AK 47 changed the world. M16 jams very easy, and gets the user killed in combat. Who is the obvious winner? There's a reason the AK is the worlds most popular and most widely used assault rifle. Easy to operate, simple to maintain, and easily produced. And when it comes to stopping power, AK puts you in the grave, as the M16 puts you in the hospital. AK 47 is the grand daddy of assault rifles.
WHY THE HELL DO THEY COMPARE AN M16 AND AN AK-47.... COMPARE IT WITH A SIMILAR .22/5.45MM CARTRIDGE IN AN AK... Jeez, kinda like the AK-74!! I just never get comparing apples to oranges, the -74 would be a FAIR and awesome competition, more accurate than -47, and the ammo/mags are about half the -47's ammo/mags. Maybe then they could shut up about 'controllability', I know for MYSELF the AK-74 platform is one of the LOWEST RECOILING weapon's ever, less recoil than the M16. Dudes smackn trigger!
@funnyman175 no offense taken. You obviously have not handle or fired any weapon by your retarded comment therefore absolutely holds no weight...it's like when a special needs kid breaks your stuff...you can't get mad at him he just doesn't know any better.
It's interesting the differences between the British and American versions of this same episode, with the british narrator directly using the weapon whereas the American narrator just narrates.
ak47 because it cant be jammed by dirt or mud and shit but the m16 can because of its shitty ass fuckin design and didnt have forward assist so if ur gun was jammed ur fucked and u better pray to god u dont get shot to shit
This video seems very much to hate on the ak. Anyone proficient and knows there way around a Ak could hit a man sized target at a 100yds with irons, period.. Past that optics can be mounted on either rifle and be good for 300-500yd shot, which in my opinion is much harder then people make out to be... The 5.45x39 Ak74 is a better comparison with the m16 because of its more compariable cartrige size and recoil of the rifle .
Personally, Sig 550 Series seems to be the best adaption of the AK, however the price-tag for US imports is around the AR margin. To be honest, if you want better accuracy on a 7.62x39mm platform, a simple first step is to lengthen the barrel. Higher pressure makes the 7.62x39mm run flatter, which means better performance in flight. Unfortunately there is a problem with the ammo itself, as many surplus rounds are not boat-tailed - yet, some others are. It all depends on the time and factory.
@ReviewForReel - the bar is a cleaning rod. I have shot some high speed of the Tantal including with the top cover off. it's amazing how much flex you have with the AK stamped receivers. most people prefer the milled receiver AK for the added stiffness, and less barrel flex and they feel they are more accurate. never did a side by side of the receivers, but to me the Milled receiver is more accurate, especially at 200 yards with iron sights. but either will do the job
@xeniosaias - a lot more people have died carrying AK's than M16 series rifles. just look at all the dead bodys from the middle east as an example. during our tour none of our 300+ M16's had a single issue. but you sure could pick up a lot of AK's laying around. don't believe all the propaganda,
@weaponeer the propaganda which have brainwashed you, you mean??? Dude I had brand new M16A2 and later M4/m203 in the army! I had issues without any reason with both. You want examples. US troops prefering AKs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thats your example. M16 have serious limitations.I addition there is an american company making AKs that speaks for its self.
@xeniosaias - I carried the M16 for 16 years, including in the sand box. if you had issues, then it was operator error. and no, the troops don't prefer the AK, which is a stupid comment because there are AAR's that tell a different story, and even the Afgan Special Forces carry the M16 series and NOT the AK I guessed you missed the memo. Oh, and Colt lost the contract in 2009, it's been Fabrique National Hurstal, since then. I have my DD214 posted online, where is yours?
@weaponeer Because I dont post it doesnt mean anything dude. Operator error you say in a brand new perfectly clean M16..... ok . Dont use examples such as the ASF because that has to do mostly with political reasons than anything else. They use what ever US commands them to use and do as well. And dude its HERSTAL.. Believe what ever you wish about your beloved M16. But more reliable than the AK........HAHAHAHAHA.
@xeniosaias - on YouTube, those who claim they were in the military, but don't have the DD214 posted, are largely thought of as posers. and your answers are pointing in that direction. get your facts straight, especially about the ASF. it takes much longer to teach someone how to be a rifleman and use the M4 or M16 series, than it does to have them point in the general direction and shoot like everyone else there with an AK. their SF choose the rifle for capibility and being for being modular
@weaponeer In which part I said I was in the US army for you to demand DD214???.My facts are as straight as yours. You consider M16 reliable I dont, I just find it to be simply laughable. And 50 years now the AK proves you re wrong. I would prefer even the AK74 that the M16. Simply because the 5,45 is a man stopper where the 5.56 aint enough. The Allahu Akbar maniacs you fight dont die easily right dude? hahaha
@sharpshooternick - I actually have better things to do, but when someone states I'm wrong, I have no choice but to respond to correct them. I suspect it's due to spending so many years in the Army, but I think age also has a factor (the older you get, the less tolerant you get for anything "stupid") which often results in great entertainment for others. lol
@luka2298 - is everyone in russia a fag? all this talk of raping guys up the ass, and calling for fags to go to russia. Maybe you need to go someplace else and create your own little FagTube, and leave us real men to YouTube and real weapons.
@weaponeer i will ignore all the inherent flaws of the DI system when you say "real weapons" referring to the ar-15 and just focus on caliber. 5.56 cannot penetrate a brick wall or a decently sized tree trunk. the 7.62 soviet can and still has enough ass left behind it to neutralize the threat
@dammitcrap when talking about the 111 year old DI system's 2 faults, you also need to talk about it's overwhelming positives. Mainly the fact thats it's the ONLY way to have a gas operated rifle as accurate as a bolt action. and it has few parts (less parts = less things to go wrong with it). Penetration of a tree trunk with limited energy transfer is not a tactical advantage. Rifles are for shooting people not trees or buildings (thats the job of the RPG). you cannot kill what you cannot see
@weaponeer thats a problem though. unless you are ambushing your enemy, your enemy will be taking cover. even if you are ambushing you will be able to take one, maybe two men in a squad before the rest run for cover. thats when penetration of cover will be a deciding factor. also, we have all seen the videos of that dude shooting his ak until his handguards caught on fire. you could put three entire mags of 5.56 rapid fire through an AR until you start cooking off rounds, which can be dangerous
@dammitcrap - if you look at the combat footage, cover is not an issue (and it's not getting through it) the real issue is range and accuracy. as far as the AR and cooking off. in my 16 years in the Army I never had one cook off. there is a video showing an M16 firing 1100 rounds in under 15 minutes with one single failure (drum issue) after being thrown in the sand, as well as throwing it in muddy water, and continuing. they ran out of ammo. the rifle never failed, which is common.
@weaponeer I don't know about the only way. I doubt an AR15 of the similar quality vs a bolt action will ever be as accurate. AR15's set up as sniping platforms have been around for years, but they are not the weapon of choice for snipers. Bolt actions still take that place.
@esh325 - full floating the barrel is how the AR15 is able to get bolt action like accuracy, plus the DI gas system is very gentile, so you have fewer harmonic issues to deal with. The US is currently issuing the semi-auto Mk.11 Mod.0 and M110 sniper rifles, and they have been highly popular in Afghanistan. another semi-auto is the Barrett M82. times are changing. rifles like the M110 allow snipers to engage more targets quickly as well as with a suppressor.
@esh325 - care to cite the ligitimate article? I have never heard a single complaint (other than cost) on the rifle. Built by Knight's Armament Company (KAC) and the rifles been in development as a sniper rifle for 23 years now (the base design is 57 years old) in it's early form it was tested and beat the FAL, and the M14 hands down, and the current form fires mainly Match ammunition only, and as a gas operated rifle it shoots .5 MOA all day long, which is Very impressive.
@esh325 - the Questions presented had already been answered directly by KAC long ago. Where is the forward assist? Does not need one per Eugene Stoner (same with the M16 series). "shot out barrels"? 100% BS, There have been zero barrels replaced. The problem, was not cleaning the copper fouling using commercially available copper remover. once correctly cleaned to remove copper, the barrels all shot sub-moa. the author (Jack Murphy) now states the barrels are NOT an issue.
@weaponeer Then I stand corrected. I remember them saying they the needed forward assist for silent chambering of the round. As far as functionality goes, I don't think the forward assist is needed either. I can't really be too sure though. I would have to shoot my AR15's more to come to a conclusion.
@xeniosaias you BITTCH real man? hahahahahah LOL we laugh at you idiot Americans,Russians fucked you by any means ecept the one you think literally,because your an obsolete American FAG and we know that here so your funny lol..hahah now go suck some American faggots dick because thats the only "men" in your amry!PUSSY!WE WILL CUT YOU OPEN AND LEFT YOU BLEED!
@weaponeer no idiot!M 16 = PUSSY GUN,AK 47=POWER!!!ASK YOUR GAY GRANDPA WHAT ASSAULT RIFLE MAKES HIM CRY WHEN HE REMEMBER VIETNAM!!!!!YOU STUPID AMERICAN EGOIST FUCK!!!YOU SHOULD LEARN SOME MORE OBJECTIV HISTORY AND NOT BELIEVE EVERITHING YOUR STUPID GAY AMERICANS TELL YOU!!!LOL YOU ARE A JOKE HAHAHAHA LOL!!!!
@luka2298 - You can always tell when a kid starts posting. they think swearing makes them sound older. and you can tell a moron from the caps lock, and inability to spell. you better get off the internet before your step mom knows you are using her computer. as for a joke? that would be your knowledge on firearm or military related topics little boy. Objective is not being influenced by personal feelings, or prejudice; based on facts. As an expert I'm always 100% unbiased regarding weapons.
@xeniosaias that is not quite true, if that were the case then why are casualty rates between the two so extreme? the ak's do have malfunctions quite often due to their poor construction. the 100 percent reliability is pure fabrication, i have several ak's and several ar's..both of them malfunction some of the time. but your comment says more or less that the M16 style rifle does not work, on that basis, we would have had all of our troops killed in Gulf, Nam, Iraq, and Afganistan
What are 3 on about? Arguing about which gun is better is a never ending story. They're both great guns with their own advantages and disadvantages. The 5.56 and 5.45 is more accurate and can go farther, the 7.62x39 penetrates hard cover better. They're both good in certain situations.
But Weaponeer (I'm subbed to you btw), I don't really understand what your on about with the AK-47 being defective.
@esh325 and this is why your not an expert on the subject. your far too willing to bend facts to suit the result in your head. Major design defects: Piston and Safety. as a result the AK is not near as reliable as you think it is, especially the magazines, in fact much of what you know of the AK is simple propaganda. this is my everyday job, and to know your rifle is to know your enemy, and you know it's limitations or you can die. it's a simple concept. I'm more than willing to debate in person
@esh325 - You tell me...what does reciprocating mass do to a stationary object? the magazines tend to fail with sand in them (oddly the AR does not) besides the obvious ergonomics of the safety design, the safety remains off 90% of the time in combat, and if you ask real class III AK owners who shoot in the desert in all conditions they will tell you that the lack of a dust cover causes dust to enter the receiver and get under the sear. it tends to shoot one round and jam up. this is basic stuff
@weaponeer Prove it that AR magazines fail less in the sand. Prove it. Show me a source. There is a particurly video of somebody taking off the dust cover and throwing considerable amounts of sand in the rifle and there's only one failure to fire out of 30 rounds fired. My friend firecontrolgroup has his own set of videos where his AK does much better with crap in the receiver then the AR15 does. Look at his videos.
@esh325 bro weaponeer knows his shit dont mess with him there is a 99.9% chance your wrong and hes right when it comes to guns i mean i thought everyone would know that by now XD
@sharpshooternick - ROFLOL I wish it was that high of a percent. but for the ones I know, I know pretty well, and the conversations here can be answered more correctly by someone playing airsoft, than esh325 is getting.
@esh325 - did that on video last year. the AK (not mine and tested by it's owner) failed in 2 magazines (dust and sand lock). I then tested the AR and mags burying it in very dusty dirt, and the AR performed perfectly. why? the tight fitting AR prevents dust from entering the weapon, but the AK is far from closed. I had seen the AK mag test before and it failed, so I was not surprised. but I was surprised by the GI mags and PMags.. they didn't have any issues with dirt dumped in loaded mags.
@esh325 - just ask those who actually fire the full automatic weapons in the desert. the AK was never designed for the desert, and the desert is not full of dirt, it's a fine sand, or foot powder consistency dust. if you had an AK, you would be able to look on the right side with it placed on fire, to understand the issue, and why the israelis rejected the AK.
@weaponeer Why does it have to be a fully automatic? Hahaha, I don't have an AK? Click my name and tell me now that I don't have an AK? I guess they are just airsoft guns.
@weaponeer You said you build Gails right? Well, if you built Galils then you would know they have the same gap in the receiver as the AK when you put the selector switch on fire. If the Israels thought the AK did poorly in sand, then why did they adopt a weapon like the Galil which largely based on the the AK? Explain that to me.
@esh325 - the Galil had a number of improvments, and the design is based on a number of rifles (including the M16). the number one fixes were the magazines, much longer sight radius, tritium night sights, stronger milled receiver, built in scope mount, more accurate, and it has a left and right side safety lever, so it can be set on safe with the dust cover protecting the receiver from dust, and select it to fire without moving your hand. My Galil is the ARM
@weaponeer When the Galil is set to fire the gap is there though just like the AK! I'm looking at a video of a fat guy firing a Galil and it has the same gap. The fact that the Galil safety is more ergonomic is really irrelevant in protecting the rifle from sand better then the AK. When a soldier is firing a Galil at his enemies and sand is blowing around, he's not gonna put the rifle on safe when he's being fired at. He's in the same boat as guy using an AK.
@esh325 - when you start shooting them, you will find out how relevant it is, especially in an ambush. with the AK you carry it on fire due to the time it takes to remove the safety (typically done with the right hand), the Gaili was built with the left side safety that you select with your thumb much like the AR, and the reason is so you can keep the rifle on safe with the dust cover blocking sand and dust from getting into the receiver. the reaction time is not the same. the Vz58 is better
@weaponeer Okay, that's a better explanation, but it's not really a huge advantage over the AK. You can still get sand in there when the selector is off. If the Galil was designed to have no gap at all when the selector is put to fire, then I would consider that an advantage. The VZ 58 has a large ejection port which sand could get into also.
@esh325 - the Vz58 has a spring loaded dust cover which stays closed until you fire the weapon, so it's only open a tenth of a second. frankly thats even better than the AR which opens on firing and stays upen until you close it. there are companys that will weld on a charging hand to the left side of the AK bolt. this is even worse because both sides are open, and only the right side can close. the disadvantage with the AK is the dust cover/safety, open to the elements on one side when on fire
@weaponeer I suppose it's for a short period of time anyways, but when the bolt is held back on the VZ 58 during reloading, it's a fairly large opening which sand could enter. The VZ 58's ejection port set up limits the optics you can use.
@esh325 - the bold hold open is one update I really liked on the Vz58, and you are correct, in extreme conditions debris can enter and build up in the Vz58 and cause a problem later. Modern Vz58's typically mount an optic in the scout position, or use the scope adapter at the stock for a cantilever scope mount (over the top cover) with a brass deflector allowing any scope. I also have ambi mag release, and bolt closing lever on my personal rifle. but I like my Modified Bulgy AK74 better.
@weaponeer I've never used a scout style set up, but I don't imagine they are preferable to a scope close to your eye. The problem with the cantilever is you have to replace your stock too. You also loose the ability to fold the stock then. Not that I need a folding stock though. I've wanted to put a scope on my VZ 58, but it's just too expensive and too much of a hassle. You can drill the receiver for a side mount plate, but I don't want to bother with that.
@weaponeer And the M16 consistently fails in cold weather where the AK will fire. One test by the Alaska State police confirmed it, and another test conducted by the Russians also confirmed it.
@esh325 - I have qualified with the M16 in -30F temps without a single problem (I qualified expert 16 years straight in the Military). the openings in the top cover of the AK allow freezing rain to enter with the dust cover in place unless the weapon is protected, allowing water to collect inside, and freeze the action in place. the close fitting parts protect the M16, but the troops are trained to use the winter weight oil and not CLP. the clp thickens and can prevent the M16 from being fired
@weaponeer I like your videos, however i love my ak.. Russian used ak47 in freezing weather without issues. The AK has loose tolerances and aids in the reliabilitty. But it also decreases its accuracy. Tighter tolerances on the m16 aid in malfunctions. I know m16 are great guns and are much more reliable then people think. But i love my aks because there desighned for combat. Nothing more nothing less. No frills or tactical rails just point and shoot and reload. Thats it.
@DSMtsi23 - I like AK's as well (I have 5+ of them). the accuracy is more of a cause of the short sight radius, ultra flexible receiver, and small dia. barrel. Now the loose tolerance for reliability with the AK is 100% propaganda. It was never a design element, it was the result of the USSR's manufacturing industry not being able to machine the components any tighter without the need to do hand fitting (which explains the wide specifications rifle to rifle) never by a car made in the USSR.
@weaponeer The short sight radius I agree with. I'm fairly certain the bullet has already left the barrel even before the receiver flexes. I think the imbalance of the operating parts before the shot has ever been fired is the reason. The AK has a gas block hanging off the barrel with a piston inside of it.
@esh325 Barrel Harmonics is a well known phenomenon, that affects the bullet while still in the barrel.(it's amazing how much a barrel warps like a sign-wave while the bullet is still inside). The Browning Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System (BOSS) is worth reading about and it helps explain the problem and their solution. This is also why full floating barrels like on the AR is more accurate. there is less touching the barrel to mess with the harmonics
@esh325 - respect is earned, so thats all a person can ask. many people wrongly think I hate the AK series rifles just because I'm objective. Few firearm owners are objective. they will buy and defend what their friends told them was good, and even most gun stores are clueless (sad). whats accurate to one person is not to the next.Guys with bolt actions feel anything less than 1 MOA is defective, and others hitting a zombie target at 100 yards is good enough accuracy. it's mainly point of view
@weaponeer It's difficult to not be bias with firearms, but I think I try to be objective with the AK. I don't agree with your ideas of what the design flaws of the AK are, but I think the 7.62x39's ballistics is the most serious issue with the AK. Then the sights, and then the safety. I like my VZ 58, it's a functional and very well made rifle, but it doesn't improve upon the AK enough. To me, it's lighter and has a BHO. That's about all it has over the AK imo.
@weaponeer To quote you. Does this statement not apply to the Galil also? "the safety remains off 90% of the time in combat, and if you ask real class III AK owners who shoot in the desert in all conditions they will tell you that the lack of a dust cover causes dust to enter the receiver and get under the sear. it tends to shoot one round and jam up. this is basic stuff"
@weaponeer Bending the facts? You're more of an expert on that if anything. Saying AK's were built without rails? What an incredibly ridiculous and untrue statement.
@esh325 - you have got to be crazy. scope rails were not standard equipment for AK47's or how about you post a video showing the vintage photos with all these magic scopes on the AK's. the only rifle in the squad with a scope was the SVD. none of my AK's were store bought, they were demiled issue weapons and even the later AKM's were not issued with a scope rail. which is why I used to sell the scope rails for the AK and PSL. I only sold 500+ AK parts kits, how would I know. get off the drugs
@weaponeer Not every AKM had a scope rail installed, but quite a few did. Look up AKM in googles images and you'll find plenty of select fire AKM's with the scope rail installed.
@esh325 no they were mass produced without rails dude its common knowledge its the fucking soviet union do you think they will waste money giving their soldeirs scopes?
@esh325 - once again you don't know the difference between the AKM and and the other AK series rifles such as the 100 series. the AKMN (limited production) was designed to fit a night vision scope, but it's AKMN and not AKM. or you can go to the world guns russian website and see for yourself. or do you think russia might get the information wrong too?
@weaponeer They are VARIATIONS of the AKM. Of course they made fewer of them, but they were far from being limited production. The AK-74'weren't made with scope rails at first either.
@esh325 - if you call over 10 million a limited production. it was you that said "Saying AK's were built without rails? What an incredibly ridiculous and untrue statement" you proved me right once again, but this time I don't mind because you might have finally researched it. and frankly thats all I ask. the more you read the more you will find that I'll telling the truth. if you know what to look for on the AKM, it's not an issue because you can fix some of it, and work around the rest
@esh325 - no, I'm correct in both cases. You said "AK's were not built without rails" as in any, plus your counting the AKMV as an AKM when they are not the same models. and as for the 6.8 SPC, sadly it a short range rifle only, but the good news was it was fired from the AR, so it was highly accurate, unlike the AK which is far from a tack driver. (once again, by design). the 6.8 made a lot of promises, but it was failed from the start. there are a ton of better rounds.
@weaponeer You said AK's were built without receiver rails. I said this was incorrect. This was before we were talking about scope rails. I admited you were correct about the scope rails though. Uh no you're still wrong about the 6.8 SPC. The data tables clearly show the 6.8 SPC has a superior trajectory. This is indisputable.
@esh325 - you have yet to be right on this whole video. how about you quote my statement about receiver rails. the receiver rails was about the USSR's inability to weld them in during production (one of the reasons they used two models of milled receivers). and you still have not posted the ballistics (which is not trajectory) for both rounds (I did right away) then again, anyone that thinks the 7.62x39 has good ballistics is no judge of what caliber is superior (you do know I reload?)
@weaponeer "- sure, the ones you buy are the gun store may have rails, but not in the 40's, 50's or 60's." I assumed you were talking about receiver rails, and I thought you were implying they didn't build them receivers rails, but I guess you weren't talking about receiver rails. In that case, I admit I was wrong.
@weaponeer You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say the 7.62x39 has good ballistics I said before"It has very lacking ballistics. That is credible design flaw of the AK, is the ballistics of the 7.62x39"
@weaponeer You honestly can't back up anything you say with any factual sources or information. You just gloat how build so many guns yadda,yadda,. Just talk. Show me a valid written source that shows that early AK's blew up because of a lack of hammer release delay device, and I will believe you. Just show me.
@esh325 just visit my company website.. I'm called Weaponeer for a reason. your problem is you are unable to comprehend anything for yourself. I think your issue is, you have been BS'ing people into thinking you know something able guns, and I'm betting you will go on looking like an idiot with each reply, and I'll keep on making you look stupid time and time agin posting the facts. it's your reputation not mine.
@weaponeer I'll make you look like idiot right now. To quote you " (frankly the 6.8 SPC are just as bad in the AR)" From hornady's website. The trajectory of a 7.62x39 at 500 yards is -96.60 inches of drop. The trajectory of the 6.8 SPC at 500 yards is 64.00 inches of drop. That's a massive difference in trajectory. I'm afraid the 6.8 SPC being just as poor ballisticly as the 7.62x39 is simply not true.
@esh325 -7.62x39 123gr 2,400 fps and 6.8 SPC 120gr 2,460fps. the 6.8 was the american version of the 7.62x39, but despite all the money spent by Remington it's been a failure, bad enough it's been replaced by the SPC II. as you can see the ballistics match. Tragectory will depend on bullet weight, ballistic coefficient of the bullet, type of bullet (FMJ) and loading. therefore the information you provided is BS because you didn't match bullet weights and coefficient's for comparisons - idiot
@SavageArms357 - The AK47 was designed from the start with a number of design defects, which are still found in the AK74's. I just cannot cover them in just a few characters.. I built AK's from 5 countries, and I have been building them and dealing with them for over a decade, and because of that I correct a lot of the propaganda when I see it. I own pretty much all the military rifles from WWII forward, and like them all. BUT, pull punches on any of them. ballistics covers the 7.62x39 well
@SavageArms357 - I should point out that I'm just in the starting phase of shooting several videos, one on the AK, and another on the Vz58. until you understand the issues, it's hard to understand the Vz58, and why it's FCG and Piston and not the same, so it's hard to get your head around with just text on a page without the history behind it, but in the end you will understand the issues with the AK, and Vz58. it's pretty basic stuff really, but I still love the AK's just as much
@luka2298 - you seem to be infatuated with guys ass's, yet have no grasp on weapon history. The AK47 stopped being produced in 1957. it was far too defective for use by the troops, so they redesigned it as the AKM, and 17 years later scraped the AKM after substandard performance on the vietnam battlefield against the M16A1, and replaced the AKM with the AK74 (the AKM was not even worthy for special ceremony. They used special SKS's for that), the AK74 has 37 years service - the M16 48 years.
@FireControlGroup your wrong. The AK didn't come close to outperforming the M16A1, and thats proven by the fact that the USSR dropping the AKM due to the poor performance of the 7.62x39, and issued the AK74 in 5.45x39. all this is historical record. Had the USSR not had advisors in Vietnam and testing these weapons in combat, they would likely had waited. it was serious enough that they converted even before the war ended, The AK series still has a number of design defects.
@weaponeer You may call it "poor performance" but some Russians soldiers, mainly special forces are still carrying 7.62x39 rifles. Of course, the 5.45x39 does have advantages.
@esh325 - just a little tip. the 5.45 has double the range of the 7.62x39, and smaller diameter bullets penetrate better (which is why most 22 LR penetrate more layers of kevlar than a 44 mag). and the AK74 is far more controllable and more accurate especially with the AK74's scope rail. (even the PKM's had POSP scopes) and you can carry far more ammunition. RPG's are for walls not rifles. you really should join the military for some real facts.
@weaponeer Range is an advantage of the 5.45x39, yes. For certain situations, range may not be an advantage though. There's a lot more to penetration then just diameter. If that were true, then why on the National Institute of Justice's list do they rate the vests made to stop .22 LR's much lower then .44 magnum vests?
@weaponeer Almost all AKM's were equipped with scope rails at some point. While you're right that rifles primary function is not for shooting through walls, it is an advantage in many cases to have a round that can defeat cover better. If the 5.45x39 was superior in every way, then the Russians wouldn't be issuing 7.62x39 rifles and ammo still.
@esh325 - sure, the ones you buy are the gun store may have rails, but not in the 40's, 50's or 60's. the AK was built for spray and pray battles with massed conscript army's (in many cases with someone ready to shoot them if they didn't do as told) trying to overwhelm them with fire power. (much like the US did during WWII. we didn't have better tanks, just more of them, and won). they make the ammo to sell to other countries and armies. it's a major export (weapons always were)
@weaponeer They had rails on them. This is indisputable. The M16 first saw service with conscripts too. Full auto was very much a touted feature of the original M16.
