AK47 vs M16 (again...)

No, that comes under shockwaves.
A basic say 2 foot diameter tree will stop an AK-47 bullet with only a few inches penetration even from close range. A brick wall is kinda vague since it would make a difference how many layers of brick you are referring to. Masonry buildings can vary considerably.

 

Actualy greig,u completly wrong about accuracy but i must ask u something:How u aimed?
When u shoot from AK,on range....300m for exsample,i ajust sight on 300m,and important thing,u dont aim in chest,u allways aim in the leggs! (that way u can see battlefield good,whole area).It is designed like that,u newer aim headshots :lol: Now u try it again Second thing,one of standard things here,is that army ajust rifle to the shooter.On first few shootings,they look ur group concentration and ajust rifle by ur grouping.Il tell u that AK does not kick only UP,it kick slightly in the right,and im left handed,so u see that normal ajust is not suitable for me.

About 5.56x45 ammo,it is designed to be on the limit of stability,on order to rikoshet from the bones in human body,but that has flaws allso.It rikosher from the branches in the heawy tree areas of combat,7.62x39 dont hawe this problems.If u worry about 7.62x39 penetration ability dont-it can penetrate u on more then 1 km :lol: allso it does make holes in brick walls.
TISO-
M-72,owergrown AK-47 :lol: I used M-84,but i shooted AK-47 and M-72 allso on combat training

 

AHHH a PKT gunner
Pic of M-84


pic of M-72:

 

I was awarded the Expert marksmanship qualification by the USMC with scores high enough to get an automatic tryout for the USMC Rifle Team had I so desired so I don't really think I need marksmanship tips from you sinissa but thanks anyway

BTW the recoil of the rifle does not cause the bullet to hit high and to the right. By the time that the recoil is transmitted through the mass of the weapon and causes the barrel to rise the bullet is far downrange beyond the possiblity to be affected in any way by the recoil of the weapon.
Your reaction to the recoil can cause the NEXT shot to hit high and to the right due to barrel rise though if you do not compensate for the recoil. That is something that is basic to marksmanship though and every recruit learns.

 

.

boljemoi , sinissa , that's basic training stuff !!
I can't believe a semi-auto can be accurate
the only one to my limited knowledge is the dragunov rifle

Did anybody had the oportunity to try it
its supposed to be close to an automatic sniper rifle ( ???? )
it looks like a racy variant of kalashnikov but was made by his
home town rival .


.

 

I did shoot a once with M-76 (Yugoslav version). A very good rifle. I'm not sniper tough so i can't comment on accracy or compare it to other sniper rifles.

Aim of AK depends also of ammo used. Previously i mentioned Bulgarian ammo with steel cartridge. Comparing to Yugoslav ammo (brass cartridge) it has larger gunpowder charge which results in height difference of bullet trajectory of at least 20cm on 200m. Depends how sights of youre your rifle are set. If set for YU ammo and using Bulgarian ammo, rifle will have tendency to owershoot i.e. you have to aim low.
Also basic stuff learned at training.

 

Yep TISO that was my "ceca" (nickname in serbian army for PKT) but i did not use tripod only bipod,coz i was infantry platoon,not machinegunner platoon

Jaguar i did not shoot dragunov PASP,but it got all good sides of AK,and it got decent accuracy ,combat range is up to around 800m,so it is not long range sniper rifle.It allso got mechanical sight,so u can use it as normal rifle in close combat.And what is boljemoi?


About shooting range,try to shoot it from ur left hand,and ul see bigg diference in hit group :lol: Somebody sayed (not on this topic i think) that does not got flat trajectory so u must allways aim for headshots,that why i mention "leggshoot" thing on aiming.

 

Here is an article that specifically deals with the lethality of the AK-47 round when stiking humans. In 1989 a madman in Stockton, California began shooting children in a schoolyard using an AK-47. What was remarkable was that he shot 35 children from relatively close range and 30 of those shot survived.
By comparison another shooting in Luxiol, France in 1989 where 21 people were shot, only 7 people survived. The weapon used was a 12 guage shotgun.
Just a fluke you say?
20 people were shot in an incident in Louisville, Kentucky in 1989. 12 of the 20 survived. AK-47 rifle was the weapon.

Finally in 1988 11 people were shot in Sunnyvale, California and only 4 survived. 12 gauge shotgun.

Of these incidents only 33% of those shot with a shotgun survived whereas an amazing 76% of those shot by an AK-47 survived.

From the in-depth report: (the 86% survival rate refers to the Stockton shooting)

link to the full report:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt


Perhaps the last few dozen posts should be split off to the correct forum?

 

So a shotgun does more damage than a rifle at close range? No suprises there, given the nature of the two weapons... I'm sure the same lethality at close ranges would apply to all rifles when compared with a 12 gauge shotgun...

However there is one interesting point there... I have heard the AK-47 rounds criticized for their inability to shatter once inside the body before... M-16 rounds will deform on impact more frequently, thus making M-16 rounds more lethal, if they hit the right spot... The heavier AK round will hit with more force but is more likely to wind or maim the opponent because it does not shatter... It just goes straight through... M-16 round will not wind but will shatter and stay inside the body, making the wound alot worse...

Frankly I doubt the bodies ability to function normally after an impact with either round :smok:

 

I certainly wouldn't want to try my luck with an AK-47 round! Or a shotgun!

 

IMO you are basically correct about the AK round compared to the higher velocity thus more shatter prone M-16 round and I said as much in an earlier post. Of course when I say it it can all be put down to chauvinism and overly defensive attitude to all things American

AsS to your last point; IMO its rather variable. There are many, many reports of men who received multiple wounds and continued to fight. Of course that cannot be considered typical since many of those reports can be found here:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm

But then again we don't have any way of knowing how many men who were wounded were still capable of fighting yet chose to remove themselves from the fight because their stories didn't make the Medal of Honor rolls.

 

Whell 12 gauge and 7.62mm ammo cant be compared.First of all,12 gauge does not hawe FMJ,and if we consider only slug it will defirm like paincacke.I hawe 12 gauge,u cant imagine how bigg whole it made on car dors (i use car dors for shooting practice :lol: ) And look damage from 7.62x39mm
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16_5.htm,and ias i say again,5.56 is more prone to deflect when it his some minor obstacle like trees branches then AK-47 rounds.I dont think that is 5.56x45 more leathal from 7.62x39,it just depend from place when u put the boulet.

 

So again the question remains, if the 5.56mm is genuinely so deficient why did the Soviet Union take the step down to the 5.45mm (According to the sources available to me on account of testing M16s captured in Vietnam), and if it is so bad compared to the 7.62mm M1943 why according to you have the Yugoslavs changed over to not the 5.45mm but the 5.56mm NATO in their most up to date AKs?

 

I have been to the Box O' Truth many times. Look back a few pages to see what the 5.56 NATO did to the same target:


However those tests are all on things besides humans thus not
the same as lethality when striking a human.

 

Coz they eager to join NATO,and they make prepares for NATO standards.Allso,AK-101 is export wersion with target on NATO countrys mainly.And i did not say that is inferior,i say that is diferent.Good side,more accuracy on open space,longer range,and prone to deflect can be good and bad (good in human body,bad in obstacles).On otther side,7.62 got more weight,stronger impact ,less prone to deflect from obstacles and in human body,less flat trajectory.Il allso notice that when i used AK-47 on patroll,(we dont carry PKT in partolls) we used panzer,explosive and trace ammo,depends from assigments,mixed with regular rounds.

 

So much so that when threatened by attack due to a NATO conspiracy they'd make themsleves dependant on inferior NATO ammunition? C'mon, really...?

 

Actualy we got large weapon and ammo industry and that caliber was in use alot longer then past few years.Look this:
http://www.zastava-arms.co.yu/english/vojni.htm

In Zastava (serbian small arms industry) they name it on date when they made it.Model is M85,and M90,so it is date when they made the prototypes.War in EX YU started 1991/92,so it was after the rifle was made.

 

I have owned a 12 gauge and hunted with it and various rifles since I was 12 years old.
I'm well acquainted with the advantages and disadvantages of a 12 gauge. The 12 qauge was just a reference weapon to compare to the AK-47. Very few AR-15s are used in random shootings by nuts as they are relatively expensive. The AK-47 is very cheap so many people have them. As I stated several people at the gun club had them however I must say that no serious shooter would consider them as they were considered cheap crap that isn't accurate enough for serious target shooting and not lethal enough for serious hunters.
As the former Army officer in the report I posted the link to stated:

In my experience that is the general opinion amongst military men, serious hobby shooters and hunters. However this is a topic that is often discussed in gun circles and remains controversial and there are people who swear by both sides.
I also own several handguns, small rimfire rifles and a 7.92mm Yugoslavian M-48 (identical to German k98k) so I'm also familiar with the penetration of a full caliber rifle cartridge. I would prefer the 7.62mm NATO(.308) but am too cheap to spend $1200 US on a hobby gun for an M1A Springfield (civilian version of an M-14).

 

I suspect the choice of smaller rounds has the blessing of quartermasters
the round is cheaper and lighter to carry .
it make round for round a saving on the cost of training , allow a greater
number of round to be carried by the soldier or the supply truck ,
no facts or figures , but anyone who stand between the penpushers and
penny pinching would get trampled .





.