Hk VS Colt

[Fin]

Weren't those results called into question because an earlier test using the same conditions and lubrication resulted in the m4 jamming only 307 times? Bit of a discrepancy and all that.

 

I may be mistaken but isnt 307 still a higher number than 233, 226 and 127?

 

 

I would love to see another test between the M4, SCAR, HK416, XM8 and at least one of the AK100 series but unless somebody has some VERY high friends that are deep in there pocket the US will never import a Russian weapon to test for there own military. But then again i doubt any will be considered now with the funding problem from teh oil and so on. I'll also play the card of a rifle must do 3 things in order to work

Fire--send the shot accurately---and drop the target

If you cant do the first one the other two are irrelevant

[Weirdguy]

Please, do tell: Which features of the HK416 do not outperform the standard M4?

 

Charging handle for one thing.

 

 

If you call an AK in any caliber accurate, I would highly doubt whether you're being objective in your statement. And they still have worse recoil handling than say, a G36.

 

I would say the sig 550 is more accurate then an M16 at the same distance, and the sig is an AK variant.

[Azulsky]

The G36 is still better, and the XM8 is identical when it comes to the working bits.

 

 

 

God I want to go back to the 60's and tell them to wait for the ar18 so we can put a stop to all this nonsense

 

 

I think that the M4 misrepresents the DI armalites out right now. I need to find it again, but even with small improvements, the M16A4 fared much better than the M4 in a USMC evaluation. The civilian market has stuff the military doesnt feel worth enough to invest it. A Noveske N4 is much much better rifle than the Colt M4, midlength gas systems, higher quality parts, and normal M4's can become quite reliable. I dont think the last word will be said for a long while on this topic, but i think it bests to take cues from people who have to use the systems out in the wire, rather than armchair generals or range kings. The last place to look for objective evidence is from one of the companies.

[Sale]

I would say the sig 550 is more accurate then an M16 at the same distance, and the sig is an AK variant.

I know the close resemblence of the operation of these rifles, but a SIG 550 is not an "AK-variant" by any scale.

 

We can add SIG 550 to the list though. It'll be in worthy company along with HK416, G36, SCAR-L and so on. All of these handle far better and shoot more accurately than an AKM or AK74, and are pretty much just as reliable, if not more so.

 

Point being that while the AKM set a very high standard for the reliability of an infantryman's weapon, there have been other weapons that have met those standards and improved handling and accuracy after that. AKs are still fine and dandy for conscript armies, but they fall short in the accuracy and handling department in more demanding use.

 

-Sale

[expvideo]

I know the close resemblence of the operation of these rifles, but a SIG 550 is not an "AK-variant" by any scale.

 

We can add SIG 550 to the list though. It'll be in worthy company along with HK416, G36, SCAR-L and so on. All of these handle far better and shoot more accurately than an AKM or AK74, and are pretty much just as reliable, if not more so.

 

Point being that while the AKM set a very high standard for the reliability of an infantryman's weapon, there have been other weapons that have met those standards and improved handling and accuracy after that. AKs are still fine and dandy for conscript armies, but they fall short in the accuracy and handling department in more demanding use.

 

-Sale

It's more an AK varient than the HK416 is an M4 varient. BTW, I bolded your BS statement. That's a load of ###### and you know it.

 

And if you think a 5.56 ak is inaccurate, someone is pulling your leg. With an optic, it can perform as well as an M4 with an equivalent optic. The sights aren't as good as an M4 (who uses iron sights anymore), but a stock 5.56 AK will perform as well as a stock 5.56 M4. No better, no worse. And the recoil is very manageable.

 

You obviously don't have a whole lot of experience with AK varients. The Galil and the Sig rifles are both based on the AK design. Have you ever actually shot an AK? Did you at least watch the videos I posted a link for?

[Punkypink]

must this get all unpleasant and mouthy? why can't guys have a nice polite debate? >=(

[Chimpy]

Shh... I just opened my popcorn.

[Punkypink]

At least pass some over, don't hog it all for yrself! (It'd better be the sweet ones and not the salted ones)

[Nitemare1]

At least pass some over, don't hog it all for yrself! (It'd better be the sweet ones and not the salted ones)

 

Oi, quit hogging the sofa, shift up!

[TheKurodaVagrant]

I'm just gonna sit on someone here, there's no space left. I brought a 2L bottle of coke if anyone wants it!

