.
.
Okay, while waking, I was a bit bored. I jumped over to YouTube and started looking around. A video popped which indicated a thorough examination. It ended up being... at least five parts, each video being 20 minutes, give or take. Still, while waking I have little else to do, so I dove in. At first the comparison seemed practical. But then, in the last part of the second part and definitely into the third part, the series took a dive.
The tester admitted that, within 200 yards (seriously? that's the effective range of both rifles), that the AK hit much harder. He showed numbers, as to velocity, drop, pounds of pressure at the hit, and such, and admitted the numbers simply don't fully explain how much better the 7.62x39 is, in real life. Fair enough. Numbers are a part of it, but as noted, not all of it. In spite of admitting that the 7.62 topped the .223, he favored the .223 for weight, allowing him to carry more ammunition. Now, let me stop right there and explain why not. Oh, and the video that started the problem, the first in the series anyway.
First, if this rifle is for your personal target shooting expeditions, weight is a consideration. Even if you have military applications in mind, weight is actually a consideration just not a primary or singular consideration. So, I believe he is confusing tactical operations with personal preferences here, and this is a mistake. Is it due to prejudice? I didn't see that. But it is a mistake. If ammunition is freely available, and you don't mind sending as much of it downrange as you wish, then lighter is better. If you run combat, with a mind to both tactical and economic realities, then you can't think that way.
While the 7.62 ammunition is heavier, since round for round it is more effective, if you put either on target rather than spraying and praying, several things will be noted. The 7.62x 39 over the .223/5.56 will lower your costs regarding the operations at hand by ending the hostility more quickly through attrition per round on target and since both calibers only have (generally speaking) 30 rounds per magazine, the limits on the cartridges become paramount in a wider tactical situation... you don't want to have to shoot more rounds to take out more bad guys, more so when numbers are large or unknown. One on one? Your choice, if even then the 5.56 loses. Now, there are even better rounds. However, when you include all variables, such as weight, cost, rifle reliability and accuracy, among many others, these two rifles are what it comes down to, especially for civilians in the common man pricepoint market.
So... I stopped watching the series right there. I think any prejudice included wasn't regarding the rifles, it was trying to not piss off either of the sides of the debate. He seems to have friends, and viewers, on both sides of the debate and wanted the contest to seem closer than it really is. Fair enough, but then don't suggest you are going to play by rules of logic. Pandering is what that is called, intentional or not. Or mistaken. And don't offer it for general purposes. It's not. It's personal and mistaken.
Me? An AK-47/clone versus an AR-15/clone? I will, as I have said, and for noted reasons and others, choose the AK-47. I will not harangue someone for choosing the AR-15, but if they ask, or start a pissing contest, I won't even hold back. I understand symbology. I understand personal preference. I understand a lot of things. But, for me, now as back then, I understand that using the right tool for the right application is more important than pretending to by on one side or the other. This is not cowboys and indians, it's teh real. A gun is not dangerous, communist, capitalist, Christian, or anti-Christian, nor is it anything of ideology, faith, or even action. It is we who are good or evil, or focused on one or the other. I do not consider the AR-15 a toy, but I also do not consider it the best firearm for the task to which I would relegate it. Further, it is more expensive.
So... to soothe the savage beast, I found an equally unbiased video doing a similarly scientific comparison. Enjoy.
Booyeah!
That doesn't even touch on the relative ruggedness of the AK versus the nancyboy finickyness of the AR. If you're in a bad situation you just simply cannot afford to worry about dust, dirt and shit getting into your MBR. It's gotta work when you need it, no matter what.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I might favor a .32 or .380 over a .45 too, if weight was the *only* consideration. I own one of each for a reason though...
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I honestly don't care what John or Jane do. If they ask, I'll let them know my mind. And, I would rather they have an ar-15 and ammo than nothing. But dollar per value, the ak won't be beat for that function. Find out just how many soldiers, even now if they probably aren't permitted it, would grab an enemy ak and leave the m-16 at the base. Possibly even if they had to buy their own ammo if they couldn't scrounge enough. My guess is that is simply not permitted anymore.
ReplyDeleteOh, sure. A .32, .380, .38, even a .22 has it's place. No fuss here at all. Just don't hand me one and tell me it is as good as a .45. Not even a 9, the military just went with it because of women, many of whom can't even handle the 9! Idiots. But sometimes you have to go light for various reasons, and I'd rather have a pocket .380 than nothing. It just makes the task a little less sure.
Yeah, but... if you watched the last video... did you laugh? Man, that cracked me up. In the first vid, he tried to be all sciency then went all personal, and destroyed any function of the science as to tactical realities. The second one? He was honest from the get-go. Sure, he said science, but... uhrm... It was made as simple as could be that there was no such function. Absolutely loved it for the laugh. *boom* Those weren't bad either.
ReplyDelete"The AK will not be stopped by a ham sandwich!"
ReplyDeleteWell there ya go! Nothing more needs to be said!
Actually, that part IS impressive, if more so the peanut butter. Not sure if he jammed it down in there or just set it on top, though I suspect it wouldn't matter. And, as far as I am concerned, he was just as scientific as the first guy when all was said and done, only he was right... so...
ReplyDelete