Actually, the AK fire-selector lever was designed so that it could be pushed down all the way in one swoop under combat stress. This is a lot easier to do than manipulate it notch by notch. Hence, when the safety level is pushed down all the way, it is in the semi-auto position to conserve ammunition. For full-auto fire, it takes a more deliberate decision to move it up one notch.
This video is so silly. Two main concerns: 1) Why are thhey comparing an old 7.62 AK-47 to a latest 5.45 M16? AK-74 was the first using 5.45mm 40 years ago. Why didn't they compare two guns chambered for the same ammo? Otherwise, it's like comparing a sportscar to a SUV. 2) The fire selector explanation is just nonsense. In AK, you just pull the selector all the way down without having to meticulously put into the middle position. Thus you end up in semi-automatic mode.
Well, first, it was the Vietnam Conflict, not Vietnam War. And second, U.S. forces won every armed engagement, and then politicians stopped them from completing the mission and withdrew the forces. So, where am I lying?
Spoken like a true wiseman... I'm glad to see someone who doesn't go for the extremes on either end and doesn't spew how much "better" one is than the other.
Yeah, Vietman is probably the main thing in the public image. The jungle is exactly where AK47 heavier bullet and realiability really come in handy, compared to the whiny M16. I really like how the barrel springs in the high-fps shots of the AK. Like jelly:)
Yes it is, because they were showing what you need to do to breakdown the AR almost completely. Last I checked the AK had a dust cover to remove, BCG, and spring as well. As far as clearing a stoppage with the M16, we stripped the mag and racked the bolt to the rear and checked the chamber. (In the Marine Corps) Same as the AK in the video.
All it takes to change the caliber is the push of two pins. Ive met a guy who had an ORC ar15, he had so many accesories the accesories were worth 3x the gun itself. he had like a 300-400 dollar rail, 200-300 dollar Iron sights, a 1,200 dollar ACOG, a 300 dollar magpul stock, an extremley accurate sniper barrel, a bunch of chrome lined parts and some other stuff
You can have it all. Use a heavier bullet, use a gas piston system in a Ar-15/M-16 straight line system. 6.8 Remington in a Ar-15 platform with a gas piston. You have reliability, and accuracy.
I used to instruct and I gave new shooters ARs when the moment came up. ARs have better sights and ergonomics making them better for new shooters. Just because it takes a little longer to field strip doesn't make them a bad choice for new people. They can learn because it's not that difficult, it just takes them a bit longer to learn how to break down an AR vs. an AK.
People can debate all day about which is better....All im saying is, you NEVER hear about soldiers throwing their aks to the side to pick up ar15/m16s.... ijs
Mr Wunderful The kill ratios are like 10 to 1. There simply are not a lot of M16s laying around to pick up. What you do see a lit of is militaries switching from AK platforms to AR platforms. No country has ever ditched their M16/M4 to adopt AKs.
JETZcorp I never said COUNTRY...I said SOLDIERS.....and most countries don't switch from ak platforms to ar platforms neither, unless they join NATO which I believe the standard rifle is the ar platflorm for their soliders......there's a reason why countries have been and continue to arm themselves with the ak platform since the 1950s and it's not only because of the expense.. there was a reason the ak was among the leading exports out of the Soviet union...
Mr Wunderful I know you didn't say country. The reason individual soldiers don't ditch their AKs for fallen M4s and M16s is that there simply are not many of those guns laying around on battlefields. The forces carrying those rifles typically have a 10:1 kill ratio against the untrained farmers and terrorists and revolutionaries who actually use AKs in combat. Now I'm sure in like 1965 you had guys in Nam wanting to get out from under their early non-chromed, overgassed XM16E1 which the Army had issued with the wrong ammo and no cleaning kit. By the time the M16A1 was issued the way the rifle was supposed to be from the beginning, they were extremely reliable. And honestly, if you're a soldier with 400 rounds of 5.56 on you, what the hell are you going to do with an AK anyway? Spray the bushes once with the AK you found, then toss it back in the swamp and keep using the rifle you have ammo for. My point was, in modern times, when there is the option to choose either platform, anyone that van get M16s, uses M16s.
