Which gun is better, historically speaking? Wasn't the m16 a massive fuckup in Nam?
>>16538667I've heard mixed reviews
The M-16 (in all its variations throughout the Vietnam War) was a fantastically designed rifle. It's just a shame that the army procurement offices were run by crooks giving handouts to their buddies and cutting costs by cheaping up the guns.Army version had no chrome-plating so it wore out very fast and corroded to shit in Vietnam's ultra humid climate. Army also didn't use the specified ammo and had their own manufacturer make it (who had a monopoly on it, in fact), and their ammunition used the wrong type of gunpowder. TL;DR is the bullets blew up too hard, and it caused the jamming and other mechanical foulups soldiers complained about in their letters home. Oh, and the army also cheaped out by not issuing cleaning kits to soldiers, either. Soldiers literally had to beg relatives at home to send them bore rods, brushes, and other gun-cleaning equipment since it was the only way to keep their rifles functional for longer than a couple weeks in Vietnam's soupy atmosphere.
>>16538667
>>16538730You got any stories of procurement guys getting their just desserts?
>>16538667>AK tagged with Tsarist TricolorShit. Fucking Shit. Stupid retard shit. Disregard everything in this image
>>16538759Nope
>>16538759Life isn't a hollywood movie. Most of those scumbags died wealthy.
>>16538667>Wasn't the m16 a massive fuckup in Nam?No, it wasn't. In fact the Soviets themselves followed up on the M16 with their own intermediate rifle, the AK-74, chambered for 5.45×39mm. In fact the Russian army today mostly uses guns chambered for 5.45×39mm and not the older 7.62. The AK-47 was much closer to a Battle Rifle than an Assault Rifle in this regard.
>>16538667The original M16 that was adopted in 1964 suffered from reliability issues; troops didn't receive cleaning kits and weren't instructed on how to clean them, the gun's ammo had jamming issues, the rifle lacked a forward assist and the barrel had corrosion issues. It wasn't until 1967 that the M16A1 came out that fixed all the issues, but that 3 year gap, mostly caused by political shenanigans, meant that the rifle's reputation got smeared, especially since it was being issued to troops that were fighting in the middle of the Vietnam war. But once the M16A1 came out it became a solid platform and all of its derivatives and variants were well received.
>>16538841Thank you chat GPT
>>16538882fuck anon, do I write as autistically as chatgpt?
>>16538911Not him but yes
>>16538667The base M-16 is shit but its variants are great, the AK was designed to be an all-weather behemoth that could be mass-produced for kopecks and exported all over the world
>>16538924Noted, ill go kms
>>16538667>Which gun is better, historically speaking?M16 is better in terms of accuracy, ergonomics, general reliability, and customization options.AK-47 is somewhat more robust in its ability to withstand lack of maintenance for extended periods and its cartridge is better at penetrating modern body armor (most current Western plate carriers are specifically designed to stop 7.62 Warsaw Pact).>Wasn't the m16 a massive fuckup in Nam?The first generation of M16s suffered reliability issues because the chrome lining was removed from the barrel before full-scale production began and they were using massively overcharged powder in the cartridges, by which I mean the bullets were putting out nearly three times the PSI the gun was designed to withstand (basically causing them to shoot themselves apart)."It seemed like they didn't care how many of them were killed. Some of them were stumbling, walking right into us. Some had their guns slung and were charging bare-handed. I didn't run out of ammo – had about thirty magazines in my pack. And no problems with the M16. An hour before dark three men walked up on the perimeter. I killed all three of them 15 feet away."-Staff Sgt. Ernie Savage recounting the Battle of Ia Drang in November, 1965Savage, like the rest of the 1st Cavalry Division, was issued the XM16E1, the early models of which still had the chrome lining, so you can see how much of a difference just this one change made.Also, troops were still being issued the M14 in basic training and often had little-to-no range time with the M16 before being deployed to Vietnam.Virtually all of these problems had been fixed by 1970 with the M16A1.
>>16538817The AKM only lasted about 15 years in frontline Soviet service whereas the AK-74 has survived as the standard issue rifle in the Soviet Union and most of its successor states for nearly three times as long. The only reasons 7.62x39mm is still so common are the Chinese producing the Type 56 and the AKM being Thirdie's first automatic rifle
>>16538667>Wasn't the m16 a massive fuckup in Nam?It was less of a fuckup than the M14.
>>165388177.62x39mm is an intermediate cartridge by any definition of the term. The Soviet/Russian full power cartridge was and is 7.62x54mmR.
At its time the Kalashnikov was better but today the M4 has surpassed the AK
