Is AK47 number 1 assualt rifle around world?


PDA






OneShot!
June 20, 2007, 09:00 AM
Do you agree that, preferences aside, AK 47 is the number one choice of assualt rifles around the world in military or civilian use?

I think YES.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is AK47 number 1 assualt rifle around world?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ID_shooting
June 20, 2007, 09:06 AM
I am of the AK (clone) camp. Simple design, inexpensive, robust, reliable, easy to maintain, accurate "enough," and powerful enough at moderate ranges.

There are others as good in some of the same areas but none that meet enough of the ranges to be comparable.

It has flaws, but the plusses sure out-weigh the minusus in my book.

DMK
June 20, 2007, 09:07 AM
I've heard it said that the AK is the rifle for armies that can't afford the M16. I don't know if I completely agree with that statement exactly, but it seems that most industrially or economically developed nations go with something else, usually in 5.56. Most third world nations go with 7.62 AK47 type rifles, most probably second hand. Those nations struggling to break free of the Warsaw Pact iron curtain period seem to be going with 5.45 AK74 type rifles.

Since there seems to be more third world and ex-Soviet supported nations than anyone else, then I suppose the AK is the most widely used assault rifle used today. It's certainly outlived the FAL.

As far as civilian use, not many civilians own Assault Rifles of any type with the NFA hoops, high cost and such.

Wayne G.
June 20, 2007, 09:08 AM
Yes, at least accoring to the History Channel (or was it the Military Channel) top ten battle rifles of all time. AR no.2, AK no. 1!

MechAg94
June 20, 2007, 09:22 AM
It is the most numerous. Whether it is the best depends on who is using it and what for.

AZgunstudent
June 20, 2007, 09:30 AM
Why post a poll on something that can be objectively answered with ten minutes' research into AK production numbers? :uhoh:

Titan6
June 20, 2007, 09:34 AM
No. The FAL is better in every way. Also used by more countries I think.

MikeH
June 20, 2007, 09:43 AM
it seems that most industrially or economically developed nations go with something else, usually in 5.56. Most third world nations go with 7.62 AK47 type rifles, most probably second hand.

I'd say the primary factor involved was not money, but Cold War politics.

Storm
June 20, 2007, 09:45 AM
I'd chose the G3.

Mannix
June 20, 2007, 09:54 AM
AK47 type rifles are without a doubt the most produced and copied guns in the world. However the ergonomics suck, and the accuracy is only so-so, but if you're looking for something something stupid simple to operate, easy to produce, that uses the most widely available ammo out there, and reliable enough to function with the receiver half filled with gravel, the AK47 is about as good as it gets.

DogBonz
June 20, 2007, 10:01 AM
It is in terms of numbers. It is the most widely distributed and copied combat arm, but I do not think that it is the best.

trueg50
June 20, 2007, 10:18 AM
Well, you are asking for if we think it is the number one choice, than I would say no, think about it, why would the police chose an AK over an AR or mini-14 if they were all the same price and all available. The AK is popular because it is cheap and available. A History channel episode of Tales of the Gun outlined it perfectly, the M-16 is the gun of choice around the world, every freedom fighter, soldier, shooter either has one or wants one.

KINGMAX
June 20, 2007, 10:20 AM
Yes = Jmoho

SlamFire1
June 20, 2007, 10:24 AM
Don't own a AK. When they drop to the $250.00 range I will get one, they are too cheaply built to justify more money.

But anyway, when you look at the design and talk to Americans who have encountered the thing, yes, the AK is the best assault battle rifle in the second half of the 20th Century.

I would agree that it is not the most accurate, but since when is accuracy taught in the military?. They have been shooting at targets on the 1000 inch range (25 yards) since the 60's! If you look at current training in Iraqi, you see pictures of guys learning to shoot while running, at targets like 15 yards away, or learning to shoot from the port hole in a HMMWV shelter at 70 mph. As a target shooting bud of mine, who was deployed said, when you are shooting through a six inch hole and the driver is taking evasive action, there ain't much accurate shooting going on.

The AK excells at reliability. That is the most important function of a weapon. Governments, including our own, will not put up the money to train soldiers to shoot, and will not train soldiers to operate or maintain their weapons (remember Fueler Private Benjamin? her weapon “jammed” and she did not know how to clear it). While these things are being worked on now, the bean counters will always prevail and training will be cut to nothing in the Post War years. What is needed is robust weapon design, and the AK provides that.

