ar15 vs ak47

[Lunyfringe]

I think your spinning...my bias was against those who were trying to kill me, read it again.

There is no testing needed if you accept the fact they are simply different for the reasons I have already stated. They both well for the intended employment. Accuracy is totally subjective. Depending upon what box you chose to play in sub MOA or get every shot in the space of a pie plate, one is a sniper going for mile long shots the other is an Infantry soldier just needing to stop a bad guy on the killing field and the AR and AK both a good track record.


I built the first TELCO grade data center capabler of US Treasury transactions not built by a TELCO. In fact one of the legs of the backbone actually ran thru my datacenter. If my lawyers would have let me I could have given 5 9's SLA. I consulted with such companies as AT&T, Lucent Bell Labs and others on design architecture of hardware, redundancy etc.

One can only infer so much bias from a forum post, but I figured it was enough for some confirmation bias- and I probably implied it was more you than others by quoting your post, but most of the myth promulgating was by others (at least some were attempts at humor)...

A basic field grade M4 or low-grade commerical AR15 isn't going to be sub-MOA, either... but all your points about subjective accuracy are taken- Accuracy wasn't going to play a big factor when the average conscript had so little training. For that matter, many US troops are trained to get bullets flying at the target QUICKLY, so accuracy is not their primary concern in that situation either. It's just that the accuracy of the AK platform is widely denigrated, frequently without any basis... There are lots of reasons for that, many of them were mentioned in that full30 video I posted.

Nice job on the data center work, building proper redundancy and diversity is a chore... We constantly work with Telco issues around diversity, redundancy and latency (they want to consolidate to save $$, putting all the fiber in the same ROW as much as possible)... diversity and low latency are frequently exclusive to each other to some degree. One of our service offerings actually has an SLA better than 5 9's (that service is expensive, dual diverse carriers into redundant POP's that have a minimum separation). We hold to that SLA very well, outside of specific force majeure exclusions such as terror attacks, or widespread natural disasters (9/11 and Hurricane Sandy come to mind)... but the market was closed for a time for logistical reasons during those events anyway... our backbone was ready for the next market open.

 

[TheMailMan]

United States Marines still fire for qualification at 500 yards. Due to the design of the AK that would be pretty damn hard.

 

[Lunyfringe]

United States Marines still fire for qualification at 500 yards. Due to the design of the AK that would be pretty damn hard.

In what caliber? Some members of NATO use 5.56 versions of the AK. (Polish Beryl 1996, for example)

 

[TheMailMan]

5.56x45

AK = shorter sight radius and the quality of the sights.

 

[Lunyfringe]

5.56x45

AK = shorter sight radius and the quality of the sights.

The Beryl was redesigned with a POPC sight rail over the top cover:
http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=295&page=2

Also used with optics... or flip sights...

It ain't 1947 anymore, the AK has been evolving

 

[TheMailMan]

That's a specific variant of the AK. Marines have been doing it with all versions of the M16/M4.

 

[Lunyfringe]

That's a specific variant of the AK. Marines have been doing it with all versions of the M16/M4.

The point is that if they had been using an AK design, they would have changed/evolved it to suit the requirement of 500 yards. Probably could have done a better job than the Beryl design, too.

I'm not suggesting the Marines adopt the AK (in any variant), just that it can be (and has been) developed to meet changes in requirements over the years.. Just because there are combatants using 60+ year old AKs in some areas of the world doesn't mean that's what every AK is.

Do the Marines issue Vietnam era M16s to troops still? no, that would be stupid.

 

[oldag]

... I could go on and on about different AK47 designs (milled vs stamped, Russian vs Yugoslavian vs Chi-com, etc, etc)... there is no single "AK47".

Very pertinent observation. I would not use most all of the foreign AK's simply because I do not trust the quality of materials and workmanship (as opposed to the design).

 

[Big Green]

United States Marines still fire for qualification at 500 yards. Due to the design of the AK that would be pretty damn hard.

Yes, but we are shooting at a man sized target, it's certainly not precision shooting. Now having an optic helps too.

Also, some are using a 20" M16A4 and others a 14.5" M4.

 

[TheMailMan]

The point is that if they had been using an AK design, they would have changed/evolved it to suit the requirement of 500 yards. Probably could have done a better job than the Beryl design, too.

I'm not suggesting the Marines adopt the AK (in any variant), just that it can be (and has been) developed to meet changes in requirements over the years.. Just because there are combatants using 60+ year old AKs in some areas of the world doesn't mean that's what every AK is.

Do the Marines issue Vietnam era M16s to troops still? no, that would be stupid.

I wish they would. Much better performance out of that 20" barrel.

 

[Lunyfringe]

I wish they would. Much better performance out of that 20" barrel.

not with the original 1-in-14 twist rate... wouldn't stabilize 55gr to anywhere near that distance.

but the M16A4, sure... but if your primary purpose is engaging targets at 500yards, that's not an optimal choice anyway. It's like the original question "which is better"... should always be answered with another question "better for WHAT?"

 

[easy rider]

And the wheel goes round and round....

 

[TheEnglishman]

If the SA80 had been commercially available to the public, the debate wouldn't be is an AK47 better than an AR15, but which one is 2nd best to the SA80





Yes I'm joking. The SA80 was one of the worst military rifles ever designed

 

[Sam7sf]

Ar15 vs akm is always a funny thread.
From ar and ak to the parts alone, a manufacturer is just a machine/fab shop. We all look at things from the perspective of our experience. So I look at it from a machining/fab/mechanical point of view then that helps me along the way on opinions of the two. the ar15 action is just simply way more linear. Barrel harmonics is one factor, but how an action handles things is also a factor. Both are old designs now but here's the reality...the ar15 is going to be the favorite for a while because it's easy to produce. Much more easy than an ak. Even if you mill a receiver you still have a speciality gun when compared to an ar. Most cnc shops are gonna be better off pumping out ar parts. The machining industry is what killed the ak. Tooling advanced and favored the ar. It doesn't matter how you cut cost, simplify fixtures, tool paths, the ar will always end up being completed faster. Plus with just changing an upper and mag you now changed your ar15 to hit at 500 yards accurately ie different caliber.

 

[pharmaco]

The Beryl was redesigned with a POPC sight rail over the top cover:
http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=295&page=2

Also used with optics... or flip sights...

It ain't 1947 anymore, the AK has been evolving

The ak47 was only produced until 1949

 

[TheMailMan]

not with the original 1-in-14 twist rate... wouldn't stabilize 55gr to anywhere near that distance.

but the M16A4, sure... but if your primary purpose is engaging targets at 500yards, that's not an optimal choice anyway. It's like the original question "which is better"... should always be answered with another question "better for WHAT?"

Umm... we had M16A1 rifles and they had no problem with 55 grain bullets at 500 yards.

 

[Lunyfringe]

The ak47 was only produced until 1949

type 1, 2 or 3? The type 4 was called an AKM AK "modernized", and was produced starting in 1959. This is when they went back to a stamped receiver... type 1 was also stamped, but they lacked machinery to mass produce that design, so type 2 was milled, type 3 was lightened. Types 1,2 and 3 were referred to as AK47s.
Ok, that makes it easy, if you want to compare a modern AR to an 80 year old rifle... unless we're talking collector value. Or are we comparing Eugene Stoner's original AR15 design from 1959?

Umm... we had M16A1 rifles and they had no problem with 55 grain bullets at 500 yards.

Technically, the AR15 designed by Eugene Stoner was first deployed (trials) as the XM16E1 that had the 1-in-14... The M16A1 was standardized on 1-in-12 twist and chrome lined chambers... the original AR15 design was 1-in-14, I believe (certainly whey there were test fielding it as the XM16E1 it was) After all, we're comparing an AK47 to an AR15 not an M16, right?

So are we comparing an 80 year old gun to one made this year? or to Mr. Stoner's original design of a scaled down AR10?
So as it turns out, the original question is too vague to be answered at all

 

[pharmaco]

type 1, 2 or 3? The type 4 was called an AKM AK "modernized", and was produced starting in 1959. This is when they went back to a stamped receiver... type 1 was also stamped, but they lacked machinery to mass produce that design, so type 2 was milled, type 3 was lightened. Types 1,2 and 3 were referred to as AK47s.
Ok, that makes it easy, if you want to compare a modern AR to an 80 year old rifle... unless we're talking collector value. Or are we comparing Eugene Stoner's original AR15 design from 1959?


Technically, the AR15 designed by Eugene Stoner was first deployed (trials) as the XM16E1 that had the 1-in-14... The M16A1 was standardized on 1-in-12 twist and chrome lined chambers... the original AR15 design was 1-in-14, I believe (certainly whey there were test fielding it as the XM16E1 it was) After all, we're comparing an AK47 to an AR15 not an M16, right?

So are we comparing an 80 year old gun to one made this year? or to Mr. Stoner's original design of a scaled down AR10?
So as it turns out, the original question is too vague to be answered at all

Aside from fencing and the charging handle, what has changed?

 

[Lunyfringe]

Aside from fencing and the charging handle, what has changed?

I suspect you really don't WANT to know... so look it up your damn self.

 

[pharmaco]

I suspect you really don't WANT to know... so look it up your damn self.

Any time a question starts with "aside from", there's a good chance it's at least partially rhetorical.


I just found it odd that you're choosing to present the two rifles as being from radically eras, when in reality they were invented 8 years apart.

There's no need to get snippy.