Shane45

Jack, wasnt there an issue with radiation to the eye on these??? :shock:

Crazy says the guy with the 74 page zombie thread :roll:

I wasnt spilling the argument over into this thread, just presenting evidence to FFDP82 that it seems in this case they did have a choice. I did cross post it in the other thread at the same time. I think Glenn is mistaking me for the author. In retrospect I probably should have only posted it there. I still like the Galil :twisted:

Just for clarity, this was a cut and past article from an Israli Defence Force SF web page. I thought I prefaced that before the cut and past but in my sleep deprived state, I guess I didnt....

Well... in remembering the Galil it made me go look for a little refresher and I came across this that I posted in the VS article. Seems they indeed had a choice and cose the AR over AK, Galil and FAL....... A common debate in the small arms world is the M16 Vs. AK47 issue - which one is the better assault rifle. As probably the only western army in the world that have used both an AK47 variant (IMI Galil) and the M16 on a large scale, the IDF is often mentioned as a real life example. The pro M16 claim is that the IDF usage of the M16 is a clear evidence of the weapon's quality, while the pro AK47 claim that the only reason the IDF switched from IMI Galil to the M16 is since it received them for free from the U.S. The truth is that the M16 is by far the superior weapon. It's lighter, more accurate, more versatile, and with proper maintenance it is very reliable. Indeed, it might be less sand proof then the Galil/AK47 series. However, all you need is to clean it once a day and it will work properly. Since modern armies clean their small arms on a daily basis even during combat deployment this is a non-issue. In fact, most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War when the M16 was first issued. The 5.56 mm ammunition used at the time was based on a low quality sticky gunpowder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was replaced with a proper one, the misfire problems disappeared as well. One the other hand, the IMI Galil is heavy, inaccurate and it is difficult to attach optics and other accessories to it without special adapters. Many people also don't like the Galil/AK safety mechanism but that's a personnel preference issue. The M16 design, however, is very user friendly and allow numerous modifications to be made such as interchangeability between the different M16 families. The large number of M16 variants used by the IDF for decades of continuous combat deployment is a clear evidence of that. The reason for the IDF usage of the M16 over the Galil isn't the cost. It's the pure quality of the M16 over the Galil. Most of IDF troops dislike the Galil and will prefer a CAR15/M4 over it. Those who are using the cost factor are simply unfamiliar with the IDF assault rifles history. Short review - up until the mid 1970's the IDF standard issue assault rifle was the FN FAL. At that time most of the Israeli elite units were using the AK47, which was considered as better then the FAL. During the Israeli-Arab Yom Kippur War in 1973 the U.S. made a massive airlift to Israel containing large numbers of brand new M16A1 and CAR15. However, shortly after the war ended the IDF had adopted the IMI Galil as its new standard issue assault rifle so most of the M16 remained in storage. The Galil wasn't a big success to say the least. Most of the IDF elite units weren't impressed with the new weapon and remained with the AK47, which also was also useful for deniability in covert deep insertions. In the late 1970's, a few SF units tried out the CAR15 and were tremendously impressed. A decade later, by the late 1980's, almost all elite units were already armed with CAR15, which was gradually replacing the IMI Galil SAR and the AK47. Note that this was years before the IDF had officially adopted the M16 in the early 1990's. The IDF SF units that adopted the CAR15 didn't have any cost issue at mind. They could have used either the M16 or the Galil. It made no matter budget wise, since both weapons were already available in masses. The decision was purely quality based, and no one told the units which weapon to use. More clearly - in some IDF elite units the Galil was simply never used and they always preferred the CAR15 over it. Following the influence of the SF units, in the early 1990's the IDF had officially adopted the M16 family as its new standard issue assault rifle for all infantry oriented units, including both SF and conventional units. Today, the IMI Galil is mainly used by auxiliary and rear line units. Lets again review the situation in the early 1990's. The IDF had large sums of Galil variants it procured over the years, and it also had large sums of M16 it received in the 1973 war as well as via U.S. Army surpluses shipments over the years. Both weapons were available in masses and there wasn't any current or near future need to procure either weapon. The IDF also had thousands of AK47 that were captured over the years. So the IDF could use the AK47 free of charge over M16 or Galil. Eventually, the IDF chose the M16, so again cost wasn't really an issue. Further more, even if there was such a cost factor, then the IDF could have simply supply all rear line troops with the cheaper M16 and issue the more expensive Galil to the front line troops. The fact that the exact opposite was done speaks for itself. Moreover, some times the cost is less of an issue. The IDF often buy expensive Israeli weapons. For example, the Israeli Police bought the Jericho 941 handguns, while the IDF managed to get the better Sig Sauer 228/226. The Israeli M240 Sufa ("Storm" in Hebrew) jeep is yet another example. The fact that despite the domestic pressure the M16 was chosen over the Galil is yet another evident of its superiority. Let's review the situation today. The IDF no longer receives M16 for free. Instead, Israel receives from the U.S. few billion dollars per year of FMS. However, the catch is that most of this money must be spent in Dollars back in the U.S. The M4 series is indeed cheaper then the Galil or even the new Tavor series. In order to buy gear and weapons using the U.S. FMS the item must be at least 50% made in the U.S. This is why the IMI is currently looking for ways to manufacture the Tavor in the U.S. - so that the IDF could buy the Tavor using FMS. To summarize, the IDF chose the M16 over the AK47/Gail because the M16 is the better assault rifle in all parameters that matter. As for reliability, the M16 is reliable enough. As for cost it's a non issue. Modern small arms are relatively cheap. In fact, for modern armies who buy large sums, most optical sights cost much more then assault rifles per unit. http://www.isayeret.com/main/guide.htm

