Small arms that should not have seen service

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but that only means the AK-47 is so good it is still useful in some situations. Not at all what BlairWitch is saying, that the AK-74 was worse and basically a sissy-gun. If given the choice I'd rather have a 74, more useful in most cases.


if you have a pissed off afgahni rebel high as a kite on opium or a somali on their local brew comming after you the 47 is the better bet. complete and immediate stopping power. the splinter and shock effect doesnt occur at all ranges. most soldiers end up getting supplied with ball ammo which in the 5.45-5.56 has an extremely high velocity which is more likely to punch through without doing the necessary lethal damages
 
if you have a pissed off afgahni rebel high as a kite on opium or a somali on their local brew comming after you the 47 is the better bet. complete and immediate stopping power. the splinter and shock effect doesnt occur at all ranges. most soldiers end up getting supplied with ball ammo which in the 5.45-5.56 has an extremely high velocity which is more likely to punch through without doing the necessary lethal damages
The Afghans themselves respected the AK-74 very much. I believe their testimony as to its effectiveness much more than yours, considering they were the ones who were shot by them all the time. They said it hardly ever punched through completely, you must be mistaking it for the AK-47 in this case. The Afghans called the 5.45 bullets "poison bullets" because they would splinter inside a body and cause severe wounds, very fatal. Also, the Afghans weren't usually high on opium, nor are all enemies total druggies.
 
if you have a pissed off afgahni rebel high as a kite on opium or a somali on their local brew comming after you the 47 is the better bet. complete and immediate stopping power. the splinter and shock effect doesnt occur at all ranges. most soldiers end up getting supplied with ball ammo which in the 5.45-5.56 has an extremely high velocity which is more likely to punch through without doing the necessary lethal damages

If the only people Russian soldiers were expected to fight were Afghans or Somalis you'd have a point, but as they also expected to fight NATO troops and Chinese border guards and pretty anyone else they could think of your arguement is pretty much usless.

All ammunition is a compromise. If it's big enough to kill a man at a mile it's also so heavy that you can only carry sixty rounds before getting a hernia. If it's light enough to be controllable when fired full auto it's not going to make as big a hole as heavier bullets. A round that's great in the desert can be poor in the jungle and nothing but dead weight in the city. You are never, repeat never, going to have a perfect all round piece of small arms ammunition.
 
if you have a pissed off afgahni rebel high as a kite on opium or a somali on their local brew comming after you the 47 is the better bet.
Disagree. Nobody ever complained to me about 5.45's lack of effect if you did hit the target.

I'd like to clarify, none of my buddies considered AK-74 "a sissy gun". It was a matter of slight preference toward one caliber or another, and everyone acknowledged on the same breath that either rifle is adequate.
 
Disagree. Nobody ever complained to me about 5.45's lack of effect if you did hit the target.

I'd like to clarify, none of my buddies considered AK-74 "a sissy gun". It was a matter of slight preference toward one caliber or another, and everyone acknowledged on the same breath that either rifle is adequate.

I can see where they're coming from. I like to think of what I'd send back in time to Britain in 1940 and one weapon I always chose is the Finnish AK. However I'm always torn between the 5.56mm version, which would be great for the fast moving war in Europe, and the 7.62mm version, which would be perfect for close range fighting in the jungles of Asia.
 
Chauchat.Good LMG,Bad magazine.Whoever taught it was a good idea to leave one side of the magazine open should be shot.

There's a video in another thread about the Chauchat which surprisingly shows it wasn't quite as bad as everyone says. The holes in the magazine were recognized as a serious problem and this was to be corrected...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top