PDA

View Full Version : The Truth About AK-47 Firepower



Bullion_Bob
9th November 2010, 11:02 PM
interesting comparison vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw&feature=related

crazychicken
10th November 2010, 02:36 AM
Thanks for the post.

A great comparison video.

CC

Glass
10th November 2010, 03:24 AM
yeah thanks for that. I actually thought oh not another blast fest but this video is very informative.

Heimdhal
10th November 2010, 06:32 AM
An oldie but a goodie.

SHTF2010
10th November 2010, 07:01 AM
An oldie but a goodie.


50+ years of approval by guerrillas, revolutionaries, and military forces worldwide

Heimdhal
10th November 2010, 07:39 AM
An oldie but a goodie.


50+ years of approval by guerrillas, revolutionaries, and military forces worldwide


Oh, I mean the video, but yeah, that too!

I know Heimdhal approves very much! Although, I do have my eye on a PSL....but shhhh, dont tell my AK

horseshoe3
10th November 2010, 08:19 AM
An oldie but a goodie.


50+ years of approval by guerrillas, revolutionaries, and military forces worldwide


And with very few exceptions, those who used AK-47s have all lost. History shows time and again, that the way to win is to hit what you shoot at, and destroy what you hit.

Is it just coincidence that the US started losing wars when they switched from battle rifles to underpowered carbines? Maybe so. Probably a lot of it had to do with the shifting attitudes toward winning, but I would say that the shifting attitudes toward winning and selection of weapon go hand in hand.

Neuro
10th November 2010, 08:51 AM
It is interesting that the AK-47 was designed to wound the enemy... I can see the benefit of that on a macro-scale, in that a wounded soldier would swallow up far more resources of the enemy, than a killed soldier... However if you are on the battlefield, it would certainly not boost morale, when your direct hits, continue to shoot back... The soldier would prefer a weapon that takes out the enemy, methinks...

Heimdhal
10th November 2010, 11:07 AM
An oldie but a goodie.


50+ years of approval by guerrillas, revolutionaries, and military forces worldwide


And with very few exceptions, those who used AK-47s have all lost. History shows time and again, that the way to win is to hit what you shoot at, and destroy what you hit.

Is it just coincidence that the US started losing wars when they switched from battle rifles to underpowered carbines? Maybe so. Probably a lot of it had to do with the shifting attitudes toward winning, but I would say that the shifting attitudes toward winning and selection of weapon go hand in hand.


I can consistently hit man sized targets out to at least 300 yards (ETA typo) with my stamped century AK. I havent had a chance to try past that yet with this particular rifle, but my eyes start having trouble with irons past that anyways.

AIMED and CONSISTENT fire is what wins battles. Most guerilla forces just threw their AK's into full auto and went to down. But this debate has been drawn out in every imaginable way. Sure, you wont be taking any 600-700 yard shots with your AK like you could with an M1a or M1 garand, but then again, the vast majority of people wouldnt take those shots anyways, even with those rifles.

The first key to any battle is being able to identify your target. You cant hit what you cant see and past a few hundred yards in anything other than a pristine firing range, its hard to see a man sized target thats trying very hard NOT to be seen. Within that range, I feel very confident with my AK.


But I keep a stash of x54r around just in case ;)

horseshoe3
10th November 2010, 11:27 AM
Heimdahl, what you say is absolutely true. Most people won't take 600 yard shots, because they are cannon fodder for a standing army. If I ever have to fight, it will be by myself or with a small group. I won't be mounting any frontal assaults. I will get only as close as necessary and try to stay out of range of carbines. Of course I understand that I would be well within range of artillary and aircraft, but that's a given.

I guess it's a case of a tool for each situation, and I respect that the AK has it's place, but I think that for the majority of people like us on this forum, a .308 battle rifle does the most things best.

ETA: Regarding the eyesight issue. Have you ever used a M1/M14 style aperture sight? If not, you should try it. It will extend your accurate sighting range by 1.5-2x over a notch rear sight.

NOOB
10th November 2010, 12:32 PM
All depends on ammo. Put some soft point "hunting loads" in your ak and the watermelon goes bang. Military are restricted to ball ammo, Civilians are not.

Heimdhal
10th November 2010, 12:46 PM
Heimdahl, what you say is absolutely true. Most people won't take 600 yard shots, because they are cannon fodder for a standing army. If I ever have to fight, it will be by myself or with a small group. I won't be mounting any frontal assaults. I will get only as close as necessary and try to stay out of range of carbines. Of course I understand that I would be well within range of artillary and aircraft, but that's a given.

I guess it's a case of a tool for each situation, and I respect that the AK has it's place, but I think that for the majority of people like us on this forum, a .308 battle rifle does the most things best.

ETA: Regarding the eyesight issue. Have you ever used a M1/M14 style aperture sight? If not, you should try it. It will extend your accurate sighting range by 1.5-2x over a notch rear sight.


Oh yeah, I love the GI style peep sights. In fact Tech Sights makes them now for AK's and I might just get one on my NEXT AK (im getting a red dot on my main one). They drasticaly aid the sight picture at extended ranges by forcing the light into a more concentrated area which is placed within inches of the eye. Much easier to take distant shots with peeps than open, thats for sure.

For urban types though, 100-200 yards is about as open as its going to get though. Even most Sub-urban types. Now for those of you out in the sticks, I would absolutley grab the .308 with peeps sights first and foremost and pick those threats off from my maximum effective distance.

@ Neuro What you say is true. Most modern militaries design their small arms ammunition to wound, in theory, to tie up enemy logistics. However, dont think that a 124 grain, .311 caliber slug isnt going to put some one on their ass pretty good. With most caliber's I would follow the double tap rule if you're using a semi auto and have the ability. There are THOUSANDS of old soldiers out there with 6.5 to 8mm sized holes who lived to tell about it.

@Noob You're 100% correct and everyone should remember that. Its always worth having some different loads laying around and soft points are like steroids for your gun, they nearly double the leathality of most rifle loadings.

mightymanx
10th November 2010, 02:02 PM
In this day and age not using enhanced sighting systems (optics or red dots) is just simply foolish.

The affordibility and reliability are proven you will reduce your aquisition by leaps and bounds by using enhanced optics VS squinting through your peep site.

Low variable power scopes 1-4, 1-6 power let you keep your vield of view and perspective in close while using 1 power, but for longer engagements you will hit much faster while using higher power.

Dogman
10th November 2010, 02:08 PM
In this day and age not using enhanced sighting systems (optics or red dots) is just simply foolish.

The affordibility and reliability are proven you will reduce your aquisition by leaps and bounds by using enhanced optics VS squinting through your peep site.

Low variable power scopes 1-4, 1-6 power let you keep your vield of view and perspective in close while using 1 power, but for longer engagements you will hit much faster while using higher power.


Fully agree! More hits and less waste of ammo at all ranges if knowing how to adjust hold on the fly, corrections for range without having to adjust the scope.

mightymanx
10th November 2010, 06:24 PM
I am not in favor of using optics as a "fix" to poor marksmanship my any means, but when the bad guy is trying to win a marksmanship medal by using you as a target, aqusition time becomes VERY important. Or you can always spray and pray out of your bullet hose and hope it works, which more often than not it doesn't.

This is why every single group that starts with "Special" in the military trains for snapshooting and uses optics of some kind one of the most popular being the Trijjicon ACOG.

Tumbleweed
20th November 2010, 05:34 PM
here's another video of what you can do with an AK 47



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c



This one is kind of fun to watch too.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKg9SoVyE9g&feature=related

steyr_m
30th December 2010, 06:03 PM
Low variable power scopes 1-4, 1-6 power let you keep your vield of view and perspective in close while using 1 power, but for longer engagements you will hit much faster while using higher power.


Agreed, I have the Nightforce 1-4x NXS. An awesome scope.

madfranks
30th December 2010, 06:21 PM
All depends on ammo. Put some soft point "hunting loads" in your ak and the watermelon goes bang. Military are restricted to ball ammo, Civilians are not.


Quoted for truth.

G2Rad
30th December 2010, 07:02 PM
I am not convinced that the “power of the weapon” or how deadly it is could be figured based on visuals of exploding watermelons.

Not convincing.

I’d rather see him shoot Kevlar vests or helmets.

Heimdhal
30th December 2010, 07:07 PM
interesting comparison vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw&feature=related


I am not convinced that the “power of the weapon” or how deadly it is could be figured based on visuals of exploding watermelons.

Not convincing.

I’d rather see him shoot Kevlar vests or helmets.




Check out the Box O' Truth (Google it cause I cant remember the exact web address and Im on a super slow connection).

The 7.62x39 WILL penetrate a Kevlar helmet like its not even there. It WILL penetrate a kevlar vest the same way as well, assuming there are not ceramic plates (I.E. a vest rated under Level IV).

The watermelon test is actualy a pretty decent test, though its not 100% similar to a human body, it does give you a rough idea.

IHS
31st December 2010, 03:59 PM
And with very few exceptions, those who used AK-47s have all lost. History shows time and again, that the way to win is to hit what you shoot at, and destroy what you hit.

Aren't we still fighting 'em "evil doers" in the middle east?

Is it just coincidence that the US started losing wars when they switched from battle rifles to underpowered carbines? Maybe so. Probably a lot of it had to do with the shifting attitudes toward winning, but I would say that the shifting attitudes toward winning and selection of weapon go hand in hand.

TBPT don't want to win. They want war. It's good for business.


IHS

midnight rambler
31st December 2010, 04:28 PM
that the way to win is to hit what you shoot at, and destroy what you hit.


When you're in stand alone mode without deep logistic support accuracy takes a back seat to reliability. My Norinco AK is plenty accurate for my purposes, and thoroughly outclasses the AR with respect to reliability when the shit blizzard is too intense to be concerned about maintaining one's weapon.