The AK-47 vs the AR-15

[Immoren]

You can hit man sized target with AK at 200-300m which is enough accuracy for its job.

And an M-16 can reach out to hit a man sized target at 500m due to the flatter trajectory of the 5.56mm round and has less recoil, so who has the advantage?

Machine guns, RPGs/Recoilless rifles and sniper/designated marksman rifles.

[Kouralia]

And an M-16 can reach out to hit a man sized target at 500m due to the flatter trajectory of the 5.56mm round and has less recoil, so who has the advantage?

Machine guns, RPGs/Recoilless rifles and sniper/designated marksman rifles.

Nexter Caesar

[Ayreonia]

Are you sure that was because the rifle in a well maintained condition couldn't make that shot? Not that it was a crappily maintained one fired by an untrained loon?

Since that's the intended customer of the AK-47, I believe it is a safe assumption that the shooter did not have as much training nor were they qualified sharp shooter. I'm not primarily a trigger puller though, so it's not like we're comparing a Navy SEAL with Billy Bob who received his first .22 when he was three years old.

The intended customer for the AK was the Soviet army, not untrained militants. You can't judge a piece of equipment by its user. You really suck if you can't hit a truck from 300 metres.

[Immoren]

Machine guns, RPGs/Recoilless rifles and sniper/designated marksman rifles.

Nexter Caesar

I was more thinking on lines of infantry squad's/platoon's equipment.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, isn't it? A semi-automatic civilian firearm with 5.56mm bullet vs. an automatic military firearm with a 7.62mm round. The Ak-47 was designed for use as a "spray and pray" weapon by peasants and conscripts. The M-16 is designed for a rifleman and professional soldier. Lots of subtle clues about their different roles, but if one considers the times in which they were designed and political climates, you can easily see that the AK-47 is the people's weapon, while the AR-15/M-16 family are designed for professionals. The fire selector switch is a great example. On the AK-47 the options were safe, semi-automatic, and automatic, on the M-16, the options are safe, semi, and auto/burst, thus the first primary firing mode on the AK-47 is full auto and the primary for the M-16 is single shot. For me it comes down to accuracy. The AK-47 sacrificed accuracy for durability and reliability, when I fire my weapon, I want to know exactly where the bullet is going, not the general direction.

Russian troops were always trained to utilise semi-automatic fire, with the exception of Russian Naval Infantry and special forces, who were trained to leave the rifle in automatic and use their trigger fingers as a burst selector.
The AK rifle platform is sufficiently accurate to reliably hit a man-sized target at the combat range of 300m - which is precisely as accurate as an infantry rifle needs to be.

When the M16 was first introduced, it was introduced so to an army of predominantly conscripts.

[Kouralia]

Nexter Caesar

I was more thinking on lines of infantry squad's/platoon's equipment.

Uh... An L118 Gun being pulled by a section of infantrymen. Loaded with Canister.

[West Pacific]

Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, isn't it? A semi-automatic civilian firearm with 5.56mm bullet vs. an automatic military firearm with a 7.62mm round. The Ak-47 was designed for use as a "spray and pray" weapon by peasants and conscripts. The M-16 is designed for a rifleman and professional soldier. Lots of subtle clues about their different roles, but if one considers the times in which they were designed and political climates, you can easily see that the AK-47 is the people's weapon, while the AR-15/M-16 family are designed for professionals. The fire selector switch is a great example. On the AK-47 the options were safe, semi-automatic, and automatic, on the M-16, the options are safe, semi, and auto/burst, thus the first primary firing mode on the AK-47 is full auto and the primary for the M-16 is single shot. For me it comes down to accuracy. The AK-47 sacrificed accuracy for durability and reliability, when I fire my weapon, I want to know exactly where the bullet is going, not the general direction.

Russian troops were always trained to utilise semi-automatic fire, with the exception of Russian Naval Infantry and special forces, who were trained to leave the rifle in automatic and use their trigger fingers as a burst selector.
The AK rifle platform is sufficiently accurate to reliably hit a man-sized target at the combat range of 300m - which is precisely as accurate as an infantry rifle needs to be.

When the M16 was first introduced, it was introduced so to an army of predominantly conscripts.

You've made your claim, now provide your evidence because unless we have a very fundamental conflict over the meaning of the word "predominantly" (I would say greater than 4/5's of the whole is a good measure to be consider "predominant" anything) your statement doesn't hold water.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Between 1965 and 1973, 1.7 million men were drafted into the US armed force. Of which, about a third (~650 thousand) were set in-country, where they represented a quarter of the fighting force and accrued thirty percent of combat fatalities.

So no, you're right, not predominantly, but it still represents a significant number of personnel.

[Fireye]

Good God, will someone please make a useful thread?

Welcome to NS.

[Spreewerke]

if you can id like you to post pictures of your load-outs because not everyone may know what your talking about

This thread isn't about vidya games, by the way.

Personally I <3 the Indian AKS-74Us converted into AKMSUs.

I wasn't aware of this. Could you elaborate. I only know of some guys in the Rashtrya Rifles in Kashmir with captured examples. Never heard of full on conversion, though it would make sense as most Indian units with Ak type weapons used 7.62.

It's just an AKS-74U that utilizes an AKM barrel stub and trunnion.

Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, isn't it? A semi-automatic civilian firearm with 5.56mm bullet vs. an automatic military firearm with a 7.62mm round. The Ak-47 was designed for use as a "spray and pray" weapon by peasants and conscripts. The M-16 is designed for a rifleman and professional soldier. Lots of subtle clues about their different roles, but if one considers the times in which they were designed and political climates, you can easily see that the AK-47 is the people's weapon, while the AR-15/M-16 family are designed for professionals. The fire selector switch is a great example. On the AK-47 the options were safe, semi-automatic, and automatic, on the M-16, the options are safe, semi, and auto/burst, thus the first primary firing mode on the AK-47 is full auto and the primary for the M-16 is single shot. For me it comes down to accuracy. The AK-47 sacrificed accuracy for durability and reliability, when I fire my weapon, I want to know exactly where the bullet is going, not the general direction.

Me too!

Fortunately, I know all of my rounds from my AK-103(alike) in 7.62x39mm are going right on target at ~222m. How do I know? Because all of my rounds, off-hand, were well within center-mass at that distance using a red dot optic and only a sling around my supporting arm for stability. The AK is not inaccurate.

Here's a little forum topic where some AR owners compared their accuracy with surplus NATO ammunition: http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-7899.html

Notice how the vast majority are in the 2.0 to 2.5MOA group? Well, that's pretty nifty since the AK-100 series can get those same groupings with 5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm, and even 7.62x39mm again using military-grade ammunition. The AKMs from the '60s? Okay, yeah, those got around 3.5 MOA or so, which is still well within combat-accurate. The M16- and M4-series are, realistically, only about 1.0MOA or 1.5MOA more accurate than any AK, which means relatively little on the battlefield.

Russian troops were always trained to utilise semi-automatic fire, with the exception of Russian Naval Infantry and special forces, who were trained to leave the rifle in automatic and use their trigger fingers as a burst selector.
The AK rifle platform is sufficiently accurate to reliably hit a man-sized target at the combat range of 300m - which is precisely as accurate as an infantry rifle needs to be.

When the M16 was first introduced, it was introduced so to an army of predominantly conscripts.

This is also notable by the M16's "never needs to be cleaned!" advertising point that really won it over with testing officials. Cleaning my gun? Draftees ain't got time fo' dat. Unfortunately, they needed time for it after the military decided that switching to a dirtier, shittier gunpowder and flat-out not issuing cleaning kits was a good idea...

[Inquilabstan]

It's just an AKS-74U that utilizes an AKM barrel stub and trunnion.

(Image)

This guy is Rashtrya Rifles for sure.

Have any ideas of the exact details? I can't find any OFB work on that. I know of several cases of field conversions much like this, and I believe my dad came across one when he was at Siachen.

[San-Silvacian]

It's just an AKS-74U that utilizes an AKM barrel stub and trunnion.

(Image)

This guy is Rashtrya Rifles for sure.

Have any ideas of the exact details? I can't find any OFB work on that. I know of several cases of field conversions much like this, and I believe my dad came across one when he was at Siachen.

iirc

India wanted to have their AKs and carbines fire the same round (I think they had the AKS-74U for a while) and when they wanted to upgrade them to become 7.62x39mm firing carbines of doom.

[Spreewerke]

It's just an AKS-74U that utilizes an AKM barrel stub and trunnion.

(Image)

This guy is Rashtrya Rifles for sure.

Have any ideas of the exact details? I can't find any OFB work on that. I know of several cases of field conversions much like this, and I believe my dad came across one when he was at Siachen.

I just told you. It's basically an AKS-74U with an AKM barrel stub and trunnion. I did forget to mention the bolt, I guess, but they're probably just using a '74-spec bolt with a 7.62x39mm face, just like the AK-103/4 use in the '100-series. That would mean their "AKMSU" has only three parts differing from an AKS-74U.

[Inquilabstan]

India wanted to have their AKs and carbines fire the same round (I think they had the AKS-74U for a while) and when they wanted to upgrade them to become 7.62x39mm firing carbines of doom.

Beautiful. Probably done after Operation Megdhoot then. There are hardly any in service though, like all carbines. Pity they opted for the INSAS.

BTW, thanks for the info Spree.

[Spreewerke]

India wanted to have their AKs and carbines fire the same round (I think they had the AKS-74U for a while) and when they wanted to upgrade them to become 7.62x39mm firing carbines of doom.

Beautiful. Probably done after Operation Megdhoot then. There are hardly any in service though, like all carbines. Pity they opted for the INSAS.

BTW, thanks for the info Spree.

You're welcome.

AKs are kind of what I do, and I'd say the not'100-series bolt and barrel/trunnion swap would by-far be the easiest way to go about this conversion. An alternate route, however, would be to modify an AKM, but at that point, you're replacing the rear trunnion, receiver cover, rear sight block, furniture, gas block, and front sight. It'd just be way easier to work off of the AKS-74U from the get-go, but the other way is definitely possible, too.

[Inquilabstan]

You're welcome.

AKs are kind of what I do, and I'd say the not'100-series bolt and barrel/trunnion swap would by-far be the easiest way to go about this conversion. An alternate route, however, would be to modify an AKM, but at that point, you're replacing the rear trunnion, receiver cover, rear sight block, furniture, gas block, and front sight. It'd just be way easier to work off of the AKS-74U from the get-go, but the other way is definitely possible, too.

The first is also possible given the limited scale upon which they are issued, being either special operations groups, some armored units (particularily those in Rajasthan) and COIN troops.

[New Maldorainia]

Good God, will someone please make a useful thread?

Welcome to NS.

Why do people feel the need to come into a thread to complain about it?

[Lemanrussland]

Never said that, but early on it had some of the worst problems and rifle could have.

It jammed in dusty/sandy conditions and had a dodgy mag release button.
These are problems that have plagued most rifle platforms over the years.

The SA-80 had markedly more problems than most service rifles, and is the most expensive service rifle ever to be fielded.

During the first 10 years of SA-80 development, the British Army spent 400 million pounds on designing it (it being originally designed for 4.85mm caliber cartridge and then being redesigned for 5.56mm NATO cartridge at the pressure of the Americans is partially to blame for this). Due to the reliability problems there also had to be hundreds of post-production modifications to the design (most famously by H&K, which made many changes which helped to improve the rifle's reliability).

Today, it's a decent rifle, but it was a sad mess when it was first fielded. Not sure if it was worth the money and effort to develop, at least the UK has a service rifle which they can say is "designed in the UK".

[New Maldorainia]

It jammed in dusty/sandy conditions and had a dodgy mag release button.
These are problems that have plagued most rifle platforms over the years.

The SA-80 had markedly more problems than most service rifles, and is the most expensive service rifle ever to be fielded.

During the first 10 years of SA-80 development, the British Army spent 400 million pounds on designing it (it being originally designed for 4.85mm caliber cartridge and then being redesigned for 5.56mm NATO cartridge at the pressure of the Americans is partially to blame for this). Due to the reliability problems there also had to be hundreds of post-production modifications to the design (most famously by H&K, which made many changes which helped to improve the rifle's reliability).

