I just watched the beginning of that Tavor video, and they kept on mentioning "the firepower of the M16" in it. I think it's worth pointing out that the AK47, among other rifles, have higher fire power than the M16. Maybe they meant fire rate instead of caliber, but it's still an annoying distinction.
I just watched the beginning of that Tavor video, and they kept on mentioning "the firepower of the M16" in it. I think it's worth pointing out that the AK47, among other rifles, have higher fire power than the M16. Maybe they meant fire rate instead of caliber, but it's still an annoying distinction.
Yeah, i saw a lot of things from the clip that annoyed me. However its Discovery, Science, Military channel programming so its made to be understood by anyone who can wield a remote.
Also let it be noted that some modern day Kalashnikov 100 series can fire the 5.56
What is advantageous about being able to fire the 5.56?
It's a universal NATO round; they can be found in a lot of different locations so you can pick up ammo from the bad guys and use it. Truth be told, the 7.62mm is much more prolific.
Also let it be noted that some modern day Kalashnikov 100 series can fire the 5.56
What is advantageous about being able to fire the 5.56?
It's a universal NATO round; they can be found in a lot of different locations so you can pick up ammo from the bad guys and use it. Truth be told, the 7.62mm is much more prolific.
So the terrorists they sell their guns to can reload their rifles with American bullets in the field. Basically, if you were away from a supply depot, you could reload with magazines you find as opposed to ones handed out. The same logic goes with the FN SCAR which is a weapon for American Special Forces use that can load on both American bullets and with AK47 magazines found on the battlefield.
They're a hell of a lot more durable. The original AK-47 was a beast of an assault rifle that stood up to a fucking ton of abuse. You know those stories about American servicemen in Vietnam and Iraq who would use captured enemy rifles in place of the M-16? Most of them are true because the M-16 requires constant maintenance to keep it's functionality. The AK line of rifles don't suffer from the "tempermental" attitude that the M-16 does.
They're a hell of a lot more durable. The original AK-47 was a beast of an assault rifle that stood up to a fucking ton of abuse. You know those stories about American servicemen in Vietnam and Iraq who would use captured enemy rifles in place of the M-16? Most of them are true because the M-16 requires constant maintenance to keep it's functionality. The AK line of rifles don't suffer from the "tempermental" attitude that the M-16 does.
Yeah, I had always heard about the guys in Vietnam using enemy weapons. Wasn't sure if it was for the sake of being able to use enemy rounds or if the M-16s were just shit till recently. Or are they still shit, despite advertisements.
Yeah, the M16 in it's first incarnations were pieces of shit. You couldn't even load the magazine to maximum capacity because the spring would wear out, which is something you don't need in a jungle situation. The Israelis during the 6 Day War (I'm pretty sure) usually switched out their Galil's for the AK47. The Australians did the same thing with their FN FALs in Nam. Plus you could find reloads for an AK in the jungle, where as with an M16 you simply couldn't.
The other thing is that an AK will put a man down. An M16 is a badass rifle, definetly, but unless you hit them in the right place a determined fighter can keep moving after getting hit mutlitple times. A lot of special forces people in Mogadishu used M14's instead of the M16 because it had more stopping power. If you hit a man with an M14, he stayed down. The same logic goes for the AK.
Terrorists and guerillas use the AK because it's basically retard proof. It's a blunt insturment for someone that doesn't know how to treat or use a weapon.
Anyways, my point is that assholes of the world use the AK. I mean, the Nazis did basically make the fucker.
Yeah, I had always heard about the guys in Vietnam using enemy weapons. Wasn't sure if it was for the sake of being able to use enemy rounds or if the M-16s were just shit till recently. Or are they still shit, despite advertisements.
The M-16A1 in Vietnam was, by most standards, a shitty piece of gear. The M-16A2 that is in use today is a much superior piece of shit to the A1, but it's still a piece of shit compared to some of the HK models that are available. The M4 light assault rifle that is (essentially) a chopped down version of the A2 is a vast improvement in basic manufacture. The first few runs of the A2 were plagued with quite a few design problems that were slowly corrected; unfortunately, the M-16 design is highly susceptible to the three D's (dirt, debris, damage) and requires an armorer for extended use over time.
Basically, the Krauts have lapped us in terms of face to face killing power, which is a damn shame because the fuckers haven't won a war since before their leaders weren't lead pain crazed man-children or introverted mustacheophiles.
Goddamn Germany has some fucked up leaders.
