Do your ranges not have earth barriers !?
Bollocks is it .
The taliban wouldnāt engage at that range unless forced to and I would gamble my entire estate on them not hitting a fucking thing . You could park a column of tanks and at that range they wouldnāt even get a round on one .
They struggle at 300 metres let alone 1000 metres with no optics.
They just didnāt like the gun and came up with a bullshit excuse .
The British army is developing a new weapon ! Well not new new but updated version of the SA80 ā¦SA80A3
1 Like
They have earth barriers at the end and top barriers against overshooting.
http://files.strelnice-marianka-usti-n-l.eu/200000368-9d0239dfc7/50000000.jpg?ph=d369cf0884
Donāt like that .
This is longmoor in the UK itās a military range however itās open to civilians as well .
And of course itās all fenced off behind so you wouldnāt get within a mile of behind the ranges .
@SirWarriant To answer your deleted question, probably just me and from time to time @DrFusselpulli
I dont know of any other dev who would be visiting the Cave.
1 Like
Well Iām not entirely sure what his has to do with what i wrote ( i was referring to M16, and Ak47 ranges) but Iāll take your word on the Vz.58 range.
Something being prohibited doesnāt stop the U.S from using it 
The press originally wouldnāt even publish pictures of dead NVA, or VietCong due to how horrific the wounds were. Which says something, because they had no issue plastering pictures of dead children burnt to a crisp by Napalm.
Yeah i wasnāt sure on the 1000 meter statement, itās also possible that many U.S troops had optics. But i have read many times that U.S troops were able to outrange insurgents armed with Aks, this could be due to training as well and not just their weapons. Ive always heard that M16s are more accurate than AKs due to the longer barrel.
Interesting, but the article is using RT as a source, so iād need a different source to verify this claim. RT often has ādefense analystsā on to say how shitty American equipment is, the F-35 is the main target of this.
I have a hard time believe the AR platform is as garbage against AKs as the article is claiming. Many of the worlds special forces use AR variants.
I can see why the Seals would prefer Aks over m16s in that case due the kind of missions they were sent on. They would often be in the jungle for months so 7.62 would be easily scrounged from dead Vietcong or NVA. And of course the Ak is more more durable, and they were often sent into really rough jungle for weeks if not months at a time crawling through swamps and other shit, something that the M-16 couldnāt handle.
Iām not sure what this book is talking about though. It says the Ak is significantly better than the m-14. When you compare the two the only thing the Ak has on the m14 is durability. M-14 has a much longer range, is more accurate( it was often used for sniping) has a larger round. The two arenāt even the same class of weapon so i found that odd. I also didnāt find any evidence of it being common for infantry men to ditch their m16s for aks, (special forces aside). As stated in here a solider would be in deep shit if he threw away his weapon.
Also according to wikipedia the effective firing range for the Ak-47 is only 350 meters, while the m16 has an effective firing range of 550 meters which is significantly farther.
āWhen these issues were addressed and corrected by the M16A1, the reliability problems decreased greatly.[50] According to a 1968 Department of Army report, the M16A1 rifle achieved widespread acceptance by U.S. troops in Vietnam.[43] āMost men armed with the M16 in Vietnam rated this rifleās performance high, however, many men entertained some misgivings about the M16ās reliability. When asked what weapon they preferred to carry in combat, 85 percent indicated that they wanted either the M16 or its submachine gun [smaller] version, the XM177E2.ā Also āthe M14 was preferred by 15 percent, while less than one percent wished to carry either the Stoner rifle, the AK-47, the carbine or a pistol.ā[43] In March 1970, the āPresidentās Blue Ribbon Defense Panelā concluded that the issuance of the M16 saved the lives of 20,000 U.S. servicemen during the Vietnam War, who would have otherwise died had the M14 remained in service.[61] However, the M16 rifleās reputation continues to suffer.[50][62]ā
It seems the vast majority of the troops were quite happy with their m-16s. Iām guessing that 1% would apply to the SF.
The whole argument simply comes down to cost effectness and weight .
As a soldier you want to carry as little weight as possible . 7.62 weighs mores and there also more expensive to produce .
Then you consider that the majority of contacts are below 500 metres . There really is no need to have 7.62 personal weapons apart from support weapons and marksmen rifles where youāre more likely to be engaging further distances .
Thatās why pretty much every modern equipped military including the Russians use 5.56/5.45now
Aks also tend to be quite a bit heavier than Ars
1 Like
Nyet comrade, Russians always bigger.
Well back to the original topic of m16a1 vs Vz.58, according to Wiki pedia the Vz.58 has an effective firing range of 800 meters vs the m16s 600 meters. So the Vz.58 wins in range, mag size, and durability. I was also very surprised to learn that it is in fact lighter than the m16, which is quite impressive considering it is made mostly of wood and metal (correct me if Iām wrong) and the m16 is aluminium and plastic.
So the Vz.58 appears to be better than the m16a1.
Just for the odd drugs raid 
1 Like
2 Likes
@DrFusselpulli Have you seen this yet? I am surprised I have missed it till now.
Backers begged him to play since alpha combat released.
Thatās crawl and brilliant a
1 Like
Yes I have seen this 
1 Like
guys this is kind of band you will like:
Military ranges are nice, but they are few and far between. Meanwhile there is a normal rifle range 30 minutes from city center in any direction out of Prague. All private, and not many can afford buying 3km of land beyond the target area.[quote=āSirWarriant, post:1690, topic:27880ā]
s. But i have read many times that U.S troops were able to outrange insurgents armed with Aks
[/quote]
That might be due to using M14?
I seriously doubt this could be achieved with M16. On the other hand as @thedivineinfidel pointed out, most Taliban fighters could not hit a truck at medium range, so maybe the point should be that US troops were more effective withing M16 effective range.
They were given choice between M16 and M14. Well, I would take M16 as general purpose rifle too.
Well, I donāt want to spoil the fun hereā¦ but vz.58 is 2.91 kg (6.4 lb).
Vz.58 does not have any wood. It is actually special plastic which contains wood chips. Extremely light and extremely durable.
M16 should be much more controllable in full auto fire. Maybe I will find some more advantages once we take the new AR to the rangeā¦ no time this weekend for that sadly 
I do really hope that it will work better than SW Bodyguard. Had it at range on Thursday. Need to try different ammo, if that wonāt help, will have to return it.
