AK Beats AR Hands Down!

This one's been beat to death. But a Military Rifle Forum needs to have one in the archives. Sorta like having a bottle opener in the bar.

In "the Nam" the .223 from Stoner would be bouncing off the leaves and grass in the jungle while Charlie's rounds would be dropping limbs, trees, dead monkeys and snakes on the US troops.

AR needs to be clean like a watch to be reliable. AK runs full of mud, and you can wash it out in a ditch to keep it working.

AR needs a manual and some training. AK can be figured out by peasants without instruction.

AK is cheap, simple to build. Nothing about the AR is cheap or simple.

-- OK, carry on . . .

quote:

.223 from Stoner would be bouncing off the leaves and grass in the jungle

Somebody had to go there...

quote:

Charlie's rounds would be dropping limbs, trees, dead monkeys and snakes on the US troops.

not too accurate then?

By any standard or any way you can count. The AR platform rifles have killed more of the enemy than the AK platform rifles have killed us.

By any standard the AR rifles are more accurate than ANY AK based rifle.

Your turn.

Well, a m16 took a lot of abuse and kept on firing. It was developed, in order to match ak's cyclic rate of fire, after korea, even though we developed the m14 as a successor to the m1 garand. I hated to give up my m14 in Nam, but, finally began to appreciate the jammin jenny. Now as to which rifle has killed the most, who the hell knows! Our infantry get some help from the redlegs and arc light raids killed a bunch and no one I know of performed post mortems(sp) on the battlefield. Isuppose that they are both good and they both kill all the enemy that the rifleman hits.

It's quite entertaining to see those bringing copies of the AK to High Power Matches. Sights are terrible, trigger terrible and the accuracy is worse than terrible! Sights, trigger, and accuracy are excellent on the AR15 platform.
Granted, AK not intended for such shooting, but again, it does have it's limits such as small things like trigger, sights, and accuracy. Believe I will stick with the 15 and we do not have many monkeys or snakes at our ranges so should be just fine. All joking aside, do have high regard for the AK and it's variants for it is one tough assault weapon.

I have four of one and just one of the other. I am proud to own all five of them. That's something the likes of Feinstein and Schumer will never understand...

I have both and enjoy shooting both. I've stretched the AR-15 out to 300yds with some 2" groups so far. I can hit a washing machine at 50yds with the AK-47. Both are very cool and have a place in my safe.

Terry

quote:

I can hit a washing machine at 50yds with the AK-47.

That's damned good shootin' with an AK! Scoped or open sights?

Guys, I have AKs that shoot 2 inches at 100 yds with open sights. My worst AK shoots 6" at 100 yards (a Bulgarian). The AKs coming in today are far more accurate than the crappy ones imported in the 1980s. Even the crude Romanian AKs can be quite accurate.

1. Super low value rifle for ill-trained low value troops: SKS

2. Low value rifle for poorly trained troops: AK-47.

3. High value rifle for well-trained troops: M4, or preferably HK416.

If I had to live on my own in the wilderness for 6 months, I would take an AK. If I had to address an isolated problem which would likely be resolved in a few hours, I would take an AR.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Gunmaker_Develo...Kalashnikov_999.html

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 500grains:

If I had to live on my own in the wilderness for 6 months, I would take.... QUOTE]


Now that would make an interesting thread!!


Off the top of my head if I had to walk, carrying everything I would need, I'd probably take a Ruger Mk.I semi-auto .22 pistol and half a brick or so of cartridges (to start with).

If I had a couple of "boys" along, one would be a gun/ammo/1st-aid-kit bearer. If in the desert it would likely be a Dragunov he carried. In deep woods, an SKS.

Of course in 10 minutes of thinking, I'll change my choices on both.

quote:

By any standard the AR rifles are more accurate than ANY AK based rifle.

Your turn.

Shot placement went out when the Germans invented the Sturmgewehr in 1944. Since then it's been about field of fire, not shot placement.

Kalashnikov in an interview with Stoner noted that the AK was fitted with 30 and 40 rd mags, drum mags while GI's were still taping 20 rd mags together.

What you lose in accuracy you more than make up for in volume. If I can't hit the washing machine at 50 yds, I'll adjust my fire until I do -- gawd knows I have the mag capacity.

I wanna see an AR produced by 3rd world country using sheet metal and hand tools.

I carried an A1 and A2 for Uncle Sam, and have shot AKs quite extensively. They both have their pros and cons. But, we qualified at 500 meters with our M16s -- try that with an AK........

quote:

But, we qualified at 500 meters with our M16s -- try that with an AK........ Big Grin

If the enemy is 500 meters away, Charlie is gonna roll up a doobie and sneak back into the jungle.

Shoot, are we still in Vietnam? I thought we left there in '75.........

WOT Vietnam is over?