In my mind you can only kill a person so well from less than a hundred yards off, so the Tavil and all of this are moot points. Today's wars aren't going to be toe-to-toe scrapes like they were this past century. Wars now are fought so fast and so far away that the all the rifleman presents himself as is something to hit with a mortar shell rigged to a cell phone. Not to say that fire fights still don't happen, but the point I'm making is that if you hit a guy with an M1 or an M24 he's still dead. You can only make a rifle so well before it's just wanking.
Basically, the Krauts have lapped us in terms of face to face killing power, which is a damn shame because the fuckers haven't won a war since before their leaders weren't lead pain crazed man-children or introverted mustacheophiles.
Goddamn Germany has some fucked up leaders.
In my mind you can only kill a person so well from less than a hundred yards off, so the Tavil and all of this are moot points. Today's wars aren't going to be toe-to-toe scrapes like they were this past century. Wars now are fought so fast and so far away that the all the rifleman presents himself as is something to hit with a mortar shell rigged to a cell phone. Not to say that fire fights still don't happen, but the point I'm making is that if you hit a guy with an M1 or an M24 he's still dead. You can only make a rifle so well before it's just wanking.
That's how I see it.
I suspect the infantry feel differently about the weapon they're relying on if/when firefights occur but I generally agree with your thesis.
Basically, the Krauts have lapped us in terms of face to face killing power, which is a damn shame because the fuckers haven't won a war since before their leaders weren't lead pain crazed man-children or introverted mustacheophiles.
Goddamn Germany has some fucked up leaders.
In my mind you can only kill a person so well from less than a hundred yards off, so the Tavil and all of this are moot points. Today's wars aren't going to be toe-to-toe scrapes like they were this past century. Wars now are fought so fast and so far away that the all the rifleman presents himself as is something to hit with a mortar shell rigged to a cell phone. Not to say that fire fights still don't happen, but the point I'm making is that if you hit a guy with an M1 or an M24 he's still dead. You can only make a rifle so well before it's just wanking.
That's how I see it.
I suspect the infantry feel differently about the weapon they're relying on if/when firefights occur but I generally agree with your thesis.
Most infantry would rather sit really still and take shots from a great distance than go door knocking...potential booby-traps and all.
Basically, the Krauts have lapped us in terms of face to face killing power, which is a damn shame because the fuckers haven't won a war since before their leaders weren't lead pain crazed man-children or introverted mustacheophiles.
Goddamn Germany has some fucked up leaders.
In my mind you can only kill a person so well from less than a hundred yards off, so the Tavil and all of this are moot points. Today's wars aren't going to be toe-to-toe scrapes like they were this past century. Wars now are fought so fast and so far away that the all the rifleman presents himself as is something to hit with a mortar shell rigged to a cell phone. Not to say that fire fights still don't happen, but the point I'm making is that if you hit a guy with an M1 or an M24 he's still dead. You can only make a rifle so well before it's just wanking.
That's how I see it.
I suspect the infantry feel differently about the weapon they're relying on if/when firefights occur but I generally agree with your thesis.
Most infantry would rather sit really still and take shots from a great distance than go door knocking...potential booby-traps and all.
Sure, but what they want usually has little to do with what they are ordered to do. Otherwise they'd all be in Thailand fucking whores and drinking or home with their family (gross generalization but you see my point).
Sure, but what they want usually has little to do with what they are ordered to do. Otherwise they'd all be in Thailand fucking whores and drinking or home with their family (gross generalization but you see my point).
You just summed up my four years in the marines to a tee.
Most infantry would rather sit really still and take shots from a great distance than go door knocking...potential booby-traps and all.
Most fights occur within 100 yards of the enemy, which is why the M16 was built in the first place. And it's not like a soldier can choose his fight.
I'm just saying that upgrading from a G3, which works perfectly fine to a G36 is somewhat pointless, because it's not like they can improve the skill of a soldier. Also the endurance of the enemy isn't getting any higher, so creating a multi-million dollar next-gen rifle is superfluous in my eyes unless it's fixing a major problem (like with the M14 or the first batch of M16's).
It's basically just the law of diminishin returns. A zip gun can kill a man just as well as the Tavor and it doesn't cost however many millions of dollars. You can only get so good at killing a person.
