Along with his extensive credentials, knowing a few that are friends with Mike Pannone, his credibility is secured in my mind....

 

http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/

 

He adds qualifying statements too. IF its run with stronger springs, weaker buffers, blah blah blah. Plus its just shooting. Wheres the sand blown into the rifle and dirt and such?

I guess if you want a reliable AK, the trick is to NOT buy one from Jet Agent (go ahead, give me all the -1's you want.)

 

Apparently welding on a muzzle brake and removing a bayonet lug will make a rifle fail. Thats beyond me

I carried a M16 in the field in the butthole of the earth and NEVER found it to be reliable(recently in Afghan and Iraq and other places not Vietnam). It is underpowered and requires high maintenance and is not suitable for the sandy rugged environments that they are employed. The 5.56 is a great round if you want to take out taliban midgets or rabid chipmunks but it lacks stopping power. The platform is not reliable enough. I am actually disturbed that the govt keeps this platform, as I have seen first hand the effects of what happens when it has its little issues that haven't been worked out in 40yrs, but the media reports that it has. I have had one fail on me at the worst possible situation and have seen others fail catastrophically in the same situation. Now before I hear that "oh my AR runs perfectly after thousands of rounds at CR under the covered range bays with the best ammo and lubricants possible," think about this. In real life, those arent even remotely reasonable environments. In Iraq you could always tell a new guy because his rifle was still black. Over time, no matter how much you scrub your rifle turns brown from the moon dust sand over there. Watch the news and you will notice. Also how about the lack of cleaning kits STILL at FOB's. This is a common occurrence this day and age believe it or not. So unless you have carried one in the field and had your life depend on it, your opinions are biased and you are seeing the world through a guilded cage. You are living in Hamptons high life and haven't been down to the ghetto at all. I believe that the M16 is the biggest POS known to man. The only soldiers that like it are the ones that never shot anything else before they enlisted. Been there done that and believe me many troops hate the rifle because of the lack of reliability and stopping power. I carried a 14 whenever possible and there is a reason they are pulling 14's out of the armories and issuing them now. There is a reason an AR WILL NEVER BE IN MY COLLECTION

 

Steps off soap box

 

I remember reading in the newspaper at work that we received a ton of that 'moon dust' from Iraq for testing a few years ago. They supposedly used that to ascertain the next set of improvements for the M-16 and M-4 platform. They also used them the stuff in the most recent carbine competitions between the XM8, 416, and SCAR... Even those had failures due to that dust.

 

As for the whole 'why don't they replace it?' question, the short answer is cost and politics. Colt and FN both have a strong lobby to keep work going to their factories and want their own weapons procured. The other issue the Army faces is: is the cost of changing the weapons platform worth it given the level of improvement?

 

This time around though, IF the Army ever decides to buy a rifle they want, they will want to own the TDP for it. But good luck getting the gun companies to turn that over to the Army... FN will never let them have the SCAR TDP, Remmy will never let them have the ACR TDP, etc...

 

As for the 5.56x45mm... the biggest problem is the use of the M855 over the M193... M855 just punches holes through people even though it was intended at shooting and killing armored Soviet troopers. Not clothed insurgents. Supposedly the M855A1 fixes this... but I doubt it. It's prolly easier to go back to the M193 than use that...

The USMC OTOH had it right to go and buy their Mk262 SOST and appear to do well with that.

We're stuck with the 5.56mm or 7.62mm whether we like it or not... and your average soldier ain't gonna be standard issued a 7.62mm as their everyday shooter.

 

All in all, I too would like to see the M-4 and M-16 family be replaced... but the headache of doing so is pretty much not worth it given the small number of failures found.

Apparently welding on a muzzle brake and removing a bayonet lug will make a rifle fail. Thats beyond me

 

Gun never worked, hence it losses the #1 rifle spot for me.

 

M1A Socom here I come!

Gun never worked, hence it losses the #1 rifle spot for me.

 

M1A Socom here I come!

 

Funny thing about those... apparently they don't chrome the barrels...

