M16 vs AK47 From Vietnam to GWOT
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 сер 2023
- America's Rifle Order here: smallarmssolutions.com/home/th...
Chris's Rifle Flag Shirt amzn.to/43Uj4no
Green Web Sling M1 Garand amzn.to/3YpUYzO
US Army Black Silent Rifle Sling amzn.to/3DDqEIn
Two Point Sling amzn.to/43Pj5J7
Surplus SKS Type 56 Sling amzn.to/3OIxJ0I
Original Russian Made Standard Rifle Sling amzn.to/3DDocBy
MPSR Cleaning Kit (.223 CAL/5.56MM) otistec.com/mpsr-cleaning-kit...
5.56MM LAWMAN SERIES CLEANING KIT HTTPS://OTISTEC.COM/5-56MM-LAWMAN-SER...
AK Cleaning Kit 7.62x39 otistec.com/ak-cleaning-kit-7...
AK Cleaning Kit 5.45x39 otistec.com/ak-cleaning-kits-...
AXIL Earmuffs Tactical amzn.to/2PIrFJV
Foam Rifle and Pistol Rest amzn.to/2mIjHSr
Efect Military Tool amzn.to/3mgFxHm
Armorer's Manual amzn.to/2G5FRm2
Donate To SAS: donorbox.org/donate-to-small-...
Patreon Page: / smallarmssolutions
SAS Amazon Store: www.amazon.com/shop/smallarms...
Centurion Discount Codes:
Rifles: Code SASRIFLE for 3% off
Uppers/Lowers: SASUPPLWR for 5% off
Other/Misc: Code SAS10 for 10% off
Fort Scott Ammunition - Code: SAS to take 10% off
Challenge Targets - Code SAS - 10% off steel targets
www.challengetargets.com/SFNT...
Otis Tech Gun Cleaning Gear - Code SAS15 - 15% off
otistec.com/?ref=sas15
G96 - Code SAS10 - 10% off
g96.com
Manta Products - Code BAR20 - 20% off
bit.ly/2IIzLK9
Facebook - bit.ly/2INZa4S
Website - smallarmssolutions.com
Instagram - SmallArmsSolutions
PO Box 298, Cypress, TX 77410 - Спорт
Few Years ago I spoke to a Vietnam vet, who had just retired as a dean of a university. I inquired about what he carried during the war, which was , tompson, aks, to m-16s. He confirmed to me when they first received the m-16s they did not with cleaning gear. He said he also fired LAWs rockets in combat against infantry. I asked how effect was that, he stated "I dont know I didn't check, but it made me feel better".
Based g🤢🤢k eliminator
Frickin hardcore
He carried the AK? I don't know of anyone that did that except on some very rare occasions there are stories of navy seals carrying AKs to confuse the enemy
My uncle was in Vietnam SF. They used to fire LAW's into the tree lines. Said it would keep their heads down.
🤔 I can see how sending that shit would be satisfying! I suspect the LAW was effective, i dont know if they had frag cases specifically but i'm sure it was enough anyway. Its a very well proven 66mm rocket iirc
From start to current times the AR 15 style rifle is an amazing evolution. The platform has done far more than designed to and has done it extremely well.
That’s simply because theirs no reason to super change models like American cars . It’s just a rifle if u can change mags and select fire theirs not much reason to reinvent the wheel that’s why everyone is using rifle designs from 70+ yrs ago all they’ve done is make em shoot different calibers. Why would u need to do more than that they work
That's true for AKs too
@@dragonstormdipro1013 AK's underwent more revisions and retooling to update lol
@@TheSundayShooter So?
@@TheSundayShooterTrue but… The DoD went out of their way to have companies develop things for the AR that are common now. We could have picked any gun and 70 years later it would be the best.
The Stg44 saw lots of use after WW2. IIRC the Soviets supplied most of their captured stocks of the Stg44s to the Czechs, East Germans, even early aide to North Vietnam. These migrated to various commie uprisings in Somalia, Ethiopia and Algeria. I think the Portuguese Airborne adopted it while fighting it in Algeria as a standard issue for quite a while.
I know from friend's that served in Iraq they found a few Stg44s in various weapons caches.
That gun got around. I guess it was the most 'plausible deniability' gun around in the early years of the cold war for the Soviets to distribute out.
Soviets were very eager to give them away. You didn't want the image of your glorious and indestructible Soviet infantry divisions wielding captured Nazi weaponry of any kind
No, Portugal used the AR-10 for the airborne and then adopted the G3 for all branches. There might have been Stgs in small numbers but I doubt it. Even then, more likely they came from the rebels supplied by Warsaw Pact than anything.
There was a shipping container of them found in Syria a few years back too.
@@justanothergunnerd81282011 yes.
I’d say it’s more about giving out free weapons that were widely available. There isn’t a whole lot of plausible deniability if the uprising says they’re communists lol
I worked with a marine that fought in Vietnam. Asked him how he liked the M16. He turned, looked at me, and with a big smile said "I loved it".
I take it he worked on a boat
@@rustys.1070 Marines all work on ships. They may come a shore and distribute some freedom but then its back to the ship.. That's just how they roll
My oldest brother in law loved the M16 also, along with his company mates in the 25th Inf Div at Cu Chi/Black Virgin Mnt/Rocket City/Iron Triangle. They cleaned their weapons every evening before dark because the VC liked to work in the dark. They would take turns cleaning the M60s. This was Jan - Dec 1969. Nobody in his unit ever had a weapon malfunction in the 12 months he was there.
A few years ago I tripped over a poser or hosehead claiming he was a Marine in the same area and time, and they never got cleaning materials and their M16s jammed..blah blah blah.
So the Army guys right by you had all the cleaning gear and knew How to use it AND used it every single evening. And the Army had been doing that before Jan 1969. If his BS was true then the Marine brass really screwed over their troops in a seriously unprofessional way.
M16 cleaning and functioning in heavy combat was NOT a factor in November 14 -17 1965 in the bloody blundering of Ia Drang Valley/LZ X-Ray/LZ Albany. LtCol Hal Moore, boots on the ground commander, credited the M16 for saving lives of many of his troops because they had so much more ammunition than if they had M14's.
One of my uncles was a Huey pilot in the 229th Assault Av Btl who volunteered to keep going into the "danger zone" when the medevacs quit because it was "too dangerous". He made it 2 days and 3 Hueys and 1 wound before getting sidelined on the 15th for wounds. I got a lot of insight from his 3 tours which started in 1962 with Special Forces testing the first Hueys sent to VN for live fire filed testing.
Many of the marines kept tgeir M14s in Vietnam. The transition was difficult for many, and early problems with the M16 caused many to not like the M16. The governmemt corrected the problems and the M16 became a good reliable rifle.
@@blueduck9409That didn't happen: a marine isn't allowed to choose which rifle he is going to carry.
4:30 Hitler was against the rifle first because it would take up production capacity needed for the MG42, because of its sheet metal construction. Later je rejected it because it needed a new cartridge.
I’m a GWOT vet and a big AR fan, and completely agree with your overall assessment. The only disagreement I have is personally think Green Tip was not a great M4 round, and the M855A1 and 77 grain loads are better in the shorter barrel. The AK will always be heavier and have a more complex manual of arms. Some of the newer rail systems do work well, but the AK never really had state backing to make good rails-we have KAC, DD, Geissele and others competing to make upgrades M4 furniture. A lot of the forces that field can barely afford rifles, mags and ammo, let alone putting ACOGs, Surefires and PEQs on every issued gun.
Thank you for saying this. Many people compare, like, block iis to 1950s akms with smoothbore barrels, they've been shot so much. People need to compare similar rounds or similar guns from similar time periods to get accurate results. imagine comparing any of the brand new aks in 5.45 to a .300blk AR. who would get shit on ballistically, then.
🤔 This is going date me but whatever. As a redneck who grew up with the AK, M1 & SKS platforms and then learned to use an AR later in life -- I take issue with the idea that the AK has a "more complex manual of arms" I think thats bullshit. The AK is simple and intuitive - its the AR that must be trained for with its wonky safety and charging handle issues. lol
Edit: when i remember going to the gunstore as a teen, SKS and AK was under $200 and the AR was $1000 back then! Its so crazy that things are literally backwards from that now
@@ghostmourn I guess maybe “complex” isn’t the right word. Less ergonomic manual of arms is probably better. All things being equal, I think most people can reload an AR faster. I am also faster with an AR safety, just because I can sweep it off with my thumb as my trigger finger is going in to the trigger guard. But for a basic user that isn’t going to be training a lot, I can definitely see the AK being easier to teach fundamentals on.
@@joethebourbonman yeah it’s def extremely ergonomic and high speed if your trained well ( I’m not but I see how fast other shooters can be.) I suppose whatever we start with is more intuitive for us but I always did feel like that side charging handle is extremely intuitive and simple. While to me the AR feels like a technically superior platform that’s a bit more comped
M855 was fine when I was in, definitely an improvement to M193. M855A1 and 77 gr rounds, to your point, are superior.
It's like comparing a pickup truck to a corvette
Regarding the aftermath of the G36 controversy, the German government actually tried to sue H&K to make the company pay to repair their rifle, but H&K hit back and showed the original requirement for the G3 replacement did not list sustained full auto fire. The German government lost that lawsuit then later tried to replace the G36 with another rifle. Initially C.G. Haenel won the tender to replace the G36 but then lost the contract when it was found their MK556 rifle infringed on H&K patents. H&K was then awarded the contract and are due to replace the G36 in 2024 with the G95A1 and G95KA1 rifles which are newer versions of the HK 416. So in the end, H&K got to replace their own rifle for the German military.
The less said about the G95A1(HK416A8) the better,,because from the requirements alone it appears that might turn out to be the worst 416 possible
@@NashmanNashyes it has pencil barrel, because of the very heavy piston system and upper reciver. And dont meet the accuracy stansards the.givermwnt put. If HK instals normal heavy bull barrel the rifle is way to heavy 😂 pretty sure they will end up with a DI AR15 🤣
I have been waiting for this video for many years!!! I love debating which is better
Really happy that you made a video on this topic. I've been watching some stuff about CIA paramilitary guys during the GWOT and one thing I noticed was how many of them had to run AKs for opsec reasons. I've been wondering how much of a difference those operators felt when transitioning from AR to AK platforms.
Kalashnikov told them “I bet you feel really stupid right about now.”
they did say its more reliable than the M16
Thats because the early M16 are crap thanks to the MIC also controlled by the general who has the factories to make M14
@@krellio9006 God bless the (thankfully merged-purged) Ordnance Department-Springfield Monopoly
Other than looks the only thing i genuinely find better on the ak is the side charging handle. I know the t charger doesn't get a lot of use because of the last shot bolt hold back but when i do have to use it i find it incredibly awkward.
Bear Creek arsenal has some inexpensive side charging uppers if you are interested.
Always look forward to seeing your videos and learning more details.
Thank you for this excellent educational video. I am a veteran and I learned a lot of the history I did not know or had forgotten. Carry On Sir!
Both my AKs have optics, one is a red dot from KUSA the other is a Micro prism 3X magnification from Primary Arms. It was extremely easy to set up with both having the AK master mount side rail. both zeroed in at 100 yards and had a better grouping then some AR guys at the range. basically don't forget the human aspect of it.
But canted right
You've demonstrated how an AK requires double the hardware and expense to keep up with AR-15's
@@TheSundayShooter just needs a side rail. not that complicated or expensive.
Lol cope
I like AK’s, and they *can* be modified and modernized, I’ve seen some really cool ones, it’s just not as easy to do and options are less developed.
My buddy’s grandpa had a major collection and literally tonight we were looking at all the guns and what you said about the m14 is so true it’s so huge lol
Great video! I'm listening to this, and I am totally impressed on your knowledge on this subject. You definitely know this subject, and I really enjoyed watching this video. I'm looking forward to watching more.
Sir I have the utmost respect for your videos and knowledge on this subject, and I want to congratulate you on the weight loss. Keep up the good work! We need true experts to get the truth out!
Brother, I seriously do not know how you don’t have more subscribers. You are seriously one of the best guntubers.
Outstanding job Chris!
If you have a chance Chris, you should check out the Polish WZ 96 Beryl. The Poles did a good job designing a modern AK platform rifle that addresses many of the modern concerns (for AK's) that the M4A1 did.
I would say the Israelis did the best at modernizing the ak with their Galil Ace.
@@user-rq3sw8sj5n it has some nice features, but that thing is heavy lol.
A critique I've always had about the Kalash platform despite enjoying it myself is that you can't do much to it without adding weight. On a standard AR15 there are numerous things you can do in terms of materials, accessories, etc. which will add more capabilities without going above the standard 6.5lbs - 7lbs configuration. While on the Kalash outside of Occam Defense which big name AK guys don't really like doing (perm modification) you'll always add on weight to accommodate more accessories or capabilities outside of the optics and accessories themselves without perm modifying the base rifle.
No that's because a modern ar is totally different from a retro m16. Helps a ton that the modern ar has free floating handguards which even the military isn't able to get. As they use ringed handguards.
Or Wbp rear sight block 70$ including shipping old news
@jason200912 SOCOM adopted the Knights Armament for the m16 in like 1998. The Block 2 suits had the m4 and mk 18 get DD RIS 2 handguards. Mk 12 mod 0 is freely floated, too. Parts compatability between the m16 and m4 is roughly 75 80 percent compatible.
@@armstrong2052 so nobody has done the conversion large scale is what I'm hearing. The ak could also get a free floated handguard pretty darn easily too
@@jason200912I think the US has had interplay between military, especially special forces, and the civilian / enthusiast market as a driver for a lot of modernization and upgrades, especially since the expiration of the AWB in 2004.
This means you have millions of additional people without military bureaucracy constraints driving development.
I love them both, they both have strengths and weaknesses, I own several of each.
Yep, that’s exactly how I feel. I own 2 of each and love all of them. I think I’d rather carry the AR15 because it’s lighter and more comfortable and better sights. But the AK’s are so low maintenance, rugged, and easy to maintain that they’re the perfect doomsday prepper kind of rifle.
This is the best break down on the black rifle I've seen. There's still lots of vets that loved the 14.
Great video and history.
An important talk. I think there are situations I would prefer one over the other. Of course we hardly ever get control over when those times occur. I have been watching the situation in Ukraine and I notice that again, depending on what mission it was being asked to perform some rifle types are thought of rather poorly, while others have over all good reputation.
Fascinating. Many thanks!!
incredible video, thanks! Also, a comparison / discussion video between an AR15 1in14 and 1in12 twist rate barrels would be awesome too. :D
I love your videos, you give very important information that i did not know. Thank you!
WAS THAT YOU SHAKING KALASHNIKOV'S HAND? WOW
I own both, love shooting both. SHTF I’m gonna use them both. My AMD 65 I leave with iron sights so I can throw it in my truck and ride, it’s really tough and durable. I have some AR’s that cost a lot of money with high end optics, they’re more for accuracy at distance. Here recently I’ve bout a couple basic M-4 style AR’s from PSA, great guns, they’re decently priced, accurate and reliable.
So much i did not know about these guns thank you mate.
Both, the answer is always both...currently.
Agreed
Any self loading gun that is plentiful and works wins. You need gun. You also need gun to work. After that anything else is kind of a ‘luxury’.
Great Video nevertheless, thanks for sharing all the information.
That nod to Henry was hilarious and caught me off-guard.
Another awesome video.
I really enjoy your videos. Thank you!