Depends heavily on the enemy at hand. Chinese soldiers will probably be equipped with some sort of kevlar armor. The guys in the mid-east are lucky to find scrapes of metal to strap around their chest. Though I don't see why you'd need this Tavor over an M16A2, even with the threat of body armor. If the Chinese, Russians, or other super power force capable of putting body armor on its soldiers develop something better than Kevlar, then maybe this Tavor is a likely replacement. According to wikipedia, though, the Tavor and the M16A2 caliber is the same 5.56 NATO round, and the M16A2 has 50 feet more effective range. The weight of the gun is virtually the same. As far as I can tell, the only real advantage the Tavor holds is that it looks like it's from Doom 3.
Man I am a melee person and just don't really like ranged combat very much, but that is a pretty rifle.
You'd probably appreciate ranged combat more if people were always trying to kill you.
Let me make it clear that I am not pissing on ranged combat or saying that "only cowards fight from far away" or anything like that. I simply prefer, as the name implies, defensive combat over offensive combat, and ranged weapons do not provide defense. They are pure offense. I understand that you use cover and camo as your defense, and that you can use firepower to keep the enemy from gaining vantage points and all of that, but I have a personal preference for combat that occurs up close and personal.
Ok so is there any advantage to the bull pup design besides that it makes the rifle more compact?
The main advantage to the bull-pup design is just that: compactness. I've had the opportunity to toy with a couple and they're alright, but nothing that couldn't be accomplished with an M4.
Posts
Yeah, i saw a lot of things from the clip that annoyed me. However its Discovery, Science, Military channel programming so its made to be understood by anyone who can wield a remote.
Correct. 5.56mm/.223 caliber.
corrected
Yummy
As you can see the 7.62 a Kalashnikov fires is quite beefy.
Dear satan I wish for this or maybe some of this....oh and I'm a medium or a large.
It's a universal NATO round; they can be found in a lot of different locations so you can pick up ammo from the bad guys and use it. Truth be told, the 7.62mm is much more prolific.
If I were a freedom fighter
I would use an AK.
They're a hell of a lot more durable. The original AK-47 was a beast of an assault rifle that stood up to a fucking ton of abuse. You know those stories about American servicemen in Vietnam and Iraq who would use captured enemy rifles in place of the M-16? Most of them are true because the M-16 requires constant maintenance to keep it's functionality. The AK line of rifles don't suffer from the "tempermental" attitude that the M-16 does.
The other thing is that an AK will put a man down. An M16 is a badass rifle, definetly, but unless you hit them in the right place a determined fighter can keep moving after getting hit mutlitple times. A lot of special forces people in Mogadishu used M14's instead of the M16 because it had more stopping power. If you hit a man with an M14, he stayed down. The same logic goes for the AK.
Terrorists and guerillas use the AK because it's basically retard proof. It's a blunt insturment for someone that doesn't know how to treat or use a weapon.
Anyways, my point is that assholes of the world use the AK. I mean, the Nazis did basically make the fucker.
Rant over.
edit: Penguin types alot faster than me.
Goddamn Germany has some fucked up leaders.
In my mind you can only kill a person so well from less than a hundred yards off, so the Tavil and all of this are moot points. Today's wars aren't going to be toe-to-toe scrapes like they were this past century. Wars now are fought so fast and so far away that the all the rifleman presents himself as is something to hit with a mortar shell rigged to a cell phone. Not to say that fire fights still don't happen, but the point I'm making is that if you hit a guy with an M1 or an M24 he's still dead. You can only make a rifle so well before it's just wanking.
That's how I see it.
Most infantry would rather sit really still and take shots from a great distance than go door knocking...potential booby-traps and all.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
You just summed up my four years in the marines to a tee.
I'm just saying that upgrading from a G3, which works perfectly fine to a G36 is somewhat pointless, because it's not like they can improve the skill of a soldier. Also the endurance of the enemy isn't getting any higher, so creating a multi-million dollar next-gen rifle is superfluous in my eyes unless it's fixing a major problem (like with the M14 or the first batch of M16's).
It's basically just the law of diminishin returns. A zip gun can kill a man just as well as the Tavor and it doesn't cost however many millions of dollars. You can only get so good at killing a person.
Let me make it clear that I am not pissing on ranged combat or saying that "only cowards fight from far away" or anything like that. I simply prefer, as the name implies, defensive combat over offensive combat, and ranged weapons do not provide defense. They are pure offense. I understand that you use cover and camo as your defense, and that you can use firepower to keep the enemy from gaining vantage points and all of that, but I have a personal preference for combat that occurs up close and personal.
The main advantage to the bull-pup design is just that: compactness. I've had the opportunity to toy with a couple and they're alright, but nothing that couldn't be accomplished with an M4.