There is no such thing as an " Obsolete" weapon, period. Some things, like black powder muzzle loaders, may have become more Niche, but they are still used in Subsistence Hunting and Combat all over the world. Everything from Handmade tribal Matchlocks in Africa and South America, to centuries old European Muskets being used by Arab tribes against eachother and US forces in the mountains of Afghanistan and Siria. O.o And then of course swords, machetes, knives, bayonet, bows, ROCKS, and Bare Fists take more lives Today (just do to Population Growth) than at any time before in history. So all these "Is (blank weapon) Obsolete?" videos are just pointless :/
@@turanamo theres also the fact that they have gotten the ukraine situation wrong. its ukraine that is losing. NOT russia. the fighting was mostly dominated by artillery and airstrikes. the average artillery man dont need a fancy rifle. now this doesnt mean that the ak is the best rifle in the world or something. however, it is a fact that the ak is NOT obsolete at all. also, if rifles truly have such a great effect on modern warfare, then where did all those fancy ukrainian rifles go? i dont see ukraine winning with those fancy rifles. meanwhile, the average east ukrainian rebel are armed with ak rifles, and theyre winning the war against ukraine. this channel mostly focuses on small arms and small arms alone. of course they wont give us context of what is actually happening in ukriane.
1911 is obsolete thing that is being used. There are many more modern DA/SA designs with more rounds and better ergonomy. AK is old but certainly not obsolete.
@@xmeda the 1911 has one or two advantages over most pistols though... Namely the great trigger. On a pistol, sometimes, that covers up other obsolete features. What advantages does the AK have over any other gun? It's not more reliable despite what people might say, it's no longer cheaper in the US, and it certainly doesn't have the ergonomics or battery of arms of a modern weapon. Maybe the Galil Ace, Valmet, or sig 55x series could fit the bill, but when is an AK no longer an AK.
This is, by far, the _longest_ comment I have *ever* seen you post in 10+ years. It may have taken more than a decade but I knew you had some complete sentences in you Mike! Stay classy my friend.
@@chriso2759 The issue is, most shooters who don't get a lot of training will never make the hits that would warrant the 1911 trigger. If I had a bunch in storage I would seriously consider surplussing the lot and acquiring a modern pistol. On the other hand, the AK is a rifle. If you have it, issue it.
One point to bear in mind is that someone killed with an obsolete weapon is just as dead as someone killed with a state of the art weapon. A rock can kill you as dead as a modern assault rifle.
I flew into Afghanistan at night in a ch-47. I was the only civilian on board. We made about four stops to offload troops. The last stop we did a quick stop to pull out about six troops from the field. American forces with beards and bedsheets all carrying ak-47s.
Maybe the bedsheets part means they were operating undercover? Hence the rifles? Not only to blend into the environment, but to also increase duration behind enemy lines by living off the enemy's ammo. Just speculating
I hear American special operations groups in Vietnam also regularly carried the AK-47 or AKM or Chinese knockoff especially when going behind enemy lines. I think especially then the AK platform was at an advantage. Significantly more durable than the original M16, a higher magazine capacity than 20 rnd M16 mags, better cover penetration through trees and dirt, and at jungle distances the accuracy difference was irrelevant. Also was better than an M14… as accurate as the M14, had lower recoil than the M14, and ammo weighed less than 7.62 NATO.
@@eddieroberts9794 The people who say this either only have experience with military garbage guns or have never actually tried it on a decent build lol.
This couldn’t be further from the truth, how do you over run an artillery position? I bet more than half of the deaths in the war Rifht now are by small arms. Yes the big guns absolutely play a role. Without small arms and effective small arms the big guns wouldn’t be active for long. And yes quality of a rifle can play a role but there is a reason it’s called combat accuracy. AKs were invented for warfare like this, cheap rifles that could last the lifespan of a soldier (which was about 5 minutes in 1947) the reason we seek out durable bomb proof rifles in America is because we want to prepare for the worst and want a rifle that can keep going and stay accurate I’m case we can’t replace it. This is why AKs suck and why AK guys are a joke and have zero understanding have firearms and actual war. AKs are great if you have manufacturing power because they are cheap and easy to make and for how cheap and easy they are to make they are combat effective. Pretty accurate, pretty rugged (not as rugged as AKs make them out to be though) but they shit the bed at about 5000 rounds like Jonny deeps wife.
AK is also great because of effective and reliable magazines. In ar-15 there is a variety of failures that are causes by the mags. They can be easily deformed, you can squeeze 31st round into them, they can be tough to insert with a closed bolt, and so on. Of course there are hundreds of AR style magazine types, and all of them have their own combination of disadvantages. But ak mags just work. You can't put 31st round there, you can't fail to push them into the magwell in the way, that the rifle will look loaded but it actually won't be. They are harder to break, and when broken, they always look broken, unlike aluminum stanags, which you can slightly deform and you won't see the difference. On top of that, ak family gets a whole lot of high-capacity magazines. 45-rounders are in the army, they are widespread and are just as reliable as standard 30-rounders. There are 60-round 4-row magazines for the AK, they have their own problems, but they are way more reliable than stanag 60-rounders. There are even 95 round drums, which aren't as reliable as standard mags, but they are ones of the most reliable drums on the market. Of course AR family has its own high-capacity mags. But long 42 round stanags are awful, 60 round stanags work worce than their ak derivative, and commercial 60 round drums are usually doubtful P.s. note that the reliability of high-capacity magazines is an extremely important factor. They are usually used in close combat, and if your rifle does "click" instead of "bang" in cqb, it means that you'll die
@@toledobranch1099 and Russia has lost 25k+ troops with 5k being confirmed. Ukraine destroyed the Russian flagship without even having a navy. let’s not forget ukraine also killed 12 Russian generals, destroyed 390+ tanks, 60 personnel carriers and 200+ aircraft. You have no clue what ur talking about. Ukraine and the United States are taking turns whipping out their dick and slapping Russia with it.
7.62x39 "is an inferior cartridge"?!?!?! LOL - clearly, you have not spoken to anyone who has been in combat and shot by that caliber. Real veterans will tell you - "I'd rather be shot by an AR15 ANYTIME versus that damned AK round." Not one of your best shows, guys.
AK is the manual transmission farm truck. There is a charm and admiration for it. Also if you learn how to drive with it everything else after is easy.
What the Ukrainian war has reminded us is how little rifles contribute to a total war near peer conflict. Artillery, tanks, IFVs, missiles and even crew serves weapons play a far bigger role. Rifles still have a place in CQB.
since ww2 individual rifles become quite marginal, the role of infantry become carrying ammo for squad machine gun, carrying grenades, mortar rounds and provide support, but very few kill get scored by rifles.
Yes, true. Rifles in the modern world will shine only in guerilla type operations when modern ordinance has already destroyed all the high value targets. Small arms are just not that important in a full scale war.
You don’t have to make the actual AR parts to say you built your AR. When I build houses I don’t manufacture the drywall and screws or cut down trees to make 2x4s and 2x6s but I’m still building the house itself using pre produced parts.
True, especially considering how many people are completely incompetent in doing manual labor of just about any type. Imagine the guys that couldn't figure out how to swap a spare tire, trying to assemble a AR.
I always interpreted 'building an AR' to include scraping out the insides of the billet and to me that making of your own lower receiver makes it a build, but what he describes.., sticking insides in someone else's ready made lower, that is just assembling.
One shouldn't confuse the Donbass militia with regular Russian forces. Especially early in the war before they were integrated into the Russian armed forces. The Russians continue to manufacture some of the finest custom sniper rifles and combat optics in the world, which you have never heard of, and which are currently in use with the Russian armed forces.
Just wanted to point out that despite the configurability of the AR, from a military standpoint that doesn't really translate to end-user configurability, because the military still insists on treating everyone except Tier-1 operators like children that can't be trusted to do anything to an AR...regardless of how much said user knows or might have done in civilian life.
@tackytrooper: I was just thinking about this the other day. As s "new soldier," I woulda got yelled at if I had taken initiative and started unbolting and bolting stuff on my issued M16... Lol!
Just because one might be a civilian mall ninja, / keyboard warrior makes you an experienced battlefield soldier. Real world field army soldiers have all sorts of personnel with varied backgrounds and expertise. They function as a team and working in unison not as lone wolf operators. Every man can use and operate each others kit. Don't believe all the Rambo crap, and stop watching all the Hollywood B.S. you all ain't John Wick....winning in battle is not dependent on strickly equipment gimmicks. The old adage " keep it simple stupid" KISS comes to mind.
the AK as shown in the Afghanistan war, when combined with apropriate tactics is not obsolete. That applies to any reliable weapon system because it is just a tool in the overall arsenal of tactics, strategy training etc of any army
@@RickSanchez167 A gun is only obsolete if it either puts the user at a massive disadvantage or it is easily countered by most opponents. The M-1 and Mosin-Nagant are obsolete. I don’t think that’s true for the AK though. Yes, it’s less accurate than the AR/M-16/M-4 platform, and it can’t penetrate Level III armor at close range, those two things don’t come into play against the majority of opponents. It can still do its job pretty well, despite there being better platforms out there, kinda like the F-16 today. Now, when everyone gets Level III or IV body armor, that might make it obsolete. But that’s not the case right now.
@@bluemarlin8138 the M1 and the Mosin are obsolete but they still shoot a bullet. until bullets become obsolete those guns are still useable and they are cheap and readily available in some parts of the world.
the m1 and mosin are obsolete. they dont use modern mags. quick follow up shots are awful. dont use modern optics. youd have to modify them significantly just to make them competitive with modern guns. the ak on the other hand is NOT obsolete. just because some folks complain about not being able to modify them, doesnt mean aks are obsolete. now this doesnt mean that the ak is the best rifle in the world. its not. however, it is a fact that its NOT obsolete. also, in ukraine, the fighting is dominated by artillery and airstrikes. the average artillery man dont need fancy rifles. look at whats happening now. where are all those fancy rifles ukraine has? is it making them win? no. they are losing territory over and over. cities also defecting to the russian side. the ukrainian peopIe in the east rebelling against ukraine and siding with the russians. right now russia controls territory in ukraine bigger than some countries. they have done this through artillery and airstrikes. yes, you need infantry to take ground. but who allows infantry do that? its artillery and airpower.
And the only thing adjustable was the sling. Anyway... The M16 suffers greatly from shitty aluminum mags whose lips are bent but you can't tell with your eyes, so every time it jams you'd think it's the rifle. Most military using the AK use steel or polymer mags, so bent mag lips causing jams are far less common. This helps perpetuate the myth of AR being less reliable.
@@therover65 It's a difference of doctrines to me. American doctrine was to have disposable systems (magazines, barrels, etc.) since they were backed with continuous supply from a highly industrialized nation (refer to the M-1 carbine). The Kalashnikov system is designed to outlast the common man, and to be serviced by both guerrilla and soldier for decades without a single part of the system needing to be upgraded or even replaced.
There are two AK-12's. The Zlobin prototype was a brand new rifle whereas the 2016-pattern AK-12 has nothing to do with that and is basically a '74 with rails.
Old school Corps here. I never had optics when I was enlisted and still prefer iron sites. Now that I am older I have went to red dot low magnication as it gives me a better view of the target, but I still think iron sites are the best if you still have good eyes!
Seems to me like the guys who actually use their rifles a lot, namely the spec ops dudes, make perfectly good use of their modernised AKs. But, if we want to talk about learned lessons from the Ukraine war, the rifle is the last place to start talking about, since this is primarily an artillery and mechanization war. Even if we magically equipped the entire Ukraine military with gucci-ed up M16s, the reality is that most of them would still die from artillery, tactical balistic missiles, tank shells and other afvs, long before thes have any chance of shooting anyone with their rifle. That is what the reality of modern war is, not some crubstomping in the Middle East. Death is violent, sudden and most of the tine you don't even see it coming.
The failure of command and control, lack of a professional NCO class, the corruption in Putin's Russia, and the utter failure of much of the Russian army reforms that were started in the late 90's probably has more to do with poor Russian performance than old AK's with no red dot sights (which is indicative of failure to modernize the army and weapons systems in general outside a few showpieces). The Russians aren't even following the doctrinal lessons they set out from the old Soviet days much like they didn't in Chechnya to similar results like sending in armor without proper infantry support against a well motivated and armed resistance in an urban area.
@@kgjung2310 one wonders how they were able to cripple Ukraine's command and control, logistics and ability to maneuver strategically given tvat they are so incompetent
From Telegram, seeing the raw stuff, it's a slaughter on Ukraine. The Russian artillery is relentless at the front, and the rear gets an endless barrage of missiles. The militia fighters from the Republics are fighting to free their homes, the Russians are professionals, and the Chechens just love fighting. American audiences have gotten used to severe mismatches of forces where our side demolishes everything with a roof for 2 months and then rolls in a quarter million strong army 3 tech generations ahead of the opposition. The war in Ukraine is showing what a relative peer engagement looks like. Top 10 lessons to learn from Ukraine 1. Professionalization is the way - professional Russian troops (60% of their military) are outkilling the Ukrainians (80% conscripts) at a roughly 1.5-2.2:1 ratio. The Russians are outnumbered and on the offensive and yet steadily gaining ground, this shows the gap in skill between professionals and conscripts. 2. Artillery is still extremely important - Russia's artillery work is magnificent and keeps Ukraine on the general defensive. 3. Systems that rely upon enemy cooperation are overrated - just look at the lack of play the Javelin (need to be exposed and have eyes on target for 15+ seconds) gets vs NLAW, RPG, and Stugna. The Stugna is the true MVP because it's a fly by wire system with a passive camera and remote operation. 4. Shock and awe methods can be beaten by a competent and disciplined army - Ukraine proved that by surviving the initial Russian storm that Shock and Awe depends on a total disruption of the hostile force; if the defense holds, the extremely vulnerability of the forward units, lack of resupply, and lack of secured ground allow for the total rapid collapse of an offensive. 5. Infantry are still important. Once again, the reality that you don't own something you can't put infantry on uncontested is still true. Putting soldiers on land is how control is established. 6. Logistics is still important. Russia's first month performance was embarassing due to bad logistics and weak planning in general. Ukraine is having issues equipping its soldiers; troops are going into battle with partial gear or even just a uniform and a rifle; there is no shortage of images of Ukrainians without helmets, armor, and sometimes even boots. 7. Military and politicians should never be the same people. Had military men like Dvornikov and Serdyukov been in charge from the start, the former responsible for the excellent special action in Syria and the the latter steamrolling the Georgians in 3 days despite starting from a severely disadvantaged position against a likely NATO trained and armed enemy, the aim likely could have been achieved by now. 8. Political goals matter. There wouldn't be a big war had Russia used a 2014 repeat method to fill in the Republics with mercs and deniable assets and then just hosted votes to join Russia. The attacks on Kiev and Harkov turned it from a strategic land grab to a big war. 9. Soft power is important. Going to war is usually more trouble than it's worth if you aren't in the kool kidz klub and you force people to choose between you and the world's wealthiest group of countries. 10. Drones aren't quite there yet. Bayraktar drones are great for propaganda, but they are at most a tactical asset.
Selection of small arms is a very minor factor when it comes to waging war. Logistics, crew served, anti-tank/artillery weapons and overall military doctrine is far more important.
not true at all... giving your individual troops even the slightest advantage leads to significant advantage when it comes to numbers at the end of the day. Little inefficiencies can lead to soldiers losing firefights individually.
@@fireball676 In 1944 some German units had superior small arms to American, British and Canadian units. It didn’t make much of a difference because the war had already been decided through logistics. If you don’t have any ammo for your Stg44 or MG42 or fuel for your vehicles then your small arms advantage does nothing. Tactics are not inconsequential but the big picture involves much more.
yes me to bro!! got my wasser 10 AK 3 30 round mags a bayonet and 200 rounds of wolf ammo in 2004 with 400 bucks of my graduation money lol i miss the days of $3 buck a box 7.62 ammo. I also remember the gun store selling SKS and 500 rounds of wolf for 200 bucks at the same time. also same day my dad bought a mosin negont 7.62x54 with 200 rounds of ammo for 150 bucks!! them deals are gone forever.
It needs a bit more than a face lift. It needs to be redesigned with modern manufacturing and materials in a manner that more naturally incorporates the features desired. Basically they need to do what they've already done with the AKV 512, but go even further beyond.
Russia's answer for a facelift is the AK-12. And the AK-12 just shows that a facelift isn't gonna cut it. Even Kalashnikov Group seemed to question what they were making, but it's what was ordered.
