M16 Vs Thompson
Posted 26 November 2003 - 05:58 PM
Posted 26 November 2003 - 06:05 PM
You must mean the StG -44 (not MP-40) made by Haenel Waffen.
Posted 26 November 2003 - 06:07 PM
Posted 26 November 2003 - 06:37 PM
The M16 is a classic firearm in its own right. Designed by a genius, nay a gun deity (and there are so few of them, John Moses Browning being another - call me a heretic, but one and two hit wonders like Kalashnikov and Thompson and Garand are not). First US military weapon of nonferrous alloys and plastics. First SCHV weapon adopted by the US military. In fact, first SCHV weapon ever adopted anywhere. I'm calling less than 1/4" bore and over 3000 fps SCHV. Its profile is pretty recognizable and has been adopted by and produced by many countries. Add it's length of service and that makes it a classic.
I think that article about that HK POS is wishful thinking on someone's part (although I'm sure someone said the same thing about the AR15/M16 40 or so years ago).
Anyway, between the Thompson and he M16, they are equally classic, depending on who you ask. JMHO
Posted 26 November 2003 - 07:34 PM
Posted 26 November 2003 - 08:39 PM
Personally I think the biggest cause for jaming is excessive oiling or the type of oil used in lubricating. It would seem in a desert enviorment a teflon coating, ceramic, or some type of dry lube would really be the ideal choice.
Second I feel adopting the AR-10 .308 caliber would add to the overall knock down power of the weapon. I dont think any rifle is really designed to be fired from inside a vehicle.
Lastly having no first hand experience with the M-4 I have to ask if they shortened the gas tube or went to a spiral wound around the barrel. As most people who play with this weapon know the disadvantage of the shorter barrel lengths is the gas tube issues and subsuqent reliability issues that it creates.
Posted 26 November 2003 - 09:50 PM
My 16 is a little jerk sometimes ANY dirt it is crap!
My AK is different hell I damn near destroyed it and it still runs!
I wont dare do that to ANY tsmg!
Posted 26 November 2003 - 09:50 PM
The spiral wound gas tube is a interesting attempt to fix the problems inherent in the gas system, it truly is a wonder that the military has stuck with this design for as long as they have...
Also, the caliber, the 5.56x45 is actually not too bad, it is the bullet that is often the problem here as the Geneva-convention prohibits any "expanding" bullet in signees of the convention army(s) firearms this is a problem that the Russians sub-verted in their design of the 5.45x39-for their "version" of the modern infantry rifle, the AK74...The bullet, (with a hard steel penetrator) has an engineered in air-space in front of the penetrator that destabilises the bullet causing it to yaw when it hits the target causing debilitating wounds and therefore one or two shot stopping ability, that our bullet..design..sadly lacks...the original XM15/AR15/M16/M16A1 had 1 in 7 twist barrels that didn't allow the bullet to stablise fully allowing slight amounts of bullet yaw to occur and greater wounding ability. But at a cost: accuracy so we went to the 1 in 9 twist to stabilise the bullet for accuracy!
As for the Mattel toy appelation, the regular army troops when seeing their first AR15's in 1964 supposedly said out loud to the passing troops:Hey, look at their Mattel rifles! or something to that effect, refering to of course, their toy like looks compared to the (at the time) issue M14!
And yes, the AK47 etc. is ugly etc....BUT..IT WORKS ALL THE TIME! any firearm that works all of the time has been designed by a genius. And yes, the AK47 is a "knock-off" of the MP44! Infact, the first version of the AK was-infact-made out of steel stampings just like the MP44!
With all due respects to John T Thompson, I thought that he suggested the creation of a small portable machinegun, a "submachinegun" and he assembled the groups of people that ultimately went on to design the submachinegun that was named in his honor....
I just had to say something...!!!
Posted 26 November 2003 - 10:08 PM
Attempting to diminish John T's contributions to the firearm that bears his name, simply because he did not labor away as a machinist/designer, is the hight of absurdity. Those few men in history who have the vision to assemble the proper personnel who can make a reality out of a dream are what a civilized society considers innovators.
Posted 26 November 2003 - 10:21 PM
Posted 26 November 2003 - 10:27 PM
What else did Stoner design that has been adopted by the military? I am just asking, I don't know. However comparing Stoner to John Browning is like comparing Billy Ray Cyrus to Johnny Cash.
I don't have an M16 (I do have a lower Ar15 without an upper), but I will tell you why I am adverse to the AR/M16 class of weapons:
1. Gun is simply not reliable without extreme care.
2. I believe that the lack of forward assist and the brass deflector were originally design flaws.
3. The civilian version is simply too expensive, pre or post ban. (Not to mention FA)
4. The magazines are too expensive
5. The ammunition is too expensive
6. Accessories are too expensive
7. They are not too useful for killing deer, bear, or turkeys. (There are better choices)
8. That damn ching sound you get when firing one.
9. Iím sorry, but I think that round is crap no matter what they do to it.
It does offer the following in my opinion:
1. Versatile gun. You can shoot MANY calibers and configurations. (Shrike, MG34 config, 9mm, 45, 22lr, A1, A2, M4, etc...)
2. Great for varmints and coyotes
3. It looks sexy. Not near as much as a Thompson does, but still sexy.
4. They will always be in demand, even if the military drops it.
I am sure I will end up with one some of these days; I just have not been too serious about it. If the right one comes along at the right price I will pick it up. No hurry.
Quick question: Does anyone have both the Stug 44 AND the FA AK-47 for a good comparison for us; I have never heard that one.
Posted 26 November 2003 - 11:14 PM
Posted 27 November 2003 - 12:27 AM
Gene Stoner designed the AR10 which really should have been adopted instead of the M14. We wouldn't have all this 5.56mm debate going on. Such is not life.
Okay, a quick Gene Stoner design discussion (besides the numerous designs that did not get adopted or put into series production). His designs were hindered greatly by timing, politics and the military's NIH syndrome.
AR-5 Air Force survival rifle (very limited Air Force purchase)
AR-7 popular little take down .22
AR-10 - big damn M16 (should have been our rifle - Portugal and Sudan bought some) which evolved into the AR-15 (nothing further needs to be said)
AR16 which evolved into the AR18
Stoner62 which evolved into the 63/63A (Navy SEALS and Marines in VN)
He also designed the 5.56mm round. I would not want to get hit on any part of my body with a 5.56mm round.
Okay, so none of his designs are perfect, but neither were John Moses Browning's nor Kalashnikov's. They all have detractors. I'm not a big fan of the AR15's dirty gas tube system, but he did it to reduce weight. Stoner is still a genius (Billy Ray Cyrus....harumph ). The AR15 was revolutionary for its day (1958). Sad thing is (although I like the M1A/M14 on semi), in 1957 (in spite of all of the technological advances), the US military adopted a gun that was based on John Garand's early/mid 1920's design, the M14. It was rather uncontrollable on full auto.
Just a clarification, the earliest AR15's had a 1 in 14 twist. The M16/16A1 had a 1 in 12. The M16 went to Vietnam without cleaning equipment or proper maintenance instructions. The powder used was the wrong type (over Stoner's objections). I hate to think ordnance types wanted to see it fail so they deliberately did this. Jessica and company hadn't cleaned their rifles in days (if you believe the press) and the lube the military issues sucks for desert climate.
MP44 vs AK47. MP44 just sits there and vibrates on FA. Slower ROF. The handguard do get warm on sustained fire. Gloves help. The AK bucks and climbs. It is rather obnoxious on FA. The little reinforcement pins in the handguards heat up on sustained fire and will burn the bajeebers out of you. Again, gloves help.
The AK, 1911, Hi Power, 1917/1919 BMG, Ma Deuce, BAR, and TSMG do qualify as classics in my book (so does the M16).
Posted 27 November 2003 - 01:00 AM
Posted 27 November 2003 - 07:26 AM
The AK is no marvel, it's a STG44/45 with the gas system barowed from the SKS. Manipulation of the selector is awkward and noisy, and while it is in the running with the top 5 most reliable guns on the planet it's not overly original or innovative
The 16- has the WORST opperational system know to man for a combat rifle, that it has lasted this long when there were nice things like the Rhino gas conversion system I don't know. Their accurate rifles or can be made to be but the 1 in 9 twist and the SS109 bullet were the wrong way to go. the old M185 broke at the canliture and that is where it's lethality came from. 1 in 14 was changed to 1 in 12 twist so as to improve long range accuracy in cold climatic conditions. Field preformace of the SS109 from Mogadiu to Afganistan says it pokes pencil sized holes and keeps going. The M4 is worse as it lacks the initial velocity the 20" barrel gave it.
The current military doctrine holds it that 1 wounded man removes 3 from combat, one wounded two strecherbearers. I've never gotten to shoot one but the Ar-10 would have been closer to the right rifle, the magazines however IMHO SUCK. Aluminum has no place in something critical like a feed lip. An Ar-10 with overbuilt magazines like an AK-47 and an ar-180 gas system would give anything a run for its money for reliability and leathality would not be questioned.
Posted 27 November 2003 - 09:30 AM
What is number 1?
Yeah the 16 basically sux
Posted 27 November 2003 - 10:47 AM
By uncontrollable wrt to the M14, I meant ability to keep full auto fire on human sized targets beyond 15 yards. The average shooter can't do this with a stock rifle. The E2 stock and muzzlebrake(sp?) helps. Semi it's great, but it's failing as an assault rifle was its cartridge, length, weight and lack of controlability on full auto (at least for the average troop - Marines are different- waiting for the next sheit storm over this comment )
Guns are like women. Variety makes them nice. Blondes, brunnettes, redheads, tall, short, thin, chunky They all have quirks about them,b ut for the most part, they are nice to look at, nice to hold, and fun to play with.
Posted 27 November 2003 - 10:54 AM
Posted 27 November 2003 - 11:42 AM