Best Individual Weapon & Equipment in the World

[Tab]

I have often read on here how good some readers think the M16 is, when the young woman soldier was captured in Irqa during the invasion, the American checked all the rifles on that convoy and found two thirds of them had jammed due to poor care by the soldiers. This problem so bad in Vietnam that they had to send teams of weapon instructors out there just to try and teach how to maintain their rifles. Things got so bad with M16 that at one time they wanted to with draw it, now all these people want us to adopt it, is this the weapon you want to adopt for us.

[friendlyfireaintfriendly]

If a modern weapon is not cleaned it jams simple as that. thats why they teach discipline in the army.

You could use an AK but they are heavy inaccurate and use up ammunition too fast...
lets stick with discipline shall we?

[anglo-saxon]

You could use an AK but they are heavy inaccurate and use up ammunition too fast...

What absolute drivel!

While an M16A2 is two pounds lighter than an AK, an SA80 with a full mag weighs four ounces more than than an AK 47 with a full mag and fires a cyclic rate of 50 rds per min faster. Not that this means much as "cyclic rate" on a mag-fed weapon is theory only and all assault rifles are generally fired with single shots, rather than fully-automatic. The rate of fire, is either controlled by the individual soldier (applying individual fire discipline) or by the NCO who is controlling fire in the section.

As for accuracy: Long shots are becoming a thing of the past now as typical engagement distances drop as dictated by the environments in which they are used.

Apart from this, the penetration ability of a 7.62mm X 39mm round is significantly greater than the 5.56mm.

The AK is actually a decent peice of kit. You could run over the thing with a vehicle in a swamp and it would work fine afterwrds.

Of course, any weapon is only as good as the soldier (or student ) who is firing it!

[Pasha]

Tab,

I remember us having the SA80/M16 debate before. Your last piece furthers a post that I wrote previously (in response to Chunky from York) and which I have copied below. The full argument can be found here:
viewtopic.php?t=2885&postdays=0&postord ... r&start=15

I read your post with some interest. In the course of my research on the Borneo conflict, the Armalite was the one issue where there was really no consensus amongst my interviewees, they either loved it or hated it. So far a fifty - fifty split.

The M16 carried by US soldiers in Viet Nam was the retarded child of a rather elegant parent, the Armalite AR-15, designed by the weapons genius Eugene Stoner. The AR-15 was an ideal weapon for jungle warfare-lightweight, reliable, deadly. Its tiny 5.56mm bullet was more lethal than the 7.62mm it was designed to replace, because it tumbled end over end inside the victim's body, tearing a wide swathe of destruction rather than punching a neat hole straight through.

Alas the US Army did not accept the AR-15 without modifications. The bullet tended to wobble at minus 65 degrees fahrenheit, which could be a real problem had America gone to war with Antartica, so they increased the "degree of twist" in the rifling, which stabilized the round in frigid weather, but also reduced the tumbling inside the victim's body, and thus the weopan's lethality.

Anbother problem was lubrication: The technical manuals that accompanied the M16 recommended the same lubrication procedures as for its predecessor, the M14, regardless of the fact that the two rifles were as dissimilar as a sports car and a pick up truck. The conventional lubricant VV-L-800 decomposed in Viet Nam's humidity.

As you have already pinpointed though, what really destroyed the M16's efficiency was a change in propellant powder, from IMR (Improved Military Rifle) to slower burning conventional "ball" powder. This increased the cyclic rate from 700 to 1,000 per minute, which caused the weapon to jam, and as you said, it also left a residue which gummed up the barrel and the action. When Colt tested the M16 in 1965, it found that none of its samples failed if they used IMR, but half of them did on conventional ball powder.

At first the military denied that this was the real problem. The real problem was that soldiers were being lazy, not cleaning their weapons properly. The U.S. Congress didn't think much of this attitude when one of their number read them a letter a wounded Marine had wrote home to his mother:

"We've been on an operation since the 21st of last month ... We left with close to 1,400 men in our battalion and came back with half. We left with 250 men in our company and came back with 107. We left with 73 men in our platoon and came back with 19 ...
You know what killed most of us? Our own rifle ... the M16. Practically every one of our dead was found with his rifle torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it."

After some years the M16 was retrofitted with a chrome-lined chamber and buffer modification to slow down the cyclic rate of fire, which made it a little more reliable - though still not as good as the original, using IMR. Why did they continue to use conventional ball powder? It was a complicated skein of interservice rivalry, bureaucratic inertia,and porkbarrel politics that has never been unraveled, and never will be.

A pity since it would be nice to point a finger: This man's inefficiency, or ego, or avarice killed more American GIs than any division in the Vietnamese Order of Battle.

Best regards

Pasha

[Doc]

If a modern weapon is not cleaned it jams simple as that. thats why they teach discipline in the army.

You could use an AK but they are heavy inaccurate and use up ammunition too fast...
lets stick with discipline shall we?

Ermmmmmmmm as a medic type I may not be an authority on Weapons, but "AK´s use up ammo to fast"????? surely its in relation to time spent with finger on trigger?

[lew]

Doc, I wouldn’t worry to much if I were you, last time I checked cadets weren’t issued AK's and they don’t teach students marksman ship principles or the different rates of fire at school...


Kids aye


lew

[wannabe_bootneck]

AKs cannot be used simple as that, NATO nations use 5.56mm weapons, AK fires 7.62. The Ak series of weapons are not the super gun some people think they are, they were designed for use by untrained peasants. Therefore, marksmanship goes out the window, which is a key skill in military training. If the AK47 was such a super weapon why have the Ruskys made AK74 and a new bullpup rifle.

[Seven]

The AK74 is een AK47 rechambered for a 5.45 mm round, plus a few other modifications probably. The reason they switched to this round as did NATO from 7.62 to 5.56, is because the smaller round is less lethal. A wounded man takes 2 or 3 of his mates from the battlefield that have to dress his wounds and carry him away, if he had died the rest of them would be able to continue without a problem. Also a screaming wounded man tends to undermine morale.

The AK47 was actually derived from the German Sturmgewehr (Stg) 44. I think it's probably a pretty good weapon if they think its worth to be updated. Also take a look at all the different versions, LMGs, sniper rifle. Very few weapons are that versatile and in service for more than 50 years!

[Doc]

The best individual weapon in the world is the brain as its needed to operate most things.
The best model is the Welsh Brain Mk3, it is superb and far more superior to English brain mk78. Scottish and Irish combined their production capabilities and developed the SI brain mk124 but was withdrawn from service as early trials indicated it wasnt really needed.
European models are ok-ish but have adverse effects on other systems namely dress sense speech and manners.
Euro-Asian development halted in late 1980´s and further plans have had little success due to cheap imports from US Brain mk899.

US brain models are very small, but require a large cranial space in which to bounce around in, which makes them unstable and adept at changing outlook and plans dependant on the BushBrain Mk1.

only in jest before I get slotted!

[McNamee]

It's down to the user, and how he uses the equipment. That goes for weapons especially.

[goreD.]

My individual weapon is the best.

It has a long barrel, is big bored, has an integral helmet, retracts when not in use, is multi-purpose, is self lubricating and fits quite snugly into the palm of my hand.

It differs from other weapons as mine can not only injure/kill people but can also create life.

Beat that. I will later.........

Gore.

[Maroon]

the Welsh brain mk3 is still flawed as was the mk1 and 2 with it's inability ro resist certain mating calls which tend to render the host inexplicably docile... "Baaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaa!"

[Greenronnie]

The SA80 is a piece of crap, the only reason why we have still got it, is that so much money has been spent on it, we can't go back now. The best weapon going is the AK47, basically it goes bang when you pull the trigger, every time, in any conditions. Plus it costs bugger all to make, it's light, and all the baddies use them (think ammo resup on the battlefield). The M16/M4 is probably second.

[got1]

Thanks for bring this subject up again, we can refresh our selves on the the experiences of our cadet force and FFF.

The best weapon was the SLR.

[Greenronnie]

Cheers for that last comment, I was in the cadets once, 17 and a half years ago. since then I have been in Para reg, and have been to virtually every conflict during that time.
The SLR is a good rifle for long range shooting (I would like to take one to Afghanistan next year if I had the choice), however the ammo is very heavy when you're carrying a lot of it and is over-powered for the sorts of ranges most contacts happen at. Plus it isn't ideal for getting in and out of vehicles or parachuting.
I still reckon the enemy have the best weapon going in the AK.