On Friday 16 October 2009 23:24, Lyle K wrote:
> Nah. You can keep the AK's. Never cared for them. Granted, they are tough
> and reliable, but I will stick with my HK. Bit on the hefty side, but I
> have found it accurate, reliable and being chambered for 7.62mm...well,
> that's stopping power!
The rule of thumb when it comes to the AR-15 family vs. the Kalashnikovs[1]
is: If you have well trained troops who know how to take care of their
equipment them the AR-15 wins hands down: More accurate, more lethal, as
good or better penetration[2]. If your troops have minimal training, give
them Kalashnikovs because they will have a hard time breaking them.
There are a lot of stories about how 'the M16 sucks', almost all of which come
from issues during early deployment of the XM16E1 that were fixed four
decades ago.
[1] Pet peeve: People who call them AK-47s, the AK-47 is a _very_ rare gun.
Almost everything called that is actually either an AKM/AKM knockoff or an
AK-74, (which replaced the AKM in Soviet service back in the 70's).
[2] Assuming current ammunition, the early 5.56NATO rounds did have poor
penetration.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Received on Sat Oct 17 2009 - 06:31:20 CDT