@weaponeer "According to figures released by the Department of Defense, the average number of rounds expended in Vietnam to kill one enemy solder with the M-16 was 50,000. The average number of rounds expended by U.S. military snipers to kill one enemy soldier was 1.3 rounds. That's a cost-difference of $23,000 per kill for the average soldier, vs. $0.17 per kill for the military sniper."
@esh325 You do know Russia dropped the 7.62 x 39 because they saw the woulds the 5.56 was causing. Not to mention the 5.56 is more accurate & lighter to carry/transport. They tried to copy the 5.56 with the 5.45 but still run it through a inferior rifle.
@shananagans5 I don't know if it was the wounding potential as much as they saw that it increased hit probability and made the rifle easy to shoot on fully automatic. The 5.45x39 acted a lot like the M67 round the Yugo's made. They replaced it largely with the 5.45x39, but they still keep the 7.62x39 around for certain reasons.
@esh325 For a hard core AK fan you really don't know that much about them. Spend some time on their history & Russian history. It really is fascinating & worth your time.
@esh325 thats the problem. you have yet to be right. you blindly defend the 7.62x39 without knowing the ballistics of the round (frankly the 6.8 SPC are just as bad in the AR) the AK is a great rifle, and fun to shoot (which is why I have 5+ of them), but it's got a number of flaws, and it's not the worlds greatest gun. read the real history of the rifle, and not just wiki. and then just look at it, and you will see the flaws pretty easy. but you cannot go into it blinded by propaganda
@weaponeer It doesn't mean it's a bad round. It has very lacking ballistics. That is credible design flaw of the AK, is the ballistics of the 7.62x39. What is the real history of the rifle? Recommend me a book or website, and I will read it.
@esh325 - the round was designed in the 40's (that should tell you one thing) Russian quality of the time was not very good. (name a great russian car from the 50's or 60's) the magic reliability was based only by the fact that russia could not machine to tighter tolerances. proof? pick of 5 AKM's and measure all the parts, and they will be within russian wide specs, but far from close tolerances. 91/30's were hand fit.
@weaponeer What was wrong with the original AK was it was expensive to make and it didn't have satisfactory full auto performance. Functionally speaking, there wasn't really anything wrong with it. The Russians "stopped" using the AKM like how we "stopped" using the M14. They never phased them out completely. I have pictures of the AKM being used by soldiers in Chechneya.
@esh325 - what the heck are you huffing? first of all, you could not tell the difference between an AK47 and an AKM. it had nothing to do with being to expensive (that was really stupid). why don't you research the history of the USSR, as well as the AK series rifles? what are you afraid of? it's fascinating history about the number of receivers used and when (as well as manufacturing shortcoming), as well as why the AK47 needed the retarder put in place. learn the topic, it's worth your time.
@weaponeer You clearly didn't read up on the history of the AK. Cost WAS one of the big reasons they replaced the original AK. They intended to stamp the original AK because it was cheaper but they the technology to make stamped receivers for the AK wasn't perfected, so they made milled receivers until they perfected the stamping technology with the AKM.
@esh325 give up while you are behind. the issue was they were experienced in machining receivers, and were setup for machining. and while bending receivers was not a big deal, they didn't yet have the required skills for welding in the rails for production. the first version had the stamped receiver, first production milled, and when the had the resources and machinery in place for the spot welding, and the riveting they went back to the stamped in the AKM. communist don't worry about money
@weaponeer It's not just cost, but efficiency. It's take a lot longer to machine a receiver and there's a lot of material waste. That was unacceptable to them.
@weaponeer There's always things to learn about the AK, but I've read up on the history of the receivers. The AK-47 didn't need a hammer retarder. The AKM might have needed it perhaps. I've read the hammer retarder was needed on the AKM to compensate for the thinner receiver. The Chinese used a thicker receiver on their so they didn't need a hammer retarder. The same with the Yugos.
@esh325 - again you failed to even look it up before you started to post. the hammer retarder was one of the key featues of the AKM. and the reason? just look at any number of AK videos where the retarder was worn. the result is a timing issue causing the round to be fired prior to being fully inserted into the chamber (aka bomb). receiver thickness is rigidity (half mm), and it has nothing to do with the retarder. where do you get this stuff? COD game play?
@weaponeer " When the AKM was introduced, the bolt’s bounce characteristics were changed by the lighter sheet-metal receiver. As a consequence, to prevent firing out of battery, which can destroy both the rifle and the operator, a five-component mechanical drag device was installed in the trigger mechanism to delay the hammer’s fall until bolt bounce had settled down to a safe degree. This device, erroneously called a rate reducer by many self-styled authorities"
@weaponeer From a East German armorer. Not every AK needs the hammer release delay device, but some might need it. It's not written in stone, but it's honestly better then any of the weak explanations that I've gotten from you. How can you assert that every video of an AK blowing up is because of a worn hammer retarder? Firearms can blow up for many reasons.
@BattlestarHailfire Won the battles?? Where did you get that? You know what's funny to me? When ever US fail in something, in anything, they always look for excuses or they just blame someone else. Just admit that America got owned by Vietnam.
@Andruha7 By Vietnam? hah lol. You could say by the commies but trust me, The US always won the battles. Even the tet offensive Eventually became a failiure for the NVA / VC.The onlything that prevented the US from winning that war were the people at home that didn't take the many dead GI's anymore after 10 years of bloody war.
AK 47 changed the world. M16 jams very easy, and gets the user killed in combat. Who is the obvious winner? There's a reason the AK is the worlds most popular and most widely used assault rifle. Easy to operate, simple to maintain, and easily produced. And when it comes to stopping power, AK puts you in the grave, as the M16 puts you in the hospital. AK 47 is the grand daddy of assault rifles.
RepulsiveSalvation91 1 day ago
ak-47=bitch m16=pimp
nick74178ify 3 days ago
m16 is for more military, acuarcy, easier to handle, ak47 is just more then enough for your needs to defend your self for what ever reason
eliteswordsman1 6 days ago
instead of seeing wich is better, they should combine each other a good acurate riffle that has alot of power, dose not jam much and so on
eliteswordsman1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
АК 74-THE BEST!
gulshato4ka 1 week ago
WHY THE HELL DO THEY COMPARE AN M16 AND AN AK-47.... COMPARE IT WITH A SIMILAR .22/5.45MM CARTRIDGE IN AN AK... Jeez, kinda like the AK-74!! I just never get comparing apples to oranges, the -74 would be a FAIR and awesome competition, more accurate than -47, and the ammo/mags are about half the -47's ammo/mags. Maybe then they could shut up about 'controllability', I know for MYSELF the AK-74 platform is one of the LOWEST RECOILING weapon's ever, less recoil than the M16. Dudes smackn trigger!
reeseman67 1 week ago 3
АК-47 SYPER M-16 фууууу
hasan1509aa 1 week ago
@funnyman175 no offense taken. You obviously have not handle or fired any weapon by your retarded comment therefore absolutely holds no weight...it's like when a special needs kid breaks your stuff...you can't get mad at him he just doesn't know any better.
elox02 1 week ago
AK-47 All the way Fck the M16 no offence
funnyman175 1 week ago
wtf i seen people fire the ak at 200 yards and that stupid couldnt fire it at 100 yards
schecterblackjack12 1 week ago
my grandfather had M16a1 in Vietnam war EX-ARVN but he told me that M16a1 is long range but I rather M16
WanganTune3DXPluDeaf 2 weeks ago
MP44 look like ak-47 but it copy
WanganTune3DXPluDeaf 2 weeks ago
It's interesting the differences between the British and American versions of this same episode, with the british narrator directly using the weapon whereas the American narrator just narrates.
Tinuviel451 3 weeks ago
i'm american but i'd pick the ak-74
bonnervsgriffen 3 weeks ago
@bonnervsgriffen Finally someone says *AK-74*
brianthao102 3 weeks ago
BIAS. Watch Nutnfancy shoot just as good with both weapon systems.
WW2Fanatic1000 3 weeks ago
ak47 because it cant be jammed by dirt or mud and shit but the m16 can because of its shitty ass fuckin design and didnt have forward assist so if ur gun was jammed ur fucked and u better pray to god u dont get shot to shit
fuginharley 3 weeks ago
Эй! Не наводи оружие на людей! Разве ты забыл народную мудрость:хорошее ружье само раз в год стреляет.
Axel1438 3 weeks ago
M16 is better
sk8master1999 3 weeks ago
@sk8master1999 really it's ak47 ak47 uses bigger bullets so they make more damage but m16 is just more accuarryed
GTAmyytit 3 weeks ago
@GTAmyytit and also has a damaging bullet read your history facts.
matta428naruto2 3 weeks ago
@GTAmyytit forget first state ment
matta428naruto2 3 weeks ago
@sk8master1999 thank u some one who agrees with me
matta428naruto2 3 weeks ago
This is a load of shit.
benno5151 4 weeks ago
This is so bias... what a joke.