JETZcorp ..they are not laying around on modern battlefields I'll agree but it's because of the style of fighting America uses with air support mortar support etc. That soldiers are not as close to the action as let's say a Vietnam war, where I am absolutely sure there where plenty of ar platforms laying around..and the north vietnamese still didn't use them
Mr Wunderful Well again, if you're VC or NVA and only have a bunch of 7.62 Soviet on you, an M16 with a half-empty mag isn't much use to you. No sense lugging that extra rifle fir 4 weeks until you see contact again, just to let off those 15 rounds and then toss it back in the mud. I'm sure there were situations where people on both sides picked up an enemy rifle in a firefight and sprayed the bushes before putting it down again. I'm sure some Germans even fired Mosins at Stalingrad, washing their hands afterwards. But there simply were not a large number of US troops lugging AKs around in Vietnam, and certainly not after the gross negligence/sabotage oversights in the early E1 rifles were corrected.
I have see the report by Dr Martin Facker on how small arms rounds effect the human body. Small & fast vs slow & heavy...Interesting. Would the 5.56mm have the same effect on Big game like it does on a human or would it only wound the animal & let him get away like the .223?
It would be more interesting to compare how M62 I trained with would fare. It's kind of Finnish "upgrade" on AK47, but allegedly with better machining making it more accurate to it's origin. Else pretty much identical in workings, and reliable as hell. And shot the 7,62, which is what I liked. Always nice to know you have lots of penetration to play with.
Different rifles, firing different cartridges, operating on different principles, for different armies, from different countries. The only things similar about the AK-47 and M16 is that they were both revolutionary, and they both became extremely successful designs. That is it.
One pal, who served at the time when soviet forces were first sent to Afganistan told that AK was issued mostly to rookers, who didn't know how to shoot well. Experienced soldiers were equipped with SKS, at least in the special forces. Don't know whether he's telling the truth, however :)
The real problem was the fact the military wanted Stoner to re-do his AR10 design to use 5.56 instead of the planned 7.62x51. It's really no different then the military asking Garand to change his rifle to 30-06 and make it clip fed (instead of the original magazine fed rifle). The end result in both cases was a weapon that was much less effective than the original design. Direct Impingement AR10s are much more reliable than DI ARs in 5.56 due to tolerances.
They said he should design a light weapon not a reliable one. The problem with engineering is if you have an incapable customer who wants to push some characteristics to the extreme, you always end up with a really bad compromise, or something too expensive. But as an engineer you cant walk up to your emplemployer/customer and tell him to change the specs on the prototype.
AK47 was also designed for the logistics of a top down dictatorship. Heavy mags, heavy ammo, limited range ensured control over soldiers that would otherwise rebel from an outside influence. Ironically its the weapon of choice for most rebel groups.
(Continued) The AK has its spring above the bolt, it has a loose fit and rattles in the barrel, the stock has a dip, all of these things garentee reliability but makes it suffer on performance. The AR-15 has a tight fit in the bolt, an M line stream from barrel to but stock, and has the spring behind the bolt, in the stock. This was designed for accuracy and controlability. It's design is also very enclosed, meaning as long as you use it right you won't get crap in the gun, making it reliable.
So i prefer ak for play with my live in a war, with ak i have always the guarantee of functionality, and for mee that's the more important in those situations.
They also dropped the chrome barrel lining to save money. That caused the shell case to stick and the extractor would tear the head off of it. That would disable the gun until they could get to an armorer, if they lived that long.
personally, with the world today, most of the wars are being fought in less well developed places where there is bound to be dust, dirt, and other grime around, and when that happens you don't want to be taking apart your weapon while someone else is shooting at you.
good Idea, I just dont wanna make mine too heavy, I just want it to have some spare magazines, a good quad rail, a flash light, a foregrip, maybe a laser, you know the basics but nnot a 500-100 dollar scope/red dot sight
I love the 7.62X54r and absolutely loved using the drag during my foreign weapons training course. Being 6'6 and 252 helps mitigate the round quite a bit though, so underfed/short people with less than 170 lbs of meat on them complaining about it kicking like a mule I do totally understand however lol.
The host seems to be saying that N. Vietnam won that war, saying they were "triumphant" with their AK-47. U.S. forces won every engagement with the NVA/VC. But our politicians chose first not to fight a war to win it, and then chose to not back the military in it's campaign and pulled our forces out. We didn't lose, we didn't surrender, we withdrew.
That's a valid argument, if the world only means US and a couple other countries to you. BTW, AK-47 is 7.62x39 not 51. For main battle rifle caliber, Russians had other options. Over here, the comparison is between AK-47 and M16, hence the preference to AK47 for reliability and it shoots every time. If you wanna compare anything with M14, it will be Dragunov since it's the same caliber. Still, in almost every war, AK has proven itself to be superior to Israeli Galil ARs (M4 series).
The simplistic design seals the fate of most of its operators hoping to grasp a "superior" weapon trough a false sense of confidence. Usually by getting suppressed and encircled by M16 users and pounded to shit with artillery.
Something realized after WW2 was that if a guy was wounded, 1 or 2 people would try to help get him medical attention. Thats 1 bullet 3 guys down, temporarily down but still down, it can buy well needed time. The M16 doesn't have to be meant to kill. If someone gets shot and dies there down and nobody can do anything about it. The round the m16 takes is more accurate, you can carry more of it, it can temporarily disable 2-3 guys, and could kill easily if you have a well placed shot if needed.
I just love how they demonstrated the AK-wielders firing their guns on full-auto, sitting in crouch pose, while M16 users went to prone and fired single shots, every single time! Not biased propaganda at all~! Every single military just teaches their soldiers to fire single shots or in short bursts. Still, while this series holds many good points, the fact is that nobody uses the very original AK47 anymore. It's all AKM rifles or their copies, which are superior in many ways to the actual 47.
Notice I said that the .223 and 5.56 are PHYSICALLY alike... 5.56 has much higher pressures than the .223. Both rounds can actually be chambered into a gun meant for either round, but shooting a 5.56 out of a .223 can be bad for the gun.
like an expert once said, "If I get stranded into a planet and am allowed to take ONE gun with me, I'd take AK-47". Assault rifles are supposed to be reliable, there's a reason why the world buys toyota over chevy, not because of the looks, because of the reliability.
You mean the site where anybody can write the answer too? The one school teachers and college professors tell you never to use because of unreliability?
Ak Up: safety Middle: single shots Down: fully automatic Cuz its dificult to stop the safetybar in the middle but you can switch to the lowest position with one movement.
The bi metal jacket on the 5.45 makes it so it doesn't deform. It just tumbles. (All spitzer bullets tumble, so it isn't anything special) The 5.56 tumbles and fragments, creating far bigger wound cavities than the 5.45.
@snyperdave1 the 5.56 has much much higher pressures than the .223. That's why it's generally ok to load a .223 into a 5.56 chambered rifle, but not a 5.56 into a .223 rifle, since it might not be built for that type of pressure.
You ever clean an M16? It's very easy to clean and doesn't take long to do. Break it open, extract the bolt carrier, wipe it down, put it back and you are essentially done.
The reason the AK's in war are much better than the ones being tested. I'm pretty sure its an authentic AK vs. a Wasr. The difference is gigantic between these two guns.
The calliber of the nagant yes, the rifle is used by maybe a few of poor middle eastern soilders but it's rare. And the former warsaw pact haven't used the nagant in a long time.
The AK is brilliant and works well in almost any situation. However in a modern war like Iraq and Afghanistan where the fighting is not very personal and it can be at ranges up to 500m the M16 does better. But if you train the people using the AK properly (i.e. not giving it to weekend warrior Muslims) and proper optics, it can get pretty damn close to the performance of the M16.
@xxXfanosXxx I know. I'm just saying that the newer versions can do almost everything an AK can, other than being run over by a Humvee or shooting a 7.62 round :)
I'm not saying that it's lightweight. The M4 and 5.56x45 definitely have logistical advantages. My criticism is expressly for the direct impingement system. It is undeniable that a gas piston system is more robust. Back in 2007, the failure rate of the M4 in desert conditions was found to be four times higher than its competitors. Also, in a SHTF situation, I would shelter with an AK-47 or M1A. The ability to shoot through light cover is invaluable, and I don't need to be mobile.
AK is a simpler design and breakdown. A dirty ak will loose accuracy quicker than any m16 will, but the m16 shot straighter dirtier and "wetter"(ie gun oil) but didn't have the same threshold as the ak47 did resulting in quicker jams. Also a ton of paranoia surrounding the m16 jamming caused a lot of over cleaning and damage to sensitive parts. While there was less on the ak that got damaged from frequent cleaning.
They're comparing them for what they are. They were both used to combat each other in the Vietnam war. All they are saying is that the AK-47 had an advantage over the M16 in a jungle fighting environment. They did say that the M16 was more accurate, and that they had more rounds. However, in Vietnam, the AK was better built for that war.
@Jacob Magnuts umm no.. A carbine rifle is a rifle with a shorter thaan normal barrel. Hence the M4 being considered a carbine, and the M16 not, even though they fire the same round.
The AK is DRAMATICALLY more accurate than people give it credit! The guy in the video was SLAPPING THE HELL out of the trigger, a well put together AK (Arsenal SGL 21) can put 5-shot's in a 3"-4" group, 2"-3" if you scope it. AK-74 (Arsenal SGL 31) will shoot 1.5"-2" groups and has NO RECOIL at all! It might not be 1 MOA accuracy, most M16's aren't gettin 1 MOA, and the Russian guns ARE tighter/more accurate as the Saigas that come from same factory proves, their heat treat/steel is LEGENDARY!
I have target practice with both rifle. Both are good in their own aspect. M16 is great as for sniping and long distance shooting, but for close combat, the stopping power of the 7.62x39 round is better. In a survival situation, where I can't clean my rifle, I would pick the AK47. However, in an open field war fire exchange fight, M16 is my choice.
Both guns have their own purpose, I mean you wouldn't use a hammer to tighten a screw or a screwdriver to hammer a nail. There's a reason why both these assault rifles are still in use all around the world. One thing I think everyone can agree on is the jungles of Vietnam was a bad place to debut the M16.
@esh325 he used to work for Springfield Armory and colt so he has a lot of parts, plus he used to make AKs for a company who's name escapes me. so he used better parts for the round fired and with a good scope mount its pretty darn accurate. I envy his job.
True, but that's why I said "teach a kid". I've seen 10 year olds fieldstrip an AK in less than 15 seconds. While even some experts couldn't do that with an HK 416 or a G3A3 in 30, set aside an AR. Dont get me wrong, ARs are exceptionally great rifles for LE, accuracy and customization, just not something I'd give to a first time shooter.
At 600yds it can still kill you, however the M4 platform is ill-suited for longer shots due to loss of velocity due to barrel. There has been several confirmed kills beyond 600yds in Afghanistan & Iraq. Granted all of this, 7.62x51 would be significantly more preferable for those shots than 5.56 is. However, not every soldier has the ability to pick which weapon they are able to use.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Actually, the AK fire-selector lever was designed so that it could be pushed down all the way in one swoop under combat stress. This is a lot easier to do than manipulate it notch by notch. Hence, when the safety level is pushed down all the way, it is in the semi-auto position to conserve ammunition. For full-auto fire, it takes a more deliberate decision to move it up one notch.
This video is so silly. Two main concerns:
1) Why are thhey comparing an old 7.62 AK-47 to a latest 5.45 M16? AK-74 was the first using 5.45mm 40 years ago. Why didn't they compare two guns chambered for the same ammo? Otherwise, it's like comparing a sportscar to a SUV.
2) The fire selector explanation is just nonsense. In AK, you just pull the selector all the way down without having to meticulously put into the middle position. Thus you end up in semi-automatic mode.
You can't go wrong with either rifle. Really the most effective component behind the gun is the one using it anyways.
Kabloosh it's not the arrow, it's the Indian !!!!! JOHN WAYNE
Love that smirk on his face at 8:05 when it's the ak's turn
Well, first, it was the Vietnam Conflict, not Vietnam War.
And second, U.S. forces won every armed engagement, and then politicians stopped them from completing the mission and withdrew the forces.
So, where am I lying?
05:28 When the millitary issued condoms for protection, that wasn't the protection they had in mind LOOOOOL :D
5:37 YEAH let's keep our rifle pointed at our friends face! and the guy just looks at it lol
Spoken like a true wiseman... I'm glad to see someone who doesn't go for the extremes on either end and doesn't spew how much "better" one is than the other.
Got here from a How to install a Bath video. Thanks, I enjoyed this. I best get off to work now, already 30 mins late
Yeah, Vietman is probably the main thing in the public image. The jungle is exactly where AK47 heavier bullet and realiability really come in handy, compared to the whiny M16.
I really like how the barrel springs in the high-fps shots of the AK. Like jelly:)
although the m16 is more accurate, a gun that is more reliable, easier to field-strip and is solid as a rock (the ak47) is better.
Yes it is, because they were showing what you need to do to breakdown the AR almost completely. Last I checked the AK had a dust cover to remove, BCG, and spring as well.
As far as clearing a stoppage with the M16, we stripped the mag and racked the bolt to the rear and checked the chamber. (In the Marine Corps) Same as the AK in the video.
I've seen side to side comparisons of black powder muskets. Was that irrelevant too?
All it takes to change the caliber is the push of two pins. Ive met a guy who had an ORC ar15, he had so many accesories the accesories were worth 3x the gun itself. he had like a 300-400 dollar rail, 200-300 dollar Iron sights, a 1,200 dollar ACOG, a 300 dollar magpul stock, an extremley accurate sniper barrel, a bunch of chrome lined parts and some other stuff
that older man at the end knew how to shoot that ak like a boss, hes used it before lol
You can have it all. Use a heavier bullet, use a gas piston system in a Ar-15/M-16 straight line system. 6.8 Remington in a Ar-15 platform with a gas piston. You have reliability, and accuracy.
I used to instruct and I gave new shooters ARs when the moment came up. ARs have better sights and ergonomics making them better for new shooters. Just because it takes a little longer to field strip doesn't make them a bad choice for new people. They can learn because it's not that difficult, it just takes them a bit longer to learn how to break down an AR vs. an AK.
"Simplicity is Everything"
- Steve Jobs
8:06 the smile on his face. what he's thinking " i can so kick your ass "
The designer of the AK is voiced by Sean Cleese!!! AWESOME
And the two rifles are still at war to this day
Agent orange was a defoliant used to help the Soldiers find the enemies not a marking chemical?
People can debate all day about which is better....All im saying is, you NEVER hear about soldiers throwing their aks to the side to pick up ar15/m16s.... ijs
Mr Wunderful The kill ratios are like 10 to 1. There simply are not a lot of M16s laying around to pick up. What you do see a lit of is militaries switching from AK platforms to AR platforms. No country has ever ditched their M16/M4 to adopt AKs.
JETZcorp I never said COUNTRY...I said SOLDIERS.....and most countries don't switch from ak platforms to ar platforms neither, unless they join NATO which I believe the standard rifle is the ar platflorm for their soliders......there's a reason why countries have been and continue to arm themselves with the ak platform since the 1950s and it's not only because of the expense.. there was a reason the ak was among the leading exports out of the Soviet union...
Mr Wunderful I know you didn't say country. The reason individual soldiers don't ditch their AKs for fallen M4s and M16s is that there simply are not many of those guns laying around on battlefields. The forces carrying those rifles typically have a 10:1 kill ratio against the untrained farmers and terrorists and revolutionaries who actually use AKs in combat. Now I'm sure in like 1965 you had guys in Nam wanting to get out from under their early non-chromed, overgassed XM16E1 which the Army had issued with the wrong ammo and no cleaning kit. By the time the M16A1 was issued the way the rifle was supposed to be from the beginning, they were extremely reliable. And honestly, if you're a soldier with 400 rounds of 5.56 on you, what the hell are you going to do with an AK anyway? Spray the bushes once with the AK you found, then toss it back in the swamp and keep using the rifle you have ammo for.
My point was, in modern times, when there is the option to choose either platform, anyone that van get M16s, uses M16s.
JETZcorp ..they are not laying around on modern battlefields I'll agree but it's because of the style of fighting America uses with air support mortar support etc. That soldiers are not as close to the action as let's say a Vietnam war, where I am absolutely sure there where plenty of ar platforms laying around..and the north vietnamese still didn't use them
Mr Wunderful Well again, if you're VC or NVA and only have a bunch of 7.62 Soviet on you, an M16 with a half-empty mag isn't much use to you. No sense lugging that extra rifle fir 4 weeks until you see contact again, just to let off those 15 rounds and then toss it back in the mud. I'm sure there were situations where people on both sides picked up an enemy rifle in a firefight and sprayed the bushes before putting it down again. I'm sure some Germans even fired Mosins at Stalingrad, washing their hands afterwards. But there simply were not a large number of US troops lugging AKs around in Vietnam, and certainly not after the gross negligence/sabotage oversights in the early E1 rifles were corrected.
Thats what I said. The full auto is first but the selector goes more easily to semi because the movement of the selector.
The AK said: Hide behind trees, my bullet can still get you and hit ya' through
I have see the report by Dr Martin Facker on how small arms rounds effect the human body. Small & fast vs slow & heavy...Interesting. Would the 5.56mm have the same effect on Big game like it does on a human or would it only wound the animal & let him get away like the .223?
It would be more interesting to compare how M62 I trained with would fare. It's kind of Finnish "upgrade" on AK47, but allegedly with better machining making it more accurate to it's origin. Else pretty much identical in workings, and reliable as hell.
And shot the 7,62, which is what I liked. Always nice to know you have lots of penetration to play with.
thanks for the upload of this video... now i undertand more whats the difference between the two shits! haha...
Different rifles, firing different cartridges, operating on different principles, for different armies, from different countries.
The only things similar about the AK-47 and M16 is that they were both revolutionary, and they both became extremely successful designs. That is it.
The Type 56 was released in 1956. They produced plenty of the for North Vietnam. Along with the SKS too.
Wow great video
They eventually made improvements on the M16 which elevated the reliability issues. Performed well in the sands of the Desert Storm Iraq war.
whats the lotion for? on the helmet of the soldier
Its gun oil
One pal, who served at the time when soviet forces were first sent to Afganistan told that AK was issued mostly to rookers, who didn't know how to shoot well. Experienced soldiers were equipped with SKS, at least in the special forces. Don't know whether he's telling the truth, however :)
The real problem was the fact the military wanted Stoner to re-do his AR10 design to use 5.56 instead of the planned 7.62x51. It's really no different then the military asking Garand to change his rifle to 30-06 and make it clip fed (instead of the original magazine fed rifle). The end result in both cases was a weapon that was much less effective than the original design. Direct Impingement AR10s are much more reliable than DI ARs in 5.56 due to tolerances.
I have NEVER needed to field strip my AR for any reason. It has been a extremely reliable firearm.
I love that quote!
The peep sights correct and improve target acquisition because of the circular aperture.
They said he should design a light weapon not a reliable one. The problem with engineering is if you have an incapable customer who wants to push some characteristics to the extreme, you always end up with a really bad compromise, or something too expensive. But as an engineer you cant walk up to your emplemployer/customer and tell him to change the specs on the prototype.
AK47 was also designed for the logistics of a top down dictatorship. Heavy mags, heavy ammo, limited range ensured control over soldiers that would otherwise rebel from an outside influence. Ironically its the weapon of choice for most rebel groups.
(Continued) The AK has its spring above the bolt, it has a loose fit and rattles in the barrel, the stock has a dip, all of these things garentee reliability but makes it suffer on performance. The AR-15 has a tight fit in the bolt, an M line stream from barrel to but stock, and has the spring behind the bolt, in the stock. This was designed for accuracy and controlability. It's design is also very enclosed, meaning as long as you use it right you won't get crap in the gun, making it reliable.
9:30 - 9:40 is the reason the AR vs. AK debate will never resolve.
So i prefer ak for play with my live in a war, with ak i have always the guarantee of functionality, and for mee that's the more important in those situations.
They also dropped the chrome barrel lining to save money. That caused the shell case to stick and the extractor would tear the head off of it. That would disable the gun until they could get to an armorer, if they lived that long.
This is like comparing a pistol with a sniper rifle, these weapons were made for different purposes and at different times
personally, with the world today, most of the wars are being fought in less well developed places where there is bound to be dust, dirt, and other grime around, and when that happens you don't want to be taking apart your weapon while someone else is shooting at you.
good Idea, I just dont wanna make mine too heavy, I just want it to have some spare magazines, a good quad rail, a flash light, a foregrip, maybe a laser, you know the basics but nnot a 500-100 dollar scope/red dot sight
I love the 7.62X54r and absolutely loved using the drag during my foreign weapons training course. Being 6'6 and 252 helps mitigate the round quite a bit though, so underfed/short people with less than 170 lbs of meat on them complaining about it kicking like a mule I do totally understand however lol.
The host seems to be saying that N. Vietnam won that war, saying they were "triumphant" with their AK-47. U.S. forces won every engagement with the NVA/VC. But our politicians chose first not to fight a war to win it, and then chose to not back the military in it's campaign and pulled our forces out. We didn't lose, we didn't surrender, we withdrew.
That's a valid argument, if the world only means US and a couple other countries to you. BTW, AK-47 is 7.62x39 not 51. For main battle rifle caliber, Russians had other options. Over here, the comparison is between AK-47 and M16, hence the preference to AK47 for reliability and it shoots every time. If you wanna compare anything with M14, it will be Dragunov since it's the same caliber. Still, in almost every war, AK has proven itself to be superior to Israeli Galil ARs (M4 series).
The simplistic design seals the fate of most of its operators hoping to grasp a "superior" weapon trough a false sense of confidence. Usually by getting suppressed and encircled by M16 users and pounded to shit with artillery.
Something realized after WW2 was that if a guy was wounded, 1 or 2 people would try to help get him medical attention. Thats 1 bullet 3 guys down, temporarily down but still down, it can buy well needed time. The M16 doesn't have to be meant to kill. If someone gets shot and dies there down and nobody can do anything about it. The round the m16 takes is more accurate, you can carry more of it, it can temporarily disable 2-3 guys, and could kill easily if you have a well placed shot if needed.
I just love how they demonstrated the AK-wielders firing their guns on full-auto, sitting in crouch pose, while M16 users went to prone and fired single shots, every single time! Not biased propaganda at all~! Every single military just teaches their soldiers to fire single shots or in short bursts.
Still, while this series holds many good points, the fact is that nobody uses the very original AK47 anymore. It's all AKM rifles or their copies, which are superior in many ways to the actual 47.
@MrMafiaSniper Depends on the bullet and the size/type of the tree.
@devildog123451 actually,Vietnam was the first war between the two weapons,that's why they brought it up
Notice I said that the .223 and 5.56 are PHYSICALLY alike... 5.56 has much higher pressures than the .223. Both rounds can actually be chambered into a gun meant for either round, but shooting a 5.56 out of a .223 can be bad for the gun.
If they say DUST in Vietnam is not for High Tech M16, then no wars are for M16
Just bought a WASR 10/63. The AK is best rifle with the best rifle round ever created.
Ak-47 = More power, less accuracy M16 = More accuracy, less power. Both of the rifles are great. But The Ak-47 is just more reliable :)
you sir are RIGHT !
like an expert once said, "If I get stranded into a planet and am allowed to take ONE gun with me, I'd take AK-47". Assault rifles are supposed to be reliable, there's a reason why the world buys toyota over chevy, not because of the looks, because of the reliability.
Yes they did actually. They were called the Type 56, They used more Chinese AK variants then they did Russian.
You can really smack someone with it, LOL.
The question is "Which one can you shoot better?"
quick cleaning? CLP that bolt up the run the charging handle several times then start firing again
Plus, the AK 47 survived every other war after the WWII and will still be in service long after we die and decompose.
Check out that guy's smug look at 8:06, He's like "HAHAHA, SILLY M16"
You mean the site where anybody can write the answer too? The one school teachers and college professors tell you never to use because of unreliability?
Mosin-Nagant M-1891/30 FTW. Old but still lots of them in service for snipers
its not really a military failure actually on some occasions it did fail but on most it was an amazing feat of strategical ingenuity
Ak
Up: safety
Middle: single shots
Down: fully automatic
Cuz its dificult to stop the safetybar in the middle but you can switch to the lowest position with one movement.
Am I the only one cleaning and petting my ak during this video?
The bi metal jacket on the 5.45 makes it so it doesn't deform. It just tumbles. (All spitzer bullets tumble, so it isn't anything special) The 5.56 tumbles and fragments, creating far bigger wound cavities than the 5.45.
@snyperdave1 the 5.56 has much much higher pressures than the .223. That's why it's generally ok to load a .223 into a 5.56 chambered rifle, but not a 5.56 into a .223 rifle, since it might not be built for that type of pressure.
You ever clean an M16? It's very easy to clean and doesn't take long to do. Break it open, extract the bolt carrier, wipe it down, put it back and you are essentially done.
The reason the AK's in war are much better than the ones being tested. I'm pretty sure its an authentic AK vs. a Wasr. The difference is gigantic between these two guns.
they forgot to mention that it did not chrome line the barrel and bore.
The calliber of the nagant yes, the rifle is used by maybe a few of poor middle eastern soilders but it's rare. And the former warsaw pact haven't used the nagant in a long time.
which weapon would you choose?
