Military Weapons Trial, only the Kalashnikov AK 103 finishes the torture tests.

[docsherm]

Let's be honest, it helps when the enemy literally attacks like a squad of Star Wars stormtroopers shooting from the hip...

Not all of them are booger eating morons. There are some well trained bad guys...... And I am not talking about just on the monkey bars.......

[Sooter76]

What are some of your experiences with OCONUS combat?

2 Afghanistan tours...

[Sooter76]

Extremely valid point.

It's not invalid but you're equating a lack of training with a fault in the rifle itself.

[Sooter76]

Not all of them are booger eating morons. There are some well trained bad guys...... And I am not talking about just on the monkey bars.......

No they're not, but you have to admit their marksmanship is very lacking...

[docsherm]

No they're not, but you have to admit their marksmanship is very lacking...

Not all of them. There is a certain set of people out there that are very well trained and can shoot. I know, I have delt with them.

[SteyrAUG]

This thread is about the fact that not one of the modernized AR15/AR18 derivatives passed the extreme environmental tests as linked in the original post. However the AK variant did. That's now become an issue because European countries including Russia have now designed rifles equally ergonomic as our own but far more reliable- as the tests have shown. Considering past large scale conflicts throughout Europe, it's time we create a better rifle.

7n6

My only question is this. Given that military rifles are a balancing act of reliability and accuracy, do we really want to try and squeeze more reliability out of the current AR/M4 rifle at the cost of accuracy?

We aren't sending hordes of Bolsheviks over the hill with expectations of 50% losses. The Russians can do that stuff and get away with it. Our guys tend to hit what they shoot and that saves lives.

Also even though the AR/M4 rifle might not have passed the "extreme environmental tests", it seems to function well enough in most theaters where we field it. Gone are the days of soldiers dying with a "jammed M16" in their hands. To get the current AR/M4 to run into problems you almost have to take it to arctic conditions or subject it to serious neglect. Despite our expectations of conflict in Eastern Europe we have actually spent almost two decades in sandstorm conditions (pretty extreme environments) and the rifle has proven itself to be reliable beyond expectations.

In reality, the current AR/M4 rifles remains one of the most reliable and accurate rifles out there. It's like completely dismissing the AK pattern rifle because it can't achieve 1MOA levels of accuracy. But that is a trade off for a rifle that is "almost" maintenance free.

AK reliability is a concern because it is a weapon frequently fielded by our enemies, but it's not a concern because when all factors are considered it is a superior rifle to what we are currently using, because it isn't.

There are rifles, that when you factor in all considerations, are equal to the AR/M4 but nothing so dramatic that we need to scrap what we are currently using. People have been trying to find a better mousetrap since the late 1980s, and despite the XM8/G36, ACR, SCAR, 416 and a few others we really haven't found it. A handful of rifles are proven to be it's equal, but that's about it.

Really the only firearm that is proven itself to be vulnerable is the M9 and that is probably due to the open top slide being a sand trap. If we were fighting in Eastern Europe the M9 probably would have been just fine.

The AK series has always been a reliable contender, and it's evolved into a sustainable rifle remarkably. It's service life as a primary weapon for a superpower should have ended in the late 1980s, but the 100 series has proven more adaptable than anyone ever imagined and it has remained relevant, especially in a county where the "quantity has a quality of it's own" philosophy is still observed.

[jesuvuah]

My only question is this. Given that military rifles are a balancing act of reliability and accuracy, do we really want to try and squeeze more reliability out of the current AR/M4 rifle at the cost of accuracy?

We aren't sending hordes of Bolsheviks over the hill with expectations of 50% losses. The Russians can do that stuff and get away with it. Our guys tend to hit what they shoot and that saves lives.

Also even though the AR/M4 rifle might not have passed the "extreme environmental tests", it seems to function well enough in most theaters where we field it. Gone are the days of soldiers dying with a "jammed M16" in their hands. To get the current AR/M4 to run into problems you almost have to take it to arctic conditions or subject it to serious neglect. Despite our expectations of conflict in Eastern Europe we have actually spent almost two decades in sandstorm conditions (pretty extreme environments) and the rifle has proven itself to be reliable beyond expectations.

In reality, the current AR/M4 rifles remains one of the most reliable and accurate rifles out there. It's like completely dismissing the AK pattern rifle because it can't achieve 1MOA levels of accuracy. But that is a trade off for a rifle that is "almost" maintenance free.

AK reliability is a concern because it is a weapon frequently fielded by our enemies, but it's not a concern because when all factors are considered it is a superior rifle to what we are currently using, because it isn't.

There are rifles, that when you factor in all considerations, are equal to the AR/M4 but nothing so dramatic that we need to scrap what we are currently using. People have been trying to find a better mousetrap since the late 1980s, and despite the XM8/G36, ACR, SCAR, 416 and a few others we really haven't found it. A handful of rifles are proven to be it's equal, but that's about it.

Really the only firearm that is proven itself to be vulnerable is the M9 and that is probably due to the open top slide being a sand trap. If we were fighting in Eastern Europe the M9 probably would have been just fine.

The AK series has always been a reliable contender, and it's evolved into a sustainable rifle remarkably. It's service life as a primary weapon for a superpower should have ended in the late 1980s, but the 100 series has proven more adaptable than anyone ever imagined and it has remained relevant, especially in a county where the "quantity has a quality of it's own" philosophy is still observed.

I really can't disagree with anything you wrote there. I still think the easy button for the m9 would have been to either not care because it's just a handgun, or give em a G19......but that would have been way to easy.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

[RetroRevolver77]

Great point about the Poles......... See their SOF in the images on this link....... https://special-ops.org/32780/comman...-forces-group/

I also made some corrections for you in the quote above. Also, where is this reliability stuff come? I can count on one hand how many times I have had any malfunction with my M4 (and variants) and they were mag issues......... The weakest part of the AK that I have notices that you have not addressed.........

The Poles have only limited issued the MSBS as it's still in the unit testing phase. The weakest part of an AK is it's magazine? LOL, it's a continuous curve design. This thread was to bring attention to the fact that none of the AR15/AR18 derivatives passed any of the extreme environmental tests. If you don't have anything to refute the test trial results from the original link- then leave it at that.


7n6

[Arik]

The Poles have only limited issued the MSBS as it's still in the unit testing phase. The weakest part of an AK is it's magazine? LOL, it's a continuous curve design. This thread was to bring attention to the fact that none of the AR15/AR18 derivatives passed any of the extreme environmental tests. If you don't have anything to refute the test trial results from the original link- then leave it at that.


7n6

Probably referring to the commercial mags. Quality on those are all over the place

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[docsherm]

The Poles have only limited issued the MSBS as it's still in the unit testing phase. The weakest part of an AK is it's magazine? LOL, it's a continuous curve design. This thread was to bring attention to the fact that none of the AR15/AR18 derivatives passed any of the extreme environmental tests. If you don't have anything to refute the test trial results from the original link- then leave it at that.


7n6

Again, the magazine design is good. It is the quality of the product that again sucks. Have you ever even delt with AKs that are actually in use with armies around the world? The weapons might work but the mags sucks ass and that is the point of failure.