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".
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
🤔 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
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.
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
@@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.
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
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.
@@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 🤣
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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 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.
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.
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.
@@BikesandBlickeys 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
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.
@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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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 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. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
I had a privilege of interviewing Mikhail Kalashnikov in 1997. When I asked him what he thinks about M-16, he repiled "That's a nice rifle, but it is not for us". There is a whole philosophy in that answer. Your analysis is accurate and yet, you are missing the point. AK was made for Soviet soldier and for Red Army military doctrine. You are analyzing Soviet rifle from the stand point of an American which is a conceptual mistake. Also, M4 has lower muzzle velocity that pretty much reduces the effect on target. American contractors in Iraq reportedly preffered carrying AKs chambered in 7.62 because it overall had better stopping power.
No, i said they are two different rifles. One for a simple conscript and the other a professional soldier. The AK would not meet US or NATO acceptance criteria. The M4 stopped just fine but the hurdle was the shitty M855 ammo.
@@SmallArmsSolutions Surely they are two different rifles, one is built for a Soviet soldier and another for an American. Precisely because of that, it is not quite logical to just flat out say that one is way better than the other. M-16 is the best for the Americans (thus, you) and AK-47 is the best for the Soviets. Mikhail said it well. For that longer ranged, accurate sustained fire, Soviets used soldiers armed with SVDs. The role of that rifle is pretty specific for Soviet military rationale. Don't get me wrong. I am not here to argue, just wanted to give you another way of looking at things. I truly believe the content you provide on the matter of small arms is the best on UA-cam, easily. Since we are here, the quality of audio on your video about M-16 in Vietnam kills me. Despite that, I have watched it several times.
The only problem with the M-4 is the shorter barrel means a loss in velocity. That is not a real problem until you start making longer shots. Great video. Thanks for the time and effort.
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.
@@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.
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.
09, i was embedded with the ANA in Wardak, as a ETT USMc Marine, The ANa after being taught and trained, to loose old bad habbits, could effectivly engage the enemy at 300+ yards a lot with thier AKs, we transitioned them to the M16sa2s, towards the end, and they were effective over 300 yrds as well.. in the mountains, long range was needed to be effective against the ISIS.. the ANA learned well
Do the first time I ever took my AK-47 out to a long range 200 yard distance. I was fucking them targets up. Free hand. No optics, no rest. None of that shit. Standing up taking shots at 3/400 yards and hitting shit. I guess the argument of civilian grade better quality versus military grade plays an effect here.
@@rustys.1070 we don't get actual military grade fa aks here. They come neutered. Rebuilt with 922R compliance parts so you can't get a true military AK-47 in it's original configuration. Not on today's market at least
@@rustys.1070 well I'm saying you can't get an original Chinese type 56 machine gun. You can't get a Hungarian AK-63 series original machine gun. You can't get any Russian guns that haven't been altered. You really can't get any imported guns that have not been altered in some way, shape or form. You're technically correct, but they still have to drop in non-original parts. You haven't been able to get a Russian AK-47 that hadn't been fucked with for a long time. Now does that mean the quality is that much different between the original Soviet satellite country produced legit select fire rifles versus what we're getting in the states that much different? You be the judge
@@SmallArmsSolutions Like what? Because you have failed to provide any. They’re both intermediate caliber rifles. That’s about where the similarities end.
@@darklyripley6138Concept, because actually few nations rolled with the intermediate cartridge early on, and form factor I.e. Relatively short barrel, 30 round mag. That's it, and to be fair, given the route they could have gone, that's not nothing. Maybe also the choice of the long stroke piston perhaps, but that was hardly a new concept. But yes, Chris and others grossly exaggerate the influence of the StG.
@@skepticalbadger Nothing about the STG was 100% new to begin with. So for anyone to say the AK took from the STG, they’d also have to concede that the AK is taking from many other different guns. The concept isn’t even the same. The Soviets used the AK as more of an SMG. Not an assault rifle like the Germans with the STG.
@@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.
might be a bit of an oversimplification, a lot of guns were wood and steel even after ww2, but AR definitely defined the modern rifle, almost all modern rifles nowadays use an aluminum receiver in some form
I disagree. I think the STG 44 was the first of the modern rifles but with ww2 tech and the AR15 changed the game and moved us into a whole new class of rifles with its modern construction and manufacturing
@lefunny_N-11V plastic furniture is another thing that remains prevalent to this day. Albeit m16 not the first to use it. But grips and stocks are most often still made out of it.
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.
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.
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.
