Assault rifles
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why did it take the US so long to make a decent assault rifle that was actually good?
>>30652192
Dunno OP. Why didn't your dad pull out quicker?
>>30652207
Because ur a butthurt ar15 weilding amerifag
The M16 entered service in 1964. What is your definition of "actually good"?
>>30652335
Reliability and how practical it is, automatic m14 being actually not good
>>30652192
1. American military obsession with marksmanship/rifleman skills
2. Springfield Armory could basically only make M1 style actions for the last 50 years of it's life under government ownership
>>30652439
Assault rifles in intermediate calibers, M14 is a full automatic rifle, more like a BAR in usage than anything
>>30652244
Can you imagine barging into a the bedroom of a copulating couple and forcing him to impregnate her by gunpoint. My dick is aged and forcibly compressed carbon.
>>30652192
the us had to start from scratch
the ruskies had sgt44's from the dead germans
Full auto rifles were a mistake
There's nothing you can't do with an assault rifle that you can't do with a semi, and there's nothing you can't do with a .22 that you can't with a .30
You can do more with a .30
>>30652507
but the ak was inspired by the m1
>>30652533
>what is suppressive fire
>what is weight
f/a has its uses and intermediate calibers are objectively better from common engagement distances.
>>30652635
the bolt was, practically nothing else
>>30652192
1950s is pretty early famalam
The M1 Garand has been around forever, man
>>30652635
>>30652507
The AK was inspired by the AB46 that it competed against in Russian trials
>>30652685
Nah, full auto is shit.
Suppression only works when it's accurate; heavy guns, like machine guns, are the tools for this. It's why big .mil uses SA.
Full power works just as well at common and long ranges, so you've got 1 round doing both things. You can use machine gun ammo in your rifles and vice versa
Yeah, it's lighter, but since you aren't wasting ammo on useless suppression, it doesn't matter
If you're using SA, you use full power. There's no practical reason that outshines its abilities.
>>30653175
anon still ignores the benefit of Joe carrying twice as much 5.56 as 7.62
whats more, easier to shoot 556 well -- all AMU scores skyrocketed on switching to M16
still failing to explain just why 7.62 x 51 is better besides pic related
>>30654526
Why not 6.8mm instead?
>>30654567
>lets re-equip our entire military
>that totally won't be retardedly expensive
>>30652439
A large majority of the "reliability issues" experienced came from boots being told by people in the states "the weapon cleans it's self" and then they listened. If you clean your weapon regularly you eliminate alot of possible stoppages and malfunctions.
>>30652192
Military was filled with fudds who hated plastic guns
For the AR, I know that they erroneously claimed it "cleaned itself", but my understand was that a well-lubed AR will still be reliable even if quite dirty. So what was the truth behind the poor performance?
>>30652207
You can get preggers from precum.
Anatomically incorrect meme.
>>30654567
Why not 6.5?
>>30652192
>Why did it take the US so long to make a decent assault rifle that was actually the best?
ftfy
They had to wait until the advanced materials were in place that would enable a quality assault rifle to be made without weighing a fuck-ton. The AR-15 was originally made out of advanced plastics and space-age aluminum.
>>30652793
Summertime.
>>30654806
Soldiers were not issued cleaning kits, a lack of chroming in the chamber, and ball powder was used rather than stick powder.
It was a combination of issues.
>>30654806
>what was the truth behind the poor performance?
Military changed specs to save money, gun had issues until they changed back to the original design.
>changed the powder for the ammo, fouling the bolt and chamber
>non-chrome lined chamber caused really bad FTE jams
It just had the bad luck of having these teething problems (brought about because the military cut corners to save a few shekles) during an active conflict.
They apparently didn't issue it with cleaning kits but it was common sense it had to be cleaned so kits were improvised . It was the above issues stacking up and causing issues when in use that gave it a bad reputation.
Rifle is fine.
>>30652192
The US owned NATO and wanted to build the rifle that represented NATO. They tested the EM-2 and other Assault Rifles that were far ahead of their time, deemed them gay because they couldn't slay a dinosaur at 1000 yards, and proceeded to force the 7.62 Nato down their throats. NATO acquiesced...until we realized the M14 and other battle rifles kind of sucked for urban/jungle combat, and the rest is history.
the m16 is just shit by the way have you ever heard of the m2 carbine
>>30656297
If only there was an M2 carbine, shoulder fired .50bmg
>>30654593
going by that logic, why adopt anything new?
>>30652192
but the AR-15 is good anon, don't believe the Vietnam fudd memes about reliability
>>30655074
Ordnance also found in a study in like 1969 that about a fifth of soldiers deployed to Vietnam with the M16 were oiling cartridges. If you want to turn any rifle into a jamming machine, oil those cartridges nice and good.
>>30656413
They dont adopt anything new on a large scale unless theres a massive benefit for that exact reason.
>>30656693
and a better cartridge is not a massive benefit?
>>30653175
>I have never been in combat: The post
>>30656717
What does 6.8 do at <300 yards that 5.56 cant?
>>30656717
Its a slight benefit. But using that money to uppgrade other things makes more sense.
>>30656747
Compared to 75gr bthp? Most likely it only makes a ~1.2mm bigger wound channel. SD's about the same, so relatively similar penetration.
pretty sure that the fucking Henry repeating rifle would have been better to have in Vietnam
>>30656719
im this guy >>30654526
i was specifically thinking about "holy fuck we carried around so much fucking ammunition in iskandariyah, diwaniyah and south baghdad ... that many rounds in 7.62 woulda sucked BALLS and i cannot imagine carrying around half as many opportunities to fire my weapon"
>>30652635
>>30652730
>>30652801
Look at the safety lever. Look familiar?
>>30654986
The AR-15 is still made out of 7075-T6.
>>30656502
The only thing worse than the fudd memes about AR reliability is the fudd memes about AK innacuracy.
I swear to god every time I get dragged to the public range with my friends I get some fudd going on about how you cant hit shit with them. Nevermind actually looking at my fist sized groupings.
Inna woods for lyfe.
>>30656717
More like a very, very marginal benefit.
>>30652335
Yes, in 1964. Meanwhile, the Soviets had a functional assault rifle over a decade before that and it was being produced in the tens of millions. The question of the thread is: Why do you think the US took so long to catch up before 1964?
>>30652507
Uhh, what? You're saying the US didn't have access to stg44s?
>>30654986
Why didn't they develop a cheaper and easier to produce alternative? It's the same outdated thinking that plagued the Germans as well.
>>30654815
>4% less effective than condom
Still pretty decent rates friend
>>30653175
>Suppression only works when it's accurate
To reiterate what another responder said: are you willing to bet your life that it isn't even a little accurate? You aren't, so it'll suppress you. Suppressive fire.
>>30656502
One time a fudd at work held me captive with his stories about 'nam, About how the chinese had this "new" rifle called the ak-47 and how it was better than the m16 because "our guns shot two t-twenty two, Which wasnt as powerful as the ayy kay furty seven"
>Chinese had this new rifle called the ak-47
>new
>m16 shoots two twenty two
>two twenty two
>>30652507
A rotating bolt gun with a rock and lock mag, chambered in a round developed in 1943... Totally ripped of a tilting bolt, button released one with a round invented in 1944... Yep.
>>30659902
They did. It was the AR-18 and it didn't sell
>>30660282
Probably because it wasn't cheap or easy to produce.
>>30660282
dat widowmaker
>>30660331
Eh. No, idea was foreign military contracts. It competed against similar guns and people willing to go for an 'armalite' wanted a 15 most times. The AR-18 served as the basis for many guns used by services around the world. It just was niche-less. Not high-tech like it's aluminum cousin. Not a bullpup. Not the cheapest...
>>30660395
Alright, but that still doesn't explain why it took the Americans so long to develop a workable competitor to the AK. Where was the organization? The fact that the project was blocked by private interests so much shows that the government did not have their shit together.
>>30659872
Why is it that the Soviets could knock things out of the ballpark with guns, but can't design an aircraft worth a damn?
>>30660420
Because they had a perfectly capable battle rifle and saw no reason to change.
>>30660462
They were focused on producing cheap, effective aircraft that could be mass produced and shipped off to other countries to fight wars. In that they succeeded. And yes, in 2016 soviet aircraft from as early the 1950s are starting to show their age, but the fact that they've lasted this long and continue to be used shows their quality. Modern Russian aircraft do not follow that policy so I can't comment on those, but look at the TU-95 - one of the oldest aircraft still in service, and still serves its purpose effectively. Classic soviet engineering.
>>30660420
"so long"
??? tell me the year the AKM came out, because the model of 1947 didnt REALLY catch on, and the SKS was the first _really_ popular 7.62 x 39 weapon
then the AR15 was fairly up and running shortly thereafter and the USAF couldn't get their hands on them quickly enough almost immediately, babe
>>30660420
The 5th post in this thread answers your question. The American dogma was for the rifleman to fire only well aimed, accurate shots. American riflemen were trained to believe that "only the hits matter". While that may be true in a rifle match, in combat you shoot wherever you think the enemy may be, even if you don't see them; you shoot and shoot until you win. American commanders were set in their ways and didn't see the advantage of carrying twice as much ammo for the same weight because all they saw was the loss of the long-range, one-hit-kill shot from the individual rifleman. Nevermind that the average rifleman can not reliably hit a target beyond 300 or 400 yards.
>>30660542
Lol, yet all of our enemies everywhere use AKs. Want to compare the total production of AR-type rifles and AK rifles? I don't think so. The fact of the matter is that the soviets completely blew the US out of the water with their rifle production. Yes, the AR may be a higher quality rifle, but compared with the price of the rifle and ammunition, AK wins every time.
>>30660462
>>30660563
uhhh the USSR used AK as basically currency, but im not even seeing how that post responds to mine
either way I wasnt aiming to dig at you
>>30660420
Gov't dickery =/= lack of development.
The AR-18, ruger ac556 (select fire mini-14) and other platforms similar in simplicity and ruggedness to the AK existed. They just were not chosen for the military.
There was little need. Soviet primary arm was the SKS until like '52, as AKs worked through teething issues. Americans fought a war in Korea versus 0 AKs despite it existing in some way by 4 years at that point.
By the time American faced the AK, we were phasing in the M16. Philosophy of use held back American deployment of assault rifles, not lack of assualt rifle designs.
Russians had delays too. They could have easily adopted one of Koborov's older designs for earlier assault rifles. He made bullpup, hyperburst, and even simplified the AK itself in his prototypes.
>>30660563
By this logic mosins should win every war...
>>30660662
>ac556
to this day, I would love to see a nicely built mini14 (and I've owned 580 series) that came stock in Hogue rubber, with better sights and took PMAG or AK magazines
...oh well
>>30652192
Figured they would need the Garand after the carnage of WW1.
Better question, why isn't the M2 carbine considered an assault rifle?
>>30656634
I don't recall when they finally started chroming the chamber, but until they did and after, since you learned from guys ahead of you... if you left a round in the chamber overnight in nam it would get stuck in the chamber, so everybody that experienced this would oil their ammo.
>>30660868
not select fire (isnt that the M3) not a rifle caliber
>>30660868
It kinda is, it's just that while the 7.62x33mm cartridge is an intermediate rifle cartridge power-wise it's closer to a pistol cartridge. Ultimately though the argument is merely semantical, just like what qualifies as a "Main Battle Tank."
>>30660868
We tried using them against gommies in Korea. Results were less than adequate.
>>30660868
Too weak. It's more of a flat shooting sub gun than an Assault Rifle, or I guess a PDW.
>>30661086
They were just outranged in korea. Soldiers could hit shit beyond their effective range and blamed frozen coats tiny manlet chinese wore instead.
Very similar to issues with M4s in Afghanistan.
>>30660868
>>30661151
im not slamming you, but thats a pretty good description of AK as well
its an _awesome_ SMG, while M16 is the very beginning of rifle calibers. i think a lot of the M16 versus AKM arguments miss that (although if you dope them in at 50 meters, this difference pretty much fades away)
>>30652192
The M1 Garand literaly changed the world of military rifles being the first semi auto, and helped win ww2 for us, so the descision makers had no reason to think that they needed to develope a new rifle platform for the US troops.
>>30662186
>being the first semi auto
Except it wasn't.
>>30662343
dude prolly meant in those kinda huge numbers
i mean
m16 wasnt first DI rifle, isnt even really DI if youre going to go full on autist about it, coming from a literal autist
>correct use of the word literal
>>30662343
Sorry, first successful semi auto rifle. Or you could say first good semi auto rifle.
>>30662604
"Good" is pretty damn subjective.
You're going to have to move that goalpost a lot more for your comment to stand.
>>30662808
The Garand was the first successful semi-automatic rifle in active military service. About 3.5 million were made by America's entrance to WII, meaning there were enough to make it standard issue. In contrast, the Soviet Union had such trouble with the SVT series in combat that they fell back to using an intermediate cartridge to make actions easier to design (i.e. SKS).
>>30662857
There were numerous semi-automatic rifles of very high quality in the civilian market. Hell, there were tons of excellent semi-automatic rifles sent to military trials that never made it to production because of stupid requirements by the military. Just look at all the countries that didn't want a hole drilled through the barrel, forcing engineers to make shit like gas trap systems.
Hell, even the fact that the M1 Garand used .30-06 was a giant cock-up. It was originally intended to use .276 Pedersen with a 10 round clip (Roughly equivalent to .280 British/6.5 Grendel).
The military forcing .30-06 into the various actions being tested is the main reason the Garand was selected, as it was the only one that could fucking survive the round.
>>30662961
What are you even arguing any more? That .30-06 wasn't the right round to fight WWII with? That it's stupid the military has strict requirements rooted in tradition? The Peterson was better? It wasn't.
The Garand was ahead of it's time. It's success was a headache to our enemies and allies alike.
>>30663029
It wasn't the first semi-auto. It wasn't even the first "good" semi-auto. It wasn't even the first "good" semi-auto that a military looked at and most of the "good" semi-autos that militaries looked at, INCLUDING the M1 Garand, got buttfucked by stupid requirements.
You're being a fanboy.
>>30659966
Not at any appreciable range isn't not
The beaten zone is fucking huge with an assault rifle at 300 yards
>>30654526
I didn't neglect weight
.308
more power and range
recoil isn't a problem on SA
.223
ammo weight
less recoil for faggots/women
.308 is better SA in a rifle unless you're a girl
Have a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frTNEoCHreE
.223 gets its ass handed to it by .303/8mm
>>30656719
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frTNEoCHreE
How's that suppressive fire working out?
>>30663123
>The Garand was the first successful semi-automatic rifle in active military service.
Another anon said it was a good rifle. He was right. You're out of line.
>>30663213
>I didn't neglect weight
what is assertion fallacy for over 9000 alex?
>>30663213
>less recoil for faggots/women
>.308 is better SA in a rifle unless you're a girl
cool story bro
