[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Question about combat ranges. (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/20/2005 8:14:19 AM EDT
|
I don't know how many times I've read some AK vs. AR thread where someone points out that the AR will always win because of its accuracy at long ranges. This argument seems to be made alot, regarding the AR's medium and long distance accuracy (beyond 200 yards or so). My question is this: How much of infantry combat actually takes place at ranges longer than 200 yards? I'm excluding sniper activity with this question, because I feel that sniper warfare is an entirely different beast in general. So, does 50% of real world infantry combat take place at over 200 yards? 40%? 30%? 20%? |
|
I don't know an exact figure, but have heard not much takes place at more than 300 yards these days. However, the extra reach certainly isn't a bad thing, especialy with the current use of various optics. 500 yards isn't that far away, and it pays to have a rifle that can go out that far if you need it. |
Historically (over the last 100 years+) 50% of the combat takes place at 100y or less. Something like 80% of combat takes place at 200y or less. IIRC in Iraq for the first year the average combat distance is something like 36 yards - I don't know if that still holds true. But remember this - an AK with 6-8moa accuracy is going to have a much harder time hitting that guy who is takeing advantage of cover than the similaly skilled man who shoots a rifle with 2-4moa of accuracy. |
I don't doubt that. I'm wondering how often an infantryman is going to need it. |
OK, so assuming a given rifle can maintain under 4MOA in semi-auto fire and is reliable, that's all that matters for 80% of infantry combat? Edited to add: If this is the case, what real difference is there between the effectiveness of the M4 and the AK74 at standard combat ranges? Or the M4 and the British bullpup? The M4 and the G36? Seems like any of these firearms could perform similarly at 80% of standard combat ranges. The only real difference I can see would be the training of the infantryman. |
It would appear so.
The differences are in ergonomics and in terminal effectivness.
M4 MUCH better ergonomics (easier to do magazine changes etc..). Not to mention the M4 is much more reliable.
Each of the rifles has there own set of advantages/disadvantages. In the end its who is the better trained soldier that matters the most. |
That would be interesting to find out more information about. |
I think other people have pointed out that the vast majority of combat takes place at under 200 yds, with much taking place under 100. The issue to me is not only the inherent greater accuracy of the AR platform (for those 20% of other situations - and for precise shots, since not all shots will be a nice full-body targets. If I can see someone's head at 200 yds, I'd MUCH rather have the AR). However, the reason I don't own any AKs, but have a number of ARs, is that the sights on the AK suck ass, and optics are not easily mounted or interchanged. I have no beef with the AK system, and have great respect for the SIG 5xx rifles that is essentially the AK system with better sights, ergonomics, etc. - but in a comparison between a stock AR and a stock AK, the combination of slightly better accuracy (even in under 200 yds) and superior sights, makes the AR my preference. |
|
I'm not a soldier. Never have been, either, but,... It does not matter what the average distance is. What matters is that you provide a weapon that works in ALL conditions in which the military finds itself - up close and personal, at the limits of visibility and everywhere in between. Open desert will tend towards longer distance engagements. Urban fighting can be much closer in. A good weapon will do it all. |
