Ordinary PLA infantrymen

Gollevainen · May 11, 2007

The shortcommings of even the orginal AK-47 are marginal to the improvements that more recent rifles may posses. These differences are so small that their actual influence to battlefield operations is minimal. The plain and simple fact is that all Kalashnikoviks are simple and most importantly realible from the outset where as its western competitors aren't. So what if M16 is slighty lighter and have less recoil and thus marginally shaper? You can hit a mansize targets with AK in 300 meters and thats all you need. Ranges above that are usually very rare outculding deserts. Thats why you have sniper-rifles. More important is that your gun works and you can thrust it in all conditions. I can thrust AKs, so what if it weights few grams less than M16, thrust me no matter how light is the gun, carrying it around in the woods and it will weight a ton

Skorzeny · May 11, 2007

Well, its the little things that count. In battle, when thousands of troops fires hundreds of times each, a little improvement in accuracy starts making a difference. If you look to other western weapons, like HK, you dont have a reliability issue, unlike the original M16. The weigth difference is allways important. When you cut your soap bar in two and throw away the "useless bit" of your rations, why would not weigth saved on your weapon count? More ammo or smaller load is the result. When you walk through the woods, everything is heavy, but that little extra might be the straw that breaks you.

Gollevainen · May 11, 2007

My point was that the differences are really marginal and hardly makes a difference. Accuracy is always more dependable on the guy shooting the gun than the actual gun (if talking about common assault rifles in service nowadays). Weight is really not an issue, if few grammas will break you, then its more likely that you would have broken anyway regardless what type of rifle you are carrying.

My stand is that as long as you have working rifle that deliveres its mission, wheter its a Kalashnikovik, G36, M16 or some other its sufficient enough. We finns have great emphassy towards high quality as our limited recources and yet huge task (defend huge and rough area with small population) asks for the best possiple solution. Our weaponmanufacturing industry has long tradditions and certainly would have been able to adopt more "modern" design than Kalashnikoviks. But we haven't and the sole and simple reason is that it just isen't worhtwhile. You aim and you shoot and the enemy is dead. plain simple. You can hit ten rounds to 10cm diameter circle from 150m so its accurate enough. I have fired the gun with it being lying in mud for several days and had a complete pinecone inside the mechanism, so its realible enough
...The end result of wars is dependable of entirely different issues, but IMO having gun that doesen't jam is much more important than a rifle that doesent "kick back" so much than AK...

f.hind · May 11, 2007

Gollevainen said:
My point was that the differences are really marginal and hardly makes a difference. Accuracy is always more dependable on the guy shooting the gun than the actual gun (if talking about common assault rifles in service nowadays). Weight is really not an issue, if few grammas will break you, then its more likely that you would have broken anyway regardless what type of rifle you are carrying.

My stand is that as long as you have working rifle that deliveres its mission, wheter its a Kalashnikovik, G36, M16 or some other its sufficient enough. We finns have great emphassy towards high quality as our limited recources and yet huge task (defend huge and rough area with small population) asks for the best possiple solution. Our weaponmanufacturing industry has long tradditions and certainly would have been able to adopt more "modern" design than Kalashnikoviks. But we haven't and the sole and simple reason is that it just isen't worhtwhile. You aim and you shoot and the enemy is dead. plain simple. You can hit ten rounds to 10cm diameter circle from 150m so its accurate enough. I have fired the gun with it being lying in mud for several days and had a complete pinecone inside the mechanism, so its realible enough
...The end result of wars is dependable of entirely different issues, but IMO having gun that doesen't jam is much more important than a rifle that doesent "kick back" so much than AK...

I think the PLA have learnt this lesson after decades of using AK derivatives; I bet they made damn sure the QBZ-95 has AK like reliability.

Skorzeny · May 11, 2007

Gollevainen said:
My point was that the differences are really marginal and hardly makes a difference. Accuracy is always more dependable on the guy shooting the gun than the actual gun (if talking about common assault rifles in service nowadays). Weight is really not an issue, if few grammas will break you, then its more likely that you would have broken anyway regardless what type of rifle you are carrying.

My stand is that as long as you have working rifle that deliveres its mission, wheter its a Kalashnikovik, G36, M16 or some other its sufficient enough. We finns have great emphassy towards high quality as our limited recources and yet huge task (defend huge and rough area with small population) asks for the best possiple solution. Our weaponmanufacturing industry has long tradditions and certainly would have been able to adopt more "modern" design than Kalashnikoviks. But we haven't and the sole and simple reason is that it just isen't worhtwhile. You aim and you shoot and the enemy is dead. plain simple. You can hit ten rounds to 10cm diameter circle from 150m so its accurate enough. I have fired the gun with it being lying in mud for several days and had a complete pinecone inside the mechanism, so its realible enough
...The end result of wars is dependable of entirely different issues, but IMO having gun that doesen't jam is much more important than a rifle that doesent "kick back" so much than AK...

Well here is were we disagree. Those two pounds are making a diffence. They allow you to bring more ammo or travel lighter. And I know accuracy is mostly dependent on the shooter, but with a well trained army, the accuracy of the weapons start counting. I`ve fired HK weapons for years (G3 and MP5), and never had a jam i couldn`t clear in two seconds, so reliability isn`t a big issue with these. With nearly everyone who can adopting never and lighter 5,56 og 5,45, it would be strange if they all are wrong.

