A summary of Non Restricted 5.56/7.62x39 Black Rifle Options and Prices

I would argue that AK reliability is slightly over rated and comes from the same issues with M16s being thought of unreliable. The first major exposure of the USA to the AKM was in Vietnam, at the same time it's soldiers are given a new rifle and incorrectly told some things (self cleaning etc) and I believe an ammo issue.

Combine that with them facing "A bunch of slant eyed dinks" who have a firearm without said issues in a Jungle environment and ta da an exaggeration is born. The other side has something that works and mine doesn't. I come from the USA! Greatest nation on earth! Surely these peasant yellow farmers armed with something really good if even they can keep it working.

Throw in US Army propaganda to maintain morale "the AKs just for uneducated conscripts" etc and you end up with highly skewed experiences.

To get to the meat of your question. From what I understand (which is very opent to criticism) the Type 81 is not overgassed in the same manner as the AKM. This makes as you say a more pleasant rifle to shoot but in some circumstances can reduce reliability. Does it mean that in 95% of scenarios you will notice a difference? Maybe not.

The other issue is that there is a larger opening into the receiver. While not as large as a VZ.58 for example it is still significant.

The 15,000 round comment is interesting, I'm guessing this is the National Interest article, while they do say this I would put a little healthy skeptism towards it. For example the British Army in regards to the SA80 also claims to have "the most reliable weapons of their type in the world". Having used one for 5 years I say "Doubt".

Not trying to be a ######.. but it seems as though you have no evidence that type 81’s are not more reliable than an AK. The gas issue doesn’t check out... if you want an overgassed gun then crank the gas system onto ‘2’ and you got it.
Has anyone shooting the new type 81’s had any failures? That’s a question to the forum. TI has said that they have had no parts failures but they have had a couple mag catch pins work loose.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to be a ######.. but it seems as though you have no evidence that type 81’s are not more reliable than an AK. The gas issue doesn’t check out... if you want an overgassed gun then crank the gas system onto ‘2’ and you got it.
Has anyone shooting the new type 81’s had any failures? That’s a question to the forum. TI has said that they have had no parts failures but they have had a couple mag catch pins work loose.

No legitimate failures that i have heard of.
 
I would argue that AK reliability is slightly over rated and comes from the same issues with M16s being thought of unreliable. The first major exposure of the USA to the AKM was in Vietnam, at the same time it's soldiers are given a new rifle and incorrectly told some things (self cleaning etc) and I believe an ammo issue.

Combine that with them facing "A bunch of slant eyed dinks" who have a firearm without said issues in a Jungle environment and ta da an exaggeration is born. The other side has something that works and mine doesn't. I come from the USA! Greatest nation on earth! Surely these peasant yellow farmers armed with something really good if even they can keep it working.

Throw in US Army propaganda to maintain morale "the AKs just for uneducated conscripts" etc and you end up with highly skewed experiences.

To get to the meat of your question. From what I understand (which is very opent to criticism) the Type 81 is not overgassed in the same manner as the AKM. This makes as you say a more pleasant rifle to shoot but in some circumstances can reduce reliability. Does it mean that in 95% of scenarios you will notice a difference? Maybe not.

The other issue is that there is a larger opening into the receiver. While not as large as a VZ.58 for example it is still significant.

The 15,000 round comment is interesting, I'm guessing this is the National Interest article, while they do say this I would put a little healthy skeptism towards it. For example the British Army in regards to the SA80 also claims to have "the most reliable weapons of their type in the world". Having used one for 5 years I say "Doubt".

This is the best you could do to describe someone from Vietnam? Or does the quotation marks make it ok?
 
This is the best you could do to describe someone from Vietnam? Or does the quotation marks make it ok?

Get off your virtue signaling moral high horse for 2 seconds.I guess you never watched any Vietnam war documentaries or spoke to any US Vietnam vets. It's how a lot of them used to refer to the Vietnamese. That is why he used quotation marks. You know to quote someone!
 
This is the best you could do to describe someone from Vietnam? Or does the quotation marks make it ok?

I'm taking your question in good faith. It is an interesting question coming from someone who felt it acceptable when faced with a picture of white, red haired children to say:


Was that the best you could do? Have you said "Kick them all" to pictures of Black men or Inuit Children? Or was it ok because they were White?

Words have meaning, not only the literal meaning but the society, culture and feelings that they convey. It's important when looking into historical accounts/situations to look at the mindset/context of the time. At the time your 18 year old White American came from a Nation that was still rocking the success of WW2, had hysterical views on Communism, was significantly richer than South East Asian nations and was a deeply segregated nation along racial lines.

"The god damn gooks" tells us a lot. A superiority complex exists with some racist/nationalist/they're the enemy thought processes. This in turn can impact how the equipment used by the other side is viewed. Surely as a superior white man from the richest nation on earth that wins all wars and is rightly fighting the evil of communism of course anything that THE ENEMY a bunch of peasant gooks is using must be REALLY good if it works in their hands when my American made rifle is failing me.

Black Americans that were involved in the Vietnamese conflict likewise expressed similar attitudes.

Here is a magazine cover from the time where a White American Soldier is telling a Asian American Soldier to "Kill that Gook!, you Gook!"

The Mere Gook Rule is another example of how killing "Gooks" even when unconnected to Enemy forces had very little consequence.

Here is a fantastic video by an Austrian (Or German, I forgot) Historian who outlines The British view on the Japanese army. The video covers how the WW2 era Japanese were essentially seen as "barbaric little yellow monkeys" and this enormously impacted the perception of equipment, tactics, capabilities etc. That attitude swiftly changed.

If we as a society are afraid to write out the words that were spoken at the time while talking specifically about the views of those people then we have fallen to a very low place.

I hope this helps you understand the reasons why these statements while not something we would choose to say about people today are important to not hide. Perhaps you will also reflect on your own heinous racist abuse against redheads, such comments are only expressed by those without souls. Here's an article to help you combat your evil ways.

In my view this is one of the major failings of recently films/documentaries/series and society as a whole. How we have reached the point where we are comfortable with people being killed on screen but not with people saying historically accurate mean phrases is a separate conversation for another thread however.
 
Last edited:
This is the same guy who jumped all over IRG for their covid mags... with his own user name none the less... and now he gets on your case after the offensive comments he made... haha... your excellent reply was more than he deserves.
 
34l4wt.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom