Sounds good to me!
Posted on 05/22/2010 11:58:33 AM PDT by too_cool_for_skool
KABUL, Afghanistan — The U.S. military's workhorse rifle — used in battle for the last 40 years — is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons.
As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s.
The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Then those are not 'well trained' soldiers. I have a sheet metal Romanian AKS rifle which will reliably put shots on man sized targets at 300 yards.
Yeah, I’m sure that the AK’s we used were the exception and that most AKs out there are really very good rifles for 200-300 yard shots. /s
Or is it that there are *some* rifles and *some* marksmen that can do it but *most* users of the AK can’t and won’t?
"Most" users of the AK are dirt ignorant peasants who haven't had a single day of formal instruction in their lives, let alone formal marksmanship instruction.
If one takes the time to properly sight in an AK you'll be surprised as hell at how far out you can reach with one. "Most" of the rest of those shooting AK's have heard all about it's legendary inaccuracy and therefore don't put enough effort in to learning the proper way to make hits at distance with one.
Who knows. Maybe your guys had some crappy shot out ones. But in my experience the 'off the shelf' stuff available to civilians here in the States is capable of much greater accuracy than people give it credit for.
It's a poor workman who blames his tools.
Are you really trying to make the case that given equally capable shooters that the AK-47 and the M-16 would be equally effective at ranges beyond 200 meters?
Or put it this way, face to face at 300 yards would you prefer your AK over someone with an M-16 and is that a match up that you would advocate for others?
‘Cuz it seems to me that you’re trying to turn an exceptional situation into the rule.
From 200 to 400 meters, yes. Beyond that the AR platform is clearly superior.
Or put it this way, face to face at 300 yards would you prefer your AK over someone with an M-16 and is that a match up that you would advocate for others?
Preference doesn't figure into the discussion but if you insist at that range I'd 'prefer' my M1A over either. And I don't advocate that people shoot at each other at all.
‘Cuz it seems to me that you’re trying to turn an exceptional situation into the rule
Not at all. I'm simply saying that the AK is plenty accurate out to 300 yards or so in the hands of a well trained rifleman. At that distance it'll do "minute of bad guy" quite handily.
Oh yeeeees. Especially the M44 Carbine. I took mine to the range last Friday...the young lady in next lane nearly wet herself when I dropped the hammer for the first time. I swore she was within a hair's breadth of throwing her little Walther P22 straight up in the air.
:-)
To each their own, I guess.
IMO you’re asking the AK to so something it wasn’t designed to do in going for aimed shots at 300 yards.
Wait...that isn’t just my opinion, that’s a fact!
So what? If it does it, I got a nice little bonus out of my $350 purchase.
Mine normally stops all other shooting while the others try to figure out WTF it is that I’ve got in my hands!
The first time I fired it was sorta hairy as I had bough two and used the best parts of each to make one and have one as spare so I had no idea what was gonna happen when I pulled the trigger!
“properly sight in an AK you’ll be surprised as hell at how far out you can reach with one. “
A major issue with the AK isn’t always the AK rifle itself but the crummy ammunition many of the shooters worldwide use. Russia no doubt has fresh ammo and can sight in an AK to 300 yards, but if you look at Iraq you’ll find they shoot crusted over stuff and mix-n-match of all kinds of ammo.
Very true.
This entire disussion is based on the idea we desire to hit, injure or kill then enemy.
That is at odds with the idea of a medal for NOT hitting, injuring or killing the enemy.
We don’t have a consistent name for the enemy, or even complete commitment to the idea we have enemies.
In half the time we have been “fighting” after 9-11-2001 the United States, had over 16 million citizens in the military, defeated Germany, Italy and Japan.
And they have stayed defeated, because we killed enemy soldiers, sailors, airmen and civilians until we achieved unconditional surrender.
Something we aren’t even close to doing, in the new America.
Since WWII about the only war we have won, where the enemy stayed surrendered was Grenada.
There were a bunch of Cubans there IIRC, but your point is well taken.
I miss Ronald Reagan.
Be careful...they multiply.
Be careful...they multiply.
Sounds good to me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.