Yes I heard a lot of the stories regarding the poor performance in the early days of the M-16. I think now they have deployed twith the new model m16-a4 . The G-9 assault rifle is a excellent rifle also. The Hk never to say is good. But I would go with the Original Ak-74 for there is the market are several imitations mostly from China copy knock offs that are not that good . The AK models were build for war . You can grabs the Original AK and hide them for a month in mud and then pull them out . They would fire as if nothing would happen . My rl Father whom served in Vietnam for two years knew what a crummy riffle the old version of the M-16 . His group would fight with their M-14 and had results...or the Old BAR that would turn the jungles into splinters.
________________________________
From: Rick Pikul <chakatfirepaw_at_gmail.com>
To: SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, October 17, 2009 8:30:50 AM
Subject: Re: [SkunkworksAMA] Re: AR-15
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 - 19:23:07 CDT