I am this close --> <-- to moving across the border!

tt thats funny because I was thinking the same thing, the word spree indicates a moment of frenzied buying. I dont think I ever work in spree mode. My buying and selling has been fairly consistant for many years and is usually well thought out and planned. The only exception was probably the Kriss. That was the one time I impuslively bought.

From http://www.isayeret.com/main/guide.htm A common debate in the small arms world is the M16 Vs. AK47 issue - which one is the better assault rifle. As probably the only western army in the world that have used both an AK47 variant (IMI Galil) and the M16 on a large scale, the IDF is often mentioned as a real life example. The pro M16 claim is that the IDF usage of the M16 is a clear evidence of the weapon's quality, while the pro AK47 claim that the only reason the IDF switched from IMI Galil to the M16 is since it received them for free from the U.S. The truth is that the M16 is by far the superior weapon. It's lighter, more accurate, more versatile, and with proper maintenance it is very reliable. Indeed, it might be less sand proof then the Galil/AK47 series. However, all you need is to clean it once a day and it will work properly. Since modern armies clean their small arms on a daily basis even during combat deployment this is a non-issue. In fact, most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War when the M16 was first issued. The 5.56 mm ammunition used at the time was based on a low quality sticky gunpowder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was replaced with a proper one, the misfire problems disappeared as well. One the other hand, the IMI Galil is heavy, inaccurate and it is difficult to attach optics and other accessories to it without special adapters. Many people also don't like the Galil/AK safety mechanism but that's a personnel preference issue. The M16 design, however, is very user friendly and allow numerous modifications to be made such as interchangeability between the different M16 families. The large number of M16 variants used by the IDF for decades of continuous combat deployment is a clear evidence of that. The reason for the IDF usage of the M16 over the Galil isn't the cost. It's the pure quality of the M16 over the Galil. Most of IDF troops dislike the Galil and will prefer a CAR15/M4 over it. Those who are using the cost factor are simply unfamiliar with the IDF assault rifles history. Short review - up until the mid 1970's the IDF standard issue assault rifle was the FN FAL. At that time most of the Israeli elite units were using the AK47, which was considered as better then the FAL. During the Israeli-Arab Yom Kippur War in 1973 the U.S. made a massive airlift to Israel containing large numbers of brand new M16A1 and CAR15. However, shortly after the war ended the IDF had adopted the IMI Galil as its new standard issue assault rifle so most of the M16 remained in storage. The Galil wasn't a big success to say the least. Most of the IDF elite units weren't impressed with the new weapon and remained with the AK47, which also was also useful for deniability in covert deep insertions. In the late 1970's, a few SF units tried out the CAR15 and were tremendously impressed. A decade later, by the late 1980's, almost all elite units were already armed with CAR15, which was gradually replacing the IMI Galil SAR and the AK47. Note that this was years before the IDF had officially adopted the M16 in the early 1990's. The IDF SF units that adopted the CAR15 didn't have any cost issue at mind. They could have used either the M16 or the Galil. It made no matter budget wise, since both weapons were already available in masses. The decision was purely quality based, and no one told the units which weapon to use. More clearly - in some IDF elite units the Galil was simply never used and they always preferred the CAR15 over it. Following the influence of the SF units, in the early 1990's the IDF had officially adopted the M16 family as its new standard issue assault rifle for all infantry oriented units, including both SF and conventional units. Today, the IMI Galil is mainly used by auxiliary and rear line units. Lets again review the situation in the early 1990's. The IDF had large sums of Galil variants it procured over the years, and it also had large sums of M16 it received in the 1973 war as well as via U.S. Army surpluses shipments over the years. Both weapons were available in masses and there wasn't any current or near future need to procure either weapon. The IDF also had thousands of AK47 that were captured over the years. So the IDF could use the AK47 free of charge over M16 or Galil. Eventually, the IDF chose the M16, so again cost wasn't really an issue. Further more, even if there was such a cost factor, then the IDF could have simply supply all rear line troops with the cheaper M16 and issue the more expensive Galil to the front line troops. The fact that the exact opposite was done speaks for itself. Moreover, some times the cost is less of an issue. The IDF often buy expensive Israeli weapons. For example, the Israeli Police bought the Jericho 941 handguns, while the IDF managed to get the better Sig Sauer 228/226. The Israeli M240 Sufa ("Storm" in Hebrew) jeep is yet another example. The fact that despite the domestic pressure the M16 was chosen over the Galil is yet another evident of its superiority. Let's review the situation today. The IDF no longer receives M16 for free. Instead, Israel receives from the U.S. few billion dollars per year of FMS. However, the catch is that most of this money must be spent in Dollars back in the U.S. The M4 series is indeed cheaper then the Galil or even the new Tavor series. In order to buy gear and weapons using the U.S. FMS the item must be at least 50% made in the U.S. This is why the IMI is currently looking for ways to manufacture the Tavor in the U.S. - so that the IDF could buy the Tavor using FMS. To summarize, the IDF chose the M16 over the AK47/Gail because the M16 is the better assault rifle in all parameters that matter. As for reliability, the M16 is reliable enough. As for cost it's a non issue. Modern small arms are relatively cheap. In fact, for modern armies who buy large sums, most optical sights cost much more then assault rifles per unit. http://www.isayeret.com/main/guide.htm

