Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 77

Thread: Gun Trouble

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by natertot View Post
    Phaedrus, I doubt they had access to every battle rifle up to this point. Maybe US Rifles, but not every battle rifle in the world. Not even within NATO which includes the British SA80, Swedish AK5, Germany and Spains Hk G36, French FAMAS, Italian AR70/90, Mexican FX-05, Russian AK74, and Belgium and croatian FN F2000. All of which are 556.

    I am not saying that the m-16 or variants are not accurate. They are. I am not even saying they aren't reliable. What I am saying is it takes a lot of effort and keeping several small parts on hand to keep them reliable. That is why after every firing and every patrol they are broken down, cleaned, and inspected. Lots of effort. Basically like saying you got 500k miles out of a car without it ever breaking down, never mind the fact you had to change all the fluids and filters ever 500 miles and replace half the gaskets every 3k miles to achieve it.

    One cannot compare a Chinese civilian AK to a true military AK. The fact you even did that made me do a face palm and illistrates that you have no idea of what a true Russian military AK is. I also never stated that an AK will never stop running. What I am saying is that the Taliban can keep an AK running without any proper cleaning, no replacement parts, and no armorers for decades. What we need is something not so high maintenance which I touched on in the second paragraph. BTW, we never ditched the 7.62 either. If the 5.56 was all that and a bag of chips we would have.

    I know the US won't adopt the AK for a military rifle. Not saying they should. I just said an AK in 7.62 NATO would be a great rifle for our military presently. For future rifles I believe they should look at something as reliable and low maintenance as an AK. As urban warfare continues and develops, I believe shorter and lighter rifles are key. Perhaps a bullpup style with a 12-14" barrel?
    Does the group prefer piston driven M4/M16's over AK's or M14's?
    Last edited by Zack; 01-02-2015 at 07:48 AM.


  2. #22
    Senior Member natertot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    3,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zack View Post
    Does the group prefer piston driven M4/M16's over AK's or M14's?
    I don't. That means you would have a rifle that might need periodic parts but now they are specialty and cost more. I am not sure that they are more reliable or better than the gas system. If they were, I would think the military would have converted theirs. Just my opinion.

    I am also not a huge fan of the .223/5.56 round. To me, it is a .22 caliber bullet and could technically be called .22 Super Magnum in my book. I think it is a fantastic varmint round and would own a bolt gun or perhaps acquire a barrel for the single shot Rossi in the caliber. If I were to get a semi auto .223/5.56, and that is a big IF, I would actually purchase either a Mini14 or an AK74.
    Last edited by natertot; 01-02-2015 at 10:17 AM.
    ”There's nothing glorious in dying. Anyone can do it.” ~Johnny Rotten

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas, but travel widely
    Posts
    1,079

    Default Maj Gen Scales Elite Military with Advanced Munitions not original idea

    My 2 cents are: This is a very old argument and Major General “Bob” Scales and many others have every right to be writing about a smaller more elite US military force with “better” munitions but the facts are that “a large ship takes a long time to change coarse” and it is mostly political. Meanwhile it is not wise to undermine our confidence in our troops or theirs in their assigned firearms. Maintaining all your gear in good conditions is part of good training. Gen Scales has written other articles, his views are similar to those of Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the first administration of G W Bush, that did not go so well for him.

    Estimates are that the USA spends more treasure on its military (much of that on munitions) than the next 9-13 most powerful nations. I assume this is because our campaign finance laws are the most liberal in the “free world”, but perhaps we as a people just enjoy policing the world (despite the cost in wounded warriors etc.) or believe more strongly than other nations that space aliens are going to invade. (I hear hoof beats I think horses, not zebra, best to avoid politics and religion).

    NATO and especially the US DOD procurement process takes a long time and is very expensive. Carbine firearms and ammunition is tested at labs, ranges and by Special Op Forces (in the field) before it can be approved to be ordered in large quantities from vendors. Then, if even when a small change is made in an alloy or propellant a long approval process must be followed. If it gets into the supply chain and a fault is discovered, the warehousing, its destruction and shortages on the battlefield can be very costly. The total cost of a new bullet or rifle are far more than just that one item’s manufacturing cost multiplied by the number actually deployed. Sorry to bore y’all with all that bureaucratic blah blah blah, most folks never read past the first line. But this is a small part of the reason why US troops have are issued the weapons they have.

    BTW the 1000+ rebel groups in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq that use AKs “successfully” use parts from one to “fix” another and are constantly working on them and they often jam and fail on them. Fine grit of the desert destroys everything. They are very good at improvising. Often their “supply chain” is weapons taken from dead fighters. Primary suppliers are oil rich “Persian Gulf States” sending surplus weapons from Russia, China and North Korea.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    1,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by natertot View Post

    One cannot compare a Chinese civilian AK to a true military AK. The fact you even did that made me do a face palm and illistrates that you have no idea of what a true Russian military AK is. I also never stated that an AK will never stop running. What I am saying is that the Taliban can keep an AK running without any proper cleaning, no replacement parts, and no armorers for decades. What we need is something not so high maintenance which I touched on in the second paragraph. BTW, we never ditched the 7.62 either. If the 5.56 was all that and a bag of chips we would have.
    Respectfully I think you're dead wrong. The Taliban is certainly not keeping those AKs running, at least not all of them. At least according to the guys I personally know that have fought them. I don't recall, are you a veteran of the recent wars? Are you speaking from your own experience? I'm not an expert at all in the field of AKs and I make no claim to be. But I think there's not much evidence that US soldiers are being "slaughtered" in firefights due to the M4 being inferior to the AK in the hands of the Taliban. In fact I think it's just the opposite. I can't even count the number of stories from US soldiers that state the Taliban were so badly massacred in nearly every straight-up fight with American troops that they soon learned to avoid head on confrontations, switching to ambush and IED attacks. It would appear that in point of fact the US soldier and the M4 are both greatly superior to the Taliban and their Russian/Chinese/wherever-they-found-them AKs.

    I'm not really trying to argumentative. This is a good topic that bears some discussion. I'd be interested to hear some input from current or recently-discharged American soldiers regarding the M4.

    I'll just end my involvement here with an interesting aside; I know at least three or four veterans that went out and bought or built their own M4geries after being discharged. I worked with one guy that had 8 different ARs (and to be fair, one ACR and one SCAR). He did six years in the sandbox and really loved his M4. He felt is was a great weapon. Again, just anecdotal, not "proof" really. But I hear that from so many ex-soldiers that I have to wonder if the whole issue isn't made up to try to sell the Army a new gun.

  5. #25
    Senior Member hunter63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    SE/SW Wisconsin
    Posts
    26,866

    Default

    Government procurers + Military intelligence + pork barrel projects for elected officials= It's a wonder any kind of weapon made it past the drawing board.

    I do propose that these discussions are held between people with experience , rather than speculation, and hearsay......

    AK vs AR discussions are real close to "The best knife".

    Carry on...........
    Geezer Squad....Charter Member #1
    Evoking the 50 year old rule...
    First 50 years...worried about the small stuff...second 50 years....Not so much
    Member Wahoo Killer knives club....#27

