Steve Sailer has two interesting columns here and here on the guns of both sides in Iraq. I find it interesting that a Marine in Iraq seems to agree with me rather than The Alpha Environmentalist on a long- running controversy over the M16 vs the Kalashnikov– mainly over reliability, but also over small rather than large(r) bullets.
Actually,as the second entry makes clear, the controversy is less of one once you examine it in detail. If you have a high- quality M16 clone like Jonathan’s Bushmaster, and keep it as clean as he does, you will have no problem. If you were in really nasty battlefield conditions, you’d probably be better off with the (less accurate) AK. The situation with bullet size is similar– would you rather have more ammo or more knockdown power?
We’d both agree on .45 over 9mm!
Fun fact: Mikhail Kalashnikov is a Life Member of the NRA.
Well, to counter the anecdotal hatred of one marine for the M16/M4 I could cite the fact that the Israeli Defence Force recently abandoned the Kalashnikov (Galil/Valmet) system for the M4 . . .
Also, I believe my original stance was that the M4 is the better weapon for a modern, well-supplied armed force, and the Kalashnikov is better for an irregular, ill-supplied force.
But to address specifics: The early problems with jamming in the M16 have long been known to have originated in an ill-advised switch in propellants. That was politics, not weapon deficiency. Also, the early, unstable 55-grain bullet in the M16 was actually infamous for producing nasty wounds, as it tumbled and fragmented immediately on encountering flesh. The Viet Cong called it “The Black Rifle” out of fear, not derision. Only after demands from military leaders for more penetration did we adopt highly stabilized rounds that produce the ineffective “knitting-needle” trauma so unlikely to result in one- (or two- or three-) shot stops against suicidal aggressors. Why the military insists on using cold-war-specific, body-armor-defeating ammunition against an enemy dressed in bathrobes is beyond comprehension. Why not equip every combat squad with the effective M193 round, and include a squad rifle in .50 BMG or even 30/06 for when they need to shoot through something?
With that said, I think there’s little doubt that we would be better served all around by a larger cartridge in the Stoner system. Much speculation revolves around the new 6.8mm, a bold and innovative cartridge ballistically identical to about five dozen existing relatives. My candidate would be a similar round already proven effective in battle against our allies, the British, by a bunch of bearded irregulars.
Ladies and gentlemen, I nominate the 7mm Mauser as the military cartridge of the 21st century.
As to my personal choice of the Bushmaster as my ranch defense weapon, that was easy. I load it with Federal XM193 55-grain ball, which I know will chew up anything it hits. With two reliable 20-round magazines connected together, I have a sub-eight-pound rifle set up to repel any gang that might decide to assault us.
Oh, and . . .yes, it’s time to make the 9mm sidearm obsolete. Give ‘em Glock .40s.
I find it interesting among the mil-bloggers to see the M-14 and the .308/7.62 mm cartridge coming back into favor. Back to the past, indeed.
Steve writes:
Because of price (and my hoard of Russian ammo) my likely “ranch rifle” would be a Saiga AK- action hunting rifle with better sights–pretty good rugged CHEAP rifles. But for that I’d probably get a Bushmaster, but I doubt I could afford one in the foreseeable future, and I rather like the old Russki cartridge.
I’m trying to help Steve with his computer issues – Reid