The other issue the Army faces is: is the cost of changing the weapons platform worth it given the level of improvement?

The answer to that question....hell yes it's worth the cost. These are people who are putting their lives on the line, to defend our country. I know that YOU are not specifically stating it's not worth it, but rather that it's the opinion of the Army.

Glenn, he is giving anylisis, not excuses. And Im sure during his time as an instructor at asymetric warefare he seen a sandy rifle or two

 

I will concede to you AK boys that the AK is more accurate than its given credit for. But I think you guys need to give a little credit to a modern tier 1 AR....

 

 

https://danieldefense.com/torturetest

Haha humorous thread so far!

 

Keep on going, cause I'm reading...

 

And for the record, I have used JetAgent numerous times for my gunsmithing needs with neutering and other things and haven't had any problems, he does great work. Not sure if that comment by Caine was sarcastic or not, but just saying.

Glenn, he is giving anylisis, not excuses. And Im sure during his time as an instructor at asymetric warefare he seen a sandy rifle or two

 

I will concede to you AK boys that the AK is more accurate than its given credit for. But I think you guys need to give a little credit to a modern tier 1 AR....

 

 

https://danieldefense.com/torturetest

 

 

ANY AR is probably more reliable than they were decades back.. but they still fail..

the point that someone made about your typical paper puncher not being a concerned party is accurate.. you will have all the time in the world to clean and lube between use..

 

but I am %100 certain my AK will go 10 times the amount of dirt steel cased ammo that any di AR with top shelf ammo will go in between service/cleaning..

and to MOST people that is moot..

but to me.. it matters.. there is something about a gun that just runs.. and runs.. and runs.. no matter what.. like I said.. I have a DPMS 308.. and yeah.. love it.. it IS an AR.. and I Love it for longer shots that 7.62x39 just can't make.. but it does not even approach the reliability that my AK series guns have shown...

But where is that point? That is the question. If you have any rifle that pukes at 500 rounds id agree but who is the guy carrying around 2000 rounds? If Im in some fight that I expend 1000 rounds Im looking for the camera crew and my costar!

But where is that point? That is the question. If you have any rifle that pukes at 500 rounds id agree but who is the guy carrying around 2000 rounds? If Im in some fight that I expend 1000 rounds Im looking for the camera crew and my costar!

 

 

I can be lackadaisical about maintenance in general.. OR not clean my gun at all.. I don't grab my gun and head to the range and wonder.. is today going to suck because I SHOULD have oiled the bolt carrier and cleaned the gun a little since last range trip..

 

again.. if you are pretty religious about cleaning your stuff it is a moot point.. I am not always that guy.. I have brought guns home.. thrown them in the safe.. taken them back out.. shot again.. back in the safe they go.. and with an AK.. that mindset works just fine..

But where is that point? That is the question. If you have any rifle that pukes at 500 rounds id agree but who is the guy carrying around 2000 rounds? If Im in some fight that I expend 1000 rounds Im looking for the camera crew and my costar!

 

Plenty of Germans with MG42s would be able to tell you about firing large amounts of ammo if they werent killed...

 

Heinrich Severloh with the German 352nd Infantry Division fired 12,500 rounds in 9 hours on omaha beach.

 

I know its not an assault rifle, but you cant just say "well thats just more rounds than I'll never need!"

 

What about fighting off japanese wave attacks on iwo-jima? You cant take your gun apart for fear of another assault, and at a few hundred rounds per assault....

The answer to that question....hell yes it's worth the cost. These are people who are putting their lives on the line, to defend our country. I know that YOU are not specifically stating it's not worth it, but rather that it's the opinion of the Army.

 

Not just the Army, but politicians and lobbyists from the manufacturers. The brass hates dealing with this crap because they know that it isn't going to be the best rifle that wins, but the one manufactured in all 50 states with fat kickbacks to all the lobbyists and politicians involved.

 

I know for one thing: The US Army will want the TDP for the weapon they do choose. Seeing as they don't even own the TDP for the M4/M16... well that's just gonna be a stretch...

Not just the Army, but politicians and lobbyists from the manufacturers.

