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.
Yup, it was designed that way specifically so it would make the soldier think about putting it on full-auto, the so-called "weapons expert" bartocci doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground...
The M16 does the same thing. A hasty, blind swipe drops it 90 degrees to semi. A full, deliberate 180 degree roll moves it to auto. Either requires more tactile manipulation to find auto. The same with every other integral safety / selector on the planet.
Of course the AK missed the target at 200 yards. The shooter was yanking the trigger like an old time dentist pulling a tooth. Get someone who knows how to shoot, to zero in the sight, and let that person shoot at the same 200 yard target. The AK is not that inaccurate.
@@Nabbyman it is rated for 600 yards not sure what the meters are just what i learn in the military from a nam vet instructor on the ak he said they will hit u between the eyes at 100 to 300 yards
One of the lessons the Soviets learned from WW-2 was that most battles were street fighting at ranges less then 100yd. The AK-47 does well in that environment. The accuracy and longer range of the M-16 would be a mute point.
I always thought these comparisons between M16 and AK-47 were stupid. If you want to kill someone in COMBAT at 300 meters, get a sniper rifle. The enemy won't stand there and wait for you to shoot him.
I'm tire of seeing people use piss poor marksman to show that the AK is horribly inaccurate. I can get headshot accuracy at 100m all day long with my AK and body shot accuracy out to 400m. Just saying, if these guys can't hit the target at 50m they have no business doing performance evaluations. It just hurts to watch somebody pull a trigger with such a lack of technique.
It's just the shooter, not the weapon. If you can get a shot on target at 400, good for you. A person trained on an AR can probably get a shot on target at about 600. So overall, the AR is just a more accurate rifle.
Which is why they make sights, my friend. Of course, you should be proficient with your weapons without sights as well as with them, but with good sights you can shoot accurately at great distances.
I live in a city so I picked an AR-15 as a mean for home defense. However, if I should quote a firearm expert, "If I was dropped off on a strange, unknown planet and I was allowed to have only one gun, I would choose the AK-47."
I was on KSR (reserve training course), We gets KBK AK MS (7.62mm - one of many varieties AK), they were over 20 years old, my was 35. On first training (distance 100m) many of us reach 90% accuracy. We have guns in our hands first time.
@ 18:00 lol He flipped some sand on it & then it just went click? How exactly does that happen? lol If it was going to malfunction due to sand, it would still fire the first round. Maybe he simply forgot to load it.
@brucetravers16 The MP7 is a very small round designed to penetrate body armor, 4.6 x 30 mm. The .223 was actually designed to be non lethal, the irony is that .223 rounds yaw considerably in soft tissue causing abnormal wounds. They also deliver a substantial amount of hydrostatic shock. There are some new rounds designed specifically for the new PDWs 6.8 mm and 6x35mm. These new rounds pack alot more punch than the .223
(CONT)iron sights on an Ak47 suck compared to an M4,but this topic might be relevant in the 1970s this is 2012 we dont use iron sights,the M4s have their iron sights dialed in for back up we use red dots(cco) or akogs,with that said when you put and akog or red dot on an ak47 you get good accuracy.effective range means jack diddly if you cant even see that far,300 meters or closer is where 95% of all combat takes place.at 500 meters good luck even seeing the target.
indeed. The m43 7.62x39mm FMJ tends to not reliably tumble in tissue. The 5.56 however is designed to fragment inside of tissue. Of course the Yugo M67 7.62x39 does tumble more reliably since the center of gravity of the cartridge is moved back. Of course they are all battle proven cartridges.
@milkduds1001 Soldiers were told they didn't need cleaned they were also shipped without cleaning kits. To make matters worse they supplied ammo made with ball powder, this type of ammo is considered dirty and known for fouling. They also did not have chrome lining or forward assist, these improvements came along shortly after thankfully. Cheapo magazines will cause more malfunctions than a dirty weapon, sadly our troops are issued faulty mags.
I'd compare the M-16 to an AK-74, NOT the AK-47 as they are similar caliber. There were several rifles made in USSR that were more accurate then AK-47 and AKM
This has to be the most inaccurate documentary in the history of documentaries. From the shooter missing at 200 yards to the AK being primarily a machine gun, almost everything about it was wrong. The most hilarious part had to be when they claimed that the sights made the M16 more accurate.
Kalashnikov was a tank mechanic and tank commander in WWII with an innate passion for tinkering with anything mechanical. His AK47 design was simple, easy to use and highly reliable in any combat environment. But the truth is that its eerily similar mechanical design to the STG 44 is no coincidence. Both assault rifles are gas piston operated, stamped metal, wooden stocks, near identical sights, similar rifle cartridges, and last but not least, those world recognized bent magazines. Although the trigger, double locking lugs and unlocking raceway were copied from the US M1 Garand.
John Hancock Germans were really advanced during WW2. Not just a case of AK-47 and STG-44, remember how M60 ended up created from combining FG42 lower frame with MG42 upper layout or the P38's Locked Breech system adopted by Beretta for their M9 design ?
There was a kid who was shot in the head and lost half of his brain but lived. Just because some marine survives from hit to face (which could be in jaw, cheek) doesnt mean 7,62x39 is ineffective. In our military its still used as main cartridge and 5,56 or 5,45 just cant replace it because they are too light. 7,62 does its job in correct enviroment just like every other caliber. And btw russians still use it nowadays as well.
Yes because the US is defiantly going to admit that they just couldn't compete with the enemy's weapon and use it instead of domestic weapons. Also more often then not US troops abandon their m16s & m4s for the ak-47 on the battlefield
Hey man, I'm an American and I like the AK just as much as the M16... for me it's not all about where a gun was designed, but about how it performs. I think the AK is just as useful of a tool as the M16, especially when you factor in that it's been used in more wars than just about any other assault rifle in history. Just wanted to say that so it's clear that not all of us Americans are biased jerks.
@Hincesti07 Very true, after all there is a weapon that out performs the AK in every aspect that makes it famous, the AA12. While it is a shotgun it fires faster then the AK, has more stopping power, accurate up to 100 yards or more (Depending on the type of ammo) almost never jams, very low recoil, made of aluminum so cleaning is very easy, and can even fire mini grenades. The AK is simply an old design. The only thing that makes it a hit with many countries is how cheap and simple it is.
Your reply didn't make proper sense. What i was trying to say in my original post, was that American troops use a fuckton more ammunition than what for instance British forces use. British forces control their fire more - they pick their shots and fire mainly single rounds, sometimes 2 -4 round bursts, but no more. My brother is a Commando and he's even informed me how trigger happy US troops are. Also, i wasn't making any statement about the Iraqi's weapon skills.
@esh325 Century Arms is known for poor workmanship! They do have a few decent rifles but I suggest handpicking it due to fit and finish problems. I bought the 1960 Polish AK 47 its milled and trouble free so far, it came with three mags cleaning kit and bayonet for $600.00. The downside no chrome lined barrel and the wood was mismatched. I stained and shellaced the wood but havent changed the barrel yet. American companies a producing rifles right now that make the AK or AR outdated!
@Hincesti07 I know that the M16 and M4 is the most sought after gun in the world but it would make sense with freakwent jamming. I don't know how you take care of your M16 but in war (Especially Afganastan) Marines running for cover, diving into the sandy ground, having dust storms, even using their bayanet then it wouldn't seem unlikly that it would jam more often then yours. But clearly you are the expert and untill I am in the trenches my self then I will see how reliable the gun truely is.
@flameshark101 Accuracy and power of the scar would depend on which round its chambered for. As far as reliability and performance issues the scar outdoes the ak and ar. There are other newer weapon systems beyond the scar! All the leading manufacturers are producing technologically advanced rifles such as ar-15s with ak gas systems or totally modular systems such as the scar.
The first one is the most important thing in the world of the day of the year and a few minutes to complete the game is to have the same thing as the other
the dude you talked must of never had to use it over there.going on a simply patrol coming back the M4 would be caked with dirt,if you lightly lubed it then sand would gunk up and the slide would make a screeching sound.if you dry cleaned it useing no lube then the gun would still get caked and jam,this ideally is no problem if you are only out on patrol a few hours then come back and clean the rifle,but if you are even clearing an entire city which can take 2 weeks to 3
would a 20 gauge pump shotgun with an 18.5 inch barrel and 2-3/4 inch number 4 24 pellet copper-plated buckshot be good for the type of combat in Vietnam?
@Hincesti07 Although the M16 can jam, most of the time it is a one second fix as long as it is properly cleaned and maintained. Another key factor is the users of the gun, most terrorists and rebels get very minor training to use the AK, and the AK takes alot of skill to use in order to make up for its short comings, The Marines have 12 weeks minimum of training with a better accurate weapon. In this case it is the Expert with the sword defeats the novice with the knife. hehe
@Hincesti07 oh, well in that case im sorry, really i am i thought you were one of those knowledgless guys that are following the crowd and never held a gun, i pretty much grew up with an AK47 so thats why im so hyped bout it.
@Hincesti07 I trust in the reliability of the gun, but in war it only takes one mistake for that situation to be fatal. But like I said you are the expert here so I will take your word for it.
@smersh007 5.56 outclassed by the 7.62? You realize the 7.62 is ballistically inferior to the 5.56 right? The 5.56 has less recoil, flatter trajectory, more damage on fleshy targets, much faster, more accurate etc. The only thing the 7.62 beats it in is stopping power. Please look up facklers chart.
@FrankDaTank1218 Wll, I agree - WTF! It was your question - “What will hurt What will hurt me more? Being hit by a 5.56mm, or having a 7.62mm miss me? " And I answered to you - you will be hurt more wit 9mm than missed with .45ACP. If you wanna compare power of two rifles - AK-47 with 7.62caliber far superior to AR-15 with 5.56 mm But I know you want to compare AK-47 (1947) with modern AR platforms (2007) - 60 years difference....
Who wins the war and has the most killed firearm no other than m16 period.ak is for slugfest thats why many ak47 fanatic are not soldier and firearm fanatic only.
I've had many informed debates about this very subject, and I've come to the following conclusion: neither rifle is truly better than the other - it all depends on the situation they are being used for. As an Army Vet, I've been shot at by them and I own several semi-auto versions myself. The accuracy thing too is something few people seem to understand - the rifle is almost always more accurate than the shooter is, and AKs are just as good at hitting a man-sized target at 300 meters as an AR.
cheeki breeki .no it's not AK-47 is durable dependable while the M16 is garbage M16 plastic pieces broke in rough jungle Terrain and when you needed it the most the M16 was out of bullet rounds and you had to stop to reload unlike the AK-47 30 round magazine clip and take an M16 to the shooting range and try to shoot down a nice thick steel plate with the M16 bullet round it bounces off it like a BB gun pallet while the AK-47 knock It down Easily it has stopping power meaning more internal lethal damage so you're wrong my friend the historian doctor saying the M16 is better than the AK-47 is biased of course he's going to say that he's American he needs to give credit where credit is due
@Documentary Detective II but why on Earth would they do that it makes no sense present two different versions unless it's done like how they present two different versions of movies in different countries but still that's really bogus like why would you sing in one version one gun is better than the other and then in the other version say the other gun is better than the other at least keeping the same
When I went to Las Vegas, I got to fire both of these guns on full-auto, I had two jams with the M-16 and the AK-47 fired with out hitch. If I was in the thick jungles of Vietnam I would go with the AK-47 that will not fail on me in the rainy muddy jungle.
You can't compare the two. No one is better than the other because they were made for completely different reasons. The ak47 was designed in mind to be a simple to use reliable weapon system that anyone could use. The m16 was designed especially to be a military purpose rifle. One has a piston system and the other DI. Its a stupid argument. Both are equally great in my eyes for specific reasons. If you really wana determine which is better its all situational based.
Many soviet weapons today are hotly debated to be on the level of American counterparts….. AK and M16, T-34 and Sherman, RPG and Bazooka, Abrams and T-72/ T-82…. etc. The Soviet doctrine is that weapons are made simply for easy use and durability, economics, and mass production. Russian weapons were never designed to be excellent accurate or high quality. HOWEVER, the US prides itself on having the best weapons and best firepower. When we debate weapons we debate them in terms of 1 on 1 excellence (the US’s field) frankly it is amazing that there is even any doubt that the high end weapon is not the superior, the USSR just didn't design its weapons for the purpose. And yet, there is a close battle between the weapons of the two countries. That this even occurs shows the brilliance of Soviet engineering. The T-34 was competing against high end Tiger and Panzer tanks and winning. To sum it all up, Soviet weapons, despite their ideology are nearly on par with the US ones. Finally, the purpose of this debate is to expose the best weapon on the actual battle field if we consider this and the Soviet doctrine the real debate is not between one high-end, precise weapon and one mass produced, malfunctioning, crummy Soviet weapon, but between one high-end, precise weapon and 101 mass produced, reliable, on par/ superior Soviet weapons, with the ability to kill en mass. The AK - 47 is deadly accurate when used by trained troops. The common misconception is that the AK is bad because of its "hoard" aspect but it is really a highly sophisticated deadly weapon. If your gun jams I don't care how accurate your stupid gun is. Although, I do disagree with the Communists on moral grounds, there is little debate as to who is superior in military terms. Hope this helps.
Considering the US has 10 times a bigger budget than russia, more advanced tanks/aircrafts/naval vessels/missile systems/ and firearms (also like to mention 80% of world militaries and special forces use a stoner designed weapon including Russia special forces lol) I’d say that your long winded comment is ill informed
@@meangreen320 Wow, ppl still discussing this. ok here's another way of looking at it. Soviet/Russian military philosophy is based on the fact that all their enemies will be able to strike at their centers of production, so they opt for the low tech, simple approach. US factories are pretty much not going to be invaded by anyone so they have the time and money to put into high tech solutions. And no Russian special forces use AK models that's tailored for their operations, not Stoner weapons..... and if you want to get into special forces, most use HK's, not AR's.
Ak worked better in jungle environment because the 7.62 had better penetration power so it penetrated the foliage more than the 5.56. M16 is more accurate but in a jungle fight you usually spray and pray
I like both...but the Ak always works...I was in the military and kept my m4 very clean...but it would misfire or jam every other mag...You could pull the bolt back and all would be fine but it was scary as hell...
@Hincesti07 Well thank you for the plesent reply and btw im 15 and i live in Amsterdam, I used to spend alot of time in Serbia with my Uncle and he had an AK47 he tought me how to shoot it and how to clean it, although i dont remember the cleaning part so much, i kinda grew up with it in that way because my parents moved to Holland cuz of the war in Serbia 1991-1996 so there was alot of paperwork and than you had the holidays. So its true.
LMFAO what kind of shit shooter did they have for the kalashnikov??? also, ALL rifle barrels flex, along with the entire weapon system. it is called harmonics... this is so biased it is ridiculous.
The AK-47 is better than the M16 because when you needed it the most it could still fire round thanks to the 30 round magazine unlike M16 when you needed it the most you we're out of bullet rounds and you had to stop and reload and the M16 plastic pieces on it couldn't handle the rough jungle terrain Vietnam veterans had to crawl through mud and down Hills and up with their M16 rifle in hand and broke and they were known to Jam unlike the AK-47 out of desperation a Vietnam veteran would pick up an AK-47 if they were lucky to find one from a dead body the AK wins hands down it is a dependable durable weapon the M16 is garbage compared to the AK-47 go to the shooting range with an AK-47 and an M16 and try to shoot a steel plate Target with the M16 round it bounces off it like a BB gun pellet while the AK-47 bullet round easily knocks it down it has stopping power meaning more lethal internal damage
Marco the m16 was rushed into service because the m14 couldn’t stand toe to toe with the ak 47 m14 platform you couldn’t carry enough ammo and it was worthless on full auto. 2 reasons why the m16 wasn’t ready for combat 1 in the 1960s making the m16 requires precision making the parts back then was much more difficult. 2 the powder was changed to old ww2 era ball powder meant for the m1 garand the powder swap is really what ruined the weapons reputation a modern day milspec m4 m16 ar15 beats the ak47 in reliability as far as dunking it in mud sand dirt now if you take the gun and abuse it let its parts corrode and rust the ak47 is more reliable so wtf do we do simple do what I did you buy both
Freak Nasty if the 7.62x39 was more lethal then why did they change to the 5.45x39mm round in 1974 lighter weight more range a touch more accuracy and more lethality
(CONT)then you willl start to see major problems even with daily constant maintenance the M4 was picky and would jam,I only met 1 guy in our company that LOVEd the M4 he never had a jam,the rest of us disliked the M4 it jammed way to much,also the older it got the more the magizine release quit working and magazines would slip out.also penetration was horrible(iraqi housing is concrete or brick mud not wood ak47 penetrated M4 did not do a good job.
i can end this whole argument with just 2 questions. How many frustrated VCs dropped their AK and picked up an M16? How many frustrated GIs dropped their M16 and picked up an AK?
@esh325 Before assault rifles they only had rifles and sub machine guns. Rifles couldn't maintain a high rate of fire but tended to be very accurate and have alot of knockdown power, sub machine guns were the exact opposite. The assault rifle is a combination of the two! In Vietnam the NVA used the SKS for well placed shots and used AK's to lay down supressive fire, the combination proved deadly!
@David Steffa how is it a better weapon? I'm an AK fan, but I'm not gonna lie the M16 is a far more effective weapon in most modern scenarios. It fires a better round, more accurate, far less recoil, more modular, more ergonomic, better sites, better layout, lighter. The AK has virtually no advantages.
One problem. Lighter is not always better. I know we are talking rifles but I do have a heavier guide rod in my sidearm on purpose to help with muzzle flip. Just sayin'
American weapons are designed so that they require a high maintain cost so that when the enemies take over them they can not be used. Soviet weapons are designed for dirt cheap manufacturing cost, easy to maintain, high durability so that they can be produced in large quantity and used many times. Different strategy to be precise.
Weigazod Actually the Russians did the same thing you're claiming the Americans did. They adopted the 9x18 Makarov round so that invading countries (who would likely be using 9x19, AKA 9mm Luger ammo) would not be able to use their weapons OR ammo.
Soviets never designed the AK47. It was a stolen design out of germany after ww2. Since ww2...the only thing soviets have done to change the weapon is to manipulate the gas system slightly and modify the woodwork's. They did reverse the numbers once lol. You have to remember, the Mauser k98 was a great reliable weapon also...nearly indestructible..but fact is... so how long you last using it in modern warfare today. We only need to look at the lack of success by those using ak47...even today. You have to remember, the m16 has progressed and the problems of use and cleanliness have been resolved in newer versions.
Don't be so Silly, AK-47 IS superior than M-16. From Far. Even american vets from Vietnam War said themselves on TV at that Time that they were buying with their own money amunition for Ak-47 since M-16 amunition don't fit AK-47. Because they didn't want to use M-16 on Battlefield. Toi many GI's died because of M-16. They threw away their M-16. So stop the Propaganda please.
@HistoryHmoobGuy Using commercial .223 Remington cartridges in a 5.56 mm NATO chambered rifle should work reliably, but generally will not be as accurate as when fired from a .223 Remington chambered gun due to the longer leade. Using 5.56 mm NATO mil-spec cartridges (such as the M855) in a .223 Remington chambered rifle can lead to excessive wear and stress on the rifle and even be unsafe, and SAAMI recommends against the practice
In head to head battle the M16/M4 has the most important bragging rights! Ultimately, the M16/M4 wielding troops have dealt more combat deaths to AK47/AK74 combatants than vise versa! Nuff said...
The 200 yards test is bullshit, let The same shooter take The shoots at 200 yards in an indoor shootingrange you should hit prety acurate whit The AK 47 to. The AK-47 has an efective firing range of 370 yards so he is a reely bad shooter. And by way the M-16 hade a big problem whit malfunctions it is to delicate for jusing in dirty condition! The AK-47 is made for all kind of condition. I think The Ak-47 is one of The moste impresive wepon in the history. It is the only automatic wepon that has survived for 70 yers whit some minor modifications. And to this Day thers been over 75 miljon AK-47 sold in the world and over 100 miljon in the AK-47 famely sold. So to me thers is NO competition The AK-47 is the best one. But there is other wepons that are better than th AK-47 in manny ways like The AR-15 and other wepons but in rebillety The AK-47 is the best there is. If I had to choose one wepon to Take whit me in the acopalyps i would choose The AK-47!!!!! Sorry for My speeling im not english speaking im frome Sweden
This is a 100% BULL M-16 should have been named the Jam Rifle the bolt would rust so bad it wouldn't move.WE never fired full auto basic load was 210 rounds. AK is a 100% better than a M-16.
