STG 44 and Galil, maybe R4
I personally love my AK-74 in 5.45x39 and I'd only trade it for an AUG.
I've wanted an AUG for years, but I cannot fathom spending 3 grand MINIMUM on the damned thing. To hell with all of you who have one.
Depends on the situation.
Something like Afghanistan? I'd rather have an M16. Some close up house-to-house or jungle crap? AK.
I prefer something with better accuracy than the AK to be honest. Old man Kalishnikov even said himself that it was made for the Soviet doctrine of infantry. Sort of like Imperials and TIE fighters.
I played with a Galil and found it incredibly heavy. Didn't like it.
I'm becoming more of a 5.56 fan day by day... I posted a site on wound ballistics but can't find it. Krept, you still have that link handy by chance?
If you had asked me a year ago? I would have laughed that you'd even bring up the 5.56 in the same breath with 7.62!!! Now? I am mixed.
It all goes back to the "right tool for the right job". I like how light 5.56 is. I like the horribly nasty damage that it does when it hits a body cavity.
I DON'T like it for any tactical work. Don't get me wrong. I'm no sniper or even anything other than a novice at precision rifle. But there were two incidents that came to mind. One was on RealTV, so some of you may ahve seen it. Some Vietnamese cats took an electronics store hostage in California. To make a long story short, the sniper (Remington PSS in 5.56) had to make a shot through the front display glass. Shot was deflected and bad guys started shooting. I wonder if that would have happened with something in .308?? I doubt it.
Second was a study done in jungle conditions. Again, the Cliff's notes was that the heavy 7.62 round was largely uaffected by moderate to heavy brush. 5.56 was affected moderately.
All that said, the Afganistan fighting really puts the "AK-47's are GOD IN ANY ENVIRONMENT" to complete shame. Had the Taliban boys stuck with the old Mausers and Mosin Nagants that they used against the Soviets, they may have done better against us. But with all their (largely inaccurate) Russian AKs, they got picked off by our troops. Plus we can carry more ammo and inflict wounds on the enemy that generally require IMMEDIATE attention if not a near guarantee that the guy will bleed out on the way to help.
there's this one:
basically all the stuff you'll see related to this is based on studies by Fackler... kinda like people citing "one shot stops" mostly get their data from Marshall and Sanow.
The key to 5.56 wounding is having the velocity high enough to fragment where it's crimped (cannelure). Some civilian ammo does not have this crimp, so lethality is a little compromised. Also the jacket construction comes into play as well as core. Reports said that the frequently used SS109 steel/tungsten core doesn't fragment as violently and the shorter M4 barrel bleeds a little velocity off of it as well, so it doesn't get the job done AS WELL as the bullet cited by Fackler in his studies.
AK47 is an "accurate enough" weapon. 7.62x39mm is "lethal enough" to get the job done. This combo is not as accurate nor as lethal as the AR, but there are still advantages it has in simplicity, reliability and penetration.
The AK74 is more accurate, probably a function of the 5.45x39 cartridge which is certainly more lethal than it's predecessor. Mujahideen quickly found it to be bad news when they faced it in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan; they dubbed it the "poison bullet." I spoke to a guy that fought against the Russians in Chechnya (Aqil) and he said hands down his choice for that type of fighting (MOUT style with mountainous stuff mixed in) was the AK74. He's seen the effects of it first hand, up close and personal and says that while it might not frag as much as the 5.56, it makes terrible wounds.
Regarding the 7.62, it's quite a specialized cartridge now for more longer range stuff (or urban counter terrorism/hostage junk). Even then, at 500M a 5.56 will STILL put a hole in a standard issue helmet, so it's certainly enough to brain someone or open a heart. Mick Strider, the guy behind Strider Knives and former Army Ranger said that he prefers the M14 rifle to all others... BUT... in a firefight, he'd choose an M4 every time. Easier to get fast, multiple hits with.
7.62 vs 5.56... on paper it's better in most if not all areas. But then again, the .338 Lapua is better than IT and then the BMG is superior to the Lapua. How much is TOO much? From 0-150M the 5.56 will... WILL... get the job done just fine. If you're fighting past that you'll most likely have a weapon that really, really sucks for anything CQB. It IS a trade off. My favorite rifle is the M14 and I don't have one and may never get one. My next purchase is going to be an M4.
"If you had asked me a year ago? I would have laughed that you'd even bring up the 5.56 in the same breath with 7.62!!! Now? I am mixed."
LOL T0ki, I'm telling you man... I used to laugh at the 5.56 and 9mm but not any more. 7.62 and .45ACP ARE better, but are they THAT much better that it's laughable? I don't think so. :)
krept, I've changed my opinion on the 5.56. I used to be against it, but the more I read, the more I believe...
As for the accuracy of the AK? In the Afghanistan conflict with the US, longer ranged shots became the rule as opposed to the exception. We're talking soldier-issued assault rifles here, not specialized marksmen. At 500m, would you rather have an AK or an M16?
Oh man, either way I'd rather have an AR than an AK, I've changed my mind about those too. The only reason I have the AK still is because my wife loves it (she hasn't shot an AR ;) ).
What I'm talking about, however, is the potential for CQB OR 500M engagements. We can't run around with a quiver of rifles on our backs, that's what I'd rather have the AR than any of the other rifles I can get stateside. Put a suppressor on it and you're golden.
Nobody ever mentions the HK 91. Or hell, even the 93.
I think the 7.62x51 stuff qualifies more as a "battle rifle" vs. an "assault rifle." I'm not really sure what the differences would be, but I'm thinking battle rifles are for more longer range generic gunfight style stuff. Assault rifles would be lighter more suited for ambush/counter ambush, closer ranges to CQB.
In that light, i think the 93 is a good weapon, but feel HK eclipsed it with the G36. Will be interesting to see what the new breed of AWs that are based on new cartridges are.
krept is correct as usual.
I'm no gun expert but I was talking to a veteran who said that the only gun he'd want in a war is the M1A from Springfield. Anyone have any opinions about these?
"I'm no gun expert but I was talking to a veteran who said that the only gun he'd want in a war is the M1A from Springfield. Anyone have any opinions about these?"
They were great until the last few years. Most of the US GI parts are gone and their QA has turned for the worst. Go read some of the M1A forums..Forge parts vs cast...etc..
M1A kicks serious ASS, especially when modified into the M21. http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn09-e.htm
It is not an assault rifle, however. More like a battle rifle.
Different tools, different jobs.
Thanks for the info.
I was reading the earlier responses on the .223 which I'm guessing is the same as 5.56. My question is will this round normally kill with one shot or do you always need follow up shots? Seems to me that most people use 223 for coyotes, wouldn't you want something larger for humans.
Is the M14 the same as the M1A?
M14 is essentially the select fire (can choose semi or full auto) version of the M1A. I'm not sure if anyone really goes full auto with an M14 anymore. Even the pistol gripped .308s like the FAL are pretty tricky to control in that mode... hence, lighter recoiling assault rifles.
.223" and 5.56mm are essentially the same thing. IIRC in a weapon chambered for 5.56, you are ok to shoot both cartridges, but you might not want to shoot 5.56 out of .223. Could be wrong here.
The key to killing, or as is generally put "stopping" is shot placement. .308 is a more powerful round than 5.56, but people have survived being shot with both so neither is a death ray.
The 5.56 relies on fragmentation as it's primary wounding mechanism. Basically all bullets want to flip upside down when they hit a medium denser than air, this is called "yawing" and they want to travel more like a generic raindrop shape, if you know what I mean, as opposed to pointy part first. When the 5.56 hits the 90 degree yaw mark and it is traveling above a certain velocity (around 2700 FPS give or take 50) it will fragment at the point where the bullet is crimped to the brass. This causes a relatively large wound. .308 will not fragment like this, but at the 90 degree yaw mark, it will tear a large hole, so it's still bad in it's own right. Keep in mind that we are talking about full metal jacketed bullets and not hollowpoints, soft points or ballistic tipped bullets... which will increase damage a LOT more.
What it really boils down to is this... you can shoot a squirrel with a 5.56 and sometimes the squirrel will come apart. If you shoot a man in the torso with it, you still have the same energy, so he very well might have his guts blown out. It will shatter the breast bone. It will brain someone.
The 5.56, for the most part, will not do as much damage as the .308, but a .50 BMG will do more and a 20mm will do even MORE. How much is enough? Repeat hits withing the 5.56 are easiest to get out of all of these cartridges for "carryable" rifles. If you are shooting at moving targets... and in combat, targets seldom stand still... wouldn't you rather be able to have the same accuracy, but more rapid fire?
Again, this is all based on ranges that one would use an "assault weapon" for. Within 150M and in a 16"+ barrel, 5.56 is pretty badass considering it's low recoil impulse. For civilian use, soft points or hunting bullets make it much more lethal.
Can't wait to see the ballistics on the 6.8.
might as well add this.
the problem with all of this is that what the military needs is different from the individual. For us, there is no close air support, we aren't backed by a squad of guys that can outflank the enemy. We probably won't be fighting an organized group of insurgents. We can't carry around a truckload of ammunition and a quiver of rifles.
Therefore, we must select what will get the job done for the circumstances we are most likely to face and the role we wish to play.
What about a .308 AR? Does it still have the good recoil and accuracy of the 5.56 AR?
Sako 95. All the best parts of the ak with the problem areas fixed.Better sights (diopter), lighter weight,folding stock thats sturdy, bipod (lousy one), even more reliable etc.
Has to be the best.