7:35 The AK-47 was adopted in 1949 as the AK (without an number).
when it comes to the early history there are lots of incorrect facts
@@not_your_business666 Were can I find the correct "facs" if the official Russian documents are wrong?
@@Grasyl not sure what kind of documents you are talking about, I was talking about incorrect facts in the video, and I am not arguing with you. Indeed if you look up the document about adoption of AK, you can see that stalin has ordered to adopt it back in 1949 along with rpd, sks and 7.62x39 cartridge. The author also said that sks was adopted in 1945 and it couldn't compete against Stg44 which sounds completely insane.
@@Grasyl What specific Russian documents are lying? Can I have a list?
It will suit you if I give you the text of the decree of the Government of the USSR:
June 18, 1949 №2611-1033ss "On the Adoption of New Types of small arms by the Soviet Army. The Council of Ministers of the USSR DECIDES:
1. Adopt into service with the Soviet Army:
7.62 mm self-loading carbine Simonov model 1945, instead of the carbine model 1944.
7.62 mm Kalashnikov assault rifle model 1947, instead of submachine guns model 1941 and 1943.
7.62 mm Degtyarev light machine gun, model 1944, instead of the DPM light machine gun.
7.62 mm cartridge of the 1943 model.
2. New small arms to be named:
7.62 mm Simonov self-loading carbine (SKS);
7.62 mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK);
7.62 mm Degtyarev light machine gun (RPD);
7.62 mm cartridge of the 1943 model.
3. To oblige Comrade Vasilevsky, Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR, within a month to submit to the Council of Ministers of the USSR a plan for re-equipping the Armed Forces with new-style small arms. Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (I. Stalin) Manager of Affairs of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (M. Pomaznev)
@@not_your_business666 it was adopted in 1945. If we called it by the same misnomer as the "AK-47" instead of the real term just being "AK", it should be called the sks-45. I don't think the sks and the stg ever actually saw each other in combat, though.
The Marines in Vietnam did not, at all, like the M16A1 when they received it.
One Marine saying "the M16 is the biggest piece of trash", other marine saying "the M16 malfunctioned a lot... It had problems".
Source: The Vietnam War (2017)
The AR is now regarded, by anyone with any subject knowledge, to be one of the best, if not the very best "azalt rifle" to ever see mass production.
But, it did not begin like that. It began with failure rates in combat well above 30%! So, what went wrong?!
Well, apparently, the rifles were issue with a different type of ammunition than the one that the weapon was trialed with. As it turned out, this new ammunition was a lot dirtier than the one from the trials. So, with each round fired, the gas system got more and more obstructed. Obstructed to the point where the rifle would start malfunctioning. These problems only got worse when soldiers used the cleaning kit, if they had one, unsatisfactorily or did not clean them at all.
Perhaps this is a lesson to all of us about being careful while formulating an opinion. We should ask ourselves "Could the magazine be the problem? Could the ammunition be to blame?
Quite often the weapon itself is not to blame whatsoever.
Regardless, the powder's composition and shape was eventually changed, the soldiers used their cleaning kits, things got a lot.
The dirtier ball ammo is mostly a myth. The malfunctions were primarily occurring because that powder had different burn characteristics yielding a different pressure curve than what the rifle was tested with and mostly designed around. It was disrupting the timing of the mechanism. The bolt would be moving and trying to extract cases that weren't through the full obturation process.
You can accessorize an AK just as good as an AR these days - it's just gonna cost you in weight, especially if running a 16 inch barrel. There are receiver side rails, Zenitco (and American clones), ultimak, etc. for lots of different mounting options. But weight and length is why the elite units went to 102/104/105 setup - and they are still heavy but far more manageable. The AK has evolved with the times AS MUCH AS IT CAN - it's not that it hasn't evolved at all. The AR has the advantage of being invented at just the right time in regards to modern materials, manufacturing methods, metallurgy, etc. - oh and having the worlds largest defense budget and largest economy behind it's development over the last 60 to 70 years.
Some accessories but nowhere near the scale and they all are mediocre at best
You are correct. You can easily mount a variety of optics (with good return to zero), stocks (including robust side-folders), grips, forends (including ones that allow for laser aiming devices which hold zero) and muzzle devices. As you noted, the trade-off is weight and some added bulk.
@@SmallArmsSolutions mediocre? because they add weight? you've maybe seen zentico, but never anything else I presume.
@@SmallArmsSolutions I definitely agree for the most part when you get into the plethora of high-end accessories, but most of that high-end plethora is due military and civilian cash to make the accessory market worth the cost for manufacturers. So lots of manufacturers therefore jump into that market. The production scale, wide range and quality of accessories will always be better for the AR than the Kalash - no doubt. But an oversimplification of the past and current state of Kalash modernization doesn't seem quite fair. James Yeager said ARs are like prom queens and the AK like biker chicks - same goes for their accessory markets and ability to enhance. Its easy to enhance a perfect prom queen - she's already trained and ready for societal propriety. It ain't easy to refine a well-used, bleached blonde biker chick - ha ha... Ok - crappy analogy or whatever - but you get the idea. 🙂
Chris, the Russians aren't having any issues attaching optics and accessories to modern AKs. The side rail is very robust and holds zero perfectly. The reason you don't see them with optics is because they can't afford to outfit every single soldier with one.
russian tactics use a maneuver element to guide artillery the west does the opposite. They dont need the infantry to be accurate.
No, that side rail on the receiver sucks. The mounts are shit. The tolerances are inconsistent on both mount and scope mount.
@@SmallArmsSolutionsbuy better mounts
@@theheavyartillery545 Your comment wanna make me toss in a few "corruption" and "yacht" jokes. Also you haven't watch other channels that cover the AK12 huh? Those AK12 don't hold zero. There were stories of Ukrainian soldiers capturing AK12 from Russians and Ukrainian soldiers said the similar things that the AK12 don't hold zero.
@@SCH292 ak 12 doesn't have a dovetail mount
Kalashnikov also took part in the competition for the SKS, his prototype use the same operate system as the AK.
People will still be using Kalashnikovs a hundred years from now😁
Pretty sure someone, somewhere told that about black powder muskets... Dont see muskets anymore. Tech kcal Evolution made them completly obsolete
"Personally, I prefer an M16." -George Washington
Pretty obvious choice for a slaver
The AK mag is nothing like the StG except for curvature, which is a function of cartridge taper. Ironically the StG mag works like the AR mag.
Also, it's fairly outrageous to suggest that modern railed AKs can't be use with optics. Limited Russian issue of them isn't the same as the rifle being incapable of using them.
AK-74 only does 400 yards? You reference Henry at one point, maybe watch his AK-74 videos?
I think his point would've come across better if all he said was ever since the flat top uppers came out, AR-15s have had no further modification needed to reliably use optics.
Meanwhile, the AKs require a side rail and a specialized optic mount before you can start reliably attaching optics to it, and with the AK-12 series, the Russians have tried (and so far failed) to create a different solution to mount optics.
AKs are fine, but ARs are objectively superior. Every design choice of the AR type rifles have allowed it to adapt so well to modern usage and technical innovations that the AK struggles to even come close.
Having said that, I do think Chris here is bashing the AK more so than it needs to. His point on accuracy is true (Soviet military specs for AK and SKS accuracy is no groups larger than 15cm at 100m, which is 5.9 inches at 110 yards), but at the same time, a rack grade M4/M16 is expected to shoot 4 MOA, and in my military, a soldier is expected to shoot a C7 rifle with groups no bigger than... 15cm at 100m for the best possible score. Hmm, that sounds familiar....
@@burnyburnoutze2nd AKs DO NOT REQUIRE A SIDE RAIL - that is the best solution the soviet engineers of the 1960s or 70s found for mass production on a military issue rifle. Ever heard of Zenitco, Midwest Industries, Ultimak????? There is so much ignorance in the AR world about AKs... AR guys fuel more myths about AKs than hard-core AK fanboys do... geez. (edited for spelling)
@@justanothergunnerd8128 zenitco? Yes, those are good. All others? No, they suck and can't hold a repeatable zero (and ultimak gas tube rails are just fucking stupid; mounting optics to a part that builds up heat is asking for trouble lmao) even compared to the side rail. The russians have been trying to redesign the AK 12 optics rail because it's struggling to hold zero lmao.
Meanwhile the AR-15 just cut off the carry handle, milled a 1913 pic rail on top and called it a day. No issues for 30+ years and counting lmao.
@@burnyburnoutze2nd You've never heard of sureshot or tws dogleg I take it. or the beryl, or the ACE, or the arsenal line of aks. just because the new politcal gun from russia sucks, because it was a political gun, doesn't mean there are no other solutions.
@@rustys.1070 First two? Less than perfect zenitco clones. I've seen lots of questionable zero issues with the TWS variant specifically.
The Ace? Barely qualifies as an AK, as its such a radical departure from most AKs and even the original Galil rifles that it's really it's own thing.
And Arsenal AKs are just very high quality AKs with nothing more advanced than a side rail and galil style safety lever. Very good rifles, but not the trump card you think it is.
And finally the Beryl? Way too high of a cheek mount (doubly so woth the OG adjistable stock those typically have), and the Poles are currently dumping the Beryl in favour of their new MS rifle because they realized you can only go so far in modernizing the AK before you have to actually redesign it, so they said fuck it and made a new rifle altogether.
My point is this:
The AK is a perfectly good combat rifle, but it struggles with true modernization due to it's dated design and the limitations that ensue. Limitations the AR 15 never had in the first place. Why do you think every combat rifle being adopted outside of Russia's influence is either an AR 15/18 variant or derivitive of some kind?
Your assessment was well thought out, I agree with it. As a kid growing up in the 80s, those WERE the war guns. I own copies of both . The AR's are my work horses, the AK are mostly for nostalgia. But man, they run. Great video as always 👍
@SmallArmsSolution, do you feel the modern AR, with its current twist rate and bullet weights, is as effective as the Vietnam Era M16 and ammo?
Watch so many vids like this but just hear you talk that talk. Great work as always
I appreciate that!
I think the range on the Ak is easily 300, and 4 and 500yds is doable with some experience, where an m4 is pretty easy to 500yds and 650 to 7 with some experience.
most 7.62 AK`s have MOA around 3, where 5 being hard requirement for being accepted for service. 5.45 AK`s have MOA of 2-3 where 4 is a hard requirement. Its pretty much same as M16
Would love to see a video on the “Block III” or URGI program. Keep up the good content Chris👍🏼
so this might be a hot take but pre-1989 in the cold war before the m4 PIP and modern magazines and also the adoption of picatinny and modularity I think the kalashnikov was the equal od the AR
most of the downsides of the AK platform people talk about like weight become much less of an issue when you look at the AK-74
Both guns were 7ish pound guns that fired a similar SCHV round that was about 1 pound for a loaded magazine of 30.
The AK-74 was more compact, especially the folding stocked variants and more reliable with almost no recoil being incredibly easy to shoot.
The m16s may of been a bit more mechanically accurate with a far better sighting system but was much longer and let down by more fragile magazines
realistically both guns in a hypothetical ww3 would of worked well enough it wouldn't of made a difference
Hell the superiority of the PKM over the m60 probably would of decider more info try engagements then the rifles.
Look at how in the 2010s talibian pkm gunners in afghanistan wearing sandals with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths made the US army contort itself in all kinds of ways to "overmatch" them with their crazy Next generation weapoms system
I agree completely! In the mid to late 80's when the A2 was introduced and up against the AKS-74, the AK (that particular AK) is better in almost every category that matters. Although if it was earlier I'd still probably take an M16A1 over an AKM if forced to choose. Thank God I didn't have to take part in any of those godawful conflicts.
you can tell how biased a review is when they compare a 1950s akm to a modern AR. even then comparing the a2 vs the 74, the 74 beats it in weigh by almost 2 lbs, and has a folding stock, and significantly less recoil.
Your issues with the ak basically come down to lack of competency and familiarity.
This will be true with most modern service rifles. If your performance fails, the key takeaway is that it was you that failed. Not the rifle.
Lol, not training at all. This is obvious. But you are most definitely welcome to your opinion
@@SmallArmsSolutions there are certainly training issues with your shooting. Its probably a factor of age and health. But the fact remains your performance as far as shooting groups and so on is relegated to other shooters for a reason. You reference Henry for a reason, because he and many others will and do outperform you with these rifles. Henry represents a larger data set than you. So if you can acknowledge he can make rifles perform, then its also logical to atleast assume your performance doesn't represent the average skilled user with an AK.
Now I will concede there are fewer truly skilled users of the kalashnikov.
But the rifle when equipped equally versus its western counter part (this equipment does exist for the ak) the performance between the two can run pound for pound.
Like I said, its a competency and familiarity issue.
Love my Colt 6721 w my Aimpoint 5000 and my more modern
DDM4V7 and DD MK18 I have used and relied on these Weapons Systems since I was a SWAT guy in the 80’s
Semper Fi great video
Looking at the Vietnam-era M16 and the Ukraine-era AK-12 as issued to the basic conscript and then comparing it to any current rifle issued by NATO or the PRC, it's clear how far the AK has fallen behind more than 50 years later.
What about the Beryl AK issued out in a NATO military? Doesn’t seem very far behind to me
@@ryanthomas5962 It still has a manual of arms which belongs to the first half of 20th century
@@ryanthomas5962AR fanboys act like the AK hasn't evolved an inch since 74 as they compare it to a gwot M4
When in reality the US military wanted the cheapest rifle they could get away with... And only did said "upgrades" because of the bad P R of to many dead G.I.s ergonomic s ergonomics ergonomics tho lol
An M4 is an awesome rifle.... As long as you have an armory to take it to when it breaks
Achilles heel - gas tube- hidden has a safe gap lol
@@KnightsUnionYou’re acting like the Russian military doesn’t do the exact same thing. Hell, that’s their entire design philosophy for nearly everything. From vehicles to weapons to uniforms.
The internals of a Kalashnikov is an M1 garand mirrored.
The AK kind of sort of loosely looks like a cheap crappy STG44, but the operation is very much so garand.
The failures of the SKS were improved upon as the PPSH41 and PPS43, Thompson, BAR, STG were all box fed. More ammo mo better.
STG44 and G3 are far closer in operation than the AK and the STG.
One of the greatest advancements the AR-15 brought, was the molecularity/easeness regarding Headspace.
All barrels come pre-headspaced and ready to install, courtesy of being mated to the barrel extension installation at the factory.
Agreed it’s probably the most underrated advancement. The ability for the end user, non-armorer level, to service the entire rifle is huge in my opinion.
@@mitchelljordan447 This only matters for civilian gun ownership. AK armorers have multi-ton jigs on presses that make switching the barrel just as fast.
@@biggysnaps2827true but compared to the AR15s simple wrench and punch kit it’s stupid easy 😅for almost anybody with basic know how of tools to assemble an entire AR15 from the ground up
14:55 The DI action actually helps the M16 as well. the gas venting out the bolt helps push dirt/mud out of the action
And even out of the magazine too
Love this video, but who taught you how to run an AK? You can reload a bone-stock AK while maintaining your shooting hand on the pistol grip. You can also maintain your handgrip when manipulating the safety.
Not easily nor efficiently compared to the M16 platform. Apples and oranges dude
@SmallArmsSolutions I get that, the AK is definitely not nearly as ergonomic as the AR. I'm not disagreeing with your videos premise. I just felt like your example of reloading the AK and manipulating the safety just felt more clunky than it actually is.
What about the Galil Ace? I suppose that's like a Valmet.
AK on a very different level. Still similar limitations. But certainly better
The standard M16 works well for southpaws as well. When I hit the mag release, my support hand is there to rip the magazine free if needed, the safety is usable with my trigger finger, and so on. It's the best in the world at what it does and hasn't been replaced for a reason: the guns that are objectively better cost more than 2x what it costs to make an M16 but they don't offer 2x the performance.
I use my left thumb for the safety…seems very natural.
Many consider the ak better for lefties, because of the charging handle.
Awesome video.. I have both ARs and AK enjoy shooting both...
My dad in Vietnam in the early ‘70s carried an M14. He preferred it over the M16A1.
Most of those stories are just that.....stories.
@@LuvBorderColliesIts simple confirmation bias, out of some half a million combat troops in Vietnam, one portion used the M14, some 200 vets wrote that they used it instead of the M16 but other 85% of troops used the M16 in one way shape or form.
Cold temerature is the area where AK shines. But it could have been designed better with a rigid top and better ergonomics. Other then that its mechanism and magazine are solid.
You got it.
The side rail mount is also surprisingly good, for optics to retain zero and whatnot.
@@kumat0ra672 Considering AK74M and later commercially offered modernization kit for it, AK12 was and is a big waste of money. Some Russian General sure got his pocket full of money with it. They could have gone for something new like A545, ADS or AM17 rifle series. All three are field tested with former two being service tested.
@@TakNuke AM-17M is a pretty badass rifle.
That, and its tolerance to dirt and water. Try firing an AR-15 with some liquid in the barrel, or attempt to shake dirt out of the gun on short notice.
the ak47 was made to be an smg replecer (pps43, ppsh 41, ppd40 ) the m16 was to replace the m14's rifle use case, the m14 replaced the rifle m1, bar, m1a1 carbine ,the m1a1 thompson smg/ m3 grease gun. 1 rifle for 4 role. the m16 would be more comparable to the sks and ak47, the sks had a 20 inch rb and could shoot to 440 meters comfortably and the m16 can shoot 520meters comfortably now the full auto aspect of the ak47 and m16 are both in the same house. the ak fireing 600 rdm and the m16 700 rounds a min. both the ak47 and m16 where made for deferent weal house and use cases. its like comparing a tomato and a peach. we put tomates in salads and on top of burgers and peaches are very good when made into a pie.
The M-16 series rifle is no more reliable than it was 50 years ago in 1970. Our doctrine of keeping it clean to function properly has simply improved. As long as we fail to adopt a tapered cartridge, we will continue to have to stress ultracleanliness. And tight tolerances between the BCG and upper doesn’t help if sand grains get into it, along with the excessive expansion and twisting of an aluminum upper, regardless of alloy, forged or cast. In 34 years of airborne infantry, whether using an M-16A1, A2, A4, M-4, or M-4A1, those BCG’s begin to seize after about 8 mags of rapid, burst, or auto fire. Yes, the AR platform has become extremely popular, but it’s far from perfect.
I have done significant testing over the last 30 years and have to disagree. I don’t think you are aware of the mechanical changes this family of weapons has gone through.
@@SmallArmsSolutions That would be a very good topic for a video. The changes and upgrades to the bolt carrier group and locking lugs over the decades. Not merely aesthetic changes or bolt-on systems, but the upper itself. As far as here in active duty, we still not only see the same issues as decades ago, but we are now cracking locking lugs with the M855A1 ammo.
The M855A1 is a bad idea. It’s excessive pressures destroy any 5.56mm rifle out there. My testing has been working for manufacturers, working in the field in 31 countries as well as independent testing. Much of the improvements are not public knowledge nor are they reported to the media. Many current issues relate to lack of maintenance (parts wearing out) due to logistical problems and lack of armorers doing maintenance at proper intervals. We noticed during gwot that troops complained about all our weapons. When it was examined, it was not the weapon design at fault. It was worn out parts and out of spec replacement parts. Sand does not stop an M4 any quicker than any other for a number of reasons. Most important being the M4’s ability to keep debris out of the action. Lots of misinformation out there by a lot of people who lack experience but watch a lot of UA-cam and base their opinions off shooting limited numbers of rounds under controlled range conditions.your comment about 8 mags is also not correct. We did destruction tests at Colt. The M4 would go 15 magazines until the barrel ruptured. No malfunction up to structural failure of the barrel. The M4 SOCOM heavy barrel wen through 30 mags until structural failure. The M16A4 will fire 16 magazines before the barrel fails. These are repeatable and predictable. These are military production mil-spec rifles. I have no clue where this 8 mag BCG seizure comes from. Simply not true. I think you can google m4 destruction tests an see for yourself. I won’t speak to the quality of non military grade guns. Their quality is all over the charts. No predictability results due to random specs and quality of components.
Apparently you've never read any of my oft repeated personal experience stories from VN 1965 to 1970. People with real combat experience trump any BS by any poser on the net.
The M16 worked fine in heavy combat at Ia Drang Nov 1965 and worked fine for the 25th In Div at Cu Chi all of 1969 (they cleaned their 16s and 60 every evening). No failures in 12 months. The entire area around Black Virgin Mountain earned its nicknames.
Chris has covered the issues in between those dates on WHY there was problems.
Point is not everyone had the "jammed M16" but kids on the internet can't seem to figure that out.
A great comparison / pros and cons video of some sort would be of the family favs and some of the variants; the Springfield 1903, M1 Garand, AK47, M14, M16, and the 1911 and Beretta 9mm. :D
I would like to see you compare the Marines rifle and the m4a1 type that your showing us. If you haven't already done it. Thanks
Very good video, I broadly agree.
Couple exceptions…
Though I have personally never seen combat, I did serve in the Army infantry during the 80s and have known many combat vets over the years. I work at a steel mill where we have a lot of guys who saw combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I was shopping for my first military-style semiautomatic rifle back in ‘16, of course I was debating between the 5.56 AR or the 7.62x39mm AK. Informally polling my combat vet coworkers, the consensus among them was that if I were only going to get one such rifle (my intention at that time), that it should be the AK. They thought the 7.62x39mm was a better practical fighting cartridge, and also noted the ruggedness and easy maintenance of the AK. My own exposure to the AK during OPFOR training while I was in uniform also impressed me with the rugged simplicity of the AK design and the punchiness of the round.
I suspect my coworkers had the respect they did for the 7.62x39mm was because the M855 rounds they were issued were found wanting in terms of prompt lethality; they often did not cause immediately incapacitating injuries and just zipped through the enemy fighters, whereas our guys who got hit by 7.62x39mm were out of the fight right away. I have heard this from multiple veterans.
On the other hand, I had a junior high school teacher who had been an infantry platoon leader in Vietnam. He said the M-16 was extremely lethal; specifically, said getting hit by one within 100 yards was “…like getting hit with a 30-‘06”. But he had the old M193 round, which out of a 20” barrel actually does perform extremely well. It does seem like our guys in the GWOT/Iraq were shortchanged by the M855, which was really designed more for use out of the M249 and specifically to pierce Warsaw Pact steel helmets at long range, but suffered in terms of terminal ballistics. Then there’s also the newer Mk262 and M855A1 rounds; the former especially seems to be vastly better than the M855, and of course the 7.62x39mm, albeit more expensive.
So five years after I got my AK, along comes the Russian ammo ban, and I decided it would be a good idea to “diversify” my arsenal with a 5.56 platform, which of course had to be an AR. So I get a 20” barrel Windham Weaponry model and “rediscover” the advantages of that platform, especially the ease with which I can deliver both rapid and accurate fire. And that really is, to me, the clinching advantage of the AR. Yes, with enough practice and skill, decent accuracy can be squeezed out of a good AK, but the AR makes it easier, and at the end of the day, assuming cartridges of broadly comparable power, the higher volume of more accurate fire wins the battle….just as Colonel Moore described at Ia Drang. That is the fundamental advantage of the AR over the AK.
I mean realistically the major issue is difference in tactics. We use alot of close air and night fighting since the start of gwot so the rifle was needed to do that so it happened. And we have the advantage of having delta and devgru who need this stuff first, who often go to the civilian sector to look at new upgrades to their systems. Free float handguards, long rails, lpvo scopes, red dots all these things started as civilian competition items. Then these things trickle down over time to big army. Biggest thing for us is the civilian sector and money.
Now Russians still have state arsenals, they primarily fight with heavy armor and ground troops not air. Since they don't really use these things for the most part the rifle has never been asked to do this, except when it is like in Syria when you're seeing spetsnaz guys with 105s and eotechs, with peq15s. It can be done with an ak, but the biggest reason it's not is money and it doesn't generally fit their tactics. And that's kind of being seen with the ak12 program thus far. Plastic 1913 rails out front for grips, and flashlights, your not putting a laser on there and the top cover which might hold zero but then again you have no optics worth anything anyway. The money just isn't there, look at the cost of making one night fighting setup per soldier between the rifle, laser, optic, and nods. And even still how often does the average Joe use his nods and laser and night fight, I'd venture to say not often. So I doubt everyone needs all that, optic is the biggest thing.
Thanks!
As far as weather conditions go, the AKs seem to perform better in freezing environments though
No, AR has no oprod to freeze up
@@SmallArmsSolutions but the AR has small fine moving parts that some condensation freezing up can put the rifle out of commission. 🤷♂️
This platform passes with flying colors nato cold whether environmental testing. I have conducted these tests for foreign contracts. This includes icing. The test does not include dumping a bottle of water into the action and freezing up the whole action. That is not realistic
@@SmallArmsSolutions exactly which part of the ak is going to freeze
I know you've mentioned in the past Chris, that Colt tested the AR in all sorts of temperatures and environments, and while guntuber's torture test isn't scientific, it does seem to back your claim that ARs do better in mud than the AK. However, all designs have pros and cons, and these same guntubers did similar test in extreme cold and the AK seems to preform better. Again, not realistic to drench your gun in water and freeze it, however my guess because metal does contract when cold, this may work against the AR's tighter tolerance? I've never had artic training, however a colleague that had said the best thing you can do is lub like there's no tomorrow in those conditions.
Your colleague would be wrong, below freezing, you want to switch over to graphite, keep it as dry as possible, avoid drastic temperature changes like bringing inside the tent, heated vehicle, warm area, as this can cause condensation to build up and freeze. After firing, to avoid things freezing up you need to keep the action moving until the firearm has cooled down enough that condensation isn't an issue as well. Winter Warfare sucks.
You are unaware of actual military testing protocols. The guntubers doing these test are also not aware of how they are done. What they do is entertainment only. But even their tests show the M16 is superior in mud
Thanks Chris!@@SmallArmsSolutions
Thanks!@@CF_Sapper
The ak fails sooner but is easier to correct. The AR is better sealed but you are screwed if it fails. The AR also gets the dreaded case over bolt failure. That's a bad day.
I am a US Army Veteran... I have owned AR's, and AK's.... And your blowing smoke up my ass... AR's serve their purpose in a controlled (clean) environment... AK's just work, and I like the cartridge better...
Respectfully disagree.
I work for the Army. I can’t tell you how many malfunctions occur during fire and maneuver when soldiers don’t close their dust cover during movement. Another big issue is top off reloads. Magazines fall out all the time lol.
Nice overview!
I grew up in the '60s and there was a popularity see-saw between the two. Up through the '80s, the M16 was generally derided as a finicky jamamatic while the AK was held up as an absolutely reliable battle monster. As the AR became more refined, available and the modern accessories were developed, the tables started turning. It has also been noted that as AR pattern rifles have become more available in world hot spots, they are generally preferred over the long-used AKs.
"long-used" is the keyword. Anyone would prefer a chevy colorado over a toyota if the toyota couldn't even shift gears
The soviets had a sense of art over science in warfare. This can be easily seen in the majority of their weapon systems. Pick one... They had better airplanes, in a mechanical sense sure, but what about everything else that went along with those airplanes? Not so good then, huh. I see it all the time in their rifle optic designs. What's this area in between the chevrons? My imagination lol! Our western optics show information on nearly every single spot of the scope. Western weapon systems apply science. A T14 does not out class nor outperform an M1, even on a favorable day.
Just a bit of clarification, as it is true that Hitler was not very fond of the STG43/44 or MP44 the decision against adobting it earlier in the war was not solely based on Hitler and it was not completely irrational thinking on his part. And there there have been different voices and opinions about the weapon itself present to him.
There have been several, often competing, factions within the Germany when it comes to weapon system and weapon development. And often enough it was a finall decision made by Hitler that would either approve or decline certain projects and prototypes when different branches of the military would compete with each other. For example the German military it self was not extremely fond of the Stgw43/44 either, as it meant they had to manufacture and supply a new cartridge. A cartridge which they had not used before. So they would require new tooling, machines and new supply infrastructure in a situation where the German military was already in serious trouble with supplying their troops sufficently with the weapons they already had. So the decision against the adobtion of the rifle, was somewhat guided by such consideration. Testing with the weapon in the field however as the development continued has later proven the quality of the weapon and where future engagements would lead to. But just as how the German military feared in the begining actually supplying the troops with enough weapons and more importantly with enough amunition has been always a serious problem and the industry was always far behind the goals the military set for the numbers they demanded.
One of the aspects of infantry Combat is that somebody has to carry every “ pew pew “. This comes down to weight. In Vietnam the M16 allowed more pew pews to be carried by squads and ammunition runners. Which meant more pew pews down range. Nobody wants to run out so they conserve Ammo. The M16 simply made pew pews go for a longer time.
That's genius
It really depends on the person and how much firearms experience they have but for the average American the AR15 style of rifles would be the better choice I think. But for me I really like the simplicity of the AK. I also really like the 7.62×39mm that most AKs shoot.
I present the true test as this: how did the platform fare during the process of modernization? The M-16 to the M-4 compared to the AK-47 to the AK-14. And not the commercial Gucci guns, military issue. The AR platform, as a whole, has taken to that far better than the AK. That being said, if I had to have one, an AK works just fine, but if I had a choice, a modern AR would be it.
You can accessorize an AK just as good as an AR these days - it's just gonna cost you in weight, especially if running a 16 inch barrel. There are receiver side rails, Zenitco (and American clones), ultimak, etc. for lots of different mounting options. But weight and length is why the elite units went to 102/104/105 setup - and they are still heavy but far more manageable. The AK has evolved with the times AS MUCH AS IT CAN - it's not that it hasn't evolved at all. The AR has the advantage of being invented at just the right time in regards to modern materials, manufacturing methods, metallurgy, etc. - oh and having the worlds largest defense budget and largest economy behind it's development over the last 60 to 70 years.
It also depends on where you are... If I am in Ukraine right now, there is no way in hell I would have an AR, unless maybe you're an ultra-elite unit, recon or whatever and don't expect issues with ammo, parts and mag resupply. The AKs are everywhere, especially the AK-74 - you can even use captured Russian ammo, mags and guns fresh out of your local trench. Running an AR in this environment would not be the best option.
what is an ak-14
Ukraine developed its own AR platform that uses common 5.45 ammo
Not the American 5.56
We keep repeating the mistakes of the past. The M1 Carbine was designed to replace pistols (and bolt action rifles and some M1 Rifles) for front-line non-riflemen. The actual specifications called for the Carbine to replace the submachine gun as well (funny--the M1 Rifle was also supposed to replace the submachine gun and the M14 Rifle was supposed to replace the submachine gun...) and small unit leaders (company and below) were more effective with Carbines than with pistols while not being tempted to use their personal defense weapon in lieu of their main weapon--the unit. The Carbine was compact enough for drivers and weapon crews while permitting the Carbine-armed soldier to contribute to the company's firefight.
Mission creep set in. Original specifications for the Carbine were select-fire with 20 round and 50 round magazines. It was more important to get this new light rifle into front-line service than it was to get a perfect light rifle into front-line service, and so the M1 Carbine entered service with flip-up L-sights (100 yard peep, 200 yard peep and a notch atop the 200 yard peep for 300 yards), no bayonet, a canvas belt holster, and 15-shot magazines. By the end of WW2 the Carbine became select-fire, gained 30 shot magazines, a bayonet lug, and a rifle grenade launcher. There were even muzzle breaks and flash hiders--and the M3 Carbine was developed to use the new IR Snooper Scope system.
Fast forward to the 1990's, nearly half a century later. The M16 platform had been provided with "submachine guns" In 5.56mm and 9mm since the early days. The early passive Starlight night fighting systems married up well with the lightweight M16 family. Still, the M16 didn't totally displace the M3A1 submachine gun because the M16 was longer (lighter in weight than the M3A1, especially when both were loaded) and the durable Grease Gun didn't suffer much performance degradation from being abused. There wasn't much that could go wrong with the M3A1, but also not much in the way of performance. Optimistically the M3A1 sights were set for 100 yards, and the M3A1 was at its best under 50 meters. The M4 was intended for a number of missions--lightweight PDW, direct replacement for the M3A1 as AFV local security/point defense weapon, and the lightest possible Special Forces weapon. As is pointed out in the video, the M4 was not intended for the assault rifle role--but Mission Creep set in and the M4 was often pressed into service where a belt-fed machine gun was more appropriate.
Designing weapons for how they are used by soldiers on the battlefield is rare. The AK-47 was supposed to replace Soviet burp guns on a one-for-one basis with the main rifle squad weapons being the RPD and the SKS. That obsolete French Great War squad model was still radical and revolutionary during World War Two--the assault rifle was a game changer.
About 1910 John M. Browning devised a "machine rifle" intended to replace several Springfield M1903 rifles in a rifle company. The prototype was designed to fire from a closed bolt and was primarily a semiautomatic rifle that could deliver full-auto fire for close combat. The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) gained weight like an American eating fast food twice a day because the US Army wanted a light machine gun and the BAR was the closest thing available to the Americans in 1917. The first problem was that the .30 caliber M1906 cartridge was too powerful for hand-held automatic fire from a rifle weighing the same as the Springfield. Already overweight, the BAR went with an open bolt firing mechanism and a heavy barrel so that a dozen magazines could be fired in ten minutes without the gun falling apart or overheating and jamming. The M1918A2 Automatic Rifle of World War Two was great on the fire team level (only individual weapons for a fire team--crew served weapons turn fire teams into weapon crews) but as a squad light machine gun suffered from shortcomings that even the great John M. Browning didn't foresee. In the PTO, Marines often "lost" flash hiders, monopods, bipods, and a few other things that made the BAR long and heavy. Pre-WW2 a jungle-fighting edition of the BAR was experimented with by the Marines and a few rare Colt Monitor Rifles were produced for the police market. One weapon that the 1936 adoption of the M1 Rifle (the Garand) was supposed to replace was the BAR--along with the tommy gun and the M1903 Rifle. The 1940 USMC Small Wars Manual spoke of dividing the 9-Marine squad into two teams, each with at least one M1 Rifle and the rest armed with the M1903, for use in close terrain (towns and jungle) encountered during the Banana Wars. The US Navy's ad hoc infantry squads during World War Two had eight or nine Sailors armed with two Thompsons (as "automatic rifles") and six or seven M1903 Rifles.
The improved M4 Carbine family is robust enough to serve as a fire team base of fire weapon. With an M203A1 or M302 40mm grenade launcher, the M4 can provide high trajectory explosive munition delivery and at distances of under 150 meters can lob a grenade through a bunker slit or into a window. The M4 retains the ability to fire rifle grenades--I've read about that being used but haven't seen it. There's the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a big green rocket-propelled gum ball that is claimed to have the punch of a 105mm howitzer and a maximum range of 1000 meters--again, I've read of them but haven't seen them. The M4 can be fitted with a muzzle suppressor. There are many sight options for the M4 family. One return to the past--France still used Cuirassier heavy cavalry up to September 1915 and their model of the Berthier carbine featured a leather Cuirassier buttplates so that the carbine could be fired while wearing the breastplates. Flak vests have been part of US Army and US Marine equipment since the Korean Conflict. Fixed stocks offering either Papa Bear length of pull (too long) or Mama Bear's butt-plate-to-trigger length (too short) were unsatisfactory even though by the mid-Eighties US PASTG body armor was universally issued to support and service troops. The original CAR-15 telescoping buttstock was intended for compact storage and transport--but Mission Creep and some ingenuity made that a four-position stock so that the rifleman could adjust length of pull as required.
There's still demand that the M4A1 function as a heavy machine gun and a featherweight PDW, with hope that the M4A1 function both as a CQB weapon and reach out 1000 meters for "one shot/one kill" -- just blame Mission Creep. The US Air Force redefined their survival rifle requirements and have a light-weight edition of the M4 (GAU-5A?) with folding pistol grip that can be broken down and packed in an ejection seat survival kit along with four loaded 30-shot magazines and a detachable muzzle suppressor. The original AR-15 specs of 1956 were a 500-yard effective range with a trajectory matching .30 Caliber M2 Ball--that's why the caliber was .224 inches instead of something larger, making a rifle that weighed as much as the M2 Carbine that was controllable in automatic fire meant giving up on the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge and accepting something less powerful, producing less buttplate energy and less stress on the rifle.
Everything is a Baby Bear compromise--might be "just right" for Goldilocks but Papa Bear will find it too soft and Mama Bear will find it too hard. Most soldiers are Goldilocks--or Baby Bear. The rest of us just have to cope with compromise.
When someone complains to me about underpowered infantry rifles, I tell them the story of Kilimanjaro Bell, elephant hunter, and his 6.5mm rifle.
Excellent presentation 👏 Thanks 👍😎🙏
Chris appears in a video clip I put up (fair usage) on the subject. I didn't know who he was, but clearly he is a SME. I think it was from the History Channel and the old show "Tales of the Gun".
the dates the rifles were adopted yet the ak can holds its own says alot
It still works but not up to the modern battlefield standards. It’s WW2 technology
Quick question; when you say the SOCOM barrel will last up to "900 rounds", is that a rate of fire of 900 rounds per minute?
That’s a new rifle firing around 850 rpm. Cyclic rate has several variables including temperature and ammunition type. Cyclic rate for M4 ranges 750 to 950 rpm on a new rifle the 900 is firing auto as fast as you can replace magazines
Thank you, I believe this is an especially excellent video, and not only because I agree with the facts and conclusions as presented. I’m 77, I’ve been shooting for 60+ years, I served (on full time active duty) or two decades, and my experiences and observations concur with the video’s.
Okay, but you've never actually handled an AK, have you.
@@biggysnaps2827 haha
@@biggysnaps2827He probably served in Vietnam, im pretty sure he captured AKs and tested them.
Question, what about the Robinson Arms XCR vs the AK12?
The Russians are working on a AK called AKB-521 were the bolt sits in the upper receiver, that could solve the optics problem. If they can produce it...
the issue was solved 25 years ago with beryl rifle
arsenal nowadays produces a similar optic mount
Ar 15- massive and rapid improvements increasing the effectiveness of the platform.
Ak 47- iron sights work fine comrade
GWOT vet and we liked our M4's. I can't imagine using a G3 for the same tasks, and I wouldn't want to use an AK.
As always, TY for your expert assessment and commentary! AR-15; Stoner's Masterpiece is a spectacular and iconic US-designed/US-manufactured weapon and IMHO there will never be a better combat rifle to replace it!
