digger on a steep hillside or when petrol supplies run out.
While your criterion is accurate, so far as it goes, the AR does require, as your posts have indicated, better training and back-up supplies.
Actually, I do not and have not claimed that the AK is objectively a better rifle (though some would prefer it) - only that to condemn it as junk is unthinking. After all when it comes down to it, "propelling lead" reliably, with swift response and sufficiently accurately to hit a fairly large target is the name of the game, isn't it? It is even possible that time spent practising with a supposedly inferior tool might provide greater dividends in actual combat than spending the time on learning sophisticated alternatives useful in a few specialised situations. CQB against terrorists is currently seen as important, but it is a long way from all-out war, as the casualty figures show. The AK was designed in 1947 using the lessons of a then recent all-out war. Let's hope we don't have another to prove its usefulness. Who won in Vietnam?

Wrong, the AK has failed to develop, the AR15 has developed, in case you had not noticed both weapons were designed with the same sort of conflict in mind. The AK is junk and it can not be defended by silly little statements such as the above.

 

[buzz_knox]

Wrong, the AK has failed to develop, the AR15 has developed, in case you had not noticed both weapons were designed with the same sort of conflict in mind. The AK is junk and it can not be defended by silly little statements such as the above.

Actually, the AK has developed quite a bit over the six decades it and its descendents have been in service. The latest versions have the same issues regarding the safety, location of the bolt and the way the mag rocks in (versus a straight insertion) but all are manageable when you understand how to run the platform (even more so with modifications). You'll be a bit slower than an AR, but not by much.

The top firearms instructors in the US fall into two camps: they love the AK or they see it as a viable weapon at most one or two steps behind the AR (one step behind the AR if care is given to accessories). Look up articles by Larry Vickers (USA SF ret), Patrick Rogers (USMC ret), and Louis Awerbuck (former instructor at Gunsite), as a start.

Three excellent works on the subject are Kalashnikov - the Arms and the Man by Edward Ezell, The Black Rifle M16 Retrospective by R. Blake Stevens and E. Ezell, and BLACK RIFLE II - The M16 Into the 21st Century by Christoperh Bartucci.

 

[smurf]

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

You are wrong hence why in the very post you qouted I said 'compared to'
Wrong, the AK has failed to develop, the AR15 has developed,
Do try to be consistent in your statements.

I think part of your problem is that you really believe statements like:

Furthermore a rifle is a platform for its sighting systems,

The truth of the matter is that a sighting system is an ancillary to improve the effectiveness of a rifle as a lead projection device.
It is important to know which is the cart and which the horse.
I quite accept that some of my statements are OTT oversimplifications. They had the purpose, in which they have failed, to try to get you to look at the issue from a wider perspective.

the AK has failed to develop

yet you refer to the AK series which implies development. The AK is certainly not now the same rifle as in 1947. Its development has taken a different path, and has perhaps not gone so far, as the development of the AR series. The AR I think even you would admit was not quite so effective overall in its early days, and in practice should have benefited from 20 years development time after the introduction of the AK - or is all the following (from the link I posted earlier) wrong?