I eat in a Vietnamese restaurant once or twice a month. But so far there have been no rounds coming my way...

However, a couple of months ago a 4 ft. tall Vietnamese guy tried to rob a Vietnamese jewelry store here in Utah. The cops showed up and the 4-footer was leaving the store with a gun in hand and his arm around the neck of the owner's daughter. As I understand it the daughter twisted away from the 4-footer and 3 cops zipped him open good - two cops using ARs and one with a Glock 40. All made good hits and the 4-footer got a one way ticket across the River Styx.

If the Nam is over why am I still having the dreams?

That's a commonly asked question, I'd suppose.

"Shot placement went out when the Germans invented the Sturmgewehr in 1944. Since then it's been about field of fire, not shot placement."

Shortly thereafter, Germany found the spray and pray didn't work and surrendered.

-- Nooooooooo, basically Germany and Japan decided there's more $$$ to be made selling consumer goods to the American market.

But we're not talkin' 20th Century history. We're talking firearms, and neither Germany nor Japan had anything to do with the development of the AK or the AR.

quote:

Originally posted by DFC:
"Shot placement went out when the Germans invented the Sturmgewehr in 1944. Since then it's been about field of fire, not shot placement."

Shortly thereafter, Germany found the spray and pray didn't work and surrendered.

Automatic fire with the MP44 was practiced only when ordered by the team leader according to tactical need.

semi auto use was the rule http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNk99-zeGA

quote:

the Germans invented the Sturmgewehr in 1944

Every assault rifle built since was modeled on that concept. Of course we're talking 20th Century history. Both the AK and the AR were designed and built and fielded in the 20th. And the SKS.

The asssault rifle concept was a French idea originating in 1917.

The Ribeyrolle 1918 was a precursor of the more modern assault rifles,
it was a machine carbine using an intermediate round with a select fire capability.







The Mle 1918 Ribeyrolle machine carbine was a select fire,
direct blowback system firing the 8x35 Ribeyrolle cartridge (necked down .351 case with a 8mm AP bullet).

The new weapon was tested by the Army and abandonned in 1921, the maximum effective range of the cartridge (< 400M) was deemed insufficient compared to the 7.5 caliber ammunition being developped for use in semi auto rifle and light LMG.

The Ribeyrolle 1918 may be the first real select fire compact weapon using an intermediate round fitting today's definition of an assault rifle. The cartridge was based on the 351 Winchester self-loading case necked down to accept a 8 mm Lebel bullet. It was first introduced to the Army Technical Service on July, 6th, 1918. Its official designation was Carabine Mitrailleuse (English: "machine carbine"; German: Maschinenkarabiner). It was finally rejected in 1921 because it was not accurate enough at distances beyond 400 meters .

If the term is applied retroactively, the first assault rifle was the Italian-made Cei-Rigotti, which was developed in the 1890s and finished around 1900. While tested in Italy and the United Kingdom, it never entered military service, however.

The first service assault rifle was the Russian Fedorov Avtomat issued for the first time in 1915, chambered for the Japanese 6.5x50mm Arisaka rifle cartridge, which was only used in small numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Really, WHO was first? Depends a lot on interpretation, IMHO. I'd have to vote for the Mondragon with the caveat that it was chambered for a full-power round. Consider this:
The Mondragón was designed by General Manuel Mondragón. He began work in 1882 and patented the weapon in 1887. It was gas operated with a cylinder and piston arrangement, now very familiar but unusual at the time, and rotating bolt, locked by lugs in helical grooves in the receiver; it was also possible to operate it as a simple straight-pull bolt action. The caliber was 7mm (.284in) Mauser with an 8-round box magazine; a trial LMG version had a 20 round box and provision for a bipod, like the BAR; the Mexican Army also used a 100-round drum magazine for a light machine gun variant produced in 1910.

Because of the Mexican Revolution, few facilities in Mexico were able to mass-produce it and those that could were not able to shut down their assembly plants for the weeks of retooling that it would take to start up production on the new rifle. Mondragón attempted to interest a U.S. firm, without success as they thought that automatic rifles were not practical and could not be produced in the numbers that Mexico wanted . He then turned to Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft (SIG), of Neuhausen am Rheinfall, who agreed to manufacture the rifle. In 1901 the first rifles were shipped to Mexico and issued to the army as the Fusil Mondragón Modelo 1900 with an 8 round magazine. In 1908 During the Mexican revolution it was again issued to the Mexican Imperial Army as the Fusil Porfirio Diaz Systema Mondragón Modelo 1908 this time with the 20 round magazine. By 1910 however adequate facilities were completed in the Mexican cities of Veracruz, Ciudad Juarez, Guanajuato, and Mexico City where they were produced until 1921.

