Argument: Over. M4>AK!

[XD45 7,124]

http://www.businessinsider.com/ak-47-wound-over-an-m4-2015-12

 

Interesting to see an article like this in the Business Insider, but very biased and selective.  For every fact given there are 10 facts left out. 

 

I agree with what it says to a point.  With non-upsetting ammo, the 7.62x39 is less effective.  But the same applies to the 5.56. 

 

I have said for years that much of the AK ammo commonly available is deficient due to it's lack of upset in tissue, but some bullets are dramatically more destructive.  I have also said for years (as have many many others) that the M4 needs propper ammo to be effective. 

 

The article also completely ignores the 5.45x39 which is better than both with commonly issued military ammo.

 

So, in reality, AK needs the right ammo to be effective.  M4/AR needs the right ammo to be effective.

 

I have and use both.  I love them each for what they are.  I have selected ammo for both that will do the job if the job needs to be done.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Darth Saigus

[evlblkwpnz 3,418]

I would like to see some testing of both with Barnes TSX.

[6500rpm 670]

I can tell you from a penetration standard from FMJ, I'd much rather be in a car shot with a .223 than a x39. We get several vehicles in the fleet every year involved in shootings where we've recovered bullets. .223 tends to have minimal penetration where I've seen x39 blow large holes through doors and continue on into or through the other side. Buckshot, I presume at close range, is pretty devastating also.

[JDeko 792]

5.45x39mm

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/ak-47-wound-over-an-m4-2015-12

 

Interesting to see an article like this in the Business Insider, but very biased and selective.  For every fact given there are 10 facts left out. 

 

I agree with what it says to a point.  With non-upsetting ammo, the 7.62x39 is less effective.  But the same applies to the 5.56. 

 

I have said for years that much of the AK ammo commonly available is deficient due to it's lack of upset in tissue, but some bullets are dramatically more destructive.  I have also said for years (as have many many others) that the M4 needs proper ammo to be effective. 

 

The article also completely ignores the 5.54x39 which is better than both with commonly issued military ammo.

 

So, in reality, AK needs the right ammo to be effective.  M4/AR needs the right ammo to be effective.

 

I have and use both.  I love them each for what they are.  I have selected ammo for both that will do the job if the job needs to be done.

[patriot 7,197]

I have some lovely 62gr frangibles made from empty 22lr rifle casings with a pure lead core.

In 5.56 casings they make groundhogs go POP! and rip in two or more chunks.

[XD45 7,124]

 

5.45x39mm

 

 

 

The article also completely ignores the 5.54x39 which is better than both with commonly issued military ammo.

 

Yes I dyslexed the numbers.  Thank you for proofreading.

[mancat 2,366]

It's probably not fair to compare M855 or M193 to whatever this guy encountered the most in the ME, which was probably old as fuck Egyptian or Iraqi surplus M43, or something like that. FWIW though I've seen FSA videos of guys dumping out crates of new production Wolf in Syria.

 

I would not want to get shot with something more current in 7.62x39, such as the 8M3 bullet used by Russia today. It's going to blow a nice hole in you almost no matter where it hits, just like a soft point would, and it will still go through barriers like butter.

 

If I can guarantee I'm getting 40 year old surplus M43 or M67 shot at me from the other guy, yeah maybe I'll take that instead of 5.56 NATO in any of its variations.

Edited December 23, 2015 by mancat

[G O B 3,516]

Cover or concealment?

Depends on WHAT it is being shot WITH! 7.62-39 FMJ will turn cars into concealment. 5.56 not so much! Same goes for walls, brush .......

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Its a fairly subjective view the guy in the article put forth.

 

Doubt anyone reasonable is going to change their mind based on this stuff.

 

Then there is 308 and all its flavors... the guys hip would likely be at the scene in pieces. But somehow this never enters into the discussion and that may be good for us.

[james lambert 3,059]

I have a steel target at 100 yds, its just mild steel and intended for shotgun slugs or pistol its 1/4" thick

Several people not knowing its not AR500 have shot it with 223 and 762x39

 

The 762 makes a pretty nice dent

The 223 punches perfect holes

[Sim_Player 1,939]

I have a steel target at 100 yds, its just mild steel and intended for shotgun slugs or pistol its 1/4" thick

Several people not knowing its not AR500 have shot it with 223 and 762x39

 

The 762 makes a pretty nice dent

The 223 punches perfect holes

That's always impressed me. A friend told me of a similar experience, years ago.

 

Most car bodies are mild steel, I believe. Scary.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Sim_Player

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

The sheet metal on a vehicle isnt going to stop anything, hell one can poke holes in that with a 22.

Its what is behind that sheet metal that stops and deflects a round.

Anyway

 

It was Royce's analysis of the Miami shootout that got me thinking hard about the difference between what is and what is said.

 

Ive seen much to counter just about any position concerning the tired old x39 vs 5.56 matter, in the end both work pretty damned well long as the rifle goes bang when the booger hook is pressed.

Such is the way with all intermediate rounds, effective compromises for true assault weapons. Dont want to deal with the compromises then go full rifle round.

 

That reminds me time for the annual AK cleaning party here, heh I kid ... or do I. 

[XD45 7,124]

I would never insult my AKs by cleaning them.

[Sim_Player 1,939]

I know that sheet metal won't stop bullets.

