AK VS AR

[Shane45 807]

Dan, I certainly find the thought of two rounds in nearly the same hole interesting for sure!

 

Ray, just keep in mind that stopping power will be FAR behind that of commercial 5.56 if you are using milsurp 7.62X39. If you use performance ammo in the 7.62X39 caliber I think you will find it more expensive than 5.56 performance ammo. But for plinking, the AK and surplus ammo sure is an attractive proposition.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Dan, I certainly find the thought of two rounds in nearly the same hole interesting for sure!

 

Ray, just keep in mind that stopping power will be FAR behind that of commercial 5.56 if you are using milsurp 7.62X39. If you use performance ammo in the 7.62X39 caliber I think you will find it more expensive than 5.56 performance ammo. But for plinking, the AK and surplus ammo sure is an attractive proposition.

 

So, surplus 7.62 has less stopping power than commercial 5.56?

[Shane45 807]

Commercial performance 5.56, yes.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Commercial performance 5.56, yes.

 

proof?

[Shane45 807]

I got in trouble the last time I posted such things here due to extreme graphic nature! But think about it, ball ammo vs ammo designed for maximum effect. EVen in its own caliber I think the differences would be dramatic. BUT as I always say, there is no magic bullet.

 

http://www.shopcorbon.com/Self-Defense-JHP/762x39-125gr-CORBON-Self-Defense-JHP/SD762X39125-20/100/Product

[Ray Ray 3,566]

No, proof that 5.56 commercial defensive ammo has more stopping power than 7.62x39mm steel cased stuff.

[Shane45 807]

I understood your comment. Thers A TON to be had. You could likely google for days on the subject. Im on my way out the door or id look u some refernces I have read in the past but think of it this way. Would you rather be shot by ball .45 or performace 9mm. Ill choose ball!!!

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I understood your comment. Thers A TON to be had. You could likely google for days on the subject. Im on my way out the door or id look u some refernces I have read in the past but think of it this way. Would you rather be shot by ball .45 or performace 9mm. Ill choose ball!!!

 

interesting point

[vjf915 456]

Would you rather be shot by ball .45 or performace 9mm.

Neither But seriously....why compare apples to oranges? Would you rather be shot by performance 9mm or performance .45? Is performance 5.56 more effective than performance 7.62x39? If so, then I'll tip my hat to a rifle chambered in 5.56. The money you can save in buying a reliable AK platform rifle over an AR platform should more than make up the couple extra dollars per box of performance ammo. In my opinion, I think both are close enough regarding performance for us weekend shooters, and paper punchers, that user error and training are going to be the biggest deciding factor in the effectiveness of either. Case in point....Shane you would be more effective with a DPMS AR15 with ball ammo, than I would with a SCAR16 with performance ammo.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Neither But seriously....why compare apples to oranges?

 

No, it's apples to apples. Where talking about semi-automatic rifles that battle everyday. So does our guys shooting 5.56 performance ammo far better against the terrorists using surplus ammo? No. A round that has twice the weight moving a little slower has twice the energy than a lighter, faster bullet. Physics 101

[Caine 147]

Shane's hands will start to burn if he touches a DPMS AR... It's like holy water to a vampire

[Ray Ray 3,566]

this thread should end with this. A decent AR and a decent AK will run just fine.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Devils Advocate, I think you are still subscribing to the banter that the AR needs some super support to remain reliable. It just isnt so. The anectdotal evidence is overwhelmingly in the opposite direction from many many many AAR's.

 

Disagree... you mention anecdotal evidence; yet even in this thread, we have two guys (GRIZ and usnmars) who both used the same weapons platform at different times, with different conclusions. So who is right? Do we simply toss stories where some poor soldier was killed because his AR-15 didn't work right? Do we just blame the soldiers (like we always do) when equipment fails? Or do we do things empirically vs. anecdotally.

 

Even in the most recent dust tests, it was found that the M4/M16 still did worst than its competitors (HK416, FN SCAR, XM8) by a WIDE margin. 6,000 rounds through 10 test rifles yielded something like 880 failures, approximately 1.5%. That's more 1 malfunction in 100 rounds... or 1 failure in 4 mag changes. Meanwhile, the other rifles suffered anywhere between 180-300 failures... Anywhere between 0.3% and 0.5%... That's quite a bit of difference from an engineering perspective. Especially when at ARDEC, they are constantly pushing us to meet Six Sigma levels of failure mitigation (Failure rate of 0.0034%). While getting to that level may seem impossible, that's what we should strive for.

