Originally posted by inimalist
or people who need to shoot through an engine block.though, you have to admit, the 5.45mm soviet ammo in ANYTHING is going to **** something up
5.45 vs 5.56 It's practically the same caliber (+1% stopping force on the part of 5.56. The standard soviet ammo has a weird hole in the nose before the tip that causes it to be more likely to tumble, therefor giving more penetration and bullet durability, but shit-for-accuracy. This is caused by the bullets, not the gun, quite obviously, as you yourself stated.
5.56(.223) is bigger and definitely more accurate due to the fact that it embraces the old spin-like-a-football rifling. This results in fragmenting more often, and a more reliable and predictable bullet path. .223 also has more muzzle velocity, for the record.
Ergonomically, an M4 is way more customizable and shooter-friendly than an ak-47. It's also more accurate, as a rule, and offers higher range.
It's in your preference. If your a movie pussy who likes to spray n pray and watch everything in your spray n pray way disintegrate, ak47.
If you are a skilled and elite soldier who can take out targets systematically and tactically with little risk to yourself, m4's your gun.
I was talking more about the poison bullet thing, soviet rounds tend to cause a lot of internal damage, or at least I've been told. I remember it being notoriously difficult to find references to the "poison bullet" thing.
lol, I really don't care, was just trying to get you a bit riled up. As I posted earlier, I'm really way more into that exploding-indcendary armor penetrating ammo than I am guns atm. Seriously, 50. cal rifles shooting tanks and jets.
To be honest, I'd expect the Americans to have designed a gun better than a soviet model from mid-century
Originally posted by inimalistpoison bullets? kinda seems like overkill.
I was talking more about the poison bullet thing, soviet rounds tend to cause a lot of internal damage, or at least I've been told. I remember it being notoriously difficult to find references to the "poison bullet" thing.lol, I really don't care, was just trying to get you a bit riled up. As I posted earlier, I'm really way more into that exploding-indcendary armor penetrating ammo than I am guns atm. Seriously, 50. cal rifles shooting tanks and jets.
To be honest, I'd expect the Americans to have designed a gun better than a soviet model from mid-century
Congratulations though, i didn't know that anyone thought that hollow points wouldn't do enough damage by themselves.
the top one is a 9mm pistol round. That's right, like the small pistol round. Yeah, the wimpy one.
Bottom one is .308. Sniper stuff. Big load, small-medium bullet. Look at the difference in penetration.
The difference? The 9mm is hollow-point. If you don't get a hollow-point to go through your target so fast that it doesn't leave poison, you are some type of god. Terrorists are idiots.
Originally posted by One Free ManIt's in your preference. If your a movie pussy who likes to spray n pray and watch everything in your spray n pray way disintegrate, ak47.
If you are a skilled and elite soldier who can take out targets systematically and tactically with little risk to yourself, m4's your gun.
what? 😆 the only good thing going for the m4 is its accuracy. but simply being a marksman weapon doesnt mean its for "skilled and elite soldiers", especially compared to the AK. the m4 is a piece of shit, as was the m16 before it, and that point is made obvious in that the army is working on a new standard assault rifle, which is happening because whenever censuses are taken an extremely large percentage of troops state that their M4's frequently jam even in combat situations because the gun cant handle harsh conditions. the AK may be less accurate at a certain range but thats because it uses primitive mechanics, but those primitive mechanics are what allows an AK to be dragged under water, stomped into a mud bank, buried under sand, and still able to fire immediately upon squeezing the trigger, compared to the M4 and M16 which jam or outright even break if a little particle of dust gets caught in the firing mechanism. hell M4's have actually exploded from being forced to fire while partially submerged in water.
to illustrate his point and mine, this compares the m16 and ak-47, while the M16 is not the M4, they share the exact same weaknesses.
so id disagree about stating that the ak is for pussies, because the truth is that, preference aside, the AK is just a much better gun, whereas the M4 is a toy. if it wasnt then the US army wouldnt be looking to replace it, and it wouldnt have such a low satisfaction rating by soldiers who use it.
so, the correct statement to make is that if you want a gun that is practical and can actually win a battle, use an AK.
if you want a gun that is accurate, use an m21.
