USMC goes back to the 1911?

[p6867]

Your grammar and sentence structure is warring with your logic as worst part of your post.

out of curiosity, which AK?

[5.56 SS109]

Originally Posted by Fetish69

I'm not a bullshitter or a jive talker either. Ya wanna see my DDs or something? And yeah bright boy I was talking noise. Ya did know what they did in AZ didn't ya? And no motherfucker I wasn't in aviation. I also feel the AK is superior at combat range than any AR derivative weapon. Oh I'm not angry though, I have fought with a lot of assholes where we were supposed to be on the same side. And yeah I also know a fair amount about killing I won't brag about it like you however because there is allegedly a slim chance at reemployment in a civillian capacity. I don't actually believe them though.

The AK is a flimsy rattletrap of a rifle that is built as cheaply as possible so the country that produced it isn't out a whole lot of money when it falls apart.

[Fetish69]

Originally Posted by p6867

Your grammar and sentence structure is warring with your logic as worst part of your post.

out of curiosity, which AK?

"as worst part of your post".........And you're calling me on grammar? I am curious what exactly was your rank? Personally I preferred the AKMS. Reasonably stowable........What were you like an E3?

[Fetish69]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

The AK is a flimsy rattletrap of a rifle that is built as cheaply as possible so the country that produced it isn't out a whole lot of money when it falls apart.

Bullshit I have seen them in Africa (that were exposed to Africans) that were forty years old and still worked.

[p6867]

Originally Posted by Fetish69

"as worst part of your post".........And you're calling me on grammar? I am curious what exactly was your rank? Personally I preferred the AKMS. Reasonably stowable........What were you like an E3?

I got out as an E6 with the Rangers for a six year contract and was a private contractor for Dyncorp after that.

It's weird that even the russians gave up on that round and went to 5.45 when that whole time the 7.62 was so much more effective.

[p6867]

Also what was the point of your pope john paul article followed by no i'm not a puppy?

[General Butt.Naked]

lolz

[Fetish69]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

The AK is a flimsy rattletrap of a rifle that is built as cheaply as possible so the country that produced it isn't out a whole lot of money when it falls apart.

Actually that was rude of me, they were built cheaply. But they last, with no appreciable difference in accuracy between milled or stamped. If you want to reach out and touch somebody an AR is far superior, but for close in, where the bulk of it occurs the AK outshines.

[Fetish69]

Originally Posted by p6867

Also what was the point of your pope john paul article followed by no i'm not a puppy?

There was no a in there.

[p6867]

No one uses 7.62x39 except poor people and shitty militaries because it sucks. It's an awful caliber. You are pretending to be knowledgeable when it is so obvious you are not. So what was your MOS since your time in clearly didn't give you any appreciation for how different weapons perform in different situations.

Also how did we get to AR v AK in this thread? Goddamn, any topic on a gun forum is one shitty user away from the AK v AR debate or a caliber war.

[5.56 SS109]

Originally Posted by Fetish69

Actually that was rude of me, they were built cheaply. But they last, with no appreciable difference in accuracy between milled or stamped. If you want to reach out and touch somebody an AR is far superior, but for close in, where the bulk of it occurs the AK outshines.

How is the longer, heavier, bulkier, less ergonomic AK and its higher recoil impulse better for close in than the AR?

[p6867]

Originally Posted by Fetish69

There was no a in there.

Are you...trolling me REMF?

[Fetish69]

Originally Posted by p6867

I got out as an E6 with the Rangers for a six year contract and was a private contractor for Dyncorp after that.

It's weird that even the russians gave up on that round and went to 5.45 when that whole time the 7.62 was so much more effective.

Well I got out an O2 after eight yrs and did contract work w/Triple Canopy, tried out at Moycock but they wouldn't take me. Where w/Dyncorp Colombia? As far as your cartridge reference goes, I can't tell if you are being facetious. My understanding for the switch was the 5.45 penetrates body armor better, sort of a nod to NATO, but their own round as it were.

[p6867]

Originally Posted by Fetish69

Well I got out an O2 after eight yrs and did contract work w/Triple Canopy, tried out at Moycock but they wouldn't take me. Where w/Dyncorp Colombia? As far as your cartridge reference goes, I can't tell if you are being facetious. My understanding for the switch was the 5.45 penetrates body armor better, sort of a nod to NATO, but their own round as it were.

Bullshit.

Also 8 years to O2 would be the saddest thing in the world.

But i suppose you went mustang after making NCO LOL.

Also what was your job that Canopy took you after 8?

[Fetish69]

Originally Posted by p6867

Are you...trolling me REMF?

C'mon let's cut the shit man. And no I was advance my friend no REMF here. I started at the bottom after being asked to leave college, did my basi at Sill and after an accidental good move in Iraq1 got promoted and got a different MOS.

