Military Channel showing about AK 47
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
- Status
leadcounsel
member
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.
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.
Last edited:
The-Reaver
Member
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.
thanks for offering though Military channel.
Gunnerboy
Member
Its American propaganda what did you expect something thats not American and always better to win ?
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
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
Member
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
Member
The show was painfully inaccurate. Biased and an insult to accuracy.
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.
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.
That show was a joke. It was so biased against the AK it wasn't funny.
My wife, who isn't really into guns, even noticed that. Not to mention you can put a scope on an AK!
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.
My wife, who isn't really into guns, even noticed that. Not to mention you can put a scope on an AK!
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
Member
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
Member
Gunnerboy said:
The Sarge said:
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.Ben86 said:
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
JHenry
Member
Lets compare the Ar-15 with the AN-94, thats a little more fair.
Bobson
Member
Never heard of the AN-94.
JHenry
Member
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
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
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.
I learned that in 8th grade, but you do have a valid point. History is seen through rose colored glasses.
No offense but your opinion is somewhat irrelevant if you haven't experienced either.
"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.
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.
Last edited:
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...
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...
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.
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
Member
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
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked