That's called micro-stamping, and I don't believe NY was the only state looking at it. There was a bill put to the floor in MD and I believe CA is also seriously considering it (it was shot down in MD at least).

Well if anyone would do it, it would be CA. I heard on the radio this morning that a CA court decided to outlaw home schooling, and that lead to a big backlash from parents.

Since when are Russians reasonable, comrade? In their minds and according to their laws the Kalashnikov assault rifle is theirs.

The only assault rifle to feature on a national flag. The AK-47 is a robust rifle and luckily human beings do not change in biology just in our sensibilities on fashion.

To get back on topic isn't the HK 227S the FN FAL (also known as the L1A1 Self Loading Rifle or SLR) been mislabeled and jammed with a square magazine with a plastic coverlet?

I would understand that if using 7.62mm rounds a square magazine would jam a lot?

-Chrysalis

The AK47's reliability is mostly attributable to its robust extractor and 7.62x39mm ammunition. Larger ammo equals more rim on the casing to grab, and the less it will be affected by foreign material on the the ammunition or in the chamber. Additionally it's assembly is somewhat loose, which is the best way I can describe it. Once again this allows for greater reliability, but don't try to shoot anything with any real hope of accuracy past about 200yds. The AK47 was designed with a conscript soldier in mind. Massed automatic fire was the doctrine and one of the most common firing positions was from the hip while assaulting. It is certainly worthy of its reputation, but lets acknowledge it's weaknesses. A professional would almost never use one if he had a choice. (I am referring to Russian made AK47's, don't even bring up Chinese knock offs. And I am not saying anything about any of the newer AK models, they have certainly addressed most accuracy issues.)

The HK227 actually looks like a crossbreed of an HK G3 Assault Rifle and a HK PSG3 Sniper Rifle on steroids.

7.62 in a square magazine will jam no more frequently than a banana clip. The banana clip was designed to maximize magazine load while minimizing the distance the clip stuck out beneath the weapon.

Most weapon malfunctions occur for the following reasons 1) user error (especially with semi automatic handguns), 2) dirt in the chamber or more appropriately in the extractor causing the casing to remain in the chamber while another round is jammed in (your classic jam), 3) overheated weapon which can result in a cook off and a runaway weapon, 4) defective primer (i.e. a dud round), 5) weak charge resulting in a stovepiped barrel, which if not noticed results in, 6) an explosive failure as a round is fired down the barrel with another round stuck in the barrel, and 7) weak charge may also result in not enough force to push the slide, receiver or similar far enough to load the next round. In my experience those are the most common reasons for malfunctions.

Not to mention the extensive field testing the AK-47 went under before being adopted.

Where did they test the first generations of M-16s? A Lab?

IIRC, the Vickers Heavy Machine Gun was field tested by firing it for days before the team finally decided that if it wasn't going to have a problem after all that. And it proved itself in the fields of France.

Find as many problems as you can before handing it to a soldier, no matter how well trained. He will always find more!

M16 was tested in Vietnam It failed miserably because well the troops expected it to work. The M14, which preceded it was an incredibly accurate beast of a rifle. Seriously though the M16 is a rifle I love and hate. The only thing I hate is the caliber, because it is the root cause of everything wrong with it. So when I got the extra cash I will be buying one of these http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_rec7.aspx. All the ergonomics, and accuracy, none of the problems and more punch.

My impression was that the M16's primary problems were overcomplexity and unreliability. Granted you can actually get through a whole magazine without it jamming, unlike with the early versions, but its still a rather temperamental, fragile weapon. The M16 has developed into a decent gun though: accurate, light weight, good ergonomics. It's other problems seriously hamper it though.



I would have thought that a professional would take a gun that would fire every single time he pulls the trigger, and the AK comes closer to that ideal than any other assault rifle. To me at least, that consideration is more important than any other.

'I will be trusting this gun with my life: it damn well better work.'

Also, the gun only becomes genuinely inaccurate at around 300 meters. The vast majority of combat happens inside of that range, so its not as big a deal as most make it out to be.

