Poll - Favorite Assault Rifle

[pmulcahy11b]

On the direct impingement system: An author for Small Arms Review said it well: they are the only weapons that throw up in their own mouths when they fire.

[kcdusk]

All the Assault Rifles have the same stats. So it doesn't matter which one you choose.

[Ursus Maior]

I have very few experience, but felt comfortable with my G3 battle rifle.

[Raellus]

Look Good, Feel Good

All the Assault Rifles have the same stats. So it doesn't matter which one you choose.

In terms of game mechanics, you're right, more or less. But T2k is also theater of the mind, and, for some players, at least, it matters what weapon they imagine their PC wielding. If I'm going to daydream about using an assault rifle, I want it to look cool.

It's not in the poll, but I like the looks of the Swedish AK-5.

-

[cawest]

i went with AR. its all about ammo and spare parts for me. it is very hard to reload russian war ammo. not saying that it cann't be done only that it is harder.

[CDAT]

I based this off of much anecdotal evidence. I once saw a video of a rusted AKM found in a hole in the ground in Mozambique. It was covered in rust. The finder poured some motor oil over it and was able to fire it. I've never seen or heard of a similar feat with an M16.

Also, the AK is reputed to require less frequent cleaning. This, I think, makes maintaining it easier.

I don't like field stripping my AR-15. As you pointed out, too many little parts. The AK-47/AKM has fewer parts. This make maintenance easier too.

I have also seen videos of things like this, but my real world experience with AK's is very different. Yes they may require less frequent cleaning but the AR is not one that needs near as much cleaning as many say. I spent on average about 5 minutes when we came back from a patrol cleaning my rifle, over the almost two year deployment never once had any malfunctions of any kind. On my second and third deployments where I was working with the locals they had there AK's and at least when we were around they did maintenance, they had all sorts of issues from failure to fire up to the bolts seized up so much that could not even get them open with a hammer.

...

To an extent, but not really. I was thinking more of what would happen if one tried to butt-stroke an enemy. The M16's plastic stock is a lot less sturdy than most models of AK-47/AKM, many of which have a metal buttplate in addition to a wood butt. The M16's foregrip is less sturdy as well.

If you butt-stroke an enemy with an AR nothing happens to the rifle, as they are not plastic. They are not as weak as people make them out to be. The fore-grip are also very sturdy, now yes there are after market ones that are very weak and my guess is that is where the misinformation about service weapons comes from. We used ours to beat down doors, and all sorts of other stuff with none breaking from that. We did have one rifle break, but that was when the soldier who's rifle it was leaned it against the truck tire, walked off to do something and the truck moved driving over it, this would have also broken a wooden stocked rifle (it was also the barrel that was bent, not the "plastic' that broke). Now how does it compare to the AK's wooden butt stock I can not say for sure as I have never used an AK to butt stroke someone, I do know that wood stocks have issues with accuracy based on the humidity. Last thought on the strength issue is if it was a issue why would the US Army be switching its M14/21's to synthetic stocks (the EBR)

[Raellus]

I respect your personal experiences, CDAT, and my intent is not to dismiss it or question your integrity but, excepting your anecdotes, everything I've seen, heard, or read on the topic has been pretty adamant that the AK-47/AKM is a sturdier weapon (i.e. can handle more wear and tear and hard use, and less routine maintenance) than the M16. Of course, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean that the AK is a better overall weapon than the M16.

If you butt-stroke an enemy with an AR nothing happens to the rifle, as they are not plastic.

What material are M16A1/A2 buttstocks made out of

Last thought on the strength issue is if it was a issue why would the US Army be switching its M14/21's to synthetic stocks (the EBR)

I assume weight is a big factor in that decision, and also the age and wear of the original wooden furniture. I also assume that synthetic materials are sturdier now than they were in the mid-1960s.