if you want a toy, use an M4.
if you want to be skilled, learn from history. the ak-47 was designed in 1946, and its been setting standards for what a good assault rifle should be for 60 years, kicking ass in the end of WW2, the korean war, kicking the M16's ass in Vietnam, and kicking the M4's ass in the middle east, where the M4 jams because some sand or blood leaked into the magazine.
the trade off for the ak 47 is horrible accuracy and need to carry more rounds for it... is it more powerful? yes, but in combat when fighting more often then not you'll need accuracy especially when trying to take ppl out at a 100 to 200 yards a distance that is almost non affective to the ak... with a m16 you can still shoot accurately from 500 yards with a decent trained military personal..
the M16 does jam if you dont take care of it and you dont maintain good maintenance. but even when it does jam your trained to perform tap rack bang...
usually that takes care of the problem... nowadays we dont even worry about it with the type of combat we are involved in..
i wont lie i had my rifle jam on me three times during rifle range never did it jam on me in iraq with my two tours... i actually cleaned it every day checked it and had the armory break it down and hook me up with newer firing pins and barrels... and i traded magazine clips every few months so that i wouldnt ware out the springs and cause a chance of a round not locking in....
our rifle's ability is supplemented by our fighting skills accuracy and training to make up for the few times it might jam...
Originally posted by Ms.Marvelgive me the censuses that state soldiers are complaining of the the modern M4A1's jam in combat situations.
what? 😆 the only good thing going for the m4 is its accuracy. but simply being a marksman weapon doesnt mean its for "skilled and elite soldiers", especially compared to the AK. the m4 is a piece of shit, as was the m16 before it, and that point is made obvious in that the army is working on a new standard assault rifle, which is happening because whenever censuses are taken an extremely large percentage of troops state that their M4's frequently jam even in combat situations because the gun cant handle harsh conditions.
the AK may be less accurate at a certain range but thats because it uses primitive mechanics, but those primitive mechanics are what allows an AK to be dragged under water, stomped into a mud bank, buried under sand, and still able to fire immediately upon squeezing the triggerI never stated the AK47 wasn't durable, but it's using primitive mechanics. Also, it's not that durable. Using your logic, the fact that the original winchester pump action is durable because it uses simple mechanics makes it better than the M4.
compared to the M4 and M16 which jam or outright even break if a little particle of dust gets caught in the firing mechanism. hell M4's have actually exploded from being forced to fire while partially submerged in water.If you're dumb enough to fire any weapon that's waterlogged, you deserve this fate.
to illustrate his point and mine, this compares the m16 and ak-47, while the M16 is not the M4, they share the exact same weaknesses.
so id disagree about stating that the ak is for pussies, because the truth is that, preference aside, the AK is just a much better gun, whereas the M4 is a toy. if it wasnt then the US army wouldnt be looking to replace it, and it wouldnt have such a low satisfaction rating by soldiers who use it.
On November 13, 2008, the U.S. Army hosted an invitation-only Industry Day regarding a potential future replacement for the M4 carbine. Nineteen companies provided displays and briefings for military officials. The weapons displayed included the Barrett REC7 PDW, Bushmaster ACR, FN SCAR, Heckler & Koch HK416, Heckler & Koch XM8, LWRC M6A4, Robinson Arms XCR, SIG 556, as well as Colt's own improved version of the M4, the Colt ACC-M (Advanced Colt Carbine-Monolithic). The goal of the Industry Day was to provide officials with knowledge as to the current state of the art, which will assist the writing of a formal requirements document.[5]they're planning on improving it yet again, not replace it. This proves that the m4 is an excellent weapon design that is adaptable to any situation and is also a great building platform for better variants. Oh, and soviet russia would be trying to outmode that hunk of steel and wood if they were still around. Too bad they aren't even a tactical military power anymore.On July 1, 2009, the U.S. Army took complete ownership of the M4 design.[6] This will allow companies besides Colt to compete with their own M4 designs. The Army is planning on fielding the last of its M4 requirement in 2010.[6]
On October 30, 2009, Army weapons officials proposed a series of changes to the M4 to Congress. Requested changes include an electronic round counter that records the number of shots fired, a heavier barrel, and replacing the direct impingement system with a gas piston system.[7]
The argument is battle-axe vs Fencing foil. Do you want light, maneuverable, accurate, and adaptable, or heavy, inaccurate, poor rate of fire, and stuck in one form of existence. Sure if you mistreat the foil, you're going to break it more often than if you mistreat the battleaxe.