 

Frankly, I have to ask: why bother keeping the M4/M16 platform if we know better things exist? Why are we so attached to a 50 year old weapon system? Why can other nations replace their service rifles, but we're stuck with Colt's offerings?

 

At best it's corporate welfare tied to some pathetic form of nationalistic superiority. God forbid we replace it with something better. Even Stoner himself didn't think the DI AR-15 was some marvelous rifle that was perfect.

 

I think competition is great, and the money is there to toss this platform for something better. The tech is there, the money is there, let's just get it done.

 

There are a few reasons the SCAR16 purchasing by SOCOM stopped. The biggest is dwindling budget and the fact that a multi caliber SCAR reciever exists that can be outfitted 5.56 or 7.62. So SOCOM focused on the immediate need of the 308 platform and it is my bet that the Multi Cal SCAR reciever will be a strong contendor in future purchases. BUT the SCAR didnt garner widespread adoption. Why is that? Its my belief that the SCAR IS a superior rifle in MANY ways. But is it superior enough to deal with the minor differences in the manual of arms? I think in the eyes of those using these systems, the advantage isnt worth it BECAUSE there is no real problem with the M4. It seems to me that if SOCOM operators were having such issues the errornet would have you believe, they would have screamed for the SCAR. They didnt. And as for lethality, since 262 and 318 have come on line even the caliber complaints have largely died down because of the effectiveness of the better performing ammo.

 

SOCOM is a different breed unto it's own. They don't have a 'standard' rifle and run anything they want. While the SCAR-L may have been passed over, they do use the HK416 in lieu of the M4... especially when running short barrels and suppressors. But that's up to them.

 

We're talking about service rifles here... a standard weapon to be used by regular troops in all capacities.

 

Another minor point. The Russian military dropped the AK a LOOOOONG time ago. I think many dont even realise that fact. However since there are so many AK's in inventory only their operators get the AN94 which despite its looks is NOT an AK at all. That rifle has an action that makes an AR look child simple by comparison.

 

Again, what the operators use is a different ball game when compared to their 'normal' units. At the end of the day, it's some variant of the AK74 that is in the hands of a Russian soldier. Even the Poles and other former WP nations still use a form of the AK as their standard issue.

[Shane45 807]

Hehehe, I really needed that laugh today Caine! Thank you!

 

Ray, the problem is that you have your physics wrong. Velocity increases energy exponentially. This is why you see a point in which high velocity rounds start zipping through steel. For example take a 150 grn 308 and increase the velocity about 15% to that of a 300 winmag and you get a 25% increase in energy.

 

Another example.

7.62X39, weight 123 grns, velocity 2355 fps = 1513 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle.

 

223, weight 62 grns (roughly half the weight) velocity 3100(about as close as you will get because 7.62x39 is slow) = 1322ft lbs of energy. Certainly not half the energy og the 7.62X39

Even the winchester specialty load with lower velocity comes in at only 25% less energy and its only going 400 fps faster than 7.62 x 39!

PDX1 Defender 223 at 60 grains going 2750fps = 1007ftlbs

 

add 25% velocity to a 55 grn 223 and energy jumps to 1800ft lbs of energy!!!!! That is a 178% increase in energy!!!!

 

 

 

VJ my point in comparing apples to oranges was to illustrate the potentially false economics of 7.62X39 ammo when it comes to self defence. I know it is a topic of much debate but in my opinion ball 7.62X39 and ball 5.56 are about even(but not even in usefull trajectory) and both even have good and bad performers. From what I understand bulk ball 7.62X39 from china has actually been fairly effective in actual combat because it yaws real well etc etc. But others drill neat holes with little damage. And of course we have that in 5.56 as well with 318 and 855. So I suspect that performance 7.62X39 may be in the same league as 5.56 performance ammo. But if they are rough;y equl, then I will certainly prefer the better trajectory charactaristics of 5.56

[vjf915 456]

No, it's apples to apples. Where talking about semi-automatic rifles that battle everyday.

That's the topic of the thread, but my response was to Shane's post which was referencing performance ammo out of one rifle vs. ball ammo out of another. That's called apples to oranges. If you're going to compare the RIFLES, then you shouldn't be allowing any unnecessary deviations between the two such as ammo. If you're going to compare rounds, then compare FMJ to FMJ, HP to HP, etc.

So I suspect that performance 7.62X39 may be in the same league as 5.56 performance ammo.

This is why I feel like even if there is a difference in performance between comparable ammo, that difference won't effect the outcome as much as training and user error.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89HEefl1KI4

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIO-Ct_VJvM

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Hehehe, I really needed that laugh today Caine! Thank you!

 

Ray, the problem is that you have your physics wrong. Velocity increases energy exponentially. This is why you see a point in which high velocity rounds start zipping through steel. For example take a 150 grn 308 and increase the velocity about 15% to that of a 300 winmag and you get a 25% increase in energy.

 

Another example.

7.62X39, weight 123 grns, velocity 2355 fps = 1513 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle.

 

223, weight 62 grns (roughly half the weight) velocity 3100(about as close as you will get because 7.62x39 is slow) = 1322ft lbs of energy. Certainly not half the energy og the 7.62X39

Even the winchester specialty load with lower velocity comes in at only 25% less energy and its only going 400 fps faster than 7.62 x 39!

PDX1 Defender 223 at 60 grains going 2750fps = 1007ftlbs

 

add 25% velocity to a 55 grn 223 and energy jumps to 1800ft lbs of energy!!!!! That is a 178% increase in energy!!!!

 

Thanks for the lesson, I stand corrected.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Dev's adv, what are you talking about? The gun works bro. You can argue the caliber or the action or materials in manufacturer but the gun works. There's thousands upon thousands running around all over the US and abroad taking care of business.

 

And I do believe a certain member here won the MDTS class with mid-level AR running against higher-end ARs and the AKs. So it's the man behind the trigger, not the gun itself.

[Shane45 807]

"This is why I feel like even if there is a difference in performance between comparable ammo, that difference won't effect the outcome as much as training and user error."

I agree with the small addition of shot placement which after everything I have seen is probably the largest factor, generally speaking.

 

In the end if you love the AK, by all means have at it. Choices are a great thing. If asked what I prefer, its an AR.

 

But in the end I enjoy the debate and discussion. But I leave the AK lovers with this question. Why did the Rusky's move on from the AK toward a more AR like caliber? Why did the Isralis who had arguably the best AK ever made, the Galil varient ditch them in favor of M4's in a Desert environment?!?!?!?!?

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

"This is why I feel like even if there is a difference in performance between comparable ammo, that difference won't effect the outcome as much as training and user error."

I agree with the small addition of shot placement which after everything I have seen is probably the largest factor, generally speaking.

 

In the end if you love the AK, by all means have at it. Choices are a great thing. If asked what I prefer, its an AR.

 

But in the end I enjoy the debate and discussion. But I leave the AK lovers with this question. Why did the Rusky's move on from the AK toward a more AR like caliber? Why did the Isralis who had arguably the best AK ever made, the Galil varient ditch them in favor of M4's in a Desert environment?!?!?!?!?

 

They moved to 5.45 and are moving back to 7.62... They didn't like the small round even though it outperforms 556. And the Israelis switch is easily explained. They get their ARs from us. Economics! Free guns...that's why they use them

[vjf915 456]

I agree with the small addition of shot placement which after everything I have seen is probably the largest factor, generally speaking.

I was factoring shot placement into that. I believe we are both in agreement

[Shane45 807]

"And the Israelis switch is easily explained. They get their ARs from us. Economics! Free guns...that's why they use them"

 

Glenn, this is simply not the case. It used to be publicly available but now you have to subscibe. There is an article on isayeret.com, the isrraeli special forces websight that basically explains why and it was not economics at all. It was because the AR outperformed the Galil in all catagories that mattered.....

[Shane45 807]

OK I went and found it. Im not going to leave this up here long in case there is some issue since it now looks like they charge for access to it.

 

M16 Vs. AK47/Galil

 

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/ak/ak-2.gifhttp://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/car15-sf-notext.gif

 

One of the most common debates in weapons forums on the web 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 Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is often brought as a real life example.

 

The pro M16 guys claim that the IDF usage of the M16 is a clear evidence of the weapon's quality, while the pro AK47 guys claim that the IDF switched from IMI Galil to the M16 only since it received them free of charge from the U.S.

 

The truth is that the M16 is by far the more 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 like a charm.

 

In fact, most of the myth regarding the unreliability of the M16 date back to the Vietnam War when the M16 was first issued. The 5.56 ammunition given then to the troops used a low quality sticky powder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism, and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was changed, the misfire problems disappeared as well.

 

The IMI Galil on the other hand, is heavy, not accurate and you can't place any optics on it without special adapters. Many people also don't like the Galil/AK safety mechanism but that's more an issue of a personal preference. The M16 design on the other hand is very user friendly, allow numerous modifications to be made on the weapon. The large number of M16 variants used by the IDF for dozens and dozens of years of continuous combat deployment is a clear evidence of that.

 

Thus, 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 take a CAR15/M4 over it any day.

 

Those who are using the cost factor are simply unaware of 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 elite units were using the AK47, which was considered to be much better then the FAL.

 

In 1973 during the Israeli-Arab Yom Kippur War the U.S. made a massive airlift to Israel containing large sums of brand new M16A1 and CAR15. However, after the war, in 1974, the IDF adopted the IMI Galil as its new standard issue assault rifle so 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 had a deniability capability in covert deep insertions operations.

 

In the late 1970's few Special Forces (SF) units started to try 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 replacing the IMI Galil SAR and the AK47.

 

Note that this was years and years before the IDF officially adopted the M16 in the early 1990's. The IDF SF units that adopted the CAR15 didn't had 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! They always preferred the CAR15 over it.

 

Following the SF units weapon of choice influence, in the early 1990's the IDF officially adopted the M16 family as its new standard issue assault rifle for all infantry oriented units, including both SF and conventional units. The IMI Galil is used only be the Artillery Corps, Armor Crops, stationary elements in the Anti Aircraft Corps 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. On the other hand it also had large sums of M16 it received in the 1973 war as well as in 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 and thousands of AK47 that were captured over the years. So the IDF could always use the AK47 free of charge over M16 or Galil.

 

Eventually, the IDF chose the M16, so again cost wasn't really an issue when the decision was made. However, 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 since it's forced too by inner-Israeli political pressure. For example, the IMI forced the Israeli Police to buy the Jericho 941 handguns. The IDF managed to escape the pressure in this case and got the much better Sig Sauer 228/226. The Israeli M240 Sufa ("Storm" in Hebrew) jeep is yet another example.

 

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 Foreign Military Support (FMS). However, the catch is that most of this money must be spent in Dollars back in the U.S. Also, for several reasons most of the IDF orders are registered as U.S. Army orders. This allows the IDF to largely enjoy from the quantity discounts the U.S. Army receives on its large orders.

 

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 to build a factory in the U.S. - so that the IDF could buy the Tavor using FMS.

 

But as usual IMI was very slow, and the IDF already procured large sums of the M4 replacing the CAR15. Not to mention that the Bullpup concept of the Tavor is very problematic since it doesn't allow simultaneous usage of both shoulders during combat. A major tactical disadvantage, especially in Close Quarters Battle (CQB) or in urban fighting. Yet, it appears that IDF will eventually buy the Tavor.

 

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. Buying weapons today is cheap. In fact, for modern armies who buy large sums, most optical sights cost much more then assault rifles per unit.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

They moved to 5.45 and are moving back to 7.62... They didn't like the small round even though it outperforms 556. And the Israelis switch is easily explained. They get their ARs from us. Economics! Free guns...that's why they use them

 

Do you honestly think, a country surrounded by people that hate them would use an inferior battle rifle to defend themselves to save some money? No.

[vjf915 456]

Do you honestly think, a country surrounded by people that hate them would use an inferior battle rifle to defend themselves to save some money? No.

Consider the country in question

 

This is PURELY a joke!

[GRIZ 3,369]

I guess I have already clearly declared I am a M16/AR fan.

 

There is another more professional, although small, endorsement of the M16. "Bravo Two Zero" by Andy McNab is his account of leading a group of SAS troopers to locate and destroy SCUD sites in Iraq during Desert Storm (Gulf War I). The SAS are undoubtedly among the best, most experienced special operations troops in the world and the forerunners of about all modern Spec Ops troops since WWII. When they chose a rifle to take with them in the Iraqi desert with all that "moondust" gritty sand, in an area where they had zero fire support, would have to start engaging an enemy at longer ranges, and they chose the M16. They could have chosen anything they wanted AKs, FNs, M14s, G3s, AUGs, etc. AKs may have been considered because they could have used captured ammo and at a distance may have looked like Iraqi troops.

 

But they chose the M16s.

[GRIZ 3,369]

I highlighted a few select portions of this quote from both usnmars and GRIZ... while I agree that the M16/M4/AR15 platform can be reliable in the right hands and supported with proper cleaning kits, proper education on what parts to clean, and proper intervals of maintenance on both the rifle and magazines themselves, it appears to me that the DoD does not do the greatest job in supporting this weapons system in providing any of those things

 

DA please don't misconsture my statement regarding my use of Dri Slide. I do feel it is a superior lubricant for the M16, much moreso than the LSA that was issued. I suppose the military wouldn't adopt it as if you run your finger inside a M16 properly lubricated with Dri Slide it would rub off black. The military probably could not tolerate that! Other than the Dri Slide, which is a lubricant only, I had the same cleaning gear as everyone else in Vietnam at the time I was there. There were not numbers of rifles failing because others only had LSA. Dri Slide is better as a lube than LSA in my experience.

 

The military doesn't always give you the best. They give you the best at the cost they dictate. I carried a M14 in basic and early in Vietnam. In basic we were told that to get the bore cleaner and done faster to use Hoppe's #9 instead of GI borecleaner. You can get the job done with the GI stuff but Hoppes works better.

 

Just wanted to clarify those points.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I highlighted a few select portions of this quote from both usnmars and GRIZ... while I agree that the M16/M4/AR15 platform can be reliable in the right hands and supported with proper cleaning kits, proper education on what parts to clean, and proper intervals of maintenance on both the rifle and magazines themselves, it appears to me that the DoD does not do the greatest job in supporting this weapons system in providing any of those things

 

DA please don't misconsture my statement regarding my use of Dri Slide. I do feel it is a superior lubricant for the M16, much moreso than the LSA that was issued. I suppose the military wouldn't adopt it as if you run your finger inside a M16 properly lubricated with Dri Slide it would rub off black. The military probably could not tolerate that! Other than the Dri Slide, which is a lubricant only, I had the same cleaning gear as everyone else in Vietnam at the time I was there. There were not numbers of rifles failing because others only had LSA. Dri Slide is better as a lube than LSA in my experience.

 

Definitely not. I heard stories of older commanders who stressed the cleanliness of the exterior, even though the rifle would be back to being dirty within a few hours.

 

The military doesn't always give you the best. They give you the best at the cost they dictate. I carried a M14 in basic and early in Vietnam. In basic we were told that to get the bore cleaner and done faster to use Hoppe's #9 instead of GI borecleaner. You can get the job done with the GI stuff but Hoppes works better.

 

Just wanted to clarify those points.

 

That pisses me off, especially given the money the military and gov't as a whole waste on useless BS year in and year out. Seems to me it's more about what's best for the contractors and Federal employees than the warfighter...

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Do you honestly think, a country surrounded by people that hate them would use an inferior battle rifle to defend themselves to save some money? No.

 

Yes. Especially when a condition of the foreign aid you receive is that you need to spend it on their (the USA) stuff. We don't give Israel billions and then let them buy French, German, Russian weapons... we give it to them with the strings attached that they spend it here. Think of it as some perverse corporate welfare that benefits politicians and contractors here in the states.

 

All that needs to be said about the IDF and their relationship with the M4 Carbine/M16 is summed up with their move to the TAR-21. The only reason they keep the legacy systems around is because their plentiful and cheap.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I guess I have already clearly declared I am a M16/AR fan.

 

There is another more professional, although small, endorsement of the M16. "Bravo Two Zero" by Andy McNab is his account of leading a group of SAS troopers to locate and destroy SCUD sites in Iraq during Desert Storm (Gulf War I). The SAS are undoubtedly among the best, most experienced special operations troops in the world and the forerunners of about all modern Spec Ops troops since WWII. When they chose a rifle to take with them in the Iraqi desert with all that "moondust" gritty sand, in an area where they had zero fire support, would have to start engaging an enemy at longer ranges, and they chose the M16. They could have chosen anything they wanted AKs, FNs, M14s, G3s, AUGs, etc. AKs may have been considered because they could have used captured ammo and at a distance may have looked like Iraqi troops.

 

But they chose the M16s.

 

When given a choice between the early SA80 and the M16A2, the M16 was far superior. The SA80 was a trash rifle until HK fixed it in 2000 (at least from what I read). Weapons like the FAL/M14/G3 were probably excluded due to their weight (both rifle and ammo)... a weapon like the Aug might've been chosen.

 

As for AKs... thats a good question... maybe familiarity was an issue? Weight? Or even being mistaken for the enemy by friendly forces?

 

Definitely have that book on my 'must read' list on my kindle.