Vicious_Squid
First time out of the vault
PhredBean said:
Why?
The Guns and Ammo Thread
- Thread starter Kalessin
- Start date
First time out of the vault
Why?
welsh
Junkmaster
Fahrplan said:welsh said:
Hmm I would say what you said is mostly wrong!
The AK was build after the experiences of WW2... The russians did most of the job agains Nazi Germany. All the specs (?) of the AK originated from that experience that a weapon should be es easy to maintain, operate as possible and that it should be reliable under any circumstances...
Besides the AK isn*t that inaccurate as most of us in the west like to portray it! It is decently accurate, it does the Job which it is suppose to do, which isn*t Spray and Pray.
I would agree that the AK is the better weapon for a full scale war. This is what it was designed for. It wasn*t designed as a SWAT oder SpecOps weapon so I wouldn*t use it for that!
Actually, I don't see where you are saying my comments are wrong.
The AK was built with combat conditions in mind. Doesn't seem to have much faith in accuracy over a few hundred yards, fires a bullet that tends to maim rather than kill, fires a lot of bullets and is easy to manufacture. So its a wonderful weapon for guerrilla warfare- the kind of warfare when you can expect the gun to be exposed to harsh conditions and to be kept with rather unsophisticated hands. This is the reason why the AK-47 was so popular in guerrilla struggles, why its on the flag of Mozambique, and probably why there are so many of them you can get one for a couple bags of rice in Africa.
A great weapon? Depends.
Don't get me wrong, I think this notion of making highly complicated weapons that have to be kept in great condition in the battle field is dangerous. A subsequent post about a gun jam and an angry bear points that problem out. Battle fields are often chaotic conditions and it is difficult to maintain a weapon- thus a reliable and easy weapon to maintain seems correct.
As for spray and pray, ok, Suaside, call that suppressive fire if you want, but that's true if you are talking about a sophisticated armies. You can simply watch the news and see that in many of these guerrilla wars, one a soldier does is point the gun over a wall, fire it off and then reload, keeping his body safe. Suppressive fire sounds tactically useful, but realistically is probably not being done in most of your current wars.
Rather, the idea for many of these soldiers is to shoot, fire and make a show. Maybe kill a few bad guys, and live to brag about your exploits that night. What I have seen of urban combat in West Africa, if street fighting in Somalia and even combat between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in Afghanistan suggests that these guys are using "spray and pray" rather than "suppressive fire." A professional disciplined army might think in terms of "suppressive fire" but that's not the kind of army you are likely to see use an AK-47, or even one of its progeny.
And no, I wasn't merely talking about HK. Sig Sauer is also given high regards for accuracy. Many weapons used in Western arsenals are also given high regards for accuracy or, if that fails, are criticized for being unreliable or inaccurate.
While I won't argue that a person who takes care of the AK-47 can assure themselves that the weapon is reliable and accurate, its not those people that those weapons were made for. Those weapons were made by simply factory process to be simply and reliable guns, for a rather simply trained soldiers. Holding the average soldier who will use an AK-47 to the standards of a gun afficiando is just silly. These weapons were built for widespread distribution to revolutionary groups.
All guns are not the same, because they are not built with the same agenda in mind. AK-47s were built to maim a lot of people by giving revolutionaries a cheap, practical and reliable gun. Your western gun was made with another agenda in mind. But both are factory, mass produced weapons made to kill people. That civilian buyers purchase them because they "look cool" is good for the profit margin of Colt and HK, but was not the reason why these guns were made.
And civilians? You get a gun fight in a city between two mobs of armed men carrying sidearms and AK-47s. Do you think these people give a crap about how many civilians get killed? That's like watching a shoot out between two crack gangs on a street. Damn shame a civilian killed, yeah. But they don't give a shit because they don't suffer the same consequences.
On the otherhand, you send in a squad of brits, americans or belgians into a hostile urban environment and they light up and kill a lot of civilians, one can expect to hear the criticism on the news.
And the consequences- ever notice how a lot of those civil wars that rely on soviet era arms tend to go on forever, are never resolved, have no real military victories but tend to create lots and lots of civilian casualties? Sure, part of that is because civilians become political targets, but I suspect a lot of that has to do with 'collateral damage' of spray and pray AK fire.
Again welsh, I say you are wrong
Actually your thesis is.
It was already said that the AK47 was the best assault rifle by the time it was introduced. It was built for the russian military, not for banana republics.
I still don*t see any relations between how the AK47 is prolonging wars???!!!
This is a matter of politics and military strategy and not the AKs fault.
Well I believe that if you give those thugs in your example G36Es they would still slaughter anything.
Again its not the AKs fault, its the lack of training and exercise.
I believe any regular private in the western army could fire accurate and effectively with an AK47.
Really most of your arguments show that it is the fault of untrained morons that use the Ak47.
One (unnamed) official of HK stated in a german magazine that most soldiers aren*t able to hit anything beyond 15feet.
: during a gun fight.
Well I haven*t fired an AK47 ever. Is there anybody here who can share his experience with the AK47?
If it was legal in Germany and NECESSARY I would buy myself an AK103 8) ...
Actually your thesis is.
It was already said that the AK47 was the best assault rifle by the time it was introduced. It was built for the russian military, not for banana republics.
I still don*t see any relations between how the AK47 is prolonging wars???!!!
This is a matter of politics and military strategy and not the AKs fault.
Well I believe that if you give those thugs in your example G36Es they would still slaughter anything.
Again its not the AKs fault, its the lack of training and exercise.
I believe any regular private in the western army could fire accurate and effectively with an AK47.
Really most of your arguments show that it is the fault of untrained morons that use the Ak47.
One (unnamed) official of HK stated in a german magazine that most soldiers aren*t able to hit anything beyond 15feet.
: during a gun fight.Well I haven*t fired an AK47 ever. Is there anybody here who can share his experience with the AK47?
If it was legal in Germany and NECESSARY I would buy myself an AK103 8) ...
welsh
Junkmaster
Fahrplan said:Again welsh, I say you are wrong
Actually your thesis is.
It was already said that the AK47 was the best assault rifle by the time it was introduced. It was built for the russian military, not for banana republics.
I am not arguing that the AK 47 was the best assault rifle at the time it was built. And while it was built for the Russian military, it was not widely used before 1956 because of problems in the receiver development.
Yet by 1956 you are talking about the spread of nuclear weapons making conventional war increasingly improbable. Yet the AK-47 was a simple- mass produced weapon that could be easily made and kept in the field. But this at a time when the Soviets are exporting Marxist revolution means that the weapon is being used for revolutionary wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47
Not an accurate weapon.
That's silly. Military strategy is often a reflection of politics and technology. The AK-47, as you pointed out was made by the Russians after their experience in World War 2. As wikipedia, the point is to throw a lot of bullets at the enemy at short range. Accuracy is secondary to reliablity.
That's history. My question is "why does that make the AK-47 an inherently better weapon?"
Instead, I would argue that one of the reasons why civil wars are often long-lasting is because they are rarely resolved by decisive military victory. In fact, they often descend into extended banditry between rival forces. In that sense the AK-47 is an excellent weapon of criminal and military intimidation of civilian populations.
Is this such a good thing?
I would say no.
But the problem is that you have a gun type that was manufactured for a certain purpose, has spread across the world, and now is being utilized in ways that uphold the guns virtues. But to win wars? No.
I think its more likely that a guerrilla army will arm itself with cheap AK-47s and not more expensive (and accurate) HK weapons and Sig arms. And while you often see M-16s in the hands of guerrillas because they get US surplus as US proxies, it wouldn't surprise me if the US export Kalashnikov because they are cheaper and can be made just about anywhere. Hell, even the Albanians can make AK-47 variants.
Any? No. Some maybe.
Any assumes a lowest common denominator.
Note that I am not arguing that the AK-47 or its variants don't have virtues based on reliability and robustness, or that simple isn't better than complex.
What I am asking is why does that make for a better gun?
You think that maybe if there weren't so many AK-47s (or other Kalashnikovs, or hell, any other cheap gun) around that you buy for almost nothing, you'd have so many civil wars? That they would be so long lasting?
Dude, wars require three things-
(1) A cause- which can be fabricated or created by a political leader
(2) labor- which is civil wars is usually a consequence of lots of unemployed (and pissed off) people.
(3) capital- money.
Simple math- You get more AKs then HKs for the same amount of money. In the process you make it cheaper to field guerrilla armies because you need to spend less money on supplying them with guns.
But are the AKs a better gun? Better to who? Better for what?
You can't make that decision until you take into consideration why those guns are created in the first place, why virtues of reliability are weighed heavier than accuracy.
If you want a robust reliable gun that you can use to spray and pray, don't mind the accuracy and can buy pretty cheap - the AK-47 is the gun you want. Especially if you field a guerrilla army.
and they are easy to get-
Is this a good thing?
If you actually want to hit something you aim and avoid causing extensive civilian causalities (and limit the political consequences) and have the cash to spend on a professional army (with a nice generous sidepayment to the manufacturers of guns) go with a Sig, HK or M-16.
No offense but military guns are not made for hunting, for hitting things targets with accuracy or as a form of art. They are mass produced to kill or maim people based on a simple calculation of what the buyer of the guns want. Military type guns did not become commercially popular until the 1980s because they weren't cool. Even gun magazines were critical of military type guns for hunting (until they realized that their main advertisers were trying to maximize sales with those guns).
Hardly, the problems with the AK-47 is the purpose for which the gun was made. Its cheap, reliable and not very accurate.
One (unnamed) official of HK stated in a german magazine that most soldiers aren*t able to hit anything beyond 15feet.
From what I understand, most gunfights occur within about 10 feet.
Here's the question- in the type of war we seem to fight these days- low intensity wars in which soldiers fight guerrilla insurgents- what kind of gun do you want your soldiers to have.
If you are a poor guerrilla, you go with the AK.
If you care about civilians and are the professional military, you go with something better and more accurate, because you don't want that picture of a civilian's head being blown open shown on TV. And if it does get shown, better pray its the other guys bullet.
Note-
And this is a good thing?
Ok we are now discussing at a level that would be much nicer to continue with some beer in a bar
Actually I have only one problem with your arguments:
Accuracy of the AK47
If someone reads your statements he might get the impression that you can't hit anything with the AK47
Well if you have to hit anything beyhond 250meters you are right. But thats not what the AK was designed for. Actually thats not what the 7,62*39mm round was designed for.
Within these 250meters its is said to be really accurate in selective fire and 3Burst.
Anyhow your question was why is it the better rifle?
I say its the better rifle for a full scale war ( not one of those regional conflicts that last 1-2 months).
Because:
- It is cheap / easy to manufacture
- reliable
- easy to maintain
- every moron can use it
It is all a question about preferences.
If you have an economy that allows you to have 100 soldiers that supply 1 fighting soldier with all his nifty high tech weapons the AK system will lose. Thats were I agree, too.
Edit: The answer to your question is: I would take an AK47 since I don't have any experience with Assault Rifles and I would like to be able to shoot the rats in the groin!
Actually I have only one problem with your arguments:
Accuracy of the AK47
If someone reads your statements he might get the impression that you can't hit anything with the AK47
Well if you have to hit anything beyhond 250meters you are right. But thats not what the AK was designed for. Actually thats not what the 7,62*39mm round was designed for.
Within these 250meters its is said to be really accurate in selective fire and 3Burst.
Anyhow your question was why is it the better rifle?
I say its the better rifle for a full scale war ( not one of those regional conflicts that last 1-2 months).
Because:
- It is cheap / easy to manufacture
- reliable
- easy to maintain
- every moron can use it
It is all a question about preferences.
If you have an economy that allows you to have 100 soldiers that supply 1 fighting soldier with all his nifty high tech weapons the AK system will lose. Thats were I agree, too.
Edit: The answer to your question is: I would take an AK47 since I don't have any experience with Assault Rifles and I would like to be able to shoot the rats in the groin!
welsh
Junkmaster
The real question for Fallout Fans, is ...
when the end comes, what kind of gun do you want to pack?
when the end comes, what kind of gun do you want to pack?
M 14 for teh wins.
take your pick from thesewelsh said:
assault rifles:
- FN FAL (7.62x51mm)
(if you're a murican, go M14/M1A or if you're german, go G3)
- FN SCAR-L or FNC (5.56mm)
(if you're a murican, go AR15, or if you're rusky go AK)
rifles (bolt or selfloading):
- Rem700 derivatives (7.62x51mm or 30-06 preferably)
- SAFN49 (30-06), SKS (7.62x39mm)
- Mosin-Nagant (7.62x54)
(an SMLE, an K31 or a Mauser wouldn't hurt, but those are harder to come by ammo-wise)
shotguns:
- Saiga 12 / Molot Vepr 12 (12 gauge)
- Remington 870, Mossberg 500 or 590 (12 gauge)
pistols:
1911 of your choice (.45 ACP)
Browning HP/GP (9mm)
CZ52 (purely small secondary backup pistol, but the 7.62x25mm TT will knock through lots of armors)
left out SMG's or PDW's because those are harder to come by.
gotta make sure you have durable weapons AND enough ammo (most weapons listed have shitloads of surplus ammo)
welsh
Junkmaster
No Suaside, what if you get only one gun.
And note this has to be a gun that you can actually get today. So if you can't get a fully automatic AKM in your country, no chance.
And note this has to be a gun that you can actually get today. So if you can't get a fully automatic AKM in your country, no chance.
Vicious_Squid
First time out of the vault
M14 is great as a Designated Marksman setup, but lacks in overall user friendliness and capability compared to the M4/M16/AR-15.
The M4/M4A1/M16/AR-15 is the best battle rifle ever. No questions asked.
If you want to challenge me, you should not debate with me but with the US government. They just purchased hundreds of thousands of Colt M4s and M4A1s. They seem to kill people just fine.
I can get headshots very easily at 200m with my M4gery with Aimpoint (non magnified red dot sight).
Nuts to anyone who thinks the 5.56-.223 doesn't have enough stopping power. Just look for hunting photos of people who have used heavier loads on deer. Obviously if a deer is going to have a chuck of head missing with brain matter popping out it is good enough to kill people, and the 5.56-.223 has good ballisitics for it's recoil characteristics.
[/img]
The M4/M4A1/M16/AR-15 is the best battle rifle ever. No questions asked.
If you want to challenge me, you should not debate with me but with the US government. They just purchased hundreds of thousands of Colt M4s and M4A1s. They seem to kill people just fine.
I can get headshots very easily at 200m with my M4gery with Aimpoint (non magnified red dot sight).
Nuts to anyone who thinks the 5.56-.223 doesn't have enough stopping power. Just look for hunting photos of people who have used heavier loads on deer. Obviously if a deer is going to have a chuck of head missing with brain matter popping out it is good enough to kill people, and the 5.56-.223 has good ballisitics for it's recoil characteristics.
Vicious_Squid
First time out of the vault
Vicious_Squid said:M14 is great as a Designated Marksman setup, but lacks in overall user friendliness and capability compared to the M4/M16/AR-15.
The M4/M4A1/M16/AR-15 is the best battle rifle ever. No questions asked.
If you want to challenge me, you should not debate with me but with the US government. They just purchased hundreds of thousands of Colt M4s and M4A1s. They seem to kill people just fine.
