On 9/1/14 6:53 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 6:39 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 6:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:47:55 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

variants of the AKs. Indeed,
those rifles fire a heavier round but they are less accurate over long
distances than the M16.

That really depends a lot on which variant of the AK you are talking
about but I agree the 7.62x39 is inferior to the 7.62x51 500 yards
down range.
The russian round is closer to a 30-30 and the NATO round is more like
a 30-06


What percentage of fire fights in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria do you
think takes place at anywhere near 500 yards?

Here's a graphic comparing the AR and the AK...you might find it interesting:

http://tacticalgear.com/ak-47-vs-ar-15

Lots of the shooting is at those distances. The Afghans know their
limitations, and the effective range of the M4.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/05/...d-afghanistan/
Sounds like a cover your ass piece.



That's a great answer, Bilious "Lots." Got data?

And your chart shows popularity. Nothing about ballistics. Got data?


I'm not trying to make a point about ballistics. I'm saying you have no
data indicating what percentage of the warfare in which we are engaged
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria is being conducted by troops equipped
with small arms shooting at each other at 500-600 yards.

Try sticking to the subject, eh, and keep your ADD from kicking in.