Why, oh why, can't we live in a just world where the BEST gun that is affordable is chosen :thsmiley_deadhorse:

Why, oh why, can't we live in a just world where the BEST gun that is affordable is chosen :thsmiley_deadhorse:

 

Define 'best' and 'affordable'... Because when you do the analyses on the matter you usually end up back at square one: The M-4 / M-16 platform...

Plenty of Germans with MG42s would be able to tell you about firing large amounts of ammo if they werent killed...

 

Heinrich Severloh with the German 352nd Infantry Division fired 12,500 rounds in 9 hours on omaha beach.

 

I know its not an assault rifle, but you cant just say "well thats just more rounds than I'll never need!"

 

What about fighting off japanese wave attacks on iwo-jima? You cant take your gun apart for fear of another assault, and at a few hundred rounds per assault....

 

But they did, because even Thompsons and M1 Garands had issues with the salt, sand, and mucky environs of the island hopping campaign.

 

Machine guns are a totally different breed of gun, the Mg42 was designed to have a quick change barrel and fired from an open bolt as well.

because even Thompsons and M1 Garands had issues with the salt, sand, and mucky environs

Sooooo it sounds like our Armed Forces should just start switching to the AK platform. Wouldn't even be that hard. Kill a terrorist? Take their weapon. Kill another one, and already have an AK? Hand it to the person next to you.

Comparing crew served weapons with quick change barrel systems to ar's and ak's is silly. I guess you have never seen a barrel droop on an M60 that has maintained a firing schedule to high... Im the king of relaxed schedules. Ask anyone that bought a rifle from me . Yet every time I take an AR out to the range alas it works. Im not into abusing weapons to prove anything other than to myself, but I know a few that do. One guy I know has around 2700 rounds through his tier 1 ar with no cleaning and no lube. No malfs to date. Its a 308. I know a ton of 5.56 owners that have done the same. They all seem to easily exceed 2000 rounds on a HARD firing schedule. That is enough for me. A) because I cant carry 2000 rounds easily. B) because I dont have a supply corps to bring me 2000 rounds. C) If I need 2000 rounds just how many zombies are there???? Pat Rogers and I had a conversation about AR reliability and firing schedules. What he had to say was basically any AR seems to be able to hold it together for intermittant range sessions. Its the high round count/hard schedules that cause rifles to fail in his classes, and not just AR's. So the casual rode not so hard and put away dirty hasnt made a single AR of mine fail and that has been many.

People still have their argument like they are talking about their mom's virtue or something.

 

Will the ak barely shoot COM at 100 yards? No, but there have been so many made with so little care that I suspect they are out there. Get one made with some care, and feed it mil-spec ammo, and you are talking about an approximate 4moa-6moa platform. Get one that has been made to be better than mil-spec, and feed it better than mil-spec ammo, and I suspect you will do better than that. From what I have seen 2moa out to 150 or so and about 4moa out to 300+ are reasonable expectations there. I suspect the projectile deisgn is what lets you down there.

 

Is the M-16 a super accurate weapon? Not really. It CAN be, but as a weapons platform you are looking at something slightly under 4moa with a mil-spec rifle and mil-spec ammo. You might get better, but odds are not much worse.

 

Is the AR sensitive to dirt? Overall, more than the AK, but not that much really. Google for filthy 14. mid 30k rounds without being cleaned. I'd argue that is exceptional to a degree, but I've known several frankengun ars that have shot multiple cases of wolf without being cleaned. Hell, I had one upper I built go through 2500 rounds of wolf, 500 rounds of xm193, and about 500 orunds of random other cheap ammo without being cleaned, put away wet, dragged out, and the only time it failed to function was in weather with windchill around -15F. It failed to function because some of my ammo had powder temp senesitive enough to slow down and not be able to operate the gas system. It was nice russian ammo. Xm193 still worked it.

 

Is the AK impervious to dirt? More than the AR, but not nearly as much as you would think. Notice that even with this forums small, mostly AR-centric population, you cna find examples of failure.