@@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
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
I was so glad to see this video. I own both but love the AR style much better. It's amazing all the BS we used to hear in the 70's and 80's (I'm old) about how the AR was a POS that got our boys killed because it constantly jammed while the AK was superior. Great job Chris.
You hear the same thing about many small arms that are issued for the first time. A lot of it is teething issues, some of it is user preference and fuddery, some of it is true. Take the L85 for a similar example - the first iteration had issues, some inherent, some from manufacturing and some training/user-induced. After refinement it is a superbly robust and reliable platform, though the ergonomics still leave a lot to be desired. But even after the A2 and A3 iterations have been issued for a long time it hasn't lost that reputation. Although a lot of that is due to the fact that they're not available for us to use and hasn't undergone the 50+ years of consumer-driven refinement that more commonly adopted platforms have.
@@paynekiller75 You misinterpreted his statement. The AKs in the middle east were at least 60 years old on average, compared to the AR pattern rifles that weren't even a year old. barrel life, and parts wear, basically. Hope this helps.
Hi Chris, I am a loyal viewer of your channel and I consider it one of the most valuable substantively. I do not hide that I draw a lot of knowledge from it... thanks to you. However, I must say that the last material failed me. I expected more from him, especially reflection on these two platforms. Unfortunately, I repeated many trite theses, which without being placed in context are very superficial. And that's not your style, I feel. I don't want you to take it as a sermon because I have no right to do so. In my humble opinion, the AK (AK mod. 1947) in the 50s and 60s was the most advanced small arms system taking into account the conclusions from the battlefields of the WW2. The weapon was compact with an optimal barrel length, with the possibility of mounting a silencer (PBS-1) for which a special cartridge was developed, with the possibility of mounting in special versions of optics including night vision (NSP-1), etc., and all this in the period when the US was implementing the M14 based on the archaic Garand on too powerful cartridge, a small magazine, with a long 20-inch barrel, too long, too heavy, too clumsy. The same was true for FN FALA or G3. These were all important constructions, but archaic. All of them were based on WW2 assumptions more than AK - G3=Stg45, M14 = Garand, FN FAL = FAL49 = G43 = SWT40. In fact, the AR15 and this also follows from your materials appeared in the US Army by accident. If it wasn't for the Vietnam War, it is not known how long the M14 was in service, maybe like the G3 or FN FAL in the in European armies. In my opinion, the AR15 platform gained an advantage over the AK only at the turn of the 90s and 2000s, when the 1913 rail was introduced on a large scale, which led to the birth of the modularity of this platform. And we're not talking about tape-mounting commercial flashlights or optics in the style that Larry Vickers is talking about. All this was improvisation, in contrast to the systemic and modular solutions in the context of AK. In the second half of the 2000s, the GWOT experience was followed by a rash of companies in the US, such as Magpul, which dealt with the accessories and modularity of the AR15 platform. Untill then, there was nothing. Previously, the AR15 platform was less modular and gave less accessory capabilities than the AK. I think it is frivolous to compare the M4a1 and its capabilities to the AKM or even to the AK74, because the period between them is 30-40 years. And that's the same as comparing the Ford Mustang from 1967 to the Tesla from 2010. Please take this only as my opinion. Yours sincerely, Adrian
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 👍
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
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.
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.
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.
Ak pattern rifles are absolutely up to snuff with AR pattern in terms of modularity and ability to add force multipliers. However, it took the AK much longer to catch up to the AR in terms of accessories.
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...
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
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.
@@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 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.
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.
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.
As an American who prefers the AK platform i consent that the AR is a more modern design. However, many of the issues brought up against AKs are related only to early guns or cheaply made commercial firearms. The AK is just as easy to adapt to modern parts and use cases. If you compare an original M16 to an original AK-47 there is not much advantage besides weight and range. Don’t forget that modern AR/M16 pattern guns have had many years of development that has led to them becoming the guns that they are today. The AK has had the same development but we haven’t seen it here in America. The current modernization process is also following the same lines as the early M4 carbines in the early and mid 2000’s. This whole argument is stupid anyways because the rifle follow different combat doctrines. Of course an AK will not fit with American/NATO style doctoring and the M4/M16 doesn’t fit with Russian/Com-block doctrine. The AK vs. AR argument is and always has been stupid.
Completely disagree. But respect your opinion. AK has been out over a decade before the m16. The design does not permit the kind of adaptability in any way if the AR15 platform and suffers many more limitations.
I don’t even care which one is better, but there were so many biases and exaggerations that I couldn’t even finish watching the video. That said, I appreciate you and the content you put out. All the best, and catch ya in the next video
Chris is HEAVILY in favor of the AR over the AK, everyone who's familiar with him and his channel knew that going into it. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who follows him.
No there aren’t. Some M16A1 lowers were issued with MK12 uppers. And some M16s were built into Airforce mixmaster carbines. But none of those are in use, and there were no M16’s upgraded to M4A1’s.
@darklyripley6138 Yep. US never did that. The Israelis on the other hand did convert almost all of the M16A1’s the US government gave them into M4 configurations. That’s what started DSArms manufacturing AR parts. They were supplying most of the parts and uppers to them in the later 2000’s.
@@gadsdenjim8785 I think we should be careful with language. Cutting a barrel and adding a collapsible stock doesn’t make it “m4 config”. An M4 is an M4. What the IDF did was just turn M16’s into carbines.
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.
@@michamichaowski8375no AKs Will definitely still be used in the next 100 years from now has long as we continue to use gunpowder the simplicity of operation and durability of the AK47 is immortal it’s the best assault rifle ever invented period!! Best modern combat rifle ever devised
I think the AK is a better field rifle. It’s easier to repair and keep running, easier to correct malfunctions overall, and for short to intermediate assaulting it is adequate. That being said, overall the AR platform is more modular, a bit more accurate and if I was still in the military with said logistics I would want my M4 back. If I was in a long ongoing SHTF apocalyptic scenario with no end in sight I would use one of my AK’s.
Robski has great videos about being able to use the AK while missing or substituting parts. Things I believe the AR simply cannot do. I must admit now having both I find the AR more intuitive since I have both. Of course my AR is in 7.62x39 though ;)
What? In a real shtf situation you'd need far, far more tooling to replace the barrel/receiver on an ak. With the ar/m4 all you'd need is a couple hundred of dollars worth of tools.
@@cl4998 I’d need a press and a hammer, or just a hammer. I’ve built AK’s for the last 15 or so years. That’s why it’s one of the more desirable weapons in the third world. An African with zero intelligence can keep a 60 year old chicom humping with bailing wire and rusty nails.
@@cl4998underrated response. If you think the AK is easier to repair than an AR you've never looked into building an AK. In regards to Rob Ski's video- the recoil spring is not going to fail before the barrel, unless you're picking one up from a builder in the Khyber pass. Hydraulic press, for the barrel and front sight, jigs for pressing, a rivet gun, a welder for the receiver supports, a file and a dremel for fitting (especially if you want railed furniture), and so on. The AR can be put together on your couch if it had to be. A punch, a hammer, an armorer's wrench, and a set of allen keys. You can't just replace critical components on an AK thr way you can on an AR either. AKs just aren't made to be taken apart.
@@jurassicturtle3666 you’re trying to build Gucci AK’s! I’ve been building Gucci AK’s for more than a decade and a half! I’ve also seen a barrel installed with 1/4” all thread rod and nuts, some metal shims and a crescent wrench. Also seen a guy hammer one in. Same as the rivets. Seen plenty of people hammer rivets in. Replace them with screws or steel dowels. I’ve seen people build aks with a hammer and a file and that was it! Also we’re not talking about being in a situation where we have parts available for retrofit. We’re talking about fixing what is broken with what can be found on hand, and you can’t do that so much to the AR platform. To the degree you can an AK. I’ve been building ARs for just as long also.
What I've heard, and I'm not the expert here but I'll just state this anyways, is that SOCOM was using their M4 rifles essentially as one would a light machine gun. Assault rifles and light machine guns are two different types of weapons built for two different purposes. Light machine guns are designed for sustained fully automatic fire whereas assault rifles, while capable of fully automatic fire, were designed to be used more like sub machine guns that happened to have a much greater effective range (so as a sub machine gun at close quarters and as a rifle at medium to longer distances). So, and again this is just what I've heard, is that SOCOM essentially looked at the M4, though "Well this is just an even lighter sub machine gun!", and then proceeded to fire their M4 rifles in sustained fully automatic fire until they broke. If that really is the case then it would seem to me that the issue wasn't with the original M4 but rather with how they were trying to use it. The heavier SOCOM barrel being capable of sustained fully automatic fire is nice, but it also comes at the cost of weight. If the average soldier isn't going to fire anywhere near enough rounds in a short enough period of time to make it batter whether they had the standard or SOCOM barrel profile then it seems like they would have been better off with the lighter barrel just for weight savings.