I can get headshots very easily at 200m with my M4gery with Aimpoint (non magnified red dot sight).
Nuts to anyone who thinks the 5.56-.223 doesn't have enough stopping power. Just look for hunting photos of people who have used heavier loads on deer. Obviously if a deer is going to have a chuck of head missing with brain matter popping out it is good enough to kill people, and the 5.56-.223 has good ballisitics for it's recoil characteristics.
[/img]
Speaking of the M14, I want to get a standard 22" barreled Springfield + enhanced optic mount and TA31 ACOG calibrated for 7.62.
welsh, you said (realistically) "want to pack", not "can pack right here right now".
but one gun? that's like going naked in the apocalypse man! the bare minimal is 2 (primary longarm & secundary backup).
and yeah, i've got a few contacts with some rabid gunloving old farts. so i doubt getting 2-3 guns would be a problem, since they've got more than they could use/transport/carry. (although i might not get a pistol from them)
most likely would be me stepping out with a SAFN49, a Mosin-Nagant (or SMLE) and a double barreled shotty.
and no, the AR15 isn't the best battle rifle ever, sorry.
but one gun? that's like going naked in the apocalypse man! the bare minimal is 2 (primary longarm & secundary backup).
and yeah, i've got a few contacts with some rabid gunloving old farts. so i doubt getting 2-3 guns would be a problem, since they've got more than they could use/transport/carry. (although i might not get a pistol from them)
most likely would be me stepping out with a SAFN49, a Mosin-Nagant (or SMLE) and a double barreled shotty.
haha, you obviously have NO idea how the government decides what to buy.Vicious_Squid said:
and no, the AR15 isn't the best battle rifle ever, sorry.
Vicious Squid, do *not* double post. The edit button *still* exists for a reason.
welsh said:
I wouldn't pack any gun. I would try to get hold of on one of these funky ass "Bundeswehr" Soldiers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-MnEr8rRHI
I would let them fight for me. I believe they could win any "BATTLE"
because of their supreme trainig and skill.
Fahrplan said:I wouldn't pack any gun. I would try to get hold of on one of these funky ass "Bundeswehr" Soldiers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-MnEr8rRHI
I would let them fight for me. I believe they could win any "BATTLE"
[SeanConneryVoice]Some sniper is gonna get his arse...[/SeanConneryVoice]
fucking wigger deserves it.
DoughboyJones
It Wandered In From the Wastes
The biggest thing to consider when it comes to a question like that is "am I going to be able to find ammo?" So, that in mind something in .308 Winchester, .223 Remington, 9mm Luger, .357 magnum/.38 special and 12 gauge would be high on my list. The 12 gauge probably being highest since those would be easiest to reload in absence of proper equipment.
Beyond that weapon choice is really just that. Some people hate the AR series, some love 'em. Same with the Ak's. Personally, I'd probably go for a bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun since I'm a firm believer in the ethos of when there's less to go wrong, less does. This also puts the single shot in a favorable light IMO. Besides, a higher rate of fire would just make me waste ammo that I really don't need to. The PA would most likely be like in 'The Road' (do yourself a favor and read it) consisting mainly of keeping a low profile and fighting only when other options are exhausted.
All in all, in a predicament like that, I'd be happy to have just about any firearm to protect myself. So, if I didn't have anything I'd find some gas pipe and improvise something.
Beyond that weapon choice is really just that. Some people hate the AR series, some love 'em. Same with the Ak's. Personally, I'd probably go for a bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun since I'm a firm believer in the ethos of when there's less to go wrong, less does. This also puts the single shot in a favorable light IMO. Besides, a higher rate of fire would just make me waste ammo that I really don't need to. The PA would most likely be like in 'The Road' (do yourself a favor and read it) consisting mainly of keeping a low profile and fighting only when other options are exhausted.
All in all, in a predicament like that, I'd be happy to have just about any firearm to protect myself. So, if I didn't have anything I'd find some gas pipe and improvise something.