Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 18, 2017, 06:52:32 AM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . AB Arms . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  General Category
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  Can Western Civilization invent a rifle as reliable as the AK? Not so sure.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] Print
Author Topic: Can Western Civilization invent a rifle as reliable as the AK? Not so sure.  (Read 6887 times)
7n6
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


« Reply #180 on: September 15, 2017, 10:48:24 PM »



 Shocked

Wut?  Not an AK?


I prefer the ergos and nice trigger of the 1911, but I mainly carry glocks.  I do CC a sig p238 which is pretty nice, but it will soon be replaced by a g26 I'm thinking.  I've owned tons of different brands and styles of pistols over the years.  I just stick with glocks now for personal reasons, plus I have to qualify on Glocks yearly so I figure I'll just keep myself nice and trained with the tupperware block.. The quals are kind of intense, so I want all my muscle memory to be the same for that main reason.


No way, once SHTF and we are in it for the long haul against some foreign occupation- I'd only carry a 1911 and an M4. It might not be the most reliable combination but it's our combination.


7n6
Logged
BoulderTroll
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


« Reply #181 on: September 17, 2017, 12:56:27 PM »

Much of the AK's legendary reliability has little to do with the actual rifle. It's reliability has everything to do with the ammo it feeds. The loose tolerances help but the ammo is the key.

The 7.62x39mm round has a tapered case, that's why the magazine has its banana shape. A tapered case only seals in the chamber its last millimeter or so in its fowars travel.

The AR and others that feed the 5.56x45mm round are hampered from the start. The straight wall case seals almost the entire length of the chamber. This causes binding points throughout the entire case length which is much more likely to jam in dirty conditions. The expanded brass is much more likely to bind up.

The case on the AK round is the single biggest reason for its reliability not the rifle itself. AK's feeds steel cases all day long due to he tapered case where the 5.56mm steel case can be a problem in some rifles.





I have AK's in 5.56, 5.45, and 7.62- all of them run better than any other rifles I've owned. I'm just tired of the trade off and can't understand why we can't design something in the modern world equally reliable and robust. I think the AUG is close, they proofed barrels by shooting squib loads with live rounds.



Western Civilization has invented rifles that are as reliable as the AK.  


I haven't personally seen anything equally reliable but some are close. This whole thing started for me personally because I reached a point in my collection where I have all these different rifles of all types- and would love to downsize, consolidate etc. However it feels like a trade off.


7n6  




If you've never had a reliable AR, I don't know what to tell you...  The other posters are correct, it's dust, not sand or mud or water, that causes malfunctions in a rifle.  The M4/ M16 has been doing just fine in dusty environments for decades now.  Sure, you will read AAR's where people complain about it, but then you'll also read many who praise it.  I've seen AK's and Glocks fail, and I've seen AR's and SIG's that simply won't quit, no matter how dirty they get.  They are all great guns.  I'll take a weapon that is both reliable and accurate over one that is simply reliable.  I have no idea what you measure the standard of reliability as.  But think about this, Israel used to field and AK variant (Galil), and they switched to the AR instead, and now the Tavor.  And they live in a desert...  The hype about the AR's reliability problems was put to rest decades ago.  A Colt AR is every bit as reliable as an AK, but with a 1.5 MOA average as opposed to a 3 MOA average.  And for the record, I'm not an AR fanboy...in fact I don't even own one.  I'm going off my experiences being issued them for many years. 
Logged
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,611



WWW
« Reply #182 on: September 17, 2017, 01:52:02 PM »

But think about this, Israel used to field and AK variant (Galil), and they switched to the AR instead, and now the Tavor.  And they live in a desert... 

While on the face of it, this is correct, the Israelis did develop and field the Galil, then switched to the M-16 and M-4, and are now selectively transitioning to the Tavor or X95, it simply tells you what happened without the context of why it happened.

First and foremost, the troops didn't like the Galil because of its weight.  The only troops that didn't complain were the armor crews because they could clip it to the outside of the tank and let the tank carry the thing.  Secondly, foreign aid to Israel comes with strings, one of them is that a certain percentage of the money must be spent purchasing US products, so rather than spend their own money procuring expensive to produce Galils that the troops already told them they didn't like, they spent those dollars on M-16s, and later M-4s, which the troops really did like.  The Tavor brought something that even the M-4 couldn't; a small package that was well suited for how Israel saw their future conflicts shaping up; troops deploying from under armor into an urban environment. 

While the Tavor isn't subsidized by US foreign aid, it doesn't need to be given the foreign sales and the fact that Israel has other, more important big budget items that require those dollars.
Logged

Kurt
BoulderTroll
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


« Reply #183 on: September 17, 2017, 02:52:58 PM »

But think about this, Israel used to field and AK variant (Galil), and they switched to the AR instead, and now the Tavor.  And they live in a desert... 

While on the face of it, this is correct, the Israelis did develop and field the Galil, then switched to the M-16 and M-4, and are now selectively transitioning to the Tavor or X95, it simply tells you what happened without the context of why it happened.

First and foremost, the troops didn't like the Galil because of its weight.  The only troops that didn't complain were the armor crews because they could clip it to the outside of the tank and let the tank carry the thing.  Secondly, foreign aid to Israel comes with strings, one of them is that a certain percentage of the money must be spent purchasing US products, so rather than spend their own money procuring expensive to produce Galils that the troops already told them they didn't like, they spent those dollars on M-16s, and later M-4s, which the troops really did like.  The Tavor brought something that even the M-4 couldn't; a small package that was well suited for how Israel saw their future conflicts shaping up; troops deploying from under armor into an urban environment. 

While the Tavor isn't subsidized by US foreign aid, it doesn't need to be given the foreign sales and the fact that Israel has other, more important big budget items that require those dollars.

I get that.  My point was not that the M4 and later Tavor replaced the Galil due to being more reliable, my point was that if they weren't at least acceptably reliable, even in a desert environment, they would not have been selected. 
Logged
7n6
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


« Reply #184 on: September 19, 2017, 06:21:41 PM »


If you've never had a reliable AR, I don't know what to tell you...  The other posters are correct, it's dust, not sand or mud or water, that causes malfunctions in a rifle.  The M4/ M16 has been doing just fine in dusty environments for decades now.  Sure, you will read AAR's where people complain about it, but then you'll also read many who praise it.  I've seen AK's and Glocks fail, and I've seen AR's and SIG's that simply won't quit, no matter how dirty they get.  They are all great guns.  I'll take a weapon that is both reliable and accurate over one that is simply reliable.  I have no idea what you measure the standard of reliability as.  But think about this, Israel used to field and AK variant (Galil), and they switched to the AR instead, and now the Tavor.  And they live in a desert...  The hype about the AR's reliability problems was put to rest decades ago.  A Colt AR is every bit as reliable as an AK, but with a 1.5 MOA average as opposed to a 3 MOA average.  And for the record, I'm not an AR fanboy...in fact I don't even own one.  I'm going off my experiences being issued them for many years.  


I've owned plenty of AR's since the mid 90's and they will always remain in my collection. They are reliable when running quality brass ammunition and newer designed magazines. Though I personally prefer other rifles that are less finicky since I run a lot of older surplus ammo as well.



But think about this, Israel used to field and AK variant (Galil), and they switched to the AR instead, and now the Tavor.  And they live in a desert...  

While on the face of it, this is correct, the Israelis did develop and field the Galil, then switched to the M-16 and M-4, and are now selectively transitioning to the Tavor or X95, it simply tells you what happened without the context of why it happened.

First and foremost, the troops didn't like the Galil because of its weight.  The only troops that didn't complain were the armor crews because they could clip it to the outside of the tank and let the tank carry the thing.  Secondly, foreign aid to Israel comes with strings, one of them is that a certain percentage of the money must be spent purchasing US products, so rather than spend their own money procuring expensive to produce Galils that the troops already told them they didn't like, they spent those dollars on M-16s, and later M-4s, which the troops really did like.  The Tavor brought something that even the M-4 couldn't; a small package that was well suited for how Israel saw their future conflicts shaping up; troops deploying from under armor into an urban environment.  

While the Tavor isn't subsidized by US foreign aid, it doesn't need to be given the foreign sales and the fact that Israel has other, more important big budget items that require those dollars.

I get that.  My point was not that the M4 and later Tavor replaced the Galil due to being more reliable, my point was that if they weren't at least acceptably reliable, even in a desert environment, they would not have been selected.  


They used the FAL for years and it wasn't the best in desert environments even with the sand cut carriers. Israel later used their homegrown Galil but it's quite a heavy rifle especially for foot patrols. The 13" 5.56 SAR weighs 8.3 pounds unloaded and the 18" 5.56 AR version weighs 8.7 pounds unloaded. Later we gave them M4's for solidarity with our forces. Then likely from a reliability standpoint they decided to adopt the Tavor of their own design- which has an AK esque' style carrier group. Weight probably has more to do with their reason for adopting another rifle system over the Galil than anything else.
 

7n6
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 10:27:11 PM by 7n6 » Logged
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,611



WWW
« Reply #185 on: September 19, 2017, 08:02:50 PM »

They used the FAL for years and it wasn't the best in desert environments even with the sand cut carriers. Israel later used their homegrown Galil but it's quite a heavy rifle especially for foot patrols. The 13" 5.56 SAR weighs 8.3 pounds unloaded and the 18" 5.56 AR version weighs 8.7 pounds unloaded. Later we gave them M4's for solidarity with our forces. Then likely from a reliability standpoint they decided to adopt the Tavor of their own design- which has an AK esque' style carrier group. Weight probably has more to do with their reason for adopting another rifle system over the Galil than anything else.
7n6

Since you quoted what I wrote, I have to ask, "Did you even read what I wrote?"  We didn't "give them M-4s for solidarity with our forces", they bought them with foreign aid money because they had to spend the money on US goods.  The Israelis used a variety of Colt Carbines (CAR-15s) and M-16A1s, none of which had an 18" barrel.

Do some research.
Logged

Kurt
7n6
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


« Reply #186 on: September 19, 2017, 10:07:48 PM »

They used the FAL for years and it wasn't the best in desert environments even with the sand cut carriers. Israel later used their homegrown Galil but it's quite a heavy rifle especially for foot patrols. The 13" 5.56 SAR weighs 8.3 pounds unloaded and the 18" 5.56 AR version weighs 8.7 pounds unloaded. Later we gave them M4's for solidarity with our forces. Then likely from a reliability standpoint they decided to adopt the Tavor of their own design- which has an AK esque' style carrier group. Weight probably has more to do with their reason for adopting another rifle system over the Galil than anything else.
7n6

Since you quoted what I wrote, I have to ask, "Did you even read what I wrote?"  We didn't "give them M-4s for solidarity with our forces", they bought them with foreign aid money because they had to spend the money on US goods.  The Israelis used a variety of Colt Carbines (CAR-15s) and M-16A1s, none of which had an 18" barrel.

Do some research.


Gave them, bought them- basically acknowledging that they switched to AR's after the Galil etc.

Also, I was talking about the 18" barreled 5.56 Galil AR- that's the model designation for the longer barreled variant which weighs 8.7 pounds.  
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 10:28:57 PM by 7n6 » Logged
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,611



WWW
« Reply #187 on: September 20, 2017, 01:17:18 AM »


Gave them, bought them- basically acknowledging that they switched to AR's after the Galil etc.


If that's what you were acknowledging, then use the proper language; there's a big difference between what you said and what you claim to have meant.

Clarity is important. 
Logged

Kurt
7n6
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


« Reply #188 on: September 20, 2017, 12:08:28 PM »


Gave them, bought them- basically acknowledging that they switched to AR's after the Galil etc.


If that's what you were acknowledging, then use the proper language; there's a big difference between what you said and what you claim to have meant.

Clarity is important.  



That's the thing, I can't find anything conclusive on the M4's transferred to Israel, specifically how much of that defense program was subsidized as far as military aid making it affordable for them. Either way, they phased out M4's and went with their own design with the Tavor. I can see why, not only does Israel have to deal with the dusty desert environment conditions but the situation is compounded by the M16's direct carbon fouling gas system into the receiver. It simply makes sense to move the piston outside of the receiver and is why they returned to an AK style gas system design with the Tavor. Bottom line, our own military is looking to phase out the M16 design as well so it's time to embrace the future.


7n6
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 01:07:20 PM by 7n6 » Logged
kfeltenberger
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,611



WWW
« Reply #189 on: September 20, 2017, 08:54:04 PM »

That's the thing, I can't find anything conclusive on the M4's transferred to Israel, specifically how much of that defense program was subsidized as far as military aid making it affordable for them. Either way, they phased out M4's and went with their own design with the Tavor. I can see why, not only does Israel have to deal with the dusty desert environment conditions but the situation is compounded by the M16's direct carbon fouling gas system into the receiver. It simply makes sense to move the piston outside of the receiver and is why they returned to an AK style gas system design with the Tavor. Bottom line, our own military is looking to phase out the M16 design as well so it's time to embrace the future.

Israel phased out M-16 and CAR-15 use by *some* units, not all.  I doubt you'll find accurate numbers short of a FOIA request, but suffice it to say that they were acquired via FMA grants.  If the US does adopt something to replace the M-16/M-4, it won't be an AK and probably won't be something that uses a long stroke gas piston, there's too much desire for accuracy and long stroke doesn't do anything short stroke can do equally as well.
Logged

Kurt
scstrain
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #190 on: September 21, 2017, 03:31:47 PM »

Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree, and move on.
Logged
7n6
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


« Reply #191 on: September 21, 2017, 04:00:20 PM »


Israel phased out M-16 and CAR-15 use by *some* units, not all.  I doubt you'll find accurate numbers short of a FOIA request, but suffice it to say that they were acquired via FMA grants.  If the US does adopt something to replace the M-16/M-4, it won't be an AK and probably won't be something that uses a long stroke gas piston, there's too much desire for accuracy and long stroke doesn't do anything short stroke can do equally as well.


I agree, our military will eventually adopt some form of short stroke piston. However the question will remain whether they can actually create a weapon that is as reliable overall as an AK. Especially something that is not a maintenance sensitive weapon as the DI M16/M4 is.


7n6  
« Last Edit: September 26, 2017, 10:39:13 AM by 7n6 » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] Print 
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!