UnderGround Forums
 

Weapons UnderGround >> Assault Rifle comparison??


9/28/05 11:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jasonbaldy
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Sep-05
Member Since: 08/13/2004
Posts: 263
 
Does anyone know of any websites or publications that give information on assault rifles and compares them? For example, M14, AK47, M16, etc. I want to buy one but not sure which one!
9/29/05 3:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
finnfighter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Sep-05
Member Since: 03/23/2002
Posts: 1368
Sorry, cant help you.. But what are you looking for exactly..An accurate one, to carry around in a range and show off to your friends...get a m-16 A2....or a famas... If you want something that is a killing machine that will hit anything at combat ranges (up to 150-180 metres)work in mud, snow, rain, well made and accurate enough but still rugged..best in the world is Sako m-95. Fairly expensive and hard to get...Kalasnikov type, modified A LOT, and machined in the famous Sako factory, all original parts... Good weapon, nasty ballistics..Ak-74. More compact Aksu...
9/30/05 7:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Revolver of Reason
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Sep-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 26859
"If you want something that is a killing machine that will hit anything at combat ranges (up to 150-180 metres)" heh. tell the Talibs and AQ who got popped in Afghanistan by M-16 shooters about combat ranges ending @ 180 meters. what's the difference between the Sako and the Galil?
9/30/05 9:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jackel
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Sep-05
Member Since: 03/13/2002
Posts: 3240

www.ar15.com

10/1/05 8:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Gossamer
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Oct-05
Member Since: 11/14/2004
Posts: 867
Try going to the guns and ammo magazine website. I know that they did an article on a differnces between M-16s and AKs. It might be in their archieves.
10/6/05 12:34 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogmeat 1
26 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06-Oct-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3199
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm that is probably the best website I have seen for modern firearms. The author is Russian so his English isn't 100% perfect but there is a huge amount of information there on nearly every mass production gun available.
10/10/05 9:31 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
finnfighter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Oct-05
Member Since: 03/23/2002
Posts: 1392
Well, by killing machine I mean its just meant to do one thing- kill. Not too accurate, sexy or ergonomic. A tool. And yes, in a desert you'd be better of with a weapon thats more accurate in longer distances. Do you live in a desert? Does the original poster live in a desert? I dont know, but I sure as hell know that I dont. Therefore I presumed that he meant normal, urban/Woodland etc. distances. 200 metres at most.In essence, most other places on earth (jungle f.ex.). And some ragheads getting killed by their own stupidity is no reason to bash a perfectly good weapon.... M-16 is still not rugged enough, or reliable enough for true combat. IMO. Galil is basically a copy of valmet assault rifle m-76, with a different front stock, added bipod, better sights and a folding stock.
10/11/05 2:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Revolver of Reason
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Oct-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 27063
"Well, by killing machine I mean its just meant to do one thing- kill. Not too accurate, sexy or ergonomic." I was unaware of alternative uses for the M-16. "And yes, in a desert you'd be better of with a weapon thats more accurate in longer distances." it was in mountains, actually. "Do you live in a desert?" I'm about 6 hours away from the Appalachian Mountain range. I live on a coastal plain where the grassland and swamp areas can be perfectly flat for long enough to make long distance shots a concern. "M-16 is still not rugged enough, or reliable enough for true combat. IMO." that's nice. "is no reason to bash a perfectly good weapon" nobody's saying it's a bad weapon, I'm saying it has limitations.
10/11/05 3:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
finnfighter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Oct-05
Member Since: 03/23/2002
Posts: 1394
Arent you cute. Just relax. Sako is more relible, and a perfect tool for a soldier whose had fairly limited training, i.e. most of the people in a uniform.Not everyone is a Delta like you... For casual targetpractice, I´d go with m-16 or something like that.. I only mentioned the normal combat range as an example of different ideologies behind weapon design. And besides, the range is determined by the skill of the shooter, most infantry guys cant shoot beyond 200 metres in true combat conditions. And those kalasnikovs that the ragheads were carrying...I mean you OFCOURSE know, that Sako has diopter sights that are placed differently, and that its a different gun from those bullet sprayers...Since you´re so full of yourself, Im certain you were aware of that. In the end it doesnt matter. Hes not gonna start a war, is he.....? "I live on a coastal plain where the grassland and swamp areas can be perfectly flat for long enough to make long distance shots a concern." And what would you be shooting at? I hope no-one needs to get ...nervous... For hunting there are better weapons.
10/12/05 3:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
krept
86 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Oct-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4275
I live in the Sonoran desert and while there are some long shots, there is also a lot of brush that has the potential create CQ situations. In that case, a 7.62x51 probably wouldn't be the best bet as it is in really barren areas like Afghanistan. But again, like sniper/scout patrols, those guys carrying 7.62s are frequently backed up by 5.56s. Something to think about - whether or not you see yourself with a crew or militia vs. a lone wolf. Key to the desert is the fine grit particles. Although the M16 has a lot of small parts, it's pretty rugged in it's current incarnation and will only get moreso with the new generation of piston-driven bolts and HKs steel magazines (the "disposable" aluminum magazines and direct blowback are its two weak links). The fine grit will still be there, so that is something to consider. For urban situations where there might not be that much dust and the proliferation of concrete and steel hard cover that negates the 7.62x39's (and to some extent the 7.62x51s) penetration advantage, the AR is hard to beat. For sake of argument, however, because the thread is about assault rifles vs. battle rifles, the 7.62x51s can and should be eliminated. They are two totally different animals, the former being great for CQB and ambushes while the latter is more like an "assault sniper rifle" allowing for faster follow up shots than bolt actions. Battle rifles suck for CQB relative to assault rifles, assault rifles suck for long range engagement, with match grade ARs getting as close as possible to doing both long and short range shooting at well. Another important factor to consider is the availablity of parts, especially with odd laws restricting importation of parts. AR parts are everywhere. AK parts are available through companies like K-Var. I'm really not sure about the other rifles listed... not because they aren't good but because these two can fill the "assault" role pretty well. Because I live in a dry/dusty climate and I didn't have a lot of money at the time, I went with a Bulgarian AK. Given more money, I probably would have gone the AR route and given maintenance a lot higher priority (not too fond of a gun that needs to be wet but I AM a stickler for a clean weapon). Add the fact that you can get a .22 LR unit (insert or new upper) to the AR and it makes a pretty convincing argument. BTW... one not need look farther than New Orleans to see a need to have such a rifle. For specific purposes like hunting, plinking, etc. there are a lot better choices within that particular category, but probably none as versatile as an AR and to some extent a Kalashnikov.
10/12/05 3:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
krept
86 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Oct-05 03:53 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4276
x - for some reason, some of my posts do not show up initially. Only after a reply is given do they appear, hence the double tap. cheers
10/13/05 6:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Gossamer
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 13-Oct-05
Member Since: 11/14/2004
Posts: 893
The best rifle is the one that you are comfortable with and use effectivly.
10/21/05 8:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Aaron
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Oct-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 26631
hk 91, as old as it is, would be my first choice.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.