- Messages
- 1,310
- Reactions
- 911
While I agree that the AK is probably a better overall battle weapon than an AR, I think your Ford vs. Chevy analysis is more than a bit over-the-top skewed towards the AK. The Russians thought that the 5.56 NATO cartridge was 'ridiculous' enough to develop a new AK series around their own 5.45 version.
A system that IMO beats all three...is as accurate as an AR, simpler than and as robust as an AK, and as hard hitting as an M14...is the direct impingement system of the French MAS 49/56. The French certainly aren't known for their engineering, but with this rifle they almost hit a home run. If they hadn't limited it to a 10-round magazine and a proprietary 7.5 caliber, the M14 and G3 would have been stillborn.
Keith
Actually, we already had a great battle rifle called the M1 Garand that outperfomed the 49/56. Your analogy is the same with any gun. If they used a better round this, or a different firing mechnis that. If the AR hadn't beenmade to dust sage rat's, it would be incredible as well. But it was made for sage rats. And the MAS does suck. So there goes your analogy.
As far as the Russia' being lulled into trusting a varmint round, they need to remember that great American sodiers do not come from our carbine round. American soldiers are great even when hampered with such a foolish gun and cartridge. That the Russians or others would try to capitalize on that is a no-brainer. That anyone would equate American success to a horrible gun and round(the same reason that troops have been dusting off every M14 and 1911 that they can find to adequately fight) is almost funny. American soldiers are the best because they fight and win no matter the situation. We used to win more decisively with a .30.