TheVaporhawk 1 month ago 4
The AK 47 is the best rifle in the world, trust me ;) !
NOW there are beter guns than the kalashnikov, but 30-40 years ago this was da real shit....
GEGATAbg 1 month ago
Тот олень который с АК стрелял одиночными только один уложил, ему получше очки нужны!
RISSSD17 1 month ago
this video is bullshit. the proof of what rifle is better was the vietnam war...... need more to say? dont think so..
marcusos1111 1 month ago
@marcusos1111 ha someone sounds but hurt.
troympayne 1 month ago
Yes the forward assist can be used after "riding" the charging handle to lock the bolt and yes never force a round into the chamber with it .
elox02 1 month ago
This video has some great info. Thanks for posting it up.
CSTactical1 1 month ago
This video seems very much to hate on the ak. Anyone proficient and knows there way around a Ak could hit a man sized target at a 100yds with irons, period.. Past that optics can be mounted on either rifle and be good for 300-500yd shot, which in my opinion is much harder then people make out to be... The 5.45x39 Ak74 is a better comparison with the m16 because of its more compariable cartrige size and recoil of the rifle .
DSMtsi23 1 month ago
@DSMtsi23 part 2 is in favor of the ak
DylanWFilmsLA 1 month ago
Personally, Sig 550 Series seems to be the best adaption of the AK, however the price-tag for US imports is around the AR margin. To be honest, if you want better accuracy on a 7.62x39mm platform, a simple first step is to lengthen the barrel. Higher pressure makes the 7.62x39mm run flatter, which means better performance in flight. Unfortunately there is a problem with the ammo itself, as many surplus rounds are not boat-tailed - yet, some others are. It all depends on the time and factory.
DeusMalleus 1 month ago
Love it
MrSKSkill 1 month ago
THUMBS UP FOR AK!!!!
sandman481000 1 month ago
When you look at the AK during the slow speed camera footage, it looks like the bar on the bottom of the barrel is going to break off.
ReviewForReel 1 month ago
@ReviewForReel - the bar is a cleaning rod. I have shot some high speed of the Tantal including with the top cover off. it's amazing how much flex you have with the AK stamped receivers. most people prefer the milled receiver AK for the added stiffness, and less barrel flex and they feel they are more accurate. never did a side by side of the receivers, but to me the Milled receiver is more accurate, especially at 200 yards with iron sights. but either will do the job
weaponeer 1 month ago
most of this video was all about how great the M-16 was .... until battle lol.
CDWastelands 1 month ago
AK47 = Reliable.
M16 = Accurate.
Typhoon10UK 1 month ago
how many soldiers died cause of m16s failure ??? definetely A LOT.
That nevers happens with an AK. Who cares about the imperfect balistics. It works. M16 DOES NOT WORK.
xeniosaias 1 month ago
@xeniosaias - a lot more people have died carrying AK's than M16 series rifles. just look at all the dead bodys from the middle east as an example. during our tour none of our 300+ M16's had a single issue. but you sure could pick up a lot of AK's laying around. don't believe all the propaganda,
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer the propaganda which have brainwashed you, you mean??? Dude I had brand new M16A2 and later M4/m203 in the army! I had issues without any reason with both. You want examples. US troops prefering AKs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thats your example. M16 have serious limitations.I addition there is an american company making AKs that speaks for its self.
xeniosaias 1 month ago 2
@xeniosaias - I carried the M16 for 16 years, including in the sand box. if you had issues, then it was operator error. and no, the troops don't prefer the AK, which is a stupid comment because there are AAR's that tell a different story, and even the Afgan Special Forces carry the M16 series and NOT the AK I guessed you missed the memo. Oh, and Colt lost the contract in 2009, it's been Fabrique National Hurstal, since then. I have my DD214 posted online, where is yours?
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Because I dont post it doesnt mean anything dude. Operator error you say in a brand new perfectly clean M16..... ok . Dont use examples such as the ASF because that has to do mostly with political reasons than anything else. They use what ever US commands them to use and do as well. And dude its HERSTAL.. Believe what ever you wish about your beloved M16. But more reliable than the AK........HAHAHAHAHA.
xeniosaias 1 month ago
@xeniosaias - on YouTube, those who claim they were in the military, but don't have the DD214 posted, are largely thought of as posers. and your answers are pointing in that direction. get your facts straight, especially about the ASF. it takes much longer to teach someone how to be a rifleman and use the M4 or M16 series, than it does to have them point in the general direction and shoot like everyone else there with an AK. their SF choose the rifle for capibility and being for being modular
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer In which part I said I was in the US army for you to demand DD214???.My facts are as straight as yours. You consider M16 reliable I dont, I just find it to be simply laughable. And 50 years now the AK proves you re wrong. I would prefer even the AK74 that the M16. Simply because the 5,45 is a man stopper where the 5.56 aint enough. The Allahu Akbar maniacs you fight dont die easily right dude? hahaha
xeniosaias 1 month ago
@weaponeer that is true ohh well you guys keep fighting its fun to read lol
sharpshooternick 1 month ago
@sharpshooternick - I actually have better things to do, but when someone states I'm wrong, I have no choice but to respond to correct them. I suspect it's due to spending so many years in the Army, but I think age also has a factor (the older you get, the less tolerant you get for anything "stupid") which often results in great entertainment for others. lol
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer yes well you are doing a good job haha
sharpshooternick 1 month ago
@weaponeer stfu american gay and come to Russia so we can rape your ass! lol
luka2298 1 month ago
@luka2298 - is everyone in russia a fag? all this talk of raping guys up the ass, and calling for fags to go to russia. Maybe you need to go someplace else and create your own little FagTube, and leave us real men to YouTube and real weapons.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer i will ignore all the inherent flaws of the DI system when you say "real weapons" referring to the ar-15 and just focus on caliber. 5.56 cannot penetrate a brick wall or a decently sized tree trunk. the 7.62 soviet can and still has enough ass left behind it to neutralize the threat
ak wins
dammitcrap 1 month ago
@dammitcrap when talking about the 111 year old DI system's 2 faults, you also need to talk about it's overwhelming positives. Mainly the fact thats it's the ONLY way to have a gas operated rifle as accurate as a bolt action. and it has few parts (less parts = less things to go wrong with it). Penetration of a tree trunk with limited energy transfer is not a tactical advantage. Rifles are for shooting people not trees or buildings (thats the job of the RPG). you cannot kill what you cannot see
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer thats a problem though. unless you are ambushing your enemy, your enemy will be taking cover. even if you are ambushing you will be able to take one, maybe two men in a squad before the rest run for cover. thats when penetration of cover will be a deciding factor. also, we have all seen the videos of that dude shooting his ak until his handguards caught on fire. you could put three entire mags of 5.56 rapid fire through an AR until you start cooking off rounds, which can be dangerous
dammitcrap 1 month ago
@dammitcrap - if you look at the combat footage, cover is not an issue (and it's not getting through it) the real issue is range and accuracy. as far as the AR and cooking off. in my 16 years in the Army I never had one cook off. there is a video showing an M16 firing 1100 rounds in under 15 minutes with one single failure (drum issue) after being thrown in the sand, as well as throwing it in muddy water, and continuing. they ran out of ammo. the rifle never failed, which is common.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer I don't know about the only way. I doubt an AR15 of the similar quality vs a bolt action will ever be as accurate. AR15's set up as sniping platforms have been around for years, but they are not the weapon of choice for snipers. Bolt actions still take that place.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - full floating the barrel is how the AR15 is able to get bolt action like accuracy, plus the DI gas system is very gentile, so you have fewer harmonic issues to deal with. The US is currently issuing the semi-auto Mk.11 Mod.0 and M110 sniper rifles, and they have been highly popular in Afghanistan. another semi-auto is the Barrett M82. times are changing. rifles like the M110 allow snipers to engage more targets quickly as well as with a suppressor.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer I actually read an article where the M110's were having functioning issues. They haven't displaced bolt actions yet.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - care to cite the ligitimate article? I have never heard a single complaint (other than cost) on the rifle. Built by Knight's Armament Company (KAC) and the rifles been in development as a sniper rifle for 23 years now (the base design is 57 years old) in it's early form it was tested and beat the FAL, and the M14 hands down, and the current form fires mainly Match ammunition only, and as a gas operated rifle it shoots .5 MOA all day long, which is Very impressive.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Look up "Problems with the Semi-Automatic M110 Sniper Rifle?"
