M16 vs AK47 From Vietnam to GWOT

America's Rifle Order here: smallarmssoluti...
Chris's Rifle Flag Shirt amzn.to/43Uj4no
Green Web Sling M1 Garand amzn.to/3YpUYzO
US Army Black Silent Rifle Sling amzn.to/3DDqEIn
Two Point Sling amzn.to/43Pj5J7
Surplus SKS Type 56 Sling amzn.to/3OIxJ0I
Original Russian Made Standard Rifle Sling amzn.to/3DDocBy
MPSR Cleaning Kit (.223 CAL/5.56MM) otistec.com/mp...
5.56MM LAWMAN SERIES CLEANING KIT HTTPS://OTISTEC.COM/5-...
AK Cleaning Kit 7.62x39 otistec.com/ak...
AK Cleaning Kit 5.45x39 otistec.com/ak...
AXIL Earmuffs Tactical amzn.to/2PIrFJV
Foam Rifle and Pistol Rest amzn.to/2mIjHSr
Efect Military Tool amzn.to/3mgFxHm
Armorer's Manual amzn.to/2G5FRm2
Donate To SAS: donorbox.org/d...
Patreon Page: / smallarmssolutions
SAS Amazon Store: www.amazon.com...
Centurion Discount Codes:
Rifles: Code SASRIFLE for 3% off
Uppers/Lowers: SASUPPLWR for 5% off
Other/Misc: Code SAS10 for 10% off
Fort Scott Ammunition - Code: SAS to take 10% off
Challenge Targets - Code SAS - 10% off steel targets
www.challenget...
Otis Tech Gun Cleaning Gear - Code SAS15 - 15% off
otistec.com/?r...
G96 - Code SAS10 - 10% off
g96.com
Manta Products - Code BAR20 - 20% off
bit.ly/2IIzLK9
Facebook - bit.ly/2INZa4S
Website - smallarmssolutions.com
Instagram - SmallArmsSolutions
PO Box 298, Cypress, TX 77410

[@jasonyama333]

Few Years ago I spoke to a Vietnam vet, who had just retired as a dean of a university. I inquired about what he carried during the war, which was , tompson, aks, to m-16s. He confirmed to me when they first received the m-16s they did not with cleaning gear. He said he also fired LAWs rockets in combat against infantry. I asked how effect was that, he stated "I dont know I didn't check, but it made me feel better".

[@KeksimusMaximus]

Based g🤢🤢k eliminator

[@gustavoalmanza2673]

Frickin hardcore

[@chipsdubbo5.56]

He carried the AK? I don't know of anyone that did that except on some very rare occasions there are stories of navy seals carrying AKs to confuse the enemy

[@DutchK75]

My uncle was in Vietnam SF. They used to fire LAW's into the tree lines. Said it would keep their heads down.

[@ghostmourn]

🤔 I can see how sending that shit would be satisfying! I suspect the LAW was effective, i dont know if they had frag cases specifically but i'm sure it was enough anyway. Its a very well proven 66mm rocket iirc

[@walkercustoms]

From start to current times the AR 15 style rifle is an amazing evolution. The platform has done far more than designed to and has done it extremely well.

[@jefferyboring4410]

That’s simply because theirs no reason to super change models like American cars . It’s just a rifle if u can change mags and select fire theirs not much reason to reinvent the wheel that’s why everyone is using rifle designs from 70+ yrs ago all they’ve done is make em shoot different calibers. Why would u need to do more than that they work

[@dragonstormdipro1013]

That's true for AKs too

[@TheSundayShooter]

@@dragonstormdipro1013 AK's underwent more revisions and retooling to update lol

[@dragonstormdipro1013]

@@TheSundayShooter So?

[@WeAreSoBackBros]

@@TheSundayShooterTrue but… The DoD went out of their way to have companies develop things for the AR that are common now. We could have picked any gun and 70 years later it would be the best.

[@PavewayJDAM]

The Stg44 saw lots of use after WW2. IIRC the Soviets supplied most of their captured stocks of the Stg44s to the Czechs, East Germans, even early aide to North Vietnam. These migrated to various commie uprisings in Somalia, Ethiopia and Algeria. I think the Portuguese Airborne adopted it while fighting it in Algeria as a standard issue for quite a while. I know from friend's that served in Iraq they found a few Stg44s in various weapons caches. That gun got around. I guess it was the most 'plausible deniability' gun around in the early years of the cold war for the Soviets to distribute out.

[@Nathan-Roman]

Soviets were very eager to give them away. You didn't want the image of your glorious and indestructible Soviet infantry divisions wielding captured Nazi weaponry of any kind

[@luisnunes3863]

No, Portugal used the AR-10 for the airborne and then adopted the G3 for all branches. There might have been Stgs in small numbers but I doubt it. Even then, more likely they came from the rebels supplied by Warsaw Pact than anything.

[@justanothergunnerd8128]

There was a shipping container of them found in Syria a few years back too.

[@TY-pf6vb]

@@justanothergunnerd81282011 yes.

[@johnrosswilhite9532]

I’d say it’s more about giving out free weapons that were widely available. There isn’t a whole lot of plausible deniability if the uprising says they’re communists lol

[@JG_1998]

Really happy that you made a video on this topic. I've been watching some stuff about CIA paramilitary guys during the GWOT and one thing I noticed was how many of them had to run AKs for opsec reasons. I've been wondering how much of a difference those operators felt when transitioning from AR to AK platforms.

[@nicholaspatton5590]

Kalashnikov told them “I bet you feel really stupid right about now.”

[@krellio9006]

they did say its more reliable than the M16 Thats because the early M16 are crap thanks to the MIC also controlled by the general who has the factories to make M14

[@DogeickBateman]

@@krellio9006 God bless the (thankfully merged-purged) Ordnance Department-Springfield Monopoly

[@jessedeleon7906]

Both my AKs have optics, one is a red dot from KUSA the other is a Micro prism 3X magnification from Primary Arms. It was extremely easy to set up with both having the AK master mount side rail. both zeroed in at 100 yards and had a better grouping then some AR guys at the range. basically don't forget the human aspect of it.

[@thetest8777]

But canted right

[@TheSundayShooter]

You've demonstrated how an AK requires double the hardware and expense to keep up with AR-15's

[@jessedeleon7906]

@@TheSundayShooter just needs a side rail. not that complicated or expensive.

[@johnadams673]

Lol cope

[@p51mustang24]

I like AK’s, and they *can* be modified and modernized, I’ve seen some really cool ones, it’s just not as easy to do and options are less developed.

[@chipsdubbo5.56]

I have been waiting for this video for many years!!! I love debating which is better

[@williammatheson7978]

If you have a chance Chris, you should check out the Polish WZ 96 Beryl. The Poles did a good job designing a modern AK platform rifle that addresses many of the modern concerns (for AK's) that the M4A1 did.

[@EnriqueGavel-m8d]

I would say the Israelis did the best at modernizing the ak with their Galil Ace.

[@rustys.1070]

@@EnriqueGavel-m8d it has some nice features, but that thing is heavy lol.

[@G.W-01]

Both, the answer is always both...currently.

[@scaldedape6213]

Agreed

[@kuil]

Any self loading gun that is plentiful and works wins. You need gun. You also need gun to work. After that anything else is kind of a ‘luxury’.

[@davidhayes7596]

This is the best break down on the black rifle I've seen. There's still lots of vets that loved the 14.

[@darrynbrown9211]

Your issues with the ak basically come down to lack of competency and familiarity. This will be true with most modern service rifles. If your performance fails, the key takeaway is that it was you that failed. Not the rifle.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Lol, not training at all. This is obvious. But you are most definitely welcome to your opinion

[@darrynbrown9211]

@@SmallArmsSolutions there are certainly training issues with your shooting. Its probably a factor of age and health. But the fact remains your performance as far as shooting groups and so on is relegated to other shooters for a reason. You reference Henry for a reason, because he and many others will and do outperform you with these rifles. Henry represents a larger data set than you. So if you can acknowledge he can make rifles perform, then its also logical to atleast assume your performance doesn't represent the average skilled user with an AK.

[@darrynbrown9211]

Now I will concede there are fewer truly skilled users of the kalashnikov. But the rifle when equipped equally versus its western counter part (this equipment does exist for the ak) the performance between the two can run pound for pound. Like I said, its a competency and familiarity issue.

[@Grasyl]

4:30 Hitler was against the rifle first because it would take up production capacity needed for the MG42, because of its sheet metal construction. Later je rejected it because it needed a new cartridge.

[@skepticalbadger]

The AK mag is nothing like the StG except for curvature, which is a function of cartridge taper. Ironically the StG mag works like the AR mag. Also, it's fairly outrageous to suggest that modern railed AKs can't be use with optics. Limited Russian issue of them isn't the same as the rifle being incapable of using them. AK-74 only does 400 yards? You reference Henry at one point, maybe watch his AK-74 videos?

[@burnyburnoutze2nd]

I think his point would've come across better if all he said was ever since the flat top uppers came out, AR-15s have had no further modification needed to reliably use optics. Meanwhile, the AKs require a side rail and a specialized optic mount before you can start reliably attaching optics to it, and with the AK-12 series, the Russians have tried (and so far failed) to create a different solution to mount optics. AKs are fine, but ARs are objectively superior. Every design choice of the AR type rifles have allowed it to adapt so well to modern usage and technical innovations that the AK struggles to even come close. Having said that, I do think Chris here is bashing the AK more so than it needs to. His point on accuracy is true (Soviet military specs for AK and SKS accuracy is no groups larger than 15cm at 100m, which is 5.9 inches at 110 yards), but at the same time, a rack grade M4/M16 is expected to shoot 4 MOA, and in my military, a soldier is expected to shoot a C7 rifle with groups no bigger than... 15cm at 100m for the best possible score. Hmm, that sounds familiar....

[@justanothergunnerd8128]

@@burnyburnoutze2nd AKs DO NOT REQUIRE A SIDE RAIL - that is the best solution the soviet engineers of the 1960s or 70s found for mass production on a military issue rifle. Ever heard of Zenitco, Midwest Industries, Ultimak????? There is so much ignorance in the AR world about AKs... AR guys fuel more myths about AKs than hard-core AK fanboys do... geez. (edited for spelling)

[@burnyburnoutze2nd]

@@justanothergunnerd8128 zenitco? Yes, those are good. All others? No, they suck and can't hold a repeatable zero (and ultimak gas tube rails are just fucking stupid; mounting optics to a part that builds up heat is asking for trouble lmao) even compared to the side rail. The russians have been trying to redesign the AK 12 optics rail because it's struggling to hold zero lmao. Meanwhile the AR-15 just cut off the carry handle, milled a 1913 pic rail on top and called it a day. No issues for 30+ years and counting lmao.

[@rustys.1070]

@@burnyburnoutze2nd You've never heard of sureshot or tws dogleg I take it. or the beryl, or the ACE, or the arsenal line of aks. just because the new politcal gun from russia sucks, because it was a political gun, doesn't mean there are no other solutions.

[@burnyburnoutze2nd]

@@rustys.1070 First two? Less than perfect zenitco clones. I've seen lots of questionable zero issues with the TWS variant specifically. The Ace? Barely qualifies as an AK, as its such a radical departure from most AKs and even the original Galil rifles that it's really it's own thing. And Arsenal AKs are just very high quality AKs with nothing more advanced than a side rail and galil style safety lever. Very good rifles, but not the trump card you think it is. And finally the Beryl? Way too high of a cheek mount (doubly so woth the OG adjistable stock those typically have), and the Poles are currently dumping the Beryl in favour of their new MS rifle because they realized you can only go so far in modernizing the AK before you have to actually redesign it, so they said fuck it and made a new rifle altogether. My point is this: The AK is a perfectly good combat rifle, but it struggles with true modernization due to it's dated design and the limitations that ensue. Limitations the AR 15 never had in the first place. Why do you think every combat rifle being adopted outside of Russia's influence is either an AR 15/18 variant or derivitive of some kind?

[@MrS22222]

WAS THAT YOU SHAKING KALASHNIKOV'S HAND? WOW

[@petesheppard1709]

Nice overview! I grew up in the '60s and there was a popularity see-saw between the two. Up through the '80s, the M16 was generally derided as a finicky jamamatic while the AK was held up as an absolutely reliable battle monster. As the AR became more refined, available and the modern accessories were developed, the tables started turning. It has also been noted that as AR pattern rifles have become more available in world hot spots, they are generally preferred over the long-used AKs.

[@biggysnaps2827]

"long-used" is the keyword. Anyone would prefer a chevy colorado over a toyota if the toyota couldn't even shift gears

[@erickolb8581]

The soviets had a sense of art over science in warfare. This can be easily seen in the majority of their weapon systems. Pick one... They had better airplanes, in a mechanical sense sure, but what about everything else that went along with those airplanes? Not so good then, huh. I see it all the time in their rifle optic designs. What's this area in between the chevrons? My imagination lol! Our western optics show information on nearly every single spot of the scope. Western weapon systems apply science. A T14 does not out class nor outperform an M1, even on a favorable day.

[@Grasyl]

7:35 The AK-47 was adopted in 1949 as the AK (without an number).

[@not_your_business666]

when it comes to the early history there are lots of incorrect facts

[@Grasyl]

@@not_your_business666 Were can I find the correct "facs" if the official Russian documents are wrong?

[@not_your_business666]

@@Grasyl not sure what kind of documents you are talking about, I was talking about incorrect facts in the video, and I am not arguing with you. Indeed if you look up the document about adoption of AK, you can see that stalin has ordered to adopt it back in 1949 along with rpd, sks and 7.62x39 cartridge. The author also said that sks was adopted in 1945 and it couldn't compete against Stg44 which sounds completely insane.

[@Victoratify]

@@Grasyl What specific Russian documents are lying? Can I have a list? It will suit you if I give you the text of the decree of the Government of the USSR: June 18, 1949 №2611-1033ss "On the Adoption of New Types of small arms by the Soviet Army. The Council of Ministers of the USSR DECIDES: 1. Adopt into service with the Soviet Army: 7.62 mm self-loading carbine Simonov model 1945, instead of the carbine model 1944. 7.62 mm Kalashnikov assault rifle model 1947, instead of submachine guns model 1941 and 1943. 7.62 mm Degtyarev light machine gun, model 1944, instead of the DPM light machine gun. 7.62 mm cartridge of the 1943 model. 2. New small arms to be named: 7.62 mm Simonov self-loading carbine (SKS); 7.62 mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK); 7.62 mm Degtyarev light machine gun (RPD); 7.62 mm cartridge of the 1943 model. 3. To oblige Comrade Vasilevsky, Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR, within a month to submit to the Council of Ministers of the USSR a plan for re-equipping the Armed Forces with new-style small arms. Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (I. Stalin) Manager of Affairs of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (M. Pomaznev)

[@rustys.1070]

@@not_your_business666 it was adopted in 1945. If we called it by the same misnomer as the "AK-47" instead of the real term just being "AK", it should be called the sks-45. I don't think the sks and the stg ever actually saw each other in combat, though.

[@ryanpeck3377]

14:55 The DI action actually helps the M16 as well. the gas venting out the bolt helps push dirt/mud out of the action

[@MatthewAshmore]

And even out of the magazine too

[@c1ph3rpunk]

I present the true test as this: how did the platform fare during the process of modernization? The M-16 to the M-4 compared to the AK-47 to the AK-14. And not the commercial Gucci guns, military issue. The AR platform, as a whole, has taken to that far better than the AK. That being said, if I had to have one, an AK works just fine, but if I had a choice, a modern AR would be it.

[@justanothergunnerd8128]

You can accessorize an AK just as good as an AR these days - it's just gonna cost you in weight, especially if running a 16 inch barrel. There are receiver side rails, Zenitco (and American clones), ultimak, etc. for lots of different mounting options. But weight and length is why the elite units went to 102/104/105 setup - and they are still heavy but far more manageable. The AK has evolved with the times AS MUCH AS IT CAN - it's not that it hasn't evolved at all. The AR has the advantage of being invented at just the right time in regards to modern materials, manufacturing methods, metallurgy, etc. - oh and having the worlds largest defense budget and largest economy behind it's development over the last 60 to 70 years.

[@justanothergunnerd8128]

It also depends on where you are... If I am in Ukraine right now, there is no way in hell I would have an AR, unless maybe you're an ultra-elite unit, recon or whatever and don't expect issues with ammo, parts and mag resupply. The AKs are everywhere, especially the AK-74 - you can even use captured Russian ammo, mags and guns fresh out of your local trench. Running an AR in this environment would not be the best option.

[@rustys.1070]

what is an ak-14

[@minorcek]

Ukraine developed its own AR platform that uses common 5.45 ammo Not the American 5.56

[@THEESVN]

Kalashnikov also took part in the competition for the SKS, his prototype use the same operate system as the AK.

[@corvetteguy1980]

My dad in Vietnam in the early ‘70s carried an M14. He preferred it over the M16A1.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

Most of those stories are just that.....stories.

[@dobridjordje]

​@@LuvBorderColliesIts simple confirmation bias, out of some half a million combat troops in Vietnam, one portion used the M14, some 200 vets wrote that they used it instead of the M16 but other 85% of troops used the M16 in one way shape or form.

[@blackhawk7r221]

The M-16 series rifle is no more reliable than it was 50 years ago in 1970. Our doctrine of keeping it clean to function properly has simply improved. As long as we fail to adopt a tapered cartridge, we will continue to have to stress ultracleanliness. And tight tolerances between the BCG and upper doesn’t help if sand grains get into it, along with the excessive expansion and twisting of an aluminum upper, regardless of alloy, forged or cast. In 34 years of airborne infantry, whether using an M-16A1, A2, A4, M-4, or M-4A1, those BCG’s begin to seize after about 8 mags of rapid, burst, or auto fire. Yes, the AR platform has become extremely popular, but it’s far from perfect.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

I have done significant testing over the last 30 years and have to disagree. I don’t think you are aware of the mechanical changes this family of weapons has gone through.

[@blackhawk7r221]

@@SmallArmsSolutions That would be a very good topic for a video. The changes and upgrades to the bolt carrier group and locking lugs over the decades. Not merely aesthetic changes or bolt-on systems, but the upper itself. As far as here in active duty, we still not only see the same issues as decades ago, but we are now cracking locking lugs with the M855A1 ammo.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

The M855A1 is a bad idea. It’s excessive pressures destroy any 5.56mm rifle out there. My testing has been working for manufacturers, working in the field in 31 countries as well as independent testing. Much of the improvements are not public knowledge nor are they reported to the media. Many current issues relate to lack of maintenance (parts wearing out) due to logistical problems and lack of armorers doing maintenance at proper intervals. We noticed during gwot that troops complained about all our weapons. When it was examined, it was not the weapon design at fault. It was worn out parts and out of spec replacement parts. Sand does not stop an M4 any quicker than any other for a number of reasons. Most important being the M4’s ability to keep debris out of the action. Lots of misinformation out there by a lot of people who lack experience but watch a lot of KZbin and base their opinions off shooting limited numbers of rounds under controlled range conditions.your comment about 8 mags is also not correct. We did destruction tests at Colt. The M4 would go 15 magazines until the barrel ruptured. No malfunction up to structural failure of the barrel. The M4 SOCOM heavy barrel wen through 30 mags until structural failure. The M16A4 will fire 16 magazines before the barrel fails. These are repeatable and predictable. These are military production mil-spec rifles. I have no clue where this 8 mag BCG seizure comes from. Simply not true. I think you can google m4 destruction tests an see for yourself. I won’t speak to the quality of non military grade guns. Their quality is all over the charts. No predictability results due to random specs and quality of components.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

Apparently you've never read any of my oft repeated personal experience stories from VN 1965 to 1970. People with real combat experience trump any BS by any poser on the net. The M16 worked fine in heavy combat at Ia Drang Nov 1965 and worked fine for the 25th In Div at Cu Chi all of 1969 (they cleaned their 16s and 60 every evening). No failures in 12 months. The entire area around Black Virgin Mountain earned its nicknames. Chris has covered the issues in between those dates on WHY there was problems. Point is not everyone had the "jammed M16" but kids on the internet can't seem to figure that out.

[@ostapryotosez7549]

I mean realistically the major issue is difference in tactics. We use alot of close air and night fighting since the start of gwot so the rifle was needed to do that so it happened. And we have the advantage of having delta and devgru who need this stuff first, who often go to the civilian sector to look at new upgrades to their systems. Free float handguards, long rails, lpvo scopes, red dots all these things started as civilian competition items. Then these things trickle down over time to big army. Biggest thing for us is the civilian sector and money. Now Russians still have state arsenals, they primarily fight with heavy armor and ground troops not air. Since they don't really use these things for the most part the rifle has never been asked to do this, except when it is like in Syria when you're seeing spetsnaz guys with 105s and eotechs, with peq15s. It can be done with an ak, but the biggest reason it's not is money and it doesn't generally fit their tactics. And that's kind of being seen with the ak12 program thus far. Plastic 1913 rails out front for grips, and flashlights, your not putting a laser on there and the top cover which might hold zero but then again you have no optics worth anything anyway. The money just isn't there, look at the cost of making one night fighting setup per soldier between the rifle, laser, optic, and nods. And even still how often does the average Joe use his nods and laser and night fight, I'd venture to say not often. So I doubt everyone needs all that, optic is the biggest thing.

[@bmrz38]

I understand you are a big fan of the AR (as am I), but your bias when speaking if the AK was “utterly and completely” over the top. A lot of opinions about the AK as well. I’m actually disappointed as I was hoping for a well thought out discussion.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

My experience dictates my opinion. My opinion is based on mechanics not the cool factor

[@rustys.1070]

@@SmallArmsSolutions Your opinions are as developed as a teenager who used the gun on call of duty.

[@BaconSlayer69]

@@SmallArmsSolutionsso you’d understand that the AK47 is more reliable and robust and durable under adverse conditions right ? Than the AR15

[@TakNuke]

Cold temerature is the area where AK shines. But it could have been designed better with a rigid top and better ergonomics. Other then that its mechanism and magazine are solid.

[@mattipps]

You got it.

[@kumat0ra672]

The side rail mount is also surprisingly good, for optics to retain zero and whatnot.

[@TakNuke]

@@kumat0ra672 Considering AK74M and later commercially offered modernization kit for it, AK12 was and is a big waste of money. Some Russian General sure got his pocket full of money with it. They could have gone for something new like A545, ADS or AM17 rifle series. All three are field tested with former two being service tested.

[@kumat0ra672]

@@TakNuke AM-17M is a pretty badass rifle.

[@kuil]

That, and its tolerance to dirt and water. Try firing an AR-15 with some liquid in the barrel, or attempt to shake dirt out of the gun on short notice.

[@jasonfedeli]

I never noticed the STG44 has a dust cover like the M16/AR15-10

[@Youkilledkenny42069]

My buddy’s grandpa had a major collection and literally tonight we were looking at all the guns and what you said about the m14 is so true it’s so huge lol

[@JosephAnthonyJosefius]

What about the Galil Ace? I suppose that's like a Valmet.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

AK on a very different level. Still similar limitations. But certainly better

[@alancranford3398]

We keep repeating the mistakes of the past. The M1 Carbine was designed to replace pistols (and bolt action rifles and some M1 Rifles) for front-line non-riflemen. The actual specifications called for the Carbine to replace the submachine gun as well (funny--the M1 Rifle was also supposed to replace the submachine gun and the M14 Rifle was supposed to replace the submachine gun...) and small unit leaders (company and below) were more effective with Carbines than with pistols while not being tempted to use their personal defense weapon in lieu of their main weapon--the unit. The Carbine was compact enough for drivers and weapon crews while permitting the Carbine-armed soldier to contribute to the company's firefight. Mission creep set in. Original specifications for the Carbine were select-fire with 20 round and 50 round magazines. It was more important to get this new light rifle into front-line service than it was to get a perfect light rifle into front-line service, and so the M1 Carbine entered service with flip-up L-sights (100 yard peep, 200 yard peep and a notch atop the 200 yard peep for 300 yards), no bayonet, a canvas belt holster, and 15-shot magazines. By the end of WW2 the Carbine became select-fire, gained 30 shot magazines, a bayonet lug, and a rifle grenade launcher. There were even muzzle breaks and flash hiders--and the M3 Carbine was developed to use the new IR Snooper Scope system. Fast forward to the 1990's, nearly half a century later. The M16 platform had been provided with "submachine guns" In 5.56mm and 9mm since the early days. The early passive Starlight night fighting systems married up well with the lightweight M16 family. Still, the M16 didn't totally displace the M3A1 submachine gun because the M16 was longer (lighter in weight than the M3A1, especially when both were loaded) and the durable Grease Gun didn't suffer much performance degradation from being abused. There wasn't much that could go wrong with the M3A1, but also not much in the way of performance. Optimistically the M3A1 sights were set for 100 yards, and the M3A1 was at its best under 50 meters. The M4 was intended for a number of missions--lightweight PDW, direct replacement for the M3A1 as AFV local security/point defense weapon, and the lightest possible Special Forces weapon. As is pointed out in the video, the M4 was not intended for the assault rifle role--but Mission Creep set in and the M4 was often pressed into service where a belt-fed machine gun was more appropriate. Designing weapons for how they are used by soldiers on the battlefield is rare. The AK-47 was supposed to replace Soviet burp guns on a one-for-one basis with the main rifle squad weapons being the RPD and the SKS. That obsolete French Great War squad model was still radical and revolutionary during World War Two--the assault rifle was a game changer. About 1910 John M. Browning devised a "machine rifle" intended to replace several Springfield M1903 rifles in a rifle company. The prototype was designed to fire from a closed bolt and was primarily a semiautomatic rifle that could deliver full-auto fire for close combat. The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) gained weight like an American eating fast food twice a day because the US Army wanted a light machine gun and the BAR was the closest thing available to the Americans in 1917. The first problem was that the .30 caliber M1906 cartridge was too powerful for hand-held automatic fire from a rifle weighing the same as the Springfield. Already overweight, the BAR went with an open bolt firing mechanism and a heavy barrel so that a dozen magazines could be fired in ten minutes without the gun falling apart or overheating and jamming. The M1918A2 Automatic Rifle of World War Two was great on the fire team level (only individual weapons for a fire team--crew served weapons turn fire teams into weapon crews) but as a squad light machine gun suffered from shortcomings that even the great John M. Browning didn't foresee. In the PTO, Marines often "lost" flash hiders, monopods, bipods, and a few other things that made the BAR long and heavy. Pre-WW2 a jungle-fighting edition of the BAR was experimented with by the Marines and a few rare Colt Monitor Rifles were produced for the police market. One weapon that the 1936 adoption of the M1 Rifle (the Garand) was supposed to replace was the BAR--along with the tommy gun and the M1903 Rifle. The 1940 USMC Small Wars Manual spoke of dividing the 9-Marine squad into two teams, each with at least one M1 Rifle and the rest armed with the M1903, for use in close terrain (towns and jungle) encountered during the Banana Wars. The US Navy's ad hoc infantry squads during World War Two had eight or nine Sailors armed with two Thompsons (as "automatic rifles") and six or seven M1903 Rifles. The improved M4 Carbine family is robust enough to serve as a fire team base of fire weapon. With an M203A1 or M302 40mm grenade launcher, the M4 can provide high trajectory explosive munition delivery and at distances of under 150 meters can lob a grenade through a bunker slit or into a window. The M4 retains the ability to fire rifle grenades--I've read about that being used but haven't seen it. There's the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a big green rocket-propelled gum ball that is claimed to have the punch of a 105mm howitzer and a maximum range of 1000 meters--again, I've read of them but haven't seen them. The M4 can be fitted with a muzzle suppressor. There are many sight options for the M4 family. One return to the past--France still used Cuirassier heavy cavalry up to September 1915 and their model of the Berthier carbine featured a leather Cuirassier buttplates so that the carbine could be fired while wearing the breastplates. Flak vests have been part of US Army and US Marine equipment since the Korean Conflict. Fixed stocks offering either Papa Bear length of pull (too long) or Mama Bear's butt-plate-to-trigger length (too short) were unsatisfactory even though by the mid-Eighties US PASTG body armor was universally issued to support and service troops. The original CAR-15 telescoping buttstock was intended for compact storage and transport--but Mission Creep and some ingenuity made that a four-position stock so that the rifleman could adjust length of pull as required. There's still demand that the M4A1 function as a heavy machine gun and a featherweight PDW, with hope that the M4A1 function both as a CQB weapon and reach out 1000 meters for "one shot/one kill" -- just blame Mission Creep. The US Air Force redefined their survival rifle requirements and have a light-weight edition of the M4 (GAU-5A?) with folding pistol grip that can be broken down and packed in an ejection seat survival kit along with four loaded 30-shot magazines and a detachable muzzle suppressor. The original AR-15 specs of 1956 were a 500-yard effective range with a trajectory matching .30 Caliber M2 Ball--that's why the caliber was .224 inches instead of something larger, making a rifle that weighed as much as the M2 Carbine that was controllable in automatic fire meant giving up on the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge and accepting something less powerful, producing less buttplate energy and less stress on the rifle. Everything is a Baby Bear compromise--might be "just right" for Goldilocks but Papa Bear will find it too soft and Mama Bear will find it too hard. Most soldiers are Goldilocks--or Baby Bear. The rest of us just have to cope with compromise. When someone complains to me about underpowered infantry rifles, I tell them the story of Kilimanjaro Bell, elephant hunter, and his 6.5mm rifle.

[@user-oy9zy4ds9m]

The 7.62x39 was a superior cartridge for dense jungle warfare in Vietnam because 5.56 the lightweight bullet gets deflected firing through heavy brush where the heavier 7.62 Soviet got deflected much less if at all. Overall I think the m16A1 is ergonomically and superior designed weapon. Being able to pop 2 pins and completely replace the entire barrel and half the firing components in seconds is a huge advantage to longevity and maintaining the weapon. AK’s barrels are much much harder to replace when worn out or damaged. Also the use of aluminum makes the weapon easier to carry, wield and more corrosion resistant especially from rusting. AK’s notoriously rust.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

It doesn't matter squat when you rarely get a glimpse of the NVA/VC, and that usually was several hundred yards away and they were moving therefore only a glimpse.

[@johnnail532]

I love both platforms but I I hear a bump in the night or shrf and I just need to grab a rifle my first instinct is the AKM

[@captsam54]

I am a US Army Veteran... I have owned AR's, and AK's.... And your blowing smoke up my ass... AR's serve their purpose in a controlled (clean) environment... AK's just work, and I like the cartridge better...

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Respectfully disagree.

[@mattfransen1551]

I work for the Army. I can’t tell you how many malfunctions occur during fire and maneuver when soldiers don’t close their dust cover during movement. Another big issue is top off reloads. Magazines fall out all the time lol.

[@michaelforsyth892]

I agree with almost everything that was said here. My opinion in the final analysis only differs in one respect. The 5.56 NATO round is dependant on velocity. And by shortening the barrel you also shorten the effective range and limit the effect of the round on impact with soft targets. The M4 is the finest rifle for house to house close-up and/or rear echelon fighting in production today. But I still believe that the longer barrel of the M16 should be the standard on a battlefield.

[@garyK.45ACP]

Great video and history.

[@bravofoxtrot9504]

The Russians are working on a AK called AKB-521 were the bolt sits in the upper receiver, that could solve the optics problem. If they can produce it...

[@lefunnyN1]

the issue was solved 25 years ago with beryl rifle arsenal nowadays produces a similar optic mount

[@2010GT500]

As far as weather conditions go, the AKs seem to perform better in freezing environments though

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

No, AR has no oprod to freeze up

[@2010GT500]

@@SmallArmsSolutions but the AR has small fine moving parts that some condensation freezing up can put the rifle out of commission. 🤷‍♂️

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

This platform passes with flying colors nato cold whether environmental testing. I have conducted these tests for foreign contracts. This includes icing. The test does not include dumping a bottle of water into the action and freezing up the whole action. That is not realistic

[@rustys.1070]

@@SmallArmsSolutions exactly which part of the ak is going to freeze

[@BaconSlayer69]

@@SmallArmsSolutions😂😂😂😂 Chris at this point your being biased as hell cmon now

[@TheRobman139]

Very good video, I broadly agree. Couple exceptions… Though I have personally never seen combat, I did serve in the Army infantry during the 80s and have known many combat vets over the years. I work at a steel mill where we have a lot of guys who saw combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I was shopping for my first military-style semiautomatic rifle back in ‘16, of course I was debating between the 5.56 AR or the 7.62x39mm AK. Informally polling my combat vet coworkers, the consensus among them was that if I were only going to get one such rifle (my intention at that time), that it should be the AK. They thought the 7.62x39mm was a better practical fighting cartridge, and also noted the ruggedness and easy maintenance of the AK. My own exposure to the AK during OPFOR training while I was in uniform also impressed me with the rugged simplicity of the AK design and the punchiness of the round. I suspect my coworkers had the respect they did for the 7.62x39mm was because the M855 rounds they were issued were found wanting in terms of prompt lethality; they often did not cause immediately incapacitating injuries and just zipped through the enemy fighters, whereas our guys who got hit by 7.62x39mm were out of the fight right away. I have heard this from multiple veterans. On the other hand, I had a junior high school teacher who had been an infantry platoon leader in Vietnam. He said the M-16 was extremely lethal; specifically, said getting hit by one within 100 yards was “…like getting hit with a 30-‘06”. But he had the old M193 round, which out of a 20” barrel actually does perform extremely well. It does seem like our guys in the GWOT/Iraq were shortchanged by the M855, which was really designed more for use out of the M249 and specifically to pierce Warsaw Pact steel helmets at long range, but suffered in terms of terminal ballistics. Then there’s also the newer Mk262 and M855A1 rounds; the former especially seems to be vastly better than the M855, and of course the 7.62x39mm, albeit more expensive. So five years after I got my AK, along comes the Russian ammo ban, and I decided it would be a good idea to “diversify” my arsenal with a 5.56 platform, which of course had to be an AR. So I get a 20” barrel Windham Weaponry model and “rediscover” the advantages of that platform, especially the ease with which I can deliver both rapid and accurate fire. And that really is, to me, the clinching advantage of the AR. Yes, with enough practice and skill, decent accuracy can be squeezed out of a good AK, but the AR makes it easier, and at the end of the day, assuming cartridges of broadly comparable power, the higher volume of more accurate fire wins the battle….just as Colonel Moore described at Ia Drang. That is the fundamental advantage of the AR over the AK.

[@cavscout888]

GWOT vet and we liked our M4's. I can't imagine using a G3 for the same tasks, and I wouldn't want to use an AK.

[@thesanfordmethod1905]

incredible video, thanks! Also, a comparison / discussion video between an AR15 1in14 and 1in12 twist rate barrels would be awesome too. :D

[@waynestevens5174]

Another big difference is the continuous improvements made to the M16 and M4 platforms. Largely unnoticed by the public.

[@christinepearson5788]

Still feels like M1 Grand vs M2 Johnson. AK looks awfully like upside down M1 Grand and Stoner paid Melvin Johnson for his bolt though Stoners gas system of inside out reversed piston in the bolt carrier is unique.

[@TechnikMeister2]

Every time I went out on patrol in Vietnam with Australian forces I gave thanks to my governments decision to use the FN FAL (L1A1) in 7.62 Nato. Mine was the F1 shorter verion issued to special forces. I knew I had the Rolls Royce of assault rifles at the time and it never gave me any grief. It would be another ten years before the M16 had all its problems sorted out. Now our military have to put up with the L88 Steyr AUG, but special forces use the M4. I remember when we wnt on special recce patrols into Cambodia. We were issued with AKs for those. The AK was the perfect short range assault rifle for a person with zero arms training.

[@menumlor9432]

Im still a firm beleiver that the stg44 had huge influences on the ak47.

[@darklyripley6138]

Despite there not being much evidence for it.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Um, yes there is

[@darklyripley6138]

@@SmallArmsSolutions Like what? Because you have failed to provide any. They’re both intermediate caliber rifles. That’s about where the similarities end.

[@skepticalbadger]

​@@darklyripley6138Concept, because actually few nations rolled with the intermediate cartridge early on, and form factor I.e. Relatively short barrel, 30 round mag. That's it, and to be fair, given the route they could have gone, that's not nothing. Maybe also the choice of the long stroke piston perhaps, but that was hardly a new concept. But yes, Chris and others grossly exaggerate the influence of the StG.

[@darklyripley6138]

@@skepticalbadger Nothing about the STG was 100% new to begin with. So for anyone to say the AK took from the STG, they’d also have to concede that the AK is taking from many other different guns. The concept isn’t even the same. The Soviets used the AK as more of an SMG. Not an assault rifle like the Germans with the STG.

[@eefrimisrael5757]

Ak's have optic mounts on side and hand rail, and you can put ar butt's on them what ever toy you can put an ar can be put on aks

[@chrischiampo7647]

M16 All Day and Everyday 😀😎😀 Thanks Chris Great Points on Both Platforms 👍🏼

[@rustys.1070]

especially in afganistan. its what helped us win in only a year or two, right.

[@ostrygwint6110]

Hi Chris, I am a loyal viewer of your channel and I consider it one of the most valuable substantively. I do not hide that I draw a lot of knowledge from it... thanks to you. However, I must say that the last material failed me. I expected more from him, especially reflection on these two platforms. Unfortunately, I repeated many trite theses, which without being placed in context are very superficial. And that's not your style, I feel. I don't want you to take it as a sermon because I have no right to do so. In my humble opinion, the AK (AK mod. 1947) in the 50s and 60s was the most advanced small arms system taking into account the conclusions from the battlefields of the WW2. The weapon was compact with an optimal barrel length, with the possibility of mounting a silencer (PBS-1) for which a special cartridge was developed, with the possibility of mounting in special versions of optics including night vision (NSP-1), etc., and all this in the period when the US was implementing the M14 based on the archaic Garand on too powerful cartridge, a small magazine, with a long 20-inch barrel, too long, too heavy, too clumsy. The same was true for FN FALA or G3. These were all important constructions, but archaic. All of them were based on WW2 assumptions more than AK - G3=Stg45, M14 = Garand, FN FAL = FAL49 = G43 = SWT40. In fact, the AR15 and this also follows from your materials appeared in the US Army by accident. If it wasn't for the Vietnam War, it is not known how long the M14 was in service, maybe like the G3 or FN FAL in the in European armies. In my opinion, the AR15 platform gained an advantage over the AK only at the turn of the 90s and 2000s, when the 1913 rail was introduced on a large scale, which led to the birth of the modularity of this platform. And we're not talking about tape-mounting commercial flashlights or optics in the style that Larry Vickers is talking about. All this was improvisation, in contrast to the systemic and modular solutions in the context of AK. In the second half of the 2000s, the GWOT experience was followed by a rash of companies in the US, such as Magpul, which dealt with the accessories and modularity of the AR15 platform. Untill then, there was nothing. Previously, the AR15 platform was less modular and gave less accessory capabilities than the AK. I think it is frivolous to compare the M4a1 and its capabilities to the AKM or even to the AK74, because the period between them is 30-40 years. And that's the same as comparing the Ford Mustang from 1967 to the Tesla from 2010. Please take this only as my opinion. Yours sincerely, Adrian

[@Painfulwhale360]

Wut?

[@markwhite6782]

I was so glad to see this video. I own both but love the AR style much better. It's amazing all the BS we used to hear in the 70's and 80's (I'm old) about how the AR was a POS that got our boys killed because it constantly jammed while the AK was superior. Great job Chris.

[@sluttybutt]

You hear the same thing about many small arms that are issued for the first time. A lot of it is teething issues, some of it is user preference and fuddery, some of it is true. Take the L85 for a similar example - the first iteration had issues, some inherent, some from manufacturing and some training/user-induced. After refinement it is a superbly robust and reliable platform, though the ergonomics still leave a lot to be desired. But even after the A2 and A3 iterations have been issued for a long time it hasn't lost that reputation. Although a lot of that is due to the fact that they're not available for us to use and hasn't undergone the 50+ years of consumer-driven refinement that more commonly adopted platforms have.

[@darkcat5649]

The Taliban beg to differ

[@iMost067]

@@darkcat5649 when you swap your AK that was extensively used for 40 years for M4 that was never used. nice comparison

[@paynekiller75]

​@@darkcat5649 The Taliban and what we did/didn't do in Afghanistan doesn't make the AR-15 family of rifles any less great of a weapon system, dingus.

[@biggysnaps2827]

@@paynekiller75 You misinterpreted his statement. The AKs in the middle east were at least 60 years old on average, compared to the AR pattern rifles that weren't even a year old. barrel life, and parts wear, basically. Hope this helps.

[@2lbsTrigrPull]

M4 and AK have same sight radius so saying AK has short sight radius is a disadvantage should be same for for the M4 as well. And bolt failure during tests? Which? IV8888 tests showed weak point of all these guns are barrels and gas systems like gas tube. A cracked gas tube requires a new one. A drooped barrel on an AK can be fixed by smacking it against a tree.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

IV testes did not represent the military grade M4. Those were commercial grade. Some had defective gas tubes. Just like most of his AK ones don’t represent combat grade AKM’s. Smacking a tree? Nope. Under perfect condition you might bent it slightly enough for oprod to fit in gas block but you would never hit anything. You need to get the difference between entertainment and real military/nato weapon testing criteria and protocols. Also the difference between commercial and military grade weapons. All AR’s are not created equal.

[@Grasyl]

6:09 The Soviets didn't request an assault rifle they request an "Avtomat" and it was very unclear what this was supposed to become. Other competitors delivered weapons that resemble large SMGs or light machine guns. The "Avtomat" was meant to fulfill multiple roles that were not covered by the SKS or the RDD.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Um no, the 7.62x39mm cartridge was adopted before the AK47 was adopted and was built around that cartridge!

[@Grasyl]

@@SmallArmsSolutions That contradict the information found in: Kalashnikov the man and the arms by Ezell (unknown page, I got the German version). The World's Assault Rifles on page 1723 and 1729. Эволюция Стррелкового Оружияby Wladmimir Fjedorow page 37. Sturmgewehr! From Firepower to Striking Power by Hans-Dieter Handrich (unknown page, I got the German version). The same information can be found on Maxim Popenkers Webseite and in an Interview he gave to Forgotten Weapons.

[@Victoratify]

@@SmallArmsSolutions The 7.62x39 cartridge was adopted at the same time as the AK. Text of the decision: June 18, 1949 №2611-1033ss "On the Adoption of New Types of small arms by the Soviet Army. The Council of Ministers of the USSR DECIDES: 1. Adopt into service with the Soviet Army: 7.62 mm self-loading carbine Simonov model 1945, instead of the carbine model 1944. 7.62 mm Kalashnikov assault rifle model 1947, instead of submachine guns model 1941 and 1943. 7.62 mm Degtyarev light machine gun, model 1944, instead of the DPM light machine gun. 7.62 mm cartridge of the 1943 model. 2. New small arms to be named: 7.62 mm Simonov self-loading carbine (SKS); 7.62 mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK); 7.62 mm Degtyarev light machine gun (RPD); 7.62 mm cartridge of the 1943 model. 3. To oblige Comrade Vasilevsky, Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR, within a month to submit to the Council of Ministers of the USSR a plan for re-equipping the Armed Forces with new-style small arms. Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (I. Stalin) Manager of Affairs of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (M. Pomaznev)

[@loquat44-40]

Relative to small arms prior to the STG showing up, I do not believe that the germans had more fire power. Perhaps they had superior automatic weapons, but I am not sure about that. The german military regularly reissued captured russian submachine guns and the Tokarev designed 10 round semiauto rifles to their troops. The germans had superior planning and tactics, could maneuver better, and likely had better communications and training. A major problem with AK accuracy is the poor consistency of the russian steel case ammo. Also on those that I handled the the slant muzzle brakes and front sights were loose. Fix those issues and with decent ammo and they shoot a lot better. My WASR with canted front sight, no muzzle brake would at 100 ft put 5 shots into a one inch group that is 3 inches at 100 yards or about 3 moa. I have gotten rid of the AK because the AR system in semiautomatics for us civilians is a more useful rifle. For a civilian with an ak put an ultimak on it with a primary arms red dot and all is good. Good enough to take a hog or defending the homestead. Relative to the safety, for gun gaming the AR safety is more convenient. In my world once the rifle comes off sling or is deployed in my hands the safety comes off and stays off until danger is gone. None of this flip on and flip off business that most americans teach. The magazine insertion on the AK if you learn it is not slow or difficult and has it advantages. It is the same as the M14 and not so different from the G3. The lack of a bolt hold open on the AK is a disadvantage because you do not know when the rifle is empty. The G3 is the same way. The FAL usually had one and some did not work or broke with usage. The M14 has a fine bolt hold open as does the AR. But of course with the AR, after market parts and mags can impact its function. The GI set up works. The aK under a high volume of fire for the press pin barrel model when they get hot will walk over the pin that hold the barrel. Look up Iraqveteran8888 for those tests. Both the AR and AK will continue to fire long enough for a civilian in semiauto. Military use is something else. For conventional warfare under the old soviet doctrine the AK was meant to be backed with heavier support weapons for longer ranges. It would be a fairer test if you would partner with Robski that is a Proponent of the AK, but has trained and used the AR with the US military. IT would be great if: You present your case and he presents the AK. But I did very much enjoyed your presentation.

[@jessesellers9873]

I think the AK is a better field rifle. It’s easier to repair and keep running, easier to correct malfunctions overall, and for short to intermediate assaulting it is adequate. That being said, overall the AR platform is more modular, a bit more accurate and if I was still in the military with said logistics I would want my M4 back. If I was in a long ongoing SHTF apocalyptic scenario with no end in sight I would use one of my AK’s.

[@nicholaspatton5590]

Robski has great videos about being able to use the AK while missing or substituting parts. Things I believe the AR simply cannot do. I must admit now having both I find the AR more intuitive since I have both. Of course my AR is in 7.62x39 though ;)

[@cl4998]

What? In a real shtf situation you'd need far, far more tooling to replace the barrel/receiver on an ak. With the ar/m4 all you'd need is a couple hundred of dollars worth of tools.

[@jessesellers9873]

@@cl4998 I’d need a press and a hammer, or just a hammer. I’ve built AK’s for the last 15 or so years. That’s why it’s one of the more desirable weapons in the third world. An African with zero intelligence can keep a 60 year old chicom humping with bailing wire and rusty nails.

[@jurassicturtle3666]

​​@@cl4998underrated response. If you think the AK is easier to repair than an AR you've never looked into building an AK. In regards to Rob Ski's video- the recoil spring is not going to fail before the barrel, unless you're picking one up from a builder in the Khyber pass. Hydraulic press, for the barrel and front sight, jigs for pressing, a rivet gun, a welder for the receiver supports, a file and a dremel for fitting (especially if you want railed furniture), and so on. The AR can be put together on your couch if it had to be. A punch, a hammer, an armorer's wrench, and a set of allen keys. You can't just replace critical components on an AK thr way you can on an AR either. AKs just aren't made to be taken apart.

[@jessesellers9873]

@@jurassicturtle3666 you’re trying to build Gucci AK’s! I’ve been building Gucci AK’s for more than a decade and a half! I’ve also seen a barrel installed with 1/4” all thread rod and nuts, some metal shims and a crescent wrench. Also seen a guy hammer one in. Same as the rivets. Seen plenty of people hammer rivets in. Replace them with screws or steel dowels. I’ve seen people build aks with a hammer and a file and that was it! Also we’re not talking about being in a situation where we have parts available for retrofit. We’re talking about fixing what is broken with what can be found on hand, and you can’t do that so much to the AR platform. To the degree you can an AK. I’ve been building ARs for just as long also.

[@iamAwesomo1994]

When you see the mud tests where it gets sprayed out the ejection port from the propellant gas its almost like Stoner knew what he was doing.

[@rustys.1070]

what about when the gas tube explodes, or when any matter at all gets in the locking lugs.

[@iamAwesomo1994]

@@rustys.1070 at least if fails safely. if that happens with an ak you're out of commisssion too. the point is that on every shot a high pressure gasses are expelling out the ejection port. keeping debris out better than the same situation on an ak. gas tube is meant to explode before the barrel to save the rest of the gun and the shooter from injury. no gun is perfect but some are more useful for multiple roles like the AR platforms.

[@rustys.1070]

@@iamAwesomo1994 there a million and one videos on KZbin about ARs not failing safely lmao

[@iamAwesomo1994]

@@rustys.1070 well an AK with mud in it is as useful as a pogo stick on a battlefield

[@rustys.1070]

@@iamAwesomo1994 you mean if you pour mud into an exposed action? you'll notice that ukrainians and russians alike aren't throwing down their aks because the literal satanists' tests aren't even close to realistic.

[@Grasyl]

Great Video nevertheless, thanks for sharing all the information.

[@menumlor9365]

18:20 When people tell me 5.56 is ineffective. That’s because they’re using m855 green tip which does not tumble and yaw as great as m193. So m855 hits a malnourished person is passes through. Some people say 7.62x39 is more effective. But that just creates a bigger hole than m855.

[@NefariousEnough]

Fascinating. Many thanks!!

[@aliceakosota797]

the dates the rifles were adopted yet the ak can holds its own says alot

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

It still works but not up to the modern battlefield standards. It’s WW2 technology

[@cheatham777]

Love my Colt 6721 w my Aimpoint 5000 and my more modern DDM4V7 and DD MK18 I have used and relied on these Weapons Systems since I was a SWAT guy in the 80’s Semper Fi great video

[@toshmiller5571]

Thanks!

[@petermayonejr.3420]

As always, TY for your expert assessment and commentary! AR-15; Stoner's Masterpiece is a spectacular and iconic US-designed/US-manufactured weapon and IMHO there will never be a better combat rifle to replace it!

[@mynameisDallas]

It's really subjective which rifle is superior. The AR is much more effective if you can count on having spare parts, spare rifles and teammates to cover your 6 if your bolt carrier snaps a lug. When it comes to durability the Akm is far superior. It's not even close. The AR is a better gun. The Akm is the superior RIFLE because it's more durable and more reliable. To really stack them against each other, means the answer will always be subjective to the circumstances their measured. The AK is the overall better rifle. The AR is preferable to highspeeds that have alot more to fight with than their rifle. Think about it. Btw I love them both and believe that everyone has a right to own whatever rifle they want.

[@causewaykayak]

Thanks for this reflective comment. I think that your next to last paragraph (about "high-speeds" ) is a gem, so perceptive. It's the point usually left out of these technical debates. When a bunch of poverty stricken ragged-trousered farmers are repeatedly beset by invaders possessed of every resource known to military science what do they need ? Whatever is cheap, easy to get hold of. It should last a lifetime and needs little maintenance. That's the nature of these guerilla situations.

[@ludewigmariendorf268]

Some interesting developments loosely related to the AK somewhat recently; -Quite recently India decided to have AK 200 rifle series using 7.62x39mm cartridge to be their main rifle. -Serbia interestingly is probably the first country to adopt 6.5 Grendel for their new modern AK rifle Zastava M19, which kind of fits as the 6.5 Grendel is based on the same parent case the 7.62x39mm which they have not shifted away from, features quick barrel change and 6.5 Grendel is probably meant for like a SPR / DMR role. -FN unveiled this year its Individual Weapon System (IWS) which seems to feature I guess SCAR/AR-15 (probably some input from the Canadian Colt AR iirc) design/ergonomics but with a side charging and long-stroke gas-piston. It also uses the curious .264 (6.5 x 43mm) Lightweight Intermediate Caliber Cartridge (LICC 🤪) which I guess would fill the gap between 6.5 Grendel and 6.5 Creedmoor, it’s the latest iteration of the original .264 USA project over the years, and they seem to have been influenced by NGSW program recently with the “overmatch” thing as well.

[@jacksonmarshallkramer5087]

I'm sure the guys who got issued the STG loved it. There's no place to mount their lights and lasers, though.

[@Maine307]

09, i was embedded with the ANA in Wardak, as a ETT USMc Marine, The ANa after being taught and trained, to loose old bad habbits, could effectivly engage the enemy at 300+ yards a lot with thier AKs, we transitioned them to the M16sa2s, towards the end, and they were effective over 300 yrds as well.. in the mountains, long range was needed to be effective against the ISIS.. the ANA learned well

[@jaksahn3370]

Do the first time I ever took my AK-47 out to a long range 200 yard distance. I was fucking them targets up. Free hand. No optics, no rest. None of that shit. Standing up taking shots at 3/400 yards and hitting shit. I guess the argument of civilian grade better quality versus military grade plays an effect here.

[@rustys.1070]

@@jaksahn3370 95% of aks are made by the same factories with the same parts as military aks.

[@jaksahn3370]

@@rustys.1070 we don't get actual military grade fa aks here. They come neutered. Rebuilt with 922R compliance parts so you can't get a true military AK-47 in it's original configuration. Not on today's market at least

[@rustys.1070]

@@jaksahn3370 922r compliance parts are the trigger and furniture. nothing in the actual gun, but the full auto capabilities, is different.

[@jaksahn3370]

@@rustys.1070 well I'm saying you can't get an original Chinese type 56 machine gun. You can't get a Hungarian AK-63 series original machine gun. You can't get any Russian guns that haven't been altered. You really can't get any imported guns that have not been altered in some way, shape or form. You're technically correct, but they still have to drop in non-original parts. You haven't been able to get a Russian AK-47 that hadn't been fucked with for a long time. Now does that mean the quality is that much different between the original Soviet satellite country produced legit select fire rifles versus what we're getting in the states that much different? You be the judge

[@dragonstormdipro1013]

Two things, imo where AK is better than AR is (I personally think AR-15 is a better rifle, let me be clear about that) that- 1) AKs can reliably run astoundingly bad quality ammo. 2) AKs run reliably in frozen Arctic conditions. Otherwise AR-15 is indeed a superior rifle. However the whole AR vs AK debate is stupid. In battlefield they are both very similar in performance.

[@summerleeye588]

the ak47 was made to be an smg replecer (pps43, ppsh 41, ppd40 ) the m16 was to replace the m14's rifle use case, the m14 replaced the rifle m1, bar, m1a1 carbine ,the m1a1 thompson smg/ m3 grease gun. 1 rifle for 4 role. the m16 would be more comparable to the sks and ak47, the sks had a 20 inch rb and could shoot to 440 meters comfortably and the m16 can shoot 520meters comfortably now the full auto aspect of the ak47 and m16 are both in the same house. the ak fireing 600 rdm and the m16 700 rounds a min. both the ak47 and m16 where made for deferent weal house and use cases. its like comparing a tomato and a peach. we put tomates in salads and on top of burgers and peaches are very good when made into a pie.

[@ralphgreenjr.2466]

The M-16 of Vietnam era was not the equal of the AK-47. The AK ran no matter what and the M-16 had reliability issues. I was originally issued an M-14 and loved it and then issued an M-16a1. I was not happy. The M-16a2/M-4 is so much better than an AK platform it isn't even a comparison. The AK still runs, but so does the M-16 platforms and the M-16 is a hell of a lot more accurate than any AK variant.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

After the corrections after the Ichord Congressional hearing, the rifle was fixed and the problems went away. It was then superior to the AK47. The time you were in makes a big difference to where the rifle stacked up.

[@eddietat95]

The AR platform was such a technological leap that the AK platform has always had to play catchup ever since - being late to adopting a .22 subcaliber round (the 5.45mm), then synthetic furniture, then optics and other modern accessories and the mounting hardware needed for them. And, still, the latest base AK - the AK-12 - hasn't even touched aircraft-grade materials and struggles with weak synthetic furniture materials and inability to hold zero for optics.

[@Terminxman]

I don't find the .22 caliber a pro. and now 60 years later the US military is finally overcoming its pride and realizing that a larger intermediate caliber is the way to go. We'd have had a .280 British FAL if not for some retarded decisions based on pride and the vietnam war combat doctrine. But yeah, the AR is a great platform, always has been. To me the FAL is pretty close as far as ergonomical controls go.

[@eddietat95]

@@Terminxman For the Cold War-era, the .22 shift was most definitely a leap because of the increase in ammunition able to be carried by one infantryman - an advantage that was proven not only in the close confines of the SE Asian jungles, but also in the European woodlands and, later, the African and SW Asian cities and towns. Mind you, barely anyone wore hard body armor in these years. There's a reason why every military unit, both East and West settled with .22 for the masses and .30 for the specialists - it's a versatile mix that works for both the sub-200m assault and long-range standoffs. As Chris said in the video, WWII studies showed (and later studies on later conflicts confirmed) that most combat occurs under 300m. As for the .280 British - too large and heavy to fit into the assault role in a manner that truly differentiated it from full-power rifle rounds and, today, too weak for its size when compared to the new .277 Fury which produces far higher maximum average pressure (MAP) chamber pressure levels due to the stainless steel hybrid base. That gives it better-than-6.5mm Creedmoor performance out to 1000 yards - great for Afghanistan ranges and punching holes in modern body armor, but a step back in capacity, weight, recoil, etc. - everything that made the .22 subcalibers shine. IMO, this new Army round best replaces the .308/7.62mm NATO (UNLESS modern body armor reaches a point where ALL enemy troops can take multiple 5.56mm hits, in which case, big rounds for all!) As for the FAL, there's a reason why exactly zero new post-Cold War infantry rifles based their ergos on the FAL. There's better stuff out there with the Stoner designs leading the pack and others not far behind. FN's next iteration of the battle rifle, for example, would feature AR controls and be known as the SCAR. Only the charging handle placement came from the FAL and that has been the SCAR's military users' #1 complaint.

[@Terminxman]

@@eddietat95 Yes everyone has read this shit 1000 times it's almost like a copypasta at this point, what you just posted. The whole thing about the studies of infantry combat distances, etc etc. The reason the US didn't adopt the .280 British is because they wanted a full power cartridge in the FAL. Everyone else in NATO wanted to adopt the FAL in .280 british. The US was insistent on the .308/7.62x51. Then the FAL was rechambered for 7.62x51mm. Then the US decided they had to have a US rifle design. So they adopted the m14 in .308 and everyone else had already started adopting the FAL in .308.

[@aligetts5361]

Not at all and even many nations that picked up the Ak74 eventually went back to the Akm not seeing much advantage in the 74

[@iMost067]

you might missed, but there already 3 different AK-12 in the field

[@SaucyLoadout]

It would be cool if you had a friendly debate with m26 Lemon Grenade. In his combat experience, it often took several hits with 5.56 to neutralize unarmored Iraqi men. While 7.62x39 had the stopping power to down kitted Marines with one shot, which is the main reason for his AKM preference. Kalashnikov himself wasn’t a big fan of 5.45x39, which was developed mostly to increase effective range and carry larger quantities of ammo (weight savings). Also, while comparing reliability, you didn’t mention cold environments. M16/M4 components such as the safety levers, magazine release, and bolt catch become too difficult to actuate when exposed to freezing climates. The charging handles aren’t robust enough for mortaring in those conditions either. Besides Russia, colder countries such as Switzerland and Finland use service rifles derived from the AK design because piston systems have superior performance. I’m capable with either platform. It all comes down to location and availability. If there’s enough resources to properly maintain an AR variant, it’s the ideal choice in Westernized countries. If we’re talking an “apocalyptic” scenario where tossing a gun in a puddle is the extent of cleaning, then it’s AK for me.

[@BaconSlayer69]

He’s bias 😅🤷‍♂️

[@tso115]

Iv got both, and too me each one fills a specific need ( urban or guerilla)

[@markmcintosh7095]

I would like to see you compare the Marines rifle and the m4a1 type that your showing us. If you haven't already done it. Thanks

[@nunbeatingwalrus]

Great video! I'm listening to this, and I am totally impressed on your knowledge on this subject. You definitely know this subject, and I really enjoyed watching this video. I'm looking forward to watching more.

[@GI.Jared1984]

Do you find it irritating when he says world war two technology. And then fails to point out the technology that goes into the US Rifle is also old technology.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Comparing the AK47 to the M16, the AK47 is WWII technology. The AK47 is steel and wood. The long stroke was used on at minimum the StG44 as well as previous Russian and German auto loading rifles. The AR15 on the other hand used new aircraft aluminums as well as synthetic furniture. The operating system is new not to mention the concept of using s small caliber high velocity cartridge. So what is annoying about that? This is the truth.

[@elia7597]

Good points, even on the face of it these two are apples to pineapple's lol I like em both for different reasons and having different strengths or pros and cons.

[@slr7628]

I don’t agree that a ak-47/akm barrel will have a shorter life than a m16 barrel. The ak barrel being cold hammer forged, thicker and firing a cartridge that is much lower pressure than 5.56 will exceed the life of a skinny m16 barrel firing a higher pressure cartridge

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

aK has a very thin barrel. CHF has nothing to do with how long it takes for the barrel to fail.

[@slr7628]

Chf absolutely helps with how long it takes a barrel to fail. Please elaborate on that. Based on your own videos you acknowledge it helps increase barrel life. What kills barrels is heat and the forging process helps the barrel withstand more of it. That’s why weapons like the m249 has a cold hammer forged barrel.

[@BaconSlayer69]

@@SmallArmsSolutions😂how

[@9unslin9er]

As an owner of both rifles. I concur with your assessment.

[@chad9166]

The bullet traveling up the leg and exploding a lung or whatever is insane fudd lore

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

No it’s not. I read the after action report. I have seen some horrific tissue damage from 5.56mm rounds

[@chad9166]

@@SmallArmsSolutions For that to happen, the fragment, which is a ricochet that has already lost a huge amount of mass and inertia, would have to travel 40+ inches through solid tissue and still have enough residual energy to "destroy" the internal organs. That's obviously not physically possible. The 556 round is a great and effective cartridge but it doesn't defy the laws of physics

[@LuvBorderCollies]

@@chad9166 Stop arguing Chadboy. You've haven't been in the real world of real guns causing real wounds. There's very good reasons jelly tests are considered merely "interesting" entertainment by experienced investigators in wound ballistics and CSI. Wounds never replicate in the real world. Bullets do weird things that do not compute to the inexperienced. NONE of the self-annointed "experts" with puffed up BS resumes using "Dr." are expert at anything but zero experience BS.

[@fivepoint5sicks]

If someone could email Brandon Herrera this memo, that'd be great. He clearly has a big head for a reason... Because his skull is just that thick and he managed to convinced himself that the M16/M4 reliability and performance specs belong to the AK47. Someone probably copy and pasted a picture of an AK47 over the M4 spec sheet as an April fools joke that he truly believes is real to this day.

[@GreekPreparedness]

An observation regarding foreign object insertion/reliability. It is not only that the AR-15 receiver is "sealed", at least as much as a rifle should. I think it is also that there's is room in the locking lugs area. I mean a bit of sand on the locking lug recess in an AK, maybe hinder the bolt for closing fully. But in the AR the bolt rotates in the lugs area and there is room for gunk to go. (visualizing this, bolt lugs engage behind the barrel extension lugs when locked. So there is room available to accept debris)

[@johnadams673]

Wrong

[@GreekPreparedness]

@@johnadams673 Would You Mind Explaining Where I Am At Fault?

[@johnadams673]

@GreekPreparedness with your concept that there is room for junk beyond the lugs, anything in the path of the bolt will be pushed into the locking lug area and then there won't be enough room for them to lock into battery, if you have one with excessive room, you have a headspace issue

[@mrdato116]

AK 47 is stg 44 design combined with m1 Garand internals. True AK 47 was a bit junky back in a day but with modern US manufacturing they are 2 steps ahead. PSA gf5 is most accurate and smoothest AK I ever shot including Russian and Bulgarian. I am sure KUSA is decent too, but I don't have experience with them.

[@iMost067]

that why US used M1 and M14 in Korea in Vietnam. M16 superiority

[@rustys.1070]

@@iMost067 what?

[@jacksonmarshallkramer5087]

The AK is a beast. Doesn't have the accuracy. Loose tolerances for reliability. The M16/AR15 has been refined for reliability and still has the accuracy. I'd take the black rifle every time.

[@rustys.1070]

they're both black.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

The Chinese MAK90 I had was incredibly accurate, standing off-hand, unsupported in rapid controlled fire. 50 yards a quarter would cover the group. That was with good quality vintage Russian made "hollow points'. That was the most accurate AK/SKS ammo I've used. Its getting hard to find the past 10 years. Chinese ammo was filthy sub-par IMHO.

[@nemisous83]

im honestly expecting all the youtube guntubers and historians to crucify Chis for this video. This has to be the most blatant example of confirmation bias and some History channel/ fuddlore takes. Chris is an awesome guy for stuff on the AR15 but once he ventures outside his field he starts getting into some pretty ridiculous claims.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Respectfully disagree. I have real world background, not internet research.

[@nemisous83]

@@SmallArmsSolutions there it is the appeal to authority. However you use a lot of generalized oversimplifications of the Ak47 that are common in early 90's and 00's publication of the rifle. Which excellent sources on AK rifles like Mischa, Forgotten weapons, Larry Vickers, and Royal Armories have largely disproven with some some of these individuals having access to original rifles. "6 moa accuracy" "Can only hit out to 100 meters realistically" "The Kalashnikov copied the STG-44"

[@mikemcshea5919]

AK-47 wins compared to the M16. The only thing the M16 does better is tighter groupings. AK doesn't jam shoots a more powerful cartridge and is accurate out to 400 yards. The M16 reaches out further. But the AK has evolved the 12 and 74 and now the Galil ACE are just as accurate as any AR but are much more reliable thanks to the long stroke gas piston system.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Completely disagree. Accuracy is not comparable. Ak evolved in caliber alone. Like the AR10 evolved to AR15. Reliability assessment is wrong as well. Pre-68 rifles maybe, not after

[@ericketchum4809]

Great video, though I would add two more facts: 1. The direct impingement system of the M16/M4/AR-15 tends to blow contaminants out of the mechanism, in addition to foreign matter not easily getting into the rifle to begin with like stated in the video. 2. The AK style rifles are designed to work with poor quality ammunition, where the M16 family is designed to run with high quality ammo. Otherwise I completely agree the M16 family is a far superior and more reliable design, especially since magazines have improved. Some of the reliability issues are attributed to poor quality magazines. This is why most new AR-15 or AR-10 rifles ship with the PMag, which is perfection imho.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

AK’s have a barn door for a gas port due to inconsistent ammo as well as overgassed for adverse conditions. The ammo quality is much diffrent. This is where East vs west differ on this issue. The M16 is far more efficient system due to the system being balanced.

[@sokolski369.8]

Shout-out from Croatia, I've noticed 1991. ZNG RH patch on your wall. Keep doing a great work.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

I have been to Split 3 times. Worked with your Army

[@colindavis1496]

One jams, one doesn't, one fires dirty, the other doesn't, one is more rugged and durable than the other, one has a larger bullet that eats through foliage well, while the other is easily deflected, one will easily punch holes through cinder block brick walls while the other struggles. If I found myself in a combat situation i'll take the man's rifle, you can keep the Mickey Mouse toy made by Mattel...!!!

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

You don’t have much experience with these guns dude! At least not after 1968

[@spaghetticat110]

AKtards will actually tell themselves all of this, in the exact order it just described

[@welcomeUNKNOWN]

YOU TELL EM DAVID! These got dang kids these days ain't got no respect for the THIRTY AUGHT SIX.... Back in my day we LEARNED WAR WITH NO GIZMO OPTICS!!! L O L -Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ------------------------------ USMC 1985-1986 \=DESERT STORM VETERAN=/ Lowe's lumber sales associate (1994-present) 12 Garands and counting🎉 BEHIND EVERY GREAT MAN IS HIS NAGGING WIFE You cannot invade the United States, for there is a rifle behind every blade of grass -Admiral Toyota Hosho

[@alexdietrich7975]

Hilarious to me that Adolf thought the STG was a piece of crap. Just kinda shows that beyond his insanity and naivety, he truly didn't understand war even if he was involved in multiple wars.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

Adolf's brain was stuck in the trenches and since he was boss, he was smarter than everyone else. Its a problem with dictatorships who will "disappear you" for saying the wrong words.

[@jason200912]

If the ak got rid of the of the rock and lock and added the czech last round bolt hold id be very happy. Then as a bonus turn the dust cover into a picture rail and iron sight like they did with the Swiss and polish and Israeli variants

[@mikhailgregovszki7478]

Interesting, you bring up lots of good points. I understand your mud argument against the AK, meh - no one is pouring mud into their rifle; that is not a practical test. The Kalash is superior to me though because it is easier to maintain and clear a jam should you have one. One of the things I often see pro-AR arguments fail to address is unlike an AR, if an AK does happen to jam, you can beat the carrier handle to get a stuck casing out, and if that doesn't work you have a cleaning rod you can jam down the barrel. If you get a stuck casing in an AR platform, its incredibly difficult to beat the carrier handle and if feels like it might break it. You can't field strip it unless the bolt is fully seated. And you don't have a cleaning rod for an AR (why not?). I've seen stuck casings in a lot of AR's, and it usually results in the rifle being down for extended time. I've also seen stuck casings in an AK, not often, but when it does happen its usually back in operation within a few minutes at most. Does the AR use superior materials, sure... Is the selector lever better on the AR, yup - it certainly is. Is the newer AR's more modular giving you more options for optics and accessories, yup for sure. Do those things make it superior? Depends on what you need I guess. I'd say the one that is more reliable and easier to maintain is superior as far as a soldier is concerned, and that is where I would choose the AK or similar.

[@albiecho03]

why is col rene studler not serving life in leavenworth?

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Good question. Army politics

[@PlayerSalt]

i really love the bizon id love to see something on that

[@armorer94]

Hitler discontinued the Sturmgewehr's development not once, but twice. Third time's the charm, said the OKW.

[@RoActual47]

Nice

[@gixxerlouis]

i've always described this debate as...the m-16 is a precision semi auto rifle with full auto capability...the AK-47 is a machinegun with semi auto capability...

[@calicojack556]

Quick question; when you say the SOCOM barrel will last up to "900 rounds", is that a rate of fire of 900 rounds per minute?

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

That’s a new rifle firing around 850 rpm. Cyclic rate has several variables including temperature and ammunition type. Cyclic rate for M4 ranges 750 to 950 rpm on a new rifle the 900 is firing auto as fast as you can replace magazines

[@GShileikis]

The AK-47 was a fine firearm for it's time and need but really has seen it's day except as maybe another rifle to have for the End of Days. The M-16 as we all know had issues upon it's initial release to my fellow Vietnam Vets but they were, over time, resolved and is the basis for the most popular rifle in the US. Having shot numerous variations of both platforms I personally will stand behind the M16A3 or M16 A4 over any AK around.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

Its "initial release" was before November 14, 1965, before the Ia Drang mess happened. The troops did not experience problems during that 4 day debacle. LtCol Hal Moore, boots on the ground commander, said the M16 saved many lives because of the extra ammo carried. So its working great in Nov.65 in heavy nasty combat so that is the initial rollout so to speak. If there had been problems at Ia Drang with the M16 we'd heard about it from the hundreds of survivors.

[@LICENFIREFEAR]

m16 & m4 are my favorite all time rifles

[@dimsum1033]

Another awesome video.

[@CptFUNK1]

Reject 14.5. Embrace 20.

[@blackhawk7r221]

MOUT dictates

[@SGCXD]

Yea the AR definitely wins on adaptability over any other rifle ever made

[@armstrong2052]

Lets go palmetto, stg44 is gonna make a scene of it's own.

[@Khanclansith]

Question, what about the Robinson Arms XCR vs the AK12?

[@joeatunderground8714]

The AR15 is a prettier rifle too.

[@colin4tor781]

wood and steel makes me weak in the knees

[@rustys.1070]

if you're attracted to little boys, maybe