[LavaRed]

Originally Posted by General Butt.Naked

Ahh. Well the .45 is lower velocity, but you can get lower-velocity anything. And suppression is about harnessing the gasses produced by ignition of the powder. Logic dictates that its probably going to take more powder to propel a heavier projectile, and 115gr vs. 230gr...

If I may be humbly allowed to elaborate on this subject, .45 ACP is usually easier to suppress than 9mm NATO because most .45 ACP 230gr. comes subsonic, while 9mm NATO 115gr. or 124gr. is supersonic. That is the only reason why .45ACP is "easier" to suppress than 9mm NATO. However, using 147gr. 9mm Parabellum, which is subsonic, it will be inherently more silent than 230gr. .45 ACP.

The reason behind this is NOT more powder charge, as actually .45ACP has a lower chamber pressure than 9mm NATO by about half (~ 11KPSI vs. ~30kPSI if memory serves), but rather it is a result of pressure to bore ratio. Simply put, given equal chamber pressures, for two cartridges with different bore diameters, the one with the larger bore diameter will necessarily be louder, as there is more area for gases to escape around the bullet instead of being diverted by the suppressor's baffles.
Where the question becomes far more complex is when you take into account baffle design and gas pressure at the barrel muzzle. Cartridges with lower muzzle pressures tend to be harder to suppress, because the gases will have less tendency to expand into the baffle's chambers, therefore, requiring clever baffle design to coax them into these spaces. For higher pressure cartridges, however, their gases will more easily expand into the baffle spaces, so simpler designs can be used. At the same time, you cannot necessarily just use a complex lower-pressure design for a higher pressure cartridge, because sometimes the pressure will be high enough that the gases will bypass the baffle's features. So for optimal suppression baffles have to be tailoured to your specific bore diameter and muzzle pressure. Also, muzzle pressure can not be simply asumed to be a function of just chamber pressure, since the barrel length will greatly affect muzzle pressure. Shorter barrels will yield higher pressures at the muzzle, because they do not offer as much space for gas expansion as longer barrels, for the same given cartridge. This is why often, the same .22LR suppressor that was excellent in a pistol is not as good in a rifle, or vice-versa.
Of course I do not claim to be an expert on suppression either, or even have much knowledge on the subject. I am simply stating what little I have been able to observe on the subject.

On the subject of the thread, I consider neither the 1911 nor the AK platforms to be outdated designs. I think in the right hands they are as capable as any modern handgun. As I have always said, guns are tools and if you're trained, you will do well with any gun. One of my favourite carry pieces is an M1911A1. The only bone I really have to pick with it is the weight and size. Contrary to what most people have experienced with commercial 1911 pistols, I have found old used military M1911A1's to be some of the most reliable and tolerant of abuse pistols ever. And I do abuse my pistols.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

Thank you for listening,
LavaRed

[p6867]

Originally Posted by Fetish69

C'mon let's cut the shit man. And no I was advance my friend no REMF here. I started at the bottom after being asked to leave college, did my basi at Sill and after an accidental good move in Iraq1 got promoted and got a different MOS.

cool story bro

[LavaRed]

Originally Posted by p6867

No one uses 7.62x39 except poor people and shitty militaries because it sucks. It's an awful caliber. You are pretending to be knowledgeable when it is so obvious you are not. So what was your MOS since your time in clearly didn't give you any appreciation for how different weapons perform in different situations.

Also how did we get to AR v AK in this thread? Goddamn, any topic on a gun forum is one shitty user away from the AK v AR debate or a caliber war.

hmmm, 7.62x39mm is not really all that shitty you know? It doesn't have that much recoil over 5.56mm either. 5.56mm is better against enemy personel because it tumbles, but 7.62x39mm isn't all that bad. At least not enough to cry over. And it does seem to have an edge against light armour.

I guess I'll have to say again. Guns are tools, any will save your life if you're good, provided they're reliable enough.

[Fetish69]

Originally Posted by p6867

Bullshit.

Also 8 years to O2 would be the saddest thing in the world.

But i suppose you went mustang after making NCO LOL.

Also what was your job that Canopy took you after 8?

There are always politics, if you were a Ranger you would know this. i made a mistake, there was a joint DOD EPIC interdiction effort in Mexico in which I was involved. And I should have kept my mouth shut, especially after surviving the nazi purge. But what can I tell you they have long memories and I'm not going to go into any further details. As far as Canopy though, riding in a Stryker on the green route. I had a vouch.

[General Butt.Naked]

Yeah the AK still has a place on the modern battlefield- and thats in the hands of child soldiers, insurgents and militias. Its only real edge is against armor/ cover. Low weight high velocity projectiles have most of the stopping power, flatter trajectory within max effective range of most assault weapons, lighter packs, etc. Having the service life of a 90's Honda Accord is one of its strong suits, but accurate close range burst fire isnt one.

I still like the AK round, but I'd prefer it in something like a SOCOM 16. For CQB rifles, like they said- there are far superior choices. I know I wouldnt choose to try to take out two armored opponents in a small house with civilians...with an AK. That thing will shake, rattle and roll your way to a one-armed toddler in the next room. Not to say that it cant be done, but theres a reason after decades of R&D that we've stuck with .223. AR-15 is another thing, but still.

From what I understand, the only reason that some select troops choose to lug along an AK is if theyre working alongside Iraqi/Afghani armed forces, or if they think they might need a little more penetration power. If that was the case though, we still have a selection of AR-10s with true .308.

I think in the next few decades, you'll start seeing AR-15s in the same hands that AKs are in now. There are just so many small name manufacturers.

[Fetish69]

Originally Posted by p6867

cool story bro

I don't give a fuck what you believe man.

[General Butt.Naked]

Originally Posted by LavaRed

If I may be humbly allowed to elaborate on this subject, .45 ACP is usually easier to suppress than 9mm NATO because most .45 ACP 230gr. comes subsonic, while 9mm NATO 115gr. or 124gr. is supersonic. That is the only reason why .45ACP is "easier" to suppress than 9mm NATO. However, using 147gr. 9mm Parabellum, which is subsonic, it will be inherently more silent than 230gr. .45 ACP.

The reason behind this is NOT more powder charge, as actually .45ACP has a lower chamber pressure than 9mm NATO by about half (~ 11KPSI vs. ~30kPSI if memory serves), but rather it is a result of pressure to bore ratio. Simply put, given equal chamber pressures, for two cartridges with different bore diameters, the one with the larger bore diameter will necessarily be louder, as there is more area for gases to escape around the bullet instead of being diverted by the suppressor's baffles.
Where the question becomes far more complex is when you take into account baffle design and gas pressure at the barrel muzzle. Cartridges with lower muzzle pressures tend to be harder to suppress, because the gases will have less tendency to expand into the baffle's chambers, therefore, requiring clever baffle design to coax them into these spaces. For higher pressure cartridges, however, their gases will more easily expand into the baffle spaces, so simpler designs can be used. At the same time, you cannot necessarily just use a complex lower-pressure design for a higher pressure cartridge, because sometimes the pressure will be high enough that the gases will bypass the baffle's features. So for optimal suppression baffles have to be tailoured to your specific bore diameter and muzzle pressure. Also, muzzle pressure can not be simply asumed to be a function of just chamber pressure, since the barrel length will greatly affect muzzle pressure. Shorter barrels will yield higher pressures at the muzzle, because they do not offer as much space for gas expansion as longer barrels, for the same given cartridge. This is why often, the same .22LR suppressor that was excellent in a pistol is not as good in a rifle, or vice-versa.
Of course I do not claim to be an expert on suppression either, or even have much knowledge on the subject. I am simply stating what little I have been able to observe on the subject.

On the subject of the thread, I consider neither the 1911 nor the AK platforms to be outdated designs. I think in the right hands they are as capable as any modern handgun. As I have always said, guns are tools and if you're trained, you will do well with any gun. One of my favourite carry pieces is an M1911A1. The only bone I really have to pick with it is the weight and size. Contrary to what most people have experienced with commercial 1911 pistols, I have found old used military M1911A1's to be some of the most reliable and tolerant of abuse pistols ever. And I do abuse my pistols.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

Thank you for listening,
LavaRed

Interesting. I didnt realize that faster gasses can actually bypass the baffles of a suppressor not specifically tailored to that load.

[Painzstake]

Originally Posted by Fetish69

I don't give a fuck what you believe man.

Funnily enough the rest of us do... which ironically speaks volumes about yourself and your 'input' if it could be defined as such.

[Dread_Lord]

Well, the US military is OP already. This is an effort to Nerf them so that war will be more awesome. They'll also be replacing the Abrams with the Sherman and APC's with Jeeps.

[HMC]

My random input-

I would never take a 1911 over a M9 or Glock 19 (we had both on my last tour). With that said, both are in my personal collection. But if I am expecting a firefight, I will take the 9mm anyday.

Also, 99 percent of Afghan and Iraqi soldiers/police would take a shitty M16 over an AK anyday. Which in my opinion speaks volumes. Not only that, but if you were to ask any non bias American soldier on what HE would rather have, the M4 will always come out on top.

Its the buttfucking ZOMGbie!!1!!! fags that jack off to internet gun forums who swear the AK is hands down the better weapon. Who coincidentally have never fired either weapon outside of their suburban indoor range, or even at all for that matter.

[Parallax]

What's wrong with the AK? I like it. Mine is incredibly reliable, accurate enough within 200 meters, and I like the 7.62x39. I like the M4 too.

[HMC]

I think the AK is sufficient, but I admit I am bias. I fucking hate the AK47.

With that said, I did carry one sometimes for lulz

[Spence_tron]

I don't get how anyone can claim that AK's are flimsy or unreliable, they are some of the most rugged rifles in existence. Direct impingement systems (AR/M4) shit where they eat, putting fouling directly in the chamber/internals which can build up and eventually cause a jam. AR feedramps suck at taking soft point ammo too. I've seen several torture tests (like mud stuck directly in the open ejection port) between the AK and the AR, and the AK has always outperformed the AR in system reliability and tolerance to the environment.

I feel like a lot of the AK vs. AR debates are actually 7.62x39 vs. 5.56x45 debates... even though the 7.62 is no longer used in modern AK's and is a dying/outdated caliber. I chose to get a 5.56 AK with good reason, and I bet it is only marginally less accurate than a decent AR, I actually get extremely good groups with it.

All a modern AK needs to compete with an AR at typical combat distances is a modified selector switch (like a krebs) and a new set of irons. Sure it's still a little heavier and only slightly less user friendly than an AR but a little familiarization/practice goes a long way... It's a small price to pay for the legendary AK reliability IMO.


And about the military re-adopting the 1911, if they really want to go back to .45 so bad then how is the modern FN45 NOT better in every way? Because its not American made? Really, is that it?

[944]

Originally Posted by Spence_tron

And about the military re-adopting the 1911, if they really want to go back to .45 so bad then how is the modern FN45 NOT better in every way? Because its not American made? Really, is that it?

HK45's are being made here in the states, and they didn't go to them either

Going back to the 1911 is just because of hype and nostalgia

[HMC]

Random thought- I think that comparing a well used AK to a factory new AR style weapon is unfair. Over time, the AR starts wearing down on certain parts, decreasing the tolerances between parts, and IMO, possibly making them more reliable.

With that said, I have never had a malfunction with my personal AR or my issued M4s that wasnt magazine related. This involves sand, moon dust, snow, rain, mud. As long as my weapons were somewhat clean to begin with, I never had an issue.

Even while recently training ALP in Afghanistan, I seen failures with the AK. Just as there is human error, there is also mechanical error. Some are more prone than others, but as with any weapon, there will ALWAYS be a level of maintainance that must be performed.

[Parallax]

I like 7.62x39 for my purposes (urban self defense against niggers and police during riot situations). I want a heavy round that will go through car doors, walls, and other light cover more easily. Plus the ammo is cheaper than 5.56x45.

That said I like 5.56x45 as well. I own AKs and ARs and like both. All of mine are very reliable and accurate. Definitely wouldn't feel undergunned with either. Have been thinking about a 5.45x39 AK as well but it seems the cheap magazines have dried up

[Spence_tron]

^ On that note, one of the reasons why I chose 5.56 over 7.62 (or 5.45 for the matter) was the availability of various different ammunition making it a more versatile caliber IMO. I like that I can get barrier blind OTM or SP ammo for scenarios like you mentioned, but I also like that I could opt for fragmenting FMJ or ballistic tip/HP ammo for soft(er) targets. That kind of ammo selection just isn't available for the other AK calibers

[The Pat-Man]

beretta was fine by me

/input

[The Pat-Man]

of course i wasnt a marine

[JC Denton]

Yep they're working on the M1911A2. The old A1's where starting to show their age by the korean war.

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by Spence_tron

^ On that note, one of the reasons why I chose 5.56 over 7.62 (or 5.45 for the matter) was the availability of various different ammunition making it a more versatile caliber IMO. I like that I can get barrier blind OTM or SP ammo for scenarios like you mentioned, but I also like that I could opt for fragmenting FMJ or ballistic tip/HP ammo for soft(er) targets. That kind of ammo selection just isn't available for the other AK calibers

True, that is one plus to the AR. I'm just running surplus M67 FMJ in my AKs for now. I've tested it against various forms of cover I may have to shoot through in a self defense situation, and have been pleased with the results. It disassembles cars quite handily which is exactly what I need in an urban setting; if I need to take out a carload of police officers who are trying to arrest/disarm me, or new black panthers trying to kill me in a riot situation, I don't even want to give them the chance to exit the vehicle.

[3rdBullet]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

What is this not being American made bullshit?

My Beretta is made in Maryland.

Glad somebody else noticed that...

[Fox Paws]

Originally Posted by p6867

Only shot an FNP once or twice, don't know enough about it. I think the main issue would be the size though. I have medium sized hands and as i remember the FNP .45 is a little wider in the grip than i'd like. It'll pretty much make it so that dudes with smaller hands won't be able to qualify on pistols effectively.

I think the grip on the FNP is adjustable.

[tomjonesa22]

The fnp Grip is interchangable it's just a blackstrap.