PPSch-41 with drum magazine
Posted on 08/10/2003 12:26:06 AM PDT by Destro
Now, we taxpayers, are buying AK's from Poland for Iraq? Come on George....where's Rummy? He'd put a stop to this nonsense if he knew about it.
Sounds like a normal bureaucratic SANFU!
Now, we taxpayers, are buying AK's from Poland for Iraq? Come on George....where's Rummy? He'd put a stop to this nonsense if he knew about it.
Sounds like a normal bureaucratic SANFU!
Well, what kind of shape are these AKs that we are finding and confiscating in?
Is the barrel just about worn out after firing off thousands of rounds? Or maybe it's badly pitted due to not being cleaned after firing corrosive ammo?
Is the gas system super caked with carbon and gunk due to being fired a lot and never cleaned, or maybe it's all rusted together after getting wet and never being fired for a long time?
Is the receiver cracked? Is the extractor or extractor spring broken or about to fail? Is the firing pin broken or about to fail?
At first blush, it does seem stupid to buy new AKs to outfit a security force in a country drowning in AKs, but then when you think about it...
...You (the security forces) are trusting your life to the fact that your weapon will work as designed, and not blow up in your face when you need to use it...
Probably a lot cheaper (if you value your life or the lives of your security forces) to just destroy all the old stuff and buy all new stuff for the new security forces.
PPSch-41 with drum magazine
You know, that's an excellent idea. Some dry lube and carry around a can of 'Dust Off' (essentially compressed air). As long as the action is completely dry, the compressed air would be pretty good for blowing acquired crud out of there.
No wonder you fly-boys get paid the big bucks. :-)
308 wind drift is superior to the 223. The 308 is good out to 800 yards while the 223 is pretty much useless beyond 400 yards.
The 308 has the same energy at 400 yards as the the 223 has at the muzzle. After 400 yards, the 223 is down to a piddling 200 ft-lbs while the 308 is still cooking along with 1000 + ft-lbs.
I'm pretty fond of the FN-FAL as an all around rifle. The AR's are much lighter and faster for 0-200m stuff but the 308 blows a much bigger hole.
One's a carbine and the other is a rifle, different tools.
I don't know if I'd want an M4 or 16 in a sandstorm. I've spoken with a vet of the Iran/Iraq conflict who said *every* piece of equipment they used was compromised by the sand with the exception of the AK.
I stood next to an "expert" with a bolt and went after the same 100m steel torso with my M4.
He could ring it as fast if not a bit faster than I could with a semiauto.
This is a trick that I have decided to learn.
You need not pronounce your ignorance on the matter.
It depends on the loading. The kind of loadings that allow a .223 to stay supersonic past 1000 yards in a 20" barrel will have excellent wind drift performance. The bullets used for military 7.62 combat loads have a really bad BC. Generally speaking, none of the standard loadings in either .223 or .308 are worth a damn for long range work because the ballistic envelope is optimized for short-range work.
Energy becomes almost immaterial to terminal performance past 400 yards or so with normal military loads. All that really matters is which one is punching the bigger hole. In that regard, the .308 is clearly better than the .223 at longer range, but not wildly so.
Give me a .308 necked down to a 6.5mm (e.g. .260 Rem) and then you have a real argument for superior long-range performance. Some load configurations are still doing better than 2000fps at 800 yards and the wind drift pisses all over .308. This would require rebarreling .308 military rifles for the smaller bore, but you see a lot of these 6.5mm converted military rifles on the match circuit so it can't be that difficult.
The FALs are pretty good, but I'd like to see a platform designed specifically for this role, even if it was just a re-engineered AR10. A semi-automatic military rifle designed for longer range precision that actually uses a highly optimal long-range cartridge would be nice.
I've never used it in a proper sandstorm, but I've spent a LOT of time using the M16 in the desert and had zero problems with it. That said, I can imagine the problems an actual sandstorm would cause with damn near anything without precautions, including the M16. Incidentally, I have seen AK actions get caught up in grit, but it IS less susceptible.
My suspicion has long been that this is largely a training issue. There are a number of tips and tricks that all but sand-proof an M16, but in my experience most people in the military often don't learn them unless they are in SF or similar where you'll have NCOs with a lot of trigger-time out in the desert. I often forget that I do a lot of things with the M16 action as second-nature that a lot of soldiers have never even heard of before. These makes it clear to me that the training most soldiers are getting on using their weapon in the real world is sorely lacking. Most units never get any trigger time outside of going to the shooting range, which doesn't really give a proper feel of how the weapon handles under field conditions.
It would be expensive, but everyone in the military should probably go through a complete light infantry school rather than just basic training. Basic training gives them virtually zero useful experience for real combat field operations and they don't really have a chance to learn how to survive in the field. This leaves you with the scenario where rear echelon units are totally unprepared and ineffective when they inadvertently find themselves in a field combat situation.
Such as ?
I'm about ready to chuck my M4, I don't trust the thing anymore. I've put several thousand rounds through my FAL with no malfs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.