AK-47 versus AR-15

C

Cypress

Well-known member
The ammunition capacity, the rate of fire, and the military-grade ballistics are remarkable to watch.
Designed by military small arms engineers with one purpose in mind - a capacity and sustained firing rate to kill humans as rapidly and efficiently as possible.
When you really think about it, why would any nutjob bent on shooting up a kindergarten or a Wallmart even waste their time on revolvers, traditional hunting rifles, or shotguns?

 
Cypress said:
The ammunition capacity, the rate of fire, and the military-grade ballistics are remarkable to watch.
Designed by military small arms engineers with one purpose in mind - a capacity and sustained firing rate to kill humans as rapidly and efficiently as possible.
When you really think about it, why would any nutjob bent on shooting up a kindergarten or a Wallmart even waste their time on revolvers, traditional hunting rifles, or shotguns?

Click to expand...

LOL!! Here we go with the "military ballistics" again.
So tell us, oh knowledgeable one, is my .220 Swift more or less powerful than the .223 that the AR-15 fires? How about the .243? The .308 and the .30-06 shoot the same (.308) projectile, do they have comparable ballistics or they quite different?

Oh, if I were stupid enough to try one of these mass shootings, why would I prefer my S&W K-38 over an AK or AR? Better "military ballistics"?
 
I totally admit to a little Russian pride in the legendary status of the AK-47.

In the case of a Zombie apocalypse, I am choosing as my weapon of choice the AK-47 over the AR-15.
United States military doctrine is to reduce enemy capability by maiming enemy soldiers. Wounding zombies is not an option, you need to put them down - so I am going with Soviet military doctrine of overwhelming firepower.

Gun History: The Origin Story of the AK-47

By any measure, the AK-47 is the most successful assault rifle in human history. In terms of the number of guns produced, duration of service, and worldwide deployment, it has no equal.

The name AK-47 is derived from the Russian words “Avtomat Kalashnikova”, in honor of its automatic firing capabilities and its principal designer, Mikhail Kalashnikov. The 47 denotes the year 1947, when the trials started on the version of the rifle that was finally approved for adoption by the Soviet armed forces soon after.

The genius of the rifle is not that it was original. It is actually an amalgamation of several preexisting design concepts. The trigger mechanism, safety catch, rotating bolt, and gas-driven action borrowed heavily from other firearms. But these features were combined with a platform that offered legendary durability and low manufacturing costs.

The result was a lightweight rifle with moderate recoil that was easy to wield and that still placed tremendous firepower into the hands of individual soldiers. Accuracy was a secondary consideration. The fact that it gave soldiers the ability to deliver massed fire in an effective fashion was what made it unlike any other rifle before and, some would still argue, ever since.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/gun-history-origin-story-ak-47/
Click to expand...
 
RB 60 said:
LOL!! Here we go with the "military ballistics" again.
So tell us, oh knowledgeable one, is my .220 Swift more or less powerful than the .223 that the AR-15 fires? How about the .243? The .308 and the .30-06 shoot the same (.308) projectile, do they have comparable ballistics or they quite different?

Oh, if I were stupid enough to try one of these mass shootings, why would I prefer my S&W K-38 over an AK or AR? Better "military ballistics"?
Click to expand...
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?91993-Many-hunters-use-AR15-s&p=2245815#post2245815
"I am a trauma surgeon, and I've seen what AR-15s can do. There's no reason for civilians to own them. An assault rifle is designed to deliver fatal wounds to multiple individuals within a short time period; it has no other purpose. The AR-15, the civilian version of the military assault rifle (M16 or M4), has become the most commonly used rifle in US mass shootings; the recent shootings in Parkland and Las Vegas, for instance, testify to the effectiveness of this weapon’s design. It was made for the military, to allow members of the armed forces to better dispatch multiple enemies in short order; in the hands of civilians, it not only clearly serves the same purpose for some individuals, but it’s unclear what other purpose it could serve, given how and why it was made."
 
Cypress said:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?91993-Many-hunters-use-AR15-s&p=2245815#post2245815
"I am a trauma surgeon, and I've seen what AR-15s can do. There's no reason for civilians to own them. An assault rifle is designed to deliver fatal wounds to multiple individuals within a short time period; it has no other purpose. The AR-15, the civilian version of the military assault rifle (M16 or M4), has become the most commonly used rifle in US mass shootings; the recent shootings in Parkland and Las Vegas, for instance, testify to the effectiveness of this weapon’s design. It was made for the military, to allow members of the armed forces to better dispatch multiple enemies in short order; in the hands of civilians, it not only clearly serves the same purpose for some individuals, but it’s unclear what other purpose it could serve, given how and why it was made."
Click to expand...

Yeah, you showed that shit before. A silly trauma surgeon. My K-38 shooting Barnes X Bullets will do far more damage than either the AK or the AR.
Neither you nor that Dr. know ANYTHING about ballistics.
 
Cypress said:
I totally admit to a little Russian pride in the legendary status of the AK-47.

In the case of a Zombie apocalypse, I am choosing as my weapon of choice the AK-47 over the AR-15.
United States military doctrine is to reduce enemy capability by maiming enemy soldiers. Wounding zombies is not an option, you need to put them down - so I am going with Soviet military doctrine of overwhelming firepower.
Click to expand...

Not me, I prefer my M1-A over the AK. Much better "ballistics."
The AK can't hold a candle to the M1 Garand either, and that's a fact.
 
RB 60 said:
Yeah, you showed that shit before. A silly trauma surgeon. My K-38 shooting Barnes X Bullets will do far more damage than either the AK or the AR.
Neither you nor that Dr. know ANYTHING about ballistics.
Click to expand...

The AR-15 assault rifle was engineered to create what one of its designers called “maximum wound effect.” Its tiny bullets – needle-nosed and weighing less than four grams – travel nearly three times the speed of sound. As the bullet strikes the body, the payload of kinetic energy rips open a cavity inside the flesh – essentially inert space – which collapses back on itself, destroying inelastic tissue, including nerves, blood vessels and vital organs. “It’s a perfect killing machine,” says Dr. Peter Rhee, a leading trauma surgeon and retired captain with 24 years of active-duty service in the Navy.

Rhee is most famous at home for saving the life of Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords after she was shot point-blank in the head with a handgun fired by a mass shooter in 2011. “A handgun [wound] is simply a stabbing with a bullet,” says Rhee. “It goes in like a nail.” With the high-velocity rounds of the AR-15, he adds, “its as if you shot somebody with a Coke can.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...became-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice-107819/
 
RB 60 said:
Not me, I prefer my M1-A over the AK. Much better "ballistics."
The AK can't hold a candle to the M1 Garand either, and that's a fact.
Click to expand...

I am not a weapons expert, but I do not think the world war two vintage M1 Garand and the AK-47 can be compared, as they were designed for different tactical purposes.

I personally think the argument can be made that M1 Garand was best rifle of World War 2.

I have never fired an M1A. But I do not think there is any doubt, none whatsoever, that the AK has been the weapon of choice internationally by military, militias, and insurgents. Bar none, nothing even comes close
 
Cypress said:
I am not a weapons expert, but I do not think the world war two vintage M1 Garand and the AK-47 can be compared, as they were designed for different tactical purposes.

I personally think the argument can be made that M1 Garand was best rifle of World War 2.

I have never fired an M1A. But I do not think there is any doubt, none whatsoever, that the AK has been the weapon of choice internationally by military, militias, and insurgents. Bar none, nothing even comes close
Click to expand...

Different "tactical" purposes? Maybe you can explain this difference to us?

Gen. Patton said it was the best. I used an NM M1 Garand in competitions. Had to fire 2 rounds using a SLED clip, then insert another 8 round clip for the last 8 rounds.

That's because you know nothing about down range energy or the difference between calibers and ballistics.
I can't say what they use today, but most Army and Marine "ringers" used the M1-A in competitions when I competed. I'd bet they still do.
 
RB 60 said:
LOL!! Here we go with the "military ballistics" again.
So tell us, oh knowledgeable one, is my .220 Swift more or less powerful than the .223 that the AR-15 fires? How about the .243? The .308 and the .30-06 shoot the same (.308) projectile, do they have comparable ballistics or they quite different?

Oh, if I were stupid enough to try one of these mass shootings, why would I prefer my S&W K-38 over an AK or AR? Better "military ballistics"?
Click to expand...

Personally I think much more damage could be done with a Springfield XDM .45ACP with hollow point rounds.

This is a true tactical weapon that can hold a 13 round magazine and allow you to conceal it.

Leftists put their ignorance of guns on display every time something like this happens
 
Teflon Don said:
Personally I think much more damage could be done with a Springfield XDM .45ACP with hollow point rounds.

This is a true tactical weapon that can hold a 13 round magazine and allow you to conceal it.

Leftists put their ignorance of guns on display every time something like this happens
Click to expand...

I never fired the XDM. True, a semi is slightly quicker and holds more ammo that a standard double action revolver but revolvers never jam. That's why I'd prefer the K-38 with the speed loader over my 1911.

Yes, it is amusing how stupid most leftists are about guns, especially types of bullets and ballistics.
 
RB 60 said:
I never fired the XDM. True, a semi is slightly quicker and holds more ammo that a standard double action revolver but revolvers never jam. That's why I'd prefer the K-38 with the speed loader over my 1911.

Yes, it is amusing how stupid most leftists are about guns, especially types of bullets and ballistics.
Click to expand...

That makes sense to me. My primary personal defense weapon is my cane. The second is a .38 Special, loaded with Glaser Safety Slugs. My third choice is my .45 ACP, Kimber Pro Raptor II.
 
MASON said:
WTF are you guys so scared of?
Click to expand...

Dude! If I were afraid, would my primary personal defense weapon be a wooden cane?

Based on articles I have been reading, people are afraid to go places from their local grocery stores, to potentially large crowds, like shopping malls, concerts and theaters. Take heed.
 
Last edited:
Controlled Opposition said:
Dude! If I were afraid, would my primary personal defense weapon be a wooden cane?

Based on articles I have been reading, people are afraid to go places from their local grocery stores, to potentially large crowds, like shopping malls, concerts and theaters. Take heed.
Click to expand...

So I need to take a semi automatic rifle everywhere I go?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top