mljdeckard
Member
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.
Military Channel showing about AK 47
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
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 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.
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.
Last edited:
oldpapps
Member
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
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
black_powder_Rob
Member
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.
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.
And I have stopped...I still DVR it and will try to watch but I just can't.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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
Couldn't agree more.
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..."
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.
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.
Please don't twist my words. That isn't what I said.....
....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.
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
Member
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
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
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.
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..
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
Member
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
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
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
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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.
Better for what application and in what way?
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked