What does the US news and infomercial's influence around the globe have to do with anything we're talking about?
Perhaps it is not a conspirasy to tarnish the name M16A, perhaps it is just blatant ignorant mimicry of what they see in the west?
Garry I don't think you see what I was trying to say when I brought this up in the first place. What I said had nothing to do with the rifles ability to operate in a cold climate (AK obviously) it was about the fact that one rifle was beat up and probably over 50 years old, while the other was a pretty well treated looking AK-74M.
If it was from stocks from Vietnam then it probably wasn't beatup and worn out. Most of the rifles the Soviets got from Vietnam were from enormous warehouses captured in the south still wrapped up and covered in the goop they store them in. I doubt they would buy new weapons or source them from current battlefields for the purposes of a test.
Equally that footage was probably from a test in the mid 1990s and is just brought out when the M16 is mentioned... standard stock footage.
That's not a fair test, regardless of which rifle is actually superior
What has fair got to do with it? The M16 was shown to hit paper targets at 600m on test shooting ranges, which is clearly superior to any AK-47, yet is that fair... how relevant are 600m shots in modern combat? Especially with hand picked shooters that in no way represent the average soldiers shooting performance?
There is little chance of a fair test and even less reason for a fair test... what has fair got to do with war?
Just look at photos of US personnel in Afghanistan with their fancy scopes and body armour and sophisticated armour and air power... and think again what fair has to do with conflict.
A fair test would be if both rifles were in the same condition during the test.
I would say it was a fair test, but weapons looked to me to be in newish condition... the fact that one might have been in a box for 50 years is irrelevant, there was no obvious damage or wear on the weapon that I could see.
I wasn't trying to start an AK vs. AR argument, but that seems to be the way you took it.
Show me a US program that even mentions there are non american alternatives to the item they are talking about and it is likely talking about the M16. The AK gets mentioned... reliable but inaccurate is always the judgement.
Strange that the Israeli special forces and US special forces use inaccurate weapons though that never gets mentioned.
Because it's 50 years old. M16s aren't known for aging all that well. Especially considering that it likely spent a large deal of those years being tested rigorously by the Soviets/Russians.
They got hundreds of thousands of them from Vietnam... they got a few tens of thousands more from Georgia... the vast majority probably stayed in their wrapping while a few were taken out and tested and then disposed of. For a new test just get a new rifle out. There is no reason to believe that rifle was "worn out".
And that's not a fair test. Although considering that the Vietnam era AK is the weapon being used by the mass majority of the enemies the U.S is facing right now, I'd say that fairness doesn't really come into the equation there. Who is Russia facing on the battlefield who commonly uses the Vietnam era M16?
The tests in question are for television and therefore the requirements for accuracy and fairness are fairly low.
For most of the 1990s and early 2000s an M16A was probably a good example of western assault rifles... bearing in mind that the British had the unreliable SA-80A in service and apart from a bolt close feature added the A model wasn't much different from the weapons used in the US. The cold weather problems of most early models of M16s is fairly well known and AFAIK not fully solved even today. On a day shoot as shown in the short video the main problems of the M16A, which revolved around the soldiers not cleaning the weapons properly because they were told not to and were not issued with cleaning kits combined with the change in propellent that resulted in a thick residue that hardened and burned faster increasing the rate of fire leading to components breaking faster and gumming up the mechanism when used in a jungle environment without cleaning doesn't really apply to properly cleaned rifles on a very cold shooting range, so these are not Vietnam problems... these are all new problems with the rifle the US didn't find till they took the weapons to Alaska and Norway for exercises and found a new range of problems.
The U.S criticizes the AK for it's accuracy and common use among terrorist groups, while the Russians criticize the M16 for it's poor reliability and durability in combat conditions. both countries are going to claim it's rifle is better, it's only common sense.
But both countries are right... each weapon suits each countries needs. The US wants accuracy above reliability and Russia wants the weapon to work though its requirements for accuracy are increasing.
BTW the accuracy of a 5.45 AK is not that inferior to the accuracy of an M16 so if you are going to accuse one side of being wrong it would be the US.
Half the terrorist groups around the world that use AKs were supplied them via the US and the west. When you look closely at those weapons you will find they were made in China or eastern europe and paid for by the CIA.
The other thing of course is that the US might call them terrorist groups but they would be called freedom fighters if they suited the US at the time... where do you think the Muj in Afghanistan got all those AKs. The US would like everyone to think they captured them, but who did they capture them from? Neither the Soviet Army, nor the Afghan Army used Aks bought from China or the Middle East where most of their weapons actually came from. The truth is that the Aks flooding into the country came from China and Egypt and lots of other countries captured by Israel or simply bought from China with CIA and Saudi Arabian money.
Pretty much any conditions will stop an M16A1 in it's tracks. Which is why I believe it was chosen to compare to the AK-74M in Izhmash's presentation. They could have used one of the many M4s captured in the South Ossetia war if they wanted an even slightly fair comparison.
That was stock footage... that could have been filmed in the 1990s for all we know. It was likely filmed for another story and kept for when the M16 gets mentioned so they can drag it out and play it.
I don't know, why wouldn't they? Nothing wrong with doing it, it just means that you shouldn't use those tests as conclusive evidence, as there may be something they're not telling you.
They have no reason to promote the M16. The person putting the story about the AK-12 together probably got lots of different stock footage out and the editor cut and pasted it all together.
There might have been a bit of malice there... how often does the US boast about its military prowess? But I think you are reading too much into it.
I could do without being talked down to.
I am sorry if I offended you, but you need to keep this in context. It was a news report from a Russian TV station. A few seconds showing one rifle failing (most of the population not even realising it was an american rifle) and then a good old AK being dropped and it firing under the same cold conditions... Hurrah.
Did you expect more?
News stations are infomercials, the publics right to know the truth has been changed to we need ratings so our news reporters will all look like porn stars and read stuff that was written by B grade stand up comics.
It is what News has evolved into... like it or not.
Fox will happily talk on and on about how wrong it is for Russia to send repaired helicopters back to Syria, but will somehow forget to mention the military grade weapons being supplied to the rebels on a daily basis.
Likewise, the U.S army failed to mention the condition of the M4s in comparison to the other rifles during their testing.
Each "side" has an agenda to push, and you can bet it is all about their bottom line... at the end of the day Fox loves to demonise Russia no matter what, the US Army wanted a replacement weapon for the M4... this is all perfectly normal. The US Navy wanted F35s and Super Hornets so they didn't even bother upgrading the F-14 with AMRAAMs and other minor upgrades that would have improved its performance and risked the enormously expensive replacements.
The German Air force was the same, instead of retiring the Mig-29s it had it could have given them upgrades to SMT standard and retired its ancient F-4 Phantoms. Instead it retired the Migs and kept the F-4s because they didn't want to risk the future purchase of the Typhoons.
By that logic Russia may not actually be using the AK-74M as their standard weapon, it could just be that the groups who carry the AK-74M are the ones getting their picture taken.
Except when you see them deployed in Chechnia or in field exercises they do use AKs...
Well sure, but wouldn't they purchase the Gsh-18 if they felt it was a superior weapon?
We don't know what their availability is, it might be as simple as the Glocks come with rail mounts as standard and the GSh-18s don't.
I think that more than likely by the time the future soldier kit come out, most of the infantry rifle related roles will be covered by variations of the AK-12, excluding the 9mm specialist weapons, which they need to do something about by the way. There's like 5 of those 9mm rifles and they all do the exact same things.
Except the AK9 is not in service and those with money... ie counter terrorist and para military have gone with SR-3M or 9A-91 because they are lighter and more compact than the AS and VSS, while the Army units use the AS and VSS because they are in service and have been for almost 30 years.
Whole lot of pistols, seems like a bit much.
Well in the past there have been false starts where tests have been held and winners announced but nothing really happened.
Now however I think there is the money and the motivation to actually replace stuff in stock so I think after the AK-12 gets properly tested, if successful it will be used as the basis for replacement "standard" weapons, so the 9mm Vityaz with AK-12 controls and components will likely be the 9mm SMG, with a short barrel AK-12 as the AKS-74U replacement and the carbine and rifle model AK12s as the AK-105 and AK-74M, and perhaps a LMG barrel length weapon to replace the RPK-203... of course if they go for a multi calibre weapon then one weapon could fill the role from AKS-74U up to RPK-203 in a light rifle model, plus the heavy model to replace the SVD and perhaps a 12 gauge weapon.
That would mean 3 different model base guns... a light pistol round weapon perhaps in 9 x 19mm and 9 x 21mm Russian, and a medium rifle in assault rifle calibres and and a large frame weapon for heavier rounds... perhaps including a 338 LM rifle.
You would still use other SMG types like the Klin/Kedr, and the Kashtan and the PP-2000, and a full auto version of the Strizh would be useful too.
I personally would drop the PYa and but keep the GSh-18 and Gyurza, with the former used by VDV and Naval Infantry and the latter by special forces where needed.
I guess if the Strizh passes all its tests it could directly replace the Makarov, PYa, and GSh-18, and Stechkin in the full auto model.
How would they go about doing this?
Making it modular. A soldier equipped with SMGs doesn't need 4 large long chest pouches for two 30 round AK mags for instance. Different chest riggings to carry different kit is normal and could be issued with the weapon, so SVDs come with sniper addons etc etc.
Well crap. I was really hoping it would be chambered in 9x21 Russian, oh well.
Likely intended for export, but I would expect that in the future, if it is successful they could make a 9mm Gyurza model.
Still, it's a bit of a niche role.
Very much so but that is the beauty of the GSh-18 and ADS. They compete against standard weapons, yet can be used in specialist roles as well. The penalty is the different ammo adds complication, but considering the poor performance of standard ammo in water it is worth it when needed.
I remember that guy RomanS talking about having fired it. He said it was like firing a mini MP-5. Sounds pretty cool if you ask me
All through the 70s and 80s I read about how it was useless... obsolete... just because the west had seen it as a dead end in terms of small arms.
What they forgot was that a pistol is not a long range weapon and at close ranges a burst of 4-5 rounds don't need to go through the same hole on the target... in fact at such ranges an enormous spread is actually useful because it spreads the damage and multiplies the stopping force.
Over 50m and only the first few rounds will hit the paper, but inside a room less than 5m from the target where most pistol combat takes place a short burst is much much more effective than a single shot or double tap.
I have mentioned above that most of the time a pistol is a token weapon for those who can't carry anything bigger or heavier, and I stand by that. Any SMG is better than a pistol and any Assault Rifle is better than a SMG generally... inside a building a SMG can be better than an Assault rifle because it has the firepower but is easier to point. In very close combat a SMG is still better than a pistol because multiple hits are more lethal and moving targets are hard to hit so spraying 5 or more at the target you greatly increase your chances of a wound or kill.
The Stechkin is a SMG the size of a large pistol.
In the old 70s and 80s weapon books western experts talk about them being inaccurate and heavy, yet they are lighter than many 45 calibre automatics and holds 20 rounds compared to 7. Sure the 45 makes a bigger hole, but if 20 9mm holes are not enough then 7 45 calibre holes will not do any better.
Still used today and several replacements have been developed including the Pernach, and something called the Baksan from memory.
Hopefully this Strizh will fill the role... note new photos on the Max Popinker site with a selective fire model with a suppressor fitted...