The Beast of War : No One Even Bothered To Ask This?!

How in the HELL did Jason Patric's character fix a broken Russian RPG trigger with a part from a British bolt action rifle? This has confused me to no end. I don't own an RPG (obviously), so I don't know if this is even remotely possible. I'd appreciate it if one of you gun gurus on here cleared this up for me. Thanks.

Most militaries teach their personnel not only familiarity of their own weaponry, but the weaponry of other militaries. Sometimes in the field of combat, personnel are also educated in field repair of their own weaponry with most anything, be it auto parts, parts from foreign weaponry or even something in the kitchen junk drawer. With the Russians, their weaponry is designed for simplicity. I own a Romanian version of the AK-47, and can replace most common parts (Trigger pivots, etc.) with other miscellaneous items. Improvisation can mean the difference between a useful soldier and a dead oneRemember "For want of a nail".

Hey Bobby, how do you like the wood stock on that Romanian AK?
Is it easy to maintain and keep looking good?

For England, for home, and for the prize!

Thr Romanian AK is just as hearty as any other model, perhaps the heartiest among the non-Russian AKs. All AKs had milled billet receivers up to a point, and then they were stamped steel. But they still work good. The wood is a light-yet-hard wood: The stock, the pistol grip and both halves of the foregrip. Personally, I'd just as soon trust my life to an AK than an M-16 of any variety, but that's just me.

I will take the M-16

Citizenright1, are you familiar with these weapons?
I carried an M16 for Uncle Sam a couple of years.
They are renowned to be more pin-point accurate than the AK, but you have to be good enough for that to make a difference and need to make a rare shot where the difference matters.
Tolerances are tight and you'd be surprised how easy it is to make one malfunction - great gun if you don't take it anywhere where there's dirt, sand, .
Any decent soldier can take his apart and clean it after training - but it's kind of a pain - lots of parts, tight fit, many nooks and crannies hard to get to.
When it's time to be inspected or turn one in to move on, it's best to cheat with hot water in a big custodial type sink and always use up a large package of Q-tips.
The round travels extremely fast, but the bullet is tiny.
The guns are expensive!
I have an AK just for fun. Accurate enough, unless you're a talented sniper hitman!!! Easy to take down and clean, cheap to buy, those 122 grain 7.62 x 39 rounds aren't as fast as the .223, but alot larger, simple weapon that refuses to jam under severe conditions.
I like the AK-47, especially for the money, not to mention the low-maintenance reliability.

I will still take the M-16 over the Ak-47. In Iraq the Marines were investigating whether or not the troops were executing the insurgents by shootin them in the head. Turns out the standard M-16 was getting headshots at pretty good distances.

Not just academic with me. I had to consider all the facts. I had personal experience to help me decide. All things considered, I put my money on the counter and took my choice - the AK.
I may regret it if I have to defend myself or my family by shooting through a keyhole at 1,000 yards
I qualified sharpshooter with the M-16. Another hit or two and I'd have been expert, but still a long way from being able to blame any deficiencies I might have different targets on the difference between these 2.
If I were in need of food and went deer hunting, I would be cautious to make a humane kill shot. At any sane range within my abilities, the placement of a bullet fired from either weapon would be indistinguishable.
I have some old friends from the Ranger Battalion who could drive nails with a sniper-quality rifle, all their holes touched on a typical qualification.
If I was that good and had more disposable income to spend on something I don't use that often - and whose use is so unlikely to a life or death matter - I might have chosen the AR-15.
Anyone else is certainly free to make their own choice, as long as I don't have to clean it for them!

A little heavier round for the M-16 is useful. I have some 62 grain Power Point Plus Winchester which are about 12% heavier. Supposed to be able to take down a black bear with them, but I wouldn't want to have to prove it.

Actually, my wife has the Colt AR-15, I have a couple Mini-14s. Same twist.

Regarding the M-16 vs. AK rivalry, the Israeli Galil has the best of both worlds!

"How in the HELL did Jason Patric's character fix a broken Russian RPG trigger with a part from a British bolt action rifle?"

I presumed it just needed a spring or something, which you could probably temporarily replace with one from another weapon. Might not be perfect, but good enough for a few shots.

I think that he was able to pull the trigger and sear spring assembly from the Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.III and replace the broken items on the RPG.

Here is a link for assembly instructions:

http://www.surplusrifle.com/smle/rifledisassembly/index.asp

Afghanistan has a robust hodge-podge of weapons from all the armies that have occupied it at one time or another. As I'm sure you realize, knowing how to field strip weapons is standard training. Knowing how to scavenge parts is an acquired skill. Knowing how to cannabilize parts from foreign weapons and substituting them to fix your own weapons is a Russian specialty. These weapons are robust and simple and with a little creativity, you can keep them going in the field.

