Actually what I want to get my hands on is one of the new HK416's (5.56) or HK417's (7.62). They are currently being looked at by several countries as the future replace ment for the M-4. They have a new piston system that takes care of the few problems the M-4 had and defintely thump the snot out of any '16 ever designed. :)
Oh, and if I get to make a wish could I get one with a SOPMOD package? *major drooling* 0_0
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Greene
To: SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 11:28 PM
Subject: RE: [SkunkworksAMA] Re: AR-15
'Assault rifle' was not coined by the media. It was coined by the Germans. It's a literal translation of 'Sturmgewher'
From: SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nomad Rhodes
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 10:48 PM
To: SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SkunkworksAMA] Re: AR-15
I have two AR rifles and two AK47s.
People should remember that they are two very different animals.
The AR was meant to be a combat rifle (Assault rifle is a term coined by the media) the AK is a machine gun, it was made to be unkillable and to be accurate in a urban close quarter environment.
Trying to compare the AK to the AR is apple's and Oranges.
But in the end they are a blast to shoot :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jorge Puentes <chakatsnowfur_at_yahoo.com>
To: SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:08:30 PM
Subject: Re: [SkunkworksAMA] Re: AR-15
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 - 21:45:22 CDT