I guess we've got an awful lot of unprofessional soldiers over in the Gulf right now, then.

The M16 is one of the easiest weapons to breakdown, and reassemble. Always has been. The complexity and unreliability issues came about mostly due to lack of training on the new weapon. The M16a2 and later variants are not temperamental at all, though they do require more maintenance (cleaning) than the AK 47 for instance. I had no problem trusting the M16 with my life in the past and would not in the future, though now that I am a civilian there are other options My issue with extractors is ultimately the underlying cause of any rifle or mg problems in 5.56mm. NATO really needs to get away from this round.



An M16 will fire everytime if you take care of it. The AK does not come closer, it has merely been mythologized into that position. At the time and for many years your comment was true. My list of Assault Rifles or civilian versions of choice that I would pick over the AK are the FN SCARH (7.62mm), the Barrett Model Rec 7 (there was a military version however the US Army declined this option for a 5.56mm rifle and even that is in the air/ model 7 uses a 6.8mm SPC round), and the HK417 (7.62mm). All of them fit the bill.

I am used to plinking targets at 500yds with iron sights, and though the majority of combat occurs under 300m the ability to reach out and touch someone as a group is incredibly valuable especially when the other guy subscribed to that line of thought. I'll take the cake, and eat it too. I can have the best of both worlds.

One problem with the AK is its long clip making firing from prone more awkward.

My read on use of liberated weapons is that most grunts are happy enough with the current issue of the M-16 and don't feel any need for going off the regimental supply chain for ammo. Even Special Forces only use the AK when they're trying to blend in. They're more likely to choose H&K personal weapons than 'liberate' an AK: they don't need the "fires even when it's not been cleaned for 2000 rounds and 6 months in the jungle" because they maintain their weapons, and have the weapon skills to benefit from tight groupings that "proper" engineering tolerances in manufacture can produce.

Yes, and I don't want to get all apocalyptic, but when things go from bad to worse, or when you're fighting a low-intensity conflict, or when you're conducting an insurgency campaign: you want something reliable no matter what.

One day, sooner or later, the supply chain and/or logistics of bloated "modern" militaries will break down, and we'll see the average spoiled Western soldier for what he is: a kid who just wanted college money and has 30,000$ of (at that point, non-working or failing) equipment on him.

That's just plain offensive. I don't really like being stuffed into a blanket statement like that. I did not serve for the college money, and neither did 90% of the guys I served with (USMC). Even the few who did realized it was not a game. I have trained with at least 25 different countries armed forces both first world and third world, and can say one thing. The quality of manpower is directly related to the degree of training. Of all the armed services I trained with the only ones worth a damn were the UK Royal Marines, the rest of Europe produced essentially lambs waiting to be slaughtered. So I can agree with your point to a degree, except you see every last encounter with the third world fighter indicated to me someone high on motivation (principally being fed) without any real skill, so maybe the Europeans I trained with were not that bad because the level of ability of these third world militaries was absolutely abysmal.

As far as the noble (insert mass sarcasm) guerilla fighter, can only succeed when attacking by surprise, in overwhelming numbers, and with the full support of the civilian population. Individually as warriors they are severely lacking.

No offense to anyone out there who might be serving in a European Service, but my opinions were based on first hand experiences such as, drunk in the field, refusal to perform night patrols or attacks, inability to carry a full combat load, zero security, no light or noise discipline, refusing to perform an amphibious landing (shout out to the Dutch Marines on that one, it still makes me chuckle), essentially if it would get you killed in the zone they did it.

Sorry if I offended you. I'm a member of my respective nation's military as well, and I know there are CLEARLY exceptions. I have American friends serving with the US Army and the USMC in Iraq and elsewhere and, clearly, they aren't there for that, either.



And when military or police attack or seize an enemy or suspect, they go in with overwhelming force whenever possible as well. Who wouldn't? That might be the only thing modern military machines and the guerilla force have in common.

As for civilian support, I hope you're not derisive of it: that's how modern warfare works, and will work in future conflicts. It's dirtier, but that's the point.

I'm no friend of the 'guerillas' we find today, but perhaps one day WE'LL be the guerillas/insurgents/freedom-fighters/whatever, and if that's the case: I'd rather go low-tech and grab an AK. We can't rely on military infrastructure and logistics forever. Scheisse happens.

Also, I heard a rumour (can anyone confirm?) that the Dutch military, or Navy, was unionized. I think that explains a lot. I hope I'm wrong.

I don't know if they were unionized, but the landing issue was a contractual issue apparently. We never got a really detailed explanation as to why beyond the fact that they refused to get wet, so we chalked it up to the sand in the clit factor.

Overwhelming numbers and overwhelming force are different, but I get where you are coming from, and no I never had the pleasure to play with the Canadians.

Fire a Soviet Era AK and tell me yo really trust it. I'll stick with the three I mentioned in 7.62mm, not bad for shooting game either if the logistics breakdown

Just thought of something, when it comes to a rifle that's proven itself in the test of time, nothing beats the Short-Magazine Lee-Enfield.

Canadian Rangers prefer it over anything else, from my understanding.

1895 to Today. Nothing beats that testiment. And it sure will be able to outrange any assault rifle on the market, and, in trained hands, can impersonate a "Machine Gun", as Germans attested in World War I!

Okay, so you're a guerilla defending your home in the continental mainland of America. You don't have a supply train. What calibre of ammunition is going to be easier to scavenge: 5.56mm NATO or 7.62 short Russian? You'll have to kill the Chinese (who else has the personnel to try and hold down the States?) oppressor to get hold of their ammo, but there's bins of 5.56 around.

Even once you're an insurgent, you retain your weapon skills and discipline, so you still don't need the "ruggedness" and associated sloppiness of the AK... It's easier to steal/cadge/scavenge a can or two of gun oil and some pull-throughs than clips of enemy ammo.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-enfield.htm

To Shiloh:

Points taken, I suppose I missed the obvious points-- I'd still recommend hoarding acquired/'liberated' munitions and slowly integrating it into my force pool, but this is Shadowrun 4th edition and not Advanced Squad Leader meets "Be your own Guerilla Warlord v2010" (or: Guerilla Logistics, v0.4)... unfortunately.

Insurgency in the Continental US is far more likely to be by labor unions against corrupt corporations, such as the Battle of Blair Mountain, or concerned citizens against corrupt police officers as in the case of Battle of Athens. Invasion is unlikely, but the usurpation of local government by strong-men is still possible.

From playing Operation Flashpoint I learned that Russians forget you were there if you dive behind concealment for 5 seconds. This enables you to carefully crawl back to exactly where you were last time and shoot him when he's looking the other way.

No doubt brain damage from all the vodka and extreme hazing.

"Yevgeny! Stop punching the damn recruits in the head until they black out! Their complete lack of short term memory is losing us this war!"

All the more reason to favour a domestic round then... there won't *be* any AKs and 7.62 short to 'liberate'.

Ok, fine. I hate you all.

*Storms off.*

Curious (and offensive!) statement at best. Time and time again, U.S. infantry turn down our "fancy toys" like the much-touted Land Warrior system for lighter weight, more reliable equipment. There's a reason they still get trained on map and compass before you get the GPS. The main advances in infantry since the Vietnam era that stick with me are better carrying gear, lighter weight equipment (makes room for more ammo!), and more effective "first strike" weapons like anti-tank equipment, where the situation is usually hit-or-die.

Was the M16A1 responsible for funky Vietnam era music?

No I think it was Heroin that pulled that off.

No way, man! It was the Purple Haze...