[expvideo]

OK, I'll be honest here. I'm just bored and this thread wasn't interesting enough.

[birchm]

I may be mistaken but isnt 307 still a higher number than 233, 226 and 127?

 

I think the argument is that if your weapon jams only a bit more than what you're looking to replace it with, and arguably the main reason for replacing it is the jamming, then the cost isn't worth it and it won't be replaced.

 

Just out of curiosity, has anyone fired an AK-107, or know anything about the BARS recoil setup on it?

[Fuser]

I may be mistaken but isnt 307 still a higher number than 233, 226 and 127?

I don't think anyone is saying that the M4 is better than the other three in any way...it just isn't. It's an older weapon with inherent design problems. It's pretty obvious that an older, inferior weapon will loose to three state-of-the-art rifles.

 

The real point is, the M4 had 882 stoppages in one test, and 307 in another. That's a difference of 575 stoppages. If anything, that's saying that neither test was conducted properly. Vis a vis, if there's such a huge margin of error, how can anyone say the XM8 won out, if it only beat the SCAR and HK416 by just under 100 stoppages?

 

The test was flawed, and really doesn't prove anything other than that the M4 is inferior two three newer, better designed weapons. Well duh.

[amateurstuntman]

Careful

 

I don't want to fight his battles but I know that Sale has extensive RS experience including a lot with an AK variant.

 

He knows those weapon systems very well.

 

I believe that the biggest issue with accuracy and reliability will always be the soldier.

I can hit a target at 500m with the L85 that my friends couldn't hit with an L86, bearing in mind that the SUSAT is known as a superb optic.

I used an L85A1 in the sand and had 0 stoppages because I kept my rifle clean and put its care before my own.

 

In the desert I saw countless failures of AR weapons because of operator error, it doesn't help that their weapon isn't easy to clean and gets dirty quicker.

The problem was made worse because the US soldiers think they know better than the army and use their own cleaning and lubrication products.

 

UK soldiers only use what they get given in the way they are shown.

[expvideo]

I'm not fighting this point any more, but I would like to chime in that I also have RS experience, including a lot of experience with AK varients.

[Sale]

It's more an AK varient than the HK416 is an M4 varient.

Well I never said the HK416 is an M4-variant either. I'm not the one who's putting weapons in the wrong categories here.

 

BTW, I bolded your BS statement. That's a load of ###### and you know it.

No, I really think that a life-cycle test of a G36, HK416 or SIG against any Russian made AK would show that the AK needs parts replaced sooner. It's not an unbreakable machine. Having a parts failure is still a failure, even if the gun never malfunctions when it's running. For the record, I've never witnessed a malfunction of any kind with a G36 or SIG, but I have had an AK-variant fail to go into battery on me, and seen parts break as well.

 

And if you think a 5.56 ak is inaccurate, someone is pulling your leg. With an optic, it can perform as well as an M4 with an equivalent optic. The sights aren't as good as an M4 (who uses iron sights anymore), but a stock 5.56 AK will perform as well as a stock 5.56 M4. No better, no worse. And the recoil is very manageable.

No-one can pull my leg when I try and see things for myself. For example the 5.56 Saiga of my mate simply isn't mechanically as accurate as my semiautomatic variant of an M4 (with full Colt LE-Carbine upper, so it's comparable and not a "match" model).

 

I've never seen tests where they would have scored equally for accuracy, optics or no optics. A regular AK is just not as accurate as a regular AR-15. Of course if you can't shoot a rifle, either of them would seem equally inaccurate.

 

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show me what kind of groupings you achieve with an AK? Five shots to 150 meters for starters. I'll raise my hat for you if you get under 100mm repeatedly.

 

You obviously don't have a whole lot of experience with AK varients. The Galil and the Sig rifles are both based on the AK design. Have you ever actually shot an AK? Did you at least watch the videos I posted a link for?

Once more, the SIG 550 may have a similar operating mechanism, but it's not an AK-variant in any book. The Galil is quite accurate for an AK, I'll admit that. But if we can pick and choose the best variant, shall we take free-floated precision models of the AR-15 into account as well? Those things put many bolt action rifles to shame...

 

I obviously haven't carried a Sako RK95 (a close 7.62x39 relative of the Galil) for two years in service then, and I guess I've just imagined owning a 7.62x39 Saiga M3 for the past four years as well, not to mention the number of other rifles I've shot in and out of service. You posted some links to videos on the internet so I guess you won this argument.

 

Frankly I couldn't care less about waving a "real gun e-penis" around. The fact is that good modern assault rifles (again, such as the G36 and SIG) are pretty much equal to an AK when it comes to reliability, and more accurate. Maybe a bit more sensitive to dirt, but on the flipside they break parts less often.

 

-----

 

Back on topic, I think even the subject of this thread is biased. The test isn't "HK vs. Colt", but it should be called "HK vs. what the government has contracted Colt to produce". I wonder how many times it has to be said to made clear: Colt offered to make a piston-driven variant of the AR-15 ages ago, but it was rejected by the government. It's not Colt's fault that the military continues to use the direct gas system today. The problems with the M4A1 are related to the design, not the quality of Colt's manufacturing.

 

-Sale

[0nslaught]

Back on topic, I think even the subject of this thread is biased. The test isn't "HK vs. Colt", but it should be called "HK vs. what the government has contracted Colt to produce". I wonder how many times it has to be said to made clear: Colt offered to make a piston-driven variant of the AR-15 ages ago, but it was rejected by the government. It's not Colt's fault that the military continues to use the direct gas system today. The problems with the M4A1 are related to the design, not the quality of Colt's manufacturing.

 

-Sale

 

Huh...thats news to me. I always wondered why Colt didnt make their own gas piston design.

[Kirby1986]

Sale:

 

If I may interject a small observation.

 

We can add SIG 550 to the list though. It'll be in worthy company along with HK416, G36, SCAR-L and so on. All of these handle far better and shoot more accurately than an AKM or AK74, and are pretty much just as reliable, if not more so.

 

Is it particularly fair to compare the SIG 550 with the HK416 and others? Unless I am mistaken, the 550 has a much longer barrel than any of the mentioned weapons.

 

Now, I havent had a vast experience with RS, so I could be well off my rocker.

[Punkypink]

Sale, the last post has just brought up a question in my head:

 

How does the SIG 550, 551 and 552 compare? What are the average grouping results for each rifle fired over the same range? Any data?

[amateurstuntman]

I can't answer that question directly but I can give an equivalent.

 

The L85 has a range of 400m and the L86 with a bipod and slightly longer, heavier barrel has a range of 600m.

 

Obviously the projectile goes farther and a good marksman can shoot farther than 400m with an L85 but those are the numbers the army works off.

 

I've had a 5 shot group at 100m with an L86 of 35mm

With the L85 my best was 50mm, those 15mm are extremely important.

35mm at 100m is 210mm at 600m which makes hitting a bloke a really hard shot 50mm at 100m is 300mm at 600m which is a miss.

 

 

[Sale]

I can't answer that question directly but I can give an equivalent.

 

The L85 has a range of 400m and the L86 with a bipod and slightly longer, heavier barrel has a range of 600m.

 

Obviously the projectile goes farther and a good marksman can shoot farther than 400m with an L85 but those are the numbers the army works off.

 

I've had a 5 shot group at 100m with an L86 of 35mm

With the L85 my best was 50mm, those 15mm are extremely important.

35mm at 100m is 210mm at 600m which makes hitting a bloke a really hard shot 50mm at 100m is 300mm at 600m which is a miss.

Add to that the fact that groupings rarely expand in a completely linear fashion, but rather when you multiply the distance by two, the grouping should be multiplied by 2.2 or so. Depends on a lot of things, but usually groupings expand more and more with the distance.

 

The groupings shot by Amateurstuntman are below the 2 MOA figure, and it's quite impressive for a self-loading military rifle with bulk ammo. There's not much the shooter can do better here. 1 MOA is about 29 mm at 100 meters.

 

Kirby1986: I wasn't comparing those rifles against each other for the sake of this argument. I just pointed out that assault rifles such as these are more accurate (mechanically and practically), compared to an AKM or more modern variants of the AK. It has the longest barrel in the group, but we might as well put the 551 to test and it would still beat the AK.

 

-Sale

[amateurstuntman]

That was my best ever, I love the LSW, I'm big so I don't notice the extra weight so for me it's all upside.

You can't fit a bayonet to it so I got to take a Khukri out with me. That group wasn't even in a competition. Bah.

 

According to the army the L85 is capable of 35mm groups, I had a friend in the army 100 who shot an 18mm in competition.

 

That's amazing. Bloody Ghurkas, someone probably just told him to shoot better than the designed accuracy of the weapon, he just said "Yes sir".

 

What you say about the groups is interesting, my instructors never said that to me, I suppose they were just "dumbing it down" for the wider audience.

I wondered why on a day when I was shooting a nice consistent 100mm at 200m I wasn't getting 200mm at 400m I just put it down to wind and such.

 

[Jagdraben]

I would like to throw a canker in the machine of this argument by pointing out that all new and more current issue M4s, M4A1s, and M16A4s all have free-floated barrels. While the obsolescent M16A2 and AK-74 might have fairly comparable accuracy, the simple fact that the new service rifles are free-floated means that the AKs simply can't touch them. And you cannot free-float the barrel of an AK, without substantially re-designing the whole weapon (whereas no substantial changes are necessary with AR-15s).

 

I would also like to mention that I feel that the Vz.58 is more reliable and better handling than the AK-47/AKM.

[expvideo]

...Frankly I couldn't care less about waving a "real gun e-penis" around. The fact is that good modern assault rifles (again, such as the G36 and SIG) are pretty much equal to an AK when it comes to reliability, and more accurate. Maybe a bit more sensitive to dirt, but on the flipside they break parts less often.

...

I don't disagree with you on this point. I'm not saying that the AK is more accurate than a modern rifle, but writing it off as "inaccurate" is a load of ######. Sure it may not be acheiving 1 moa groupings, but it is not shooting all over the map like some people would have you believe. The AK is a very effective combat rifle. It gets a bad rep for being crappy because of the low price and the 3rd world fighters that tend to carry it. You are absolutely right that there are more accurate combat rifles out there.

That doesn't mean that the AK is not accurate enough to be one of the most effective combat rifles of all time. The AK is not a match grade gun, and no one here is arguing that it is. But it is a lot more accurate than it is given credit for.

 

BTW, telling me that either rifle is equally inaccurate in the hands of someone that doesn't know how to shoot them is a pretty big slap in the face, and insinuates something pretty insulting about me. I did not appreciate that comment.

 

The M4 may be a little bit more accurate than an AK, but it is so marginal of a difference that it can not be considered a difference for a combat rifle. For a competition rifle, the M4 may have a slight advantage, but we aren't talking about competition. We are talking about combat. The AK out performs the M4 dramatically in reliability, but the M4 out performs the AK in ergonomics. The M4 doesn't out perform the AK in accuracy enough to make a valid difference for a combat rifle.

 

The fact of the matter is that the AK is a lot more accurate than it is given credit, and that is because of the image that most people have of the people operating them. The average third world fighter is probably not as skilled a marksman as the average US soldier. If the US soldiers were carrying AKs and the third world fighters were carrying M4s, it might be a popular belief that the AK was the more accurate gun.

 

On paper the M4 does out perform the 5.56 AK in accuracy, but it is such a small difference that it doesn't matter. A free floating AR15 will out perform an AK enough that it makes a difference, but the standard M4 is only going to have a slightly smaller grouping. On paper the M4 may be marginally better, but in the bigger picture, there isn't enough of a difference to be considered a difference. They are both sort of accurate guns. As opposed to very accurate guns and inaccurate guns, like the AK is falsely accused of being.

 

As for reliability, the AK beats prettymuch everything, hands down. But you may be correct about parts having a shorter lifespan. I doubt it, but I don't know so I won't tell you that you are wrong.

 

BTW, what makes a Sig different from an AK? I'm intrigued by your statement that a sig is not an AK varient, but a Galil is.

 

 

ETA: here is a link to technical specs and testing done on the Sig series of rifles:

http://www.biggerhammer.net/sigamt/550/550techinspection/

 

It performed very well. Here are the parts lifespan expectations for these guns:

The service life or individual components is classified into 4 groups as follows:

 

a) min. 10000 rounds for wearing parts of the bolt assembly

min. 15000 rounds barrel life

c) min. 15000 rounds for all other secondary components

d) min. 30000 rounds for major components.

[Royal-Air-Force]

You posted some links to videos on the internet so I guess you won this argument.

 

 

kekeke