Actually, optics on an AK are extremely easy to mount or interchange. Have you tried it? All it involves is sliding the optics mount onto the base on the left side of the AK, and then using the clamp to secure it. Swapping different optics can be done in seconds. AK iron sights aren't the greatest for ranges of over 200 yards, but for under 200 their fine. In fact, I find that they put much less of a strain on my eyes and allow for much faster target acquisition than the AR sights. What more, many if not most AK optics allow you to use the iron sights at will. Some AR optic setups also allow that too, but not as many. My point is that for ranges under 200 yards, the AK sights are fine. Besides, depending on your preferences you can put mojo sights on the AK that work similar to AR sights. The irons are a matter of personal preference. Basically, your argument about sights and optics is really nothing more than a matter of personal preference. As far as optics, the AR really doesn't have much on the AK. There is a selection of red dot, magnification, and night sight optics for either. So once again, inside 200 yards, how much advantage does the AR offer over any of its counterparts? If you go by reliability, the AK and G36 are frontrunners. The 5.45 performs similarly, though not equally, to the 5.56 in accuracy and wounding potential so there's not much difference there. Ergonomics are entirely personal preference (I personally don't care for the ergonomics of the AR platform as much). Ease of magazine change and the safety operation may go to the AR. Etc. Etc. |
Why choose a weapon that forces you to close to engage, when you can have a weapon that allows you to engage from beyond the maximum range of the enemy? |
|
the way i saw it in videos, 90% of the bad guys firing their AK's and 10%RPG's on our side 80% air to land missile, 10% Bazooka'sh.gif, 7% 50cal MC and 2% SAW MC and 1% M4. they must be using M4 for CQB which is 3 to 25 yards |
You are absolutely correct . . . but the current experience in combat is against AK's which could be best described as poorly maintained . . . if they are maintained at all. A friend of mine described a situation in which he and his squaddies were no less than 50 and no more than 100 yds from 3 terrorists . . . standing or kneeling to aim . . . hosed all three and never had to fear for their health as the terrs never came close to hit them. About 5 seconds of engagement, or so. He claimed that he would not be overly worried about avoiding fire from a terrorist at more than 50 yds, because their fire is so inaccurate. Between shot-out barrels, poor action in the receiver and crazed operators, it is a miracle that they ever hit anything. |
Good observation. My personal problem witht he AK stems primarily from the poor ergonomics, including the poor safety positioning. |
Ah yes, the safety positioning does certainly have its drawbacks on the AK. Some have mentioned combat in Iraq. Iraq is a classic example of how our better trained troops, equiped with an assortment of superior mechanized armor, heavy weapons, night vision optics, and body armor, are able to easily dominate a poorly trained group of poorly equiped terrorists using poorly maintained AK's. It's hardly an accurate comparison of the capabilities of the AK vs. the AR. |
|
While the AR/M-16 family is more accurate at longer ranges, I've read about instances where insurgents/terrorists took multiple hits at 600 yards and got up & ran away. At longer ranges where velocity is dropping off, the bullet is losing the energy it needs to create the characteristic wound channel seen at closer ranges. This is stuff I've read. I haven't actually gone out and shot people at various ranges to verify this. 
|
I didn't realize that adding optics to the AK was as conveinient as that - it always LOOKS like it involves bolting weird crap to the side of the gun, and didn't look like it was easy, quick or stable. I guess I've learned something today.  I'd still disagree that the short sight radius and the AK sights are "as good" as the AR sights, and that may be where INDIRECTLY a lot of the claims about better AR accuracy come from - but I would agree with others here that many of the differences in reported accuracy may be the result of poorly maintained AKs in the hands of poorly trained individuals, against well-maintained ARs in the hands of well-trained soldiers. I still PREFER the AR, however. 
|
|
Just recently there was a program on TV comparing Stoner's AR with Kalashnikov's AK. I've long been aware of the accuracy difference between the AR and the AK; 2 M.O.A. w/ combat ammo for the AR vs approx. 4 M.O.A. for the AK, but the program REALLY drove the full meaning of this home with a firing range shooting comparison. At 200 yards, the AR was able to keep ALL aimed shots in the silhouette target's kill zone. The AK scored ONE PERIPHERAL hit!!!!!! Basically, 4 M.O.A. means not being able to hit a man sized target at 200 yards with AIMED fire. ...............That's all I needed to see. |