With World War I, Germany bought the remainder of SIG's stock, issuing them to the infantry, where they proved highly susceptible to mud and dirt in the trenches (a problem familiar even to less complex straight-pulls such as the Ross). Although they did not function well in the thick moist mud and dirt of central europe they proved to work well in hot and arid climates such as the north of Mexico meaning that the Mondragon did not have a problem with dirt getting in it but, more of a problem with moisture as it would still work well when it would get dry sand and dust in it mechinism. Instead, they were withdrawn and reissued, with 30-round helical magazines, to aircraft crews as the Fliegerselbstlader Karabiner 1915 (Flier's Selfloading Carbine model 1915), until sufficient numbers of machineguns were available. Few of the German versions with the helical magazine survive, however the Mexican army still uses the Mexican version in parades and other military celebrations as a ceremonial rifle.



So, really - who was 'first?' sort of open to speculation and much dependent upon a few 'Yes, but...'

Anyone who thinks that an AK beats an AR hands-down in all combat situations simply needs to try to use an AK to qualify on a simple 300 meter Army qualification range, using open sights. In a MOUT situation, I'd take an AK. Other than Mout, give me an A2.

I was in the 1st AD when they transitioned from A1s to A2s, and I never had 100% faith in either M16 variants. I preferred to swing an M249 when possible. The real rifles were the German G3s we'd get to "borrow" from time-to-time when training with our West German sister units. Those were rifles!

At Ft Irwin in the late 80s/early 90s, I was able to shoot both AK47s and AK74s on numerous occasions. They were reliable as hell, just not very accurate past 150-200 meters. In the desert, even with all the sand, I'd take an M16A2 over an AK any day due to the ability to shoot better at longer range.

Having said all that, I had an old salty Plt Sgt while in Germany who, like the other old Vietnam vets still serving while I was in, seriously disliked the M16s. He had served in the 101st, in the same unit of hamburger hill fame (though he missed the hill incident of movie fame by one month). He used to carry a spare firing pin around in his helmet band, much to the amusement of us younger grunts. When asked why he did this, he'd always say “you'll know why when the sh!t hits the fan, Jr!â€

I hope that old dude is still kicking somewhere. He was one tough old bird.

The new HK416s look promising; they just need a more powerful caliber. Even if they just put a 6mm (or 6.5) bullet in the 5.56 case, that would be something. JMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:
The asssault rifle concept was a French idea originating in 1917.

The Ribeyrolle 1918 was a precursor of the more modern assault rifles,
it was a machine carbine using an intermediate round with a select fire capability.







The Mle 1918 Ribeyrolle machine carbine was a select fire,
direct blowback system firing the 8x35 Ribeyrolle cartridge (necked down .351 case with a 8mm AP bullet).

The new weapon was tested by the Army and abandonned in 1921, the maximum effective range of the cartridge (< 400M) was deemed insufficient compared to the 7.5 caliber ammunition being developped for use in semi auto rifle and light LMG.

Yeah, but did it work? I seem to recall a French WW I machinegun that was a real piece of crap.

It did work and inspired the german weapons designers.

For the "piece of crap" that german soldiers tried to seize and use, have a look:

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=938103477#938103477

Another uninformed rumour like "The French never fight"

quote:

the Chauchat was provided to several central power armies, Finland, Poland, Russia, Serbia, beside the US, Greece and Belgium.
After WWI the Polish converted their Chauchat to the 8x57 Mauser round, while in Belgium it was converted to the 7.65 Mauser, proving the versatility of the design.

The poor reliabilty problem encountered with some of the CSRG 18 made for the US was identified as a chamber being too tight allowing oversized cases to fail extraction when the gun was heated up by a few mags.
When identified, that problem was easily solved by relieving the chamber with a finishing reamer in 30.06.

From what I remember, there had been a problem with 30.06 blueprints received from US that were in metric dimensions.

Back to the AK. I hear a lot of talk about 2 MOA AK's. I even had someone tell me he could hit man sized targets at 500yds with his all day. But, everytime I go to shoot at the range there is some fool trying to hit a 100 yard target with his and spraying my target, his and the one on the other side of us.

Terry

TC1,
would those Ak bullits spraying your target at the range, still annoy you in combat?

quote:

Anyone who thinks that an AK beats an AR hands-down in all combat situations simply needs to try to use an AK to qualify on a simple 300 meter Army qualification range, using open sights.

300 metres/yards -- that's the MAXIMUM effective range for which the AK and AR are intended. And at 300 metres/yards you don't hit the target. You lay down suppressive fire, while awaiting the air support you called in.

Most combat engagements are in the realm of 75 yds. And you don't shoot AT the enemy. You shoot in the direction from which enemy fire is coming.

But ya gotta admit -- as a troll thread this churns up the contentions.

quote:

300 metres/yards -- that's the MAXIMUM effective range for which the AK and AR are intended. And at 300 metres/yards you don't hit the target. You lay down suppressive fire, while awaiting the air support you called in.

