AR-15 Vs. AK-47 For Dummies... - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AR-15 Vs. AK-47 For Dummies... (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 12/16/2005 3:30:46 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
M855 ammo was never meant to be fired through shorter barrels...its primary design was lengthening the effective range of the A2 variant and interoperability with the M249.

No, M855 doesn't poke pinholes in the enemy. See Dr. Martin Fackler's excellent work, substantiated with the Ammo Oracle's testing.

The reason for 1:7" twist was M856 tracer ammo. To enable a dim trace to 200 meters with a bright trace to 800, a longer bullet was needed. M855 will stabilize in 1:9"

And to repeat the Ammo Oracle, you cannot spin a bullet fast enough to enable staility when the bullet is traveling through a combatant. The twist rate necessary is about 8 turns per inch, an impossible rate. That is about 56 times faster than the A2's 1:7"

Hard to believe a member who has been around this long still hasn't read the oracle isn't it?

Not if you've read his other posts.

Posted: 12/16/2005 3:33:17 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
This is supposed to be a AR vs AK thread.
I say straight up that the Beryl is better than the M4.
Where are all the worshippers in the M4 cult? Swabbing their range toys with Q-Tips?

Hey, I use Q-Tips on my AKs too!

Posted: 12/16/2005 3:38:25 PM EDT

[#3]

Well I'm going to poke my head in and mention that only hits count. In combat, most rounds fired arent hits so the theory goes, carry more ammo, shoot more and get more hits.
Next argument comes along and says with training anybody can make more hits.
True. But that's not the the theory behind SCHV tech.

It also depends on how you look at the problem, not just the problem you are solving.

Posted: 12/16/2005 3:45:30 PM EDT

[#4]

AK-47, the very best there is.

Posted: 12/16/2005 3:51:17 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
AK-47, the very best there is.

Whats that from?
www.tdi-arms.com/images/large.php?id=250&num=8

I love them all dressed in black. The rifle is nice too

Posted: 12/16/2005 3:51:25 PM EDT

[#6]

.

Posted: 12/16/2005 3:55:18 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This is supposed to be a AR vs AK thread.
I say straight up that the Beryl is better than the M4.
Where are all the worshippers in the M4 cult? Swabbing their range toys with Q-Tips?

Hey, I use Q-Tips on my AKs too!

Why? I prefer Simple green and garden hose. Might be hard to do in the snow.

Posted: 12/16/2005 3:58:02 PM EDT

[#8]

Isn't this the general discussion where we could better spend our time arguing about zombies, nazi moderators, and bad mouthing Canada?

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:01:33 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Isn't this the general discussion where we could better spend our time arguing about zombies, nazi moderators, and bad mouthing Canada?

I prefer to ~~bad mouth nazi site staff and~~ kick around the Dutch. Those dirty fucking wood shoe people!

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:08:34 PM EDT

[#10]

so what weapon is best from 50-200m?

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:15:07 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
This is supposed to be a AR vs AK thread.
I say straight up that the Beryl is better than the M4.
Where are all the worshippers in the M4 cult? Swabbing their range toys with Q-Tips?

How many rounds did you put through the Beryl before you decided it was so much better?

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:23:16 PM EDT

[#12]

This is not up to the usual SteyrAUG standards. A few technical errors. The concept is good though.

Quickly:
(as well as .223 NATO for civilian versions) - Wrong. Former ComBloc countries are making their own AKs in 5.56 NATO and dropping the old Soviet calibers.

Generally the .30 caliber (7.62x39) is accepted as more potentially lethal - Wrong. Paging Dr Fackler.

While the rounds eventually killed th Somali the new 62 gr. round was known to leave a clean pin hole in them which allowed them to keep shooting in many cases - Wrong. BHD myths that have been disproven. Forest even wrote a paper on it. It can happen at longer ranges though, just as it can with any rifle.

but an older 1-12 twist 55 gr. AR-15 may not run circles around some of the modern AKMs chambered in 5.45x39 - Wrong. I have tested both. In fact neither of my 5.45s can touch any AR I have ever owned or shot in the accuracy dept. I've read plenty of BS claims but no one dares met me at the range to prove it. I think I have one the best honest groups ever shot with an AK74 clone posted over in the AK section right now, but it was one of those rare events, and not repeatable on demand.

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:23:19 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is supposed to be a AR vs AK thread.
I say straight up that the Beryl is better than the M4.
Where are all the worshippers in the M4 cult? Swabbing their range toys with Q-Tips?

Hey, I use Q-Tips on my AKs too!

Why? I prefer Simple green and garden hose. Might be hard to do in the snow.

Actually I just lube with Q-Tips. Cleaning is just a few swipes with a bore snake and a quick scrub out.

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:26:37 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
For a dense jungle environment where visibility is limited to 50m and the opportunity the maintian a weapon will be restricted the best choice would obviously be a Kalashnikov variant.

For open terrain in a moderate climate where the enemy will be engaged at 200-400m the M-16/AR-15 wouild clearly be the best tool for the job.

Oh hell, just get both.

+ 1 I love my ARs, but I'm eyeing an Arsenal SLR-105 A1

Oh, don't discount the accuracy of those old 1x12 barrels, though. Mine shoots 1 to 1.5 MOA at 100 yards with XM193.

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:27:07 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This is supposed to be a AR vs AK thread.
I say straight up that the Beryl is better than the M4.
Where are all the worshippers in the M4 cult? Swabbing their range toys with Q-Tips?

How many rounds did you put through the Beryl before you decided it was so much better?

ZERO! However I have shot an Arsenal sa in 556 (M-5?) and was very impressed.
How many rounds have you put through any 556 AKs?

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:35:18 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is supposed to be a AR vs AK thread.
I say straight up that the Beryl is better than the M4.
Where are all the worshippers in the M4 cult? Swabbing their range toys with Q-Tips?

How many rounds did you put through the Beryl before you decided it was so much better?

ZERO! However I have shot an Arsenal sa in 556 (M-5?) and was very impressed.
How many rounds have you put through any 556 AKs?

None, thats why I'm not on the internet telling everyone that one or the other is the best hands down. My only experience is with civilian rifles. I have an AK (7.62 x 39) and 2 AR's, I've never had a failure from any of them after thousands of rounds so it would be silly for me to say either is more reliable with any authority. I can say that the AR is far more ergonomic (looks like the Beryl is trying to narrow that gap though) and compared to the 7.62 AK, more accurate.

I agree with Steyr, both are great rifles, just designed according to different philosophies.

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:40:54 PM EDT

[#17]

Just say no

to commie guns.

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:50:46 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The information was based on reports from Somalia.

Which reports would those be?

Mostly those related to Bowden by some members of Ranger and Delta as related in his book Black Hawk Down. I wasn't trying to imply I was privy to some secret knowledge or military data.

I just remember taking note of the account as it was something I had not considered at the time.

I also didn't mean to present it as absolute hard and fast data. It was merely an example I wished to provide of the many variables that needed to be considered prior to a comprehensive comparisson.

The fact that the data on this round is even more comprehensive just goes to reinforce the idea I was attempting to present.

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:52:11 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Oops meant to say SS109 not SS192. Damn 5.7 rounds have infected my brain.

Worse errors have been made on these forums. Trust me.

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:54:44 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Generally the .30 caliber (7.62x39) is accepted as more potentially lethal than either the 5.45 or 5.56 rounds, but the latter rounds are accepted as more accurate.

By who?

Which part are you questioning?

The 7.62x39 being more potentially lethal or the 5.45 being more potentially accurate?

I should also mention that you may be thinkng of the 7N6(?) 5.45 round which had a dum dum effect and based upon reports from Afghanistan was actually more lethal than the 7.62 round.

Posted: 12/16/2005 4:56:40 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
so what weapon is best from 50-200m?

Easy the AK-16.

Posted: 12/16/2005 5:01:56 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
This is not up to the usual SteyrAUG standards. A few technical errors. The concept is good though.

Quickly:
(as well as .223 NATO for civilian versions) - Wrong. Former ComBloc countries are making their own AKs in 5.56 NATO and dropping the old Soviet calibers.

Generally the .30 caliber (7.62x39) is accepted as more potentially lethal - Wrong. Paging Dr Fackler.

While the rounds eventually killed th Somali the new 62 gr. round was known to leave a clean pin hole in them which allowed them to keep shooting in many cases - Wrong. BHD myths that have been disproven. Forest even wrote a paper on it. It can happen at longer ranges though, just as it can with any rifle.

but an older 1-12 twist 55 gr. AR-15 may not run circles around some of the modern AKMs chambered in 5.45x39 - Wrong. I have tested both. In fact neither of my 5.45s can touch any AR I have ever owned or shot in the accuracy dept. I've read plenty of BS claims but no one dares met me at the range to prove it. I think I have one the best honest groups ever shot with an AK74 clone posted over in the AK section right now, but it was one of those rare events, and not repeatable on demand.

Technical errors aside. The point of this post was to mention the many variables that present a direct comparisson of the Kalashnikov and Stoner rifle.

The tech errors exist because I was providing examples from off the top of my head to the best of my memory and I am getting old apparantly.

Also please note, many of the statements you are correcting are not absolutes. I deliberately used wording such as "may not", "could", "was known", "in many cases", "Generally" ,etc. because I was merely providing examples and NOT trying to present definitive examples for direct comparisson as that would have been contrary to the original point of the post.

Posted: 12/16/2005 5:02:46 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Generally the .30 caliber (7.62x39) is accepted as more potentially lethal than either the 5.45 or 5.56 rounds, but the latter rounds are accepted as more accurate.

By who?

Which part are you questioning?

The 7.62x39 being more potentially lethal or the 5.45 being more potentially accurate?

I should also mention that you may be thinkng of the 7N6(?) 5.45 round which had a dum dum effect and based upon reports from Afghanistan was actually more lethal than the 7.62 round.

The part of the 7.62 being more lethal than 5.56. 5.56 (M193) has a much greater wound channel than FMJ 7.62x49 due to fragmentation.

Posted: 12/16/2005 5:04:51 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Not if you've read his other posts.

Get over yourself. If you can't figure out dogs are evolved enough they shouldn't be on the food chain you simply aren't civilized.

You raised a bunch of stupid points that I had already addressed, ran out of material and took your ball and went home. Now you are in a fussy mood just like a child who was corrected.

If you have issue with my other posts by all means raise them and I will address those points as well just as I have done in the past.

Posted: 12/16/2005 5:10:23 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Generally the .30 caliber (7.62x39) is accepted as more potentially lethal than either the 5.45 or 5.56 rounds, but the latter rounds are accepted as more accurate.

By who?

Which part are you questioning?

The 7.62x39 being more potentially lethal or the 5.45 being more potentially accurate?

I should also mention that you may be thinkng of the 7N6(?) 5.45 round which had a dum dum effect and based upon reports from Afghanistan was actually more lethal than the 7.62 round.

The part of the 7.62 being more lethal than 5.56. 5.56 (M193) has a much greater wound channel than FMJ 7.62x49 due to fragmentation.

What I said was "potentially lethal."

And "potentially lethal" is made up of more factors than just terminal ballistics and these include the ability to penetrate cover.

For example a 7.62x39 round will penetrate some trees that a 5.56 round would not, thus reaching the soldier taking cover behind such an obstacle. Thus in that situation being "more lethal."

Furthermore, I began the statement with "Generally" and that usage means the information being presented is NOT an absolute but a generality. I specifically used that wording for a reason.

Posted: 12/16/2005 5:20:51 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Not if you've read his other posts.

Get over yourself. If you can't figure out dogs are evolved enough they shouldn't be on the food chain you simply aren't civilized.

You raised a bunch of stupid points that I had already addressed, ran out of material and took your ball and went home. Now you are in a fussy mood just like a child who was corrected.

If you have issue with my other posts by all means raise them and I will address those points as well just as I have done in the past.

I'm the one that's in a "fussy mood" eh?

Take it to the proper thread, who was the one that was corrected and ran again???

I'm gone for the rest of the night, here's your chance to post a bunch of gibberish without being corrected.

Posted: 12/16/2005 5:23:04 PM EDT

[#27]

AGNTSA

Posted: 12/16/2005 5:28:20 PM EDT

[#28]

What is a Snookems?

Nevermind, I read the other thread.

Posted: 12/16/2005 5:40:28 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

None, thats why I'm not on the internet telling everyone that one or the other is the best hands down. My only experience is with civilian rifles. I have an AK (7.62 x 39) and 2 AR's, I've never had a failure from any of them after thousands of rounds so it would be silly for me to say either is more reliable with any authority. I can say that the AR is far more ergonomic (looks like the Beryl is trying to narrow that gap though) and compared to the 7.62 AK, more accurate.

I agree with Steyr, both are great rifles, just designed according to different philosophies.

I served for three years in the Army Infantry and my experiance with the AR's was with well used A1's and NIB A2's. Never got to shoot a real-deal full auto AK.
FA is more range fun than practical for most shooting senarios IMHO. So I wouldn't under rate your opinion. As far as shooting the exact model, it is important for the 100% yes/no factor but a very informed opinion can be made from handeling similar guns/options.

All that said, how a rifle preforms when wore out and dirty says a lot about it.
Just like a how good a car really is doesn't show untill after 50-75,000 miles.
The old A1's were very unreliable even when clean and the mags were pure crap.
Most AK's even when neglected and beat up are still OK.

The point about the Beryl is that it is made with the same philosophies that brought about M-16A3 and the supposed advantages that the AR series has over all others is mostly gone.
The only things now working in the AR's favor are the faster mag changes, the bolt hold open and greater long range accuracy.

Posted: 12/16/2005 5:43:00 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Technical errors aside. The point of this post was to mention the many variables that present a direct comparisson of the Kalashnikov and Stoner rifle.

In my own experience using red dot and low power optics when engaging targets from 0-100 yards I find nothing substantially different between the AR and AK platforms in 5.56. They are just as fast as one another and I do just as well with one as the other in typical mock rifle engagements.

If I need more precision or go beyond 100 yards the AR starts taking the lead because it gets first shot hits more often than the AK and that lead grows if the targets are numerous, small (as in head size), or 200 to 300 yards downrange.

The only CQB advantages the AR has are the thumb safety (which some AKs have), a empty magazine notification, and a few seconds saved in removing less bulky magazines from pouches and getting the rifle running again. When using an AK it’s never been nothing more than a minor factor to me and might make it a more reliable rifle in extreme conditions.

So in summery:
Under 100 yards the AR or AK are equals.
Over 100 yards the AR takes the lead and dances around the AK as ranges increase even further or targets shrink in size.

Posted: 12/16/2005 5:46:00 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Not if you've read his other posts.

Get over yourself. If you can't figure out dogs are evolved enough they shouldn't be on the food chain you simply aren't civilized.

You raised a bunch of stupid points that I had already addressed, ran out of material and took your ball and went home. Now you are in a fussy mood just like a child who was corrected.

If you have issue with my other posts by all means raise them and I will address those points as well just as I have done in the past.

I'm the one that's in a "fussy mood" eh? Take it to the proper thread, who was the one that was corrected and ran again??? I'm gone for the rest of the night, here's your chance to post a bunch of gibberish without being corrected.

