water based lubricants suck?
Well surprise, surprise if you beat the crap out of an M16 it doesn't work.
Doobie Doobie Doo..
No surprise... beat the crap out of an AK and it still works.Originally Posted by Penguin
Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!
Those M16's were ancient relics. Basic M16's...not A1's or A2's.
Trying to get on the no fly list, one post at a time.
They were probably also full of diesel fuel, the Russian lubricant of choice. And the mags used look just that, really used. They should look to the sandbox to see how well they work in combat.
I agree I would look to the sand box to see how a modern M-16 holds up in combat. Those tests didn't strike me as very fair or scientific. As was pointed out the M-16s looked to be old models. How old I don't know exactly but it would lead me to belive perhaps they did not have certian improvments that were added as time has gone by. Not to mention wear and tear that could have been present. While the AK looked to be a nice and new model. Also the standard of mantainance between and AK and an M-16 will be different. Also it looked like some of the people shooting the M-16 seemed either clueless as to how to get the most out of shooting the M-16 or indifferent to its operation. Give some one a piece of equipment they don't have any interest in using and it won't work.
For a good test I would get some people who know and like each platform and give them the same tests to compeate against each other and see who makes the most of their gun.
Last edited by Penguin; 03-16-2012 at 09:46 PM.
Doobie Doobie Doo..
They were A1's according to the audio.
I saw one that wasn't even that. But the other's I saw may have been. If it had a forward assist, it's an A1. I saw at least one without.
Trying to get on the no fly list, one post at a time.
They were 35 to 45 year old M16 and M16A1s, being compared against (from the floating barrel recoil assembly) AN94s and AK74s. US hasn't issued 20rd mags since the late 60s.
How do we know those were not cheap russian M16 knock-offs. They have copied everything else of ours and it never seems to work quite right for them.
My son on a recent deployment to Afghanistan was issued a 1969 vintage GAU 5/A lower with an M4 upper. He said it ran fine although only semi, safe and FA options were available.
Doesn't matter. They couldn't make a Stoner rifle any WORSE...
Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!
Cool then they'll invade us and see how our weapons don't function.
Don't worry, our weapons will function just fine. I promise.
Trying to get on the no fly list, one post at a time.
Looked like M16A1 variants, had tear drop forward assist plunger. I'd like to see an M4 or A3 variant run through those tests. I bet the outcome would be only marginally better. On the mag drop, probably fine if they use Lancer or Mag Pul etc. mags.
Quoted for the greater justice.
Well, since I own both types of weapons, and have shot them both quite a bit, I will go with my own experience.
Yes, the AK is a more rugged design but it's also less accurate, which comes into play when distance between combatants extends... as in Afganistan.
If the AR wasn't a good weapon, we wouldn't be using it. Why would we? We have the best kit in the world.
The Russians are very very "good enough" about their kit selection and if something is working, they tend not to change it until something quite a bit better comes along...
~Nemo me impune lacessit~
This is how:
http://defensetech.org/2007/12/17/m4...-in-dust-test/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks