Laotian man commits suicide with AK47

[CEOCambodiaNews]

Rattanakiri: A 22 year old Laotian man, Sou Leangtak, shot himself with an AK47 after being told off by his parents at 10 pm on April 15, at his home in Hatpok commune, Weun Sai district, Rottanakiri.
Before the incident, the victim was so angry with his parents that he got totally drunk. After that he took his AK 47 gun to commit suicide and died immediately.
The police of criminal and district specialist went to inspect the victim's body. After examination, the police determined that the cause of death was that the victim shot himself through his chin to his head.
The victim's family have taken the body to prepare for the funeral.

Spoiler:

[Duncan]

Not a bad shot for someone that was totally drunk,,,,,,,, or did he do it with two shots.

[tonetone420]

Thing looks like an antique, surprised it went off. It is an AK though.

[that genius]

I'd bet on a 50 year old AK47 100-1 against a piece of shit like the M16

Does Murika use the M16 now?

Ever ask why?

[Kuroneko]

I'd bet on a 50 year old AK47 100-1 against a piece of shit like the M16

Does Murika use the M16 now?

Ever ask why?

They use the M4 which is virtually identical to the M16 except shorter and lighter. Both cycle by direct "impingement", the downside of which is the breach becomes fouled more easily and prone to overheating. They also use the M27 (HK416) in the Marine Corps (AFAIK) which uses a gas piston to cycle the weapon. The weapon runs cleaner and less prone to overheating. Downside its a bit heavier and costs three times as much. There is also discussion about whether to go for 7.62 caliber vs 5.56.

During my time in the military I have had three different personal weapons, the L1A1 (FN FAL), M16 and the F88 Austeyr. The M16 is the only personal weapon that never let me down. But I was using it with the SS109 round and kept the weapon properly cleaned and lubricated. Unfortunately when it was introduced it was given to conscripts without proper information. Don't really want to get into an argument on weapon reliability, but the opinion below sort of covers it.

The reason the M16 gained a reputation for poor reliability was due to those not on the battlefield making decisions on the equipment and what I consider poor planning. First, the M16 was marketed as a “Self-Cleaning Rifle” and was for the most part not issued with cleaning kits. Also, there were no instructions on how to clean the M16. This caused improper maintenance on the weapon, and because it was not getting cleaned, it lead to malfunctions.

On top of this, DuPont, the contractor for the gunpowder informed the Army that they could not manufacture enough gunpowder that was used during testing of the M16. Another manufacturer (Olin Mathieson) offered up powder that met the requirements, but it caused considerably more fouling.

To address these issues, the Army started issuing cleaning kits with solvents, and even distributed a comic-style how-to cleaning manual. Recruits during Basic Combat Training also started receiving proper instructions on how to maintain the rifle.
Then with the update to the M16A1, they added a Chrome Lined Chamber. After this, the M16 series started regaining the confidence of the warfighters back. It’s been a decades long up-hill battle, and I think the early stain on it’s service history will never completely go away. https://www.quora.com/Was-the-M16-really-bad

[John Bingham]

I'd bet on a 50 year old AK47 100-1 against a piece of shit like the M16

Does Murika use the M16 now?

Ever ask why?

They use the M4 which is virtually identical to the M16 except shorter and lighter. Both cycle by direct "impingement", the downside of which is the breach becomes fouled more easily and prone to overheating. They also use the M27 (HK416) in the Marine Corps (AFAIK) which uses a gas piston to cycle the weapon. The weapon runs cleaner and less prone to overheating. Downside its a bit heavier and costs three times as much. There is also discussion about whether to go for 7.62 caliber vs 5.56.

During my time in the military I have had three different personal weapons, the L1A1 (FN FAL), M16 and the F88 Austeyr. The M16 is the only personal weapon that never let me down. But I was using it with the SS109 round and kept the weapon properly cleaned and lubricated. Unfortunately when it was introduced it was given to conscripts without proper information. Don't really want to get into an argument on weapon reliability, but the opinion below sort of covers it.

The reason the M16 gained a reputation for poor reliability was due to those not on the battlefield making decisions on the equipment and what I consider poor planning. First, the M16 was marketed as a “Self-Cleaning Rifle” and was for the most part not issued with cleaning kits. Also, there were no instructions on how to clean the M16. This caused improper maintenance on the weapon, and because it was not getting cleaned, it lead to malfunctions.

On top of this, DuPont, the contractor for the gunpowder informed the Army that they could not manufacture enough gunpowder that was used during testing of the M16. Another manufacturer (Olin Mathieson) offered up powder that met the requirements, but it caused considerably more fouling.

To address these issues, the Army started issuing cleaning kits with solvents, and even distributed a comic-style how-to cleaning manual. Recruits during Basic Combat Training also started receiving proper instructions on how to maintain the rifle.
Then with the update to the M16A1, they added a Chrome Lined Chamber. After this, the M16 series started regaining the confidence of the warfighters back. It’s been a decades long up-hill battle, and I think the early stain on it’s service history will never completely go away. https://www.quora.com/Was-the-M16-really-bad

Good post, I was going to say that after some teething problems it proved to be a good rifle. It has a longer range and is more accurate than AK-47, plus the ammunition is lighter. It is also far better insulated than the AK. The same goes for the AK 74, except it used the 5.45mm rather than 7.62 round, lighter than M16 rounds.

It's interesting how US and other guns are usually accurately named, M2/ M16/ M4 etc, but then a whole range of other rifles are called AK 47. I don't think there are too many Soviet AK 47s in Cambodia, they are more likely to be Type 56 Chinese copies of the AKM, which replaced the AK-47 after 1959. There are AKMS and North Korean Type 58s here too. They are all very alike though so I guess that why they invariably get called AK 47.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compariso ... rvice_life

[Kuroneko]

It's interesting how US and other guns are usually accurately named, M2/ M16/ M4 etc, but then a whole range of other rifles are called AK 47. I don't think there are too many Soviet AK 47s in Cambodia, they are more likely to be Type 56 Chinese copies of the AKM, which replaced the AK-47 after 1959. There are AKMS and North Korean Type 58s here too. They are all very alike though so I guess that why they invariably get called AK 47.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compariso ... rvice_life

I dont think that there are many AK 47's around anywhere as they are rare. AKM's are another story and they are around but not seen them here. The AK47 was not so good and it was the AKM that entered service with the Russians. I knew the AK 47 was no good but could not find any reliable info on the fact. Eventually found this:

Internally, the AK-47 used a simpler, less effective firing mechanism than its descendent. It was prone to out-of-breech shell detonations. The redesigned firing mechanism in the AKM introduced a hammer retarder, to actually stop the firing pin going forward until the shell has gone all the way into the breech. However, out-of-breech detonations are still not uncommon in worn out examples of the AKM where this retarder is no longer working properly:

So, on the whole the Red Army deemed the AK-47 to be a failure, but one that showed great promise, and sent Kalashnikov away to rework it. Kalashnikov concentrated on redesigning features that would make allowances for the often sub-standard facilities the rifles would actually be assembled in, rather than some optimised weapons shop. As a result, the AKM that eventually entered service in 1959 does, in fact, have many of the characteristics people wrongly ascribe to the AK-47.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-int ... -47-rifles

I think that when people go to the ranges they are given 56's and assume they are 47's. As you say they are very alike, but have a fully enclosed front site and underbarrel bayonet which is often removed.

[CEOCambodiaNews]

Here's a clearer photo of the weapon.

[Kuroneko]

Looks like a type 56 rather than an AKM, I say this because of the sloping stock and what looks like the shoulder strap bracket has been cut away on the receiver. AKMs shoulder strap is attached to the stock (AFAIK) However there is no bayonet, but the rope used as a shoulder strap could be obscuring the mount. The odd thing is the front site looks like its not covered like a type 56 and more like an AKM. Of course it could have been modified. That's my guess anyway



Type 56