I have two anecdotal stories about AK’s. One from a Special Forces Bud in Vietnam. For whatever reason, a dirt road was being leveled and the Caterpillar tractor blade dug up a VC. The VC had been buried by a shell burst and was three months rotten. My friend picked the dead man’s AK, racked the bolt, and fired the weapon. I assume until the magazine was empty. That is fantastic weapon design.

The other story came from a Marine Reserve guy who was in first wave in the invasion of Iraqi. There were AK’s all over the place. They played with one, removing the top cover I guess, but they poured handfills of local sand into the mechanism and it would not jam. Considering he told me that the Marines had to clean their M16’s three times a day in that area or that mechanism would jam, I would consider the AK a better battle rifle.

RevolvingCylinder
June 20, 2007, 10:48 AM
The Kalashnikov is an excellent and proven weapon. There is no doubting that. I don't think it's the number one choice. It's more of the standard or requirement. The weapon that is available to the most nations and the most cost effective way to equip a military. Many of these nations don't have many choices.

Koblenz
June 20, 2007, 11:03 AM
I think there is one big flaw in the semi-auto civilian versions of the AK47 that we can buy here. The bolt does not hold open on the last shot. Unless you can count your rounds while firing, you won't know when the gun is empty. This could lead to a fatal error in a self-defense senario.

George Hill
June 20, 2007, 11:58 AM
"No. The FAL is better in every way. Also used by more countries I think."
No, it isn't. As far as western countries go it is (was now, actually). But taken on a whole, around the world... no it isn't.

Eightball
June 20, 2007, 12:14 PM
Using the "search" button to find answers to your zillions of polls could provide you instant answers, as well as not feeding the trolls.

kcmarine
June 20, 2007, 01:09 PM
As far as ubiquity, yes, the Kalashnikov is the number one rifle. No other rifle comes close in production numbers. Of course, there is no #1 rifle. The M16/M4 platform is better in some situations. However, if I were to go over to Iraq to do a mission in an urban environment, I'd take the AK.

I believe that the reason why most post- industrial nations use the M16 is more Cold War politics and free world alliances than anything else. Most of the developed world belongs to at least one military alliance (like NATO), and 5.56x 45mm rifles are the preferred arm of these organizations. The M16 is one of the best rifles in this chambering, so many countries have chosen it (or have designed a rifle based on it).

Quiet
June 20, 2007, 02:07 PM
Also, keep in mind why the production numbers for the AK is so high is because during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was giving away millions of them along with the design & assistance to manufacture to any anti-capitalist group/nation in the world in order to propogate socialist revolutions through out the world.

I believe, they are now regreting that decision, since they have a hard time trying to sell the newer AK100 series, since everyone is still using/making "unlicensed" copies of the AK47 series rifles.


Most widely distributed 5.56x45mm weapon system is the M16.
Most widely distributed 7.62x51mm weapon system is the FAL.

OneShot!
June 20, 2007, 03:22 PM
I think FAL is in fact used by more armies. However, my vote was based on the fact that even when these armies around the world are using FAL and G3s they also have AKs for the para-military/police special units.

I LIKE IT!
June 20, 2007, 03:49 PM
It's a one trick pony...it's cheap.:cool:

ConfuseUs
June 20, 2007, 04:19 PM
When people name their kids after it, how could it be anything less?

Boats
June 20, 2007, 05:58 PM
The AK is a three trick pony.

It's cheap.
It's legendarily reliable
It can be built by an illiterate Pakistani in some dark nook in a tribal region.

That it has the best ergonomics ever, for left handers, is just a happy accident.

The AK is the best assault rifle for individuals. The AR is the greatest if depot level support is nearby and brass cased ammo is available.

barnetmill
June 20, 2007, 06:06 PM
100 million AK designed rifles can't be wrong.

When made with a little care they can be quite accurate. My cheap WASR-10 will shoot into about 3 MOA with issue iron sights and my 62 year eyes.

They always go bang and are tough. The ammo is still cheaper and AK's will digest any shootable ammo you can give them. They do not need much in the way of cleaning.

Major short coming is poor control during full auto for most of the .30 caliber versions.

