Reply With Quote
If it's good enough for the US army its good
enough for me, despite the uninformed ramblings of a beta feminized race traitor with a tiny
penis. A good AR is 1 MOE you dumb .
And you sure showed us, by posting a photo of a single gun you own (and not even a very good gun to boot, unless you like inaccurate rifles with a fantastically high rate of jamming).
Every ing COD fanboy creams his jeans over an assault rifle because it looks aggressive, has the perception of being a menacing weapon, and he doesn't know how a real weapon is supposed to feel. Feed dat ego, breh.
If it's good enough for the US army its good
enough for me, despite the uninformed ramblings of a beta feminized race traitor with a tiny
penis. A good AR is 1 MOE you dumb .
By the way that means at 100 yards the entire
grouping will be within one cry havoc length from the center of the target, if you're a perfect shot. And my AR has never jammed.
sigh, so as an American, whose country lost hundreds of thousands of lives defeating the Nazis, you have chosen to betray their legacy and follow the failed teachings of a not very intelligent Austrian corporal? You do realise that there has been a strong shift to following Norse mythology since the senior Nazis in WW2 have been so discredited.
BTW I think you meant MOA, unless MOE has some sort of meaning?
AR is a fine weapon. Light, fairly accurate up to 200 yards, a bas to field strip and clean, moderately reliable as long as it is not dusty and cheap to make. Curiously I read that ISIS are refusing to use them in Iraq due to reliability issues, however I think this is likely propaganda as they were left a HUGE amount of AK weaponry, which is generally considered superior in that environment.
AK is superior in every way. The only problem is that it fires a very distinct sounding shot so every one knows what "side" you are if you start firing. 7.62x39 (ak47/sks) is also cheaper ammo than .223 (ar15). if i wanted to field an army, the AK would be the much more cheaper and efficient weapon to produce and upkeep imo.
Last edited by The Reckoning; 09-26-2014 at 07:34 AM.
SK is better than ak
Not sure what AR15's you guys are talking about but the ones I've built are superior to an AK in every single way except field stripping. Completely reliable after 10,000+ rounds and can ring an 8" steel plate at 500 yards all day.
They don't know anything about guns they're trying to troll me lol
What in the are you talking about? You'll have to explain yourself on this one.
Note *: The effective range of a firearm is the maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired effect.[151]
Rifle Caliber Cartridge Cartridge
weightBullet
weightVelocity Energy Accuracy Range 10 shot group
@ 100 meters10 shot group
@ 300 metersEffective* Horizontal** Lethal*** Maximum**** M16 5.56×45mm M193 184 gr
(11.9 g)
[11]55 gr
(3.6 g)
[7]3,250 fps
(990 m/s)
[7]1,302 ft/lbs
(1,764 j)
[7]4.3 in
(11 cm)
[11]12.6 in
(32 cm)
[150]500 yds
(460 m)
[10]711 yds
(650 m)
[11]984 yds
(900 m)
[11]3000 yds
(2700 m)
[11]AK-47 7.62×39mm M43 255 gr
(16.5 g)
[11]122 gr
(7.9 g)
[7]2,330 fps
(710 m/s)
[7]1,468 ft/lbs
(1,991 j)
[7]5.9 in
(15 cm)
[11]17.5 in
(44 cm)
[150]380 yds
(350 m)
[8][9]580 yds
(530 m)
[11]1640 yds
(1500 m)
[11]2500 yds
(2300 m)
[11]
Note **: The horizontal range is the distance traveled by a bullet, fired from the rifle at a height of 1.6 meters and 0° elevation, until the bullet hits the ground.[152]
Note ***: The lethal range is the maximum range of a small-arms projectile, while still maintaining the minimum energy required to put a man out of action, which is generally believed to be 15 kilogram-meters (108 ft.-Ibs.).[11] This is the equivalent of the muzzle energy of a .22LR handgun.[153]
Note ****: The maximum range of a small-arms projectile is attained at about 30° elevation. This maximum range is only of safety interest, not for combat firing.[11]
The M16 has always enjoyed a reputation for excellent accuracy.[154][155] Newer M16s use the newer M855 cartridge increasing their effective range to 600 meters.[115] They are also more accurate than their predecessors and are capable of shooting 1–3 inch groups at 100 yards.[156][157] The M16s light recoil, high-velocity and flat trajectory allow shooters to take head shots out to 300 meters.[154][158] "In Fallujah, Marines with ACOG-equipped M16A4s created a stir by taking so many head shots that until the wounds were closely examined, some observers thought the insurgents had been executed."[159] The newest M855A1 EPR cartridge is even more accurate and during testing "...has shown that, on average, 95 percent of the rounds will hit within an 8 x 8-inch target at 600 meters."[160]
The AK-47's accuracy has always been considered to be "good enough" to hit an adult male torso out to about 300 meters.[155][156][161] "At 300 meters, expert shooters (firing AK-47s) at prone or at bench rest positions had difficulty putting ten consecutive rounds on target."[162] Despite the Soviet engineers best efforts and "no matter the changes, the AK-47's accuracy could not be significantly improved; when it came to precise shooting, it was a stubbornly mediocre arm."[163] Curiously, the newer stamped steel receiver AKM models are actually less accurate than their predecessors.[156] "There are advantages and disadvantages in both forged/milled receivers and stamped receivers. Milled/Forged Receivers are much more rigid, flexing less as the rifle is fired thus not hindering accuracy as much as stamped receivers. Stamped receivers on the other hand are a bit more rugged since it has some give in it and have less chances of having metal fatigue under heavy usage."[156] As a result, the milled AK-47's are capable of shooting 3–5 inch groups at 100 yards, whereas the stamped AKM's are capable of shooting 4–6 inch groups at 100 yards.[156][164] The best shooters are able to hit a man-sized target at 800 metres within five shots (firing from prone or supported position) or ten shots (standing).[165]
Accuracy isn't even a debate between the two.
So the standard you're holding the M16/AR to is the gun that's so cheap that you can give it to 8 year olds and let them walk around with it? The gun that's basically meant to walk up to close range of a person/group of people and spray ammo?
The sad thing is, in this comparison the AR still gets it's pants dropped by the AK for being a much less reliable weapon. You can grind an AK through sand, mud, dust, downpours, and the damn thing still fires. Meanwhile in perfect conditions the AR is known to jamming problems due to ejector spring issues.
Besides, the gun you're speaking of is fully automatic. m>s's gun is a semi-auto unless he's modded it to be illegal.
Semi-automatic assault rifles.
So the standard you're holding the M16/AR to is the gun that's so cheap that you can give it to 8 year olds and let them walk around with it? The gun that's basically meant to walk up to close range of a person/group of people and spray ammo?
The sad thing is, in this comparison the AR still gets it's pants dropped by the AK for being a much less reliable weapon. You can grind an AK through sand, mud, dust, downpours, and the damn thing still fires. Meanwhile in perfect conditions the AR is known to jamming problems due to ejector spring issues.
Besides, the gun you're speaking of is fully automatic. m>s's gun is a semi-auto unless he's modded it to be illegal.
You said the AR15 is inaccurate and has a fantastically high rate of jamming. To which firearm are you comparing that to?
Other semi-auto weapons. The AP4 uses a .308 round that has always been far more accurate.
A BAR Safari in either the .308 cartridge or the .338 win is semi-auto and will just laugh at the AR. 300 meters. Rofl.
No one buys an assault rifle for accuracy, dude. The fact that you're attempting to prop it up is just silly. People who buy them buy them because they're what armed forces use and because they look mean, except consumers get a gimped version so it defeats the purpose.
I'm not even knocking the AR, for field operations the M16 has been a decent (not stellar) weapon. It might be phased out soon, but either way it's adequate to decent for the usage. I'm just commenting on idiots who buy two guns (either a .45 or a .50 cal pistol and an assault rifle) and then talk about guns like they want to feel like a badass who could kill people. Point any gun noob out to me and I guarantee the first gun he's going to talk about is his beloved assault rifle. Then I level a 30 06 over my shoulder and hit a target from 1000 yards away without even putting effort into it and they get all confused.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 09-26-2014 at 12:20 PM.
You said the AR15 was inaccurate, had a fantastically high rate of jamming, and implied it couldn't run after being drug through sand, mud and dust. I'm still waiting for the proof of this.Other semi-auto weapons. The AP4 uses a .308 round that has always been far more accurate.
A BAR Safari in either the .308 cartridge or the .338 win is semi-auto and will just laugh at the AR. 300 meters. Rofl.
No one buys an assault rifle for accuracy, dude. The fact that you're attempting to prop it up is just silly. People who buy them buy them because they're what armed forces use and because they look mean, except consumers get a gimped version so it defeats the purpose.
I'm not even knocking the AR, for field operations the M16 has been a decent (not stellar) weapon. It might going to get phased out soon, but either way it's adequate to decent for the usage. I'm just commenting on idiots who buy two guns (either a .45 or a .50 cal pistol and an assault rifle) and then talk about guns like they want to feel like a badass who could kill people. Point any gun noob out to me and I guarantee the first gun he's going to talk about is his beloved assault rifle. Then I level a 30 06 over my shoulder and hit a target from 1000 yards away without even putting effort into it and they get all confused.
http://www.gundigest.com/tactical-ge...5-torture-test
And comparing .223 to .308 isn't very fair, that'd be like comparing .308 to .338 Allen Magnum. I really think you are underestimating the AR15 for it's price point.
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/0...nd-techniques/
Two seconds on a google search.
All of these factor into the great appeal of the AR-15 rifle for so many, but they also contribute to a common problem with the rifle. AR-15 rifles jam. There is little more frustrating (and potentially dangerous) than taking out a rifle and having it jam again and again.
No Dust, No Dirt, No Debris
Due to the intricacy and preciseness of the AR-15’s action, any dust, dirt or debris will throw off the smoothness of the mechanism, resulting in jams. While the gas blowback is enough to throw the bolt back after a shot is fired, the force at which the bolt moves forward again with the next round is significantly less. As a result, any kind of debris, however miniscule, can hinder it from moving forward freely. Take the rifle’s action apart and wipe it down with a rag. Cotton swabs can come in handy here as well. Take the bolt carrier group out of the upper receiver and clean the upper receiver. Dissemble the bolt carrier group and wipe it down. The rifle functions off of how smoothly and consistently the bolt carrier group moves through the upper receiver, so any changes and increases in friction by sand or dust can quickly lead to jams.
I'll go with my own experience over some beginners guide to AR15s you just posted. I don' baby my guns and they take a beating and still perform flawlessly when dirty.
And did you even click my link bro? Here is all the sand, water, and grime in an AR for you.
http://www.gundigest.com/tactical-ge...5-torture-test
The highly publicized jammimg problems in Vietnam were eventually resolved. Turned out it was the ammo, not environmental factors. ty low bid ammo with dirty powder charge was causing the gas port fouling.
Anecdotal vs. Something that's well known in the gun industry. Come on man, that's just silly.
And yes, obviously many ARs don't jam. If they all jammed there would have been a recall. But a lot of them do. Enough that it's not considered a rugged weapon by many enthusiasts.
We're far from the point, however. I notice m>s stopped chiming in.
Yes that was back when troops were literally throwing down their m16s for aks. It's better now but they still jam. Just not as often.
Correct, and chambers also weren't lined with chrome.
Had a M16 I built out of surplus parts the military sold in the 80s that was quite reliable with good ammo.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 09-26-2014 at 01:58 PM.
No, a lot of them don't jam and it is not something well known in the industry.Anecdotal vs. Something that's well known in the gun industry. Come on man, that's just silly.
And yes, obviously many ARs don't jam. If they all jammed there would have been a recall. But a lot of them do. Enough that it's not considered a rugged weapon by many enthusiasts.
We're far from the point, however. I notice m>s stopped chiming in.
It's great that an Obama salute thread has turned into a gun thread. Fitting for the best gun salesman of the all time.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en-U...r&q=ar-15+jams
It's almost like you pretend Google doesn't exist. Except it does, and it's a common discussion amongst ar-15 owners.
Anyway, this debate borders on bike shedding at this point. So I'm not sure what the point is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions