The Irony of the AR-15 (vs. the AK-47)
Not long ago, I thought long and hard about getting one of those "terror weapons", a semi-auto AR-15. Preferably one that could use .308 Winchester. Part of my decision process was the desire to own something well-crafted, reliable, easy to get ammunition for, and esthetically pleasing to the eye. Well, I've come to learn that there AIN'T no such animal as an AR that uses actual .308 Winchester, and that it's a bad idea to go stuffing .308 Win into something that REALLY uses 7.62 NATO, regardless of the tag saying ".308 Win"; but the biggest factor that's soured me on the AR-15 is its humiliating failure to work in Iraq. Fine American craftsmanship, precision machining, and for what? A rifle that goes belly-up the moment it gets a little dirty? And a MILITARY-type rifle, at that: a creature that should be DESIGNED to work in filthy/adverse conditions. Now, let's look at the other side of the coin: the AK-47. Truly reliable and cheap to feed, though somewhat less esthetically pleasing. A rifle whose claim to fame stems from the loose machining tolerances of its Russian makers! The irony is delicious. Here you have American rifles with their tight tolerances binding up and jamming over in Iraq, and what do the US forces do? Use confiscated AKs designed by those troglodyte Russkies!
Needless to say, I think I'll sooner invest in an AK than an AR-15.
The odd thing is, why don't the AR manufacturers simply follow the same tack as the AK designers and machine the parts with a bit more "slop" so they'd work like the AKs? The "precision machining" approach has CERTAINLY proven itself to be a disaster waiting to happen, so why not at least try it?
Needless to say, I think I'll sooner invest in an AK than an AR-15.
The odd thing is, why don't the AR manufacturers simply follow the same tack as the AK designers and machine the parts with a bit more "slop" so they'd work like the AKs? The "precision machining" approach has CERTAINLY proven itself to be a disaster waiting to happen, so why not at least try it?
0
-
Your comments have been noted before and often. Although the AR15 is a fine rifle, it's not one that I, personally, would take into combat. I would prefer something that would have loose build tolerances and high reliability (eg., a .303 Lee Enfield), or designed from the get-go for harsh environments that would precision weapons weep (eg., the Iraeli Galil).
This reminds me of the old Chinese repeating crossbow - gravity hopper fed, crap construction, wasn't accurate beyond, say, 150 ft. But it was a fantastic weapon for defense with its ability to fire off bolt after bolt into an oncoming horde. Behaved a lot like a scattergun - point, crank, fire, do damage, but not necessarily where you aimed it. Great terror weapon.
The Japanese tried to duplicate the design, refining it along the way - quality workmanship, tight (for the period) tolerances, pretty accurate - and it was an absolute failure on the defense. It was too accurate, requiring constant re-setup and traversing, and took forever to load the hopper as all the bolts had to be placed in "just right".
Sometimes, things get designed "so good" that it actually becomes a liability.
My 2c
"Nuke 'em 'til they glow - then shoot 'em in the dark."0 -
I think you are confusing the AR10 & the M16, commonly called an AR15. The AR10 that looks like a large AR & is chambered for 7.62x51 or .308. The M16, commonly called an AR15, is chambered for 5.56x45 or .223. Other than the one famous ambush story involving Jesica Lynch and friends I haven't heard of any other negative experiences of soldiers weapons failing in Iraq.
My theory of why their weapons failed is because they were soaked in CLP. Add a little blowing sand & you have a sponge for crud. Had they used a dry lube, I bet things would've been different.
My recomendation for you is to buy both rifles like I did. You will find there are benefits to both.
Regards,
0 -
Did you have an actual question about the AK-47 or M16 or was this strictly an editorial? The gas operating sytems of the Stoner and Kalashnikov designs are about 180 degrees apart in the way they operate their respective rifle's mechanisim so you can't just build some "slop" into the AR-15/M16 rifle and expect it to function. By the same token you can't just "tighten up" a box stock AK and turn it into match rifle. As a Colt LE dealer I have a damned good idea of what the AR-15/M16 weapons system is capable of and I know its ins and outs. I've also spent nearly 15 years traveling through Eastern Europe for business and pleasure and have fired hundreds of AK's and RPK's so the Kalashnikov is no mystery to me either. Feel free to purchase your AK if your going into the brush on a combat tour and won't be cleaning your rifle for weeks on end, but since I lead a humdrum life here in the peaceful USA just selling guns, I'll be more than satisfied with my Colt M4.
Mark T. Christian0 -
Two of my Sons have been in Ground combat over the last 24 months (both Afghanistan & Iraq) - home now, thank God - one with an M-4(modified M-16{AR-15}), and the other with a standard M-16(AR-15). Both have engaged in multiple firefights in harsh desert/mountain environments. Neither my Sons, nor anyone they knew of experienced any failures to function of the weapons.
Both, however, say they would have preferred carrying a G3 or M-14, in 7.62NATO/.308, because the .223/5.56NATO oftened failed to have the range and power they would have liked.
One, home as of yesterday, has already purchased an old M1A.
God Bless America and...
NEVER Forget WACO
NEVER, EVER Forget 9110 -
My friend, any rifle designed for .308 Win will happily consume .308 Nato and vice - versa without incident.
JC
Ted Kennedy's breath has killed more people than my car.0 -
trstone,
Both weapons have their "Features & Benefits"; personally I own and enjoy both for completely different reasons and shooting styles ... fortunately for us in the US we have the luxury of owning both ... As Mark so eloquently pointed out ... its doubtful if any of us will ever actually "need" either type of weapon like they do in the third world countries they are serving in ... at least I hope not.
Not to demean the AK in any way, because it is a reliable and robust weapon, which has proved itself time after time ... but do you really think the United States of America, the most powerful country in the world, would settle for second-rate weapons for 40 years? The AR15/M16 has been on an evolutionary progression since its inception, lending itself multiple configurations and advances in technology ... has the AK?
I'm fairly certain we're about to see a leap of technology for small arms and the AR15/M16 helped get us there ... the AK is still nearly a mirror image of what it was in 1947 -
===========================
Chance favors the prepared mind [8D]
kimberkid@cox.net0 -
Doug sort of said it--but to get right to the point--the M14, M1A type of rifle is the answer. It is worthy of note that the U.S. Military has never completely let go of them; and from what I've been reading they wish they had never let go at all! One Airborne unit apparently chose to go to Iraq completely armed with them rather than the M16. Kind of suprised me that after a couple of "cut and torch" Presidential Administrations that there were enough left to issue to a largish unit. Logic would dictate that the AR10 will experience the same reliability problems under adverse conditions as does the M16-AR15 family. Now before all you M16 Fans jump on me (again!) let me say that the M16 is not without its usefulness, and my philosophy is that guns are like tools in that you'll never find one that is right for every job. The M16 and 5.56mm (light weight, corrosion resistant) may have been just the ticket for hot, steamy jungles; but for dirt, mud, snow, long shots, penetration......I'll take the M1-M14 family of rifles.[:D] 0 -
I have not heard of widespread failures if M-16's in Iraq, with the exception of Jessica Lynch's unit who had failures due to little or no maintenance, and shame on her company commander for not making sure their guns were kept up properly.
I used an M-16A1 in Vietnam and it worked for me everytime I needed it. I still use Ar-15's for competition every other weekend. My dept uses Ar's and M-16's in the patrol rifle program. If it is such an unreliable design, why are AR's and its clones in such widespread use today?
The 5.56mm rifle is fine for jungle warefare, but if I was going to fight in the deserts of Iraq where the ranges are much greater, I would prefer the 7.62 round. The M-14 or M1A is an awsome rifle,but both the gun and its ammo are much heavier, and if you are carrying it around all day, thats something to consider.
I own AR's, AK's, and MIA's, and I like them all. They each have their own strengths and applications.0 -
You folks "haven't heard of any widespread failures" of the American weapons in Iraq? Amazing. It's been on the news, and in the newspapers how tank crews are carrying confiscated AKs because their whatever-the-heck-they-are rifles are jamming up in that fine, powdery sand environment. I read a report in our local paper that said the tank commanders and higher-ups weren't too happy about it, but would sort of look the other way on the matter. So....Unless the media and the papers have been making this stuff up---not beyond the realm of possibility---it strikes me that the US rifles have a serious technical problem, given that they apparently don't function reliably in a dusty/gritty environment. It was interesting to learn, however, that it's also an issue involving the "gas operating system", according to Mark Christian. Fascinating.
Much to think about. Much to ponder. Thank you, one and all, for your input; it puts a new complexion to the issue of whether or not it'd be worth buying an AR clone of some sort.0 -
quote:Originally posted by trstone
You folks "haven't heard of any widespread failures" of the American weapons in Iraq? Amazing. It's been on the news, and in the newspapers how tank crews are carrying confiscated AKs because their whatever-the-heck-they-are rifles are jamming up in that fine, powdery sand environment. I read a report in our local paper that said the tank commanders and higher-ups weren't too happy about it, but would sort of look the other way on the matter. So....Unless the media and the papers have been making this stuff up---not beyond the realm of possibility---it strikes me that the US rifles have a serious technical problem, given that they apparently don't function reliably in a dusty/gritty environment. It was interesting to learn, however, that it's also an issue involving the "gas operating system", according to Mark Christian. Fascinating.
Much to think about. Much to ponder. Thank you, one and all, for your input; it puts a new complexion to the issue of whether or not it'd be worth buying an AR clone of some sort.
The Tank crews are only issued M9 pistols that is why you are hearing of them grabbing AKs.
Regards,0 -
Of all the guns of that type, give me the AK for combat anyday.
That said, I will not see any combat ever again, so any rifle would suit me just fine right now.
It's the same old story, the M-16 AR-15 platform is much more accurate than the AK-47 and it's true.
They are different guns designed for the same purpose but here in the states you have to look at what YOU will be using this rifle for.
Target and accuracy- AR-15 type gun.
Having fun wasting lots of ammo.- AK-47
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun has!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments