16,874 rounds of Freedom Munitions through the Knight's Armament Company SR-15 MOD2. Zero cleanings, Zero malfunctions.https://www.facebook.com/ballisticradio/photos/a.354410478023122.1073741831.277229719074532/578454525618715
Lubed every 800-1,600 rounds with Wilson Combat grease.
15,350 rounds of Freedom Munitions (Official) through the Knight's Armament Company SR-15 MOD2 (the last 350 of them after having been submerged multiple times in 50 pounds of sand)https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=571969806267187
Zero cleanings.
Zero malfunctions. (1 soft piece of brass failed to extract 5,000-6,000 rounds ago, but was not counted against the gun)
Still shooting sub 1 MOA groups.
ETA: In response to the "Open the bolt and pour sand directly into the action then see if it runs comments."
I'll do that as soon as the people leaving me those comments post video of them opening the trays to their Xbox, pouring sand in them, and seeing if they still run...
But: M4s are not inherently unreliable. My nephew has done too many tours in the sandbox as a Marine, and his M4 Colt on last rotation never hiccuped from trainup though redeployment. He saw action, came back wounded on that tour. Also, I HAD a CAI kit build M70 folder that could put 10 rds in 1.5 inches at 50 yards with Wolf. My VZ 58 cannot do that. I have not seen that much difference from my SARs to my VZ. The VZ has an edge in accuracy, but not leaps and bounds.
Penetration and Fragmentation are key to the .223/5.56 ammo. Bullets that penetrate 10-12"? or higher are usually preferred. Generally FMJ bullets begin to fragment at 2500-2700 fps or higher. OTM/BTHP/SMK bullets generally begin to fragment at 2200-2300 fps or higher. Soft Point (SP) Ammo generally begins to fragment at 2000 fps or higher. Ballistic Tip (BT) ammo generally begins to fragment at 1900 fps or higher.http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=281405
WoW! I get on an AK website and cannot get away from the AR worshipers. Now I find another awesome weapon I have been using hard for the last year, and a nice forum. I should be glad that not many know about these jewels, but here again someone has to defend the.......I quit.
He used an m4a1 with SOPMOD kit which is an extensive accessory kit that doesn't change what the base weapon is. It allows for rail, better sights,sling, etc. the base gun is exact specs issued to the common grunt. (I know because he just texted me). My point is that you can buy a semi auto copy of the m4 made by colt with the very same TDP, for about 300 less than a comparable VZ 58 from czechppont IF you can find one. That would be an apples to apples comparison. Or compare to an AK like a Bulgarian Arsenal which costs $150 more than the Colt. The colt will more readily accept tons of accessories ranging from cheap to gold plated, and come with sights you can use extremely well OTB, much better than the AK/VZ.
I'm not an AR worshipper and own more on the AK side than AR. But it is more straightforward to compare apples to apples.
Gents: no my nephew is MARSOC, and did use a colt M4 on that deployment. I'm looking at a picture of him right now and yes it's an M4.
I know for a fact that the vast majority of Army SOCOM elements, SF, 160th and Ranger Bn's, all modify their M4's internally, new bolt and carrier, triggers, polish job, etc. And that's if they are not already using very high quality piston M4 variants.
In other words even if they were issued to the unit as mil spec rifles 90% of SOCOM units will have their armorers rebuild them with high quality internals and polish and tune everything before they end up in the operators hands. Keep in mind I served in the Army from 1996-2005 and was only exposed to several different USASOC units from 1999-2005, in addition to serving with several long tabbed Senior NCO's.
Quote01-19-11, 21:17
I hate to derail a thread... but are you absolutely hell-bent on using one of those coatings?
I ask because I do not think any of them offer any quantifiable advantage to the end-user.
I have used Ion Bond, Teflon-Nickel, Nickel-Boron (Exo) and NP3 on many different gun parts (including AR BCGs). While they certainly look nice and (sometimes) wipe off easy, they don't offer me a quantifiable upgrade for the amount of money invested.
I still have to use acquire and use lube, clean BCG parts and generally maintain my rifle just like I did before. The BCG and affected parts still wear.
In fact, I found many of the above coatings to be inferior to the 'ol tried and true parkerizing. I've had several of the above coatings chip, peel or?in the case of a moderately abused M60 bolt?flake off. That never happens with park.
I like new technology and all, but I'm not sold on the new push to "super coatings" fad just yet. There are too many panaceas being peddled right now and I think we should let the dust settle before wasting more money on miracle cures.