What killed the original M16 was the US Army, to be honest. The US Army spent so much time and energy fighting the new weapon that Robert McNamara thought that the request by the Dept of the Army for a chromed barrel was just another stalling tactic. The Army also had swapped the clean burning stick powder of the original design for dirtier ball powders that gave better long-range ballistics in arctic conditions. The lack of effective corrosion resistance and the dirtier powders resulted in many of the earlier M16s jamming in the jungles of Vietnam (which in all honesty is about the single worst place for a rifle to be if you're discussing reliability anyway). Once effective cleaning kits were issued and the soldiers were trained to use them, the issues with the weapon largely disappeared.
Of course, the weapon has henceforth been colored by the brush strokes of this pissing contest between the McNamara's Wonder Kids and the Dept of the Army which has earned this excellent weapon a bad reputation for reliability.
Proponents of the M16 series include various US, Israeli, and United Kingdom special operations forces who, while having the pick of basically any weapon they wanted, selected the use of the M16 to be used in their world-wide mission locations. The fact that these men, and sometimes women, specifically selected the M16 series over a great many other great weapons out there for use in their limited support, often behind the lines, and everything we have for this mission is on our backs and LBE speaks volumes as to the true level of reliability and effectiveness of this weapon system.

Do you have any sources to cite? I'm not saying this as a challenge. Instead, I'm really interested in history and would like further reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

I know don't ever use wikipedia, however this article is actually pretty damn accurate.

@psychophipps as previously stated the reliability issue was and is 90% user failure, combined with 10% weapon design (it does get dirty quicker than most). I certainly never had a problem trusting it.

what UK force uses the m16? The SAS use what ever they feel like depending on the misson really but they might use the m16 the SBS use some funky guns including a foldeable sky that is poket size if my source is right. The enfeild 85 is used heavily. I'm just cureipus at what park of the British armed forces use the M16.

The SAS, the SBS. Tend to choose M16 variants for personal weapons, with the underbarrel grenade launcher almost ubiquitous, rather than one or two per squad. They use the Minimi SAW in higher than normal proportions too.

They both use whatever they think gets the job done best, including SMGs and, I suppose, 'funnies'.

Our 'more elite' formations (paras and RM) just use the standard issue SA80, same as our line infantry battalions.

As stated before, the SAS and SBS have used this weapon for quite a while now. The SAS has used the M16 extensively at least since a photo of a 4-man 1964 cross-border patrol in Borneo. The weapons were still being manufactured by Armalite and probably didn't have the powder swapped as had happened with the US M16 with the associated disastrous results.

The SBS use lots of guns really but i didn't know about the M16 but i manly read up on the sub to boat/land raids where ligher weapons are need like Mp-5s. I know about the SA80 (witch isn't that good my dad was in the navy and work as faslane or how ever you spell it as well as a few ships and he didn't like that gun even with his 70%+ average).

Didn't the SA80 have a reputation for the magazine falling out during Gulf War I?

Yep that the one I still dont think they fixed that at least not when my dad was still in service.

They fixed that with the A2 (I think it was) revision. The weapon in service now gets a thumbs up from the people actually using it in south Asia and the Middle East. Yes, it was crap in GW1, fit only for deployment in Germany, but it's been quite severely revised in its 20 year life. I found some quite glowing stuff from combat soldiers by Googling. I gather the M16 is simpler to field strip though, still.

Ah yes i forgot the brought out the A2. But I still know of a lot of actions where the M16 wasn't used. Btw dose any pne know if theres a folding/colappesable version of the SA80 (may not be a SA80 but nor can i find any folding weapon in sevis in the British army) I remember being told about one in use at a range but I cant fined any recored of its existence.

Considering how the entire action of the rifle is in the butt stock, I would think that a collapsible stock would be pretty hard to manage with a SA80. If you look at the lower receiver you will see that the butt plate and the pistol grip are all of one piece making a collapsible stock feature all but impossible.

I't s a bullpup so that you don't need to collapse the stock. It's already over 20cm shorter than an M16 while having a longer barrel. As pschohipps says, the structure pretty much precludes the stock folding any. You could have a model that folds in front of the pistol-grip, I suppose, but it wouldn't be operable in that configuration. You could shorten the barrel, and then you'd get the L22 carbine variant, issued to crews.

It's a battle rifle; concealability isn't an issue, and it's already a handy size.