He actually removed the flat leaf spring for the SMLE rear sight blade to use as a tgrigger spring for the RPG firing mechanism. Plausible. I've never seen an RPG in close detail to compare with the rifle to see if it could really work though.

Also remember that his character was once a member of the intelligence division. As such, he would be trained in OPFOR arms. Or he could just like guns a lot.

At least you didn't notice that the tank itself wasn't even Soviet. It was Israeli.

I may be mistaken, but I believe the tank was a T-55 or T-62 Soviet tank that was modified by the Israeli Army.

Oh, it used to be a Soviet T-55 alright, so you're not mistaken at all. Israel had salvaged a bunch of T-55s. However, the Israeli modifications made the vehicles significantly different, and they were redesignated as the TI-67.

I was wondering about this too, right from the first time I saw it (loved the whole film all the way through, though).
Other than a bit of cinematic shorthand, I rationalized it in a similar way to other responders - that the RPG, in typical Soviet style, was designed for inexpensive, simple manufacture, ease of use, and ease of repair/maintenance. I figured that whatever parts he used from the Enfield, were generic, such as a spring or something, that would essentially "serve in a pinch"
As for the m-16 vs. ak debate let me preface by saying that doing what I did is in no way equivalent to a term of military service but I was at Knob Creek in October of this year, and fired an AK and an M-16 full-auto. So I'm admittedly giving a hurried, superficial first impression.
The AK felt less accurate - had higher recoil and muzzle climb. The M-16 felt more controllable, and was more physically comfortable to shoot (I'm a fairly small guy with not a lot of "padding" - not much fat or muscle at the shoulder area).
I think they are both excellent battlefield weapons, and if I were to have to join a hypothetical army that gave its troops a choice of weapon of issuance, I would pick the M-16, the assumption that there would be an adequate supply of cleaning kits, spare parts, etc. However, if I were fighting guerilla style, or stocking up weapons for an apocalyptic, society disrupting event, and could only choose one, I would probably pick the AK.

Eugene Stoner and Comrade Kalashnikov both designed fine service rifles, each of which is now decades old and still viable as a battlefield weapon. That said, the M-16/AR-15 has the more precise sighting system, a better trigger pull, and its magazine is equipped with a bolt hold-open device to permit slightly faster reloading. By contrast, the AK/AKM series weapons are more utilitarian in function, slightly more robust in construction, and (in the case of the original AK-47) fire a round more suited to modern "mano-a-mano" combat. As the US Army has recently learned to its chagrin, the M-16/M-4 platform has since grown too long in the tooth for serious CQB drill despite the development of the 62-grain steel-core penetrator round. The 5.56 mm (.22 caliber) projectile no longer "packs the gear" to accomplish its missionthe military's next-generation main battle rifle will likely fire a caseless round of 6.0 to 6.5 mm, weighing 80 to 90 grains. Just as the US Army Ordnance Board learned at the turn of the 20th century with the poor performance of its .38-caliber pistols in the Philippines, the slower, heavier, larger-diameter bullet performs better under field conditions than the ultra-light/ultra-fast varmint rounds.

Six ActualOUT!

I think there was a notion afloat for a while that the next-gen caliber would be 6.8mm.
AR-style rifles in 6.8 seem to be getting popular.

Yup,

They researched a bunch of rounds in calibers between 6 and 7mm to find the best round that conformed best to the holy trinity of accuracy, knock-down power, and reasonable controlablity on full auto.

What they found was that 6.5mm was the MOST accurate round, but 7mm had the best knock down power. They compromised at 6.8mm which apparently has the best all-around performance of the 3 parameters.

Which belatedly exonerates the British in their development of their bullpup design of the EM-2 with the .280 cartridge just after WW2.

Unfortunately, we (the US) rammed the M-14 and the NATO round down their throats. The EM-2 could not be modified to fire the 7.62 NATO round, but FN's very nice FAL could be, and the rest is history.

Don't get me wrong.I love the M-14 (and the civilian version the M1a). The Sniper variant is deadly, and the squad version of this weapon packs a better punch in urban combat situations, especially in it's current SOCOM incarnations, compared to the M-16 and M4, but the NATO round is uncontrollable on full auto, and I think that the M4 platform up-calibered to the 6.8mm will be a formidable weapon for CQB.

Jim