Jump to content


Photo

Anzac Use Of The M16 In Vietnam


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 04 June 2019 - 0900 AM

In practice SLR is no more accurate than AKM firing single shots, so story is typical BS.


Edited by bojan, 04 June 2019 - 0901 AM.

  • 0

#22 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,361 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 04 June 2019 - 0924 AM

The subsequent events at Mirbat would seem to bear it out I would have thought.


  • 0

#23 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 04 June 2019 - 1335 PM

It's been a while since I read the account, but I thought the key weapon at Mirbat was a GPMG.
  • 0

#24 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,572 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 2040 PM

For all it's faults, the M14 was generally considered to be an accurate rifle.


  • 0

#25 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 05 June 2019 - 0439 AM

 

Ive read that one of the compensations of the SLR is that any tree shot by it, looked like someone had attached a small piece of C4 to it and detonated it. Against that, you only have single shot. My father loved it, but then it was coming from a Lee Enfield, so...

 

I had an early L1A1 and X8 manual and it explained that, at 150 metres or less, the bullet would not have fully stabilised and would tend to yaw and tumble giving up its energy in wood. Therefore it would penetrate trees at longer distances than it would at shorter ones.

 

I don't remember any funny shaped holes in targets at that range or under while working the butts at Connaught.


  • 0

#26 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 05 June 2019 - 0934 AM

For all it's faults, the M14 was generally considered to be an accurate rifle.

 

Every single rifle adopted by practically any military has adequate accuracy for an average (even well above average) soldier in the field. There is a myth that 7.62x51 military rifles are more accurate than 7.62x39 ones or even 5.56mm ones, It is for 99% of time a myth at most of the practical ranges.

 

For Stuart:

Yugo tests from 1962-1963., accuracy - note that all were considered accurate enough for a service in semi-auto, and differences in semi-auto were described as "negligible". There is also note that unlike other AK was not new gun and had at least 1500 rounds through it before doing accuracy tests.

AR-10 sights were described as best ones, but all were described as adequate.

 

Semi-automatic, 100, 200, 300 and 400m:

AR-10, 7.62x39

G3, 7.62x39

vz.58, 7.62x39

FAL, 7.62x51

AK, 7.62x39

 

Automatic fire (same caliber versions as above), 50, 100, 150 and 200m vs single chest target, 250 and 300m vs group target

AR-10, only one noticeably better, attributed to very good muzzle break and in-line config

G3 

AK

vz.58 - G3, AK and vz.58 were about equal with minor advantage to G3 and disadvantage to vz.58, probably due the weight.

FAL - auto fire with 7.62x51mm was considered useless with unacceptable dispersions even at 50m..

 

After 6000 rounds - same order, except FAL failed endurance tests and was eliminated from a trials, so no results for it.

 

 

So for all the fame about FAL it offered no tangible benefits over any other rifle in semi-auto, and (due the 7.62x51mm ammo) sucked in full auto. Plus it was longer and heavier so you could carry less ammo.

 

So again, whole "throwing AKs after seeing FAL accuracy" story smells like shit.


Edited by bojan, 05 June 2019 - 0949 AM.

  • 0

#27 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2019 - 1413 PM

Regarding M16 use in Vietnam by Australian forces: I was fortunate to be seated at a dinner next to the Battalion 2IC from 1RARs first deployment as an attached battalion to the US 173rd Airborne in 1965. He told the story how he and the Quartermaster arranged to acquire the first 20 x M16: by exchanging shower buckets with their parent US brigade.

Apparently the 173rd wasnt expecting to have to construct a FOB from scratch, and had no means of showering. This was the immediate arrangement to rectify that. The trial of the M16 was successful.
  • 0

#28 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 06 June 2019 - 0907 AM

"So again, whole "throwing AKs after seeing FAL accuracy" story smells like shit."--Bojan

Basic sales--Show new, shiny gadget, operated by experts.  :P


  • 0

#29 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,361 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 07 June 2019 - 0210 AM

 

For all it's faults, the M14 was generally considered to be an accurate rifle.

 

Every single rifle adopted by practically any military has adequate accuracy for an average (even well above average) soldier in the field. There is a myth that 7.62x51 military rifles are more accurate than 7.62x39 ones or even 5.56mm ones, It is for 99% of time a myth at most of the practical ranges.

 

For Stuart:

Yugo tests from 1962-1963., accuracy - note that all were considered accurate enough for a service in semi-auto, and differences in semi-auto were described as "negligible". There is also note that unlike other AK was not new gun and had at least 1500 rounds through it before doing accuracy tests.

AR-10 sights were described as best ones, but all were described as adequate.

 

Semi-automatic, 100, 200, 300 and 400m:

AR-10, 7.62x39

G3, 7.62x39

vz.58, 7.62x39

FAL, 7.62x51

AK, 7.62x39

 

Automatic fire (same caliber versions as above), 50, 100, 150 and 200m vs single chest target, 250 and 300m vs group target

AR-10, only one noticeably better, attributed to very good muzzle break and in-line config

G3 

AK

vz.58 - G3, AK and vz.58 were about equal with minor advantage to G3 and disadvantage to vz.58, probably due the weight.

FAL - auto fire with 7.62x51mm was considered useless with unacceptable dispersions even at 50m..

 

After 6000 rounds - same order, except FAL failed endurance tests and was eliminated from a trials, so no results for it.

 

 

So for all the fame about FAL it offered no tangible benefits over any other rifle in semi-auto, and (due the 7.62x51mm ammo) sucked in full auto. Plus it was longer and heavier so you could carry less ammo.

 

So again, whole "throwing AKs after seeing FAL accuracy" story smells like shit.

 

 

 

Well it was as I recall written by an SAS trooper that was actually there. Im not used to throwing out first hand accounts just because they dont fit theory.

 

The AKM is an excellent rifle. The round, by every account ive ever read, is not. In fact, the Fins clearly thought the NATO 7.62mm round was superior to the Soviet one, because they went so far as to build an AKM that was chambered to NATO 7.62. A pretty nice rifle from what ive read. For all the positives of the AKM, it clearly cannot get beyond the indifference of its calibre.

 

Id be interested to know if the FAL was tested with SUIT. The AKM sights ive found are practical but dont look much of an advance over WW2 rifles. Although that should be qualified by pretty much everyone on arse saying they werer never issued with SUIT. FOFAD probably. :D

https://www.arrse.co...ght-gpmg.68349/


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 07 June 2019 - 0212 AM.

  • 0

#30 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 07 June 2019 - 0625 AM

...
Well it was as I recall written by an SAS trooper that was actually there. Im not used to throwing out first hand accounts just because they dont fit theory.
...
 

Ah, yes, old "SAS bloke told so, so must be true". Number of the BS about firearms you can read in memoirs of the real veterans is a staggering*.
If the story is true it only says Arabs are easily impressed idiots, who know jack shit about actually using rifles.
 
*Look at Forgotten weapons collaboration with Larry Vickers, he noted that even in Delta where he served number of BS stories about firearms, especially firearms accuracy was staggering.
 

 
 The AKM is an excellent rifle. The round, by every account ive ever read, is not. In fact, the Fins clearly thought the NATO 7.62mm round was superior to the Soviet one, because they went so far as to build an AKM that was chambered to NATO 7.62. A pretty nice rifle from what ive read. For all the positives of the AKM, it clearly cannot get beyond the indifference of its calibre.

WTF are you talking about? Finish ones in 7.62x51 was an export version, mainly for the sale in US. It was never adopted by anyone. Fins used and still use 7.62x39mm version, consider it adequately accurate  and don't intend to change it until at least 2035.
 
BTW, Yugoslavia produced only 7.62x51 AK adopted by military - M77, exported it to Cyprus, where those were preferred over FALs, mainly due the reliability. It is still shitty rifle, due the 7.62x51 preventing effective automatic fire and them having no measurable improvement in anything over any intermediate caliber at practical range in the hands of 99.99% of soldiers..
 
Up the 400m there is no measurable difference in practical accuracy (AKA "Minute of man") between FAL, AK or any other military issue rifle. All military acceptance tests (including target marksmanship obsessed US Army and USMC) are loose enough that any rifle would pass, including practically any AK.
 
If 7.62x51 rifles are so great, why did everyone ditch them?
If 7.62x39 ballistics suck why does various SF, SAS included have crush on .300 Blackout, which basically duplicates 7.62x39 performances in form factor that requires only barrel change from 5.56?
 

 
 Id be interested to know if the FAL was tested with SUIT. The AKM sights ive found are practical but dont look much of an advance over WW2 rifles. Although that should be qualified by pretty much everyone on arse saying they werer never issued with SUIT. FOFAD probably. :D
https://www.arrse.co...ght-gpmg.68349/

All were tested with iron sights only. It was 1962/63, none expected mass issue optics.
Iron sights did not really advance from WW1, M1917 sights are still about gold standard. AKM sights, why not my favorite are OK. I would pick them over H&K vertical drum style sights any day a week.
 
As for SUIT, one of the reasons it never saw widespread adoption is that it had problem with retaining zero due the same design "flaw" FAL shares with AK - loose top cover. But both rifles were never really originally intended to have sights on top cover, but on a side rail - Belgians used them that way, since introduction (1 or 2 scoped semi-auto FALs per rifle section).

Edited by bojan, 07 June 2019 - 0724 AM.

  • 0

#31 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,572 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 0720 AM

In testing, 7.62x39mm was actually found superior to 300 Blackout at 100 meters and more (in overall penetration). 


  • 0

#32 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,361 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 07 June 2019 - 0921 AM

Bojan, I dont like arguing with you contrary to expectation. This is what ive read. If I had the patience I could look out the source that relates it. I found it convincing. You have what you believe, and thats fine. You can take my opinion with a pinch of salt, and ive no issues with it. :)


  • 0

#33 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 07 June 2019 - 1812 PM

I have no doubt that's exactly what happened; the 'why', of course, is open to discussion.


Edited by shep854, 07 June 2019 - 1812 PM.

  • 0

#34 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 08 June 2019 - 2012 PM

Bojan, I dont like arguing with you contrary to expectation. This is what ive read. If I had the patience I could look out the source that relates it. I found it convincing. You have what you believe, and thats fine. You can take my opinion with a pinch of salt, and ive no issues with it. :)

 

I think you're both right. 

 

In the real world, shooting at fleeting, indistinct targets that are shooting back at you, there is going to be bugger all difference between an AK and an SLR in terms of accuracy per round fired. The AK is going to be the more effective system due to getting more rounds down thanks to faster recoil recovery and, to a lesser extent, the larger magazine.

 

However, on a shooting range, against paper targets, with experts highly familiar with the SLR vs irregulars or paramilitaries with limited practice, armed with AKs, the SLR is going to win.


  • 0

#35 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 08 June 2019 - 2013 PM

 

.

 
As for SUIT, one of the reasons it never saw widespread adoption is that it had problem with retaining zero due the same design "flaw" FAL shares with AK - loose top cover. 

 

 

It was worse than that. They actually used to fall off on occasions.

 

M1917 sights were gold standard for WW1 but could have been improved by adding windage adjustment on the rearsight.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users