Today, it's a decent rifle, but it was a sad mess when it was first fielded.

Well, America and its NATO allies use standardized rounds so they can share mags, can not blame them for wanting the Brit rifle to be able to use the same mags.

[Lemanrussland]

The SA-80 had markedly more problems than most service rifles, and is the most expensive service rifle ever to be fielded.

During the first 10 years of SA-80 development, the British Army spent 400 million pounds on designing it (it being originally designed for 4.85mm caliber cartridge and then being redesigned for 5.56mm NATO cartridge at the pressure of the Americans is partially to blame for this). Due to the reliability problems there also had to be hundreds of post-production modifications to the design (most famously by H&K, which made many changes which helped to improve the rifle's reliability).

Today, it's a decent rifle, but it was a sad mess when it was first fielded.

Well, America and its NATO allies use standardized rounds so they can share mags, can not blame them for wanting the Brit rifle to be able to use the same mags.

To be fair, the agreement to use 5.56x45mm NATO as the standard "light" cartridge of the NATO armies was only reached in 1977, a few years after SA80 development had began.

Similarly, the British had been developing a combat rifle (designated the EM-2) after WWII which used 7mm (.280 British) cartridges, but discontinued it's development once the 7.62x51mm NATO standard had been adopted. The UK had already spent large sums of money on the SA80, so they decided to push forward with development with the new 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge.

[New Maldorainia]

Well, America and its NATO allies use standardized rounds so they can share mags, can not blame them for wanting the Brit rifle to be able to use the same mags.

To be fair, the agreement to use 5.56x45mm NATO as the standard "light" cartridge of the NATO armies was only reached in 1977, a few years after SA80 development had began.

Similarly, the British had been developing a combat rifle after WWII which used 7mm (.280 British) cartridges, but discontinued it's development once the 7.62x51mm NATO standard had been adopted. The UK had already spent large sums of money on the SA80, so they decided to push forward with development with the new 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge.

I know, but that is why they made the change, for uniformity with NATO.

[Spreewerke]

The SA-80 had markedly more problems than most service rifles, and is the most expensive service rifle ever to be fielded.

During the first 10 years of SA-80 development, the British Army spent 400 million pounds on designing it (it being originally designed for 4.85mm caliber cartridge and then being redesigned for 5.56mm NATO cartridge at the pressure of the Americans is partially to blame for this). Due to the reliability problems there also had to be hundreds of post-production modifications to the design (most famously by H&K, which made many changes which helped to improve the rifle's reliability).

Today, it's a decent rifle, but it was a sad mess when it was first fielded.

Well, America and its NATO allies use standardized rounds so they can share mags, can not blame them for wanting the Brit rifle to be able to use the same mags.

That must be why SIG 550-series, AUG-series, G36-series, and Beryl magazines are all proprietary.

[New Maldorainia]

Well, America and its NATO allies use standardized rounds so they can share mags, can not blame them for wanting the Brit rifle to be able to use the same mags.

That must be why SIG 550-series, AUG-series, G36-series, and Beryl magazines are all proprietary.

You are aware that the Steyr is Austrian and Austria is not a NATO member right?

[Lemanrussland]

To be fair, the agreement to use 5.56x45mm NATO as the standard "light" cartridge of the NATO armies was only reached in 1977, a few years after SA80 development had began.

Similarly, the British had been developing a combat rifle after WWII which used 7mm (.280 British) cartridges, but discontinued it's development once the 7.62x51mm NATO standard had been adopted. The UK had already spent large sums of money on the SA80, so they decided to push forward with development with the new 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge.

I know, but that is why they made the change, for uniformity with NATO.

Of course. I'm just saying that change had caused additional design problems, on top of the problems which had already existed in the prototypes which were ready for testing in 1976.

[New Maldorainia]

I know, but that is why they made the change, for uniformity with NATO.

Of course. I'm just saying that change had caused additional design problems, on top of the problems which had already existed in the prototypes which were ready for testing in 1976.

Ok, I see what you are saying, and you are right.