AK-47 vs M16 on Discovery channel show

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nightcrawler

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
6,950
Location
Utah, inside the Terraformed Zone
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?
 
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.
 
It sounds like you should have left it on for the laugh value.

Who was doing the shooting ? A blind man ?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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).
 
Now that I've seen the show I have to agree with Mike Irwin's assesment from general disc.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
ak-47 vs M16
Replies
6
Views
860
Kaylee
K
2
  • Locked
M16/AK bit
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
5K
Correia
C
2
  • Locked
M16/AK Bit II
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Wynterbourne
W
N
  • Locked
Discovery Channel Reliability....AR vs AK
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
innerpiece
I
S
  • Locked
Two New Russian Assault Rifles Vie To Unseat AK-47
Replies
23
Views
3K
atblis
A
Back
Top