I love how they hand the guy the AK that the sights are off because you got people on TH-cam hitting four hundred yards with them you actually have to adjust the sights I hate these one-sided horseshit videos when the history speaks for itself damn m16 failed AK won and are you kidding me you're saying that a 7.62 x39 won't kill past 200 yards as the same ballistics as a 30-30 it has more power down range in the 223 could ever have
I own both. 2 arsenals, and a colt. Both are well loved but as far as longer range accuracy, the AR has a slight edge. That being said, I loved my milled Arsenal’s. I would take them to the range over the AR. And 7.62x39 is quite a bit cheaper in my area. It just feels better to shoot.
In 1947 it (only the fixed-stock version) was introduced to a select units of Soviet Army. However the AK-47 was officially accepted for service by the Soviet Army in 1949.
Slightly off-center my ass after owning both ak is superior and barrel wiggle get out of here anything past 25 caliber has that a Beretta has that and it's stupid accurate and if the M16 is so great how come the Israelis didn't use it they had a modified version of the AK
The difference being one designer was actually a combat veteran of WWII and the other an engineer that never saw combat, he installed armament on aircraft while in the marines...
@esh325 If you watched the video you would see in slow motion just how badly an AK's barrel defelcts! The action of the unbalanced bolt sliding back causes this. Rifles with balanced bolts and bolt action rifles will not have this problem! Like I said you have no clue what your even talking about and each comment proves that point further and further! I love how with no research of your own to back anything up you try to debunk common knowledge that any gun collector knows!
@esh325 Then there is the M4 this is a shortened barreled AR! So to get it straight the military calls AR-15s' M16s'!!! An AR is not a civilian M16! I refer to the ORIGINAL AR the M16A1 as the "M16" as most people are confused and think that's an M16 and that the newer ones M16A2 are the AR-15s'! The testing in this video uses the original 16! So get your facts straight before you try to school somebody!!!
@esh325 Actually you have it all wrong! Armalite designed the AR-15 in the 50's and sold the design to Colt in 59' and put into military service in the early 60's! The term "M-16" was designated given to the AR by the military! Just like a can opener is called a P-38, the term M-16 is just what the military uses to identify the AR-15! The first AR's issued in 65 were designated the XM16E1 it was later shortened to M16A1 in 67'! Im out of room so I have to explain the rest in a second comment!
@esh325 The chinese were not happy with accuracy of the AK, they made minor "improvements" to the design and the end result was the Type 81. I researched the Chinese SKS and read the history of both the SKS and AK-47 I suggest you do the same! Have you ever looked up any of the bull you keep spouting off? I research things before I state them as fact or otherwise!
@HistoryHmoobGuy Your wrong there buddy! The owners manual for my Bushmaster specifically states to not use 5.56 ammo! Maybe you should research something before you state things as fact! I will make this easy for you, 5.56 has a higher chamber pressure and a longer headspace than a .223!!! I will post the details in a second comment!
Search this video on TH-cam -------- LWRC PSD Future Weapons --------- Or Google "LWRC M6 PSD" This an AR style weopon with a gas piston chambered for a 6.8 mm round
yea hey most people dont know that.it is true the 5.56 does MASSIVE damage to soft body targets compared to the 7.62X39,although any infantry soldier trained will look for cover so it does come in handy to have object penetration 5.56 breaks apart and doesnt penetrate objects that well 7.62 is a straight liner it does penetrate objects well.I think china solved this problem by making a 6.5 bullet giving it the best of both worlds.
I just dont understand your reasoning about burst and semi auto (unless from what I have been told is wrong) but all that I have read and been told is that US soldiers use guns that fire burst and semiauto, this is to reduce the amount of ammo wasted that way the guns are under control and in the heat of battle guys wont freeze while spraying bullets. You mentioned that " Fire enough bullets and you should win." Im confused as to how you say this when the "enemies" are just spraying. Im just
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.
Yup, it was designed that way specifically so it would make the soldier think about putting it on full-auto, the so-called "weapons expert" bartocci doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground...
@@oscardelta1257 Are you more trained on stoner platform than Bartocci?
The M16 does the same thing. A hasty, blind swipe drops it 90 degrees to semi. A full, deliberate 180 degree roll moves it to auto. Either requires more tactile manipulation to find auto. The same with every other integral safety / selector on the planet.
Honestly this reason never made sense because according to the Soviet Army manual of the AKM fully automatic fire is the main way to fire the AKM.
@@8166PC1 agreed
Of course the AK missed the target at 200 yards. The shooter was yanking the trigger like an old time dentist pulling a tooth. Get someone who knows how to shoot, to zero in the sight, and let that person shoot at the same 200 yard target. The AK is not that inaccurate.
@@Nabbyman yep even at 450 yards of 7.62x39 still has more power than a 223/556
@@Nabbyman you do realize a meter is longer than a yard
Jim James as far as groups go the m16 didn’t do so hot either lol
Im more of an ar fan but I still agree.
@@Nabbyman it is rated for 600 yards not sure what the meters are just what i learn in the military from a nam vet instructor on the ak he said they will hit u between the eyes at 100 to 300 yards
Small Arms Solutions brought me here.
One of the lessons the Soviets learned from WW-2 was that most battles were street fighting at ranges less then 100yd. The AK-47 does well in that environment. The accuracy and longer range of the M-16 would be a mute point.
I always thought these comparisons between M16 and AK-47 were stupid. If you want to kill someone in COMBAT at 300 meters, get a sniper rifle. The enemy won't stand there and wait for you to shoot him.
I'm tire of seeing people use piss poor marksman to show that the AK is horribly inaccurate. I can get headshot accuracy at 100m all day long with my AK and body shot accuracy out to 400m. Just saying, if these guys can't hit the target at 50m they have no business doing performance evaluations. It just hurts to watch somebody pull a trigger with such a lack of technique.
It's just the shooter, not the weapon. If you can get a shot on target at 400, good for you. A person trained on an AR can probably get a shot on target at about 600. So overall, the AR is just a more accurate rifle.
Which is why they make sights, my friend. Of course, you should be proficient with your weapons without sights as well as with them, but with good sights you can shoot accurately at great distances.
@Thành Hoàng Ngọc you don't even have to kill enemy, you just have to make him unable (for any reasons) to fight back
I live in a city so I picked an AR-15 as a mean for home defense. However, if I should quote a firearm expert, "If I was dropped off on a strange, unknown planet and I was allowed to have only one gun, I would choose the AK-47."
I wouldn't want to be down range of either of them!
I was on KSR (reserve training course), We gets KBK AK MS (7.62mm - one of many varieties AK), they were over 20 years old, my was 35. On first training (distance 100m) many of us reach 90% accuracy. We have guns in our hands first time.
they need to make a gun with the ak47s reliability and power,but with the m16s wheight and accuracy.
@ 18:00 lol He flipped some sand on it & then it just went click? How exactly does that happen? lol If it was going to malfunction due to sand, it would still fire the first round.
Maybe he simply forgot to load it.
That's what I said 🤣
He probably forgot to chamber a round. There's no way it went "click" from just a little sand or debris
@brucetravers16 The MP7 is a very small round designed to penetrate body armor, 4.6 x 30 mm. The .223 was actually designed to be non lethal, the irony is that .223 rounds yaw considerably in soft tissue causing abnormal wounds. They also deliver a substantial amount of hydrostatic shock. There are some new rounds designed specifically for the new PDWs 6.8 mm and 6x35mm. These new rounds pack alot more punch than the .223
(CONT)iron sights on an Ak47 suck compared to an M4,but this topic might be relevant in the 1970s this is 2012 we dont use iron sights,the M4s have their iron sights dialed in for back up we use red dots(cco) or akogs,with that said when you put and akog or red dot on an ak47 you get good accuracy.effective range means jack diddly if you cant even see that far,300 meters or closer is where 95% of all combat takes place.at 500 meters good luck even seeing the target.
Isnt the military moving towards a more 7.62x39 like bullet? The .300 blackout, for close confrontations.
indeed. The m43 7.62x39mm FMJ tends to not reliably tumble in tissue. The 5.56 however is designed to fragment inside of tissue. Of course the Yugo M67 7.62x39 does tumble more reliably since the center of gravity of the cartridge is moved back. Of course they are all battle proven cartridges.
its not about the guns. its about the strength of the military. and believe me. im a marine and i would rather use my AR-15 then an AK-47.
@milkduds1001 Soldiers were told they didn't need cleaned they were also shipped without cleaning kits. To make matters worse they supplied ammo made with ball powder, this type of ammo is considered dirty and known for fouling. They also did not have chrome lining or forward assist, these improvements came along shortly after thankfully. Cheapo magazines will cause more malfunctions than a dirty weapon, sadly our troops are issued faulty mags.
I'd compare the M-16 to an AK-74, NOT the AK-47 as they are similar caliber.
There were several rifles made in USSR that were more accurate then AK-47 and AKM
This has to be the most inaccurate documentary in the history of documentaries. From the shooter missing at 200 yards to the AK being primarily a machine gun, almost everything about it was wrong. The most hilarious part had to be when they claimed that the sights made the M16 more accurate.
Kalashnikov was a tank mechanic and tank commander in WWII with an innate passion for tinkering with anything mechanical. His AK47 design was simple, easy to use and highly reliable in any combat environment. But the truth is that its eerily similar mechanical design to the STG 44 is no coincidence. Both assault rifles are gas piston operated, stamped metal, wooden stocks, near identical sights, similar rifle cartridges, and last but not least, those world recognized bent magazines. Although the trigger, double locking lugs and unlocking raceway were copied from the US M1 Garand.
John Hancock Germans were really advanced during WW2. Not just a case of AK-47 and STG-44, remember how M60 ended up created from combining FG42 lower frame with MG42 upper layout or the P38's Locked Breech system adopted by Beretta for their M9 design ?
There was a kid who was shot in the head and lost half of his brain but lived. Just because some marine survives from hit to face (which could be in jaw, cheek) doesnt mean 7,62x39 is ineffective. In our military its still used as main cartridge and 5,56 or 5,45 just cant replace it because they are too light. 7,62 does its job in correct enviroment just like every other caliber. And btw russians still use it nowadays as well.
Yes because the US is defiantly going to admit that they just couldn't compete with the enemy's weapon and use it instead of domestic weapons. Also more often then not US troops abandon their m16s & m4s for the ak-47 on the battlefield
Long Live Absolute World Peace
Hey man, I'm an American and I like the AK just as much as the M16... for me it's not all about where a gun was designed, but about how it performs. I think the AK is just as useful of a tool as the M16, especially when you factor in that it's been used in more wars than just about any other assault rifle in history. Just wanted to say that so it's clear that not all of us Americans are biased jerks.
They were designed for two very different purposes. There were ideological and philosophic differences.
@Hincesti07 Very true, after all there is a weapon that out performs the AK in every aspect that makes it famous, the AA12. While it is a shotgun it fires faster then the AK, has more stopping power, accurate up to 100 yards or more (Depending on the type of ammo) almost never jams, very low recoil, made of aluminum so cleaning is very easy, and can even fire mini grenades. The AK is simply an old design. The only thing that makes it a hit with many countries is how cheap and simple it is.
Your reply didn't make proper sense. What i was trying to say in my original post, was that American troops use a fuckton more ammunition than what for instance British forces use. British forces control their fire more - they pick their shots and fire mainly single rounds, sometimes 2 -4 round bursts, but no more. My brother is a Commando and he's even informed me how trigger happy US troops are.
Also, i wasn't making any statement about the Iraqi's weapon skills.
@esh325 Century Arms is known for poor workmanship! They do have a few decent rifles but I suggest handpicking it due to fit and finish problems. I bought the 1960 Polish AK 47 its milled and trouble free so far, it came with three mags cleaning kit and bayonet for $600.00. The downside no chrome lined barrel and the wood was mismatched. I stained and shellaced the wood but havent changed the barrel yet. American companies a producing rifles right now that make the AK or AR outdated!
this is so biased towards the m16 it's not even funny.
Well, history has been biased towards the M16 and its derivatives so it seems about right
Rofl
Not one hit the paper. Lol who the fuck was shooting Ray Charles?
I owned an AK and they have a vital flaw, if you leave the safety off large amounts dirt can enter the receiver and cause a dead trigger
@Mark Mattson
Oh? Watch Ian's (forgotten weapons) mud and sand test of the AK and the AR
@@kirkstinson7316 yeah…lol….guess AK fanboys on here haven’t seen that video. The mighty AK locks up so bad it becomes unusable.
@Hincesti07 I know that the M16 and M4 is the most sought after gun in the world but it would make sense with freakwent jamming. I don't know how you take care of your M16 but in war (Especially Afganastan) Marines running for cover, diving into the sandy ground, having dust storms, even using their bayanet then it wouldn't seem unlikly that it would jam more often then yours. But clearly you are the expert and untill I am in the trenches my self then I will see how reliable the gun truely is.
the ak47 is called a 47 becuase it was made in 1947. where'd you get 49?
@flameshark101 Accuracy and power of the scar would depend on which round its chambered for. As far as reliability and performance issues the scar outdoes the ak and ar. There are other newer weapon systems beyond the scar! All the leading manufacturers are producing technologically advanced rifles such as ar-15s with ak gas systems or totally modular systems such as the scar.
The first one is the most important thing in the world of the day of the year and a few minutes to complete the game is to have the same thing as the other
the dude you talked must of never had to use it over there.going on a simply patrol coming back the M4 would be caked with dirt,if you lightly lubed it then sand would gunk up and the slide would make a screeching sound.if you dry cleaned it useing no lube then the gun would still get caked and jam,this ideally is no problem if you are only out on patrol a few hours then come back and clean the rifle,but if you are even clearing an entire city which can take 2 weeks to 3
would a 20 gauge pump shotgun with an 18.5 inch barrel and 2-3/4 inch number 4 24 pellet copper-plated buckshot be good for the type of combat in Vietnam?
@Hincesti07 Although the M16 can jam, most of the time it is a one second fix as long as it is properly cleaned and maintained. Another key factor is the users of the gun, most terrorists and rebels get very minor training to use the AK, and the AK takes alot of skill to use in order to make up for its short comings, The Marines have 12 weeks minimum of training with a better accurate weapon. In this case it is the Expert with the sword defeats the novice with the knife. hehe
@Hincesti07 oh, well in that case im sorry, really i am i thought you were one of those knowledgless guys that are following the crowd and never held a gun, i pretty much grew up with an AK47 so thats why im so hyped bout it.
@Hincesti07 I trust in the reliability of the gun, but in war it only takes one mistake for that situation to be fatal. But like I said you are the expert here so I will take your word for it.
@smersh007 5.56 outclassed by the 7.62? You realize the 7.62 is ballistically inferior to the 5.56 right? The 5.56 has less recoil, flatter trajectory, more damage on fleshy targets, much faster, more accurate etc. The only thing the 7.62 beats it in is stopping power. Please look up facklers chart.
A comment on small arms solutions said Chris was in here so here I am
they see me trolling, they hating, complaining, that they dont know russian, that they dont know russian,
@walterpeecoletrain agreed!
@FrankDaTank1218
Wll, I agree - WTF!
It was your question - “What will hurt What will hurt me more? Being hit by a 5.56mm, or having a 7.62mm miss me? "
And I answered to you - you will be hurt more wit 9mm than missed with .45ACP.
If you wanna compare power of two rifles - AK-47 with 7.62caliber far superior to AR-15 with 5.56 mm But I know you want to compare AK-47 (1947) with modern AR platforms (2007) - 60 years difference....
Who wins the war and has the most killed firearm no other than m16 period.ak is for slugfest thats why many ak47 fanatic are not soldier and firearm fanatic only.
Ak's creator made ak47 when he was a teenager and it became the best gun in the world
bro calm down he just improved the STG44
Will Loomis my guy i was 13 when i commented that 😂😂😂
@@abussadu Absolute dedication
@@Loomismusic estetically they are similar but the mechanism of the ak is more similar to a garand while the m16 is similar to the german one
the jerk shotting the AK jerks the trigger just look around 20:00
I've had many informed debates about this very subject, and I've come to the following conclusion: neither rifle is truly better than the other - it all depends on the situation they are being used for. As an Army Vet, I've been shot at by them and I own several semi-auto versions myself. The accuracy thing too is something few people seem to understand - the rifle is almost always more accurate than the shooter is, and AKs are just as good at hitting a man-sized target at 300 meters as an AR.
Gunguy I guess it might be more of an Iraq vs Afghan debate for which weapon would be better
There is no need to argue. Thay are both great firearms.
cheeki breeki .no it's not AK-47 is durable dependable while the M16 is garbage M16 plastic pieces broke in rough jungle Terrain and when you needed it the most the M16 was out of bullet rounds and you had to stop to reload unlike the AK-47 30 round magazine clip and take an M16 to the shooting range and try to shoot down a nice thick steel plate with the M16 bullet round it bounces off it like a BB gun pallet while the AK-47 knock It down Easily it has stopping power meaning more internal lethal damage so you're wrong my friend the historian doctor saying the M16 is better than the AK-47 is biased of course he's going to say that he's American he needs to give credit where credit is due
Freak Nasty please tell me you’re joking
Dumb dumb
@@freaknastycreep2737
Magazine clip doesn't exist.
Ak better
I like both guns but i have too much love for the AK47
i just watched the british version of this and the end of this said something completely different, it said the ak was superior flat out.
@Documentary Detective II but why on Earth would they do that it makes no sense present two different versions unless it's done like how they present two different versions of movies in different countries but still that's really bogus like why would you sing in one version one gun is better than the other and then in the other version say the other gun is better than the other at least keeping the same
When I went to Las Vegas, I got to fire both of these guns on full-auto, I had two jams with the M-16 and the AK-47 fired with out hitch. If I was in the thick jungles of Vietnam I would go with the AK-47 that will not fail on me in the rainy muddy jungle.
You can't compare the two. No one is better than the other because they were made for completely different reasons. The ak47 was designed in mind to be a simple to use reliable weapon system that anyone could use. The m16 was designed especially to be a military purpose rifle. One has a piston system and the other DI. Its a stupid argument. Both are equally great in my eyes for specific reasons. If you really wana determine which is better its all situational based.
Jason Loewe finally an intellectual comment.
Unlike those a$$holes saying AK is better.
As a Brit ive got to side with ours brothers across the pond lol.
Thanks for the support from the u.s. side of the pond!
God Save The King
Many soviet weapons today are hotly debated to be on the level of American counterparts….. AK and M16, T-34 and Sherman, RPG and Bazooka, Abrams and T-72/ T-82…. etc.
The Soviet doctrine is that weapons are made simply for easy use and durability, economics, and mass production. Russian weapons were never designed to be excellent accurate or high quality. HOWEVER, the US prides itself on having the best weapons and best firepower. When we debate weapons we debate them in terms of 1 on 1 excellence (the US’s field) frankly it is amazing that there is even any doubt that the high end weapon is not the superior, the USSR just didn't design its weapons for the purpose. And yet, there is a close battle between the weapons of the two countries. That this even occurs shows the brilliance of Soviet engineering. The T-34 was competing against high end Tiger and Panzer tanks and winning.
To sum it all up, Soviet weapons, despite their ideology are nearly on par with the US ones. Finally, the purpose of this debate is to expose the best weapon on the actual battle field if we consider this and the Soviet doctrine the real debate is not between one high-end, precise weapon and one mass produced, malfunctioning, crummy Soviet weapon, but between one high-end, precise weapon and 101 mass produced, reliable, on par/ superior Soviet weapons, with the ability to kill en mass.
The AK - 47 is deadly accurate when used by trained troops. The common misconception is that the AK is bad because of its "hoard" aspect but it is really a highly sophisticated deadly weapon. If your gun jams I don't care how accurate your stupid gun is.