@@bruhtholemew because their version of a facelift was done on the cheap and cut corners. We know AKs can be modernised and get a proper facelift, but the russian government were corrupt, cheap and useless.
Obsolete is a funny thing to call the most common weapon pattern in the world. I primarily use ARs. But I have an AK to keep up with familiarization with the most common weapon system used in the world. Non optimal is a better description.
The only thing the AK doesnt do _easily_ is modernize to mount IR devices. Optics have been easy for years, white lights have been easy, but the few good rails are just heavy and need to be muscled into place. It can be done, and its been done for years, it just ends up being heavier and harder to do. Works just fine though.
I have a Zastava M92. Texas Weapons Systems, Manticore Arms and Copper Custom supplied me w/the parts that turned my AK into a more modern weapon. I did all the work myself and it was actually quite easy to do.
Probably the densest discussion about AKs I've seen in some time. Very easy to mount lights optics etc. to AK's these days, plenty of companies offer them stock with everything you need. About the only thing I will agree on is that AKs are too expensive in the US, but that has more to do with import bans and a still developing AK manufacturing industry in the US.
Like it or not, the AR based gun is a better rifle, but the AK-47 is a better weapon. When you squeeze the AK trigger it delivers lead. Reliability is the most important factor in a combat weapon. There's a reason why it's the most manufactured gun in history.
People don't understand how important popularity is. The ability to acquire spare parts, mags, and ammo is important. If the shitty Italian 6.5 carcano was the most popular rifle in the US, you could bet your ass I'd own a few. Some people avoid the popular choice because of this weird modern trend to be different.
Does it go "bang" when you pull the trigger? Does a bullet come flying out of its barrel then? Can that bullet kill? Is it reliable enough to work even in the most severe of conditions? Is it simple and easy to operate? If "yes", then it's not obsolete...
I think of the AK and Glock pistols are similar in concept and execution: Both are simple and robust, with fewer parts and wider tolerances than more modern designs. They tend to go bang when the trigger is pulled, and in the right hands are very effective. The difference (between one being a long gun and the other a handgun, of course) is that Glocks benefit from virtually unlimited kinds and supplies of add-ons and improvements that the AK tends to lack.
One big difference is that Glocks actually have good quality controls, and parts made to fit a Glock 19 of a particular generation are guaranteed to fit it. That isn't the case for AKs.
These discussions are interesting, but i think the information we are working with is suspect at best. I think the lessons learned when the war is actually over will be quite different than the ones we think we've learned right now.
exactly, there's too much of a fog of war going on to determine what works and what doesn't work for infantry. Especially with the vast amounts of fake news floating around.
What has impressed me the most of this war is how useful a weapon can be, regardless of caliber or age. We even got to see Mosins and other WW2 guns pressed into real use. I'm simply awestruck that even with it's age, the AK platform is a truly timeless design. I own 2 kit built Romy MD.65's made in both 1968 and 1971 and have crazy smooth actions. I am firmly of the opinion that depending on the situation, weapons seemingly obsolete might surprise you. In my experience, I got to see 2 Iraqi Police engage and destroy a small group of insurgents armed with SKS rifles and glocks.
An AK 47 is perfect for what it is built for, close range shooting within 200 yards. It is dependable, the mags are easy to disengage and engage and the 7.62 bullet is very effective. Past 200 yards give me a FN/FAL every time as long as I don't have to hump the ammo. That is what M 16s was built for, light gun and light ammo. I shot an M16 a lot more than I like and maybe that is why I hate them.
The AK is less than 20 years older than the m16; just something to bear in mind. I totally agree with you though. Everything from WWI on up is pretty much still useful. In fact, things like the Springfield, Mauser, Lee-Endield, Garand, etc are still great weapons in a DMR role.
I have both platforms. They have two different jobs. They do both jobs excellent. Within 150 yards the 7.62x39 AK-47 round is devastating compared to the 5.56. In my personal experience my AR-15 shots more accurate at distances 100+ yards. However if you take time to zero in your AK-47 with proper sites you can shot great grouping out to 300+ yards. Side mounted sites on my AK-47 holds perfect zero time after time. I don't have experience with top mounted/dust rail mount holding or not holding zero. With modern optics + modern 7.62x39 ammo the AK-47 has never been more accurate and fun to shot. BTW, at 300 YARDS the 5.56 provides around 532 Ft/Lbs of energy. The AK-47 is around 714 Ft/Lbs of energy. I love both platforms and they serve a specific purpose for your needs.
@@dondineen110 Your fine and I’m no keyboard warrior so your corrections are legitimate and yes I should have checked my bad spelling before I post on the internet
The new Century Arms VSKA doesn't have a scope rail. It is obsolete or obsolescent. I have one. I also have a Serbian ZPAP M70 with a 1-8x24mm Sig scope. It is marginally better.
One of the best ways to add optics to the AK platform is with a picatinny railed dust cover. The hinged ones hold zero very well. AKs are not going away despite the whiners and nay sayers.
I genuinely think the perfect marriage of the two is the Zastava m90. Last round bolt hold open (with proprietary mags), chrome lined barrel, side rail sight mount that holds zero in a repeatable fashion, and the big one, chambered in 5.56. comes DEFAULT with an adjustable stock, handguard pic rails for flashlights, and an adjustable gas system to mitigate recoil impulse while maintaining reliability in all conditions.
The 550 and FNC are probably going to be the best combination since they include some of the best parts of the AR like the split receiver with action of the AK.
"Iphone doesn't get viruses." Okay, to be fair Apple has had way less exploits due to their closed platform over other OS's , but they are not impervious to them and Apple has patched out many issues with IOS and Mac Os over the years. I think the better comparison is a stock AR 15 vs a Race Style Ar-15, there may be better things about the race gun, but giving users the ability to modify the firearm can lead to pushing the limit of the firearm or even user error.
It's quite the opposite in reality. I phones are Highly susceptible to virii due to apples lack of updates and covering holes. The reason they don't get hit as often is due to market share.
For it's purpose no. Look at the Ukraine. No one had guns. They got attacked. Break out the basic AK's. An hour of training. A couple trips to the range, and bam. You've magnified your army exponentially! Not the most effective, but they are still a force to be reconned with. They can still fill the air with bullets.
I own a Sig 556R and its a sewing machine, a heavy sewing machine, but has a very solid predictable recoil and when paired with an ACOG (3x with BDC reticle) its just as good at 100-200 yards as using a base mil-spec clone AR. Granted, its all in training with a system, and consider that when you say anything going out to further distances, but If I compare it to a Mid to "Gucci AR", its just not going to hold up, even in CQB where I would rather use a SBR AR15 in 300 blackout with 9" barrel suppressed. The AK has one role by the limitations of the platform, where the modularity/customization of an AR and the ability to adapt to more environments quickly just cant be beat.
..... you guys are a bunch of arm chair bad asses, the best weapon in Ukraine is a shovel! Legion bad asses showing up with lasers, night vision and fancy armaments add-on are a ducking joke and most of those guys go home to momma because they fought towel heads in sandals for 10 years! It will get you killed in Ukraine! Shovel, canteen, goretex body bag, and a rifle with iron sights or ACOG is best choices! Rambo knives and silencers are for arm chair bad asses!
For me I’ve used AR platforms for 33 years in one uniform or another…and I’ve used AK’s for about as long also.. In the realm of defending your life… Either will do the job. The bottom line is they are just plain different from one another…An AR is a better overall rifle in some regards. An AR is just as reliable as an AK. But an Ak can be neglected more if need be… An AR is more accurate but an AK is accurate enough to get the job done.. If you need a higher degree of precision then you’re probably using something else anyway. I can run either platform as efficiently as the other…and unless you’re an SRT/ spec ops operator all the Barbie accessories a lot of folks seem to think they need end up just being a damn nuisance..optic, front grip , and some sort of light will serve 95% of shooters out there…I will agree these mods are easier on an AR but quality ones for AKs are available, but do need some fitment
I think it would be important to add to this discussion, that there is a difference between configurability based on original design, and something being configurable because of the amount of time and money put into making it configurable.
Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I still exclusively use iron sights on everything but my hunting rifles. Just a touch of reflective paint or a set of Triton sights is really all you need
"Is the [modern firearm] obsolete?" Well, as usual, no. Its a lightweight, select fire carbine that fires an intermediate round with accuracy well within acceptable limits.
soldiers using AKs are getting clapped by better trained soldiers using AKs naturally, the only conclusion to draw is that the AK is obsolete, because sometimes some of the soldiers using AKs use bullpups and surplus M4s
Honestly my take is that yes, the AK could use a straight-in magazine well, a more modular assembly and better barrel harmonics, but if you have a weapon that can compete in a one on one gunfight against a modern rifle and be ready for another one immediately after, it's not obsolete. It's all about setup.
It's surreal to see 2 years after upload all these pictures of the young Ukrainian men who are long dead since then. Was it worth it, Victoria? (I know her answer is the same as Albright's was.)
a friend of mine did a couple of tours in Afghanistan, he said they always kept a few captured AKs around. the closest they got to regular cleaning was to occasionally take them out of the vehicle, pour the sand out of the mags, and put them back. He said they always went bang.
I wonder why they kept those, as MAC puts it “smooth bore AKs” around. 🧐 I guess we’ll have to wait for whatever excuse MAC makes up in a couple of months.
@@lgbtqisahategroup9781 since he's been a stated fan of the AK in the past, I am starting to wonder if he's got some customers at Copper Custom really wanting some AKs and he doesn't have any to sell them ... so he's trying to steer them toward ARs. ;)
@@mhicaoidh1 Thank God the US DOD adopted a proper military cartridge in a proper military rifle. AR guys are still in denial and constantly citing “SF guys say the AR is an amazing gun” yet i don’t know of any SF guys that ever said that. I wonder what’s next for AR guys. Will they fall into obscurity or will they start doing their gun guru BS with the new sig rifle and 6.8 calling every other caliber obsolete. Only time will tell whether or not they have an ounce of dignity.
I think people often confuse the term “obsolete” with “ineffective.” Is a standard 7.62x39 AKM with no mount for optics obsolete? Yes, is it still effective to a degree? Also yes
You're constructing a straw man argument. Your statement is true of an AR as well, and assumes an AK can't have an optic. It's not difficult to mount an optic on an AK ... if you have a side scope rail: RS Regulate mount. If you don't, Ultimak, Midwest Industries, or Zenitco rail with a gas tube mounted optic ... done. Every AK is capable of having an optic mounted on it.
@@mhicaoidh1 You didn’t read my comment very well. It’s a lot more difficult to mount optics on an AK that isn’t set up for it for an average Joe. Also has block rails suck, but seeing as all your comments are arguing with people over dumb shit I’ll go ahead and say you have a good day, and please don’t bother responding
@@ViktoriousDead Its surprising the people with zero tactical experience outside of flatfoot range practice that have an opinion, I am with you. Theres a reason the afgannys squat and shoot over their head while we aim down sights lol.
I used an AKM years ago in 7.62x39 (which was legal BTW) for whitetail deer. Extremely effective, 1 shot everytime. I loved it. I found it similar to a .30-30 for wild game. We never had to shoot beyond 200m where I hunted. It put the venison on my table for many years.
The fact that the optic comes off everytime you clean the weapon and take off the dust cover isn’t a good design. Way too easy to not hold zero overtime when tolerances open up. Israelis also use the M16 / M4 heavily
@@IIMoNsTerII7 got to be careful with American builders. Some are really really good, but some are very bad. I have had the pleasure of shooting 3 and I own 1 Ohio Ordinance and they are top tier quality guns
I will always love the AK. My first semi-automatic rifle was a Romanian WASR 10/63 underfolder (bought it around '09, still have it), and even though I own a couple of AR's the AK is still my go to gun if I have to run a rifle for extended periods without maintenance. I have gone literal YEARS without breaking it down and cleaning it, and the thing just keeps going.
You can love the AK but the recoil takes a second to get back on target and anything over 300 yards is going to take some shots to find where shes hitting, 300 yards is a 14 inch drop for the .556 no recoil shot on shot. The military making these .277 fury 6.8 same caliber is a mistake, they should of just made the .556 just a tad bigger at a .25 and make the casings a tad bigger, still light and hold a LOT more rounds then what they are going to have with the 6.8
My first semi auto rifle was an ak actually but totally durable to the situation, found a friend of a friend selling a quality one in most brand new condition for way under budget with a bunch of other parts/accessories and ammo. I actively train with it as well as may AR and man it is a blast.
When you're speaking in terms of obsolescence, you need to do so in relative terms. So, relative to other options in the year 2022, is the AK, obsolete? Yes. Fucking yes. lol
@@chadpatrick5112 Obsolete for what lol? Does a conscript army need HK 416s with IR lasers and nightvision scopes? IF not, then the AK74 is more than enough
1. On a "real world" battlefield - if you can't hit a target without "fancy" optical sights then you are in the wrong place! Because your "fancy" optics generally either are shattered under constant Artillery bombardments or require a power source - batteries, which generally are difficult to find when you are fighting for control of the 4th floor in a residential building under constant Mortar shelling for 5 days with enemy Snipers in the surrounding buildings. 2. Same problem with "tacticool" lasers and lights, requiring batteries that do not grow on trees. Which also reveal your position in low light to opposing forces. 3. When you are fighting for control of a ruined city for a month forget about anything that can't work without replacement batteries. 4. A "real world" Infantry weapon has a minimum of "tacticool" features. Barrel life, ammunition feed reliability, and durability of main parts is what is important. An underbarrel grenade launcher is more important than a light, as are interchangeable high and standard capacity magazines. Also how well the weapon performs under different weather conditions - not at the gun club covered range. An Infantry weapon is useless if its fire selector is jammed in "safe mode" for whatever reason because of the weather. 5. Ease of disassembly and quick fixes - if you need a machine shop to fix your "cool looking" Infantry weapon then I hope you have a million lying around somewhere. 6. And that brings us to simplicity of manufacturing processes/design, cost, standardization, compatibility of parts, and training requirements. A person who was trained to use an AK-47 made in 1949 won't need to be retrained to use an AK-74M or AK-101 or AK-103 or AK-104 made in the last 20-30 years. Even though they use different calibers of ammunition and have internal and external differences - the basic concept is the same. An Infantry weapon is not a consumer gadget. An 1807 musket is still fatal in competent hands today.
It should be noted I try not to show favoritism(bias) to any specific Automatic Rifle in my previous posts here. Because each country is different and has different standards and requirements for Military weapons. There is no "blanket" standard that could be applied to all. A Military uses what fits its budget, doctrine, training standards, and manpower capabilities. You can't "copy and paste" Military equipment requirements between nations. The AR-15/M-16/M-4 works for the US Military(for the near future), even though most of the obsession with accessories on the AR-15 family is a relatively recent development. M-16's until the end of the 1990's were not universally equipped with night vision, optical sights, forward grips, lasers, or lights. This "transformation" in the US Military only occurred around 2000-2010 as the US started 2 long term wars(Afghanistan and Iraq) involving thousands of regular Infantry and not only Special Forces like earlier(Somalia 1992-93).
I don't think it is a "secret" that US Infantry and Marines in 1985 were basically armed with the same weapons(M-16's) they were armed with in 1965! Major changes only happened between 1989 and 2000, when Nylon "flak" jackets and M1 steel helmets were replaced with Kevlar body armor and PASGT helmets(which had not yet replaced 100% of the M1 steel helmets when the US invaded Iraq in 2003), accessories on US M-16 and M-4 Rifles only appeared after this. It did not happen overnight. Forget about the later AK-74 for a minute, is a 7.62mm caliber AKM Assault Rifle developed in 1959 severely outclassed by a M-16A4 introduced into service much later? Only if you are limiting that AKM strictly to a 1950's technology level. 1. The 1st "standard" night vision sights for modified AK-47 and AKM Rifles(AKN) were introduced into Soviet Army service from 1956 - the NAP-1. Later the upgraded NSP-2 became available. 2. PBS-1 silencers/suppressors and special ammunition were available for the AKM starting in 1962. 3. GP-25 40mm underbarrel grenade launchers became available for the AKM in the 1970's. In Yugoslavia they instead chose to install "Rifle Grenades" on the muzzle of their version of the AKM. 4. The 1970's USSR AKMN and AKML upgrades introduced "standardized" optical sight mounting brackets on the side and allowed an "improved" replacement muzzle brake to be installed(using optics with the old one was sometimes difficult). 5. Magazines for the RPK Light Machine Gun are interchangeable - allowing the Infantryman with an AKM to use 40 round and 75 round "large capacity" magazines in addition to the standard 30 round magazines. Until the introduction of the M-16A1 only 20 round magazines were used by the US Military until about 1969(if not later). 6. 7.62x39mm ammunition continues to evolve. The 1940's original M43 lead core ammunition is usable/serviceable, but improved(Military only) steel and composite core ammunition is better against current threats. Tracer and training ammunition is also usually not available to civilians, but is available to the Military.
Actually that's not quite true anymore. Outside of maybe EOTech, the current red dot sites have battery life that lasts years or more. While many reference things like Holosun where it also has a literal solar panel to function without a battery, or ACOG which doesn't need one either... even something as simple as a Vortex Red Dot will last for years. Even in constant use they will last well over your months long siege. Secondly the durability of these optics has become extreme to the point you actually need to shoot them for them to stop working. I've watched endurance test with them that you can find all over TH-cam and many you have to literally run over with a truck to keep them from working. While what you are saying might have been true back in the early 2000s. Its definitely no longer true 20 years later.
Best comment I've read! These guys are a bunch of jokers. I don't think they are qualified to be answering if the AK is obsolete or not. It's definitely not absolute.
@@legatvsdecimvs3406 I spent over a quarter of a century in the US Army. Most of that time I carried the M16A2 rifle. I was in helicopter maintenance, but despite being Combat Support troops, most of the magazines we used were of the 20 round variety. My vision was never great because late in life I figured out that I was right-handed, but left eye dominant. Couple that with my far sightedness, and you can understand why I was not the best with iron sights. That said, most of my fellow soldiers were very good shooters, even though we fired our weapons much less than we should have. As a Boomer, give me optics every time. But I agree 100%, iron sights work and simplicity is the best option for combat conditions, every time. MAGA
They're still using guns from the 1800's. (Vickers, Mosin) and a shit ton from WWII including American built lend/lease Thompsons and German MP-40's Grandpa had in the closet after "finding" them off Germans who didn't need them anymore suddenly. All still viable today as they were back then iron sights and all.
I bought my first AK like 30-something years ago when I was in the Army. I bought it, mostly for the novelty, but at the time for the price. It cost around $200, and a case of 1000 rounds cost $100. It was cheap and people thought it was cool. Somewhere along the way, I bought another to shoot (because the original is a Romanian pre-ban and worth a bunch now!). Since I never sell guns, I have like 40. My personal fighting rifle is a Colt M-4, but if civilization takes a dive, I figure I’d arm my non-trained with the AKs (or shotguns if they can handle the recoil). My AR has the optics, but I’m not doing all that for the AKs. I do plan on getting another designer AR, tricking it out, and using that, but I’ll still have the two AKs (with a dozen mags each, and around 3000 rounds of ammunition). After all, why not!
That’s smart cuz after your bolt cracks or your extractor brakes or polymer mags chip you’ll be able to pull out papaws big hammer and it’ll keep going.
ever think of investing in NVG's, thermal, armor, and field supplies/logistics? Guns are 1% of the SHTF preparedness equation. You could sell off half your guns and expand your capability to be more survivable and competitive against enemy threats, be it day, night, poor weather, etc.
“Remember men even the most primitive of weapons still kill.” A US Navy admiral in the South Pacific, whose name I have forgotten. Read that quote one time at the beginning of a book back when I was a kid in the late 80’s or early 90’s. I do not remember the book either, but that statement has always stuck with me because it is true.
Even a spear is better than nothing in modern combat. As long as the people in charge put that spear in the right place at the right time, that spear is still very deadly.
Not sure if anyone has made this point in the 5000 comments since the video came out, but the Ultimak seems like a great idea to me and far from stupid. Granted I don't have experience with it so I could be wrong. But an Aimpoint Micro or similar red dot can be mounted on a riser which will greatly reduce heat transfer. I have always dreamed of doing this with an LT660HK with a longitudinal tunnel drilled through for below-sight cowitness, but a Scalarworks absolute (AR) cowitness mount or something similar would work fine too. Cool guys are all going to massive height over bore mounting for passive NOD aiming. Russian Alpha guys have been running Eotechs on top of AKs, with their AR-height sight plane, for years. Similarly, flashlights will be offset enough from the gas tube for heat impacts to be negligible. I could, however, see how the sensitive electronics in laser aiming devices would be particularly susceptible to the heat from a gas tube. And those would be more difficult to insulate from the heat with an Ultimak. So that does speak to your point about military viability. But still I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of the gas tube rail.
When you start messing with risers like that, you’ll find the gun is less comfortable to shoot and slower to shoulder and fire due to your head floating in no man’s land rather than having a proper cheek weld. Can you mostly train around this? Sure, you can train around most things. The question is will you (almost all won’t) and why would you bother?
I just use attero arms rear sight leaf replacement. Red dot mounts great, retains zero and still useable iron sight with or without red dot mounted. As for the ultimak, I used to run red dots on it but not anymore, just to move weight further back. Never had heat issues against any of my red dots though.
..... you guys are a bunch of arm chair bad asses, the best weapon in Ukraine is a shovel! Legion bad asses showing up with lasers, night vision and fancy armaments add-on are a ducking joke and most of those guys go home to momma because they fought towel heads in sandals for 10 years! It will get you killed in Ukraine! Shovel, canteen, goretex body bag, and a rifle with iron sights or ACOG is best choices! Rambo knives and silencers are for arm chair bad asses!
Does it work? Yeah. Is it killing as many vehicles as Javelins? No. I think the AK actually fits the needs of the average Ukrainian militia person - simple, rugged, easy to use.
People tend to forget, the Ak is a weapon that is made to be idiot proof and reliable for the new conscript. All while delivering the lethality that is desired.
Sniffy Joe and Congress sent $43 billion of our tax dollars to subsidize Ukraine. Meanwhile, we have record high price inflation and US - Mexico border / illegal immigration crisis caused by the Biden regime.
I agree that it fits the needs of the Ukrainian people. The way i see it is yes its great to have the ability to add attachments of a more modern rifle, but id imagine that these attachments are tough to come by, let alone have enough to train and deploy in significant numbers.
I wonder how westerns still have no idea what combat rifle is, and how it should be. Lights, lasers - c'mon, noone use it in real combat. Sights? You can't even get your head out of the trench, how you going to aim? People never shoot beyond 100 meters, there's machine guns, grenade launchers and fpv drones to reach out. Bipods, extra rails, silencers - its just an excess weight. All i changed in my 74 was adding a collapsible stock to fit body armour. Maybe later I'll add some low magnification prism scope, just for fun. That's it. But what westerns totally ignore is the fact that they don't have AP ammo even close compatible with russian 7N39. Super weird for me.
I don't own an AK though I do own a bubba SKS with large magazines which is my cheap battle rifle. Versatile, rugged, reliable and accurate with a Prism scope out to the range I intend to use it. I fired 5.56 in the military for 20 years and have limited respect for it, thus I don't own an AR-15 as dislike the 5.56, though I do own an AR-10 as the 7.62 is far superior in all respects other than the number of rounds you can huff over the hills.
I was expecting there to be some level of back and forth here but it's just a 45 minute long video of you three agreeing on pretty much everything. As I stated on Patreon, there's a big difference in philosophies between our nation and Russia's. We can currently spend the money to dump into all these various upgrade programs, but we're also $30T in debt, which is a bigger threat to our nation than any foreign adversary. Russia manages to have the 2nd largest military in the world while carrying practically no debt. Not only that but our politicians are so careless with debt-spending that they're going to subsidize nearly all of Ukraine's military spending with their recent proposal of $40B. That's insane, especially when you consider the fact that Ukraine's entire annual GDP is somewhere around $150B. How long can we get away with this printing of money?
Not really, if you look at modern economic theory debt isn't a threat to our country, it's actually an asset because if people own our money then they are harmed by our economy doing poorly. Think of it like art, say I offer you a painting in exchange for giving me enough gas to warm myself for the winter, that's "debt" but now you get in trouble if the value of a painting from me goes down because that's you're money too. America has connected itself to the global financial market and is positioned to say "if we go down everyone comes down with us" which is the best position to be in. The difference between Russian and American military philosophy is not really all that complicated, we have the money to pay for nice things so we do, they don't so they don't. There's a reason why all Western rich countries also have that philosophy; well armed professional volunteer forces will always be relevant to military campaigns while basing your gear off of bargain bin Chinese manufacturing and mass conscription is a recipe for disaster. Russia is a paper tiger.
@@ashfox7498 Modern monetary theory is bull shit is only has two outcomes hyper inflation or recessionary stagflation. They pushed this debt bs to buy votes
@@ashfox7498 So you will be happy when you own nothing? Just having a 100% volunteer force doesn't mean you're superior to conscripted nations. Conscripted nations have healthier military age males ready for service, compare that to the US where most military age males are overweight, underworked slugs. When we get into the shooting war with Russia and China, we won't be able to replenish our losses on the battlefield as quickly as they will.
Im quite disapointed, it almost seems like propaganda. AR good, AK bad. My service gun was a AK derivative, not much of what here was said holds truth in 2022. Its very modular.
The AK platform is perfect for the Russia - Ukraine War. This is a war fought for a big part by conscripts and militias, they need a simple and low maintenance battle rifle.
"AR is vastly more reliable!" Yet strange we don't see many if not zero AR style rifles from the 60s and 70s floating around in conflict zones in SE Asia and Africa. A well built ak with minimal maintenance will outlast most ARs with comparable use and exceptional maintenance. Not dogging on the AR but they aren't built for multi decade longevity.
Back in the day, I bought Romanian de-miled kits for $80-$100, 80% receivers for a little less, rivet kits and built AKM's. You had to press the barrel out of the front trunion after removing the stub of the military receiver. I had a jig set for the press. I forget for sure.. but I think the next step was to rivet the trunions to the receiver and then press the barrel back in and finish by pressing the barrel pin. Install the gas tube and furniture and assemble - done. It was fun. I think I made like 13 of them. Over time, I gave away and traded/sold most all of them. My son still has the one that we built together. Yes, AR's are assembled but the AKM was actually built from parts.
This discussion ended up being about attachments and modularity. The main criticism of the AK platform here was that it wasn't as easy to add attachments / ergonomic upgrades as the AR platform. This criticism is irrelevant because it isn't impossible to kit out your AK it's just harder. Therefore both platforms can effectively run the same missions when kitted.
An ak bullet will kill you when it hits you in the chest. Do you think Russia is stupid? They don’t engage in urban warfare at night because they don’t have gizmos taped to their gun? You fuckheads are frustrating.
@@jonwinfield9193 it’s also in a much more appropriate CQB caliber, it was really designed to be just the strongest sub-machine gun ever. Like 7.62x39 shits on 300aac/blk in both power and cost efficiency.
@@someguy5444 Not particularly, .300 blackout and 7.62x39 are effectively the same round, with .300 black having Gucci subsonics as an option, where as the Russians upnecked the 7.62 to 9mm to achieve subsonic. If. 300 black had the same economy of scale, it could be just as cheap as 7.62x39. Neither caliber is inherently better. Honestly 5.45 is where its at for aks imo, not 7.62 anyway.
@@jonwinfield9193 I have 1,000 rounds of 196gr subsonic 7.62x39. it works great. it's definitely not as available as subsonic 300blk, but it's out there
On a side note, the Brotherhood of Nod armed their soldiers with M16s and they lost the Second Tiberium war to GDI forces that were sporting Pulse Rifles at the time. So you probably want to talk a bit about that too.
“I’m sure most of you will have strong options, please post them down below” that’s a nice sentiment. It’s always good to partake in entertaining different schools of thought
Fun fact, the Rebel A280 (the blaster rifle the Rebels use in Empire and Return) is a modified AR :) Well, one variant is at least. The other is actually an STG44.
Odd and kinda dumb question. The ak has literally helped so many nations and freedom fighters to defeat much more powerful armies, Russia and America have both failed to win against forces armed almost completely with aks, America more than once
The insurgency in Afghanistan "won" with the PK, because harassing fire with a machine gun forces infantry to call in fire support. If they were armed completely with AKs, they'd be constantly forced into M4 range and get picked off.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD pk didn't win anything. Ak outnumbered them probably 10 to one and even more so when America lost in Vietnam. Plus the ak has longer range and energy than any m4
Won isn't true, in Vietnam the north suffered over a million casualties and ended up coming to the negotiating table and signing a favorable peace deal for the US. Now what happened afterwords is exactly what happened in Afghanistan. The US congress and ford pulled all funding, political support, and military support. The south vitnamese weren't ready to support themselves yet, especially financially, so they collapsed. Inflation hit a 200% rate soon after funding was pulled. They needed around 4billion USD to even maintain their army and they lost all of that support. As such they literally ran out of moeny for even fuel let alone paying people, flying jets, or buying ammo. As such morale collapesed and when the north fully invaded the south just crumpled, incapable of even fighting. Same in Afghanistan, biden pulled out all support and the government collapsed and didn't even put up a fight.
The only reason America lost Vietnam is because of politics not because of weapons or soldiers. If you allowed American forces to actually fight a war it would take 6 months to a year to destroy Afghanistan. When trump took the shackles off our soldiers to defeat IsIS it literally took 3 months and isis was dead meat. We weren’t at war with Afghanistan, we weren’t trying to invade the land and assume power over it, we spent more money giving it to Afghanistan trying to help them out of poverty hoping they could sustain themselves and become a developing nation. War isn’t telling your soldiers they can’t shoot till they are shot at. We tried so hard to have as little collateral damage as possible and don’t you dare say (we killed so many innocents) no we didn’t not compared to what would’ve happened if we actually went to war with them. We tried surgically killing off evil ( Gangs, let’s call them gangs instead of insurgents) and spent more time trying to protect the people living there than we did trying to kill bad people. 70% of the 5 trillion dollars spent in Afghanistan was given to Afghanistan to build Afghanistan and was not the cost of weapons or logistics of our military. When we invade Iraq in 1998 and again in 2001, we could have just leveled the city.. but we didn’t. No we sent in rangers to hold key points on the outside of the city while the marines were getting ready to invade the city. We set up road blocks where soldiers were turned into police. That’s not war. So no we didn’t lose the war in Afghanistan, we never fought an acrual war in Afghanistan. And the only reason you perceive it as a lose is because joe Biden is a complete traitor to this nation. Not because our soldiers couldn’t win but because our politics are traitors. Afghanistans describes the war as hopeless, imaging trying to fight America. We never released even 30% of our power. We toyed with Afghanistan
@@nighthawk2174 won isn't true, what a stupid comment. The Vietnamese were willing to take those loses, after 58000 dead and over a decade of warfare America finally knew it could never win, just like Afghanistan a few decades later when America repeated it's mistakes.
No, it's not obsolete. Simple as that. Any "assault rifle" can be used in modern war. For example, even Nazi Germany's STG 44 had heavy usage in the Syrian conflict until they ran out of ammo
True but the STG44s had a ton of flaws and those rebels are desperate enough to use nearly anything. It shows they can be used but beggars can’t be choosers.
But unlike the AK, the StG44 had the option of mounting sights. You could say the StG44 was the first DRM rifle. The AK was meant to outlast the soldier using it (the soldier using typically had a short life expectancy). As opposed to Western rifles that should last as long as the soldier using it. The AK is not obsolete. But it is dated. It could have had improvements over the years. But why? The Russian leadership has decided, and have demonstrated by their actions in Ukraine. That the average Russian soldier does not justify the expense.
@@DeltaEchoGolf from what I ready, they actually did spend the money for the equipment but where exactly did the money to? It went to the corrupt officers
@@DeltaEchoGolf Certain AKs (such as the AKMN variants designed to use night visions and the 100 series) do have a side rail to use Soviet-style sights, and there are aftermarket parts that can be used on older AKs to mount Western-style sights on them.
You are not outgunned with ak 74s and 47s...you may be slightly disadvadtaged without the optics but they are far from obsolete. They are indestructible and you can add the optics if you wanted. They need new advancements with furniture but it just hasnt caught up yet for whatever reason. The zastavas are great with the rails on the m85 krinks so it can be done.
I put a Yugo mount on my archangel Zastava M70. Mounted a Holosun 512C and it is frickin awesome now. Haven't had a chance to take it to distance, but really not too concerned.
Interesting discussion. But one lesson from Ukraine war is that infantry rifle platform doesn't matter much. Most of losses on both sides come from artillery/missiles. Yes, Ukrainians use more long-range sniper systems, but Russians fight them efficiently with guided missiles and tank guns (there is a joke there, that the best anti-material rifle is 125 mm tank cannon). Also, many videos of Russian forces actually show LDNR militia, and they use whatever rifle is available. Front line Russian troops restricted of recording videos, and smart phones use is strictly prohibited.
yeah, more than half of the "russian" forces in ukraine arent even russian. also, THEY ARE WINNING THE WAR. UKRAINE IS LOSING. some folks just wont admit these things. when youre losing territory over and over, cities voluntarily defecting to the other side, and your own peopIe rebelling against you and siding with russia, well.. you are losing. this is whats happening in ukraine. theres also the fact that russian artillery and airpower are vastly superior to ukraines. besides, the ak isnt even obsolete anyway. do artillery men really need fancy rifles? even a 50 year old ak with iron sights would be adequate.
@@user-qj9ye1uv8g I was referencing superpowers I apologize for not specifying. Accommodations must be made for microscopic militaries...you little devil you.
I think plain iron sighted AKs are working relatively well in the types of close-range urban and trench warfare that's currently taking place in Ukraine. By comparison AKs are at a big disadvantage in more open desert or mountain terrain.
in this war rifles are mainly used like mini machine guns, either to storm a location with mass firepower or defend a trench or retreat. The AK does this job fine, if you look at any combat video from Ukraine, either side. The artillery or tanks do the main job
Having owned both, as a personal preference, I've always said if I'm going to war or defending my home, I want an AR platform. If it's the end of the world and I'm surviving in a desolate wasteland, I want an AK.
I would call it obsolescent. It's a box magazine fed intermediate caliber rifle that can take an optic with either a side rail or some of the newer stuff from Zenitco or other manufactures. Set it and forget it. I think people care too much about about modular designs and barrel changes. A military, especially a conscript based one, does not care about changing things on it's rifle. Once the rifle's life has ended, they throw it away and issue a new one. And with how little conscripts shoot, the rifles will last decades.
Aye, how many cases of quick barrel swap in fight are there realistically when it comes to rifles? I've never even heard of spare barrels being carried by soldiers, except for the squad weapons... That being said I'd love it if the 7,62NATO ACE had an option like that, needing a table and a $20 jig to replace a barrel is so XX century (insert whatever emoji zoomers use to express sadness)
@@Sk0lzky literally non. Quick detach is a fad that needs to die. The only gun that got modularity right was the bren2. Swapping between the two calibers it's designed for is an armory level task, but not so complicated it requires extra machinery. It can swap from 5.56 to x39 without losing magazine capacity or reliability because it doesn't rely on Stanag mags, amd it can switch without changing manual of arms because it doesn't rely on AK mags either. Plus they didn't over complicate the caliber situation. They stuck with the two most common rounds in use today, and the two rounds former block/current NATO countries have billions of rounds already stockpiled.
@@chrisclark6161 Fightlite MCR has a good quick change barrel, but it's intended as a stand in for a SAW on an AR lower, not to change the gun's purpose so to speak.
@@Sk0lzky Right, is the AR obsolete compared to the AUG because I can change an AUG barrel in 2 seconds with no tools? Of course not, it's a silly argument.
This is not a one is better than the other comment but, for US citizens the AR platform makes sense in regards to availablility in ammo. I never would have thought ammo would be so hard to find in my life until 2020 through 2021. The only ammo I could find online and in the store, at least in Wisconsin was 9mm, 223, 556, and occasionally 308. Even with these calibers being available they were heavily marked up by demand but I am sure also in availablitiy which to me says most people here in the US have at least a 9mm or 556 platform. In other countries the 7.62x39 platform could be their preference on availability as well. Either gun is worthless unless you have ammo for the gun.
Great video and conversation guys. Now... when I was gearing up to buy my "FIRST" carbine some years ago I studied all the data and YT videos comparing the two systems in question. Having a clear understanding (as much as a relative Noob could have) I chose the .30 cal option over the .22 cal offering. I love my AK. Magpul Zhukhov furniture with bipod and side mount Primary Arms Red dot and I'm good all day pinging steel at 250 yds. That's good enough for me. Now, I do now own two AR's and have gotten good with them. But when I take friends/family that are not experienced with either system to the range for a fun day of shooting, without fail, their favorite rifle was the AKM. And there's something nice about 123 grains of .7.62 (.308) cal. banging the steel over what 55 grains of 5.56/.223 does. Having said all that... when I want to reach out to 400-500 yards I reach for the AR with the 1-6 Variable scope. But when the zombies roll up in front of my house I'll grab the AK.
@@brettadams7423 the white death was a propaganda creation, and not a great one at that, because when you get shot in the head and get half your face blown off ... maybe you arent that great of a sniper.
You could arm a Ranger Battalion with General Issue SKS rifles, RPK squad automatics, and Colt New Service .44-40 revolvers, and it would not degrade their capabilities as much as one would tend to think. Some, yes, but training, logistics, and support are far more important than individual weapons on the modern battlefield.
I’ve built AR in all calibers/modular, but the beauty of a wooden furniture AK is nostalgic. 😊 . It’s like comparing Glocks to a 1911. I love them both.
@@twintwo1429 That information is available on a need to know basis only and not shared on the internet for common sense reasons. You toob is google, which is not secure and I choose to maintain as much privacy as possible. That's why I don't FB either. There are plenty of anti 2a trolls out there and I choose not to feed them. I'm not entering a pissing contest just to prove how stupid or smart I am, as I don't suffer from small peter syndrome. I can usually make my points without insulting people. Best of luck to you & be safe. Eternal Vigilance
I guess the question really comes down to the AK's viability as a weapon overall versus its viability specifically as a weapon of war. It's a perfectly functional weapon, that isn't in dispute. The question here is really whether there is a sensible way to keep using the AK platform to equip modern infantry troops, and a lot of that comes down to factors outside of the weapons themselves.
@BBML Russian and Bulgarian AK74'are very accurate out to Ar distances...all you have to do is build Ak's in whatever magic new caliber comes out.6.8 anyone?
well im a veteran and the one thing you guys did not point out is that when the ar is in action the dust cover will always be open !! and ive found that the ak just handles dirt and mud better..ive seen these utube vids where they dunk them in mud and then say the ar comes out on top, well that is not what i have found to be the case..
Wow , that was 45 minutes of bashing the legendary AK !!! If they are so crappy why have AK values doubled in the same amount of time the AR's halved in price ?
I adore my AKs. I can shoot my AK74s very well, and wouldn't honestly feel inferior on a two way range with it. However, after I run an AK for a while and then pickup my 14.5 mid length BCM gun, it's always a re-realization just how good the AR actually is. It's just easier, honestly. It's easier to shoot, easier to change mags, easier to manipulate the safety, easier to manipulate the AR all the way around. I will say this, my 104 is easily as accurate as my go to BCM. So, I think a properly set up AK74 would still be a very relevant infantry type rifle.
There’s two things that matter, training and the ability to fight effectively day and night. Aside from that it doesn’t matter what rifle you use as long as it functions as required.
104 isnt a 74, you must have a 105. Same guns different caliber but your dead right bro. I am way more of an AK guy than an AR guy HOWEVER. Even though my m70Zpap is set tf up and dead nuts accurate up to practical ranges for me, a civilian. Both my AR builds are probably going to be my go-to's for a SHTF scenario for multiple reasons. It's hard to beat the AR-15 is what it is. A properly kitted AR I mean. I have one AR pistol that is dead nuts accurate and super lightweight and ergonomic and just ready to fuggin goooooo. I also go a custom built SPR that is DEAD NUTS at pretty far ranges. Its .223. Its damn near as heavy as my AK's even the kitted ones that are full sized. But man, it's just nothing to shoot. It recoils so soft because of the way its configured. I mean, you let that bipod out and set yourself up you're going to be shooting lights out well passed 300 yards. I like my AK's but the ballistics can be trickier, they can require more training around magazine drills and such, they're generally heavier and they ARE accurate, until you take em passed 550 yards. Thats when ballistically, they do weird shit. Its a little to do with the round itself, and its a little bit about the AK design itself. The AK is not as capable as an AR for long range accuracy. Is it by enough that it matters? Maybe, maybe not. I guess that would depend on the situation and the variables at play in that situation.
I second this. I got my first ak in the summer of 2018 ran 2 ak classes that summer and after I thought the ak was the best rifle ever. Then I went plinking at a buddy’s ranch with my AR and realized how much the AR had to offer.
I think his claim is that building an AR is really more accurately described as assembly. It's really just semantics, but the way I would distinguish the two is that building requires skilled labor, whereas to assembly requires no particular skills. A woodworker builds a table from lumber, a buyer assembles a table from IKEA.
Thank you. It drives me nuts when people think they’re being so smart by correcting people who say “build an AR.” They’re not right in the first place, and even if they were they’d be extremely pedantic. The main dictionary entry for “build” is: To form by combining materials or parts; construct.
Technically, they both would be assembled from kits. At least, from the average Joe. I'd probably only say someone manufactured their rifle if all the main functioning parts were made in-house. AKA, barrel, receiver, trunnion, bolt, bolt carrier, and so on. That whole argument about AR builders not being builders is really stupid and shortsighted. Even if you said manufactured instead, that doesn't mean anything because AK builders aren't manufacturing shit either. Another little thought, many people are manufacturing AR-15 receivers by 3D printing them. Hell, I bet there are more average Joe's manufacturing AR's in the US right now, then guys stamping AK receivers.
I used to work in a factory making car parts for a living and honestly putting together an AR-15 is more involved than a lot of the jobs were on our lines. Feeling superior about people not "building" an AR is dumb. Grain of salt though; my opinions on guns are invalid. I think instead of silencer/suppressor we should call it a muffler.
Yeah, firearms are relatively unchanged after all these decades. You can attach more stuff to them, but that's about it. They'll become obsolete when we start getting stuff like lasguns, maula pistols, or Holtzman shields
![ง้อ (ALRIGHT) - FOURTH Prod. by URBOYTJ [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs8ZeV6Dqj8/mqdefault.jpg)
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - สาวสอง ( มีมี่ของอ้าย ) ft. ตาต้า,ต้องเต [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mqlMjnP08XI/mqdefault.jpg)
I'll save you guys 45 minutes. The answer is no the AK is not obsolete
Hell no I just watched a video about the AK 19
There is no such thing as an " Obsolete" weapon, period.
Some things, like black powder muzzle loaders, may have become more Niche, but they are still used in Subsistence Hunting and Combat all over the world.
Everything from Handmade tribal Matchlocks in Africa and South America, to centuries old European Muskets being used by Arab tribes against eachother and US forces in the mountains of Afghanistan and Siria. O.o
And then of course swords, machetes, knives, bayonet, bows, ROCKS, and Bare Fists take more lives Today (just do to Population Growth) than at any time before in history.
So all these "Is (blank weapon) Obsolete?" videos are just pointless :/
Thanks. Watching the first 5 minutes was itself painful. These "experts" don't know their @rse from their elbows.
@@turanamo theres also the fact that they have gotten the ukraine situation wrong.
its ukraine that is losing. NOT russia. the fighting was mostly dominated by artillery and airstrikes. the average artillery man dont need a fancy rifle. now this doesnt mean that the ak is the best rifle in the world or something. however, it is a fact that the ak is NOT obsolete at all. also, if rifles truly have such a great effect on modern warfare, then where did all those fancy ukrainian rifles go? i dont see ukraine winning with those fancy rifles. meanwhile, the average east ukrainian rebel are armed with ak rifles, and theyre winning the war against ukraine.
this channel mostly focuses on small arms and small arms alone. of course they wont give us context of what is actually happening in ukriane.
@@scamdem1c agree 👍 They have bought into the Western propaganda that Ukraine is winning
Your analogy to the 1911 is fair. Are there better options now? Sure. Does it still kill those that need to be killed? Sure.
1911 is obsolete thing that is being used. There are many more modern DA/SA designs with more rounds and better ergonomy. AK is old but certainly not obsolete.
@@xmeda the 1911 has one or two advantages over most pistols though... Namely the great trigger. On a pistol, sometimes, that covers up other obsolete features. What advantages does the AK have over any other gun? It's not more reliable despite what people might say, it's no longer cheaper in the US, and it certainly doesn't have the ergonomics or battery of arms of a modern weapon. Maybe the Galil Ace, Valmet, or sig 55x series could fit the bill, but when is an AK no longer an AK.
This is, by far, the _longest_ comment I have *ever* seen you post in 10+ years.
It may have taken more than a decade but I knew you had some complete sentences in you Mike!
Stay classy my friend.
@@xmeda better capacity and lighter than a 1911 sure but better ergos than a 1911 ? What
@@chriso2759 The issue is, most shooters who don't get a lot of training will never make the hits that would warrant the 1911 trigger. If I had a bunch in storage I would seriously consider surplussing the lot and acquiring a modern pistol.
On the other hand, the AK is a rifle. If you have it, issue it.
One point to bear in mind is that someone killed with an obsolete weapon is just as dead as someone killed with a state of the art weapon. A rock can kill you as dead as a modern assault rifle.
How easy is it to kill someone with a rock tho, sure u can kill someone with almost anything but will the guy with the Gucci’s out AR let u get close?
Would you go to war with a M1 carbine? Or an original M16A1 from Vietnam war?
@@MattAronson-sc4jw I would, im Arab
I flew into Afghanistan at night in a ch-47. I was the only civilian on board. We made about four stops to offload troops. The last stop we did a quick stop to pull out about six troops from the field. American forces with beards and bedsheets all carrying ak-47s.
Maybe the bedsheets part means they were operating undercover? Hence the rifles? Not only to blend into the environment, but to also increase duration behind enemy lines by living off the enemy's ammo. Just speculating
They did not carry AK-47......
@Gibnetz probably AKMs but in common language especially by non gun enthusiasts AK-47 is pretty synonymous with AKM.
I hear American special operations groups in Vietnam also regularly carried the AK-47 or AKM or Chinese knockoff especially when going behind enemy lines.
I think especially then the AK platform was at an advantage. Significantly more durable than the original M16, a higher magazine capacity than 20 rnd M16 mags, better cover penetration through trees and dirt, and at jungle distances the accuracy difference was irrelevant. Also was better than an M14… as accurate as the M14, had lower recoil than the M14, and ammo weighed less than 7.62 NATO.
I actually used the AK in combat in Iraq during a 9 hour battle, trust me, it is NOT obsolete
Me too. If they dont know why the oil bottle is important, then they have not used the AR to the extent where they have major issues.........
If it puts rounds down range its not obsolete
You sure about that
Neither is a typewriter, I'm still writting letters on it...
@@eddieroberts9794 The people who say this either only have experience with military garbage guns or have never actually tried it on a decent build lol.
Seems like what rifle the individual soldier has doesn't matter much. They are fighting with artillery, drones, rockets, etc.
Bingo
This couldn’t be further from the truth, how do you over run an artillery position? I bet more than half of the deaths in the war Rifht now are by small arms. Yes the big guns absolutely play a role. Without small arms and effective small arms the big guns wouldn’t be active for long. And yes quality of a rifle can play a role but there is a reason it’s called combat accuracy. AKs were invented for warfare like this, cheap rifles that could last the lifespan of a soldier (which was about 5 minutes in 1947) the reason we seek out durable bomb proof rifles in America is because we want to prepare for the worst and want a rifle that can keep going and stay accurate I’m case we can’t replace it. This is why AKs suck and why AK guys are a joke and have zero understanding have firearms and actual war. AKs are great if you have manufacturing power because they are cheap and easy to make and for how cheap and easy they are to make they are combat effective. Pretty accurate, pretty rugged (not as rugged as AKs make them out to be though) but they shit the bed at about 5000 rounds like Jonny deeps wife.
@CLOV4R713 yes the DPR has mosin sniper rifles, not the regular russian or chechen army though.
Much farther reach than the AK which is 300 yd accuracy at best
@@relentlessamerican9373 You threw in the Amber Heard reference. Brillant
The AK will never be obsolete
Both are great weapons. I prefer the AK just because of the reliability of it. The 30 caliber round is great also.
I prefer it because it's so easy to disassemble and clean. Every day, I punch myself for not bulk buying them back in 00's when they were like $300.
AK is also great because of effective and reliable magazines. In ar-15 there is a variety of failures that are causes by the mags. They can be easily deformed, you can squeeze 31st round into them, they can be tough to insert with a closed bolt, and so on. Of course there are hundreds of AR style magazine types, and all of them have their own combination of disadvantages. But ak mags just work. You can't put 31st round there, you can't fail to push them into the magwell in the way, that the rifle will look loaded but it actually won't be. They are harder to break, and when broken, they always look broken, unlike aluminum stanags, which you can slightly deform and you won't see the difference.
