>>65217119(OP) Depends on whether your just shooting on the KD range a few days a year or actually dragging the rifle through snow, sand, and mud in the trenches.
00
Anonymous06/08/26(Mon)00:32:13
I have both and I like both but the AR wins because of ammo prices Funny enough the AK was probably the better option because of ammo prices but nowadays the cheapest good AKs are $1000+ meanwhile a PSA can run you less than $600 and you can save for a decent optic or go full retard and get an ACOG And it would probably cost less than say an Arsenal
>>65217119(OP) AK. >reeeee The Garand/Kalashnikov hybrid design is the most produced, copied, and utilized firearm in history, the AR15 was so "superior" that it was copied and used by nearly no-one, and the nations that did (Taiwan/South Korea) dropped them as quickly as possible. A AK can be refined to beautiful degree (Sig 550/Rk series/XCR) while the AR needs to be redesigned from the ground up to be minimally functional.
00
Anonymous06/08/26(Mon)02:39:37
>>65217119(OP) AR is better for regulars, ak is better for conscripts.
00
Anonymous06/08/26(Mon)02:40:35
Yes
00
Anonymous06/08/26(Mon)02:42:01
>>65217838 Colt wouldn't give the South Koreans a license to produce M16s domestically. The others I don't know enough to speak on
00
Anonymous06/08/26(Mon)02:45:09
>>65217890 South Korea literally produced M16s domestically.
>>65217916 >Deliveries of XM16E1s began in October 1966 and M16A1s in March 1967 by the United States for the South Korea during the Vietnam War.[289][290] >Also, 1,039,599 M16A1s (Colt Model 603K) were locally produced by Ministry of Defense Arsenal (later privatized to Daewoo Precision Industries and Poongsan Cooperation) at $7 royalty paid per rifle to Colt between 1971 to 1982.[note 16][292] KATUSA (Korean Augmentation to the U.S. Army) soldiers who serve in the U.S. Army use the M16A2.[249] Retirement from active service began in 2005, and the Reserve Forces alone has 850,000 M16s in possession by the end of 2016.[293][294]
>>65217890 South Korea MADE M16's in house. Taiwan chose to manufacture M14's in house rather than manufacture M16's and both ran into the same problem; that being M16's failed even on the firing range. Taiwan and Colt ironically came to the same conclusion, that a short stroke upper receiver was the most expedient solution, while Stoner himself moved to the AR17-18. If the Stoner DI system was so great then everyone would copy and use a version in their own service rifles.
The AIM-9 Sidewinder was so effective and groundbreaking that the Soviets copied it down to the point where K-13 components could be interchangeable with the Sidewinder. Military technology and general concepts boil weapons down to very similar weapons with few outliers that can be explained by two simple reasons. >doctrine speciality >outright corruption The M14 is a example of doctrine, and while the weapon itself wasn't copied but the concept itself was. The M16 was due to outright corruption, with Colt salesman outright having "private demonstrations" to Generals which leads to adoption without any sort of trials or development.
00
Anonymous06/08/26(Mon)03:26:41
>>65217119(OP) The AK is better for what it was intended to be, which was an evolution of the submachinegun. The M16 is overly long, and shoots a tiny 22-caliber squirrel bullet that was an overcorrection from the 7.62 NATO cartridge. The US military has been trying to replace 5.56 NATO almost as soon as it was adopted. The reason it’s stuck around for so long is ultimately a matter of cost/logistics which makes the bean counters happy. That being said, I think the AR is typically a more well-made firearm than the basic commie AK due to the difference in Western vs Eastern manufacturing. Something like the IWI ACE is like the ultimate evolution of the AK if it was redesigned and manufactured by a first-world country. The biggest advantage of the AR will always be its weight. This makes the AR easier to live with for the average person. If you compared short (10-13” barreled) versions of both, then I think the AK starts gaining more of an edge. Think Mk 18 vs Zastava M92.
00
Anonymous06/08/26(Mon)03:55:17
>>65218013 >IWI ACE No, though it is a very good AK the "best" version of the AK is hands down the XCR.
>>65218013 >The M16 is overly long, You can literally just make a shorter AR15, like the M4A1 with a 14.5" barrel and collapsing stock, or go even shorter like the Mk.18 with its 10.5" barrel, though that's less practical.