.cheese.
June 20, 2007, 06:08 PM
yes, because it's cheap. IMO

I think if countries could afford it, they'd go with the AR though.

10-Ring
June 20, 2007, 08:30 PM
Nice round, good performance & inexpensive platform -- seems like a very cost effective way to arm a military.

Prince Yamato
June 20, 2007, 08:51 PM
I say yes. I think the line, "well, if it was so great, then why don't police and military use it in the USA" is kind of a false argument. I honestly believe the reason we don't use it is because of the Cold War stigma attached to it. I think if you equipped the entire US armed forces with Kalashnikov (47, 74, 105, dragunov) rifles, we'd have the same number of kills and relative same accuracy. I think most of our troops accuracy has to do with training and not the rifle. Personally, I'd feel just as safe and confident in their abilities if I was being defended by US troops with AKs as I would with ARs.

As for police. They're not going to take risky shots with rifles due to legal liability, so why are we spending $1000+ to give them Colt Commandos or HK entry guns when we could give them an AK for half price and get the same result? TS if it scares soccer moms. I can't imagine that an AK couldn't do the same job in a domestic room sweep that a $1000+ AR could. Accuracy beyone 200 yards wouldn't matter. And for those that consistantly shoot beyond 200 yards, spend the money you saved on AR-15s and get them a sniper rifle. I mean, for heaven's sake, they do room sweeps with shotguns. That's not a weapon used for pinpoint accuracy, why do the other guys get a bunch of expensive bullet hoses?

General Geoff
June 21, 2007, 02:14 AM
For the budget- and logistics- conscious person? Absolutely.


There are better "assault rifles" out there than the AK, but the AK will always be the benchmark by which they're measured.

Don't Tread On Me
June 21, 2007, 02:53 AM
I believe the AK-47 / AKM has been the most widely produced assault rifle in the world.

However, more nations use the M16.

That simply means that when militaries have the choice, they mostly go with the M16, even though the M16 is more than 3x the price of the AK. Now, why they do is another topic entirely. It also means that the AK-47 has been the tool of many non-uniformed combatants around the world. This great production of AK's had to be made for someone somewhere. They didn't make them for nothing.

The why of that is probably related to the low-cost of the AK above all else. No, I don't believe that the average insurgent/warlord/militaman/terrorist/guerrilla chooses the AK because they feel that it outperforms the M16 in field tests based on reliability, accuracy or effectiveness. Those issues are secondary. It's probably because the Russians and other former communist states will do anything for money and sell to anyone, whereas the West is a little more discriminating about their arms sales. It also has a lot to do with being $150 (if that) a pop vs. $600. You can arm 4 fighters with AKs for the cost of one M16. Those in charge of procurement and logistics are concerned with getting armed. They're not the types who have big military facilities with scientists and statisticians doing evaluations for years like we do. They don't have these luxuries of time and money.

Fortunately for the 3rd world unprofessional forces of the world - the AK turns out to be a damn fine assault rifle even by Western 1st world standards. They bought it for the availability and low cost, and it turns out they also get one of the best ever devised.

kcmarine
June 22, 2007, 02:58 PM
Uhhh...

Sunray
June 22, 2007, 03:35 PM
By definition, the AK is the only assault rifle in widespread use. Everything else, the M-16 family included, is a battle rifle.

Slvr Surfr
June 22, 2007, 04:00 PM
To quote the movie "Lord of War"
Nicolas Cages character Yuri Orlav:

"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."

http://unimaps.com/flags-africa/mozambique-flag.gif


And my personal other favorite is from the movie "Jackie Brown"

Samuel Jackson's character Ordell Robie:

"AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every mother****er in the room, accept no substitutes."

WolfMansDad
June 22, 2007, 06:40 PM
First, when units armed with M-16s engage units armed with AKs, the guys with the M-16s almost always win. You could argue that this is training, and a lot of it probably is. Nevertheless, it happens.

Second, inside the US, AR-pattern rifles vastly out-sell AK-pattern rifles. When people (Americans, at least) have the choice, they usually choose to spend more money and get the AR.

These two data points have to count for something. Sure, the AK is more numerous, but that doesn't mean it's better.

Prince Yamato
June 22, 2007, 09:35 PM
Second, inside the US, AR-pattern rifles vastly out-sell AK-pattern rifles. When people (Americans, at least) have the choice, they usually choose to spend more money and get the AR.

I think that may have been true in the late 80s and early 90s, but I'd really beg to differ about that today. I'm not saying ARs aren't great guns, I'm just saying I think AKs have more appeal and I think the growing number of domestic AK manufacturers speaks volumes to the gun's popularity. If AKs weren't popular, then all we'd have would be WASRs. Instead we have VEPRs and Arsenals, as well as Lancasters and Vectors. In short, the variety runs the gamut. They're practical, they're functional, they're (contrary to rumor) accurate, and hell, they're sexy. Frankly, I think that makes them the "All American Rifle". ARs still tend to be too expensive for someone just starting out with firearms ownership. There is no WASR-level AR-15. And no, WASRs are not junk, but they're pretty much all function and little on the form.

xd9fan
June 22, 2007, 11:44 PM
on numbers alone

Nomad, 2nd
June 23, 2007, 12:08 AM
By definition, the AK is the only assault rifle in widespread use. Everything else, the M-16 family included, is a battle rifle.

Umm, No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47 and the M16 rifle. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.


The M16's all over cause the US Gov't GIVES them away...

.45&TKD
June 23, 2007, 03:38 AM
I think there is one big flaw in the semi-auto civilian versions of the AK47 that we can buy here. The bolt does not hold open on the last shot.

Does this mean that the full auto AK's have a last shot bolt hold open?

DMK
June 23, 2007, 10:31 AM
By definition, the AK is the only assault rifle in widespread use. Everything else, the M-16 family included, is a battle rifle.I'd love to hear the explanation for that. :)

DMK
June 23, 2007, 10:33 AM
Quote:
"I think there is one big flaw in the semi-auto civilian versions of the AK47 that we can buy here. The bolt does not hold open on the last shot."

Does this mean that the full auto AK's have a last shot bolt hold open?
As far as I know only Yugoslavian AKs hold the bolt open on the last round. And that requires special Yugo mags at that. It would work with a semi-auto converted Yugo AK too if built properly.

Prince Yamato
June 23, 2007, 02:02 PM
As far as I know only Yugoslavian AKs hold the bolt open on the last round. And that requires special Yugo mags at that. It would work with a semi-auto converted Yugo AK too if built properly.

Actually, any AK will do that with a Yugo mag. Just look for the mags with the rib on the back and two small lines (as opposed to 2.5) above the floorplate = Yugo mag. Has the bolt catch on the follower.

MisterPX
June 23, 2007, 08:18 PM
The number one choice would have been the FAL, adopted (and paid for) by a whole lotta countires. The AK was distibuted, sometimes for free, and adopted by a handful of countries. Would you rather arm your outfit with $500 rifles, or free ones? Especially when you don't have any money.

Curare
June 23, 2007, 08:57 PM
Survey says -- yes.

Gewehr98
June 23, 2007, 09:28 PM
By definition, the AK is the only assault rifle in widespread use. Everything else, the M-16 family included, is a battle rifle.

Yeah, sure, ok. :rolleyes:

The late Ian Hogg would roll over in his grave were he to hear that.

nvshooter
June 25, 2007, 01:34 AM
I think so, in terms of sheer numbers produced. I was at the NRA museum in Fairfax, Va about a month ago. The info on the gun says that easily 100 million of them have been produced by various countries in various designs. Too bad most of them weren't made here and put into the hands of US citizens...

sfmittels
June 25, 2007, 01:51 AM
Clearly, the AR is by far the more "elegant" weapon. It's got more accuracy and significantly greater flexibility to be configured for a variety of missions. We Americans like our elegance.

That said, the AK will send a 123-grain 7.62 slug down the barrel every time the trigger is pulled. Parts tolerances are so loose that you can create a Frankengun, mixing parts made in a dozen different countries. And it will still shoot. Beat it, whip it, kick it, drive over it, it will still shoot. Required training time is zilch. No, it's not terribly accurate, especially the many Frankenguns that are out there.

So, which is better? It depends on whether you're outfitting a trained, professional army that will train with and maintain the weapon; or whether you're outfitting a bunch of villagers who are intended to be cannon fodder anyway - they can spray and pray all day, and once in a while they'll hit something if the volume of fire and ammo supply is adequate.

TimboKhan
June 25, 2007, 02:02 AM
However, more nations use the M16.

Nope. Not even close. The AK is used by several larger nations, and virtually every backwater s-hole uses them almost exclusively. The AK-47 is hands down the most prolific battle/assault rifle ever created and issued.

The number one choice would have been the FAL, adopted (and paid for) by a whole lotta countires. The AK was distibuted, sometimes for free, and adopted by a handful of countries. Would you rather arm your outfit with $500 rifles, or free ones? Especially when you don't have any money.

Well, if my roommate had wings, he could fly. The question wasn't what they wanted, it's what is. The FAL was at no point in it's history more prolific as a issued rifle than the AK.

MisterPX
June 25, 2007, 02:25 AM
The OP was CHOICE, if you can't afford something, you don't have much of a choice. Did all these 3rd world countries say "we WANT AK's', or did they just take their only option, free ones?

TimboKhan
June 25, 2007, 04:12 AM
Well, Russia obviously chose it, and my guess is that if Russia chose it, a lot of other countries actively chose it as well. Whether the thing was free or not is sort of immaterial, because cost obviously has some bearing on what a country will choose. If M-4's cost $350,000.00 dollars apiece, we would still be using M16A2's. Anyway, cost, reliability, ammo availability, and ability to get large numbers of weapons easily all lead me to say that the AK is still the king of the hill. I don't buy that certain countries had only one option. Maybe they excercised the free option, but I guarantee that they could have gotten "better" weapons if they really wanted them. Heck, there are civilians in this country who can afford any gun they want that choose the AK.

cracked butt
June 25, 2007, 09:07 AM
Number 1 assault rifle?
Number 1 assault rifle found in the hands of dead soldiers/insurgents maybe.

SoCalShooter
June 25, 2007, 01:13 PM
Its only #1 because its cheap and reliable and does not require much training to operate.

TimboKhan
June 25, 2007, 01:25 PM
I would challenge all the people that say that an AK doesn't require much training to operate. No gun really requires much training to operate. To operate it well, thats where the training comes in, but I think you could give anybody a FAL, an M16, an AUG or whatever else give them 5 minutes basic instruction on how to load it, reload it, clear a jam and look down the sights and send them off on there merry way.

kcmarine
June 25, 2007, 01:28 PM
Well, Timbo, I think they're talking about how to break it apart and clean it. The M16 is a bit more complicated than the AK.

But then again, the AK had to be simple. You had a bunch of conscripts with questionable technical skills being equipped with them.

ATC
June 25, 2007, 01:31 PM
Absolutely. Substance over style, IMO.

Cannonball888
June 25, 2007, 03:42 PM
It's the poor governments' rifle of choice.

TimboKhan
June 25, 2007, 06:45 PM
M16 isn't hard at all. Push pin. Tilt reciever. Remove charging handle and bolt. Clean. Do that in reverse and it's back together. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to keep an AR running....

KINGMAX
June 25, 2007, 07:08 PM
The AK- 47 can be found in every conflict in the world. I have 3 AK's, and one SKS-YUGO type. The round has been proven to be a 'man-killer'. It has taken it's place on a country's flag. :eek: It has a specific sound, :fire:announces it's presence. :evil: It was desinged to stand abuse and neglect. A farmer/fighter could lay this weapon down in mud, pick it up with his muddy hands and do business. :mad: They are simple to break down, very little MP. Rinse it off with what ever you have(water, windex, kersone), wipe it down. Run a boot string w/ some type of slick-um on it through the short barrell. Accurate, well yes, from just enough to on the money, which ever one you might get.:cuss:

soul_rapier
June 25, 2007, 07:28 PM
I'm with the ak guys on this i have both and my ak's have less problems then my ar's .....ak's will jamm after 1500 rounds and not cleaning them but that could be that crappy wolf ammo i use in them ... after i got a few 1000 rounds shot threw my ar's they stopped jamming as much but that could go back to the crappy wolf ammmo again ....the ak has got the ar beat hands down more of them have been made . i like abusing my weapons to see what you can or can't do with them but ya got to remember any gun thats gas operate will jam its just a matter of time before they do but they may never just remember that

Nomad101bc
June 25, 2007, 08:14 PM
At a distance of 100 yards the M-16 can still hit near a bulls eye at 100 yards the AK-47 cant even hit the paper. An AK-47 is very similair to a submachine gun. The shot devaition on an AK is horrible because of the loading system, If your looking for close range support and effectiveness within a range of 100 yards and unmatched accuracy i'd recomend our police force use .45 cal. CX-4 carbines. Ultimately the m-16A2's are better for a well trained army but I wish they would go back to the larger caliber centerfire rounds like that of the m-14.

Nomad, 2nd
June 25, 2007, 08:28 PM
At a distance of 100 yards the M-16 can still hit near a bulls eye at 100 yards the AK-47 cant even hit the paper. An AK-47 is very similair to a submachine gun. The shot devaition on an AK is horrible because of the loading system,

Stand at 200 and I'll put one in your chest with a WASR10...
(NOT a threat...)

I've done HEAD SHOTS OFFHAND at 100...

cslinger
June 25, 2007, 08:31 PM
At a distance of 100 yards the M-16 can still hit near a bulls eye at 100 yards the AK-47 cant even hit the paper. An AK-47 is very similair to a submachine gun. The shot devaition on an AK is horrible because of the loading system,

I can do better then "get on the paper at 100 yards" with my crappy AK. My good AK will damn site group at 100 yards.

An AK in good hands can most certainly be effective out to 200+ yards. Is it as accurate as an AR, not likely but it certainly isn't buckshot at 100 yards either.

Cosmoline
June 25, 2007, 08:36 PM
The recent Dr. Who episode "Utopia" was set at the very end of the universe, when most of the stars are extinct and the last survivors cling to subsistence life. I was amused to see that they were still using AK-47's.

cslinger
June 25, 2007, 08:41 PM
Mark my words when man goes to the stars he there will be AKs, 12 bores lever guns and .357 revolvers with him.

ATC
June 25, 2007, 10:47 PM
I used to think AKs couldn't hit paper at 100 until I bought one on a whim. I have 6 of them now.

I might eventually replace the AR I sold to buy one of my Bulgy 74s if I find one I like enough. It's hard for me to get excited about an AR after 12 years in the Army, though.

<shrug>

TimboKhan
June 26, 2007, 02:29 AM
At a distance of 100 yards the M-16 can still hit near a bulls eye at 100 yards the AK-47 cant even hit the paper. An AK-47 is very similair to a submachine gun. The shot devaition on an AK is horrible because of the loading system,

For the love of pete, I feel like I am becoming some sort of AK apologist or something. Anyway, the above statement is dead wrong. AK's are perfectly accurate at 100 yards and further. Perhaps they don't have the pinpoint accuracy of the AR, but they certainly have usable accuracy. As far as the coppers using .45 caliber carbines, all I can say is I disagree. Why would the cops use the .45 in a carbine round when there are plenty of better options? I got nothing against the Beretta per se and certainly nothing against the .45, but the .45 just isn't a great option when compared to the growing number of cartridges being adapted to the AR platform.

MisterPX
June 26, 2007, 12:39 PM
So who's hosting a cook out so we can all sit around drinkin beers eatin steaks and talkin about this? :D

kcmarine
June 26, 2007, 01:01 PM
So who's hosting a cook out so we can all sit around drinkin beers eatin steaks and talkin about this?

No beah foh me. Undah age. No hahd liquah. No wine. No bwandy. No alcohol.

Just the pahps.

MIL-DOT
June 27, 2007, 09:07 PM
seems to me it boils down to the following pros (rather than cons) of each:
AR-15 : it's (more) accurate and lightweight (rifle AND ammo & mags)
AK-47: it's cheaper ,less complicated ,less fragile,ultra-reliable,and has a more lethal round.
in combat....i mean a hiding-behind-trees-and-sandbags FIREFIGHT...
i'd rather have my AK than my AR.
and so should you !! ;)

gopguy
June 28, 2007, 10:30 AM
The AK is number one in use because the Russians handed them out for decades at little or no cost to left leaning guerillas all over the world. Millions of them. It is not the most refined, it is not the best as far as accuracy, human engineering leaves much to be desired. Reliable, yeah, you bet but many other short comings. But pure numbers, it beats everything else. After all would you buy a rifle for several hundred dollars like an AR when someone will GIVE you a Kalashnikov? People love freebies.

nvshooter
June 28, 2007, 12:43 PM
I can dig it, cracked butt!!

If you enjoyed reading about "Is AK47 number 1 assualt rifle around world?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!