Gollevainen · May 11, 2007

Well we certainly are in different tracks here.

First about the accuracy. If wars would be sports shooting competitions, then yeas well trained soldier with more accurate rifle comes out victorius. But wars are about shooting humans and Kalashnikovik is accurate enough to hit grown-ups from realistic combat ranges. In the hands of trained soldiers it really doesen't matter wheter you score 9.9 or 10.0 becouse even 2.1 is enough.

The reasons why western nations adopted the 5.56 calibre is becouse it was in effect the first true assault rifle calibre from NATO. You have fired G3 that uses the 7,62x51 calibre so you know how usefull the rapidfire mode is. Kalashnikovik however uses the 7.62x39 which is much more smaller than the NATO round, not as light as the newere NATO round but still light enough to be able to fire relatively accurate with rapidfire mode. Calibre choises are actually more down to politics than to have the technically idealistic round.

Ryz05 · May 11, 2007

It has been discovered in WWII that most shootouts occur in the 300 to 400 meter range, and the AK-47 is designed to be fired within this range with reasonable accuracy. Anything further is just shoot-and-pray. If you want more accurate fire down-range, it's better to have a squad machine gun, designated marksman, or a sniper rifle for the job.

The M-16 is based on the old American tradition of the lone-marksman, where a man fires his gun from great distance and snipe the enemy in the other trench. The M-16 is thus built to be accurate, though it lacks the fire-power of the AK-47, and may not be as reliable. This added accuracy might not be an advantage when you are fighting in the jungles of Vietnam where the enemy is only a few feet away from you.

I think someone said, when civilization breaks down, you want a rifle that is dependable and the AK is the way to go. So, you can see the respect people give for reliability and the AK can well last into the next century. According to reports, the QBZ-95 the PLA equipped is claimed to be as reliable as the AK-47, with accuracy similar to that of M-16 because of the low recoil.

Skorzeny · May 11, 2007

Gollevainen said:
Well we certainly are in different tracks here.

First about the accuracy. If wars would be sports shooting competitions, then yeas well trained soldier with more accurate rifle comes out victorius. But wars are about shooting humans and Kalashnikovik is accurate enough to hit grown-ups from realistic combat ranges. In the hands of trained soldiers it really doesen't matter wheter you score 9.9 or 10.0 becouse even 2.1 is enough.

The reasons why western nations adopted the 5.56 calibre is becouse it was in effect the first true assault rifle calibre from NATO. You have fired G3 that uses the 7,62x51 calibre so you know how usefull the rapidfire mode is. Kalashnikovik however uses the 7.62x39 which is much more smaller than the NATO round, not as light as the newere NATO round but still light enough to be able to fire relatively accurate with rapidfire mode. Calibre choises are actually more down to politics than to have the technically idealistic round.

Firing at full size targets might be the case on the frozen lakes of Finland, but in combat are more likely to engange a man running for his life or taking cover and just showing parts of his body. then accuracy comes into play, and the lower recoil will let you shoot faster until you hit. I love the ooomph of the 7,62X51, but the nato 5,56X45 are better against body armour, and lighter and easier to fire. 7,62X39 is somewhere between, with bigger recoil than 5,56, but lesser performance against body armour and lower accuracy, but causes larger wonds on unarmoured personell. I`d take my G3 over an AK every day, but looking forward to the HK416

(I`d also take an AK over basic M16 every day.)

Most shootouts doesn`t occure in the 300-400 meter range, they occure under that range.

Gollevainen · May 11, 2007

well perhaps we are in the point where we would choose the gun we are customed to

If I needed to go to war now, I would pick Kalasnikovik, becouse I can still disample and enable it blindfolded....even If Im sleepin:rofl: Those moves are deep in my spine, and that is what its all about, The training is the one that makes the most difference, not the guns

bd popeye · May 11, 2007

Gollevainen said:
well perhaps we are in the point where we would choose the gun we are customed to
If I needed to go to war now, I would pick Kalasnikovik, becouse I can still disample and enable it blindfolded....even If Im sleepin:rofl: Those moves are deep in my spine, and that is what its all about, The training is the one that makes the most difference, not the guns

When I was stationed in the Philippines long before many of you were born. I was in charge of the Armory at NAS Cubi PT for 1 year of the 2 years I was stationed there.

We had 360 M-14's.(no M-16's) Assorted shotguns. .45's and .38's. I also ran the pistol range which was part of the armory. We also had air weight .38's.

I bet I can still break down and reassemble a .45 cal in the dark. And that was over 30 years ago.

Golly you would have enjoied that duty. You could go shooting several times a week...

Ordinary PLA infantrymen

Gollevainen

Colonel

Skorzeny

Junior Member

Gollevainen

Colonel

f.hind

New Member

Skorzeny

Junior Member

Gollevainen

Colonel

Ryz05

Junior Member

Skorzeny

Junior Member

Gollevainen

Colonel

bd popeye

The Last Jedi