Discovery Channel comparison of M16 to AK47 challenge! (4 min video)

Let’s see how many ATS members can identify disinformation and fallacies in this rigged comparison.

I got mine ready and time coded, so let’s see how good our ATS Weapon forum members know their stuff!

Shoot away!





edit: U_boob Vid.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by iskander]

mod edit: repair vid

[edit on 1/11/2008 by kinglizard]

Me no see.

You must fixey somethin.

Roper

reply to post by Roper


If that didn’t work, here’s the raw link, but I wanted to imbed the clip so the generally juvenile YuoTube discussions won‘t pollute this thread.

www.youtube.com...

I ask everybody to ignore YouTube discussions and not dragging them here, so we can concentrate on the factual information.

Well, they completely disregarded the M-16s reliability issues and the fact that you can dunk the AK in mud, sand, and water, and than jump up and down on top of it and it will still work.

Wait a minute...the guy shooting the AK for accuracy isn't even using the stock!

[edit on 7-1-2008 by BlackWidow23]

Modern AK's with decent muzzle breaks and whatnot also have way more accuracy than the old ones, though that's not to say that their accuracy is in any way amazing.

I have to admit I'm used to taking Americanised documentaries with a pinch of salt and a wry smile but this one definitely takes the cake.
It borders on ludicrous in its level of bias towards the M-16.
God I dont even know where to start.

First of all I'll point out the fact that the AK there using is of such poor quality it beggars belief, at a guess it's probably a Romanian knockoff, wasr or the like, quality AK's dont have any where near that level of slop in the magazine, and although AK's are known for there rather "liberal" tolerances that gas rod went beyond "liberal" 10,000 rounds ago.

Second, "Barrell Flex",All rifle barrells flex to a degree, funny how they dont really show the M-16 barrell past the stock while its firing isnt it? Also note the fact they've deliberately left the cleaning rod on the AK unclipped to dramatise the flex.

Third, Recoil, Note M-16 is fitted with a muzzle brake, AK is not fitted with a muzzle break.

Fourth, Accuracy, all that target shooting was showing was the accuracy of the shooters not the rifles, the bloke firing the AK should go back to yanking his d*#k, not yanking the trigger. (seriously pay close attention to the film again, hes really givin it to that trigger.)

Fifth, Crude sights, I have several rifles I use for farm purposes/hunting (all german anshutz) two of them are triple point open sights, crude my ass, I swear by them.

Sixth, Fire Selector Design Machine gun or rifle, Im still shaking my head at the reasoning of that so called expert, not even going to dignify that garbage with a response.



The only advantage M-16 has over AK is its slightly more accurate, that becomes null and void when most contacts/firefights occur under 200 yards.

The AK 47 is far more reliable and hits far harder.

Against the body armour being fielded of late I know which rifle I'd wanna be holding.

Regards,

It's an extreme case of the usual problem with US critics of the AK: they try to judge it by what they would want in a gun they buy themselves, not in a weapon intended for millions of teenage third-world guerillas.

Accuracy is irrelevant - reliability, ruggedness and cheapness count.

The accurancy issue of the AK is has more to do with less spin on the barrel to produce a less stable bullett strike. The M16 has a very high twist rate that produces a stable flight, but will have a tendancy to punch through a tartget not causing critical damage. The AK with a lower twist rate and less stable flight will have a tendancy to yaw or tumble upon striking a tartget which creates greater damage at impact. Both can be corrected by changing the barrel of the AK or M16 to produce the desired effect you want. The limitations of the M16 and/or M4 have been mostly corrected on the redisgned H&K 416 to bring it up to the AK's level of reliabilty.

Tonka has most of it spot on.

The most important is the origin and the AK tested, as it is NOT a soviet made, which is clearly evident by the shaping of the wood hand guard.

Other then the “unknown” condition of that AK, what is most important is that particular AK design is knows as “soft” or “transitional” model.

The original Soviet Made AK-47 had a MILLED receiver, which can be easily identified by a recess above the magazine.

This is what milled receivers look like from various manufacturers;

www.ak-47.us...

Original AK design called for a cheaply and quickly manufactured STAMPED receivers (just as with PPsH), but in order to pres AK into service much heavier, costly and labor intensive (over 124 milling steps) milled receiver was put into serial production while manufacturing plants were retrofitted with new equipment.

Milled receiver made the AK much heavier then the design specs, but gave the AK incredible rigidity, great accuracy, and to this day milled AK receivers are considered to be the best traditional AKs ever made.

When stamped receiver manufacturing began, limited numbers of “soft” AKs were manufactured as “transitional” models.

They did flex much more then the milled receiver models, and while the redesigned mounting (pins) quickly eliminated production of such “soft” models, Warsaw factories continued to cheaply crank out “soft” AK specifically for export.

It was simply a cheap solution which did not require retrofitting existing factories through out Warsaw countries, and the service life of the “soft” AKs was drastically less then of the milled or proper stamped receiver models.

AKM is the best example how flexing and muzzle climb issues were dealt with, and considering the year of M16s introduction, it’s the AKM that should be compared to M16, not the worst Warsaw produced AK model ever manufactured.

Tonka also properly pointed out that open sights (dovetail) have been a shooters standard for ages. Tunnel sights, while allowing the shooter to completely concentrate on his target, create an unavoidable “tunnel” vision effect.

While concentrating on the target, the shooter has absolutely no peripheral vision. That is precisely why short/medium distance shooters are taught to shot with both eyes open.

Assault Rifle is designed to put out AUTOMATIC fire and quickly switch between multiple targets, thus “tunnel vision” is exactly what he wants to avoids, while for long distance shooting tunnel or scoped sights is just the right stuff.

There’s more in that clip, let’s look into it!

Originally posted by Birddog26

The limitations of the M16 and/or M4 have been mostly corrected on the redisgned H&K 416 to bring it up to the AK's level of reliabilty.

What I wouldnt give to get my hands on H&K 417, Read a lot on these rifles, damn fine bit of hardware although to my knowledge not used outside US Special Forces (the 416).

From what I've read it looks like the U.S Army is stickin to M4's and M16A4's for the forseable future, bit silly really.

What makes me laugh is the fact that they've dropped the direct gas impingement of the "ADVANCED" M16 and gone back to the "CRUDE"
AK-47's gas piston design for the 416/417. It's only taken them 40 odd years to finally work out why the M16 is so unreliable in adverse conditions or with poor quality rounds.

Regards,

Originally posted by Birddog26
The accurancy issue of the AK is has more to do with less spin on the barrel to produce a less stable bullett strike. The M16 has a very high twist rate that produces a stable flight, but will have a tendancy to punch through a tartget not causing critical damage. The AK with a lower twist rate and less stable flight will have a tendancy to yaw or tumble upon striking a tartget which creates greater damage at impact. Both can be corrected by changing the barrel of the AK or M16 to produce the desired effect you want. The limitations of the M16 and/or M4 have been mostly corrected on the redisgned H&K 416 to bring it up to the AK's level of reliabilty.

You've obviously neve seen the damage a 5,56 can do.
I'd also like to point out that the 5,56 is less stable in the air than a 7,62.
Also the limitations of the M-4/16 is the relativly short barrel, compared to say a L85A2, it's the reason why the US crys about the 5,56 while the Brits rather like it.

reply to post by SKUNK2


The M-16 has a barrel length of 508mm, a mere 10mm under the L85A2 at 518mm despite its bullpup design, which makes negligible difference in speed and range, much less are reason for the US to cry over it and the Brits to be happy about it.

I can't say that I've ever shot the M-16. Put a couple boxes through an SKS/Chinese in the 7.62x39 and after shooting it, I can't say that I'm a fan. Just wasn't accurate in my opinion. I can say that I've been quite satisfied with my HK.

The way I look at it, in the field, they're just looking to poke holes. In that case, those rifles may as well be accurate and dependable, not one or the other.

I always liked Cowboy's line in FMJ about the Arvin rifles:
"never fired and only dropped once."

reply to post by SKUNK2

You've obviously neve seen the damage a 5,56 can do.

Then this would be a perfect time to visit this thread and see exactly what kind of damage 5.56 does, verses Soviet 5.45;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'd also like to point out that the 5,56 is less stable in the air than a 7,62.
Also the limitations of the M-4/16 is the relativly short barrel, compared to say a L85A2, it's the reason why the US crys about the 5,56 while the Brits rather like it.

All true, but remember, now since the Germans overhauled their SA80, Brits actually have a weapon that functions, so they have a lot less to complain about then before.

I will go as far as to say that the HK SA80s longer bullpup barrel in comparison to M4 makes it a superior weapon.

M-4 barrel length- 370 mm

Total length - 838 mm

SA80 barrel length - 518 mm

Total length - 780 mm

SA80 Carbine is even shorter, with 442 mm barrel length, and 709 mm total length.

So even a full size SA80 is smaller then M4, so no wonder the Brits are not complaining about their 5.56 performance as much as our troops.

For what it's worth:

I fired the AK-47 on a few occasions; a a total of 2 or 3 magazines.
The rifle was the real Soviet issue, not a knock off. Now, my memory
may be blurry as this was a long time ago, but I was able to hit a target
(full body-sized) from 400 yards, set to semi automatic, I guess I hit
it with 2 out of 5 total rounds I used, in rapid succession.
I'm not a sharpshooter. I thought this was pretty damn accurate.

Since nobody caught the obvious one, I’ll point out another of the many errors in the comparison.

Time code 02:44.

The narrator states that the M43 development was a brutally simple “Soviet solution” of taking a heavier rifle bullet of 54R and just making it smaller.

In fact the reality is exactly the opposite; it is the .308/7.62X51 which is a simply shortened .30-06, while M43 shares only the 7.62 diameter with its full power big bother.

7.62X54 is a RIMMED cartridge, while M43 was designed ground up as an automatic round.

When you actually hold 7.62X54R and M43 in your hands they don’t look or feel anything alike, yet while holding .30-06 and the .308 the only difference is the case length.

Shooting them M43 and 54R feels drastically different (Mosin/SKS), while shooting .30-06 and .308 (springfield bolt/M14) feels almost the same.

.38 is just a short .30-06 and does not offer any advantages, while M43 is simply a generation ahead.

M43 fired from SKS/RPK/RPD can still cut down a tree, thus taking away cover which is useful against 5.56 rounds.

As far as proper comparison of 5.45 to 5.56, let’s take to my other dedicated thread;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ok my 2 cents

Here in Australia we arent allowed semi-auto's so gun dealers look for ways around the laws to be able to sell a product... so when the aussie government
banned semi-autos in 1998 they only banned the guns not the ammo!
so 1x norinco sks in 7.62x39 = $350.00 + 1 x 1220 Rnd case ammo Free
extra case ammo $80 or $10/100 Rnd
and i used to have 2 sks rifles

Now we didnt have bolt actions in 7.62x39 but what we did have access to
was Cugir arms from Romania an AK PUMP ACTION PAR3 yes you read right
and yes they can be had state side. It is said that they were 100 time more accurate than the ak47 because they were pump action this i can understand after watching the link from the op. Now i never brought one of these but about 2 years after the release of the par3 they released another rifle based on the No 5 jungle carbine Lee-Enfield bolt action and is called the AIA MARK 10-A2 that accepts the standard ak mag. I kid you not this gun is 1000 times more accurate the any sks that i have ever used. but we are restricted to a 10 Rnd mag by law and as of 2years ago this rifle has been discontinued however a 308 version is currently available....this gun was originaly available :
7.62x39 std ak mag sold in australia and canada
.223 std ar15 mag only sold in USA
.308 std m14 mag as far as i know only avaliable in australia.
All rifle types came std with a picatinny rail

NOTE: the price here in NSW for a mag bigger than 10Rnds is 15 years in prison no questions asked... you have the mag, you do the time.....
the site for the PAR3 is century arms and here is a pdf file from them
go to page 15 of this file and look at the bottom half of the page....

P.S ive read on the net some time back that the balistics of the 7.62x39 with the std 125gr projectile roughly matches the balistics of the 30-30 win with the same weight projectile....

www.centuryarms.com...

The Australia International Arms (AIA) Mk 10-A3 pic

www.lesjones.com...

.308...... www.lawranceordnance.com...


[edit on 11-1-2008 by ST SIR 86]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by ST SIR 86]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by ST SIR 86]

Originally posted by iskander
Since nobody caught the obvious one, I’ll point out another of the many errors in the comparison.

Time code 02:44.

The narrator states that the M43 development was a brutally simple “Soviet solution” of taking a heavier rifle bullet of 54R and just making it smaller.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

On this point the narrator has made a bad point.. the 7.62x 54r is a RIMMED case and the m43 case is RIMLESS so with this in mind the die used to make the cases had to be redesigned for the m43 and is simply not a shortened
7.62x54R case.

reply to post by iskander


The guy shooting the AK needs to take some marksmanship lessons. I can hit beer cans at 150m with my AK. It's no wonder his didn't hit anything, just look at how he's jerking the trigger.