ar-15 vs ak-47 an end to the debate

ar-15 vs ak-47

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• ar-15 ak-47 debate
• shooting
• ak-47
• ar-15
• 7.62x39
• 5.56/.223
• what is better
• guns
• Firearm Shooting Range End

[dragonseptor]

True what you say about the 2 weapons. But I would like to add Marines handle the M16 better the Army. Army could really use the AK at least non comabat MOS's.

[blackriflear15]

@dragonseptor Shit!LOL

[dragonseptor]

@blackriflear15 What do you think? Your honest opinion

I was a Marine at one time then went Army don't get me wrong

I like the Army but man they need to know about good PMI training...

[blackriflear15]

@dragonseptor Now it depends on where one served in the Army that dictates the level of training .

[rjharvey1983]

Everyone should stop trying to compare the two. They are different weapon systems with varying advantages verses disadvantages. It's like comparing a scalpel to a butcher knife, a pen to pencil or a Phillips to a Flathead. Inherently yes they do the same thing (fire a freaking bullet) but the options you are allotted with each one grants you different outcomes. IMHO buy both and learn how to use them, the zombies are coming :)

[blackriflear15]

@rjharvey1983 Good point!

[esh325]

@mequelli0s With a full automatic switch, there's always a chance untrained soldiers will waste ammo. In Vietnam, soldiers with the M16 many times would spray and pray.

[esh325]

@IamaRifle Yes, I believe it was probably a mistake taking removing fully automatic. It was a training issue like you said, and partly an issue with the weapon also. From what I read, the 3 round burst of the M16A2 and M16A4 doesn't function very well.

[IamaRifle]

@esh325 This was typical top brass thinking. Instead of just training their soldiers differently, they both changed the training and the weapon. Full auto is a life saver when needed and all it would take is a bit more training behind the weapon. Now we see alot of money going into A1 conversions and whole new uppers, which translates into millions of dollars we didn't need to spend.

[esh325]

@IamaRifle According to the department of defense, the average numbers of rounds expended in Vietnam to kill one enemy soldier was 50,000 rounds with the M16 rifle. They were just waisting ammo, which is why the M16A2 and M16A4 did not have full auto.

[IamaRifle]

@esh325 Most of that is because they were actually trained to area spray.

[hasukumori]

So that extra 200 yards effective range that the that the AR provides isnt worth the hastle that it brings. The difference between the AR and the AK is that the AR wont function when it's out of spec and the AK will because the design is both durrable and reliable. Meanwhile the AR15/M16 doesnt function evevn if it gets dropped in the sand wrong, let alone get one micron out of spec. But to each their own. something is better than nothing.

[hasukumori]

well yes an no. What you're really trying to say is that if you shoot a weapon made way out of spec/tollerance that it's going to shoot crappy, and if you shoot a weapon made to tight spec/tollerance that it's going to be accurate. that's true. so if you take a typical WASR10 with you're just going to be spraying led randomly. But I have a well made AK that I can performe surgery with at 200 yards, and is still able to get a good grouping in center mass at 400 yards with little effort.

[johnharlan100]

Good video, I agree, even though I am an AK man.

[Akguy545762]

I love AKs and ARs, a piston driving AR is really reliable, but the AK can eat dirt and about anything you throw at it. They say in Veitnam it took an average 50,000 rounds from a M16 to kill one N.V.A. troop. Maybe more from a AK to kill a U.S. troop. I don't know I wasn't there. I can hit a human sized target at 200-300yds with my AK, and I know when I pull the trigger it goes BOOM. That is good for me, and if they AR is better for you than thats fine. Diff strokes for diff folks.

[mequelli0s]

I will agree, the AR is a better rifle for the US military. However, that doesn't mean it's a better rifle all around. To suggest that, is pretty ignorant, and you have a blatantly obvious bias.

They're both great rifles. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Your archetype for AK operators, "people who just want to make noise and spray" and undermining the AKs long-term reliability, reeks with a lack of perspective, and maturity.

Both rifles have their time, place, and person.