[Nightcrawler]

Told about firing the M16 on full auto with the stock on the forehead. Guy tried it with an M16, said he had a headache. Narrator says that trying that would've killed the user. :rolleyes:

They also fired an AK and an M16 at a target at (I think) 100 meters on semiauto. Only one AK round tagged the target, so they lauded the inaccuracy of the weapon.

Geez. You can't hit a human sized target with a Kalashnikov at 100 meters, that sounds like an operator problem. Perhaps they neglected to zero the sights?

That's the problem with these kinds of shows. You get a lot of bad info.

Oh, another great piece of info: "faster rounds are more accurate". Okay, I guess that explains why they use...oh, wait, most match ammunition uses heavier, slower bullets, doesn't it....huh...

Anybody else watching this?

[Tamara]

You don't get enough AR vs. AK nattering here on THR, so you go watch it on TeeVee too?

:uhoh:

[Nightcrawler]

Nah, I turned it off. I don't mind the nattering, so long as they get their facts straight. I mean, the AK isn't exactly a match rifle, but implying that it can't hit a man-sized target at 100 meters? Puh-LEEZE.

I DO NOT WANT TO TURN THIS THREAD INTO ANOTHER AK VS AR HOOPLAH. Please, for the LOVE of GOD, people. I've got a pretty good track record of not getting my threads locked, so don't jinx it for me.

Just wondering if anybody else saw this show.

[Tamara]

My post was supposed to be funny... :o

[Nightcrawler]

Yeah, I know. Mine too. Real dry sense of humor, neh?

'Sides. Got a fever or some such nonsense going on. Little slow on the draw tonight, if you follow.

[444]

It sounds like you should have left it on for the laugh value.

Who was doing the shooting ? A blind man ?

[rugerfreak]

The range was 200 yds. Which I can hit a 10 inch gong at that range offhand with either my AR or AK---with great regularity.

Their test was BS.

[Triad]

What was the name of the show?

[Dave R]

Show's name is "Greatest Military Clashes" on Discovery Channel.

I thought it was pretty good. They also did Spitfire vs. Bf 109, Sherman vs. Tiger, etc. I liked the format. Interviews with real users, real tests, historical context, etc. I recommend it.

[Andrew Wyatt]

faster rounds are more accurate

well, that's sorta true. faster rounds shoot flatter, and have less holdover at extended ranges, meaning their point blank is farther away, which means it's easier to hit something just by aiming at it.

[SteelyDan]

Since I live for this stuff, I watched it too.:) I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they said at the beginning that the M-16 barrel is made out of fiberglass. The rest made more sense: AK more reliable under adverse conditions, M-16 more accurate.

[C.R.Sam]

First post....
Narrator said shootin the AK from forehead might have killed the shooter.

Full auto accuracy test was where the AK sucked.

Wonder how many of us on THR have fired a real AK-47.
Not me.
Have used the M-16 tho and it's pretty controllable. Very controllable considering how light and how much firepower.

Don't want either one tho.

Rather have a subgun or a rifle.

I think it is a great show....lots of good stuff in it and just enough mistakes to keep one on their toes.

Sam

[Nightcrawler]

I dunno, Sam, I could've SWORE the AK operator was firing semiauto.

[IRONFIST]

About the only part of the show that I found interesting was when they did a live-fire comparison between the .223 and the 7.62x39, and thru different materials. A cinder block had a neat hole drilled thru it by the .223 and the AK round shattered it. Then some blocks of wood were shot at and the .223 failed to penetrate and again, the AK round pounded right thru. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be shot with an AR15/M16 anytime soon, but the comparison between the two cartridges and calibers was enlightening.

Michael

[boing]

The accuracy test was semi-auto, 200 yards (or meters). The shooter blew it, judging by the close up of his trigger jerking finger. :rolleyes:

The fiberglass barrel comment was from the curator of a Russian museum, or historical armory, or some such, in reference to the fragility of the M16 in butt-stroking. I suspect it was a mis-translation, and the guy was talking about the handguards, not the barrel.

Typical TeeVee gun stuff, but pretty entertaining, anyway.

The interviews with vets were a highlight (as they usually are).

[Mike Irwin]

The ENTIRE series of "military clashes" was just LOADED with complete and total bull:cuss:!

There's a thread in General Discussion in which I really unloaded...

[Triad]

Now that I've seen the show I have to agree with Mike Irwin's assesment from general disc.

[444]

IRONFIST
That was an interesting part of the show, and something that is well known to be true. That is the reason that the AR15 carbine is rapidly becoming the choice of police as a patrol carbine and also replacing the submachine gun for SWAT teams and the like. Cinder blocks are not human flesh, neither are 4x4s. Neither has any relevance to what the bullet does to a person when hit. I think it could be successfully argued that the 5.56mm inflicts more damage on flesh and bone due to it's higher velocity and fragmentation; BUT, it won't overpenetrate. In the urban setting, the 5.56 round will not penetrate through the target and then through the walls of the building. It will penetrate ballistic armor yet not skip on down the street after a miss. The fact that the bullet comes apart in the target or after hitting a hard object is a desireable feature. It increases the wounding potential and makes the round safer for people you don't want to hit. The show missed the point that having the bullet expend all it's energy into the target is a good thing.
In a military setting, this trait isn't always as desireable. In a military setting you need to be able to shoot through cover. However, I don't think that shooting through cover is going to be very successful in any caliber or bullet configuration. And in urban environments the overpenetration issue rears it's ugly head again.
I am not sure which should win that round. I don't think their test proves anything one way or the other. It shows the AK having more penetration which is good sometimes, and it shows the M16 having no overpenetration and expending all it's energy in the target which is good sometimes. While at the same time, both characteristics are bad sometimes.

[Tamara]

Sherman vs. Tiger

*snicker*

Did they also do "Stuka vs. Flying Fortress"? How about "Gloster Gladiator vs. Me-262"? Maybe "PT Boat vs. Yamato"? "M2 HMG vs. P-08 Luger"?

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Was thinking that myself.

A more valid assessment would have been Sherman VS Panzer.

[Daniel Watters]

There were a couple of gems. For instance, how about the slow-motion footage of the AK? At the end of the recoil stroke, the bolt carrier and gas piston were flopping like a beached fish. The mag waggled quite a bit as well. It is amazing that the whole thing doesn't rattle itself apart.

And speaking of that, did anyone else notice the brief archival footage of a VC's AK attempting to field-strip itself during a burst? :eek:

[SodaPop]

I haven't found the history channel to be very accurate with firearms either.

I forget which show I heard them say the Beretta held 14 or 17rds compared to the 1911 holidng 7rds.

[Dain Bramage]

How about the usual WWII scenario of a Tiger vs. 5 Shermans with air support?

Although, to be fair, the Tiger I was not the invincible juggernaut usually described, and Tiger II's were about as mobile as me jogging.

The first Tiger I encountered by the west, in north Africa, was taken by a 6 pdr anti-tank gun with a shot to the side. The Brits had some intel on what they were going to encounter.

[Mike Irwin]

The Gladiator vs the Me-262 would actually be a good one for a critical examination of this type.

The Gladiator was actually an EXCELLENT design, and went on to over a decade's service with a number of airforces around the world, including the air arm of the Isralie Defense Force.

[rock jock]

*snicker*
Why the derision? I thought it was a pretty good discussion of the two tanks. Of course, my knowledge of WWII equipment is near nil.

[Destructo6]

And speaking of that, did anyone else notice the brief archival footage of a VC's AK attempting to field-strip itself during a burst?
Didn't notice that, but did notice that the VCs had their safeties on while suppossedly shooting at incoming UH1s. Gotta love incompetent propaganda.

[Rob96]

Posted by 444
Cinder blocks are not human flesh, neither are 4x4s. Neither has any relevance to what the bullet does to a person when hit. I think it could be successfully argued that the 5.56mm inflicts more damage on flesh and bone due to it's higher velocity and fragmentation; BUT, it won't overpenetrate.
This is very true. it has been said that the 7.62x39 fmj is a more humane, if that can be said, round than 5.56 M193. Whe going thru flesh the 7.26x39 zips thru and thru, 5.56 on the other hand, fragments and cause a lot of tissue damage.

[Hutch]

Yeah, I caught that top cover coming loose on the shooter. I wonder how close he was to eating the bolt?

It was fairly entertaining, as someone else noted, to see both of 'em firing full auto on super slo-mo. There was a little vibration on the M16, but the AK looked like it was a helicopter (A collection of parts, flying in close formation). No wonder I couldn't hit anything with it on the rental range at Knob Creek. I thought it was my own lack of experience with F/A fire. I like having an excuse....

[brooks]

I thought the program was well done and interesting. Off hand shooting at 200 yrds. demonstrated better accuracy in favor the M 16, better accuracy in full auto and pointed out AK 47's advantage when dirty. What's new?

Catch the program if you have a chance. It will surely be repeated many times.

[IRONFIST]

A succinct and well thought-out assessment, 444. Very nice.


Michael in Sandy, Oregon/Owner of IronWolf Industries

[Dr.Rob]

Full of glaring innacuracies. However a few cool things:

Slow mo photography shows the AK cleaning rod flopping all over.. never would have thought that was a problem.

Russian engineer saying "yes the M-16 is a rifle, our rifle is also a Club".

Kalashnikov saying "My designs are simple and reliable, that is the artistry."

The reinactment where the VC shoots the guy through the tree.

Horrid moments:

think the guy shooting the AK had never handled a rifle the way he was yanking that trigger. (That or it was intentional).

faster bullets are more accurate!Well, only if you mean a higher velocity round that wieghs less has less drop at the same range, however its also affected by drift.

"Only bad illiterate conscript thrid world scumbags use the AK." photo montage at the end.

[Mike Irwin]

"well, that's sorta true. faster rounds shoot flatter, and have less holdover at extended ranges, meaning their point blank is farther away, which means it's easier to hit something just by aiming at it."

But that's not accuracy, Andrew.

You can certainly hit your target more easily because you have a much greater point-blank-range, but that says NOTHING about the rifle's or the round's inherent accuracy potential.

If faster were TRULY more accurate, the .220 Swift would be the most accuract rifle round ever produced, the .45-70 would be one of the least accurate.

Yet both are capable of turning in groups well under 1".

[JohnKSa]

Yeah, I caught that top cover coming loose on the shooter. I wonder how close he was to eating the bolt?
The AK can be fired safely without the top cover. As long as you don't get fingers where they don't belong.

[Tankist]

Came across this the other day. Since its kinda on topic. Thought some guys here might find this interesting.

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m16vsak47.htm

[Gabe]

Re: the speed and accuracy thing.


It's just semantics, higher velocity translate to higher HIT PROBABILITY. This is not the same as accuracy, but since the program was meant for general audiences they probably didn't want to get too technical.

I think we're being too hard on the show, I mean how often do you get to see AK versus M-16 on TV? It was "docutainment" afterall, not a Congressional report. It got the main facts right, showed me somethings I didn't know, entertained me. I'm a happy camper :)

[Abominable No-Man]

ACT VII

Abominable No-Man enters, stage right, sees Mike Irwin, Dr. Rob, Tamara, and everyone else talking. ANM starts toward the group, only then realizing it's another AKvs.AR discussion. ANM snickers, then exits stage left.

On his way out, he calls out:

"Where is the 9mm vs. 45 discussion?":neener:

ANM

Seriously guys, aren't there enough of these around?

[Mike Irwin]

"I think we're being too hard on the show, I mean how often do you get to see AK versus M-16 on TV?"

Well, with all due respect, that makes one of you, Gabe.

And I didn't see a show on the M-16 vs the AK-47.

I saw a show on bull:cuss: vs. crapola.

[RustyHammer]

I mean how often do you get to see AK versus M-16 on TV?"

Got that right ...

and, it sure beats the heck out of "The 5 guy guys and the straight guy who's afraid to drop the soap" ... whatever it's really called. :neener:


:D

Rusty

[Futo Inu]

Yeah, Nightcrawler, did you catch the part that said that [paraphrasing] "The AR is more accurate because the bullet's velocity is higher. A faster bullet is always more accurate". Huh? Learned me sumpin' new. :scrutiny:

Edit: Oops, I see this has been discussed. Gotta start readin all the posts first...

[Nightcrawler]

Yeah, I know. That's why, you know, you can't hit the broad side of a barn with a .45ACP. :uhoh:

[Feanaro]

Anything on TeeBee should be distrusted from the start, anything said about firearms doublely so.