Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ANZAC_Tack

im surprised by your comments on the M1, i used it and found it a beast by comparison, im a mid size person,and just found the russian weapons more the 'right' size weapon,and less recoil,more rapid fire capable,thus more accurate in most battle ranges. yes the 3006 has better range,hitting power and accuracy,but then i'd use a springfield for this purpose,the battle ranges most casualties accounted in WWII where under 300M,perfect for the 7.62*39 russian.
yeah my sks was cheap also,but quite robust but cheap,i've seen the original russian ones, and would choose one any day over chinese ones of mid 90's.
like the m1a/m14 much better with detachable magazine,auto features,but like the ak47,the m14 was quickly superseded,though the m16 i dont think was as good a jump as the ak47 was...reliability wise the ar15a1 had real problems with no bolt assist, catching foliage with open muzzle flash and poor quality ammunition causing fouling. the m16a2 solved most of these fortunately with ss109 ammo,and better bayonet to boot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ANZAC_Tack

sweet, im surprised the 50's sks was a bad experience for you.

quote:

i never tried a svt-40, though used something similar also chinese copy,it had rotating block,was some 4" longer,cant remember civilian name, same 10rd magazine as sks.looked like a moisan nagant but semi auto.fun to shoot and little recoil,but no first choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
So was the M-16 an actual improvement on the M-1? Sounds questionable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Now again I'm no expert, so just asking here but . . . on some other site, somebody posted this slow-motion video comparing an AK and an M-16 firing. The AK exhibited all kinds of wobbling and jiggling in the parts. Now maybe this was just a crappy worn out cheap AK-knockoff that was being filmed, but IIRC, there was also some text to go along with this video that indicated that in "official" tests, the AK exhibited a lot less accurcy because it was just a less precision instrument. If you want, I can go back over to 1BC and try to dig out that video and link to it here.

So would you guys say this is nonsense? In the hands of a sample of experts, would the M-16 get better accuracy & precision scores in terms of hitting the target?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ANZAC_Tack

im surprised by your comments on the M1, i used it and found it a beast by comparison, im a mid size person,and just found the russian weapons more the 'right' size weapon,and less recoil,more rapid fire capable,thus more accurate in most battle ranges. yes the 3006 has better range,hitting power and accuracy,but then i'd use a springfield for this purpose,the battle ranges most casualties accounted in WWII where under 300M,perfect for the 7.62*39 russian.
yeah my sks was cheap also,but quite robust but cheap,i've seen the original russian ones, and would choose one any day over chinese ones of mid 90's.
like the m1a/m14 much better with detachable magazine,auto features,but like the ak47,the m14 was quickly superseded,though the m16 i dont think was as good a jump as the ak47 was...reliability wise the ar15a1 had real problems with no bolt assist, catching foliage with open muzzle flash and poor quality ammunition causing fouling. the m16a2 solved most of these fortunately with ss109 ammo,and better bayonet to boot.

quote:

Speaking on condition of anonymity, some of the American trainers spoke bluntly about problems with the Georgian troops, who one veteran sergeant said "got torn up real bad."
The Americans were training them to use the U.S. military's M-4 rifles, he said. But when fighting broke out, the Georgians went back to the Soviet AK-47, the only weapon they trusted. They appeared incapable of firing single shots, instead letting off bursts of automatic fire, which is wildly inaccurate and wastes ammunition, he said.

quote:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Project_SALVO

[edit] Project SALVO
In 1948, the Army organized the civilian Operations Research Office (ORO), mirroring similar operations research organizations in the United Kingdom. One of their first efforts, Project ALCLAD, studied body armor and the conclusion was that they would need to know more about battlefield injuries in order to make reasonable suggestions.[4] Over 3 million battlefield reports from WWI and WWII were analyzed and over the next few years they released a series of reports on their findings.[4]
The conclusion was that most combat takes place at short range. In a highly mobile war, combat teams ran into each other largely by surprise; and the team with the higher firepower tended to win. They also found that the chance of being hit in combat was essentially random — that is, accurate "aiming" made little difference because the targets no longer sat still. The number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.[4] Other studies of behavior in battle revealed that many U.S. infantrymen (as many as 2/3) never actually fired their rifles in combat. By contrast, soldiers armed with rapid fire weapons (such as submachine guns) were much more likely to have fired their weapons in battle.[5]

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I used to shoot this puppy in the army

Self Loading Rifle.

Good strong rifle...accurate and 7.62 calibre...quite heavy and long (standing up and shotting it took some forearm and shoulder strength) and a kick like a mule.