-
There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
'What Kind Of Gun Is This?
- Thread starter Panther_99FS
- Start date
norab
Charter Member
Well, The Military Channel Top Ten Combat Rifles Of All Time placed the AK at number one, so I guess that settles it!The most modern combat rifle I own is an M-1 Garand. Firing that weapon is a moving experience.
Those Military channel top ten programs are so full of it. The SKS is a nice little rig. Mine shot
really well even with steel case chinese ammo captured in Viet Nam used to have tons of fun at my gun club with my" ugly rifle" and "trash ammo" wiping the smiles off of their faces
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
At the risk of stealing the thread, (my apologies to Panther and his women), but in the comparison business, you have to pay attention to the factors that are being used when comparing various weapons systems. Like aircraft, everything with a combat rifle (old term) is a trade off. The AK-47 is clearly one of the best combat rifles in the world, one of the best ever made. However, whether it's the "number one" depends on what you hold near and dear. I think the Military Channel made a good case (I don't personally agree with it, but it's a good argument).
The Soviet Union needed a robust, cheap, easily maintainable weapon that could be easily produced from stamped parts and was easy to use. The AK is the answer to those criteria. It is all of those factors. It is not particularly accurate beyond 200 yards however adapts well to standard Soviet Infantry tactics which do not emphasize fixing an enemy at longer range and maneuvering against him. The same criteria that produced a great combat rifle for Soviet Infantry also produced the "revolutionary" weapon for export. So ubiquitous that it's silhouette is part of numerous country flags.
U.S. and NATO Infantry tactics are different, and so our solutions of rifle were different. We maneuver on a target and want to engage at longer ranges. We also emphasize marksmanship over "point and spray". If you have been trained in these tactics and have been trained to hit the broad side of a barn, the AK is not your answer. I personally would rather carry an M-16A2 than an AK-47 in combat (as I did for years). I would rather carry an M1 Garand than an AK-47 if I knew I was going to be fighting in open terrain. (Longer ranges do not lend themselves to automatic fire. If you need automatic fire out to 500 yards, you're going to be using a different weapons system.) I do not have much experience with the M-14 other than basic familiarization. I did have to carry one for several days and found it to be quite a load.
If I was in an urban enviornment, such as U.S. and NATO troops have recently found themselves in, then I want a carbine, sacrificing range and accuracy for rate of fire and size. Again, I find myself preferring the M-16 hybrids or one of the numerous European combat rifle designs. Key point here being the weight of the ammunition. If I'm going to be using more, then I want to carry more. Soviet rounds are HEAVY.
PRB, I also own a Garand, and love to fire it. It's accurate, powerful, and will stop anything on the American Continent with one shot (man or beast). It is a Combat Rifle. I also own an M1 Carbine, which my daughter and I both shoot (the Garand has literally knocked her off her feet). The Carbine, being a supplement to the .45 Cal M1911A1, is not a combat rifle, nor is it an assault rifle, but close in it can definitely do some damage. It is also a joy to shoot. I would prefer an AK-47 over this rifle though if I were in a fight.
Incidentally, the Carbine came under the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban, where as the Garand did not....that's one of the reasons I shy away from the "Assault Weapon" terminology....it's too widely used.
The Soviet Union needed a robust, cheap, easily maintainable weapon that could be easily produced from stamped parts and was easy to use. The AK is the answer to those criteria. It is all of those factors. It is not particularly accurate beyond 200 yards however adapts well to standard Soviet Infantry tactics which do not emphasize fixing an enemy at longer range and maneuvering against him. The same criteria that produced a great combat rifle for Soviet Infantry also produced the "revolutionary" weapon for export. So ubiquitous that it's silhouette is part of numerous country flags.
U.S. and NATO Infantry tactics are different, and so our solutions of rifle were different. We maneuver on a target and want to engage at longer ranges. We also emphasize marksmanship over "point and spray". If you have been trained in these tactics and have been trained to hit the broad side of a barn, the AK is not your answer. I personally would rather carry an M-16A2 than an AK-47 in combat (as I did for years). I would rather carry an M1 Garand than an AK-47 if I knew I was going to be fighting in open terrain. (Longer ranges do not lend themselves to automatic fire. If you need automatic fire out to 500 yards, you're going to be using a different weapons system.) I do not have much experience with the M-14 other than basic familiarization. I did have to carry one for several days and found it to be quite a load.
