[Backis]

...other copies of AK are the VZ.58. which i believe is middle eastern made...

Wrong. The Vz.58 is of Chzeck origin. It uses the same magazine, but mechanically it is more related to the Bren light machinegun.

I'd actually take a Vz.58 over a Kalashnikov, both Indian and Afghani accounts it to being even more rugged, and more accurate as well.

If we only knew CS weapons we wouldn't have a clue what we were talking about. The weapons on cs are so incorrect to the real weapons

And how do you have a clue about how INACCURATE the game is if you've never played it?

No shame in having played CS.

Me, I stopped a few years ago because of all the cheating... and jumping... and that you can take a 7.62x51 in the chest and go on... and more...

Also, I never forgot the AK-74. or the SMG AK-74 SU. i take it ak-74 is like the M4 version of M16's.

Its an AKM remodeled for a new calibre, the 5.45x39mmS. Many of the design flaws of the AKM are still there, to short sight base and ak-klack for instance.

They did get rid of the to-long magazine, and the new ones are not as heavy (the old magazines were stamped in thick plate and weghed a lot, increasing the problem with ammunition weight).

Even the AK-74 is slated for replacement though, mainly perhaps the factory it is made in doesnt lie in Russia (cant remember if its in the Ukraine or Belarus), but that will take its time. Russia aint got the cash no more.

What military weaponshas anyone used anyway? i don't mean 12g Shotgun i mean MP5's FAMAS you know.

I'm qualified on (leaving out LAW and RCL);

Revolver m/58 (S&W M10 M&P)
Pistol 88 (Glock 17)
Kpist m/45A & B (indigenous SMG, often called "Swedish K" abroad)
AK5 (modified FN FNC)


And I have familiarity training on;

M16A2
AKM
Ksp 90 (FN Minimi)
Ksp 58B (FN MAG58)
MG3
Ksp m/36 (modified M1917 watercooled machinegun )
Ksp m/42 (aircooled lightweight M1917, analogous to the M1919, but not the same).
You?

[Backis]

Yes and no, the issue with M-16's (The AR-15 is the design type, its also the civilian version, if someone says AR-15 they mean an M-16 that is only semi-auto) ... jamming for no apparent reason was taken care of ... but that doesnt mean the overall reliability is good. Sand will jam the fucker faster then a two doller whore will ... er ... you get the picture.

I dont remember if this have been said here before, but the really big problem for the first M16's was that they were issued faulty smokey ammunition. The poor quality propellant clogged up the mechanism with unburnt residue.

Marines, who clean their weapons religiously never faced the same problems the Army did.

The damn things need to be cleaned all the time if you want it to remain in working order and if something goes awry that thing aint gonna be fixed on the spot ...

Overall though the AR-15's are fine rifles for a well supplied fast moving highly trained military that utilized suppressive fire with heavy air and artillery support.

Its an accurate weapon, though the Diemaco C7 clone of the M16A2 is even more so.

Damn Canadians!

The M16A2 was supposed to get the new "heavy barrel" that gives the Diemaco better accuracy, but it was decided to keep the old lightweight barrel since all the M203 GL's wouldnt fit on the weapon any more...

I dont know if the M16A3 package still uses the lightweight barrel though.

[The One.]

Well, you see the AK-47 is so basic that it does not have any techinical problems i'm not saying its perfect because it has been around for more than 50 years. If rifles are to technical they have problems. Thats why the British L96 sniper rifle is so simple to maintain and clean, inb fact the sniper only needs a screwdriver and three allen keys to strip and clean the rifle. The next standard US weapon the OICW, while the explosive rounds and grenade launcher are good it has too many electrical optins to rely on.

I guess its a matter of choice then.
I personally prefer cleaning my weapon 10 minutes a day and have a better overall rifle and most people ive spoken to that served in the Canadian armed forces agrees with me.

I don't think electronics options are a bad additions to the US infantryman's arsenal as long as electronic devices are well protected from the elements(water,sand, mud all that). I read a couple of articles about the OICW and found it very promising.

and if all that electronic equipment would fail,you would still have iron sights.

[Rowan.]

First of all when did i say i have never played CS? i don't play it anymore because it 5 years old and it's boring as hell. anyway, How does the M16A2 handle, are the gunshot loud or suppressed? also MP-10 is that a good weapons to fire how accurate is it?

Also, i thought the VZ.58 was middle eastern becuase you yourself wrote that indian and afgahn forces prefer it. thats all. Comming from Australia i havn't met anyone who has shot anything more than a shotgun or a 303 calibre rifle so i'm just interested in how modern military weapons handle. Unlike in movies where UZI's have no recoil at all.

thanks

[Backis]

I guess its a matter of choice then.
I personally prefer cleaning my weapon 10 minutes a day and have a better overall rifle and most people ive spoken to that served in the Canadian armed forces agrees with me.

I agree, depending a little on my primary mission. If you are a specialist responsible for keepeing something else clean (like a squad weapon or , as in my case, a four-legged friend), its nice to be able to concentrate on that though.