The history of the development, introduction and the service of the US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16, is a long and a controversial one. I'll try to cut this story as short as possible, and will highlight only some most important periods and events. So, let's start.
* 1948. U.S. Army's Operations Research Office (ORO) conducts a research about small arms effectiveness. This research was completed by the early 1950 with the conclusion that the most desirable infantry small arms should be of 22 caliber, select-fire and with high velocity bullets, effective up to 300 meters or so.
* 1953 - 1957. US DOD conducts the next research, "Project SALVO", that also lead to the desirability of .22 caliber high-velocity infantry rifle
* 1957. The US Army requests the Armalite Division of the Fairchild Aircraft Corp to develop a rifle of .22 caliber, lightweight, select-fire, and capable to penetrate the standard steel helmet at 500 meters. The Eugene Stoner, then a designer at the Armalite, began to develop this rifle, based on his earlier design, 7.62mm AR-10 battle rifle. At the same time, experts at the Sierra Bullets and the Remington, in conjunction with Armalite, began do develop a new .22 caliber cartridge, based on the .222 Remington and .222 Remington Magnum hunting cartridges. This development, initially called the .222 Remington Special, was finally released as .223 Remington (metric designation 5.56x45mm).
* 1958. Armalite delivers first new rifles, called the AR-15, to the Army for testing. Initial tests display some reliability and accuracy problems with the rifle.
* 1959. Late that year Fairchild Co, being disappointed with the development of the AR-15, sold all rights for this design to the Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company.
* 1960. Eugene Stoner leaves the Armalite and joins the Colt. The same year Colt demonstrated the AR-15 to the US Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. LeMay. Gen. LeMay wanted to procure some 8 000 AR-15 rifles for US AF Strategic Air Command security forces to replace ageing M1 and M2 carbines.
* 1962. US DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) purchases 1000 AR-15 rifles from Colt and sends those rifles to the South Vietnam, for field trials. Same year brings glowing reports about the effectiveness of the new "black rifle", used by South Vietnamese forces.
* 1963. Colt receives contracts for 85 000 rifles for US Army (designated as XM16E1) and for further 19 000 rifles for US Air Forces (M16). The US AF M16 was no more than an AR-15 rifle with appropriate markings. The XM16E1 differed from AR-15/M16 by having an additional device, the so called "forward assist", which was used to manually push the bolt group in place in the case of jams.
* 1964. US Air Forces officially adopted new rifle as M16. Same year US Army adopted the XM16E1 as a limited standard rifle, to fill the niche between discontinued 7.62mm M14 rifle and the forthcoming SPIW system (which never got past the prototype and trial stages).
* 1966. Colt was awarded with the contract for some 840 000 rifles for US Armed forces, worth almost $92 millions.
* 1967. US Army adopted the XM16E1 rifle as a standard "US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A1", on 28 February 1967.
* 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.

So the AR has certainly developed, and its present technical superiority over the AK is due to that development, a point you denied earlier.
BUT the fact that the AK has not followed the same line and not reached the same point can have several reasons. One is that its users (its customers) for their own good reasons, may not require or may be unable to afford, or use, sophisticated add-ons. Another is that political upheaval in its country of origin may have interrupted development and changed its market.
None of this is a good reason for dismissing a serviceable rifle, preferred by many, as "junk", any more than I am entitled to describe a standard Ford Focus as junk in comparison with, say, a Subaru WRX.

I had hoped that you might have thought a bit harder and a bit more deeply about what you have been saying. But as you have gone back to an even more dogmatic statement that one of the longest lived and most effective weapons developed since WWII is "junk", I see that is a forlorn hope, now to be abandoned. I suppose you would describe the B-52 as junk, compared to the Northrop B-2 Spirit?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Firstly i must state that the post qouted below and originally posted above is littered with dishonesty and deliberate false information to the extent that I find it insulting. the poster has demonstrated an almost unbelievable lack of knowledge on the subject that betrays his complete lack of personal experience and thus underlines the fact that his opinions are are utterly uninformed.

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

You are wrong hence why in the very post you qouted I said 'compared to'
Wrong, the AK has failed to develop, the AR15 has developed,
Do try to be consistent in your statements.

Those statements are entirely consistent, the AK series is junk compared to a modern AR15 platform, just as I have said all along and explained to you multiple times, you decision to continually repeat this already explained point is dishonest.

I think part of your problem is that you really believe statements like:

Furthermore a rifle is a platform for its sighting systems,

The truth of the matter is that a sighting system is an ancillary to improve the effectiveness of a rifle as a lead projection device.
It is important to know which is the cart and which the horse.
I quite accept that some of my statements are OTT oversimplifications. They had the purpose, in which they have failed, to try to get you to look at the issue from a wider perspective.

That you made this statement is shocking, the ignorance contained with in it shows with perfect clarity that you have never even used an assault weapon let alone taken one into combat. I struggle to comprehend how such a statement could even be made by anybody with any practical experience of modern infantry combat. If you must have simple examples a rifle and its sighting system is not like a cart and horse but like a car, a highly crafted and integrated system.

the AK has failed to develop

yet you refer to the AK series which implies development. The AK is certainly not now the same rifle as in 1947. Its development has taken a different path, and has perhaps not gone so far, as the development of the AR series. The AR I think even you would admit was not quite so effective overall in its early days, and in practice should have benefited from 20 years development time after the introduction of the AK - or is all the following (from the link I posted earlier) wrong?

The history of the development, introduction and the service of the US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16, is a long and a controversial one. I'll try to cut this story as short as possible, and will highlight only some most important periods and events. So, let's start.
* 1948. U.S. Army's Operations Research Office (ORO) conducts a research about small arms effectiveness. This research was completed by the early 1950 with the conclusion that the most desirable infantry small arms should be of 22 caliber, select-fire and with high velocity bullets, effective up to 300 meters or so.
* 1953 - 1957. US DOD conducts the next research, "Project SALVO", that also lead to the desirability of .22 caliber high-velocity infantry rifle
* 1957. The US Army requests the Armalite Division of the Fairchild Aircraft Corp to develop a rifle of .22 caliber, lightweight, select-fire, and capable to penetrate the standard steel helmet at 500 meters. The Eugene Stoner, then a designer at the Armalite, began to develop this rifle, based on his earlier design, 7.62mm AR-10 battle rifle. At the same time, experts at the Sierra Bullets and the Remington, in conjunction with Armalite, began do develop a new .22 caliber cartridge, based on the .222 Remington and .222 Remington Magnum hunting cartridges. This development, initially called the .222 Remington Special, was finally released as .223 Remington (metric designation 5.56x45mm).
* 1958. Armalite delivers first new rifles, called the AR-15, to the Army for testing. Initial tests display some reliability and accuracy problems with the rifle.
* 1959. Late that year Fairchild Co, being disappointed with the development of the AR-15, sold all rights for this design to the Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company.
* 1960. Eugene Stoner leaves the Armalite and joins the Colt. The same year Colt demonstrated the AR-15 to the US Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. LeMay. Gen. LeMay wanted to procure some 8 000 AR-15 rifles for US AF Strategic Air Command security forces to replace ageing M1 and M2 carbines.
* 1962. US DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) purchases 1000 AR-15 rifles from Colt and sends those rifles to the South Vietnam, for field trials. Same year brings glowing reports about the effectiveness of the new "black rifle", used by South Vietnamese forces.
* 1963. Colt receives contracts for 85 000 rifles for US Army (designated as XM16E1) and for further 19 000 rifles for US Air Forces (M16). The US AF M16 was no more than an AR-15 rifle with appropriate markings. The XM16E1 differed from AR-15/M16 by having an additional device, the so called "forward assist", which was used to manually push the bolt group in place in the case of jams.
* 1964. US Air Forces officially adopted new rifle as M16. Same year US Army adopted the XM16E1 as a limited standard rifle, to fill the niche between discontinued 7.62mm M14 rifle and the forthcoming SPIW system (which never got past the prototype and trial stages).
* 1966. Colt was awarded with the contract for some 840 000 rifles for US Armed forces, worth almost $92 millions.
* 1967. US Army adopted the XM16E1 rifle as a standard "US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A1", on 28 February 1967.
* 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.

So the AR has certainly developed, and its present technical superiority over the AK is due to that development, a point you denied earlier.
BUT the fact that the AK has not followed the same line and not reached the same point can have several reasons. One is that its users (its customers) for their own good reasons, may not require or may be unable to afford, or use, sophisticated add-ons. Another is that political upheaval in its country of origin may have interrupted development and changed its market.
None of this is a good reason for dismissing a serviceable rifle, preferred by many, as "junk", any more than I am entitled to describe a standard Ford Focus as junk in comparison with, say, a Subaru WRX.

