And ran over my ACOG with my truck to prove a point.


And the ACOG is fine aside from some cosmetic scratches on the scope cap and LaRue mount.

Parking lot asphalt is cracked, and it popped my truck tire. . . .


Backstory is that one of my roommates started talking smack about my Recce, saying his Vz. 58 will be so much more reliable in a SHTF situation. his main contention was that it had a scope and that "scopes break too ****ing easy."

When I told him to try and break it, he said something about "Cuttign the fiber optics and scratching the lens." and refused to prove his point. I said That if he wouldn't do it, I would. . .

So I grabbed it and ran it over.

When it came time to put his money where his mouth was, ****er chickened out, saying that since I used the rear tire it didn't count cause "all the weight's up front."

(I drive an SUV, weight distributions 53-47. . . .)


God I love ACOGs. . . .

Get the fool to pay for a new tire man. I mean all bets and points to prove aside, he is made of fail and now, thanks to him so is your tire!

Tell him that if he doesn't pay up, you're getting the tire iron out, but not for the tire.

OMFG! ACOG's are tough, you'll have to join the Guard (not the Imperial Guard; Warhammer 40K), learn to drive a tank, and then see if that will do the job to the the ACOG.

As for your POS friend, something to put the point home would be advisable, as to what, bayonet, tire iron, wet towel to the nuts/butt, etc, I don't know.

Let Recce crap all oveer his car/Collect pets crap and lay it over the vehicle in the dead of night.

ACOGs are pretty good, not my choice optic though. We beat the hell out of those things in Iraq and they still work just fine. The M4/M16 is a different story though.

Fragile little babies are they? Reckon they'd pay up for a flat tire in an ACOG test?

After the 1st Gulf/Irag/Oil War, in the UK, there was a breif uproar about how our military equipment tended to wear out, fall apart or just didn't work, specifically when used in hot, dusty, sand covered and moistureless environments.

The goverment and MOD were b lamed, but really, all our rifle, weapons, & tanks etc, and yours (USA) too, were originally designed for fighting in Europe for WW3 with the Soviets and as such Europe is quite wet and not too dusty.

Yes weve all had to improve things and try to keep or better their combat ability at the same time as lessening internal close fitting components blah blah blah.

Our SA80-A2's are doing ok, so long as there either almost cleaned to death, or kept wrapped up until needed, and all air holes/cooling/gas ejection vents are taped over, they're doing ok, but I bet there more fragile than the AR15 based weapons. Albeit not as bad as they were before the Royal Ordenance/HK redesign; where they action could be jamed by pushing in/minor denting of the metal reciever/stock.

At least the AR15 family isn't as aflicted as ours has been, if you ingnore there original introduction issues by the DoD (improper cartridge powder - lack of cleaning kit and no jam-fix aids; all to cut costs).

Sorry to get a bit off topic.

Nah, thats ok. It raises an interesting point though because the original M-16 was plagued with issues in Vietnam in very wet and hot conditions. I wonder, perhaps the A1 and A2 were redesigned with that sort of climate in mind and perhaps created an issue when it came to the desert.

AK-47 is the only way to go. Swamp, snow, desert, jungle, it just keeps workin


But running an ACOG over with a truck . If i had one there would be no way i would do that.

I know the thing have to be rugged to be functional in combat, but the point that asphalt breaks before the ACOG...

I don't think the climate really had much to do with the design. Regardless of climate the M16/M4 is just outright unreliable, we got brand spankin new M4s before we deployed to Iraq and those who didn't get an M4 got an old M16A4. Regardless of which one you had though, if you breathed on that weapon wrong it would jam on you.

The Magazines they issue us are horrible, everything is packed into the receiver tightly, which leaves little room for error, and gas impingement is a horrible gas system to begin.

I've got an AK47(Romanian) at home and I love that rifle. It's more compact, feels lighter, I'd like to think I could beat a man to death with those magazines, the bolt has a nice heavy feel to it, and the safety is pretty much idiot proof. Oh yeah, and it never jams. I've put over 600 rounds through it without cleaning or lubrication of any kind, and it has worked beautifully.

Bottom line, if I was headed back to Iraq and they gave me a choice between an AK47 and an M16/M4, I'd take the AK47 in a heartbeat.

Edit: btw if there are words out of place/mixed just ignore that, I'm pretty drunk right now

The Ak-47 has a great design but there are plenty of rifles that have emulated it that come with newer fancier features and whiz bang rails for adding your mods to. I'd probably put my money on a nice SIG or Galil over even a new Kalashnikov ... although, an An-94 is also pretty neat.

Also, the 16 is not without its merits. Its more accurate then the AK, has a different kind of recoil which you could argue is superior for aimed bursts.

And Phoenix, I don't think its just that the Ak 'feels' lighter. I know unloaded it is in fact lighter, thanks to the shorter barrel.

Wouldn't it be pretty easy for you to bring your own magazines in your personal gear? Or is that a big no no??

There's a limit to what you can and can't bring. You can bring your own gear and your own high speed M16 mags(although everyone will just make fun of you). But bringin it back is a different story, customs can be a pain in the ass.

IMO rails serve no real purpose, except so people can waste a bunch of money on fancy little addons that aren't of any real necessity. Plus it's kind of like, "Look over here at our cool little shiny rails and thing-a-majigs so you don't notice how crappy our weapon really is".

The M16/M4 is born of the same stubbornness of the military that I see everyday, unwilling to admit they're wrong when everyone knows they are, and instead force it down the throats of everyone underneath them. No different than the "It's good because I say it is" mentality that I see in these sorry excuses for leaders I have.

The military does not care if the weapons they have are fucntional, that is the least of their concerns. As long as it looks shiny and pretty and projects that false image of the military to the public, they're happy. I will tell you right now that 75% of the crew served weapons we used in Iraq were damaged to the point where they could not fire. Yet we still used them the entire deployments. Out of 12 .50 cals we had, 3 of them actually worked. Did this bother our chain of command? No, their only concern was that the weapons looked clean and "professional", they didn't give a rat's ass if it actually worked or not. The gunners brought these issues up with the armorer and the chain of command, but they failed to actually address the issue. The trucks themselves weren't any better, most of them were held together with 5/50 cord and zip ties.

I'm just going to end my rant now cause if not I'm just going to piss myself off more. It's been a long week, had to go on a joke of a field op, had to work on sunday, and then get held at work until 10:00PM, only to wake up tomorrow at 4:30AM.

I would just like everyone that everything you see, or hear, about the Marine Corps is a complete and total sham. It is nothing more than a college fraternity with guns that don't work. And this is a general consensus, it's not just me who thinks this.

Kraz, I'm sorry for derailing your topic, but I will say that ACOGs are probably the only decent piece of gear we've got.

Well to be fair to your chain of command etc. its been pretty common knowledge the Marine get the arse end of most defence acquisitions for a long time, hence the surprises everyone's gotten on the V-22 Osprey. I mean you guys still field the M1A1 yeah? Thats the sort of thing that countries like Australia and Saudi Arabia get given and the Marine Corp considers that fine?

As for the 50cal's no surprise there. My bet is the 9 out of 12 you speak of shot at Nazi's once upon a time.

And on the subject of ACOG's being the only decent piece of equipment, have you considered other forces might be even worse off then that? I know Australia isn't. I believe 1 in 5 infantry-men get assigned a scope railed Steyr with an ACOG (whoever gets bests marks at the range). However thats all before you mention the fact that the Steyr just doesn't work and every time we get deployed we swap them quickly at the US armoury. Even more so have a think about other large scale militaries for a second. India, Russia and China get an even shorter end of the stick. Hell they can't even afford standardised equipment most of the time (Just look at Russia's recent use of tanks in Georgia). And on top of that India's still using SLR's ... semi-auto 7.62x51mm Belgian rifles ... they were great 60 years ago but now ... migod imagine how they feel being outgunned by a bunch of Tutsi's in the Congo!

Equipment woes are a trouble, I'm not trying to debate you on that ... but militaries are renowned for being ragtag units, spending more time trying to keep their gear working then actually fighting their enemy and that even applied in the heat of WW2.

The experience of Australian troops there, fighting alongside the Marine Corp in Pacific in fact probably puts you guys up on a pedestal for equipment. Our guys went to war with a rifle, a bayonet and a hat as their only guaranteed equipment. Boots were a luxury as were shovels or grenades. When they set up fortifications or did the like, the Marines would take sympathy on them and dole out US made equipment like it was candy ... and hence our troops came back thinking you guys were too well equipped.

I think you will find the Marines have a culture of preferring older equipment, because it is proven reliable.

The Marine Corp primary job is still amphibious assault, (even though they are most often deployed otherwise now) and for that they need very reliable equipment.

They were still using Willy's jeeps until a short while ago, and only begrudgingly gave up the M14 rifle. They don't do it because they get the arse end of procurement, they choose to stick with reliable equipment.

You're right to a degree but its a double edged blade. Asking for equipment to be proven before you use it means you have to wait until its had the **** beaten out of it by the Army. And given that the philosophy is that the Marines clear the way for the army ... that means each new generation of equipment gets tested AFTER the marines get shot to **** on the beaches.

that's some pretty tarnishing stuff you tell Phoenix! I hope your weapons won't fail you when you really need them...

and wow, the Indians are still using old FALs?