 

Basically, you have three kinds of foreign object to fould a gun

 

1) fine grained particle. This is probably the AR's biggest problem because it can build up in the lubricant and bind the carrier. Your options for dealing with it are to dump a bunch of lube on your BCG through the ejection port and see if it works, or to disassemble and clean. At the end of this, you have a working gun. For the AK, the issues with this is op-rod binding. It takes some really fine particles, and some bad luck, but when it happens, you basically need a new gun. this issue applies to pretty much all op rod guns (some of the open ot the air piston systems might not have the issue looking at the design, but I couldn't say for sure). This killed garands in WWI too.

 

2) big chunky particles. Like rocks. For the AR, pretty much you only have to worry about the bad luck incident of loose debris flying into the ejection port during normal operation, or somehow getting in the magwell during remedial measures for a malfunction. The AK has the same risks, PLUS the damn safety lever that leaves a giant hole in the gun. If you are going to bury your AK alive, make sure the safety lever is covering the receiver gap.

 

3) mud or other wet slurries of fine particles. Both platforms are at risk, and both have better than even odds of shrugging mud off from what I have seen.

Plenty of Germans with MG42s would be able to tell you about firing large amounts of ammo if they werent killed...

 

Heinrich Severloh with the German 352nd Infantry Division fired 12,500 rounds in 9 hours on omaha beach.

 

I know its not an assault rifle, but you cant just say "well thats just more rounds than I'll never need!"

 

What about fighting off japanese wave attacks on iwo-jima? You cant take your gun apart for fear of another assault, and at a few hundred rounds per assault....

 

so youre actually trying to compare a belt fed MG42 with quick change barrels to an assault rifle platform?? nice.........

So living in NJ what AK47 can I own?

 

I'm sure this has been answered before, but I am too lazy to search and I thought it would be a good place to ask.

 

 

 

If only they built a rifle with the accuracy and ergonomics of an AR-15... that wouldn't cough up and die when a little dirt gets into the works. Not a huge concern for us in NJ, but overseas in other terrain outside of the NE...

You mean like the KAC SR16 or the SCAR?

A rubber band gun is better than the vietnam M16s.

 

Having used a M16 in Vietnam (1968-69)I would strongly disagree with that statement.

 

seeing as how the soviets looked at the german stg 44 for their concept idea of the AK and it wasnt this amazing gift idea from god yes

my point

 

The Soviets didn't copy the sturmgewehr. It was grown out of their tactics which called for large amounts of artillery and a lot of lead thrown thown at the enemy at short range which was done with the ppsh. The SKS was the first gun designed for the cartridge which is more than a M1 carbine but less than a Garand or a 7.62x54r.

 

"The germans kicked both the americans and soviets asses and had an assault rifle fielded in 1943, and the americans still didnt wake up and smell the roses untill they got shot at in vietnam by AK47s"

 

The Germans had the best technology in WWII however they did not "kick our asses". Remember we won the war. German tanks were far superior to anything fielded by the allies but once we developed tactics exploiting their weaknesses a Tiger tank had no chance against the dozen Shermans we threw at it.

 

AR has range and accuracy

AK has reliability and power

I'd basically agree but since 1968 I took care of my M16/AR and found it totally reliable. Perhaps if the military used Dri Slide as I did in Vietnam a lot of these m16 unreliability stories would be gone. When used at normal combat ranges (<200 meters) never saw a enemy soldier who ignored a torso hit. If we want to pick stories to prove a point COL Roger Donlon (1st Vietnam MOH winner) was shot through the gut by most likely a 7.62x39 round, stuffed the entry and exit wound with a piece of T Shirt and kept fighting. I wouldn't describe the power of the 5.56 as "incredible" but it always seemed to work when I witnessed it used. As far as long range goes, the fact is most soldiers can't hit a target over 200 meters if they had an M16, AK, M14, or an M40 for that matter.

 

If we had the AK in vietnam (which I realise wasnt an option due to political climates) there would be alot more vietnam vets around...

 

Yes there were problems with the M16 when first fielded but your atatement is misleading. One American soldier or Marine dead because of equipment failure is too many but to say "a lot more" is false.

 

And the AK47s out there being scooped up by our troops that are beat to hell with 1950's receivers arent fired alot or beaten?

 

Please show me where this happened. I have never seen American troops "scoop up" AKs because they were better. Never saw it in Vietnam. I know of guys in transportation units in Iraq and Afghanistan "acquire" one or more as they were used for a NY reload in case of ambush.

 

Fact of the matter is ARs are more reliable than most people give them credit for, and AKs are more accurate than most people give them credit for. AKs fail, and having an AR doesn't make you an instant sharpshooter.

 

Best single statement in this thread.

 

I carried a M16 in the field in the butthole of the earth and NEVER found it to be reliable(recently in Afghan and Iraq and other places not Vietnam). It is underpowered and requires high maintenance..... I carried a 14 whenever possible and there is a reason they are pulling 14's out of the armories and issuing them now. There is a reason an AR WILL NEVER BE IN MY COLLECTION

 

usnmars I respect your opinion but my experience has differed. A day on the road during the dry season in Vietnam would put an enormous amount of crud on and in a rifle. The same goes for the American Southwest where I carried a M16 almost daily. Never had any serious issues.

 

Everyone needs to realize that the AK is just an example of Russian design technology which goes by "perfection is the enemy of good enough". This is evident in all their military technology and even in consumer goods. When the Lada (Fiat 124 copy) car was first sold there were complaints of the cheap Russian steel rusting through quickly. The answer? Not galvanizing or other rustproofing measures they just made the steel thicker so it took longer to rust through.

A rubber band gun is better than the vietnam M16s.

 

Having used a M16 in Vietnam (1968-69)I would strongly disagree with that statement.

 

seeing as how the soviets looked at the german stg 44 for their concept idea of the AK and it wasnt this amazing gift idea from god yes

my point

 

The Soviets didn't copy the sturmgewehr. It was grown out of their tactics which called for large amounts of artillery and a lot of lead thrown thown at the enemy at short range which was done with the ppsh. The SKS was the first gun designed for the cartridge which is more than a M1 carbine but less than a Garand or a 7.62x54r.

 

"The germans kicked both the americans and soviets asses and had an assault rifle fielded in 1943, and the americans still didnt wake up and smell the roses untill they got shot at in vietnam by AK47s"

 

The Germans had the best technology in WWII however they did not "kick our asses". Remember we won the war. German tanks were far superior to anything fielded by the allies but once we developed tactics exploiting their weaknesses a Tiger tank had no chance against the dozen Shermans we threw at it.

 

AR has range and accuracy

AK has reliability and power

I'd basically agree but since 1968 I took care of my M16/AR and found it totally reliable. Perhaps if the military used Dri Slide as I did in Vietnam a lot of these m16 unreliability stories would be gone. When used at normal combat ranges (<200 meters) never saw a enemy soldier who ignored a torso hit. If we want to pick stories to prove a point COL Roger Donlon (1st Vietnam MOH winner) was shot through the gut by most likely a 7.62x39 round, stuffed the entry and exit wound with a piece of T Shirt and kept fighting. I wouldn't describe the power of the 5.56 as "incredible" but it always seemed to work when I witnessed it used. As far as long range goes, the fact is most soldiers can't hit a target over 200 meters if they had an M16, AK, M14, or an M40 for that matter.

 

If we had the AK in vietnam (which I realise wasnt an option due to political climates) there would be alot more vietnam vets around...

 

Yes there were problems with the M16 when first fielded but your atatement is misleading. One American soldier or Marine dead because of equipment failure is too many but to say "a lot more" is false.

 

And the AK47s out there being scooped up by our troops that are beat to hell with 1950's receivers arent fired alot or beaten?

 

Please show me where this happened. I have never seen American troops "scoop up" AKs because they were better. Never saw it in Vietnam. I know of guys in transportation units in Iraq and Afghanistan "acquire" one or more as they were used for a NY reload in case of ambush.