[VR762Shooter 838]

Aside from ammo choices they also have to factor in barrel length, spin, powder load. I mean, to say any one thing is better than another is never going to be correct. Part of the reason I never get into the AK/AR debate. I like my AKs. I know they are systematically less accurate than an AR will ever be. The bolt carrier alone does not lead to a good follow up shot. However, I also own an AR. I have a 16". I know that my barrel is statistically less effective with quality ammo than a 20". I know the design of the bullets was intended to create fragmentation at high speed which is not going to happen from a shorter barrel. Did they put that into this equation? Did they test a 20" AK vs a 20" AR? Did they test a soft point round from both? I grazed the article but it seemed like a lot was left to be desired from their statistical information. I take all articles like these with a grain of salt but to say "I'd rather be shot with this over this" takes a lot of information that was clearly not put into place here. Especially considering they mention an "AK" and like Darth said, completely ignored 7N6 5.45x39 which is terrible terrible news for the guy receiving

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

I would never insult my AKs by cleaning them.

 

Every good Russian slut needs a little hands on once in a while, lets them know you still love em.

[sjgusmc21 850]

I shot, humped, swam, rapelled, cleaned, ran, march, slept...and even bumped uglies with my M16A1/A2 next to me once for 21 years. I would take my converted Saiga over it any day of the week.

[breid1970 327]

I lugged around my A2 for 15 years.  Its an alright weapon.  Now that I am far more familiar with the AK I can say without reservation i would take the AK over the A2 any day of the week.  That being said with the correct FMJ 7.62x39 would be my choice of ammo.  Not 40 year old surplus ammo.

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

FMJ is what is used when all the "good stuff" has been used up, or it aint the time the use the good stuff.

 

That pretty much applies to everything. 

 

That said even a rock moving at 2300 fps will do the job in most cases and FMJ is far better than a rock, far far better. 

Just wish I could still get some of that 40 year old commie stuff. The Yugos did a far job of making that ammo.

[BigChongus 765]

>article claims to compare M4 vs. AK

>article compares the 5.56 vs 7.62

>AKs are available in 5.56 and 7.62

>ARs are available in 5.56 and 7.62

>article does not compare the M4 to the AK

[Capt Nemo 882]

AR = accurate but lacks stopping power with short barrels.

AK = inaccurate but will fuck up anything it does hit.

 

Deer hunting, both will put the deer down in 50-75 yds.  Good enough!

[james lambert 3,059]

at 50 yards you can use a rock

Out here in the desert SW we kill mulies at 600

 

ARs are now in 3006 243 308 6.5 creedmore ect

 

No ak has ever gone there

[Gzus Kryst 53]

there is a 30-06 saiga =P

 

at 50 yards you can use a rock

Out here in the desert SW we kill mulies at 600

 

ARs are now in 3006 243 308 6.5 creedmore ect

 

No ak has ever gone there

 thought there was a rare 30-06 saiga, so if im not mistaken an AK has gone there

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Whats the muzzle velocity on that rock?

 

as for selection... there is no 35 Wildcat either but I dont let it keep me up at night.

[BigChongus 765]

I'd be hesitant to call the AK inaccurate. The testing that Primary Arms has been doing with AKs at 200-500 yards has been pretty impressive. Of course they're not AS accurate as ARs, but I think you could make the argument that AKs are actually as inaccurate as ARs are actually unreliable. In other words, not very. 

[james lambert 3,059]

An AK is plenty accurate for its intended purpose 

 

My point was the AR platform is available in literally dozens of calibers  and the AK in very few.

 

That makes the 223 vs 762  argument irrelevant.

 I have AR 15s in 22lr up to 50 Beowulf, and AR10s in large rifle calibers.

 

One AR serialized lower can support a myriad of caliber uppers

AKs are stamped and riveted, not purpose re configurable

And you have a large number of calibers to choose from that way surpass those available in an AK if lethality is your measurement 

 

Both platforms have their following

But factually the AR is vastly more adaptable, and available in superior calibers.

 

Whether or not that constitutes one over the other ...is up to the beholder

[DLT 1,646]

All I know is that a little over four years ago, I hit steel at 600 yards with my SGL in 7.62 x 39 in a nasty crosswind.  The only other shooter to do the same was using a 6.8 spc ruger piston AR.  All other AR (5.56) shooters could not repeat the results.  It was not easy, my elevation was maxed out, and I was also self adjusting (aiming another two feet above the target) to basically rain in the shots. I own both platforms and love them both.  There is no doubting the accuracy advantages of the AR, but in variable wind, that lighter bullet is a pain to compensate drift for.  

[breid1970 327]

Romak III- 7.62 x 54

Galil/Golani 5.56, 308

Saiga 7.62x39, 223, 308, 5.45 x 39, 30.06 springfield,  9x53mmR, 5.56

 

Thats just to name a few.  I don't think the AR has the market cornered on calibers.  And I didn't even touch on the dragonovs and those variants.

My bottom line is this.  The AK to me, is superior for my own personal uses.  I don't shoot out past 500 but if I did, the Romak III would easily fit the bill.  I use mine for protection, target shooting and just because i fucking love them.  I don't know the AR guys one bit. I carried the A2 for a decade and a half and it never let me down.  But now, in this stage of life i prefer the AK.  

Edited December 28, 2015 by Foghorn

[Sim_Player 1,939]

Noone is mentioning that the AK was intended to be, primarily, a machine gun (with no accuracy beyond a short distance).

 

The AR was designed to be an accurate rifle with machine-gun select ability.

 

Being machine guns made them assault weapons.

 

Because most of us can't own machine guns, both are simple rifles, not assault rifles.

 

(IED's can be made from anything and everything and should scare the crap out of people, more than any guns.)

Edited December 28, 2015 by Sim_Player

[JDeko 792]

AR/M16 as well though.