The AK74 fires a round much more similar to the M16 round. It's not a .30 caliber round.
I know. Note that it retains the notoriously reliable and low cost design of the AKM.
The Middle East is flooded with AK's, because when Regan crippled Russia's economy, they sold off all of their excess arms to third world countries. They shipped a whole AK47 factory to Egypt...including QC personal to assure quality. In fact, the last of the TRUE Russian AK's are known as Mata's, if you find one of these at a gun show, jump on it...it's about the best you will ever get, outside of one directly from Russia.
I was under the impression that Israel's version ("Galil", I think?) was the best?
The U.S. military has been bringing the M14 back in some instances, and many special forces units use it for a sniper rifle. They have new variants, that utilize a pistol grip/adjustable stock set up, like most current military rifles. The main problem with the M16 isn't the power of the round, as much as the operating system. If it were a gas piston operation, as opposed to a direct blow back, it would be more efficient. That's why the military switched to 62 grn rounds, instead of the old 55grn rounds.
Yes, but not as an assault rifle, the role it was originally meant to fill. The M14 is a formiddable battle rifle and recent updates make it a designated marksmans rifle, however it suffers from excessive muzzle climb when fired full-auto and it can hardly claim to be revolutionary for being a designated marksman's weapon - SVD Dragunov was the first of those. I believe.
The longer the bullet stays in the barrel, the better it works. The reality is, it would be impossible to retool an M16 to fire a 7.62x51 round
I was under the impression the HK417 did just that?
, however they did try to retool for a 6.2x45, and it was not cost effective, although Bushmaster offers a conversion for their rifles. What they need to do, is accept it's going to be needed, and accept they need to spend the cash, and switch back to the .30 caliber round, in a gas piston operated, AR10 platform. In a perfect world, the military would strike a deal with a company, and return M16's to companies, allow them to refurbish, and re work them into semi auto only rifles, to sell in the civilian market, and get a credit for each rifle, to use towards a new .30 caliber rifle.
Interesting as all that is, what I showcased with the AKM/M16 comparison was Capitalism's lack of efficiency and production of a poorer rifle:
The AK design, though modified, lasted.
The M14 failed in it's original role leadig to speedy replacement by the M16 which garnered a poor reputation and uses too small a round.
When Capitalism tries to replace both these rifles, it fails.
Besides vodka and guns, what do they manufacture and export of any quality? What Russian made products can be found in households outside of the former soviet block? Russian products are garbage and no one wants to buy them.
Au contrair, Russia exports a great deal, just not so much household products. yes, arms are a very common item of sale for Russia, but just look at what they sell; the AKM is the world's weapon of choice, everyone uses Russian tanks and aircraft, even the Greeks use Russian hovercraft.
If they didn't allow imports they would still be standing on lines for toilet paper(that was just a little over 20 years ago.)
If any country went through a revolution and financial collapse like the Soviet Union did the result would be the same
Don't you remember that their 12 and 5 year planned economy was a failure? Here's how it worked. The government planned 500 cars to come out of a plant in a month. The government doesn't ship all of the parts to the factory for the first 2 weeks and the plant sits idle. Paying people to sit on their asses and wait. When the parts come their is a mad rush to make the 500 car quota and they are made shoddy. Don't believe it? Look up Shturmovshchina. This happened with all consumer goods in Russia. They were rationed including food.
That's one example. Look at Capitalism now; it's failing. Look at it in the past; failures, constantly. Every 20 years a collapse.
Wanna see a failed car? Plenty have been produced under Capitalism as well.
Understand what banks do, they lend money. If there were no loans then we would all have to save for the full prices of everything. Cars, houses, the refrigerator or furnace that suddenly broke down. Replace old equipment for my business. You want the government to take over lending? I already showed you that the government institutions collapsed and defaulted.
Private institutions also collapsed. capitalism isn't stable long term.
So by your terms the government takes over all car loans and mortgages and business lending. When people default the government now owns all of this property. Does your new government now have a bureau that sells used cars and store fixtures?
maybe it should. Maybe it shouldn't lend money and people should save up for what they need instead of borrowing.
And what if I default on a loan? Is the government ready to hand me more money? A waiting period? 3 strikes and no more loans? With private banking I can find someone else with terms we can both agree to. Loans are as capitalistic as it comes be it for cars or businesses or banks. Government loans to businesses all of the time. Why not to a bank? They are a business.
True that the best taken care of employees stay the longest. Not every business can support the expected lifestyles you think they all deserve. Pumping gas for 20 years does not command a comfortable retirement. You're pumping the same amount of gas per week after 20 years as you did in your first month.
but does that mean that you don't deserve an accepotable retirement? The way things are now, many necessary jobs are underpaid, leading to things like infections in hospitals because cleaners aren't treated well enough to do their jobs well.
The fact is that there is nothing morally right about the Capitalist system and the top priority of society should be to be morally right.
it's no use having a happy economy and a miserable populace. The only people that will tell you it is are the rich who can guarantee that the funds they already have will keep them rich with minimal effort. No matter how hard the poor work, they can't live well. that's not right.
Just to play devil's advocate - this bit of
kit has helped NASA and the European Space Agency out of several holes. :drool1:
Thank you.
Tits please?
1) The best heavy tank ever made was the german made Tiger and its sucessor the Tiger II, it is with this tank that the ace Michael Wittmann destroyed over a hundred of ennemy tanks and over four hundred allied vehicles. The t324 had one advantage which was that it was built in huge quantities but technically it wasn't par with a Panther or a Tiger german heavy tank
Heavy tanks like the Tiger have gone the way of the dodo. Medium Tanks like the T34 are now known as MBTs and are universal. What does that tell you? MBTs are better.
The T34 had the advantage of superior mobility (Soviet forces tested the Tiger and found it wanting on the basis of mobility), sloped armour (The Tiger had slab sided armour), competitive armament, a smaller silhouette (Many Tigers were destroyed by allied aircraft) and is generally regarded as the best tank of WW2.
I can happily youtube a Western made video which places the Tiger in the top ten but puts the T34 if it will help convince you, but somehow I think you'll fetishise the heavy weapon and forget the war winner.
2) The AK 47 and AK 74 are very robust, none discuss that but they have a very mediocre accuracy.
At the range they're used they don't need to be accurate. Especially not if supplemented with Dragunov SVDs
What is so great about the SCAR? It's just another rifle fetishised because it's the latest thing.
Also these weapons are superior to your soviet era made AK
How so?
and have a far technologically advanced way of manufacturing and use better materials in their construction
Do you really need to make it that good when the AK does the job just fine?
. I could quote you the galil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Galil perhaps one of the finest assault rifles ever made, available in 5.556 ss 109 and 7.62*51 nato and which is a far better and far more accurate rifle than any AK
Isn't the Galil essentially an Israeli clone of an AK? I'm sure the Israelis copied the AK...
3) About the Abrams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Future , it is one of the most solid and versatile tanks ever made, it has seen several fronts and it has done pretty well against enemy main battle tanks.
*yawn* The abrams is so heavy it has fallen through a bridge, the yanks field only anti-armour and very short range anti-personnell rounds for it, she uses a jet-turbine engine (so bad that sicne the T80 Chechnya disaster the Russians have passed legislation banning turbine engined vehicles from their arsenal)
The russian still use an outdated t90
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90.
So it's essentially an upgraded T72? So what? If I remember correctly she features an active defense system which you would fetishise for it's high tech if only it was a Western product. I believe she can also snorkel, am sure she can barrel fire ATGMs, know she has better mobility than an M1, know she can fire anti-infantry and anti-structure rounds (the M1 has none) a greater range, features decoys to draw aerial fire and... *yawn* you get the picture [/quote]The only tanks that match the Abrams are the british Challenger II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2 and the german Leopard II A 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2 The British Chally 2 suffers in mobility compared to the m1, but has better armour (almost indestructible) and firepower. i say it's better than M1. The Leo2 is a formidable tank and money no object, would be my choice if I had my own country and an army to equip.
I can't remember the details off the top of my head, but I believe all 3 come in more expensive than the T90.
5) Socialism is the equal distribution of misery and dumbing down of the society. Are Russians living better now than they used to after the fall of wall? Not, really.
Thank you for so succinctly proving my point; The Russians are not living better under Capitalism.
7) The F-15 in all air forces had a combined air-to-air combat record of 104 kills to 0 losses as of February 2008.[65] No air superiority versions of the F-15 (A/B/C/D models) have been shot down by enemy forces. Over half of F-15 kills were achieved by Israeli Air Force pilots. The strike eagle was used with success in the first and the second gulf war and for the note the f 16 falcon.