I had hoped that you might have thought a bit harder and a bit more deeply about what you have been saying. But as you have gone back to an even more dogmatic statement that one of the longest lived and most effective weapons developed since WWII is "junk", I see that is a forlorn hope, now to be abandoned. I suppose you would describe the B-52 as junk, compared to the Northrop B-2 Spirit?

Just dishonesty and unnecessary waffle. the point is clear, none of the AK variants used or in production today come anywhere near to the all round combat effectiveness of an integrated system based around the AR15 platform. Your repetition of nonsense about cars and horses and carts does not change that fact.

 

[cluttonfred]

[quote author=sealordlawrence]
Firstly i must state that the post qouted below and originally posted above is littered with dishonesty and deliberate false information to the extent that I find it insulting. the poster has demonstrated an almost unbelievable lack of knowledge on the subject that betrays his complete lack of personal experience and thus underlines the fact that his opinions are are utterly uninformed.
[/quote]

The tone and content of your every post in this thread leave very little room for you to complain about anybody else being insulting. You apparently have great difficulty expressing your opinions--and they are after all, opinions--in a way that does not belittle and dismiss others. This is a friendly forum for sharing, perhaps you should refrain from posting if you cannot do so politely.

 

[smurf]

an integrated system based around the AR15 platform.

It's a gun you are talking about, whose

all round combat effectiveness

depends chiefly on the skill, courage and training of the soldier, and his ability to use it.

 

[JFC Fuller]

an integrated system based around the AR15 platform.

It's a gun you are talking about, whose

all round combat effectiveness

depends chiefly on the skill, courage and training of the soldier, and his ability to use it.

Wrong: once training has been undertaken a soldiers combat effectiveness will be greatly effected by the quality of equipment he is issued with: thats why we dont use clubs anymore. :

 

[Racer]

Sealord:
Please stop to turn this very useful forum into another "http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk"-style forum.

Its a pleasure to read here because discussions here are based more on facts then on opinions. Would be nice to keep it like this, thank you.

 

[smurf]

a soldiers combat effectiveness will be greatly effected by the quality of equipment he is issued with

Agreed, but you have been talking about the rifle's combat effectiveness, which depends on the soldier using it.

 

[JFC Fuller]

a soldiers combat effectiveness will be greatly effected by the quality of equipment he is issued with

Agreed, but you have been talking about the rifle's combat effectiveness, which depends on the soldier using it.

Yes but it also depends on the quality of the rifle the soldier is using, hence my earlier comment (which you deliberately chose to ignore ) that two equally proficient individuals, one equipped with an AK and the other with a fully modern AR15 platform, will result in the AR15 equipped soldier being more effective.

 

[Firefly 2]

Define quality? It's something that can be quite different from different premises.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Define quality? It's something that can be quite different from different premises.

Except when the premises are the same.

 

[Firefly 2]

Premise: to target, lay fire onto and eventually kill an or incapacitate an opponent.

This is the one premise that remains the same, really. The AK series was developed for conscripted soldiers who really didn't get the amount of training professional soldiers in the west got. It needed of foolproof and easily replaceable ( i.e. easily mass produced and very cheap) and needed to shoot at all times. It does. It is reasonably accurate in the most common ranges of combat, and proves to be a deadly calibre to this day. Ease of use, and reliability are the main qualities of the AK series.

The AR series was developed from the premise that accuracy is the basic attribute and later larks have added unmatched modularity when it comes to accessories. The M4 Carbine did not ( according to DSI and Raids magazines) perform well in reliability tests. It's ergonomic design is very easy to use in dynamic situation. The usefullness of the ,223 NATO is being debated.
Accuracy, modularity, and the ergonomic design re the main qualities of the modern AR based weapons.

