Wow, a mod being a troll... I do not play Call of Duty, but neither am I an engineer in guns or anything like that. I am just taking into account that in the world of small arms, you can't argue the same principle as in computers. The consumer world runs windows, but the embedded market is primarily unix/linux territory, and they outnumber consumer machines by more than 2:1. Its like looking at the number of M4s in the US military versus the number of FALs then using that statistic for the world, it isn't an accurate statistic because you aren't looking at the big picture.
Plus take into account that the video you sent me had 31 likes, 34 dislikes, I am surprised at you immaturity by even trying to validate such a video's credibility of lack thereof. Most of the comments in the beginning refer to the 47, not the 74 and they obviously rigged it by using a defective magazine or one they put handfuls of crap in. I would have expected more professional behaviour from a moderator too, you don't back up your facts reasonably at all and you resort to attacking my own credibility.
Since we are on the matter of reliability, explain why a DI M4 jammed the most versus the SCAR,416 and XM8? Almost twice as much as the 416 did, so you see, simply adding a gas piston doubled reliability. A gas piston is a much better design because you don't get barrel fouling from recaptured gases, in a combat situation, your gun needs to be able to tolerate even the dirtiest ammunition, something the M16A1 failed to do in 'Nam.
I have shot a 47 in both FA and SA, and I will say it had pretty bad recoil, I have shot a Mini 14 which had no noticeable recoil compared to a 47, but as most ARs are composites and aluminum, so recoil is definitely worse. From this I can say the recoil of a 74 (which I've held) is most likely somewhere between a mini 14 and an AR, so fairly light recoil on a 74 can be expected.
The 5.45 is less velocity dependent and has a heavier bullet, suggesting it can tumble more easily in a person. Both rounds however cannot be used for deer hunting in some places, for obvious reasons, so I say both are unsuitable for military use as how can you expect it to take down a person when it can't take down a deer?
The Mini I shot has an aftermarket barrel, (I was 13 when I shot it) and so we were not judging accuracy, but IIRC I was doing okay with it out to 200 yd, of course my father had sighted the gun before I shot it, so that probably had something to do with it. The rifle looks like the police ac 556, but is shorter and is semi only, it doesn't say ranch rifle so it is pre 2005.
As for which system is better for engaging at a distance, the AR platform relies on high velocity of the bullet and most mil spec rifles are little good beyond 400yds in semi. An AK may have reduced velocity, but in a military setting this is not an issue. Try attaching a 4x scope to your AR and compare it to an M1A with the same power scope. Try shooting a target beyond 450 yd with both, as you will see the AR will have greatly reduced accuracy beyond that range.
Neither system is designed for long range targets, as both are miliatry derived designs from the Cold War, the 74 was designed to give Soviet soldiers the ability to have longer range FA control, where as the AR-15 is a neutered AR-10 designed for a smaller round that should never have been introduced to our military, as we traded an excellent battle rifle for a mediocre varmit gun.
Thats the end of my arguements, take it as you will