I don't think electronics options are a bad additions to the US infantryman's arsenal as long as electronic devices are well protected from the elements(water,sand, mud all that). I read a couple of articles about the OICW and found it very promising.

and if all that electronic equipment would fail,you would still have iron sights.

The problem with the OICW is the weight. At 6.8 kilos loaded that is almost two M16A2's...

Your arms will get damn tired very fast, and when your arms start shaking a nifty sight wont help.

The OICW is coming, but they got to shave of at least two kilos more, and then it will still be a heavy puppy.

[Backis]

First of all when did i say i have never played CS? i don't play it anymore because it 5 years old and it's boring as hell. anyway,

Sorry mate, a little "friendly fire" there due to mistidentification. Red Flag said that.

How does the M16A2 handle, are the gunshot loud or suppressed? also MP-10 is that a good weapons to fire how accurate is it?
...snip...
Coming from Australia i havn't met anyone who has shot anything more than a shotgun or a 303 calibre rifle so i'm just interested in how modern military weapons handle. Unlike in movies where UZI's have no recoil at all.

thanks

The M16A2 I handled was as any 5.56mmN rifle. Its recoils more like a gentle push than a kick. As for noise, that depends on wich end of the rifle you are. Especially behind but also to the sides of the rifle the long barrel and flash hider break up the report quite a bit, but its not a silenced weapon or anywhere near that, its just not extremely unpleasant to shoot.

I shot pretty badly with it, as did my entire squad, so either our shooting stance is ill suited to it, or we had got one with a bad barrel (we had only one M16A2 and took turns on it).

Of course, we didnt get to sight it in personally, and had to use our Lt's settings, that may well be one factor too.

I've not fired the "MP10"(wich is a H&K SMG). I'm speaking of is the Smith & Wesson M10 Military & Police service revolver (called the "Revolver modell 58"), and only issued to airforce pilots and doghandlers. It was phased out during my service time and replaced with the P88 (Glock 17), Wich I only got to qualify on, but never carry in service.

I should perhads move the P88 into the "familiarization only" section...

As for SMG's, my experience is that they more "shake" than recoil when fired... but I've only fired an old heavy one.

[Pocketfullofshells]

Just thought I would bring this up, the US Miltary may be dumping the M-16 soon, and going to M-4's due to problems in the Dust (and thats where we always seem to be fighting these days) But what about the M-14? I don't know why, its just always been my fav.

[Backis]

Just thought I would bring this up, the US Miltary may be dumping the M-16 soon, and going to M-4's due to problems in the Dust (and thats where we always seem to be fighting these days) But what about the M-14? I don't know why, its just always been my fav.

The latest criticisms against the M16A2 is that it is to long and cumbersome for its mission (its difficult to use from inside a vehicle like the hummer).

The M14, while an excellent rifle (reliable and accurate, it even handles arctic conditions ), is both longer and heavier than the M16A2, and would actually WORSEN this situation.

The most known "alternative" spoken of is the OICW, but this is more like a specialists weapon, the lightest prototype so far weighing a whopping 6.8kg loaded, as much as the M249 SAW (albeit in that case an unloaded SAW).

The other "main" alternative developed to replace the M16A2 is the XM8 (essentially a G36 btw), the "KE" part of the OICW system, although fitted with more appropriate furniture to be used on its own. This system is interesting since it incorporates a modular concept into the extremely reliable G36 mechanism (ie you can switch barrels to adapt to different conditions, for instance a shorter one if you expect only short-range engagements). There is even talk of it being capable of switching calibers easily (between 5.56mmN and 7.62mmN to begin with, and maybe the new 6.8mm round being investigated).


Picture of a mockup of the XM8


Links
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm

[Pocketfullofshells]

yea, I was going to say they are to long as well, but it was 3am and I needed to sleep. But yea, the M-14 is longer, but I think in most use today its is used for as a sniper rifle of sorts, not so much the normal weapon of choice. I read reports on if on how people got pissed they had to use the M-16 in Nam when the m-14 worked better for them.

[Backis]

yea, I was going to say they are to long as well, but it was 3am and I needed to sleep. But yea, the M-14 is longer, but I think in most use today its is used for as a sniper rifle of sorts, not so much the normal weapon of choice. I read reports on if on how people got pissed they had to use the M-16 in Nam when the m-14 worked better for them.

Most Grunts object to having their toys replaced.

And I would agree that starting to issue a new untried weapon in the middle of combat operations may well be unwise. Many problems did arise when soldiers thought their M16's didnt need more/different cleaning than their older M14 rifles.

Still, the M14 was always considered a heavy rifle at 5.1kg unloaded compared to an otherwise similarily performing competitor, the FN FAL at 4.45kg. The M14's win in the selection can probably be much attributed to the "not built here" paradigm.

The M14 is issued as a selected marksmans weapon in some units in Iraq, and there are some ideas about to start issuing one marksmans rifle per squad in all infantry formations (wether this will be the M14, the M1A Scout or something else like the MSG90 is undecided as of now).