WHY ARE US SOLDIERS OUTGUNNED BY THE TALIBAN (M4 VS AK47)?

with the m-14 you can only carry less than 2/3s the ammo as for the m-4. which is accurate out to 400 meters. most people can't hit shit outside of 150 meters. including army and marines. spec ops uses m-14s and .45s or so I hear but they are a scapel while the usual run of gunbunnies are the hammer.

I think you are an armchair commando. way back when I was like nine I figured out one bb that goes where I want is better than a 12 guage that misses. not the weapon it's the warrior.

The reason is........ wait for it...........


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Money money money.

I love the AK47, but you'd be hard pressed to hit anything smaller than a barn with it beyond 300 meters or so.

An M4 will easily hit a man sized target at twice that distance.

the 6.5 and 6.8 has been widely distributed, almost all service m-14's have been recalled and new production piston (not gas blowback) 308's and .223's are in widespread production.


I can put 20 rounds through a quarter with my POF 12 inch barreled .223, using green tip ammo from a standing position at 100 yards.

With my AK, I can do that never. I can hit a large paper plate at 100 yards probably 9/10 shots, which is shit quite frankly. In fact, if I had to shoot or break contact at that distance, and all I had was the AK, I would break.

Mechanically, a huge percentage of all new production m-16 and AR-15 rifles are identical in the blowback method to an AK.

AK is ultra reliable due to gas piston operation. It has NEVER been an accurate weapon. It can be made accurate, but it would cost as much as an AR to have that accuracy.


A bullet in the eye is a bullet in the eye.

I agree an M14 carries less ammo and weighs a bit more. But the theory of the M4 being more lethal because you can hit the target with more bullets is a bit flawed. I think the military went backwards with both the M4 and M9 (9mm Beretta).

And why is the military using such a crappy rifle where hot carbon and gunpowder gets blown back into the rifle with the gas port. Can't they fix it with a self cleaning gas piston instead? My issue here is why the military hasn't upgraded these rifles in years. It doesn't make sense.

Also, I thought most US casualties were not from fire fights anyway.

Same reason Nazi Germany didn't change its rifle to the superior ones it invented, it takes an awful lot of resources to change all the factories to make a new gun, so its simply not effective to change your factories for a new update every time a new gun is invented, its just not practical, now the better guns get produced, but their only for special forces and eventually they work their way into the rest of the army.

Read my post.

Oops. I didn't realize the military has been upgrading their M14's to gas pistons. My army bud said his M14's jam continually. Almost any dirt will render his rifle useless...not good for military use.

yup

I agree that the M4 is more accurate than the AK47 to a certain distance. But it loses muzzle energy quicker and becomes less effective as the distance increases. So hitting the target at distance doesn't mean you incapacitate it.

Either way, I'm surprised the current administration doesn't replace the M4 with a potato gun for politically correctness.

Its still the best there is, I suggest that there is no problem with the gas system at all and having fired countless rounds thru them both in the military and out and never once had any issue nor had to clean any part of the gas system. It is slightly underpowered when trying to incapacitate instead of just kill.

Ack...I meant M4.

My real point is whether the military is really selecting the best guns for the military or is it political corruption? I still think the M4 is a POS and the military could do way better than that. But that's humble and non-military experience.

Nope.

IED is the biggest troubling mafak there is.

Yes. It's corruption. The Beretta M9 is a piece of shit and the M4 is a piece of shit. The Germans, Russians, and almost everyone else has better made equipment that the US military rifles. The military and congress select gun manufacturers and they get bought off and paid off. Prime example was the replacement of the M14 in Vietnam with the M16. Colt made millions selling their shit gun to the military.

A typical 62 grain 5.56 bullet carries as much energy at 500 yards as .38 special at point blank.

Some may argue that's not enough, but I don't want to get hit with one.

OP doesn't know what he's talking about. Taliban can't shoot for shit and the AK isn't very accurate past 150-200m. On auto fire it's even less. whereas the m4 and m16 is accurate farther than that. the m4 carbine and the full length m16 rifle is not as bad as your making it out to be.

and the m14 is still in use for american military. they call it the m21 now and it's used as a marksmen weapon. It's the m14 but without the auto fire because auto fire on m14 was a stupid and pointless idea in the first place. .

Battle rifles are NOT assault rifles

Probably because your government and mine sold them to the taliban

Edit : double post

Last Edited by Lewis7777 on 11/23/2011 11:16 AM

[link to www.defensereview.com]

Nuff Said....

FOX NEWS.

Can't get reliable info from them.

Yup, this is the reason. All of the campaign contributions from companies like Colt, and thanks to Bush I implementing 922.11r, you are very limited in what is available to submit for bid to DoD for US forces. It also helps them keep somewhat of a monopoly, as not everyone has access to expensive milling equipment for creating receivers for AR-based firearms, whereas any Joe Blow can bend up sheet metal in his garage for AK-based receivers. For all of the accuracy-tards out there, an AK doesn't need to be inaccurate. Remember. most AKs in the US are assembled from old surplus parts with little care given to tolerances. You could try to blame the shorter sight radius, but every M4 I see now has high-dollar optics on them (why do you need thoise if the AR platform is so accurate?), so put the same optics on a well-gunsmithed AK, and that argument goes out the window. There is definitely no comparison in knock-down and penetration power of the 7.62mm vs 5.56mm round. NUMEROUS reports show that it takes multiple hits from 5.56mm to truly stop a target. As a saying goes- "AK-47, turning cover into to concealment for over 50 years."

Unfortunately, the M14 was given up to allow troops to carry more ammunition while trudging through the jungles of SE Asia, and most true combat situations occur at under 300 meters anyway, so a .308/7.62x51mm that will go to 800+ meters weapon was deemed unnecessarily cumbersome. They are really two different types of weapons anyway, M14s, FALs, etc are "battle rifles" just like all of the other heavy-caliber bolt and semi-auto rifles from two World Wars, but AR/M4/M16 and AK 47/74 are "assault rifles," intended for the closer ranges and ability to carry more ammunition on your person.

Buulshit. Military, here. Shot them all. You and this article are repeating the same bunch of bulldhit that often gets repeated by those who haven't been there - done that.

Lay 'em out in front of me,.....and let me select,.....I select the M$ variant,....10.5 barrel, big optics,....like the last one I carried,....with sidearm.

Ask any professional,....and they'll tell you the same thing - Carry what works for YOU.

If you,...Mr. Macho,.....has the biggest, baddest, top-of-the-line auto-cannon in the world,.....and your foe has a single shot .22 derringer,........but he puts one in your eye,...while you are unloading a high-cap mag of misses,......guess what.

He wins - you lose. And, it ain't no Xbox game. You fucking die (if your lucky).

Maybe your Army buddy is a doofus and doesn't know how to clean the thing,....OR keep it out of the friggin dirt.

More than likely,...your "Cherry" Army buddy, is simply spewing the same tired old argument that has been around for decades,.....because it is his weak-assed attempt at appearing like an old salt,....bitching about the that old crummy M-16/M-4 they saddled us with.

(Meanwhile, you'll tell me he's no Cherry and has been in the 56th Motor T company of the Iowa National Guard for 17 years.)

Even if that's the case,.....well,....my comments still stand.

I know right?


They don't even compare the same specs.

[link to www.foxnews.com]

Why post the Magazine size for one gun and not the other.

Likewise.

Why post the weight of one gun and not post the weight for the other.

It's not even a comparison. It's just posting random facts about each gun.

Fox News is shit.