On top of that, ak family gets a whole lot of high-capacity magazines. 45-rounders are in the army, they are widespread and are just as reliable as standard 30-rounders. There are 60-round 4-row magazines for the AK, they have their own problems, but they are way more reliable than stanag 60-rounders. There are even 95 round drums, which aren't as reliable as standard mags, but they are ones of the most reliable drums on the market.
Of course AR family has its own high-capacity mags. But long 42 round stanags are awful, 60 round stanags work worce than their ak derivative, and commercial 60 round drums are usually doubtful
P.s. note that the reliability of high-capacity magazines is an extremely important factor. They are usually used in close combat, and if your rifle does "click" instead of "bang" in cqb, it means that you'll die
“AK47 is obsolete.”
Some conscript with a Mosin Nagant: “Hold my vodka.”
"Obsolete? What that?" - 1910 Maxim MG
Except their getting slaughtered by ukraine sof 😂
@@nathancummins8728 as if know ukraine claims there losing 200 a day
@@toledobranch1099 and Russia has lost 25k+ troops with 5k being confirmed. Ukraine destroyed the Russian flagship without even having a navy. let’s not forget ukraine also killed 12 Russian generals, destroyed 390+ tanks, 60 personnel carriers and 200+ aircraft. You have no clue what ur talking about. Ukraine and the United States are taking turns whipping out their dick and slapping Russia with it.
Ak74 is
_BrandonHerrera has entered the chat_
Trunnion!!!!
Well maybe MilitaryArms channel is obsolete!
AK-50
@@breadman32398 that's for sure
@@breadman32398 so is Brandon Herrera
7.62x39 "is an inferior cartridge"?!?!?! LOL - clearly, you have not spoken to anyone who has been in combat and shot by that caliber. Real veterans will tell you - "I'd rather be shot by an AR15 ANYTIME versus that damned AK round." Not one of your best shows, guys.
Any firearm that goes bang reliably is not obsolete.
AK is the manual transmission farm truck. There is a charm and admiration for it. Also if you learn how to drive with it everything else after is easy.
Thats honestly a great metaphor. I drive manual. My jeep runs like a type writer
A stick shift would be the equivalent of a bolt action rifle. Your analogy is wrong.
That’s fine but that’s not the point of the video
This is a good analogy. If you are even reasonably competent with an AK, any other rifle should be relatively easy.
@@Enjoyer.762 his analogy goes beyond "they both have lever thingy"
What the Ukrainian war has reminded us is how little rifles contribute to a total war near peer conflict. Artillery, tanks, IFVs, missiles and even crew serves weapons play a far bigger role. Rifles still have a place in CQB.
since ww2 individual rifles become quite marginal, the role of infantry become carrying ammo for squad machine gun, carrying grenades, mortar rounds and provide support, but very few kill get scored by rifles.
@@Tonyx.yt. Yep
Yes, true. Rifles in the modern world will shine only in guerilla type operations when modern ordinance has already destroyed all the high value targets. Small arms are just not that important in a full scale war.
I beg to differ. I'm sure the same sentiment was thought leading up to Fallujah in 04
You forgot aircraft
You don’t have to make the actual AR parts to say you built your AR. When I build houses I don’t manufacture the drywall and screws or cut down trees to make 2x4s and 2x6s but I’m still building the house itself using pre produced parts.
I just used the house analogy then scrolled down and saw you did too. People like him only hurt the community and push would be gun owners away.
True, especially considering how many people are completely incompetent in doing manual labor of just about any type. Imagine the guys that couldn't figure out how to swap a spare tire, trying to assemble a AR.
Assembled
Building your ar refers to the "build" or setup of said rifle so yes you are building it out/ building it
I always interpreted 'building an AR' to include scraping out the insides of the billet and to me that making of your own lower receiver makes it a build, but what he describes.., sticking insides in someone else's ready made lower, that is just assembling.
One shouldn't confuse the Donbass militia with regular Russian forces.
Especially early in the war before they were integrated into the Russian armed forces.
The Russians continue to manufacture some of the finest custom sniper rifles and combat optics in the world, which you have never heard of, and which are currently in use with the Russian armed forces.
Just wanted to point out that despite the configurability of the AR, from a military standpoint that doesn't really translate to end-user configurability, because the military still insists on treating everyone except Tier-1 operators like children that can't be trusted to do anything to an AR...regardless of how much said user knows or might have done in civilian life.
@tackytrooper: I was just thinking about this the other day. As s "new soldier," I woulda got yelled at if I had taken initiative and started unbolting and bolting stuff on my issued M16... Lol!
🙄
Just because one might be a civilian mall ninja, / keyboard warrior makes you an experienced battlefield soldier. Real world field army soldiers have all sorts of personnel with varied backgrounds and expertise. They function as a team and working in unison not as lone wolf operators. Every man can use and operate each others kit.
Don't believe all the Rambo crap, and stop watching all the Hollywood B.S. you all ain't John Wick....winning in battle is not dependent on strickly equipment gimmicks.
The old adage " keep it simple stupid" KISS comes to mind.
@@denisdegamon8224 took the words right out of my mouth.
@@denisdegamon8224 people often underestimate the importance of standardization when it comes to organizational efficiency
the AK as shown in the Afghanistan war, when combined with apropriate tactics is not obsolete. That applies to any reliable weapon system because it is just a tool in the overall arsenal of tactics, strategy training etc of any army
Its obsolete for everything except CQB
@@RickSanchez167 A gun is only obsolete if it either puts the user at a massive disadvantage or it is easily countered by most opponents. The M-1 and Mosin-Nagant are obsolete. I don’t think that’s true for the AK though. Yes, it’s less accurate than the AR/M-16/M-4 platform, and it can’t penetrate Level III armor at close range, those two things don’t come into play against the majority of opponents. It can still do its job pretty well, despite there being better platforms out there, kinda like the F-16 today. Now, when everyone gets Level III or IV body armor, that might make it obsolete. But that’s not the case right now.
@@bluemarlin8138 the M1 and the Mosin are obsolete but they still shoot a bullet. until bullets become obsolete those guns are still useable and they are cheap and readily available in some parts of the world.
@@RickSanchez167 to be fair Rick 😂 we lost the war
the m1 and mosin are obsolete. they dont use modern mags. quick follow up shots are awful. dont use modern optics. youd have to modify them significantly just to make them competitive with modern guns.
the ak on the other hand is NOT obsolete. just because some folks complain about not being able to modify them, doesnt mean aks are obsolete. now this doesnt mean that the ak is the best rifle in the world. its not. however, it is a fact that its NOT obsolete.
also, in ukraine, the fighting is dominated by artillery and airstrikes. the average artillery man dont need fancy rifles. look at whats happening now. where are all those fancy rifles ukraine has? is it making them win? no. they are losing territory over and over. cities also defecting to the russian side. the ukrainian peopIe in the east rebelling against ukraine and siding with the russians. right now russia controls territory in ukraine bigger than some countries. they have done this through artillery and airstrikes. yes, you need infantry to take ground. but who allows infantry do that? its artillery and airpower.
AK is obsolete..... Afghanistan and Vietnam have entered the chat.
I feel we'll be using the AK when conquering other planets.
Or some kind of futuristic alternative variant of the AK as well as the M16
It'll be like Call of Duty infinite Warfare
What if we get conquered?
@@tonywingfield9701 well use the AK to resist. That or they'll have used the AKs first
But they will beat us with Trapdoors and MH clones.
I was a marksman in the Singapore military with iron sight M16 back in the day. The only thing we could attach to the rifle was a bayonet 😂
And the only thing adjustable was the sling. Anyway... The M16 suffers greatly from shitty aluminum mags whose lips are bent but you can't tell with your eyes, so every time it jams you'd think it's the rifle. Most military using the AK use steel or polymer mags, so bent mag lips causing jams are far less common. This helps perpetuate the myth of AR being less reliable.
@@therover65 It's a difference of doctrines to me. American doctrine was to have disposable systems (magazines, barrels, etc.) since they were backed with continuous supply from a highly industrialized nation (refer to the M-1 carbine). The Kalashnikov system is designed to outlast the common man, and to be serviced by both guerrilla and soldier for decades without a single part of the system needing to be upgraded or even replaced.
Were you allowed to throw away the shitty mags
@@jason200912 they would be marked and then supposedly dealt with. But they always find their way back into use.
@@therover65 singapore has a very impressive army compared to the countrys size, greetings from hungary
There are two AK-12's. The Zlobin prototype was a brand new rifle whereas the 2016-pattern AK-12 has nothing to do with that and is basically a '74 with rails.
It is worse than an 74 with rails, a 74 with quality rails actually works.
I like the first prototype so much more. It had potential i think
A rifle with the illusion of modularity...
A 74M with wobbly rails at that.
The army-issued AK-12 is the direct result they had to show something for the small-arms fund embezzled for years.
This didn't age too well, huh? Russia has only gained ground lmao.
Old school Corps here. I never had optics when I was enlisted and still prefer iron sites. Now that I am older I have went to red dot low magnication as it gives me a better view of the target, but I still think iron sites are the best if you still have good eyes!
Agreed!
"sights"
Seems to me like the guys who actually use their rifles a lot, namely the spec ops dudes, make perfectly good use of their modernised AKs.
But, if we want to talk about learned lessons from the Ukraine war, the rifle is the last place to start talking about, since this is primarily an artillery and mechanization war.
Even if we magically equipped the entire Ukraine military with gucci-ed up M16s, the reality is that most of them would still die from artillery, tactical balistic missiles, tank shells and other afvs, long before thes have any chance of shooting anyone with their rifle.
That is what the reality of modern war is, not some crubstomping in the Middle East.
Death is violent, sudden and most of the tine you don't even see it coming.
Yes, well said
The failure of command and control, lack of a professional NCO class, the corruption in Putin's Russia, and the utter failure of much of the Russian army reforms that were started in the late 90's probably has more to do with poor Russian performance than old AK's with no red dot sights (which is indicative of failure to modernize the army and weapons systems in general outside a few showpieces). The Russians aren't even following the doctrinal lessons they set out from the old Soviet days much like they didn't in Chechnya to similar results like sending in armor without proper infantry support against a well motivated and armed resistance in an urban area.
@@kgjung2310 one wonders how they were able to cripple Ukraine's command and control, logistics and ability to maneuver strategically given tvat they are so incompetent
Many western mercenaries have already been impacted by russian artillery and ballistic missles, including americans.
From Telegram, seeing the raw stuff, it's a slaughter on Ukraine. The Russian artillery is relentless at the front, and the rear gets an endless barrage of missiles. The militia fighters from the Republics are fighting to free their homes, the Russians are professionals, and the Chechens just love fighting. American audiences have gotten used to severe mismatches of forces where our side demolishes everything with a roof for 2 months and then rolls in a quarter million strong army 3 tech generations ahead of the opposition. The war in Ukraine is showing what a relative peer engagement looks like.
Top 10 lessons to learn from Ukraine
1. Professionalization is the way - professional Russian troops (60% of their military) are outkilling the Ukrainians (80% conscripts) at a roughly 1.5-2.2:1 ratio. The Russians are outnumbered and on the offensive and yet steadily gaining ground, this shows the gap in skill between professionals and conscripts.
2. Artillery is still extremely important - Russia's artillery work is magnificent and keeps Ukraine on the general defensive.
3. Systems that rely upon enemy cooperation are overrated - just look at the lack of play the Javelin (need to be exposed and have eyes on target for 15+ seconds) gets vs NLAW, RPG, and Stugna. The Stugna is the true MVP because it's a fly by wire system with a passive camera and remote operation.
4. Shock and awe methods can be beaten by a competent and disciplined army - Ukraine proved that by surviving the initial Russian storm that Shock and Awe depends on a total disruption of the hostile force; if the defense holds, the extremely vulnerability of the forward units, lack of resupply, and lack of secured ground allow for the total rapid collapse of an offensive.
5. Infantry are still important. Once again, the reality that you don't own something you can't put infantry on uncontested is still true. Putting soldiers on land is how control is established.
6. Logistics is still important. Russia's first month performance was embarassing due to bad logistics and weak planning in general. Ukraine is having issues equipping its soldiers; troops are going into battle with partial gear or even just a uniform and a rifle; there is no shortage of images of Ukrainians without helmets, armor, and sometimes even boots.
7. Military and politicians should never be the same people. Had military men like Dvornikov and Serdyukov been in charge from the start, the former responsible for the excellent special action in Syria and the the latter steamrolling the Georgians in 3 days despite starting from a severely disadvantaged position against a likely NATO trained and armed enemy, the aim likely could have been achieved by now.
8. Political goals matter. There wouldn't be a big war had Russia used a 2014 repeat method to fill in the Republics with mercs and deniable assets and then just hosted votes to join Russia. The attacks on Kiev and Harkov turned it from a strategic land grab to a big war.
9. Soft power is important. Going to war is usually more trouble than it's worth if you aren't in the kool kidz klub and you force people to choose between you and the world's wealthiest group of countries.
10. Drones aren't quite there yet. Bayraktar drones are great for propaganda, but they are at most a tactical asset.
Selection of small arms is a very minor factor when it comes to waging war. Logistics, crew served, anti-tank/artillery weapons and overall military doctrine is far more important.
Although I agree with you, you’re missing the point.
not true at all... giving your individual troops even the slightest advantage leads to significant advantage when it comes to numbers at the end of the day. Little inefficiencies can lead to soldiers losing firefights individually.
Tell that to garand
@@jimbojango75 Strategic bombing in Europe and submarine warfare in the Pacific did several orders of magnitude more to impact the war.
@@fireball676 In 1944 some German units had superior small arms to American, British and Canadian units. It didn’t make much of a difference because the war had already been decided through logistics. If you don’t have any ammo for your Stg44 or MG42 or fuel for your vehicles then your small arms advantage does nothing. Tactics are not inconsequential but the big picture involves much more.
I bought a Romanian WASR10 AK back in 2004 when they was around 300 bucks 😂. STILL my favorite rifle ✌️. Shes been a good one !
yes me to bro!! got my wasser 10 AK 3 30 round mags a bayonet and 200 rounds of wolf ammo in 2004 with 400 bucks of my graduation money lol i miss the days of $3 buck a box 7.62 ammo. I also remember the gun store selling SKS and 500 rounds of wolf for 200 bucks at the same time. also same day my dad bought a mosin negont 7.62x54 with 200 rounds of ammo for 150 bucks!! them deals are gone forever.
This gun is immortal. It’ll never be obsolete 😂
The AK-47 is the coolest thing since pockets on pants.
Iconic firearm
Fudd
@@TheOmei Fudd deeze nuts.
It throws metal down range very reliably and effectively.
That’s what the founding fathers thought about the flintlock
Henry and Josh over on 9-Hole Reviews have done a lot of modernization of various AKs. I’d say the system isn’t obsolete but it needs a facelift.
It’s obsolete
The M16A1 is obsolete, does that mean every AR is obsolete?
It needs a bit more than a face lift. It needs to be redesigned with modern manufacturing and materials in a manner that more naturally incorporates the features desired. Basically they need to do what they've already done with the AKV 512, but go even further beyond.
Russia's answer for a facelift is the AK-12.
And the AK-12 just shows that a facelift isn't gonna cut it.
Even Kalashnikov Group seemed to question what they were making, but it's what was ordered.
@@bruhtholemew because their version of a facelift was done on the cheap and cut corners. We know AKs can be modernised and get a proper facelift, but the russian government were corrupt, cheap and useless.
Obsolete is a funny thing to call the most common weapon pattern in the world.
I primarily use ARs. But I have an AK to keep up with familiarization with the most common weapon system used in the world.
Non optimal is a better description.
Not really. just gets negative connotations. Obsolete doesn’t mean ineffective.
Obsolescent is the term you seek
The only thing the AK doesnt do _easily_ is modernize to mount IR devices. Optics have been easy for years, white lights have been easy, but the few good rails are just heavy and need to be muscled into place. It can be done, and its been done for years, it just ends up being heavier and harder to do. Works just fine though.
Common doesn’t mean ideal
It is common because it is cheap. Not because it is good.
I have a Zastava M92.
Texas Weapons Systems, Manticore Arms and Copper Custom supplied me w/the parts that turned my AK into a more modern weapon.
I did all the work myself and it was actually quite easy to do.
Probably the densest discussion about AKs I've seen in some time. Very easy to mount lights optics etc. to AK's these days, plenty of companies offer them stock with everything you need. About the only thing I will agree on is that AKs are too expensive in the US, but that has more to do with import bans and a still developing AK manufacturing industry in the US.
PSA changed the game. Not expensive and they work. The new gf5 with the FN forged barrel is amazing for its price.
Agreed.
