If I'm not mistaken, the AR15, the predecessor of the M16, was a very effective man-stopper in the early phase of the Viet Nam war.
The story was, the AR15 had fewer "turns" in the barrel for the bullet to follow, and therefore the bullet was less stable once it hit flesh. Once the bullet entered the chest cavity, it caromed here and there bouncing around like a buzzsaw pinball creating massive, horrific wounds.
Once the US Army adopted the AR15 as the new service rifle, it changed a couple of things, and somehow it appears they didn't bother to consult with Eugene Stoner, the designer of the AR15.
They changed the propellant in the cartridge from one that already worked perfectly in the tropics to one that would function in arctic conditions, and everywhere else too. The downside to this is the propellant didn't burn off completely as the original one, and this caused unburned propellant to gunk up the gas operation of the rifle. Usually often, and unfortunately, almost always at the worst time.
Another change was to increase the number of twists in the barrel to give the bullet greater stability in flight. This may have increased the range of the bullet, but the pinball effect in the chest cavity was lost. In addition, if one uses the M16 to shoot beyond a certain range the hydrostatic shock wave effect is lost, so all the shooter achieves is stitching little .22 caliber holes in the body of the enemy.
Discovery Channel did a comparison of the M16 vs. the AK47, and the AK47 won based on its reliability in field conditions (dirt, mud, sand, wet, whatever) and its heavier bullet which would shoot through barricades that the lighter .223 round would not penetrate. Those heavier AK47 bullets most likely go thru walls of apartments and houses in Iraq compared to the .223 ammos our guys use.
Yeah, I can see why our guys would rather use AK's.
|