04-20-2006, 11:30 PM | #121 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 2,672
|
Quote:
|
|
04-20-2006, 11:32 PM | #122 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 2,672
|
Oh, and as far as the AK is concerned, if it's good enough for a "Wolverine", it's good enough for me...
|
04-20-2006, 11:35 PM | #123 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 29
|
I will put my two cents in. Personally, I like the AK better. I have seen the torture test that Magnus put one through, then he ran a mag through it without a hiccup. He assaulted that assault rifle. Drug it down a dirt road, down a blacktop road, and violated it in many other ways. He can add a link to the thread on the Monkey. I can promise you that an AR wouldn't take this type of abuse, I know, I have several. First off the plastic would have shattered. I also had to send my Bushmaster back to Bushy because after about two hundred rounds it wouldn't feed reliably no matter what mag or ammo I ran through it. They sent it back and said there were some problems with it. I immediatly sold it and bought a DPMS classic. Which I like very much. The AR's do seem to be mag sensitive, and I have seen quite a few have problems on the range. I still like them, and enjoy shooting them, but I have yet to have any problems with my AK. In addition, right after a build Magnus and I tested one at my range on my lease and we were getting inch and a half to two inch groups at a little over fifty yards. Maybe it's just me, but I can't do much better without optics. Of course that was without a good benchrest, just using a jacket, and I am sure others could do better with it. I get about the same groups using iron sights with my AR, if I mount the scope I get better. I think it all boils down to what you are comfortable with and what you trust. To be honest though, I think that I would be more comfortable with a Garand in my hands.
Now food for thought. I am going to make the argument that our soldiers were better armed at the company level in WWII, than they are now. Just counting arms, not armor or GPS or all of the goodies. The M-1 Garand, the 1927 Thompson, (okay, forget all about the M-1 Carbine...not a fan), the .30 cal Browning and the big "Ma Deuce" and of couse the 1911 Gov. model .45. vs. the M-4, M-9, SAW, etc. Flame away......
__________________
"Mercy is for the weak and the unprepared.":dgnr: |
04-20-2006, 11:49 PM | #124 |
February 16 1966- October 23 2008 - US Navy veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Island , New York
Posts: 8,169
|
I like the Varmintor style AR-15 rifle all the companies seem to think we need. Actually it is a smart idea. It makes competant snipers/shooters out of all those who go shooting squirrells and other small animals. Being able to put a .223 round into an animal which ways a pound and is as big as a shoe out at 200 + yards is pretty good training.
|
04-20-2006, 11:59 PM | #125 | |
Retired Soldier
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Central PA
Posts: 14,148
|
Quote:
Needless to say, Ma Duce is still around, and probaly in greater numbers now than was common in WWII. A variant of the M-14, the M-21 is still around, but we also have the Rem 700, the Barrett, and several other, much better dedicated sniping weapons available today. The M-1927 Thompson, was popular, but not really a practical combat weapon. Yes, it was better than nothing, but as sub guns go, it was complicated to produce, operate, and maintain. Hence the reason for the M-3/M-3A1 grease gun The M-1919 was a good GPMG, but only from a tripod. The A3 variant, with the bipod, and shoulder stock was heavy, cumbersome, noisy to carry, and still was limited to only 100 rounds at a time (cloth belts if you recall) It really wasn't until the introduction of the disintegrating metal link belts that GPMG's became a practical assault weapon. Yes, the M-1919 was adapted to the metal link, but not until very late in the war (WWII), and by then it was pretty much irrelevent. Now as to the battle rifles of WWII, and shortly thereafter, IE .30 cal, vs the hot .22 of today, I don't really think anyone here is arguing that .223 is equal to, or better than .30-06, or .308. The basis of the argument is .223 vs 7.62 x 39 mm R. |
|
04-21-2006, 12:58 AM | #126 |
February 16 1966- October 23 2008 - US Navy veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Island , New York
Posts: 8,169
|
As always Horse a calming force in a sea of turmoil !
Only 25 more to go ! |
04-21-2006, 10:34 AM | #127 |
The Mad Messenger
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Great State of Insanity
Posts: 4,222
|
I've heard for years the M9 Beretta is not a good combat weapon. The slides on the ones used in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm tended to crack.
Back on AK vs. AR: I like the AK as an SHTF weapon for another reason: it's not particular how it's cleaned and lubricated. The AR requires fancy high tech CLP for cleaning and lubrication. The AK can be cleaned with just about anything and lubricated with just about anything. That's important in a situation where new cleaning materials may not be forthcoming. |
04-21-2006, 10:39 AM | #128 |
Thick Skulled Southerner
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NETX
Posts: 1,196
|
One advantage the AR has over the AK is quicker follow up shots.
However I am more comfortable with the AK, and the track record I of reliablity I have with it.
__________________
"Its all over but the cryin'!" Moonshiner
Are You lookin' at Muh Mun-Kee? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|