Manganese phosphate has been kicking ass on AR BCGs since the 1960s.
01-19-11, 22:05
The first M16s I was issued were HC. They dated from the 1960s. They shat all over parkerizing, which the Army switched to for largely cosmetic reasons. I carried some that were 20+ years old with no signs of flaking. A most durable "fad."
Park doesn't flake off, but it does wear off very rapidly. It also causes hydrogen embrittlement, which is relevant to small, treated metal parts such as bolt lugs and extractors.
I have used HC successfully in my ARs for 20 years. I took my own HC BCG downrange and swapped out for the issue garbage.
So, yes, I'm sure.:)
I will gladly spend another $100 on a critical internal component before wasting money on real fads, such as 6 angles of rail gewgaw, flipping things or 19 point slings that do nothing to improve the mechanical function of the weapon.
I'm looking for Rc numbers, Cx and sources.
Thanks.:)
01-21-11, 11:47
http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=3&f=123&t=241681
Bolt/carrier groups. Top is the early AR-15 and M16 bolt group, no forward assist cuts. Later transitional M16 bolt group is not pictured (mix of chrome and parked parts). Second down is the early XM16E1 bolt group, has added forward assist cuts. Next is the late XM16E1 and M16 and early M16A1 bolt group, now parked (transitional bolt groups are a mix of chrome and parked parts). Third from bottom is the later C marked M16/A1 bolt group. Second from bottom is the M16A2 bolt group. Bottom is the M16A4 bolt group, it is parked a lighter color:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/variation%20guide/carriersright.jpg)
Stoner intended and designed hard chrome. Parkerizing was a cosmetic change by the Army, for "tactical" reasons, since chrome is shiny.
Chrome operating mass, combined with this chromed extension, led to almost flawless functioning regardless of sand, muck, carbon.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/variation%20guide/MPC09chromeextension.jpg)
As I was able to do several years of side by side comparison of the two types, I consider it very worth it.
01-23-11, 10:35
I shot chrome and park side by side for 5 years. I won't say the park are crap by comparison, but they are definitely second tier, if for no other reason than maintenance. The extra $50 or so for chrome is recouped in the first five cleanings, in time and materials saved. Unless someone believes chrome is INFERIOR in function.
If the chrome avoids one jam at the wrong time, and statistically it will, it's worth it.
At the extreme end, I saw a sealed container of M16s that were put away wet and dirty. They were opened up 12 weeks later, because someone decided it might be a good idea to double check before an IG visit.
Parked assys, rusted shut into the lugs, unsalvageable, trash.
Chrome assys as above, required replacement of rusty hammers and some very serious cleaning and oiling, but were functional.
It doesn't matter how good the materials and workmanship are when oxygen comes calling.
I'm tempted to do a salt water immersion test. I have a spare BCG I could donate.
01-24-11, 21:10
My experience was that the hard chrome ran significantly better in all circumstances. There's not much difference for the first few dozen rounds, but after that, it's noticeable.
Bunches of people (who are wrong:)) will disagree with me, but lube IS NOT the solution to second-rate function. Installing better components is the solution. As many people learn the hard way in the Sandbox, oil + Arabian dust = mud. Oil is a FIELD REPAIR for a rough running AR. If you can't run it without oil, it is mechanically inadequate.
Quote01-26-11, 18:34
This is from the current ARMY TM 9-1005-319-23&P
NOTE
There are bolts and bolt carriers on fielded rifles, some with chrome-plated exterior surface finishes
and some with phosphate coating Both finishes are acceptable under certain operational requirements
and or restrictions Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for divisional combat units Chrome
plated bolt carriers are acceptable for divisional noncombat units and training center units. Chromeplated
and phosphate-coated bolt assemblies, bolt carrier assemblies, and repair parts for these
assemblies may be intermixed In any combination, with the following exception:
Phosphate-coated bolt carriers are required for all deployable and deploying units Chrome-plated bolt
carriers are acceptable for nondeployable and training center units.
01-26-11, 18:46
As I noted in another thread, this has nothing to do with function, and is strictly a cosmetic issue because "chrome is shiny." They're afraid it will show up when it's illuminated by muzzle flash or some crap.
Notice they don't consider the bolt a problem if chromed, just the carrier.
This is why when you design a weapon, you give the infantrymen sticks and send them out to whack snakes while the engineers do the work. Every time the Army has stuck its dick in the M16, they've ****ed it up worse.
This matches the pattern of problems with the M14, Garand and previous weapons.
