Military Channel showing about AK 47


PDA






nathan
December 29, 2011, 01:03 AM
The show is entitled Triggers that Changed the World.

If you enjoyed reading about "Military Channel showing about AK 47" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
leadcounsel
December 29, 2011, 02:32 AM
Watching it now... decent show. Some theatrics and wrong information.

At the 28 minute mark they are comparing the M14 against the AK47. Problem is they show a picture of an FAL not an M14...

AK lost a shoot out match that involved precision shooting against a new SOCOM M1A with a 2x scope and bipod... yeah that was a fair challenge. Let's not mention that a Soldier can carry more AK ammo than M1A ammo....

Show painfully fails to discuss the rampant fielding problems of the M16 in Vietnam, where men died because it wasn't ready for the big game and fielded prematurely.

Show seems to say the AK is a good weapon but it loses against most other platforms... hhhmmmm...

The last skit posing the M4 vs. the AK was a weighted "feel good" deck... our "heros" Will Willis and the co-host went up with simunitions against badguys with AKs, who used bafoon tactics.... it's no surprise the M4 won the day...

Fails to mention lower cost, or push home ease of maintenance, simplicity of use, etc.

Eh, it was a good show, but the merits of the AK weren't exploited very well.

The-Reaver
December 29, 2011, 03:07 AM
I've already decided I didn't like that show. The first two just didn't do it for me. & now this with the AK naa. I'm good
thanks for offering though Military channel.

Gunnerboy
December 29, 2011, 06:37 AM
Its American propaganda what did you expect something thats not American and always better to win ?

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 29, 2011, 06:49 AM
Show painfully fails to discuss the rampant fielding problems of the M16 in Vietnam, where men died because it wasn't ready for the big game and fielded prematurely.

Show seems to say the AK is a good weapon but it loses against most other platforms... hhhmmmm...

The last skit posing the M4 vs. the AK was a weighted "feel good" deck... our "heros" Will Willis and the co-host went up with simunitions against badguys with AKs, who used bafoon tactics.... it's no surprise the M4 won the day...

simplicity of use

The M16 platform has changed a lot over the past 50 years and gotten a lot better. The AK has not. And I'm not talking about quality of build or accuracy list most of these arguments. AKs have the charging handle of the right hand side, have no bolt lock open feature unless you mod the rifle, and the magazines do not drop free when the lever is pushed. It takes longer to change magazines, charge the weapon, and actuate the safety; and you have to completely change your shooting grip to do any of these actions. That makes it inferior to the M4 as a combat rifle where operating you weapon in a quick and efficient manner is paramount. The M4/M16 has more than made up for it's reliably shortcomings over the past few decades. But the flaws of the AK are built into the entire concept of the weapon itself and really cannot be improved.

The M16/M4 has the safety, magazine release, and charging handle in intuitive and easy to use places. Each control is at your fingertips and can be used without letting go of the grip or even taking the gun off target. You can drop the magazine with one finger while you're reaching for the next mag, all without changing anything about your grip. You cannot do this with the AK. That's bad.

madcratebuilder
December 29, 2011, 06:59 AM
The show is entitled Triggers

The show got it's name because the writer, producer, director is a stuffed animal named Tigger. WW does OK with the piss poor info he is given, but the facts are not part of the script. I was very disappointed with the first episode I watched.

The Sarge
December 29, 2011, 07:58 AM
The show was painfully inaccurate. Biased and an insult to accuracy.

nathan
December 29, 2011, 08:54 AM
I thnk they were showing the CHicom Type 56 which i was glad . That looks like GSAD import of the early 80s. A true replica of PLA issue AKs.
NOw the story is scripted. They dont want people to think its an accurate rifle, pure bs. In the trained hands it can hit man sized targets quite easily.
They were clearly praising the HK 416 M 4 the SEALs were using to take out Bin Ladin. And for the new M14 with scope that was a big mismatch. Old iron sights of the AK vs a decked out modern day M 14.

fpgt72
December 29, 2011, 09:07 AM
I have had to give this show a pass as well, the only one I will watch now is Gun Stories.

I guess if you are starting out it will give you some info, but it does quite a bit to further the "black rifle" is the end all be all.

Ben86
December 29, 2011, 12:02 PM
That show was a joke. It was so biased against the AK it wasn't funny.

AK lost a shoot out match that involved precision shooting against a new SOCOM M1A with a 2x scope and bipod... yeah that was a fair challenge. Let's not mention that a Soldier can carry more AK ammo than M1A ammo....

My wife, who isn't really into guns, even noticed that. Not to mention you can put a scope on an AK!

Its American propaganda what did you expect something thats not American and always better to win ?

I am patriotic, but that did seem like "Their AK sucks" propaganda.

I just wanted the show to help me learn more about the AK, not be AK vs "random rifle" on Broadway. I didn't learn a damn thing. That was silly in the extreme.

WALKERs210
December 29, 2011, 12:19 PM
Typical showing that US made is better, others have a loud bark and no bite. Same thing was said about the MG42, seems the MG42 almost turned the tide at a beach in Normandy. I myself didn't want anything to do with any of the AK platforms until the last year or so, I now look at how many years I wasted due to mis information.

Bobson
December 29, 2011, 12:27 PM
Its American propaganda what did you expectBiased and an insult to accuracy.I am patriotic, but that did seem like "Their AK sucks" propaganda.Most "history" as we know it today (or at least as it's taught in the American public school system) has been propagandized; ought to be no surprise.

For example, I know for a fact I was never taught that Canadians burned down part of the White House in the War of 1812 when I was in school. I would have remembered learning it, because history has always been one of my favorite subjects - especially history about wars. A Canadian friend mentioned it when I was 23 or so; I didn't even believe him until I looked it up.

InkEd
December 29, 2011, 12:28 PM
Some of those disadvantages aren't really disadvantages or problems. If you're lefty the AK is way more intuitive. I know the majority of people are right handed so let's look further...

A lever-lock design magazine is still more secure than a button release.

A bolt hold open is overrated. There I said it.

The charging handle is on the left because that's the side you want it to eject brass. This is normal on side cocking weapons. Look at the Sig 550 and others.

The M-16/M-4 platform has improved greatly. IMHO they are now a good service rifle. It is what it should have been in the first place.

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 29, 2011, 01:28 PM
When your life depends on getting a fresh mag into the weapon and ready to fire as soon as possible, having to recharge the weapon is wasted time. So a bolt that locks back and can just be released forward without changing the grip is a great thing to have. Being able to get the bolt out of the way to clear malfunctions can also be a lifesaver.

leadcounsel
December 29, 2011, 10:47 PM
While I agree that the drop free feature and the bolt hold-open feature are ideal, proper training make the difference in time negligible.

I prefer the dead-nuts reliability and hard-punch of the AK for CQB.

The drop free feature is addressed by your left hand reaching for the lever and pulling out the mag simultaneously. You can drop the mag or repouch it. Since most Soldiers are taught to keep mags anyway, there's no material difference in the maneuver.

The right side charging handle is also immaterial. For a right handed shooter, you either reach over or under to charge the rifle. This can be better than the T-handle, which can be ackward ...

Both are great platforms, but back on point of the OP, the show was lacking and I can't believe such crap makes TV.

cacoltguy
December 29, 2011, 10:55 PM
You guys need to relax. I didn't detect any rampant bias. I saw some inaccuracies as well, but the guy basically told the strong and weak points of both systems (AK: More reliable, better knock-down power at closer ranges AR: More accurate, lighter-weight etc.)

It's imperative to remember that these shows are designed with the average person in mind and that person isn't necessarily a gun expert. I say if it gets more American citizens interested in firearms then all the better. If the show consisted of a guy shooting rounds off of a bench, through a chronograph and comparing the results, you would probably have a grand total of 50 guys from THR viewing (most likely still complaining about bias and incompetence) and it would go off the air in one season. I give the Military channel props for making shows like this.

Oh yeah, I don't own any AK's or AR weapons so I could care a less about having a horse in this race.

JHenry
December 29, 2011, 11:48 PM
Lets compare the Ar-15 with the AN-94, thats a little more fair.

Bobson
December 30, 2011, 12:16 AM
Never heard of the AN-94.

JHenry
December 30, 2011, 12:27 AM
pretty much the pinacle of the AK design. It was too expensive to be put into full production though.

Imagine an ak74 that shot two round bursts that had no recoil until the second round has already left.

Point being the ak47 is very outdated and if they put it against some of the more advanced kalishnikovs it wouldnt be such a lop-sided argument

Ben86
December 30, 2011, 01:11 AM
The drop free feature is addressed by your left hand reaching for the lever and pulling out the mag simultaneously.

Thank you. So many people seem to think it takes 2 hands to remove the mag in an AK47. The thumb of the off hand presses the lever and you simply pull the mag out. Not a big deal.

I admit inserting the magazine gave me trouble at first, having to get the right angle and rock it in correctly. It's easy to get the hang of though. The only thing I don't like is the clumsy safety, but it's not hard to work with.

For example, I know for a fact I was never taught that Canadians burned down part of the White House in the War of 1812 when I was in school.

I learned that in 8th grade, but you do have a valid point. History is seen through rose colored glasses.

You guys need to relax.

Oh yeah, I don't own any AK's or AR weapons so I could care a less about having a horse in this race.

No offense but your opinion is somewhat irrelevant if you haven't experienced either.

cacoltguy
December 30, 2011, 03:10 AM
"No offense but your opinion is somewhat irrelevant if you haven't experienced either."


Uh Ben, no its not since I am commenting on the content of the show and not discussing the benefits of the weapon systems. I have carried an AR design for a living for the last 13 years though. It's a decent weapon, just never fell in love with it enough to want to buy one of my own.

Secondly, the Host and Co-host were pretty clear about the scope giving a big advantage to the railed M-14 in the coconut test in terms of accuracy. Even so, I dont think too many people would claim an AK is a better design for precision or long range shooting. Instead they focused more on the higher energy levels of the .308 versus the 7.62x39. They also noted the advantage the AK had in terms of magazine capacity. All I'm saying is that by nature, this show is designed for the average viewer who has little or no experience with firearms or experienced people who just want to watch gun related TV shows. The differences in weapons were painted in broad strokes but for the most part the generalizations were true IMO.

At any rate I was discussing people's unrealistic expectations of a gun TV show and not debating the merits of an AK vs. AR vs. M14 etc.

animator
December 30, 2011, 10:21 AM
Finally got to watch this show.. and it was as disappointing as I had imagined...



All I want from a history show is for it to be entertaining, factually accurate, and as unbiased as possible.



At best, this show was only mildly entertaining. Forget about factual accuracy or bias...

fpgt72
December 30, 2011, 11:10 AM
The problem with these shows are we are too close to the subject. They are not history shows but shows for entertainment that have something to do with history. It is like saying the movie Fly Boys was a history movie.

I think I could over look many of the things in this show if it was not for the pretty boy host. Why can't they get a "normal" looking guy, not someone that reads his own PR stories and one that does not look like a ex-con. And how about a good attitude, not some I am so much smarter then you type guy that populates most of these type shows.

They can be fun to watch and give good info. I would bet a show like that would be the Top Gear of the gun show worlds.

aka108
December 30, 2011, 11:12 AM
There was another show, I don't remember if it was on the History Channel or the Military Channel, where the review was to determine the top 10 military rifles of the century. The AK was placed in top position above all others. So anyway, who really knows. Opinions are like * holes in that everyone has one.

fpgt72
December 30, 2011, 12:27 PM
There was another show, I don't remember if it was on the History Channel or the Military Channel, where the review was to determine the top 10 military rifles of the century. The AK was placed in top position above all others. So anyway, who really knows. Opinions are like * holes in that everyone has one.
I can see that, they built a billion of the things and handed them out like candy

mljdeckard
December 30, 2011, 12:30 PM
I watched it once. He's almost as much of a tool as that guy from Future Weapons. He's a good example of how the military really doesn't teach people much about guns at all.

Sam1911
December 30, 2011, 12:40 PM
If you're really interested in the development of military small arms as they lead up to the AK-47, why it is what it is, how it became the tool and symbol for so much good and bad in the world, and how the US's arms development programs reacted, C.J. Chivers' The Gun (http://www.amazon.com/Gun-C-J-Chivers/dp/0743271734/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1) is a great quick read on the subject. Lots of insight into the Soviet arms development collective and how Mikhail Kalashnikov became the public face of that team, and into how the M-14's and M-16's development and performance compared/contrasted.

If you're just looking for a flickering distraction to chip away a few hours of life without causing your brain to twitch or flicker in response to input... yeah, TV's good for that.

oldpapps
December 30, 2011, 12:54 PM
The show is just that, 'A Show' for the masses that know not.
It is presented as eye candy to catch and hold someones attention.
It is at the very least giving a positive light to firearms.

I give the show a 'pass'. About the only thing new is the mistakes and miss representations, and some of them give me a giggle.

Be safe.

OSOK

Renigeid
December 30, 2011, 01:53 PM
The AK platform is a great weapon. No doubts with this old guy. Have one and would like to have more.

nathan
December 30, 2011, 02:02 PM
Its without a doubt the AK is an old school design with crude looking controls . But it works and nice thing is--- it has a bigger punch on target.

black_powder_Rob
December 30, 2011, 02:03 PM
This concept has defiantly been done before. Think "Lock N' Load with R.Lee Ermey" I loved that show and all the weapons he shows on there always got a fair shake.

HKGuns
December 30, 2011, 02:12 PM
I like the show. It isn't intended for the experienced crowd. Any show that increases the knowledge of firearms is good for everyone. The AK got more than a fair shake on that show and there were really pretty good comparisons.

animator
December 30, 2011, 02:33 PM
I like the show. It isn't intended for the experienced crowd. Any show that increases the knowledge of firearms is good for everyone. The AK got more than a fair shake on that show and there were really pretty good comparisons.




I failed to see any comparisons that I'd consider to be "good".



They compared a scoped socom with an AK. That's like comparing a Lamborghini with a mini-van.

Next issue is they compared the rifles with two different shooters. What if the guy shooting the AK is a dead-nuts good shot, and the guy shooting the M14 sucks? Does that mean the AK is more accurate?

During the M1 Garand run-through, the Garand had a malfunction. The AK was never shown to malfunction, so does that mean the AK is better than the "gun that won WWII"?

They also didn't fire the weapons in "battlefield-like" conditions. No sand, mud, dirt or water tests to compare each rifle. Each rifle looked fairly cleaned and taken care of.

There was no comparisons with full-auto rates of fire.

Other than weight differences, they made no comment of any ergonomic advantages one rifle would have over the other.


So for me, all the show was, was two guys talking about guns and occasionally running around shooting stuff.

HKGuns
December 30, 2011, 02:52 PM
Relax guy, it is a TV show. I thought the comparisons were more than interesting. They weren't performing endurance tests, or qualifying them for Military trials.

Guess what? You're entitled not to watch the show.:what:

fpgt72
December 30, 2011, 02:59 PM
Relax guy, it is a TV show. I thought the comparisons were more than interesting. They weren't performing endurance tests, or qualifying them for Military trials.

Guess what? You're entitled not to watch the show.:what:
And I have stopped...I still DVR it and will try to watch but I just can't.

My problem is that we have all fallen into the....well it is good because it does not make guns look bad....

That is just a bad argument....suns of guns, american guns, triggers....all these shows are pure garbage. I think if there was a good fact based show on it would hold viewers, but I think those that put on the shows feel the need to "dress it up" as the subject is too dry.

Sam1911
December 30, 2011, 03:31 PM
My problem is that we have all fallen into the....well it is good because it does not make guns look bad....

That is just a bad argument....
Couldn't agree more.

I think if there was a good fact based show on it would hold viewers, but I think those that put on the shows feel the need to "dress it up" as the subject is too dry. If you tried to put on a half-hour or hour-long program on prime-time TV, and filled it with facts, insightful commentary from impartial experts, and truly representative demonstrations of factors of any importance, you'd lose 1/3 of the time for the host to repeatedly stop, turn to the audience at home and say, "Look, I'm sorry but please try to keep up..." :rolleyes:

fpgt72
December 30, 2011, 03:57 PM
I don't think so, for the topic at hand a little history leading up to the AK and AR platform, WWII, SKS, M14 sort of thing. Differences in power of the different cartridges, ballistics gel is always good for keeping people on their tv. Some shooting at different ranges with the different targets in different types of cover....all soft gewey targets. You could do a half hour show easy ( and a half hour is really about 15min) You can inform, educate, and entertain all at the same time...it can be done, and done for no more the cost of the shows now. This vs that type shows, the history of the X or Y and power of them, replacements, why replaced.....

Ehhh I am just dreaming, gun shows are always going to be the same....we (people with gun intrests) are growing segment of the population...who would not want to see real side by side or even single real reviews of the latest carry gun, a side by side with a historical carry gun like a 1903 colt.

It will never happen.

HKGuns
December 30, 2011, 04:03 PM
well it is good because it does not make guns look bad....

Please don't twist my words. That isn't what I said.....

Any show that increases the knowledge of firearms is good for everyone.

....is what I said, knowledge is a good thing, even if it isn't as deep or technically as accurate as you'd like, or presenting a position to which you agree.

There are a lot of people less knowledgeable, or worse, afraid than "some" here and it is good for that audience.

I'd much rather watch a show about these firearms than 99% of the other garbage presented.

animator
December 30, 2011, 04:43 PM
There are a lot of people less knowledgeable, or worse, afraid than "some" here and it is good for that audience.

I'd much rather watch a show about these firearms than 99% of the other garbage presented.




While I definitely don't disagree with you, the biggest issue I have with shows like this is that if they are catered to the less-knowledgeable, they need to be factually accurate. Or at least as close as possible.


Otherwise, these less-informed people may continue to perpetuate misinformation, simply because it was mentioned on the show, when in reality, it just isn't true. People tend to believe a lot more than they should, simply because they "saw it on TV".


That goes for both Pro-2a, as well as the Anti-2a groups.

Bohemus
December 30, 2011, 06:03 PM
The M16 platform has changed a lot over the past 50 years and gotten a lot better. The AK has not....

...The M16/M4 has the safety, magazine release, and charging handle in intuitive and easy to use places. Each control is at your fingertips and can be used without letting go of the grip or even taking the gun off target. You can drop the magazine with one finger while you're reaching for the next mag, all without changing anything about your grip. You cannot do this with the AK. That's bad.

The only major change I can see it the forward assist that pretends to replace proper reciprocating charging handle. But thas is more like "fix" than improvement.

ARs controls may seem intuitive, but only because you spent years training with it. Its actually the opposite - you can hardly charge your rifle with stock still in your shoulder. safety is no better - in "off" position it gets in way of trigger finger (lefthanded shooter). Magazine and bolt release are contrary to your opinion hard to reach, especialy if you are lefthanded.

Only rifle that you can just grab and shoot is Steyr AUG, dont know how they managed this but first time i shot one i could find controls exactly at the places i was intuitively searching for. Amazing.

I`am not bashing AR`s for AK`s sake, I hate both design equally :D

cacoltguy
December 30, 2011, 07:55 PM
I'm with HKGuns. You guys are expecting this show to be something it was never designed for. If you have lots of technical information and history on these weapon systems then great, but the show isn't aimed towards you and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Take it for what it is, the show gives a brief history on the weapons, shows some pros and cons, and includes some visual effect shooting (obviously not a hard-core scientific test) It's an hour-long show and isnt designed to provide a complete unadulterated history of the assault rifle complete with thousands of data points and test results from each system all the while presented by some crusty, mustached fellow regurgitating chronograph test results.

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 30, 2011, 08:23 PM
ARs controls may seem intuitive, but only because you spent years training with it. Its actually the opposite - you can hardly charge your rifle with stock still in your shoulder. safety is no better - in "off" position it gets in way of trigger finger (lefthanded shooter). Magazine and bolt release are contrary to your opinion hard to reach, especialy if you are lefthanded.

Are you arguing that a weapon designed for right-handed shooters, is poorly designed, because it doesn't work as well for left-handed shooters? Keep in mind that roughly 85-90% of the population is right handed. I would say designing a rifle to work best for that group is the best thing you can do, short of ambidextrous.

And also, I can easily charge an AR with it still on my shoulder. Still on target in fact.

JHenry
December 30, 2011, 09:59 PM
AK controls may be less advanced but they have an advantage as well. Anyone can learn AK controls in all of 10 seconds. Slam the safety down, pull the bolt back, when your rounds are gone you push the mag release and rock a new one in. The AK still has its advantages which are simplicity, reliabilty, maintinence, and ease/cost of manufactering.

USAF_Vet
December 30, 2011, 10:04 PM
For non gunnies, Triggers would be entertaining. but I found it riddled with errors and little things that didn't make sense. That the host preferred the Grease Gun over the Thompson was a *** moment for me. all in all, the show isn't horrible, if viewed in a non-gun-nut perspective.

nathan
December 30, 2011, 10:27 PM
I shoot my AK right side and left side with no problem. I m right handed but i like shooting it left hand. The trigger finger is always on the trigger and resting on the guard while my right hand inserts the mag and rack the bolt.

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 30, 2011, 10:37 PM
AK controls may be less advanced but they have an advantage as well. Anyone can learn AK controls in all of 10 seconds. Slam the safety down, pull the bolt back, when your rounds are gone you push the mag release and rock a new one in. The AK still has its advantages which are simplicity, reliabilty, maintinence, and ease/cost of manufactering.

Which is why the AK and M4 are great platforms for their respective marekts. The AK is simple and cheap. Good for third world countries with no training, no highly skilled soldiers, and no real maintenance or replacement parts. You can ship crates of them to unskilled peasants and expect the guns to work, and the peasants to mostly figure out how to use them. The M4 is a precise machine for trained soldiers who can take advantage of the rifle to its fullest. It's controls and manual of arms, while more delicate, compliment the skills of a trained soldier and allow him to be much quicker and more effective with the weapon. It takes more maintenance and cleaning, and more skill and money to produce, but when that's done, in the hands of one who has been trained to use it well, its potential is greater than that of the AK.

Robert101
December 30, 2011, 10:47 PM
I like the show and take from it those lessons I find informative. As to the validity of the AK vs the Black Rifle, I find the AK a good gun but very out-dated. My limited opinion is based upon the following:
AK Pros - 7.62 round is better than 5.62., simple design and easy to maintain.
AR Pros - light, adaptable, accurate.

And here is the kicker, I prefer the AR-10 (308) to the AR15 (5.62) variant as a true battle rifle. Special operations and clearing buildings does require special tools that are different from the every day soldier..

JHenry
December 30, 2011, 10:47 PM
Well when you compare an AK-74 to a Ar-15 its pretty much all platform preference as the 74 has a huge improvement in both accuracy and full-auto controlability over its 7.62x39 counterpart.

The most overlooked part of these AK comparisions is that, other than the introduction of stamped recievers, the AK hasnt changed much, if any, since it was introduced. The M16/M4 is on its 3rd or 4th generation now? compare the AK-47 to the orginal M16 and see who comes out on top of that :D

Either way the AK is a better weapon than most people like to give it credit for.

Side-note: A scoped m14 should be compared to a Dragunov, not an AK-47, that one is just silly

Justin
December 30, 2011, 11:03 PM
Well when you compare an AK-74 to a Ar-15 its pretty much all platform preference as the 74 has a huge improvement in both accuracy and full-auto controlability over its 7.62x39 counterpart.


You can't float the barrel on an AK. Regardless of the cartridge, that is the biggest reason why AK accuracy sucks. Once a year, we run an AK vs. AR match, and it's kind of amazing to watch the same shooter run both an AK and an AR. The match results are always quite telling, with the AKs getting handily beaten by ARs.

The most overlooked part of these AK comparisions is that, other than the introduction of stamped recievers, the AK hasnt changed much, if any, since it was introduced. The M16/M4 is on its 3rd or 4th generation now? compare the AK-47 to the orginal M16 and see who comes out on top of that

Technology marches on. While ARs have continued to be refined over the years, the underlying operating system hasn't changed. It's still a direct-impingement driven self-loading rifle. I fail to see how refinements to a system that make it more accurate, ergonomic, and easier to handle is somehow a detraction.

Either way the AK is a better weapon than most people like to give it credit for.

Better for what application and in what way?

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 30, 2011, 11:08 PM
Better for what application and in what way?

Better for arming non-soldier peasants for one. Accuracy, free floated barrels, attachment points for optics and modular pieces are lost on goat herders and rice farmers. What they do need is a rifle that can sit in a mud hut for 5 years without being taken apart and still be able to shoot it with zero military training.

Justin
December 30, 2011, 11:11 PM
The only major change I can see it the forward assist that pretends to replace proper reciprocating charging handle. But thas is more like "fix" than improvement.

Many AR pattern guns are sold without forward assists, and in any case, they're vestigial. The lack of a reciprocating bolt handle is a distinct advantage in favor of the AR, especially if you have to shoot from odd positions like, say, rollover prone.

ARs controls may seem intuitive, but only because you spent years training with it. Its actually the opposite - you can hardly charge your rifle with stock still in your shoulder. safety is no better - in "off" position it gets in way of trigger finger (lefthanded shooter). Magazine and bolt release are contrary to your opinion hard to reach, especialy if you are lefthanded.


I used to agree that the ARs charging handle was stupid. And then I realized that there's really only one time when the charging handle is used: when initially loading the gun. At no point have I ever had to use the charging handle during a course of fire. If I shoot the gun empty, it locks open, I slam a new magazine home, and hit the bolt release on the right side of the gun. Unless the gun malfunctions, there's no reason to be using the charging handle. And in the case of a malfunction, it's likely that you'd have to take the gun out of your shoulder anyway.

Justin
December 30, 2011, 11:12 PM
Better for arming non-soldier peasants for one. Accuracy, free floated barrels, attachment points for optics and modular pieces are lost on goat herders and rice farmers. What they do need is a rifle that can sit in a mud hut for 5 years without being taken apart and still be able to shoot it with zero military training.

I have zero military training. I'll still take the AR, thanks. :D

I suppose if I ever find that I'm an illiterate peasant conscript in the backwoods of Afghanistan or the Congo, I'll go with an AK.

HBrebel
December 31, 2011, 12:48 AM
decent show, definitely meant for the average joe not gun junkies like ya'll. the main thing is the man behind the weapon. A rifleman with a Mosin can destroy a gang of thugs armed with tech 9s(?). They used a lot of 'insurgent' re-enacting for the ak footage when they should have shown Russian soldiers in combat or training. My saiga was pretty accurate from the box and I have it dialed in sweet now. It ain't a sniper weapon it's a battle rifle.

JHenry
December 31, 2011, 01:35 AM
Im not bashing the AR system. The fact that you can throw on a .50 beowulf upper in a matter of minutes is amazing but the AK provides enough accuracy and ammo capacity to be a very effective tool. Theres a reason Russia has/had alot of political power throughout the world, its easy to find allies when your providing them with masses of arms and munitions.

Its not like every solider in the world is going to be highly trained and i doubt a US Marine would be rendered any less effective if we replaced the M4 with a ak-74(fat chance but...). the AK-47 changed the world, that cant be said about many other weapons

nathan
December 31, 2011, 01:46 AM
My first time to own an AK was the century SAR 1 back in 2002. I still have it to this day, mag loaded and ready to go. No hiccups or jams. Maybe 1500 rd s into it since i got it.
I also bought a pristine Arsenal milled receiver SAM 5 but sold it , wish i kept it.

Ben86
December 31, 2011, 02:01 AM
Either way the AK is a better weapon than most people like to give it credit for.

Agreed. It's often bad mouthed by people who have never experienced one, or have irrational bias. It's by know means a perfect rifle, but it's a really solid design. It's a really great rifle that a lot of people dismiss for no good reason. It's dead bolts reliable, simple and cheap to maintain, and plenty accurate enough for its medium range purpose. It's also so much fun to shoot and loves to eat super cheap steal cased ammo. ;) Ammo that my AR will not digest unfortunately.

Zombiphobia
December 31, 2011, 03:06 AM
The M-16/M-4 platform has improved greatly. IMHO they are now a good service rifle. It is what it should have been in the first place



No, it still isn't up to the challenge of real war where weapons get dirty and full of debris.

Zombiphobia
December 31, 2011, 03:17 AM
I have zero military training. I'll still take the AR, thanks.

I suppose if I ever find that I'm an illiterate peasant conscript in the backwoods of Afghanistan or the Congo, I'll go with an AK

That's very insulting and I'm neither stupid, nor from a 3rd world country and I DO have US military training. I'd rather have an AK-47 within 300 meters, room clearing, urban combat, jungle/desert/arctic/.. pretty much anything. An M16 is an ok DMR with a scope(I'd still prefer something else), but for close combat it's a POS. Gets dirty in the action, you're finished.

animator
December 31, 2011, 03:43 AM
Better for arming non-soldier peasants for one. Accuracy, free floated barrels, attachment points for optics and modular pieces are lost on goat herders and rice farmers. What they do need is a rifle that can sit in a mud hut for 5 years without being taken apart and still be able to shoot it with zero military training.
I'd be willing to bet that you could arm non-soldier peasants with an AR just as easily. But the US never tried to do that. They never needed to. ARs have never been given out like candy, so they're not quite as proliferated as the AK is.


ARs don't exactly require master's degrees to run efficiently or effectively.

Justin
December 31, 2011, 06:04 AM
Gets dirty in the action, you're finished.

That's odd. Because I've shot AR-pattern rifles in situations that had so much blowing wind and sand that my pistol stopped working, but the AR has never had an issue.

And it's not like I baby the thing. I clean my 3 gun ARs maybe a couple of times a year.

Sergeant Sabre
December 31, 2011, 06:42 AM
The M-4 / M-16 works, and works well. Clean or dirty. It has such a track record with actual professionals that this isn't even disputable (except on the internet)

No professional who takes a rifle into harms way, and also who has a choice of what rifle that will be, takes an AK. Nor does any nation who can afford to get something other than an AK choose an AK. Nor does any security contractor, even the major-league players like (former) Blackwater who have millions of spare dollars to buy anything they want, choose an AK.

As to the original topic: of course the History Channel's show on the AK was crap. All of their programming is. American Pickers? Really? What type of "history" is that? Top Shot? Ancient Aliens? Is It Real? Puh-leeeeze...

nathan
December 31, 2011, 10:56 AM
AK stlll chugging for a good sixty plus years with no let up. The only major step up was in 1974 when the AK 74 showed up.

mljdeckard
December 31, 2011, 01:59 PM
I've been a few places, done a few things under a few different environments. Never once did I wish I had something other than an M-4/M-16.

Ben86
December 31, 2011, 08:57 PM
No, it still isn't up to the challenge of real war where weapons get dirty and full of debris.

The M16/M4 has been effectively doing "real war" for a considerably long time, longer than any other U.S. service rifle. Those rifles get really dirty in the "sand box" and keep cranking along with minimal care. I love AKs, but as far as reliability (with good ammo) I consider it a draw. Both designs work very well, although I am partial to the piston system (but for other reasons than reliability). The AK has the edge when using really cheap crappy ammo, especially steel cased.

Sergeant Sabre
January 1, 2012, 10:12 PM
Ya, those dog-gone M-4 carbines. They just don't work if there is any dirt or fouling in the action. After a few rounds, the lube is all burned off by the direct impingement system, and the whole thing locks up! [/sarcasm]

941 rounds fired full-auto before a stoppage:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=633721&page=3

You should also google "Filthy Fourteen" to read about an AR that Pat Rogers has run over 40,000 rounds now with minimal cleaning on nearly all original parts.

Sam1911
January 2, 2012, 12:28 AM
[What are we really discussing here? A TV show?

Surely we don't need another M-16 vs. AK thread. Surely the WORLD doesn't need another M-16 vs. AK thread.

Is there anything more of value in the discussion of the show itself, or are have we exhausted the original topic?]

Ben86
January 2, 2012, 11:45 AM
I think it's been pretty well established that, while entertaining, the show was full of absurd "tests" and erroneous facts and is clearly meant for the layman, not the knowing man.

Bohemus
January 2, 2012, 12:54 PM
Are you arguing that a weapon designed for right-handed shooters, is poorly designed, because it doesn't work as well for left-handed shooters? Keep in mind that roughly 85-90% of the population is right handed. I would say designing a rifle to work best for that group is the best thing you can do, short of ambidextrous.

And also, I can easily charge an AR with it still on my shoulder. Still on target in fact.

Well, i mentioned it only once with safety, if you mount ambidextrous safety, you can clearly feel its in way of you trigger finger. btw: Scorpion evo3 has exactly the same issue:-/
Other complaints were not related to Handedness.

If you enjoyed reading about "Military Channel showing about AK 47" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!