4moa is 8" @200y - plenty of accuracy to hit an exposed man. The problem is they rarely expose themselves long enough at that range. Remember you can shoot 6moa and score a perfect score on the Army's Riflequalificaiton test - and that has man sized targets to 300M. Did the same guy shoot at both targets (if not then it could be the shooter)? If it was it could be the shooters inexperience with the open sights. Which while poor, they are good enought to hit a standard Army target at 200M consistantly. IMHO the M4 is a better weapon - but at 200y against targets in the open, minimally trained soldiers should be able to score hits all day with either firearm. |
Something one should always keep in mind when considering choice of weapon and/or ammo: Hope for the best, but ALWAYS plan for the worst case scenario. The AR offers consistently better accuracy than the AK at all ranges. It also uses a much more lethal round. Add in the superior ergonomics, and the ONLY advantage of the AK is its ability to keep running in a few instances that would stop an AR. |
|
I have shot at a very good and difficult combat range many times. This range consists of 15 lanes, each of which has approximately 10 pop-up/traversing man sized targets, from 10m to 500m. The targets are electronically scored: A hit causes the target to drop. Some may pop right back up for another shot...some may not. By mixing and matching the targets from the inner one at 10m to the 500m one, the range operators can really add to the difficulty. In a day's shooting, I would normally expend about 1500 rounds. When we shot there, I saw lots of different rifles, from very expensive, tricked out ARs to rebuilt Garands...and just about everything in between. Now...having said that, here are my observations, FWIW: -Only my son consistantly hit the 500m target with his M1 Garand and his M1A. Most of us shooting Mouse guns had a difficult time reaching out that far. Remember, this is a TIMED match...so we had about 5 seconds at the most to get a shot or two off...and MORE targets were coming up. -From 200-400m, the longer barreled AR type rifles, the FALs and especially the AR HBARS with scopes like the ACOG did very well. -From 10-100m, the M4geries, CARs and the AKs did well, as did the other similar rifles. My AR with a compact ACOG and bipod was very effective from 100-300m. In close, I had to work VERY fast to successfully engage the one course of fire that included 5 targets spread out about 20degs in azimuth and maybe 50m in distance...and at least one was moving at an acute tangent to the others...simulating a charging enemy grunt attempting a flanking movement. My AK has an MOA of about 4-6 with standard open sights. I'm happy with that. I can consistantly hit a man sized target well at 100m offhand. I'm not sure what the MOA is on my 20" HBAR but it is very tight and I feel confident I can hit an 8" target at 300m pretty consistantly. |
4 M.O.A. is emphatically NOT "plenty of accuracy". And the problems don't stop there. Because the truth is, 4 M.O.A. for the AK is being charitable. 5 to 6 M.O.A. is more the norm for those guns. And the problems don't end there. Because if you're taking ONE aimed shot at a target you're dealing with only a statistical probability that the shot will fall to any PARTICULAR place within a given circle. Look, don't misunderstand me. I am fully willing to give the AK it's due. It is an excellent assault rifle. But I'm talking about a select fire weapon there. As a semi-auto only weapon, the AK is distinctly mediocre. And that's being kind. |
Ahh I miss those days...
The biggest problem for most was SEEING those targets. When F4YR put on his 3x Compact ACOG - those 500m targets were no longer as big a deal. And they were really easy when I used his 24" varmint rig with the Super Sniper... |
Sure it is. Like I indicated 6 MOA gets you 'Expert' in the Army. Heck the MIL-SPEC for the M16A2 is 4.8" at 100y, the SPEC for the M4 is 5" at 100y (they will accept rifles that are 'only' 4-5 moa accurate) [MIL-STD 63997B(AR) section 6.9 page 56] and [MIL-C-70599A section 3.4.6 p10]. The target is 10moa wide at 200M (20") - even with one of the bad (6moa) AKs that gives you 4 moa of 'wobble' - and you can still keep all your shots on the target.