Every time I went out on patrol in Vietnam with Australian forces I gave thanks to my governments decision to use the FN FAL (L1A1) in 7.62 Nato. Mine was the F1 shorter verion issued to special forces. I knew I had the Rolls Royce of assault rifles at the time and it never gave me any grief. It would be another ten years before the M16 had all its problems sorted out. Now our military have to put up with the L88 Steyr AUG, but special forces use the M4. I remember when we wnt on special recce patrols into Cambodia. We were issued with AKs for those. The AK was the perfect short range assault rifle for a person with zero arms training.
I understand you are a big fan of the AR (as am I), but your bias when speaking if the AK was “utterly and completely” over the top. A lot of opinions about the AK as well. I’m actually disappointed as I was hoping for a well thought out discussion.
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.
Claiming that InRange tests are "more realistic" is beyond silly. If they *realistically* dumped the rifle into that mud, every each one would fail, catastrophically, because of *bore obstruction* . What they actually did, was *artificially* caking all the mechanism with mud, while taking full care of keeping the muzzle clear. There is nothing realistic about this test. It almost feels like this test was designed for the AR15 to shine. Actually realistic tests, like those done by AK Operators, consisted of dropping the gun into a muddy puddle, then firing it. AK did very well on those *and* was *easy to clean* afterwards, which was *not the case* for the ARs. Lots of tiny parts, lots of difficult to clean tiny spaces. Then, the "accuracy" argument is way overhyped. Sure, ARs have high *accuracy potential* , but in reality the guns which are being issued are often shot out and perform barely adequately. What's more, with all the parts needing constant exchange, your average GI is handed a rifle with a lot of random parts in it, which barely fit. That causes *jams* , until drenched in oil. Oil attracts dust, so ARs tend to jam in dusty environments. AKs *do not* . Finally, the "poison bullet" argument is overblown too. Initially it did work like that, out of a 20" barrel with a slow twist. Nowadays people want to fit into vehicles, so the rifle shrunk, the bullets are overstabilized, "poison bullet" no more. The bullet is not designed to tumble, like the 5.45, and it does not fragment reliably any more. AK's rounds are *designed* to perform out of short barrels, *and* they have the folding stock, which makes life easier inside a vehicle. Oh, you *can* put optics and adjustable stocks on AKs. Look at Polish Beryl. It works. Shoots your "superior poison bullets" too (though I bet the guys would prefer 5.45). BTW - I'm not an AK fan, or an AR fan for that matter. I think both designs are obsolete nowadays, but they do work.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 🤣
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
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!
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
I have been waiting for this video for many years!!! I love debating which is better
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.
That nod to Henry was hilarious and caught me off-guard.
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.
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.
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 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.
This is the best break down on the black rifle I've seen. There's still lots of vets that loved the 14.
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.
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!
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.
@@BikesandBlickeys 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
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.
@@Jasper3478 Put winter gloves on and have a short slavic thumb. You will not find the AR to be ergonomic.
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
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.
@@EnriqueGavel-m8d it has some nice features, but that thing is heavy lol.
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.
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. 🙂
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.
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’.
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.
@@rustys.1070the AK is better for lefties 🤷♂️and the AR is better for righties
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Im so glad that found your channel.
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.
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.
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.
I had a privilege of interviewing Mikhail Kalashnikov in 1997. When I asked him what he thinks about M-16, he repiled "That's a nice rifle, but it is not for us". There is a whole philosophy in that answer.
Your analysis is accurate and yet, you are missing the point. AK was made for Soviet soldier and for Red Army military doctrine. You are analyzing Soviet rifle from the stand point of an American which is a conceptual mistake.
Also, M4 has lower muzzle velocity that pretty much reduces the effect on target. American contractors in Iraq reportedly preffered carrying AKs chambered in 7.62 because it overall had better stopping power.
No, i said they are two different rifles. One for a simple conscript and the other a professional soldier. The AK would not meet US or NATO acceptance criteria. The M4 stopped just fine but the hurdle was the shitty M855 ammo.
@@SmallArmsSolutions Surely they are two different rifles, one is built for a Soviet soldier and another for an American. Precisely because of that, it is not quite logical to just flat out say that one is way better than the other. M-16 is the best for the Americans (thus, you) and AK-47 is the best for the Soviets. Mikhail said it well. For that longer ranged, accurate sustained fire, Soviets used soldiers armed with SVDs. The role of that rifle is pretty specific for Soviet military rationale.
Don't get me wrong. I am not here to argue, just wanted to give you another way of looking at things. I truly believe the content you provide on the matter of small arms is the best on UA-cam, easily. Since we are here, the quality of audio on your video about M-16 in Vietnam kills me. Despite that, I have watched it several times.
Was early video filmed with an iPad
The only problem with the M-4 is the shorter barrel means a loss in velocity. That is not a real problem until you start making longer shots. Great video. Thanks for the time and effort.
Always look forward to seeing your videos and learning more details.
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.
Outstanding job Chris!
"Personally, I prefer an M16." -George Washington
Pretty obvious choice for a slaver
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?
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.
09, i was embedded with the ANA in Wardak, as a ETT USMc Marine, The ANa after being taught and trained, to loose old bad habbits, could effectivly engage the enemy at 300+ yards a lot with thier AKs, we transitioned them to the M16sa2s, towards the end, and they were effective over 300 yrds as well.. in the mountains, long range was needed to be effective against the ISIS.. the ANA learned well
Do the first time I ever took my AK-47 out to a long range 200 yard distance. I was fucking them targets up. Free hand. No optics, no rest. None of that shit. Standing up taking shots at 3/400 yards and hitting shit. I guess the argument of civilian grade better quality versus military grade plays an effect here.
@@jaksahn3370 95% of aks are made by the same factories with the same parts as military aks.
@@rustys.1070 we don't get actual military grade fa aks here. They come neutered. Rebuilt with 922R compliance parts so you can't get a true military AK-47 in it's original configuration. Not on today's market at least
@@jaksahn3370 922r compliance parts are the trigger and furniture. nothing in the actual gun, but the full auto capabilities, is different.
@@rustys.1070 well I'm saying you can't get an original Chinese type 56 machine gun. You can't get a Hungarian AK-63 series original machine gun. You can't get any Russian guns that haven't been altered. You really can't get any imported guns that have not been altered in some way, shape or form. You're technically correct, but they still have to drop in non-original parts. You haven't been able to get a Russian AK-47 that hadn't been fucked with for a long time.
Now does that mean the quality is that much different between the original Soviet satellite country produced legit select fire rifles versus what we're getting in the states that much different? You be the judge
Im still a firm beleiver that the stg44 had huge influences on the ak47.
Despite there not being much evidence for it.
Um, yes there is
@@SmallArmsSolutions Like what? Because you have failed to provide any. They’re both intermediate caliber rifles. That’s about where the similarities end.
@@darklyripley6138Concept, because actually few nations rolled with the intermediate cartridge early on, and form factor I.e. Relatively short barrel, 30 round mag. That's it, and to be fair, given the route they could have gone, that's not nothing. Maybe also the choice of the long stroke piston perhaps, but that was hardly a new concept. But yes, Chris and others grossly exaggerate the influence of the StG.
@@skepticalbadger Nothing about the STG was 100% new to begin with. So for anyone to say the AK took from the STG, they’d also have to concede that the AK is taking from many other different guns. The concept isn’t even the same. The Soviets used the AK as more of an SMG. Not an assault rifle like the Germans with the STG.
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 Ak was the last of the WWII rifles and the AR15 was the first of the modern rifles.
might be a bit of an oversimplification, a lot of guns were wood and steel even after ww2, but AR definitely defined the modern rifle, almost all modern rifles nowadays use an aluminum receiver in some form
I disagree. I think the STG 44 was the first of the modern rifles but with ww2 tech and the AR15 changed the game and moved us into a whole new class of rifles with its modern construction and manufacturing
Last of ww2 was actually the m14
AK was never issued in WW2.
@lefunny_N-11V plastic furniture is another thing that remains prevalent to this day. Albeit m16 not the first to use it. But grips and stocks are most often still made out of it.
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.
WAS THAT YOU SHAKING KALASHNIKOV'S HAND? WOW
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.
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
Great video and history.
Fascinating. Many thanks!!
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.
Wtf 😂😂😂😂😂😂 the G3 is a blowback action 😅
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.
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.
Kalashnikov also took part in the competition for the SKS, his prototype use the same operate system as the AK.
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
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.
incredible video, thanks! Also, a comparison / discussion video between an AR15 1in14 and 1in12 twist rate barrels would be awesome too. :D
So much i did not know about these guns thank you mate.
Shout-out from Croatia, I've noticed 1991. ZNG RH patch on your wall. Keep doing a great work.
I have been to Split 3 times. Worked with your Army
Ar 15- massive and rapid improvements increasing the effectiveness of the platform.
Ak 47- iron sights work fine comrade
I was so glad to see this video. I own both but love the AR style much better. It's amazing all the BS we used to hear in the 70's and 80's (I'm old) about how the AR was a POS that got our boys killed because it constantly jammed while the AK was superior. Great job Chris.
