AK 47 vs. M16 Platforms: Accuracy

[@ghollisjr]

"Bear with me as there's a hurricane out on the range today"

[@sbentsen2714]

"please bear with us, with the nuclear explosion going on in the background.." (whooooosh wind blowing :-P)

[@nmarbletoe8210]

seriously, filming in those conditions is like shooting at soap in the bathroom. Why the fuck would you do that? This guy is usually good. This bites, no excuses.

[@peterclarke7240]

Dude, he's deliberately shitposting. Watch the video! He utterly taking the piss out of both ak and ar communities.

[@peterclarke7240]

His comment on the ar grouping: "truth be told, thats me and not reflective of the rifles ability" was the most sarcastic tongue in cheek comment ever. Basically i get the feeling Paul hates comparison videos. Context is everything.

[@hardpack187]

Sarah Connor is on the other side of a chain link fence, screaming at him

[@ahuman2695]

@@peterclarke7240 well it is his opinion, right?

[@jimmyrussels3746]

"please bear with gunfire" The biggest problem is always the wind.

[@guyfawkesuThe1]

The bullet needs to be heavier! iamgermane.blogspot.com/2013/10/replace-m-4m-16-rifle-now.html

[@janruudschutrups9382]

I believe that was a nuclear blast...

[@MarcosElMalo2]

Later videos have fewer audio problems. Still, it’s surprising that he had never heard of a shotgun mic.

[@rayburn8282]

Don't watch it if bothers you so much idiot

[@JHUNTUNR]

I really love your attitude when it comes to guns "in my situation" "you be the judge" "in my humble opinion" you're like the Mister Rogers of guns lol.

[@regularfather4708]

It's a beautiful day on the range today, A beautiful day for some shooting. Would you spot me? Would you spot me? I always wanted to shoot with a buddy just like you. I always wanted to go to the range and shoot with you. So let's make the most of this beautiful range, And when we're both shooting we might as well say, Could be mine, Would you be mine, Won't you be my spotter?

[@mikeylocks1844]

Me too, it's way better than some know it all asshat, spouting off at the mouth.

[@martentrudeau6948]

Additional improvement to Mr Roger's theme song: It's a beautiful day at the Rifle Range A beautiful day for shooting Be it an M16 Or be it an AK 47 Why don't you bring your Rifle Thank you Paul Harrel

[@troutchief2719]

More like the Ben Franklin. If you know you know

[@767dag]

Wish all Oregonians were this well rounded

[@Rickey85]

Paul, deserves a hell of a lot more views & subscribers !

[@Plur307]

If he keeps producing videos of this quality I think he will be a top youtube firearm channel before long.

[@dudeistpriest787]

+Brian Schmidt Popularity's a two-edged sword, for sure; after a certain point you either have to sacrifice integrity for popularity, or popularity to keep integrity. And if you have sponsors? Well, now you've got to appease them if you want to keep them. Admittedly, that's not really a big deal as a general rule, but the right channel with the wrong sponsor? That can go ugly in a hurry.

[@dudeistpriest787]

***** To be fair, I get a chuckle out of it, too. Some things just never stop being funny. XD

[@PaulHarrell]

You will NEVER see me with loaner guns. All the guns I use belong to me or colleagues and I can tell you what I really think because I don't owe anyone anything. If I do have ads, they won't be anything I have to pay for with my integrity.

[@AICW]

"If he keeps producing videos of this quality" He'll have to do something about that windy audio distortion to go big.

[@hornet224]

No other channel has an accuracy demo like this. I've always wondered how accurate I was shooting from iron or flip up sights on the AR15. But using his shooting as a benchmark, I'm not as bad as I thought. It's really encouraging. Most channels mount a huge power optic on the ARs firing match grade ammo. Of course, they are close of MOA. None of them have the guts to shoot with a milspec trigger and irons. Very informative video. Thank you Paul!

[@SAsgarters]

Your intellectual honesty is commendable.

[@axslaps]

I like that you are one of fewer and fewer people that can still write intelligently.

[@abm1913]

Right.... he's not biased at all. It's not like I didn't know which he was going to pick as soon as he started talking.

[@Wolfwolveswolf]

@@abm1913 , Well, After the video was done, he did go off to battle on a War front with the AK.

[@abm1913]

@@Wolfwolveswolf what does that have to do with whether or not he was giving an unbiased review?????

[@TheHalothane]

Now I know why I see some microphones covered with those fluffy feathery things...

[@MarcosElMalo2]

They’re called “dead cats”. Seriously. There are also hard (non-furry) acoustical coverings for shotgun mics called blimps. They’re capsule shaped and the mic is suspended inside with a built in shock mount.

[@MoreAmerican]

Filmed in the eye of a hurricane. Hehe Great video!

[@ClarkHuman]

I know. There's so much to be said about a clip on wireless mic.

[@Faithful_Tribe]

Mic with 'dead cat' windscreen.

[@Sophocles13]

The eye of a hurricane is calm, therefore there wouldn't be any wind ;)

[@Master...deBater]

@@Sophocles13: Damn it...you beat me to it!!!

[@HamMax444]

This guy makes good quality videos that are to the point and very informative! Great Channel!

[@jacobrodriguez4832]

I love this channel! Very informative and no BS. Keep up the great work!

[@HighSpeedNoDrag]

When I joined the service back in the 80s, my unit still had 16 A-1s, .45s and 1/4 tons.

[@lancenorton1117]

True, an M-16 with a rear sight that could not be adjusted for shooting long ranges. Now a civilian AR-15 can do way more.

[@dr.floridamanphd]

I enlisted in the AF back in 02. I qualified in the M16A1 in BMT and was issued one at my base. Sadly, I never got a chance to try it on the automatic setting.

[@vincedunn9983]

@@dr.floridamanphd you had the A1 in 2002? They haven't been in service since the late 1970's/early 1980's. I had the A2 most of my time in the Army. Switched over to the M-4 back in 1999, just before I got out.

[@vincedunn9983]

@pierusofpella wasn't trying to "compare" service times. I was asking a question and only stating what I was lead to believe... That the m16a1 was no longer in service due to it having the full automatic selector switch. And to my personal knowledge, (could be incorrect), even the Air force kept up with the switching if the main small arms switching. Like the 1911 got switched out for the m9, etc.

[@rzr2ffe325]

@@dr.floridamanphd I'm sorry to hear that. Must have been a cop.

[@RubenGarcia-kc3op]

Paul you are History channel or Military channel material, I meant it as a complement, great material... Thanks

[@thatguy22441]

I just can't picture him hosting Ancient Aliens.

[@joegreen5714]

Not History channel. History channel is all crap now. Maybe history channel back in the late 90s early 00s when they had Tales Of the Gun and History's Mysteries and Secrets of WW2, WW2 in Color or Hitler and the Occult, but not in the "Pawn Starz" era. Military Channel is a go. Calling him History channel material is like calling him Court Tv material....I mean Tru Tv material....its an insult bro.

[@TheOMGWTFBBQ777]

i think Paul is number one to be honest . he is one of a kind

[@rzr2ffe325]

Honestly I find all cable history too generic and not detailed enough

[@axslaps]

@@joegreen5714 Agreed, slouch crap about Hitler and loggers and other stuff that has historical elements but are modern history leaving the only thing I do want to watch is Ancient Aliens, like 60% because of the guy that is usually on there.

[@Quality_Guru]

Very well done. Most people engage in intellectual discussions between these two platforms, so it was very nicely to see this video put together. You demonstrated very well that at 300 yards they both performed what they were designed to do.

[@jumpykilllerqx6029]

If you want the wind to stop messing with your mic put a box around your camera.

[@DangerRussDayZ6533]

@J H Put your moms box around me

[@lovelessissimo]

@singleton222 put a mic up your mom's box.

[@themadlad8483]

Your mom uses a box

[@themadlad8483]

@singleton222 ur mom

[@metamorphicorder]

That escalated strangely

[@varg8696]

I get sweet "1980 tactical video" vibes with that intro :)

[@anthonyarteaamericanartea9364]

VARG gun porn at its best gotta love Paul 🔫😊🔫

[@darthkek1953]

April 2019 calling in. Back when this video was posted Paul had just broken 10k subs. Now he's approaching 300k subs. Not quite there, but soon enough.

[@chuckmiller5763]

June = 301K!

[@axslaps]

Sept. 14th, 355K subs. Kind of glad I was part of the huge growth before you posted this.

[@ClinttheGreat]

Feb. 2020. 409k

[@monogamousbonobo3923]

Mar 17,2020.....474k subs! Out effing standing!

[@SSS-cp1op]

Darth KEK I guess he’s losing subs 431K mar 25 2020

[@davidduafala3050]

The old M16A1 and AR15 SP1 are just to cool. It warms my heart to see the original style AR doing the job so well after all of these years. Your WASR set up is nice too. I like the hand guards.

[@thejasonbischoff]

Always love when a new vid pops up! Looks like so much fun out there shooting guns on the range.

[@gregsummers7350]

Hi Paul, great effort and an outstanding channel; I have subscribed. Watch 15 of your knowledgeable and very well present videos so fat today. Great information, relaxed style of a true professional. Thanks Greg

[@fallenpatriot7917]

The 7.62x39 has potential to be a very accurate caliber when fired thru an accurate rifle. I know one guy that made one on a Remington 700 short action for a "pickup gun" and it was one of the most accurate rifles I've ever been around. Honestly, it was kind of an intriguing little rifle. It had a 16" lightweight barrel, detachable magazine, ghost ring type sights, a super light stock etc. It weighed like 5 pounds. It was kinda cool. This guy was a gunsmith had about everything and decided to make something different.

[@JohnnyReb2000]

I know, this is an older post, but Brandon Herrera even built an AK chambered in 224 Valkyrie to prove the belief of the AK platform being inherently inaccurate false. While Paul did a good job with trying to make the comparison as close as possible, there are still variables that have to be accounted for. Since he was shooting iron sights, the AR has a longer sight radius and has at least marginally lower recoil, as well as a better trigger (as he already mentioned). My impression is that he also has more experience with the AR platform. Those factors definitely give the AR platform an advantage in this case, but as Paul said, the purpose was to compare off the shelf versions available.

[@ClarkHuman]

Much respect Paul. I'm a new subscriber and look forward to your videos. Also, thank you for your service in the military. An added thanks goes out to your brother for his service in law enforcement. I found you by searching for "home defense" videos.

[@PaulHarrell]

Thanks.

[@Sgt.ArchDornan]

Lol even when in comments he's monotone

[@hawkins308]

Love these videos, a very humble man with a lot of experience. Plus the CIB, respect brother.

[@Crowbrother7]

As always, a very good, unbiased video! Thanks Paul! I have used both in combat and both are enough to do the job if learned and used properly! I lean towards the AK, as I learned to love it in Vietnam.

[@TylerSmith-fv9ro]

Holy wind bro

[@howard7689]

Ak vs AR vs meat target behind a car?

[@J1NX123]

Paul is one of my favorite channels and most probably the most informative on youtube!

[@TommyWook]

Mr. Paul Harrell, keep making videos! Your channel is awesome. Your videos are very informative, I like your demeanor and presentation style, and your selection of shooting topics is nicely varied.

[@PaulHarrell]

Thanks. Hopefully future videos will have better sound than this one.

[@badgerstate3451]

Love your channel, Paul. As an Infantryman I carried the M16A1 and am the proud owner of a Type 56 Chicom AK. I'd like to see you use the 56 in this comparison. It's a very capable rifle.

[@geoffdearth7360]

He is like Sgt. Friday: Just the facts.

[@mexital1159]

No click bait either.

[@jackyoungblood555]

Paul, I'm a long time collector that enjoys shooting his collection. From cap and ball, old cowboy and military firearms from ww1 up and through modern days. I got tired of listening to people and reading about which is better, faster, more accurate blah blah blah. I started doing my own test so I could make my own decisions on all that stuff. I do 2-4 days at the range weekly. I load a lot of my own range ammo. I'm not partial to a caliber or brand I just enjoy shooting. I do have ones that I carry in the woods and ones that I hunt with. I have not filmed any of my shooting or try to convince anyone online about anything. I tell you this because I found your videos tonight and went down the rabbit hole. I can tell you have a passion for shooting which made your videos even better. Not reaching out to request or question anything. If you keep on shooting and filming it , I will keep on watching. Good stuff man. Being able to make a controlled explosion launch a projectile hundreds of yards and have it land where you want is pretty amazing and I get a big kick out of it. Keep shooting.

[@Trump145]

Thank you my friend I really enjoy watching your videos and yes you are professional keep them coming.

[@TheSonsOfSimon]

Have you watched the recent series by the AK Operators Union? The reviewer is comparing a Vepr AK-pattern rifle with a Daniel Defense AR (basically a high-quality example of each rifle). He recently did a accuracy comparison and his results showed that there was not much difference between the two. That surprised me greatly because, from personal experience, I found that AR rifles (even cheap ones) tend to be quite accurate. To qualify the test - the DD rifle has a lighter profile barrel, and the accuracy was tested before and after a magazine dump (after the barrel heated up). I say all that just because I want to hear your thoughts on it. Great video!

[@kevloo6078]

Agreed. His groups were pretty tight at 100 yards. As were the groups at two hundred.

[@TheMitchbassman]

AK operators Union is a JOKE...

[@117JamesRoss]

@@TheMitchbassman how so?

[@117JamesRoss]

also in Rob's ammo testing win white box did worse than most

[@seankeaney823]

AK operators union used optical sights. One thing that hampers the AK platforms accuracy IMO is the placement of the rear iron sight. For me an peep sight to the rear of the receiver will almost always be more accurate than a notch sight in front of the receiver.

[@gilanbarona9814]

Paul, thanks for this. I picked up an M 14 after having tried the issue 16 A1. I found out eventually that at the short to medium ranges that jungle combat involved, against AK 47 armed opposition, both the 16 and the 47 were equally accurate in practical terms. I still preferred my 14, though.

