USA Piracy of Russian Firearms IP??

[promethius9594]

actually, ronn,

the fact that klashniwhatever didnt live a great life, while his american counterpart did is pretty much a mirror of the WHOLE soviet vs american struggle. we had bombs and microwaves, the soviets had bombs and woodstoves.

also, the ak-47, while dependable, isnt a very great weapon.

its HEAVY. it kicks, ALOT. it isnt very accurate, especially on the second and third shot of a burst... and accuracy is crap with fully auto.

[Ronn_Bman]

I understand the Soviet/American mirror, but it doesn't suck any less for Mr K. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Regarding the quality of the AK-47, I don't pretend to be a weapon's expert, I'm just going on The History Channel's analysis. Don't start giving me a bunch of facts or figures on automatic weapons, or you'll scare me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Yeah, the only good thing about the AK is its reliability. You can rely on it to shoot poorly almost every single time. The AK74 on the other hand...

http://www.sovietarmy.com/small_arms/ak-74.html

[ 07-28-2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by promethius9594: actually, ronn, the fact that klashniwhatever didnt live a great life, while his american counterpart did is pretty much a mirror of the WHOLE soviet vs american struggle. we had bombs and microwaves, the soviets had bombs and woodstoves. also, the ak-47, while dependable, isnt a very great weapon. its HEAVY. it kicks, ALOT. it isnt very accurate, especially on the second and third shot of a burst... and accuracy is crap with fully auto.

DON'T even start where you may not want the end to be.

In the hands of a foe with out proper training, and does not zero and qaulify with it, it could be considered a weapon of little value. Then again, so would any other weapon.

Heavy means wood, and steel!

It kicks, well duh, it's a 7.62mm or 30 cal. True it's a 7.62 x 39, which means a short case. NATO 7.62 is x 64. Larger caliber always means greater recoil.

Accurate, well I CAN say, it's as accurate as the person pulling the trigger.

Burst, auto, yeap. How accurate is the 3rd round out of my M4 on burst? Hint, it doesn't hit where the first one did!

Now, let's compare. 7.62mm vs 5.56mm, or .30 cal vs .223. I WAS on the range when we shot US kevlar body armor with both weapons. I WILL say, the body armor vest that a certain senator that is in the public eye at the moment who is a Vietnam vet, voted we DID NOT NEED, HAS ballistic plates in them that will stop a burst from 7.62 mm!

So, the weapon is very accurate, and very deadly in the hands of a well trained soldier. I have trained with foreign armies both before and after the fall of the wall. They did not fear our 5.56 weapons, they feared an AK in the hands of a well trained adversary!

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: I WILL say, the body armor vest that a certain senator that is in the public eye at the moment who is a Vietnam vet, voted we DID NOT NEED, HAS ballistic plates in them that will stop a burst from 7.62 mm!

Totally off topic but....

Did Kerry ( I presume the Vietnam Vet. Senator in the spotlight) specifically vote against body armor and specifically state that it was unnecessary? Or did he vote againgst a much broader appropriation bill, but not because he thought what was in the bill ( and specifically body armor) was unnecessary but how it was going to be paid for was simply wrong?

[ 07-29-2004, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Ronn_Bman]

The vote in question was the $87B bill that Kerry voted against, after he voted for it.

You're right though. He didn't like the way it would be paid for and had his own plan, which he couldn't get off the ground, so no, he didn't vote specifically against body armor because he didn't want body armor for the troops, but he did vote against paying for it, which would have had the same effect.

[Timber Loftis]

No, he voted against paying for it in that way. It is common practice to vote down a spending bill chock full of pork so you can make the other side bring up another version of the bill with less pork. It's not like ANYONE was going to ultimately keep money from the troops -- duh. The money was a must-pass, but all the little Bushie hand-outs to his corporate sponsors were not must-pass. Shame on us, we let him convince us otherwise, and passed a bad bill and let Halliburton take off like mad.

Every day, every second, Halliburton continues to operate under the ad-hoc contract (that was NEVER bid out under the Military bidding rules, despite hollow promises) is a violation of federal law that should get the country debarred and disallowed from future government contract work.

[Felix The Assassin]

Get off topic? US? Never!

One will have to look closely, as anything dealing with real issues has very little track record, except for Defense. Which is either did not vote, or no. This one in particular is: From Defense 2003; 10/17 2003 Fiscal04 Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan-Passage

Can be found here:
http://vote-smart.org/voting_categor...6a8d1c94eb8a5e

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by promethius9594: also, the ak-47, while dependable, isnt a very great weapon.

Anyone who's ever been in combat will tell you, the best gun for any situation is the gun that works. Both the AK-47 and the M-16 are more than proven. Their record in combat is top-notch. The M-4 on the other hand...

its HEAVY.

The AKM variant is just under 10 pounds...

it kicks, ALOT.

Not really. The 7.62X39 Warsaw Pact actually has somewhat stiff kick out of any rifle, relatively speaking, but it's way below Battle rifles, and is more than managable among most shooters. Only smaller framed handlers seem to have trouble. Nothing against them, that's why the Russians kept PPSh 41 Submachineguns in stock.

it isnt very accurate, especially on the second and third shot of a burst...

Like most select-fire rifles. Though this is a product of the round, not the rifle, in the AK-47's case, as demonstrated by the M-16, which can handle Bursts quite well.

and accuracy is crap with fully auto.

Like most shoulder-fired weapons, again it's a product of the round, not the design.

The AK-108 is just as reliable, designed for firing M-855/SS-109, has a balancer, and is overall superior to the M-4 series of carbines by quite a margin.