Although, I do disagree with the Communists on moral grounds, there is little debate as to who is superior in military terms.
Hope this helps.
interesting post, my friend. i just wanted to point out you did say T-82 ;) i think you meant T-80 :D
Considering the US has 10 times a bigger budget than russia, more advanced tanks/aircrafts/naval vessels/missile systems/ and firearms (also like to mention 80% of world militaries and special forces use a stoner designed weapon including Russia special forces lol) I’d say that your long winded comment is ill informed
@@meangreen320 Wow, ppl still discussing this. ok here's another way of looking at it. Soviet/Russian military philosophy is based on the fact that all their enemies will be able to strike at their centers of production, so they opt for the low tech, simple approach. US factories are pretty much not going to be invaded by anyone so they have the time and money to put into high tech solutions. And no Russian special forces use AK models that's tailored for their operations, not Stoner weapons..... and if you want to get into special forces, most use HK's, not AR's.
Ak worked better in jungle environment because the 7.62 had better penetration power so it penetrated the foliage more than the 5.56. M16 is more accurate but in a jungle fight you usually spray and pray
This documentary is disgusting.
The m16 barrel made from fiberglass lol wat? Did he mean hand guard?
Yeah, he meant hand guard.
I have heard a few mistakes like that.
Especially the Left that has no clue about weapons.
Yeah Sergei is talking out of his ass
I like both...but the Ak always works...I was in the military and kept my m4 very clean...but it would misfire or jam every other mag...You could pull the bolt back and all would be fine but it was scary as hell...
if you're in Vietnam you need reliability and a round that can cut through jungle foliage, so the AK wins every time in that theater
The only one that will equal the AK is the H & K 91
@Hincesti07 Well thank you for the plesent reply and btw im 15 and i live in Amsterdam, I used to spend alot of time in Serbia with my Uncle and he had an AK47 he tought me how to shoot it and how to clean it, although i dont remember the cleaning part so much, i kinda grew up with it in that way because my parents moved to Holland cuz of the war in Serbia 1991-1996 so there was alot of paperwork and than you had the holidays. So its true.
How was your time spent in Serbia? Did you like it there
love both rifles that's y I got both.
maddux J same. Neither are supremely better than the other. Both are great rifles. It’s a shame, people miss out on a lot of fun by being biased lol
I love my AR, and I plan on buying an AK onve all the pandemic and election hysteria dies down and prices come down from the stratosphere.
LMFAO what kind of shit shooter did they have for the kalashnikov??? also, ALL rifle barrels flex, along with the entire weapon system. it is called harmonics... this is so biased it is ridiculous.
The ak is a better weapon deal with it
The AK-47 is better than the M16 because when you needed it the most it could still fire round thanks to the 30 round magazine unlike M16 when you needed it the most you we're out of bullet rounds and you had to stop and reload and the M16 plastic pieces on it couldn't handle the rough jungle terrain Vietnam veterans had to crawl through mud and down Hills and up with their M16 rifle in hand and broke and they were known to Jam unlike the AK-47 out of desperation a Vietnam veteran would pick up an AK-47 if they were lucky to find one from a dead body the AK wins hands down it is a dependable durable weapon the M16 is garbage compared to the AK-47 go to the shooting range with an AK-47 and an M16 and try to shoot a steel plate Target with the M16 round it bounces off it like a BB gun pellet while the AK-47 bullet round easily knocks it down it has stopping power meaning more lethal internal damage
Today’s battlefield is more urban. So m16’s are the best weapon of choice in 21st century.
Marco the m16 was rushed into service because the m14 couldn’t stand toe to toe with the ak 47 m14 platform you couldn’t carry enough ammo and it was worthless on full auto. 2 reasons why the m16 wasn’t ready for combat 1 in the 1960s making the m16 requires precision making the parts back then was much more difficult. 2 the powder was changed to old ww2 era ball powder meant for the m1 garand the powder swap is really what ruined the weapons reputation a modern day milspec m4 m16 ar15 beats the ak47 in reliability as far as dunking it in mud sand dirt now if you take the gun and abuse it let its parts corrode and rust the ak47 is more reliable so wtf do we do simple do what I did you buy both
Freak Nasty if the 7.62x39 was more lethal then why did they change to the 5.45x39mm round in 1974 lighter weight more range a touch more accuracy and more lethality
@@freaknastycreep2737 you read that from a book didnt you🤭
I think this is a funny vids, the us tries to make them superior against the AK, every one knows that AK is much much better in every way
(CONT)then you willl start to see major problems even with daily constant maintenance the M4 was picky and would jam,I only met 1 guy in our company that LOVEd the M4 he never had a jam,the rest of us disliked the M4 it jammed way to much,also the older it got the more the magizine release quit working and magazines would slip out.also penetration was horrible(iraqi housing is concrete or brick mud not wood ak47 penetrated M4 did not do a good job.
Practically it almost impossible to jam Kalashnikov
So they said that M16 doesn't need to be cleaned?
Wtf
Every gun should be cleaned after every battle even if it wasn't used
i can end this whole argument with just 2 questions.
How many frustrated VCs dropped their AK and picked up an M16?
How many frustrated GIs dropped their M16 and picked up an AK?
The M16 platform has changed significantly since vietnam. A modern AR variety is much more reliable than any AK.
@esh325 Before assault rifles they only had rifles and sub machine guns. Rifles couldn't maintain a high rate of fire but tended to be very accurate and have alot of knockdown power, sub machine guns were the exact opposite. The assault rifle is a combination of the two! In Vietnam the NVA used the SKS for well placed shots and used AK's to lay down supressive fire, the combination proved deadly!
@David Steffa how is it a better weapon? I'm an AK fan, but I'm not gonna lie the M16 is a far more effective weapon in most modern scenarios. It fires a better round, more accurate, far less recoil, more modular, more ergonomic, better sites, better layout, lighter. The AK has virtually no advantages.
In retrospeat wouldn'y it be fairer to compare the AKM to the M16. They were conseaved closer together in time, thus fairer.
Long live the m16
Lol. Noob. XD
One problem. Lighter is not always better. I know we are talking rifles but I do have a heavier guide rod in my sidearm on purpose to help with muzzle flip. Just sayin'
Ak 47 is best ...
There is soooo much brazen horse crap throughout this production it gave me a seizure. 🤦♂️
ok.. but lets "suppose" you dive in the desert, your "m-16" falls and lays on the sand. now shoot.? lmao
It depends where you’re in battle. City or dense woods I’d opt for the AK in the desert or open country I’d opt for the 16.
American weapons are designed so that they require a high maintain cost so that when the enemies take over them they can not be used. Soviet weapons are designed for dirt cheap manufacturing cost, easy to maintain, high durability so that they can be produced in large quantity and used many times. Different strategy to be precise.
Weigazod Actually the Russians did the same thing you're claiming the Americans did. They adopted the 9x18 Makarov round so that invading countries (who would likely be using 9x19, AKA 9mm Luger ammo) would not be able to use their weapons OR ammo.
Soviets never designed the AK47. It was a stolen design out of germany after ww2. Since ww2...the only thing soviets have done to change the weapon is to manipulate the gas system slightly and modify the woodwork's. They did reverse the numbers once lol. You have to remember, the Mauser k98 was a great reliable weapon also...nearly indestructible..but fact is... so how long you last using it in modern warfare today. We only need to look at the lack of success by those using ak47...even today. You have to remember, the m16 has progressed and the problems of use and cleanliness have been resolved in newer versions.
Don't be so Silly, AK-47 IS superior than M-16. From Far. Even american vets from Vietnam War said themselves on TV at that Time that they were buying with their own money amunition for Ak-47 since M-16 amunition don't fit AK-47. Because they didn't want to use M-16 on Battlefield. Toi many GI's died because of M-16. They threw away their M-16. So stop the Propaganda please.
@HistoryHmoobGuy Using commercial .223 Remington cartridges in a 5.56 mm NATO chambered rifle should work reliably, but generally will not be as accurate as when fired from a .223 Remington chambered gun due to the longer leade. Using 5.56 mm NATO mil-spec cartridges (such as the M855) in a .223 Remington chambered rifle can lead to excessive wear and stress on the rifle and even be unsafe, and SAAMI recommends against the practice
In head to head battle the M16/M4 has the most important bragging rights! Ultimately, the M16/M4 wielding troops have dealt more combat deaths to AK47/AK74 combatants than vise versa! Nuff said...
The 200 yards test is bullshit, let The same shooter take The shoots at 200 yards in an indoor shootingrange you should hit prety acurate whit The AK 47 to. The AK-47 has an efective firing range of 370 yards so he is a reely bad shooter. And by way the M-16 hade a big problem whit malfunctions it is to delicate for jusing in dirty condition! The AK-47 is made for all kind of condition. I think The Ak-47 is one of The moste impresive wepon in the history. It is the only automatic wepon that has survived for 70 yers whit some minor modifications. And to this Day thers been over 75 miljon AK-47 sold in the world and over 100 miljon in the AK-47 famely sold. So to me thers is NO competition The AK-47 is the best one. But there is other wepons that are better than th AK-47 in manny ways like The AR-15 and other wepons but in rebillety The AK-47 is the best there is. If I had to choose one wepon to Take whit me in the acopalyps i would choose The AK-47!!!!! Sorry for My speeling im not english speaking im frome Sweden
This is a 100% BULL M-16 should have been named the Jam Rifle the bolt would rust so bad it wouldn't move.WE never fired full auto basic load was 210 rounds. AK is a 100% better than a M-16.
I love how they hand the guy the AK that the sights are off because you got people on TH-cam hitting four hundred yards with them you actually have to adjust the sights I hate these one-sided horseshit videos when the history speaks for itself damn m16 failed AK won and are you kidding me you're saying that a 7.62 x39 won't kill past 200 yards as the same ballistics as a 30-30 it has more power down range in the 223 could ever have
I own both. 2 arsenals, and a colt. Both are well loved but as far as longer range accuracy, the AR has a slight edge. That being said, I loved my milled Arsenal’s. I would take them to the range over the AR. And 7.62x39 is quite a bit cheaper in my area. It just feels better to shoot.
I´m looking for a comparison of the newer model of both, AK 101 and M16A3
In 1947 it (only the fixed-stock version) was introduced to a select units of Soviet Army. However the AK-47 was officially accepted for service by the Soviet Army in 1949.
Slightly off-center my ass after owning both ak is superior and barrel wiggle get out of here anything past 25 caliber has that a Beretta has that and it's stupid accurate and if the M16 is so great how come the Israelis didn't use it they had a modified version of the AK
The difference being one designer was actually a combat veteran of WWII and the other an engineer that never saw combat, he installed armament on aircraft while in the marines...
@esh325 If you watched the video you would see in slow motion just how badly an AK's barrel defelcts! The action of the unbalanced bolt sliding back causes this. Rifles with balanced bolts and bolt action rifles will not have this problem! Like I said you have no clue what your even talking about and each comment proves that point further and further! I love how with no research of your own to back anything up you try to debunk common knowledge that any gun collector knows!
@esh325 Then there is the M4 this is a shortened barreled AR! So to get it straight the military calls AR-15s' M16s'!!! An AR is not a civilian M16! I refer to the ORIGINAL AR the M16A1 as the "M16" as most people are confused and think that's an M16 and that the newer ones M16A2 are the AR-15s'! The testing in this video uses the original 16! So get your facts straight before you try to school somebody!!!
@esh325 Actually you have it all wrong! Armalite designed the AR-15 in the 50's and sold the design to Colt in 59' and put into military service in the early 60's! The term "M-16" was designated given to the AR by the military! Just like a can opener is called a P-38, the term M-16 is just what the military uses to identify the AR-15! The first AR's issued in 65 were designated the XM16E1 it was later shortened to M16A1 in 67'! Im out of room so I have to explain the rest in a second comment!
The best weapon? The one at hand when you need a gun
@esh325 The chinese were not happy with accuracy of the AK, they made minor "improvements" to the design and the end result was the Type 81. I researched the Chinese SKS and read the history of both the SKS and AK-47 I suggest you do the same! Have you ever looked up any of the bull you keep spouting off? I research things before I state them as fact or otherwise!
@HistoryHmoobGuy Your wrong there buddy! The owners manual for my Bushmaster specifically states to not use 5.56 ammo! Maybe you should research something before you state things as fact! I will make this easy for you, 5.56 has a higher chamber pressure and a longer headspace than a .223!!! I will post the details in a second comment!
You mount a good scope to a well designed AK/AK copy; its accurate and reliable enough
Search this video on TH-cam -------- LWRC PSD Future Weapons ---------
Or Google "LWRC M6 PSD" This an AR style weopon with a gas piston chambered for a 6.8 mm round
yea hey most people dont know that.it is true the 5.56 does MASSIVE damage to soft body targets compared to the 7.62X39,although any infantry soldier trained will look for cover so it does come in handy to have object penetration 5.56 breaks apart and doesnt penetrate objects that well 7.62 is a straight liner it does penetrate objects well.I think china solved this problem by making a 6.5 bullet giving it the best of both worlds.
I just dont understand your reasoning about burst and semi auto (unless from what I have been told is wrong) but all that I have read and been told is that US soldiers use guns that fire burst and semiauto, this is to reduce the amount of ammo wasted that way the guns are under control and in the heat of battle guys wont freeze while spraying bullets. You mentioned that " Fire enough bullets and you should win." Im confused as to how you say this when the "enemies" are just spraying. Im just