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - the Questions presented had already been answered directly by KAC long ago. Where is the forward assist? Does not need one per Eugene Stoner (same with the M16 series). "shot out barrels"? 100% BS, There have been zero barrels replaced. The problem, was not cleaning the copper fouling using commercially available copper remover. once correctly cleaned to remove copper, the barrels all shot sub-moa. the author (Jack Murphy) now states the barrels are NOT an issue.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Then I stand corrected. I remember them saying they the needed forward assist for silent chambering of the round. As far as functionality goes, I don't think the forward assist is needed either. I can't really be too sure though. I would have to shoot my AR15's more to come to a conclusion.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - training tells you to never force a round into the chamber, which is why it was never added (and it's purpose)
weaponeer 1 month ago
@xeniosaias you BITTCH real man? hahahahahah LOL we laugh at you idiot Americans,Russians fucked you by any means ecept the one you think literally,because your an obsolete American FAG and we know that here so your funny lol..hahah now go suck some American faggots dick because thats the only "men" in your amry!PUSSY!WE WILL CUT YOU OPEN AND LEFT YOU BLEED!
luka2298 1 month ago
@luka2298 Are you stupid or what??? First of all I prefer AK, second I am not american, third learn english.
xeniosaias 1 month ago
@weaponeer no idiot!M 16 = PUSSY GUN,AK 47=POWER!!!ASK YOUR GAY GRANDPA WHAT ASSAULT RIFLE MAKES HIM CRY WHEN HE REMEMBER VIETNAM!!!!!YOU STUPID AMERICAN EGOIST FUCK!!!YOU SHOULD LEARN SOME MORE OBJECTIV HISTORY AND NOT BELIEVE EVERITHING YOUR STUPID GAY AMERICANS TELL YOU!!!LOL YOU ARE A JOKE HAHAHAHA LOL!!!!
luka2298 1 month ago
@luka2298 - You can always tell when a kid starts posting. they think swearing makes them sound older. and you can tell a moron from the caps lock, and inability to spell. you better get off the internet before your step mom knows you are using her computer. as for a joke? that would be your knowledge on firearm or military related topics little boy. Objective is not being influenced by personal feelings, or prejudice; based on facts. As an expert I'm always 100% unbiased regarding weapons.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@luka2298 Y so Fag?
DeusMalleus 1 month ago
@xeniosaias that is not quite true, if that were the case then why are casualty rates between the two so extreme? the ak's do have malfunctions quite often due to their poor construction. the 100 percent reliability is pure fabrication, i have several ak's and several ar's..both of them malfunction some of the time. but your comment says more or less that the M16 style rifle does not work, on that basis, we would have had all of our troops killed in Gulf, Nam, Iraq, and Afganistan
zooders 1 month ago
What are 3 on about? Arguing about which gun is better is a never ending story. They're both great guns with their own advantages and disadvantages. The 5.56 and 5.45 is more accurate and can go farther, the 7.62x39 penetrates hard cover better. They're both good in certain situations.
But Weaponeer (I'm subbed to you btw), I don't really understand what your on about with the AK-47 being defective.
SavageArms357 1 month ago
@SavageArms357 The stuff he's saying about the AK-47 being defective is made up by him. He is unable to provide a source if you ask him.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 and this is why your not an expert on the subject. your far too willing to bend facts to suit the result in your head. Major design defects: Piston and Safety. as a result the AK is not near as reliable as you think it is, especially the magazines, in fact much of what you know of the AK is simple propaganda. this is my everyday job, and to know your rifle is to know your enemy, and you know it's limitations or you can die. it's a simple concept. I'm more than willing to debate in person
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer I never said I was. I don't think you are either however. What's wrong with the piston and safety? What about the magazines? Try me.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - You tell me...what does reciprocating mass do to a stationary object? the magazines tend to fail with sand in them (oddly the AR does not) besides the obvious ergonomics of the safety design, the safety remains off 90% of the time in combat, and if you ask real class III AK owners who shoot in the desert in all conditions they will tell you that the lack of a dust cover causes dust to enter the receiver and get under the sear. it tends to shoot one round and jam up. this is basic stuff
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Prove it that AR magazines fail less in the sand. Prove it. Show me a source. There is a particurly video of somebody taking off the dust cover and throwing considerable amounts of sand in the rifle and there's only one failure to fire out of 30 rounds fired. My friend firecontrolgroup has his own set of videos where his AK does much better with crap in the receiver then the AR15 does. Look at his videos.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 bro weaponeer knows his shit dont mess with him there is a 99.9% chance your wrong and hes right when it comes to guns i mean i thought everyone would know that by now XD
sharpshooternick 1 month ago
@sharpshooternick - ROFLOL I wish it was that high of a percent. but for the ones I know, I know pretty well, and the conversations here can be answered more correctly by someone playing airsoft, than esh325 is getting.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@esh325 - did that on video last year. the AK (not mine and tested by it's owner) failed in 2 magazines (dust and sand lock). I then tested the AR and mags burying it in very dusty dirt, and the AR performed perfectly. why? the tight fitting AR prevents dust from entering the weapon, but the AK is far from closed. I had seen the AK mag test before and it failed, so I was not surprised. but I was surprised by the GI mags and PMags.. they didn't have any issues with dirt dumped in loaded mags.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer There are videos of AK's functioning fine with dirt in the magazine. Look up "AK 74 malfunctions" by the theunsuspecting
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - just ask those who actually fire the full automatic weapons in the desert. the AK was never designed for the desert, and the desert is not full of dirt, it's a fine sand, or foot powder consistency dust. if you had an AK, you would be able to look on the right side with it placed on fire, to understand the issue, and why the israelis rejected the AK.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Why does it have to be a fully automatic? Hahaha, I don't have an AK? Click my name and tell me now that I don't have an AK? I guess they are just airsoft guns.
esh325 1 month ago
@weaponeer You said you build Gails right? Well, if you built Galils then you would know they have the same gap in the receiver as the AK when you put the selector switch on fire. If the Israels thought the AK did poorly in sand, then why did they adopt a weapon like the Galil which largely based on the the AK? Explain that to me.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - the Galil had a number of improvments, and the design is based on a number of rifles (including the M16). the number one fixes were the magazines, much longer sight radius, tritium night sights, stronger milled receiver, built in scope mount, more accurate, and it has a left and right side safety lever, so it can be set on safe with the dust cover protecting the receiver from dust, and select it to fire without moving your hand. My Galil is the ARM
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer When the Galil is set to fire the gap is there though just like the AK! I'm looking at a video of a fat guy firing a Galil and it has the same gap. The fact that the Galil safety is more ergonomic is really irrelevant in protecting the rifle from sand better then the AK. When a soldier is firing a Galil at his enemies and sand is blowing around, he's not gonna put the rifle on safe when he's being fired at. He's in the same boat as guy using an AK.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - when you start shooting them, you will find out how relevant it is, especially in an ambush. with the AK you carry it on fire due to the time it takes to remove the safety (typically done with the right hand), the Gaili was built with the left side safety that you select with your thumb much like the AR, and the reason is so you can keep the rifle on safe with the dust cover blocking sand and dust from getting into the receiver. the reaction time is not the same. the Vz58 is better
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Okay, that's a better explanation, but it's not really a huge advantage over the AK. You can still get sand in there when the selector is off. If the Galil was designed to have no gap at all when the selector is put to fire, then I would consider that an advantage. The VZ 58 has a large ejection port which sand could get into also.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - the Vz58 has a spring loaded dust cover which stays closed until you fire the weapon, so it's only open a tenth of a second. frankly thats even better than the AR which opens on firing and stays upen until you close it. there are companys that will weld on a charging hand to the left side of the AK bolt. this is even worse because both sides are open, and only the right side can close. the disadvantage with the AK is the dust cover/safety, open to the elements on one side when on fire
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer I suppose it's for a short period of time anyways, but when the bolt is held back on the VZ 58 during reloading, it's a fairly large opening which sand could enter. The VZ 58's ejection port set up limits the optics you can use.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - the bold hold open is one update I really liked on the Vz58, and you are correct, in extreme conditions debris can enter and build up in the Vz58 and cause a problem later. Modern Vz58's typically mount an optic in the scout position, or use the scope adapter at the stock for a cantilever scope mount (over the top cover) with a brass deflector allowing any scope. I also have ambi mag release, and bolt closing lever on my personal rifle. but I like my Modified Bulgy AK74 better.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer I've never used a scout style set up, but I don't imagine they are preferable to a scope close to your eye. The problem with the cantilever is you have to replace your stock too. You also loose the ability to fold the stock then. Not that I need a folding stock though. I've wanted to put a scope on my VZ 58, but it's just too expensive and too much of a hassle. You can drill the receiver for a side mount plate, but I don't want to bother with that.
esh325 1 month ago
@weaponeer And the M16 consistently fails in cold weather where the AK will fire. One test by the Alaska State police confirmed it, and another test conducted by the Russians also confirmed it.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - I have qualified with the M16 in -30F temps without a single problem (I qualified expert 16 years straight in the Military). the openings in the top cover of the AK allow freezing rain to enter with the dust cover in place unless the weapon is protected, allowing water to collect inside, and freeze the action in place. the close fitting parts protect the M16, but the troops are trained to use the winter weight oil and not CLP. the clp thickens and can prevent the M16 from being fired
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer I like your videos, however i love my ak.. Russian used ak47 in freezing weather without issues. The AK has loose tolerances and aids in the reliabilitty. But it also decreases its accuracy. Tighter tolerances on the m16 aid in malfunctions. I know m16 are great guns and are much more reliable then people think. But i love my aks because there desighned for combat. Nothing more nothing less. No frills or tactical rails just point and shoot and reload. Thats it.
DSMtsi23 1 month ago
@DSMtsi23 - I like AK's as well (I have 5+ of them). the accuracy is more of a cause of the short sight radius, ultra flexible receiver, and small dia. barrel. Now the loose tolerance for reliability with the AK is 100% propaganda. It was never a design element, it was the result of the USSR's manufacturing industry not being able to machine the components any tighter without the need to do hand fitting (which explains the wide specifications rifle to rifle) never by a car made in the USSR.
weaponeer 1 month ago
Comment removed
DSMtsi23 1 month ago
@weaponeer The short sight radius I agree with. I'm fairly certain the bullet has already left the barrel even before the receiver flexes. I think the imbalance of the operating parts before the shot has ever been fired is the reason. The AK has a gas block hanging off the barrel with a piston inside of it.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 Barrel Harmonics is a well known phenomenon, that affects the bullet while still in the barrel.(it's amazing how much a barrel warps like a sign-wave while the bullet is still inside). The Browning Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System (BOSS) is worth reading about and it helps explain the problem and their solution. This is also why full floating barrels like on the AR is more accurate. there is less touching the barrel to mess with the harmonics
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer I admit, I still disagree with you on many things, but I've come to respect you more.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - respect is earned, so thats all a person can ask. many people wrongly think I hate the AK series rifles just because I'm objective. Few firearm owners are objective. they will buy and defend what their friends told them was good, and even most gun stores are clueless (sad). whats accurate to one person is not to the next.Guys with bolt actions feel anything less than 1 MOA is defective, and others hitting a zombie target at 100 yards is good enough accuracy. it's mainly point of view
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer It's difficult to not be bias with firearms, but I think I try to be objective with the AK. I don't agree with your ideas of what the design flaws of the AK are, but I think the 7.62x39's ballistics is the most serious issue with the AK. Then the sights, and then the safety. I like my VZ 58, it's a functional and very well made rifle, but it doesn't improve upon the AK enough. To me, it's lighter and has a BHO. That's about all it has over the AK imo.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 Strongly agree, vz 58 rules.
MultiWarmachine 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@weaponeer To quote you. Does this statement not apply to the Galil also? "the safety remains off 90% of the time in combat, and if you ask real class III AK owners who shoot in the desert in all conditions they will tell you that the lack of a dust cover causes dust to enter the receiver and get under the sear. it tends to shoot one round and jam up. this is basic stuff"
esh325 1 month ago
@weaponeer Bending the facts? You're more of an expert on that if anything. Saying AK's were built without rails? What an incredibly ridiculous and untrue statement.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - you have got to be crazy. scope rails were not standard equipment for AK47's or how about you post a video showing the vintage photos with all these magic scopes on the AK's. the only rifle in the squad with a scope was the SVD. none of my AK's were store bought, they were demiled issue weapons and even the later AKM's were not issued with a scope rail. which is why I used to sell the scope rails for the AK and PSL. I only sold 500+ AK parts kits, how would I know. get off the drugs
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Not every AKM had a scope rail installed, but quite a few did. Look up AKM in googles images and you'll find plenty of select fire AKM's with the scope rail installed.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 no they were mass produced without rails dude its common knowledge its the fucking soviet union do you think they will waste money giving their soldeirs scopes?
sharpshooternick 1 month ago
@esh325 - once again you don't know the difference between the AKM and and the other AK series rifles such as the 100 series. the AKMN (limited production) was designed to fit a night vision scope, but it's AKMN and not AKM. or you can go to the world guns russian website and see for yourself. or do you think russia might get the information wrong too?
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer They are VARIATIONS of the AKM. Of course they made fewer of them, but they were far from being limited production. The AK-74'weren't made with scope rails at first either.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - if you call over 10 million a limited production. it was you that said "Saying AK's were built without rails? What an incredibly ridiculous and untrue statement" you proved me right once again, but this time I don't mind because you might have finally researched it. and frankly thats all I ask. the more you read the more you will find that I'll telling the truth. if you know what to look for on the AKM, it's not an issue because you can fix some of it, and work around the rest
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer We'll were both wrong then. AKM's with rails are limited production. And the 6.8 SPC doesn't shoot like a 7.62x39.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - no, I'm correct in both cases. You said "AK's were not built without rails" as in any, plus your counting the AKMV as an AKM when they are not the same models. and as for the 6.8 SPC, sadly it a short range rifle only, but the good news was it was fired from the AR, so it was highly accurate, unlike the AK which is far from a tack driver. (once again, by design). the 6.8 made a lot of promises, but it was failed from the start. there are a ton of better rounds.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer You said AK's were built without receiver rails. I said this was incorrect. This was before we were talking about scope rails. I admited you were correct about the scope rails though. Uh no you're still wrong about the 6.8 SPC. The data tables clearly show the 6.8 SPC has a superior trajectory. This is indisputable.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - you have yet to be right on this whole video. how about you quote my statement about receiver rails. the receiver rails was about the USSR's inability to weld them in during production (one of the reasons they used two models of milled receivers). and you still have not posted the ballistics (which is not trajectory) for both rounds (I did right away) then again, anyone that thinks the 7.62x39 has good ballistics is no judge of what caliber is superior (you do know I reload?)
weaponeer 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@weaponeer "- sure, the ones you buy are the gun store may have rails, but not in the 40's, 50's or 60's." I assumed you were talking about receiver rails, and I thought you were implying they didn't build them receivers rails, but I guess you weren't talking about receiver rails. In that case, I admit I was wrong.
esh325 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@weaponeer You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say the 7.62x39 has good ballistics I said before"It has very lacking ballistics. That is credible design flaw of the AK, is the ballistics of the 7.62x39"
esh325 1 month ago
@weaponeer You honestly can't back up anything you say with any factual sources or information. You just gloat how build so many guns yadda,yadda,. Just talk. Show me a valid written source that shows that early AK's blew up because of a lack of hammer release delay device, and I will believe you. Just show me.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 just visit my company website.. I'm called Weaponeer for a reason. your problem is you are unable to comprehend anything for yourself. I think your issue is, you have been BS'ing people into thinking you know something able guns, and I'm betting you will go on looking like an idiot with each reply, and I'll keep on making you look stupid time and time agin posting the facts. it's your reputation not mine.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer I'll make you look like idiot right now. To quote you " (frankly the 6.8 SPC are just as bad in the AR)" From hornady's website. The trajectory of a 7.62x39 at 500 yards is -96.60 inches of drop. The trajectory of the 6.8 SPC at 500 yards is 64.00 inches of drop. That's a massive difference in trajectory. I'm afraid the 6.8 SPC being just as poor ballisticly as the 7.62x39 is simply not true.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 -7.62x39 123gr 2,400 fps and 6.8 SPC 120gr 2,460fps. the 6.8 was the american version of the 7.62x39, but despite all the money spent by Remington it's been a failure, bad enough it's been replaced by the SPC II. as you can see the ballistics match. Tragectory will depend on bullet weight, ballistic coefficient of the bullet, type of bullet (FMJ) and loading. therefore the information you provided is BS because you didn't match bullet weights and coefficient's for comparisons - idiot
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer 6.8mm SPC 120 GR SST® vs 7.62X39 123 gr SST® Steel Case. See for yourself.
esh325 1 month ago
@SavageArms357 - The AK47 was designed from the start with a number of design defects, which are still found in the AK74's. I just cannot cover them in just a few characters.. I built AK's from 5 countries, and I have been building them and dealing with them for over a decade, and because of that I correct a lot of the propaganda when I see it. I own pretty much all the military rifles from WWII forward, and like them all. BUT, pull punches on any of them. ballistics covers the 7.62x39 well
weaponeer 1 month ago
@SavageArms357 - I should point out that I'm just in the starting phase of shooting several videos, one on the AK, and another on the Vz58. until you understand the issues, it's hard to understand the Vz58, and why it's FCG and Piston and not the same, so it's hard to get your head around with just text on a page without the history behind it, but in the end you will understand the issues with the AK, and Vz58. it's pretty basic stuff really, but I still love the AK's just as much
weaponeer 1 month ago
ive seen people shoot the m16 and the ak far better then those two muffins
powmful 1 month ago
@powmful mee too =D How about the guy from FUTURE WEAPONS for one...
dcrypter87 1 month ago
Was the guy grouping at the range high? That was the worst grouping I have seen anyone do in a controlled environment.
