rickjump1 0 #26 September 10, 2004 QuoteHaving been on the recieving end as well, at about 30 ft., I am just happy they are about as accurate as a slingshot. I saw head and neck shots caused by an AK 47. In the right hands, it can be deadly.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #27 September 10, 2004 QuoteAK47s are one of the most inaccurate assault rifles in the world. They're garbage. Ahhh... Here comes the great "inaccurate AK" myth again, riding it's usual hobby-horse. The AKM is NOT inaccurate. It IS a very different rifle to the M-16. The usual source of this myth is US Army servicemen who have trained on and are experienced with the M-16 and derives from 3 sources: 1. The m-16's stock is in line with the axis of it's barrel and reciprocating parts while the AKM's stock drops by some 70mm from the same axis. 2. The AKM's reciprocating parts are some 5 times heavier than the M-16's and make up a correspondingly greater proportion of the weapon's overall weight. From #1 & #2, anyone who's familiar with and used to the recoil characteristics of the M-16 will be surprised by the AK's very different characteristics. 3. In the last 15 years, common US Army experience of the AKM in action has been in the hands of the err... Sand-Kicking peoples! The weapons used and captured have almost invariably been "third world" copies of doubtful quality in the hands of folk who never got their heads around the concept of "Weapon Maintenance". I'm not entirely sure that this concept translates into "Sand-Kicker", and if it does it must sound the same as "Shoot into the air on full auto Abdullah". In addition, such troops also lack formal training, which in arabic seems to be "Shoot into the air on full auto with one hand Abdullah". Target selection, aiming etc... Also seem to translate very similarly. Despite this, the AKM STILL seems to be a very effective weapon in infantry engagements like... Say... Najaf!? So... NOT inaccurate, just different. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #28 September 10, 2004 How wide do you cast the net for AK? The AK47, AKM /S and AK103 are the same weapon built of identical & interchangeable parts using occasionally different manufacturing techniques over the years. The AK103 link was a deliberate one to a commercially available, US Legal supplier. see:http://world.guns.ru/assault/as01-e.htm "At the present time almost all manufacturers of the AK-type weapons ceased the production of the 7.62mm assault rifles for the military use (except probably for the newest AK-103, made in limited numbers by the IZHMASH in Russia)." The AK74 etc... was a 5.56mm update of the AKM but it's operating principles and parts layout were the same (if it ain't broke, don't fix it) The only REAL departure from Sgt Kalashnikov's design was the AK Sniper Rifle [frantically looking for a link] which used a free piston (a-la FN) to reduce the weight of the fully reciprocating parts and thus improve accuracy. On another note, years back I was talking to an old WO1 who was adamant that the No.9 (EM2) DID go into limited service AND produced '58 pattern ammunition pouches which were smaller and "different" stating they were for the .280 cartridge. Next time you're at Lincoln's inn you don't fancy popping over to the IWM to check this? You never know, you may be able to source one for your collection!! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #29 September 10, 2004 IIRC the EM2 saw limited service in the Malayan insurgency. It's bulpup design was great for the jungle warfare they had... but that's from memory. I also know it was on the absolute verge of getting fully adopted into service but NATO scuppered the idea with their insistence on the larger round. Re AK sniper rifle - search for Dragunov (sp?) that's the colloquial name for it. Nice bit of kit. Re width of the net... dunno. I just knew it was acclaimed to be the most widely produced weapon and knew it was officially recognised as being the first and only to break the 30 mil units mark so I googled it and turned up the ubiquitous wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47 Definitely need to go the IWM again. I keep meaning to take another trip up to the one in Leeds. Last time I was there they let me fire a replica Baker rifle!!! THAT was one of the most fun day's I've had. edited to fix link Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #30 September 10, 2004 If it's fun you want, along with the opportunity to REALLY impress your more gullible associates, check out: http://www.wwiiguns.com/shop/products.php?g1=037bb5 Yes! You too can own an FG42!! Meanwhile, if you do happen to come across any "Enfield Rifle No.9" on your forthcoming travels to Malaya, remember to ship 2 home (& I'll tell you how to get it onto your F/A Cert) Strangely, The "Enfield rifle No.9 designation was used twice!!! first for our beloved EM-2, then LATER for a .22" rimfire single shot CCF rifle. Sooo... git the EM-2, note the Ser.No., apply to hold an "Enfield Rifle No.9", then hope that it's not an intelligent plod doing the physical check!!!. Then again, you just might get to hold it as a collectors item? Mike. edited to add the correct "big toy" link! Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InflightSupv 0 #31 September 10, 2004 QuoteAK-47s are not part of the so-called "assault weapons" ban. They were part of an import ban enacted about 5 years earlier. Any AK variant on the market has been remanufactured with at least 10 US parts (Century Arms), but no US company is making them from the ground up, to my knowledge. There is a comany that is manufacturing HK-91s on US soil on Portuguese tooling licensed by HK. The name escapes me, but they also plan on building HK-94s and 93s. IIRC, the price-point is at or around $1k for the 91s. The CETME is a HK91 clone. My brother has one and the quality is pretty decent. If you want to see what they do, watch BLACK HAWK DOWN, they shoot a .308 that is a great cartridge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #32 September 10, 2004 QuoteYes! You too can own an FG42!! I did once... For about a week before I put it in an auction house in Scarborough. T'was a deac. - pre 95 regs so still have a working bolt etc. My prize possession was my BREN gun for a while but that went too. Always wanted an MP44 (blatantly what AK ripped off) or something really big an’ tripod mounted like an old Vickers or an MG42... that would have scared the neighbours. The only kit I have left now are a load of WWII and WWI bayonets and my SMLE which I don't think I'll ever sell. It's too beautiful. I even had an AK bayonet for years. The build quality was crap, but a nice enough design. I sold it through e-bay to a yank earlier this year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #33 September 10, 2004 QuoteThe CETME is a HK91 clone. My brother has one and the quality is pretty decent. If you want to see what they do, watch BLACK HAWK DOWN, they shoot a .308 that is a great cartridge. Actually, the egg came before the chicken in this case. The HK91 is a CETME clone. After WWII, the german designers of the German Assault Weapons fled to Spain, taking with them their designs. They created the CETME, and returned to Germany several years later and created the HK91/G3 for the Germans. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #34 September 10, 2004 AK-47s are great guns. On automatic they suck for Aim. But on Semi they shoot very straight and are very reliable. They do have a kick. They are also very easy to take apart, for cleaning or incase a jam does happen. I my self like guns with less moving parts, Glocks, and Ak47s. The less moving the less likely hood of something braking. I have no clue who would make the better ones.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DYEVOUT 0 #35 September 10, 2004 I have an Egyptian variant called the MAADI. Cost about $300.00, 5 years ago. Works ALL THE TIME. Prints a 6-7" 30 round offhand group at 100yds. on semi. The only mods I did were: > Fiberforce nylon stock (original way short) > 3 slot compensator > recoil buffer block (extends the life of stamped receiver) > neon front sight pin > folding bipod Lots of fun, ammo is cheap - get one. ----------------=8^)---------------------- "I think that was the wrong tennis court." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InflightSupv 0 #36 September 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe CETME is a HK91 clone. My brother has one and the quality is pretty decent. If you want to see what they do, watch BLACK HAWK DOWN, they shoot a .308 that is a great cartridge. Actually, the egg came before the chicken in this case. The HK91 is a CETME clone. After WWII, the german designers of the German Assault Weapons fled to Spain, taking with them their designs. They created the CETME, and returned to Germany several years later and created the HK91/G3 for the Germans. Thanks for pointing that out, I never get tired of learning about guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #37 September 10, 2004 Kinda true, kinda not. Either way, I would not own one. To the best of my knowledge, Vulcan Arms assembles rifles from other's parts. I believe the AK and HK receivers are Hesse. (IIRC, the owner of Vulcan's name is Hesse.) Hesse receivers are, in fact, American, but considered garbage more often than not. The parts are a mix of some import and some American. The price point is wicked high. As for their AR-style rifles, I believe Bushmaster is supplying the receivers. Not sure about the Mac origins. On a different note, from what I am gathering, Bulgarian Arsenal is teaming up with K-VAR to begin making "US-made" AKs on new, Bulgarian stamped receivers, as the AWB sunsets. They'll be building pre-ban configurations in the US. Currently, Arsenal is known for milled, single stack guns. The stamped receivers will be imported as single-stacks and then milled open for double. The price point will probably be around where the current line of single-stacks are now. It'll be interesting to see what comes of this. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #38 September 10, 2004 I mentioned earlier that there is a company building HK 91s in the US on HK-licensed machenery bought from Portugal. These things are NOT clones. They are the real deal, but they just don't have the hk proofmarks. Anyway, it's J.L.D. Enterprises. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #39 September 10, 2004 QuoteI just don't think that full power cartridges and assault rifles mix. I think the official definition of an "assault rifle" agrees with you. The military calls an assault rifle one that has only a medium-power cartridge, for relative short-distance shooting, with full-auto capability. The purpose of the medium-power cartridge is to provide better control under full-auto shooting. You can't get that with a full-size cartridge like the .30-06 or .308. The politicians, meanwhile, have corrupted this definition of "assault rifle" to mean just about anything. But since we're talking military technology here, the political definition shouldn't apply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites