Good day at the range.

[osan]

vtech?

Are you talking about the .45 H and K SOCOM?

If so, I shot one those, suppressed, and found it doing the same thing, smoky and dirty as all hell. My face and hands were covered in soot after 100 rounds or so.

Go fast fun FTW.

Not HK... maybe I have the name botched... it was that odd .45 FA whose bolt opens and recedes into the handle. Controllable, but the smoke was really weird. The brass emerged with what seemed like a goodly coating of oil on them. Go figger.

[GuerrillaXXI]

I would call that a fair assessment of the weapon. I have also seen high-speed video of them operating FA. As opposed to an AR, which is rock solid, the AK flexes as if it was made of rubber. Give that, it is amazing that you can hit anything other than by dumb luck. But being FA, it is still fun. The M16, however, is far and away the superior weapon in every respect except perhaps reliability under conditions of extreme filth.

Yep, I've seen those videos, too. Pretty eye-opening stuff.

I agree that the M16 is the better overall weapon. I might prefer the AK if I could only own one rifle for the rest of my life and no spare parts, since AKs very rarely break any parts. But under current circumstances I prefer the AR because it's much more accurate than a typical AK, has greater effective range, and penetrates armor better. Its durability and reliability are more than sufficient as long as one allows for parts that wear down, like gas rings and extractor springs.

But what did you think of the shortie M16 with the rate reducer?

Given the full power 5.56 rounds it was very controllable, though if the burst went much past 7 rounds the muzzle began wandering upward. But with plenty of practice one could learn to control it. With lower power rounds it should be very manageable. The 11 inch barrel made it hella loud. Without ears I would expect serious problems for one's hearing. I would also note that the shock wave from the muzzle was on the harsh side. The M60 had a standard barrel, but I have been told that the short barreled guns are painfully thunderous in report and the muzzle blast can give some folks nose bleeds.

I've heard that the shorter-barreled M16 variants are easier to control than the regular ones. I haven't had the opportunity to compare for myself, but I've seen people have trouble keeping more than one bullet from a three-round burst on a paper plate at even 25 yards with a standard-length M16.

At what range would you consider that to be useful?

For directed fire I would say perhaps 75-100 yards tops, if that. They are designed for close quarters work. I would, however, pity to poor slob opening up with one of those in a confined space. Short barrels are always very loud.

Sorry, I meant to ask at what range you'd be able to keep a burst on target from that shorty.

As for the range at which the weapon is effective, 75-100 yards sounds like what I've read elsewhere. The terminal ballistics of those short weapons really suffers, at least with FMJ ammo. And yeah, those things are brutally loud.

I know the regular M16 can be tough to keep on paper except at very short ranges. (My favorite AR is a .50 Beowulf, and I wouldn't dare try that with a fun switch!)

Practically speaking, ARs are good for 300 m. Some can shoot them out to 600 but those tiny bullets lose their oats long before that... not that I'd want to be on the receiving end at any range. For longer ranges the 308 is hard to beat, though a friend of mine is developing the 375 Norma Magnum as we type. That should bridge the rather wide gap between the 338 Norma and Lapua magnums and the .50 BMG. IIRC the 375 should be delivering ca. 6K or 8K lb-ft of energy at the muzzle with something like a 300 or 350 gr. slug. It promises to be something of a revolutionary cartridge and a whole set of weapons systems are being designed around it, several of the multi-barreled variety. Jimmy Sloan is a cartridge designing fool and genius.

Oops, I misspoke: I meant the regular M16 can be tough to keep on paper in burst mode except at very short ranges. When shot carefully, those rifles are very accurate out to 300 m and even further if you have good ammo. But again, I agree with you that the terminal ballistics start to suck after that.

I didn't realize it was a friend of yours who was developing the .375 Norma. Sounds awesome! For the time being I'm investing in the .50 BMG, since AP ammo is available and the rifles are getting much lighter than they used to be (there are some that weigh less than an unloaded M249). Once I have that base adequately covered, I'll investigate some of the newer rounds, and the .375 Norma will definitely be one of them.