 

Fact of the matter is ARs are more reliable than most people give them credit for, and AKs are more accurate than most people give them credit for. AKs fail, and having an AR doesn't make you an instant sharpshooter.

 

Best single statement in this thread.

 

I carried a M16 in the field in the butthole of the earth and NEVER found it to be reliable(recently in Afghan and Iraq and other places not Vietnam). It is underpowered and requires high maintenance..... I carried a 14 whenever possible and there is a reason they are pulling 14's out of the armories and issuing them now. There is a reason an AR WILL NEVER BE IN MY COLLECTION

 

usnmars I respect your opinion but my experience has differed. A day on the road during the dry season in Vietnam would put an enormous amount of crud on and in a rifle. The same goes for the American Southwest where I carried a M16 almost daily. Never had any serious issues.

 

Everyone needs to realize that the AK is just an example of Russian design technology which goes by "perfection is the enemy of good enough". This is evident in all their military technology and even in consumer goods. When the Lada (Fiat 124 copy) car was first sold there were complaints of the cheap Russian steel rusting through quickly. The answer? Not galvanizing or other rustproofing measures they just made the steel thicker so it took longer to rust through.

 

I highlighted a few select portions of this quote from both usnmars and GRIZ... while I agree that the M16/M4/AR15 platform can be reliable in the right hands and supported with proper cleaning kits, proper education on what parts to clean, and proper intervals of maintenance on both the rifle and magazines themselves, it appears to me that the DoD does not do the greatest job in supporting this weapons system in providing any of those things.

 

Frankly, the Russians may have realized that about their own military bureaucracy, and that's why they focused on creating their system to be as robust as possible. To survive the hardships of both battle and of their own gov't.

 

Does the M-16 platform need to be replaced? I'd say yes. Not through any singly fault of it's own... but simply because better designs and technology exist in other systems... like the SCAR, like the ACR, like LWRC, etc. Even Eugene Stoner himself believed the system could be better and moved on to develop things like the AR-16 (then AR-18), and the Stoner 63.

 

Hopefully Individual Carbine finds some promising designs and maybe, for the first time in 50 years, we can issue our troops something that is more robust, but still as modular/accurate/ergonomic as our existing system.

Devils Advocate, I think you are still subscribing to the banter that the AR needs some super support to remain reliable. It just isnt so. The anectdotal evidence is overwhelmingly in the opposite direction from many many many AAR's. There are a few reasons the SCAR16 purchasing by SOCOM stopped. The biggest is dwindling budget and the fact that a multi caliber SCAR reciever exists that can be outfitted 5.56 or 7.62. So SOCOM focused on the immediate need of the 308 platform and it is my bet that the Multi Cal SCAR reciever will be a strong contendor in future purchases. BUT the SCAR didnt garner widespread adoption. Why is that? Its my belief that the SCAR IS a superior rifle in MANY ways. But is it superior enough to deal with the minor differences in the manual of arms? I think in the eyes of those using these systems, the advantage isnt worth it BECAUSE there is no real problem with the M4. It seems to me that if SOCOM operators were having such issues the errornet would have you believe, they would have screamed for the SCAR. They didnt. And as for lethality, since 262 and 318 have come on line even the caliber complaints have largely died down because of the effectiveness of the better performing ammo.

 

Another minor point. The Russian military dropped the AK a LOOOOONG time ago. I think many dont even realise that fact. However since there are so many AK's in inventory only their operators get the AN94 which despite its looks is NOT an AK at all. That rifle has an action that makes an AR look child simple by comparison.

Being an owner of an AK, I didn't choose the platform because it's better or cooler. I choose for 2 reasons, ammo cost and stopping power. In an ideal situation, I'd have both. This way I can familiarize myself with both platforms and be comfortable with whatever is in my hands when the hoards of zombies are at my front porch and I have to take them out.

 

Shane and Griz make great points though, hard to deny the facts.

AN-94 is sexy. 2 rounds fired with the recoil of one at 1800rpm, then optionally switch to 600rpm full auto looks and sounds amazing. Wish we could have them here.