If you watch the videos above with Mr. Kalashnikov and Mr. Stoner, you'll understand what I mean. Not discussed in the videos (2 of 4) that I looked at was caliber. You want to wound your enemy on the battlefield so he/she becomes a burden to their comrades. The 7.62 x 39 is probably more likely to kill than a .223. But if the enemy abandons it's wounded, what is gained?
Wounding the enemy is good, killing them is better, taking the objective (area occupied by your enemy) is the goal.
The problem we had with then M-16 during Vietnam was primarily from the powder the ammo was first charged with..Stoner told the military that it needed a cleaner burning powder due to close tolerances of the machining of the chamber, our military decided to go with a different powder? We ended up with cartridges expanding in a dirty chamber and the bolt on the extraction cycle ripped the base of the casing off leaving the remainder of the cartridge in the chamber, A difficult jam to correct in training let alone while we were taking incoming rounds during combat.
As for the .223 being a light weight round it had the habit of ricocheting when it came in contact with underbrush/jungle (yes Vietnam is an area with heavy jungles) making it difficult to actually hit the enemy at times.
The original M-16 forearm and stock was made with a substandard plastic that would break when impacted. That was corrected later on but not during my time in country.
SOBG said:
Reading the book, American Sniper, gives a good first-hand account of what is needed on the battlefield. If you're clearing houses you don't want a .50 cal. Chris Kyle (Navy Seal), I believe, used four or five different rifles depending on his mission. He's a solder and a hero so I'll take his words anytime.
I have no doubt that Chris Kyle was honestly giving his professional opinion as to what he needed on the battlefield, but keep in mind he is a special operator that has a great deal of advanced training with weapons and has access to what ever he needs for his mission...we were discussing the every day ground pounder, the grunt, the guy that goes out in force to wage war on the enemy, they are only trained in a few weapons (the issue rifle, pistol, light machine guns and some form of light rocket launcher such as the LAAW)
SOBG said:
The things "missing" on an AR can be retrofitted such as a gas piston system, larger caliber, etc. All this comes at a price. The AK47 is cheap to make and is used by every rebel army in the world. It's even pictured on at least one country's flag. It's not built for accuracy. The tolerances are generous so it always goes bang when the trigger is pulled.
The AK always goes bang when the trigger is pulled and you wouldn't believe how reassuring that sound is unless you had an AR jam up on you during a firefight.
Fortunately I had a friend in the armory that they stored our M-14's in when they took them from us and issued the M-16...he gave me my M-14 back when I asked for it...
The AK 47 is your enemy's choice of weapons due to proven battlefield accomplishments, it ain't the most accurate, it ain't the longest shooting rifle in the field but it gets the job done by going bang every time and penetrating through walls if necessary.