I have to point out to you that in every one of your descriptions the American rifles failed in war. The AK platform showed up ready to go. Also you can put accessories on AKMs they have rails just not the ones you are displaying.
AK was developed over a decade before being fully issued. M16 was rushed into service with no finalized design or refinements to get it ready for prime time.
@@SmallArmsSolutions yes and it happened twice if you consider the M4.
Still potential for even more improvement on the AR platform. Other barrel twists? Link belt feed it like the M60?
Put a real slow rate of fire on it so it would seem to fire all day.
look up the Diemco LMG. It did not do well.
i really love the bizon id love to see something on that
Some interesting developments loosely related to the AK somewhat recently;
-Quite recently India decided to have AK 200 rifle series using 7.62x39mm cartridge to be their main rifle.
-Serbia interestingly is probably the first country to adopt 6.5 Grendel for their new modern AK rifle Zastava M19, which kind of fits as the 6.5 Grendel is based on the same parent case the 7.62x39mm which they have not shifted away from, features quick barrel change and 6.5 Grendel is probably meant for like a SPR / DMR role.
-FN unveiled this year its Individual Weapon System (IWS) which seems to feature I guess SCAR/AR-15 (probably some input from the Canadian Colt AR iirc) design/ergonomics but with a side charging and long-stroke gas-piston. It also uses the curious .264 (6.5 x 43mm) Lightweight Intermediate Caliber Cartridge (LICC 🤪) which I guess would fill the gap between 6.5 Grendel and 6.5 Creedmoor, it’s the latest iteration of the original .264 USA project over the years, and they seem to have been influenced by NGSW program recently with the “overmatch” thing as well.
The 7.62x39 was a superior cartridge for dense jungle warfare in Vietnam because 5.56 the lightweight bullet gets deflected firing through heavy brush where the heavier 7.62 Soviet got deflected much less if at all. Overall I think the m16A1 is ergonomically and superior designed weapon. Being able to pop 2 pins and completely replace the entire barrel and half the firing components in seconds is a huge advantage to longevity and maintaining the weapon. AK’s barrels are much much harder to replace when worn out or damaged. Also the use of aluminum makes the weapon easier to carry, wield and more corrosion resistant especially from rusting. AK’s notoriously rust.
It doesn't matter squat when you rarely get a glimpse of the NVA/VC, and that usually was several hundred yards away and they were moving therefore only a glimpse.
Great Video! inrange has the mud tests that prove what you stated for those who still doubt it.
When you see the mud tests where it gets sprayed out the ejection port from the propellant gas its almost like Stoner knew what he was doing.
what about when the gas tube explodes, or when any matter at all gets in the locking lugs.
@@rustys.1070 at least if fails safely. if that happens with an ak you're out of commisssion too. the point is that on every shot a high pressure gasses are expelling out the ejection port. keeping debris out better than the same situation on an ak. gas tube is meant to explode before the barrel to save the rest of the gun and the shooter from injury. no gun is perfect but some are more useful for multiple roles like the AR platforms.
@@iamAwesomo1994 there a million and one videos on UA-cam about ARs not failing safely lmao
@@rustys.1070 well an AK with mud in it is as useful as a pogo stick on a battlefield
@@iamAwesomo1994 you mean if you pour mud into an exposed action? you'll notice that ukrainians and russians alike aren't throwing down their aks because the literal satanists' tests aren't even close to realistic.
An observation regarding foreign object insertion/reliability.
It is not only that the AR-15 receiver is "sealed", at least as much as a rifle should.
I think it is also that there's is room in the locking lugs area. I mean a bit of sand on the locking lug recess in an AK, maybe hinder the bolt for closing fully.
But in the AR the bolt rotates in the lugs area and there is room for gunk to go. (visualizing this, bolt lugs engage behind the barrel extension lugs when locked. So there is room available to accept debris)
Wrong
@@johnadams673 Would You Mind Explaining Where I Am At Fault?
@GreekPreparedness with your concept that there is room for junk beyond the lugs, anything in the path of the bolt will be pushed into the locking lug area and then there won't be enough room for them to lock into battery, if you have one with excessive room, you have a headspace issue
M4 and AK have same sight radius so saying AK has short sight radius is a disadvantage should be same for for the M4 as well.
And bolt failure during tests? Which? IV8888 tests showed weak point of all these guns are barrels and gas systems like gas tube. A cracked gas tube requires a new one. A drooped barrel on an AK can be fixed by smacking it against a tree.
IV testes did not represent the military grade M4. Those were commercial grade. Some had defective gas tubes. Just like most of his AK ones don’t represent combat grade AKM’s. Smacking a tree? Nope. Under perfect condition you might bent it slightly enough for oprod to fit in gas block but you would never hit anything. You need to get the difference between entertainment and real military/nato weapon testing criteria and protocols. Also the difference between commercial and military grade weapons. All AR’s are not created equal.
I agree with almost everything that was said here. My opinion in the final analysis only differs in one respect. The 5.56 NATO round is dependant on velocity. And by shortening the barrel you also shorten the effective range and limit the effect of the round on impact with soft targets. The M4 is the finest rifle for house to house close-up and/or rear echelon fighting in production today. But I still believe that the longer barrel of the M16 should be the standard on a battlefield.
6:12 At this time the M43 cartridge was 7.62x41mm. It was shortened in 1947/48 by 2mm to the 7.62x39mm without changing the designation "M43".
If I'm correct this shortening was the main reason why SKS and RPD lacked performance.
The SKS-45 was chambered in 7.62x39mm. That was finalized when the AK47 was in development stages
@@SmallArmsSolutions How can the SKS-45 from 1945 be cambered in a cartridge that was not present until 1947?
@@Grasylthe design of the cartridge started and happened in 1943. And it was tweaked in 1944
@@stephen_crumley Source?
Hello, thank You for the video, I am a big fan of your channel.
If you don’t mind I would also share some thoughts on the titan clash.
I personally have both civilian M4 and AK74.
Despide m4a1 is clearly technically superior weapon, I would still trust my life to AK, and here is why:
1) On paper AR magazine is getting inserted easier and faster but ones you have it fully loaded you need to hit it hard or slap, so in this case I would prefer AK lever mechanism which especially helps in some complicated environments.
2) recently, hard way I learned that AR magazine, even magpul, gives you a chance to insert 31 round and if you do so it won’t feed.
Loading half empty magazines under stress I won’t really count the rounds, so in this case I would prefer “foolproof” AK magazine where you can load 30, no more than 30 and it will feed all 30.
3) malfunctions: most AK malfunctioning can be resolved pulling this charging handle+\- magazine detachment.
In case of M4 sometimes you need to pull the lever, sometimes you need to push forward assist ( in Israel they devide M4 malfunctions in 3 levels and it happens that each level has it’s unique move).
Under stress I would prefer my body to know and use one move rather than 3.
4) Weight. Everyone talks that AK is heavier than m4 but I weighted my loaded FN M4a1 and SLR104 and the difference was 40 grams, if I will put Zenitco handguard and dust cover to give AK more modularity the difference will be 140 grams which is nothing counting steel durability.
5) Accuracy. AR cartridge has better ballistics but AK74 has less recoil, so at distances up to 300 metes I would consider them similar. At least when I was studied in Ukrainian military school, we kids were able to engage the growth target at 200 and 300 meters.
In my eyes the only valuable advantage of M4a1 over AK74 is handy safety lever, but it can be leveled out, by aftermarket safety levers or scout technique( when you disengage safety and put your finger begin the trigger so preventing rifle from firing in the movement through the woods, but having ability to engage the trigger quickly).
Heavy barrel and night options mount is also an advantage, but AK74M, developed in 1991 already faced all that and the dovetail was standardized on each rifle and the barrel became heavier. Russians don’t use much optic not because their AKs are not capable, but because they simply don’t have much optics as they are poor.
Hope this comment makes sense to you. Thank you.