Sun Jun 08, 2003 6:52 pm
The major claim to fame to the AK series 7.62 weapons was the fact that the weapons were so incredibly rugged.
Get them dirty, foul the barrel, and shoot them with mud in the reciever and the weapon functioned. Most hi tech weapon systems can't stand up to this kind of day in day out punishment and hold up. Many Ak's in the VietCong were found to have never or rarely been cleaned. The M-16 could not do the same thing.
Thats why the AK is such a popular weapon in the third world. It survives extremely well in poor to no maintenance conditions. It really had nothing to do with wether the ammo was better or even the handling characteristics. It works, however well, when other systems will start experiencing major failures.
Oh and as a side note. The Original AK-47 is a Soviet bastardization of THE original assault rifle, the German STG44, The Russians captured and made copies of it.
Get them dirty, foul the barrel, and shoot them with mud in the reciever and the weapon functioned. Most hi tech weapon systems can't stand up to this kind of day in day out punishment and hold up. Many Ak's in the VietCong were found to have never or rarely been cleaned. The M-16 could not do the same thing.
Thats why the AK is such a popular weapon in the third world. It survives extremely well in poor to no maintenance conditions. It really had nothing to do with wether the ammo was better or even the handling characteristics. It works, however well, when other systems will start experiencing major failures.
Oh and as a side note. The Original AK-47 is a Soviet bastardization of THE original assault rifle, the German STG44, The Russians captured and made copies of it.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 7:02 pm
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
The major reason the US Army went to the A-15/M-16 5.56 weapon system was for one reason and one reason only.
Colonel... what do you have to defend this other than a personal belief.
I am a science person.. I believe in data.
So I disagree with you on two points:
1) The reasoning behind the development of the M16 (please see my posted website.. and I can get others).
2) The power of teh 5.56 mm round. Which I have posted one defense and I can get others.
I am not trying to be an ass.. but I have based my opinion on the data that I have read and my personal gun experience. If you can show me how I am wrong other than with personal opinion I am the type to publicly thank you for showing me new information. Everyone should have an opinion about most things... I just want mine to be the most informed.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 7:17 pm
Actually you can see most of what I am talking about on the History channel in the "History of the Gun" show in the M-16 episode. They actually have an interview with Stoner and a senior member of the then US Army Ordinance department.
They both speak towards what I was posting and it is a pretty informative show. They hit on the Army's dislike of the weapons sytem and how some of the original tests were rigged against it so it would fail in favor of the M-14.
No offense to you Sannop. I to like to use scientific data when appropriate but when I hear it from the gun creators own mouth that to me is more convincing. Eugene Stoner made a lot of good weapon systems for the military and you should read some of the biography's on him.
They both speak towards what I was posting and it is a pretty informative show. They hit on the Army's dislike of the weapons sytem and how some of the original tests were rigged against it so it would fail in favor of the M-14.
No offense to you Sannop. I to like to use scientific data when appropriate but when I hear it from the gun creators own mouth that to me is more convincing. Eugene Stoner made a lot of good weapon systems for the military and you should read some of the biography's on him.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 7:31 pm
Scientific data and calculations are very good and valuable tools, but there is no substitute for empirical data and testing.
If you do calculations for a problem and then test out your calculations in the real world, and they work that's good. But sometimes calculations fail to take into account some factor that may have been overlooked. This is why they test weapons thoroughly before they release them for general use. This is also why the opinions of people with experience are valuable.
Take me for instance. I've never actually shot anybody before. My opinions on stopping power for anything would be suspect. I have shot targets though. So my opinions in that area are based on experience and should at least be considered. If people have experience with the effective stopping power of a particular thing (cops and the like) their opinions should hold some weight.
Courtrooms still use expert witnesses after all...
If you do calculations for a problem and then test out your calculations in the real world, and they work that's good. But sometimes calculations fail to take into account some factor that may have been overlooked. This is why they test weapons thoroughly before they release them for general use. This is also why the opinions of people with experience are valuable.
Take me for instance. I've never actually shot anybody before. My opinions on stopping power for anything would be suspect. I have shot targets though. So my opinions in that area are based on experience and should at least be considered. If people have experience with the effective stopping power of a particular thing (cops and the like) their opinions should hold some weight.
Courtrooms still use expert witnesses after all...
Sun Jun 08, 2003 7:34 pm
And colonel, they also issued us mossberg 12 gauges. If you don't get a stop with one of those babies, then you deserve to get bushwhacked by that drug-addled fool trying to take you down... 
Sun Jun 08, 2003 7:58 pm
I think this thread may be in the running for "Nerdiest Thread Ever On ECGN".
Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:02 pm
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
No offense to you Sannop. I to like to use scientific data when appropriate but when I hear it from the gun creators own mouth that to me is more convincing. Eugene Stoner made a lot of good weapon systems for the military and you should read some of the biography's on him.
And I thank you for that information. I will definetly look up the show, and i will look up his nick tonight.
The original comment that started this all however was that the M16 should do less damage. It was stated on TS that it was only a 22 caliber. That is the main point that I disagree with, and until I read other data, I have enough info to defend that. I do agree that it doesn't do as much damage as the M14 version of 7.62 mm, but it does have more punch than the AK 7.62 mm. It is an amzingly lethal round. I stated last night that the problems with the M16 (and probably what you saw) are about the mechanics of the gun... not the power of the round.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:26 pm
http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/colt45.htm
This guy completely compares the .45 ACP and the 9mm (Parabellum) Luger.
He shows all of the data to come across with the muzzle energies. Good webstie.
This guy completely compares the .45 ACP and the 9mm (Parabellum) Luger.
He shows all of the data to come across with the muzzle energies. Good webstie.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:37 pm
Originally posted by Chacal
Huh? What else is there? A firearm is a device that transforms potential energy (stored in chemical form) into mechanical energy on the target.
When you shoot a burst at an enemy, you are trying to transform the total energy of your powder and send it to him. No gun does that perfectly, some energy gets lost in heat, sound, light, recoil, and misses.
Velocity, rate of fire, reliability, aiming, bullet mass, bullet deformation, are all factors that affect the delivery of energy. There is nothing else than energy.
Chacal, I'm shocked to see such an obviously hasty response to my post. What else is there other than velocity and mass? Are you kidding me? You even state one very important factor later in your thread - bullet deformation characteristics. Here's more, bullet diameter and bullet design.
There are many things to consider in ballistics. The first being what is your goal. If it's blasting wood boards at 100 yards, most current "data" that takes into account muzzle velocity and bullet weight (and therefore energy) is just fine. But that's NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about downing a person! There is a big difference. Humans are made of tissue and organs, and they BLEED. What is really important in "terminal" ballistics is what causes the most traumatic impact. So, first we consider the importance of the three most easily obtainable stats: first is Mass, then Diameter, then velocity. Ok. Now you have dispersion. This is primarily a factor of bullet design and composition. The goal in terminal ballistics it to mushroom and fragment most after it's penetrated a couple inches. This is where the most organs and arteries are. This is how you obtain MASSIVE bleeding. This is what kills.
Oh. And as for one person's post that the 9mm has more stoping power than the .45ACP - I would LOVE to see where that came from. There are very good reasons why most law Enforcement officers carry 9mm now over the .45ACP. But NONE of those reasons are because of "stopping power", quite the opposite in fact.
If you want official studies and analysis. I've got them for you. Just let me knwo and I'll post them.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:54 pm
Wow... it is good to see that this argument is a universal one...
http://www.chuckhawks.com/index2e.rifle_cartridges.htm
The following is a quote from the page on the AK round.
The 7.62x39 offers light recoil (7.3 ft. lbs. in a 7 pound carbine) and a fatter, heavier bullet that carries more momentum and "bucks brush" better than the 5.56mm NATO round. The 5.56mm offers lighter recoil (4.4 ft. lbs. in a 7 pound carbine), superior accuracy, and a much flatter trajectory, which makes it easier to hit targets at long range; it also packs more energy when it gets there. As I said, militarily, a step sideways.