WRONG! Sounds like typical local-range wannabe "operator" BS.

300 meters is NOT the maximun effective range of an AR . . . check your resources.

As for laying down suppressive fire, who told you that US soldiers cannot hit a target at 300 meters with ARs (and thus only shoot in the direction of the enemy)? Someone must have told you that . . . The US ARMY Rifle qualification range, where one [qualifies] with an AR (pick a variant), requires that one can hit a 300 meter target. It is probably tougher now, and I'll bet that the Marines have it even tougher still.

Thanks for the laugh though!

quote:

Originally posted by Teat Hound:

quote:

300 metres/yards -- that's the MAXIMUM effective range for which the AK and AR are intended. And at 300 metres/yards you don't hit the target. You lay down suppressive fire, while awaiting the air support you called in.

WRONG! Sounds like typical local-range wannabe "operator" BS.

300 meters is NOT the maximun effective range of an AR . . . check your resources.

As for laying down suppressive fire, who told you that US soldiers cannot hit a target at 300 meters with ARs (and thus only shoot in the direction of the enemy)? Someone must have told you that . . . The US ARMY Rifle qualification range, where one [qualifies] with an AR (pick a variant), requires that one can hit a 300 meter target. It is probably tougher now, and I'll bet that the Marines have it even tougher still.

Thanks for the laugh though!

You can take down the BS flag: The miltary can't shoot for beans! And if you doubt that, read this:
"High ammo expenditure in training= fewer rounds expended per enemy killed in combat. According to W.H.B. Smith in the 1970 edition of "Small Arms Of The World" (one of the last editions to have the invaluable historical overview section aas the first 1/4 of the book), U.S. infantry accuracy degraded steadily from the Civil War onward. In the Seminole War, U.S. Mounted Rifles averaged 1 enemy dead per 20-25 rounds expended. In the Civil War, the average was 1 per 200 rounds. By WWI, this had dropped to 1 per 450, in WWII it was 1 per 1150, and in Vietnam it was 1 VC or NVA soldier per 11,000 rounds fired. Post-Vietnam analysis showed that the primary reason for this dismal performance (which did increase U.S. casualties) was excessive use of full-auto fire due to (1) insufficient practice leading to troops in field having a lower grade of skill with the weapon and (2) the CONARC-promulgated concept of the "sustained firescreen" instead of marksmanship. It is interesting to note the the USMC showed much better results (1 enemy taken out per 350 rounds, if memory serves), apparently due to their traditional emphasis on marksmanship, as per their belief that "Every Marine is a rifleman first". The moral is, the more you practice, the better you'll be when it's no longer an exercise. And technology will never be a substitute for skill.."

Sort of like the Big Bad Brits and their battleships: The mighty Hood fired off a lot of rounds vs the Bismarck and there is no evidence they scored a single hit while we know what the Bsimarck did! Does not speak very highly of the 'Spray & Pray' method, eh?

I was a Marine and the Corps takes marksmanship very seriously. The A-2's max effective range was 460-meters if I can recall correctly yet we still qualified ot to and at 500 with it. Marksmanship has always been the hallmark of the Marine Corps.

quote:

Originally posted by TrapperP:
You can take down the BS flag: The miltary can't shoot for beans!

Hardly; post something relevant and I might consider it.

Go Couch Commandos!!

Cheers

Wikipedia lists the effective range of the AK at 400 yards; the AR at 600 yards. I think that's a bit much for both.

The Ballistic Calculator at ammoguide.com lists the .224-caliber, 55-grain FMJ bullet with MV of 3200 fps as having a velocity of 1516 fps at 600 yards and an energy of 281 lbs-ft at that same distance. The .308-caliber, 150-grain FMJ (closest I could come to the 123-grain AK bullet) bullet with MV of 2400 fps has a velocity of 1750 fps at 400 yards and an energy of 1020 lbs-ft at that same distance. Environmental conditions were input to be the same for both rounds.

The main reason for the development of the StG44 and the short 8x33 mm cartridge was that for the regular infantry fighting distance even in the East the 8x57 mm IS was considered to powerfull, to heavy, too much recoil and too expensive to manufacture. The MPi was cheaper to produce, had a larger magazin but was limited because of the 9x19 mm pistol round.

For that reason neither the G41 nor the G43, both still chambered 8x57 mm, were seen as the preffered option of the future.

The StG44 combined large magazines, a more powerfull round plus the cheap production process of the MP40 based on stamped insted of machined parts. The AK47 very successfully copied both, the round plus the manufacturing technology.

In 1945 even the K96 was manufatured for the 8x33 mm which seems to be a very good roe deer round with SP bullets.

Cheaper and better, that is usually the way to go in any industry.