time for the classic AR-15 VS AK47/74 THREAD!

[Caine 147]

In my opinion its is as reliable, more rugged

Not sure I count as a commie gun lover but, for the sake of s* stirring, original design FAL or DSA FAL? Larry Vickers did an episode on the FAL on this seasons Tactical Arms, and if you believe him (and I tend to, even if this episode came across as a sales pitch for DSA), the original design may not have been that rugged and reliable. I don't know enough about the FAL to know how accurate the show was or not, but it certainly seemed as if the FAL wasn't particularly keen on things like getting buried in dirt and mud.

 

Yeah, he basically loves DSA and everything about them. But the original FAL failed his simple tests, no?

 

They didn't fail per se. They just needed some extra "lovin" to get into battery. If I remember correctly, he indicated that the problems were largely due to the lack of a forward assist. He also said that the DSA models didn't suffer from the same problems because of the channels that were cut into the bolt which were apparently borrowed from either Brit or Canadian FAL designs (can't remember which off the top of my head).

[Maksim 1,504]

zrSWpWi5eEs

[Shane45 807]

Well my DSA HAS foward assist although its a bit awkward. Keep in mind the FAL in considered the right arm of the free world. As for 7.62 overpowering it, no way says me Now keep in mind it was damn near useless in full auto, however. So overpowered in that sense, yeah I could see it but not in terms of the round overpowering the design.

[Caine 147]

Full auto FAL you say...

http://vimeo.com/11669405

 

[Shane45 807]

OOOF thats a lot of wobble, even with a modern comp. I remember on a show on discovery, the Faulkland Islands, FAL went up against FAL. Brits had Semi, enemy had FA. At least in the show it was reported that the semi was an advantage and the soldiers that picked up the FA FAL's found that out the hard way IIRC.

[Shane45 807]

From http://www.isayeret.com/main/guide.htm

 

 

A common debate in the small arms world is the M16 Vs. AK47 issue - which one is the better assault rifle. As probably the only western army in the world that have used both an AK47 variant (IMI Galil) and the M16 on a large scale, the IDF is often mentioned as a real life example.

 

The pro M16 claim is that the IDF usage of the M16 is a clear evidence of the weapon's quality, while the pro AK47 claim that the only reason the IDF switched from IMI Galil to the M16 is since it received them for free from the U.S. The truth is that the M16 is by far the superior weapon. It's lighter, more accurate, more versatile, and with proper maintenance it is very reliable. Indeed, it might be less sand proof then the Galil/AK47 series. However, all you need is to clean it once a day and it will work properly. Since modern armies clean their small arms on a daily basis even during combat deployment this is a non-issue.

 

In fact, most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War when the M16 was first issued. The 5.56 mm ammunition used at the time was based on a low quality sticky gunpowder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was replaced with a proper one, the misfire problems disappeared as well.

One the other hand, the IMI Galil is heavy, inaccurate and it is difficult to attach optics and other accessories to it without special adapters. Many people also don't like the Galil/AK safety mechanism but that's a personnel preference issue. The M16 design, however, is very user friendly and allow numerous modifications to be made such as interchangeability between the different M16 families. The large number of M16 variants used by the IDF for decades of continuous combat deployment is a clear evidence of that.

 

The reason for the IDF usage of the M16 over the Galil isn't the cost. It's the pure quality of the M16 over the Galil. Most of IDF troops dislike the Galil and will prefer a CAR15/M4 over it. Those who are using the cost factor are simply unfamiliar with the IDF assault rifles history. Short review - up until the mid 1970's the IDF standard issue assault rifle was the FN FAL. At that time most of the Israeli elite units were using the AK47, which was considered as better then the FAL. During the Israeli-Arab Yom Kippur War in 1973 the U.S. made a massive airlift to Israel containing large numbers of brand new M16A1 and CAR15. However, shortly after the war ended the IDF had adopted the IMI Galil as its new standard issue assault rifle so most of the M16 remained in storage.

 

The Galil wasn't a big success to say the least. Most of the IDF elite units weren't impressed with the new weapon and remained with the AK47, which also was also useful for deniability in covert deep insertions. In the late 1970's, a few SF units tried out the CAR15 and were tremendously impressed. A decade later, by the late 1980's, almost all elite units were already armed with CAR15, which was gradually replacing the IMI Galil SAR and the AK47. Note that this was years before the IDF had officially adopted the M16 in the early 1990's. The IDF SF units that adopted the CAR15 didn't have any cost issue at mind. They could have used either the M16 or the Galil. It made no matter budget wise, since both weapons were already available in masses. The decision was purely quality based, and no one told the units which weapon to use. More clearly - in some IDF elite units the Galil was simply never used and they always preferred the CAR15 over it. Following the influence of the SF units, in the early 1990's the IDF had officially adopted the M16 family as its new standard issue assault rifle for all infantry oriented units, including both SF and conventional units. Today, the IMI Galil is mainly used by auxiliary and rear line units.

 

Lets again review the situation in the early 1990's. The IDF had large sums of Galil variants it procured over the years, and it also had large sums of M16 it received in the 1973 war as well as via U.S. Army surpluses shipments over the years. Both weapons were available in masses and there wasn't any current or near future need to procure either weapon. The IDF also had thousands of AK47 that were captured over the years. So the IDF could use the AK47 free of charge over M16 or Galil.

Eventually, the IDF chose the M16, so again cost wasn't really an issue. Further more, even if there was such a cost factor, then the IDF could have simply supply all rear line troops with the cheaper M16 and issue the more expensive Galil to the front line troops. The fact that the exact opposite was done speaks for itself. Moreover, some times the cost is less of an issue. The IDF often buy expensive Israeli weapons. For example, the Israeli Police bought the Jericho 941 handguns, while the IDF managed to get the better Sig Sauer 228/226. The Israeli M240 Sufa ("Storm" in Hebrew) jeep is yet another example. The fact that despite the domestic pressure the M16 was chosen over the Galil is yet another evident of its superiority.

 

Let's review the situation today. The IDF no longer receives M16 for free. Instead, Israel receives from the U.S. few billion dollars per year of FMS. However, the catch is that most of this money must be spent in Dollars back in the U.S. The M4 series is indeed cheaper then the Galil or even the new Tavor series. In order to buy gear and weapons using the U.S. FMS the item must be at least 50% made in the U.S. This is why the IMI is currently looking for ways to manufacture the Tavor in the U.S. - so that the IDF could buy the Tavor using FMS.

To summarize, the IDF chose the M16 over the AK47/Gail because the M16 is the better assault rifle in all parameters that matter. As for reliability, the M16 is reliable enough. As for cost it's a non issue. Modern small arms are relatively cheap. In fact, for modern armies who buy large sums, most optical sights cost much more then assault rifles per unit.

http://www.isayeret.com/main/guide.htm

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

...The truth is that the M16 is by far the superior weapon. It's lighter, more accurate, more versatile, and with proper maintenance it is very reliable. Indeed, it might be less sand proof then the Galil/AK47 series. However, all you need is to clean it once a day and it will work properly. Since modern armies clean their small arms on a daily basis even during combat deployment this is a non-issue.

 

How can you be so confident it is superior? A combat arm should need "proper maintenance" and daily cleaning. Sure, if its cleaned every day it should be reliable. But you cant assume it will be cleaned every day. If I had to clean a gun my life depended on every day I'de be pissed off, you cant always do that. You should be able to kick the action open, piss in it, and close it. DONE. And, lighter? Come on! With all those AM/FM decks, toaster ovens, zombie killing lasters and crap hanging off the gun its heavier than an AK. AKs arent that heavy...

[Shane45 807]

Just for clarity, this was a cut and past article from an Israli Defence Force SF web page. I thought I prefaced that before the cut and past but in my sleep deprived state, I guess I didnt....

[vjf915 456]

If I had to clean a gun my life depended on every day I'de be pissed off, you cant always do that. You should be able to kick the action open, piss in it, and close it. DONE.

:clap: :clap:

[usnmars 136]

truer words have never been spoken......

 

When I was in Iraq, you could always tell the new guy. He was the only one with a black rifle. For some reason, you cannot get the dust off of your weapon over there. No matter how much scrubbing, it just stays there. The longer you have been over there, the browner your rifle gets.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

This thread is getting crazy.

 

I'm changing my vote to both!

[Shane45 807]

Crazy says the guy with the 74 page zombie thread :roll:

[Cylinder Head 22]

AR because they're light, accurate, low-recoil, completely customizable and will mount any optic with minimal effort. With my Battlecomp on my KAC I can double-tap two rounds an inch apart at 25 yards with very little experience.

[Guest]

AR because they're light, accurate, low-recoil, completely customizable and will mount any optic with minimal effort. With my Battlecomp on my KAC I can double-tap two rounds an inch apart at 25 yards with very little experience.

 

 

with my AK I dont need to "double tap"

[Shane45 807]

Why, 1 miss enough for ya

[Shane45 807]

Yaknow, your post got me to thinking. It happens LOL. Does anyone make actual performance 7.62X39? I prefer 5.56 to begin with but when you consider how much performance 5.56 is available to us civilians.... that may be a serious advantage. I would take civy performance 5.56 over milsurp 7.62X39 ALWAYS. We all read so much about military operations that it is easy to forget we are not limited in our selections.

[Caine 147]

Off the top of my head... Hornady makes a 7.62x39 VMAX. And I believe Corbon makes a x39 HP. Any time I remember seeing either tho, they seemed REALLY expensive. I wanna say the Corbon stuff was like $40 for 20 rounds.. or something in that range.

[Shane45 807]

Your right! Pete does make actual self defence 7.62X39. New factoid assimilated

[Guest]

Why, 1 miss enough for ya

 

 

man size targets ALL DAY.. RARELY off the silhouette and I am far from a great shot..

 

if under pressure your 223 hits the heart area.. and my 7.62 hits the lungs.. in BOTH instance the threat is going down, so your increase in accuracy is not really that relevant.. As I have said before if I want to shoot something far away.. I go to the 308.. decent performing round at a distance.. also fairly accurate.. I have had 223 guns.. ARs.. they were fine.. no issues.. but just didnt do it for me.. I would like to put together a 223 piston AR just because that seems like it would be a good light go to rifle, while still retaining some AK reliability..

[Shane45 807]

Theres only 1 piston AR that I would even consider. Its the LMT. Now back to effectiveness. I think you are FAR underestimating 5.56 effectiveness with quality ammo available to civi's or even newer more effective mill issue ammo....

[vjf915 456]

I dont think he is saying that the 5.56 is not effective....simply stating that a 7.62 is MORE effective. I mean the honest truth is that the 7.62 is a bigger round.

[Guest]

Theres only 1 piston AR that I would even consider. Its the LMT. Now back to effectiveness. I think you are FAR underestimating 5.56 effectiveness with quality ammo available to civi's or even newer more effective mill issue ammo....

 

I TOTALLY agree that there are TONS of effective 5.56 ammo out there.. hell cheap wolf .223 is effective providing you hit the target.. but the situation is more one of effectiveness against both soft and hard targets.. I ideally will NEVER have to use ANY of my weapons to defend myself.. ideally that is the situation... but it is obviously a remote possibility.. so I choose rifles firearms on several factors.. one being the firearms ability to protect me should it need to be used.. so yeah sure an AR with a bunch of pricey self defense ammo it WILL get the job done.. but at the end of the day these are reliable battle rifles NOT really long range shooting guns.. and that is what causes me to compare them at 100.. 200.. yards.. are the rifles capable of more distance sure.. both are.. but I still feel drawn to the more powerful round..

 

I dont think he is saying that the 5.56 is not effective....simply stating that a 7.62 is MORE effective. I mean the honest truth is that the 7.62 is a bigger round.

 

you got it..

[Shane45 807]

Vj, Damage, I get where your coming from. Maybe Im not effectively stating my case. There is effective and then there is EFFECTIVE. So lets talk about what makes a rifle round effective. ENERGY imparted to the target! I could probably go on for 3 pages on this topic and not scratch the surface so I am going to highlight a few talking points. Bullet weight, diameter and velocity are the key factors. Diameter plays a much larger role in non fragmenting lower velocity rounds. So in yesteryear engagements the 7.62X39 had an advantage due to its larger diameter, much like in ball ammo the .45 is better than the 9. (BALL AMMO ONLY is this significantly relavent). Now in the world of rifle rounds another KEY element is rifle twist. What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China you ask? Because since ball tends not to frag, the twist rate and bullet design dictate at what depth the bullet will start to yaw. Give a twist rate that drills neat holes through the target and it doesnt impart energy to the target. Bad performance. Modern soviet ammo is more like a 5.56 than a 7.62 and is reportedly far more effective than what it replaced do to a design and twist rate that yields high yaw effects on its projo in its wounding characteristics.

 

 

Now lets talk today. The American Medical Association I believe (feel free to research and verify and let me know if my factoid is wrong) defines a projectile as high power if it exceeds 2000 fps. the 7.62 barely does this where the 5.56 exceeds it by over 1000fps. Whats the relevance? The relevance is that trauma surgeons have noted and documented that projo's exceeding 2000fps create such shockwaves in tissue to be able to create massive trauma in tissue untouched by the projo. Breaking bones, destroying organs etc etc. Add modern 5.56 ammo designed to frag into this equation of 3200fps and the effects are devistating! I have reviewed a number of 5.56 shooting and what I can tell you is that it looks like a mini grenade was set off in the subjects! I would argue and contend that with the exception of a few 55grn fmj yesterywar rounds, the 5.56 is a much more effective round.

 

In summery, be it 5.56, 7.63X39 or ANY caliber/cartridge for that matter, just as you match the weapon to the mission, the ammo selection is just as important!

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

I wouldnt want to stand in front of any of those rounds, not even out of an AR-15

[Shane45 807]

WARNING LINK TO GRAPHIC CONTENT.

 

 

Here is a single round from an AR to the leg, believed to be M193.....

 

http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=17111.0

[vjf915 456]

It says M16. Regardless, I would not want to stand in front of either round either.

[bbk 188]

The link Shane posted above was taken from an incident in the Philippines I believe with an M16. The point is made though considering that the Filipino military is limited in what ammunition they can use as well (I want to say the popular one is 62g SS109)-- while the civilian market has access to a bevy of different 5.56/.223 ammunition types.