[@teaempire7929]

Best shooter's channel on KZbin. His style is my style and the information/questions/answers he presents are often those that I've spent many, many hours pursuing. I hope this channel never stops being a humble, thinker's channel.

[@georgegeeseman6652]

I really value your evaluations. You are an experienced, good shot and I can relate better. Thanks.

[@claudiodominguez1334]

Are you next to a tornado? That will affect accuracy quite a bit. A 300 mph wind requires a lot of wind drift hold, maybe even a full 360 before impacting targer.

[@kenfulkerson9567]

Love it, finally someone who gives a no hold discussion on differing platforms. I will take my accuracy over all others, in a Survival situation every shot counts is the primary rule. Would like to know which one will hold zero longer and better.

[@SatThuVoBui]

I'm one of the few lucky civilians to have actually acquired an AK-12 rifle in 5.45x39mm, and even though this is all anecdotal, it shoots very similar in accuracy to my own M16A2 clone rifle built off a USGI surplus upper receiver. The thing about this comparison is that it's slightly unfair to the AK platform because the 7.62x39mm is a less accurate round than the 5.45x39mm, and the latter is the true equivalent to the 5.56MM NATO round and not the former.

[@cruzl2977]

Thanks paul. exact gun video i needed today. Legendary 🎉

[@NCLUSA]

Your videos are always great.

[@mountainhobo]

7:50 Love the echo of each shot here.

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

"As accurate" or "Accurate enough." Good point when it comes to laying down a high volume of fire in combat. It really comes down to what the rifle was designed to do. Excellent video. (I'll still take an M16 over an AK simply because I know the M16 better and feel more comfortable with it. For me, this is true deciding factor.)

[@Hubert_Cumberdale_]

You also need take production cost in to consideration when judging military firearms, one of the ak's biggest strength is that it's cheap.

[@Bibitybopitybacon]

@@Hubert_Cumberdale_ is it really that much cheaper than an AR though? You can get a really good AR from Sig, S&W, or Springfield for $650-800. A lower end but reliable AK is around the same price if not more expensive. But, I'll admit, the're an issue with my analysis. My experience is entirely with the US civilian market. That means AR-15s and AKMs not M4s and AK-47s or AK-74s. It's possible there is additional complexity in the military models of the rifles I'm not accounting for.

[@Asghaad]

@@Bibitybopitybacon stamped sheet steel vs milled aluminium ... AKM was designed to be manufactured by thousands in huge factories - cheap, reliable and able to be massproduced quickly for army that always relied on outnumbering the enemy. to put it simply, for governments the military issue M4/M16 is probably more expensive than cheaper types of civilian guns on the market but for Russians the AKM cots next to nothing to produce when made in numbers ...

[@Bibitybopitybacon]

@@Asghaad Your argument is interesting but IMHO flawed. Almost anything can be made cheaply when mass manufactured in purpose build factories and large numbers. Economy of scale is a real thing. I'm not convinced that an M4 could not be made for a similar price to the ARM with similar investment in manufacturing. But the M4 isn't that expensive for the army even as it is now. The price the army pays for a new M4 is between $205 and $1200 depending on the company making it and the size of the order. Grunts get the $205 m4 and the special ops guys get the expensive stuff. Maybe a AKM can be made cheaper than $205. But the m4 is hardly costly to make now days.

[@Asghaad]

@@Bibitybopitybacon you dont understand, price of milled receivers before time of CNC machining was MUCH bigger than stamped sheet metal receiver of AKM. you have to think about the time when these rifles were designed ... for milling you have to spend time, have SKILLED labor to do the milljob and have machinery tied with that time constraint because hand milling the receiver isnt something you can rush. stamped AKM doesnt require any of that - you can have unskilled labor and make receivers on mass rapidly BUT for the manufacture to make sense you HAD to make it at scale, there was no "few rifles here, few rifles there" for Soviets. sure TODAY with CNC machining you can make milled aluminium receiver in a garage with relatively low skill requirement, but that wasnt the case in lets say eighties ... lastly im pretty sure if Americans can make M16 for $200 Russians can make stamped AKM for $50 or less ... and i REALLY doubt even today you can get US made M4 for $200... thats HANDGUN territory for large government contracts, id say most likely cheapest US government can get would be around $400 for proper specced rifle when even cheapest garbage budget civilian ones (you know with cut corners that make that rifle basically useless for military use) are around $400-500 range ...

[@phxfishhatguy9580]

I have watched many more of Paul's videos. He knows his stuff. Keep up the great work. .

[@kskeel1124]

I enjoy your insight and research into everyday firearms and their uses and usefulness in different situations

[@DefendUSA1776]

I love both platforms. I would hate to have to choose only one.

[@joshhill5932]

I'm with you. I am so tired of the fan boys for both rifles who can't except both are good. Most youtube videos are just fan boys of either or who just do tests to prove why one is good and one is junk but are never fully honest cause of their bias.

[@chuckhoward3626]

@@joshhill5932 Wrong, Jar-Head here. The M16A1 is a much better rifle, all day long and twice on Sundays. Having qualified with the A1 and owning a better rifle than the AK, an SKS surplus made in China, good luck qualifying with either one on a KD course.

[@undeadblackjack]

@@chuckhoward3626 Done it at camp perry multiple times. Zero it correctly and learn how to use the sights.

[@joeshmoe5168]

I agree so buy both

[@boomerisadog3899]

@@chuckhoward3626 Why do you think the sks is better than the ak? Both are decent rifles but the sks is slower and heavier. It gets more velocity out of it's extra 4" of extra barrel but you can get an ak with a 20" barrel too.

[@jamesoncross7494]

Paul is the man.

[@propdoctor21564]

Another great video from one of my favorite gun channels

[@r.b.ratieta6111]

Simple, easy, yet very relevant and insightful. Thanks for making and uploading.

[@bldlightpainting]

Hi Paul, I just found your channel and I'm really enjoying your brand of mature, humorous knowledge of firearms. I live in SW Oregon, and I noticed you too live in Oregon? What part? Thank you so much for your very informative videos and positive display of the shooting sports.

[@halfpace5259]

Most of the accuracy problem with the AK can be remedied with a red dot. But ultimately it comes down to choosing the weapon you feel most comfortable with and/or have trained with. The AK is certainly accurate enough for its intended role.

[@vulcanrider2446]

The AR and the 5.56 is better, by far. It's a "no brainer". All things being equal, 2 armies, one armed with AR-5.56 will defeat an army armed with AK47-7.62 every time. The AR-5.56 has 2 major advantages. It is more accurate, and you can carry significantly more rounds. The AK47 has 2 major disadvantages. You have to fire more rounds to hit your target, and you can't carry nearly as many rounds. Throughout the course of the battle, the army armed with AK47's will lose troops at a faster rate due to having less accuracy and less effective range. Soon, the AK47 army will find itself outnumbered, and they will be dropping at an even faster rate. The guys with AK47's will run out of ammo far sooner due to the fact that they started with far fewer rounds and having to fire more rounds in order to hit their target. The first army to run out of ammo or troops loses. With the AK47, you lose on both counts. Let's say each soldier in both armies carry 28 pounds of weapon and ammo. The AK47 weighs 1.3 pounds more than the AR-556. A fully loaded AR-15 weighs slightly less than an empty AK47. That weight difference alone means the AR-556 army can carry an extra 40 more rounds per soldier. If you run out of ammo and I still have 40 rounds left, YOU lose. But since I also fire fewer rounds to hit my target, I'll probably have more than 40 rounds left. The ammunition of the AK47, the 7.62 x 39 weighs 63% more than the 5.56. Both armies are carrying 20 pounds of ammo per man. The AR-556 army will have 540 rounds per man + that 40 mentioned earlier. The AK47 army will have only 330 rounds per man. The AR army has 250 rounds per man advantage. But once again, since the AR army fires fewer rounds to hit a target, they will have more than 250 rounds advantage, maybe a 300 or 350 round advantage per soldier. The AK47's accuracy problem . . . Even a quality AK has the same problem as a cheaply made AK, which is more typical and what you find on the battlefields across the world. Expensive or cheap, they both use the same short stubby bullet with less velocity, which is inherently less accurate. It's not very aerodynamic. It's more like a pistol bullet. The 5.56 is sleek, aerodynamic, and very fast. It is inherently more accurate. Now add in the fact that the 5.56 has less kick. You have better control and better aim in rapid fire situations, not necessarily fully automatic. This adds additional accuracy to the weapon system. And because there is less kick, getting off follow up shots in rapid succession is quicker. The AK47's greater recoil is significant enough to make a small difference of around 0.25 seconds per shot. But that small difference adds up when you are firing 30 rounds, or hundreds of rounds. 0.25 seconds adds up to more than 7 seconds when you multiply that 30 times. If you are shooting 100 rounds, that adds up to 25 seconds. If you can fire more rapidly with better aim, you will kill more of your enemy at a faster rate. This is really what makes the big difference in accuracy. I was going to say . . . The AK47 is more reliable, almost never jams. If you keep your AR15/M4 clean, it is just as reliable. But the AK47 is the clear winner here, since keeping your weapon clean might be difficult to do in real world situations. But then, I found several videos testing out this apparent myth . . . AR vs AK mud test kzbin.info/www/bejne/b3Kzq4ynrL2Wodk This AR15 mud test was performed right after last week's AK47 test: the same exact mud, the same wheelbarrow, at the same location, a mere 10 minutes later. kzbin.info/www/bejne/j3LRlod8nt9ojbc AK47 Mud Test kzbin.info/www/bejne/eomaZKiOqJirfbc But the biggest reason why everyone loves the AK47 so much is because of it's power compared to the "wimpy" AR15/M4. It fires a much bigger round, with a lot of kick, and a lot of punch. Macho guys love that. All that power is great for shooting through cars and knocking down a cinder block wall, but for shooting human targets, they are both equally lethal. In my opinion, the 5.56 is more lethal. The AK47 round will punch a hole right through you. But, so will a 5.56. However, the 5.56 will do it in a more destructive nasty way. As soon as it hits flesh, or anything actually, it will start to tumble and little bits of the bullet will start to break off and go in different directions causing a lot of collateral damage. It doesn't punch a clean hole through you. It will tumble through you and break up into little pieces. The 5.56 is a very small diameter bullet, but not when it is going through you sideways. The 5.56 will enter your body making a pin sized hole, but will exit your body making a golfball sized hole. It's taking some of you with it as it exits. The 5.56 is also a much faster bullet. When it hits flesh it causes your body to explode, in a way. Ever seen a water jug hit by a bullet? A human being is 70% water. It doesn't just punch a hole in the jug. It causes the jug to explode. The faster the bullet, the bigger the explosion. That explosive effect adds to the trauma of the wound. It will rupture internal organs and sever arteries. The 5.56 makes up for it's smaller size by hitting you harder with it's speed. I think you are more likely to die getting hit by a 5.56. In my opinion, the 5.56 is a more lethal round. All things considered, I think the AR15/M4 is a much better weapon system than the AK47.

[@thenarrator869]

@@vulcanrider2446 Ak74. Problem solved.

[@RedRider1600]

@@thenarrator869 Yes, but nobody cares about the AK74. All the AK fanboys think the AK47 reigns supreme, and think it is superior to the AR556. The comparison here is between the AR556 and the AK47.

[@dobridjordje]

​@@vulcanrider2446Smack on, M16 kicks the living shit in combat out of AK47s (74 is a different deal but I still think M16 beats by a very small margine).

[@elsea8901]

The arsenal Sam7 is amazingly accurate and I mean right outta the box...great video Paul, thanks!🇺🇸

[@Dave.S.TT600]

Well done- Ten thousand Subscribers. Congrats Paul!

[@Stevenowski]

Nice, honest review. 👍👍

[@BMProvenzano]

Ballistics would be a factor. The 'fatter and slower' 7.62 x 39 AK round vs the 'sleeker and faster' 5.56 x 51 AR round. BTW I love your videos. Always down to Earth. 👍

[@strongestgamer2501]

5.56x45*

[@ivangrodznoi2058]

Thank you for another great video Paul! Love your work! Suggestion: A similar video comparing the SKS to which ever American rifle you feel would be it's counterpart would be great to watch. Also describing the ideal civilian usages of each rifle as well (including pros and cons) would be very valuable to prospective buyers.

[@cheloniamydas1200]

I appreciate your honesty and "matter of fact" approach. No macho bravado, no claiming to be the best, just good honest experiments and opinions.

[@FUBBA]

earthquake at 1:00 Paul remains unphased

[@pl640]

Bhahaha

[@MrKirby2367]

For a true unbiased test and quickly stating that I'm not suggesting any bias from paul would be to mount both fire arms in a rest jig vice what have you (I don't have the correct term) to remove the human component from the accuracy test.

[@chrismorse3862]

not sure that isn't part of it though..otherwise, why mention the trigger unless it's the means for the human element to change performance

[@MrMe-yk5of]

Bloodaxetheirritable I mean humans are gonna be the ones using them hopefully so I mean imo the human component is kinda essential.

[@Sporkshooter]

The more I watch his videos the more impressed I become. Excellent content!

[@mikeylocks1844]

I found your videos yesterday, I'm glad I did

[@metallicsilver]

Paul, I try a lot of this stuff at home!

[@billytube325]

It would be interesting to see this again with a 4 power optic on both rifles to see what they are capable of

[@tuttifongul2006]

Rather see you shoot against Paul to show your level of expertise to speak on his method of comparison. He shoots better with irons than 95% of ALL shooters ive ever seen or met so your statement of what a 4x optic would do is moot

[@deltaforcereviews]

i like your military experience . from one vet to another. thank u. and your prone stance is correct half these guys dont know how to properly offset your legs when prone. good job

[@Chinookan]

Nice video, great information ... windy! I really appreciate the emphasis on practical, usable accuracy, Mr. Harrell.

[@PaulHarrell]

Thanks.

[@marriedwithguns3051]

Without a doubt the AR is inherently more accurate of a rifle. But as you said at the end of the video, "Is the AK accurate enough?" It most definitely is for a combat rifle at modern engagement distances. Even as a fan of the Kalashnikov pattern rifle I find this to be a great video.

[@rzr2ffe325]

Yeah but I'm more used to the AR15 which makes it superior

[@jungleno.]

In a shtf scenario street fighting around houses, brick walls, cinder block walls, cars Etc... AK rules.

[@roylxix]

The AK bullets may have all been on the paper but it was Paul Harrel that was shooting. Who knows where they would have been with an average shooter. "You be the judge."

[@vulcanrider2446]

Just getting it on the paper isn't good enough. Its the difference between hitting a human target in the head or chest or gut, versus hitting him in the arm or leg, or missing completely. It's better to have a dead enemy or severely wounded enemy not shooting back at you anymore than to have a pissed off wounded enemy still trying to kill you. I think that's a big difference, not a minor difference.

[@Asghaad]

Average shooter would also use optic instead of iron sights which would improve theyr grouping immensely ...

[@ggerely]

@@vulcanrider2446 Not here to split hairs, but if it wasn`t a good enough platform to do just that you`d think it wouldn`t be in service as long as it has, right?

[@jbertucci]

The sights... The AK platfotm would be a lot better with better sights. Not as good as the AR-15... The gas piston and wider tolerances mean you pay a price for ruggedness.

[@Asghaad]

@@jbertucci so, what exactly does piston take away from MILITARY rifle ? ... Which is the reason every single modern military rifle since the AR was adopted was developed as short stroke gas piston ... you know even the acclaimed AR clone H&K 416 ... be my guest free float your range princess that requires to be cleaned after less than 500 rounds otherwise it starts to get issues because "tight tolerances" ...

[@captgringo]

Paul, as always, concise and realistic comparison. Good job.

[@22ndmeu1]

Thanks for the vids Paul, Great job ! Semper Fi

[@3347861]

AR is inherently accurate. AK is inherently reliable........ Ive used both in combat. Not better or worse.... but different.

[@noahludford3667]

John Baugh Amen brother! Just said that same thing.

[@17MrLeon]

You used both in cobmat? How is that possible?

[@SSHitMan]

Look up the mud test on another youtube channel. The AR still performed flawlessly after having shovel fulls of mud dumped on it whereas the AK turned into a single shot. Reason was the mud clogged the piston of the AK while the gas system of the AR cleaned itself out upon firing.

[@stever7627]

He's a double agent!

[@arcticfox5118]

Son of my Father My guess is either A. he was in a war zone where he ran out of ammo in his issue gun and an AK was handy. B. he was doing cross country drills with a nato ally that used or uses AKs for whatever reason. or C. He is from a non U.S country that crossed over from the AK to the M16 platform.

[@damnmillennials3913]

Using an AK with a front sight on the gas block wasn't the best for this test. That gas block with a short sight radius was made for short barrels

[@SuspiciousGanymede]

The sight radius is the same as an ar15 just not up close for better sight picture

[@fab006]

TheAllSeeingTruth I know I’m a bit late, but you’re wrong. The sight radius is the same as an M4 (not an M16!) when the front sight is up by the muzzle. This one has the front sight in the gas block, as OP points out.

[@joelsimms4636]

Literally a few fliers. Honesty goes a long way with me . Thanks for the best channel on the internets.

[@bryanoliver5550]

I enjoyed the GREAT video which was informative towards my growing knowledge on AK 47 / M 16 firearms . One day I`ll make to the range , hopefully an outdoor range . I can not wait to get that wind in my ears effect , reminded me of what I have been missing out on , outdoors.

[@AshGreen359]

If I trust anyone to give an unbiased answer to this it would be Paul Harrel. However I wish he'd done this with the 5.45x39. if you really want to compare platforms that would be the better way.

[@vincedibona4687]

That's not what he's comparing here, though. This is AR in 5.56 v/s AK in 7.62. Your test is different. Not better, just different. :)

[@AshGreen359]

@@vincedibona4687 The calibers would be a lot more alike. Comparing the platforms and eliminating the factor of two vastly different cartridges.

[@RedRider1600]

@@AshGreen359 But nobody cares about the AK74. All the AK fanboys think the AK47 is better than the M16/AR15/M4. That's why he is comparing with the AK47, not the AK74. AK47 fanboys think bigger is better. They like the larger more powerful round.

[@ArrowXDesign]

Paul please go over your handgun shooting stance. I like the Weaver type stance and find the isosceles tough to get use to.

[@PaulHarrell]

That would be a great idea for a video.

[@mynameislegion7144]

Just be ready for the controversy sure to erupt... Then again, after shotguns and 1911s, why not? >=D

[@PaulHarrell]

I'm sure there will be plenty of people ready to tell me how wrong I am. But I get plenty of that now. What's a little more? :)

[@mynameislegion7144]

Paul Harrell I'm with ya, Paul. I've said it elsewhere, but after straying from the textbook Modern Technique and seeing my control and accuracy go down I'm reverting to a more traditional stance and hold. I even bought 3 Colts 1991 (the 1911 not being sold in Commiefornia) with the GI setup to get back in the groove. It's OK; I'm not competing and I don't wear body armor most of the time (the reasons why people claim that Isoceles is where it's at). lol

[@handlesaredumb1]

ArrowXDesign navy now teaches a hybrid of both of those and a slight kneeling.

[@Frankallen12]

Paul that is some Damn good shooting with both Guns! A lot of people could NOT do that good with a mounted scope on them! Thanks for all you do for people like me that Loves Firearms!

[@MPGunther1]

Always an excellent video, even with a little wind noise in the beginning. You shoot at a beautiful range

[@ivangrodznoi2058]

Hicock45 = Infomercial (slightly more credible than Shamwow) Paul Harrell = Documentary (expert report)

[@MegaDavyk]

The M16 might be more accurate that the AK 47 but the AK wont let you down in a fire fight, ask a Vietnam vet about that.

[@stephenwhited1833]

The M-16 series has improved in the last 46 years. I found mine quite reliable in all types of field combat situations. The M-16 on its battle sight setting is very much minute of human out to 460 meters without having to adjust the sight. You will notice the Ak series has meters on the sight because it has the same ballistic curves of a 30 30. If you are shooting an Ak series and you have your sights set to 100 meters and a target presents at 300 meters and you dont change your leaf you will definatly miss.

[@MegaDavyk]

@@stephenwhited1833 I would agree, just about the only training you need with an ak is setting your sights to the range. The AK comes into it own at closes ranges which is where most people are killed anyway. Being able to hit a human out to 460 meters wont help you in the bush.

[@Charles-A]

Both platforms have been perfected and have been the basis for other better guns. You can't compare an AK or an M16 from the vietnam era to today's versions. An A2/A3 will have less need for maintenance, the gas piston won't foul the mechanism the way direct gas impingement did and better quality control and better materials will ensure more reliability. As for AKs, they're outstanding, rugged, reliable rifles with several flaws that have been corrected with current versions and they've been perfected by companies using the platform as a base for something better. Take for instance AKM rifles or the (personally) great galil and galil ACE rifles. They show there's a lot of room for improvement for early AKs.