-

[micromachine]

I have thought about this one for quite a while and I think I would use the assault rifle with the best chance of "battlefield pickup" for my area of operations. I know the battlefield is in flux and there is a good chance that even friendlies are armed with opfor weapons and the opfor having familiar weapons.
So, in a behind enemy lines campaign, I would opt for the opfor assault rifle, so I can get spares easily and pickup ammo and magazines off the dead and prisoners. The added plus is that I would make a scout come closer to positively identify me as an enemy.
I would keep my issue weapon and magazines as well, so long as i can leave it in a safe place suitabily disabled so prying eyes and hands don't make a "five finger discount" purchase at my expense. If my party has a vehicle, this is a no brainer. This will keep my options open for its use should a supply of ammunition be located.

[bash]

In game terms, I went with the AK-47/AKM. In both T2k and M2k I've always seen them as common "found" weapons. The Pact flooded the second and third world with them for decades. The proliferation of the AR platform (to the best of my knowledge) in the real world is an artifact of the fall of the iron curtain.

I think the mix of WP and NATO equipment gives a good feel for the setting. After a couple years of cantonment and pulling in stragglers even nominally NATO units aren't going to have homogenous load outs. Even if characters have their originally issued weapons they've likely, in my view, to have picked up AKs just to make scrounging for parts and ammo easier.

[ChalkLine]

My philosophy is always reduced to the following criteria:

Firstly, "will it let me down at a crucial moment"

Secondly "is there plenty of ammunition for it"

I usually go for the AK-74 variants in Euro campaigns as there's buckets of ammo and magazines, it's rock solid and also it doesn't draw undue sniper attention. Really, if I'm some chump holding what everyone's holding and there's a guy with a Gucci gun next to me they're going to whack him first. Similarly if I was to play in the USA it'd be an M16.

[ChalkLine]

Its the AUG for me: nothing against the black rifle, its a solid design, but I feel from a usability point of view the AUG is a handier weapon, especially for mounted troops. If I had to pick a rifle to equip my army, the exact version would be in 6.8spc though, and yes, there are 6.8spc AUGs out there: they are license made in the USA by MSAR.

I have a friend in the ADF and he is not a fan of the AUG/F88 because he finds it's difficult to shoulder with his body armour on. He prefers conventional rifles with a sliding stock so he can adjust it.

[CDAT]

I respect your personal experiences, CDAT, and my intent is not to dismiss it or question your integrity but, excepting your anecdotes, everything I've seen, heard, or read on the topic has been pretty adamant that the AK-47/AKM is a sturdier weapon (i.e. can handle more wear and tear and hard use, and less routine maintenance) than the M16. Of course, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean that the AK is a better overall weapon than the M16.

I agree that the stories out there are about how the AK can be totally abused and still work, and the AR if any dust gets in it, it will jam. However I think that the AK and the AR are much more in the middle. I think it was a forgotten weapon video (or maybe the link was from it, do not remember) where they took both a AR and AK did the same dirt and mud test on them on video. The AR was the one that worked better. (just looked it up it is inrangeTV the AR test https://www.youtube.com/watchv=YAneTFiz5WU and the AK test https://www.youtube.com/watchv=DX73uXs3xGU) There is also the video by Brandon Herrera (https://www.youtube.com/watchv=htkYVB4LaDM) who is about the biggest AK fan that I know of. Based on those videos, and what I have seen in real life both from others using them and using them myself I think that the reliability of the AK is vastly overblown, same as the AR being a jam o'matic, having said that the biggest advantage I see for the AK over the AR is if something needs fixed in a third world good luck for the AR, but the AK I can see you making parts in a back yard garage. Heck I saw quite a few AK, and Mosien who had broken stocks that were just nailed back together, not something that you can do with an AR.

What material are M16A1/A2 buttstocks made out of

I do not know the exact thing that they are made out of, some fiber reinforced polymer. Also this is for GI ones, not the after market (some are good I am sure, but other are just cheap plastic) I was in a LEO AR armorers class and the Colt instructor noticed one of the guys in the class had after market parts, so he asked if he could use one of the forgrips (told him that they would likely be destroyed) and was able to bend them with his arms snapping it in half, he then let the class try to do the same with the GI issue ones, no one was able to even bend them. My understanding is that the for grips and the butt stock are made out of the same, with the butt stock also being filled (where not intended to be empty for the cleaning kit).

I assume weight is a big factor in that decision, and also the age and wear of the original wooden furniture. I also assume that synthetic materials are sturdier now than they were in the mid-1960s.

-

My understanding is that it is because of the stiffness and that they do not swell with the moisture in the air, weight was not noticeable (we had some of both wood and synthetic) we did the same things with both.

Now I am not anti-AK, I think that the AK is just a fine weapon, I am pro AR on the other hand and feel that it is a better overall firearm. Having said that both are tools, both were out, the AK will be easier to rebuild in a TW2k type world, I think that the AR will last longer before it is needed, but this could be my bias so take it for what it it worth.

[Sith]

M16EZ

This doesnt really fit here but doesnt warrant its own thread either.



Ok Which one of you is building an M16EZ

https://www.reddit.com/r/RetroAR/comments/ty00lo/ez_upper_is_done/

[pmulcahy11b]

This doesn't really fit here... but doesn't warrant its own thread either.



Ok... Which one of you is building an M16EZ

https://www.reddit.com/r/RetroAR/com...upper_is_done/

I hope that's not one of those "Ghost Guns..."

Are any of these guys being legal and registering their short-barreled rifles

[HaplessOperator]

Saints Stoner and Sullivan guide us

AR-15 variants for service rifles, hands down.

Manual of arms is faster than a raped ape. Runs better in mud than an AK. Runs even better if you keep 'er wet, even in the desert (the "keep your weapon dry" thing is a sure fire way to have it malfunctioning; environmental contaminants can't seize if they're a liquid), and you can slap just about anything on the platform in any configuration you wish and still have a lighter rifle than the next competitor, and you can trivially upgrade or modify essentially any single part of the rifle imaginable.

Need a rifle the size of an MP5 Mk18 has you covered. Need to reach out and touch someone at 800 Mk12 and 90-grain SMK's got it. Want to convert between the two in a private setup You're two takedown pins and 15 seconds away from a room sweeper to a precision rifle. More exotic workups are easily possible; that same rifle can serve as a 9mm subgun to a .50BMG bolt-action, magazine-fed rifle or anything in between, and with a given lower, fire anything that fits within the 5.56 action length, and if you're not too snooty about upsizing, you've got the AR-10 and SR-25 families of design following essentially the same pattern.

Lefties do fine, too. No proprietary parts switching (which aren't issued along with service rifles most of the time, anyway), no worries about having to physically pull your magazine free if retention isn't required but speed is, allowing you to shortcut the process of gassing your weapon back up, no brass to fly in your face if you're transitioning shoulders (and you will constantly be transitioning shoulders).

With over 500 companies manufacturing parts for the things, and thousands that could if needed, they're better situated than any other country's service rifle for emergency wartime production, especially considering modern design and fabrication methodology for cutting aluminum billet and punching barrel blanks, and the existing aftermarket is probably the richest for any rifle platform in existence. These days, you can turn an AR-15 cheaper and faster than you can most extant AKs.

There's no one rifle that can do everything, but the AR-15 - especially in its modern incarnations - probably comes the closest.

If I were a trifling man, I could also mention that I've never been able to ignore that all these countries with indig service rifles (especially bullpups) tend to have their special operations forces almost universally using some flavor of AR-15 as well.

For the business end of things, an AR-15 is - within most common shootout distances - slinging a round that is going to cause considerably more tissue damage than a 7.62x39, as well, with lighter recoil, faster follow-up on the target, and on a trajectory that isn't like firing a rock from a slingshot.