Yeah I did. Your last post was this one:

"I read about that, I think the book was called "Animal Farm"

This discussion has gotten really stupid reallly quickly, you win. The American way is the only way, dogs good, pigs bad."

As you stopped addressing my points and being corrected when you did, there was nothing furthure to correct.

Posted: 12/16/2005 6:08:03 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
The point about the Beryl is that it is made with the same philosophies that brought about M-16A3 and the supposed advantages that the AR series has over all others is mostly gone.
The only things now working in the AR's favor are the faster mag changes, the bolt hold open and greater long range accuracy.

Fair enough. Have you noticed though that when you look at the evolution of each weapon the AK has repeatedly been modified to make it more like an AR, the reverse is not the case (though the gas piston uppers could be taken as a slight step in that direction I guess). How often do armies that use the AR platform switch to the AK platform?

When you add those extra features to make the AK closer to the AR it simply reveals that the AR is clearly superior with one exception, you have to clean it (and you don't want one thats been beat to hell for 20 years). The AR is very reliable if it's taken care of. If they both use the same ammo then the only advantage I can see is durability for the AK. If you treat them both well (as most armies do) and they will both function well... then the ARs advantages far outstrip those of the AK.

Just IMHO

Posted: 12/16/2005 6:10:16 PM EDT

[#33]

tag

Posted: 12/16/2005 6:40:40 PM EDT

[#34]

I like both and agree that the pros and cons of each depend on the scenario.

One thing I like about the AK is the 7.62x39 round. I live in a heavily forested environment and there are real advantages to heavy penetration. Some talk about penetration as if it is a bad thing. I disagee.

Penetration may leave a smaller wound channel but it will turn some cover into concealment and put a hole in my target if it comes to that.

Other than that? AR, hands down.

How about a comparison btwn the M4 and the AKM variants in 7.62x39?
That would interest me.

Penetration has other benefits also:
Sorry to keep showing this pic but I like to show off.

Posted: 12/16/2005 6:42:42 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The point about the Beryl is that it is made with the same philosophies that brought about M-16A3 and the supposed advantages that the AR series has over all others is mostly gone.
The only things now working in the AR's favor are the faster mag changes, the bolt hold open and greater long range accuracy.

Fair enough. Have you noticed though that when you look at the evolution of each weapon the AK has repeatedly been modified to make it more like an AR, the reverse is not the case (though the gas piston uppers could be taken as a slight step in that direction I guess). How often do armies that use the AR platform switch to the AK platform?

When you add those extra features to make the AK closer to the AR it simply reveals that the AR is clearly superior with one exception, you have to clean it (and you don't want one thats been beat to hell for 20 years). The AR is very reliable if it's taken care of. If they both use the same ammo then the only advantage I can see is durability for the AK. If you treat them both well (as most armies do) and they will both function well... then the ARs advantages far outstrip those of the AK.

Just IMHO

The reason the AK has lagged behind the AR in soldier freindly features is due to the Commies total suppression of individual inventiveness and preference for buracratic big leap forward changes.
So the Russians were all ways looking at what we did and copying it. That's why they adopted the 5.45 against Gen. Kalashnikov's wishes.
I don't know of any army that switched from AR to AK, but many of the new Eastern European NATO nations could of switched to the AR and didn't. ~~They didn't pick the British L-85 either~~
That's fighting dirty

I still don't see how faster magazine changes makes for a rifle that far outstrips the AK.

Posted: 12/16/2005 6:45:53 PM EDT

[#36]

Ergonimics
Speed
Accuracy
Mod-ability (optics, etc.)
Less recoil
=
AR15 (5.56x45) variant

Long term dirty reliability
Close range hitting power
Simple operation (i.e., non-screw upable)
Cheap
=
AK47 (7.62x39) variant.

My AR will shoot 1-2MOA out to 300 yards. My AK shoots 4-5 MOA at 50 yards. They each are fun and have their role.

Posted: 12/16/2005 6:54:55 PM EDT

[#37]

Take:

1 M-4

1 7.62x39 underfolder

1 Para FAL

1 Roll of duct tape

And compromise no longer, you can have it all.

Posted: 12/16/2005 7:04:21 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Take:

1 M-4

1 7.62x39 underfolder

1 Para FAL

1 Roll of duct tape

And compromise no longer, you can have it all.

You forgot Ripley's flame thrower

Posted: 12/16/2005 7:06:10 PM EDT

[#39]

And an M-203

Posted: 12/16/2005 7:06:24 PM EDT

[#40]

Love them both...

Posted: 12/16/2005 7:06:41 PM EDT

[#41]

And a Masterkey.

Posted: 12/16/2005 7:07:13 PM EDT

[#42]

And a hernia brace.

Posted: 12/16/2005 8:19:02 PM EDT

[#43]

Calibre, mm 5.45
Muzzle velocity, m/s 840
Cyclic rate of fire, rds/min 600
Sighting range, m 500
Length with fixed bayonet, mm:
with extended butt stock 824
with folded butt stock 586
Weight, kg:
with empty magazine 3.23
with full magazine 3.53
Magazine capacity, rds 30

Compare this to the M4 and you have a fair comparison.

I can't believe I posted in this thread.

Posted: 12/16/2005 10:55:26 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

I still don't see how faster magazine changes makes for a rifle that far outstrips the AK.

Aside from durability the AR has:

a far better safety/function switch
bolt hold open
drop the mag?... just push the button
insert mag?... no rockinig, just insert
modularity
better accuracy
far better sights
overall ergonomics (location of above mentioned functions)
A straight design that lessens muzzle rise
I can build an AR from parts while watching TV

I'll try to think of some more but I'm tired.

Posted: 12/16/2005 11:37:13 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
I heard that the Japanese designed the AK47's chamber to be super strong so that a soldier in the field could pick up any old loose enemy cartridge and shoot it (even if it wouldn't fit in the clip).

Around the time Mattel sold Colt the rights to make the M16, most of the bullets that could be shot out of the AK were made illegal by the Geneva Convention - hence the M16's rise in popularity.

WOW, Thanks for the good information!

Posted: 12/16/2005 11:41:25 PM EDT

[#46]

Yall gonna mess round and put someones eye out.

Posted: 12/17/2005 8:15:49 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I still don't see how faster magazine changes makes for a rifle that far outstrips the AK.

Aside from durability the AR has:

a far better safety/function switch
bolt hold open
drop the mag?... just push the button
insert mag?... no rockinig, just insert
modularity
better accuracy
far better sights
overall ergonomics (location of above mentioned functions)
A straight design that lessens muzzle rise
I can build an AR from parts while watching TV

I'll try to think of some more but I'm tired.

Those are some good points. I think that the ease of building one is a definate advantage to civilians like most of us. I love my AKs, however the AR platform can be assembled very easy, and it is possible to have two uppers and just switch them.

Posted: 12/17/2005 8:24:56 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

I still don't see how faster magazine changes makes for a rifle that far outstrips the AK.

Sure would be if it results in your sustaining a sucking chest wound.

Posted: 12/17/2005 8:48:29 AM EDT

[#49]

I can build an AR from parts while watching TV

ding ding ding ding ding!

On the other hand - ain't nothing wrong with the 7.62x39 at medium ranges. Nor is there a thing wrong with cheap ammo.

Posted: 12/17/2005 9:15:40 AM EDT

[#50]

Steyr,

You're considered a resident expert to many here about the history of many weapons that most folks don't ever get to own, especially those made in Oberndorf, Germany. Because of this, when you post information about ballistics that is GENERALLY WRONG, some people are going to take that information at face value, and the myths and misinformation will continue.

Would it kill you to refresh your data on the ballistic stuff (or just leave it out)? For the children?

-Troy

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AR-15 Vs. AK-47 For Dummies... (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us