You hear the same thing about many small arms that are issued for the first time. A lot of it is teething issues, some of it is user preference and fuddery, some of it is true. Take the L85 for a similar example - the first iteration had issues, some inherent, some from manufacturing and some training/user-induced. After refinement it is a superbly robust and reliable platform, though the ergonomics still leave a lot to be desired. But even after the A2 and A3 iterations have been issued for a long time it hasn't lost that reputation. Although a lot of that is due to the fact that they're not available for us to use and hasn't undergone the 50+ years of consumer-driven refinement that more commonly adopted platforms have.
The Taliban beg to differ
@@darkcat5649 when you swap your AK that was extensively used for 40 years for M4 that was never used. nice comparison
@@darkcat5649 The Taliban and what we did/didn't do in Afghanistan doesn't make the AR-15 family of rifles any less great of a weapon system, dingus.
@@paynekiller75 You misinterpreted his statement. The AKs in the middle east were at least 60 years old on average, compared to the AR pattern rifles that weren't even a year old. barrel life, and parts wear, basically. Hope this helps.
Hi Chris, I am a loyal viewer of your channel and I consider it one of the most valuable substantively. I do not hide that I draw a lot of knowledge from it... thanks to you. However, I must say that the last material failed me. I expected more from him, especially reflection on these two platforms. Unfortunately, I repeated many trite theses, which without being placed in context are very superficial. And that's not your style, I feel. I don't want you to take it as a sermon because I have no right to do so. In my humble opinion, the AK (AK mod. 1947) in the 50s and 60s was the most advanced small arms system taking into account the conclusions from the battlefields of the WW2. The weapon was compact with an optimal barrel length, with the possibility of mounting a silencer (PBS-1) for which a special cartridge was developed, with the possibility of mounting in special versions of optics including night vision (NSP-1), etc., and all this in the period when the US was implementing the M14 based on the archaic Garand on too powerful cartridge, a small magazine, with a long 20-inch barrel, too long, too heavy, too clumsy. The same was true for FN FALA or G3. These were all important constructions, but archaic. All of them were based on WW2 assumptions more than AK - G3=Stg45, M14 = Garand, FN FAL = FAL49 = G43 = SWT40. In fact, the AR15 and this also follows from your materials appeared in the US Army by accident. If it wasn't for the Vietnam War, it is not known how long the M14 was in service, maybe like the G3 or FN FAL in the in European armies. In my opinion, the AR15 platform gained an advantage over the AK only at the turn of the 90s and 2000s, when the 1913 rail was introduced on a large scale, which led to the birth of the modularity of this platform. And we're not talking about tape-mounting commercial flashlights or optics in the style that Larry Vickers is talking about. All this was improvisation, in contrast to the systemic and modular solutions in the context of AK. In the second half of the 2000s, the GWOT experience was followed by a rash of companies in the US, such as Magpul, which dealt with the accessories and modularity of the AR15 platform. Untill then, there was nothing. Previously, the AR15 platform was less modular and gave less accessory capabilities than the AK. I think it is frivolous to compare the M4a1 and its capabilities to the AKM or even to the AK74, because the period between them is 30-40 years. And that's the same as comparing the Ford Mustang from 1967 to the Tesla from 2010. Please take this only as my opinion. Yours sincerely, Adrian
Wut?
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 👍
Another big difference is the continuous improvements made to the M16 and M4 platforms. Largely unnoticed by the public.
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.
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.
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.
Watch so many vids like this but just hear you talk that talk. Great work as always
I appreciate that!
Brother, I seriously do not know how you don’t have more subscribers. You are seriously one of the best guntubers.
Because a lot of what he says is inaccurate. He just speaks as if he is well informed.
Ak pattern rifles are absolutely up to snuff with AR pattern in terms of modularity and ability to add force multipliers. However, it took the AK much longer to catch up to the AR in terms of accessories.
I would disagree the AK is up to snuff. It would take a highly modified one to even approach.
Great Video nevertheless, thanks for sharing all the information.
When the AR15 came out the AK47 had been around for 20 years and was essentially a ww2 weapon
Awesome video.. I have both ARs and AK enjoy shooting both...
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
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
@@SmallArmsSolutions😂😂😂😂 Chris at this point your being biased as hell cmon now
In the 2000‘s the availability of a better cartridge for the AR changed everything. The 300BLK and other caliber options made it superior.
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
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.
What about the Galil Ace? I suppose that's like a Valmet.