But as the main premise remains the same, the underlying operational premises are quite different.

 

[ontos0311]

Ok Guys
This little booklet that yall are basing most of this jawjacking on, was published
by the US ARMY to explain to its 8th grade educated Draftees/Inductees ,
the simple factoid that if the M16 gets dirty......Wait For It....IT WILL JAM!
This was done because in the 60's the US ARMY didnot have a dedicated
Marksmanship Program....It taught soldiers the basics....ammo in here - pull
trigger....rounds out there....(and for added enjoyment, M16s came FullAuto -
So in some firefights soldiers died not because their squeaky clean M16 Jammed,
but because on rockandroll they ran out of ammo!)
In my opinion the M16 is an overpowered .22, created so that any idiot could fire it
with ease and unafraid of the nasty kick/recoil, told to them by their fathers and
grandfathers. Heck it even comes with a breifcase handle so you donot have to
carry it at one of the old fashion manual of arms thingies....But then, as a Jarhead
in the bad old days when Grenadiers still carried the M79 and not the 203 (my first
one was run over by a tank and failed to operate). I qual'd with the M14 and loved it.
When I shoot at someone, I want them to go down and stay down.
I will now kick my ammo crate to the side and return to drinking my Crat coffee....

Semper Fi
Ontos0311

 

[JFC Fuller]

Premise: to target, lay fire onto and eventually kill an or incapacitate an opponent.

This is the one premise that remains the same, really. The AK series was developed for conscripted soldiers who really didn't get the amount of training professional soldiers in the west got. It needed of foolproof and easily replaceable ( i.e. easily mass produced and very cheap) and needed to shoot at all times. It does. It is reasonably accurate in the most common ranges of combat, and proves to be a deadly calibre to this day. Ease of use, and reliability are the main qualities of the AK series.

The AR series was developed from the premise that accuracy is the basic attribute and later larks have added unmatched modularity when it comes to accessories. The M4 Carbine did not ( according to DSI and Raids magazines) perform well in reliability tests. It's ergonomic design is very easy to use in dynamic situation. The usefullness of the ,223 NATO is being debated.
Accuracy, modularity, and the ergonomic design re the main qualities of the modern AR based weapons.

But as the main premise remains the same, the underlying operational premises are quite different.

Wrong again: Both weapons were designed with the same total war scenario in mind: or have we forgotten about the cold war?

The .223 debate is not a debate, as a round it has killed effectively for years, the debate as much as there is one was only ever orientated as to whether a better round might be found: This debate is now all but dead.

The reliability issues are overhyped nonsense spewed forward by a minority with limited experience. Sure there are more reliable weapons out there but the AR series does not suffer in the way people here falsely want to make it out to.

 

[smurf]

SLL This is my last post on this increasingly fruitless topic. It is intended to make clear my reason for continuing to post for so long.
Please read this one carefully.
SLL said

of two equally well schooled and proficient soldiers the one with the best equipped AR15 will always be more effective than the one with the best AK under the same circumstances.

I replied

The problem the AK addresses is that not all soldiers are equally well-schooled and proficient.

I think that is responding to your comment, not ignoring it. But perhaps you meant agreeing with it?

Yes but it also depends on the quality of the rifle the soldier is using, hence my earlier comment (which you deliberately chose to ignore Angry) that two equally proficient individuals, one equipped with an AK and the other with a fully modern AR15 platform, will result in the AR15 equipped soldier being more effective.

Actually, I did agree with it, but this later post moves the goalposts again. You omit "well-schooled".
The AK is designed to cope with the soldier who is not well-schooled, perhaps so badly schooled that he doesn't see the need (or even well-schooled but hasn't had the chance) to clean his rifle. See other recent posts.