DirtTone1 1 month ago
when he is shooting at 4:28 no shell casings are being ejected
puplake 1 month ago
@IMnotSAS that's why your an idiot you have nothing to add but retarded comments
elox02 1 month ago
Geez, didn't any of you guys ever handled them?
sqerrol 1 month ago
@luka2298 elitist dumb shit idiot. Shut the fuck up your a tool
elox02 1 month ago
THE ONLY "FIREPOWER"AMERICANS KNOW IS THE FIREPOWER FROM THEIR ASS
luka2298 1 month ago
m16 american shit!
AK 47 AMERICAN ASS RAPER MADE BY GUESS WHO
luka2298 1 month ago
@luka2298 - you seem to be infatuated with guys ass's, yet have no grasp on weapon history. The AK47 stopped being produced in 1957. it was far too defective for use by the troops, so they redesigned it as the AKM, and 17 years later scraped the AKM after substandard performance on the vietnam battlefield against the M16A1, and replaced the AKM with the AK74 (the AKM was not even worthy for special ceremony. They used special SKS's for that), the AK74 has 37 years service - the M16 48 years.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer the AK outperformed the M16 in vietnam. 48 years and still has issues.
FireControlGroup 1 month ago
@FireControlGroup your wrong. The AK didn't come close to outperforming the M16A1, and thats proven by the fact that the USSR dropping the AKM due to the poor performance of the 7.62x39, and issued the AK74 in 5.45x39. all this is historical record. Had the USSR not had advisors in Vietnam and testing these weapons in combat, they would likely had waited. it was serious enough that they converted even before the war ended, The AK series still has a number of design defects.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer You may call it "poor performance" but some Russians soldiers, mainly special forces are still carrying 7.62x39 rifles. Of course, the 5.45x39 does have advantages.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - just a little tip. the 5.45 has double the range of the 7.62x39, and smaller diameter bullets penetrate better (which is why most 22 LR penetrate more layers of kevlar than a 44 mag). and the AK74 is far more controllable and more accurate especially with the AK74's scope rail. (even the PKM's had POSP scopes) and you can carry far more ammunition. RPG's are for walls not rifles. you really should join the military for some real facts.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Range is an advantage of the 5.45x39, yes. For certain situations, range may not be an advantage though. There's a lot more to penetration then just diameter. If that were true, then why on the National Institute of Justice's list do they rate the vests made to stop .22 LR's much lower then .44 magnum vests?
esh325 1 month ago
@weaponeer Almost all AKM's were equipped with scope rails at some point. While you're right that rifles primary function is not for shooting through walls, it is an advantage in many cases to have a round that can defeat cover better. If the 5.45x39 was superior in every way, then the Russians wouldn't be issuing 7.62x39 rifles and ammo still.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - sure, the ones you buy are the gun store may have rails, but not in the 40's, 50's or 60's. the AK was built for spray and pray battles with massed conscript army's (in many cases with someone ready to shoot them if they didn't do as told) trying to overwhelm them with fire power. (much like the US did during WWII. we didn't have better tanks, just more of them, and won). they make the ammo to sell to other countries and armies. it's a major export (weapons always were)
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer They had rails on them. This is indisputable. The M16 first saw service with conscripts too. Full auto was very much a touted feature of the original M16.
esh325 1 month ago
@weaponeer "According to figures released by the Department of Defense, the average number of rounds expended in Vietnam to kill one enemy solder with the M-16 was 50,000. The average number of rounds expended by U.S. military snipers to kill one enemy soldier was 1.3 rounds. That's a cost-difference of $23,000 per kill for the average soldier, vs. $0.17 per kill for the military sniper."
Is that not spraying and praying?
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 You do know Russia dropped the 7.62 x 39 because they saw the woulds the 5.56 was causing. Not to mention the 5.56 is more accurate & lighter to carry/transport. They tried to copy the 5.56 with the 5.45 but still run it through a inferior rifle.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 I don't know if it was the wounding potential as much as they saw that it increased hit probability and made the rifle easy to shoot on fully automatic. The 5.45x39 acted a lot like the M67 round the Yugo's made. They replaced it largely with the 5.45x39, but they still keep the 7.62x39 around for certain reasons.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 For a hard core AK fan you really don't know that much about them. Spend some time on their history & Russian history. It really is fascinating & worth your time.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 What was I wrong about it?
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 thats the problem. you have yet to be right. you blindly defend the 7.62x39 without knowing the ballistics of the round (frankly the 6.8 SPC are just as bad in the AR) the AK is a great rifle, and fun to shoot (which is why I have 5+ of them), but it's got a number of flaws, and it's not the worlds greatest gun. read the real history of the rifle, and not just wiki. and then just look at it, and you will see the flaws pretty easy. but you cannot go into it blinded by propaganda
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer It doesn't mean it's a bad round. It has very lacking ballistics. That is credible design flaw of the AK, is the ballistics of the 7.62x39. What is the real history of the rifle? Recommend me a book or website, and I will read it.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - the round was designed in the 40's (that should tell you one thing) Russian quality of the time was not very good. (name a great russian car from the 50's or 60's) the magic reliability was based only by the fact that russia could not machine to tighter tolerances. proof? pick of 5 AKM's and measure all the parts, and they will be within russian wide specs, but far from close tolerances. 91/30's were hand fit.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer What was wrong with the original AK was it was expensive to make and it didn't have satisfactory full auto performance. Functionally speaking, there wasn't really anything wrong with it. The Russians "stopped" using the AKM like how we "stopped" using the M14. They never phased them out completely. I have pictures of the AKM being used by soldiers in Chechneya.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - what the heck are you huffing? first of all, you could not tell the difference between an AK47 and an AKM. it had nothing to do with being to expensive (that was really stupid). why don't you research the history of the USSR, as well as the AK series rifles? what are you afraid of? it's fascinating history about the number of receivers used and when (as well as manufacturing shortcoming), as well as why the AK47 needed the retarder put in place. learn the topic, it's worth your time.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer You clearly didn't read up on the history of the AK. Cost WAS one of the big reasons they replaced the original AK. They intended to stamp the original AK because it was cheaper but they the technology to make stamped receivers for the AK wasn't perfected, so they made milled receivers until they perfected the stamping technology with the AKM.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 give up while you are behind. the issue was they were experienced in machining receivers, and were setup for machining. and while bending receivers was not a big deal, they didn't yet have the required skills for welding in the rails for production. the first version had the stamped receiver, first production milled, and when the had the resources and machinery in place for the spot welding, and the riveting they went back to the stamped in the AKM. communist don't worry about money
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer It's not just cost, but efficiency. It's take a lot longer to machine a receiver and there's a lot of material waste. That was unacceptable to them.
esh325 1 month ago
@weaponeer There's always things to learn about the AK, but I've read up on the history of the receivers. The AK-47 didn't need a hammer retarder. The AKM might have needed it perhaps. I've read the hammer retarder was needed on the AKM to compensate for the thinner receiver. The Chinese used a thicker receiver on their so they didn't need a hammer retarder. The same with the Yugos.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 - again you failed to even look it up before you started to post. the hammer retarder was one of the key featues of the AKM. and the reason? just look at any number of AK videos where the retarder was worn. the result is a timing issue causing the round to be fired prior to being fully inserted into the chamber (aka bomb). receiver thickness is rigidity (half mm), and it has nothing to do with the retarder. where do you get this stuff? COD game play?
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer " When the AKM was introduced, the bolt’s bounce characteristics were changed by the lighter sheet-metal receiver. As a consequence, to prevent firing out of battery, which can destroy both the rifle and the operator, a five-component mechanical drag device was installed in the trigger mechanism to delay the hammer’s fall until bolt bounce had settled down to a safe degree. This device, erroneously called a rate reducer by many self-styled authorities"
esh325 1 month ago
@weaponeer From a East German armorer. Not every AK needs the hammer release delay device, but some might need it. It's not written in stone, but it's honestly better then any of the weak explanations that I've gotten from you. How can you assert that every video of an AK blowing up is because of a worn hammer retarder? Firearms can blow up for many reasons.
esh325 1 month ago
Agh and yet US lost the war in Vietnam. I take AK over M16 anytime.
Andruha7 1 month ago
@Andruha7 The Americans won the battles. They lost the war due to political reasons rather then military ones.
BattlestarHailfire 1 month ago
@BattlestarHailfire Won the battles?? Where did you get that? You know what's funny to me? When ever US fail in something, in anything, they always look for excuses or they just blame someone else. Just admit that America got owned by Vietnam.
Andruha7 1 month ago
@Andruha7 By Vietnam? hah lol. You could say by the commies but trust me, The US always won the battles. Even the tet offensive Eventually became a failiure for the NVA / VC.The onlything that prevented the US from winning that war were the people at home that didn't take the many dead GI's anymore after 10 years of bloody war.
BattlestarHailfire 1 month ago
@BattlestarHailfire We lost vietnam. We should never have been there in the first place.
FireControlGroup 1 month ago