Replies

I wouldn't have an AR-10. :-) I don't like the recoil for one thing...and it seems like an overgrown AR. :-) We've been assisting SF soldiers with Robin Sage and I was talking to one of their weapons specialists the other week. He asked me what I thought about the SCAR and I told him I hadn't had my hands on one... perhaps he'd like to help me?! :-) He said he hadn't tried one out yet either. During the course of the conversation he pointed out something I simply never thought of. First off... their entire (active duty) training cadre was comprised of SF soldiers all of whom had been in Iraq for multiple tours. They "generally" like the M-4, but this guy pointed out something specific. He pointed out that DIGs is never the first point of failure on the AR platform. In fact, the gas system is rarely the first point of failure on ANY gas operated firearm. He pointed out that it's usually the barrel that gets hot and causes problems first... or degraded ammo that causes extraction/feeding problems. He said that if he were going to spend money on something...anything that it would be a method or design that simply kept the barrel cooler, or helped it dissipate heat better, and therefore kept the weapon cooler. He also mentioned that heat all by itself (under normal use) wasn't so big a deal, but combined with sand and dust it can cause FTF (failure to feed).

It's a fact that the AK will feed and operate (nearly) full of dirt. It's a lot more forgiving! It's also a fact that most marksman stand little chance of hitting what they're aiming for at 600 yards. Not so with the .223 Rem...5.56mm NATO...whatever you want to call it. :-) It's got enough reach to make somebody very, very unhappy at 600 to 800 yards (20" bbl model). The 7.62x39 Russian won't compete from a purist standpoint for a number of reasons. One is because of the stock bullet design. It's terrible!...It's too light (for a 30 caliber) and too short, and has a ballistic coefficient of .3 or less. Then again, the PBR (Point Blank Range) for both 7.62x39 and 5.56 NATO are very close to being identical!

What a lot of people don't think about though is ammo... everybody buys cheap Soviet design/made weapons and touts their ruggedness and dependability. Lord knows we had a bunch before that fishing accident! :-) But what (slightly) concerns me is ammo availability. Even IF we were to gain a major 7.62x39 manufacturer here in the U.S., the Soviet 7.62mm is a LOT different than our 7.62mm! Our 7.62 is .308" in diameter. Their 7.62mm is .311"! So in a pinch, they could use our projectiles, but we can't use theirs! So much for interchangeability of reloading components! :-)

I don't favor center fire .22s, but the U.S. had one thing right with the 5.56... and that's IF you're going to use a center fire .22, make sure it's going as fast as the platform will afford! :-) I personally think they should have DITCHED the AR and gone originally with Stoner's AR-180. :-)

If not for that fishing accident we would have upgraded all of our ARs to gas piston. :-) Right now though, there are several kits for doing it and nobody has a standard. It's not like bolt cam pins, bolts, and bolt carriers. :-) THOSE are generally interchangeable and manufactured to spec. When piston driven gas systems are all the same for ARs, that will be a good thing. :-)

Down under it all, you know I'm a .308 bigot. :-) I consider the AR a Pop-Gun, but useful all the same. :-) What I really like about it is that my girls can grab theirs (before that fishing accident of course :-), and a spare 30 rd magazine and it's light enough for them to use, and they aren't afraid of the recoil.

Think about it... a pissed off, or frightened female WITH a rifle that fires a cartridge having a point blank range of nearly 300 yards, and she's got 60 rounds of ammo with her!...maybe more! WHO in their right mind wants to be near THAT?! I would have rather they had .308s (before the accident! :-), but those are simply too heavy for them. :-)

I used rough numbers in my previous posting, but I went out and got the specs on SS-109 and corrected for it. The point blank range is only 228 yards for that round... 62gr...MV of 3100FPS...zero at 100 yds means hold over 26" at 400. It's got a little more drop than 55gr FMJ 5.56, but should shoot flatter...and it transfers a little more energy. I thought it would do better than that personally! :-)

The 7.62x39 has a PBR of "about" 180 yards, but zeroed at 100 requires a 57" hold over at 400, and it delivers a lot less energy than the 5.56mm at that distance... but their point blank ranges and energy transfer are about the same.

Outside of PBR though is the real killer for the 7.62x39. 57" at 400 yards leaves a lot of room to miss!...not to mention that little short bullet is losing steam fast! Mid-range trajectory on the 7.62x39 "appears" to be about 400 yards... 5.56mm "appears" to be between 600 and 650 or so.

Even after writing all that, I'd NEVER part with my Russian designed weapons... er...that is if I hadn't already lost them in the fishing accident. :-)

He pointed out that it's usually the barrel that gets hot and causes problems first... or degraded ammo that causes extraction/feeding problems.

That came out of the mouth of an 18B student at Robin Sage? Will wonders never cease!

He is correct though, heat is a major problem with both the AR and AK, lousy ammo is a close second, and bad magazines come in third.

I can't count the number of time I've singed my fingers on a hot AK forearm, but it is built to loose tolerances and will handle a lot more abuse. It's magazines are well built and will also take a lot of abuse.

As far as the AR15/M16 platforms, I always preferred the M16A1. We fired these at the National Matches at Camp Perry and they were accurate to 500m out of the box. The M16 A2 was accurate, but I hated the 3rd burst. As for the M4- IMO, it's a piece of crap. OK, that was unfair- the M4 with an ACOG was a piece of crap. I took the ACOG off of my issue weapon and used an AimPoint RedDot site with iron sites as a back up. The only advantage I could see in the M4 was a system that wouldn't butt-stroke me in the back of the head while fastroping.

Early on (back in the 70's), we had some troubles with ammunition, mostly quality control. We would find bent rounds, or have rounds that would leave the bullet lodged in the barrel. IIRC, it was Lakewood ammo that was bad.

Magazines were a big problem when it came to jamming in the M-16. If an M16 jammed twice with he same magazine, my squad leader would police up the magazine and make sure that it wouldn't be used again.

All-in-all, the AR15/M16 is a reliable weapons system. Like any piece of equipment, it does require maintenance, but I really see no need to replace it across the board.

(Forrest Gumpism)- Ah'm sorry to hear about yor' fishing accident. I hope y'all find them guns you lost real soon.(/Forrest Gumpism)

fmr 18C, 18D, 18F