I am not desperately concerned whether on some absolute scale, could that be devised, the AR is a better rifle than the AK. That isn't easy to measure, because with no soldier to hold either, they have the same combat effectiveness - zero.
For proper comparison after that it is not enough to postulate each one being handled by a perfect soldier (or even the same imperfect soldier, for he may have personal preferences.) A proper comparison requires a large set of samples of each rifle to be given to a good number of typical soldiers (who will vary in ability from nation to nation), put the whole lot through using the rifles in a wide variety of circumstances, weather conditions etc, etc. This expensive and difficult exercise is not usually the one adopted, even though perhaps cheaper than putting an inferior rifle into service and then correcting the faults.

But that too is not my problem. Accepting for the moment that the AR is on your basis superior to the AK, that does not make the AK "junk".
That you persist in peddling this nonsense, totally ignoring or only half reading the opposing evidence put to you by others, and simply repeating the refrain "Wrong" diminishes your credibility as a poster not only on this topic but on all others.
Is that what you want?

 

[JFC Fuller]

SLL This is my last post on this increasingly fruitless topic. It is intended to make clear my reason for continuing to post for so long.
Please read this one carefully.
SLL said

of two equally well schooled and proficient soldiers the one with the best equipped AR15 will always be more effective than the one with the best AK under the same circumstances.

I replied

The problem the AK addresses is that not all soldiers are equally well-schooled and proficient.

I think that is responding to your comment, not ignoring it. But perhaps you meant agreeing with it?

Yes but it also depends on the quality of the rifle the soldier is using, hence my earlier comment (which you deliberately chose to ignore Angry) that two equally proficient individuals, one equipped with an AK and the other with a fully modern AR15 platform, will result in the AR15 equipped soldier being more effective.

Actually, I did agree with it, but this later post moves the goalposts again. You omit "well-schooled".
The AK is designed to cope with the soldier who is not well-schooled, perhaps so badly schooled that he doesn't see the need (or even well-schooled but hasn't had the chance) to clean his rifle. See other recent posts.

I am not desperately concerned whether on some absolute scale, could that be devised, the AR is a better rifle than the AK. That isn't easy to measure, because with no soldier to hold either, they have the same combat effectiveness - zero.
For proper comparison after that it is not enough to postulate each one being handled by a perfect soldier (or even the same imperfect soldier, for he may have personal preferences.) A proper comparison requires a large set of samples of each rifle to be given to a good number of typical soldiers (who will vary in ability from nation to nation), put the whole lot through using the rifles in a wide variety of circumstances, weather conditions etc, etc. This expensive and difficult exercise is not usually the one adopted, even though perhaps cheaper than putting an inferior rifle into service and then correcting the faults.

But that too is not my problem. Accepting for the moment that the AR is on your basis superior to the AK, that does not make the AK "junk".
That you persist in peddling this nonsense, totally ignoring or only half reading the opposing evidence put to you by others, and simply repeating the refrain "Wrong" diminishes your credibility as a poster not only on this topic but on all others.
Is that what you want?

The reason that this topic is fruitless is because of the dishonesty and ignorance that you have used to participate in it. I have answered all your points on multiple occasions yet you continue to repeat the flawed arguments with which you are so obsessed. The AR platform is superior to the AK for a multitude of reasons that have been explained to you on an equally multiple number of equasions. It glaringly obvious that you have no practical experience of this subject and that you are well out of your depth.

This is demonstrated by the shockingly absurd comment made by you above 'The AK is designed to cope with the soldier who is not well-schooled, perhaps so badly schooled that he doesn't see the need (or even well-schooled but hasn't had the chance) to clean his rifle.'

This is completely untrue, the Soviet troops who were to use the AK series were very well trained and drilled. The statement is completely false and this is at least the second time that I have had to point this out.

 

[Firefly 2]

Premise: to target, lay fire onto and eventually kill an or incapacitate an opponent.

This is the one premise that remains the same, really. The AK series was developed for conscripted soldiers who really didn't get the amount of training professional soldiers in the west got. It needed of foolproof and easily replaceable ( i.e. easily mass produced and very cheap) and needed to shoot at all times. It does. It is reasonably accurate in the most common ranges of combat, and proves to be a deadly calibre to this day. Ease of use, and reliability are the main qualities of the AK series.

The AR series was developed from the premise that accuracy is the basic attribute and later larks have added unmatched modularity when it comes to accessories. The M4 Carbine did not ( according to DSI and Raids magazines) perform well in reliability tests. It's ergonomic design is very easy to use in dynamic situation. The usefullness of the ,223 NATO is being debated.
Accuracy, modularity, and the ergonomic design re the main qualities of the modern AR based weapons.

But as the main premise remains the same, the underlying operational premises are quite different.

Wrong again: Both weapons were designed with the same total war scenario in mind: or have we forgotten about the cold war?

The .223 debate is not a debate, as a round it has killed effectively for years, the debate as much as there is one was only ever orientated as to whether a better round might be found: This debate is now all but dead.

The reliability issues are overhyped nonsense spewed forward by a minority with limited experience. Sure there are more reliable weapons out there but the AR series does not suffer in the way people here falsely want to make it out to.

I disagree wholeheartedly. It has been reported that an increasing number of soldiers in the field wish to equip themselves with a weapon that fires the .308 Nato round again, claiming the .223 isn't likely to get a kill shot in some circumstances. This resorted to converting M14's into M21's and putting them in the field in Iraq. There is therefore a debate, not an academic one but an operational one.

There is also the fact that the M4 has performed badly in a "dust" test in competition with the FN SCAR, HK 416 and the XM 8. Unless these results have been falsified, I cannot imagine why these reliability issues could be classified as a hype

Anyways, ontos is right this discussion has gone gonzo. I willing to agree that we wholheartedly disagree if you are
Good day, sir. I'm of for the night.

 

[sferrin]

XM-8 FTW! That's one cool looking gun.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I disagree wholeheartedly. It has been reported that an increasing number of soldiers in the field wish to equip themselves with a weapon that fires the .308 Nato round again, claiming the .223 isn't likely to get a kill shot in some circumstances. This resorted to converting M14's into M21's and putting them in the field in Iraq. There is therefore a debate, not an academic one but an operational one.

There is also the fact that the M4 has performed badly in a "dust" test in competition with the FN SCAR, HK 416 and the XM 8. Unless these results have been falsified, I cannot imagine why these reliability issues could be classified as a hype

Anyways, ontos is right this discussion has gone gonzo. I willing to agree that we wholheartedly disagree if you are
Good day, sir. I'm of for the night.

The results should be classified as hype as the AR15 series has been and continues to be used very effectively in two conflicts. That it performs less well than designs generated within the last decade is neither surprising no indicative of a fundamental flaw as you suggest, such a suggestion is absurd.

Nobody wants to transition back to the .308 as it is not even an assault rifle cartridge, I dont know where you got these reports from but I can assure you that anyone with combat experience and is not a 7ft tall tower of pain absorbing muscle, is not going to make such a suggestion.

 

[ontos0311]

The reliability issues are overhyped nonsense spewed forward by a minority with limited experience. Sure there are more reliable weapons out there but the AR series does not suffer in the way people here falsely want to make it out to.

sealordlawerance sayeth

Been there, done that in more than one place....10yrs USMC maybe a minority in
someone's book and even considered limited experience....But I qual'd with the
M16A2 as an expert every year except Boot (M14s).
I have also received fire from trained marksmen and some poor 'freedomfighter'
who was given an AK with little or no marksmanship instruction.....
Guess who worried me most? In my 'limited experience' it is the skill of the
troop behind the weapon not the weapon.

Semper Fi
ontos0311

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Guys, chill out please, and note that this entire discussion is off-topic to begin with. Topic is locked and moved to The Bar.