Bullshit, read up on your world history. Most casualties in Iraq are because of RPG's and hit and run tactics, not gun jams. M16a1 was a failure, of course, it wasn't tested for the rigors of veitnam, and just because a gun doesn't fail doesn't mean it succeeds if that was the case we'd still be using m1 garands and lugers. Just because it looks like the m4 doesn't mean it is the m4. Also, if you outrange your enemy, in any face to face combat situation, you pwned your enemy.
if you want a gun that is accurate, use an m21.if you want a toy, use an M4.
if you want to be skilled, learn from history. the ak-47 was designed in 1946, and its been setting standards for what a good assault rifle should be for 60 years, kicking ass in the end of WW2, the korean war, kicking the M16's ass in Vietnam, and kicking the M4's ass in the middle east, where the M4 jams because some sand or blood leaked into the magazine.
the ak-47 can hit targets with the same efficiency as an m16 and m4 can at 150 yards, but youre right n that nowadays most firefights take place at around 300 meters or so.
one of the major complaints ive heard is that even with proper maintenance the m4 jams especially when the winds pick up. my cousins told me a couple of stories about what he and some people in his squad went through with their rifles as well. but i wonder if the gun works as well as you say it does why its so unpopular among soldiers. i thought it was an alright gun until l did a research paper on it a few years ago.
but truthfully if theres any type of combat in which the M4's strengths can be utilized ts the current theater...
Originally posted by One Free Man
[B]give me the censuses that state soldiers are complaining of the the modern M4A1's jam in combat situations.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9B8SUPG0&show_article=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine - see effectiveness
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/U.S.-Army-Agrees-That-The-M-4-Sucks-12-4-2009.asp
etc. i can find more; theyre all over google.
Also, it's not that durable.
huh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPbF0kKyc2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FXK-VRkqqM
If you're dumb enough to fire any weapon that's waterlogged, you deserve this fate.
if youre dumb enough to fight in a war you deserve that fate, best weapon is to not fight at all.
😐
"ifs", "buts", dont matter when it actually happens. and to say "you deserve your fate" is a ridiculous statement; i dont need to explain why thats such a stupid thing to say.
No they don't. The m16 in the video is from veitnam-era. The m4/m16a2 of today have undergone excessive tests and Improvements. Ever heard of a forward assist? Also, he says exactly what I say. The ak47 is a heavy unbalanced recoil poor-round-for-accuracy 50 year old gun. It has bad ROF and poor tactical adaptability.
and in those "excessive tests" the gun has come in last place in every one of them. "poor tactical ability"? he doesnt say that at all lol, hell if anything he stated that the AK could be used in much more conditions than the M4 can. the m4 only has one specialty.
they're planning on improving it yet again, not replace it.
only because currenly their last few attempts to find different models altogether failed. research it if you dont believe me.
The argument is battle-axe vs Fencing foil. Do you want light, maneuverable, accurate, and adaptable, or heavy, inaccurate, poor rate of fire, and stuck in one form of existence. Sure if you mistreat the foil, you're going to break it more often than if you mistreat the battleaxe.
i want a gun that i know i can use efficiently in as many situations as possible. if there is a 100% chance that no matter what the skies will be clear and there is no strong winds and i will definitely be shooting at targets that will always be 400 yards away, then sure give me an M4.
Bullshit, read up on your world history. Most casualties in Iraq are because of RPG's and hit and run tactics, not gun jams.
i never said it did 😬
Also, if you outrange your enemy, in any face to face combat situation, you pwned your enemy.
because obviously in a combat situation things always go in a positive manner right? if you dont end up knee deep in muddy water, if you dont end up on your belly in a sand storm, if youre beyond the range of your opponents weapons, etc. thats not how life works. the m16 is a great gun! ... as long as you you dont use it in a rain forest.