AK on a very different level. Still similar limitations. But certainly better
AR15/m16 DI is pure genius of firearm design and will probably never truly be replaced by any other platform.
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.
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.
As an American who prefers the AK platform i consent that the AR is a more modern design. However, many of the issues brought up against AKs are related only to early guns or cheaply made commercial firearms. The AK is just as easy to adapt to modern parts and use cases. If you compare an original M16 to an original AK-47 there is not much advantage besides weight and range. Don’t forget that modern AR/M16 pattern guns have had many years of development that has led to them becoming the guns that they are today. The AK has had the same development but we haven’t seen it here in America. The current modernization process is also following the same lines as the early M4 carbines in the early and mid 2000’s. This whole argument is stupid anyways because the rifle follow different combat doctrines. Of course an AK will not fit with American/NATO style doctoring and the M4/M16 doesn’t fit with Russian/Com-block doctrine. The AK vs. AR argument is and always has been stupid.
Completely disagree. But respect your opinion. AK has been out over a decade before the m16. The design does not permit the kind of adaptability in any way if the AR15 platform and suffers many more limitations.
I don’t even care which one is better, but there were so many biases and exaggerations that I couldn’t even finish watching the video.
That said, I appreciate you and the content you put out. All the best, and catch ya in the next video
Chris is HEAVILY in favor of the AR over the AK, everyone who's familiar with him and his channel knew that going into it. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who follows him.
eh others make better comparison videos involving these 2 rifles without bias
Don't forget, there are STILL original Vietnam era M16 receivers in use by the US military that have been upgraded to M4a1 carbines
I think the MK12's also used the old M-16A1 lowers.
No there aren’t. Some M16A1 lowers were issued with MK12 uppers. And some M16s were built into Airforce mixmaster carbines. But none of those are in use, and there were no M16’s upgraded to M4A1’s.
@darklyripley6138 Yep. US never did that. The Israelis on the other hand did convert almost all of the M16A1’s the US government gave them into M4 configurations. That’s what started DSArms manufacturing AR parts. They were supplying most of the parts and uppers to them in the later 2000’s.
@@gadsdenjim8785 I think we should be careful with language. Cutting a barrel and adding a collapsible stock doesn’t make it “m4 config”. An M4 is an M4. What the IDF did was just turn M16’s into carbines.
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.
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
@@michamichaowski8375modern muskets are still being sold to this day with polymer furniture instead of wood
@@michamichaowski8375no AKs Will definitely still be used in the next 100 years from now has long as we continue to use gunpowder the simplicity of operation and durability of the AK47 is immortal it’s the best assault rifle ever invented period!! Best modern combat rifle ever devised
I think the AK is a better field rifle. It’s easier to repair and keep running, easier to correct malfunctions overall, and for short to intermediate assaulting it is adequate. That being said, overall the AR platform is more modular, a bit more accurate and if I was still in the military with said logistics I would want my M4 back. If I was in a long ongoing SHTF apocalyptic scenario with no end in sight I would use one of my AK’s.
Robski has great videos about being able to use the AK while missing or substituting parts. Things I believe the AR simply cannot do.
I must admit now having both I find the AR more intuitive since I have both. Of course my AR is in 7.62x39 though ;)
What? In a real shtf situation you'd need far, far more tooling to replace the barrel/receiver on an ak. With the ar/m4 all you'd need is a couple hundred of dollars worth of tools.
@@cl4998 I’d need a press and a hammer, or just a hammer. I’ve built AK’s for the last 15 or so years. That’s why it’s one of the more desirable weapons in the third world. An African with zero intelligence can keep a 60 year old chicom humping with bailing wire and rusty nails.
@@cl4998underrated response. If you think the AK is easier to repair than an AR you've never looked into building an AK. In regards to Rob Ski's video- the recoil spring is not going to fail before the barrel, unless you're picking one up from a builder in the Khyber pass.
Hydraulic press, for the barrel and front sight, jigs for pressing, a rivet gun, a welder for the receiver supports, a file and a dremel for fitting (especially if you want railed furniture), and so on.
The AR can be put together on your couch if it had to be. A punch, a hammer, an armorer's wrench, and a set of allen keys. You can't just replace critical components on an AK thr way you can on an AR either. AKs just aren't made to be taken apart.
@@jurassicturtle3666 you’re trying to build Gucci AK’s! I’ve been building Gucci AK’s for more than a decade and a half! I’ve also seen a barrel installed with 1/4” all thread rod and nuts, some metal shims and a crescent wrench. Also seen a guy hammer one in. Same as the rivets. Seen plenty of people hammer rivets in. Replace them with screws or steel dowels. I’ve seen people build aks with a hammer and a file and that was it!
Also we’re not talking about being in a situation where we have parts available for retrofit. We’re talking about fixing what is broken with what can be found on hand, and you can’t do that so much to the AR platform. To the degree you can an AK. I’ve been building ARs for just as long also.
What I've heard, and I'm not the expert here but I'll just state this anyways, is that SOCOM was using their M4 rifles essentially as one would a light machine gun. Assault rifles and light machine guns are two different types of weapons built for two different purposes. Light machine guns are designed for sustained fully automatic fire whereas assault rifles, while capable of fully automatic fire, were designed to be used more like sub machine guns that happened to have a much greater effective range (so as a sub machine gun at close quarters and as a rifle at medium to longer distances). So, and again this is just what I've heard, is that SOCOM essentially looked at the M4, though "Well this is just an even lighter sub machine gun!", and then proceeded to fire their M4 rifles in sustained fully automatic fire until they broke.
If that really is the case then it would seem to me that the issue wasn't with the original M4 but rather with how they were trying to use it. The heavier SOCOM barrel being capable of sustained fully automatic fire is nice, but it also comes at the cost of weight. If the average soldier isn't going to fire anywhere near enough rounds in a short enough period of time to make it batter whether they had the standard or SOCOM barrel profile then it seems like they would have been better off with the lighter barrel just for weight savings.
Thanks!
Every time I went out on patrol in Vietnam with Australian forces I gave thanks to my governments decision to use the FN FAL (L1A1) in 7.62 Nato. Mine was the F1 shorter verion issued to special forces. I knew I had the Rolls Royce of assault rifles at the time and it never gave me any grief. It would be another ten years before the M16 had all its problems sorted out.
Now our military have to put up with the L88 Steyr AUG, but special forces use the M4.
I remember when we wnt on special recce patrols into Cambodia. We were issued with AKs for those. The AK was the perfect short range assault rifle for a person with zero arms training.
I understand you are a big fan of the AR (as am I), but your bias when speaking if the AK was “utterly and completely” over the top. A lot of opinions about the AK as well. I’m actually disappointed as I was hoping for a well thought out discussion.
My experience dictates my opinion. My opinion is based on mechanics not the cool factor
@@SmallArmsSolutions Your opinions are as developed as a teenager who used the gun on call of duty.
@@SmallArmsSolutionsso you’d understand that the AK47 is more reliable and robust and durable under adverse conditions right ? Than the AR15
@@rustys.1070LOL, Im 51, never played the video game. How about u??? LOL
I love your videos, you give very important information that i did not know. Thank you!
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.
@@rustys.1070😂😂😂frl
Claiming that InRange tests are "more realistic" is beyond silly. If they *realistically* dumped the rifle into that mud, every each one would fail, catastrophically, because of *bore obstruction* . What they actually did, was *artificially* caking all the mechanism with mud, while taking full care of keeping the muzzle clear.
There is nothing realistic about this test. It almost feels like this test was designed for the AR15 to shine.
Actually realistic tests, like those done by AK Operators, consisted of dropping the gun into a muddy puddle, then firing it. AK did very well on those *and* was *easy to clean* afterwards, which was *not the case* for the ARs. Lots of tiny parts, lots of difficult to clean tiny spaces.
Then, the "accuracy" argument is way overhyped. Sure, ARs have high *accuracy potential* , but in reality the guns which are being issued are often shot out and perform barely adequately. What's more, with all the parts needing constant exchange, your average GI is handed a rifle with a lot of random parts in it, which barely fit. That causes *jams* , until drenched in oil. Oil attracts dust, so ARs tend to jam in dusty environments. AKs *do not* .
Finally, the "poison bullet" argument is overblown too. Initially it did work like that, out of a 20" barrel with a slow twist. Nowadays people want to fit into vehicles, so the rifle shrunk, the bullets are overstabilized, "poison bullet" no more. The bullet is not designed to tumble, like the 5.45, and it does not fragment reliably any more. AK's rounds are *designed* to perform out of short barrels, *and* they have the folding stock, which makes life easier inside a vehicle.
Oh, you *can* put optics and adjustable stocks on AKs. Look at Polish Beryl. It works. Shoots your "superior poison bullets" too (though I bet the guys would prefer 5.45).
BTW - I'm not an AK fan, or an AR fan for that matter. I think both designs are obsolete nowadays, but they do work.
M. Kalashnikov had about as much to do with the so called "AK" as I did. Those who knew Soviet arms procurement culture are rolling in their graves.