Just because it's milspec does not make it smart. In fact, usually the opposite.
I believe Kuleck noted in one of his books that the Army keeps insisting the M16 will be replaced "within a couple of years" and refusing to accept Colt, FN and other proposals for upgrades as "Wasted money."
Sorry, but with respect, after 25 years in service, "The manual says so" means dick to me. The manual was usually written by ****stick.
I just wanna thank everyone for hijacking my thread on why I chose a VZ. 58 platform rifle and making it all about AR's, on a CZ forum no less! Thanks!
Get a Glock!I just wanna thank everyone for hijacking my thread on why I chose a VZ. 58 platform rifle and making it all about AR's, on a CZ forum no less! Thanks!
I just wanna thank everyone for hijacking my thread on why I chose a VZ. 58 platform rifle and making it all about AR's, on a CZ forum no less! Thanks!
I just wanna thank everyone for hijacking my thread on why I chose a VZ. 58 platform rifle and making it all about AR's, on a CZ forum no less! Thanks![/quote]
Your 2nd video was about the AR15, and whether it is suitable for defensive purposes... Yes, it diverted into AR15, but I enjoyed the discussion, sorry that you didn't.
What it comes down to is competing philosophies...
If I had to chose one military sporter, the choice would be a VZ58 or variant, as I like 7.62x39 as a compromise cartridge, and I think the VZ58 is the best weapon that utilizes this caliber...
However, if you're looking at a SHTF situation you can carry less rounds of 7.62x39, and most being steel case, is much more likely to corrode in the elements and generally speaking should be expected to be less likely to be found. So you need something in 5.56 as well if considering a SHTF situation where you're relying on battlefield pickups for ammo supply (which IMO is any actual SHTF situation). So you're faced with 2 proven platforms in 5.56 IMO -- the Galil or the AR. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the Galil, but still recognize the importance of knowing how to run an AR... From an availability and cost standpoint, it's pretty tough to fault a quality built AR for the price (and realizing they can be made to be more reliable than typically indicated), especially if it's a backup rather than primary weapon. And as mentioned previously, the 5.56 round is intended to be a rifle round. Carbines are compromises, but I'd think a 16" barrel is the minimum length to start with... With 18 even better, and 20" is what it was designed for. 7.62x39 is carbine round best suited for barrels of 12-16", w/ 16" being what it was designed for...
As far as caliber selection, ballistics, etc, both 7.62x39 and 5.56 have their merits in specific circumstances. In a VZ58, I can't make the case for a 5.56 choice over a 7.62x39. And I can't make the case, for my needs, for the VZ58 over the Galil or AR in 5.56 either. It's recent and new production, and I can't get on board w/ the polymer AR magwell (and despite liking tilt lock mags, the polymer 5.56 VZ58 mags are also a non-starter for me). YMMV.
Recognizing cost of ammo, differing roles, etc, I really think a solid case can be made for having both a semi auto 7.62x39 carbine, a semi auto 5.56 rifle, and a bolt action full caliber rifle in your arsenal. I'm also a fan of pistol carbines and pistols of the same caliber. And the obligatory 22lr rifle(s). And I view shotguns as a niche weapon only to be utilized at the unit level in a self defense role, not by an individual. Muskets have no place in a modern home/personal defense plan IMO, and most hunting, etc, uses of shotguns are more efficiently done w/ a properly selected rifle. Only shotgun use I personally see as valuable in a self defense role is the duckbill attachments as an improvised and repeatable claymore. Again, YMMV.
Lessons learned:
1. At close range, reduced recoil loads seem to shoot a tighter pattern. But the difference is small, i.e., 1 3/4 to 4 inches. As always, you have to aim a shotgun at close range. The patterns are tight.
2. At close range, reduced recoil loads seem to shoot a tighter pattern. But the difference is small, i.e., 1 3/4 to 4 inches. As always, you have to aim a shotgun at close range. The patterns are tight.
At moderate ranges (20 yards), the loads had an average spread of around 9 to 17 inches. This is getting big enough that, unless carefully aimed, many pellets will miss a bad guy.
3. At long ranges, even 45 yards, you will miss with more pellets that you will hit with. The question might be, ?Why would you shoot at someone at 45 yards?? Well, if he is at 45 yards and shooting at me, I will return fire. If a shotgun is all I have, I will use that. But understand that you will have a lot of missed pellets.
4. Reduced recoil loads are easier on the shoulder to shoot. But, you don?t get something for nothing. That also means that they will not have the total energy that a heavier load will have. You have to make a choice and go with it.