If I was in an urban enviornment, such as U.S. and NATO troops have recently found themselves in, then I want a carbine, sacrificing range and accuracy for rate of fire and size. Again, I find myself preferring the M-16 hybrids or one of the numerous European combat rifle designs. Key point here being the weight of the ammunition. If I'm going to be using more, then I want to carry more. Soviet rounds are HEAVY.
PRB, I also own a Garand, and love to fire it. It's accurate, powerful, and will stop anything on the American Continent with one shot (man or beast). It is a Combat Rifle. I also own an M1 Carbine, which my daughter and I both shoot (the Garand has literally knocked her off her feet). The Carbine, being a supplement to the .45 Cal M1911A1, is not a combat rifle, nor is it an assault rifle, but close in it can definitely do some damage. It is also a joy to shoot. I would prefer an AK-47 over this rifle though if I were in a fight.
Incidentally, the Carbine came under the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban, where as the Garand did not....that's one of the reasons I shy away from the "Assault Weapon" terminology....it's too widely used.
Bjoern
worst developer ever
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
No, you're right, they are not, But I was speaking of the 7.62 39 mm ammunition, which is the standard round. M-14 fired the 30.08/7.72 NATO Standard, which is just as heavy.
Here, I toss a bone to the AK-47 crowd.....
View attachment 11993
Perhaps not as interesting as Panther's opening photo's....but work with me.....
Bjoern
worst developer ever
I was just about to ask if the M-16 didn't have the 7.62mm NATO rounds, but apparently the M-16 was 5.56mm from the start.
The reason: The Bundeswehr used to have the G3 which fired 7.62mm rounds up until 2000. The switch to the G36 wasn't completely popular, as many missed the punch of the old rounds.
But personally, I prefer light weight over anything else. That's why I'm not necessarily a fan of the AK.
Then you would have hated the G-1 (FAL), which IMHO was one of the finest battle rifles ever designed.
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
I too like the FAL and am considering purchasing an earlier model.
Bjoern, The debate between heavier rounds and faster rounds resulted in the 5.56 versus the NATO standard 7.62. The argument was which was better, a heavier (theoretically) more powerful round (more punch), or a faster round which delivered greater kinetic energy (more punch). This is a Sunni vs. Shia, Catholic vs. Protestant, Mustard vs. Ketchup argument and it goes on to this day. The M-16 was caught up in this argument as it was always 5.56, which was key to the design and concept of the rifle.
The U.S. Army decided long ago that kinetic energy was preferable in that it also allowed the individual soldier to carry more ammunition, and had the added benefit of making the rifle itself lighter. The idea is that a smaller projectile, traveling faster, delivers more kinetic energy, and therefore as much stopping power as a larger round. What it lacks in mass, it makes up in kintetic energy. This is simple physics and is mathematically true, but I've never witnessed anyone being hit with a 5.56, so cannot personnaly attest to it. My father, who had 2 tours in Viet Nam as an infantryman, was sold on the concept and reported on the lethality of the round at both close and long ranges. He was a thorough "M-16 Man" (as they came to be called) who thoroughly preferred that rifle to both the M-14 and the AK-47 (He used both). I would hasten to add that both his tours of duty were in the central highlands of that country which is mountainous and where combat was typically at longer ranges. I am perhaps somewhat biased in my regard for that round and those rifles based on my conversations with him.
The U.S. has still used the NATO standard 7.62 in crew served weapons. SOF also use a 7.62 version of several rifles, to include the M-16 varients.
Bjoern, The debate between heavier rounds and faster rounds resulted in the 5.56 versus the NATO standard 7.62. The argument was which was better, a heavier (theoretically) more powerful round (more punch), or a faster round which delivered greater kinetic energy (more punch). This is a Sunni vs. Shia, Catholic vs. Protestant, Mustard vs. Ketchup argument and it goes on to this day. The M-16 was caught up in this argument as it was always 5.56, which was key to the design and concept of the rifle.
The U.S. Army decided long ago that kinetic energy was preferable in that it also allowed the individual soldier to carry more ammunition, and had the added benefit of making the rifle itself lighter. The idea is that a smaller projectile, traveling faster, delivers more kinetic energy, and therefore as much stopping power as a larger round. What it lacks in mass, it makes up in kintetic energy. This is simple physics and is mathematically true, but I've never witnessed anyone being hit with a 5.56, so cannot personnaly attest to it. My father, who had 2 tours in Viet Nam as an infantryman, was sold on the concept and reported on the lethality of the round at both close and long ranges. He was a thorough "M-16 Man" (as they came to be called) who thoroughly preferred that rifle to both the M-14 and the AK-47 (He used both). I would hasten to add that both his tours of duty were in the central highlands of that country which is mountainous and where combat was typically at longer ranges. I am perhaps somewhat biased in my regard for that round and those rifles based on my conversations with him.
The U.S. has still used the NATO standard 7.62 in crew served weapons. SOF also use a 7.62 version of several rifles, to include the M-16 varients.
I got a '50's or '60's Chicom SKS. Very well made, and it's always done whatever I wanted it to do.
Had a more modern Russkie SKS, but it just didn't catch my fancy as my other one, so I sold it.
P.S. I recently took out my M-1 Garnand, and sure love firing that good ol' rifle!
Had a more modern Russkie SKS, but it just didn't catch my fancy as my other one, so I sold it.
P.S. I recently took out my M-1 Garnand, and sure love firing that good ol' rifle!
Probably everybody the first time you load it, but you only do that one time. Ya just gotta remember to keep the heel of your hand on the op rod handle. That problem went away when they adopted the box mag fed M-14. Well, mostly anyway... I was an instructor my last two years in the Army, and we had idiots that would still chamber their thumb with a 14... :isadizzy:
HouseHobbit
Charter Member
I am going to start a fight with this..LOL
I have been a shootist, all my life, as too a gunsmith for over 30 years.
Have owned every military rifle out there..
And in the the army with 14 expert badges, three from the NRA also..
US Army Small Bore team Europe also..
The SKS and AK's and M 16's were fun, But not able to hit the Broad side of a barn for the most part.
They are JUNK Guns, good for military use but NO sporting use to a Shootist..
Whenever my friends and I went to the ranges, they would break out the military Junk
and shoot all day with little effect.
I would break out my old remingtom 742 in 30-06, and give them a lesson in shooting and laugh loudly afterwards..
The ONLY Military rifle I ever owned that I could Hit anything with is My FN 49/8mm Mauser
I still have her.. The rest including Most of what has be spoken of here are useless
to me as a target/Varmit shooter..
I don't care how many Bullets they can throw downrange, if you can't hit But once in a hundred rounds SO WHAT..
For me is to put 5 rounds through the same Hole..
And i do it often, with my Remingtom 40x rifles, and My Heavy varmit rifles..
AKs and SKS and M-16 have a place, But not for accurate shooting long distance..
Requiring Hits every time..
You all can play Army and Make like your Gi Joe's, with this JUNK. i'd rather hit My target EVERY TIME, Thanks..
Off to hide..
Laughing at you Poor fools that think these have some use besides the military..
Some day I hope you learn what it means to beable to shoot and hit every time..
OOPPPS..
Thanks all But No use here for Military JUNK..
I have been a shootist, all my life, as too a gunsmith for over 30 years.
Have owned every military rifle out there..
And in the the army with 14 expert badges, three from the NRA also..
US Army Small Bore team Europe also..
The SKS and AK's and M 16's were fun, But not able to hit the Broad side of a barn for the most part.
They are JUNK Guns, good for military use but NO sporting use to a Shootist..
Whenever my friends and I went to the ranges, they would break out the military Junk
and shoot all day with little effect.
I would break out my old remingtom 742 in 30-06, and give them a lesson in shooting and laugh loudly afterwards..
The ONLY Military rifle I ever owned that I could Hit anything with is My FN 49/8mm Mauser
I still have her.. The rest including Most of what has be spoken of here are useless
to me as a target/Varmit shooter..
I don't care how many Bullets they can throw downrange, if you can't hit But once in a hundred rounds SO WHAT..
For me is to put 5 rounds through the same Hole..
And i do it often, with my Remingtom 40x rifles, and My Heavy varmit rifles..
AKs and SKS and M-16 have a place, But not for accurate shooting long distance..
Requiring Hits every time..
