Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Nice new look to the forum its been a while..

 

Since not being around I purchased a S&W M&P15 and I am already getting rid of it.. not making a thread to bash the AR platform, as im sure it has its place, but it was just not for me... with iron sights at 100 yards the AR did group a little tighter, but it was not some night and day difference.. and i really question the punch of the 223 round.. further if im being honest.. i really just didnt like the way the AR physically worked, i really prefer the AK action..

 

I am trading the 223 AR for an AR in 308 and putting a scope on it to take some longer distance shots, but for short to medium range id take my Saiga over an AR any day..

 

hopefully the availability of the 7.62x39 improves a little..

 

[/rant]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

True. I consider ~200m to be mid-range effective distance for the 7.62x39. Within ~400m, (perhaps more with a good scope), I think the 7.62x39 is an extremely lethal cartridge. That effective range

There is no doubt either can be effective though there is a lot of debate on just how important ballistic gel results are since the human body even naked may not be subjected to simular enough results

You guys are forgetting one of the most important arguments against the 5.56 compared to the 7.62x39 or .308 for civilian use... 5.56 is boring. Everyone here is talking about the combat effectivene

Posted Images

Nice new look to the forum its been a while..

 

Since not being around I purchased a S&W M&P15 and I am already getting rid of it.. not making a thread to bash the AR platform, as im sure it has its place, but it was just not for me... with iron sights at 100 yards the AR did group a little tighter, but it was not some night and day difference.. and i really question the punch of the 223 round.. further if im being honest.. i really just didnt like the way the AR physically worked, i really prefer the AK action..

 

I am trading the 223 AR for an AR in 308 and putting a scope on it to take some longer distance shots, but for short to medium range id take my Saiga over an AR any day..

 

hopefully the availability of the 7.62x39 improves a little..

 

[/rant]

 

umm...isnt that contradicting yourself just a lil? Why dont you just buy a Saiga .308 and be done with it?

Edited by RoughRider666
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice new look to the forum its been a while..

 

Since not being around I purchased a S&W M&P15 and I am already getting rid of it.. not making a thread to bash the AR platform, as im sure it has its place, but it was just not for me... with iron sights at 100 yards the AR did group a little tighter, but it was not some night and day difference.. and i really question the punch of the 223 round.. further if im being honest.. i really just didnt like the way the AR physically worked, i really prefer the AK action..

 

I am trading the 223 AR for an AR in 308 and putting a scope on it to take some longer distance shots, but for short to medium range id take my Saiga over an AR any day..

 

hopefully the availability of the 7.62x39 improves a little..

 

[/rant]

 

umm...isnt that contradicting yourself just a lil? Why dont you just buy a Saiga .308 and be done with it?

 

 

ha, the Saiga as a mid distance "battle rifle" is a great gun.. and am very happy with its accuracy at mid distances (roughly 100m and under)... the reason im trading my AR in 223 for an AR in 308 is two fold.. the first is im making out really well in the trade.. and two, while im confident in the ability of an AK platform rifle at lower distances, when it comes to a precise long range shooting im not really sure that a firearm with such loose tolerances would suit what im trying to do, and that is have an accurate longer range firearm..

 

but i wont be parting with my 7.62x39 Saiga anytime soon..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice new look to the forum its been a while..

 

Since not being around I purchased a S&W M&P15 and I am already getting rid of it.. not making a thread to bash the AR platform, as im sure it has its place, but it was just not for me... with iron sights at 100 yards the AR did group a little tighter, but it was not some night and day difference.. and i really question the punch of the 223 round.. further if im being honest.. i really just didnt like the way the AR physically worked, i really prefer the AK action..

 

I am trading the 223 AR for an AR in 308 and putting a scope on it to take some longer distance shots, but for short to medium range id take my Saiga over an AR any day..

 

hopefully the availability of the 7.62x39 improves a little..

 

[/rant]

 

umm...isnt that contradicting yourself just a lil? Why dont you just buy a Saiga .308 and be done with it?

 

 

ha, the Saiga as a mid distance "battle rifle" is a great gun.. and am very happy with its accuracy at mid distances (roughly 100m and under)... the reason im trading my AR in 223 for an AR in 308 is two fold.. the first is im making out really well in the trade.. and two, while im confident in the ability of an AK platform rifle at lower distances, when it comes to a precise long range shooting im not really sure that a firearm with such loose tolerances would suit what im trying to do, and that is have an accurate longer range firearm..

 

but i wont be parting with my 7.62x39 Saiga anytime soon..

why not just by a gun that's best for long range distances and keep the saiga platform for your "battle rifle". maybe it's a capacity thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of echoes my thoughts. For midrange defensive purposes, the x39 Saiga or AK has plenty of accuracy and a bit more punch than the more accurate AR-15. For the longer ranges where the AR's accuracy advantage is really needed, it's under powered...for human targets anyway. Going to .308 on an AR platform would solve that; but wouldn't a good .308 bolt gun be more cost effective?

 

Accurate long range shooting is slow and deliberate, in my experience. Semiauto for long range accuracy just adds cost and complexity. I'd keep the AR15 (for use against zombie woodchucks) and get a Savage bolt gun to snipe with.

 

I know, I know; a .308 AR would be really cool. Can't disagree with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of echoes my thoughts. For midrange defensive purposes, the x39 Saiga or AK has plenty of accuracy and a bit more punch than the more accurate AR-15. For the longer ranges where the AR's accuracy advantage is really needed, it's under powered...for human targets anyway. Going to .308 on an AR platform would solve that; but wouldn't a good .308 bolt gun be more cost effective?

 

Accurate long range shooting is slow and deliberate, in my experience. Semiauto for long range accuracy just adds cost and complexity. I'd keep the AR15 (for use against zombie woodchucks) and get a Savage bolt gun to snipe with.

 

I know, I know; a .308 AR would be really cool. Can't disagree with that.

 

why not just by a gun that's best for long range distances and keep the saiga platform for your "battle rifle". maybe it's a capacity thing?

 

 

thats exactly what im doing.. the reason im getting the 308 im getting is because the deal is too good to pass up.. i actually wanted a Savage.. but the AR is mint and NIB.. its a good deal i just can't pass up.. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, Damagedworld, I'm not sure I agree with you on the AR. I own both an AR-15 M4gery and a good AK-47. I absolutely love them both. If the only thing you're worried about is the perceived inferiority of the 5.56, then I would stick with your AR. S&W makes a good product, and the M&P15 is a great AR.

 

Just a little bit of phycis for you: the equation you use to find the amount of kinetic energy a projectile possesses is: KE (Kinetic Energy) = 1/2mass x velocity^2. What this means is that if you double the mass of a bullet, you double the amount of energy it transfers to a target. However, if you double the velocity, you quadruple the amount of energy that the projectile transfers, since velocity is squared in the equation. Therefore, if bullet "A" has twice the mass of bullet "B", but bullet "B" has twice the velocity of bullet "A", then bullet B will still tranfer twice as much energy as bullet "A". Just some "phun physics" for you.

 

So, the argument can certainly be made for the lighter, faster bullets used in todays popular tactical rifles. The simple fact is that all of the energy contained in a bullet has to go somewhere, and the 5.56 is designed to wreak havoc in water-based mediums, i.e., tissue. If you ever watch a 5.56 round go through ballistics gel in slow motion, you can actually see this massive transfer of energy in the form of an unbelievably massive bulge that appears once the bullet enters the gel (it looks like someone put a stick of dynamite in there or something!).

 

Of course, the thought of a .22 caliber round as a defensive round does make some people feel a little queazy, but just trust in the math. The 5.56 is a great round. So is the 7.62. I say, if you've already got a good AR-15, there's really no reason to get rid of it...unless you straight up hate the feel of it or something.

 

And if you do buy the .308, then go ahead and stock up on some vaseline...you'll need it every time you walk in the store to buy the ammo :eek:

 

Edit: I do also own a .308 (third one down in the pic), and it is a great gun. If you can, I'd say keep the AR and buy a .308 bolt gun or something. A good one can be had for pretty cheap these days.

Edited by Bizzarolibe
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
then bullet B will still tranfer twice as much energy as bullet "A". Just some "phun physics" for you.

 

You mean it'll HAVE twice as much energy, the larger slower bullet will more than likely transfer more. Big bore FTW.

 

Yup, yup. I much prefer 7.62x39 to 5.56x45 for the same reasons I prefer .45 ACP to 9mm. Bigger, (somewhat slower), bullets just plain hit harder. History has proven their effectiveness vs human tissue. To address Bizza's math.. yeah the 5.56x45 round is faster, but it's nowhere near twice as fast as the 7.62x39 round. However, the 7.62 bullet is more than twice as massive as the 5.56 bullet.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the characteristics of the 5.56x45 NATO round. It's worked pretty well for the US military for a good while now. However, for the purpose of "neutralizing" human threats in the 300 yards and under range, I do believe that the 7.62x39 round is superior, (especially when fired from a Kalashnikov, much more reliable than Gene Stoner's rifle).

Link to post
Share on other sites
then bullet B will still tranfer twice as much energy as bullet "A". Just some "phun physics" for you.

 

You mean it'll HAVE twice as much energy, the larger slower bullet will more than likely transfer more. Big bore FTW.

 

Yup, yup. I much prefer 7.62x39 to 5.56x45 for the same reasons I prefer .45 ACP to 9mm. Bigger, (somewhat slower), bullets just plain hit harder. History has proven their effectiveness vs human tissue. To address Bizza's math.. yeah the 5.56x45 round is faster, but it's nowhere near twice as fast as the 7.62x39 round. However, the 7.62 bullet is more than twice as massive as the 5.56 bullet.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the characteristics of the 5.56x45 NATO round. It's worked pretty well for the US military for a good while now. However, for the purpose of "neutralizing" human threats in the 300 yards and under range, I do believe that the 7.62x39 round is superior, (especially when fired from a Kalashnikov, much more reliable than Gene Stoner's rifle).

 

that is my understanding of 45 VS 9mm and hypothetically 7.62x39 VS 223...

 

you have have a bullets that is 5000X faster than 7.62x39 but if it is tiny and fast and just passes right through the target then its not so great... id rather throw a big rock at you at a slower speed, as opposed to a pebble 5x as fast...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Big, heavy, and slow won't win any prizes in physics class, but it'll certainly get the job done. My most fearsome deer-slayer is a 54 caliber muzzleloader; shooting roundballs no less. On paper it's crap, but lordy how it puts them down.

 

I'd hunt with my .58 ML, but I'd feel sorry for the deer.

 

Besides, the .308 isn't really all that slow. Not much velocity difference between it and an M4...or an AR15, for that matter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

beating-a-dead-horse.gif

:deadhorse:other_beatingA_DeadHorse.gifother_beatingA_DeadHorse.gif:deadhorse:

BeatDeadHorse.gif

beatingdeadhorse.gif

deadhorse.gifdeadhorse.gifdeadhorse.gif

 

The AR platform is a capable battle weapon in the proper hands, So is the AK. Maintenance and getting the bugs worked out on your own choice of battle rifle falls on the user. There are a LOT of factors here, and this is just on a simple comparison on the 2 basic types.

 

what bullet ramp, magazine, round, gas system you choose will all be desciding factors on how they preform. Care to detail counts on internal components, as well as thier quality. its not a simple side by side apples to apples comparison. Not all ARs are equal, not all AKs are either.

 

Your choice of barrel length, and caliber can either build on or lose the effectiveness of the above designs.

 

As with many things no one design is supirior to all others and each are a list of pros and cons.

 

5.56 wants a longer barrel so it can reach higher FPS so that upon impact it can make the most of its design. Using it like this will offer you lightweight ammo accurate out to and past 500 yards in many cases. In a 20" barrel it will deliver good terminal balistics within 300 yards, and less out further, putting it in a shorter barrel can decrease its effectiveness in closer range. Its extreemly plentiful, and quite cheap.

 

7.62 nato or .308 is a much larger round that isn't as demanding of the weapon as 5.56. It has good terminal balistics and can be accurate out to 700 yards depending again on the weapon you put it in and barrel length. Ammo is available damn near everywhere, but can be pricey. Its also heavier.

 

7.62x39 is not as commonly found as either of the 2 other rounds. Is not as accurate as either of the above, but is accururate(enough) and deadly within 300 yards with only a 16inch barrel. Ammo would fall in a medium weight between the above.

 

I simply don't know enough about 5.45 to say anything about it, so i won't.

 

If you don't test your weapon in the conditions you want it to preform in you don't know how it will handle. Get out in the rain, the snow, the mud. Learn to keep it clean in those conditions.

 

When i was at the NY shoot i was ashamed to have both my x39 saiga and my AR fail on me. In retrospect I had babied both of them up untill that point. a $0.40 part reduced my AR to single acton, and my saiga had repeated problems with the bolt carrier jumping track. I've fixed both of these problems, but had it been my life on the line i'de have been dead.

 

On the other hand, My S-12 that i beat the living piss out of every time i bring it out didn't have so much as a hiccup. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Edited by Nailbomb
Link to post
Share on other sites
then bullet B will still tranfer twice as much energy as bullet "A". Just some "phun physics" for you.

 

You mean it'll HAVE twice as much energy, the larger slower bullet will more than likely transfer more. Big bore FTW.

 

Er, not really. If you have kinetic energy, then you are capable of transferring it, so for all practical purposes, having 1000 Joules of KE = being able to transfer 1000 Joules of KE. All kinetic energy is transferrable.

 

And BTW, I'm not arguing that the 5.56 has twice the velocity of the 7.62. I was just using that as an illustration to show that an increase in velocity is more effective than a proportional increase in mass. However, just like post-apoc very astutely pointed out, the 7.62 bullet is more than twice as heavy as the .556 bullet (depending on the type of bullet), whereas the increase in velocity in the AR round over the AK round is only about 25%, or 1/4th. Therefore, the 7.62 will still pack a bigger punch, but just not quite as big as you'd expect when comparing it to the 5.56 round.

 

Now of course, nice picture perfect mathematical models don't always tell the whole story. You've got other things to consider, like the actual physiological effect of a larger energy transfer vs. a larger hole, or issues like penetration. However, contrary to what some have stated here, it is the AK round that has a tendency to over-penetrate (and thus fail to transfer all of its KE to the target), not the AR round. The AK round has much more momentum (a different quantity alltogether than kinetic energy--momentum is not always a good thing), and it is thus much more prone to go straight through a target, whereas the AR round due to its relatively small momentum tends to stop in tissue a greater percentage of the time.

 

Just some food for thought :smoke:

Link to post
Share on other sites

5.56x45 does well from a 20 inch barrel. It sucks past 75 yards from a 14.5 M4, except with MK262mod1 77 grn OT BT.

 

Reliability. M4/M16s are relatively reliable (I have shot tens of thousand of rounds from M16, M16A1, XM177, M16A2, and half a dozen semi auto clones). They are nowhere near as reliable and forgiving of adverse conditions as the AK. He is a link to a torture test of a Romanian GP WASR 10/63 (the bottom end of AKS, BUT VERY EFFECTIVE) that the guy TRIED to make it no work. Mud, snow, ice, dirt, water, and no cleaning.

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/79010/firearm_review_romanian_ak47_variant_pg4_pg4.html?cat=38

 

If that don't make a believer out of you, nothing will. None of the M16s or ARs I have had could even come close to that abuse! 80-100 million Kalashnikov users can't all be wrong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I prefer the 7.62x39 to 5.56x45 for defensive purposes, the energy argument is kinda bunk. Even though a larger diameter bullet will transfer more energy, or to put it more accurately force, the faster smaller bullet will create more hydraulic shock, which is just as devastating on tissue, if not more so. The main attraction of the 7.62x39 over the 5.56x45 is its greater ability to defeat light cover, or twig/grass/branches between you and your target.

Edited by mav
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I prefer the 7.62x39 to 5.56x45 for defensive purposes, the energy argument is kinda bunk. Even though a larger diameter bullet will transfer more energy, or to put it more accurately force, the faster slower bullet will create more hydraulic shock, which is just as devastating on tissue, if not more so. The main attraction of the 7.62x39 over the 5.56x45 is its greater ability to defeat light cover, or twig/grass/branches between you and your target.

 

??

 

Also, bullets do not transfer "force". You can't transfer a "force"; you can only transfer energy. The two quantities are not interchangeable.

 

And no, the energy argument is most certainly *not* bunk. Keep in mind that a 7.62x39 rifle round is only a .30 caliber round. If the size of the hole was the *only* thing that mattered, then you could argue that .45 pistol round is more effective than a .30 caliber rifle round. Of course, no one in their right mind would argue this.

 

So obviously, the factor that makes the 7.62 round superior to the .45 ACP is velocity, which means the round has a much greater amount of kinetic energy. An object with KE *will* transfer all or some of that energy when it collides with something (depending on if it stops in the target or keeps going out the other side). In a famous bank shootout back in the '80's, an FBI agent was shot through the neck with an AR-15 round. It transferred so much energy that it knocked his vertebrae out of allignment, temporarily paralyzing him, yet the bullet hit nowhere close to his vertabrae.

 

Just give this a try: fill a milk jug all the way to the top with water, put on the cap, and shoot it with a .223. Watch it literally explode, and then talk to me :super:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I prefer the 7.62x39 to 5.56x45 for defensive purposes, the energy argument is kinda bunk. Even though a larger diameter bullet will transfer more energy, or to put it more accurately force, the faster slower bullet will create more hydraulic shock, which is just as devastating on tissue, if not more so. The main attraction of the 7.62x39 over the 5.56x45 is its greater ability to defeat light cover, or twig/grass/branches between you and your target.

 

You meant faster, smaller bullet, of course. ;)

 

The "hydraulic shock" effect you're referring to is called cavitation, and yes it can be devastating. I don't like to depend on that to be effective though, and the 7.62x39 does not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just give this a try: fill a milk jug all the way to the top with water, put on the cap, and shoot it with a .223. Watch it literally explode, and then talk to me :super:

 

The same milk jug explodes far more intensely with a 7.62x39 which imparts more energy if the bullet design allows the bullet to

deform into a near equivalent of frontal surface area to energy ratio as the .223. The fallacy of your premise lies in the concept

originating with the M193 ammo which quickly tumbles and fragments therefore imparting energy efficiently versus a traditional .30 caliber

FMJ design which more oftern does not tumble. Civilians don't have to follow world military treaties of FMJ requirements and this makes your

premise null in light of this fact. Russian ammo loaded with 8M3 bullets fragment very severely in water based tissue. Hornady's Vmax 110 grain

bullets deform very efficiently in water based tissues. Corbon's factory loaded all copper DPX hollowpoints are probably the best 7.62x39 ammo for

creating the most damage from any currently available 7.62x39 ammo. I would trust that you would likely see a much more intensive milk jug explosion

with the DPX in 7.62x39 versus any .223 ammo from anywhere. I plan on testing this concept later this year with a video camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

223 is just fine as long as the target does not a.) hide behind a car b.) hide behind a cinder block wall c.) seek any other reasonable cover.

Of course if they do any of those you better have a 30 cal round, preferably full power, though the x39 round will do a better job than some.

The reason I point this out is that is exactly the behavior of people under fire, seek cover.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I did mean faster, smaller bullet, not faster slower, brain fart. Anyway, the reason I used the term force, is the way that energy is transferred differs between larger diameter but slower projectiles, as opposed to smaller, faster bullets. BTW, PA, there is more to hydraulic shock than just cavitation, it can affect organs, nerves and tissue far away from the impact point or the wound cavity, all that being said, as I stated before, for defense I too prefer the 7.62x39, I also have a 308 Saiga, which has mass and speed going for it. If that dont get it done, the 300 RUM is ready to go also, 180 grains bullet, at roughly 3300 FPS at the muzzle, if that dont get it done, I am in trouble. :super:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just give this a try: fill a milk jug all the way to the top with water, put on the cap, and shoot it with a .223. Watch it literally explode, and then talk to me :super:

 

The same milk jug explodes far more intensely with a 7.62x39 which imparts more energy if the bullet design allows the bullet to

deform into a near equivalent of frontal surface area to energy ratio as the .223. The fallacy of your premise lies in the concept

originating with the M193 ammo which quickly tumbles and fragments therefore imparting energy efficiently versus a traditional .30 caliber

FMJ design which more oftern does not tumble. Civilians don't have to follow world military treaties of FMJ requirements and this makes your

premise null in light of this fact. Russian ammo loaded with 8M3 bullets fragment very severely in water based tissue. Hornady's Vmax 110 grain

bullets deform very efficiently in water based tissues. Corbon's factory loaded all copper DPX hollowpoints are probably the best 7.62x39 ammo for

creating the most damage from any currently available 7.62x39 ammo. I would trust that you would likely see a much more intensive milk jug explosion

with the DPX in 7.62x39 versus any .223 ammo from anywhere. I plan on testing this concept later this year with a video camera.

 

 

I look forward to seeing that video, post it when you make it. It better be better than this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x81iip6psks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I did mean faster, smaller bullet, not faster slower, brain fart. Anyway, the reason I used the term force, is the way that energy is transferred differs between larger diameter but slower projectiles, as opposed to smaller, faster bullets. BTW, PA, there is more to hydraulic shock than just cavitation, it can affect organs, nerves and tissue far away from the impact point or the wound cavity, all that being said, as I stated before, for defense I too prefer the 7.62x39, I also have a 308 Saiga, which has mass and speed going for it. If that dont get it done, the 300 RUM is ready to go also, 180 grains bullet, at roughly 3300 FPS at the muzzle, if that dont get it done, I am in trouble. :super:

 

Well there is always 50 cal which is surprisingly enough becoming popular even at 3 bucks a round. Every one should stock a little of this stuff even if you don't own a 50.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It better be better than this one:

 

 

 

 

Just for a comparison, .30-30 (somewhat close enough to a 7.62x39 weight and speed) with a quickly deforming bullet (most likely a softpoint)

does this to a water jug. View at about 40 seconds into the video.

Look how far the plastic jug parts fly off from the explosion.

The water melon parts flew off like 20 plus feet away.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEPxyZ0v18k

Watch the 5 gallon jugg splash with a .30-30

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bduHHpLb1jY

.223 versus a 5 gallon jug shakes it pretty good

 

123-150 grains at 2200-2400fps definitely has a momentum advantage to move more volume.

 

I look forward to setting up a fair comparison.

Edited by my762buzz
Link to post
Share on other sites

AK vs AR = Apples vs Oranges

 

 

I still don't understand why people compare these two platforms.

 

Meh, I don't really buy this argument anymore. A 1911 vs. an AK-47, that's apples to oranges. A Mossberg 500 vs. a Sako .338 Lapua, that's apples to oranges. But two assault rifles (assuming selective fire capability) that have been used against each other in almost every major international conflict that the US has been involved in for the past half a century...nope, that's pretty much apples to apples. The POU for both of these rifles is essentially the same. They both fall into the same class of firearm. They both pretty much get the same job done, although they may go about it differently.

 

...and they both rock :super:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nailbomb: "...bolt carrier jumping track" ??

 

Tell us about it, Nail. Not familiar with this glitch. What did you do to fix it? What was the cause to begin with? I thought AKs always worked. Now I have to worry about things jumping the track. Was 'insufficient abuse' the cause??

 

Maybe should be another thread.

Bob

Edited by 555JM
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nailbomb: "...bolt carrier jumping track" ??

 

Tell us about it, Nail. Not familiar with this glitch. What did you do to fix it? What was the cause to begin with? I thought AKs always worked. Now I have to worry about things jumping the track. Was 'insufficient abuse' the cause??

 

Maybe should be another thread.

Bob

 

They are one of the most, if not the most, reliable assault type rifles. They do "always work". That being said. It is still a tool that is made by people on machines that are built, maintained and operated by people so it is not impossible to get a bad one every so often but those are the exception not the rule. Even the sloppy Century AKs work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AK vs AR = Apples vs Oranges

 

 

I still don't understand why people compare these two platforms.

But two assault rifles (assuming selective fire capability) that have been used against each other in almost every major international conflict that the US has been involved in for the past half a century...nope, that's pretty much apples to apples. The POU for both of these rifles is essentially the same. They both fall into the same class of firearm. They both pretty much get the same job done, although they may go about it differently.

 

 

This

 

i agree fully.. i was making the comparison based on the function of both of these rifles.. the 7.62x39 MAY give a heavier heavier "harder hitting round" and the .223 may give you a faster more accurate round.. but as pointed out the actual role that these rifles play is VERY similar.. and thats why i think that its totally reasonable to compare them..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...