The Humorous/Interesting Video Thread

[August]

I'd still take an M16 over an AK47 any day. That extra 100 meters effective range not to mention increased accuracy is key.

[Stealhead]

See that all ways kind of irritates me when people say that about the AK-47
we are not talking a smooth bore musket ball good luck at anything past 50 ft here.The difference is not that vast.If you have trouble hitting targets within the typical combat ranges with an AK-47 you are the problem not the rifle.

The supposedly inaccurate aK-47 sure has done a hell of a lot of damage and put a lot of people six feet under.

If you have good marksmanship you'll still score effective hits.And lets be honest here for any standard issue rifle 300m is your realistic combat effective range I do not care if it shots 5.56 or 30-06.This fact has been proven since WWI.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The supposedly inaccurate aK-47 sure has done a hell of a lot of damage and put a lot of people six feet under.

So have rocks and arrows. The fact remains that AK's are significantly less accurate than the M16/M4. they are heavier and they have significant differences in specifications depending on who makes it whereas AR parts are pretty much universal.

This is not to say that AK is useless but given my choice between the two the M16/M4 i'll pick the latter every time.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

See that all ways kind of irritates me when people say that about the AK-47
we are not talking a smooth bore musket ball good luck at anything past 50 ft here.The difference is not that vast.If you have trouble hitting targets within the typical combat ranges with an AK-47 you are the problem not the rifle.

The supposedly inaccurate aK-47 sure has done a hell of a lot of damage and put a lot of people six feet under.

If you have good marksmanship you'll still score effective hits.And lets be honest here for any standard issue rifle 300m is your realistic combat effective range I do not care if it shots 5.56 or 30-06.This fact has been proven since WWI.

That's one thing that irritates me too. The AK is accurate...just look at the fighting style of the Taliban.

Volume of random fire supported by RPG's.

I'm sure the Russians are crack shots with the AK series. The AK just gets the "inaccurate" reputation because of the fighting styles it's being associated with.

The Taliban (I'm going off of what I've read in several memoirs) don't take aimed shots. They have guys just fire away in the direction of the enemy in numbers. They support by using aimed RPG's.

Russian troops probably at least take aim before they shoot.

Originally Posted by August

So have rocks and arrows. The fact remains that AK's are significantly less accurate than the M16/M4. they are heavier and they have significant differences in specifications depending on who makes it whereas AR parts are pretty much universal.

This is not to say that AK is useless but given my choice between the two the M16/M4 i'll pick the latter every time.

Yes...the M16 and M4 are more accurate...but the AK is not completely inaccurate.

Personal preference? I'd take an M4 SOPMOD or Mk 14 Mod 0

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by August

they are heavier and they have significant differences in specifications depending on who makes it

Err... well I am sorry but that is simply not correct you can find Frankenstein AKs all over the world.You can find Frankenstein AKs right here in the US your statement is simply not true.

Go to Afghanistan or Iraq or any place where the AK-47 is commonly used and you'll find rifles that have a Russian bolt Chinese receiver Polish folding stock and East German stippled stocks.

Now perhaps you are referring to interchangeable uppers and bolt assemblies which allow an AR to be converted from 5.56mm to a different caliber with relative ease that would be something that the typical AK is not capable off.But you seem to be saying that AK are not interchangeable on the basic level with one manufactured else where which as I said is utterly incorrect.

[Ducimus]

Personally, I don't scoff at anything that fires a 30 caliber round. 7.62, turning cover into concealment for many years now.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Personally, I don't scoff at anything that fires a 30 caliber round. 7.62, turning cover into concealment for many years now.

I've always respected the caliber having killed deer with it.

I can personally vouch that it's very accurate at 150 yards when fired through a bolt action. That gun was a tack driver.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

But you seem to be saying that AK are not interchangeable on the basic level with one manufactured else where which as I said is utterly incorrect.

No but I have enough personal experience with after market parts for both the AK and AR platforms to know there are often tolerance issues with the former requiring modification to get them to fit properly.

[Platapus]

If I knew I would be stuck in a crappy environment and not have the opportunity to properly clean my weapon, I would choose the AK.

I agree that the M-16 is a precision weapon, but like many precision tools, it is not as tolerant/forgiving to bad hygiene as the AK.

I shot the M-16 at 300 meters on the range. That is not the range I would want to be in a combat situation. It took a lot to get a hit on a man-sized target at that range. But at 100-200 meters, I would not mind the AK.

I would rather carry an M-16, but shoot the AK.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I shot the M-16 at 300 meters on the range. That is not the range I would want to be in a combat situation. It took a lot to get a hit on a man-sized target at that range. But at 100-200 meters, I would not mind the AK.

Well personally i'd much rather engage an enemy at 300 meters than at 100. The further away the better.

The way I see it with the M16 you get 100-200 meters to kill your enemy before he gets into range to use that AK effectively.

Also it's not like at 200 meters the AK suddenly becomes as accurate as an M16. The trouble you had hitting your target at 300 with the M16 is the same trouble the AK shooter will have at 200 and an ill maintained AK like we're talking about will have that trouble at 100.

[Platapus]

I was not the best shot in the unit. It took me a LONG time to hit a standing man target at 300m. Good thing my target cooperated and just stood there for me.

I would rather hit at 200m then miss at 300m.

But then I never got a chance to fire the M-16 with any type of optics. Wish I did.

I think the M-16, and its variants, are fine weapons. Well suited for their purpose.

At combat ranges, it comes down more to the man/woman behind the trigger, than the trigger itself.

For me, that means letting the baddie get a little closer.

I am sure that some one has done shoot-out evaluations between the M-16 and the AK. Be interesting to see how the AK-47 and AK-74s match up. Or course there are only about a billion modifications out there to factor in.

[Stealhead]

Well a very important factor in combat is the level of training and the level of discipline a unit has its cohesion.

If any one of those factors are lacking it really does not matter if they have the best weapons in the world the enemy will probably get the better of them.

The early problems of the M-16 can be blamed to a large extent on poor training and lack of using common sense.They where told the weapons did not require cleaning despite evidence
that that was untrue yet many units did not order that the M-16s be cleaned anyway.Green Berets and Navy Seals who also used the M-16 cleaned their M-16s religiously because they knew that it would fail them at the worst time if they did not.As a result some times units of regular army and marine infantry suffered serious casualties when in fire fights and the majority of their rifles failed which allowed the VC or NVA unit to gain fire superiority. Of course the NVA/VC had the advantage of using many weapons that are "solider proof" and will function well enough despite horrible treatment.Though I am fairly sure that the NVA/VC maintained their weapons to a pretty high standard most of the time.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

But then I never got a chance to fire the M-16 with any type of optics. Wish I did.

You find yourself up this way and i'll take you to the range and you can try out the Colt 4x20 scope I have for my AR-15.

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsterling/...ccad14abeef220

[Wolferz]

If I'm choosing a weapon, I'll take an M-60 MG or a SAW over the M-16 or an AK-47 any day of the week. Although the M-60 we drew for our PLDC field problem had a pair of barrels that wouldn't stay put and kept falling out of the receiver. Armorer needed his butt kicked.

[Feuer Frei!]

Ok, here's how to do a 100-turn exit from a car park.
Now, retarded driver comes to mind, amongst many other derogatory names.

Watch it and marvel at man kind.

Only thing i can't figure out is if the video is faked, or someone is really that bad. Why didn't the person just reverse out? Watch the black station wagon also attempting to reverse out top left of video, has trouble also, goes back into the car space, and then has to wait, no idea why for the blue car to complete the 100-turn exit strategy. WTF?