The Box O? Truth is loaded with 12 sheets of 5/8? sheetrock, backed up by a jug of water to try to ?catch? anything that might penetrate all 12 boards.
It is backed-up by a wall of bricks.
[...]
All shots were from a measured 12 feet from the muzzle to the first wall.
[...]
This is the first shot.
This load was Remington 2 3/4?, #4 Buck, 27 pellets.
It penetrated 6 sheets and bounced off the 7th sheet.
[...]
I then loaded a round of Remington 2 3/4?, 00 Buck, 9 pellets.
This load penetrated 7 boards, 3 pellets went through the 8th board, and one pellet was stuck in the 9th board.
First, we loaded the box with 12 sheets of 5/8 sheetrock, which is also called wallboard in some areas. Since it takes 2 sheets per wall, this is the thickness of 6 interior walls.
[...]
First, I shot it with my M-17 S&W, .22 LR HP. It penetrated 6 sheets and bounced off the seventh sheet. That would be the equivalent of 3 interior walls. And that?s only a .22 pistol.
[...]
.22 Long Rifle (Wildcats) ? 4 boards and bounced off 5th board.
9MM JHP (Federal) ? 8 boards, bounced off 9th.
.45ACP (Federal Hydrashocks) ? 7 boards, bounced off 8th.
Amazingly, none expanded at all. The nose just filled up with pine.
[...]
Notice that the XM-193 is tumbling.
We pulled the sixth sheet and that?s about where it first tumbled.
[...]
Here are the two exits. Notice, again, that they were tumbling.
I shot my 16? AR with XM-193.
We don?t know how many boards it would have penetrated, as it was still moving after exiting the twelfth board.
Started out with some ammo that Arowneragain sent me, some Glazer Blue Tip 9mm..308 and 45-70 went through all 12 wallboards but had varying effects against the backstop.
I shot it out of my Beretta and it went through 6 boards of drywall and dented the 7th.
This is the jacket and the BBs twere lose on the bottom of the BoT.
It put an almost 3/4? hole through the boards before stopping.
At the request of Peekay, I shot a .357 Magnum 158 grain JHP out of my 6? Colt Python.
Much to our surprise, it was stopped by the 10th board after going through 9 boards. It was fully expanded.
I was so surprised, that I did it again, but got the same results.
Who?d a thunk it? The .357 Magnum is supposed to be a big penetrator.
Tman used his Romanian SAR2, in 5.45 X 39 with Wolf ammo to shoot the box.
It went through all 12 boards, busted the water jug, but bounced off the wood in front of the bricks.
This is the last board and the spent round.
Kind of easy to see how it made the hole.
I then tried a frangible .223 that Hardshell sent me to try.
They were Federal 50 grain, Frangible rounds.
This round went through 8 boards and bounced off the 9th board.
Lessons learned:
1. Contrary to what we have been told, XM-193 does not seem to ?fragment? when shot into drywall walls. After we were through for the day, we even shot several more rounds of XM-193 into the walls to see if we could get one to fragment. They did not. It is clear that they were tumbling and deviating from the flight path, but they were still penetrating the walls. Now, before anyone says it, No, I do not know how much damage they would do to someone after the 4th wall. But they would do some damage as they were still penetrating.
2. Remington 55 grain JSP and Frangible 5.56 also penetrated all 4 walls. So did the .30 Carbine. When shooting rifles, walls are concealment, not cover.
3. 00 Buck penetrates 4 walls with ease. It is a great ?Stopping? round, but there is a price to pay. Until someone invents a ?Phaser? like on Star Trek, anything that will stop a bad guy, will also penetrate several walls.
4. Birdshot does not excessively penetrate drywall walls. But it does not penetrate deeply enough to reach a bad guy?s vital organs. Birdshot makes a nasty but shallow wound. It is not a good Stopper. Use Birdshot for little birds. Use 00 Buckshot for bad guys.
5. The sun was shining, it was a lovely day, and it was fun shooting stuff.
While this thread is titled AK vs VZ58, the 2nd video/post by OP is why not an AR instead of the VZ either...
Based on those prompts, this evolved into a platform comparison thread and once the heat data was posted I didn't see the likelihood of much discussion beyond "it is what it is" and "heat stresses metal" and "heat evaporates lube and/or more quickly degrades it lubricity capability, depending on lube type," so I didn't think it merited standalone... And of recent threads, thought that this was the most appropriate recent discussion to add these data points to.