M16. 12 years to finally decide. 😂
The AK is brilliant and works well in almost any situation. However in a modern war like Iraq and Afghanistan where the fighting is not very personal and it can be at ranges up to 500m the M16 does better. But if you train the people using the AK properly (i.e. not giving it to weekend warrior Muslims) and proper optics, it can get pretty damn close to the performance of the M16.
@xxXfanosXxx I know. I'm just saying that the newer versions can do almost everything an AK can, other than being run over by a Humvee or shooting a 7.62 round :)
the AR platform can incorporate nearly all calibers and various features.
They did make one, it's called the Galil
Have them both, and I love them both. I don't get all the fuss. Where the AK fails the AR excels and where the AR fails the AK excels.
I'm not saying that it's lightweight. The M4 and 5.56x45 definitely have logistical advantages. My criticism is expressly for the direct impingement system. It is undeniable that a gas piston system is more robust. Back in 2007, the failure rate of the M4 in desert conditions was found to be four times higher than its competitors.
Also, in a SHTF situation, I would shelter with an AK-47 or M1A. The ability to shoot through light cover is invaluable, and I don't need to be mobile.
AK is a simpler design and breakdown. A dirty ak will loose accuracy quicker than any m16 will, but the m16 shot straighter dirtier and "wetter"(ie gun oil) but didn't have the same threshold as the ak47 did resulting in quicker jams. Also a ton of paranoia surrounding the m16 jamming caused a lot of over cleaning and damage to sensitive parts. While there was less on the ak that got damaged from frequent cleaning.
They're comparing them for what they are. They were both used to combat each other in the Vietnam war. All they are saying is that the AK-47 had an advantage over the M16 in a jungle fighting environment. They did say that the M16 was more accurate, and that they had more rounds. However, in Vietnam, the AK was better built for that war.
@Jacob Magnuts umm no.. A carbine rifle is a rifle with a shorter thaan normal barrel. Hence the M4 being considered a carbine, and the M16 not, even though they fire the same round.
The AK is DRAMATICALLY more accurate than people give it credit! The guy in the video was SLAPPING THE HELL out of the trigger, a well put together AK (Arsenal SGL 21) can put 5-shot's in a 3"-4" group, 2"-3" if you scope it. AK-74 (Arsenal SGL 31) will shoot 1.5"-2" groups and has NO RECOIL at all! It might not be 1 MOA accuracy, most M16's aren't gettin 1 MOA, and the Russian guns ARE tighter/more accurate as the Saigas that come from same factory proves, their heat treat/steel is LEGENDARY!
I have target practice with both rifle. Both are good in their own aspect. M16 is great as for sniping and long distance shooting, but for close combat, the stopping power of the 7.62x39 round is better. In a survival situation, where I can't clean my rifle, I would pick the AK47. However, in an open field war fire exchange fight, M16 is my choice.
Apparently .308 "battle rifles" are making a big come back.
Both guns have their own purpose, I mean you wouldn't use a hammer to tighten a screw or a screwdriver to hammer a nail. There's a reason why both these assault rifles are still in use all around the world. One thing I think everyone can agree on is the jungles of Vietnam was a bad place to debut the M16.
@esh325 he used to work for Springfield Armory and colt so he has a lot of parts, plus he used to make AKs for a company who's name escapes me. so he used better parts for the round fired and with a good scope mount its pretty darn accurate. I envy his job.
True, but that's why I said "teach a kid". I've seen 10 year olds fieldstrip an AK in less than 15 seconds. While even some experts couldn't do that with an HK 416 or a G3A3 in 30, set aside an AR. Dont get me wrong, ARs are exceptionally great rifles for LE, accuracy and customization, just not something I'd give to a first time shooter.
both are very amazing weapons
What they failed to mention is with the m16a1 they just sprayed bullets full auto almost all the time in Vietnam.
So you like to get close and personal with things that want to kill you?
At 600yds it can still kill you, however the M4 platform is ill-suited for longer shots due to loss of velocity due to barrel. There has been several confirmed kills beyond 600yds in Afghanistan & Iraq. Granted all of this, 7.62x51 would be significantly more preferable for those shots than 5.56 is. However, not every soldier has the ability to pick which weapon they are able to use.
If both of these weapons are so great, then why has SOCOM outfitted with the SCAR 17??
Where? In COD?