I did some calculations like chacl did with the grains and velocities for each round. The 5.56 mm does have a higher energy in flight, and the above author would agree.
After reading almost 20 sites I have somewhat changed my stance. I can no longer say that the 5.56 mm round is definetly better than the 7.62 x 39. I can say that it is in severe question which does defend my stance that saying that the 5.56 mm is a wimpy round is completly false,
I even found a Romanion AK site that covers converted AKs that take the 5.56mm x 45 round. The authors state that any decision must solely be based on personal decison. All of my research states has shown that any questions about the M16 are about the GUN .. NOT the ammo. So maybe if EoD wants to be a little more accurate... make the M16 jam everyonce in awhile...
http://www.chuckhawks.com/index2e.rifle_cartridges.htm
The following is a quote from the page on the AK round.
The 7.62x39 offers light recoil (7.3 ft. lbs. in a 7 pound carbine) and a fatter, heavier bullet that carries more momentum and "bucks brush" better than the 5.56mm NATO round. The 5.56mm offers lighter recoil (4.4 ft. lbs. in a 7 pound carbine), superior accuracy, and a much flatter trajectory, which makes it easier to hit targets at long range; it also packs more energy when it gets there. As I said, militarily, a step sideways.
I did some calculations like chacl did with the grains and velocities for each round. The 5.56 mm does have a higher energy in flight, and the above author would agree.
After reading almost 20 sites I have somewhat changed my stance. I can no longer say that the 5.56 mm round is definetly better than the 7.62 x 39. I can say that it is in severe question which does defend my stance that saying that the 5.56 mm is a wimpy round is completly false,
I even found a Romanion AK site that covers converted AKs that take the 5.56mm x 45 round. The authors state that any decision must solely be based on personal decison. All of my research states has shown that any questions about the M16 are about the GUN .. NOT the ammo. So maybe if EoD wants to be a little more accurate... make the M16 jam everyonce in awhile...
Sun Jun 08, 2003 10:00 pm
Originally posted by Rule of Wrist
Scientific data and calculations are very good and valuable tools, but there is no substitute for empirical data and testing.
not to be picky... but empirical data is scientific data.. which is tested in the range. Things like muzzle velocity are tested in the "real" world and then calculations are done to make comparisons. Energy dispersal of water tanks etc ec.
Sun Jun 08, 2003 10:00 pm
Originally posted by Cpl. Bingham
I think this thread may be in the running for "Nerdiest Thread Ever On ECGN".
Wel than you will fit right in
Sun Jun 08, 2003 10:12 pm
Interesting link on the damage of the 7.62mm & the 5.56mm...
http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm
Also has a link to info about Eugene Stoner...
http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm
Also has a link to info about Eugene Stoner...
Sun Jun 08, 2003 10:38 pm
Freedom, I don't think anybody said that the 9MM round had more stopping power than the .45 round... just the opposite.
What I did say is that I thought the Beretta M92 9MM was easier to be accurate with than the Colt M1911 .45. But again that could have been due to the shitty condition of the guns (1911)...
If I get a pistol, I think I'm going to go with either a beretta 9MM, a Glock .45 of some kind, or an HK .45 USP. I think I like the HK the best, but it's also the most expensive.... decisions
What I did say is that I thought the Beretta M92 9MM was easier to be accurate with than the Colt M1911 .45. But again that could have been due to the shitty condition of the guns (1911)...
If I get a pistol, I think I'm going to go with either a beretta 9MM, a Glock .45 of some kind, or an HK .45 USP. I think I like the HK the best, but it's also the most expensive.... decisions
Sun Jun 08, 2003 10:40 pm
Originally posted by Cpl. Bingham
I think this thread may be in the running for "Nerdiest Thread Ever On ECGN".
This from the guy with GI Joe busts, Lord of the Rings bookends, alien and predator busts and enough other collectibles to amuse George Lucas for an afternoon...
I guess you smell your own, eh Bingham