20-11-2005, 14:07
|
|
|
|
חבר מתאריך: 19.09.05
הודעות: 1,280
|
|
With all due respect to Ronen Bergman’s interesting article, why should I believe that because of politics, the superior Gal was dropped in favor of the Galil? I believe that at the time the Army considered the most important feature for a replacement for the FN FAL to be reliability and there is no reason to believe that the Galil copied from the AK was anything but that. In fact, I read that in reliability tests of competitive rifles available in the world at the time, the AK was the most successful (and our “new” M16 lost). In my experience in the Sadir and early Miluim, the Galil was an EXCELLENT Infantry rifle. The kind of weapon you can trust your life to no matter what the conditions. I think that if we were involved in a full-scale war again, people would be wishing for a weapon as reliable as the Galil again.
I looked at the Gal models in Beit ha Ossef and they looked very interesting. The original 7.62 NATO model was designed before the Galil in the early 60s and looked like it was inspired by the FAL although I’m not aware of how the internal mechanism worked. The receiver looked like it split open like on the FAL and was the upper part made out of stamped steel. The folding stock looked like a copy from the Karl Gustov submachine gun.
In my opinion, the only legitimate complaint about the Galil was its weight, due to the milled receiver. If they had designed a lighter receiver they could have dropped a kilo in weight (like in the stamped AKM instead of the milled original AK47). I read somewhere that a milled receiver was considered necessary because the 5.56 worked at greater pressure than the original 7.62x39 Russian ammo.
BTW before anyone starts yelling “not accurate”enough-I wish that the bullet groupings I got in the Miluim with the m16 were as small as those that I got in the Sadir with the Galil!
Also about the AK video, the Galil operates exactly the same
נערך לאחרונה ע"י יוסיפון בתאריך 20-11-2005 בשעה 14:35.
|