In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

M16 verses AK: an assessment from Jane?s Infantry Weapons (12/20/2001)

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited December 2001 in General Discussion
M16 versus AK: an assessment from Jane's Infantry WeaponsBy Terry Gander, Editor, Jane's Infantry WeaponsWith the first few hundred of what may become a force of around 2,000 US Marines having flown in to an airport near Kandahar - now the last key Taliban stronghold following the fall of Kunduz over the weekend - it seems as though the closing phase of the Afghan ground campaign may be at hand. As these ground operations develop, they will inevitably once again emphasise many age-old factors regarding infantry combat. As always, the infantry will have to carry their own personal and immediate fire support weapons with them and, once on the ground, the old lessons of firepower will be re-emphasised. The Taliban, Al-Qaeda forces and their veteran foreign allies will never have forgotten how the mujahideen and their predecessors were able to safely hold out in the mountains where invading armies could reach them only with difficulty and at the cost of many casualties. Their Coalition opponents will have at their disposal all the many advantages that modern technology and communications can bestow, but those advantages will have to be purchased by establishing considerable supply facilities for everything from batteries to helicopter fuel. By contrast, the Taliban and their allies have repeatedly demonstrated how they can live off the land and under the harshest conditions, seemingly with few demands other than ammunition. The campaign will no doubt be long, arduous and unpleasant, as campaigns in Afghanistan have always been.Where clashes do occur between the US Marines and their Taliban/Al-Qaeda adversaries, they will once again mainly involve the design products of Eugene Stoner and Mikhail Kalashnikov. Despite their relatively short effective combat ranges of a maximum 400m or so, the M16 and AK-47/AKM will produce the bulk of the infantry's firepower as efficiently as they always have done. Yet in the mountains and the sparse open terrain that covers much of Afghanistan, extended effective ranges are almost certain to be demonstrated as more important than sheer volume of fire. Practical selected marksman rifles will no doubt come to dominate proceedings and anti-mat?riel rifles will come into their own. Rifle calibre machine guns such as the Russian 7.62mm PK series will be invaluable, especially when compared to their 5.56 and 5.45mm calibre equivalents under local conditions. By the time the next Jane's Infantry Weapons Foreword is published the veracity of these forecasts can be reassessed, but in the meantime the realisation that a full-blown war is in progress creates all the uncertainties (and inevitable surprises) that wars always produce.In truth, the current War against Terrorism has already been in progress for a very long time, although societies have tended not to appreciate the unwelcome fact. The ability of relatively small groups or individuals with some form of political or religious message to impose by force has been around for almost as long as organised societies have been established. It is due to all the many advantages of modern communications and weapon power that their chosen activities have recently become much more dangerous to the way we live. It will be a long struggle and a costly one, but now that Terrorism has declared open war on organised societies that do not agree with their opinions, the War against Terrorism has to become an accepted fact of life. It is also a fact of life that much of the actual combat to come will involve infantry weapons - not the complex weapon systems upon which so many financial and development resources were lavished to allow the old Cold War to be conducted. The contents of this Yearbook are thus worthy of study, for it is with these weapons that the War against Terrorism will be fought. 608 of 1968 words derived from the Foreword to Jane's Infantry Weapons 2002-2003 http://www.janes.com/regional_news/asia_pacific/news/jiw/jiw011126_1_n.shtml

Comments

  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    As any Vietnam-vet who saw combat will tell you, it's unwise to stake your life on an M-16 in anything but the most sterile environments where you have a lot of time to clean it.Desert sand + lack of time to clean + M-16 = jams, jams, jams.On the other hand, the AK is designed to be put through the environmental wringer, and has shown itself to be utterly reliable.I saw a test once where a new AK-47 was first doused in water, then buried in sand, and then picked up and fired. It fired a 30-round clip without any jams or misfires. Yeah, I was shocked too the first time.It may be less accurate than the M-16, but wouldn't you rather have an extra 10-seconds to line up your sights while the other guy frantically rams the forward assist lever and tries to chamber a round?[This message has been edited by Bullzeye (edited 12-20-2001).]
  • DickSkinnerDickSkinner Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    From the archives of SNL...."JANE, you ignorant SLUT!!"
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    ????????What the hell is that supposed to mean?
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994
    edited November -1
    I believe DS is expressing his views (which I agree with) on Jane Fonda.
  • Evil ATFEvil ATF Member Posts: 1,195 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Was there ever any doubt that the AK ruled the roost? :-)
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994
    edited November -1
    C'mon, Evil, you know when nobody's looking you caress a Garand.
  • Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    AK is superior weapon in all sense only thing better a .50 but not for long The guys at RMRL got out a 22MM firing AK LAT rifleCuban version is a 33MM BAMBY ,I don't know but our skunk works needs some new 'Influx'of ideas and people. I don't trust computer chip guns .....
  • JudgeColtJudgeColt Member Posts: 1,790 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In my reading of the excerpt, I see nothing that even compares the AK-47 and the M16. The article just notes that longer range weapons will be more effective. In other words, an M60 MG would be more effective than an M249 due to the larger and heavier bullet. Neither the M16 nor the AK are considered "long range," although I believe the current heavy 5.56mm bullet is designed to duplicate the 7.62x51 ballistics so I wonder about the "limited range" issue.While the M16 did have early reliability troubles due to the use of ball powder when it was designed for stick power, all of the reliability problems are long gone. (See the June 1981 Atlantic Monthly for the full story on how the M16 was sabotaged by the ordnance corps and the switch to ball powder. The article is based on the congressional investigation of the M16 that came about after the stories of failure began to reach home.)While I believe the Kalashnikov design is ultimately more reliable under the most extreme environments and neglect, an M16 with standard maintenance will be as reliable as, or more reliable than, any other service rifle, past or present. As the writer says, time will tell how the M16 does in this current campaign.
  • jonkjonk Member Posts: 10,121
    edited November -1
    No way even the best M16 is more reliable than any other US service rifle past or present. Take an M-16, Garand, M14, Springfield 03 and put them all through the wringer. Leave them frozen in mud for a week. Sandblast them. Hit them with hammers. When the best semi auto has crapped out, the bolt action will still work. Even for semi auto, I doubt it is as reliable as 50+ year old Garands which still work perfectly.
    "...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994
    edited November -1
    GARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARAND...I do beleive I have an obsession...GARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARANDGARAND ...
  • LowriderLowrider Member Posts: 6,587
    edited November -1
    Yeah, what Judge said. I tuned in looking for a technical or subjective comparison between the two weapons. What a let down. Nothing to disagree with.
    Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
  • mlincolnmlincoln Member Posts: 5,039 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The next time you guys go out and get stoned before posting, please have the decency to invite me along.About the only fellow who gets things right is JudgeColt when he notes that the article says damn little about the actual differences between the two weapons, beyond noting that some of the fighting will take place at long range.What I find surprising is the article's attitude that infantry weapons will be decisive. That's nonsense. As WWII to some extent, Desert Storm, Bosnia, and now Afghanistan have shown, it is sophisticated and stunningly accurate air power that is not the decisive element in battle. The Taliban and Al Queda have been crushed by relentless and accurate bombing, not by a bunch of guys with rifles. In fact, I would dare say that we have arrived at a totally new point in warfare, in which air power is THE decisive factor.To suggest, though, as some posters have, that a return to bolt action military rifles is a wise course of action. . . well, like I said, if you're going to go out and get stoned, invite me along. The modern assault rifle is LIGHT YEARS ahead of WWI era technology, and so much more effective on a battlefield. And how about this for all you low-tech, Fred Flintstone manufacturing standards AK lovers: you stand on one ridgeline 200 yards from me on a moonless night with your AK, and I'll stand on another with my AR with a nightvision scope.Finally, sure the M14 and Garand are more accurate at ranges over 400 meters, but who the hell--in a battlefield situation where you're dirty and scared and it's windy and dust is blowing and the targets shoot back--can hit anything at those ranges? The guys who can, snipers and marksmen, are given appropriate weapons to do the job. Bear in mind that snipers are not infantry and vice versa. To say that they should be given the same weapon is foolish.
  • LowriderLowrider Member Posts: 6,587
    edited November -1
    Jesus I hate it when the posts get so wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide.
    Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
  • Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    That is why i gave my opinion the article Sucks !
    Ignis Natura Renovatur Integram
Sign In or Register to comment.