[noemon]

The NATO 5.56x45mm round maintains its velocity up to the 400-500m range. It is still as accurate and lethal at that range.

Its not lethal at that range unless it hits on the face, not even a head with a helmet. That it can maintain its course up to there does not make it lethal. Thats what I've been told at least from people who try these stuff out in the army.

It's not a 'big deal' when you carry it for a short period of time. When soldiers march\walk\run for very long periods of time, they feel those extra few kilos very, very well. If the march is streneous and combat is involed, it is felt even more.

It's simple physics. When there's a lot of effort involved, and a lot of enery, every little bit matters. Why do you think professional\semi pro bicyclists invest so much money in buying bikes that are just 0.5 kilo lighter? Because if you're going up-hill and trying your best to make better time, that 0.5 kilo is something you'd feel, and could set you back. More effort carrying weight = less energy to do all the rest.

Special care goes into fitting soldiers with exactly the amount of equipment they need. Nothing un-needed is taken. Balancing this is a science, really.

This is getting ridiculous really, am well aware of what 2 extra kilos entail in physics. And I repeat, 2 extra kilos on the gun is nothing, a 4-kilo gun is nothing, I carried an 8kilo gun throughout my day, all day long, during the exercises, and I had no trouble, when I took the G3 instead which was rarely and which is 4kilos, it felt like nothing.

The levels of weight are so low that it is negligent.

It really depends on how much maintenance we're talking here. Cleaning the gun every magazine means it's useless, but cleaning it even every 500 rounds isn't so bad. You don't always need a gun you may never have to tend to, like the AK-47. It's always advisable to keep your weapon clean.

500 rounds in perfect conditions, on the field you have dust, gravel, mud and etcetera.

200m-500m is the realm of the designated marksman. They use pretty much the same weapon (with slight alterations), but have a scope and are usually better shots. Now, a marksman with an AK-47 will struggle at 300-500, but a dude with a M16A4 will not. Give them both an M14, however, and they will triumph.

That point is that 1-300 metres is the realm of the gunman up to 400 in special cases, and therefore the qualities of the m-16 for marksmen is rendered irrelevant since at least I said "as far as infantry assault rifles" are concerned.... Ofc the m-16 has a greater effective range and that goes without say or much debate, but this quality of it suits to the marksmen not the gunmen. The gunmen just need a weapon that will keep on shooting and tearing vests apart at a range of 300 metres and less.The Ak is more suitable for this job than the m16. The m16 is definitely better for marksmen. No argument there.

Just for info I was the designated marksman of the platoon in my motorized company in Samothraki, so am well aware of what marksmen use.

[War Angel]

Its not lethal at that range unless it hits on the face, not even a head with a helmet.

Oh, it's lethal.

That it can maintain its course up to there does not make it lethal.

It means exactly that. If it hits where you pointed it, it means it has enough velocity and energy, which means it will damage and kill (if you aimed properly).

This is getting ridiculous really, am well aware of what 2 extra kilos entail in physics. And I repeat, 2 extra kilos on the gun is nothing, a 4-kilo gun is nothing, I carried an 8kilo gun throughout my day, all day long, during the exercises, and I had no trouble, when I took the G3 instead which was rarely and which is 4kilos, it felt like nothing.

Oh, right. And how many hundreds of kilometers have you done like this? How many dies of constant fighting?

The levels of weight are so low that it is negligent.

Which is exactly what I've been telling you - it is not. Great efforts are made to make weapons lighter, as light as possible, and this effort costs a lot of money. It's also the case in racing cars, aircraft and bicycle.

Look at it this way - say the soldier weighs 80 kilos. The rifle weighs 4 kilos, which is 1\20th of the soldier's weight. If the soldier burns 1000 calories per certain distance, he will burn 5% more. He will have to carry more food, or have more food delivered to him, or he will have to march and fight less. Now, 5% for one soldier isn't much, but for an entire military? And this is assuming it's a linear relation - which is not the case. For every extra 1%, you might burn 2% more calories, for example, and for every kilo beyond 15% extra, you will burn 5% more calories.

It's a little bit extra, and then just a little bit more, and a little bit more... and suddenly, your gear is 15-20% heavier than what it could be. You're burning more calories than you ought to. You need more rest, more food, more rest to digest your food... it costs time, money and effort. It gets people dead, eventually.

500 rounds in perfect conditions, on the field you have dust, gravel, mud and etcetera.

There are no perfect conditions. Firing trials are carried out in many adverse conditions.

[noemon]

Clearly this discussion is not getting anywhere, nor is any of us two less stubborn than the other to let it go, so lets leave it at that.

This is my stance: AK for the gunmen of the infantry pwns the M-16. The M-16 is better for marksmen, special units that carry shitloads of stuff and operate on close ranges. Ive already stated the reasons so I am not repeating them.

2 things to clarify:

1) That it maintains its course for greater distances does not make the M-16 more powerful than the AK. It simply isnt, at 500 metres the M-16 will not penetrate your bodywith armour, nor will it manage that at 300. The AK will tear you apart at 300 metres.

2) The more I carried the HK which was my primary weapon at 8kilos the more I got used to it, after the first 20-30 km it felt like a feather and the 4kilo G3 was air.

The M-16 making it to 500 rounds in adverse conditions without maintenance is bollocks especially coming from someone who used the gun, am sure there were soldiers in your company whose M-16's jammed quite often in shooting exercises after very few rounds and while they were properly cleaned. The 500 rounds motto is something like motor companies telling you the motor makes it to 110hp and then you count it with a dynamo and makes it to 90.

[ingliz]

In Afghanistan, give me the old FN L1A1 and a unit fire support squad, no problem with lethality at range.

[762]

Specifics plz.

An extremely late response, but here goes.

- Minimally, from this video you'll notice a distinct 'wobble' in the bolt; there are better videos which illustrate this somewhere in this wonderful internet. This wobble is the result of a slightly off-center bolt design, which inhibits accuracy.

- In this video you can clearly see the barrel 'wobble' almost completely independant of the receiver, this greatly inhibits accuracy.

- Comparing this to the above videos, you may notice that the M16's bolt design greatly reduces 'knock back' suffered from the bolt forcefully impacting to the rear. Greater 'knockback' inhibits accuracy, and makes for more difficult handling, thence reducing the shooter's ability to make accurate shots.

The AK47 is flawed and clumsy; that's not to say it's useless, that's not to say I wouldn't prefer it in certain situations over an M16 platform - it's just the way Russians made things, and Kalashnikov new that.

[killim]

Recoil is only important if you shoot the american way

[Igor Antunov]

The AK47 is flawed and clumsy; that's not to say it's useless,

Your negatives are irrelevant at close range. The kalashnikov 47 was designed to be effective at a lesser range than the M16, coupled with more stopping power and greatly increased reliability it is the more effective firearm in close quarters infantry combat. There is no need for pin-point headshots, just a general pumping of hot lead into the opponents body suffices. And a head-happy crack-shot will compensate and achieve the same thing even with a less accurate firearm.

I don't know why we compare it with the M16 anyway, which came much later. It just shows how damn good it is.

[killim]

Nice analysis sadly only centered on domestic solutions:

http://www.scribd.com/full/27765477?acc ... di4f5zo2tb