[jdege]

Max effective range isn't the same as actual effective range.

The M16 and M16A1 claimed effective range of 460 meters - they managed about 300 in typical troops. The M16A2 and M16A3 claimed 600m, and manage 450 or so.

The AK47 claimed an effective range of 230, and managed about 150, the AK74 claims 500, and manages 300.

The guys who actually shoot these things don't shoot as well as the guys who do the measuring.

[fooman]

interesting..

I am so happy for the all the gunsmith knowledge on this board.

We FR know a helluva lot more than the clueless media bacuase we can put together all of the parts.

[fooman]

The AK 47 was always trumpeted because it was 'tough'

The m16 being more accurate and carrying more ammo b/c of smaller caliber you do not hear so much....

The history channel had a thing where Mcnamera and his wiz kids would not chrome plate the m16 and that led to cleaning/jamming problems in 'nam.

(off topic)What do you think of the new alliantec gun with the exploding overhead round?

[fnord]

haven't met the A3 yet .. what are the modifications to the A2?

[lentulusgracchus]

I wonder about the rationale for the AK-74, esp. going subcaliber.

The M-16 and the AK-47 both were pretty good jungle carbines, the Sov/Chinese weapon being supposedly a little better. The rationale for the 7.62x39 round's development I understand, but why go smallbore, if you are a Russian gunsmith, when your overall goal is to defend a country in which engagement distances would likely be longer even than in Europe or North America?

Absent cover, and it is in a lot of Russia, you'd think they'd go back to the 7.62x54, and fight with nothing but Drags and MG's at engagement distances of 400 yards and up.