  6. #26
    Senior Member natertot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    3,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Respectfully I think you're dead wrong. That is fine that you think that. The Taliban is certainly not keeping those AKs running, at least not all of them. At least according to the guys I personally know that have fought them. I don't recall, are you a veteran of the recent wars? Yes, I am a veteran. Served onboard USS Elrod FFG-55 (Which is being decommissioned this month by the way) from 2003-2007. I assisted the GM's (Gunner's Mates) with small weapons maintenance and this is where I draw my experience from on the M-16/M4. Are you speaking from your own experience? I'm not an expert at all in the field of AKs and I make no claim to be. But I think there's not much evidence that US soldiers are being "slaughtered" in firefights due to the M4 being inferior to the AK in the hands of the Taliban. In fact I think it's just the opposite. I can't even count the number of stories from US soldiers that state the Taliban were so badly massacred in nearly every straight-up fight with American troops that they soon learned to avoid head on confrontations, switching to ambush and IED attacks. It would appear that in point of fact the US soldier and the M4 are both greatly superior to the Taliban and their Russian/Chinese/wherever-they-found-them AKs. There are many different reason's that we win or lose an area and yes, we have lost some areas in these recent wars. To base any of those wins and losses strictly on who has what rifle is putting on the proverbial blinders for the entire picture of the battles/wars that take place. AK's are not the only rifle the enemy uses and the M-16/M4 is not the only rifle we use. We also have tanks, helicopters, planes, missiles, bombs, and next to a never ending supply chain which the enemy lacks and they all have way more to do with our successes than what our primary rifle is. Also, during most battles, we outnumber the enemy by more than 2:1. For the times we have lost, it is usually because the terrain is so horrible that supplies chains are ineffective due to vehicles not being able to handle the terrain. This also prevents the use of HUMVEE's, tanks, and other armored vehicles. Look into the Valley of Korengal which is the best example of this and why we had to back out and give it up.

    I'm not really trying to argumentative. This is a good topic that bears some discussion. I'd be interested to hear some input from current or recently-discharged American soldiers regarding the M4.

    I'll just end my involvement here with an interesting aside; I know at least three or four veterans that went out and bought or built their own M4geries after being discharged. I worked with one guy that had 8 different ARs (and to be fair, one ACR and one SCAR). He did six years in the sandbox and really loved his M4. He felt is was a great weapon. Again, just anecdotal, not "proof" really. But I hear that from so many ex-soldiers that I have to wonder if the whole issue isn't made up to try to sell the Army a new gun.
    Like I have said before, the M16/M4 is a good rifle. I just believe that the AK is more user friendly when it comes to maintenance and upkeep and would also save the US money on all those springs and seals that get burned up in an M16. I also believe that using 7.62 NATO as the standard round would be more effective than the 5.56 NATO round. Then again, I even said that the military should really look forward in warfare and consider something smaller and lighter for the rifle itself such as a bullpup even. Having rifles so long you can poke out your enemies eye from three countries away is no longer necessary, which is in part why the M4 was created out of the M-16. Warfare in urban environments and tight quarters are only becoming more frequent and more difficult with long arms. Not saying go with a pistol though.

    As far as most of the recent vets preferring M-16/M4/AR15, I have no doubt that is true. But you have to realize that for their entire service they were INDOCTRINATED to love the rifle. Spend 4 to 20 years with a superior that can put you in a world of hurt if you disagree with them who is constantly telling you the rifle is the best thing in the world and you will start to believe it. It's like Stockholm Syndrome for guns!

    Everything that I have said in this thread is just my opinion based upon my experience. I have never taken you as being argumentative and I apologize if I have come across argumentative myself.
    Last edited by natertot; 01-04-2015 at 03:02 AM.
    ”There's nothing glorious in dying. Anyone can do it.” ~Johnny Rotten

  7. #27
    Senior Member Phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    1,426

    Default

    Good points! No I didn't take it that you were being argumentative. I think it's a good discussion topic. I'm a "gun guy" but not a soldier so I'm probably just talking out my arse here, but I think a good case can be made for a larger round. I love the 7.62 NATO (aka the .308), but I'm not sure it's the ideal military rifle. It has a lot of recoil (apparently not really an issue with the SCAR17, though) and the ammo is much heavier and bulkier than 7.62. The guns also have to be bigger and heavier. Certainly it packs more punch as has more range. But where will the next conflict occur? In the mountains and deserts long range engagements might be common, but what if the next battles are fought in the jungle? Or an urban setting? It seems that the 5.56 works pretty well and is pretty lethal inside 200 meters.

    Realistically the rifle probably is a pretty small part of the war machine but a vital one.

  8. #28
    Senior Member natertot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    3,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Good points! No I didn't take it that you were being argumentative. I think it's a good discussion topic. I'm a "gun guy" but not a soldier so I'm probably just talking out my arse here, but I think a good case can be made for a larger round. I love the 7.62 NATO (aka the .308), but I'm not sure it's the ideal military rifle. It has a lot of recoil (apparently not really an issue with the SCAR17, though) and the ammo is much heavier and bulkier than 7.62. The guns also have to be bigger and heavier. Certainly it packs more punch as has more range. But where will the next conflict occur? In the mountains and deserts long range engagements might be common, but what if the next battles are fought in the jungle? Or an urban setting? It seems that the 5.56 works pretty well and is pretty lethal inside 200 meters.

    Realistically the rifle probably is a pretty small part of the war machine but a vital one.
    I highlighted a section that you wrote. I do not understand why that has to be true. I have shot an AR10 and the recoil with it was pleasant, and the weight of the AR10 with a full 20rd mag weighed only half a pound more than an AR15 with a full 30rd mag. It also weighed in about 2.25lbs less than a loaded M14. Okay, you have 2/3's of the ammo capacity, but if you hit your target they won't need follow up shots. My thought is a miss is a miss, but if I hit something I don't want to have to hit it a second, third, or fourth time. But back to my point, a 7.62 doesn't have to be heavy, bulky and miserable to shoot.

    For a 7.62 NATO Bullpup that weighs less than an M16, check out the Kel Tec RFB. I have no idea what the recoil is like on one, but it would be a heck of an option.
    ”There's nothing glorious in dying. Anyone can do it.” ~Johnny Rotten

  9. #29
    Senior Member kyratshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KY bluegrass region-the center of the universe
    Posts
    10,096

    Default

    Could the real problem be that there are too many "civilians" who have never served making these budget decisions in congress?

    And they believe everything a lobbyist tells them, or they happen to read on the internet.

    Rifle weight is a moot point for the combat soldier. His load out is static and reduced rifle weight is replaced by added weight of other gear. The M4 loaded out with optics, lights and 30 round mag will top the scales at nearly 10 pounds.

    Plus the fact that today's soldier wears body armor that is heavier than any rifle ever issued to a US soldier making a 2 pound difference in rifle weight irrelevant.

    My two sons did return from Iraq from tours as combat Marines. And they did buy things. The first items they bought were body armor. The second things they bought were rifles, one bought an AK and the other an M4. Those were closely followed by 9mm pistols (neither bought Berettas). The son that bought the M4 did so before the price increase and sold his unit during the panic for 3x what he paid. He now has an AK.

    The soldier of our present conflicts arrives on the scene of battle in a vehicle that is loaded down with thousands of rounds of ammo, making resupply also a moot point. It is also one of the reasons a hit on a Humvee is so devastating to the occupants.

    Accuracy of fire is a result of training and individual capabilities more than the "quality" of the rifle, meaning that reliability is the primary concern of the soldier on the line. His primary concern is making the other guy stop shooting at him! Then he remembers he supposed to kill the other guy. Sometime the two goals are the same, sometimes not.

    One will also find that most of our casualties in the present conflicts have been due to explosives devices rather than direct rifle fire, and the number or rounds expended by our troops/per casualty is higher than in any war that has gone before, making "accuracy" less important than firepower. It has been that way since the Henry Rifle and spencer rifles were placed in service during our Civil War.

    NATO use and adoption is also a moot point since none of the allied countries spends more than one half of one percent of their budget on defense spending. WE ARE NATO, therefore NATO will do what we tell them to do. However, we will use the NATO approval system to our advantage for budgeting and procurement purposes when we wish.

    History tells us that the established military will remain very conservative in adoption of new equipment of any kind as long as the old equipment continues to function up to the capabilities of the anticipated enemy. This is where the argument of procurement problems comes into play.

    The only full scrapping and reequipping of the military establishment with new gear has always come after a major advance in technology, such as the British decision to convert all small arms to the flintlock system back in the 1670s, the nearly world wide conversion of all military weapons to cartridge firing in the 1860s, The bolt action rifle/machinegun/artillery arms race of the 1890s, the complete disarmament of Germany after WW1 and their fresh start in technology in the 1930s or the development of the AK in the 1940s.

    In reality, we are not going to adopt an issue rifle that fires the 7.62x51 round. We are not going to abandon the M4 platform. We simply can not afford to do so. We have too much invested in the hundreds of thousands already in use.

    Same for the 9mm M9 pistol. It does not matter how much you hear on the internet or in the gun magazines we are not switching to a "new .45". The "procurement people" just contracted for another 100,000 M9 pistols and Beretta has just built a new factory in Tennessee to build them.

    As long as our perceived enemy does not make a huge advance in technology everyone that missed the "low bid" for providing supplies is going to be griping about the obsolete gear and the wicked, dishonest and wasteful procurement system.
    Last edited by kyratshooter; 01-04-2015 at 12:41 PM.
    If you didn't bring jerky what did I just eat?

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by natertot View Post
    I know the AK is made in 7.62 NATO
    Hmmm, no... its not.

  11. #31
    Senior Member kyratshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KY bluegrass region-the center of the universe
    Posts
    10,096

    Default

    http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...humbhole+Stock

    Contrary to popular belief there is more than one kind of AK. Since there was no patent on the AK each nation that built the rifle was free to make modifications and alter the design to meet their needs. There is a distinct difference between Russian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Serbian and Egyptian variations and some Warsaw pac nations did not use the AK at all (Chech VZ58)!

    There are variations in receiver thickness and in trunion thickness and width, as well as attachment for the receiver cover and a major structural variation for the under-folder stock.

    If you do not believe so then try to put a Bulgarian stock on a Serbian AK.

    The platform has also been stretched to accommodate the 7.62x54 and the 7.62x51 cartridges and the AK underwent a major change to 5.45 caliber in the 1970s (reaction to our 5.56 round).
    Last edited by kyratshooter; 01-04-2015 at 01:02 PM.
    If you didn't bring jerky what did I just eat?

  12. #32
    Senior Member natertot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    3,963

    Default

    ^^^^^What he said^^^^^

    Quote Originally Posted by ElevenBravo View Post
    Hmmm, no... its not.
    Yep, it is. The AK can be had in the following rounds:

    .22 LR
    .22 Magnum
    5.45x39
    5.56x45 (5.56 NATO) Most are even made in Russia
    6.5 Grendel
    6.8 SPC
    7.62x39
    7.62x51 (7.62 NATO)
    7.62x54
    .410 Bore
    20 Ga
    12 Ga

    I know it tends to irritate AR fans that AK's have more chambering options.
    ”There's nothing glorious in dying. Anyone can do it.” ~Johnny Rotten

  13. #33

    Default

    That statement was:

    The AK *IS* ... where as it should have said the AK *CAN BE HAD*, which implied by default the AK/AKM default caliber is NATO, which... we all know, it is not.

    An AK in NATO is not common, anyone you speak to when you say "AK" will rightfully assume X39. Seldom ever someone will ask "Oh, you have an AK... what caliber is it?"

    The link is not even to an AK, its to an M77 or an AK VARIANT.
    Only a variant can be had outside the X39 cartridge.

    Examine the links carefully, check for cartridge.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM

    The analogy is that if you put a Chevy motor in a Ford, some how the while vehicle automagically becomes a Ford. It does not make it so.


    I was just trying to put some accuracy in on the subject... But you dont have to take my word for it, all the information is freely available on Google..
    Last edited by ElevenBravo; 01-05-2015 at 08:55 PM.

  14. #34
    Senior Member natertot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    3,963

    Default

    So just because the AK was originally 7.62x39, it cannot be made in any other caliber? I guess AR in calibers outside of 5.56 are not really an AR either. Just because someone says AK and you Assume 7.62x39, it is no one else's issue except yours for assuming. 7.62x39 is the most popular caliber for the AK, but not the only one. Also, if the gun "can be had" in such and such caliber, then it is made in that caliber, otherwise it couldn't be had. Good luck.
    Last edited by natertot; 01-05-2015 at 11:23 PM.
    ”There's nothing glorious in dying. Anyone can do it.” ~Johnny Rotten

  15. #35
    Senior Member Winter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SE Alaska
    Posts
    3,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by natertot View Post

    Like KyRat said though, there are many better options that our military doesn't look at. Mini-14 and Mini-30 are both a cut above the m-16 in the civilian world. Same thing as the m-14, but a little smaller and much lighter and in .223 and 7.62x39, respectively. .
    Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.
    I had a compass, but without a map, it's just a cool toy to show you where oceans and ice are.

  16. #36
    Senior Member Winter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SE Alaska
    Posts
    3,097

    Default

    "The Mini-14 is NOT known to be “DURABLE” (When I was active we trained some Bahamanian Marines. They were all armed with pretty much brand new Mini-14's. We ran lots of patrols with them through swamps and over hill and dale - and did lots of dry and live fire exercises. Before two weeks were up - NOT ONE Mini-14 survived. They were ALL down - and I mean "down" as in would not work because of parts failure/breakage. They were all using "loaner" AR's for the rest of the time as their Mini's went down. Not surprisingly - they/we had no problems or issues with our AR's. Before this I had some 'range time' with a Mini-14 and it was a fun gun to shoot. I felt bad too – as I really liked the Mini-14 when shooting them on a range. Pat Rogers - an instructor at Gunsite - has stated that he has NEVER seen a "Mini" make it through the demanding 4-5 day carbine course. NEVER. They always go "down" and the person uses a loaner AR to finish the course with. (We had no problems with our M4’s doing all of the same stuff that we put the Mini's through. Granted – the abuse that our rifles saw was WAY beyond what any “civilian” rifle sees – but the scope of this post is way beyond what civilian rifles are designed for!)"
    I had a compass, but without a map, it's just a cool toy to show you where oceans and ice are.

  17. #37
    Senior Member Winter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SE Alaska
    Posts
    3,097

    Default

    The AR series of rifles are used by every western special forces unit on the planet, even countries that issue different firearms to their regular troops.

    Do you think GROM and the SAS may know more than you, who once qualified, in the Navy, with some rifle?

    Don't bother answering that.
    I had a compass, but without a map, it's just a cool toy to show you where oceans and ice are.

  18. #38
    Senior Member Phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    1,426

    Default

    Yeah, I had a Mini-14 back in the early 90's. I can't say much positive about it. Mine was lucky to shoot minute-of-paper plate groups, even with handloads. I think the later/recent models are better made with heavier barrels. But I didn't really like the gun much. The mag release sucked- basically like my AK. The safety wasn't ergonomic, either. I bought it because it was a fair bit cheaper than the Colt AR I really wanted, and I got what I paid for.

  19. #39
    Senior Member Winter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SE Alaska
    Posts
    3,097

    Default

    Sell it, you can build an AR these days for $400.

    This may help troubleshoot your mini 14.
    Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.
    I had a compass, but without a map, it's just a cool toy to show you where oceans and ice are.

  20. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElevenBravo View Post
    That statement was:

    The AK *IS* ... where as it should have said the AK *CAN BE HAD*, which implied by default the AK/AKM default caliber is NATO, which... we all know, it is not.

    An AK in NATO is not common, anyone you speak to when you say "AK" will rightfully assume X39. Seldom ever someone will ask "Oh, you have an AK... what caliber is it?"

    The link is not even to an AK, its to an M77 or an AK VARIANT.
    Only a variant can be had outside the X39 cartridge.

    Examine the links carefully, check for cartridge.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM

    The analogy is that if you put a Chevy motor in a Ford, some how the while vehicle automagically becomes a Ford. It does not make it so.


    I was just trying to put some accuracy in on the subject... But you dont have to take my word for it, all the information is freely available on Google..

    In 1974 the soviets made a transition to a different caliber the AK-74 in 5.54X39. It first saw major conflict in 1979 in Afghanistan. That's 23 years the AK was an AK-47 and 40 years of an AK being a multiple caliber system. I have also always heard people discuss the Dragonuv as an AK system, which has been available in 7.62X54R since the early 1960's.

    Please feel free to google my info as well. An AK-74 is an AK, right?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •