the 7.62 X .39 round that the AK47 uses is a bit bigger than a pistol
round. The NATO 7.62 X .51 is a rifle round. Much greater stopping
power and punch. Because of that the FAL riles had quite a kick.

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Eric Roberts
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I know the M16 uses 5.56...I had issues with the A2 jamming a lot and you
> could eat off of mine.  I didn't realize the 7.62's were different...I was a
> medic not a grunt *grin*
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 9:30 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: In Reversal, Army Bans High-Performance Rifle Mags
>
>
> You seem to be confusing Soviet 7.62x.39 with our NATO 7.62x.51.
>
> The complaints about jamming in the earlier versions of the M-16 (not the
> A2) mainly came from the type of ammo they used, and the fact that they
> didn't issue cleaning kits with them.  I've never seen a problem with the
> A2 or the M-4 that wasn't caused either by bad maintenance or bad magazines.
> The M-16 will never perform as flawlessly as the AK.  The tolerances are too
> tight.  They demonstrate radically different thoughts on how to produce
> weapons  The M-16 series of firearms is made for precision point shooting by
> individual rifleman.  The AK was made to be mass produced with loose
> tolerances for conscript armies.  It is meant to be used by masses of troops
> putting down full auto fire at area targets.
>
> 5.56 was the original round it was designed to use, you're thinking of the
> AR-10 I assume?
>
> During the period that you were in the 30 round mags were reasonably new.
> The 20 round mags were superior and used better materials.  There are some
> good 30 round metal mags out there, most notably the bushmaster and HK mags,
> but they are way more expensive.
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Eric Roberts <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> If the M-16 used the original round it was designed to use, it would
>> have performed equally to the AK-47.  I do agree that we should go to
>> using 7.62 since everyone else uses it.  It just makes sense since you
>> could take ammo off of dead soldiers regardless of side and use
>> it...on the downside, that would also apply to the enemy as well since
>> they also use 7.62...I never ran into issues with the magazines on the
>> M16A2 when I was in.  My issues were with the rifle jamming if you got
>> a speck of dust in the barrels or firing chamber.  Maybe in later used
>> they used lower quality metal for the springs ?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 2:07 PM
>> To: cf-community
>> Subject: In Reversal, Army Bans High-Performance Rifle Mags
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/05/25/in-reversal-army-bans-hi
>> gh-per
>> formance-rifle-mags.html
>>
>> This is a horrible decision that must have been made by some POG who
>> has never heard a shot fired in anger.
>>
>> The simple fact is that the old tired magazines that we were issued
>> had horrible performance issues.  The springs would weaken if left
>> loaded, the marterials were weak and prone to bending and crimping.
>> The vast majority of weapon malfunctions were caused specifically by
>> crappy magazines.  The
>> M-16A2 and M-4 rifles both performed very well in all kinds of
>> environments.
>> I might have some complaints about the round, and wouldn't mind seeing
>> us go back to something like the 7.62, or move forward with something
>> like the
>> 6.8
>> but that's neither here nor there.
>>
>> Simply put this decision can and likely will cause the loss of life.
>> I cannot imagine what the motive for this decision is, other than the
>> possibility of someone that produces the crappy metal mags was losing
>> money.
>>
>> Arm chair commandos.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351468
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to