Our crappy military put them in the museum 25 years ago. Great rifles, but kinda sensitive I've heard

I've heard good things about the FNC though. Some ex-grunts I know told me you could beat a horse to death with it and it would still fire. And of course the Minimi's and MAGs, they're extremely beloved.

My gripe isn't with having old equipment, my gripe is that they give us all of this new gear and tell us that it's the best there is and it will never fail us and then it breaks the first time we use it. Then when we try to jimmy rig it as best we can to make it work, they get all pissed off at us because we altered the gear from the way it looks. My point is that they give us new gear that just doesn't cut it, and they care more about how it looks than how it functions.

I.E. The new M777 howitzers we just got, we started off with 6, 5 of them so far are dead-lined. So we have 1 working howitzer after 4 months of training. But the only thing they care about is whether or not the guns look clean. Also when we got these guns they told us they would rarely break, and that they were the best guns out there. The only real redeeming factor of those guns is the digital system, which goes down half the time.

Yeah but lets be fair ... they're a 155mm howitzer ... I mean thats a MASSIVE technological leap over the previous crappy system ain't it? I mean honestly, sounds like you're complaining about being upgunned soldier ... get over it and make em shiny!
[/sarcasm]

Ever had a ride in an Osprey? Can they haul an M-777?

Haven't ridden in an Osprey, been on a C-17 and C-130, but that's all. Arty doesn't do alot of flyin unless it's to Iraq/Afghanistan. Besides that though I don't trust the lifting shackles on the M777s. When you get a brand new shiny howitzer, never fired, straight from the factory, and a lifting shackle falls off. It's kind of bad.

Most of the .50's in the service are on rebuild #5 or 6.

And most have been blown up at least once cause people dont check the ****ing headspace and the timing every time they break down and reassemble the weapon. From what your describing, it sounds like your armors aint doing their ****ing jobs, if they can't keep a Ma Duece running.

The M-777 is a sweet piece of kit. Problem is that the carriage is a POS. Thats what happens when you design a complex, lightweight item like that, then contract the worst possible manufacture to fabricate it. . . .


As for the M-16/M-4 issue. . .

You may not believe me when I say it, Phoenix, but the M-16/M-4 is probably one of the better platforms around. It has its issues, but there isn't a weapons platform out there that doesn't.

SA-80: POS. Jamomatic.
G-36: Problems with reciever cracking when dropped.
AUG: Issues with magazines MELTING when exposed to anything stronger than water. . Austrailia apparently screwed their domestic AUG's up somehow to the point they are regarded as a horrible weapon. . . . .

I've shot a LOT of weapons man. You name it, I've probably shot it. They all have issues. The M-16 platform has the fewest, apart from the Sig-550. But the Swiss are the only ones who use it, and they have't been in a shooting war in a loooong time. . . . .


And if you'll describe the problems you were having, I can tell ya how to fix them.

My $$$ on the 'old' M-16A4's was that they were Failing to feed/return to battery. . .

Our armorers were doing their job, with the help of the gunners. The problem was that the chain of command wasn't taken it up higher and they couldn't get the replacement parts they needed. We did however get 2 brand spankin new .50 cals the last couple of weeks of the deployment and those worked beautifully.

As for head space and timing, that I can tell you, wasn't it because they preach head space and timing constantly. The first things you do in a non-combat situation when you get on a .50 cal is clear it and then check the head space and timing to make sure it's good. Though most people do forget to bump it up into its timing window.

As for the M777, the carriage is the least of the problems. The kicker is the digital, scavenge, and hydraulic systems. This last field op we took out 3 guns, 2 of those guns are now dead-lined. One of them(my gun) due to it leaking hydraulic fluid from the breech collar and yoke. The other because of complete hydro-strut failure, basically once you drop the gun the only way to get it back up is to dig 2 huge *** holes and drag it up to the bump-stop with a 7ton. Another gun is dead-lined for over a year because of a hairline scratch on one of the free floating pistons inside the nitrogen tank causing the OHT and nitrogen to mix together(very bad since that could cause the tube to slam into the ground). The list pretty much goes on and on, none of these problems can be prevented with 1st echelon maintenance either.

Overall the M777 is a POS, sure the M198 is heavier, clunkier, and slower, but you can beat the hell out of it all day long and it'll just keep on goin.

I'm not saying the M16 isn't a good weapon, I'm saying it's not up to the task of handling everything mother nature is gonna throw at it. Rolling around the Iraq desert my M4 wasn't worth a damn, regardless of how clean I kept it.