>and shoots a tiny 22-caliber squirrel bullet that was an overcorrection from the 7.62 NATO cartridge. 5.56x45mm NATO M193 Ball violently mogs the M59 Ball load of 7.62x51mm NATO, and the M43 load of 7.62x39mm. M193 Ball isn't even cutting edge either, we have M855A1 Ball and Mk.262 Mod 1, both which are even better.
>The US military has been trying to replace 5.56 NATO almost as soon as it was adopted. Because there's many retards in the military. Look at it now, the .277 Fury is an excellent example of retardation.
>The reason it’s stuck around for so long is ultimately a matter of cost/logistics which makes the bean counters happy. It stuck around because it let you carry more than twice the ammo, makes rapid fire and full auto trivially easy, has a flat trajectory, and makes wounds like pic related. 5.56x45mm was so fucking good that the Soviets had no choice but to copy it for their 5.45x39mm, and the Chinese 5.8x42mm isn't far away from it either.
>That being said, I think the AR is typically a more well-made firearm than the basic commie AK due to the difference in Western vs Eastern manufacturing. It's also a fundamentally more practical and modern weapon.
>>65218707 >You can literally just make a shorter AR15, like the M4A1 with a 14.5" barrel and collapsing stock I mean yes, but historically the M16 was already outclassed by the AK as soon as it was adopted. 30 round magazine vs 20 round, collapsible stock vs fixed stock, 16" barrel vs retardedly long 20" barrel, etc. >It stuck around because it let you carry more than twice the ammo, makes rapid fire and full auto trivially easy, has a flat trajectory, and makes wounds like pic related. >5.56x45mm was so fucking good that the Soviets had no choice but to copy it for their 5.45x39mm, and the Chinese 5.8x42mm isn't far away from it either. The major advantage of the M16 and 5.56 cartridge was always just weight reduction. 5.56 was adopted because the Pentagon thought it would be easier for Vietnam draftees who grew up shooting 22s on the farm to control with spray-and-pray tactics in the jungle. Turns out 7.62x39 still performed better in dense vegetation, and American troops spamming full auto fire burned up ammo too quickly, which negated the whole advantage of 5.56 being lighter than 7.62 cartridges. Because of this, the Pentagon limited the newer M16s to three-round burst in the 80's. Fast forward to early GWOT, and troops are on record complaining about the ineffectiveness of the M855 cartridge and the "knockdown power" of 5.56 at range (same complaint made against the .30-40 Krag-Jørgensen rifle during the Moro Wars 100 years earlier). >It's also a fundamentally more practical and modern weapon. Because of weight. Steel AK vs aluminum AR means the AR is lighter and ultimately more practical. If the AK weighed the same as the AR, then I would consider it superior. Even though it sounded like I was shitting on the AR earlier in this post, I do think weight is the most important attribute for the practical use of a firearm. Really the thing I actually hate about the AR is the fact that it's married to the 5.56 cartridge due to the design of the magwell.
>>65218707 >M4 >make the perfect light weight rifle into an overweight unbalanced shitbrick
00
Anonymous06/08/26(Mon)14:35:19
>>65218772 >5.56 was adopted because the Pentagon thought it would be easier for Vietnam draftees who grew up shooting 22s on the farm to control with spray-and-pray tactics in the jungle. utterly retarded drivel >Turns out 7.62x39 still performed better in dense vegetation it didn't >and American troops spamming full auto fire burned up ammo too quickly, which negated the whole advantage of 5.56 being lighter than 7.62 cartridges this makes zero sense either > If the AK weighed the same as the AR, then I would consider it superior. lol, lmao even
>>65218839 Gov't profile isn't that great, no, but I think you're exaggerating. Use a fluted profile and a lighter fore-end and you'd see improvement.
>>65218901 >>Turns out 7.62x39 still performed better in dense vegetation >it didn't Heavier bullets deflect less when shooting through light vegetation, is probably what he's getting at, but that's not exactly some kind of pivotal factor.
>>65217916 Clearly there was some sort of agreement (or if there was any violation, it was settled), because the Koreans manufactured a million M16A1s and paid Colt royalties for each one.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)04:26:17
>>65218707 >You can literally just make a shorter AR15, like the M4A1 with a 14.5" barrel and collapsing stock, or go even shorter like the Mk.18 with its 10.5" barrel, though that's less practical.
But then you lose the wounding power you gush over.
Why is it also always the same batch of photos from the era where they would only be using twenty inch barrels whereas we never see modern day wound photos where they are using the carbines you mentioned.
>5.56x45mm NATO M193 Ball violently mogs the M59 Ball load of 7.62x51mm NATO, and the M43 load of 7.62x39mm. M193 Ball isn't even cutting edge either, we have M855A1 Ball and Mk.262 Mod 1, both which are even better.
Yeah well that is just like.. your opinion, man, but comparing a WW2 (effectively anyways) round (M43 ball) to M855 is funny - M67 Yugo or anything commercial from Wolf or Hornady mogs.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)04:29:18
>>65221018 (me) Quick follow up question: which would you rather be shot by in the chest - specifically the solar plexus - with no body armor?
5.56x45mm M193 (it "mogs") or 7.62x39mm M43 ball?
M16A1 against a Type 56 if it /really/ matters.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)04:44:26
>>65217119(OP) Distance combat but not sniper distance: AR15 due to accuracy and since the head is more visible than the torso in window fights. Upclose: AKM, AK47, or any other 7.62x39mm AK variant mostly cause of caliber.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)12:01:46
>>65221055 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm takes fat steaming shits over 7.62x39mm for CQB as well.
>>65221024 >5.56x45mm M193 (it "mogs") or 7.62x39mm M43 ball? m43 easily, it's basically a pistol caliber fmj in terms of wounding.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)20:11:09
>>65221823 You have chosen to be shot in the torso by a 123 grain projectile based on a chart which shows that the M43 ball is still going to mess you up - M193 is not shown by M995 is closer in grain and the example gun I picked so let's go off of that - where the 5.56 round pretty much icepicks, leaves a decent wound, but then leave whereas the 7.62x39mm has tore through your entire body.
>>65222778 >is still going to mess you up icepicking uselessly is the worst possible performance a bullet can have, you disingenous retarded troon
it might as well be .22lr in terms of effectiveness, absolute dogshit befitting of its subhuman designers.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)21:58:23
>>65222803 >icepicking uselessly is the worst possible performance a bullet can have
And that is exactly what 5.56 does 95% of the time! That is exactly what the closest analog to M193 ammo did, though I see you posted a new chart where it still does... exactly that, mostly icepicks and then has a rather shit wound profile solely afforded to it by barrel length which you advocate for cutting down in posts prior.
I will add that these charts are also entirely unsourced (just drawings and shit, unless you want to provide links) yet I am still beating you on them.
Are Germans subhuman? You won't believe what 7.62x39mm is downstream of.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)22:32:47
>>65223146 >And that is exactly what 5.56 does 95% of the time! Actual mongoloid.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)22:35:50
>>65223146 >these charts are also entirely unsourced (just drawings and shit hello newfag, reddit is the other way
>>65217119(OP) It has been pretty definitively established that the AR is markedly superior in all regards, and any leftover rancid boomer cope about the advantages the AK supposedly had have either been exposed as simply false or made obsolete by the march of time.
>>65223338 In terms of velocity and grain it was the closet to compare to - not my fault that you posted a shitty chart (still unsourced).
Posting the same tired images which are also unsourced (only the Vietnam era one has credibility but we covered why that one is irrelevant) to compare it to a FLESH WOUND GRAZE is quite funny. You're a shill for a varmint round: the most deluded dick lopping troonball has more sense than you.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)23:18:03
>>65222791 The XCR is almost the perfect rifle, a 3 lug style SVD bolt, and a L1A1 style charging handle would complete it.
>>65223328 >It has been pretty definitively established that the AR is markedly superior in all regards Is that why it’s going the way of the dodo and being replaced by piston rifles? >inb4 but it’s not being replaced with AKs No country officially aligned with the West/NATO would ever adopt an AK at this point, since the AK itself is associated with being a national symbol of Russia. This is why Poland dropped the Beryl and Estonia dropped their aging Galils. Instead they’re all adopting bullpups, new polymer ACR/SCAR clones, or rifles that are basically M4s on the outside, but have piston operating systems under the hood. Unaligned countries in South America, Africa, and Asia are frequently buying modernized AKs from Russia, Serbia, Poland, and Israel vs M4s from American companies like Colt and Sig.