I agree with you. However even AKs should be able to consistantly tag a man sized target at 200m. |
Mogadishu had lots of cases where a 'skinny' took several 5.56 hits without being stopped. Supposedly this was due to the prominant usage of armor piercing rounds that would poke neat little .22 holes in the target without tumbling or fragmenting. My brother's best friend is in Iraq right now in a fire team. His job is to clear buildings once hostiles have been located. I asked him about how effective the 5.56 was in putting an enemy out of action. His response, from his own experience, was that it often took three hits from the 5.56 to effectively put down an enemy. Hardly a one shot wonder cartridge. If and when the 5.56 fragments or tumbles, it can cause tremendous trauma. The reality of the matter is that the 5.56 doesn't always perform that way. |
Please name these 'many' cases. I read BHD and only found 2 cases where it was mentioned - I found MANY more where 5.56 did the job. Before you comment I suggest you read: Black Hawk Down Weapon References
That is the problem with M855 - they keep varing the jacket thickness so different lots react differently. As usual the most important thing about stopping a threat is shot placement. |
I know for a fact that you're right. I have a converted Saiga .223. It has great inherent accuracy. Perhaps not the same as the AR, due to the different gas system design, but not far off. The problem is that many AR afficionados try to ignore the 5.45 and 5.56 AK's because it nullifies much of their arguments about AR accuracy superiority at real combat ranges. Also, to be fair, the 5.56 AK hasn't really been seen in significant quantities yet to justify real life combat comparisons. The 5.45 is predominantly used by Russia. I'm not aware of many other countries using it yet. The 5.45 has seen a lot of action in Chechnya, but mainly against other AK's, and information about its performance comes from highly biased and controlled media sources. You'd be surprised at how few people in the West even know that such a thing as an AK74 even exists. I was talking with some neighbors about firearms and mentioned Russia's AK74. One of my neighbors, who just barely finished his service in the army, tried to correct me, telling me that I must be talking about the AK47. He was totally unaware of Russia's wide usage of the AK74 in recent decades. |
Thanks for the reading material. The reading shows instances where we will never know if one or even two shots did the job, because the Somoli was hit with burst or full auto fire. Example: D-Boy shoots a man in the lower right back - he was spun around with a startled look - then 4 more rounds hit him and knocked him flat (4) |
Excellent point, but the problem is the fact that infantry can't always choose the field of combat on their own terms. Otherwise we wouldn't have lost nearly as many US boys in Vietnam. If we could always choose the field of combat, we could issue a scoped bolt action to every one of our troops and never have to engage in combat at ranges under 300 yards. History has shown why we don't equip our soldiers that way. |
You mean where Americans walked out into the OPEN within range of the enemy who was under cover and using rifles with smokless powder? Oh yeah the Americans with the 'inferior' rifle/round won that battle.. |
|
OK, I will try and summarize: There is little argument that the vast majority of infantry combat takes place at under 200 yards. Many feel that poorly trained troops with poorly maintained AK's are still inadequate at any range, including under 200 or even 100 yards, compared to a well trained US soldier with a well maintained M4. No real argument there either. Hardly anyone has presented real data comparing a modern, well maintained AK74 used by a well trained shooter, to a well maintained AR used by a well trained shooter, at ranges under 200 yards. So this issue really hasn't been addressed, except by those who deride the AK's sights as being inadequate at any range because of their personal preferences. Some have sagely pointed out that at ranges under 200 yards, it's much more the infantryman that makes the difference. That the choice of modern assault rifle is often not the deciding factor. Have I missed anything? |
That's a fair question. Also, if the M4/M16 is so adequate for long range shooting (oh, say 400 to 500 meters), why are we issuing scoped M14's to some of our troops in Iraq? |
Let me summarize: Given your parameters, the AR will likely be more accurate than the AK. The AR will also be loaded with a round designed to fragment. The AK will not. Given my choice, I would pick the more accurate arm loaded with the more lethal ammo. The AR wins both categories. |
5.56 ammo will not fragment at that range. At those ranges, the 7.62 has a decided edge in lethality. |
It happens. Not often, but it does happen. There were incidents during Operation Anaconda where troops engaged AND KILLED enemy soldiers at 500M with M4s. But that is the exception. |
Dr Fackler did plenty of research on the topic. You can find credible and peer review studies posted at the top of the Ammo Forums. Links to the Wound Ballistic papers by Fackler The two most relevant are: Wounding Potential of the Russian AK-74 Assault Rifle Wounding patterns of military rifle bullets |
Here's an exerpt from an email I received from a friend in Iraq: "Most of our enemy kills have been by defensive perimeter personnel in the FOBs (spotting mine layers) or sniper teams shooting IED planters on the side of the roads at night." He's an Infantryman, and he's referring to action during the past month. |