M16/M4/AR vs. AK Video

[RocketFoot]

Well, this is a long video featuring Jim Sullivan, co-creator of the M16, trashing the M16 platform. If nothing else, there is some great footage of weapons in action! Watch it and lets hear what you think!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee9_1190725613

[Longshot]

ok,.. I really don't know the answere to this, but how the hell is putting a flashlight and stuff on the end of the M4 going to make it jam more? Is there any logical answere ? I really dont know....

[Kaos]

I've yet to see some one tap silhouettes/xrings at 200 yards accurately with an AK....anyone who can do this near PMSC, I would love to see.

The other issue is to replace all the M4's/M16s out there would be a huge cost to taxpayers. As it stands they could alleviate many issues by switching to a piston upper, getting rid of the usgi mags and going to something like a pmag.

In the little time I've used my AR, the only issues I've had have been magazine related (im running some used surplus mags). Switch to the pmags (which being polymer will during use conform to gun as the bolt carrier group drags across it with ease and switch to a gas piston system and the weapon retains functionality and familiarity while gaining reliability.

Switch to 6.5 or 7.62 uppers if you really want the bigger round...I've heard that AR uppers in 7.62 that are piston driven are more accurate than the equivalent AK.

[vrocco]

As it stands they could alleviate many issues by switching to a piston upper, getting rid of the usgi mags and going to something like a pmag.

I agree with this. Look at the Sig 556.

[arrrrgh15]

You would think with all these "jamming" issues there would be a lot more deserters in the military. I mean, if it's such a jam-o-matic, why would anybody be willing to get behind one and go into harms way?

Or is this some sort of urban legend or marketing ploy?

Nothing is idiot proof. Perhaps most of the "problems" are the result of the user.

And yeah, how in the hell does putting a flashlight on the rail cause more malfunction.

[Hawk]

Sullivan sounds like he is putting down his former work on the M16 to promote his own designs/patents. If I understand what I've read, Stoner initially designed the M16 for 7.62 which Sullivan changed into 5.56 which ended up being the infamous M16. I agree with Kaos, hand the average Joe an AK and have them try to hit a target (COM) at 100-200 yards, then hand them an AR and have them try to do it again. I guarantee they will be much more successful with the AR.

[Jared McLaughlin]

Sounds like mainly rubish to me. Mr. Sullivan can do some fine rifle development, but I have to wonder what sort of rifleman he is. Firstly, my M4 operated just fine, as did many around me. There are methods to keep this system running without excessive effort. The issued round is fine. Well placed shots from a well maintained rifle kills the enemy.

Two big points in this video I take issue with are the length of the rifle's service and the 30 round limit. Firstly, how many people carry 1911's on a daily basis? How long has the M2 Browning been in service? How many issue M-16's and M-4's fire on full auto? Who would use that feature if they did?

Is the Ak-47 and it's variants a poor rifle? I've shot them alot less, and carried them even less than that, but they seem acceptable. They apparently make kills, too. It's one thing to criticize, it's another to find a solution. Replacing the uppers of existing rifles with commercially available piston actuated systems, in a newer caliber might be a good call, but is the marginal utility worth the marginal cost? Good riflemen can make their shot with the rifle they have.

[dc dalton]

Well I used an M16 in the Army and I'll tell you what, I hated it. I can't tell you how many guys in my unit broke them, jammed them on an ongoing basis ... really didn't care for it.

Now I own 3 AKs and I'll tell you what, I have never enjoyed a rifle more in my life. They LOVE abuse, they hit what you aim at and I love the balance and weight of both the fixed stock and the under folder. They are so damn easy to field strip I swear I could teach my dog to to it and last but not least it seems the filthier they get the better they seem to run. I actually saw a video a while back where they dropped one into a mud bog, mushed it around, picked it up and fired away! Now for a combat rifle what more could you ask for. The ONLY thing I don't like is the rear sling clip on the fixed stock model.

[Carnes]

What a load of crap.

The goal of the video is to slam the Army Procurement System. That is fine, and I know little about that, but I am going to tear this story down point by point in regard to its claims that the AR is an inferior weapon system.

I feel that misinformation like that found in the video can spread and serve to seriously undermine the morale of our soldiers without just cause. If I did not know better, this kind of information could lead me to believe that the AR is an inferior platform, which would cause me to loose confidence in my capabilities, and loose trust in my superiors. All that, because some crummy news source wants to try to sensationalize the remote possibility of some nefarious conspiracy. Pitiful.

Anyway, my point by point analysis of the video:

The shameless rhetoric is ridiculous. They start off by saying that the rifle was designed 50 years ago, the same time that Sputnik was launched into space. Then they go on to discuss how much technology has advanced since then. The rhetorical device used to make the AR platform appear outdated is weak. Just because something is old, does not mean it is bad. The wheel has been around for quite a while, I don't think anyone is looking for a more modern design on that.

Also, Sullivan then claims that the rifle is "right exactly where they were when we gave them the M-16 in 1960. They haven't advanced an inch," which is just plain absurd. Think the military uses designations such as M-16 A2, A3 and A4 just for shits and giggles?

So, the claim that the AK is now in it's third generation. So what? What does that have to do with the AR? And by the way, the M-16 A4 is arguably a fourth generation weapon.

Sullivan claims the AK-74 out preforms the M-16 by a margin of 2:1 on full automatic. What is the relevance of that? Our soldiers do not deploy with full automatic M16/M4s.

Then Sullivan's claim that the US cannot win ground wars is pretty bold. I think I have completely run out of respect for Sullivan. I wonder what his motivation is?

Enter Todd Bowers... His rifle 'jammed' twice while he was qualifying on a range. Hmm... I have spent a lot of time on a lot of military ranges. I have seen thousands and thousands of rounds go down range from both AKs and ARs. I have seen hundreds of jams. The vast majority of the time the jams are a result of poor maintenance. And yes, the AKs can and will FTF just as bad as anything when it is poorly maintained or when it has a bad mag.

The announcer goes on to build up the conspiracy about how our shady government intentionally leaves solders with lousy rifles because it wants to make more $$$. Well this may well be the case, and for all I know it is a massive scam. Irregardless that has nothing to do with the quality of the AR platform. Really, I am lead to wonder where the shady business really is, because this report is extremely misleading regarding the quality and reliability of our modern AR platforms.

Oh, here comes the plug for the ultimax. What is funny about that is that the ultimax is that it is a Light Machine Gun. It is not an Individual Rifle. The AK and the AR are both Individual Rifles... Why bring in the ultimax? Shameless plug perhaps? Oh, and the US uses a similar LMG that is made by FN. The FN M249 and M240 are two of the absolute finest rifles I have ever had the pleasure of firing.

Now they plug his 100rnd mag, AKA C-Mag. Want to know something fun? We had some of those when we deployed to Iraq, and they were lousy. There is no need to have a hundred rounds attached to an individual rifle, it is too heavy and bulky... It passes the point of diminishing return. They would be great for a LMG, but hey, the M249 is box fed and fires linked ammo which is far more reliable than that C-Mag crap. It's no wonder the US does not throw its money away on that... It is starting to sound like Sullivan might just be a little bitter for some reason.

Sullivan: "Our soldiers are STILL limited to 30 shot magazines!"

Oh the horror! Our poor soldiers are using a magazine that is light, reliable and easy to manipulate. Sullivan states that the 30 rnd mag will be emptied after 3 seconds of full auto. Well, I guess his C-Mag will be empty after 10 seconds. Ever try to swap out a C-Mag? They do not come in cases that make getting the thing out easy. They are big bulky and unwieldy and they take much more than the five seconds that Sullivan claims it takes to swap a 30 rnd mag. And shame on Sullivan, anyone who takes five freeking seconds to swap a 30 rnd mag on an AR needs to be sent back for remedial training.

I guess this would be a good time for Sullivan to address that a quick mag change is much more difficult to achieve with an AK. Google "AK mag change" It can be done fast, but it is no where near as user friendly as the AR. Funny that they never mention any of that though.

Now they bash the Army for not having an interview with them. I think the Army should have had the interview, but I do not blame them for not wanting to have to send a person to interview with every tom, dick and harry that wants to carry on the never ending AR vs AK debate.

The narrator brings up that the Army's M-4 talking points does not address the ultimax or the hundred round C-Mag at all. Let me reiterate that the Army already uses a very modern LMG, the M249, which makes the argument for the ultimax senseless. And the C-Mag would be good for a LMG but since the M249 is primarily box fed, there is no need for it. These rhetorical arguments amount to a bunch of poppycock.

The show goes on to talk about how the Army is improving other technologies like food. I'm not sure how this is supposed to convince me that the military has some nefarious reason for not using the AK, or some creation made by Sullivan. It seems like the Army is willing to invest a lot of time, money and effort in making sure the soldiers have good food... That would lead me to think that if there were real problems with the individual rifle, the military would be willing to spend time, money and effort on correcting the problem. At least Todd Bowers likes the MREs.

3 Star General James Matt(sp?) comes into the picture now... Unfortunately it appears that the Gen is pretty far from being an expert on the weapon system. I wonder how many people were interviewed before the editors for this program found this gem. He points to an AN-PEQ2 and says "here is a way for putting a red dot..." Well, for those who do not know, the AN-PEQ2 is a unit that houses an Infrared Point Laser and an IR Flood Laser. (neither of these have anything to do with a red dot)
Perhaps the Gen just did not want to go into a lengthy explanation...

But wait, now we have Winslow Freeking Wheeler who describes things such as the AN-PEQ2 as "Extraneous Stuff." The IR Laser/Illuminator used with a Night Vision Goggle will turn the nighttime battlefield into day for the soldier, while leaving the enemy in the dark. This "Extraneous Stuff" makes the advantage of the US soldier over others incredibly overwhelming.

I would love to see statistical evidence regarding the likelihood of lazers and flashlights in regard to making the weapon jam. I would like to see the C-mag get tested also... I bet we would find many more problems with the C-mag.

So now Sullivan the apparent "Tactics Professional" takes the spotlight and says that, "A walking man can't use sights very well. So you fire from the hip, in full automatic." I gotta say, this is blatantly wrong. With the M68 Close Combat Optic, taking well aimed shots while walking is easier than they have ever been. Not to mention, our Army does not support the concept of "Spray and Pray." If a soldier kills an innocent, and they say anything other than, "I was taking well aimed shots at what I perceived to be a threat to my life, or enemy target," that trooper will get to go pound rocks in Leavenworth. Sullivan is just insulting our intelligence by this point. We spend a lot of time focusing on taking well aimed shots from any position, and while on the move. It can be done easily enough with iron sights, and red-dot optics just make it that much easier.

Col McGee then almost brings up one of the absolute most important aspects of why it is wise for the military to stick with the AR platform. Although his comments about procurement may be right, he says the military "likes to stick with and improve on something that they know and understand." We have volumes of information available to us on exactly how the M-4/AR will preform under any imaginable circumstance. If we switch to a new weapon system every 5-10 years, we will never be able to amass the data like we have for the AR.

It's too bad the Col screws the pooch when he says, "but its a 41 year old weapon, come on guys." The weapon has been improved, it runs extremely well, it does its job... If it aint broke, don't fix it. I read somewhere that the US spent close to a million dollars to develop an ink pen that would function in space. I also heard that the Russians just stuck with pencils. Just because something is new does not mean it is better.

Then the 'mastermind' Sullivan explains that the only reason we keep the AR platform is because people don't want to loose their jobs making ARs. Bullshit. If the Army stops buying ARs, then the people who made money building ARs will move on to start making money building whatever the military's new weapon of choice happens to be. What is up with all this conspiracy theory stuff? I mean, I guess it could be true... But I'm not buying it.

Now, there may be a problem with the military procurement system... that is not my point. I am just saying that the AR platform is excellent, and that the story is grossly biased against it. Their gross bias leads me to doubt the credibility of anything else they are saying.

Every soldier should have absolute confidence in the AR platform. When maintained well, it will preform as well as anything out there, if not better. Unfortunately, I think that sometimes soldiers decide in their head that the weapon will not preform well, then subconsciously they slack with the maintenance and end up forcing the weapon to preform poorly. A self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will. Crappy, misleading videos like the one here only make things worse.

All this rhetoric drives me nutz. If I had not personally had to deal with a very significant number of malfunctions with AKs on the range, I would likely still believe that the AK is some magical indestructible weapon that begs to be abused and runs better the worse the conditions are. That's Hollywood for ya.

[Buckster]

+1 for Carnes. Boy I am glad you beat me to it cause I sure didnt want to have to type that.