[@RedRider1600]

Why a Vietnam vet? Why not a Iraq-Afghanistan vet? AR vs AK mud test kzbin.info/www/bejne/b3Kzq4ynrL2Wodk This AR15 mud test was performed right after last week's AK47 test: the same exact mud, the same wheelbarrow, at the same location, a mere 10 minutes later. kzbin.info/www/bejne/j3LRlod8nt9ojbc AK47 Mud Test kzbin.info/www/bejne/eomaZKiOqJirfbc

[@qwman68]

As always... Good video. Im what you call a retired professional and in my opinion you pretty much nailed it on the comparison. Both are capable out to 300yrds but beyond that I believe the AR platform pulls ahead in the ability to hit your target department. I have a couple of AR's, a slightly modified for accuracy Mini-14, and a bone stock Chinese SKS. My Mini-14 is scoped and shoots well for what it is. Both AR's are good shooters and the SKS with good ammo is surprisingly accurate. Ive never shot any of them past 200yrds but they are all on paper and can get the job done at that range. You need to make a Mini-14 video and a Mini-30 vs SKS video. Thanks for the work you put in to your video's.

[@Thrash155]

@Paul Harrell you gave both a fair shakedown, and given you are an outstanding shooter both do well in each intended service. I really enjoy watching your non-sense video presentations. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge and insight.

[@midmorifleman6413]

I'd take either into battle, but I'd generally prefer the .223/5.56x45 cartridge over the 7.62x39

[@thezenthink]

It would seem, going in, the biggest question is: Does this tool fit the job? If you're in a competition and accuracy is the be all, you'll want every single possible advantage-- I imagine. Given that, you'd probably want some kind of specialized platform and not worry about things like maintenance, magazine restrictions and the like. If you're in combat, I would imagine you'd want something much less specialized, capable of suppression, accuracy (to a point), penetration, etc... I would imagine unless your role in combat is specialized, you'd want a general platform capable of switching roles and being ok in each? Gun is just a tool. I don't get the religion over various platforms. Does the tool fit the job? Should be the primary question, not which tool is best. I could own a really great socket wrench, that doesn't make it the best hammer.

[@tihomirrasperic]

when was in the Croatian army I fired with the AK-47 Romanian at 400 meters 8/10 in single fire 6/30 = 3 bullets in the burst fire and it was an old gun today 20 years later they use VHS-2, another world of gun

[@lukekieburtz4323]

well having penetration is nothing if you cant put a single round on target, but being able to put all your rounds on target but not being able to hit the target due to barricades is also a problem.

[@lukekieburtz4323]

@Scott Murphy while I have never been in combat nor seen combat, I try to keep myself as educated as possible, honestly i think both have a purpose, the American military has preferred accuracy over power , when it comes to standard infantry weapons, the general idea being, as you said, one well placed shot will stop the fight no matter the cartridge to a certian extent. The russian military is about power over accuracy, take their volly fire vehicles to ours, we have GPS, they have 20 more rockets. It's cheaper to compensate for accuracy with stopping power, but when your trying to make a gun as cheap as the ak, sacrifices will be made. It comes from two viewpoints but I honestly think I would rather have the ability to hit a target accurately from 300 out, than the ability to hit it accurately at 200 or less with a bigger round. Not to mention you can carry more 5.56 than 7.62 and I would rather have more ammo than less.

[@lukekieburtz4323]

@Scott Murphy and media is always going to try to find the story that get the most attention, weither it is there or not. But I will say, just because he hasn't seen combat, that doesn't mean he cant have an opinion, but I would take it with a grain of salt.

[@jungleno.]

@Scott Murphy , Ever wonder why they sell so many spare parts kits for the AR platform? High maintenance.

[@knobjob2839]

Like Brandon Herrera once said when comparing these, "is your skill good enough to actually make a difference?"

[@andrewmcmahon199]

Another great video...interesting and understandable!!

[@Redfour5]

I like your videos. I was in the USMC from 73 to 75. I was one of the very last to fire the M14 at the rifle range (Hollywood Marine). I shot expert 248 out of 250 as I remember. But after boot camp, it was all M-16 A1. I thought the A1 made an excellent hose but if you wanted to reach out and touch something, not so much. I have never used an AR platform weapon since. Based upon conversations with Marines who had used both in combat AND AK's, all preferred the 7.62 over the 5.56 but a few liked the AK for various reasons mostly as it was "handier" in a firefight than a 14 and if you shot rounds in the grasses, they got to the target. OK, 40 years go by and from speaking with other Iraq and Afganistan vets, I find those that could get their hands on an M14 EBR, wouldn't go back to the AR platformed weapon with one exception and that was urban situations where you were the ones entering. In that situation, everyone would go with the M4. And so, each has their place. Of interest, is that the AK is still the go to rifle for everyone except U.S. allies. It is reliable even when abused and not well maintained. A perfect combo for third world troops. The M14 is still a go to and "preferred" weapon by most troops even after it was forsaken by the armed forces 40 plus years ago. The AR platform? It finally found a place, imho in an urban warfare setting when shortened. I personally hate the AR platform in 5.56 and believe its popularity is mostly a function of the fact that it has been the weapon of choice of the US military since about 1970. Familiarity breeds contempt, oh I mean reflexive understanding irrespective of intrinsic quality. And the M4 as a likely final iteration of that platform and they finally found something it was truly good at. It has a high rate of firepower in a short range setting. I will note that the USMC is slowly getting rid of them and never really like them ever, in any way shape or form. The new version still is based upon an AR "like" system, but you will note, at its core, they went back to gas piston vs direct impingment. AND it will reach out and touch in ways no AR/M16 ever ever would. And, you can easily change the caliber of the system as I believe, the 5.56's days are numbered also. At it's core, the AR platform is a flawed design. It has been worked on for 50 years to finally resemble something usable, but at its core it has flawed engineering that has been the bane of its existence since day one including the forward assist and direct impingment. Remember, the original AR's did not have a forward assist on them. They jammed and you couldn't even get to anything to fix it without taking the weapon apart, so an intrinsic design flaw required an engineering fix readily visible on every single one of them since. Direct impingment is a filthy mess compared to gas piston. And thus, as you can tell, I am not a fan of the AR platform. I personally prefer a garand style weapon and have a mini 14 with an M1A in my future. But I was never brainwashed and forced to completely internalize to the level of muscle memory the AR platform and so, to each their own. I believe, that new technology like the M27 AND that beautiful Sig P320 based handgun will take the US military for the next 30 years representing sharp improvements over what we have had for the last 30 plus. AND bottom line? You don't want to be on the receiving end of any of them. And can only hope the operator is NOT well trained in their use as that can overcome any deficiency of weapon system design.

[@douglasmcneil8413]

It's my understanding that the 7.62x39 is generally considered a 200 yard cartridge, akin to the 30-30 in performance. Whereas 5.62x45 is thought of as a 500 yard cartridge, suitable for varminting. That, along with a shorter sight radius and a less "friendly" sight picture, tends to doom the AK in any "honest" head to head comparison. Although I do think that, within the same range the 7.62 delivers more energy to the target.Thank you for a great video series.

[@cameronnorton5898]

7.62x39 can make good hits out to about 400 yards. At that range the bullets will fall below supersonic velocity and start to tumble, resulting in horrendous accuracy.

[@hull294]

Isn't The AK considered to be a 200 m GUN with anything on target paper after that being a big + ??? They were mass produced for the Russian peasant & had a life expectancy of 10,000 rounds ......I think that even back then that was an optimistic life expectancy due to their poor manufacture.....but since most rifle engagements took place inside 200 m (& for the best part still do ) that isn't really a factor with this gun & any comparison with an M16 for accuracy seems somewhat unfair.They do the job they were designed for very well (as proved in many conflicts) & more modern/better materials has improved them but the basic design is still that of a workhorse. The M16 on the other hand has had thousands of man hours & millions of dollars thrown at it in design & development ....If it didn't perform it would be a piss poor show.Thats not a criticism just an observation..... it's a bit like comparing Plough horse to a Racehorse but thats what people seem to want to do.Paul has tried to be as even handed as possible about this in his assessment & like he said "It's been done to death".I think people need to appreciate both of these weapons for what they are & stop being defensive about their choice because thats why the comparison keeps having to be made.

[@Code_Made]

love day tell us the truth... I hear ya 762... U drop to much for me. Great thumper, but jus dont go far enough for tha all around. N yea thats past 200... But you prolly would argue when i say my 22lr can be took there n past the pineboard test huh. Lol great debate either way

[@alainerookkitsunev5605]

There are Ak rifles with better sights... Test galil or sako valmet Rk762. I shoot 762 so im more accurate with it.

[@hawkticus_history_corner]

The AK was treated as an up-gunned SMG by the Russians whereas the AR line is more of a weakened Battle Rifle. This can be seen in the tactics being used by both sides with the firearms in question. USA favored higher accuracy shots while the USSR favored just throwing more bullets downrange, its actually why the AK has the sights it does, its easy to get an "acceptable" sight picture for just throwing a couple of shots at your target, whereas the AR line got adjustable sights for more accuracy.

[@GaveMeGrace1]

Thanks for another excellent demonstration.

[@ung427]

200k views, 7k likes, only 200 dislikes, and such crappy audio? This guy is good!

[@alatus7242]

I've been saying for some time now that the AK47 is the superior weapon, while the M16 is the superior rifle and time has not dissuaded me.

[@RedRider1600]

How is the AK-47 a superior weapon?

[@alatus7242]

@@RedRider1600 Because both are infantry weapons. And infantry are not snipers, designated marksmen, etc. A weapon should be able to take abuse and be forgiving of the shortcomings of the average conscript. Or maybe you think that real wars are fought only by professional soldiers who know well what they are doing? Speaking of real war, around 80% of casualties in those are from heavy weapons. The small arms shooting days are long gone, so rifles are becoming more and more weapons of last resort, like the sidearm.

[@RedRider1600]

@@alatus7242 For the last 20 years, we have been fighting terrorists, Al Qaeda, Taliban, and ISIS. What heavy weapons did they have? Even going back to the Vietnam war, rarely did the North Vietnamese use heavy weapons. The only time I'm aware of the North Vietnamese employing heavy weapons in battle was the siege on Khe Sanh. I don't consider RPG's and small mortars "heavy weapons". In both Iraq wars, the enemy's heavy weapons were destroyed by air power and were not used against US and ally troops. Casualties were extremely light for our side. Friendly fire and accidents accounted for most of the deaths on our side. Enemy heavy weapons were not a factor. In any case, the argument is about which rifle is better, not if small arms kill more than heavy weapons. The AR and the 5.56 is better, by far. It's a "no brainer". All things being equal, 2 armies, one armed with AR-5.56 will defeat an army armed with AK47-7.62 every time. The AR-5.56 has 2 major advantages. It is more accurate, and you can carry significantly more rounds. The AK47 has 2 major disadvantages. You have to fire more rounds to hit your target, and you can't carry nearly as many rounds. Throughout the course of the battle, the army armed with AK47's will lose troops at a faster rate due to having less accuracy and less effective range. Soon, the AK47 army will find itself outnumbered, and they will be dropping at an even faster rate. The guys with AK47's will run out of ammo far sooner due to the fact that they started with far fewer rounds and having to fire more rounds in order to hit their target. The first army to run out of ammo or troops loses. With the AK47, you lose on both counts. Let's say each soldier in both armies carry 28 pounds of weapon and ammo. The AK47 weighs 1.3 pounds more than the AR-556. A fully loaded AR-15 weighs slightly less than an empty AK47. That weight difference alone means the AR-556 army can carry an extra 40 more rounds per soldier. If you run out of ammo and I still have 40 rounds left, YOU lose. But since I also fire fewer rounds to hit my target, I'll probably have more than 40 rounds left. The ammunition of the AK47, the 7.62 x 39 weighs 63% more than the 5.56. Both armies are carrying 20 pounds of ammo per man. The AR-556 army will have 540 rounds per man + that 40 mentioned earlier. The AK47 army will have only 330 rounds per man. The AR army has 250 rounds per man advantage. But once again, since the AR army fires fewer rounds to hit a target, they will have more than 250 rounds advantage, maybe a 300 or 350 round advantage per soldier. The AK47's accuracy problem . . . Even a quality AK has the same problem as a cheaply made AK, which is more typical and what you find on the battlefields across the world. Expensive or cheap, they both use the same short stubby bullet with less velocity, which is inherently less accurate. It's not very aerodynamic. It's more like a pistol bullet. The 5.56 is sleek, aerodynamic, and very fast. It is inherently more accurate. Now add in the fact that the 5.56 has less kick. You have better control and better aim in rapid fire situations, not necessarily fully automatic. This adds additional accuracy to the weapon system. And because there is less kick, getting off follow up shots in rapid succession is quicker. The AK47's greater recoil is significant enough to make a small difference of around 0.25 seconds per shot. But that small difference adds up when you are firing 30 rounds, or hundreds of rounds. 0.25 seconds adds up to more than 7 seconds when you multiply that 30 times. If you are shooting 100 rounds, that adds up to 25 seconds. If you can fire more rapidly with better aim, you will kill more of your enemy at a faster rate. This is really what makes the big difference in accuracy. I was going to say . . . The AK47 is more reliable, almost never jams. If you keep your AR15/M4 clean, it is just as reliable. But the AK47 is the clear winner here, since keeping your weapon clean might be difficult to do in real world situations. But then, I found several videos testing out this apparent myth . . . AR vs AK mud test kzbin.info/www/bejne/b3Kzq4ynrL2Wodk This AR15 mud test was performed right after last week's AK47 test: the same exact mud, the same wheelbarrow, at the same location, a mere 10 minutes later. kzbin.info/www/bejne/j3LRlod8nt9ojbc AK47 Mud Test kzbin.info/www/bejne/eomaZKiOqJirfbc But the biggest reason why everyone loves the AK47 so much is because of it's power compared to the "wimpy" AR15/M4. It fires a much bigger round, with a lot of kick, and a lot of punch. Macho guys love that. All that power is great for shooting through cars and knocking down a cinder block wall, but for shooting human targets, they are both equally lethal. In my opinion, the 5.56 is more lethal. The AK47 round will punch a hole right through you. But, so will a 5.56. However, the 5.56 will do it in a more destructive nasty way. As soon as it hits flesh, or anything actually, it will start to tumble and little bits of the bullet will start to break off and go in different directions causing a lot of collateral damage. It doesn't punch a clean hole through you. It will tumble through you and break up into little pieces. The 5.56 is a very small diameter bullet, but not when it is going through you sideways. The 5.56 will enter your body making a pin sized hole, but will exit your body making a golfball sized hole. It's taking some of you with it as it exits. The 5.56 is also a much faster bullet. When it hits flesh it causes your body to explode, in a way. Ever seen a water jug hit by a bullet? A human being is 70% water. It doesn't just punch a hole in the jug. It causes the jug to explode. The faster the bullet, the bigger the explosion. That explosive effect adds to the trauma of the wound. It will rupture internal organs and sever arteries. The 5.56 makes up for it's smaller size by hitting you harder with it's speed. I think you are more likely to die getting hit by a 5.56. In my opinion, the 5.56 is a more lethal round. All things considered, the AR15/M4 is a much better weapon system than the AK47.

[@alatus7242]

@@RedRider1600 You clearly have superficial knowledge of firearms. First off - the Vietnamese, Iraqi, etc. casualties were inflicted in the majority by heavy weaponry so you prove my point. This again is the reason why there was a disproportionately small number of American casualties - they were not rained high explosives from above. As for the small arms - we all know that kinetic energy is proportionate to the square of the velocity, but so is drag. Light and fast projectiles lose speed and energy significantly faster than slow and heavy projectiles with the same initial kinetic energy. As for the myth that small and fast bullets tumble while short and slow ones punch clean through, you have no idea of wound ballistics. The bullet of a 7.62 be it x39, x51 or x54 is not only prone to tumbling, but also to breaking apart in a dense medium such as a human body. It is simply a matter of torque against gyroscopic stabilization and once it tumbles, chances of it breaking apart are significant. Any 7.62 makes a large entry wound and an ugly exit wound. What’s more, a fast and light bullet may be out of the target before it can tumble and disintegrate properly if the section is small enough and that’s the reason it does not work well head on on say skinny Somalis. However, it is much more easily deflected by small obstacles in its flight. Another thing is that fast bullets need a long barrel to get to speed since there are limits to the propellant pressure and generating the required impulse takes time. You surely know that force is pressure times area and small bullets have small cross sections, so a smaller accelerating force for any given pressure rating. The AK has larger tolerances and while this makes it less accurate and more rattling, it is inherently more forgiving to any contaminants or foreign impacts and I don’t need any anecdotal videos that show otherwise, since this is an intrinsic property. The soviets themselves went down this road with the 5.45x39 and the results were mixed, to put it mildly. However they decided to leave it at that since small arms are less and less relevant, so it’s all the same ultimately. This is partly the reason why there have not been any radically new assault rifles adopted anywhere since the bullpup hype - no one is really interested. How much ammo a soldier carries is less and less relevant because either his side would have suppressed the enemy’s heavy weapons and will be hammering them from afar/above or the enemy will be shelling him enough so he does not close the distance for a firefight. Don’t take my word for it and check for yourself - during both world wars, artillery claimed between 65 and 70% of casualties with the higher figure being from the Pacific theater for obvious reasons. Doesn’t matter how many rounds you carry when a battleship starts sending exploding cars your way in those times or cruise missiles in modern. I remember a story from Afghanistan - a hot topic recently, ha, ha. So a Soviet patrol got ambushed. The lieutenant killed, the radio operator killed and a large mujahedeen force moving on the few remaining conscripts. One of them gets a hold of the radio and requests immediate artillery support. The battery on duty asks for coordinates and the soldier gives them something that makes no sense. The officer asks him if he can read the map and if he knows what he’s doing and the conscript yells that he has no idea and a large force is moving on them from a hill. The officer asks if the solider can at least figure out on the map which grid square is the enemy coming from and the soldier manages to do that. The battery tells them to get cover and levels the square, which regardless of the scale on the map they had is quite a big area. I bet the mujahedeen had all been stocked good on ammo when 152mm HE-FRAGs started coming in.

[@memento_mori6454]

I for one am grateful for the inaccuracy of the AK-47. A lot of soldier's lives have been spared because of it.

[@hugostiglitz9864]

Nice thorough comparison. Thank you.

[@theamericangamer2696]

Love many videos from Paul. I'm a big fan of both platforms. Just like any platform, quality is key in accuracy. In my opinion that is, just like any aspect of anything. I have a KUSA KR-103 built here in the states. Amd it is very well accuracy, yet it is a premium build ak. Quality shows. Thank you for many videos and info paul.

[@Southerly93]

I'm reminded of this time the USMC investigated marines in Fallujah for war crimes because of the unusual rate of enemies killed by headshot. During the investigation it was determined that the shots were taken at 75 yards and further. The reason being that the only target insurgents would present is the gun and head. The M16s ability to produce better than minute of man accuracy proved invaluable for the battle.

[@lonestarpatriot6675]

I would love to see a test of 5.45 AK74 vs 5.56 AR. Also remember that the sight picture on an AK is intended to be a lollipop. Be sure and always zero it as such. In my honest personal opinion i think the AK has better sights for combative shooting and the AR has better sights for target shooting.

[@johnmachinemachine706]

Thank you Paul awesome video

[@stonehalo1632]

"Bear with me, there's a bear breathing in the mic"

[@juhomaki-petaja]

In finnish Army we fired 3 shot groups to 150m. You could easily get 2” groups. Or size of matchbox. And all guns were made in 1960-1970s and were used by tens of thousands soldiers.

[@Genesis23OPB]

lol not even a sig 550 can do that reliably and its the most accurate of all ak derived rifles ever made.

[@juhomaki-petaja]

Genesis23OPB Lol to you. Welcome to Finland and try it yourself.

[@Genesis23OPB]

@@juhomaki-petaja so what you are saying is that your army has 50yr+ old ak pattern rifles that shoot 5cm patterns at 300m? thats bullshit on so many levels its not even funny anymore.

[@juhomaki-petaja]

Genesis23OPB No its not! Do you even know what RK62 looks like? Google and watch some youtube videos about it. I’m not lying to you

[@Genesis23OPB]

@@juhomaki-petaja its an Ak47 clone that uses the 7.62x39 ammo. those guns simply cannot be as accurate as you claim.

[@jonjames4281]

You certainly gave every advantage to the ak possible. If you where using com-block weapon an ammo I doubt you'd see any hits at 300yrds although you may have taken a deer in the woods by accident.

[@trevor894]

Jon James it's not the arrow it's the Indian

[@newerest1]

@@trevor894 chris kyle couldnt have made an ak accurate at 500 yards

[@ccol009]

“It’s been done to death but people seem to never tire of it, so here we are again.” LOL! 🤣

[@ethanlamoureux5306]

Don’t apologize for “yet another” AR vs. AK video. This is the first one I’ve seen. The wind noise was nasty, but I still gave it a like, because it’s useful. Thank you!