3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands...and now the current stock just sold out...

[MikeK]

The loose tolerances on the AK is the reason they can still fire when dirty.
Tighten up the tolerances and you lose that.

Something relative to this just occurred to me.

I packed an M-1 Garand for four years and qualified as Expert Rifleman each of those years. I was never in combat but I've spoken with many who were, including my own father who fought through the Pacific campaign and was wounded on Guadalcanal. Everyone who ever mentioned the Garand had the same thing to say about it -- deadly accurate, foolproof and reliable.

As was demonstrated to my recruit platoon at the Parris Island Rifle Range, the Garand is virtually unstoppable: The Range Instructor tossed one in a pool of dirty, sandy water, stirred it around, shook it off, drained the barrel, and it banged out eight rounds rapid-fire and spit out the clip. My father often praised the M-1 and said his Garand always had sand in the action but was deadly accurate and never malfunctioned.

If the M-1 Garand is an eminent example of a reliable semi-automatic rifle which is also supremely accurate, why can't the AK-47 be made more accurate and remain reliable?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The loose tolerances on the AK is the reason they can still fire when dirty.
Tighten up the tolerances and you lose that.

Something relative to this just occurred to me.

I packed an M-1 Garand for four years and qualified as Expert Rifleman each of those years. I was never in combat but I've spoken with many who were, including my own father who fought through the Pacific campaign and was wounded on Guadalcanal. Everyone who ever mentioned the Garand had the same thing to say about it -- deadly accurate, foolproof and reliable.

As was demonstrated to my recruit platoon at the Parris Island Rifle Range, the Garand is virtually unstoppable: The Range Instructor tossed one in a pool of dirty, sandy water, stirred it around, shook it off, drained the barrel, and it banged out eight rounds rapid-fire and spit out the clip. My father often praised the M-1 and said his Garand always had sand in the action but was deadly accurate and never malfunctioned.

If the M-1 Garand is an eminent example of a reliable semi-automatic rifle which is also supremely accurate, why can't the AK-47 be made more accurate and remain reliable?

Dont take my word for it...do some research.
Thats how I found out about it......and of course being a prototype machinist for 20 years also gave me insight and a love of anything machined with high precision and how they work....or dont.

 

[westwall]

The loose tolerances on the AK is the reason they can still fire when dirty.
Tighten up the tolerances and you lose that.

Something relative to this just occurred to me.

I packed an M-1 Garand for four years and qualified as Expert Rifleman each of those years. I was never in combat but I've spoken with many who were, including my own father who fought through the Pacific campaign and was wounded on Guadalcanal. Everyone who ever mentioned the Garand had the same thing to say about it -- deadly accurate, foolproof and reliable.

As was demonstrated to my recruit platoon at the Parris Island Rifle Range, the Garand is virtually unstoppable: The Range Instructor tossed one in a pool of dirty, sandy water, stirred it around, shook it off, drained the barrel, and it banged out eight rounds rapid-fire and spit out the clip. My father often praised the M-1 and said his Garand always had sand in the action but was deadly accurate and never malfunctioned.

If the M-1 Garand is an eminent example of a reliable semi-automatic rifle which is also supremely accurate, why can't the AK-47 be made more accurate and remain reliable?

They can be. Their primary problem is the ammunition. The ballistics are always going to limit the max effective range, but they can be made very accurate. I have an old Maadi AKM and when I use good quality ammunition it is quite accurate out to 400 meters.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The loose tolerances on the AK is the reason they can still fire when dirty.
Tighten up the tolerances and you lose that.

Something relative to this just occurred to me.

I packed an M-1 Garand for four years and qualified as Expert Rifleman each of those years. I was never in combat but I've spoken with many who were, including my own father who fought through the Pacific campaign and was wounded on Guadalcanal. Everyone who ever mentioned the Garand had the same thing to say about it -- deadly accurate, foolproof and reliable.

As was demonstrated to my recruit platoon at the Parris Island Rifle Range, the Garand is virtually unstoppable: The Range Instructor tossed one in a pool of dirty, sandy water, stirred it around, shook it off, drained the barrel, and it banged out eight rounds rapid-fire and spit out the clip. My father often praised the M-1 and said his Garand always had sand in the action but was deadly accurate and never malfunctioned.

If the M-1 Garand is an eminent example of a reliable semi-automatic rifle which is also supremely accurate, why can't the AK-47 be made more accurate and remain reliable?

The loose tolerances on the AK is the reason they can still fire when dirty.
Tighten up the tolerances and you lose that.

Something relative to this just occurred to me.

I packed an M-1 Garand for four years and qualified as Expert Rifleman each of those years. I was never in combat but I've spoken with many who were, including my own father who fought through the Pacific campaign and was wounded on Guadalcanal. Everyone who ever mentioned the Garand had the same thing to say about it -- deadly accurate, foolproof and reliable.

As was demonstrated to my recruit platoon at the Parris Island Rifle Range, the Garand is virtually unstoppable: The Range Instructor tossed one in a pool of dirty, sandy water, stirred it around, shook it off, drained the barrel, and it banged out eight rounds rapid-fire and spit out the clip. My father often praised the M-1 and said his Garand always had sand in the action but was deadly accurate and never malfunctioned.

If the M-1 Garand is an eminent example of a reliable semi-automatic rifle which is also supremely accurate, why can't the AK-47 be made more accurate and remain reliable?

And you kind of answered your own question...full auto is more problematic than semi auto.

 

[Dr Grump]

So a bird gun is designed to kill people?

Yeah, because bird guns are the norm, right?

 

[Dr Grump]

Impossible to do

But that's what you people do make impossible statements

Tell me what specific gun legislation will stop people from using guns to kill?

You just refuse to admit that people kill always have always will
People are violent always have been always will be

I would rather see people be able to defend themselves with the best tools available even if that means an extremely small percentage of people use those tools for ill

No, it's not an impossible statement. However what you are trying to do is muddy the waters and are being disingenuous to the nth degree by bringing other tools into the discussion.

Gun violence is a huge issue in the US as is your gun culture in general. You are the only western, civilised nation that has a certain group of people who seem to the think the answer to violent crime is more guns. There is absolutely no evidence to support your POV.


Using your argument, with more guns than people in the US, the US should be one of the safest places on the planet. It's not. It's one of the most violent in the western world. So no, more guns doesn't work. Your own society has proven that.

 

[Dr Grump]

Guns are designed to fire a projectile whether that projectile kills has nothing to do with the gun and everything to do with the person holding it

Sure they are designed to fire projectiles But the whole reason they were invented in the first place was to kill people. And that is still their primary purpose. You mean the AK47 and M16 were primarily designed to shoot targets and kill rodents?

 

[Dr Grump]

]
Most people are not unhappy with personally owned firearms (although why they are needed is another story), it's the assault weapons that make most people raise an eyebrow

For no rational reason whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

Of course their disquiet is rational. They don't want to go to the local movie show and get shot up by some nut with a grudge against the world. Totally rational reasoning. Only a certain type of person in the western world in a particular country, disagrees - the US gun nut.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Impossible to do

But that's what you people do make impossible statements

Tell me what specific gun legislation will stop people from using guns to kill?

You just refuse to admit that people kill always have always will
People are violent always have been always will be

I would rather see people be able to defend themselves with the best tools available even if that means an extremely small percentage of people use those tools for ill

No, it's not an impossible statement. However what you are trying to do is muddy the waters and are being disingenuous to the nth degree by bringing other tools into the discussion.

Gun violence is a huge issue in the US as is your gun culture in general. You are the only western, civilised nation that has a certain group of people who seem to the think the answer to violent crime is more guns. There is absolutely no evidence to support your POV.


Using your argument, with more guns than people in the US, the US should be one of the safest places on the planet. It's not. It's one of the most violent in the western world. So no, more guns doesn't work. Your own society has proven that.

A gun is a tool like any other

It is neither good nor bad

And the US has always been more violent than many other countries it's our nature

But the fact is that while gun ownership has risen the incidence of violent crimes and murder have decreased

So you see guns are not the cause of anything they are merely tools that can be used for good or ill depending on the choices of the person wielding it

 

[Skull Pilot]

Guns are designed to fire a projectile whether that projectile kills has nothing to do with the gun and everything to do with the person holding it

Sure they are designed to fire projectiles But the whole reason they were invented in the first place was to kill people. And that is still their primary purpose. You mean the AK47 and M16 were primarily designed to shoot targets and kill rodents?

The target is chosen by the person firing the gun the gun is merely designed to fire a projectile

And for most gun owners the primary purpose of their guns is not to kill and the numbers bear that out because the vast majority of guns will never be used to fire at anything but clay pigeons and paper targets

 

[Skull Pilot]

]
Most people are not unhappy with personally owned firearms (although why they are needed is another story), it's the assault weapons that make most people raise an eyebrow

For no rational reason whatsoever.

Of course their disquiet is rational. They don't want to go to the local movie show and get shot up by some nut with a grudge against the world. Totally rational reasoning. Only a certain type of person in the western world in a particular country, disagrees - the US gun nut.[/QUOTE]

If people have the right to arm themselves for protection and don't then that's their choice is it not?

The fact is nothing you do, no laws you can pass can prevent a very small number of people from committing violent crimes

As always our best defense is self defense

 

[westwall]

Impossible to do

But that's what you people do make impossible statements

Tell me what specific gun legislation will stop people from using guns to kill?

You just refuse to admit that people kill always have always will
People are violent always have been always will be

I would rather see people be able to defend themselves with the best tools available even if that means an extremely small percentage of people use those tools for ill

No, it's not an impossible statement. However what you are trying to do is muddy the waters and are being disingenuous to the nth degree by bringing other tools into the discussion.

Gun violence is a huge issue in the US as is your gun culture in general. You are the only western, civilised nation that has a certain group of people who seem to the think the answer to violent crime is more guns. There is absolutely no evidence to support your POV.


Using your argument, with more guns than people in the US, the US should be one of the safest places on the planet. It's not. It's one of the most violent in the western world. So no, more guns doesn't work. Your own society has proven that.

No, it's not. If you remove the black on black and the Hispanic on Hispanic gang crime from the equation we have a lower violence rate than the rest of the world. You all ignore the fact that we have a huge third world population here in the states and they bring their third world culture which is one of violence and who is more macho. If we were able to send them all back where they came from we would look at the rest of the world and wonder why you were all so violent.

It's not a gun problem it is a culture problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For no rational reason whatsoever.

Of course their disquiet is rational. They don't want to go to the local movie show and get shot up by some nut with a grudge against the world. Totally rational reasoning.

Incorrect.
Given how few people (and how few guns) are actually involved in such an event, this is an irrational fear.

 

[2aguy]

Impossible to do

But that's what you people do make impossible statements

Tell me what specific gun legislation will stop people from using guns to kill?

You just refuse to admit that people kill always have always will
People are violent always have been always will be

I would rather see people be able to defend themselves with the best tools available even if that means an extremely small percentage of people use those tools for ill

No, it's not an impossible statement. However what you are trying to do is muddy the waters and are being disingenuous to the nth degree by bringing other tools into the discussion.

Gun violence is a huge issue in the US as is your gun culture in general. You are the only western, civilised nation that has a certain group of people who seem to the think the answer to violent crime is more guns. There is absolutely no evidence to support your POV.


Using your argument, with more guns than people in the US, the US should be one of the safest places on the planet. It's not. It's one of the most violent in the western world. So no, more guns doesn't work. Your own society has proven that.

There is absolutely no evidence to support your POV.

Wrong…there is a great deal of evidence….and actual research shows that Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives…according to bill clinton.

What our society has shown is that democrats create violence, since the majority of the shooters are democrats in democrat controlled cities.

And why is Britain giving more of their police officers guns? Why is gun ownership in Australia back to pre confiscation levels?

Why is gun crime increasing in Australia and Europe?

Why is it that America has 3,700,000 AR-15s but barely a handful are used in any given year for crime but in Europe fully automatic military rifles are the norm for all of your criminals and terrorists?

Why is Britain more violent than the United States…2x as violent?

The only difference between Europe and the U.S. is that our violent criminals choose to murder people more often than yours do…….and that has nothiing to do with gun control, since European and Australian criminals get guns as easily as our criminals do.