You all can play Army and Make like your Gi Joe's, with this JUNK. i'd rather hit My target EVERY TIME, Thanks..
Off to hide..
Laughing at you Poor fools that think these have some use besides the military..
Some day I hope you learn what it means to beable to shoot and hit every time..
OOPPPS..
Thanks all But No use here for Military JUNK..
Bjoern
worst developer ever
I don't care how fine they may be. If they're unnecessarily heavy, they're useless to me. I'm not the most Schwarzenegger person out there and carrying pure steel like the MG3 or MP2 (aka Uzi aka the "bullet based hand grenade") over long distances was a sheer horror back in the days. Not to mention operating this prehistoric stuff.
A great decision if you ask me.
The 7.62 ammo is slowly waving byebye in the german army with the advent of the MG4, at least in the infantry.
Vehicles will still use the MG3 as a coax or self-defense MG for a long time, seeing that the Bundeswehr hasn't even managed to replace the ancient Uzi as a crew-based self-defence weapon yet.
I've had several military rifles but the only one I've kept for any length of time is a 1908 vintage British SMLE. I bought it in 1999 for $60 with belts of 303 machine gun ammo. It's rough looking with rust pitting, but the bore is like new and I can hit a 2 liter pop bottle at 200 yards with it.
I shoot left handed so I much prefer my lever action rifles over the bolt action Enfield.
I shoot left handed so I much prefer my lever action rifles over the bolt action Enfield.
I am going to start a fight with this..LOL
Thanks all But No use here for Military JUNK..
No fight here, but you're comparing apples to bananas. The military weapons were not designed for punching bullseyes. They were designed to be thrown in the mud then hit a man sized target 200 meters away. Target/sniper rifles are a totally different thing.
As an Army instructor, I had to qualify expert with every weapon that I taught, including the M1911A1 pistol all the way up to the 106mm recoiless rifle, and a number of foreign made weapons. Nothing the military uses, aside from sniper rifles, was designed for long-distance shooting. Weapons changed as warfare changed, and sometimes we made the wrong choice. For instance, the M16A1 rifle was useless in Vietnam in areas of dense foliage, where a leaf could deflect the light 55 grain (at the time) 5.56mm bullet. My weapon of choice in those AO's was the 12 ga. shotgun, since most of the encounters we had were "in your face", at relatively short distances (less than 100 meters). Targets at long distances were handled quite well with M-21's and M-40's.
I'm curious as to what your opinion is of today's military long distance king, the Barrett .50 cal?
Blackbird686
SOH-CM-2025
I like the SKS for what it is... a durable weapon that will fire when I want it to. I have a standard SKS (longer barrell) as well as the paratrooper. Both are "screwed barrell" as opposed to "pinned" and the longer rifle has a chrome lining inside its barrell. Years ago you could get a "milled" trigger groupe for the SKS Rifle, a good gunsmith could work the trigger creep out of it. Made the pull alot smoother. :salute:
BB686:USA-flag:
BB686:USA-flag:
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
No fight from me either Mr. Hobbit, but everything is a trade off and military arms are designed for a different mission. They are at best a series of compromises and are affected by differing considerations extending beyond the mere utility of the weapon. As an example, let me point out that the U.S. decision to move to a lighter round means a significant savings in logistics overhead...an important consideration to a military force. Another example going back to aircraft in WWII, the U.S. quickly set the .50 Cal as it's standard aerial weapon, for much the same reason....standardization means easier logistics.
I've never fired one, but have seen it used on the range. It is impressive. I suspect a lot of training and teamwork is required to make it a truly effective weapons system though.
And no Norab, I've not gotten "M1 Thumb"..............yet
.
I have heard that, in general, military rifles are made to less precise standards than civilian sporting/hunting weapons, but it has not always been the case. From everything I have read about the early Model 1903s, built before and after WW-I, they were very well made weapons, as finely crafted as anything you can buy today. And if you can find one of those early 1903s in good condition (you won't...) you will pay a lot for it. It was from WW-II onwards that military weapons starting diverging sharply, in terms of quality, from their civilian counterparts. Up until Vietnam, the 1903 was used as a sniper rifle. I'm guessing those guys knew a thing or two about precision shooting...
And I don't have M-1 thumb either!
And I don't have M-1 thumb either!