Allegations that the M-4 is too finicky for harsh combat conditions.
A long time ago, I read comments about the Israeli Army's reaction after experience with the M-16 and the AK-47. They called the AK-47 "the lion of the desert." There's a damn good reason why the Galil rifle is a clone of the AK.
I know the Army can be boneheaded when it comes to service rifles, but Jesus! You'd think they'd break the code on this one. If it helps, they can blame the Air Force for the M-16 and go back to the M-14. They could use the short-barreled variant that Springfield Armory makes for the troops riding around in Bradleys and suchlike.
Probably too much to hope for them to buy a bunch of AKs from the Russians and issue them out, though.
The ones your girlfriends warned you about.
1 hour ago
5 comments:
Officially, they don't like the AK because of the loose tolerances, which they feel distracts from accuracy. Studies have cited the off-linear torque caused by the extraction and ejection process, and (strangely enough) the barrel itself seems to flex .01-.02 centimeters during the firing cycle. All of this makes accuracy at 300 meters just about impossible. Plus, they say, the AK is a "machine gun." The real issue of course is "NIH."
Some people who have actually fired (earlier) versions of the M-16 will say 300 meters is a bit outside realistic combat range, unless you're firing at E-type silhouettes from the prone or supported positions.
All the video I've seen on the Military channel shows Joes firing on full auto, so I doubt that's super accurate.
The IDF is now transitioning to the Tavor, a bullpup design.
If I remember correctly, a post WW2 study of a few million combat deaths in both WW1 and WW2 showed that most of those who were shot by rifle fire were at ranges under 100 yards.
There is a significant difference between crappy Iranian/Iraqi/Chinese stamped AK-47's and more modern Russian AK-74's. AK-74's have significantly tighter tolerances, albeit the same reliable extraction and ejection process. In short, AK-74's give you the reliability of an AK-47, with the accuracy of a M-16. About the only thing superior for a M-16 or derivatives compared to the AK-74 is the stock sights -- M-16 aperture sights are great, AK-74 are typical dumb iron sights.
Not that anybody needing accuracy is going to be using a M-16 (or ak-74) anyhow. Long-range shooters in the green bag are issued M-14's, while true snipers are issued M-24's, or (sadly) the new M-110 which is an AR-15 derivative (i.e. unreliable). M-16's were designed from the start to be used in short-range combat in cities and jungles, not for long-range combat in plains and deserts. We don't do infantry tactics on plains and deserts anymore. We have Abrams and Bradleys for that.
Well, from what I was told by the guys that saw the elephant, the M-16 wasn't so great in the jungle. One ex-ground-pounder told me that if you wanted to carry a rifle that worked when you got to the firefight, you carried a M-14.
But here we are, once more fighting a war with a rifle that requires meticulous maintenance to work.
As opposed to, say, the M-14 or the AK and its many clones.
The biggest problem with the AK-47's accuracy is not loose tolerances, BTW. The very best Bulgarian-built AK's have tolerances on par with modern Western weapons, unlike the crappy Romanian/Iranian/Chinese stamped shit. The biggest problems are a) gas tube flex (the "barrel itself seems to flex" thingy mentioned by Lurch), and b) muzzle lift in full automatic mode. The AK-74 solves that with a better attachment method for barrel and gas tube to prevent flex, and a muzzle brake and a lighter round to reduce recoil -- due to the muzzle brake, recoil is actually *half* of the M-16, allowing the shooter to keep it on target far better than the AK-47. The AK-47 had a big advantage in the jungles of Vietnam though in that its big slug would rip right through the jungle foliage while the M-16's little slug would not. The AK-74 would have the same problem in the jungle as the M-16.
As for the M-14, the big problem with the M-14 is that the U.S. Army's entire stock of M-14's dates to the late 1950's/early 1960's and is, frankly, falling to pieces to the point where it's even more unreliable than the M-16/M4. The M-14 wasn't all that good a combat rifle in the first place for anything other than the medium-range sniper role because of its massive weight and long barrel, the troops in Vietnam were clamoring for a lighter-weight shorter rifle because swinging that long barrel around in jungles and villages was not a task for wimps, unfortunately what they got was not a lighter/shorter M-14 -- what they got was the M-16.
Post a Comment