And what kept the various shooters in Australia….people with illegal guns, after the confiscation, who shot and murdered other people, from becoming mass shooters? Since they already had possession of illegal guns, what kept them from shooting more people? Not your gun control…since that already failed at that point…….

Australia just had two acts of immigrant muslim terrorism conducted with illegally acquired guns….how did that happen after Australia confiscated guns?

Why is gun violence in Australia increasing?


Why are more guns being found in Australia in the hands of criminals/

What excuse will Europe and Australia use when their gun crime escalates to the levels of the United States after they confiscated, banned and passed extreme gun control laws?

 

[2aguy]

Impossible to do

But that's what you people do make impossible statements

Tell me what specific gun legislation will stop people from using guns to kill?

You just refuse to admit that people kill always have always will
People are violent always have been always will be

I would rather see people be able to defend themselves with the best tools available even if that means an extremely small percentage of people use those tools for ill

No, it's not an impossible statement. However what you are trying to do is muddy the waters and are being disingenuous to the nth degree by bringing other tools into the discussion.

Gun violence is a huge issue in the US as is your gun culture in general. You are the only western, civilised nation that has a certain group of people who seem to the think the answer to violent crime is more guns. There is absolutely no evidence to support your POV.


Using your argument, with more guns than people in the US, the US should be one of the safest places on the planet. It's not. It's one of the most violent in the western world. So no, more guns doesn't work. Your own society has proven that.

No, it's not. If you remove the black on black and the Hispanic on Hispanic gang crime from the equation we have a lower violence rate than the rest of the world. You all ignore the fact that we have a huge third world population here in the states and they bring their third world culture which is one of violence and who is more macho. If we were able to send them all back where they came from we would look at the rest of the world and wonder why you were all so violent.

It's not a gun problem it is a culture problem.

Don't worry……Europe is importing violent gun criminals to commit the violent gun crimes European criminals simply won't do……….dittos Australia...

 

[westwall]

Impossible to do

But that's what you people do make impossible statements

Tell me what specific gun legislation will stop people from using guns to kill?

You just refuse to admit that people kill always have always will
People are violent always have been always will be

I would rather see people be able to defend themselves with the best tools available even if that means an extremely small percentage of people use those tools for ill

No, it's not an impossible statement. However what you are trying to do is muddy the waters and are being disingenuous to the nth degree by bringing other tools into the discussion.

Gun violence is a huge issue in the US as is your gun culture in general. You are the only western, civilised nation that has a certain group of people who seem to the think the answer to violent crime is more guns. There is absolutely no evidence to support your POV.


Using your argument, with more guns than people in the US, the US should be one of the safest places on the planet. It's not. It's one of the most violent in the western world. So no, more guns doesn't work. Your own society has proven that.

No, it's not. If you remove the black on black and the Hispanic on Hispanic gang crime from the equation we have a lower violence rate than the rest of the world. You all ignore the fact that we have a huge third world population here in the states and they bring their third world culture which is one of violence and who is more macho. If we were able to send them all back where they came from we would look at the rest of the world and wonder why you were all so violent.

It's not a gun problem it is a culture problem.

Don't worry……Europe is importing violent gun criminals to commit the violent gun crimes European criminals simply won't do……….dittos Australia...

I know. And it saddens me to watch it happen.

 

[MikeK]

And you kind of answered your own question...full auto is more problematic than semi auto.

I did a little reading and learned the early malfunctioning problems with the M-16 were caused by the barrel lacking sufficient chrome content. But since that problem has been corrected the M-16 has gained a reputation for superior accuracy -- and it is full-auto capable.

So I don't understand that reasoning. So I'm back to the question as to why the AK-47 can't be made more accurate.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And you kind of answered your own question...full auto is more problematic than semi auto.

I did a little reading and learned the early malfunctioning problems with the M-16 were caused by the barrel lacking sufficient chrome content. But since that problem has been corrected the M-16 has gained a reputation for superior accuracy -- and it is full-auto capable.

So I don't understand that reasoning. So I'm back to the question as to why the AK-47 can't be made more accurate.

Actually they flash chrome the inside of the barrel and breech.

From the AK vs AR thread.

"The M16 of today is much improved over the Vietnam era rifle.
The flash chroming of the barrel solved the problem they were having with rounds sticking in the breech.
That being said the AK will take a shitload of abuse."

AR Free Float Barrel... AK Nope those handguards and gas tubes put different pressure points on the barrel.

AR Bolt lockup square and true and repeatable... AK Nope that giant beefy reliable gas piston and bolt carrier group really slam and twist everything around shot to shot.

AR Milled Reciever AK (Most) Stamped reciever and they do flex when fired.

AR Great Trigger with aftermarket drop in...AK Good Trigger but still only a couple decent aftermarket ones out there.

AR Great sights...AK Sights can get you Minute of Man not MOA

As you can see it's inherent flaws add up to make a rifle that isnt all that accurate compared to modern firearms.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The M1 Garand is cool. When you shoot an AR-15 it sounds like a cannon if you are used to firing .22's and small caliber weapons.

The AK-47 is the most popular assault rifle ever I think because it was purposely built to be used anywhere, mud, sand, dirt, and keep working. And it has stood the passing of time.

My neighbor was among the Marines in Vietnam when the real fighting got started. His T/O weapon when he got there was the M-14, which he really liked. Little by little they began transitioning to the M-16, which he said nobody liked. He said it was comparatively flimsy and too complicated. He said they called it a "Buck Rogers" gun and a "toy."

He said the M-16 started malfunctioning during familiarization and qualification. Later, when his unit moved "in country" they were ambushed by NVA troops and two Marines he knew were killed when their M-16s malfunctioned. He said it wasn't widely known but there nearly was a mutiny by Marines who demanded to have the M-14s returned -- which they were. About a year later the cause of the M-16 failures was corrected and they were re-issued.

Since he told me that I have read something that confirms it. But even without that information I've never liked the M-16 or the Ar-15, neither of which I've ever seen or handled. I just don't like anything about them. I was spoiled by the M-1, which I was very proficient with and although I've never handled an M-14 it looks good to me and I've heard nothing but good about it.

Everything I've ever read and heard about the AK-47 makes me wonder why the U.S. didn't adopt it as the military standard -- mainly because its most outstanding characteristic, reliability under harsh conditions, is the most important consideration in a combat weapon. The only negative feature I've read about is accuracy compared with the M-16. But that can easily be improved with tighter machining standards and better steel barrels. The bottom line is our troops would have an easier-to-maintain, more reliable weapon at one-third the cost.

Yes there was a bad problem with the M-16 early on. They issued a cleaning kit and cleaning guide if I remember correctly because it easily jammed and stopped working in the field. From what I've read most troops that it like a toy because it was made of plastic and was so light.

Directly from my brother (Marine NCO), the M16 STILL sucks rocks. It packs with dust and jams way too easily.

The M-14 gets high marks from everyone I've read about that used it. And it had a lot of stopping power. As for the AK-47 there is no way the US could ever adopt the infantry weapon of choice of an enemy no matter how good it is. Of course every rag tag bunch of freaks around the world have adopted it and the Toyota pickup as their go to tools!

The M14 should never have been replaced.

 

[MikeK]

The M14 should never have been replaced.

I was in the Marine Corps from '56 to '60. Luckily I avoided Vietnam but I was trained with the M-1 Garand which I felt was one hell of a weapon: powerful, reliable, and deadly accurate.

My father served in the Pacific during WW-II (Army) and he often praised the Garand, which he said made the difference between life and death during the two Banzai charges his unit fought off on Guadalcanal.

My neighbor joined the Corps after I got out. He was trained with the M-1 which was replaced by the M-14, which he says was like the M-1 on steroids and everybody liked it. He went to Vietnam with the M-14, which was replaced by the M-16, which nobody liked and which frequently malfunctioned -- causing the death of two of his close friends during an ambush by NVA troops.

He said there was a near mutiny after that which led to the conciliatory return of the M-14. But eventually the cause of the M-16's malfunctioning was found, which he says was related to the ammunition, and the M-14 was finally phased out permanently and the M-16 was back.

I've read and heard a number of reasons for the M-16's malfunctioning, and that it has been eliminated, and that the rifle has now been accepted and is liked by the troops. But my neighbor says the only good thing about that "toy" is it's light weight.

And that's the voice of hard-gained experience.