IMHO there is one AK I would own. I simply forgot all about it because...well... we cant have one I was always a fan of the Galil! However, its of keen interest to note that the Isreali's gave up the Galil(arguably the best AK ever made) for the M16/M4. I disagree with some of Radeks reliability assertions but Im not going to pontificate because Im sure everyone knows my stance and why at this point. I will say that I am NOT a fan of piston AR's. I do not own one/will likely never own one. I have had the unique oppurtunity to watch first hand a lot of R&D done for one of the largest and most well known piston AR makers.... no thanks. Let me just say that if you do a search for an interview with John Noveske on the topic, I think just about every point he makes about piston AR's is highly accurate. If I want a piston driven rifle, id buy a piston driven rifle that was designed as such, not a retrofit. I have 2. They are great! The statement from Radek I can truly get behind "Enjoy the sport, either way!"

What the measurment on your crimp?

Whats your OAL?

Without a sold column the answer is skewed but Id say north of 15k

Wojo, as much as it pains me to say this, if 7.62X39 is your fancy, An AK is a better choice. Its simply notoriously unreliable for feeding in the AR platform. As for 6.8 or X39, my answer is neither! :twisted:

Stick with it. Eventually that will reverse.

I have a close cousin, the STI. They are quality guns mostly in the vien of shooting competition.

Yes it is. Its a bit of a pain to pin and requires you to uglify a side with a hole through the compartment area to reach the track the lever runs in. Not sure if I like it yet. Feels good. Need to get some rounds down range to know for sure.

I ran a T&E A65 Eo for a 3 gun match just so I can say I at least gave it a try. Well, it didnt suck but.....I still dont like it. I just hate the globby grainy-ness of the ret. Co-wit sucked. I dont care for the construction... but I will say that for the price point they seem to be a good value. I prefer an Aimopint first, but I would take an Eo in a pinch and would prefer it to any other cheaper RDS.

Thanks for the kind words Jimmy As soon as the BBT comes in and drops off a mag, Ill be out there!

Here is one more contender for you. I just couldnt muster the extra coin but I likely would have chosen it over the specter if I did. Its the Swarovski ZX6i Brt. The eye relief on the Specter is good. The thing that takes you back a bit is the size of the glass. Its pretty big in diameter. Short Dots are great. Unfortunately the new 1x8 got sent back to the drawing board for some allignment issues from what I understand. ps. Like the new rifle, congrats!

Just for clarification it is unfair to compare brand vs brand really. Because its unfair to compare say a Mark4 Loopy to a bushnellXXX as it is unfair to compare a weaver grand slam or bushnell elite 4200 to a loopie vx1.......

I think Bob covered quite a bit and on the mark. The only thing I have to add is that in high end optics there tend to be features that are important to some that are just now only starting to show up in mid level priced optics(optics around the 600 to 1.5k mark) and that is a First Focal Plane and knobs matched to the reticle. They dont exist in cheap scope land. If you dont know what these features are, you probably dont need them but if you plan on jumping into the tactical rifle game, you need to learn what they are before you drop your coin. The other item is that I would say Loopy aint what they used to be. IMO they are coasting on their name and more and more of there parts have made in china on them and maybe even some complete scopes I was never a Loupy guy so I never followed them that closely buy I know a few died in the whool former distributers that have turned their backs. I went Nikon 9 years ago with the original Nikon Tactical Now if they would get their sh!t together and make a FFP Mil/Mil scope....

CH, you must keep in mind that civy ammo does not have the same fragmentation @ given velocity limitations that mil ammo has. So the trigger pullers experience in military ops likely will not translate into our world with all the ammo options we have. As to muzzle rise, all ergonomics that have an effect on the bore axis comes into play. So whatever does the best keeping it all in line is likely to do the best in relation to muzzle rise. Also having good ergonomics that keep you in proper position will help as well. For example someone that has a scope on a carry handle is going to get pulled out of postion with their chin weld. They will likley experience more muzzle rise.

The reason I asked because my own pursuits and discussion uncovered (at least for me) that a stock can have almost as much influence on muzzle rise as a compensator. Something I would have never suspected.

Forgive my ignorance but why hunt crows? Are they considered a pest animal?