Posts
7.62x39mm is not vastly superior to 5.56x45mm.
Not in Vietnam.
Not now.
Not ever.
Your prejudices are showing.
They're remarkably similar in wound ballistics actually. We've got years of data to compare them now and 5.56 has not been shown to be inferior to x39, vastly or otherwise.
5.56x45mm has an edge in exterior ballistics because it's going faster so the bullet is arcing closer to the point of aim. This shallower arc also lets it get hits farther out.
7.62x39mm would have an edge with heavier bullets being a little less affected by crosswinds, but since they're slower there's more time for the wind to act on them so it's a wash.
The AK has not been proven to be a vastly superior rifle to the M16 series either. If anything, the M16 has proven superior to the AK over the years. Mud test, anyone? The sights on the AR series nuke the standard AK sights too.
While the AK might be more tolerant of extreme abuse, aren't you calling yourself a rifleman?
The kind of abuse you're worried about a rifleman doesn't subject his weapon to; an untrained conscript does. Are you conceding that you're untrained?
While we're on this topic, that AK gains its durability at the price of mass. Everything about the AK is heavier than an AR.
A 16" AK will tare around 8 lb. without a magazine and a loaded 30 rounder made from plastic will add 1.5 lb.
An M4gry with a 16" barrel tips the scales at under 7 lb. and adds just a pound when you add the magazine. The M4 profile isn't the lightest available either, you can brush 6 lb. with a "pencil profile".
A "basic load" for an M4 is a loaded
Willard's Yugo (9.3 lb. loaded) will only get two spare steel magazines (90 rounds total) under that weight benchmark (12.9 lb.) and almost gets three loaded PMAGs... but not quite.
My PSAK (8.8 lb.) does get three PMAGs of spare ammo (120 rounds total) for a total of 13.3 lb.
I also want to bring up another dirty little open secret about the AK and 7.62x39mm round in the form of a question.
IF 7.62x39mm IS SUCH HOT SHIT WHY DID THE SOVIETS DEVELOP A REPLACEMENT THAT EMULATES 5.56 RIGHT AFTER THEIR EXPERIENCE IN VIETNAM?
Go ahead, take your time replying.
It's easier to hammer a 30 cal round out of a barrel than a 22. Also easier to cast your own bullets for .30. Obviously this only applies to .223 AR's
ReplyDeleteI'd be much more comfortable hammering someone's face into mush with the butt of my AK than that little aluminum buffer tube ring on my AR. It is possible to run out of ammo.
For my own use the long range accuracy potential on the AR isn't much use without serious optics. A clown could be dancing around in a flashing neon clown suit and I wouldn't even see him much past 200 yards. I have a LR-308 with a scope that's almost as big as the gun for that sort of distance.
I dunno what fired up this rant, but I like both - each has its place.
Oh, right, about this: "IF 7.62x39mm IS SUCH HOT SHIT WHY DID THE SOVIETS DEVELOP A REPLACEMENT THAT EMULATES 5.56 RIGHT AFTER THEIR EXPERIENCE IN VIETNAM"
DeleteThey copied the space shuttle too because they thought we knew something they didn't
What the Soviets had, that we didn't at the time, was a lot more data on the wounds caused by the M16A1 and 5.56x45mm M193. Every bad-guy the Vietnamese managed to remove from the battlefield that we didn't get to see, the Russians did.
DeleteLikewise, we had gobs of data on what 7.62x39 does and we didn't go bigger. Nor did NATO when SS109 was being developed.
The Russians were impressed enough that they developed 5.45x39mm; but kept the rifle otherwise (mostly) the same.