Monday, December 12, 2005

Eugene Stoner versus Mikhail Kalashnikov

M16, or


It's often been debated which is the better rifle, the M16 or the AK-47.

Minh-Duc, an American Soldier with some first-hand experience with both of these weapons in Iraq, has written an interesting post on the subject.

Here's an excerpt:

Eugene Stoner versus Mikhail Kalashnikov

"There are those out there who hold the Kalashnikov in high regard, especially in comparison to the US M16/M4. The myth of Kalashnikov superiority is anything but a myth. It is in fact a very crappy weapon – for various reasons that I will discuss later. The belief that the M16/M4 is an expensive but fragile weapon is also an unfound myth."

Here's the entire post.


At Monday, December 12, 2005 10:09:00 PM, Blogger Josh said...

Wow, I was suprised to see someone with firsthand knowledge in the sandbox even mention 6.5 Grendel. I thought only gungeeks favored that round...hmm. Of course, I'd love to see them get the 6.8 too - either would do well.

At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 5:13:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Josh, let's face reality. The Army isn't going to bend over backwards to supply a lot of different calibers. In fact, one of the grunts reporting said just that.

The best thing that can happen is complete issue-out of all M-14s left in Army inventories, then acquisition of the AR-10, then perhaps even acquisition of FN-FALs or H&K G-3s or other weapons that use the 7.62 NATO round and the common NATO magazine.

There is ample evidence that this is NOT a sub-caliber war. Both the 5.56 NATO for rifles and LMGs as well as the 9mm X 19 for pistols have proven deficient, so now it only remains to get them out of the theater as quickly as possible, and have them replaced with 7.62 NATO and .45ACP weapons.

The argument about Stoner vs. Kalashnikov merely serves to delay the time when our fighters will be properly equipped with full-caliber weapons.

As a delaying tactic, such talk is killing Americans in the theater of war. We must stop the prattle and get on with full-caliber rearming of the forces.


At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:10:00 PM, Blogger Josh said...

You're probably right, but they aren't likely going to adopt the AR-10 and replace alllllll of their expensive hardware, either. I'll look for the 6.8 uppers to be produced and issued selectively at first (at least, a little birdie told me that was going to happen - a little birdie who helped get Remington to develop loads for the 6.8) before going into wide distribution. Since the lowers will work, and it's RIS/RAS compatible, thats probably a more likely solution. Moving backward into the M14 might work IF they were worked over by someone like Troy Industries, made to accept all the goodies and gadgets our guys are getting used to. At this point, asking an operator to part with their EOTech and Surefire is like talking to a wall - all those systems are battle tested and highly thought of by the guys over there.

I honestly don't see them coming away from the Stoner design any time in the future. Even if they rework the 5.56 to be a better stopper (like adopting the bullet properties of the 5.45x39) they'll stick with the M4/M16 system.

A .45 is a great idea and when they move in that direction, I hope they do it right. Scrap those Europellet jobbers and get back to real fightstoppers.

Of course, this whole argument really has no bearing on how its going to play out. The DoD will do whatever they do, even if it takes a decade or two.

At Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:01:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The sad fact of the matter to move the war department oh I mean defense department takes time.Quite unfourtunatly at the expense of teen aged boys. Haveing spent most of my life being on both sides of guns I'd call it a draw between the two weapons. On a day I'm lucky ,to put 5 rounds on a paper plate .The M4 or M16 offer clover leaf groups are the norm. Not that I feel a need to catch a bullet hole ,but the ak does poke a rightous ly biger hole then the M16.

At Saturday, April 16, 2011 7:22:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But I can`t buy an M-16 and i`m not in the Army anymore so my AK47 is just fine .The argument isn't even fair .The US army has never been issued with AK47`s and the the AK is over 50 years old and apart from the AK74 update it remains the same as it did when it was first produced .The first M16 is old but its had a ton of upgrades over the years to make it efficient for modern day use and its 5 times the price of an AK .what would you prefer in the real world ?, 5 guys with ak's or 1 guy with an m16 .Thats the whole point of the AK .Everyone knows its a sloppy rifle and the more people tell me its sloppy the more I want to keep it.I`d like to see a real review of a Sig Sauer 566 against an M4 .I get tired of the AK bashing .The same goes for the Mini 14 bashing . each to their own .I don`t need a marine to tell me an AK is not as good as an M16 ,any dummy already knows that.Slayerchain , PA

At Saturday, February 18, 2012 4:26:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys are so funny, really! The M16 5x more pricey than the AK? Get over yourself. The Army is buying new FN manufactured M4 carbines for less than $200 in bulk. For that price you get a rifle that will go bang every time and will be guaranteed to shoot 2MOA. I'd like to see a AK at that price shoot under 5 MOA.

You should stick with Call of Duty.


Post a Comment

<< Home

All contents copyright 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 and beyond, unless otherwise noted