Military Channel showing about AK 47

[Justin]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[mortablunt]

I was excited when I first heard about it, then I saw an episode and I had a meh reaction. I've seen the AK episode and I've been sundered.

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

Which works really nicely for right-handed people.

Have no bolt lock open feature unless you mod the rifle, and the magazines do not drop free when the lever is pushed.

That's why you learn to use the mags themselves for reloading.

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.

My guess is that you never really learned much to operate an AK.

That makes it inferior to the M4 as a combat rifle where operating you weapon in a quick and efficient manner is paramount.

One man and his gun is not an army.

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.

Really, the AK action can adapted to different weapons and forms. The M4 appears to have trouble with functioning in extended battles. Winat anyone?

The M16/M4 has the safety, magazine release, and charging handle in intuitive and easy to use places.

To me the safety is dang fiddly. I can't seem to remember where the mag release is, and on top will never be intuitive to me. I learned on an AK.

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.

YOU! AK! TIME! NOW! I never found it that hard to use. I used magainzes to hit the lever and knock the previous magazine out and keeping the gun on target. I actually did it lefty simply so I could do it more quickly. The gun wouldn't have stuck if it were as bad as you claim.

 

[Sam1911]

[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]

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]

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.