@@williamroyal4140psa AKs are junk
@@BaconSlayer69 they're fine. get over it
@@BaconSlayer69this dude def spent thousands of dollars on a new imported AK just for PSA to drop a dope, up to spec AK for the same price as an AR
Like it or not, the AR based gun is a better rifle, but the AK-47 is a better weapon. When you squeeze the AK trigger it delivers lead. Reliability is the most important factor in a combat weapon. There's a reason why it's the most manufactured gun in history.
Yeah the model T was pretty popular as well
@@richardjohnson8009there’s no comparison an AK is more simple to manufacture than ur ford model T
I prefer an AR too. However, If I was fighting in a country where everyone and thier mother had AKs, I'd probably want an AK for several reasons.
The AR is unquestionably a better rifle, but the AK is a better WEAPON.
The 7.62x39 round decides it.
People don't understand how important popularity is. The ability to acquire spare parts, mags, and ammo is important. If the shitty Italian 6.5 carcano was the most popular rifle in the US, you could bet your ass I'd own a few. Some people avoid the popular choice because of this weird modern trend to be different.
@@ianmedford4855 I agree. My AR10 runs 7.62x51/308. The superior round but once I’m out that is it.
@@ianmedford4855 Ukraine and Russia use AK-74 5.45mm. AKM 7.62 caliber is a rarity
@@jonahpatton8879 carcano isn't shitty, you guys just used wrong ammo with it
Does it go "bang" when you pull the trigger? Does a bullet come flying out of its barrel then? Can that bullet kill? Is it reliable enough to work even in the most severe of conditions? Is it simple and easy to operate?
If "yes", then it's not obsolete...
I think of the AK and Glock pistols are similar in concept and execution: Both are simple and robust, with fewer parts and wider tolerances than more modern designs. They tend to go bang when the trigger is pulled, and in the right hands are very effective. The difference (between one being a long gun and the other a handgun, of course) is that Glocks benefit from virtually unlimited kinds and supplies of add-ons and improvements that the AK tends to lack.
One big difference is that Glocks actually have good quality controls, and parts made to fit a Glock 19 of a particular generation are guaranteed to fit it. That isn't the case for AKs.
These discussions are interesting, but i think the information we are working with is suspect at best. I think the lessons learned when the war is actually over will be quite different than the ones we think we've learned right now.
exactly, there's too much of a fog of war going on to determine what works and what doesn't work for infantry.
Especially with the vast amounts of fake news floating around.
I agree
What are you skeptical of?
This is a wise take.
Fact
What has impressed me the most of this war is how useful a weapon can be, regardless of caliber or age. We even got to see Mosins and other WW2 guns pressed into real use. I'm simply awestruck that even with it's age, the AK platform is a truly timeless design. I own 2 kit built Romy MD.65's made in both 1968 and 1971 and have crazy smooth actions. I am firmly of the opinion that depending on the situation, weapons seemingly obsolete might surprise you. In my experience, I got to see 2 Iraqi Police engage and destroy a small group of insurgents armed with SKS rifles and glocks.
It’s almost as if training and experience is more important than a “MoRE mOdErn” gun.
I even saw MAXIM MGs WITH RED DOTS
An AK 47 is perfect for what it is built for, close range shooting within 200 yards. It is dependable, the mags are easy to disengage and engage and the 7.62 bullet is very effective. Past 200 yards give me a FN/FAL every time as long as I don't have to hump the ammo. That is what M 16s was built for, light gun and light ammo. I shot an M16 a lot more than I like and maybe that is why I hate them.
@@tomjackson4374 This video got dated in a hurry...
The AK is less than 20 years older than the m16; just something to bear in mind. I totally agree with you though. Everything from WWI on up is pretty much still useful. In fact, things like the Springfield, Mauser, Lee-Endield, Garand, etc are still great weapons in a DMR role.
I have both platforms. They have two different jobs. They do both jobs excellent. Within 150 yards the 7.62x39 AK-47 round is devastating compared to the 5.56. In my personal experience my AR-15 shots more accurate at distances 100+ yards. However if you take time to zero in your AK-47 with proper sites you can shot great grouping out to 300+ yards. Side mounted sites on my AK-47 holds perfect zero time after time. I don't have experience with top mounted/dust rail mount holding or not holding zero. With modern optics + modern 7.62x39 ammo the AK-47 has never been more accurate and fun to shot. BTW, at 300 YARDS the 5.56 provides around 532 Ft/Lbs of energy. The AK-47 is around 714 Ft/Lbs of energy. I love both platforms and they serve a specific purpose for your needs.
Most modern warfare will be fought in urban area with concrete walls so the AK's accuracy and it's destructive caliber will still works pretty well.
I am sorry to nitpick, but it is "shoot" not "shot" and they are "sights" not "sites"
@@dondineen110 Your fine and I’m no keyboard warrior so your corrections are legitimate and yes I should have checked my bad spelling before I post on the internet
Accuracy lol 😂 what are u asking the gun to do because they’re combat accurate u want accuracy get a precision made rifle like a bolt gun
Hard to modify? What era do you live in? Side mounted rail mount fixes optics. Can also swap out foregrips so you can add any accessories.
The new Century Arms VSKA doesn't have a scope rail. It is obsolete or obsolescent. I have one. I also have a Serbian ZPAP M70 with a
1-8x24mm Sig scope. It is marginally better.
One of the best ways to add optics to the AK platform is with a picatinny railed dust cover. The hinged ones hold zero very well. AKs are not going away despite the whiners and nay sayers.
I genuinely think the perfect marriage of the two is the Zastava m90. Last round bolt hold open (with proprietary mags), chrome lined barrel, side rail sight mount that holds zero in a repeatable fashion, and the big one, chambered in 5.56. comes DEFAULT with an adjustable stock, handguard pic rails for flashlights, and an adjustable gas system to mitigate recoil impulse while maintaining reliability in all conditions.
The galil ace beats it imo
The Ace or 553
Couldn't agree more. Plus the magazine commonality with the M90 is incredible.
@@dirteater70 a beryl too
The 550 and FNC are probably going to be the best combination since they include some of the best parts of the AR like the split receiver with action of the AK.
"Iphone doesn't get viruses." Okay, to be fair Apple has had way less exploits due to their closed platform over other OS's , but they are not impervious to them and Apple has patched out many issues with IOS and Mac Os over the years. I think the better comparison is a stock AR 15 vs a Race Style Ar-15, there may be better things about the race gun, but giving users the ability to modify the firearm can lead to pushing the limit of the firearm or even user error.
Exactly, and iPhones have been hit with some pretty nefarious viruses, when they have been attacked.
It’s also less popular hence less financial reason to target it.
I would even say that his story about a rusty ar is equivalent to a mechanical virus.
Green text bubble 🫧
It's quite the opposite in reality. I phones are Highly susceptible to virii due to apples lack of updates and covering holes. The reason they don't get hit as often is due to market share.
For it's purpose no. Look at the Ukraine. No one had guns. They got attacked. Break out the basic AK's. An hour of training. A couple trips to the range, and bam. You've magnified your army exponentially! Not the most effective, but they are still a force to be reconned with. They can still fill the air with bullets.
I own a Sig 556R and its a sewing machine, a heavy sewing machine, but has a very solid predictable recoil and when paired with an ACOG (3x with BDC reticle) its just as good at 100-200 yards as using a base mil-spec clone AR. Granted, its all in training with a system, and consider that when you say anything going out to further distances, but If I compare it to a Mid to "Gucci AR", its just not going to hold up, even in CQB where I would rather use a SBR AR15 in 300 blackout with 9" barrel suppressed. The AK has one role by the limitations of the platform, where the modularity/customization of an AR and the ability to adapt to more environments quickly just cant be beat.
I have 2 of those gen 2. Great guns! Im afraid to shoot it its so nice!
..... you guys are a bunch of arm chair bad asses, the best weapon in Ukraine is a shovel! Legion bad asses showing up with lasers, night vision and fancy armaments add-on are a ducking joke and most of those guys go home to momma because they fought towel heads in sandals for 10 years! It will get you killed in Ukraine! Shovel, canteen, goretex body bag, and a rifle with iron sights or ACOG is best choices! Rambo knives and silencers are for arm chair bad asses!
@@5rings16 Dont be! I have the gen2 also, it eats any kind of ammo I throw at it and is very reliable.
For me I’ve used AR platforms for 33 years in one uniform or another…and I’ve used AK’s for about as long also..
In the realm of defending your life…
Either will do the job. The bottom line is they are just plain different from one another…An AR is a better overall rifle in some regards. An AR is just as reliable as an AK. But an Ak can be neglected more if need be…
An AR is more accurate but an AK is accurate enough to get the job done..
If you need a higher degree of precision then you’re probably using something else anyway.
I can run either platform as efficiently as the other…and unless you’re an SRT/ spec ops operator all the Barbie accessories a lot of folks seem to think they need end up just being a damn nuisance..optic, front grip , and some sort of light will serve 95% of shooters out there…I will agree these mods are easier on an AR but quality ones for AKs are available, but do need some fitment
100% spot on
I think it would be important to add to this discussion, that there is a difference between configurability based on original design, and something being configurable because of the amount of time and money put into making it configurable.
@@tobiasreaper3650 agreed
Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I still exclusively use iron sights on everything but my hunting rifles. Just a touch of reflective paint or a set of Triton sights is really all you need
bs AR is just as reliable.
"Is the [modern firearm] obsolete?"
Well, as usual, no. Its a lightweight, select fire carbine that fires an intermediate round with accuracy well within acceptable limits.
soldiers using AKs are getting clapped by better trained soldiers using AKs
naturally, the only conclusion to draw is that the AK is obsolete, because sometimes some of the soldiers using AKs use bullpups and surplus M4s
Honestly my take is that yes, the AK could use a straight-in magazine well, a more modular assembly and better barrel harmonics, but if you have a weapon that can compete in a one on one gunfight against a modern rifle and be ready for another one immediately after, it's not obsolete. It's all about setup.
It's surreal to see 2 years after upload all these pictures of the young Ukrainian men who are long dead since then. Was it worth it, Victoria? (I know her answer is the same as Albright's was.)
a friend of mine did a couple of tours in Afghanistan, he said they always kept a few captured AKs around. the closest they got to regular cleaning was to occasionally take them out of the vehicle, pour the sand out of the mags, and put them back. He said they always went bang.
I wonder why they kept those, as MAC puts it “smooth bore AKs” around. 🧐 I guess we’ll have to wait for whatever excuse MAC makes up in a couple of months.
@@lgbtqisahategroup9781 since he's been a stated fan of the AK in the past, I am starting to wonder if he's got some customers at Copper Custom really wanting some AKs and he doesn't have any to sell them ... so he's trying to steer them toward ARs. ;)
@@mhicaoidh1 Thank God the US DOD adopted a proper military cartridge in a proper military rifle. AR guys are still in denial and constantly citing “SF guys say the AR is an amazing gun” yet i don’t know of any SF guys that ever said that. I wonder what’s next for AR guys. Will they fall into obscurity or will they start doing their gun guru BS with the new sig rifle and 6.8 calling every other caliber obsolete. Only time will tell whether or not they have an ounce of dignity.
I watched guys soak boot laces in used motor oil rip them through their aks and that was cleaning them.
Shit runs.
@@Nobody-11B They may run but they kit nothing.
I think people often confuse the term “obsolete” with “ineffective.”
Is a standard 7.62x39 AKM with no mount for optics obsolete? Yes, is it still effective to a degree? Also yes
i agree with you, you go to war with what you have not what you want, so those AK are better than nothing
You're constructing a straw man argument. Your statement is true of an AR as well, and assumes an AK can't have an optic. It's not difficult to mount an optic on an AK ... if you have a side scope rail: RS Regulate mount. If you don't, Ultimak, Midwest Industries, or Zenitco rail with a gas tube mounted optic ... done.
Every AK is capable of having an optic mounted on it.
@@mhicaoidh1 You didn’t read my comment very well. It’s a lot more difficult to mount optics on an AK that isn’t set up for it for an average Joe. Also has block rails suck, but seeing as all your comments are arguing with people over dumb shit I’ll go ahead and say you have a good day, and please don’t bother responding
@@ViktoriousDead Its surprising the people with zero tactical experience outside of flatfoot range practice that have an opinion, I am with you. Theres a reason the afgannys squat and shoot over their head while we aim down sights lol.
I used an AKM years ago in 7.62x39 (which was legal BTW) for whitetail deer. Extremely effective, 1 shot everytime. I loved it. I found it similar to a .30-30 for wild game. We never had to shoot beyond 200m where I hunted. It put the venison on my table for many years.
The ak was up dated a couple of years ago it’s called the Galil Ace gen2
the israelis stopped using them
The fact that the optic comes off everytime you clean the weapon and take off the dust cover isn’t a good design. Way too easy to not hold zero overtime when tolerances open up. Israelis also use the M16 / M4 heavily
Every time I look at my AK, it reminds me of my F-150 4x4.
That being said, my AR is a fine rifle.
Especially when it's meticulously maintained.
I bought my first AK last year because I wanted variety in shooting. My PSA AK was accurate out of the box. It’s a pleasure to shoot.
Great rifles .I own a bunch of PSAs
Just picked a PSAK GF5-R and very pleased with it!
Gotta appreciate American manufacturers, my KUSA 103 quickly became my favorite over my ar
@@IIMoNsTerII7 got to be careful with American builders. Some are really really good, but some are very bad. I have had the pleasure of shooting 3 and I own 1 Ohio Ordinance and they are top tier quality guns
waiting on my PSA AK 103 SIDE FOLDER ALL BLACK POLYMER RN, A WEEK OR SO. CANT WAIT
I will always love the AK. My first semi-automatic rifle was a Romanian WASR 10/63 underfolder (bought it around '09, still have it), and even though I own a couple of AR's the AK is still my go to gun if I have to run a rifle for extended periods without maintenance. I have gone literal YEARS without breaking it down and cleaning it, and the thing just keeps going.
The old wasr was awesome I had one from before 2006. I got one a few years ago and it was terrible.
yeah you may good luck being accurate and fast
@@truthseeker-0026 hurr aks aren't accurate durr
You can love the AK but the recoil takes a second to get back on target and anything over 300 yards is going to take some shots to find where shes hitting, 300 yards is a 14 inch drop for the .556 no recoil shot on shot. The military making these .277 fury 6.8 same caliber is a mistake, they should of just made the .556 just a tad bigger at a .25 and make the casings a tad bigger, still light and hold a LOT more rounds then what they are going to have with the 6.8
At this point any service rifle that doesn’t have a last round bolt hold open is obsolete.
The AK will live on for years it’s proven and battle tested
My first semi auto rifle was an ak actually but totally durable to the situation, found a friend of a friend selling a quality one in most brand new condition for way under budget with a bunch of other parts/accessories and ammo. I actively train with it as well as may AR and man it is a blast.
No. The AK is not obsolete-- as long as you're using the rule: "the right tool for the job"
If it hurts, it works
@@iamwhoimnotimnotwhoiam4431 muskets still kill
not really words to live by there
When you're speaking in terms of obsolescence, you need to do so in relative terms. So, relative to other options in the year 2022, is the AK, obsolete? Yes. Fucking yes. lol
@@chadpatrick5112 Obsolete for what lol? Does a conscript army need HK 416s with IR lasers and nightvision scopes? IF not, then the AK74 is more than enough
The new AK-12SP has removed all the deficiencies with the AK platform.
1. On a "real world" battlefield - if you can't hit a target without "fancy" optical sights then you are in the wrong place! Because your "fancy" optics generally either are shattered under constant Artillery bombardments or require a power source - batteries, which generally are difficult to find when you are fighting for control of the 4th floor in a residential building under constant Mortar shelling for 5 days with enemy Snipers in the surrounding buildings.
2. Same problem with "tacticool" lasers and lights, requiring batteries that do not grow on trees. Which also reveal your position in low light to opposing forces.
3. When you are fighting for control of a ruined city for a month forget about anything that can't work without replacement batteries.
4. A "real world" Infantry weapon has a minimum of "tacticool" features. Barrel life, ammunition feed reliability, and durability of main parts is what is important. An underbarrel grenade launcher is more important than a light, as are interchangeable high and standard capacity magazines. Also how well the weapon performs under different weather conditions - not at the gun club covered range. An Infantry weapon is useless if its fire selector is jammed in "safe mode" for whatever reason because of the weather.
5. Ease of disassembly and quick fixes - if you need a machine shop to fix your "cool looking" Infantry weapon then I hope you have a million lying around somewhere.
6. And that brings us to simplicity of manufacturing processes/design, cost, standardization, compatibility of parts, and training requirements. A person who was trained to use an AK-47 made in 1949 won't need to be retrained to use an AK-74M or AK-101 or AK-103 or AK-104 made in the last 20-30 years. Even though they use different calibers of ammunition and have internal and external differences - the basic concept is the same.
An Infantry weapon is not a consumer gadget. An 1807 musket is still fatal in competent hands today.
It should be noted I try not to show favoritism(bias) to any specific Automatic Rifle in my previous posts here.
Because each country is different and has different standards and requirements for Military weapons. There is no "blanket" standard that could be applied to all.
A Military uses what fits its budget, doctrine, training standards, and manpower capabilities. You can't "copy and paste" Military equipment requirements between nations. The AR-15/M-16/M-4 works for the US Military(for the near future), even though most of the obsession with accessories on the AR-15 family is a relatively recent development. M-16's until the end of the 1990's were not universally equipped with night vision, optical sights, forward grips, lasers, or lights. This "transformation" in the US Military only occurred around 2000-2010 as the US started 2 long term wars(Afghanistan and Iraq) involving thousands of regular Infantry and not only Special Forces like earlier(Somalia 1992-93).
I don't think it is a "secret" that US Infantry and Marines in 1985 were basically armed with the same weapons(M-16's) they were armed with in 1965! Major changes only happened between 1989 and 2000, when Nylon "flak" jackets and M1 steel helmets were replaced with Kevlar body armor and PASGT helmets(which had not yet replaced 100% of the M1 steel helmets when the US invaded Iraq in 2003), accessories on US M-16 and M-4 Rifles only appeared after this. It did not happen overnight.
Forget about the later AK-74 for a minute, is a 7.62mm caliber AKM Assault Rifle developed in 1959 severely outclassed by a M-16A4 introduced into service much later? Only if you are limiting that AKM strictly to a 1950's technology level.
1. The 1st "standard" night vision sights for modified AK-47 and AKM Rifles(AKN) were introduced into Soviet Army service from 1956 - the NAP-1. Later the upgraded NSP-2 became available.
2. PBS-1 silencers/suppressors and special ammunition were available for the AKM starting in 1962.
3. GP-25 40mm underbarrel grenade launchers became available for the AKM in the 1970's. In Yugoslavia they instead chose to install "Rifle Grenades" on the muzzle of their version of the AKM.
4. The 1970's USSR AKMN and AKML upgrades introduced "standardized" optical sight mounting brackets on the side and allowed an "improved" replacement muzzle brake to be installed(using optics with the old one was sometimes difficult).
5. Magazines for the RPK Light Machine Gun are interchangeable - allowing the Infantryman with an AKM to use 40 round and 75 round "large capacity" magazines in addition to the standard 30 round magazines.
Until the introduction of the M-16A1 only 20 round magazines were used by the US Military until about 1969(if not later).
6. 7.62x39mm ammunition continues to evolve. The 1940's original M43 lead core ammunition is usable/serviceable, but improved(Military only) steel and composite core ammunition is better against current threats. Tracer and training ammunition is also usually not available to civilians, but is available to the Military.
Actually that's not quite true anymore. Outside of maybe EOTech, the current red dot sites have battery life that lasts years or more. While many reference things like Holosun where it also has a literal solar panel to function without a battery, or ACOG which doesn't need one either... even something as simple as a Vortex Red Dot will last for years. Even in constant use they will last well over your months long siege.
Secondly the durability of these optics has become extreme to the point you actually need to shoot them for them to stop working. I've watched endurance test with them that you can find all over TH-cam and many you have to literally run over with a truck to keep them from working. While what you are saying might have been true back in the early 2000s. Its definitely no longer true 20 years later.
Best comment I've read! These guys are a bunch of jokers. I don't think they are qualified to be answering if the AK is obsolete or not. It's definitely not absolute.
@@legatvsdecimvs3406 I spent over a quarter of a century in the US Army. Most of that time I carried the M16A2 rifle. I was in helicopter maintenance, but despite being Combat Support troops, most of the magazines we used were of the 20 round variety. My vision was never great because late in life I figured out that I was right-handed, but left eye dominant. Couple that with my far sightedness, and you can understand why I was not the best with iron sights. That said, most of my fellow soldiers were very good shooters, even though we fired our weapons much less than we should have. As a Boomer, give me optics every time. But I agree 100%, iron sights work and simplicity is the best option for combat conditions, every time. MAGA
These days ak's made much better and very easy to modify to your heart's content
They're still using guns from the 1800's. (Vickers, Mosin) and a shit ton from WWII including American built lend/lease Thompsons and German MP-40's Grandpa had in the closet after "finding" them off Germans who didn't need them anymore suddenly. All still viable today as they were back then iron sights and all.
I bought my first AK like 30-something years ago when I was in the Army. I bought it, mostly for the novelty, but at the time for the price. It cost around $200, and a case of 1000 rounds cost $100. It was cheap and people thought it was cool. Somewhere along the way, I bought another to shoot (because the original is a Romanian pre-ban and worth a bunch now!). Since I never sell guns, I have like 40. My personal fighting rifle is a Colt M-4, but if civilization takes a dive, I figure I’d arm my non-trained with the AKs (or shotguns if they can handle the recoil). My AR has the optics, but I’m not doing all that for the AKs. I do plan on getting another designer AR, tricking it out, and using that, but I’ll still have the two AKs (with a dozen mags each, and around 3000 rounds of ammunition). After all, why not!
That’s smart cuz after your bolt cracks or your extractor brakes or polymer mags chip you’ll be able to pull out papaws big hammer and it’ll keep going.
you should definitely tell EVERYONE all the stuff you have.
ever think of investing in NVG's, thermal, armor, and field supplies/logistics? Guns are 1% of the SHTF preparedness equation. You could sell off half your guns and expand your capability to be more survivable and competitive against enemy threats, be it day, night, poor weather, etc.
Des bedarfs!
@@PNW_Sportbike_Life PaRAnOiD
“Remember men even the most primitive of weapons still kill.” A US Navy admiral in the South Pacific, whose name I have forgotten. Read that quote one time at the beginning of a book back when I was a kid in the late 80’s or early 90’s. I do not remember the book either, but that statement has always stuck with me because it is true.
Even a spear is better than nothing in modern combat. As long as the people in charge put that spear in the right place at the right time, that spear is still very deadly.
@@nef36 The British and the Japanese welded bayonets onto long shafts when they thought they were about to be invaded.
Not sure if anyone has made this point in the 5000 comments since the video came out, but the Ultimak seems like a great idea to me and far from stupid. Granted I don't have experience with it so I could be wrong. But an Aimpoint Micro or similar red dot can be mounted on a riser which will greatly reduce heat transfer. I have always dreamed of doing this with an LT660HK with a longitudinal tunnel drilled through for below-sight cowitness, but a Scalarworks absolute (AR) cowitness mount or something similar would work fine too. Cool guys are all going to massive height over bore mounting for passive NOD aiming. Russian Alpha guys have been running Eotechs on top of AKs, with their AR-height sight plane, for years. Similarly, flashlights will be offset enough from the gas tube for heat impacts to be negligible.
I could, however, see how the sensitive electronics in laser aiming devices would be particularly susceptible to the heat from a gas tube. And those would be more difficult to insulate from the heat with an Ultimak. So that does speak to your point about military viability. But still I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of the gas tube rail.
UTG makes mini riser blocks that are hollow Aluminum extrusion.
When you start messing with risers like that, you’ll find the gun is less comfortable to shoot and slower to shoulder and fire due to your head floating in no man’s land rather than having a proper cheek weld.
Can you mostly train around this? Sure, you can train around most things. The question is will you (almost all won’t) and why would you bother?
I just use attero arms rear sight leaf replacement. Red dot mounts great, retains zero and still useable iron sight with or without red dot mounted. As for the ultimak, I used to run red dots on it but not anymore, just to move weight further back. Never had heat issues against any of my red dots though.
..... you guys are a bunch of arm chair bad asses, the best weapon in Ukraine is a shovel! Legion bad asses showing up with lasers, night vision and fancy armaments add-on are a ducking joke and most of those guys go home to momma because they fought towel heads in sandals for 10 years! It will get you killed in Ukraine! Shovel, canteen, goretex body bag, and a rifle with iron sights or ACOG is best choices! Rambo knives and silencers are for arm chair bad asses!
You can also buy a railed top cover. PSA sells AKs with raiked covers already installed.
when rockets and arillery make 90% of kills, its no difference what arms infantry takes. Even in ww2 if you gave guys m4a1 it wouldnt make much impact
Bruh
Logistics wins wars
And propaganda
Does it work? Yeah. Is it killing as many vehicles as Javelins? No.
I think the AK actually fits the needs of the average Ukrainian militia person - simple, rugged, easy to use.
Yup, much like the SKS back in the 60s and 70s in SE Asia.
People tend to forget, the Ak is a weapon that is made to be idiot proof and reliable for the new conscript. All while delivering the lethality that is desired.
And the most important thing - it's available. And familiar, to boot.
Sniffy Joe and Congress sent $43 billion of our tax dollars to subsidize Ukraine. Meanwhile, we have record high price inflation and US - Mexico border / illegal immigration crisis caused by the Biden regime.
I agree that it fits the needs of the Ukrainian people. The way i see it is yes its great to have the ability to add attachments of a more modern rifle, but id imagine that these attachments are tough to come by, let alone have enough to train and deploy in significant numbers.
This video screams “I haven’t built out an AK in 5 years”
I wonder how westerns still have no idea what combat rifle is, and how it should be. Lights, lasers - c'mon, noone use it in real combat. Sights? You can't even get your head out of the trench, how you going to aim? People never shoot beyond 100 meters, there's machine guns, grenade launchers and fpv drones to reach out. Bipods, extra rails, silencers - its just an excess weight. All i changed in my 74 was adding a collapsible stock to fit body armour. Maybe later I'll add some low magnification prism scope, just for fun. That's it. But what westerns totally ignore is the fact that they don't have AP ammo even close compatible with russian 7N39. Super weird for me.
I don't own an AK though I do own a bubba SKS with large magazines which is my cheap battle rifle. Versatile, rugged, reliable and accurate with a Prism scope out to the range I intend to use it. I fired 5.56 in the military for 20 years and have limited respect for it, thus I don't own an AR-15 as dislike the 5.56, though I do own an AR-10 as the 7.62 is far superior in all respects other than the number of rounds you can huff over the hills.
I was expecting there to be some level of back and forth here but it's just a 45 minute long video of you three agreeing on pretty much everything. As I stated on Patreon, there's a big difference in philosophies between our nation and Russia's. We can currently spend the money to dump into all these various upgrade programs, but we're also $30T in debt, which is a bigger threat to our nation than any foreign adversary. Russia manages to have the 2nd largest military in the world while carrying practically no debt. Not only that but our politicians are so careless with debt-spending that they're going to subsidize nearly all of Ukraine's military spending with their recent proposal of $40B. That's insane, especially when you consider the fact that Ukraine's entire annual GDP is somewhere around $150B. How long can we get away with this printing of money?
Not really, if you look at modern economic theory debt isn't a threat to our country, it's actually an asset because if people own our money then they are harmed by our economy doing poorly. Think of it like art, say I offer you a painting in exchange for giving me enough gas to warm myself for the winter, that's "debt" but now you get in trouble if the value of a painting from me goes down because that's you're money too. America has connected itself to the global financial market and is positioned to say "if we go down everyone comes down with us" which is the best position to be in.
The difference between Russian and American military philosophy is not really all that complicated, we have the money to pay for nice things so we do, they don't so they don't. There's a reason why all Western rich countries also have that philosophy; well armed professional volunteer forces will always be relevant to military campaigns while basing your gear off of bargain bin Chinese manufacturing and mass conscription is a recipe for disaster. Russia is a paper tiger.
Yes, in the late 90s the globalists started saying that...then they were shocked to learn that some people care about things other than money.
@@ashfox7498 Modern monetary theory is bull shit is only has two outcomes hyper inflation or recessionary stagflation. They pushed this debt bs to buy votes
@@ashfox7498 So you will be happy when you own nothing? Just having a 100% volunteer force doesn't mean you're superior to conscripted nations. Conscripted nations have healthier military age males ready for service, compare that to the US where most military age males are overweight, underworked slugs. When we get into the shooting war with Russia and China, we won't be able to replenish our losses on the battlefield as quickly as they will.
Im quite disapointed, it almost seems like propaganda. AR good, AK bad. My service gun was a AK derivative, not much of what here was said holds truth in 2022. Its very modular.
The AK platform is perfect for the Russia - Ukraine War. This is a war fought for a big part by conscripts and militias, they need a simple and low maintenance battle rifle.
Bro you just called an ak a battle rifle. You know what is also simple and low maintenance? An ar. At least pretend you watched the video.
@@thalesofmiletus6162 trust me the AK is a battle rifle. I've been on the receiving end of an AK in the early 90s.
Every war becomes a war of conscripts if it lasts long enough.
@@AshRaskin you are correct.
@@UNPROFOR1994 North Hollywood?
"AR is vastly more reliable!" Yet strange we don't see many if not zero AR style rifles from the 60s and 70s floating around in conflict zones in SE Asia and Africa. A well built ak with minimal maintenance will outlast most ARs with comparable use and exceptional maintenance. Not dogging on the AR but they aren't built for multi decade longevity.
Back in the day, I bought Romanian de-miled kits for $80-$100, 80% receivers for a little less, rivet kits and built AKM's. You had to press the barrel out of the front trunion after removing the stub of the military receiver. I had a jig set for the press. I forget for sure.. but I think the next step was to rivet the trunions to the receiver and then press the barrel back in and finish by pressing the barrel pin. Install the gas tube and furniture and assemble - done. It was fun. I think I made like 13 of them. Over time, I gave away and traded/sold most all of them. My son still has the one that we built together. Yes, AR's are assembled but the AKM was actually built from parts.
This discussion ended up being about attachments and modularity. The main criticism of the AK platform here was that it wasn't as easy to add attachments / ergonomic upgrades as the AR platform. This criticism is irrelevant because it isn't impossible to kit out your AK it's just harder. Therefore both platforms can effectively run the same missions when kitted.
Ak is a lot heavier though.
An ak bullet will kill you when it hits you in the chest. Do you think Russia is stupid? They don’t engage in urban warfare at night because they don’t have gizmos taped to their gun? You fuckheads are frustrating.
@@jonwinfield9193 it’s also in a much more appropriate CQB caliber, it was really designed to be just the strongest sub-machine gun ever. Like 7.62x39 shits on 300aac/blk in both power and cost efficiency.
@@someguy5444 Not particularly, .300 blackout and 7.62x39 are effectively the same round, with .300 black having Gucci subsonics as an option, where as the Russians upnecked the 7.62 to 9mm to achieve subsonic. If. 300 black had the same economy of scale, it could be just as cheap as 7.62x39. Neither caliber is inherently better. Honestly 5.45 is where its at for aks imo, not 7.62 anyway.
@@jonwinfield9193 I have 1,000 rounds of 196gr subsonic 7.62x39. it works great. it's definitely not as available as subsonic 300blk, but it's out there
On a side note, the Brotherhood of Nod armed their soldiers with M16s and they lost the Second Tiberium war to GDI forces that were sporting Pulse Rifles at the time. So you probably want to talk a bit about that too.
You just brought back so many mammeries
KANE LIVES! PEACE THROUGH POWER! PEACE THROUGH POWER!
Wait what's this event?
They were all ineffective against Grimlock and the Dinobots.
Kane... LIVES!!!!!!!
“I’m sure most of you will have strong options, please post them down below” that’s a nice sentiment. It’s always good to partake in entertaining different schools of thought
All I'm gonna say is there are AKs in Star Wars.
That was a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Fun fact, the Rebel A280 (the blaster rifle the Rebels use in Empire and Return) is a modified AR :) Well, one variant is at least. The other is actually an STG44.
Odd and kinda dumb question. The ak has literally helped so many nations and freedom fighters to defeat much more powerful armies, Russia and America have both failed to win against forces armed almost completely with aks, America more than once
The insurgency in Afghanistan "won" with the PK, because harassing fire with a machine gun forces infantry to call in fire support.
If they were armed completely with AKs, they'd be constantly forced into M4 range and get picked off.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD pk didn't win anything. Ak outnumbered them probably 10 to one and even more so when America lost in Vietnam. Plus the ak has longer range and energy than any m4
Won isn't true, in Vietnam the north suffered over a million casualties and ended up coming to the negotiating table and signing a favorable peace deal for the US. Now what happened afterwords is exactly what happened in Afghanistan. The US congress and ford pulled all funding, political support, and military support. The south vitnamese weren't ready to support themselves yet, especially financially, so they collapsed. Inflation hit a 200% rate soon after funding was pulled. They needed around 4billion USD to even maintain their army and they lost all of that support. As such they literally ran out of moeny for even fuel let alone paying people, flying jets, or buying ammo. As such morale collapesed and when the north fully invaded the south just crumpled, incapable of even fighting. Same in Afghanistan, biden pulled out all support and the government collapsed and didn't even put up a fight.
The only reason America lost Vietnam is because of politics not because of weapons or soldiers. If you allowed American forces to actually fight a war it would take 6 months to a year to destroy Afghanistan. When trump took the shackles off our soldiers to defeat IsIS it literally took 3 months and isis was dead meat. We weren’t at war with Afghanistan, we weren’t trying to invade the land and assume power over it, we spent more money giving it to Afghanistan trying to help them out of poverty hoping they could sustain themselves and become a developing nation. War isn’t telling your soldiers they can’t shoot till they are shot at. We tried so hard to have as little collateral damage as possible and don’t you dare say (we killed so many innocents) no we didn’t not compared to what would’ve happened if we actually went to war with them. We tried surgically killing off evil ( Gangs, let’s call them gangs instead of insurgents) and spent more time trying to protect the people living there than we did trying to kill bad people. 70% of the 5 trillion dollars spent in Afghanistan was given to Afghanistan to build Afghanistan and was not the cost of weapons or logistics of our military. When we invade Iraq in 1998 and again in 2001, we could have just leveled the city.. but we didn’t. No we sent in rangers to hold key points on the outside of the city while the marines were getting ready to invade the city. We set up road blocks where soldiers were turned into police. That’s not war. So no we didn’t lose the war in Afghanistan, we never fought an acrual war in Afghanistan. And the only reason you perceive it as a lose is because joe Biden is a complete traitor to this nation. Not because our soldiers couldn’t win but because our politics are traitors. Afghanistans describes the war as hopeless, imaging trying to fight America. We never released even 30% of our power. We toyed with Afghanistan
@@nighthawk2174 won isn't true, what a stupid comment. The Vietnamese were willing to take those loses, after 58000 dead and over a decade of warfare America finally knew it could never win, just like Afghanistan a few decades later when America repeated it's mistakes.
No, it's not obsolete. Simple as that. Any "assault rifle" can be used in modern war. For example, even Nazi Germany's STG 44 had heavy usage in the Syrian conflict until they ran out of ammo
True but the STG44s had a ton of flaws and those rebels are desperate enough to use nearly anything. It shows they can be used but beggars can’t be choosers.
@@YTPrule very true. The AK and AR rifles are 10X better than the best STGs but still, any weapon they can get their hands on will be usef
But unlike the AK, the StG44 had the option of mounting sights. You could say the StG44 was the first DRM rifle. The AK was meant to outlast the soldier using it (the soldier using typically had a short life expectancy). As opposed to Western rifles that should last as long as the soldier using it.
The AK is not obsolete. But it is dated. It could have had improvements over the years. But why? The Russian leadership has decided, and have demonstrated by their actions in Ukraine. That the average Russian soldier does not justify the expense.
@@DeltaEchoGolf from what I ready, they actually did spend the money for the equipment but where exactly did the money to? It went to the corrupt officers
@@DeltaEchoGolf Certain AKs (such as the AKMN variants designed to use night visions and the 100 series) do have a side rail to use Soviet-style sights, and there are aftermarket parts that can be used on older AKs to mount Western-style sights on them.
AK is magical like a Glock is magical across all segments of society. Saying the name is supposed to inspire fear.
You are not outgunned with ak 74s and 47s...you may be slightly disadvadtaged without the optics but they are far from obsolete. They are indestructible and you can add the optics if you wanted. They need new advancements with furniture but it just hasnt caught up yet for whatever reason. The zastavas are great with the rails on the m85 krinks so it can be done.
I put a Yugo mount on my archangel Zastava M70. Mounted a Holosun 512C and it is frickin awesome now. Haven't had a chance to take it to distance, but really not too concerned.
Interesting discussion. But one lesson from Ukraine war is that infantry rifle platform doesn't matter much. Most of losses on both sides come from artillery/missiles. Yes, Ukrainians use more long-range sniper systems, but Russians fight them efficiently with guided missiles and tank guns (there is a joke there, that the best anti-material rifle is 125 mm tank cannon). Also, many videos of Russian forces actually show LDNR militia, and they use whatever rifle is available. Front line Russian troops restricted of recording videos, and smart phones use is strictly prohibited.
yeah, more than half of the "russian" forces in ukraine arent even russian. also, THEY ARE WINNING THE WAR. UKRAINE IS LOSING. some folks just wont admit these things.
when youre losing territory over and over, cities voluntarily defecting to the other side, and your own peopIe rebelling against you and siding with russia, well.. you are losing. this is whats happening in ukraine. theres also the fact that russian artillery and airpower are vastly superior to ukraines. besides, the ak isnt even obsolete anyway. do artillery men really need fancy rifles? even a 50 year old ak with iron sights would be adequate.
Infantry wins wars not drones.
@@RowdyLpx atomic bombs on Japan won the war. We are in a new era.
@@RowdyLpx Tell that to Sarah Connor.
@@user-qj9ye1uv8g I was referencing superpowers I apologize for not specifying. Accommodations must be made for microscopic militaries...you little devil you.
Love my ak. Raw original no bells and whistles, just the 47. The drum is a lot of attention to maintain.
I think plain iron sighted AKs are working relatively well in the types of close-range urban and trench warfare that's currently taking place in Ukraine. By comparison AKs are at a big disadvantage in more open desert or mountain terrain.
in this war rifles are mainly used like mini machine guns, either to storm a location with mass firepower or defend a trench or retreat. The AK does this job fine, if you look at any combat video from Ukraine, either side. The artillery or tanks do the main job
Artillery does Killin infantry does the dieing
Having owned both, as a personal preference, I've always said if I'm going to war or defending my home, I want an AR platform. If it's the end of the world and I'm surviving in a desolate wasteland, I want an AK.
Some people prefer the objectively inferior AK due to cool factor and fuddlore, yes.
bullpup gang checkin in
@@HotelBravo556 I think you probably bought into the Fuddlore that the AK and anything Eastern is an inaccurate piece of trash.
@@suckonme2643 ayeeee x95/ק here
@@HotelBravo556 it’ll last longer and you can hunt with it
I would call it obsolescent. It's a box magazine fed intermediate caliber rifle that can take an optic with either a side rail or some of the newer stuff from Zenitco or other manufactures. Set it and forget it.
I think people care too much about about modular designs and barrel changes. A military, especially a conscript based one, does not care about changing things on it's rifle. Once the rifle's life has ended, they throw it away and issue a new one. And with how little conscripts shoot, the rifles will last decades.
Aye, how many cases of quick barrel swap in fight are there realistically when it comes to rifles? I've never even heard of spare barrels being carried by soldiers, except for the squad weapons...
That being said I'd love it if the 7,62NATO ACE had an option like that, needing a table and a $20 jig to replace a barrel is so XX century (insert whatever emoji zoomers use to express sadness)
@@Sk0lzky literally non. Quick detach is a fad that needs to die. The only gun that got modularity right was the bren2. Swapping between the two calibers it's designed for is an armory level task, but not so complicated it requires extra machinery. It can swap from 5.56 to x39 without losing magazine capacity or reliability because it doesn't rely on Stanag mags, amd it can switch without changing manual of arms because it doesn't rely on AK mags either. Plus they didn't over complicate the caliber situation. They stuck with the two most common rounds in use today, and the two rounds former block/current NATO countries have billions of rounds already stockpiled.
@@chrisclark6161 Fightlite MCR has a good quick change barrel, but it's intended as a stand in for a SAW on an AR lower, not to change the gun's purpose so to speak.
Well keep in mind conscripts don't just shoot rifles, they drop them too, but I guess that's something the AK was built to handle.
@@Sk0lzky Right, is the AR obsolete compared to the AUG because I can change an AUG barrel in 2 seconds with no tools? Of course not, it's a silly argument.
This is not a one is better than the other comment but, for US citizens the AR platform makes sense in regards to availablility in ammo. I never would have thought ammo would be so hard to find in my life until 2020 through 2021. The only ammo I could find online and in the store, at least in Wisconsin was 9mm, 223, 556, and occasionally 308. Even with these calibers being available they were heavily marked up by demand but I am sure also in availablitiy which to me says most people here in the US have at least a 9mm or 556 platform. In other countries the 7.62x39 platform could be their preference on availability as well. Either gun is worthless unless you have ammo for the gun.
Great video and conversation guys. Now... when I was gearing up to buy my "FIRST" carbine some years ago I studied all the data and YT videos comparing the two systems in question. Having a clear understanding (as much as a relative Noob could have) I chose the .30 cal option over the .22 cal offering. I love my AK. Magpul Zhukhov furniture with bipod and side mount Primary Arms Red dot and I'm good all day pinging steel at 250 yds. That's good enough for me. Now, I do now own two AR's and have gotten good with them. But when I take friends/family that are not experienced with either system to the range for a fun day of shooting, without fail, their favorite rifle was the AKM. And there's something nice about 123 grains of .7.62 (.308) cal. banging the steel over what 55 grains of 5.56/.223 does. Having said all that... when I want to reach out to 400-500 yards I reach for the AR with the 1-6 Variable scope. But when the zombies roll up in front of my house I'll grab the AK.
Actually the 7.62x39 is .310, not .308. Great round for whitetail imo. The AR not so much, still a varmint round.
Any infantry rifle with irons only is obsolescent.
An AK with any decent rail mounting is perfectly adequate for modern combat.
The white death disagrees
well when ol simo was doing his thing there wasnt an ak.. soooo there is that..
Agreed
@@brettadams7423 the white death was a propaganda creation, and not a great one at that, because when you get shot in the head and get half your face blown off ... maybe you arent that great of a sniper.
@@lordsithous4406 rifle has more range then AK, depends if out in hills or urban fighting
Here before the US army with their MCX Spears loses another conflict to people with obsolete Ak's....
Soldiers are only as effective as the people in charge allow them to be
Look how misinformed he was back then. The Russian were not being decimated by Western weapons at all. In fact it was the exact opposite.
Is he still this way or has his logic changed?
They ate up the war reports from our western media without question.
You could arm a Ranger Battalion with General Issue SKS rifles, RPK squad automatics, and Colt New Service .44-40 revolvers, and it would not degrade their capabilities as much as one would tend to think. Some, yes, but training, logistics, and support are far more important than individual weapons on the modern battlefield.
"It ain't the tool, it is the craftsman" ....
I’ve built AR in all calibers/modular, but the beauty of a wooden furniture AK is nostalgic. 😊 . It’s like comparing Glocks to a 1911. I love them both.
@@twintwo1429 Why would you ask anyone to disclose their arsenal on U Toob?
@@twintwo1429 That information is available on a need to know basis only and not shared on the internet for common sense reasons. You toob is google, which is not secure and I choose to maintain as much privacy as possible. That's why I don't FB either. There are plenty of anti 2a trolls out there and I choose not to feed them. I'm not entering a pissing contest just to prove how stupid or smart I am, as I don't suffer from small peter syndrome. I can usually make my points without insulting people. Best of luck to you & be safe.
Eternal Vigilance
I guess the question really comes down to the AK's viability as a weapon overall versus its viability specifically as a weapon of war. It's a perfectly functional weapon, that isn't in dispute. The question here is really whether there is a sensible way to keep using the AK platform to equip modern infantry troops, and a lot of that comes down to factors outside of the weapons themselves.
well NO, since it was ready in huge number, so if you need to arm certain untrained group in quick time AK is viable option.
@BBML Russian and Bulgarian AK74'are very accurate out to Ar distances...all you have to do is build Ak's in whatever magic new caliber comes out.6.8 anyone?
@@wirelessone2986 AK-12 Zlobin Prototype has option with 6.5 Grendel caliber
well im a veteran and the one thing you guys did not point out is that when the ar is in action the dust cover will always be open !! and ive found that the ak just handles dirt and mud better..ive seen these utube vids where they dunk them in mud and then say the ar comes out on top, well that is not what i have found to be the case..
Wow , that was 45 minutes of bashing the legendary AK !!!
If they are so crappy why have AK values doubled in the same amount of time the AR's halved in price ?
I adore my AKs. I can shoot my AK74s very well, and wouldn't honestly feel inferior on a two way range with it. However, after I run an AK for a while and then pickup my 14.5 mid length BCM gun, it's always a re-realization just how good the AR actually is. It's just easier, honestly. It's easier to shoot, easier to change mags, easier to manipulate the safety, easier to manipulate the AR all the way around. I will say this, my 104 is easily as accurate as my go to BCM. So, I think a properly set up AK74 would still be a very relevant infantry type rifle.
you nailed my experience to the T. I'm definitely WAYYY more comfortable shooting my AKs but I had to admit how nice/ergonomic the ARs are.
There’s two things that matter, training and the ability to fight effectively day and night. Aside from that it doesn’t matter what rifle you use as long as it functions as required.
104 isnt a 74, you must have a 105.
Same guns different caliber
but your dead right bro. I am way more of an AK guy than an AR guy HOWEVER. Even though my m70Zpap is set tf up and dead nuts accurate up to practical ranges for me, a civilian. Both my AR builds are probably going to be my go-to's for a SHTF scenario for multiple reasons.
It's hard to beat the AR-15 is what it is. A properly kitted AR I mean. I have one AR pistol that is dead nuts accurate and super lightweight and ergonomic and just ready to fuggin goooooo. I also go a custom built SPR that is DEAD NUTS at pretty far ranges. Its .223. Its damn near as heavy as my AK's even the kitted ones that are full sized. But man, it's just nothing to shoot. It recoils so soft because of the way its configured. I mean, you let that bipod out and set yourself up you're going to be shooting lights out well passed 300 yards.
I like my AK's but the ballistics can be trickier, they can require more training around magazine drills and such, they're generally heavier and they ARE accurate, until you take em passed 550 yards. Thats when ballistically, they do weird shit. Its a little to do with the round itself, and its a little bit about the AK design itself. The AK is not as capable as an AR for long range accuracy. Is it by enough that it matters? Maybe, maybe not. I guess that would depend on the situation and the variables at play in that situation.
I second this. I got my first ak in the summer of 2018 ran 2 ak classes that summer and after I thought the ak was the best rifle ever. Then I went plinking at a buddy’s ranch with my AR and realized how much the AR had to offer.
Blah blah I left my ar in my van for 2 months an the take down pins started get a light rust on them
MAC, I think you have the difference in "build" confused with "manufacture". You don't have to manufacture I beams to build a building
From a retired construction worker, it couldn't have been more clearly described.
I think his claim is that building an AR is really more accurately described as assembly. It's really just semantics, but the way I would distinguish the two is that building requires skilled labor, whereas to assembly requires no particular skills. A woodworker builds a table from lumber, a buyer assembles a table from IKEA.
Thank you. It drives me nuts when people think they’re being so smart by correcting people who say “build an AR.” They’re not right in the first place, and even if they were they’d be extremely pedantic. The main dictionary entry for “build” is: To form by combining materials or parts; construct.
Technically, they both would be assembled from kits. At least, from the average Joe. I'd probably only say someone manufactured their rifle if all the main functioning parts were made in-house. AKA, barrel, receiver, trunnion, bolt, bolt carrier, and so on. That whole argument about AR builders not being builders is really stupid and shortsighted. Even if you said manufactured instead, that doesn't mean anything because AK builders aren't manufacturing shit either.
Another little thought, many people are manufacturing AR-15 receivers by 3D printing them. Hell, I bet there are more average Joe's manufacturing AR's in the US right now, then guys stamping AK receivers.
I used to work in a factory making car parts for a living and honestly putting together an AR-15 is more involved than a lot of the jobs were on our lines. Feeling superior about people not "building" an AR is dumb. Grain of salt though; my opinions on guns are invalid. I think instead of silencer/suppressor we should call it a muffler.
No firearms are obsolete made after 1880's. A firearm is a firearm. No joke. Only flintlock are obsolete rifles.
Yeah, firearms are relatively unchanged after all these decades. You can attach more stuff to them, but that's about it. They'll become obsolete when we start getting stuff like lasguns, maula pistols, or Holtzman shields
@@greatBLT i agree
In the field and in combat conditions with lacking maintenance, the AK is definitely more reliable than an AR.