So what you're saying is that if you take a formiddable jet which costs the Earth and give it to the best pilots on the Earth, then it's unbeatable when flown against piss poor pilots without AWACS support.
If only all planes produced under Capitalism were like the F15. Maybe you should examine the F104, F4, F35... I could go on.
The F-15E retains an air superiority capability and adds systems, such as advanced imaging and targeting systems, to meet the requirement for all-weather, deep penetration, and night/under-the-weather, air-to-surface attack. Configured with conformal fuel tanks (CFTs), the F-15E deploys worldwide with minimal tanker support and arrives combat-ready. During the Balkan conflict, the F-15E was the only fighter able to attack ground targets around the clock [the F-117 only flew at night]
The F117 was shot down in that conflict. By a 60s era Soviet missile system. used by a 2nd world country. Near torn apart in civil war. So what we're showing here, is that even with all the advantages, Capitalist products fail and Socialist ones succeed.
, in all weather conditions. The F-15E fleet continued to provide support for on-going operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The F-15E performed superbly in Operations DESERT STORM, OAF, OEF and OIF. In 2009, F-15Es delivered 54% of the 2000lb JDAMs and 29% of the 500lb JDAMs employed in that area of operations. However the The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range. Although the F-15C and Su-27P series are similar in many categories, the Su-27 can outperform the F-15C at both long and short ranges. In long-range encounters, with its superior radar, the Su-27 can launch a missile before the F-15C does, so from a purely kinematic standpoint, the Russian fighters outperform the F-15C in the beyond-visual-range fight. The Su-35 phased array radar is superior to the APG-63 Doppler radar in both detection range and tracking capabilities. A few F-15Cs are equipped with the APG-63(V2) Active Electronic Scanned Array (AESA) radar and Fighter Data Link (FDL). Additionally, the Su-35 propulsion system increases the aircraft's maneuverability with thrust vectoring nozzles
Wait, what? I was under the impression that Su35 had no thrust vectoring. Source please?
. Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost). The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed.
yeah, I'm sure the British would never lie about the ability of their military products. It's not like they're busily doing a corrupt arms export business with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern nations.
The Eurofighter is also a proof of European beating Russians and Americans in terms of plane manufacturing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
And yet the Eurofighter failed to intercept a Tu160 when it penetrated British airspace. Lord knows how it would handle multiple supersonic cruise missiles (only Russia and India possess these btw) approaching at different heights from different directions.
The Luftwaffe who used to flight Mig 29s has sold them out to eastern soviet republics and instead of that kept its F 4s, its Tornados and bought alongwith UK, Italy and Spain, the Eurofighter.
8) A low definition TV will never match a big name hi definition plasma TV. That is like watches when you compare soviet made era crap watches to a swiss made watches
If the low def TV costs a fraction of the price and last 4 times as long, I'd rather have the low def one.
it's not just the best TVs that break in 5 years under Capitalism either; it's ALL of them.
you do realise the absurdity of your position, I assume? You're arguing in favour of the practice of ripping you off by selling you a product designed to break so that you then have to re-buy the product.
You really are arguing the case for yourself being sold inferior quality product here.
Under Socialism we would manufacture a better TV that would lost longer and cost less.
In reality, you will find very few Russian made AK47's around the U.S. are either from a Com block country, the Middle East, or China. They really only sold them in bulk, to countries.
I didn't say anything like that, but based on your comment I would say that Capitalists have a better sense of humor.
It is true, I've been there and seen their products throughout Russia. They buy Japanese and Chinese when they can.
Someone is going to argue that the U.S. does too. Yes, but not even close to the same degree. Not by a long shot. Also, many of the Asian products we buy (not all) are U.S. designed. The products the Russians prefer are either U.S. designed or Asian designed, not Russian designed. They are educated (the most) and bright people. This is an economic problem.
Funny, I lived there and remember a mix of chinese, Russian and European products.
No american ones, strangely.
What they do export of great quality is their children with special needs. Unfortunately Putin, who I believe is a dangerous man for Russians and the rest of the world, turned off that export to the U.S. The U.S. has people with the greatest numbers by far that are willing to take on Russian children with special needs. It is sad.
...
I can't find anything in that statement to argue with, so let me just say the following;
I love penis
